Areviewstatusofsharkfisheriesin Indonesia English Version

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339375676
A review status of shark ﬁsheries in Indonesia (English version)
Book · June 2013
CITATIONS READS
0 482
2 authors:
[Fahmi] Fahmi Dharmadi Dharmadi

National Research and Innovation Agency - Indonesia Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
82 PUBLICATIONS 956 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 1,437 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by [Fahmi] Fahmi on 20 February 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A review
1
A Review of the Status of Shark Fisheries and
Shark Conservation in Indonesia
Advisor:
Director General of Marine, Coasts and Small Islands Affairs
Leader:
Director of Area and Fish Conservation
Editors:
Agus Dermawan
Didi Sadili
Suharsono
Ahsanal Kasasiah (English version)
Main Contributors :
Fahmi
Dharmadi
Sarmintohadi
Cora Mustika
ISBN:
978-602-7913-14-1
Published by:
Directorate of Marine and Aquatic Resources Conservation
Directorate General of Marine, Coasts and Small Islands
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16
Mina Bahari 3rd Building, 10th Floor, Jakarta Pusat 10110
Tel./Fax: +62-21 3522045
http://www.kkji.kp3k.kkp.go.id
2013
2
PREFACE
Sharks have become a valuable fisheries commodity in the past

decade, as a result of the high demand for shark fins on the international
market. FAO data indicate that Indonesiais the world’s largest shark
producer, contributing around12.3% of total world production. Almost
all parts of a shark have economic value and contribute to the
livelihoods of fishers, traders and exporters. Shark products include the
flesh, cartilage, skin, teeth, jawbone, stomach contents, liver and fins.
Shark flesh can be cooked in all kinds of ways: barbequed, smoked, salted, served as steaks
and made into a special soup. Shark flesh can also be roasted with spices or made into jerky,
fish balls and fish crackers. So it is no surprise that almost everyone in Indonesia depends on
fish resources, including elasmobranchs (sharks and rays).
In several areas of Indonesia, shark is the main livelihood source for local communities.
However, this is no reason to overfish sharks. Although shark resources are renewable, if we
do not exploit these resources wisely and prudently, they could become endangered.
The prudent exploitation of shark resources, which takes into account the biological
characteristics of sharks, such as slow growth, long lifespan, late maturity, and low fecundity.
Characteristics like these make sharks very vulnerable to overfishing. Exploitation of sharks in
Indonesian waters is multispecies and multi-gear.
Fish conservation programs are not only about protection, but also focus on maintaining
sustainable exploitation of these fish resources. The measures taken include allocating marine
areas as conservation zones, limiting the size of fish that can be taken, and other measures to
maintain the sustainability of these resources and prevent them from becoming endangered
species. The best management option for shark fisheries is to adopt a resource management
strategy based on the principles of sustainable development. The greatest challenge for
Indonesia’s shark fisheries is designing a sustainable shark fisheries management model that
can ensure the survival of these marine resources so they can be enjoyed by future generations.
i
This book, “A Review of the Status of Shark Fisheries and Shark Conservation in
Indonesia”, contains data and information about the management and exploitation of sharks.
This book has been published to provide information, offer scientific and intellectual
inspiration, and as a reference for all, including policy makers, on conservation-based
exploitation of shark resources that is of benefit to the Indonesian people.
Jakarta, 2013
Director General of Marine, Coastal and Small Islands
Dr. Sudirman Saad, M.HUM
ii
FOREWORD
There are no fewer than 116 species of shark recorded living in

Indonesian waters. Intense pressure on and exploitation of sharks has
brought them to the edge ofextinction. One of the main causes of this is
the high economic value of shark fins, coupled with the soaring demand
for shark fins on the international market.
In response to this, the Indonesian government, through the

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, decided to introduce shark
protection and conservation measures. Sharks are at the top of the tropical marine food chain.
This means that a decline in the shark population would cause an imbalance in lower levels of
the tropical ecosystem. Overfishing of shark could cause problems, because unlike other fish,
most sharks have low fecundity.
It is not easy to respond to the challenge of designing a sustainable shark management

plan. Good cooperation among stakeholders is crucial to ensuring that shark conservation does
not harm fishers who have long depended on shark fishing for their survival. Raising awareness
about the importance of shark conservation should reduce the number of shark taken both as
bycatch and target catch. As an example, the Raja Ampat district government responded in a
positive way to shark conservation by issuing Regional Regulation 9/2012, which bans the
capture of sharks, rays and other fish species in the marine waters of Raja Ampat district. This
is a concrete demonstration of the district’s commitment to protecting endangered fish species.
Publication of this book, “A Review of the Status of Shark Fisheries and Shark
Conservation in Indonesia” aims to provide readers information and a reference, as well as add
to the bare minimum of available data and research on sharks and rays. With the completion of
this book, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Toni Ruchimat (Director of
Fish Resources), Fahmi (shark researcher from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences), Dharmadi
(shark researcher from Marine and Fisheries Research and Development Agency), Umi
Chodriyah (contributor from the Marine Fisheries Research Institute), Tenny Apriliani
(contributor from Fisheries Social and Economic Research Centre), Prof. Dr. Suharsono
(researcher from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences), Iman Mustofa Zainuddin and Sudarsono
iii
from WWF-Indonesia, and all those who directly and indirectly contributed to the completion
of this book.
Jakarta, 2013
Director of Area and Fish Species Conservation
Agus Dermawan
iv
SUMMARY
Indonesia is home to a large number of shark species: at least 116 shark species from 25
families are found in Indonesian waters. But current conditions indicate that almost all shark
species of economic value are endangered. Thissituation is of international concern, in
particular for conservation activists. The International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) has established several criteria for the conservation status of animal species, based on
their vulnerability to extinction, in the form of a Red List. One species of shark found in
Indonesia is categorised as critically endangered, five as endangered, 23 as vulnerable, and 35
as near threatened. Sharks are typically at the top of the marine food chain, and play a key role
in maintaining and regulating the balance of the ecosystem. Therefore, any threats in nature
that could change the natural order in the structure of communities would disrupt the balance
of an ecosystem.
In recent decades, sharks have become a valuable fisheries commodity, as international

demand for shark fins has grown. In general, sharks are caught in Indonesian waters as bycatch
using a variety of fishing gear, including longlines, drift nets and gill nets. Exploitation of this
commodity in Indonesia has been on the increase since the 1980s. Shark catch data show a
significant upward trend between 1975 and 2011. Shark catch volumes reached a peak in 2000,
before showing a fluctuating, yet downward trend. One indicator of the decrease in shark
populations is catch per unit effort (CPUE), which reflects the real level of exploitation of
fishery resources. In Indonesia, the shark fisheries region with the most potential is the Indian
Ocean. In general, sharks are caught all year round, although there are peak months for catches
of this commodity in Indonesian waters.
The types of gear used and fishing grounds largely determine the composition of species
and volumes of shark caught. Also, the composition of catches changes depending on the
season. The use of non-selective fishing gear in coastal and shallow waters where juvenile
sharks are found will gradually affect the adult population and hinder the process of recruitment
in the wild. A decrease in shark production volumes in Indonesia became apparent for several
shark species that are commonly taken, such as Alopiidae and Carcharhinidae, between 2005
and 2007. In the same period, there was shift in fishing grounds, away from south Java and
west Sumatera to the Natuna Sea and east Indonesia. Shark fishers have also witnessed
v
indications of a decrease in shark stocks in the wild in several regions, in the increasing number
of days and distances they have to go to catch sharks.
Sharks are a main source of livelihood for people across Indonesia. Because the shark
marketing chain tends to be long and complex, it is difficult to develop a tracking system to
trace the origins of sharks that are caught. An appropriate way of simplifying the marketing
chain therefore needs to be developed. When implementing shark fisheries management in
Indonesia, stakeholders need to pay particular attention to the importance of sharks to many
fishers. To save shark populations in the wild, the government needs to adopt conservation
management strategies and limit the capture of sharks, for example by limiting the species and
size of individuals caught, regulating and limiting fishing gear, limiting catch volumes and
fishing methods, and prohibiting fishing in certain areas and at certain times. As well as
establishing regulations and laws on sustainable fisheries management, other measures, such
as habitat protection, developing data and information, institutional strengthening, and public
awareness raising are the key to achieving sustainable shark fisheries.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................... i
FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................... iii
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... vii
I. ..INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Purpose and scope of this book ............................................................................. 4
II. SHARK MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION ................................................ 6
2.1 Endangered and Vulnerable Sharks ....................................................................... 6
2.2 Examples of protected and vulnerable shark species............................................. 11
2.2.1 Rhincodon typus (Smith, 1828) ................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Alopias pelagicus (Nakamura, 1935) .......................................................... 13
2.2.3 Alopias superciliosus (Lowe, 1841) ............................................................ 15
2.2.4 Isurus oxyrinchus (Rafinesque, 1810) ......................................................... 17
2.2.5 Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) .................................................... 19
2.2.6 Sphyrna mokarran (Ruppel,1837) ............................................................... 21
2.2.7 Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758).............................................................. 23
2.2.8 Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1961) ....................................................... 25
2.2.9 Carcharhinus obscurus (Lesueur, 1818) ...................................................... 27
2.2.10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (Nardo, 1827) ...................................................... 29
2.2.11 Carcharhinus falciformis (Müller & Henle, 1839) .................................... 30
2.2.12 Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) ............................................ 32
2.2.13 Galeocerdo cuvier (Peron & Lesueur, 1822) ............................................. 34
2.2.14 Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758).............................................................. 35
2.3 Regulations and Legislation concerning the Management and Conservation
of Shark Resources ................................................................................................ 37
2.3.1 International Conventions and Legislation .................................................. 38
2.3.2 National Provisions and Legislation ............................................................ 41
2.4 Provisions on the Protection of Shark Resources .................................................. 43
2.5 Shark Fisheries Management ................................................................................. 46
III. SHARK RESOURCES IN INDONESIA .................................................................... 53
vii
3.1 Potential Fishing Grounds ..................................................................................... 54
3.2 Fishing Season ....................................................................................................... 56
3.3 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) ............................................................................... 59
3.4 Fishing Gears and Techniques ............................................................................... 61
3.4.1 Handline Fishing ....................................................................................... 61
3.4.2 Demersal Shark Longline .......................................................................... 61
3.4.3 Pelagic Shark Longline ............................................................................. 63
3.4.4 Guitarfish Nets .......................................................................................... 63
3.4.5 Arad Nets .................................................................................................. 64
3.4.6 Purse Seines .............................................................................................. 66
3.5 Catch Species Composition ................................................................................... 67
3.5.1 Species Composition by Fishing Gear ........................................................... 67
3.5.2 Species Composition per WPP ...................................................................... 71
3.6 Catch Sizes............................................................................................................. 83
IV. THE EXPLOITATION OF SHARKS IN INDONESIA ............................................. 87
4.1 Shark Fishery Production ...................................................................................... 88
4.1.1 Shark Fishery Production Based on Fishery Management Zones (WPP) ... 89
4.1.2. The Development of Fishing Gears ............................................................ 92
4.1.3 Shark Product Export Data .......................................................................... 92
4.2 Shark Supply Chain ............................................................................................... 95
4.3 Shark Products ....................................................................................................... 97
4.3.1 Uses of Shark Products ................................................................................ 97
4.3.2 Handling and Processing Shark Products .................................................... 100
4.3.3 Shark Product Utilization Levels ................................................................. 104
4.3.4 Shark Product Marketing ............................................................................. 105
4.4 Economic and Social Aspects of Shark Fisheries .................................................. 106
V. SUPPORTING DATA ON INDONESIAN SHARK FISHERIES ............................. 110
5.1 Data Collection Methods For National Shark Fisheries Statistics ......................... 110
5.2 Regional Shark Catch Data .................................................................................... 111
5.2.1 Alopias pelagicus ......................................................................................... 113
5.2.2 Alopias superciliosus ................................................................................... 116
5.2.3 Sphyrna lewini ............................................................................................. 118
5.2.4 Carcharhinus longimanus ............................................................................ 120
5.2.5 Isurus oxyrinchus ......................................................................................... 122
viii
5.3 Data for Field-observed Trends in Shark Catches ................................................. 124
5.3.1 WWF Observational Data............................................................................ 124
5.3.2 Enumerator Data from Fish Landing Locations in Kupang and Lombok ... 129
5.4 Catch Data From Study.......................................................................................... 134
5.5 Evaluation of Supporting Data for Shark Fisheries ............................................... 135
5.6. Developments in Indonesian Shark Research ....................................................... 138
5.7 Improvement Efforts for Supporting Data on Indonesian Shark Fisheries ........... 139
VI. MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND CONSERVATION OF SHARKS ...................... 142
6.1 Endangered and Vulnerable Shark Species ........................................................... 142
6.2 Protected and Threatened Shark Species ............................................................... 146
6.2.1 Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828...................................................................... 146
6.2.2 Alopias pelagicus Nakamura, 1935 ............................................................. 149
6.2.3 Alopias superciliosus (Lowe, 1841) ............................................................ 151
6.2.4 Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810 ............................................................ 153
6.2.5 Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) .................................................... 155
6.2.6 Sphyrna mokarran (Ruppel, 1837) .............................................................. 157
6.2.7 Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758).............................................................. 159
6.2.8 Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1961) ....................................................... 161
6.2.9 Carcharhinus obscurus (Lesueur, 1818) ...................................................... 163
6.2.10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (Nardo, 1827) ...................................................... 165
6.2.11 Carcharhinus falciformis (Müller & Henle, 1839) .................................... 167
6.2.12 Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) ............................................ 169
6.2.13 Galeocerdo cuvier (Peron & Lesueur, 1822) ............................................. 170
6.2.14 Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758).............................................................. 172
6.3 Provisions and Legislative Requirements on the Management and
Conservation of Shark Resources .......................................................................... 174
6.3.1 International Provisions and Legislations .................................................... 175
6.3.2 National Legislative Requirements.............................................................. 178
6.4 Legislative Requirements on the Protection of Shark Resources .......................... 180
6.5 Shark Fisheries Management Efforts ..................................................................... 184
VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 193
ix
FIGURE
Figure 2.1 Whale shark, Rhincodon typus (Photo: White et al., 2006b) .......................... 11
Figure 2.2 Alopias pelagicus (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ............................................... 13
Figure 2.3 Alopias superciliosus (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ......................................... 15
Figure 2.4 Isurus oxyrinchus (Photo: Fahmi) ................................................................... 17
Figure 2.5 Sphyrna lewini (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ................................................... 19
Figure 2.6 Sphyrna mokarran (Photo: White et al., 2006b) .............................................. 21
Figure 2.7 Sphyrna zygaena (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ................................................ 23
Figure 2.8 Carcharhinus longimanus (Photo: White et al., 2006b) .................................. 25
Figure 2.9 Carcharhinus obscurus (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ....................................... 27
Figure 2.10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (Photo: Fahmi) ........................................................ 29
Figure 2.11 Carcharhinus falciformis (Photo: Fahmi) ...................................................... 30
Figure 2.12 Carcharhinus leucas (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ......................................... 32
Figure 2.13 Galeocerdo cuvier (Photo: White et al., 2006b) ............................................ 34
Figure 2.14 Prionace glauca (Photo: Last et al., 2010) ..................................................... 35
Figure 3.1 Fisheries Management Zones in Indonesia (Nurhakim et al. 2007) .................. 54
Figure 3.2 Shark catch fluctuations in Tanjungluar landing center, East
Lombok in 2010. ..................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.3 Shark catch fluctuations in Palabuhanratu and Cilacap from 2002 to 2011...... 58
Figure 3.4 Monthly shark CPUE values for catches landed in Tanjungluar
during 2007-2010 time period. ................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.5 Diagram of demersal shark longline.................................................................. 62
Figure 3.6 Diagram of Pelagic Shark Longline .................................................................. 63
Figure 3.7 Diagram of A Guitarfish Net ............................................................................. 64
Figure 3.8 Design and Construction of The Arad Net ........................................................ 65
Figure 3.9 General Shape of A Purse Seine (Subani & Barus, 1989) ................................ 66
Figure 3.10 Shark species composition caught by pelagic longlines in
Tanjungluar, Lombok, from year 2001 to 2010 ...................................................... 68
Figure 3.11 Shark species composition caught by demersal longlines in Tanjungluar,
Lombok, from year 2001 to 2010 ........................................................................... 68
Figure 3.12 Catch composition of sharks caught by pelagic tuna gillnets,
landed in Cilacap landing base from 2006 to 2011 ................................................. 69
Figure 3.13 Catch composition of sharks caught by pelagic tuna longlines,
x
landed in CIlacap landing base from 2006 to 2011................................................. 69
Figure 3.14 Catch composition of sharks caught by longlines and landed in
Palabuhanratu from 2003 to 2008 ........................................................................... 70
Figure 3.15 Catch composition of bycatches from tuna longline vessels
during 2002-2005, that were landed in CIlacap. (Yellow: Prionace glauca;
pink: Alopias spp., green: Carcharhinus falciformis; blue: Isurus oxyrinchus) ...... 70
Figure 3.16 Catch composition of sharks in WPP 571 ....................................................... 72
Figure 3.17 Catch Composition of Sharks in WPP 572...................................................... 73
Figure 3.19 Species composition based on shark families caught in the
Indian Ocean waters from 2001 to 2006 (Anonymous, 2011) ................................ 75
Figure 4.1 Shark Fishery Production Statistic from 195 to 2011 ....................................... 88
Figure 4.2 Trends in Shark Catches Based nn Taxonomic Groups in The
Indonesian Fishery Statistics from 2002 to 2011 .................................................... 89
Figure 4.3 Shark Fishery Production (in Tons) for Every Fishery Management
Zone (WPP) Of Indonesia in 2005-2010. ............................................................... 91
Figure 4.4 Changes in The Number of Fishing Gears During an 18-Years
Period (1993-2010) ................................................................................................. 92
Figure 4.5 The Amount of Exported Shark Products in Years 1980-2006 (in tons) ......... 93
Figure 4.6 The Composition of Product Types for Exported Shark Products
in Years 1990-2006. ................................................................................................ 94
Figure 4.7 Number Proportions of Shark Fins Exported to Destination
Countries in 2005 and 2006 .................................................................................... 95
Figure 4.8 Domestic Supply Chains for Shark Products in Indonesia (Zainudin, 2011).... 96
Figure 4.9 International Trade Flow of Shark Product (Zainudin, 2011) ........................... 97
Figure 4.10 Shark Fin Products Under Drying Process (a) and Ready For Sale (b) .......... 101
xi
Figure 4.11 Dried Shark Cartilage ...................................................................................... 102
Figure 4.12 Dogfish Livers ................................................................................................. 103
Figure 4.13 Percentage of Utilization for Various Shark Body Parts in
Several Locations Across Indonesia ....................................................................... 104
Figure 5.1 Average Monthly Catches by Shark Species in Palabuhanratu and Cilacap..... 112
Figure 5.2 Average Monthly Catches for Alopias pelagicus in (a) Cilacap And (b)
Palabuhanratu .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 5.3Monthly catch fluctuations for pelagic threshers (Alopias pelagicus)
caught by tuna gillnets (2002 - 2007) ................................................................................. 115
Figure 5.4 Monthly catches of Alopias pelagicus landed in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu ... 116
Figure 5.5 Average monthly catches for Alopias superciliosus in (a) Cilacap and (b)
Palabuhanratu. ......................................................................................................... 117
Figure 5.6 Monthly catches Alopias superciliosus in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu ............. 118
Figure 5.7 Average monthly catches for Sphyrna lewini in a) Cilacap
and b) Palabuhanratu. .............................................................................................. 119
Figure 5.8 Monthly catches for Sphyrna lewini in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu.................. 120
Figure 5.9 Average monthly catches for Carcharhinus longimanus in (a) Cilacap
and (b) Palabuhanratu ............................................................................................. 121
Figure 5.10 Monthly catches for Carcharhinus longimanus in Cilacap and
Palabuhanratu .......................................................................................................... 122
Figure 5.11 Monthly catches for Isurus oxyrinchus in Cilacap (a) and
Palabuhanratu (b) .................................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.12 Monthly catches for Isurus oxyrinchus in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu ........... 123
Figure 5.13 Percentage of finned shark catches (in %) ...................................................... 125
Figure 5.14 Catch number composition (number of individuals) per shark
species by Benoan (a) and Bitungese (b) fishers .................................................... 126
Figure 5.15 Total size range for sharks from genus Carcharhinus fished by
Benoan and Bitungese fishers in period 2006-2012 ............................................... 127
Figure 5.16 Size range of Prionace glauca and Alopias spp. caught by
Benoan and Bitungese fishers in period 2007-2012 ............................................... 128
Figure 5.17 The number of shark catches for (a) Carcharhinus spp.,
(b) Alopias spp., and (c) Sphyrna spp. caught by Kupangese fishers from
June to October 2012 .............................................................................................. 131
Figure 5.18 Pelagic longline fishers catching sharks onboard, in waters
xii
around Kupang ........................................................................................................ 131
Figure 5.19 Enumerators performing measurements in Tanjungluar,
East Lombok. .......................................................................................................... 132
Figure 5.20 Number of shark catches from (a) Alopias spp. and (b) Sphyrna spp. by
Tanjungluar fishers from June to October 2012 ..................................................... 133
Figure 5.21 Size range (↔) and average sizes (●) of several shark species caught by
Tanjungluar fishers from June to October 2012 ..................................................... 133
Figure 6 1 Whale shark, Rhincodon typus (image from White et al., 2006b) .................... 146
Figure 6 2 Alopias pelagicus (image from White et al., 2006b) ......................................... 149
Figure 6 3 Alopias superciliosus (image from White et al., 2006b) ................................... 151
Figure 6 4 Isurus oxyrinchus (image by Fahmi) ................................................................. 153
Figure 6 5 Sphyrna lewini (image from White et al., 2006b) ............................................. 155
Figure 6 6 Sphyrna mokarran (image from White et al., 2006b) ........................................ 157
Figure 6 7 Sphyrna zygaena (image from: White et al., 2006b) ......................................... 159
Figure 6 8 Carcharhinus longimanus (image from White et al., 2006b) ............................ 161
Figure 6 9 Carcharhinus obscurus (image from White et al., 2006b) ................................. 163
Figure 6 10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (photo by Fahmi) ...................................................... 165
Figure 6 11 Carcharhinus falciformis (photo by Fahmi) .................................................... 167
Figure 6 12 Carcharhinus leucas (image from White et al., 2006b) ................................... 169
Figure 6 13 Galeocerdo cuvier (image from White et al., 2006b) ...................................... 170
Figure 6 14 Prionace glauca (image from Last et al., 2010) ............................................... 172
xiii
TABLE
Table 2 1 Sharks species categorised at risk of extinction on the IUCN Red List ............. 8
Table 3.1 Production centers for shark fisheries and their fisheries management
zones (WPP) .............................................................................................................. 55
Table 3.2 CPUE values for monthly shark catches from surface tuna gillnet. ................... 60
Table 3.3 Size, species, and conservation status of sharks caught by pelagic longlines. ... 84
Table 3.4 Size, species, and conservation status of sharks caught by demersal longlines. 84
Table 4.1 Urea content of selected species of sharks (Kreuzer & Ahmed, 1978) .............. 100
Table 4.2 Shark Fin Prices at The Middleman Level ........................................................ 105
Table 4.3 Prices Per Shark Body Part ................................................................................. 106
Table 4.4 Profit-Sharing System in Several Shark Production Locations in Indonesia ..... 106
Table 4.5 Annual income for shark fishers in selected areas .............................................. 107
Table 4.6 Income Based on Business or Activity Type ...................................................... 108
Table 5.1 Local names for commonly landed shark species in Cilacap and
Palabuhanratu ............................................................................................................ 113
Table 5.2 Shark classification system for WWF observers ................................................ 125
Table 5.3 Average daily shark catches landed per month in Tanjungluar, East Lombok, using
10 years of market survey data (2001-2011) ............................................................. 134
xiv
INTRODUCTION
1
1. I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Sharks and rays (Elasmobranchii) are one of the world’s most important fishery
commodities. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data indicate that the world’s total
production of elasmobranchs in 1994 was 731,000 tons. The countries of Asia contributed 60%
of this total catch. Four countries in Asia: Indonesia, India, Japan and Pakistan, contribute
around 75% of the total catch of sharks and rays in Asia (Bonfil, 2002).
These fishery commodities, and the shark fin trade in particular, are important to
Indonesia as the largest country in Southeast Asia. There has been a significant upward trend
in capture fisheries production of shark and ray in Indonesia in the last two decades, and
Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of shark and ray, with an estimated catch of more than
100,000 tons each year.
The high market price of shark fin has encouraged shark fishing and threatens the
sustainability of the stock in the wild (Daley et al., 2002). In terms of their biology, sharks in
general have slow growth, live long, mature late, and have low fecundity (Coleman, 1996;
Camhi et al., 1998; Stevens et al., 2000; Bonfil, 2002; Cavanagh et al., 2003). This means that
sharks are endangered due to overfishing (Hoenig & Gruber, 1990). If over-exploited, sharks
are at higher risk of extinction than other fish groups. Thus, shark populations can only be
protected by controlling shark fisheries to avoid depleting their stocks (Camhi et al., 1998;
Musick, 2003; Cortes, 2000). Several areas across Asia have been shown to be over-exploited.
The South China Sea and several areas in Indonesia have an index of relative production (IRP)
for elsamobranchs of more than 10, which means that they are fully exploited, or over-exploited
(Bonfil, 2002).
Shark fisheries in Indonesia have been operating since the 1970s, when shark was a
bycatch of tuna fisheries. Shark fishing began to take off and become more popular when the
price of shark fin on the world market increased in 1988; shark became a target for capture
fisheries – particularly artisanal fisheries – at fish landing centres across Indonesia (Anung &
Widodo, 2002). In general, artisanal fisheries in Indonesia are located in remote coastal
villages. In artisanal fisheries, nearly all parts of the sharks caught are used by local fishers,
except for the fins, which are the main product. These are processed locally and sold dried in
cities across Indonesia, and then exported to countries such as Hongkong, Singapore and Japan
2
(Suzuki, 2002). The flesh is smoked or dried for sale on the local market, as are the skin, liver
and jawbone, for various uses.
Sharks have become the main source of income in certain communities, especially among
those whose livelihood depends on these fishery products, including fishers, collectors, sellers
and processors of the produce of shark fisheries in places where sharks are the target catch.
One example is local traders in Indramayu, West Java, who used to trade only in salted shark
meat, but since 1986 have been collecting and selling shark fins (Suzuki, 2002). In the past few
decades, there has been an expansion in shark fishing, from small-scale longline fishing to
commercial fishing that target several high-value species such as dogfish shark (Squalidae),
wedgefishes (Rhynchobatidae) and large species of shark (Carcharhinidae, Lamnidae,
Alopiidae and Sphyrnidae), either as the target catch or as bycatch. Several shark fin exporters
have even been willing to offer loans and capital to local fishers to increase their shark catches.
This means that in socio-economic terms, shark fishery commodities are among the most
important for some communities. While shark fisheries have had a positive impact on their
welfare, unfortunately these communities no longer perceive shark as incidental catch, but as
desirable bycatch. Although most fisheries do not specifically target shark, this commodity is
an important part of their catch. This has led to a gradual increase in the level of exploitation
of shark resources in Indonesian waters.
Shark fisheries in Indonesia are currently in the international spotlight because Indonesia
has is the world’s largest producer of shark. Current growth of shark fisheries in Indonesia is
believed to exceed its production capacity, as local fishers find it increasingly difficult to catch
shark. They are having to venture further afield to do so, their catches are dwindling, and the
sharks they catch are getting smaller and smaller. These are indications of declining shark
stocks and a growing threat to the sustainability of shark resources in Indonesia. This problem
is exacerbated by the absence of an effective national shark fisheries management strategy. The
lack of public awareness of the connection between the biological characteristics of sharks and
their vulnerability to the threat of extinction means that there is little concern for the
conservation status of shark resources in this country. As an example, whale shark, which is
one of the world’s largest fish, has had protected status since 2003, when it was first included
in CITES Appendix II and categorised as vulnerable on the IUCN red list (Cavanagh et al.,
2003). Meanwhile, as of the end of 2011, the majority of Indonesian people still had very little
concern for this species of fish. Whale sharks were still being caught in fishers’ nets and not
reported; beached whale sharks were not getting a positive response from the authorities, but
3
being used by local people; and shops were still selling dried whale shark fins, to be used in
medicines and shark fin soup. The situation is very different in neighbouring Malaysia, which
now protects six species of shark, including whale shark, under fisheries regulations that protect
endangered species. These regulations prohibit the capture, disturbance, killing and trade in
protected species without written permission from the Malaysian Directorate General of
Fisheries (Ali et al., 2004). The same is true in other countries like Australia, which provides
full protection to whale sharks and requires fishers to immediately release any whale sharks
that they capture unintentionally if they wish to avoid punishment (Daley, et al., 2002).
Concern for the conservation status of endangered sharks in Indonesia has started to grow
following enormous international pressure and demand that Indonesia participate in programs
to protect endangered species. Many international environmental and conservation
organisations are monitoring shark fisheries in this country, and Indonesia has even come under
pressure to manage its shark fisheries properly or face a ban on export of its fisheries products.
However, there are insufficient catch data and information about the potential biodiversity,
biology and level of shark exploitation in Indonesia to form a rational basis for a sustainable
shark fisheries management strategy. Seki et al. (1998) and Stevens et al. (2000) state that basic
biological information about elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), such as species identification,
size composition, size at maturity, and reproduction, is essential to the management of shark
resources and the management of shark fisheries.
1.2 Purpose and scope of this book

As a step towards adopting sustainable shark fisheries management in Indonesia, the
Indonesian government, under the coordination of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries,
and in coordination with other government agencies, research institutes, NGOs, and
universities, has produced a set of basic guidelines, which make up this book, ‘A Review of
the Status of Shark Fisheries and Shark Conservation in Indonesia’. This book contains basic
information about the status of shark fisheries in Indonesia, from available catch data to
research findings, species diversity, and socio-economic aspects related to shark resources in
this country. The data presented in this book are sourced from a range of literature, catch data,
and findings of research conducted in Indonesia in the past 20 years. These data were collected
by national and local government, research institutes in Indonesia and overseas, universities
and NGOs.
4
SHARK MANAGEMENT
AND CONSERVATION
5
2. II. SHARK MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
Like fish species in general, sharks are a renewable resource that can be exploited
sustainably. However, sharks are also vulnerable to the threat of extinction. Sharks are highly
vulnerable to over-exploitation because they have slow growth, late maturity (decades for some
species of shark), and low fecundity. Yet exploitation of sharks in Indonesian waters continues
without any sustainable fisheries regulation or management.
The lack of understanding and awareness about shark conservation among fishing
communities in particular, and the Indonesian public in general, is evident from the continued
widespread illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Finning – taking shark to remove their
fins before dumping their carcasses back into the sea – is still practiced in Indonesia. In
addition, many juveniles and pups continue to be taken by various kinds of fishing gear used
in Indonesia. In fact, “baby shark” is a popular choice at some seafood restaurants in Indonesia.
Sooner or later, this will lead to a depletion of the shark population in the wild, and Indonesian
fishers are already beginning to see this, as the volume and the size of the shark they catch are
getting smaller. Despite years of international concern about the depletion of shark populations,
as indicated by growing evidence that several shark species are endangered, the shark
population continues to decline due to an absence of effective fisheries management.
Fisheries management is an integrated process that involves collecting and analysing
information, planning, consultation, decision-making, allocating resources, design and
implementation, and law enforcement. Fisheries management thus aims to ensure optimal
exploitation of fisheries resources while taking into account and maintaining the conservation
of these resources and environments. In principle, fisheries management aims to regulate the
intensity of fishing in order to obtain the optimal catch (Widodo, 2000). Also, according to
Purwanto (2003), fisheries management aims to set catch levels that are sustainable in the long
term in two ways: control of fishing and control of fishing effort.
2.1 Endangered and Vulnerable Sharks
Sharks play an important role in coral reef ecosystems and other habitats because they
are top of the marine food chain, and are vital to maintaining the balance of marine ecosystems.
For this reason, steps need to be taken to ensure their continued survival in the wild. The
survival of shark in the wild has been under threat since growth in coastal fisheries since the
6
SHARK RESOURCES
IN INDONESIA
52
3. III. SHARK RESOURCES IN INDONESIA
Sharks are among the world's most studied fishery commodities within the last few
decades. The demand for shark fins have greatly increased since the concomitant rise in their
price. Over time, this may trigger further developments in Indonesian shark fisheries.
According to a study by Zainudin (2011), a majority of shark catches in Indonesia were a
product of bycatch fisheries (72%) and only 28% were the results of targeted fisheries. Their
catch numbers often depend on the type of fishing gear or technique. In Indonesia, sharks are
caught by using a diverse array of fishing gears, ranging from conventional nets, fishing lines,
to traditional spears. Gillnets and longlines are fishing gears that present high risk to sharks,
based on the percentage of shark bycatches. Risk categories of shark fishing gears based on
percentage variation of captures according to Zainudin (2011) may be listed as the following:
 High risk : gillnets (0 - 50%) and longlines (0 - 30%)

 Moderate risk : trawls (0 - 20%), purse seine (0 - 20%) and handlines assisted by
fishing aggregating gears (1 - 10%)
 Low risk : fish traps (5%), lift nets targeting squids (0 - 1%) and
Danish seine (0 - 1%)
The duration needed by fishers to reach fishing grounds greatly vary, from a few hours
up to several months. However, most cases small-scale fishers (artisanal fisheries) may need
only a few hours to reach the fishing ground. In comparison, large-scale or industrial fisheries
(e.g. tuna longline fisheries) may take longer to reach fishing ground, which may reach 30 to
40 days or beyond, depending on the catch obtained and the location of fishing ground. Some
fishers who targeted sharks have stated that target fishing grounds are growing distant from
one another, and number of catches decreased from year to year. These appear to indicate
population decline in sharks.
Shark fishing occurs virtually in every Indonesian region, however the vastness of
Indonesian waters have become one of the major obstacles in regulating shark fisheries. In
order to improve the efficiencies in regulating the fishery, the Indonesian government have
established a fishing regulation system through the release of Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries Regulation No. PER.01/MEN/2009 on Fishing Regulation Territories of Republic of
53
Indonesia. The Ministerial Regulation has partitioned the Indonesian region into 11 Fisheries
Management Zones (Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan or WPP), which range from the Strait of
Malacca to Arafura Sea (Figure 3.1). Thus, the partition in shark fishery regulations may also
refer to the aforementioned zones.
Figure 3.1 Fisheries Management Zones in Indonesia (Nurhakim et al. 2007)
3.1 Potential Fishing Grounds

The large size of Indonesian waters provide potential fishing grounds for shark fisheries.
Determination of the potential fishing areas may be based on the abundance of economically
important or targeted fish species. In general, fishers depend on their experiences in order to
capture sharks, and as such they are often familiar towards the environmental conditions of the
fishing grounds. The recent developments in technology have allowed most shark fishers to
adopt assisting devices such as GPS tools (Global Positioning System), which helps determine
the geographical coordinates of the fishing grounds. Coordinate positions of fishing grounds
that yield abundant catch may be recorded by GPS devices, thus allowing their precise return
to the location in the future.
A number of fisheries management zones in Indonesia have become centers of shark
fisheries that are significant due to their role as landing centers for sharks, for both fishery
processing region and pools for catches from other regions. Several potential zones for shark
fisheries in Indonesia include western coasts of Sumatra (WPP 572) south of Java, Bali and
Nusa Tenggara (WPP 573), Sea of Natuna and Karimata Strait (WPP 711), Java Sea (WPP
712) and Arafura Sea (WPP 718). In general, the most heavily exploited region for shark
54
resources are the southern waters of Indonesia (Indian Ocean), which covers plenty of oceanic
and semi-oceanic shark habitats; the sharks are often targeted for their dorsal fins. Each of these
management zones possesses different shark species and fisheries potentials, all of which may
depend on the habitat characteristics of the waters. Regions that have become production
centers for shark fisheries and their corresponding fisheries management zones are listed on
Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Production centers for shark fisheries and their fisheries management zones (WPP)
Production Center Regions Fisheries Management Zones (WPP)
Sibolga, North Sumatra WPP 572
Muara Baru, Jakarta WPP 712, WPP 718, WPP 573
Muara Angke, Jakarta WPP 712, WPP 713, WPP 711, WPP 573
Palabuhanratu, West Java WPP 573, WPP 572
Cilacap, Central Java WPP 573
Prigi, East Java WPP 573
Surabaya, East Java WPP 712, WPP 713, WPP 573
Benoa, Bali WPP 573, WPP 713, WPP 714
Tanjungluar, West Nusa Tenggara WPP 573
Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara WPP 573
Much of the Indian Ocean zones may be considered as potential fishing grounds for shark
fisheries. This is evident from the preponderance of most shark production centers across the
waters. Despite sharing the same shark fishing zones, each of the regions have different
destinations for fishing grounds due to various concerns, which may include sizes, travel
capacities, and operational durations of the vessels, as well as seasonal changes in catch
species. For instance, despite being located on the same fisheries zone (WPP), fishers from
several fishing centers of southern coasts of the archipelago have varying fishing grounds and
locations, depending on their respective targets and capabilities. Fishers from Palabuhanratu
district may fish in the Indian Ocean from June to September, starting from southern coasts of
Java to Sumatran waters between geographic coordinates of 05 - 09o South latitude and
between 104 - 108o East longitude. At the same period, shark fishers from Cilacap may
undergo fishing expeditions to southern waters of Java at geographic positions of 08 - 13o
south latitude and between 106 - 111.3o east longitude. In comparison, Benoan fishers from
55
Bali may fish for sharks around Bali to Masalembo at geographical position of 05 - 11.6o south
latitude. Potential fishing grounds for shark fisheries in East Indian Ocean may be defined as
open waters around Lombok to waters nearby Northern Australia at geographic coordinates of
9 - 14o south latitude and between 116 - 119 o east longitude. In general, these fishing grounds
are exploited by shark fishers from Tanjungluar, who use pelagic longlines. Other potential
fishing grounds may include waters around the islands of Sumba, Kupang, Sarage, Sembilan,
Sabahuna, Ende and Rote, East Nusa Tenggara. In contrast, Tanjungluar fishers who exploit
these regions often use demersal instead of pelagic longlines. Potential fishing grounds in
Eastern Indonesia include southern Sumba waters to Southern Kupang waters at geographic
coordinates between 10 - 11o south latitude and between 122 - 124 o east longitude.
3.2 Fishing Season

Shark fishing seasons in Indonesia are correlated with fishing periods, which in turn
depend on fishing locations and number of catch obtained by the fishers. For most of the part,
shark fishing activities may occur throughout the year without seasonal constraints, however
increases in catch during certain months may help in determining the fishing season. Weather
is among influential factors that may affect shark catches. Strong winds, rainstorms and waves
may reduce the success rates of the fishing gears. Ideal shark fishing season is characterized
with good weather, with calm wind and waves, which may enable fishers to explore distant
waters at longer durations. For example, Indian Ocean Fisheries Management Zones (WPP 562
and 573) possess shark fishing seasons between April and October. This is influenced by
seasonal and weathern patterns at the time period, wherein the clement conditions optimize
fishing operations. Conversely, high waves and gales often characterize southern waters
between November and February, thus deterring fishers with smaller fishing vessels.
The presence of fishing seasons may impact activities in shark landing centers in
Indonesia. The fishing seasons at a certain region may not hinder production centers of large
WPPs despite lower catches from one or more WPPs, since they still obtain landings from other
WPPs. This is in contrast with shark production centers that are dependent on single WPPs.
For instance, the fish landing center in Tanjungluar, East Lombok, is a shark production center
for southern waters of Nusa Tenggara (WPP 573). Shark fishing activities in the area may run
from February to September; shark catches tend to increase and peak around September, then
starting to decline from that point, with the lowest position at December (Figure 3.2).
56
Figure 3.2 Shark catch fluctuations in Tanjungluar landing center, East Lombok in 2010.
Similar issues occur in shark production centers of Cilacap and Palabuhanratu. Based on
monthly data collected from 2002 to 2011, from tuna longline vessels that operated in Indian
Ocean (south of Java) and landed in Cilacap showed that shark catches reach the peak around
July and September, whereas lowest catches occur from November to January (Figure 3-3).
Similar conditions were found for shark landings in Palabuhanratu. The peak of catch usually
lasts from July to October, however in the aforementioned location catch may fluctuate
annually. This is may be due to the relatively long fishing expeditions (2 months) with fishing
grounds extending close to Australian territories. In conclusion, it is possible to state that shark
fishing seasons in Indian Ocean/South of Java may last from June to September.
57
58
Production (tons)
Production (tons)
Figure 3.3 Shark catch fluctuations in Palabuhanratu and Cilacap from 2002 to 2011
. Shark catch fluctuations in Palabuhanratu and Cilacap from 2002 to 2011
3.3 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Resource population or fish abundance in certain waters may be measured by calculating
the number of catch per a unit of effort, or CPUE (Conover, 1980 in Lucifora et al., 2002). The
tendencies of CPUE and body size to fluctuate may help indicate stock mortality rates due to
fishing pressure (Holts et al., 1998). Martosubroto (2011) stated that CPUE depicts actual
conditions of fishery resources.
Shark fisheries in Indonesia are still highly deficient in CPUE data. The deficiency is due
to the status of shark commodities as bycatch fisheries, which resulted in the lack of specialized
data. CPUE data are only available in regions where sharks become major commodities or
target fisheries, such as fish landing bases of Tanjungluar, East Lombok, and regions with
improved data recording practices such as Cilacap, Central Java. CPUE values for shark
catches from pelagic and demersal longlines in Tanjungluar between 2007 to 2010 are shown
in Figure 3-4. During the period, monthly CPUE values tended to fluctuate. In the year 2007
highest CPUE value occurred in August, which amounted to 12 - 13 individuals/vessel, then
increased to 24 - 25 individuals/vessel by July 2008. In 2009, peak CPUE value was found
during similar months yet with lower values compared to the preceding year, from 18 to 19
individuals/vessel. In comparison, highest CPUE was found in January (21-22
individuals/vessel) for year 2010. Lowest CPUE between 2007-2010 occurred during different
months with values from 7 to 11 individuals/vessel.
59
Figure 3.4 Monthly shark CPUE values for catches landed in Tanjungluar during 2007-2010
time period.
Developments in shark CPUE values from tuna gillnet bycatches in Cilacap in 2007-
2008 are shown in Table 3.2. Monthly shark CPUE values in the aforementioned period tended
to fluctuate, with highest value in July for year 2007 and June for year 2008. Therefore, the
increase in shark fishing efforts in the southern coasts of Java is highly correlated with shark
fishing seasons which lasts from June to September every year.
Table 3.2 CPUE values for monthly shark catches from surface tuna gillnet.
Year 2007
J F M A M J J A S O N D
CPUE (kg/trip/day) 1.3 12.3 - - 3.8 4.6 16.8 13.4 9.1 2.8 1.6 1
Number of vessels
(unit) 15 5 - - 49 113 135 67 117 120 139 61
Year 2008
CPUE (kg/trip/day) - - - - 15.3 30.4 9.4 6.3 1.6 1.7 0.8 -

Number of vessels
(unit) - - - - 56 136 134 148 145 132 37 3
60
3.4 Fishing Gears and Techniques
The capture of cartilaginous fishes such as sharks may utilize a variety of fishing gears.
In general, gears used to capture sharks include lines, nets and spears (Dharmadi & Fahmi,
2003). Fishing lines comprise a diverse types of gears, including fishing rods, demersal and
pelagic longlines. There are a variety of models of longlines depending on the fishing goal,
however in the context of this book, longlines may be categorized into specialized longlines
that specifically target sharks, or shark longlines, and longlines that are able to capture sharks
as bycatches, such as tuna longlines. Likewise, fishing nets are also comprised of many types
depending on the morphology and usage, including those that target sharks or capture sharks
as bycatches. The latter category includes trawls, demersal nets, purse seines and tuna gillnets.
Types and specifications as well as corresponding techniques for most shark fishing gears are
explained below.
3.4.1 Handline Fishing

Shark fishing with handlines are often performed by fishers in Palabuhanratu region of
West Java. The gear usually targets deep-dwelling or demersal shark species. Shark species
that are often caught by handlines from deep habitats in Indian Ocean include Zameus
squamulosus (Somniosidae) Dalatias licha (Dalatidae), Centrophorus squamosus, C.
atromarginatus and C. niaukang (Centrophoridae) (White et al., 2006).
3.4.2 Demersal Shark Longline

Demersal shark longline is a fishing gear with multiple lines and often operated on the
seabed. The gear is comprised of a main line, branch lines and hooks at the end of each branch
line. Both main line and branch lines are made of synthetic materials, with respective diameters
of 8 mm and 4 mm. The lengths of the main line and branch lines are 300 m and 6 m
respectively, with 30m intervals between branch lines. Number of hooks are correlated with
the number of branch line. Fishing hook no. 5 is often used, with 4m distance between hooks
(Figure 3-5). Demersal shark longlines are often used by Tanjungluar fishers from East
Lombok; the gear targets bottom-dwelling sharks. It is operated by using a motorboat with 25
HP (horsepower), often powered by dual engines. Prior to fishing, the fishers may fish for baits.
A demersal shark longline may be operated within approximately two weeks, with the first
week spent for bait-fishing and the second week for shark fishing.
61
The operation of demersal longlines are often performed in waters with depth range
between 50-500 meters. There is no target species since all species captured in this depth range
possess high economic value. Commonly captured species with this method include
Galeocerdo cuvier (tiger sharks), Isurus spp. (mackerel sharks), Sphyrna spp. (hammerheads),
and Carcharhinus falciformis (silky sharks). At least 27 species of sharks are captured by
fishers by using demersal shark longlines operating in the waters of West Sumatra and southern
Java (Rahardjo, 2007). Catch data from demersal longlines operating in East Indian Ocean in
year 2010 also recorded other species, including Carcharhinus sorrah, C. obscurus, C.
limbatus, and C. brevipinna (Anonymous, 2011).
Plastic Buoy
Buoy Line PE 200 m
4m Main Line PE 5
mm
Hook No 4 Branch Line PA 2,5 mm

Stone
Long 2adad m.
Weight = 5
Figure 3.5 Diagram of demersal shark longline
62
3.4.3 Pelagic Shark Longline
As the name indicates, this fishing gear targets a variety of pelagic or oceanic shark
species. As with the demersal longline, the pelagic shark longline is also operated by fishers
from Palabuhanratu region of West Java, Tanjungluar region of East Lombok, and East Nusa
Tenggara. The gear consists of a main line and branch lines; the branch line is made of nylon
with a diameter of 8mm and length of 3000m, whereas the branch lines have a length of 3.5m
with diameter of 4 mm. The number of the branch lines corresponds to the number of hooks at
the end of each branch line, which may range between 450 to 500, at the size of 0.1. Pelagic
longline boats are often wooden (length: 16m; width: 8m; height: 4.5m) with two engines
amounting to 30 HP in power. The construction of pelagic shark longlines are shown in Figure
3-6. Each unit of vessel requires 5 to 6 persons to operate, with fishing duration lasting from
two to three weeks, depending on circumstances. There is no specific target species, however
the most commonly fished groups are oceanic species, including silky sharks (Carcharhinus
falciformis), makos (Isurus paucus and I. oxyrinchus), thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) and
hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini).
Figure 3.6 Diagram of Pelagic Shark Longline
3.4.4 Guitarfish Nets

Guitarfish nets are demersal gillnets that targets guitarfishes or liongbun (Rhynchobatus
spp.), which are actually a type of ray. The net operates by obstructing the path of fish schools
63
near the seabed, which then encourages capture by collision and entanglement of the mesh on
gills or body. The guitarfish net is made of nylon multifilament d-12 with mesh size 50 cm and
hanging ratio of 0.55. The length of the float line is 65m with height reaching 5m (Figure 3-7).
Boats operating the net have the size of 60-90 GT, with each boat operating about 120 nets on
average. This net type may considerably be more selective compared to other net types due to
the larger mesh size (40-50 cm), which ensures the capture of only mature and large
individuals. The net is usually operated in waters with depths between 50 to 100m.
Guitarfishes are often fished from muddy or sandy habitats. Commonly fished
guitarfishes include Rhynchobatus palpebratus, R. australiae, R. springeri, and R. cf. laevis
(Family Rhynchodontidae) as well as Glaucostegus typus and G. thouin (Family Rhinobatidae).
All of the aforementioned species bear high commercial values, especially its fins, which are
often prized higher than most other shark fins. Despite the guitarfishes being the intended
targets of the net, true sharks are often captured as bycatches, including Carcharhinus leucas,
C. sorrah, Galeocerdo cuvier and Sphyrna lewini.
Figure 3.7 Diagram of A Guitarfish Net
3.4.5 Arad Nets

Arad nets, also known in Central Java as dogol or cantrang, is a type of fishing net not
dissimilar from conventional trawls, which leads to it being considered as a "mini trawl", with
similar extensions and cod-ends (Figure 3-8). The operational technique of this fishing gear is
by dragging the net by using a motorboat with 7-20 GT power, furnished by both propelling
64
and diesel engines, with respective powers of 160 HP and 20 HP. The diesel engine is usually
used for dragging the net. Arad trawls are usually operated in proximity to the shore, and on
flat, sandy or muddy bottoms. The locations of fishing ground are adjusted with boat capacities
and the fishing duration, around 1 to 2 days. Fishing activities are performed by lowering the
trawl slowly then dragging it with the boat at the speed of 1 to 2 knot.
Primary targets for this type of net are demersal fishes, which may comprise of
ponyfishes, goatfishes, fusiliers, catfishes, lizardfishes, yellow drums and flatfishes. Several
species of rays are often caught as bycatches, including whitespotted stingray (Himantura
gerrardi), mud stingrays (H. uarnacoides, H. walga, Dasyatis zugei) and bluespotted stingray
(Neotrygon kuhlii). Despite targeting demersal fishes, Arad nets often catch sharks as
bycatches. Such shark bycatches are often comprised of small-bodied species, such as
Carcharhinus dussumieri, C. sealei, Loxodon macrorhinus, Scoliodon macrorhynchos,
Triaenodon obesus and bamboo sharks (Chiloscyllium spp.) as well as juveniles of larger
species, such as requiem sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus, C. brevipinna and C. sorrah), as well
as hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Due to the net's lack of selectiveness, Arad nets are
likely to contribute to the decline of shark populations in nature.
Figure 3.8 Design and Construction of The Arad Net
65
3.4.6 Purse Seines
The purse seine is a fishing gear designed to capture schooling pelagic species, such as
Indian mackerels, sardinellas, round scads, mackerel and skipjack tunas. A purse seine is
composed of several rectangular or rounded sheets of net, used to corral schooling targets and
preventing escape. A purse line at the bottom of the structure is hoisted to enclose the net into
a purse-like shape. One or both sides are then lifted, which further enclose the opening and
allows hauling of catch onto deck. The net itself forms an impenetrable wall, which entraps
fish inside the structure. Purse seines are selective fishing gears, and their selectiveness is
adjustable by changing the mesh size so smaller individuals are able to escape. Purse seines are
grouped into two types: purse seines with central bunts and seines with peripheral bunts. The
former type require lifting of purse lines from both sides, and often operated manually by boat
personnel. The latter type is usually hauled by using power blocks, driven by a hydraulic pump.
Purse seines may be operated by one or two vessels, depending on the size of vessel, net size
and target species.
Purse seines are made of rectangular net sheets with a series of floats lining the top and
weights lining the bottom part. A purse line is used to enclose the bottom section, thus
preventing vertical or horizontal escapes. Often, mesh size is adjusted according to the sizes of
target fish. The sizes of lines and mesh on certain parts are not equal. Purse seines are also
called ring trawls due to rings outfitted at the bottom half of the net, where the purse lines are
equipped. In general, a purse seine is defined by its distinctive design despite the variations,
the design of which is shown in Figure 3-9.
Figure 3.9 General Shape of A Purse Seine (Subani & Barus, 1989)
66
Primary targets are pelagic fishes with midwater to surface habitats, such as sardinellas
(Sardinella spp.), round scads (Decapterus), Indian mackerels (Rastrelliger spp.), squids
(Loligo spp.), tunas (Thunnus spp.), and bonitos (Katsuwonus spp.), and juveniles from several
species of tunas. However, several shark species are also caught by purse seines as part of the
bycatch, including requiem sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis, C. brevipinna) and thresher
sharks (Alopias pelagicus and A. superciliosus).
3.5 Catch Species Composition

3.5.1 Species Composition by Fishing Gear
Catch compositions are often influenced by both the type of fishing gear and the location
or habitat where the fishing took place. The composition of shark catches may also differ from
one location to another; similar rule applies for fishing periods. For example, the pelagic shark
longline is a gear designed to catch pelagic and semi-pelagic sharks, which may occur in
surface or near-surface waters. Species compositions obtained from pelagic shark longlines are
certain to differ from compositions obtained from demersal longlines, which are operated near
the sea floor. This is evident from the composition of shark species caught by pelagic longlines
in Tanjungluar in years 2001 to 2010 (Figure 3-10), an instance comparable with catches
obtained from demersal longlines in the same location (Figure 3-11). There are seven species
of sharks that are commonly caught by pelagic shark longlines in East Indian Ocean: silky
shark Carcharhinus falciformis (40-90%), pelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus), spinner shark
(C. brevipinna) and makos (Isurus oxyrinchus), each contributing to overall catch between 5
to 25%; as well as C. obscurus, Galeocerdo cuvier and Prionace glauca at smaller percentages.
Species commonly caught by demersal longlines are C. obscurus, C. sorrah and C.
amblyrhynchos.
67
Figure 3.10 Shark species composition caught by pelagic longlines in Tanjungluar, Lombok,
from year 2001 to 2010
Figure 3.11 Shark species composition caught by demersal longlines in Tanjungluar,

Lombok, from year 2001 to 2010
On the other hand, tuna gillnets and tuna longlines are often operated in offshore
locations where migration paths of tunas are found, thus the preponderance of migrating,
oceanic sharks in the shark bycatches from these gears. This may be shown from the
composition of shark bycatches from pelagic tuna nets operated in Indian Ocean and landed in
Cilacap landing base (Figure 3-12). Based on data for catch composition of sharks per species,
the pelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus) is the most abundantly caught species every year,
followed by bigeye thresher (A. superciliosus) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). In
comparison, tuna longlines operated in the same location obtained a slightly different species
composition (Figure 3-13), with blue sharks (Prionace glauca) dominating the catch and
followed by pelagic thresher (A. pelagicus) and bigeye thresher (A. superciliosus).
68
Figure 3.12 Catch composition of sharks caught by pelagic tuna gillnets, landed in Cilacap
landing base from 2006 to 2011
Figure 3.13 Catch composition of sharks caught by pelagic tuna longlines, landed in CIlacap
landing base from 2006 to 2011
The tuna longline is also operated by fishers from Palabuhanratu, West Java. The pelagic
longline catch from the locale often comprise primarily of requiem sharks (Carcharhinus spp.),
with the most abundant species being C. falciformis. Other shark species caught from the
location are Prionace glauca, Alopias pelagicus and A. superciliosus (Figure 3-14).
69
Figure 3.14 Catch composition of sharks caught by longlines and landed in Palabuhanratu
from 2003 to 2008
Species composition of shark catches from tuna gillnets and longlines landed in Cilacap
from year 2002 to 2005 tended to vary (Blaber et al., 2009). Catch compositions may affect the
fishing gear, technique, fishing period, and location. According to Blaber et al. (2009), at least
four shark species were consistently caught in the area: blue shark (Prionace glauca), silky
shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), threshers (Alopias spp.) and mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus).
Figure 3.15 Catch composition of bycatches from tuna longline vessels during 2002-2005,
that were landed in CIlacap. (Yellow: Prionace glauca; pink: Alopias spp., green:
Carcharhinus falciformis; blue: Isurus oxyrinchus)
According to Figure 3-15, thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) dominated the catch from
August to November, and during a two-month period in 2002 (August-September) only sharks
of the genus were caught. The study lasted for six years (2002 -2007) and indicated that
threshers caught from Indian Ocean declined as much as 34.9% (Dharmadi et al., 2012).
70
However, in 2003 this shark genus was not necessarily caught every month, and was almost
absent in year 2004. Conversely, from year 2003 to 2005 the catches were almost dominated
by blue sharks (Prionace glauca), which was caught almost every month at the time. Silky
sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) only dominated the catch during certain months (April and
November 2004) and in February, May, November and December, and was the only species
caught in September 2005. These tuna longline and gillnet-caught sharks are oceanic species
with open ocean habitats and are capable of long-distance migrations. Both P. glauca and C.
falciformis are shared stock species between Indonesia and Australia due to an overlap in their
distribution (Blaber et al., 2009). As a result, the management of P. glauca and C. falciformis
ought to involve both countries.
3.5.2 Species Composition per WPP

Shark species composition from catches obtained from a fisheries management zone
(Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan, or WPP) may differ from year to year. Species diversity of
sharks caught in each of the WPP is very dependent on its respective environmental qualities.
Greater complexities in environmental parameters and habitat types may yield higher species
diversities. Generally, requiem sharks (Carcharhinus spp.) is the most commonly encountered
group across almost all WPPs. This is due to the comparably high diversity of the genus and
their correspondingly divergent habitat preferences, ranging from shallow-water habitats to
deep oceanic habitats. The following is a description of shark species composition obtained
from each WPP in Indonesia.
3.5.2.1 WPP 571

WPP 571 covers a territory from the Strait of Malacca to the Andaman Sea, both of which
possessing different hydrological characteristics. The Strait of Malacca is a narrow stretch of
sea with a maximum depth of 60m, with a primarily muddy sea floor. In comparison, the
Andaman sea is a much deeper region, with depth reaching 900m and is connected to the Indian
Ocean. Sharks caught in both waters are requiem sharks (Family Carcharhinidae), threshers
(Alopiidae), dogfish sharks (Squalidae) and hammerheads (Sphyrnidae). Catch composition
indicated that shark fishing grounds are more abundant in the Andaman Sea. The presence of
semi-oceanic families such as the threshers and hammerheads, and deep-dwelling families such
as dogfishes, seem to indicate that fishing grounds for local shark fishers are more or less
positioned in deeper and more open waters. Requiem sharks dominated the species composition
71
in year 2007, whereas threshers dominated the catch in year 2008. Catches in subsequent years
were defined by a balanced composition between threshers, requiems and dogfishes.
Figure 3.16 Catch composition of sharks in WPP 571
3.5.2.2 WPP 572

WPP 572 includes waters around the west coast of Sumatra to the Sunda Strait, and is
characterized by open and deep waters. The depth of this management zone ranged from around
twenty meters in the coastal areas to exceeding 2000 meters in the offshore waters of western
coasts of Sumatra. Such hydrological attribute often defines the habitats of semi-oceanic and
deep-water species. Common shark families in WPP 572 are requiems (Family
Carcharhinidae), which inhabit the continental shelf to the continental slope; threshers
(Alopiidae) and makos (Lamnidae), which are oceanic groups; and dogfishes (Squalidae),
which are typical inhabitants of continental slopes and other deep habitats. Based on the
composition, requiems dominated the catch from period 2005-2010. The compositions of other
groups (threshers, dogfishes and makos) fluctuate from year to year (Figure 3-17).
72
Figure 3.17 Catch Composition of Sharks in WPP 572
Additionally, a deep sea expedition in the Western Indian Ocean under a collaboration
with researchers from Japan's Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (OFCF) and Maritime
and Fisheries Research Body (Badan Riset Kelautan dan Perikanan, BRKP) in years 2004-
2005 discovered 15 new species of sharks, from families Scyliorhinidae, Triakidae,
Hexanchidae, Dalatidae, Centrophoridae, Squalidae and Squatinidae. Individuals from
aforementioned families were caught from depths between 50 to 200m, with the most abundant
groups being squalids and centrophorids (Anonymous, 2006). The study corroborated the
notion that Indian Ocean management zones are dominated by oceanic and deep-sea sharks.
3.5.2.3 WPP 573

WPP 573 covers an area from the southern seas of Java to West Timor sea, and is an
oceanic body of water under complete influence of the Indian Ocean. This fisheries
management zone possesses characteristics not very different from WPP 572. The composition
of shark species in the zone is dominated by deep-dwelling and oceanic species, including those
from families Squalidae, Alopiidae and Carcharhinidae (Figure 3-18).
73
The catch composition for sharks in WPP 573 was dominated by dogfish sharks during
period 2005-2007, in addition to the contribution of other shark groups (threshers and
requiems) in significant proportions. With the drastic decline of dogfish catch since year 2008,
catch composition became more heterogeneous between dogfishes, threshers, requiems and
hammerheads. The 2008 dogfish decline had impacted shark oil-processing regions, such as
East Lombok, Cilacap, Central Java and Palabuhanratu, West Java.
On the other hand, Figure 3-19 showed the number of species from twelve families
caught within period 2001-2006 in Indian Ocean. The family with the richest species was
Carcharhinidae with 18 species, whereas the remaining families contained only one to three
species (Anonymous, 2011).
74
Number of Species
Figure 3.19 Species composition based on shark families caught in the Indian Ocean waters
from 2001 to 2006 (Anonymous, 2011)
3.5.2.4 WPP 711

WPP 711 contains an area around Karimata Strait and Natuna Sea, and is a shelf sea with
relatively shallow depth (30-50m). The area also intersects with the southern portion of South
China Sea, which is deeper and more open. Its hydrological characteristics suggest that shallow
water species with smaller bodies than oceanic species are more prevalent (Figure 3-20).
75
Catch composition of shark species in WPP 711 in period 2005-2010 was dominated by
requiems (Carcharhinidae), however the species from genus Carcharhinus caught in these
waters were relatively different from species caught in WPP 572 and 573 (southern waters of
Indonesia). The requiem sharks caught in WPP 711 were generally species inhabiting
continental shelves with size ranging from small to medium (less than 1.5 meter). Threshers
(Alopiidae) and dogfishes (Squalidae) caught in this zone were probably fished from areas
around continental slopes around South China Sea, which are located northeast of Natuna
archipelago.
3.5.2.5 WPP 712

WPP 712 covers the Java Sea, which is a typical shallow sea with a maximum depth of
60m. Similar to the preceding zone in Karimata Strait and Natuna Sea, shark species in this
area are often shallow-dwelling species commonly found around continental shelves. However,
as WPP data are gathered from production centers in the area, shark species composition from
WPP 712 is quite complex and ambiguous. This is due to the landing of catches not only from
the Java Sea, but also from other areas. Shark composition landed in WPP 712 tends to vary
every year, with the most abundant families being Carcharhinidae, Alopiidae and Squalidae
(Figure 3-21).
76
In 2005, dogfishes (Squalidae) dominated the catch, and in the following year the catch
was more dominated by thresher sharks (Alopiidae). Requiems (Carcharhinidae) began to
comprise the majority of catch in the area since year 2007, in significant numbers. Samples of
threshers, dogfishes, and makos in WPP 712 were probably catches obtained from other areas,
such as the Indian Ocean, and were landed in this management zone.
3.5.2.6 WPP 713

WPP 713 includes seas around Makassar Strait, Bone Bay, Flores Sea and Bali Sea. This
management zone is an area with complex features, with varying depths between 30 and 1200
meters. This condition has created a very high diversity of fish species, ranging from shelf-
associated species to deep-sea species. The presence of trenches in the area has enabled the
existence of endemics found nowhere else, thus enhancing the diversity of sharks in the WPP.
Shark families prevalent in the area include requiems (Carcharhinidae), dogfishes (Squalidae),
threshers (Alopiidae), hammerheads (Sphyrnidae) and makos (Lamnidae) (Figure 3-22).
77
The composition of shark species fished in the area differ between years. In year 2005,
the shark catches were dominated by dogfishes (Squalus spp.), whereas the requiems
dominated the subsequent year, which was followed by threshers (Alopias spp.). In period
2007-2010, catch composition for sharks varied between requiems, hammerheads, threshers
and dogfishes with proportions not dissimilar from one another.
3.5.2.7 WPP 714

WPP 714 includes the Banda Sea and Tolo Bay, both of which are Eastern Indonesian
seas with a range of depth between 200 and 4000 meters. The area contains significant
migration paths for large pelagic fishes and other oceanic megafauna, including sharks and
whales. Typical shark groups commonly found in the area are oceanic, semi-oceanic,
continental shelf and deep-sea sharks. In general, catch composition of the WPP was dominated
by threshers (Alopiidae) from 2006 to 2010 (Figure 3-23). Despite fairly dramatic decline in
the number of caught threshers from 2006 to 2007, the catch underwent some increase
afterwards. In comparison, dogfish catch prevailed in 2005, only to decline in the following
years to the point of no record. Similar declines between the years were reported for requiem
sharks.
78
3.5.2.8 WPP 715

WPP 715 covers the entirety of area between Tomini Bay, Molucca Sea, Halmahera Sea,
Ceram Sea and Berau Bay. Exceptional biodiversity and high endemicity are the results of
highly divergent depth range in the area, which covers shallow habitats and trenches with
depths at about 2500 meters. Shark catches in WPP 715 usually consist of requiems
(Carcharhinidae), threshers (Alopiidae) and dogfishes (Squalidae). Requiems comprised the
majority of catch in 2005 to 2008. However, the number of requiems dropped in 2009 and was
replaced by threshers as the dominant taxa. The change in catch composition in the area was
possibly due to changes in the fishing grounds, gears and techniques. The proliferation of large
fishing vessels, which may explore more distant areas, might have affected the catch
composition. This is apparent by the increase of oceanic shark catches in 2009 in comparison
to the preceding years.
79
3.5.2.9 WPP 716

WPP 716 extends from Celebes Sea to the northern portion of Halmahera Sea. The
fishing management zone possesses a depth range between 500 to 3000 meters. Thus, oceanic
and deep sea species constitute much of the local shark biodiversity. Shark catches are often
dominated by requiems (Carcharhinidae), threshers (Alopiidae) and dogfishes (Squalidae). The
catch composition of the zone is shown in Figure 3-25. Between 2005 and 2009, catch
compositions were roughly similar, with dogfishes being the majority of catch followed by
requiems. Change was evident in 2010, with threshers becoming the majority of catch, whereas
dogfishes only consisting the minority of catch. The change was probably due to the operation
of fishing gears prone to catch threshers in the area, such as purse seines.
80
3.5.2.10 WPP 717

WPP 717 extends from Cenderawasih Bay to the western portion of Pacific Ocean. The
area around Cenderawasih Bay, especially around the Bird's Head Peninsula, is believed to be
one of the epicenters of marine biodiversity in Indonesia. On the other hand, the Indonesian
territory in the Western Pacific Ocean is an open ocean habitat, possessing oceanic and deep-
sea biota distinct from those in western Indonesia. Therefore, shark species commonly caught
in the management zone are oceanic species (Figure 3-26).
81
Only two shark families were abundant in the area, which are threshers (Alopiidae) and
requiems (Carcharhinidae). Threshers dominated the catch statistics from 2005 to 2007, and
was replaced by requiems in 2008. Threshers returned in the subsequent years, but only
comprising a minority of the catch. Fluctuation in catch compositions between the years may
had been influenced by time, location, fishing vessels and gears operated in the management
zone.
3.5.2.11 WPP 718

WPP 718 covers the Arafura Sea, and is the last fishing management zone in Indonesia.
The zone includes shallow shelf areas with depths of 20 to 50 meters, to continental slopes with
depths of 300-600 meters. Shark biota found in the area are highly influenced by species
assemblages from Australia, especially shelf-inhabiting shark biota. The catch composition of
the management zone consists of only two families, requiems (Carcharhinidae) and threshers
(Alopiidae). Threshers dominated the catch in 2005 until 2006, whereas for the following years
(2007-2010) requiems replaced threshers as the dominant taxa, even reaching 100% of total
catch from 2008 to 2010. This change may be due to changes in the operating fishing gears,
time and fishing grounds in the zone.
82
Despite being a general illustration of shark fishery resources in every management zone,
the compositions of shark species as described above cannot be used as a basis in assessing the
true diversity and species richness of each management zone. This is due to the data being
recorded after catch results of local fishers in each of the zones; data may change due to
replacements in fishing gears, fishing period and fishing grounds. Furthermore, commitments
toward the fishing industry in each of the management zones may relatively differ from each
other, therefore affecting their respective catch compositions.
3.6 Catch Sizes

Catch size is highly influenced by the choice of fishing gear. Relatively selective gears,
such as gillnets with predetermined mesh sizes and longlines with specific baits, are more likely
to catch fish of certain sizes and species. Contrastingly, unselective gears such as trawls and
other benthic nets tend to catch indiscriminately regardless of size or species, at times catching
large numbers of immature individuals. The use of unselective fishing gears may disrupt
natural populations by causing growth overfishing, where juveniles are caught before reaching
optimal sizes (Pitcher & Hart, 1982; Pitcher et al., 2008), thus contributing to the decline of
mature individuals. Growth overfishing in turn may cause recruitment overfishing, where
mature stocks have become depleted, as recruited individuals become insufficient in
replenishing the population. Thus, the growth process and recruitment of a species may fail if
83
subjected to continual, unregulated fishing pressure. Adverse outcomes due to these unselective
methods will be more apparent among shark species with vulnerable life histories, such as slow
growth and late reproductive maturity, few offspring and long lifespan.
Pelagic longlines, which are operated in the open seas and target oceanic species, are
unexpectedly catching immature sharks in large proportions (Table 3.3). This is due to the
epipelagic and nearshore habitats of many immature individuals. In contrast, the catches of
demersal longlines seem to comprise primarily of mature sharks (Table 3.4). Examination
revealed that some individuals in the latter category were gestating, as had been found for
hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) landed in Tanjungluar, Lombok.
Table 3.3 Size, species, and conservation status of sharks caught by pelagic longlines.
Size of catch (cm) Conservation Status
Species Immature (%) Mature (%) (IUCN, (2005,2011)
Alopias pelagicus 150-270 (46) 250-350 (54) Vulnerable - Near

Carcharhinus brevipinna 50-190 (60) 200-300 (40) Threatened
Carcharhinus falciformis 100-215 (76) 220-250 (24) Near Threatened
Carcharhinus obscurus 200-270 (93) 290-300 (7) Near Threatened
Galeocerdo cuvier 130-310 (96) 350-380 (4) Near Threatened
Isurus oxyrhynchus 100-250 (59) 200-260 (41) Near Threatened
Prionace glauca 200-210 (6) 210-300 (94) Near Threatened
Near Threatened
Table 3.4 Size, species, and conservation status of sharks caught by demersal longlines.
Size of catch (cm) Conservation Status
Species Immature (%) Mature (%) (IUCN, 2005,2011)
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 75-125 (17) 125-200 (83) Near Threatened
Carcharhinus limbatus 60-180 (34) 170-250 (66) Near Threatened
Carcharhinus sorrah 80-110 (36) 100-150 (64) Near Threatened
Hexanchus griseus 200-375 (85) 310-480 (15) Near Threatened
Sphyrna lewini 100-225 (42) 170-300 (58) Near Threatened
The use of trawls and gillnets with small mesh size, especially when operated nearshore,
is one of the greatest threat to the health of fisheries resources, including sharks. Sharks often
use nearshore and shallow habitats as spawning and nursery habitats, as an adaptation to avoid
predation by larger predators (Castro, 1993; Carlson, 1999). As an example, Arad net
operations in Banten waters and Sunda strait often yielded juveniles of hammerhead sharks
Sphyrna lewini. Similar instances occurred in gillnet operations in coastal waters around
84
Tanjung Balai, North Sumatra and Pemangkat, West Kalimantan, where large numbers of
juvenile Carcharhinus sorrah were caught.
In conclusion, unselective fishing gears are ideally prohibited from coastal and shallow
waters where immature sharks are often found, as they will impact mature stocks in the future
and impede natural recruitment processes. The success of recruitment process of a species is
influenced by factors such as fishing grounds, gears used, and size of fished individuals (Sparre
et al., 1989; Sparre & Venema, 1992). Additionally, the recruitment process may also be
impacted by habitat quality and the density of available parental stocks.
85
THE EXPLOITATION OF
SHARKS IN INDONESIA
86
4. IV. THE EXPLOITATION OF SHARKS IN INDONESIA
The seas of Indonesia bear rich and prolific marine resources, which naturally include
fisheries. It is unsurprising that almost all societies and cultures across the archipelago are
reliant on fish resources, including that of cartilaginous fishes. Shark fisheries have become
primary sources of livelihoods in certain regions of Indonesia. Activities in shark and ray
fisheries may involve both men and women as fishers and traders. The role of women as traders
in shark and ray products is significant in certain regions, such as in the provinces of West,
Central and East Java; North Sumatra, Lombok and West Nusa Tenggara. This signifies the
status of shark and ray products as vital commodities for many areas in Indonesia, as they
support local incomes through tax and directly sustain their economies. As such, the
commodities have increased regional incomes and the welfare of local communities, especially
in regions reliant on such fisheries .
Fish traders have traded salted fish products made of shark meats since the 1986, and
underwent development through the collection and selling shark fins. Within a few years, the
traders were able to profit from the commodity and became affluent enough to purchase the
longline boats they subsequently used to catch sharks (Suzuki, 2002). Economic developments
provided by shark fins and stingray leathers are able to transform business practices for
exporters by providing assets and loans for local fishers in order to develop their own
businesses, therefore helping traditional fishery systems to evolve into small industries in a
given locale.
Indonesian shark fisheries are not as popular as other fisheries, such as fisheries for tunas,
large pelagics, small pelagics, and prawns. Nonetheless, the amount of shark fishery
productions from Indonesia is among the highest in the world. The lack of recognition by the
government toward the fisheries stems from the fact that sharks are caught as bycatches instead
being part of target fisheries. On the other hand, the development of shark fisheries have
instigated concern among fishery observers and conservationists. Despite the fact that sharks
and rays have been fished for centuries, recent decades have seen an upsurge in the intensity
of their exploitation across the globe. This is primarily promoted by the availability of
international markets with competitive prices, followed by an increasingly effective suite of
fishing technologies, and greater scope of available fishing grounds.
87
4.1 Shark Fishery Production
Indonesia has recorded information and data sources for fishery productions, including
fishery catches as well as aquaculture products and their economic values. The information is
published annually as the Book of Indonesian Fishery Statistics (Buku Statistik Perikanan
Indonesia) by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Kementerian Kelautan dan
Perikanan, KKP). The publication is the only official fishery data source currently in use as the
basis for the management of Indonesian fisheries. The data originated from various sources,
including the Statistics Indonesia (Biro Pusat Statistik, BPS), Province and Regency Fishery
Services (Dinas Perikanan Provinsi dan Kabupaten), Ministry of Trade and organizations
below the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
Based on the shark catch data in Indonesian waters from 1975 to 2011, there is a trend of
significant increases in number of shark catches in the last few decades. The number of shark
catches in Indonesia peaked in 2000, which then appeared to show gradual decline, although
there was some fluctuation in the following years (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4.1 Shark Fishery Production Statistic from 195 to 2011
From 2002 to 2011, the shark production data in the national fishery statistics had been
broadly categorized into five taxonomic groups. The groups were the thresher sharks (Alopias
spp., Family Alopiidae), requiems (several species from genus Carcharhinus, Family
Carcharhinidae), makos (Isurus spp., Family Lamnidae), and dogfishes, which is composed of
various species from Family Squalidae and Centrophoridae (Order Squaliformes). The
production developments of the aforementioned groups during the last ten years are shown in
88
Figure 4-2. The production of thresher sharks, which is a sum between productions of Alopias
pelagicus and A. superciliosus, showed highest production numbers during 2002 to 2004,
which was 50,000 to 60,000 tons/year. However, the productions were met with dramatic
decline in the subsequent years (around 300%), which was from 50,000 tons in 2004 to 15,000
tons in 2005. In a few years after (2006-2009), the production tended to undergo some decline
until 2009, which then started to increase again in 2011.
The production of requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) was recorded from 2004 to 2007 with
production ranging between 15,000 to 30,000 tons/year. The requiem production tended to
decline from 2007 to 2011 by around 50%. Likewise, the dogfish production (Squaliformes)
culminated at 18,000 tons in 2005, and yet declined for more than 300% from 2005 to 2011.
Overall, the production of the five shark groups have declined within ten years. The decline in
fishery stocks of a given body of water may be indicated by the size reduction of fished
individuals, changes in catch compositions, decreases in CPUE and the amount of catch or
production.
Production
Figure 4.2 Trends in Shark Catches Based nn Taxonomic Groups in The Indonesian Fishery
Statistics from 2002 to 2011
4.1.1 Shark Fishery Production Based on Fishery Management Zones (WPP)

There appears to be shifts in potential shark fishing grounds based on data from 2005-
2010 period. From year 2005 to 2007, highest shark catches were obtained from the southern
89
seas of Indonesia, however in the subsequent years the highest catches originated from northern
areas such as Natuna and Java Seas, as well as eastern regions such as the Arafura Sea. In
general, there had been a decline in shark fishery production in WPPs 572 and 573 (Indian
Ocean) within a period of six years (2005 - 2010). The most severe decline occurred in southern
waters of Java to Nusa Tenggara, which was five times lower than the production obtained in
year 2008, compared to amount of production in the preceding years. Significant decreases
were also reported in WPP 714 (Banda Sea), which began in 2007, with threefold decline
compared to productions in years before. Other fishery management zones appeared to
fluctuate except for the management zone in Arafura Sea, which showed a trend of increase in
shark catches from 2005 to 2010 (Figure 4-3).
Based on the amount of total catches, WPP 573 was the management zone with the
highest total shark catches per year, with average catches above 10,000 tons within a period
between 2005 to 2007. However, extremely drastic declines occurred since year 2008, with the
range of catch amount between 3000 to 5000 tons per year. Such decline was highly influenced
by the depletion of dogfish and thresher shark stocks in the area. Trends in catch declines were
also reported from other management zones, including WPPs 571, 572, 711, 714 and 715. Such
decreases may be caused by different factors, including inclement weathers and the de-
subsidization of fuel in 2007, which may affect the buying capacity of fishers and the resultant
decrease in fishing activities. Additionally, the overfishing of shark populations in certain areas
may play a role in the decline. The depletions of natural shark stocks are felt by many shark
fishers nowadays, who need to navigate to increasingly distant fishing grounds. For example,
many Acehnese fishers now approach the seas of Bengal, India in order to catch sharks.
Likewise, fishers of Nusa Tenggara and southern Java are known to fish fairly frequently in
waters bordering the Australian territory.
90
Figure 4.3 Shark Fishery Production (in Tons) for Every Fishery Management Zone (WPP) Of Indonesia in 2005-2010.
91
4.1.2. The Development of Fishing Gears
The development of shark productions is associated by the advancements in fishing
gears. The developments of fishing gears for sharks, both as target and bycatch, are summarized
in Figure 4-4. National fishery statistic data showed there are at least five types of gears capable
of catching sharks, which are tuna longlines, tuna nets, demersal lines, demersal nets and
pelagic longlines. From year 1993 to 2003, the numbers of the five gears tended to increase,
however from 2006 to 2010 the numbers tended to decrease. Possible explanations for the
decrease including the decline in catches, which then failed to cover for operational costs and
the modifications or replacements of gears.
Figure 4.4 Changes in The Number of Fishing Gears During an 18-Years Period (1993-2010)
4.1.3 Shark Product Export Data

The supervision for the trade of shark products within or outside Indonesia is performed
by the General Directorate for Processing and Marketing of Fishery Products, Ministry of
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, KKP). All international
exports of fishery products are essentially regulated and supervised by the Directorate for
International Trade in KKP, however the recording of export and import data is performed by
the ministry's Statistic and Fisheries Information Center, which collaborates with the Statistics
92
Indonesia (Biro Pusat Statistik, BPS). The export and import data of fishery products, which
contain data for the export of shark products, are collected and compiled by the ministry's
Customs and Quarantine Office.
In Indonesia's statistics data for fishery exports, shark export commodities are classified
into four groups: dried fin products, salted fin products, frozen meats, and chilled or fresh
sharks. The most frequently exported products are dried fins, wherein contain fins from
guitarfishes (Families Rhynchobatidae and Rhinobatidae). Only shark fins are explicitly
recorded in the national fishery export data, whereas data for body parts such as cartilage,
leather, and gill rakes are combined with other organs and parts (the shark products group).
Likewise, data on shark oils are grouped together with oils obtained from other fish species,
and as such it is very difficult to determine their amounts of production (Blaber, 2006).
Shark fin products are routinely exported to Asian countries such as Japan, Hong Kong,
China, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan. Filleted shark meats are often exported to Singapore
aside from being traded inside the country, whereas dried and salted meats are at times exported
to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Based on export data from 1980 to 2006, shark trade businesses appeared to increase
sharply in a period from 1992 to 1995, then declined from 1996 to 2001. The national export
of shark products started to regrew since 2003 although the increase was not sharp (Figure 4-
5).
Figure 4.5 The Amount of Exported Shark Products in Years 1980-2006 (in tons)
Based on the type composition of products, there were shifts in the type of traded shark
products. From year 1991 to 1998, shark meat products were more frequently exported than
93
other product types, however, since 1999 the export of shark fin products increased and
dominated the total amount of shark products exported to other countries (Figure 4-6).
Wet Shark Fins
Shark Products
Frozen Shark Meat
Dried Sharks Fins
Figure 4.6 The Composition of Product Types for Exported Shark Products in Years 1990-
2006.
Since the 2003, the amount of exported shark fins has been decreasing. The amount of
exported shark fins, both dried and salted, reached 829,162 kg in 2005, then declined in 2006
to only 50% of the original amount, which was 485,092 kg. Almost half of Indonesian shark
fin products were exported to Japan, followed by Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia (Figure
4-7). On the other hand, the province of East Java is known to be the largest fin exporting
regions in Indonesia, followed by Jakarta, South Sulawesi, North Sumatra and Riau. Surabaya
is one of the most significant shark fin pooling centers before being exported to international
trades. Shark fins pooled in Surabaya often come from particular provinces such as the Nusa
Tenggara, Bali and Kalimantan. Shark fin poolers in rural areas frequently opt to send their
items to major poolers in Surabaya, prior to export.
94
Figure 4.7 Number Proportions of Shark Fins Exported to Destination Countries in 2005 and
2006
4.2 Shark Supply Chain
The supply chain of shark products in Indonesia tends to be long and complex, starting
from the fishers, middlemen, processing units, exporters to the importing countries. The supply
chain at the level of middleman is the most complex level in Indonesian shark trade. According
to Zainudin (2011), the high number of levels between the middlemen has caused difficulties
in creating a tracking system in determining the origins of shark catches. The traceability
system is requisite in modern fishery management and trade systems, as many buyer countries
have stipulated traceability documents for all fish species that enter said countries, such as the
catch certificate that was applied by the European Union since the beginning of 2010. The catch
certificate is a system constructed by fishery experts in order to reduce the threat of overfishing
caused by illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, or IUU fishing. Nevertheless, it is
possible to show fundamental mechanisms of shark supply chains in Indonesia by simplifying
the chain at the level of middleman (Figure 4-8).
95
Figure 4.8 Domestic Supply Chains for Shark Products in Indonesia (Zainudin, 2011)
A number of international airports, such as those in Jakarta, Surabaya, Denpasar and

Medan, are primary airports used by many shark exporters in sending their products overseas.
Cilacap shark products are mostly exported through Jakarta and a small proportion of them are
sent by ship cargoes to Japan, whereas products from Lombok (Tanjungluar) are sent through
Surabaya and Jakarta. Main destination countries for Indonesian shark products are Japan,
China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and a minor proportion is exported to South Korea, Singapore
and Malaysia (Figure 4-9). Those major airports are potential bases in supporting the
regulations and supervisions of shark fisheries management in Indonesia by regulating and
inspecting exported shark products from Indonesia. On the other hand, products derived from
shark caught in local waters are not only processed into exported goods but are also sold to
fulfill domestic demands, such as those landed in Juwana, Pati, Rembang, Pontianak, Wakatobi
and several other areas (Zainudin, 2011). However, there is still a need to create precise
methods in collecting data from internationally and locally traded shark products, so crucial
problems in shark marketing could be answered.
96
Figure 4.9 International Trade Flow of Shark Product (Zainudin, 2011)
4.3 Shark Products

4.3.1 Uses of Shark Products
It is apparent that shark fisheries have provided economic benefits for all involved in the
trade, including those responsible for the catch and product processing. Aside from creating
business opportunities for small-scale industries for both consumables and craftworks (e.g.
shark-derived leathers), the exploitation of sharks also opens complementary business
opportunities, such as in marketing and exporting. Several jobs identified as having developed
along the growth of shark fisheries include the shark fishing itself, fishing gear providing
services, retailers, middlemen, processors, and exporters. In many locations., shark fishing is
only performed to land their most valuable body parts, such as the dorsal fins. Other parts are
thrown back into the sea.
97
Almost all shark body parts possess economic values and may help the lives of fishing
communities, traders and exporters. Shark products may consist of the meat, cartilage, fins,
teeth, jaws, entrails, liver and leather. Wet shark meats are often marketed locally, which then
will be prepared further into a variety of meals by grilling, smoking, brined, filleted, or prepared
into soups. The flesh is also processed into meat floss, jerkies, smoked and brined products,
and may become ingredients for fish balls, dumplings and crackers.
Shark meats may also be sold in dried forms, which are not only sold locally but also sent
to large urban centers such as Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya and Semarang, or even to other
countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The cartilaginous skeleton of sharks may also be
exported internationally after drying, with Japan being the main destination. The cartilage may
be processed into adhesives, cosmetics, fertilizer, and pharmaceutical ingredients which were
believed by some to have the capacity to cure cancer. Indonesian processors are yet to be able
to process raw cartilage into the desired final products, and as such only raw materials are
exported. This is due to the minimal levels of technology, information and capacity of local
processors in order to create such products.
Shark skin from blue sharks (Prionace glauca) may be prepared into fish crackers,
whereas skins from other species are tanned into leather products such as bags, purses and
shoes. The shark teeth are processed into accessories such as necklaces, bracelets, earrings,
rings, shirt buttons and others. The intestines may become raw materials for insulin
manufacturing, and yield protease enzymes which are used in both food and non-food
industries.
The shark liver may produce oil, as in the case for dogfishes (Family Squalidae and
Centrophoridae). Oils from dogfishes may be used as industrial lubricants or as pharmaceutical
ingredients as well as vitamin A and D-containing cosmetics. Oil obtained from the livers of
genus Centrophorus may be exploited as aircraft fuel and lubricant in cold climates. Laboratory
analyses have shown that the percentage of unsaturated fatty acids from dogfish oils is 3.70%,
and the aforementioned unsaturated fatty acids comprise of Octadecanoic, Omega-3, Linoleic,
Octadecatetranoic, Eicosatetranoic and Eicosapentaenoic acids (EPA) (Damongilala, 2008).
The shark fin is the most valuable body part of a shark. The fin is generally processed
into shark fin soups, which are considered as the most prestigious dish served in many urban
seafood restaurants in Indonesia, such as those in Jakarta, Semarang, and Surabaya, with the
current price of a single portion reaching up to Rp. 500,000. Despite the centuries of belief
among Chinese people that shark fins have many beneficial properties, the food itself actually
98
has no taste or flavor of its own. Shark fins are highly sought after among some due to its rather
rubbery texture, which is both fleshy and fibrous. However, aside from these, the leading
reason of the consumption of shark fins is the desire of the privileged for esteem, as shark fin
soups were dishes restricted to pre-modern Chinese kings and nobilities. According to a study
by Food and Nutrition Information Center, shark fins do not contain any substantial nutrition.
Fins are primarily made of cartilage, which in general do not contain vitamins, only
glucosamine and chondroitin.
Proponents of alternative medicine believe that shark fins contain anti-cancer substances.
According to National Cancer Institute, there has only been one study published in qualified
journals, on the use of shark cartilage as a treatment against cancer; the study showed that it is
ineffective against the disease. Other studies reported that augmentative therapies on
chemotherapy-receiving patients by giving shark cartilage extracts at different amounts to 282
patients also did not yield positive results (Lu, 2010). Conversely, shark fins are considered to
contain mercury at fairly dangerous levels. The mercury contamination is due to chemical
pollutions in the ocean. As the apex predators, sharks bear higher potentials to contain higher
levels of mercury compared to other organisms, as mercury accumulates through the food chain
(Walker, 1988; Lacerda et al., 2000; de Pinho et al., 2002). A 2001 report by environmentalist
group Wild Aid found highly lethal levels of mercury from Thai shark fins, which was reaching
up to 42%. The number far exceeds the safe limit for food-borne mercury as established by the
World Health Organization (WHO), which should not exceed 0.5 ppm (WildAid, 2001). In
general, shark fins contain mercury levels from 0.3 to 2.6 μg/g, with an estimated average being
2.3 μg/g (Leung, 2007). WHO has determined that the safe limit of methyl mercury
consumption by humans is 1.6 μg/kg of body weight; if one's body weighed 60 kg then the
highest tolerable limit of mercury per week is 96 μg (JECFA, 2003). The study by Leung (2007)
showed that if within a week, a person consumes one portion of soup containing 40 grams of
shark fins, then the amount of mercury that enters the body exceeds the tolerance limits and
may endanger their health as mercury accumulates in human organ systems, including the
nervous system. In other words, consuming shark fins are essentially dangerous, and will not
bring health benefits to the consumers.
Aside from the fin, other studies mentioned that shark meat may contain 2 to 2.5% of
urea, whereas true bony fishes (Teleostei) only contains 0.05% of urea (Lagler et al., 1977).
The high levels of urea in sharks were due to the lack of urinary bladders in sharks, thus
necessitating the excretion of urea through their skin. Moreover, the high levels of urea in shark
99
muscles help regulate the total osmotic balance in the blood and help them osmoregulate
toward their environments. As an illustration, the urea contents of several species of sharks are
provided in the following Table:
Table 4.1 Urea content of selected species of sharks (Kreuzer & Ahmed, 1978)
Species Urea content
(mg/100gN)
Spiny dogfish 1570
Blacktip reef shark 1728
Lesser spotted dogfish 1775
Tiger shark 1990
Smooth shark 2038
Hammerhead shark 2320
The urea content in a shark's body will dissolve if immersed in 10% NaCl and 2% acetic
acid solution for 30 minutes. Other techniques to remove excess urea from shark meat include
salting the meat, or by grilling, smoking or brining as usually performed in traditional
communities across Indonesia. It requires some expertise and special handling in preparing the
meat so the consumption of urea could be avoided.
4.3.2 Handling and Processing Shark Products

The handling of shark catch in several regions of Indonesia is generally less attentive
toward the qualities of the catch. As an example, shark landings from pelagic and demersal
longlines in Tanjungluar are often not fresh. This is due to the long duration of fishing
operations on the sea, between 7 to 21 days, as well as the inadequate supply of ice onboard.
Such conditions may also occur in other shark landing centers such as Muara Angke, Muara
Baru, Jakarta; Palabuhanratu, Cilacap; Kupang, and many other landing centers. Major shark
products that possess high economic values are the fins, cartilage, liver, and teeth, and as a
result the fishers are negligent toward the freshness of the meat. However, despite its
inadequate levels of freshness, landed shark meats still bear some economic value. Kreuzer and
Ahmed (1987) reported that weight composition of sold shark body parts comprises of the head
100
(22%), entrails or viscera (20%), liver (7%), cartilage (4%), fins (5%), skin (7%) and meat
(35%).
The handling of shark products are generally the same in various shark landing centers, at
least for Jakarta, West Java, East Java and West Nusa Tenggara. Overall, shark catches are sold
whole by boat owners, then their buyers will sell them per body part to exporters or consumers.
Below is the handling methods for each shark parts as performed by local fishers:
1. Fins
Fins are the primary targets for most shark fisheries, as fins fetch the highest economic
value compared to other body parts. Shark fishers in Eastern Nusa Tenggara frequently isolate
the fins and the procedure is often performed onboard. This is also performed by tuna longline
fishers that operated in the Indian Ocean, if the tuna or skipjack catches exceed that of sharks.
Shark fins are commonly sold dried, and therefore require a sun-drying process for a few days
until the products are adequately desiccated. Traditional shark fin processing begins by drying
them under the sun for around one week, until the fins are completely dry. The fins are then
cleaned to remove skin and particulate matter, which includes sand, dust, and other
contaminants. The next step involves the immersion of fins in freshwater for four to five days
until soft, which then will be boiled for 30 minutes until the fins expand and the skin separates
from the fibrous layer. The fibrous materials left are the parts used for shark fin soup.
Figure 4.10 Shark Fin Products Under Drying Process (a) and Ready For Sale (b)
101
2. Cartilage
The cartilage also holds high economic value. The vertebrae is the commonly used part
of a shark's cartilage. The processing of shark cartilage involves its separation from muscles,
cleaning extraneous tissues, and sun drying. Cartilage may only be extracted from medium to
large-bodied shark groups, including those from families Carcharhinidae (requiems), Alopiidae
(threshers), Sphyrnidae (hammerheads) and Lamnidae (makos).
Figure 4.11 Dried Shark Cartilage
3. Liver
In general, the groups most frequently harvested for their livers and their oil content are
sharks from families Squalidae and Centrophoridae (dogfishes). Traditionally, shark oil is
extracted from the liver by sun drying. Cleaned shark livers are sliced and placed on thin sheets,
which are positioned on incline bamboo racks. The livers are then dried under the sun until the
oil is exuded; the exuded oil is gathered before the precipitation and filtration process, which
readies the oil for bottling. Another technique used to process shark oil for home industries in
Tanjungluar is by boiling the liver, followed by several stages of refination. The boiling of
dogfish livers aims to extract oil contained in the tissue. In order to obtain clarified oil, it
requires multiple steps of refining processes, starting from the separation of oil from impurities
by filtering it by cloth filters, to filtration process by using finer filters, which finally produces
clear oil.
102
Figure 4.12 Dogfish Livers
Most dogfishes possess relatively small bodies, ranging from 60 to 170 centimeters.
However, the body cavity is proportionally larger and two-thirds of it is occupied by the liver.
The large shark liver contains the oil, which functions as a buoyancy organ as sharks do not
possess swimming bladders as in the case of most bony fishes; the liver may also acts as energy
reserves to survive the impoverished deep sea environments.
4. Entrails
Other organs that may yield oil are the entrails, or the gastrointestinal tract. In Cilacap,
shark entrails are extracted from large-bodied sharks from families Alopiidae, Carcharhinidae,
Sphyrnidae, and Lamnidae. Oils are obtained from the entrails by placing the entrails inside
large plastic barrels, which are then covered to ferment for a few days, until oils are released.
The released oils float to the surface and are easily moved to other containers. However, oils
obtained from such process often possess lower qualities compared to shark liver oils. The oil
tends to be darker in color and produce stronger odors.
5. Skin
Another profitable shark body part is the skin. Shark skins may be made into fashion
items such as handbags, purses and shoes, and also usable as ingredients for snacks such as fish
103
crackers. Blue sharks (Prionace glauca) is the species with edible skin that may be processed
into crackers. Shark skins may decay faster than other marine products. In order to extend its
shelf life, shark skins may be preserved and tanned into leather. Prior to tanning, the skin has
to be separated from attached tissues (fleshing), and then impurities on the surface are cleaned
by using wire brush. The cleaning process needs to be performed on fresh, wet materials. The
cleaned shark skin is then processed further by pre-tanning procedures by using precise
compositions (Widowowati et al., 1991).
4.3.3 Shark Product Utilization Levels

The percentage of utilization of shark products tend to differ between regions. Regions
with better access to trading routes tend to optimally utilize the products, whereas regions more
distant from economic centers tend to use and sell certain body parts only. For instance, areas
such as Tanjungluar, Kedonganan and Muara Angke utilize virtually all shark body parts,
whereas areas with less access to trade centers tend to utilize body parts that are more
commonly marketed (Figure 4-13).
Study Location
Figure 4.13 Percentage of Utilization for Various Shark Body Parts in Several Locations
Across Indonesia
104
4.3.4 Shark Product Marketing
Products other than fins and cartilage in general are used for local consumptions, or
marketed at national levels, although a few manage to be marketed to markets overseas. Both
fins and cartilage are marketed to other countries by undergoing several steps.
For most of the part, fishers sell all shark catches to middlemen as whole bodies. The
middlemen then selects for certain body parts and sell them according to market demands.
Shark meats are generally sold directly to consumers or sold to processing companies to be
processed further into a variety of food products. Fins, cartilage, and teeth are often sent to
larger pooling stations, which then act as exporters of these products. Skins and other body
parts are primarily stocked by small home industries, to be processed into crackers, craft items,
and livestock feeds.
On the other hand, sharks caught by tuna longlines are exploited only for their fins,
whereas the rest of their bodies are discarded and tossed back into the ocean. This is often the
outcome when the fishers obtained large numbers of tuna catches and the containers are already
full. However, if few tunas were fished and sharks were caught in abundance, then whole
bodies will be hauled and landed in ports for sale.
The price of shark fin is determined not only by the species but also by the size. The
prices of shark fins and other marketable body parts are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
Table 4.2 Shark Fin Prices at The Middleman Level

Dried fin price/kg
Categories Size (cm)
(in thousands of rupiahs)
Super 40 1,250
Sp. 33 33 1,000 - 1,100
Middle 25-30 850 - 1,000
BA-1 20-25 650 - 850
BA-2 15-20 450 - 650
Plan 12-15 200 - 450
(Source : Pedagang pengumpul produk hiu di Tanjungluar, 2012)
105
Table 4.3 Prices Per Shark Body Part
Shark body part Price per kg (Rp)
Spine 4,000-5,000
Cranium 80,000
Liver oil 110,000
Teeth (jaws) 700,000 (large)
100,000 (small)
Meat 18,000
(Source : Pedagang pengumpul produk hiu di Tanjungluar, 2012)
4.4 Economic and Social Aspects of Shark Fisheries

Socio-economic analyses of shark fisheries have been conducted in several regions of
Indonesia from 2004 to 2005. The results showed that shark production provides significant
contributions toward fishers's income, both as primary targets and as bycatch. Other incomes
received by fishers generally depend on available profit-sharing systems, although several
locations do apply salaries. The profit-sharing systems that prevail in several shark production
centers in Indonesia may be seen in Table 4-5. For instance, boat crews from Tanjungluar (West
Nusa Tenggara), Sungai Liat (South Kalimantan), and Sungai Kakap (West Kalimantan)
receive annual incomes at Rp 20.8 million, Rp 24.1 million and Rp 8.5 million, respectively.
In comparison, boat crews that catch sharks only as bycatches in Kedonganan (Bali) and Batang
(Central Java) each receive respective incomes at Rp 27.7 million and Rp 22.4 million per year
(Table 4-5).
Table 4.4 Profit-Sharing System in Several Shark Production Locations in Indonesia

Profit-sharing system
Location
Owner Captain Boat Crew Notes
Tanjungluar ⅔ of profit ⅓ of profit divided equally ⅓ of profit divided Supplement for captain (≈1 of
among crews + additions equally among crewmember's income)
from owner crewmembers allocated from owner's income
Kedonganan ½ of profit - ½ of profit Boat operated only by owners
and crewmembers
Muara Angke 9/10 of profit 1/10 of profit Rp. 18000/day Crewmember's wages counted
as part of operational cost
106
Profit-sharing system
Location
Owner Captain Boat Crew Notes
Sungai Liat ½ of profit ½ of profit divided equally ½ of profit divided Supplement for captain (≈½ of
among crewmembers + equally among crewmember's income)
additions from owner crewmembers allocated from owner's income
Sungai Kakap ⅔ of profit ⅓ of profit divided equally ⅓ of profit divided Supplement for captain (≈½ of
among crewmembers + equally among crewmember's income)
additions from owner crewmembers allocated from owner's income
Source: Primary Data (Year 2005)
Table 4.5 Annual income for shark fishers in selected areas

Income based on job status (in thousands of
Location rupiahs/year) Notes
Owner Captain Crewmembe (trip/year)
rs
Tanjungluar (Lombok) 146,076 41,734 20,860 14
Kedonganan (Bali) 27,720 - 27,720 240
Muara Angke (Jakarta) 25,352 4,472 4,320 4
Sungai Liat (Bangka) 132,864 36,240 24,144 48
Sungai Kakap (West 37,500 12,800 8,500 10
Kalimantan)
The comparison of value added from the fishery commodities in several areas are 3.5%
in Kedonganan and 290% of sharks in Sungai Kakap. The amount of income of shark fishers
in those areas depend on the frequencies of shark fishing operations. Income based on the type
of shark production businesses may also differ in certain areas. Salting businesses provide
higher annual income (Rp. 32 million/year) compared to shark meat fillet businesses, which
receive an income of Rp. 17 million per year (Table 4-6).
The implication from the study of socio-economic aspects of shark fisheries is the efforts
could be directed into the creation of value added and the formulation of mechanisms in
reducing production, which are importnant in developing National Plans of Action for Sharks
and Rays (Purnomo & Apriliani, 2007). The production reduction and value adding may be
performed by increasing the processing quality. Based on economic analyses, it may be
concluded that shark commodities give significant contributions for fishers's income who catch
sharks as primary targets or as bycatches.
107
Table 4.6 Income Based on Business or Activity Type
Activity type Location Income estimation
(Rp/person)
Salting Pangkal Pinang, Bangka Belitung 32.000.000/year
Meat extraction Pangkal Pinang, Bangka Belitung 17.000/kg
Retailers Muara Kintap, South Kalimantan 65.000/day
Wholesalers Kurau, South Kalimantan 2.265.000/month
Transport Service Tanjungluar, Lombok 1.000/person/fish
Unloading Labor Muara Angke, Jakarta 300/fish
Cart Service Muara Angke, Jakarta 8.000 /cart
Loading Labor Muara Angke, Jakarta 20.000/truck
The importance of shark commodities for fishing communities involved in shark fisheries
may become a special note for stakeholders in applying proper management for the fishery in
Indonesia. With the presence of international pressure to save shark populations in nature, the
Indonesian government is requested to apply conservation measures and catch quotas in its
maritime territories. Therefore, the government needs to further investigate the depth of
implications from the presence of restrictive regulations on shark fishers who are directly
involved with the commodity. Moreover, alternative livelihoods other than shark fisheries need
to be provided without changing the existing patterns and work cultures for too much, should
restrictive managements come to effect across Indonesia's fishery management zones.
108
SUPPORTING DATA ON
INDONESIAN SHARK FISHERIES
109
5. V. SUPPORTING DATA ON INDONESIAN SHARK FISHERIES
In many ways, the production of Indonesian shark fisheries has yet to significantly
contribute to the total national fisheries production. The national fisheries statistics have shown
that the contribution of shark fisheries production does not exceed 0.1% from total national
marine fisheries production. This is caused by the minimal amount of relevant supporting data,
especially if compared with other economically valuable fishery commodities. The
undeveloped data availability, low accuracy of shark fishery production data, and limited
studies on Indonesian shark fisheries and commodities have created major challenges for the
Indonesian government to overcome. This chapter will discuss the data availability,
observation results and enumerations, as well as evaluation on the accuracy of aforementioned
data sources.
5.1 Data Collection Methods For National Shark Fisheries Statistics

Fishery data collection is completed by using several methods and steps (Fahmi, 2007).
The first data collection is performed in several villages, which are selected as examples. Data
are recorded on the number of boats, fishing gears, and catches per fish species category. Field
workers or enumerators record the number of catch landed in fish landing centers or Fish
Auction Centers (Tempat Pelelangan Ikan, TPI). Afterwards, the enumerators estimate the total
number of catches in one month in their respective locations, by completing three steps:
1. Total catch estimation from all fish landing centers in one day, obtained by converting the
average of daily catch, which itself is acquired from several sample fish landing locations,
then multiplied by the number of fish landing centers at an administration level (e.g.
regencies);
2. Total catch data per week from every region (regency) are acquired by multiplying total
catch estimate for a single day with the number of days in a week;
3. The total numbers of catch per region (regency) in a year are obtained by merging and
adapting the weekly estimates, which are acquired from every region.
Catch data, the number of vessels and fishing gears are also obtained through sampling
in several small-scale fisheries centers in each region (regency) per three months. Total data
from three months are acquired by accumulating and converting the data from aforementioned
110
sampling locations, toward the total number of landing centers in the region and on the number
of registered fishing vessels. The data accumulated during three months are then compiled into
trimonthly regional data, which are then reported to the level of provinces.
At the province level, fisheries data are obtained by accumulating and interpolating data
acquired from regencies below each province, which are then compiled into provincial fishery
statistics data. The data interpolation at the level of provinces is considered if one or more
regencies fail to submit the fisheries data on schedule, or if they completely fail to submit at
all. Lastly, data from every province is accumulated and re-interpolated at the national level.
All finalized, analyzed data are then published as the Indonesian Fisheries Statistics book.
Currently, the Indonesian Fisheries Statistics is the only official publication that contains
data regarding national fisheries production in general. Available data and statistics in the
publication are used to investigate positive or negative trends for certain catches in a given
maritime territory. The data are also frequently analyzed for studies on stock availabilities in a
region, whether the stocks in question are well-conserved or have undergone declines.
5.2 Regional Shark Catch Data

The level of data accuracy in Indonesian Fisheries Statistics may increase if provided
with uniform and representative supporting data from each administrative division. The data
collection for shark catches in a division, such as the regency, may be performed monthly in
local landing or auction centers. The recording of landed catches may also be performed daily
by on-site workers or by specifically tasked enumerators. The number of shark catches in a
region, especially in regions known as shark production centers more or less illustrates the local
shark fisheries conditions. Several shark production centers in Indonesia have applied
representative and well-organized data recording systems for shark catches. The regencies of
Cilacap and Palabuhanratu are two shark landing centers with better catch recording systems
compared to other regions in the nation. The recording of shark landings are performed by
fisheries officers on a daily basis in Oceanic Fisheries Harbor (Pelabuhan Perikanan Samudera,
PPS) of Cilacap and Fisheries Harbor of Nusantara, Palabuhanratu (Pelabuhan Perikanan
Nusantara, PPN), prior to monthly compilation. In this book, the shark catch data in both
locations are based on recordings performed from 2002 to 2011 (Cilacap) and from 2003 to
2008 for Palabuhanratu region. The catch data are considered as representative for the
management zone WPP 573.
111
Catch fluctuations notwithstanding, in the recent decade shark catches in both locations
generally have shown decline for more than 50%. Shark catches landed in Cilacap in 2002
reached 374.6 tons with average catches per month weighing 31.2 tons. However, landings
decreased to 195.9 tons in 2011 with average catches per month weighing 16.3 tons, with the
lowest values in 2010 at 31.8 tons in total, with monthly average of 2.6 tons. In Palabuhanratu,
the average monthly shark catches reached 8.1 tons in 2003, however within a five-year period
(2004-2008) the average catches decreased to 4.1 tons per month, or 51% decline (Figure 5-1).
Production (Tons)
Figure 5.1 Average Monthly Catches by Shark Species in Palabuhanratu and Cilacap.
Moreover, shark catch data in PPS Cilacap and PPN Palabuhanratu have been sorted by
species since 2002, which results in more detailed data than those in Indonesian Fisheries
Statistics. Each shark species is sorted by its local name, followed by its scientific and English
names. Some individuals are identifiable to the level of species. For example Alopias pelagicus
is known as hiu tikus in Cilacap and hiu monyet in Palabuhanratu, whereas Alopias
superciliosus is known as hiu pahitan in Cilacap and hiu lutung or cucut lutung in
Palabuhanratu (both hiu and cucut are generic terms applicable to all true sharks). The local
names of several common shark species and their respective scientific names are displayed in
the following table.
112
Table 5.1 Local names for commonly landed shark species in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu
Local Name
Scientific Name English Name
Cilacap Palabuhanratu
Alopias pelagicus Smalltooth thresher shark Cucut tikus Cucut monyet
Alopias superciliosus Bigeyed thresher shark Cucut pahitan Cucut lutung
Carcharhinus longimanus Oceanic whitetip shark Cucut koboy Cucut koboy
Sphyrna lewini Scalloped hammerhead shark Cucut martil Cucut capingan
Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako shark Cucut cakilan, mako Cucut anjing
Prionace glauca Blue shark Cucut selendang Cucut lalaek, cucut aer
Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger shark Cucut buas Cucut omas
Several shark species bear the same local names, and as such they are classified into more
general groups. For instance, the name hiu lanjaman or cucut lanjaman commonly refers to
Carcharhinus falciformis in Cilacap, however the same name in Palabuhanratu refers not only
to C. falciformis, but also for C. brevipinna, C. limbatus, and C. sorrah. Young C. falcifromis
individuals are called hiu or cucut aron in Palabuhanratu, a name shared by C. amblyrhynchos.
Other local names that represent more than one species are hiu super (Cilacap) for "spot-tail
sharks" which may refer to three different species: Carcharhinus limbatus, C. sorrah and C.
brevipinna. Additionally, the name hiu botol may refer to any shark from Families
Centrophoridae, Squalidae and Somniosidae (Order Squaliformes), which are deep sea sharks
commonly exploited for their oil-rich livers.
5.2.1 Alopias pelagicus

Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) is locally called hiu tikus or cucut tikus in
Cilacap, and cucut monyet in Palabuhanratu. The species is the most frequently caught species
(in terms of biomass) as bycatches in southern waters of Java by Cilacapese fishers. In
Palabuhanratu, the species constitutes only a minor percentage of total catches compared to
other shark species. In general, a decline of A. pelagicus catches had occurred from 2002 to
2007. Average monthly catch for A. pelagicus in Cilacap was 18.91 tons/month in 2002,
whereas in 2007 the value decreased to 7.1 tons/month (Figure 5-2a). In Palabuhanratu, the
average monthly catch relatively fluctuated, with a slight increase from 0.56 tons/month in
2003 to 0.87 tons/month in 2008 (Figure 5-2b).
113
Average monthly production (tons)
a)
b)
Figure 5.2 Average Monthly Catches for Alopias pelagicus in (a) Cilacap And (b)
Palabuhanratu
If observed as a whole, A. pelagicus catches appeared to fluctuate with similar patterns

within a six-year period (2002-2007), however there is a visible trend of decline during the
period. The seasonal peak for A. pelagicus catches lasted from June to August every year.
Landed shark catches in both Cilacap and Palabuhanratu was influenced by several factors,
including the number of operating vessels, location of fishing grounds and weather conditions
during fishing operations. Conversely, several other shark species caught by pelagic tuna nets
did not show significant monthly fluctuations.
The fluctuation of thresher catches obtained by tuna gillnets operating in Indian Ocean
is shown in Figure 5-3. It is evident that fluctuation patterns for the species tend to be similar
every year, with catches increasing from May, then declining from October to December.
114
Periods from January to April is marked by the absence of landed catches, which were due to
the harsh weather at sea. Such periods are the peak of raining season, which is often
accompanied by gales and high waves, and may prevent fishers from accomplishing their
operations.
Production (kg)
Figure 5.3Monthly catch fluctuations for pelagic threshers (Alopias pelagicus) caught by tuna
gillnets (2002 - 2007)
Average catches were generally increasing from June to October (Cilacap) and from
June to December (Palabuhanratu), and declined in other months (Figure 5.4). Based on the
data, one may conclude that A. pelagicus catches in southern seas of Java depend on seasonal
and hydrological conditions. The period from June to August is the eastern monsoon season,
when winds and waves are mild, whereas sea conditions during the transitional season from
August to September may fluctuate yet not completely prohibitive for fishing. However,
catches may decline drastically as western monsoon season begins (December to January), a
season characterized by strong winds and waves in the southern coasts of Java, which then
restrict fishers from operating.
115
5.2.2 Alopias superciliosus
Alopias superciliosus, the bigeye thresher, is also known in Cilacap as hiu or cucut
pahitan and cucut lutung in Palabuhanratu. The species is more rarely caught than A. pelagicus.
Based on monthly catch data from 2002 to 2011, catches tended to fluctuate in general for both
Cilacap and Palabuhanratu. The average catch range in Cilacap is 2 - 5 tons/month. The high
value of production in 2006 was more due to the exceptional quantities obtained in August
2006. On the other hand, monthly average catch for A. superciliosus in Palabuhanratu ranged
from 0.1 - 1 tons/month, and even completely absent in 2008 (Figure 5-5).
Figure 5.4 Monthly catches of Alopias pelagicus landed in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu
116
a)
b)
Figure 5.5 Average monthly catches for Alopias superciliosus in (a) Cilacap and (b)
Palabuhanratu.
Similar to A. pelagicus, the largest numbers of catch for the species are obtained from
July to November every year. In general, the average catch for the species showed decline in
both Cilacap and Palabuhanratu. The large numbers of catch in 2006 for both locations had
caused fluctuations on the yearly number of catches (Figure 5-6).
117
Figure 5.6 Monthly catches Alopias superciliosus in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu
Both Alopias pelagicus and A. superciliosus possess similar biological and behavioral
characteristics, including hunting in schools and cooperatively corralling their prey with tails.
Their diets consist of pelagic fishes and squids that live close to the ocean surface. Both species
are commonly caught by pelagic gillnets usually used by fishers to catch tunas and skipjack
tunas in Indian Ocean, although they are occasionally caught by tuna gillnets and shark
longlines (Dharmadi et al., 2012). Pillai and Honma (1978) reported that average catches of
pelagic sharks in Indian Ocean, including Alopias, ranged from 0.1 to 5.0 individuals per hook.
Alopias pelagicus and A. superciliosus are frequently caught by pelagic tuna nets under
strangled or constricted conditions, as the tail lengths exceed that of their bodies.
5.2.3 Sphyrna lewini

Hammerhead sharks commonly refer to sharks from genus Sphyrna, however the most
abundantly caught species is Sphyrna lewini, which is considered as the most common species
in Indonesian waters. Fishers in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu have the same local name for
hammerhead sharks, which is cucut caping.
In general, average hammerhead catches landed in Cilacap have undergone drastic
declines from 2002 to 2011. The average catches in 2002 reached 2.08 tons/month, however
118
the monthly catch only ranged around 0.5 tons from 2004 to 2011. The average monthly catches
in Palabuhanratu tended to fluctuate, although in general they showed declines as well. On
average, the monthly catches in 2003 reached 0.57 tons/month. Although there was a brief
increase to 0.80 tons/month in however the number continued to decline to 0.18 tons/month in
2008 (Figure 5-7b).
a)
b)
Figure 5.7 Average monthly catches for Sphyrna lewini in a) Cilacap and b) Palabuhanratu.
119
Figure 5.8 Monthly catches for Sphyrna lewini in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu.
5.2.4 Carcharhinus longimanus

The oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, which is referred locally as hiu
koboy, is one of several oceanic shark species. The species is only found in offshore waters
beyond the continental shelf. Oceanic whitetips are easily recognizable by its distinctively
rounded dorsal, pectoral and caudal fins, and the white tip of its first dorsal fin. In the southern
seas of Java, the species is rather uncommonly caught, thus its relatively low monthly catches.
Different from other species fished in the area, in general the monthly catch of ocean whitetips
in Cilacap tended to fluctuate from 2002 to 2011, however the peak of production occurred in
2007 (Figure 5-9a). In Palabuhanratu, an increase in catches occurred in 2003 to 2004, then
gradually declining (Figure 5-9b).
a)
120
b)
Figure 5.9 Average monthly catches for Carcharhinus longimanus in (a) Cilacap and (b)
Palabuhanratu
Based on monthly catch data, it is apparent that the high number of catches in 2007 in
Cilacap were more due to relatively higher catches in February to May. The highest number of
catch for the species in southern seas of Java was recorded in 2007, with the total catch was
0.59 tons in April for Cilacap and 0.55 tons in October for Palabuhanratu (Figure 5-10). The
oceanic whitetip is frequently caught by tuna longlines operating in southern waters of Java.
121
Figure 5.10 Monthly catches for Carcharhinus longimanus in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu
5.2.5 Isurus oxyrinchus
Mako sharks are oceanic sharks with high migration capacities. There are two known
species of makos in Indonesia, Isurus oxyrinchus and I. paucus. The shortfin mako, I.
oxyrinchus, is the most frequently encountered species in Indonesian waters, characterized by
its shorter pectoral fins and a more pointed snout. In Cilacap, I. oxyrinchus is known locally as
cucut cakilan, and in Palabuhanratu as cucut anjing.
Average monthly catches for I. oxyrinchus in southern waters of Java are relatively low,
ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 tons per month in CIlacap and 0.05 to 0.4 tons in Palabuhanratu.
Catches obtained for this species fluctuated highly, thus it is difficult to determine appropriate
fisheries trends. The low number of catches in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu is caused by the
operating fishing gear and vessels, which ranged from small to medium. In most cases, mako
sharks are bycatches from tuna fisheries or other large pelagics, such as marlins and sailfishes.
The average monthly catches for shortfin makos in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu had yet to show
substantial declines for the species, although trends from 2006 to 2008 in Palabuhanratu may
appear to suggest so (Figure 5-11).
a)
122
b)
Figure 5.11 Monthly catches for Isurus oxyrinchus in Cilacap (a) and Palabuhanratu (b)
A more detailed monthly catches dataset revealed that peak mako catches occurred in
different months every year, for both Cilacap and Palabuhanratu. However in general, highest
catches were still acquired from June to Novemeber, both in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu.
Relatively abundant catches in Palabuhanratu in 2006 were more due to the high number of
catches in certain months of the year (Figure 5-12).
Figure 5.12 Monthly catches for Isurus oxyrinchus in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu
123
5.3 Data for Field-observed Trends in Shark Catches
The data collections for shark catches in Indonesia, aside from being performed
officially by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries through fisheries statistics
documentations, are also performed by other stakeholders, such as non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) specializing in conservation issues. Such NGOs include: World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) Indonesia and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Furthermore, the
Directorate for Area and Fish Species Conservation, Maritime General Directorate for Coasts
and Small Islands also perform data collection and monitoring for a number of shark species
vulnerable to the threat of extinction. The collection and monitoring are accomplished in two
fish landing centers, Tanjungluar, West Nusa Tenggara and Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara.
5.3.1 WWF Observational Data

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Indonesia has several programs involved in the
documentation of shark catches and the monitoring of certain shark species, as an effort to
provide foundations for protection and sustainable management of shark resources. The
organization has accomplished the documentation of sharks commonly caught by fishers, by
collecting data on body sizes, fishing locations and treatments on obtained catches, all
performed by onboard observers. The activity had been performed from 2006 to 2012 with
onboard observations lasting from 15 to 30 days. The documentation of hauled shark catches
by WWF observers had followed the standards established by the organization. Each observers
were provided by worksheets consisting of boat name, size and fishing gear, position and time
of fishing, species and size of catches, the treatments given to the caught fishes, and field
photographs.
Based on WWF's observer documentations in the field, many fished sharks underwent
finning, where the fins are retained and the rest of their bodies discarded to the sea. Observation
results from tuna longline boats operating in Benoa, Bali and Bitung, North Sulawesi showed
that a majority of caught sharks were finned. A minority of shark catches were variously taken
whole, decapitated, livers and fins isolated, or released due to small size. Shark catch data from
Benoa in 2006 showed an increase in percentage of sharks discarded to the sea after the fins
were isolated. The increase ranged between 41 to 100% from total sharks caught (Figure 5-13).
In comparison, the percentage of discarded sharks in Bitung were highly variable, from 0 to
94%. The finning process depends on the number of target catch. If tunas were caught in
124
abundance, then only the fins were retained from most sharks. Conversely, if target catch is
relatively low in number, then only few or none of the sharks were finned.
Figure 5.13 Percentage of finned shark catches (in %)
The species identification by onboard WWF observers is based on the standardized

classification schemes established by WWF in a guide provided for the observer. The naming
system is based on common names, which are associated with specific codes for each species.
Several instances of the code-based naming system are depicted in Table 5-2.
Table 5.2 Shark classification system for WWF observers
Code Common Names Scientific/Family Names
HB Hiu biru, hiu air, blue shark Prionace glauca

Hiu coklat, hiu pasir, sandbar shark, brown
HC Carcharhinus spp
shark, thickskin shark
TS Hiu tikus, hiu ekor panjang, thresher sharks Alopias spp.
HMR Hiu martil, hammerhead sharks Sphyrna spp.
HM Hiu mako, mako sharks Isurus spp.
Centrophoridae, Somniosidae,
BS Hiu botol, dogfishes
Pseudocarchariidae
125
LS Hiu korea, leopard shark Stegostoma fasciatum
BLS Hiu hitam, black sharks
H Hiu lainnya
In general, the number of shark individuals caught by both Benoan and Bitungese
fishers showed declines since year 2008 in Benoa and 2009 in Bitung. From the catch
composition, sandbar sharks and blue sharks both contributed substantially in the Benoan
catches since 2008. On the other hand, threshers, dogfishes and leopard sharks contributed
more in the preceding years. In comparison, sandbar and blue sharks dominated Bitungese
catches since 2008, whereas leopard sharks contributed only in 2007 and 2009 (Figure 5-14).
a)
Number of Individuals
b)
Number of Individuals
Figure 5.14 Catch number composition (number of individuals) per shark species by Benoan
(a) and Bitungese (b) fishers
126
The sizes of shark catches vary with species. The WWF observer data suggested that
sharks caught by Beoan fishers were smaller than those caught by Bitungese fishers. Sharks
from genus Carcharhinus caught by Benoan fishers in 2002 to 2012 had body lengths ranging
from 50 to 195 cm, whereas the same taxa caught by Bitungese fishers within the last six years
had a size range of 40 to 280cm (Figure 5-15).
Total Length (cm)

Total Length (cm)
Figure 5.15 Total size range for sharks from genus Carcharhinus fished by Benoan and
Bitungese fishers in period 2006-2012
Similar propensities were found in other shark species, such as blue sharks (Prionace
glauca) and threshers (Alopias spp.). The average size range of sharks caught by Bitungese
fishers were relatively larger and more varied than those caught by Benoan fishers. The blue
shark P. glauca caught by Benoan fishers only had a size range of 100 to 200 cm every year.
This means that Benoan fishers generally catch blue sharks at very immature sizes, as
individuals of the species mature at sizes above 2 meters (White et al., 2006b). On the other
hand, blue sharks caught by Bitungese fishers varied from immature to mature individuals with
lengths above 3 meters (Figure 5-16).
127
Total Length (cm)
Total Length (cm)

Total Length (cm)
Total Length (cm)
Figure 5.16 Size range of Prionace glauca and Alopias spp. caught by Benoan and Bitungese
fishers in period 2007-2012
Furthermore, similar instances were found for sharks of genus Alopias. Size range of 1
to 1.5 meters is the range for juvenile and immature sharks, given that the tail length is almost
the same as the body length. Threshers are known to reach maturity at around 2.5 meters. This
implies that all sharks from genus Alopias caught by Benoan fishers were immature
indiivduals. On the other hand, Alopias spp. catches by Bitungese fishers varied more highly
in size, ranging from immature to mature individuals. A notable instance was in 2012, when
average individuals caught in the area were large, mature individuals.
A number of concerns regarding the accuracy levels of the WWF datasets need to be
addressed. First, the data accuracy level in determining fish species depends on the ability of
individual observers in identification. Errors may happen during code entries, especially for
128
species with high similarities with other taxa. Requiems, Carcharhinus spp. (Carcharhinidae)
possess some similarities with sharks from families Triakidae and Hemigaleidae. Such
identification errors may be recognizable from the recorded individual sizes. For instance,
fishes from genus Carcharhinus, which are commonly caught by longlines, frequently possess
sizes above 100cm. Therefore it is anomalous if recorded data suggest individuals of around
40cm in length, which are considered as juveniles. Based on their life histories, sharks often
occupy a certain habitat at similar body sizes. Juveniles or small individuals are more abundant
in coastal waters, or living in habitats separate from large, mature individuals to avoid
cannibalism.
The second concern that may occur with the observer is the issue of carefulness. This
is due to WWF observers being tasked to record all caught marine animals, including fishes,
turtles, cetaceans to seabirds, which may result in mistaken code entries for certain species. As
an example, some shark catches were possibly categorized as seabird or turtle catches. Such
mistakes are detectable from the accompanying catch notes on each data sheet. Therefore, it
is necessary for data reviewers to be careful if there are such errors inherited from the field data
collectors.
In general however, the data entry method by using onboard field observers is among
the most accurate method in elucidating information on the number of catches obtained, size
ranges of catches, and the location of fishing grounds, which may be used to predict catch per
unit effort (CPUE) and population stock estimation in certain bodies of water. During the
period 2006-2012, there were four observers on the fishing boats for the data collection, and
each was on duty for 2 to 3 months.
5.3.2 Enumerator Data from Fish Landing Locations in Kupang and Lombok
Data recordings by enumerators have been accomplished in many fish landing
locations. Often, the catch recording by enumerators tend to be focused on the weights of
catches, sorted by the common or local names. This process of catch weight enumeration is
part of a study on the yields of fisheries. In 2012, Directorate for Area and Fish Species
Conservation (Direktorat Konservasi Kawasan dan Jenis Ikan, KKJI) and Maritime General
Directorate for Coasts and Small Islands (Ditjen Kelautan, Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil,
KP3K) specifically employed enumerators in Kupang and Tanjungluar, Lombok to gather data
on shark species whose populations are vulnerable to extinction. Each enumerator in question
had received a short course on the identification of shark species that are targeted for the
129
program. The documentation was focused on shark species that have been suggested for
Appendix II in CITES: Carcharhinus obscurus, C. plumbeus, C. longimanus, Sphyrna lewini,
S. mokarran, and S. zygaena. Moreover, some prohibited species were added based on a
resolution by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), which included Alopias pelagicus,
A. superciliosus and A. vulpinus. The following are discussions on shark catches from both
locations.
5.3.2.1 Kupang
The recording of shark catches by enumerators in Kupang had been performed from
June to October 2012. The recording was performed daily in three fish landing locations, which
were PPI Oeba, PPI Namosain and Kupang Fisheries. Data gathered from the locations were
including numbers and total sizes of program-targeted sharks, as well as the location of the
catches and operating fishing gears.
Based on interviews with local fishers, fishing gears commonly used were pelagic longlines
and fishing rods. The fishing grounds covered waters in the south of Kupang, the region of
Barate, and areas at the border between Indonesia and East Timor. Sharks landed in Kupang
comprised of decapitated carcasses with separated fins, although sometimes whole carcasses
were acquired. This depends on the catch at the time. Few caught sharks might result in whole
carcasses being landed, whereas abundant catches might result in only fins and some meat
portions being retained. Catches that exceed the carrying capacities of the boats may result in
the retention of fins, with the rest of the bodies discarded to the sea.
Species that were targeted for recording are usually not captured by fishing rods. For
this type of gear, commonly fished species are Carcharhinus falciformis and C. amblyrhynchos.
All eight species that are targeted for enumeration in Kupang are captured by pelagic longlines.
However, due to the fragmented samples, the accuracy of the species identification was slightly
doubted. Therefore, the data were classified into the level of families to minimize errors. From
a 5 month-period of data collection, the highest number of catches for Carcharhinus spp. was
occurring in September, with a slight trend in increase from July to September (Figure 5-17a).
As for Alopias spp., catches were only obtained in July, September and October with only one
to two individuals (Figure 5-17b). For Sphyrna spp., the highest catch occurred also in
September, after a decreasing trend in the number of catch from June to August (Figure 5-17c).
130
Number (Individuals)
Figure 5.17 The number of shark catches for (a) Carcharhinus spp., (b) Alopias spp., and (c)
Sphyrna spp. caught by Kupangese fishers from June to October 2012
Based on the catch sizes, pelagic longline fishers usually obtained sharks with total
lengths between 100 to 220cm (Carcharhinus spp.), 200 to 350cm (Alopias spp.), and 150 to
250cm (Sphyrna spp.). In comparison, rod-using fishers tended to catch smaller sharks with
more varied species. The total length of Carcharhinus spp. caught by rod fishers ranged from
60 to 200cm.
Figure 5.18 Pelagic longline fishers catching sharks onboard, in waters around Kupang
5.3.2.2 Lombok
The recording of shark catches by enumerators in Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, had
been performed from June to October 2012. The enumeration was performed daily in the fish
landing centers of Tanjungluar, which is considered as the centers of shark production in
Indonesia. Data collected from the location have the same variables as data collected from
131
Kupang, which include the number of catches, total lengths of studied sharks, locations of
fishing grounds and the operating fishing gears.
Figure 5.19 Enumerators performing measurements in Tanjungluar, East Lombok.
Species-level identification in this location was not a significant problem as most sharks
were landed as whole carcasses. As such, the study needed enumerators who were capable of
identifying specimens to the level of species. Based on the recordings by field enumerators,
genera Alopias and Sphyrna were identified to the level of families, although the measurements
of each individual were performed at the level of species. This is due to A. pelagicus being the
most frequently captured species of the former genus, whereas A. superciliosus was recorded
only once. As for Sphyrna, S. lewini was the most commonly encountered species. Other
species of the genus that was found is Sphyrna mokarran, which was encountered only once,
with total lengths of 299 cm. For sharks from genus Carcharhinus, only two species were
recorded, C. obscurus and C. plumbeus.
Based on the enumeration, the highest number of Alopias catch occurred in August,
however Sphyrna numbered as the lowest catch in the same month. In other months, catch
trends for both Alopias and Sphyrna were relatively the same (Figure 5-20).
132
Figure 5.20 Number of shark catches from (a) Alopias spp. and (b) Sphyrna spp. by
Tanjungluar fishers from June to October 2012
Based on the sizes of the catch, it is apparent that Sphyrna lewini had a largest size
range, from 89 to 310cm, with average size being 225cm. This shows that most hammerhead
sharks caught by fishers in Lombok were mature individuals. Similar instances were recorded
for other sharks, which were often caught as adults (Figure 5-21).
Total Length (cm)
Figure 5.21 Size range (↔) and average sizes (●) of several shark species caught by
Tanjungluar fishers from June to October 2012
133
5.4 Catch Data From Study
Results from studies performed by research bodies, universities, and NGOs are
considered supporting data in shark fisheries, and may be used as sources of information on
the status of Indonesian shark fisheries. For example, shark catch data acquired by Indonesian
research organizations and collaborative programs with international researchers are frequently
obtained from the fish auction center (Tempat Pelelangan Ikan, TPI) of Tanjungluar. The
frequent use of the location as study sites was due to the lack of official and routine
documentations, as performed in the well-documented centers of Cilacap and Palabuhanratu.
Studies conducted in Tanjungluar from 2001 to 2011 yielded average daily catch data per
month, as seen in Table 5-3.
Table 5.3 Average daily shark catches landed per month in Tanjungluar, East Lombok, using
10 years of market survey data (2001-2011)
Although the numbers of surveyed days differed between months, it may be estimated
from average catches that the shark fishing season lasted from July to October. This is indicated
by the high number of average daily catches for sharks in the period. Similar fishing periods
are known from documentations in Cilacap and Palabuhanratu.
134
Therefore, it may be concluded that the optimal shark fishing season in the southern
waters of Indonesia generally lasts from July to October every year. The period is marked by a
mild weather that allows traditional fishers to gain substantial catches.
5.5 Evaluation of Supporting Data for Shark Fisheries

The accuracy of catch or fisheries production data is determined by a number of factors.
The first factor is the ability of observers in identifying fish species. Mistakes in the
identification and classification process may create an apparently high production numbers for
certain fish species, or even reducing or removing the production values of other species and
groups. The limited availability of guide books suitable in identifying sharks and the limited
number of human resources capable of proper identification have become a major factor that
prevented accurate data collection. Other influential factor is the data entry methods. The
recording of shark catch data usually uses weight unit per catch, however it is rarely completed
by sizes and number of individuals. As a result, it is difficult to correlate the catch data with
the abundance of certain species in a location. Furthermore, the catch data per management
zone is based on the number of catches landed in certain locations, and may create bias if the
origins of the catches are unknown. Explanations of those factors are further discussed in the
following sections.
At this moment, the Indonesian fisheries statistics data is a national reference for annual
fisheries productions. Many have doubted the accuracy levels of the fisheries statistics data,
especially for shark fisheries data (Dudley & Harris, 1987; Bonfil, 2002). The Food and
Agriculture Organization of United Nations estimated at least 90,000 sharks captured in
Indonesian waters without ever being recorded in official documents.
The extent of Indonesian maritime territories and the high number of fish landing
locations across Indonesia are the most conspicuous physical obstacles, and have rendered
integrated and timely data collection difficult. Each region bears its own set of facilities and
conditions, which resulted in divergent data accessibilities. As an example, it is very difficult
to control and document shark catches landed in small islands in eastern Indonesia. Accessing
the locations might be arduous, coupled by very limited data recording facilities and human
resources. Other problems that are often experienced are technical problems that may be
improved by each year.
The available catch data is currently based on the fishery resources landed in particular
locations or regions, in a unit of weight or biomass. However, the recording of catches in the
135
unit of weight may be less suitable for the determination of fish abundance in a given location.
The abundance of fish stocks in a location is usually determined by the number of individuals
per unit of area.
Based on the five-group catch classification set in 2002, the most frequently caught
shark groups are generally the threshers and requiems. The number of catches is usually
measured in unit of weight, which does not reflect the number of individuals. In general,
threshers and requiems are caught at relatively large body sizes (exceeding 1 meter in length).
In comparison, hammerheads are occasionally caught by longlines at adult sizes, although
immature and juvenile sizes were caught gillnets, prawn nets, trawls and Arad nets operating
in coastal waters. In contrast, dogfishes are caught by deepwater longlines in deep locations, at
sizes less than 1 meter. Therefore, high numbers of fisheries productions in a given location do
not necessarily correlate with high local abundances. Likewise, low production numbers in a
location may not imply low abundances. For instance, the WPP 573 (southern waters of Java)
had high values for average fisheries productions, which were possibly caused by the locally
caught sharks frequently weighing above 50 kilograms per individual. On the other hand,
sharks dominated in WPP 715 (Sulawesi Sea) were dominated by relatively small dogfishes
(less than 1 meter), and might bear a maximum weight of two to three kilograms per individual,
resulting in comparably lower catch production values than in WPP 573. Thus, if compared
based on the individual abundance, then catches from WPP 715 may not necessarily be lesser
than in WPP 573, or even possibly higher. Determining the fundamentals of fisheries
management in certain locations cannot be solely dependent on the number of catches, and
should also take species, size and reproductive biology of the catches into account.
A number of fisheries management zones are believed to be endowed with high fishery
and biodiversity potentials. However, data from Indonesian Fisheries Statistics suggest that
these areas had low numbers of shark productions. Such instances are possibly due to several
factors, including distant fishing grounds inaccessible to artisanal fishers, difficulties in
marketing, and low exploitation levels. Both large distances and severe conditions in offshore
locations are major obstacles for traditional shark fishers. Indonesian shark fisheries are
primarily enacted by traditional fishers, who are using small vessels and simple gears, and
therefore fishing grounds cannot be located too far away from coastal areas. This situation
creates less than optimal levels of exploitation in such areas. Furthermore, the inadequate
transportation and marketing facilities in a region may result in the local fisheries production
being marketed in other, better-equipped regions. On the other hand, fishers from other regions
136
may be equipped furnished with a more complete range of fishing gears and larger fishing
vessels, and are able to operate in areas more distant and less explored by the owners of the
territory. This may result in the local resources being exploited or even depleted by foreign
fishers. Such conditions have produced the low numbers of shark fisheries productions in
certain regions, a situation exacerbated when enumerators fail to track the origins of the landed
fishes. Hence, it is not unusual to encounter management zones that are poor in shark resources
or even overfished, and yet appeared to produce high numbers of catches that may continue to
climb every year.
The amount of fisheries production of a region, as provided in the national fisheries statistics,
is based on the number of catches landed in the region. However, a major flaw of the
methodology is the absence of verifiable information on the origins of the catches. It is not
uncommon for catches fished in other localities being declared as catches indigenous to the
region in question. Such mistakes may become evident if species that are not native to certain
locations are being recorded as originating from the locations. An actual instance of such error
has been recorded for shark fisheries production from WPP 712 (Java Sea). The Java Sea is a
shallow sea with a depth range of 30 to 60 meters. Despite this, shark catches data in the
national fisheries statistics showed that dogfishes and thresher sharks predominated catches
obtained from the management zone. Ecologically, both thresher sharks and dogfishes do not
usually inhabit shallow waters such as the Java Sea. Dogfishes (Order Squaliformes) are
typically found in continental slopes at depths exceeding 60 meters, and are consequently the
group is restricted to southern waters of Indonesia, as well as other slope habitats in the eastern
and northern regions of the archipelago. In comparison, threshers (Family Alopiidae) are
pelagic, migrating sharks that are normally found in open seas. The presence of threshers are
normally highly correlated with pathways of tuna fisheries. The family is frequently caught by
tuna gillnets, longlines and purse seines as bycatches. Their presence in the Java Sea is a
possibility, however the sea is not part of migration paths of large pelagics due to its current
patterns and other hydrological characteristics.
Throughout a shark bioecology study conducted since early 2000s in the northern coasts
of Java, there has yet to be any instances of thresher sharks being landed from the Java Sea.
Threshers landed in landing locations in the north of Java, such as those in Jakarta for instance,
are primarily fishes sent from Palabuhanratu, Benoa, and Cilacap, all of which are operating in
the southern waters of Java. Therefore, the shark production data in the fisheries statistics that
are based on regions (provinces) or zones (WPPs), are not immediately usable for justification
137
in determining stock conditions in a region. One may consider the Natuna Sea (WPP 711) as
being underexploited in terms of shark resources due to its low production values compared to
other zones adjacent to Java (WPP 712, WPP 573), however it is possible in reality the former
area is already exploited due to large boats from Java operating in the area. Thus, it seems
imperative that information on the origins of shark catches be included in the national fisheries
statistics in the future.
As a consequence, trained and competent human resources acting as regional
enumerators or field observers are very much needed. Every data collector is required to have
species identification skills and sufficient knowledge on shark bioecology in order to produce
more valid, accurate and realistic data. Additionally, there needs to be a standardized form for
catch landings that includes the origins and size ranges of catches, thus avoiding factual errors
already discussed. On the other hand, it might be reasonable to incentivize the aforementioned
taskforce by rewards or pay rises, to motivate their performances. Regular training and
monitoring programs may also be needed to maintain the data quality in every region.
5.6. Developments in Indonesian Shark Research

Researchers have been studying sharks in Indonesia since the 19th century, especially
those focusing on biodiversity studies. The first fish samples were performed in Waigeo Island
by European scientists using French vessels from 1818 to 1826. The first shark samples
collected from the expedition were identified as Carcharhinus melanopterus. Subsequent
expeditions were conducted by Dutch researchers until 1945, and other international
expeditions throughout the 20th century (Allen & Adrim, 2003).
At the end of the 20th century, more national and international expeditions were
conducted, such as the Joint Eastern Tropical Indian Ocean Fishery Survey (JETINDOFISH)
in the 1980s and KARUBAR expedition in 1991. Some new discoveries and shark collections
were achieved during those expeditions (White et al., 2006b). Studies that are focused on shark
and ray species native to Indonesia were first conducted from 2001 to 2006 through
collaboration between Indonesia and Australia, funded by the Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). The cooperation was continued in 2008 to 2011,
which was focused on shark fisheries in Tanjungluar, East Lombok. In period of 2008-2009 a
shark and ray identification program was performed in waters surrounding Kalimantan, in
addition to the identification of ray parasites. The program was a collaboration between P2O-
LIPI, P4-KSI, CSIRO, University of Connecticut and University of Kansas. Several other
138
studies were also conducted by research bodies such as LIPI (2003-2007), the Marine Fisheries
Research Center (Balai Riset Perikanan Laut, BRPL) since 2002, and other independent
research programs until now.
The diversity of shark species in Indonesian waters continued to increase from time to
time, following subsequent studies on shark biodiversity in regions across Indonesia. The first
publication that contains complete data on Indonesian sharks were published in 2006 by White
et. al., titled Economically Important Sharks and Rays in Indonesia. The publication, an
identification guidebook, recorded 78 species of sharks that are present in Indonesia. Other
related publications that were published later on also contributed to the numbers of recorded
shark species in Indonesia (Adrim & Fahmi, 2007; Dharmadi et al., 2007; Fahmi & Adrim,
2007; Dharmadi & Fahmi, 2008; Widodo & Mahiswara, 2008, Dharmadi et al., 2009, White
& Last, 2006; White et al., 2009). A compilation from various literature on Indonesian shark
diversity was published by Fahmi (2010), who recorded the number of total shark species
present in Indonesia, which included 109 species, with some notes on endemics and species
with restricted distributions.
Fahmi and Sumadhiharga (2007) also recorded the size range of commonly landed
sharks in several landing locations in Indonesia. One of the recorded species, the hammerhead
(Sphyrna lewini), is known to be caught at immature or juvenile sizes in many landing centers
such as Kedonganan in Bali, Cilacap, Palabuhanratu, Lampung and Bengkulu. More than 50%
of hammerheads fished in Indonesian waters from 2002 to 2004 were immature individuals.
Fahmi and Sumadhiharga (2007) also identified several factors that may have created the
preponderance of the fished juveniles, including the types of fishing gear used, sizes and
capacities of fishing vessels, and fishing grounds. Most traditional Indonesian fishers fish in
coastal locations and at relatively shallow depths, wherein many juvenile sharks live and
occupy the habitats as nursery areas. Those factors may have underpinned the high frequencies
of juvenile shark catches in Indonesia.
5.7 Improvement Efforts for Supporting Data on Indonesian Shark Fisheries

The numerous problems associated with the minimal supporting data on Indonesian
shark fisheries are generally caused by the suboptimal coordination and collaboration of
stakeholders, from the government, companies, research institutions, social organizations and
environmentalists. The first step required to improve this situation is by designing legal
protection that regulate the management of shark fisheries, including the management on data
139
availability. In general, legal protections that regulates the issue are yet to be available, however
it is already implied in Act No. 31 of year 2004 on Fisheries (Undang-Undang Nomor 31 tahun
2004), as had been modified by Act No. 45 of year 2009 (Undang-Undang Nomor 45 tahun
2009). The management of a resource implicitly includes the management on the availability
of supporting data, however that has yet to be optimally implemented. Afterwards, there needs
to be a consolidation and cooperative efforts between stakeholders in order to create data banks
capable of storing and presenting data, which represent the actual conditions of Indonesian
shark fisheries. As a support for accurate data centers, it is important to provide a good system
with standardized operational procedures, on the data collection methods and qualification of
capable taskforces. A first step is by creating data collection guidebooks with illustrations for
identification. Building capable and competent human resources for field data collection
require specialized training and education, especially for regional fisheries officers. Thus, the
development of Technical Service Units (Unit Pelayanan Teknis, UPT) in every region may be
needed, with primary duties and functions specialized for the data collection of fisheries. The
education and training on fish identification, data entry methods and interviews need to be
given not only to regional fisheries officer but also to other field workers, including fisheries
supervisors, quarantine and customs officers as well as the assisted fishers.
Education and training on the identification of shark species are best given to field
observers, who are tasked in entering data to catch logbooks on tuna and skipjack-fishing
armada operating across Indonesia. The observer placement program that was executed by the
Directorate of Fish Resources (Direktorat Sumber Daya Ikan) and General Directorate of Catch
Fisheries (Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Tangkap, DJPT) is hoped to be developed into a
routine program performed annually. Moreover, the national fisheries statistics book, which
was oriented towards stock assessments of fish resources, need to be further developed to
include shark resources. These plans may come into fruition through collaboration between the
Research and Development Body for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Badan Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Kelautan dan Perikanan, BALITBANG-KP), universities, and the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, LIPI), in order to assess stocks
per species of fish resources in each management zone (WPP).
Along with the development of improved and integrated data collection system, it is
hoped that the availability of supporting data for shark fisheries and the rest of national fisheries
will be realized with accuracies closer to reality. Thus, conscience is needed from all parties
involved in order to create a sustainable fisheries management.
140
MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND
CONSERVATION OF SHARKS
141
6. VI. MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND CONSERVATION OF
SHARKS
As with other fishes in general, sharks are renewable resources and may be exploited
sustainably. Nevertheless, sharks have substantially high vulnerability to extinction caused by
overfishing. This stems from their slow growth, late sexual maturity (several species may need
decades to reach the age of sexual maturity) and low fecundity. On the other hand, the
exploitation of sharks in Indonesian waters is still undergoing, without being coupled by
regulations and management policies that aim toward sustainable fisheries.
The scant understanding and awareness of both fishing communities and lay
Indonesians toward the survival of shark resources are indicated by the rampant illegal,
unregulated and unreported fishing practices (IUU-fishing). Finning practices, or the practice
where shark fins are retained with the rest of the bodies are discarded to the sea, are still
commonplace in Indonesia. Moreover, many immature and juvenile sharks are still captured
by certain fishing gears in the country. The consumption of baby sharks are still being promoted
in a number of seafood restaurants in Indonesia. Indonesian fishers have started to perceive the
consequences of these exploitative acts, as the abundance and sizes of fished sharks continue
to decline. Despite the well-established concerns on the global decline of sharks, shark
populations continue to deteriorate as effective fisheries management efforts are still wanting.
The management of fisheries is an integrated process that encompasses the collection
of information, analyses, planning, consultation, resource allocation, formulation, and
execution, as well as law enforcement. Its definition aims to "ensure that fisheries resources
may be used optimally, by overseeing and protecting the well-being of the resources and their
environments". Principally, the management aims to "control the intensity of fishing so the
catches obtained are optimal in many aspects" (Widodo, 2000). Moreover, according to
Purwanto (2003), the fisheries management also aims to "increase the amount of sustainable
catches in the long term", with management steps being grouped into two categories, which are
the control of fishing, and the control of fishing efforts.
6.1 Endangered and Vulnerable Shark Species

Sharks play vital roles in coral reefs and other marine ecosystems, by occupying the top
tier of the food pyramid and therefore maintaining the ecological balance. Thus, it is imperative
142
to ensure their continued survival in nature. Their survival was beginning to be threatened since
1950 by pressures inflicted by coastal fisheries. On the other hand, the large-scale fisheries that
exploited sharks as the 'desired bycatches' were starting to develop in mid-1980s, following the
large demand for shark fin, meat and cartilage products. Currently, almost all shark species
with high economic value are facing the threat of extinction.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has compiled several status
criteria on species conservation, based on their vulnerability to extinction, in the IUCN Red
List, which was published online in www.iucn.org. The status of an organism's vulnerability
to extinction is determined by its population status and the anthropogenic threats it faces.
Around 181 shark species in the world have been enlisted in the IUCN Red List, with several
species have underwent declines that may threat their survival. Six species of cartilaginous
fishes (one species of shark and five of rays) was categorized as Critically Endangered, 12
species (5 shark species and 7 ray species) were classified as Endangered, 50 species (23 shark
species and 27 ray species) classified as Vulnerable, and 46 species (35 shark species and 11
ray species) were categorized as Near Threatened. Overall, each of the status categories may
be defined as thus (Fahmi & Dharmadi, 2005):
Extinct (EX)
This category is given to species that have become completely extinct in the world.
Species classified as extinct are completely absent from their natural habitats or captivities, and
the status is based on thorough and long-term studies on ecosystems known to be their habitats.
Extinct in the wild (EW)

This category is given to species no longer found in nature but are still found in
captivities, or in other protected locations, such as preserves, wildlife or fisheries sanctuaries,
and others.
Critically endangered (CR)

This category is given to species facing an extremely high risk of extinction , or nearing
extinction in nature.
Endangered (EN)
This category is given to species believed to possess high risk of extinction.
143
Vulnerable (VU)
The category is given to species believed to possess high risk of endangerment in
nature.
Near Threatened (NT)

The category is given to species that are likely to be endangered in the future if
conservation efforts are not undertaken.
In general, shark species that are threatened by extinction are endemics, or possessing
limited geographic distributions, specific habitats and excessive exploitation levels
(overexploitation). The following is a list of sharks present in Indonesian waters that are
considered as Endangered and Vulnerable according to IUCN Red List version 3.2:
Table 6-1 List of sharks threatened by extinction according to the IUCN Red List
No Common Name Scientific Name Family Status
Critically
1 Pondicherry Shark Carcharhinus hemiodon Carcharhinidae
Endangered
2 Borneo Shark Carcharhinus borneensis Carcharhinidae Endangered
3 Speartooth Shark Glyphis glyphis Carcharhinidae Endangered
4 Borneo Broadfin Shark Lamiopsis tephrodes Carcharhinidae Endangered
5 Scalloped Hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Sphyrnidae Endangered
6 Great Hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran Sphyrnidae Endangered
7 Pelagic Thresher Shark Alopias pelagicus Alopiidae Vulnerable
8 Bigeye Thresher Shark Alopias superciliosus Alopiidae Vulnerable
9 Oceanic Whitetip Shark Carcharhinus longimanus Carcharhinidae Vulnerable
10 Dusky Shark Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinidae Vulnerable
11 Sandbar Shark Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinidae Vulnerable
12 Sharptooth Lemon Shark Negaprion acutidens Carcharhinidae Vulnerable
13 Lowfin Gulper Shark Centrophorus lusitanicus Centrophoridae Vulnerable
14 Leafscale Gulper Shark Centrophorus squamosus Centrophoridae Vulnerable
15 Tawny Nurse Shark Nebrius ferrugineus Ginglymostomatidae Vulnerable
16 Hooktooth Shark Chaenogaleus macrostoma Hemigaleidae Vulnerable
17 Sicklefin Weasel Shark Hemigaleus microstoma Hemigaleidae Vulnerable
18 Snaggletooth Shark Hemipristis elongata Hemigaleidae Vulnerable
19 Papuan Epaulette Shark Hemiscyllium hallstromii Hemiscyllidae Vulnerable
20 Hooded Carpetshark Hemiscyllium strahani Hemiscyllidae Vulnerable
144
21 Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrhynchus Lamnidae Vulnerable
22 Longfin Mako Isurus paucus Lamnidae Vulnerable
23 Grey Nurse Shark Carcharhias taurus Odontaspididae Vulnerable
24 Sandtiger Shark Odontaspis ferox Odontaspididae Vulnerable
25 Whale Shark Rhincodon typus Rhincodontidae Vulnerable
26 Bali Catshark Atelomycterus baliensis Scyliorhinidae Vulnerable
27 Smooth Hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena Sphyrnidae Vulnerable
Indonesian Greeneye
28 Squalus montalbani Squalidae Vulnerable
Spurdog
29 Zebra Shark Stegostoma fasciatum Stegostomatidae Vulnerable
One of the sharks classified as being critically endangered is Carcharhinus hemiodon,

which is a medium-sized species that lives in shallow coastal waters of Western Indo-Pacific,
however the species has no longer been encountered since 1979. It is strongly suggested that
the population decline of the species is due to fishing activities across coastal areas, thus
severely endangering its existence in nature. In Indonesia, the shark was encountered in Java
Sea in the 1900s, and has never been rediscovered since then. On the other hand, species
classified as endangered are generally those with restricted distributions and habitats, such as
Carcharhinus borneensis, Glyphis glyphis and Lamiopsis tephrodes. In Indonesia, these
species are only found in coastal waters of Kalimantan. The presence of intensive fishing
activities are estimated to be the cause of their declines, and it is feared they will become extinct
in the future if there are no subsequent conservation efforts. Another case is the hammerhead
Sphyrna lewini, a species that lives in coastal to semi-oceanic waters and is widely distributed
in tropical waters around the globe. The high intensities of fishing activities toward both
juveniles and adults of the species have caused an extremely drastic drop in their populations.
Declines as large as 50 to 90% were reported from several locations within a period of 30 years
(Baum et al., 2007).
Furthermore, several shark species have been enlisted in the appendices of Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which
regulates the trade of species vulnerable to the threat of extinction. Within the last few years,
sharks have become an important topic during the conference of the parties (CoP) of CITES,
wherein several countries suggested the enlistment of several shark species to the appendix, so
tighter regulations on their international trade could be imposed. In the CoP of CITES
conducted in 3rd to 14th of March in 2013, Bangkok, five shark species were listed in CITES's
145
Appendix II, with four of them may be encountered and caught by Indonesian fishers, which
were Sphyrna lewini, S. zygaena, S. mokarran and Carcharhinus longimanus.
6.2 Protected and Threatened Shark Species

The international concern to the endangerment of world's shark resources have increased
from day to day. One of the major causes of the endangerment is the international trade of shark
fins and other environmentally damaging practices. International conservation organization
IUCN has issued a list of shark species that are vulnerable to extinction, with several of them
being found in Indonesian waters. The IUCN Red List is a warning for governments who own
the resources, so they may improve their conservation endeavors. Brief information and
descriptions of Indonesian sharks that are vulnerable to extinction are shown below.
6.2.1 Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828
Figure 6-1 Whale shark, Rhincodon typus (image from White et al., 2006b)
The whale shark (Rhincodon typus), known in Indonesia as hiu paus, hiu geger lintang,
hiu bodoh or hiu tutul, is a cosmopolitan species that lives in tropical and warm subtropical
seas. It is the largest shark species in the world, and is estimated to reach 18 meters in length.
Due to its size, its swimming speed is relatively slow. The species is a solitary animal, however
it is sometimes found in small groups. Whale sharks are readily identified due to its large size
and its thick, dark grey skin patterned with pale yellow or white dots and lines. On its ventral
side there are prominent keels, and its head is wide and flat with a large mouth positioned in
the front of the body.
Distribution and Population Estimates

The species is distributed circumglobally in tropical or warm seas of the world, except
in the Mediterranean Sea (Compagno, 2001). The species have been documented in virtually
all seas of Indonesia, from the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Java Sea, Pacific Ocean,
Makassar Strait, Sulawesi Sea, Flores Sea, Savu Sea, Banda Sea and Arafura Sea. The whale
146
shark is a migrating species and only temporarily inhabits a certain location. Its migrates widely
from open ocean habitats to coastal territories, and may do so to find appropriate spawning
locations or feeding grounds. Data and status information on whale shark populations in
Indonesia are yet to be well known, but it is estimated to have declined.
Threats to Populations
Whale sharks are not target species of Indonesian shark fishers in general. A number of
fishing communities have tabooed the fishing of the species, as performed by the Bajau
community (Stacey et al., 2012). Whale sharks are generally caught unintentionally by
Indonesian fishers, however the species remains a target species by fishers in Lamalera
(Barnes, 2005; Mustika, 2006). Furthermore, whale sharks are frequently trapped in shallow
bodies of water during foraging, which may culminate in death due to stranding. The species
is also known to be occasionally entangled in fishing nets set in nearshore waters. Both
strandings and entanglements may impact their natural populations, as the species requires a
long time to reach maturity and reproduce. The hunting of the species for its fin and meat may
also worsen its population status.
Exploitation
Whale sharks are more useful as tourist attractions due to its docile nature to fishers,
divers or tourists. In several locations in Indonesia, the shark has become a tourist attraction
popular with domestic and international tourists, as in the Cenderawasih Bay and Probolinggo.
On the other hand, whale shark fins are still commodified in the international market, whereas
its meat is consumed by local peoples.
Conservation Status
Evaluation on the conservation status of whale sharks by IUCN was first conducted in
1990 and given the status indeterminate, which changed in 1994 to data deficient, and
established as a vulnerable species in 2000. CITES established the whale shark in Appendix II
during their 12th CoP, which means globally the species is yet to be endangered, and yet it may
become endangered if trade continues without appropriate regulations.
In 2013, Indonesia determined the whale shark as a protected species through the
Decree No. 18/MEN-KP/2013 from the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
Management efforts in conserving whale sharks in Indonesia need to be performed
147
continuously, including the development of non-extractive exploitation models through marine
tourism, thus the species will still be able to provide economic benefits to the society at whole.
148
6.2.2 Alopias pelagicus Nakamura, 1935
Figure 6-2 Alopias pelagicus (image from White et al., 2006b)
The pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus), known in Indonesia as hiu monyet or
hiu tikus, is an oceanic species that lives in the epipelagic layers to the depth of 152 meters
(White et al., 2006b). Its caudal fin is distinctively elongated and characterizes many members
of the Family Alopiidae. The shape of the eyes, dorsal fin position, and color of A. pelagicus
are among the characteristic features that distinguish the species from other members of the
genus.

The species is known to be very widely distributed across the Indo-Pacific. It has been
encountered in the Indian Ocean, Australia, Northwest Pacific to Southwest Pacific, Central
Pacific and East Pacific (Compagno, 2001). In Indonesian waters, the species has been
recorded from waters adjacent to Indian Ocean, from the western coasts of Sumatra to southern
waters of Nusa Tenggara, South China Sea, the Pacific portion of Indonesian maritime
territory, Makassar Strait, Sulawesi Sea, Banda Sea and Arafura Sea. The species is frequently
caught as bycatch in tuna net fisheries and purse seine nets operating in offshore waters of
Indian Ocean. Population estimates for the species are unavailable due to its migratory habit.
Accurate size and reproductive data are yet to be available, although catch data of the species
are well-represented at the national and provincial levels.
Alopias pelagicus is often caught as bycatch from tuna and large pelagic fisheries.
Nationally, within a decade (2002-2011) there has been a drastic decline in the catch of this
species. The catch decline was affected by a number of factors, including a drop in the number
of operating vessels and the possibility of the population being overfished. The size range of
149
most catches landed depends on the type of fishing gears used. Based on catch studies from
2011 to 2007 in several locations in Bali, Lombok and Cilacap, the body length of A. pelagicus
may range from 130 to 320 cm, however individuals are most frequently caught at the size
range of 230-250cm. A 2012 study in Lombok recorded a size range of 130-280 cm, with an
average body length of caught individuals being around 230 cm.
The pelagic thresher is known to reach a total body length up to 365 cm and may reach
maturity at the length of 240 cm if male, or 260 cm if female (White et al., 2006b). Therefore,
in general most pelagic threshers caught from the Indian Ocean are immature and mature
individuals.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of A. pelagicus are exploited. The fin
is the most demanded body part due to its high economic value, especially those from larger
individuals. Fins are often part of ingredients of expensive fin soups sold in restaurants, or may
be exported to other countries. The meat of the pelagic thresher are processed for consumption
by salting or smoking, which are often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
internationally. The cartilage is also economically significant and is exported to various other
countries. Furthermore, the skin may be processed into leather handicraft or as dried food
products.
Volume of Trade
In general the species is grouped together along with other members of the Alopias
genus in the national fisheries statistics, due to their mutual resemblances in morphology. The
caudal fin is distinctive and sets the genus apart from other shark taxa. However, in the shark
fin trade, it is quite difficult to distinguish the fins of the species from its congeners. This has
become a challenge for an accurate documentation of volume of the Indonesian fin trade.
Although trade data for both fins and meats are available nationally, it is still quite restricted to
general forms of classification. Therefore, until then the availability of species-specific, trade
volume data for both local and export trades are yet to become available.
Conservation Status
The tendency for declines of A. pelagicus catches within the last decade and the
frequency of immature catches more or less indicate the presence of threats to the survival of
150
the species. Since the 2012, Indonesia has adopted resolution IOTC 10/12 that prohibits the
fishing of sharks from Family Alopiidae. The effort is starting to be implemented by placing
display boards that announce the prohibition of the species. At the national level, the decree by
Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries number PER. 12/MEN/2012 on the Open Water
Catch Fisheries in section 43 has made it compulsory for boat captains to release any caught
thresher sharks as well as prohibiting their sale.
6.2.3 Alopias superciliosus (Lowe, 1841)
Figure 6-3 Alopias superciliosus (image from White et al., 2006b)
The bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), known in Indonesia as hiu lutung
and hiu pahitan, is an oceanic species that lives from coastal to offshore habitats, from the
surface layer to a depth of 600 meters (White et al., 2006b). The elongated caudal fin is
characteristic to Family Alopiidae. Its exceptionally large eyes and lateral grooves behind its
head are defining features that set it apart from other members of Alopias.

The species is known to be found in a vast range of tropical and warm subtropical seas.
It is distributed from Western Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean to East Pacific (Compagno, 2001).
In Indonesian waters, the species has been recorded from Indian Ocean from west of Sumatra
to south of Nusa Tenggara, Pacific Ocean, Makassar Strait, Sulawesi Sea and Banda Sea.
Unlike A. pelagicus, A. superciliosus is caught at relatively lower numbers as bycatch from
tuna net fisheries and purse seines that operate in offshore waters of Indian Ocean. The
population estimates of the species are still unavailable due to its migratory nature and the
absence of accurate size and reproductive data. Despite its catch data being available at regional
administrations such as Cilacap and Palabuhanratu, the data tend to fluctuate and it is difficult
to determine any increasing or decreasing trends in its productions.
151
Alopias superciliosus is known as one of shark species caught as bycatch in tuna and
pelagic fisheries, although at low numbers. The average catches of A. superciliosus in Cilacap
ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 tons per month. Fluctuations of catches of this species during the last
decade has caused difficulties in establishing its population status in Indonesian waters.
The size range of individuals landed in landing centers varied with the type of fishing
gear. Based on studies from 2001 to 2007 in several landing locations in Bali, Lombok, and
Cilacap, the range of total lengths of A. superciliosus caught by fishers was 150-380 cm, with
average size of most catches being between 280 and 330 cm. A. superciliosus is known to
reach a length up to 461 cm and may reach maturity at 276 cm if male, and around 341 cm if
female (White et al., 2006b). Thus, bigeye threshers caught from Indian Ocean are primarily
consisted of immature and mature individuals.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of A. superciliosus are exploited. The
fin is the most demanded body part due to its high economic value, especially those from larger
be exported to other countries. The meat of the bigeye thresher are processed for consumption
by salting or smoking, which are often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
products.
Volume of Trade
In general the species is grouped together along with other members of the Alopias
genus in the national fisheries statistics, due to their mutual resemblances in morphology. The
caudal fin is distinctive and sets the genus apart from other shark taxa. However, in the shark
fin trade, it is quite difficult to distinguish the fins of the species from its congeners. This has
become a challenge for an accurate documentation of volume of the Indonesian fin trade.
Although trade data for both fins and meats are available nationally, it is still quite restricted to
general forms of classification. Therefore, until then the availability of species-specific, trade
volume data for both local and export trades are yet to become available.
152
Conservation Status
Globally, the bigeye thresher is classified as being vulnerable due to population declines
in several areas in the world. In the Atlantic Ocean, the species is considered an endangered
species according to a version of IUCN Red List (Amorim et al., 2009).
At the national level, the decree by Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries number
PER. 12/MEN/2012 on the Open Water Catch Fisheries in section 43 has made it compulsory
for boat captains to release any caught thresher sharks as well as prohibiting their sale.
6.2.4 Isurus oxyrinchus Rafinesque, 1810
Figure 6-4 Isurus oxyrinchus (image by Fahmi)
The shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is an epipelagic and oceanic species that lives in
surface layers down to 650 m (Last et al., 2010). Its pointed snout, small eyes and keeled base
of caudal fin are characteristic to fishes from Family Lamnidae.

The species is very widely distributed in tropical and subtropical waters around the
world (Compagno, 2001). In Indonesian waters, the species has been found in the Indian Ocean
from west of Sumatra to south of Nusa Tenggara, South China Sea, Makassar Strait, Banda
Sea and Western Pacific Ocean. Shortfin makos are frequently caught as bycatch from tuna
longline fisheries as well as targets in shark longline fisheries operating offshore in Indian
Ocean. Population estimates of the species is uncertain due to its migratory and the lack of
accurate size and reproductive data. Catch data from the species are well-represented at
provincial and national levels in the Indonesian Fisheries Statistics, as have been discussed in
Chapter 5.
153
Isurus oxyrinchus is a species commonly caught as bycatch from tuna and pelagic
fisheries. In general, national mako catches tend to fluctuate, however there is a trend in
increase over the last eight years (2004-2011). Average monthly catches of I. oxyrinchus in
southern waters of Java are also relatively low, ranging between 0.2 to 0.8 tons per month in
Cilacap and between 0.05 to 0.4 tons in Palabuhanratu. Both locations have yet to show
significant declines in the catch of this species.
Based on studies from 2001 to 2007 in several fish landing locations in Bali, Lombok
and Cilacap, the range of total length of I. oxyrinchus caught by fishers was 130 to 250 cm,
with the most commonly caught individuals ranging from 180 to 210 cm. Shortfin makos are
known to reach 400 cm and may reach maturity at a total length of 185-195 cm if male, and
around 250-280 cm if female (last et al. 2010). Thus, generally most individuals of I.
oxyrinchus caught by fishers from Indian Ocean are immature and mature specimens.
The fluctuations of I. oxyrinchus catches during the last eight years and the prevalence
of mature individuals in catches more or less indicates the stability of mako populations in the
wild. However, caution is needed on the finning practice as catch data from such practices are
never recorded. Thus, monitoring efforts and awareness building programs in both fishing and
fisheries communities at whole need to be conducted in order to avoid the illegal practice.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of I. oxyrinchus are exploited. The
be exported to other countries. The meat of the shortfin mako is processed for consumption by
salting or smoking, and is often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
products.
Volume of Trade
In general the species is grouped together along with other member of Isurus in the
national fisheries statistics, as with Isurus paucus, due to their mutual resemblances in
morphology. The pointed snout and the keel at the base of caudal fin set] the genus apart from
other taxa. However, in the shark fin trade, it is quite difficult to distinguish the fins of the
154
species from its congeners. Likewise, shark catches obtained from large pelagic fisheries are
often presented in headless and finless forms, which have rendered them difficult to distinguish
them from frozen marlins. This has become a challenge for an accurate documentation of
volume of the Indonesian fin trade. Although trade data for both fins and meats are available
nationally, it is still quite restricted to general forms of classification. Therefore, until then the
availability of Isurus oxyrinchus-specific, trade volume data for both local and export trades
are yet to become available.
6.2.5 Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834)
Figure 6-5 Sphyrna lewini (image from White et al., 2006b)
The scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) has a number of local Indonesian
names, including hiu martil, hiu caping, hiu topeng, hiu bingkoh, and mungsing capil. The
scalloped hammerhead is a coastal pelagic species that is also semi-oceanic, and are frequently
found in continental and insular shelves and adjacent waters, from the intertidal zone and
surface layers down to 275 m (Compagno in prep. in Baum et al., 2007). Nursery grounds for
the species are encountered in shallow waters of coastal regions, whereas adults of the species
are found offshore (Compagno, 1984; Lessa et al., 1998). Juveniles of the species tend to
inhabit coastal waters near the bottom, and may be found in high concentrations during the
summer in estuaries and bays (Bass et al., 1975; Castro, 1983). Neonates and pre-adult
individuals are known to gather in their birthplaces in coastal areas for two years until their
migration to adult habitats (Holland et al., 1993). The juvenile groups must receive protection,
especially in a number of core areas during the day (Holland et al., 1993) and tend to form large
schools (Stevens & Lyle, 1989).
155
The species is one of the most common shark species in Indonesian waters. The
scalloped hammerhead is distributed widely across all tropical seas. In Indonesian waters, the
distribution includes Indian Ocean, Sunda Strait, Java Sea, South China Sea and waters around
Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Moluccas and Papua. Its populations is estimated to have been
declining due to unsustainable fisheries. The species is most commonly caught by longlines
and gillnets, both as bycatch and target catch. The juveniles are also frequently caught by trawl
or gillnet-using fishers that operate in nearshore areas.
The total lengths of landed individuals tend to range between 50 to 310 cm, although
the species may reach a range of 370 to 430 cm. Males reach sexual maturity around the size
of 165 to 175 cm, whereas females reach maturity at around 220 to 230 cm. Studies indicated
that more than half of landed S. lewini in years 2001 - 2006 were immature individuals. This
represents a threat for the survival of the species, as future stocks will be reduced along with
the increase of fished juveniles. Small individuals are frequently fished by fishing gears that
operate in coastal waters, whereas adults are caught by tuna nets, longlines and shark nets
operating in offshore and deeper waters. Although the offspring are produced at relatively
higher numbers than other species (12-41 individuals), the high catch frequencies will further
reduce the natural population, as shown by the increasingly fewer numbers of hammerhead
being landed in Indonesia, regardless of size classes.
The high levels of exploitation of the species is not only exclusive to Indonesia, but
also to other territories where the species is found. Based on CITES's 16th CoP results in March
2013, hammerheads (Sphyrna spp.) are listed in the Appendix II. Thus, international trade for
this commodity should be restricted and follow the regulations as established by CITES.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of S. lewini are exploited. The fin is
the most demanded body part due to its high economic value, especially those from larger
be exported to other countries. The meat of the scalloped hammerhead is processed for
consumption by salting or smoking, which is often sold locally with only minor proportions
being sold internationally. The cartilage is also economically significant and is exported to
156
various other countries. Furthermore, the skin may be processed into leather handicraft or as
dried food products.
Volume of Trade
The most important commodity of sharks from genus Sphyrna is their fins. At a glance,
the dried, marketed fins of S. lewini are similar to other shark fins in general, however Sphyrna
has a recognizable fin morphology that enables their distinction from fins of other shark
genera. The genus possesses elongated, triangular fins with acuminate tips. Specialized training
is needed in order to properly identify specimens based on their fins alone. Although trade data
for both fins and meat are available nationally, it is still limited to general groupings of sharks.
Until now, specific trade volume data for hammerheads are not available in the country.
6.2.6 Sphyrna mokarran (Ruppel, 1837)
Figure 6-6 Sphyrna mokarran (image from White et al., 2006b)
The great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) is known locally as hiu martil, hiu
caping, hiu topeng, hiu bingkoh, and mungsing capil. This hammerhead is a large coastal
pelagic species, as well as a semi-oceanic tropical species; it is often found in inshore waters
as well as offshore, near continental shelves, island terraces, coral atolls and deep waters around
islands, with preferred depth ranging from the surface to around 80 m (Denham et al., 2007).
The great hammerhead shark is a solitary animal, and rarely encountered in abundance in most
locations (Denham et a., 2007).

Sphyrna mokarran is a rarely encountered species in Indonesian waters. The
distribution of the species is known from all tropical and warm subtropical seas. However,
there is only scant recordings of the species in Indonesian waters. Several locations reported to
157
have landed the species are Tanjungluar in Lombok, Benoa and Kedonganan in Bali,
Palabuhanratu, Muara Angke and Muara Baru in Jakarta. In general, S. mokarran is caught as
a bycatch from tuna longline and gillnet fisheries in waters off the southern coasts (Indian
Ocean) and eastern waters of Indonesia.
Whole individuals recorded from several landing locations in Indonesia had a size range
of 150 to 250 cm, with greatest known length being 610 cm. Males and females of the species
are sexually mature upon reaching size ranges of 234 to 269 cm, and 250 to 300 cm,
respectively. Although their numbers are relatively scarce in Indonesian waters, the sizes of
landed specimens thus far showed that most of them were juveniles or immature individuals.
This may threaten the survival of the species if appropriate fishing measures are not taken. The
issue may be aggravated if large individuals are caught and finned.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of S. mokarran are exploited. The fin
be exported to other countries. The meat of the great hammerhead is processed for consumption
by salting or smoking, which is often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
products.
Volume of Trade
the dried, marketed fins of S. mokarran are similar to other shark fins in general, however
Sphyrna has a recognizable fin morphology that enables their distinction from fins of other
shark genera. The genus possesses elongated, triangular fins with acuminate tips. Specialized
training is needed in order to properly identify specimens based on their fins alone. Although
trade data for both fins and meat are available nationally, it is still limited to general groupings
of sharks. Until now, specific trade volume data for hammerheads are not available in the
country.
158
Conservation Status
The high levels of exploitation on hammerheads across the globe have further
jeopardized their survival. Therefore, the results of CITES's 16th CoP on March 2013 stated
that all hammerhead sharks are to be listed in Appendix II. As such, the international trade for
all commodities of the species are limited and required to follow the regulations as stipulated
by CITES.
6.2.7 Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758)
Figure 6-7 Sphyrna zygaena (image from: White et al., 2006b)
The smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena) is known locally as hiu martil, hiu
caping, hiu topeng, hiu bingkoh or mungsing capil. This hammerhead species is a coastal
pelagic and semi-oceanic species, and is frequently encountered in continental shelf waters to
the depth of 200 m (Ebert, 2003). The species is also found in bodies of freshwater, in Indian
Ocean, Florida, USA, and in Rio de la Plata estuary in Uruguay (Casper et al., 2005). Its nursery
ground is found in coastal waters with fine sand, to the depth of 10 m. Adolescent individuals
often school in large numbers, which may reach up to hundreds of individuals (Compagno,
1998). Due to its similar morphology to other hammerhead species, the smooth hammerhead
is frequently mistaken for its congeners in many localities.

Sphyrna zygaena is a fairly rare species in Indonesian waters. From 2001 to 2006, not
many individuals of the species were recorded in Indonesian fish landing centers, especially in
southern areas such as Cilacap, Palabuhanratu and Tanjungluar. Smooth hammerhead sharks
are occasionally caught by tuna or shark longlines. Its distribution in Indonesia is estimated to
159
be in the Indian Ocean and adjacent waters. Due to the insufficient data, it is very difficult to
accurately estimate its population.
Sphyrna zygaena is known to reach the size of 350cm. The males may mature at the
size of 250 cm whereas females at 265 cm. Based on previous studies, the size range of fished
individuals of the species was 130 to 280 cm. This may indicate the prevalence of fished
juveniles instead of mature individuals. Although fished in insignificant numbers, its
population may gradually decline further if individuals are caught before they are able to
reproduce. On the other hand, finning practices may have caused inaccuracies in population
data. The practice obscures the actual number of individuals caught.
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of S. zygaena are exploited. The fin
be exported to other countries. The meat of the smooth hammerhead is processed for
Volume of Trade
the dried, marketed fins of S. zygaena are similar to other shark fins in general, however
Sphyrna has a recognizable fin morphology that enables their distinction from fins of other
shark genera. The genus possesses elongated, triangular fins with acuminate tips. Specialized
training is needed in order to properly identify specimens based on their fins alone. Although
trade data for both fins and meat are available nationally, it is still limited to general groupings
of sharks. Until now, specific trade volume data for hammerheads are not available in the
country.
Conservation Status
160
The high levels of exploitation on hammerheads across the globe have further
jeopardized their survival. Therefore, the results of CITES's 16th CoP on March 2013 stated
that all hammerhead sharks are to be listed in Appendix II. As such, the international trade for
all commodities of the species are limited and required to follow the regulations as stipulated
by CITES.
6.2.8 Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1961)
Figure 6-8 Carcharhinus longimanus (image from White et al., 2006b)
The oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) is also known locally as hiu
koboy. The species is considered to be the only true pelagic species of genus Carcharhinus, and
may be encountered far from coastlines in the open water to depths exceeding 200m, shelf
waters, or around offshore islands. The oceanic whitetip is a highly migratory species and may
be found in most tropical waters, and is often caught as a bycatch from swordfish or tuna
fisheries. The species favors water temperatures above 20oC (with optimal range being 18-
28oC) (Baum et al., 2006). Critical habitats of the species are yet to be fully known. However,
in tropical regions of the Pacific, gravid females and juveniles are concentrated geographically
between 20o North to the equator, and 170o East to 140o West, and the nursing grounds of the
species are believed to be located in the open ocean (Seki et al., 1998). Its distinctive fin shape,
which is rounded and tipped with white, eases the identification of this species.
The oceanic whitetip is a predator at the apex of the open ocean trophic system, with
teleosts and cephalopods being its major prey (Backus, 1956). However, instances where
oceanic whitetips predate on seabirds and sea mammals are also known alongside their other
prey items (Compagno, 1984). Based on its dietary preferences, Cortés (1999) stated that
oceanic whitetips possess the trophic level of 4.2 (with 5.0 being the maximum). The species
161
is readily recognized from other species of sharks due to its rounded and white-tipped dorsal
fin, and white-tipped, wide pectoral fins (Abercrombie & Chapman, 2012).

The shark is known to be very widely distributed in tropical and subtropical waters.
Around Indonesia, it has been recorded from the Indian Ocean, from the west of Sumatra to
south of Nusa Tenggara. The size of its populations are yet to be known due to its relative rarity
in landed catches. Based on studies from 2001 to 2006 in southern waters of Java, Bali, and
Lombok, few C. longimanus were landed as either bycatch of tuna fisheries or as targeted catch
of shark fishers in Lombok.
The general body length range of most landed individuals is from 70 to 180 cm. On the
other hand, the species is known to reach 300 cm. Males become sexually mature at the size
range of 190 to 200 cm, whereas females reach maturity at 180 to 200 cm. This ostensibly
shows that most caught specimens are immature fishes. This may threaten the populations of
the species as many immature individuals ultimately fail to reach reproductive age. During the
length of the study, adult oceanic whitetips were encountered extremely rarely. On the other
hand, enumerator data from Cilacap and Palabuhanratu suggest that the species only
contributes 1% at the maximum to the local compositions of shark catches. Catch trends for
the species in both locations tend to fluctuate every year. There are two possibilities, the first
being that adult sharks are yet to be recorded in Indonesia due to limitations of artisanal fishing
and vessels. The second possibility is that fished adults are not landed due to their finning.
Adult oceanic whitetips are usually caught by fishers from eastern Indonesia, from Lombok,
West Nusa Tenggara to Leti Archipelago, Southeast Moluccas. This is based on data obtained
from eastern Indonesia, where fins were often collected. Based on the sizes of the fins, it is
estimated that individuals caught by these
Exploitation
As with other shark species, almost all body parts of C. longimanus are exploited. The
be exported to other countries. The meat of the oceanic whitetip is processed for consumption
162
products.
Volume of Trade
The fins of C. longimanus is readily recognized due to their rounded apices, a feature
distinct from other species. The monitoring of the trade of its fins is relatively easier than those
for other species. Currently, the trade volume data for both international and local trades of C.
longimanus is yet to be made available. Indonesia has both fin and meat trade data and made
them available nationally, however they are still limited to general groupings of sharks.
Conservation Status
The high levels of exploitation toward the species in virtually all seas across the globe have
resulted in its increasingly threatened existence. Member countries of CITES agreed to include
C. longimanus in the Appendix II, based on CITES's 16th CoP on March 2013. Thus,
international trade for the shark commodity is limited and should follow the regulations as
established by CITES.
6.2.9 Carcharhinus obscurus (Lesueur, 1818)
Figure 6-9 Carcharhinus obscurus (image from White et al., 2006b)
The dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), known locally as hiu merak bulu or hiu
lanjaman, is a species that lives in waters around islands and continental shelves, from coastal
waters to surface layers of offshore waters down to depth of 400m (White et al., 2006b). The
species is among the large-bodied species and tends to be quite aggressive, and may endanger
humans if approached.
163
The species is distributed fairly widely in tropical and subtropical waters, from the
Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean. In Indonesia, it has been recorded from
waters of Indian Ocean from west of Sumatra to Nusa Tenggara. The species is frequently
caught by pelagic longline fishers as bycatch from tuna fisheries, as well as target catches from
longline shark fisheries in Nusa Tenggara. Its Indonesian population is estimated to have
declined on both size and number, based on relevant studies on the species. Based on studies
from 2001 to 2006 in Tanjungluar landing center, Lombok, the range of total length of fished
C. obscurus is from 205 to 289 cm, however enumerator data at the same location in 2012
suggested a decline to a size range of 130 to 227 cm.
Carcharhinus obscurus may reach a total length of 400cm. Males and females reach
sexual maturity at size ranges of 280-300 cm and 257-300 cm, respectively. Catch data from
Tanjungluar in 2012 showed that most catches of the species were immature individuals. This
may threaten its future populations as immature individuals ultimately fail to reach adulthood
and subsequent reproduction due to fishing. Although C. obscurus catches were relatively few
in number, the intensity of fishing activities remain high and continual. The reduction of its
size range is an indicator of its decline in the wild, thus a sustainable management is necessary
for the species.
Exploitation
As with other Carcharhinus species, almost all body parts of C. obscurus are exploited.
The fin is the most demanded body part due to its high economic value, especially those from
larger individuals. Fins are often part of ingredients of expensive fin soups sold in restaurants,
or may be exported to other countries. The meat of the dusky shark is processed for
Volume of Trade
164
Carcharhinus obscurus is frequently grouped with other species of genus Carcharhinus
due to their morphological similarities. The species is often grouped under the name of hiu
lanjaman (requiem sharks) in the fisheries statistics and trade data. Other names that are
encountered in trade include hiu super and hiu merak bulu (Lombok). It is very difficult to
determine its catch or trade data, as only specialists are able to distirnguish the species from
others. Moreover, the high number of catches that are processed into fin products further
exacerbates the issue. Although trade data for both fin and meat products are available
nationally, they are still limited to general groupings of sharks, and specific data for C. obscurus
are yet to become available.
6.2.10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (Nardo, 1827)
Figure 6-10 Carcharhinus plumbeus (photo by Fahmi)
The sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) is known locally as hiu super due to the
large size of its dorsal fin. It is a large coastal species and may be found around islands,
continental shelves, and drop-offs, in the intertidal zone to depths around 280 m (White et al.,
2006b). Its tall and wide dorsal fin has resulted in its categorization as a high-quality species
with profitable values in the shark fin trade.

The species is known to be very widely distributed across tropical and warm subtropical
waters. In Indonesia, the species has been recorded from the Indian Ocean, from the west of
Sumatra to the south of Nusa Tenggara. It is occasionally caught by longlines or gillnets
intended for large fishes. Juveniles or sexually immature specimens are sporadically captured
by gillnets or fishing lines operating in inshore waters. The size of its population has yet to be
known due to the unavailable catch data specific for the species.
165
The size range of individuals landed in landing centers vary with the fishing gears used.
Based on studies from 2001 to 2006 in several landing locations in Bali, Lombok and Cilacap,
the range of body length of landed C. plumbeus was 92 to 200 cm. Sandbar sharks are known
to reach 280 cm and may reach maturity at around 140 to 180 cm. Based on enumerator data
in Tanjungluar, Lombok, the size range of landed C. plumbeus was 240 to 270 cm. Therefore,
most individuals caught by fishers are generally mature. Sandbar sharks are viviparous and
raise their young in coastal nursery grounds, which may become fishing grounds for fishers
from southern coasts of Java, Bali and Nusa Tenggara. Thus, further studies to determine the
fishing grounds of C. plumbeus in the country is needed. By doing so, these locations may be
managed sustainably without endangering the growth and development of young sharks.
Exploitation
As with other Carcharhinus species, almost all body parts of C. plumbeus are exploited.
or may be exported to other countries. The meat of the sandbar shark is processed for
Volume of Trade
Carcharhinus plumbeus is generally grouped along other species of genus Carcharhinus
due to their mutual similarities. The species is categorized as 'super sharks' in the trade along
with a few other species. At times the species is grouped into the broad categories of hiu
lanjaman (requiems) or hiu plen (plain sharks) in certain areas, and as such it is quite difficult
to determine the catch and trade data. Therefore, currently the availability of trade volume data,
for both local and export trades, are yet to become available specifically for C. plumbeus.
166
6.2.11 Carcharhinus falciformis (Müller & Henle, 1839)
Figure 6-11 Carcharhinus falciformis (photo by Fahmi)
The silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) is better known locally as hiu lanjaman. It
is a medium-sized oceanic and pelagic species, and more frequently encountered in offshore
waters around landmasses and in surface layers, although it is at times found to the depth of
500 m (White et al., 2006b)

The distribution of the species ranges extremely widely in virtually all tropical seas. In
Indonesia, the species have been recorded from the Indian Ocean, from west of Sumatra to
south of Nusa Tenggara, South China Sea, Makassar Strait and Banda Sea. Juveniles are
occasionally found in the Java Sea. Silky sharks are frequently caught by longlines or tuna
gillnets, or by other pelagic fisheries. The juveniles and immature individuals are occasionally
caught by gillnets or fishing lines operating inshore. The populations are yet to be determined
due to the lack of specialized data for the species, although it is strongly suspected that declines
have occurred due to sustained fishing pressure across its range.
The silky shark is the most commonly found species in shark catches, both as bycatch
or target catch from longline and gillnet fisheries operating offshore. Based on studies from
2001 to 2006 at landing centers in Bali, Lombok, and CIlacap, the range of its total body length
was 62 to 254 cm, with the most frequently caught size class being 68-138 cm. Silky sharks
may reach a maximum length of 350 cm, although most individuals only reach 250 cm.
Sexually mature males have a size range of 183 to 204 cm, whereas mature females have a size
range of 216 to 223 cm (White et al., 2006b). Therefore, most frequently captured fishes were
young individuals. This represents a threat to the population by lessening the chance for young
167
individuals to mature and reproduce. Small individuals are frequently caught by gears operating
in coastal waters, whereas large adults are captured by tuna nets, longlines or shark nets
operating offshore. It is feared that wild populations of C. falciformis will continue to decline
if not protected by appropriate size management and measures. Furthermore, the pervasiveness
of finning practices may become a serious threat for the continued survival of the species in
Indonesian waters and elsewhere.
Exploitation
As with other Carcharhinus species, almost all body parts of C. falciformis are
exploited. The fin is the most demanded body part due to its high economic value, especially
those from larger individuals. Fins are often part of ingredients of expensive fin soups sold in
restaurants, or may be exported to other countries. The meat of the silky shark is processed for
Volume of Trade
Carcharhinus falciformis is a commonly fished species both as bycatch and as target
catch. Shark fishers are usually able to distinguish the species from other Carcharhinus species,
and Cilacapese fishers apply the term hiu lanjaman only for the silky shark. However, its
national catch and trade data are still grouped with those of other requiem sharks, thus limiting
the trade volume data for both local and export trades. However, as C. falciformis is the most
commonly fished species, at least the national production and trade data for requiem sharks
will still be illustrative for the conditions of its fisheries.
168
6.2.12 Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839)
Figure 6-12 Carcharhinus leucas (image from White et al., 2006b)
The bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas), locally known as hiu buas, hiu bekem or hiu
lembu, is a large species well known for its tolerance for a wide range of salinities, and is able
to enter estuarine areas or even large freshwater rivers. The bull shark is among the most
dangerous species and there had been many reports of shark attacks caused by the species. Its
short, rounded snout and rows of triangular upper teeth are characteristic to the species.

Bull sharks are known to be globally distributed in tropical and warm subtropical
waters. In Indonesia, the species have been recorded in all regions, especially for young
specimens. Mature specimens are usually found in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and
Banda sea. Large adults are occasionally caught by longline fishers as bycatch or targets catch,
whereas juveniles are sporadically caught by gillnets operating in shallow or coastal waters, or
estuary entrances. The population sizes are yet to be known with certainty due to the lack of
specific data for the species, although landing data from Cilacap have distinguished bull sharks
from other species. Bull sharks may constitute only 1% of the total composition of shark
catches landed in the location.
Carcharhinus leucas is the only species of sharks capable of foraging into habitats with
low salinities, such as large rivers. This condition has caused the species to be more or less
affected by anthropogenic activities operating in coasts or rivers, such as fishing, pollution or
land use conversion. Juveniles are the most vulnerable stage of the species, as they are found
in coastal or estuarine waters. Relatively intense fishing activities and anthropogenic impacts
in those habitats may threaten their growth and reproduction in the wild.
169
Exploitation
As with other Carcharhinus species, almost all body parts of C. leucas are exploited.
or may be exported to other countries. The meat of the bull shark is processed for consumption
products.
Volume of Trade
Nationally, trade volume of Carcharhinus leucas is not well known, both at local and
export levels. This is due to the lack of distinction with other species, and only based on the
size and quality of the fins. Therefore, national trade volume data for C. leucas at local and
export levels are yet to become available. However, in fisheries centers such as Cilacap and
Palabuhanratu, production data and economic values for the species are available. In general,
the trends of shark production values follow the trends of bull shark production values. The
number of shark productions in a year is generally correlated by the production value of the
commodity in the Indonesian fisheries statistics.
6.2.13 Galeocerdo cuvier (Peron & Lesueur, 1822)
Figure 6-13 Galeocerdo cuvier (image from White et al., 2006b)
The tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) is a large species of shark that is found in coastal
areas to continental shelf seas, from the surface layers to the depth of 150 m. The tiger shark is
a highly omnivorous species that eats small marine animals to large megafauna, including
cetaceans and sea turtles, and may at times consume marine debris. Tiger sharks are among the
170
potentially dangerous species of sharks, although they are not usually aggressive (White et al.,
2006b).

The species is known to be very widely distributed in tropical and warm subtropical
waters across the world. In Indonesia, tiger sharks have been recorded from the Indian Ocean,
from west of Sumatra to south of Nusa Tenggara, South China Sea, Makassar Strait and Banda
Sea. The species is occasionally caught by longlines, demersal nets and trawls, both as bycatch
or target catch. Its populations are yet to be known with certainty due to the lack of specific
data relating to catch from this species.
Galeocerdo cuvier may reach a total length of 740 cm. The species may reach adult
sizes at around 300 to 305 cm for males and 250 to 350 cm for females. Catch studies from
2001 to 2006 indicates that the sizes of tiger shark catch ranged from 79 to 214 cm, however
most caught individuals ranged between 180 and 250 cm. Therefore, most fished individuals
are immature. Although G. cuvier is fished and landed at relatively low numbers, the intensity
of shark fishing in Indonesian waters and local finning practices may have resulted in the
quantity of actual catches exceeding that of reported catches. This is exacerbated by the practice
of finning, in which shark fins are retained while the rest of the body is discarded to the sea.
Therefore, although the population is considered to be within safe limits, precautions are
needed in its management in order to ensure its sustainability.
Exploitation
As with other carcharhinids, almost all body parts of G. cuvier are exploited. The fin is
be exported to other countries. The meat of the tiger shark is processed for consumption by
salting or smoking, which is often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
products.
171
Volume of Trade
Galeocerdo cuvier is immediately recognizable from its tiger-striped skin. However,
separated fins are difficult to recognize except for trained identifiers. Therefore, catch or trade
volume data from the species is yet to be accurately known. Until now, the availability of
specific trade volume data for both national and international trades for the species are yet to
be available. However, in a few landing centers such as Cilacap and Palabuhanratu, the
production data and economic values of the species are available.
6.2.14 Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758)
Figure 6-14 Prionace glauca (image from Last et al., 2010)
The blue shark (Prionace glauca) is known in Indonesia as hiu karet, hiu bitu, and hiu
selendang. It is a large oceanic species commonly found in offshore waters, for both tropical
and warm subtropical regions, and occur from the surface layers down to 800 m. The species
is a highly migratory species and may be encountered as schools near the surface to depths of
150 m. Its elongated body and central position of its dorsal fin is highly recognizable. The
number of offspring produced is between 4 to 135 individuals (generally between 15 and 30)
in a year, or every two year, with gestation period lasting for 9 to 12 months. Its diet consists
of small pelagic fishes, squids, demersal fishes, small sharks and seabirds. Although the species
has the potential for endangering human beings, it is a shy species and may escape if
approached.
Prionace glauca is commonly caught by longlines, both as target catch from shark
fisheries and bycatch from tuna fisheries. Additionally, it may also be caught by tuna gillnets
and purse seines. Although usually specified in the regional fisheries statistics such as in
CIlacap and Palabuhanratu, its population numbers are yet to be known for certain. The species
contributes to the overall Southern Java shark catches by 3 to 15%. Based on catch studies in
Cilacap (2006-2011) and Palabuhanratu (2003-2008), there is a trend for decline for catches
obtained from southern waters of Java.
172
The blue shark is the most widely ranging species of shark known, and is found in the
east of Atlantic to the west Pacific. In Indonesia, the species is known from Indian Ocean waters
from west of Sumatra to south of Nusa Tenggara. It is also occasionally found in the South
China Sea and Banda Sea.
Prionace glauca may reach a maximum length of 383 cm. Males and females may
reach a size range of 210 to 220 cm upon maturity. Based on catch studies from 2001 to 2006,
the size range of individuals caught by Indonesian fishers was 200 to 300 cm. For most of the
time, fished individuals are already mature, and at times gravid females are also caught. The
viviparous females may produce offspring between 15 and 30 individuals. It is feared that its
natural population will continue to decline due to the unbridled intensity of fishing on the
species, and sustainable management models is needed for the blue shark fishery.
Exploitation
As with other carcharhinids, almost all body parts of P. glauca are exploited. The fin is
be exported to other countries. The meat of the blue shark is processed for consumption by
salting or smoking, which is often sold locally with only minor proportions being sold
products.
Volume of Trade
Prionace glauca is a commonly fished species in large pelagic fisheries, both as bycatch
and target catch. Fishers are generally able to tell blue sharks apart from other species. In the
national fisheries statistics, blue sharks are yet to be recognized specifically, therefore trade
volume data for its local and international trades are yet to become available. However, a
number of fish landing centers such as Cilacap and Palabuhanratu document the production
data and production value for the species. In general, production value trends for shark fisheries
173
follow that of blue sharks. Thus, the numbers of national shark productions in a year correlates
with the production value of the commodity.
6.3 Provisions and Legislative Requirements on the Management and Conservation of

Shark Resources
The definition of fisheries management according to the Law of Indonesian Republic
number 31 year 2004 on fisheries is all efforts, including integrated process in the collection of
information, analysis, planning, consultation, execution, resource allocation and
implementation as well as law enforcement on the legislative requirements in fisheries, which
are performed by the government or other authorities, are directed to reach the survival of
marine biodiversity's productivity and other aims already agreed upon. The wide scope of the
definition is intended to ensure that fisheries resources are exploited optimally while ensuring
and protecting its survival and environments. Implementing fisheries management requires
gradual processes, that include the collection of fundamental data such as biology, technology,
economy and social aspects of the fishery. Afterwards, the obtained data are shown as
information, which will be used for decision making. In essence, the conservation and
management of Indonesian shark resources cannot immediately establish restrictions or
protections to certain species without considering the ecological, social, economic and cultural
aspects of fishing communities of the nation. Therefore, a better management of Indonesian
shark resources is through a sustainable management that is regulated under a realistic and
implementable fisheries management act.
The support for the aforementioned steps in shark fisheries management does not only
come from within the country, but also from the international community. There are
international and regional initiatives to bolster or create awareness on the management and
conservation of sharks, for both inshore and offshore waters. Several countries have granted
national protection for one or more endangered species, through regulations under fisheries and
wildlife acts. Many shark species inhabit open seas, are widely distributed and migrate, thus
unbounded by any national borders or jurisdictions. As the result, the exploitation of shark
resources may cause conflicts with neighboring countries, especially on issues relating to the
aforementioned migrating and wide-ranging species. Conflicts may occur if one nation has
established protection for certain species, and yet the condition is not followed by neighboring
countries. Therefore, involving agreements on the management of migrating and boundary-
crossing species are needed, as species that is considered as shared stocks.
174
6.3.1 International Provisions and Legislations
Examined from international legislations, the mandate for Indonesia to create
appropriate shark fisheries management is very obvious. The convention of maritime laws by
the United Nations (UNCLOS, 1982), which was ratified by the Indonesian Government
through Law no. 17 year 1985 (on the ratification of UNCLOS 1982) has urged the nation to
cooperate on several issues:
1) The protection of biodiversity from deep sea habitats;
2) The development of measuring instruments to protect and restore populations of exploited
marine species, which are harvested at a maximum, sustainable production levels; and
3) The examination of impacts on other species that associate or are dependent upon catch
species. It is important to do so in order to protect the balance of the food chain and avoid
population declines or extinctions of species associated with the catch species.
UNCLOS also identified several highly migratory shark species such as the bluntnose
sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus, Hexanchidae), whale shark (Rhincodon typus,
Rhincodontidae) as well as several other species from Families Carcharhinidae, Sphyrnidae
and Lannidae. The preceding species are also noted as species found in Indonesian waters. In
order to respond to the UNCLOS resolution, UNFSA (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement)
have established management for the migrating shark species (Lack & Sant, 2006). Moreover,
Lack and Sant (2006) explained that to support the management of highly migratory sharks,
UNFSA requested each of its member countries, by their own or through cooperation by
RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management) to implement management by using precautionary
approaches on the aforementioned sharks, for both target and bycatch species. The
implementation of management strategies aims to protect and restore populations of both target
and non-target species, at the precautionary turning point that was established before. When
the status of target or non-target species becomes the focus of management, then monitoring
efforts for such species must be increased as efforts to determine the effectiveness levels of the
applied management and conservation measures. This includes developing , collecting and
executing research programs to evaluate the impacts of the harvesting of non-target species.
Furthermore, CCRF-FAO (Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries) had provided
further guidelines on the execution of provisions regulated in UNFSA in 1995; those on shark
issues are provisions to minimize waste and discards in shark fisheries. Subsequently, CCRF-
175
FAO provided a special protocol to ensure sustainable shark fisheries, for both targets or
bycatches through the IPOA-Shark (International Plan of Actions). IPOA Shark also mandates
every country to adopt the action plan at national level through the development of NPOA-
Shark (National Plan of Actions). However, the compliance level of the Indonesian fisheries
management to CCRF-FAO 1995, especially on Article 7 on the management fisheries, is still
low, below 30% (Pitcher et al., 2008). The pre-existing national legislations, although do not
specifically regulate shark fisheries, actually are applicable as instruments and references in
developing an ecosystem-based shark management program.
Known international provisions on the shark fisheries include :
1. IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission)

There are two resolutions on shark fisheries issued by the IOTC since the foundation of
the organization, which is Resolution no. 05/2005 on the protection of fished sharks in
fisheries management, and Resolution no. 12/2009 on the protection of thresher sharks
(Family Alopiidae) in the IOTC areas of competence. Provisions issued by IOTC on shark
fisheries are:
 Every contracting party is required to report their shark catches, including its
historical catches;
 Every fishing vessel is prohibited from onboard storing, relocating or landing shark
fin catches, which is against Resolution 05/05;
 Every country is required to release live shark catches, especially juveniles and
gravid individuals;
 Every country is require to research for selective fishing instruments.
In the resolution IOTC 12/2009 on the conservation of thresher shark (Family Alopiidae)
"caught in association with fisheries in the IOTC area of competence", the provision is as
follows:
 Every vessel is prohibited from retaining onboard, relocating from one vessel to
another, landing, storing, selling or bidding to sell any part or whole carcasses of all
species of thresher sharks from Family Alopiidae except for scientific observation;
176
 Every vessel is required to release any caught thresher shark immediately, without
harming it;
 Every vessel is required to document and report thresher sharks that are accidentally
caught and released;
 In recreational and sports fishing, any thresher sharks caught should be released
alive and should be equipped with instruments to release the hook;
 Cooperating non-contracting parties (CPCs), if possible, may perform studies on
Alopias spp. in convention areas of IOTC to identify its nursing grounds;
 Scientific observers are allowed to collect biological samples of dead thresher sharks
as part of activities approved by the scientific committee, based on agreements by
member countries;
 Every contracting party is required to report any shark catches to the IOTC
Secretariat.
As a follow up to the provisions, since 2011 the General Directorate of Catch Fisheries
(Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Tangkap, DJPT) have issued prohibitions from catching any of
the three species of Family Alopiidae, which are Alopias pelagicus, A. superciliosus and A.
vulpinus in Indonesian waters. Nevertheless, the prohibition has yet to be proven effective.
Field observations showed that most fished sharks are weak or dead by the time the lines and
nets are hauled, the latter of which are often set at least a day before. Releasing fished sharks
will reduce fishers' income, and thus subject to their consideration. Thus, the implementation
of the prohibition will need to be accompanied by intensive and continuous socialization
programs, in order to build the awareness in the shark fishing community on the vulnerability
and protection of several shark species. At the very least, documentation of shark catches based
on their size, sex, and geographical positions are still required regardless of prohibited or catch
status.
2. CCSBT (Commssion for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna)

The CCSBT has imposed the 'Recommendation to mitigate the impact on ecologically
related species (ERS) of fishing for Southern Bluefin Tuna', which regulates the following
issues:
177
 Every member country is required to implement IPOA-Sharks, IPOA-Seabirds and
FAO-Sea Turtles;
 Every member country is required to obey binding regulations as well as regulations
on the protection of ecologically related species, which were stipulated by the IOTC
and WCPFC;
 Every member country is required to collect and report ERS catch data and report
actions performed during the handling of ERS
3. WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission)

Conditions issued by the commission include:
 Every country is required to implement IPOA-Sharks and the execution status of
NPOA-Sharks and submit its annual report to WCPFC;
 Every nation is required to report in its n=annual report, the blue shark (Prionace
glauca), silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), oceanic whitetip shark
(Carcharhinus longimanus), mako sharks (Isurus spp.) and thresher sharks (Alopias
spp.), including retained or discarded catches, as well as research and developments
conducted to reduce shark catches.
6.3.2 National Legislative Requirements

Until now, Indonesia has yet to possess any specific regulation that regulates shark
fisheries management, however efforts toward the goal are underway. The high levels of
international concern to Indonesian shark fisheries should be responded positively, due to the
vital role of the resource in maintaining marine ecosystems. Additionally, sharks also play a
fairly significant role as means of income for communities in parts of Indonesia.
One of the efforts underway is the formulation of the National Plan of Action on Sharks
and Rays, which was started in 2004 by the Directorate of Fish Resources - General Directorate
of Catch Fisheries. The formulation of the plan of action refers to the International Plan of
Action for the conservation and management of sharks and rays (IPOA-Sharks), which was
legitimized in 1999 by the Fisheries Committee of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Although voluntary, all shark and ray-fishing countries are urged to execute the IPOA-Sharks
through the development of shark and ray research, as well as the NPOA. The goal of the plan
of action is improving species-specific catches, the collection of landing data, monitoring and
178
management of shark and ray fisheries. IPOA also acknowledges the importance of
international collaboration for data collection and the management for cross-border issues,
shared stocks, offshore shark and ray stocks, and highly migratory species.
The NPOA Sharks and Rays document for Indonesia includes important topics on the
conservation and management of sharks and rays at national level. It covers the biodiversity,
distribution, exploitation status, and management measures of shark and ray fisheries that need
to be conducted by the government and associated parties, both on national and regional levels.
Moreover, coordination at regional level is also needed to implement the NPOA effectively.
The 2010 plan of action for shark management still suffers from problems during its
implementation, due to differences in priorities between directorates responsible for the NPOA.
Furthermore, the data collection at the level of species is still difficult, due to limited
identification skills of most personnel, and the high number of landing locations that need to
be monitored. Sharks are often landed in fragmented conditions, thus increasing difficulties in
identification. On the other hand there are undocumented shark catches in official landing
locations, which render it difficult to obtain accurate and satisfactory data. In order to resolve
the situation, a comprehensive planning and a more integrated coordination is needed, as the
data are foundations in formulating appropriate policies in the country.
The NPOA Sharks and Rays contains a number of prioritized action programs,
including:
 Reevaluate the status of shark and ray fisheries in Indonesia;
 Formulate data collection methods and processes;
 Develop research on sharks and rays;
 Complete management steps by increasing the awareness on shark and ray
fisheries, improve organizational capacities and performing monitoring and
evaluations.
During the execution of the programs, coordination between governmental institutions

is needed, especially between: Directorate of Fish Resources (Dit. SDI) from the General
Directorate of Catch Fisheries (DJPT), Directorate for Area and Fish Species Conservation
(Dit. KKJI) from the General Directorate for Maritime Affairs, Coasts and Small Islands
(KP3K), Data and Information System Center (PUSDATIN), The Education and Training
Center from the Maritime and Fisheries Human Resources Development Center (Pusdiklat -
179
BPSDMKP), Research and Development Body for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
(BALITBANG-KP), Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), and many other involved
institutions, including universities, the Ministry of Forestry, international non-governmental
organizations (WWF, CI, WCS, MSC) and fisheries associations.
Although the National Plan of Actions for Sharks and Rays (NPOA Sharks and Rays)
document for Indonesia has been finalized and validated as a plan of action since 2008, the
NPOA has yet to possess legal legitimacies, and therefore there has yet to be any concrete
actions for the Indonesian shark management. Nevertheless, there are positive responses
regarding shark management from regional governments.
The Regional Government of the Regency of Raja Ampat, from the Province of Papua,
has issued Regional Decree No. 9 year 2012 that contains the "prohibition of fishing of sharks,
manta rays and certain fish species in the maritime territory of Raja Ampat". The Act No. 34
year 2004 on Regional Government, Section 18, explicitly states that regional governments
have the authority to perform resource management measures, including conservation. The
commitment of the regional government of Raja Ampat is worthy of appreciation, however
this does not need to mean that shark fisheries across Indonesia should be closed.
Therefore, with the numerous amount of organizations involved in the management of
sharks, the communication to decide everything that has to do with shark management is
frequently ineffective. For example, in deciding the status and position of Indonesian sharks in
the annual convention of CITES. At the core of it, Indonesia already has organization
instrument in managing general fisheries, which is the Coordination Forum for the
Management of Fish Resources (Forum Koordinasi Pengelolaan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya
Ikan, FKPPS). FKKPS is a coordination forum that specializes on the management of fisheries
in a WPP (fisheries management zone), where each WPP is also mandated to formulate a
specific Fisheries Management Plan (Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan, RPP). RPP may be used
as a vehicle to manage sharks in Indonesia (SDI, 2011). In general, regulatory instruments and
shark management policies in Indonesia are more than sufficient to create management
instruments on national shark fisheries, if considered from both its own national legislations or
the international legislations ratified by the country.
6.4 Legislative Requirements on the Protection of Shark Resources

Indonesia has yet to possess a specific regulation that controls the conservation
measures of sharks, however Indonesia already possesses a number of regulations to perform
180
protective measures to resources vulnerable to extinction, so the resource may not become
extinct and continue to provide sustainable benefits for the society and its environment.
Act No. 31 year 2004 on Fisheries as had been modified by Act No. 45 year 2009, on
section 7 verse 1 stated that under the management of fish resources the Minister has
established the following: 1. minimum size or weight of fishes allowed to be caught; r. marine
protected aresa; and u. protected fish species. The management points are among the
management instruments that may be employed to ensure the survival, availability and
sustainable exploitation of fish resources, including those of sharks.
Several legislative requirements and derivative legal products that are directly and
indirectly associated with conservation efforts (protection, restoration, and sustainable use) of
fish resources, including sharks are as following :
1) The Governmental Regulation No. 7 year 1999 on the "preservation of flora and fauna",
itself is a derivative from Act No. 5 year 1990 on the "conservation of living natural
resources and their ecosystems", is one of national regulations that establishes
protection status to resources vulnerable to the threat of extinction. The appendix of the
Governmental Regulation is a list of protected plant and animal species, among them
is the sawfish Pristis microdon. Due to its similarity to sharks, many have mistakenly
considered the ray relative as a type of shark. One of the major differences between a
shark and a ray is the position of their gills, as shark gills are located dorsally whereas
ray gills are located ventrally.
2) In Governmental Regulation No. 60 year 2007 on the conservation efforts of fish
resources, it is stated that the conservation of fish resources includes efforts on
protection, restoration and the exploitation of fish resources, including ecosystem,
species and genetic to ensure their existence, availability and sustainability by
maintaining and increasing the quality of values and diversity of fish resources. The
interpretation of the statement is that every fish resource, including sharks, needs to be
granted protection and restoration so it may sustainably benefits the current and future
generations. The Governmental Regulation is a strong legal foundation for the Ministry
of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to perform management steps on vulnerable fish
species, including sharks. The conservation of fish resources may be performed at the
level of ecosystem, species or genetic.
181
3) The Regulation of Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Peraturan Menteri
Kelautan dan Perikanan, PermenKP) No. 3 year 2010 on the Establishment Protocol
for Protected Status on Fish Species is a derivative regulation from Governmental
Regulation No. 60 year 2007 on the conservation of fish resources. In the former, there
are two types of protection, which are full protection and partial protection. The partial
protection is divided into three protection subtypes, which are: partial protection based
on size, partial protection based on location and partial protection based on time. One
of the legal products established by the PermenKP is the Decree by Minister of
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No. 18/Men-KP/2013 on the Protection Status
Establishment of Whale Sharks (Rhincodon typus), which was granted with full
protection status.
4) The Regulation by Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (PermenKP) No. 2 year
2009 on the Establishment Protocols for Marine Protected Areas. The establishment of
marine protected areas is performed with the aim of (a) protecting and restoring fish
resources along with vital marine ecosystems of the area, in order to ensure the
continuity of its ecological functions; (b) accomplishing the sustainable use of fish
resources and their ecosystems, as well as ecological services they provide; (c)
preserving local wisdom in managing fish resources inside and/or around the marine
protected area and (d) ensure the prosperity of communities around the marine
protected area. The PermenKP may be used as an instrument in protecting spawning
and nursery habitats of sharks, which contain vulnerable phases in their lifecycles.
However, there has yet to be any conservation areas specifically created for the
protection of important shark habitats in Indonesia. Data and information on the
spawning and nursery locations are very essential for the conservation of shark
resources in the future. Until the end of 2012, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Regional Government has allocated a number of marine territories as protected areas,
with their total size reaching 11,089,181 hectares.
5) The Regulation by Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (PermenKP) No. 4 year
2010 on the Exploitation Protocols of Fish Species and Genetic Resources. The
PermenKP is essentially focused on the exploitation protocols of protected fish species
and species whose international trade is regulated by CITES conventions. It covers the
protocols for exploitation of both naturally caught and cultured fishes, permit
mechanisms, catch quota establishment and administrative penalties to violators.
182
6) The Presidential Decree No. 39 year 1980 on the erasure of trawls in Indonesian waters.
It has been well known that trawls are unselective fishing gears, and may catch all
species of fish at all sizes, including various species of sharks. The decision to remove
trawls is one of the appropriate policies to protect the survival of fish resources, and not
limited to sharks but also to other fishes.
7) The Presidential Decree No. 85 year 1982 was issued in order to ensure the proliferation
of fish resources as well as avoiding conflicts, on the use of shrimp trawls in seas around
Kai, Tanimbar, Aru and West Papua and Arafura Sea with coordinate borders at 130o
East to the east. The decree may function to reduce fishing pressures on sharks and rays
obtained as bycatches from trawl fisheries, especially for stingrays from species
Urolophus kaianus, which are found in waters around Kai islands.
8) The Regulation by Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No. 12 year 2012 on the
Offshore Catch Fisheries. Other sections in the ministerial regulation are involved in
the management of sharks, including:
a. Section 39 which states that "every fishing vessel that operates in the sea and
obtains bycatches that are considered as ecologically related species to tuna
fisheries, such as sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, sea mammals including cetaceans,
are stipulated to perform acts of conservation".
b. Section 40 explains the criteria for legal bycatches, including sharks that are
considered as ecologically related species to tuna fisheries, and must fulfill the
criteria by not being juvenile sharks or in gravid conditions, and must be landed
whole, and
c. Section 43 specifically explains the status of ecologically related bycatches from
tuna fisheries, such as thresher sharks, which must be released alive. Furthermore,
it stipulates penalties for every fishing vessel which catch, relocate, land, store or
trade thresher sharks from Family Alopiidae, whole or in parts.
Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMO) have advised so fishing in the

open seas are not outside the boundaries of sustainable fishing principles. It is hoped that the
national scientific authority, which is currently held by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences
(LIPI), will create a database of shark species that are vulnerable to extinction, along with their
population estimates in the wild. National intervention is needed to protect endangered shark
species, by imposing restrictions. Restrictions may take the form of quotas, which restrict the
183
volume of exported commodities so it may not exceed the capacities of natural populations to
recover.
6.5 Shark Fisheries Management Efforts

The management of shark fisheries requires understanding and integrated collaboration
between involved institutions, the fsihing communities, and conservationists. The involvement
of international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in formulating
management steps, regulations and their legal foundations will enable the realization of thriving
and sustainable shark fisheries.
Sustainable shark management efforts according to Rahardjo (2007) may be applied
through the implementation of several criteria:
1. Limitations on species and the smallest size allowed for catches
2. Regulations on hook and mesh sizes
3. Limitations on the number of fishing activities
4. Limitations on certain fishing gears
5. Quota for the number of catches
6. Limitations on fishing efforts
7. Closure of fishing areas and the implementation of fishing seasons
In comparison, the fisheries management options developed by Merta et al. (2003) are
as follows:
1. Size limitation for catches
2. Vessel and gear limitations
3. Sanctuary zones
4. The increase of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)
5. The establishment of total allowable catch quota (TAC)
The consideration of both shark and ray biology (low fecundity and late maturity) as
well as societal needs may pave the path toward the sustainable management of shark fisheries.
Conservation is executed in order to protect the sustainability of the resources, and therefore
the sustainability of their benefits. By considering the management approaches, there are a
number of management options that may be accomplished in order to achieve the goal,
including:
184
1. The Prohibition of Finning Practices
One of the international issues affecting world shark fisheries is the practice of finning.
The cutting of fins while the shark is still alive and the discarding of non-fin parts have
attracted international attention, as it is considered as both an act of cruelty and unwarranted
waste. The prohibition of finning practices is a necessity if Indonesia wishes to use its shark
resources sustainably, and still wants positive response from the international community.
One of a strategically feasible decision is the establishment of a national regulation that
requires all fishing vessels that catch sharks, or vessels that obtain shark bycatches, to land
their catches in whole conditions at the port. The regulation is expected to improve the
national fisheries data, and prevent unnecessary wasting of body parts, which may be
processed into economically valuable products.
The aforementioned regulation may also reduce the number of sharks caught by fishers,
due to the limited capacity of most cargo holds. Fins may only contribute to 3% of the total
weight of a shark, which means that 97% of the exploitable resource is wasted. The
regulation may also enable a more straightforward supervision in the field.
2. Limitations on size classes and species
A study conducted in 2001 suggested that immature and juvenile sharks are frequently
caught and landed by fishers. The fishing of sexually immature individuals may impact the
continued survival of the species. Mandate to determine the minimum fish size allowable
for fishing has been clearly described in Act No. 31 year 2004 Section 7 Verse 1 Letter q,
on fisheries as had been modified by Act No. 45 year 2009.
It is widely known that young sharks often inhabit coastal habitats, which are also
exploited by artisanal fishers with high fishing intensities. Thus, unequivocal policies are
needed to control the use of fish resources in coastal waters, but only by regarding
communal needs to use the fish resources in the area. On the other hand, fishing gears
operated by fishers often possess low selectivity, and resulting in many young individuals
being caught as bycatches.
3. Regulation of mesh and hook sizes
Out of several nets capable of catching sharks, or nets whose bycatches are consisting
of sharks, only the guitarfish net (jaring liongbun) has the appropriate mesh size, resulting
in high selectivity. Other nets have considerably smaller mesh sizes and result in low
selectivity. The regulation of mesh and hook sizes is intended to enable the escape of
185
smaller individuals from a particular stock, and the application of larger hook sizes and
larger baits are hoped to exclusively capture mature sharks.
The capture of sexually immature bycatches is a challenge that remains to be solved.
On the other hand, desired bycatches are still economically important, thus possibly
conflicting with the aims of the solution.
4. Limitation on the number of fishing activities
The limitation of fishing activities are based on the shark production data, which tend
to show declines, and the declining CPUEs obtained from shark fishing gears. Moreover,
the fishing of sharks is influenced by market demands and sale prices, wherein high
demands may result in the increase of fishing efforts. Conversely, decreasing demands may
also reduce the fishing effort.
The restriction on shark fishing is a fairly complex challenge, as most fished sharks are
bycatches. The fishing of sharks is likely to continue for as long as fishers target other
fishes. Awareness building in the fishing community to release immature or gravid
individuals will positively impact their own livelihood. Nevertheless, as a concept,
restrictions on fishing activities will still be required to prevent overfishing.
Fishing activity limitations best performed is best performed by not adding the number
of fishing vessels, in regards to the current economic conditions and low prosperity of
fishing communities. Thus, the government may not issue new permits for fishing armada,
especially those that obtain shark bycatches.
5. Quota regulations
The quota regulation is intended to limit exploitation levels, thus the number of fished
resources do not exceed their capacities to recover. The quota is established based on the
potentials of the resource, and may differ between regions due to inter-regional differences
in resource potentials and exploitation levels. Until then, fishing pressure is the most
dominant element that causes the population decline of a species, including sharks. In order
to establish a fishing quota, sufficient supporting data is needed so statistical approaches
are feasible.
Especially for sharks, the establishment of fishing quota may create a number of
problems, due to the most shark catches being bycatches. One of the possible solutions is
by establishing export quota and minimum fin sizes allowable for international trade.
Without the export quota, especially for shark fins, the rate of shark fishing will continue
with the market demand. High market demands will certainly result in high number of
186
fishing operations. Exploitation control through market mechanisms is estimated to be
fairly effective in reducing the rate of exploitation. Fin size restrictions for international
trade may become one of the options in controlling shark exploitation. By limiting the fin
size it is hoped that smaller sharks will be released into the sea, as their size classes are
prohibited from sale in the international market.
6. Protection of spawning and nursery areas
It is generally known that coastal waters are spawning and nursery grounds for many
fish species, and yet the ecosystem also suffers from high fishing pressure, resulting in
immature individuals being caught. From the conservation perspective, the fishing of
sexually immature fishes may, in the long term, threaten the survival of the species and the
livelihood of the fishing community itself.
Fishers operating in caostal regions are generally artisanal fishers with low-selectivity
fishing gears. This will create a difficult situation for the government, as it needs to apply
tight regulations regarding the issue, and consequently impacting the low-income
community significantly. Aside from that, it is the responsibility of the government to
protect fisheries resources from the threat of extinction, so they may continue to benefit the
society in the long term.
One of the urgent issues is the need to find a point of agreement between a community
that benefits from coastal fish resources, and the need to protect coastal territories due to
their possible status as spawning and nursery grounds. Accomplishing the goal will require
data from studies on coastal locations that act as spawning areas and nurseries. These
locations are then established as conservation areas, thus enabling sharks to continue their
growth and reproductive cycles. Thus, local communities will still be able to benefit from
local resources without disturbing those particular areas.
7. Protection of endangered species
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has issued a list of sharks
that are globally threatened by extinctions, with a portion of those species are found in
Indonesia. For nationally endangered shark species, it is important to establish their
protection status so their populations may not suffer from extinctions. The process for
establishing protection status, especially regarding endangered aquatic organisms, is
already provided by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, by referring to the
Decree of Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No. 3 year 2010 on the Establishment
Protocols of Protection Status for Fishes.
187
As mentioned before, the protection status may be granted in full or partial forms. The
partial protection is one of the breakthroughs under the context of species conservation, by
combining the needs of the community and the need to conserve resources sustainably. One
of the shark species that have been granted protection is the whale shark (Rhincodon typus).
Exploitation opportunities remain open even for fully protected species, which is by
developing non-extractive uses such as marine tourism.
Comprehensive steps in the management of shark fisheries should be immediately

applied in Indonesia. National shark management may be performed gradually or at least
through pilot project programs, as the first step in implementing the management. The locations
for the pilot project is determined by evaluating locations that contribute to the national shark
productions significantly, if compared to other regions. At least there are one pilot project
locations in Sumatra, Java, and Nusa Tenggara that are suitable for the beginning of monitoring
programs. For Sumatra, the largest shark landing centers are found in Aceh or Sibolga; for Java
and Lombok, monitoring may be performed in Oceanic Fisheries Port in Cilacap, Central Java,
and in Fish Landing Center of Tanjungluar, East Lombok. Likewise, monitoring in the Indo-
Pacific waters may also be performed in the Fisheries Port of Bitung.
A well-coordinated and integrated management of shark fisheries is hoped to resolve
the many problems in Indonesian shark fisheries without impacting any of the involved parties.
Both awareness and willingness for better progress are keys for the success of the plans.
188
CONCLUSION
189
VII. CONCLUSION
Issues on shark fisheries, especially the issue of shark finning, is an international

concern with potentially numerous implications on the fisheries management in Indonesia.
However, as one of the largest shark producers in the world, it is undeniable that shark fisheries
bear an important role as a livelihood for fishing communities in Indonesia. On the other hand,
uncontrolled fishing of sharks may result in extinction of certain species, therefore prudence in
their management is needed. Issues pertaining to shark fisheries are also sensitive topics and
are often associated with the management of other economically valuable fishes, such as tuna
fisheries, as sharks are often caught as bycatches. Furthermore, sharks are also anticipated
bycatches as they yield lucrative prices, especially their fins.
The enforcement of laws and regulations were proven as being less effective if
implemented at grassroot levels. Aside from the relatively poor field supervisions due to the
tremendous size of Indonesian maritime territories, the poor supporting capacities,
infrastructures and human resources also become obstacles in implementing shark fisheries
management in the field. Moreover, the low incentives on law enforcement, inadequate
motivation and information access, aggravated by corruptions have also become impediments.
Therefore, in order to implement sustainable management of shark fisheries, the following
steps are needed:
1. As an effort to improve supporting data for the sustainable management of shark

fisheries, support from various parties for further studies are needed. These include
improvements on scientific information on shark resources, information on their
reproductive biology, population dynamics, and stocks in Indonesia. Additionally, it is
requisite to conduct studies on socio-economic issues and alternative livelihoods for
stakeholders involved. Those studies may be conducted by various research institutions,
universities, NGOs and shark conservationists;
2. Data collection on shark catches should be performed to species level, and therefore
needs capacity building for associated human resources in species identification skills.
This may be conducted as routine trainings across all regions in Indonesia. The
aforementioned efforts are intended not only for fisheries officers in landing centers,
but also for enumerators and observers placed in fishing armadas;
190
3. Certain shark species are slow in reaching sexual maturity and possess low fecundities,
and may need a more restricted regulation in their fisheries, without abandoning the
needs of local societies. The application of conservation principles on the management
of sharks is a necessity as it will improve Indonesia's standing in the international
community as well as assuring the sustainability of shark resources;
4. Considering the size of the national maritime territory and the number of fish landings
across Indonesia, the plans for the implementation of National Plans of Action for Shark
and Rays, which was published by the General Directorate of Catch Fisheries in 2010,
could be executed gradually and continuously;
5. Commitments from governmental organizations and involved stakeholders are needed,
in order to coordinate, supervise, and implement management measures through the
mechanism of allocations and sustainable programs;
6. Perform program evaluations on every management measures, periodically and
transparently.
It is hoped that the collective willingness and awareness in saving Indonesia's shark
resources, together with support from all involved parties, will enable the success of the
established measures.
191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
192
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abercrombie, D. & Chapman, D. 2012. Identifying shark fins: Oceanic whitetip, porbeagle and
hammerheads. PEW Environment Group, Washington.
Adrianto, L., Wardiatno, Y., Susanto, H.A, Azizy, A., Trihandoyo, A., Nurcahyanto, A.,
Habibi, A. & Zainudin, I.M. 2010. Kajian awal keragaan pendekatan ekosistem dalam
pengelolaan perikanan (Ecosystem approach to fisheries management) di Wilayah
Pengelolaan Perikanan Indonesia. Jakarta: WWF-Indonesia dan Pusat Kajian
Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan IPB.
Adrim, M. & Fahmi, 2007. Characteristics of Chondrichthyan diversity in western Indonesia.
Jurnal Ilmu-ilmu Perairan dan Perikanan Indonesia, 14(2):137-150.
Adrim, M., Fahmi., Balkis, S. dan Maha, R.N. 2006. Keragaman jenis pari di Indonesia
[Poster]. Sensus Biota Laut LIPI.
Allen, G. R. & Adrim, M. 2003. Coral Reef Fishes of Indonesia. Zoological Studies 42(1):1-
72.
Allen, G.R. & M.V. Erdmann. 2012. Reef fishes of the East Indies. (Vol. I, II,III). Tropical
Reef Research, Perth, Australia.
Ali, A., Hilmi, A. H., Gambang, A. C., Sade, A., and Razak, S. A. (Eds). 2004. Elasmobranch
resources, utilization, trade and management in Malaysia. Malaysia: Marine Fishery
Resources Development and Management Department Southeast Asian Fisheries
Development Center.
Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M.,
Macias, D., Mancini, P., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M.
& Valenti, S.V. 2009. Alopias superciliosus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 16
December 2012.
Anon, 2006. The Japan-Indonesia Deep Sea Fishery Resources Joint Exploration Project.
Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation Japan, Agency for Marine and Fisheries
Research, MMAF Indonesia, March 2006.
Anon, 2011.Tanjungluar (East Lombok) longline shark fishery. Report on Data Review and
Assessment Meeting. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR) PROJECT, FIS/2006/142.
193
Anung, A. dan Widodo, J. 2002. Perikanan cucut artisanal di perairan Samudera Hindia, selatan
Jawa dan Lombok. JPPI Sumberdaya dan Penangkapan 8: 75-81.
Backus, R.H., Springer, S., & Arnold Jr., E.L. 1956. A contribution to the natural history of the
white-tip shark, Pterolamiops longimanus (Poey). Deep- Sea Research 3: 176-188.
Barnes, R.H. 2005. Indigenous use and management of whales and other marine resources in
East Flores and Lembata, Indonesia. Senri Ethnological Studies 67: 77-85.
Bass, J., D’Aubrey, J.D. and Kistnasamy, N. 1975. Sharks of the east coast of southern Africa.
III. The families Carcharhinidae (excluding Mustelus and Carcharhinus ) and
Sphyrnidae. Investigational report. Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban 38: 1-
100.
Bascompte, J., Melian, C.J., & Sala, E. 2005. Interaction strength combinations and the
overfishing of a marine food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 5443–5447.
Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN
2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 06 May 2013.
Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R.,
Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J.E., Medina, E., Martinez-Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di
Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez- Jiménez, J.C., Ruiz, C., Smith, W.,
Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M. 2007. Sphyrna lewini. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 28
February 2013.
Blaber, S.J.M. 2006. Artisanal shark and ray fisheries in Eastern Indonesia: their
socioeconomic and fisheries characteristics and relationship with Australian
resources. ACIAR PROJECT FIS/2003/037 supplementary stock assessment
meeting, CSIRO Cleveland, Australia, 4 September, 2006.
Blaber, S. J. M., Dichmont, C. M., White, W., Buckworth, R., Sadiyah, L, Iskandar, B.,
Nurhakim, S., Pillans, R., Andamari, R., Dharmadi & Fahmi (2009) Elasmobranchs
in southern Indonesian fisheries: the fisheries, the status of the stocks and management
options. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 19: 367–391.
Bonfil, R. 2002. Trends and patterns in world and Asian elasmobranch fisheries. In Fowler S.
L., T. M. Reed, & F. A. Dipper (Eds). Elasmobranchi biodiversity, conservation, and
management. Proceedings of the International seminar and Workshop, Sabah,
194
Malaysia, July 1997. IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN. Gland. Switzerland
and Cambridge. UK: 15-24.
Cahyono, N.A. 2013. Mengenal jaring purse seine. Downloaded 12 February 2013
Camhi, M., S. Fowler, J. Musick, A. Brautigam, & S. Fordham. 1998. Sharks and their
Relatives-Ecology and Conservation. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN.
Gland. Switzerland and Cambridge. UK.
Carlson, J.K. 1999. Occurrence of neonate and juvenile of sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus
plumbeus) in the north-eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries Bulletin 97(2): 387-391.
Casper, B.M., Domingo, A., Gaibor, N., Heupel, M.R., Kotas, E., Lamónaca, A.F., Pérez-
Jimenez, J.C., Simpfendorfer, C., Smith, W.D., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A. & Vooren,
C.M. 2005. Sphyrna zygaena. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 1 June 2013.
Castro, J.I. 1983. The Sharks of North American Waters. Texas A. and M. University Press,
College Station, USA.
Castro, J.I. 1993. The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark
nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 38: 37-48.
Cavanagh, R. D., P. M. Kyne, S. L. Fowler, J. A. Musick, & M. B. Bennett (eds). 2003. The
conservation status of Australasian chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCN shark
specialist group Australia and oceania regional red list workshop. Queensland.
Australia. 7-9 March 2003. The University of Queensland. School of Biomedical
Sciences. Brisbane.
Coleman, N. 1996. Australia’s sharks and rays. NSW Australia: National Book Distributors
and Publishers.
Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. FAO jenis catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and
illustrated catalogue of sharks jenis known to date. Part 1. Hexanchiformes to
Lamniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. (125) Vol. 4, Pt 1.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1998. Sphyrnidae. Hammerhead and bonnethead sharks. In K.E. Carpenter
and V.H. Niem (eds.) FAO identification guide for fishery purposes. The Living
Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. FAO, Rome: 1361-1366.
Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Species catalogue for fishery purposes. Sharks of the world: an
annotated and illustrated catalogue of sharks species known to date. Bullhead,
195
mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes).
Rome, FAO.
Compagno, L. J. V. 2002. Review of biodiversity of sharks and chimaeras in the South China
Sea and adjacent areas. In: Fowler S. L., T. M. Reed, & F.
A. Dipper (Eds). Elasmobranchi biodiversity, conservation, and management. Proceedings of
the International seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997. IUCN SSC
Shark Specialist Group. IUCN. Gland. Switzerland and Cambridge. UK: 52-62.
Compagno, L. J. V., M. Dando, & S. Fowler. 2005. Sharks of the world. Princeton University
Press. New Jersey.
Cortés, E. 1999. Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 56: 707–717.
Cortes, E., 2000. Life History Patterns and Correlation in Sharks. Rev. Fish. Sci. 8(4): 299-
344.
Damongilala, L.J., 2008. Kandungan asam lemak tak jenuh minyak hati ikan hiu botol
(Centrophorus sp) yang diekstraksi dengan cara pemanasan. Jurnal Ilmiah Sains Vol.
8 No. 2, October 2008.
Daley, R. K., Stevens, J. D., Last, P. R., & Yearsley, G. K. 2002. Field guide to Australian
sharks and rays. Australia: CSIRO Marine Research and Development Corporation.
De Pinho, A. P., J.R. Dave, H. Guimara, A. S. Martins, P. A. S. Costa, G. Olavo and J. Valentin.
2002. Total mercury in muscle tissue of five shark species from Brazilian offshore
waters: Effects of feeding habit, sex, and length. Environmental Research 89: 250-
258.
Denham, J., Stevens, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Heupel, M.R., Cliff, G., Morgan, A., Graham,
R., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.D, Seisay, M., Asber, M., Valenti, S.V., Litvinov, F.,
Martins, P., Lemine Ould Sidi, M. & Tous, P. & Bucal, D. 2007. Sphyrna mokarran.
In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 01 June 2013.
Dharmadi & Fahmi. 2003. Fisheries characteristics of artisanal sharks and rays in Indonesia
waters. Papers International Seminar on Marine and Fisheries. 15-16 December.
Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries:
122-129.
Dharmadi & Fahmi. 2007. Aspek Biologi dan daerah penangkapan cucut botol (Squalus sp.)
yang tertangkap di perairan Samudera Hindia. JPPI. Vol. 13(1): 35-42.
196
Dharmadi & Fahmi. 2008. Biodiversitas ikan pari yang tertangkap di perairan Samudera
Hindia. Paper presented at the Seminar Nasional Ikan V, 3 June 2008 in Bogor.
Dharmadi, Fahmi, & M. Adrim. 2007. Distribusi panjang, hubungan panjang total dan panjang
klasper dan nisbah kelamin cucut lanjaman (C. falciformis). JPPI Vol. 13, No. 3.
PRPT-BRKP: 243-249.
Dharmadi, Fahmi, & N.N. Wiadnyana. 2012. Biological Aspects and Catch Fluctuation of
Pelagic Thresher Shark, Alopias pelagicus from Indian Ocean. Paper presented in
International workshop. SEASTAR. Bangkok, Thailand.
Dharmadi, Fahmi & W. White. 2009. Biodiversity of shark and ray in South- Eastern Indonesia.
Indonesia Fisheries Research Journal, PRPT-BRKP.
Dharmadi, Maria M. W., & Anung W. 2003. Morfologi, habitat, dan biologi cucut marga
Alopias. Warta Penelitian Indonesia Edisi Sumber Daya dan Penangkapan. Vol.9
No.5. 2003: 20-25.
Dharmadi, Sumadhiharga, K. & Fahmi. 2007. Biodiversity and length frequencies of sharks
caught in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Res. Indonesia, 32(2): 139-146.
Dharmadi, Suprapto, & A.A. Widodo. 2008. Komposisi dan fluktuasi hasil tangkapan ikan
cucut dominan yang tertangkap rawai tuna permukaan. JPPI. Vol.14, No.4: 371-377.
Dharmadi, Triharyuni S., & J. Riyanto. 2010. Hasil tangkapan cucut yang tertangkap dengan
jaring insang permukaaan di perairan Samudera Hindia. JPPI Vol. 16 No. 4 2010.
DGCF (Directorate General of Capture Fisheries). 2007. Draft National Plan Of Action
(NPOA) Shark Management. Bahan Workshop finalisasi 2nd Draft NPOA Shark
Management. Directorate of Fish Resources. Directorate General of Capture
Fisheries. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Jakarta. 24-26 September.
DJPT.2012. Statistik Perikanan Tangkap Indonesia. Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan
Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Tangkap. Vol 12, No.1. ISSN : 1858-0505.
Dudley, R. G., & Harris, K. C. 1987. The fisheries statistics system of Java, Indonesia:
operational realities in a developing country. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management
18: 365-374.
Ebert, D.A. 2003. Sharks, rays and chimaeras of California. University of California Press:
Berkeley, California.
Fahmi. 2007. Diversity, biology and utilization of Chondrichthyans in west central Indonesian
fisheries. Thesis of Centre for Marine Studies, The University of Queensland,
Australia.
197
Fahmi & Dharmadi. 2005. Status perikanan hiu dan aspek pengelolaannya. Oseana, 30: 1-8.
Fahmi & Adrim, M. 2007. Elasmobranch diversity of Kalimantan waters. Mar.Res.Indonesia
32(2): 97-106.
Fahmi & Sumadhiharga. 2007. Size, sex and length at maturity of four common sharks caught
from western Indonesia. Mar. Res. Ind. 32(1): 7-19.
Fahmi. 2010. Sharks and rays in Indonesia. Mar. Res. Indonesia, 35(1): 43-54.
Fahmi. 2011. Sumber daya ikan hiu Indonesia: Koleksi rujukan biota laut Pusat Penelitian
Oseanografi LIPI. Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi LIPI, Jakarta.
Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G.L., Heithaus, M.R., Lotze, H.K. 2010. Patterns and
ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13(8): 1055-
1071.
Frid, A., Baker, G.G., & Dill, L.M. 2007. Do shark declines create fear-released systems?
Oikos, 117(2): 191-201.
Hoenig, J.M. & Gruber, S.H. 1990. Life history patterns in elasmobranchs: implications for
fisheries management. In: H.L. Pratt Jr., S.H. Gruber and T.Taniuchi (Eds).
Elasmobranchs as living resources: Advances in the biology, ecology, systematic and
the status of the fisheries. NOAA Technical Report 90: 1-16.
Holland, K.N., Wetherbee, B.M., Peterson, J. D. and Lowe, C.G. 1993. Movements and
distribution of hammerhead shark pups on their natal grounds. Copeia, 1993: 495-502.
Holts D.B; A. Juliana; O.S.Nishizaki & N.W. Bartoo. 1998. Pelagic shark Fisheries along the
west coast of the United States and Baja California, Mexico. Fisheries Research 39:
115-125.
IOTC. 2005. Resolusi no.05/2005 tentang perlindungan hiu yang tertangkap terkait dengan
pengelolaan perikanan
IOTC. 2009. Resolusi no.12/2009 tentang perlindungan hiu tikus (Suku Alopiidae) dengan
wewenang wilayah pengelolaan perairan IOTC.
IUCN. 2005. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Summary Statistics. Retrieved 9
May 2005, from http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table3a.html
IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2011.2). Available at:
http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 November 2011).
JECFA, 2003 . Sixty first meeting of joint FAO/WHO expert committee of food additives
(JECFA). Summary and conclusions. Annex 4 . Rome, I 3- 19th June 2003.
Kreuzer, R. & Ahmed, 1978. Shark utilization and marketing. FAO, Rome.
198
Lacerda, L. D. Paraquetti, H. H. M., Marins, R. V. Rezende, C. E. Zalmon, I .R., Gomes, M.
P. & Farias, V. 2000. Mercury content in shark species from the south-eastern
Brazilian coast. Rev. Bras. Biol. 60 (4): 571-576.
Lack, M. & Sant, G. 2006. Confronting Shark Conservation Head On!. Cambridge: TRAFFIC
International.
Lagler, K.F; J.F. Bardach; R.R. Miller & D.R.M. Passino. 1977. Ichthyology. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.
Last, P. R. & Compagno, L. J. V. 2002. Review of biodiversity of rays in the South China Sea
and adjacent areas. In: S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A.Dipper (Eds),
Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management: Proceeding of
the International Seminar and Workshop in Sabah, July 1997. IUCN SSC Shark
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 64-69.
Last, P.R., W.T. White, J.N. Caira, Dharmadi, Fahmi, K. Jensen, A.P.K Liem, B.M. Manjaji-
Matsumoto, G.J.P. Naylor, J.J. Pgonoski, J.D. Stevens & G.K. Yaersley. 2010. Sharks
and rays of Borneo. CSIRO Publishing. Australia.
Lessa, R., Santana, F.M. & Paglerani, R. 1999. Age, growth and stock structure of the oceanic
whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus, from the southwestern equatorial Atlantic.
Fisheries Research, 42: 21-30.
Leung, C. 2007. Trace metals in sharks' fins: potential health consequences for consumers.
MSc Thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
Lu, C. 2010. Shark Cartilage Extract Shows No Benefit. Paper presented at the 2007 annual
meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Retrieved from
http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/conquest/issues/2010-fall/shark-
cartilage.html on 1 June 2013.
Lucifora, L.O., Menni, R.C., & Escalante, A.H. 2002. Reproductive ecology and abundance of
the sand tiger shark, Carchariastaurus, from the southwestern Atlantic. ICES
J.Mar.Sci. 59: 553–561.
Martosubroto. P. 2011. Laporan Tahunan Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan.
Merta, I.G.S., Badrudin, J. Widodo & A. Sudradjat.2003. Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Ikan
Pelagis Besar. Menggapai Cita-cita Luhur: Perikanan Sebagai Sektor Andalan.
ISPIKANI-DKP. Edisi, Jakarta: 87-108.
Mojetta, A. 1997. Sharks: History and biology of the lords of the sea. Swan Hill Press.
199
Musick, J.A., 2003. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals:1-10. In: Life in
the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. J.A. Musick
(ed.). Am. Fish Soc. Symp. 23. Bethesda, Maryland.
Mustika, P.L.K. 2006. Linking the two seas: Lessons learned from Savu Sea (Indonesia) for
marine mammal conservation in Timor Sea. In: Proceedings, Pacem in Maribus XXXI
Conference, Townville, Queensland, Australia, 31 October – 3 November 2005 (eds.
South, G.R. and C. Boese) Pp. 469-482. International Ocean Institute Regional
Operational Centre for Australia & the Western Government, Canberra.
Myers, R.A. & Worm, B. 2005. Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360: 13-20.
Paine, R.T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. The American Naturalist, 100
(910): 65-75.
Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Nomor PER.01/MEN/2009 tentang Wilayah
Pengelolaan Perikanan Republik Indonesia.
Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia Nomor. 12/2012 tentang Usaha
Perikanan Tangkap di Laut Lepas.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 60 Tahun 2007 tentang Konservasi Sumber Daya Ikan.
Pillai, P.P. & Honma, M. 1978. Seasonal and areal distribution of the pelagic sharks taken by
the tuna longline in the Indian Ocean. Bulletin of the National Research Institute of
Far Seas Fisheries, 16: 33-49, figs 1-2. www.shark.reference.com. Downloaded on 9
December 2012)
Pitcher, T. J. & Hart P. J. B.. 1982. Fisheries Ecology. American. Edition. The AVI Publishing
Company. INC. Westport. Connecticut.
Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Pramod,G., & Short, K. 2008. Safe Conduct? Twelve Years Fishing
Under the UN Code. WWF-International and University of British Columbia.
Vancouver. 65.
Priede, I.G., Froese, R., Balley, D.M., Bergstad, O.A., Collins, M.A., & Dyb,
J.E. et al. 2006. The absence of sharks from abyssal regions of the world’s oceans.
Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Science 273: 1435-1441.
Priono, B. E. 2000. Sharks, Seabirds and excess fishing capacity in the Indonesian waters.
Paper presented at “Indonesian Australian workshop on shark and tuna”, Denpasar
March, 2000.
200
Purnomo, A.H. & T. Apriliani. 2007. Nilai Ekonomi Perikanan Cucut dan Pari dan Implikasi
Pengelolaannya. Jurnal Kebijakan dan Riset Sosial Ekonomi Kelautan dan Perikanan,
Vol.2 No.2.
Purwanto. 2003. Exploitation status and a strategy for the management of the Java Sea
Fisheries. Dalam: Menggapai cita-cita luhur: Perikanan sebagai Sektor Andalan.
ISPIKANI-DKP. Jakarta: 141-164.
Rahardjo, P. 2007. Pemanfaatan dan pengelolaan perikanan cucut dan pari (Elasmobranchii)
di Laut Jawa. Desertasi Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. IPB.
Seki, T., Taniuchi, T., Nakano, H. & Shimizu, M. 1998. Age, growth, and reproduction of the
Oceanic Whitetip shark from the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Science Tokyo 64: 14–20.
Statistik Pelabuhan Perikanan Samudera. 2011. Laporan tahunan hasil tangkapan ikan yang
didaratkan di Cilacap.
Statistik Pelabuhan Perikanan Samudera. 2011. Laporan tahunan hasil tangkapan ikan yang
didaratkan di Pelabuhan Ratu.
Seki, T., Taniuchi, T., Nakano, H. & Shimizu, M. 1998. Age, growth and reproductionof the
oceanic whitetip shark from the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Science 64(1): 14-20.
Sparre, P., E. Ursin, & S. C. Venema. 1989. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. Part
Sparre, P., E. Ursin, & S. C. Venema. 1989. Introduction to tropical fish stock
assessment. Part I. Manual FAD Fish. Tech. Pap. 306/I Rome. Italy. I. Manual FAD
Fish. Tech. Pap. 306/I Rome. Italy.
Sparre, P. & Venema S. C. 1992. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. Part I– Manual.
FAO Fisheries Technical paper. 306/1. Rev.1. Danida FAO. Rome. Italy.
Stacey, N.E., J. Karam, M. G Meekan, S. Pickering, & J. Ninef. 2012. Prospects for whale
shark conservation in Eastern Indonesia through Bajo traditional ecological
knowledge and community-based monitoring. Conservation & Society 10: 63-75.
Steenhof, K. & Kochert, M.N. 1988. Dietary responses of three raptor species to hanging prey
densities in a natural environment. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 57(1): 37-48.
Stevens, J. D., Bonfil R., Dulvy N. K., & Walker P. A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks,
rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystem.
ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57: 476-494.
Stevens, J.D. and Lyle, J.M. 1989. Biology of three hammerhead sharks (Eusphyra blochii,
Sphyrna mokarran and S. lewini) form Northern Australia. Australian Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Research, 40: 129-146.
201
Suzuki, 2002. Development of shark fisheries and shark fin export in Indonesia: case study of
Karangsong Village, Indramayu, West Java. In S.L. Fowler,
T.M. Reed & F.A. Dipper (Eds), Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management:
Proceeding of the international seminar and workshop in Sabah, July 1997. IUCN SSC
Shark Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 149-157.
United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982. www.eoearth.org/article/Law
of the Sea (YNCLOS). (Accessed : 26 May 2013).
Vieira S, & Tull M. 2008. Potential impacts of management measures on artisanal fishers in
Indonesian shark and ray fisheries: a case study of Cilacap’. Bull Indones Econ Stud
44: 263–288.
Walker, T. I., 1988, Mercury concentrations in edible tissues of elasmobranchs, teleosts,
crustaceans and mollusks from south-eastern Australian waters. Austr. J. Mar.
Freshwater Res., 39: 39-49.
White W.T. 2007. Catch composition and reproductive biology of whale sharks
(Carcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae) caught by fisheries in Indonesia. J Fish Biol
White, W.T., Bartron, C. & Potter, I.C. 2008. Catch composition and reproductive biology of
Sphyrna lewini (Carcharhiniformes, Sphyrnidae) in Indonesian waters. Journal of Fish
Biology 72: 1675-1689.
White, W.T., Compagno, L.J.V. & Dharmadi 2009. Hemitriakis indroyonoi sp. nov., a new
species of houndsharks from Indonesia (Carcharhiniformes: Triakidae). Zootaxa
2110: 41-57.
White, W. T., Giles, J., Dharmadi & Potter, I. C. 2006a. Data on the bycatch fishery and
reproductive biology of mobulid rays (Myliobatiformes) in Indonesia. Fisheries
Research 82: 65–73.
White W.T. & Last P.R. 2006. Description of two new species of smooth- hounds, Mustelus
widodoi and M. ravidus (Carcharhiniformes: Triakidae) from the western central
Pacific. Cybium 30.
White, W. T., Last, P. R., Stevens, J. D., Yearsley, G. K., Fahmi & Dharmadi. 2006b.
Economically important sharks and rays of Indonesia. ACIAR, Canberra.
White WT, Last PR, Stevens JD, Yearsley GK, Fahmi, & Dharmadi. 2006. Economically
important sharks and rays of Indonesia. ACIAR, Canberra.
202
Widodo, J. 2000. The Indonesian shark fisheries: present status and the need of research for
stock assessment and management. Paper presented at “Indonesian Australian
workshop on shark and tuna”, Denpasar March, 2000.
Widodo, A.A. & Mahiswara. 2008. Aspek biologi ikan pari yang tertangkap nelayan di perairan
Laut Jawa. Dipresentasikan pada Seminar Nasional Ikan V in Bogor.
Widowowati, T.P., 1991. Penelitian pemanfataan kulit ikan pari. Balai Besar Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Industri Barang Kulit, Karet dan plastik. Yogyakarta.
WildAid. 2001. New study shows shark fin consumers risk exposure to mercury. Thailand
Institute of Scientific and Technological Research. Press release.
Zainudin, I.M., 2011. Pengelolaan Perikanan Hiu berbasis ekosistem di Indonesia. Thesis Pasca
Sarjana. Universitas Indonesia, Depok.
203
View publication stats

Areviewstatusofsharkfisheriesin Indonesia English Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Areviewstatusofsharkfisheriesin Indonesia English Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Areviewstatusofsharkfisheriesin Indonesia English Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A review status of shark ﬁsheries in Indonesia (English version)

Book · June 2013

[Fahmi] Fahmi Dharmadi Dharmadi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sharks have become a valuable fisheries commodity in the past

Dr. Sudirman Saad, M.HUM

There are no fewer than 116 species of shark recorded living in

In response to this, the Indonesian government, through the

It is not easy to respond to the challenge of designing a sustainable shark management

In recent decades, sharks have become a valuable fisheries commodity, as international

1.2 Purpose and scope of this book

2.1 Endangered and Vulnerable Sharks

 High risk : gillnets (0 - 50%) and longlines (0 - 30%)

Figure 3.1 Fisheries Management Zones in Indonesia (Nurhakim et al. 2007)

3.1 Potential Fishing Grounds

3.2 Fishing Season

CPUE (kg/trip/day) - - - - 15.3 30.4 9.4 6.3 1.6 1.7 0.8 -

3.4.1 Handline Fishing

3.4.2 Demersal Shark Longline

Buoy Line PE 200 m

Hook No 4 Branch Line PA 2,5 mm

Figure 3.5 Diagram of demersal shark longline

Figure 3.6 Diagram of Pelagic Shark Longline

3.4.4 Guitarfish Nets

Figure 3.7 Diagram of A Guitarfish Net

3.4.5 Arad Nets

Figure 3.8 Design and Construction of The Arad Net

3.5 Catch Species Composition

Figure 3.11 Shark species composition caught by demersal longlines in Tanjungluar,

3.5.2 Species Composition per WPP

3.5.2.1 WPP 571

Figure 3.16 Catch composition of sharks in WPP 571

3.5.2.2 WPP 572

3.5.2.3 WPP 573

3.5.2.4 WPP 711

3.5.2.5 WPP 712

3.5.2.6 WPP 713

3.5.2.7 WPP 714

3.5.2.8 WPP 715

3.5.2.9 WPP 716

3.5.2.10 WPP 717

3.5.2.11 WPP 718

3.6 Catch Sizes

Alopias pelagicus 150-270 (46) 250-350 (54) Vulnerable - Near

Figure 4.1 Shark Fishery Production Statistic from 195 to 2011

4.1.1 Shark Fishery Production Based on Fishery Management Zones (WPP)

4.1.3 Shark Product Export Data

Wet Shark Fins

Frozen Shark Meat

Dried Sharks Fins

A number of international airports, such as those in Jakarta, Surabaya, Denpasar and

4.3 Shark Products

4.3.2 Handling and Processing Shark Products

Figure 4.11 Dried Shark Cartilage

4.3.3 Shark Product Utilization Levels

Table 4.2 Shark Fin Prices at The Middleman Level