UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:57:11Z

AudreySteele: /* Improvement Management Implementation */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management. In a decentralized system, resource allocation should be more efficient because it is suited to local conditions should favour policy implementation as a result of it having a lower information cost<ref name=":0" />. In this case, it seems that decentralization can increase government responsiveness by allowing public actions to adapt to the preference of local communities. Local communities generally have better knowledge of local situations and local decisions makers feel a greater sense of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights
* Improvements to GELOSE policy
** Improve on goal reaching. Commit to signing all contracts to ensure that more communities are able to participate in community-based management practices. Falling short will discourage community and reduce the moral and drive to protect mangrove forests
* Improve Institutional Framework
** Providing a more defined institutional framework will aid in determining who has the authority to decide what projects with be implemented<ref name=":0" />. Improved organization will further improve management practices by allowing decisions to be made in a timely manner.

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forest

=== Climate Change ===
* A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.
** The Malagasy government and Malagasy people need to focus simultaneously on rehabilitation initiatives as well as long-term sustainability driven management

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:53:17Z

AudreySteele: /* Assessment */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management. In a decentralized system, resource allocation should be more efficient because it is suited to local conditions should favour policy implementation as a result of it having a lower information cost<ref name=":0" />. In this case, it seems that decentralization can increase government responsiveness by allowing public actions to adapt to the preference of local communities. Local communities generally have better knowledge of local situations and local decisions makers feel a greater sense of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights
* Improvements to GELOSE policy
** Improve on goal reaching. Commit to signing all contracts to ensure that more communities are able to participate in community-based management practices. Falling short will discourage community and reduce the moral and drive to protect mangrove forests.

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forest

=== Climate Change ===
* A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.
** The Malagasy government and Malagasy people need to focus simultaneously on rehabilitation initiatives as well as long-term sustainability driven management

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:50:56Z

AudreySteele: /* Assessment */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management. In a decentralized system, resource allocation should be more efficient because it is suited to local conditions should favour policy implementation as a result of it having a lower information cost<ref name=":0" />.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights
* Improvements to GELOSE policy
** Improve on goal reaching. Commit to signing all contracts to ensure that more communities are able to participate in community-based management practices. Falling short will discourage community and reduce the moral and drive to protect mangrove forests.

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forest

=== Climate Change ===
* A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.
** The Malagasy government and Malagasy people need to focus simultaneously on rehabilitation initiatives as well as long-term sustainability driven management

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:48:27Z

AudreySteele: /* Improvement Management Implementation */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights
* Improvements to GELOSE policy
** Improve on goal reaching. Commit to signing all contracts to ensure that more communities are able to participate in community-based management practices. Falling short will discourage community and reduce the moral and drive to protect mangrove forests.

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forest

=== Climate Change ===
* A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.
** The Malagasy government and Malagasy people need to focus simultaneously on rehabilitation initiatives as well as long-term sustainability driven management

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:44:07Z

AudreySteele: /* Climate Change */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
* A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.
** The Malagasy government and Malagasy people need to focus simultaneously on rehabilitation initiatives as well as long-term sustainability driven management

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:42:01Z

AudreySteele: /* Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities. More user-friendly and manageable policies for transferring resources management to local communities have been implemented since the GELOSE policy. However, they fail to secure the land and resembles the community-based management plans that have been enforced by forestry administrations(Malagasy Government) and Non-Governmental Organizations<ref name=":0" />.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:36:10Z

AudreySteele: /* Description */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is home to the 4th largest extent of mangroves in Africa<ref>Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar. ''Forests'', ''5''(1), 177–205. doi:10.3390/f5010177</ref>.In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:32:25Z

AudreySteele: /* The Malagasy Government */

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
The government of Madagascar's primary interests are to protect Malagasy natural resources. The government holds a large amount of power administered through various departments and is responsible for the creation of a variety of policies including Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE). Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:28:39Z

AudreySteele:

This case studies examines the management of mangrove forests on the Mozambique coast of Madagascar with a focus on community-based involvement. The west coast of Madagascar boasts the largest and most intact vast stretches of mangrove forests in the Western Indian Ocean region. Mangrove swamps are important habitat for wildlife and are a vital breeding ground for numerous species in Madagascar and around the world. Mangroves face threats by the communities that exist within/nearby by means of clearing timber, urban expansion and erosion in the highlands. This case study will examine the outcome of the transfer of management rights from the Government to each community and how it aids in empowering them with the legal responsibility for their natural resources; mangroves.

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:24:11Z

AudreySteele: /* Assessment */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Decentralization of rights from a centralized government to local communities aided in recognizing communities as an important ally in the race to protect the mangrove forests in Madagascar. The transfer of power allowed more local level decisions and management.

Before the introduction of Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE), the mangrove forests were degrading at an alarming rate. This would suggest that that movement towards community-based management was beneficial in protecting the resource.

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

=== Climate Change ===
A critical challenge for coastal communities and conservation practitioners is to develop conservation and management strategies for mangroves that will work in the face of climate change over a long period of time<ref>Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P (2014) Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:16:15Z

AudreySteele: /* Assessment */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==

Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

=== Funding ===
A major issues is the high rate of dependancy on outsides sources of funding to stimulate interest in mangrove protection and rehabilitation in local communities. This may present itself as an issue long-term as it may be problematic in terms of community associations remaining intact and functional. Having a limited budget will reduce multi-levels of governing bodies to be able to give the support needed to protect and rehabilitate the mangroves.

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:12:38Z

AudreySteele: /* Government Outreach */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation<ref name=":3">Pollini, J., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Trapping Farmer Communities Within Global Environmental Regimes: The Case of the GELOSE Legislation in Madagascar. ''Society & Natural Resources'', ''24''(8), 814–830. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08941921003782218</nowiki></ref>. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==

Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies<ref name=":3" />
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources<ref>Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. ''Ecological Economics'', ''69''(6), 1262-1271.</ref>
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T21:09:13Z

AudreySteele: /* The Malagasy Government */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===
Despite the implementation of conservation policies since the 1980’s, the government still poorly manages the mangrove protected area due to limited stakeholder participation, ineffective conservation programs and failure to increase awareness among local community. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves. The Malagasy Government has made strides to help communities acquire local forest management rights in attempt to reduce the void in management of mangroves.

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==

Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==

=== Education ===
* Education is often the first step in fostering an attitude of caring and protection. In terms of mangroves forests in Madagascar, communities must be helped to see the long term effects of not caring for local forests. Providing education on the importance of sustainability and management would greatly benefit local communities in helping to preserve and rehabilitate local mangroves.
* Providing education to local fisherman regarding sustainable fishing practices would reduce issues of over fishing.

=== Improvement Management Implementation ===
* Strengthening existing Institutions
** Focus resources and funds on the improvement of existing, functioning institutions/policies rather than spreading resources and funds over a broader selection of institutions/policies
* Provide well-defined property rights

=== Government Outreach ===
* Improve the relationship between the Malagasy Government and the Malagasy people by incorporating traditional local knowledge of management practices and scientific knowledge management practices into conservation planning
* Compensate local communities for the restricted of access to resources
** Areas in which local mangrove forests are being used for commercial purposes, the government could compensate local communities
** Employ local community members when conduction commercial activity in local forests

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:43:35Z

AudreySteele: /* Benefits associated to Community-Based Management */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments<ref name=":2" />. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem<ref name=":2" />. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==

Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:41:11Z

AudreySteele: /* Benefits associated to Community-Based Management */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madagascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref name=":2">Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied<ref>Widman, M. (2014). Land Tenure Insecurity and Formalizing Land Rights in Madagascar: A Gender Perspective on the Certification Program. ''Feminist Economics'', ''20''(1), 130–154. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.873136</nowiki></ref>. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===
Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) has been advocated by both academia and governing agencies as an alternative for sustainable management of ecologically important mangrove forests which are declining at an alarming rate nationally<ref name=":2" />. Community-Based Mangrove Management strives to encourage local communities’ involvement in accomplishing the vital activities of resource identification and implementation of sustainable management practices<ref name=":2" />. CBMM is integrated to the broader concept of community forestry which focuses on the decentralization of rights from the governing bodies to local communities.

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity conservation policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Since the liberalization of the economy and increased strengthened ties to the West in the early 1990's, there has been a steady increase of presence of a variety of foreign aid programs. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) have dealt with the degradation of Mangrove forests in Madagascar among other resource projects<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/madagascar|title=Madagascar|last=|first=|date=2018|website=World Wildlife Fund|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 28 2018}}</ref>. The WWF has become involved with the loss of habitat and species extinction through educational programs and improvements to the management of protected areas. Their objective is to help mitigate threats that lead to the degradation of mangrove forests as well as to support those affected including communities, affected species and supporting technical support to protect them against climate change<ref name=":1" />.

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Benefits associated to Community-Based Management ===
Local communities traditionally managed, harvested and fished mangroves as a means to support their livelihoods. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, mangrove forests became under direct control of state governments. This change in control of the mangroves gave way to commercial logging and large-scale shrimp farming. Consequently, local communities lost access to local mangroves and resources. As a result of the alienation from the forests, communities began to view mangroves as only a means of extra income. Destructive behaviour arose in local communities as uncontrolled logging, unselective crustacean and fish farming devastated the sensitive ecosystem. The introduction of policies such as Community-Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) and Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) aided in reducing the destruction and degradation of mangrove forests in Madagascar.

=== Issues and Challenges in Community-Based Management Implementation ===
Though the GELOSE contract may seem to benefit local communities in relations of gaining rights, the GELOSE policy has not met its target in terms of numbers of contracts signed in its first four years of implementation. This means that not all communities have been afforded the ability to have greater control over mangrove forests and other resources near the communities.

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==

Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:36:21Z

AudreySteele: /* Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:29:29Z

AudreySteele: /* Transfer of Rights */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:20:57Z

AudreySteele: /* Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T20:19:08Z

AudreySteele: /* Assessment */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:58:19Z

AudreySteele: /* Interested Outside Stakeholders */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:53:57Z

AudreySteele: /* Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:50:53Z

AudreySteele: /* State System */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:46:24Z

AudreySteele: /* State System */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref>Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

In some areas of Madagascar, both land tenure systems, customary and state system are applied. In recent years, there has been activity by the government to move towards creating local security measures such as security teams to supervise adherence to land tenure laws.

==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity consecration policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Transfer of Rights ===

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:42:23Z

AudreySteele: /* Customary System */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref>Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===
The customary land tenure systems are generally comprised of holdings and commons. Holdings consist of agricultural land, individual trees and irrigation canals whereas commons include pastureland, water resources and selected forest lands.

=== State System ===
The state land tenure system is governed by written laws and regulations. Communities are given clearly defined rules and procedures to aid in resolving civil conflicts that arise as a result of disagreements over access and the management of resources.

Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.
==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity consecration policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Transfer of Rights ===

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:07:40Z

AudreySteele: /* Tenure arrangements */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref>Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatized land is officially owned by the state, although customary entitlements to land presides in most areas.

There are two types of land tenure regimes in Madagascar, a customary and a state system.

=== Customary System ===

=== State System ===
Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.
==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity consecration policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Transfer of Rights ===

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T19:04:44Z

AudreySteele: /* Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) */

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==

Mangroves are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and occupy water zones along tropical and subtropical coasts. Mangrove ecosystems are widely recognized for their habitat functions for fish of commercial value as well as for effective sediment trapping, nutrient recycling and protection of shorelines from erosion. Mangrove forests provide essential ecological and societal goods, as well as services to local communities. Mangrove forests provide a great number of goods such as fuelwood, timber and food for many coastal communities while boasting the national economy.

In recent years, mangroves have been declining at an alarming rate, with a global reduction of approximately 25% since 1980 <ref>Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R., Guha, P. (2012). Community-Based Mangrove Management: A Review on Status and Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 84–95. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013</nowiki> </ref>. Mangrove forests of Madagascar are declining, although at a much slower rate than the global average <ref>Giri, C., Muhlhausen, J. (2008). Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975–2005). Science Applications International Corporation, 8((4)), 2104–2117. <nowiki>https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/s8042104</nowiki></ref>. The forests are declining largely due to conversion to other land uses and forest degradation. These communities are faced with the great challenges of this millennium: striking a balance between economic development in harmony with their environment and traditions.

==Tenure arrangements==
The Majority of local people live directly from the land and rely on their natural environment. Ownership is recognized at the community level as individuals in the communities have always managed their lands by traditional means. This is as a result of the difficulty and high cost associated with land tenure. All non-privatised land is officially owned by the state.

=== Customary System ===

=== State System. ===

=== Changes in Tenure ===
Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.
==Administrative arrangements==

=== Community Based Mangrove Management (CBMM) ===

=== Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) ===
Decentralization and the participation of locals have been key features of government environmental policy since the early 1990’s. In Madagascar, the policy of Secured Local Management of Natural Resources, known as the GELOSE act has created a framework from the transfer of rights from the central government to local communities<ref name=":0">Antona, M., Biénabe, E., Salles, J., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004). Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 825-847. doi:10.1017/S1355770X04001640</ref>. It was implemented in response to two issues facing biodiversity consecration policy. The GELOSE policy provides contractual transfer of management responsibility for forests and other renewable resources from the central government to the local communities that reside in proximity to these resources.

The state’s inability to effectively control and supervise access to these protected areas led to a situation of informal multi-governance of biodiversity and of ''de facto'' open access to natural resources in protected areas<ref name=":0" />. The result of open access to mangrove forests contributed to the degradation of said resource due to overexploitation and a lack of management.

One of the major features of the GELOSE policy is the manner in which it interlinks the legal system managed by the Forestry Administration and the customary system that governs the uses of resources within the communities of Madagascar<ref name=":0" />. This policy is designed to delegate rights over natural resources to local communities. Its goal is to present new autonomy to these communities in their uses of natural resources, to give them incentives to collect information about the state of the resources and send these reports to the appropriate administration.

==Affected Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy People ===

==== Malagasy Farmers & Local People ====
Individuals residing in communities on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar rely heavily on the land for their livelihood. Residents who are directly affected by changes in mangrove management are generally those who live near mangrove forests. The proximity to these forests allows them to depend on these ecosystems as a place to extract and produce food. The majority of the contribution to local income from mangroves are as a result of the capture and sale of species such as fish and crustaceans.

Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==

=== The Malagasy Government ===

=== Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ===
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==

=== Outcomes ===

=== Transfer of Rights ===

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T18:39:59Z

AudreySteele: /* Secured Local Management of Natural Resources (GELOSE) */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T18:35:29Z

AudreySteele: /* Administrative arrangements */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T18:18:08Z

AudreySteele: /* Discussion */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T18:06:36Z

AudreySteele: /* Affected Stakeholders */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T18:01:47Z

AudreySteele:

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-27T16:54:29Z

AudreySteele:

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-15T10:54:11Z

AudreySteele:

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

==Tenure arrangements==

=== Changes in Tenure ===
Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

==Affected Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==

=== Transfer of Rights ===

=== Long-term Preservation of mangrove forests ===
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-15T10:44:51Z

AudreySteele:

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

==Tenure arrangements==

=== Changes in Tenure ===
Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

==Affected Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Community-Based Management of Mangrove Forests on the Mozambique channel coast of Madagascar

2018-12-09T21:57:00Z

AudreySteele:

[[File:Mangrove on Westcoast Madagascar IV.jpg|alt=An image of a Mangrove on the West coast of Madagascar|thumb|Mangrove on the west coast of Madgascar]]
Add your summary here

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

==Tenure arrangements==
Tenure arrangements. Describe the nature of the tenure: freehold or forest management agreement/arrangements, duration, etc.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

==Affected Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==
A discussion of the aims and intentions of the community forestry project and your assessment of relative successes or failures. You should also include a discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed

==Assessment==
Your assessment of the relative power of each group of social actors, and how that power is being used

==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T06:23:15Z

AudreySteele: /* Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>. Bycatch is the collection of unwanted fish or other marine life that is unintentionally caught during commercial fishing. Bycatch may also contain a variety of marine megafauna and lower trophic level species that are essential in the maintenance and function of marine ecosystems and the continued provision of marine ecosystem services <ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>. Discarded catch, mainly unwanted fish components as a result of processing them at sea can raise ecological concern as it can alter the natural diet of sharks. There are methods that can reduce the probability that sharks fall victim to commercial fishing bycatch;

*Use fish rather than squid for bait
*Avoiding shark prone hotspots
*Setting fishing gear in deeper waters
*Moving upon interaction with a shark<ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>

Utilizing gear technology solutions will aid in reducing the frequency of sharks involved in commercial fishing bycatch. Using fish rather than squid for bait reduces shark catches by a staggering 30%<ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>. Implementing changes in fishing gear technology can significantly reduce bycatch of numerous marine species while lessening the strain of commercial fishing on marine ecosystems.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned provides an opportunity for biological data to be collected to help determine the general health of the shark population. Participants of these events are required to collect specific information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T06:15:03Z

AudreySteele: /* Shark Bycatch Management */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>. Bycatch is the collection of unwanted fish or other marine life that is unintentionally caught during commercial fishing. Bycatch may also contain a variety of marine megafauna and lower trophic level species that are essential in the maintenance and function of marine ecosystems and the continued provision of marine ecosystem services <ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>. Discarded catch, mainly unwanted fish components as a result of processing them at sea can raise ecological concern as it can alter the natural diet of sharks. There are methods that can reduce the probability that sharks fall victim to commercial fishing bycatch;

*Use fish rather than squid for bait
*Avoiding shark prone hotspots
*Setting fishing gear in deeper waters
*Moving upon interaction with a shark<ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>

Utilizing gear technology solutions will aid in reducing the frequency of sharks involved in commercial fishing bycatch. Using fish rather than squid for bait reduces shark catches by a staggering 30%<ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>. Implementing changes in fishing gear technology can significantly reduce bycatch of numerous marine species while lessening the strain of commercial fishing on marine ecosystems.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:58:08Z

AudreySteele: /* Shark Bycatch Management */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>. Bycatch is the collection of unwanted fish or other marine life that is unintentionally caught during commercial fishing. Bycatch may also contain a variety of marine megafauna and lower trophic level species that are essential in the maintenance and function of marine ecosystems and the continued provision of marine ecosystem services <ref>Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch Governance and Best Practice Mitigation Technology in Global Tuna Fisheries. International Journal of Ocean Affairs, 35(5), 590–609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.021</ref>.
*Count all species that are caught in a fishery, including bycatch species
*Limit the amount of wasted catch for each fishery assessed and determined by science-based limits
*Monitor and avoid bycatch by improving fishing gear<ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:50:07Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.
*Count all species that are caught in a fishery, including bycatch species
*Limit the amount of wasted catch for each fishery assessed and determined by science-based limits
*Monitor and avoid bycatch by improving fishing gear<ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:49:00Z

AudreySteele: /* Shark Bycatch Management */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.
1. Count all species that are caught in a fishery, including bycatch species
2. Limit the amount of wasted catch for each fishery assessed and determined by science-based limits
3. Monitor and avoid bycatch by improving fishing gear

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:46:37Z

AudreySteele: /* Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

Recreational fisheries pose a serious threat to rare and vulnerable species yet are generally poorly documented by government agencies. The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:43:04Z

AudreySteele: /* Options for Remedial Actions */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:42:35Z

AudreySteele: /* Reducing Unnecessary Mortality */

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:40:06Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

Canadian governments are inadequately addressing and dealing with one of the largest threats to our oceans and its species. It is estimated that nearly 10.3 million tonnes of sea life are unintentionally caught each year on the international platform <ref>“Collateral Damage: How to Reduce Bycatch in Canada’s Commercial Fisheries.” Ocean Canada Protecting the World’s Oceans, Oceana Canada, 19 Oct. 2017, www.oceana.ca/en/press-center/press-release/canadian-government-inadequately-addressing-one-biggest-threats-our.</ref>.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:21:13Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Management of Shark Finning Regulations==

In past years, the management of shark species as surfaced as a new priority in the management of marine conservation. Worldwide catches of marine mammals and fish, especially sharks, has increased steadily within the past two decades as a result of a high demand for shark fins for cultural use internationally. As a result, the Government of Canada has created and implemented several legislative measures to aid in the management and maintenance of shark populations. Today, it is estimated that approximately 26–73 million sharks are traded annually for their fins <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Although the practice of finning is practiced as often in Canada as it is on the global scale, finning regulations could be altered to adopt a more precautionary policy while reaffirming Canada’s engagement to the management of shark conservation <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Implementing policies such as “fins-attached” policy ensure that the fins are removed from the shark once landed so it can be done in carefully and effectively, This practice will ensure that the fins are properly extracted to avoid waste and ensure the highest fin quality and market price.

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T05:11:36Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

===Shark Bycatch Management===

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T04:32:32Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and-release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T04:31:28Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Catch and Release Policies in Recreational Shark Fisheries==

The Canadian Maritime Recreational Shark Fishery has been active since 1994, and has been host to numerous shark derbies over the years. Recreational shark fisheries such as the aforementioned take the opportunity to utilize these derbies for scientific data collection including information regarding the shark’s length, weight, sex, location caught and whether it was landed or released <ref>“Shark Derbies” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services, 29 Jan. 2018, www.dfompo.gf.c/species-especes/sharks/info/derbies-eng.html</ref>. Recreational fisheries should strive to impose a catch-and release policy for all species of sharks caught during derbies such as these. Prohibiting lethal shark derbies and replacing them with a system of tag and release will allow the same data to be accumulated without unnecessary mortality (Godin & Worm, 2018). This practice would create a platform for education on the importance of shark conservation while demonstrating scientific research being conducted in a supportive manner to the shark population in Canada. Adopting this approach support other efforts for conservation of shark species in Canada while demonstrating good practices on an international scale.

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref>. Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T04:27:15Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters <ref>Godin A. C., Worm B. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.006</ref> . Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele

Course:CONS200/Legal Rights of Sharks along Canada’s West Coast: an Examination of Legislation, Policy and Actors

2018-04-13T04:22:25Z

AudreySteele:

= Introduction =
For over four-hundred years sharks have been roaming the oceans, adapting to many different marine ecosystems <ref name="statistics">Canada, Statistics. (2016, October 07). Geography. (S. Canada, Producer) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/geo/geo-eng.htm</ref>. At one time, there were three-thousand species of sharks, today, Earth’s oceans are home to more than 350 species <ref name="Fisheries"/>. There are one-hundred million sharks killed every year worldwide, tens of millions of those sharks are killed for their fins <ref name="griffen">Griffen, E., Miller, K. L., Freitas, B., & Hirshfeild, M. (2008, July). Why Healthy Oceans Need Sharks . Oceana. Washington : Oceana. Retrieved March 25 , 2018</ref>. These animals are apex predators that have a large influence on the regulation of the species below them in the food chain. The depletion of this species would have detrimental lasting effects on marine ecosystems. Hence, addressing the actors in shark wellbeing and how to manage them is pressing and highly significant.

Canada has the longest coast lines in the world at about 243,042 km long, touching the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans<ref name="statistics"/>. Only about 5.22% (12,686.8 km) of that coastline is protected according to an article presented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FDO) in 2017 <ref name="Fisheries"> Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2017, October 28). Canada reaches important 5% marine conservation milestone. (Cision) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from News Wire: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-reaches-important-5-marine-conservation-milestone-653884423.html</ref> . The FDO mentioning that they hope to have 10% of Canadian coastlines protected by 2020 <ref name="Fisheries"/>. Many actors are effected by legislation directed to preserve sharks on the West Coast, including shark fishermen, ecotourism companies, and consumers of shark products. The difficult task of managing these stakeholders is extremely complicated, and requires action by international treaties and local legislation, enforced and encouraged by the Canadian Government. With knowledge regarding the actors one can analyze how these actors are effecting shark conservation efforts, as evidence for the problem.

==What is a shark?==
The Canadian government has used the word “sharks” to encompass following three species; sharks, skates and chimaera, in the NOPA. To date, twenty-nine different shark species, twenty-nine skate species and four chimaera species are living, hunting and reproducing off the coastlines of Canada <ref name="Fisheries"/). Sharks that are included in the 29 species are the Basking Shark (Cetorhuns maximus), the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and the common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus).

=Actors and Their Impact =
== Those Affected By Shark Legislation ==
=== Shark Fishermen ===
Currently the United States ranks 8th in the world for quantity of sharks fished, with Canada at 21st. Due to the disproportionate contribution of the top 4 countries of 35%, the actual contribution of Canada and is relatively low at just 1.39% <ref name="lack">Lack, M., & Saint, G. (2011). The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction. TRAFFIC international and the PEW Environmental Group.</ref>. Since, these figures are indicative of the whole country, the actual contribution of the North East Pacific region is in fact very small, however a factor nonetheless. Since 2010 a large decrease in reported sharks fished occurred in the region, arguably due to a changing world perception of the species. In the case of Salmon Sharks off the coast of Alaska and northern BC however, this decrease can be attributed to the concerning overfishing and subsequent decrease of Salmon Shark population density <ref name="Mieras">Mieras, P. A., Harvey-Clark, C., Bear, M., & Hodgin, G. (2017). The economy of shark conservation in the northeast pacific: the role of ecotourism and citizen science. Advances in Marine Biology, 78-108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2017.08.003</ref>. Ultimately due to the lack of shark quantities in the region, the actual effect on shark fishermen from any legislation is rather low, since there is not much of an industry. Though shark fishermen are technically negative actors in the conservation of sharks, their overall impact is minimal and there are very few fishermen with shark catching as the prime objective. However, any legislation would have the sole purpose of preventing the creation of an industry of commercial fishers, or the exploitation of the limited populations by sport fishermen. That said bycatch, the inadvertent catching of an organism, poses a notable threat which is significant to be considered. <ref name="Mieras"/>

[[File:Maxim's-HKU-WildAid-Protest-11.jpg|300x190px|framed|right|Shark fin protest at Maxim's restaurant at the University of Hong Kong 10 February 2018]]
=== Consumers ===

Traditionally one of the largest and most prevalent threats to sharks is shark finning for the cultural disk of shark fin soup. The act of shark finning entails removing shark fins and dumping the carcasses back into the ocean. Though many view this practice as a barbaric and outdated, some who have followed traditional delicacies of certain Asian cultures for generations believe that consumption of these soups increases longevity and overall health <ref name="Latchford">Latchford, L. (2013). Conservation or Culture? An analysis of shark finning in the unitied states. Masters Project, Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment.</ref>. Some argue that by eliminating the fishing and subsequent trade of shark fins, governments are effectively shunning long practiced cultural traditions. This said, many of those in younger generations view shark fin soup consumption as a practice far more important to their parents and grandparents which shows a shift in current cultural norms. <ref name="Latchford"/>

Lately the push away from shark fin soup by NGOs and high-profile celebrities has caused a shift from these traditional dishes in China. Thought this is helpful, a consistent and expanding consumption in Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand is concerning. Because of this shift though, shark fin soup is no longer the largest threat to shark populations <ref name="Vallianos"> Vallianos, C., Hofford, A., Sherry, J., & Baker, J. (2018). Sharks in crisis: evidence of positive behavioral change in hina as new threats emerge. Wild Aid, 4.</ref>. Recently a push from the cosmetics industry for shark liver oil, as well as a 40% global increase in shark meat consumption has made the issue shift towards an issue of conserving the whole organism and not just preventing harvesting of the fin <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

=== Ecotourism Groups as Stakeholders===
Ecotourism is a very large opportunity for communities situated around shark populations, and has the potential to exceed commercial uses of sharks, with some tourism companies seeing increases in tourism up to eight fold <ref name="Mieras"/>. The low visibility and frigid temperatures of the water off the coast of Canada’s Pacific, makes viewing sharks quite difficult. This paired with the seasonal and inconsistent appearance of dominant shark species makes the area unfavourable for mainstream tourists and thus greatly reduces development of a lucrative shark tourism industry in the region <ref name="Mieras"/>. This said, ecotourism of sharks is on the rise worldwide and does present opportunities for British Columbia and Canada to promote the growth of shark populations which if high enough could translate into ecotourism development opportunities.

== Government Action==
===International Treaties===
Canada partakes in multiple international initiatives to reduce shark finning in Canadian waters. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association created a framework on the conservation of sharks called the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which governments could replicate locally to enact change in shark finning practices. In 2007 Canada created a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA – Sharks) based off this plan which aims to <ref>Government of Canada. (2012). Canada's national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Retrieved from Fisheries and oceans canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_npoa_sharks-eng.htm</ref>:
[[File:Salmon shark oscar dyson.jpg|400x300px|framed|Salmon Shark Bycatch off the Pacific Northwest]]
*Enhance data collection and scientific research;
*Adopt ecosystem and precautionary approaches in fisheries management renewal;
*Standardize reporting and management plan processes;
*Reduce bycatch and increase reporting of discard mortality;
*Extend conservation and management measures to the Arctic; and
*Enhance outreach and education efforts both in Canada and internationally.

This plan does not have any framework for the promotion of complete use of shark carcasses which represents as a failure to address shark finning on a localised level, or acknowledge a need for sustainable shark fishing.

With these Act’s there are policies and programs that were developed to further implement these acts that protect Sharks and their ecosystems.

Due to Canada’s signing of Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the country is obligated to protect any sharks found threated enough to be included in the agreement. In 2002, three Canadian Shark species were included and in 2014 these species were expanded to 8 <ref name="syb">Sybersma, S. (2015). Review of shark legislation in Canada as a conservation tool. Marine Policy, 121-126.</ref>. Depending on the species classification, CITES either eliminates trade (Appendix I), or limits trade to those with a permit (Appendix II, III) <ref>Government of Canada. (2017). Endangered species and trade. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/publications/convention-international-trade-endangered-species.html</ref>. As supply decreases however, the price of these fins increases which creates more of an incentive to enter the black market. Canada still allows the export of shark fins and consumption domestically and as of 2015 is the 27th largest exporter of shark fins internationally <ref name="syb"/>.

Shark finning leads to Regarding shark finning explicitly, one of the largest factors contributing to shark fishing, two main agreements aim to eliminate the practice in Canadian waters. When The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), banned the practice of shark finning in 2004 Canada was forced to follow suit since they belong to the commission. The North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) also bans finning (despite “Atlantic” designation, under NPOA-Sharks this applies to all Canadian waters including Pacific), which adds a second legislative avenue for upholding the ban <ref name="syb"/>

===Domestic Action===
The Ministry of Fisheries acts as a governing body responsible for all fishery action, including the management of Canadian shark species and has multiple policies regulating where and what fishermen can fish. Currently Canada does have policies in place to limit the exploitation of sharks, and fisheries, with multiple acts to help protect shark species, some of these multiple legislative acts including<ref name="ConsSrk">Government of Canada . (2007). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans . Ottawa: DFO.</ref>:
*The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
*Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act
*Fisheries Act
*Oceans Act
*The Species at Risk Act

====Where Fishing Can Occur====
To main acts regulate where fishermen can practice their field. The costal fisheries act refers to the Minister's responsibility of regulating the Canadian waters and to determine whether or not foreign fishing vessels can have access to Canadian waters, fisheries or ports<ref name="ConsSrk"/>. Furthermore the department of fisheries act gives the Minister of the FDO <ref>Canadian Department of Fisheries (2007). National Plan of action from the conservation and management of sharks . Government of Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada . Ottawa : Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada .</ref> the influence, responsibilities and affairs, and extending to all matters even those that Parliament has jurisdiction relating to; marine sciences, coastlines and inland fisheries, and the arrangement of programs and implementation of policies. <ref name="ConsSrk"/>

====What and How Fishermen Can Fish====
Currently the ministry has measures in place to ensure the protection of west coast sharks through the Pacific Fisheries Regulation. The regulation sets open and close dates, and equipment restrictions. Furthermore, the ministry of fishery’s ability to grant or deny permits to any company allows them to revoke permits from companies they feel are finning <ref name="syb"/>. As of 2015 Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulation does not protect sharks from sport fishing on the Pacific, however does maintain a closed season from January 1st to December 31st to commercial fishermen, allowing the catch of sharks for with hand lines, and angling gear. <ref name="syb"/>

==Extraneous Factors Influencing Sharks==
===Environmental Degradation===
On a larger scale environmental degradation effects sharks globally. Ocean acidification and warming both adversely affect the quantity of sharks in natural habitats, and as such a more holistic view must be considered when discussing shark conservation. Ocean acidification greatly reduces shark reproduction success and places great strain on shark populations<ref>Kanski, A. (2015). Sharks Face a Growing Threat in Warming and Acidic Seas. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-sharks-19221 </ref>. Furthermore, as oceans warm, sharks and their prey must move further North, thus causing northern waters to be more concentrated with shark species not normally endemic to the region. Great White sharks are projected to be common in British Columbian waters as oceans warm, ensuring that shark policy in British Columbia is critical preserving new shark species as shark composition changes<ref>Johnson, L. (2017). Climate change to bring great white sharks to B.C. says UBC prof. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/great-white-sharks-bc-climate-change-1.4220807</ref>. Hence legislation that effects sharks, for example climate change legislation, does not need to directly pertain to sharks, but will influence them nonetheless.

= Evidence for the Problem =

==Population Dynamics of Sharks==

The rate of sharks caught have steadily increased since 1955. About 100 million sharks are killed each year for various reasons, including:
*Recreational Fishing
*Commercial Fishing
*Cultural Reasons
*Bycatch

These are all major impacts on the shark population. Blue shark is one of the most impacted sharks in off shore by catch <ref name="Vallianos"/>. They are the most used product in shark fin soup and no limits exist on managing their population. There is not any management plans for this species and a CITES listing will need to be made for any chance of improvement <ref name="Vallianos"/>.

==Media Influence on Human Perspective==
[[File:Basking Shark.jpg|260x200px|framed|right|Basking shark filter feeding]]
===Media Influence on Shark Population Decline===
The negative portrayal of sharks in media and cinematic films has completely shaped the way humans perceive sharks. For over 60 years this misconception has been heavily influencing the extirpation and conservation of most species of sharks. The first viable source was Cousteau's "The Silent World", the first underwater film. At the time, it brought to life underwater ecosystems and showed amazing biodiversity beneath the ocean's surface. Shortly after the film was released there was an extreme decline in the population of Basking Sharks off the North Pacific Coast <ref name="Mieras"/>. This decrease arose due to the misconception that Basking Sharks were salmon predators and therefore a threat to fisheries in the US and Canada. This promoted a mass fishing and killing of the the species, leaving basking sharks near extinction by the late 1950's <ref name="Mieras"/>.

By the 1980's and 1990's there was a surge of documentary films being released, portraying sharks as deadly monsters. The largest and most impactful media influence was the 1975 movie "Jaws" <ref name="Mieras"/>. This movie was a huge influencer in the development of a shark-hunting culture in the years to follow. Since then, shark populations in the US and Canada declined 50-90% <ref name="Choi">Choi, Charles. How 'Jaws' Forever Changed Our View of Great White Sharks. Https://Www.livescience.com/8309-Jaws-Changed-View-Great-White-Sharks.html, 20 June 2010, www.livescience.com/8309-jaws-changed-view-great-white-sharks.html.</ref>. A positive outcome of this decline was an increase in funding for shark research, since up until then funding was negligible <ref name="Choi"/>.

==Impacts of Ecotourism==
===Negative Effects of Ecotourism===
Shark based ecotourism has been becoming increasingly popular over the past two decades <ref name="Mieras"/>. Similar to ecotourism in Africa, shark based ecotourism is appealing based on the rarity of an encounter. This industry has turned a 300 million USD profit per year and can be split into three main areas:
*recreation
*recreational fishing
*underwater encounters, and above water encounters <ref name="Mieras"/>.
Recreational fishing is the biggest concern for the conservation of sharks, although due to regulations there is a portion of the catch that must be released <ref name="Gallagher">Gallagher, Austin J., et al. "Shark Recreational Fisheries: Status, Challenges, and Research Needs." SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 19 Dec. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-016-0856-8. </ref>. Recreational fishing is similar African trophy hunting, inspired by a man vs nature mentality. As per legislation, catch and release fisheries are obligated to fishing sharks in such a way that they survive after being released. Recent research shows that depending on gear and practices used, there is a mortality rate of up to 90% for some species of sharks <ref name="Gallagher"/>.

Underwater shark encounters in the Pacific North Coast began in the late 1970's on Hornby island after the discovery of a Sixgill Sharks population. In this area there were rules put in place to minimize the impacts of humans. These rules include a ban on the baiting of sharks and minimal diving time <ref name="Mieras"/>. Throughout Canada and the United States, shark sightings in ecotourism has decreased significantly. Despite this, due to the rarity and excitement of sightings, these companies bring in huge revenue and economic value to their communities and cities <ref name="Mieras"/>.

===Environmental Advocates===
Environmental advocates and non-profits have been pressuring for companies to shift to a catch and release platform rather than a catch and kill platform, as recent studies have shown that recreation fishing has impacted shark population more than commercial fishing <ref name="Gallagher"/>. This has pushed for "Shark Free Marinas", a non-profit that advocates for marinas to restrict fishing within the marina waters <ref name="Gallagher"/>. All of these factors are contributing to the conservation of sharks in the North Pacific.

=Options for Remedial Actions=

==Reducing Unnecessary Mortality==

Further actions need to be taken in order to mitigate and reduce incidental mortality of marine mammals. Improved gear technology, as well as the development and enforcement of handling and release practices in collaboration with fisherman, are examples of technical actions that could aid in reducing incidental catches and shark mortality. The use of circle hooks have been identified as a method to reduce the likelihood of blue shark mortality by reducing the probability of deep-hooking in Canadian waters (Godin & Worm, 2010). Creating incentives for fisherman to handle sharks with care may help to minimize sources of injury and mortality among sharks in Canada.

=Works Cited=
<references/>

=Authors=
Sean Roufosse

Kennedy Thomson

Anthony Pica

Audrey Steele