Best Practices on Sustainable Shark and Ray Tourism

Moderator: Carol Phua (MPA Action Agenda / WWF) Presenters: Isabel Ender of Manta Trust and Andy Cornish of WWF

SWIMMING WITH SHARKS AND RAYS A Practical Guide To Best Practise

Shark Tourism is Growing • A 2011 study documented 376 well-established shark-

focused operations in 83 locations in 29 countries • Most shark focused ecotourism locations are situated in

Oceania (18 locations), Greater Caribbean (13), North America (13), Latin America (12), Southern Eastern Africa (12) and Asia (7)

Operations focus on around 25 species of sharks

AJ Gallagher and N Hammerschlag (2011) Global Shark Currency: the distribution, frequency and economic value of shark tourism. Current Issues in Tourism. 2011: 1-16

© Andy Cornish WWF

Shark Tourism is Growing • Globally, about 590,000 shark watchers generate more

than USD 314 million per year, supporting 10,000 direct jobs.

• Over the next 20 years, the numbers of shark watcher numbers could more than double globally - potentially generating more than USD 780 million in expenditures

•  The value of manta ray tourism is around USD 140 million annually

AM Cisneros-Montemayor, M Barnes, D Al-Abdulrazzak, E Navarro-Holm and U. Rashid Sumaila. (2012). Global Economic Value of Shark Ecotourism: Implications for Conservation. Working paper # 2012-04, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. Mary P O’Malley, Katie Lee-Brooks and Hannah B Medd. (2013). The Global Economic Impact of Manta Ray Watching Tourism. PLOS One

The Need - Sharks

© Andy Cornish WWF

The Need - People © Andy Cornish WWF

Structure of the Guide • How to Use the Guide • Being a Best Practise Operator • Setting Up a Best Practise Shark & Ray Tourism

Operation • Understanding Impacts – Research, Review & Monitoring

BEST PRACTISE TOOLKIT Ø TOOL 1 – HOW DO YOU PERFORM? Ø TOOL 2 – BUILDING A SOCIAL LICENSE Ø TOOL 3 – HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR MARKET AND INSTITUTIONAL

REQUIREMENTS? Ø TOOL 4 – CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVING MANAGEMENT MEASURES Ø TOOL 5 – SELECTING A SITE Ø TOOL 6 – EXAMPLE CODES OF CONDUCT

Best Practise Topics

Guidance - Existing Operators Creating a culture of continuous improvement and compliance • Setting business core values •  Investing in education • Using a Code of Conduct

Guidance - Existing Operators Provisioning

2. Methods and results

Peer-reviewed publications were selected from the ScienceCitation Index Database (Web of Science) and the Aquatic Scienceand Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) as a secondary search using the titleand keyword searches: ‘marine tourism, ‘shark diving tourism,’ and‘shark ecotourism’. The Web of Science search generated papersthat fell between the earliest records of the database (1945) upto January 2014. The more than 500 publications were filtered ontwo criteria: (1) the study must have been published in theprimary literature and (2) sharks were the focal organism/systemof the investigation. For example, several studies on marine tour-ism have mentioned or included ‘sharks’ as a component of variousregional tourism industries; however, these were excluded fromthe analysis because ‘sharks’ were not the focus or target of thetourism being evaluated. Unpublished theses, conference proceed-ings, book chapters, and reports from the grey literature wereexcluded. Additional papers (including a handful appearing in2014) were added from authors’ personal libraries and literaturecited sections from the list of relevant papers were surveyed untilno further publications arose. The ASFA search generated 194 pub-lications that were cross-referenced against those already com-piled. This search did not turn up any new papers that met ourcriteria, suggesting that our literature coverage was comprehen-sive. Once the final list of original articles was compiled, we notedthe following information from each: (a) year of publication, (b)primary ocean basin in which the study was conducted, (c) theprimary shark species studied, and the (d) the time frame of thestudy in years. Lastly, we categorized each study into either oneor multiple categories: biology and habitat use, ecology, animalwelfare, socio-economics, user experience, policy/management,and general/overview.

Our review identified 47 original research articles published upuntil and including 2014 focusing on some aspect of the sharkdiving tourism industry (Table 1). The first study to explicitly focuson shark diving tourism in some way was Davis et al. (1997), anoverview of the whale shark diving operations off WesternAustralia, which provided some of the first socio-economic dataon the industry. Three studies provided a global view of certainaspects of the industry: Topelko and Dearden (2005) introducedshark diving tourism as a worldwide industry and was the firststudy to formally discuss shark diving tourism as a potential benefitfor shark conservation; Gallagher and Hammerschlag (2011)provided the first global analysis and report of the shark diving

industry and was among the first to formally discuss and comparetourism revenues to those earned via fishing; Cisneros-Montemayor et al. (2013) replicated a handful of the approachesalready conducted by Gallagher and Hammerschlag (2011) andattempted to calculate the economic value of the entire industry.Of all articles (44, excluding the three papers which were consid-ered ‘global overviews’), approximately 68% (30 studies) occurredin the Indian Ocean, 23% (10 studies) in the Pacific Ocean, and!9% in the Atlantic (4 studies, Table 1). The apparent lack ofresearch in the Atlantic Ocean is surprising due to the scale of sharkdiving operations in the region, as well as the popularity of sharkdiving in the Bahamas alone (Gallagher and Hammerschlag,2011). Forty studies were assessed as having evaluated a primaryshark species, with the whale shark emerging as the most studiedshark species (15 studies, 37.5% of all studies, Table 1). Thegrey nurse shark was the second most-studied primary species(7 studies, 17.5%, Table 1), whereas the other 45% of studies focusedon a variety of species. That the whale shark dominates the lit-erature is not surprising, as they are massive, slow-moving, andhave had established tourism industries for decades in numerouslocations worldwide (Gallagher and Hammerschlag, 2011, Table 1).White sharks have only been considered in 4 studies to date,whereas ‘reef sharks’ as a group have only been explicitlyconsidered in two studies. This latter finding is surprising especiallysince research has shown that this group of sharks is the mostprevalent in shark diving operations worldwide (Gallagher andHammerschlag, 2011). Socio-economic analyses comprised themajority of studies, !47%, whereas biological reporting and assaysof habitat use (behavioral analyses) of sharks occurred in 34% ofstudies (Fig. 2, Table 1). Other subject foci such as the user experi-ence (!26%), policy and management (23%), animal welfare (21%),general overviews (10%) and ecology (4%) were less widespreadand covered in the literature (Fig. 2, Table 1). The number ofrelevant papers published annually started increasing in 2007, withthe trend steepening from 2010 to present (Table 1). Based on theseresults, we identified 5 important themes/foci of research withinthe context of shark diving tourism and organized the rest of themanuscript to provide a succinct yet comprehensive summary ofeach focal topic while using these concepts to present a frameworkfor future studies. We also recognize that certain topics (behavior,ecology, animal welfare, socio-economics) present a more substan-tive analysis and warrant a deeper discussion than others(conservation potential, community management, bites on humans,practice). We affirm that these differences are reflective of theexisting body of available information and should be an indicationof gaps for future research.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Freq

uenc

y of s

tudi

es

Subject Focus

Fig. 2. Frequency of studies covering various focal research areas among the 47published studies on shark diving tourism.Fig. 1. Multi-level hierarchy defining the various types of provisioning used in most

shark diving tourism operations and their relative degree of involvement with theanimals (moving from low [top] to high [bottom]).

368 A.J. Gallagher et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 365–379

Diagram from AJ Gallagher and N Hammerschlag (2011)

Guidance - Existing Operators Building a social license to operate – Investing in the local community and working with marine industries and other stakeholders Three central components to social license •  Legitimacy • Credibility •  Trust

TOOL – Building a Social License

Guidance - Existing Operators Performance reviews towards continuous improvement Regular reviews across key areas • Economic efficiencies • Customer experience • Safety • Environmental sustainability • Social responsibility

Guidance - New Operators Understanding Institutional Requirements • Understand the local, regional and national legal and

policy framework • Understand the regulations that are in place and how

tourism is managed and supported • Understand the licensing and permit requirements • Consider local attitudes regarding shark and ray tourism

TOOLS - How well do you know your market and institutional requirements? Considerations for improvement management measures when needed

Guidance - New Operators Choosing a Site • High probability of encountering target species • Avoid critical habitats like breeding, nursing or pupping

areas • Physical access and operating conditions •  Type of interaction planned • Costs and accessibility • Managing human safety and animal welfare risks • Costs and benefits to local communities

TOOL – Selecting a Site

The Toolkit •  TOOL 1 HOW DO YOU PERFORM? •  TOOL 2 BUILDING A SOCIAL LICENSE •  TOOL 3 HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR MARKET AND

INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS? •  TOOL 4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVING MANAGEMENT

MEASURES •  TOOL 5 SELECTING A SITE •  TOOL 6 EXAMPLE CODES OF CONDUCT

Tool How Do You Perform?

Tool Examples of Codes of Conduct

How to Obtain the Guide Email Project Manager Anissa Lawrence anissa@tierramar.com.au

© naturepl.com / Alex Mustard / WWF

Final languages for Guide translation tbc

Outreach and Training Training workshops being planned • Greater Caribbean • Coral Triangle • South Pacific • Galapagos

© Cat Holloway / WWF

Supporters Financial sponsors • Project Aware, WWF

Netherlands, WWF Germany, PADI Foundation, Anonymous Swiss Foundation

Technical and Industry Advisors •  Too many to mention

individually © Wildlife Pictures/Jêrome Mallefet / WWF

Questions?

CASE STUDIES Approaches to Managing Shark and Ray Tourism

Introduction • Case studies chosen good

examples of MPAs with shark or ray tourism

•  Innovative financing of their management

• Does not mean every aspects of dive operation is best practice – focus on above criteria

Image: Open Source

MONAD SHOAL, PHILIPPINES Dive operators form a fund to protect thresher shark site

Image: Andy Cornish

Philippines

Background

•  Monad Shoal near Malapascua, Cebu only known location for predictable thresher shark sightings

•  >10 dive centres + liveaboards •  Up to 50 pax in the water

Image: Open Source

Background •  2002 established MPA (184 ha + 500m buffer zone) •  2015 designated as Philippine’s first shark and ray sanctuary

MPA related financing •  Municipality MPA US$3 fee/pax, use unclear, enforcement weak •  2010 dive centres established Malapascua Marine Protection

Fund (MMPF) – add US$ 1/diver; 2015 collected US$ 21,000 •  Trained 28 ex fishermen as Bantay Dagat (Sea Patrols) to

enforce fishing regulations with 3 +1 patrol vessels •  Incidents of illegal fishing greatly decreased

Image: Andy Cornish Image: Evolution Diving

Challenges •  Introduction of enforcement of MPA (through MMPF)

without much consultation with the fishing community • Only ½ of dive centres routinely collect fees for MMPF • Degree to which no-take MPA conserves sharks unclear • Greater transparency over use of MPA fees needed

BAA ATOLL, MALDIVES Scientists, tourism operators, and government unite

Image: Guy Stevens

Philippines

Maldives

Background

•  Unique shape of Hanifaru bay, Baa Atoll, concentrates planktonic food during Southwest Monsoon (May – Dec)

•  Large seasonal aggregations of manta rays and whale sharks

Image: Guy Stevens

Background •  2009 declared Hanifaru MPA and in 2011 entire Baa Atoll

declared a UNESCO Heritage Area with Hanifaru core zone

MPA related financing •  Fee US$ 20/pax to Baa

Atoll Conservation Fund (BACF)

•  BACF includes all stakeholders (fishermen, scientists, resorts, councillors) and manages operations of reserve

•  Enforcement of strict regulations (eg through patrols) done by Ministry of Environment

Image: Guy Stevens

Manta and Mobula ecotourism can be managed in a

sustainable manner. Hanifaru Bay, within the Baa Atoll Biosphere Reserve in the

Maldives, is a key example of this.

Challenges •  Patrol and enforcement at Hanifaru Bay •  Alternate access days operators and liveaboards •  Advance purchases of permits

Image: Guy Stevens

SHARK REEF NATIONAL MARINE PARK, FIJI Coastal community benefits from shark tourism

Image: Sam Cahir

Philippines

Maldives

Fiji

Background Shark Reef known for close encounters with 7 species of shark; its main attraction is large number of adult bull sharks

Image: Open Source

•  Declared Fiji’s 1st fully protected National Marine Park in 2014

•  Physical interaction

with reef limited to an area < 2% of entire reef; strictly controlled diving; no fishing.

Background •  In 2003, 2 communities voluntarily relinquished

indigenous fishing rights (qoliqoli) at Shark Reef granting Beqa Adventure Dive (BAD) operation exclusive access

• Divers charged a fee for entering park with operator - donated directly to the communities

• Now all 5 communities

declared a prohibition on shark fishing throughout qoliqoli, creating a 30km stretch of protected water - Fiji Shark Corridor

Image: Sam Cahir

MPA related financing •  BAD’s fee US$12 for day entry to Marine Park – 100% goes to

communities (average US$ 100,000 / year) •  Train and employ community members in dive operation •  With Department of Fisheries, train staff (and local fishermen)

as Fish Wardens to monitor activities

•  Money raised used for •  Construction & maintenance •  Development of infrastructure •  Education & tuition fees •  Bereavement payments

Image: Beqa Divers

Challenges •  No legal recourse to formalise levy payments in Fijian law •  Declines in local shark populations & large predatory fish •  Relinquishing of fishing rights can only be done with community

consent

•  Increase in Fiji’s dive operations offering shark experiences without guarantee of a similar model of sustainability and community benefit

Image: Open Source

Key Learnings Similarities

•  Community led fund complements government regulations •  Fees from tourism used directly for management and

enforcement

Differences •  Range of stakeholders included in community led initiative

•  Communication between government & community led work •  Model of Shark Reef seems suited to small MPAs with limited

stakeholders where local communities hold fishing rights under law

Key Learnings Replicability

•  Proactive dive operators can initiate conservation action •  Government collected visitor fees should be used for MPA

management, advised by diverse stakeholder committee

Image: Open Source

SUMMARY Best Practice Guide for Shark and Ray Tourism

Target Audience

• Dive Community • New and Existing

• Other Stakeholders •  Local community groups • NGO’s •  Local authorities

The Guide • What to consider

• New operation

• How to choose a site • Code of Conduct • Customer Compliance

The Guide • Manage and monitor

• How to •  Impacts

• Collaborate • How to Case Studies

Best Practice Toolkit • Self Assessment • Checklist • Scorecard • Code of Conduct

Resources •  Factsheets

•  www.mpaaction.org •  www.mantatrust.org

•  The Guide

•  Available mid November •  For electronic version email

project manager anissa@tierramar.com.au

•  Or download from our websites

Image: Guy Stevens

Thank you!

Image: Open Source