Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:27:42.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Approaches to Shark Conservation and Management across the Indo-Pacific Small Island States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2019

Erika Techera Open the ORCID record for Erika Techera [Opens in a new window]
Erika Techera*
Affiliation:
The University of Western Australia Law School and Oceans Institute, Crawley, WA (Australia). Email: erika.techera@uwa.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considerable global attention has focused on the plight of sharks and the implications for ocean health. Scientists point to the importance of sharks for healthy ecosystems and the consequences of their disproportionate removal; yet legal and management responses vary considerably. In some states, negative human-shark interactions have led to shark culls and swimming bans, and have prompted public fears about future activities that might attract species closer to coasts and communities. In other countries, sharks are respected, conserved and utilized only as a non-consumptive marine-based tourism resource. This article argues that culture plays an important role in the variety of legal responses to the conservation and management of sharks. By examining the development of shark sanctuaries across the Indian and Pacific Ocean island states, this analysis highlights the legal approaches taken, and the varying socio-cultural values that have influenced these responses. Understanding the role of culture will remain important as these laws mature, because it may affect implementation, compliance, and ultimately the achievement of conservation outcomes.

Keywords

SharksEnvironmental lawIndian OceanPacific OceanSmall island developing states (SIDS)Culture
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2019 , pp. 547 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank the anonymous TEL reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved this article.

References

1 Some work has been undertaken on the regulation of shark sanctuaries: Ward-Paige, C. & Worm, B., ‘Global Evaluation of Shark Sanctuaries’ (2017) 47 Global Environmental Change, pp. 174–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has analyzed implementation of the International Plan of Action for Sharks in the top shark-fishing nations: J. Fischer et al., Review of the Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1076, 2012).

2 In relation to shark hazard and mitigation policies, see, e.g., Gibbs, L. & Warren, A., ‘Transforming Shark Hazard Policy: Learning from Ocean-Users and Shark Encounter in Western Australia’ (2015) 58 Marine Policy, pp. 116–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Humber, F. et al. , ‘Endangered, Essential and Exploited: How Extant Laws are not Enough to Protect Marine Megafauna in Madagascar’ (2015) 60 Marine Policy, pp. 70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Stevens, J.D. et al. , ‘The Effects of Fishing on Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras (Chondrichthyans), and the Implications for Marine Ecosystems’ (2000) 57 ICES Journal of Marine Science, pp. 476–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Myers, R.A. & Worm, B., ‘Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities’ (2003) 423(6937) Nature, pp. 280–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Myers, R.A. et al. , ‘Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean’ (2007) 315(5820) Science, pp. 1846–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Dulvy, N.K. et al. , ‘You Can Swim but You Can't Hide: The Global Status and Conservation of Oceanic Pelagic Sharks and Rays’ (2008) 18(5) Aquatic Conservation, pp. 459–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Techera, E.J. & Klein, N., ‘Fragmented Governance: Reconciling Legal Strategies for Shark Conservation and Management’ (2011) 35(1) Marine Policy, pp. 73–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ward-Paige, C.A., ‘A Global Overview of Shark Sanctuary Regulations and their Impact on Shark Fisheries’ (2017) 82 Marine Policy, pp. 87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Richards, K. et al. , ‘Sharks and People: Insight into the Global Practices of Tourism Operators and their Attitudes to Shark Behaviour’ (2015) 91(1) Marine Pollution Bulletin, pp. 200–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 The 17 include (with Indo-Pacific states in italics): Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Caribbean Netherlands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Curacao, French Polynesia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), New Caledonia, Palau, St Maarten, and Tokelau. Only the independent island states are explored in this article and not the French, United States (US), or New Zealand external territories.

8 Gibbs & Warren, n. 2 above. Many of these states have shark-based tourism activities, yet Ward-Paige found that dive tourism was not a strong common thread among the countries that had established shark sanctuaries, and therefore different reasons must exist in each jurisdiction: Ward-Paige, n. 5 above.

9 Dell'Apa, A., Smith, M.C. & Kaneshiro-Pineiro, M.Y., ‘The Influence of Culture on the International Management of Shark Finning’ (2014) 54(2) Environmental Management, pp. 151–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Fabinyi, M., ‘Historical, Cultural and Social Perspectives on Luxury Seafood Consumption in China’ (2011) 39(1) Environmental Conservation, pp. 83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Despite evidence of the negative effects of eating sharks, these cultural beliefs persist, including those related to health benefits: Jefferies, C., ‘Sharks and the Culinary Clash of Culture and Conservation: Why Are We Not Considering the Health Consequences of Shark Consumption?’ (2012) 20(3) Health Law Review, pp. 33–9Google Scholar.

10 ‘[C]ulturally driven prohibitions and customary beliefs concerning whale sharks among Bajo fishermen’ are found in Timor and Roti Islands, including ‘specialised customary practices concerning whale sharks’: Stacey, N.E. et al. , ‘Prospects for Whale Shark Conservation in Eastern Indonesia through Bajo Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Community-based Monitoring’ (2012) 10(1) Conservation and Society, pp. 63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These observations are not limited to sharks: Leeney, R.H. & Poncelet, P., ‘Using Fishers’ Ecological Knowledge to Assess the Status and Cultural Importance of Sawfish in Guinea-Bissau’ (2015) 25 Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, pp. 411–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Stacey et al., ibid., pp. 64, 68. See also S. Hasibuan, ‘Tanjung Luar: A Village Renowned for Shark Trading’, Aljazeera, 29 Mar. 2018, available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/tanjung-luar-village-renowned-shark-trading-180329071924008.html.

12 Reunion Island is also referred to below, yet it is not an independent state but rather a French external territory.

13 Other Pacific SIDS include Nauru, Niue, and Tuvalu. There are several other non-independent Pacific islands: French (New Caledonia and French Polynesia), US (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa), and New Zealand (Tokelau) external territories.

14 The population is therefore of Indian or Afro-Malagasy descent (Creole).

15 K. Cuskelly, Customs and Constitutions: State Recognition of Customary Law around the World (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2011).

16 Crawford, D., Shark (Reaktion Books, 2008)Google Scholar.

17 Most notably in Hawaii where there were nine shark gods (aumakua): Crawford, ibid. Sharks were also revered in other parts of the Pacific: in Fiji as Dakuwaqa, in the Polynesian islands as Kauhuhu, and in French Polynesia as Taputapua: Techera, E.J., ‘Fishing, Finning and Tourism: Trends in Pacific Shark Conservation and Management’ (2012) 27(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Dell'Apa, Smith & Kaneshiro-Pineiro, n. 9 above. For other uses see Owen, D., Shark: In Peril in the Sea (Allen and Unwin, 2009)Google Scholar.

18 Drew, J., Philipp, C. & Westneat, M.W., ‘Shark Tooth Weapons from the 19th Century Reflect Shifting Baselines in Central Pacific Predator Assemblies’ (2013) 8(4) PLOS One, pp. 1–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19 Crawford, n. 16 above, p. 53.

20 Ibid., p. 52.

21 Owen, n. 17 above, pp. 39–44.

22 Ibid., pp. 30–2.

23 See Marine Resources Act 2005 – Marine Resources (Longline Fishery) Regulations 2008.

24 H. Sinan, M.S. Adam & R.C. Anderson, ‘Status of Shark Fisheries in the Maldives’, IOTC–2011–WPEB07–56, available at: http://www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/proceedings/2011/wpeb/IOTC-2011-WPEB07-56.pdf.

25 Peschak, T.P., Lost World: The Marine Realm of the Seychelles (Save Our Seas, South Africa, 2009), p. 128Google Scholar.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid., p. 129.

28 As will be seen, this is a common pattern in other Indo-Pacific states. The experience is not limited to this region and has been noted, e.g., in Ecuador: Dell'Apa, Smith & Kaneshiro-Pineiro, n. 9 above, p. 157.

29 Humber et al., n. 3 above, p. 71.

30 Sinan, Adam & Anderson, n. 24 above.

31 For a detailed consideration of the international laws, see Techera, E.J. & Klein, N., International Law of Sharks: Options, Opportunities and Obstacles (Brill, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a further analysis of gaps and challenges in the global regime, see Techera & Klein, n. 5 above.

32 Washington, DC (US), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975, available at: https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.

33 CITES, ‘History of CITES Listing of Sharks’, available at: https://cites.org/eng/prog/shark/history.php.

34 Bonn (Germany), 23 June 1979, in force 1 Nov. 1983, available at: http://www.cms.int/en/convention-text.

35 CMS Convention Secretariat, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, Monaco, Dec. 2018, available at: https://www.cms.int/sharks/en/page/sharks-mou-text.

36 Adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1999 and endorsed by the FAO Council in 2000, available at: http://www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/background/about-ipoa-sharks/en.

37 For further detail see Techera & Klein, n. 31 above, pp. 32–5; see also Techera & Klein, n. 5 above.

38 See FAO, ‘Database of Measures on Conservation and Management of Sharks’, available at: http://www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/database-of-measures/en.

39 M. Lack & F. Meere, ‘Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and Management of Sharks’, SPC/FFA/SPREP, Oct. 2009, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-br378e.pdf.

40 These have been usefully summarized at CITES, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organization Measures for Shark Conservation and Management’, Mar. 2014, available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/shark%20RFMO%20measures%20-%20draft%20March%202014.pdf.

41 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, ‘Conservation and Management Measures’, available at: http://www.iotc.org/cmms.

42 Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, ‘Sharks’, 22 July 2017, available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/sharks. See also FAO, ‘International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks: Regional Shark Measures’, available at: http://www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/regional-sharks-measures/en.

43 See, e.g., UNGA Resolution 66/68, Sustainable Fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 Dec. 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and Related Instruments (6 Dec. 2011), UN Doc. A/RES/66/68, available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=%20A/RES/66/68.

44 Rome (Italy), 22 Nov. 2009, in force 5 June 2016, available at: http://www.fao.org/port-state-measures. See also Techera & Klein, n. 31 above, pp. 190–3.

45 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention.

46 CBD Secretariat, ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’, available at: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets.

47 Protected Planet, ‘Protected Areas Coverage in 2018’, available at: https://www.protectedplanet.net/marine.

48 Ward-Paige, n. 5 above.

49 See Ward-Paige & Worm, n. 1 above.

50 Endangered and Protected Species (Amendment) Act 2017 (Fiji).

51 Endangered and Protected Species Act 2002 (Fiji), s. 21.

52 International Trade (Fauna and Flora) Act (Vanuatu).

53 As amended by the Wildlife (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (Mauritius).

54 Marine Wildlife Protection Regulations 2009 (Samoa), reg. 11.

55 Ibid.

56 N. Matatia, ‘P.M. Declares Samoa's Oceans Shark Sanctuary’, Samoa Observer, 1 Mar. 2018, available at: http://www.samoaobserver.ws/en/02_03_2018/local/30636/PM-declares-Samoa%E2%80%99s-oceans-shark-sanctuary.htm.

57 Marine Resources (Shark Conservation) Regulations 2012 (Cook Islands), reg. 3.

58 Ibid., reg. 5(1).

59 Ibid., reg. 5(2).

60 Ibid., reg. 5(3) and (4).

61 Ibid., reg. 6.

62 Ibid., reg. 7.

63 Public Law No. 18-108, amending s. 913 of Title 24 of the Code of the Federated States of Micronesia on Marine Resources.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid., s. 913(3).

66 Ibid., s. 913(7) and (9).

67 Ibid., s. 913(8).

68 Ibid., s. 914.

69 Ibid., s. 913(4).

70 Fisheries Act 1997 (Marshall Islands), s. 229.

71 Ibid., s. 229A(1).

72 Ibid., s. 229A(2); see also sub-section (5).

73 Ibid., s. 229A(3).

74 Ibid., s. 229A(4).

75 Ibid., s. 229A(6).

76 Ibid., s. 230.

77 Shark Fisheries Management Regulations 2015 (Sri Lanka), reg. 2. Exceptions are provided for scientific research.

78 Ibid., reg. 3. See also the High Seas Fishing Operations Regulations 2014 (Sri Lanka).

79 Shark Fisheries Management Regulations 2015 (Sri Lanka), reg. 4.

80 Shark Fisheries Management (High Seas) Regulations 2015 (Sri Lanka), regs 2–6.

81 Fishing Gear Marking Regulations 2015 (Sri Lanka).

82 N. 44 above. Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Regulations 2015.

83 Dell'Apa, Smith & Kaneshiro-Pinerio, n. 9 above (citing R. Anderson & Z. Waheed, ‘Management of Shark Fisheries in the Maldives’, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 1999, pp. 367–401).

84 General Fisheries Regulations (the Maldives), reg.12. The regulation is limited to 10 years from 1998 and the Baa, Lhaviyani, Kaafu (Male), North Ari, South Ari, Vaavu and Seenu (Addu) Atolls.

85 Ibid., reg. 18.

86 Ibid., reg. 13.

87 Fisheries Law (the Maldives), Art. 10.

88 Maldives Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Press Release No. 30-D2/29/2010/32 (quoted in K. Ali & H. Sinan, ‘National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in the Maldives’, IOTC-2015-WPEB-INF12, Sept. 2015, p. 15, available at: http://www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/09/IOTC-2015-WPEB11-INF12_-_Maldives_NPOA_Sharks.pdf). See also Ward-Paige, n. 5 above.

89 Fisheries (Shark Finning) Regulations (the Seychelles), reg. 5.

90 Ibid., reg. 6.

91 Ibid., reg. 7.

92 Ibid., reg. 10.

93 Fisheries and Marine Resources (Import of Fish and Fish Products) Regulations 2012 (Mauritius), regs 13 and 14.

94 Fisheries Act 2014 (Vanuatu), s. 115(2)(g).

95 Ibid., s. 147.

96 Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations 2014 (Fiji), reg. 6, Sch. 2C.

97 K. Chand, ‘A Legal Policy Discussion of Shark Conservation in Fiji’, Siwatibau & Sloan, 20 Feb. 2017, available at: http://www.sas.com.fj/ocean-law-bulletins/a-legal-policy-discussion-of-shark-conservation-in-fiji.

98 Fisheries Act 1997 – Fisheries (PNA Third Implementing Arrangement) Regulations 2009, reg. 6A, inserted by the Fisheries (PNA Third Implementing Arrangement) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (Nauru).

99 Ibid., reg. 6A(2).

100 Fisheries (PNA Third Implementation Arrangement) Regulations 2012, reg. 7. However, the Solomon Islands has a long-line shark fishery and permits export: Fisheries (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.

101 Mauritius Local Government Act 2011, District Council of Savanne (Markets) Regulations 2014, reg. 4(4); Seychelles Public Health Act 1960, Public Health (Market) Regulations.

102 Export of Fishery Products (Sanitary) Regulations 2010 (the Seychelles).

103 Atlas of Marine Protection, ‘Shark Sanctuary’, available at: http://www.mpatlas.org/category/shark-sanctuary.

104 Shark Haven Act 2009 (Palau).

105 Amendment to Title 27 of Palau National Code, Division 1, Ch. 1 (RPPL No. 6-36).

106 Shark Haven Act 2009, amending Title 27 of the Palau National Code, s. 181.

107 Ibid., s. 102(i).

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid., s. 181(b).

110 Shark Haven Act 2009, amending Title 27 of the Palau National Code, s. 182.

111 Marine Sanctuary Act 2015 (Palau), amending Title 27 of the Palau National Code, s. 181.

112 Marine Sanctuary Act 2015, amending the Marine Protection Act 1994 (Palau), ss. 1203, 1204 and 1209.

113 Marine Sanctuary Act 2015, s. 182(b)

114 Sharks are defined to include eight orders: Shark Sanctuary Regulations 2015 (Kiribati), reg. 3.

115 Ibid., reg. 2.

116 Ibid., reg. 5.

117 Ibid., reg. 6(2).

118 Ibid., reg. 6(1) and (3).

119 Ibid., reg. 7. Foreign fishing vessels are exempt: reg. 8(3).

120 Ibid., reg. 8. See reg. 10 regarding limitations on authorized exceptions. Sharks warranting special protection are set out in Sch. 11 and include oceanic white tip, silky, whale, great white, and basking sharks.

121 Ibid., reg. 9.

122 Ibid., reg. 17.

123 Fisheries (Shark Reef Marine Reserve) (Serua) Regulations 2014 (Fiji) , s. 3(1).

124 Ibid., s. 3(5).

125 Ibid., s. 4(2).

126 Ibid., s. 3(6).

127 Ibid., s. 5.

128 Humber et al. (n. 3 above, p. 79) state that ‘Decree 2006-400 only mentions one species of elasmobranch’ but that has not been confirmed by this research. See also Keane, A. et al. , ‘Evidence for the Effects of Environmental Engagement and Education on Knowledge of Wildlife Laws in Madagascar’ (2011) 4(1) Conservation Letters, pp. 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 Law 96-025, Arts 49–52 (Madagascar).

130 Humber et al., n. 3 above.

131 Ibid., p. 79; L. Brenna, ‘Madagascar Creates a Sanctuary for Sharks’, Lifegate, 19 Feb. 2015, available at: https://www.lifegate.com/people/news/madagascar-sanctuary-sharks. Earlier in 2010, the Bay was put under temporary full protection by an inter-ministerial Decree (No. 52005/2010): US Aid, ‘Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries in Madagascar: A Biodiversity and Extractives Political Economy Assessment Summary’, available at: http://www.integrallc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/USAID-Madagascar-PEA-Summary_Approved_Updated-1.pdf.

132 Humber et al., n. 3 above, p. 72.

133 Stacey et al., n. 10 above, p. 64.

134 Ibid., p. 64.

135 Ibid., p. 72.

136 Provisioning refers to feeding sharks, which can alter natural hunting patterns and habituate sharks to humans. Baiting includes chumming or berleying the water by adding blood or fish oil to attract sharks to operators; this can result in wasted energy as sharks are attracted to the ‘food’ but none is provided: see, e.g., Richards et al., n. 6 above; Orams, M.B., ‘Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction: A Review of Issues and Impacts’ (2002) 23 Tourism Management, pp. 281–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137 In South Africa, the Marine Living Resources Act 1998 prohibits the feeding of great white sharks but permits chumming. Whale shark tourism activities in Western Australia are regulated under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 and the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. In South Australia, great white shark cage diving is regulated by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2007.

138 Richards et al., n. 6 above.

139 E. Reguly, ‘Dream of Swimming with Whale Sharks? Know That It's a Nightmare for Them’, The Globe and Mail, 3 May 2018, available at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/travel/article-dream-of-swimming-with-whale-sharks-know-that-its-a-nightmare-for.

140 Richards et al., n. 6 above.

141 T. Newman, ‘Shark Cage Diving Bill Knocked Back’, The Southland Times, 7 May 2018, available at: https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/103677507/shark-cage-diving-bill-knocked-back.

142 PauaMAC5 Incorporated v. Director-General of Conservation, Judgment, 4 Sept. 2018, CA355/2017, [2018] NZCA 348.

143 Lemahieu, A. et al. , ‘Human-Shark Interactions: The Case Study of Reunion Island in the South-West Indian Ocean’ (2017) 136 Ocean and Coastal Management, pp. 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In total there were 18 shark attacks between 2011 and 2016: Global Shark Attack File, available at: http://www.sharkattackfile.net/incidentlog.htm.

144 G. Chambers, ‘Reunion Shark Nets Snatch Victory from Jaws of Ruin’, The Australian, 18 Mar. 2016, available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/reunion-shark-nets-snatch-victory-from-jaws-of-ruin/news-story/7dfcdfd2e15259a6455cc20819169aa3 (on subscription only).

145 Sea Shepherd Australia Pty Ltd v. Western Australia, Judgment, BC201403180, (2014) 313 ALR 208; [2014] WASC 66 (S). See also Pearlman, P.W. & Techera, E.J., ‘Sharks: Conservation, Culling and Controversy’ (2015) 30(2–3) Australian Environment Review, pp. 56–61Google Scholar.

146 McCagh, C., Sneddon, J. & Blache, D., ‘Killing Sharks: The Media's Role in Public and Political Response to Fatal Human-Shark Interactions’ (2015) 62 Marine Policy, pp. 271–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

147 Gibbs, L. & Warren, A., ‘Killing Sharks: Culture and Politics of Encounter and the Sea’ (2014) 45(2) Australian Geographer, pp. 101–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCagh, Sneddon & Blache, ibid.; Neff, C., ‘The Jaws Effect: How Movie Narratives are Used to Influence Policy Responses to Shark Bites in Western Australia’ (2015) 50(1) Australian Journal of Political Science, pp. 114–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 Shark Sanctuary Regulations 2015 (Kiribati), reg. 8(1)(b).

149 Lemahieu et al., n. 143 above.

150 Loiseau, N. et al. , ‘Using an Unbaited Stationary Video System to Investigate the Behaviour and Interactions of Bull Sharks Carcharhinus Leucas under an Aquaculture Farm’ (2016) 38(1) African Journal of Marine Science, pp. 73–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other research indicates that there are few incidences of great white shark interaction with tuna pens, leading to the inference that these aquaculture facilities are not strong attractions for these animals: Galaz, T. & de Maddalena, A., ‘On a Great White Shark Trapped in a Tuna Cage off Libya, Mediterranean Sea’ (2004) 14 Annales Series Historia Naturalis, pp. 159–63Google Scholar.

151 A. Ebrahim, ‘Aquaculture in Seychelles?’, eTurboNews, 27 Aug. 2017, available at: https://www.eturbonews.com/162808/aquaculture-in-seychelles.

152 Seychelles Nation, ‘Shark Experts Brief Local Authorities on Initial Findings’, 27 Aug. 2011, available at: http://www.nation.sc/article.html?id=231843.

153 S.M. Jean & B. Bonnelame, ‘Seychelles Maritime Safety Authority Removes Safety Nets at Anse Lazio Beach 5 Years after Shark Attacks’, Seychelles Newsagency, 3 Jan. 2017, available at: http://www.seychellesnewsagency.com/articles/6534/Seychelles+Maritime+Safety+Authority+removes+safety+nets+at+Anse+Lazio+beach++years+after+shark+attacks.

154 Cliff, G. & Dudley, S.F.J., ‘Reducing the Environmental Impact of Shark-Control Programs: A Case Study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’ (2011) 62(6) Marine and Freshwater Research, pp. 700–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B. MacKenzie & L. White, ‘Shark Net Figures Show Massive Amount of Marine Bycatch Compared to Smart Drumlines’, ABC News, 22 May 2018, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/shark-nets-figures-show-more-bycatch-compared-to-drumlines/9787964.

155 Ebrahim, n. 151 above.

156 ‘Aquaculture Project in the West: The Controversy is Growing’, Le Mauricien, 23 July 2017, available at: https://www.lemauricien.com/article/projet-d-aquaculture-l-ouest-la-polemique-s-amplifie/2018; Y.J. Yugtha, ‘Aquaculture Farms: A Danger to our Marine Ecosystems’, ELI Africa, 5 July 2017, available at: http://www.eli-africa.org/2017/07/aquaculture-farms-a-danger-to-our-marine-ecosystems.

157 B. Pierre et al., ‘Accelerating the Development of Sustainable Aquaculture Industry in Mauritius’, BOI/NB/JAN15/02, AFD-Board of Investment, Mauritius, 8 Sept. 2015, available at: https://docplayer.net/90190733-Accelerating-the-development-of-sustainable-aquaculture-industry-in-mauritius.html; ‘Aquaculture Project in the West: The Controversy is Growing’, Le Mauricien, 23 July 2017, available at: https://www.lemauricien.com/article/projet-d-aquaculture-l-ouest-la-polemique-s-amplifie; ‘Fish Farms: Emerging Threats Coming Ashore’, L'Express, 28 June 2007, available at: https://www.lexpress.mu/article/fish-farms-emerging-threats-coming-ashore; K. Walter, ‘Aquaculture: “Growfish Makes Sure There is No Chance for Her to be Responsible for a Shark Attack”’ L'Express, 24 July 2017, available at: https://www.lexpress.mu/article/312580/aquaculture-growfish-fait-en-sorte-quil-ny-ait-aucune-chance-pour-elle-detre.

158 Ward-Paige, n. 5 above.

159 D. Bradley et al., ‘Leveraging Satellite Technology to Create True Shark Sanctuaries’ (2018) Conservation Letters, doi: 10.1111/conl.12610.

160 See, e.g., Dent, F. & Clarke, S., State of the Global Market for Shark Products (FAO, 2015)Google Scholar. Only Mauritius and Vanuatu are mentioned in the report and only very limited information is available.

161 Pew Charitable Trusts, ‘Pacific Islands Collaborate to Enforce World's First Regional Shark Sanctuary’, 21 Apr. 2016, available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/04/21/pacific-islands-collaborate-to-enforce-worlds-first-regional-shark-sanctuary.

162 Anderson & Waheed, n. 83 above.

163 Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Palau’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/place/palau; Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Marshall Islands’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/place/marshall_islands.

164 Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Micronesia’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/country-overview/micronesia; Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Cook Islands’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/country-overview/cook_islands.

165 Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Maldives’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/country-overview/maldives; Shark Attack Data, ‘All Shark Attacks in Sri Lanka’, available at: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/country-overview/sri_lanka.

166 Drew, Philipp & Westneat, n. 18 above.

167 For the West Australian context see Gibbs & Warren, n. 2 above; McCagh, Sneddon & Blache, n. 146 above.

168 Richards et al., n. 6 above.

169 Humber et al., n. 3 above, p. 78.

170 Mojetta, A.R. et al. , ‘Where Sharks Met Humans: The Mediterranean Sea, History and Myth of an Ancient Interaction between Two Dominant Predators’ (2018) 21 Regional Studies in Marine Science, pp. 30–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

171 Ibid.

172 ‘Palau's Economic and Cultural Fate Is Inextricably Tied to the Ocean, and Sharks Play an Integral Role in Maintaining the Ocean's Complex Ecological Balance’: Shark Haven Act 2009; and ‘[P]rotecting and preserving Palau's environment is an essential part of Palauan culture (Bul system)’: Palau National Marine Sanctuary Act 2015, s. 2.

173 Ward-Paige, n. 5 above.