Determination of Conservation Action

For the 'A' decline criteria, which is used to evaluate the most exhausted fishes, there is good congruence between fisheries condition and IUCN Red List classification. Whereas fisheries scientists concentrate on categorizing resilience using goal and limit points of reference, few shark stocks have been assessed. The IUCN Red List Reviews for virtually all 1,088 shark, ray, and chimaera species were just completed. The obtainable meta-analyses actually recommend that IUCN Red List Classifications align remarkably well with fisheries points of reference, such that species experiencing steep enough declines to meet the criteria for Critically Endangered (CR) or Endangered (EN) status are likely to be unsustainable levels fished, whilst those experiencing shallower steady decline (e.g. Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT), as well as certain Vulnerable (VU) status are much more likely to be sustainable basis fished. Despite differences in temporal and geographic dimensions, there is a remarkable degree of coherence between existing fisheries community estimations and IUCN shark species evaluations. Furthermore, species harvested sustainably are uncertain to satisfy the requirements for the endangered category (i.e. EN or CR). As a result, IUCN Red List Classification are effective at distinguishing between shark species that are probably threatened with extinction and needs quick conservation intervention and those that require less imminent or no protection intervention.

Species and Populations Facing the Greatest Risk of Extinction in Urgent Need of Strict Protections

Sharks regarded most vulnerable to extinction comprise of the 64 species and 23 communities (of 10 species) internationally placed into one of two endangered categories — CR and EN. Generally speaking, these sharks are kept as a byproduct of generally uncontrolled fishing activities in coastal as well as continental oceans. Sawfishes (5/5), angel sharks (11/19), guitarfishes (21/45), and wedgefishes (6/6) have a disproportionately high number of vulnerable species (43 of 75). As a result, at the very least, 64 species are likely to require stringent protection. (We emphasize that the wide geographical range of many of these species results in variable state or regional status, highlighting the need for local measures to be tailored appropriately. 

The most vulnerable shark species/families, along with the most Data Deficient (DD) species, are located in 31 countries across the Americas, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Species with extremely low internal biological production are also priority for examination and perhaps strong protection, however they are not on our list. Pelagic rays and deepwater sharks are two examples of animals with very low yearly reproductive success.

Freshwater sharks and rays are extremely vulnerable to a wide range of hazards. There are 32 freshwater sharks that are obligatory, and another 68 that are vegetative or euryhaline. Their danger status is aggravated by high habitat specialization, extremely limited geographical distributions, and a lack of data. The main concerns include focused fishing (for food and the aquarium trade), habitat deterioration caused by human expansion, habitat alteration caused by barrier building, water extraction, contamination, and global warming. 

Species That Could Be Managed for Sustainability

The 399 species classified as LC and NT are among the most likely to support sustainable fisheries, assuming that science-based capture and disposal limits can be developed and properly enforced. Moreover, some of the 115 sharks labeled as VU may currently be subject to reasonable levels of fishing and/or have returned to stable population levels as a result of reduced fish stocks. Despite the scarcity of species-specific capture data, we identified six taxonomic groupings that are likely to gain the greatest benefit from improved planning. Epipelagic sharks caught in high-seas fisheries were the top ranking species in regards to management requirement. Maritime, tropical species of shark (requiem sharks and stingrays) and temperate species of shark (smoothhounds and skates) are also prioritized because, while their life histories are generally suited to enduring fisheries, the quantity of uncontrolled and unreported fishing is significant.

In terms of these challenges, India and Yemen have the largest need for improved fishery resources, followed by Italy, Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico. South Asia, North and South America, West and East Africa, and Oceania are the top priority regions. The Indian Ocean-bordering areas of Southeast Asia and East Africa, along with West Africa, have the greatest work to do in terms of data collection.

Determination of Conservation Likelihood and Priority Countries

We investigated shark conservation requirements in relation to national conservation probability scores and landings. The number of threatened (CR, EN, VU), endangered (DD), and freshwater species in each country's EEZ was used to calculate shark conservation needs. In general, the biggest worry is for countries with a low chance of adopting conservation measures despite substantial fisheries landings, most prominently India and Indonesia (top left), contrasted to countries with a high conservation probability but relatively modest fishing demand. More than half of the nations (16/28) with the most CR or EN sharks (11 total) had poor conservation probability and high shark landings. 

To underpin and improve the chances of conservation and sustainable fisheries results, these nations require a significant increase in aid relief and restructuring. The majority of the six nations with a high number of CR and EN species and high conservation probability ratings are among the global highest shark fishing countries and will need to work on adapting and changing shark fisheries to enhance these species' conservation status. These nations believe that red points are not calculated primarily on the basis of fin trade, shark and ray landings, or fisheries priority countries.

The ecological value of a country is indicated by the number of CR, EN, VU, DD, and freshwater species as well as the number of threatened (CR, EN) species within that country’s national waters. The catch submitted to the FAO is the catch of fishermen (averaged over 2009–12). Conservation and governance actions are more practicable in nations with higher conservation probability scores (quadrants on the right): quadrants are defined by the median index values. The average conservation probability score and median FAO shark and ray landings form four quadrants. The quadrants are shaded to represent countries' broad ecological restoration needs. The first quadrant represents low conservation likelihood but high fisheries compression requiring relief and reconfiguration. The second quadrant represents high conservation likelihood but high fishing tension requiring 'adaptation and transformation. The third quadrant indicates high conservation likely and low fishing pressure, necessitating a conservation 'guard and preserve' approach, and the fourth quadrant represents low conservation probability and low fishing pressure, necessitating a conservation 'capacity development' strategy. The nations with the most Endangered and Critically Endangered species are identified.

Conclusions

In shark conservation, there is a tendency to target only a few species and concerns, focusing on'silver bullet' remedies. However, the complexity of the problems these species face, along with their ecological and evolutionary variety, precludes easy remedies. Instead, successful shark conservation necessitates the identification of issues and the creation of solutions for individual species, fisheries, and geographic regions. Such projects need a significant commitment in both people and money. Given the number of individuals and organizations involved in rhino conservation, the manpower necessary to protect sharks must grow significantly. Considering that there is lot of human talent in governments and non-governmental organizations all over the world, there is an immediate need to expand paths and resources to train more people, coordinate efforts where necessary, and overall expedite quantifiable success. Such programs are desperately required, especially in the world's least developed nations to address both shark protection and food security problems.