Assessing Shark and Ray Bycatch in Indonesian

ASSESSING SHARK AND RAY BYCATCH

IN INDONESIAN DEEPWATER

SNAPPER-GROUPER FISHERIES

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Indonesia

by Vanessa Jaiteh, Coral Reef Research Foundation

February 2017 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background and Objectives ...... 3

2. CODRS Image Analysis ...... 3

Summary ...... 3

Species composition ...... 5

Geographic distribution of shark bycatch ...... 11

Occurrence of recent pups and juvenile sharks ...... 15

3. Species of Concern ...... 15

4. Recommendations for monitoring shark bycatch ...... 16

Consistent recording of shark and ray bycatch ...... 16

Image composition ...... 18

5. Conclusions ...... 20

2 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Fisheries certification schemes, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), are gaining popularity as a means of promoting seafood sustainability and food security, and meeting an increasing global demand for sustainably sourced seafood. As one of the world’s leading seafood producers, Indonesia has struggled to achieve seafood certification in many of its fisheries, but recent national developments have sparked increased efforts to this end. Shark and ray (hereafter referred to as ‘shark’) bycatch is a particular challenge to MSC and other certification schemes due to the relatively recent, but in some cases severe, declines in a number of shark populations as a result of their capture in target fisheries and as bycatch. Since 2014, The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) is working towards MSC certification with a number of Indonesian deep-slope (50-500m) dropline and demersal longline fisheries that target various snapper, grouper and emperor species. With homeports and fishing grounds in many parts of central and eastern Indonesia, the catch of sharks is likely to vary by species, geographic region, fishing gear, and depth. Shark bycatch and its mitigation is an essential consideration in the MSC certification process. The purpose of this work was therefore to identify the shark and ray species caught in Indonesian deep- slope fisheries and to provide advice on how to routinely monitor shark bycatch. This was achieved using images of the catch recorded by captains onboard fishing vessels as part of the Captain Operated Data Recording System (CODRS). Images in the

CODRS were also used to develop a species check list and species identification aids, as well as an illustrated instruction sheet for captains on best practices in taking photos to aid species identification.

2. CODRS IMAGE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY Twenty-seven vessels submitted a total of 153 photographs of sharks and rays to

CODRS. Photographs were taken on 81 days between 17th October 2015 and 29th

3 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

October 2016. From 248 individuals that were recognized on these images, 12 were cobias (i.e. shark look-alike teleost fish), and at least 29 individuals, possibly more, were photographed more than once. Although this means that a definite total count of individuals is not possible, an estimated 207 were distinct individuals that belonged to at least 36 species and 18 families (see species list in Table 1 below).

Table 1. List of shark and ray species recorded from CODRS images

Family Genus Species Common name Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus albimarginatus Silvertip shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus altimus Bignose shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides Graceful shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Grey reef shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus amboinensis Pigeye shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus falciformis Silky shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus limbatus Blacktip shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus obscurus Dusky whaler Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus sorrah Spot-tail shark Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger shark Carcharhinidae Loxodon macrorhinus Sliteye shark Carcharhinidae Negaprion acutidens Lemon shark Carcharhinidae Rhizoprionodon acutus Milk shark Carcharhinidae Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Grey sharpnose shark Carcharhinidae Triaenodon obesus Whitetip reef shark Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus sp. Whaler shark Centrophoridae Centrophorus sp. Gulper shark Dasyatidae Himantura uarnak Reticulate whipray Ginglymostomatidae Nebrius ferrugineus Tawny nurse shark Hemigaleidae Hemipristis elongata Fossil shark Hemiscyllidae Chiloscyllium punctatum Brownbanded bambooshark Hexanchidae Hexanchus nakamurai Bigeye sixgill shark Lamnidae Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari Spotted eagle ray Orectolobidae Orectolobus ornatus Indo wobbegong Orectolobidae Orectolobus sp. Wobbegong shark Rhincodontidae Rhincodon typus Whale shark (not captured) 4 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Family Genus Species Common name Rhinidae Rhina ancylostoma Shark ray Rhinobatidae Rhinobatos sp. Shovelnose ray Rhynchobatidae Rhynchobatus australiae Whitespotted guitafish Rhynchobatidae Rhynchobatus laevis Smoothnose wedgefish Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrnidae Sphyrna mokarran Great hammerhead Squalidae Squalus sp. Spurdog shark Stegostomatidae Stegostoma fasciatum Leopard shark Triakidae Hemitriakis sp. Houndshark

SPECIES COMPOSITION The shark bycatch was dominated by Carcharhinids, also known as requiem or whaler sharks, which made up 56% of the catch (n= 110, Figure 1). A further 11% and 9% of the catch was made up of hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae, n= 22), mainly of the species Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead) and guitarfish (family

Rhynchobatidae, n= 17), most of which were whitespotted guitarfish, Rhynchobatos australiae. The remaining 15 families contributed 5% or less to the total catch (Figure

1). Finally, 12 individuals mistakenly assigned to the CODRS shark images database were cobia (Rachycentron canadum, family Rachycentridae). Although shark look- alikes, they are teleost fish with rays in their fins.

5 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Carcharhinidae Sphyrnidae Rhynchobatidae Centrophoridae Rhinidae Hemiscyllidae Triakidae Squalidae Orectolobidae Lamnidae Family Stegostomatidae Rhinobatidae Hexanchidae Dasyatidae Rhincodontidae Myliobatidae Hemigaleidae Ginglymostomatidae 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage in catch

Figure 1. Proportion of individuals from each identified taxonomic family that made up the shark and ray bycatch recorded in the central and eastern Indonesian deep- slope snapper and grouper fishery.

In terms of individual species, the spot-tail shark Carcharhinus sorrah was the most abundant (n = 28), followed by the scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini (n =

21, Figure 2). Tiger sharks, whitespotted guitarfish, silvertips and gulper sharks were all represented by at least 10 individuals. Other, less abundant species included two reticulate whiprays (Himantura uarnak), an eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari), a tawny nurse shark (Nebrius ferrugineus), two wobbegong sharks (Orectolobus sp.) and a fossil shark (Hemipristis elongata, Figure 2). The latter was only recently described as occurring in eastern Indonesia; previously its range was thought to extend only to the eastern coast of Java. This CODRS record of a fossil shark provides further evidence of the presence of this species in central and eastern Indonesia, and highlights the usefulness of fisher-contributed data to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

6 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Carcharhinus sorrah Sphyrna lewini Galeocerdo cuvier Unidentified Rhynchobatus australie Carcharhinus albimarginatus Centrophorus sp. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amboinensis Carcharhinus sp. Rhizoprionodon acutus Rhina ancylostoma Chiloscyllium punctatum Rhynchobatus laevis Loxodon macrorhinus Carcharhinus limbatus Squalus sp. Rhizoprionodon acutus Hemitriakis sp. Carcharhinus plumbeus Stegostoma fasciatum Species Orectolobus cf ornatus Negaprion acutidens Hexanchus nakamurai Carcharhinus obscurus Himantura uarnak Isurus oxyrinchus Triaenodon obesus Sphyrna mokarran Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Rhinobatos sp. Rhincodon typus Orectolobus sp. Nebrius ferrugineus Hemipristis elongata Carcharhinus melanopterus Carcharhinus falciformis Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides Carcharhinus altimus Aetobatus narinari 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of individuals

Figure 2. The number of individuals of each species recorded from CODRS images

7 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Several individuals could only be identified to genus level and some could not be identified (Figure 2). In most cases, identification was not possible due to the way the shark was photographed, with either the animal not being in full view, where only body parts without defining markings were visible, or where the animal had been cut into parts. A small number of individuals could not be identified with the identification guides used (Last & Stevens’ ‘Sharks and Rays of Australia’, White et al.’s ‘Economically important sharks and rays of Indonesia’, Ebert et al.’s ‘Sharks of the World’, and various publications on sharks in Australia, Indonesia, and Borneo).

The chondrychthian fauna of Indonesia has not received the same amount of scientific study as that of neighbouring Australia, which is thought to have the highest number of shark species in the world. It is possible that some of the species photographed as part of the CODRS have not been described yet, or are forms of described species that look different in Indonesia. An example of this is the wobbegong shark (Orectolobus sp.) photographed by the captain of the vessel Tak

Disangka on the 4th May 2016. This individual could not be matched to any of the wobbegong species illustrated in the aforementioned ID guides and would require further investigation. A number of deep-water species of the genera Centrophorus and Squalus are subject to taxonomic uncertainty and would require more detailed assessment, such as genetic analysis, to be identified to species level.

There was no clear trend in the captures of sharks by a certain gear type. Sharks were caught by vessels using droplines (n = 8), longlines (n=11), and unspecified ‘other’ gear (n = 7; Table 2). Although a slightly higher number of vessels were longliners from Kasuari, Banggai laut (n = 11), the homeports of vessels did not predict higher or lower numbers of sharks. The top ten vessels (Figure 3) reporting shark bycatch represented all gear types and homeports (2 dropliners from Benoa, 6 longliners from Kasuari, 2 ‘Other’ gear from Kupang and Rote; Table 2).

8 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Table 2. Gears and homeports of vessels that reported shark bycatch

Vessel name Gear Homeport Berkah Dropline Kupang GSL 01 Dropline Benoa Bali GSL 02 Dropline Benoa Bali GSL 03 Dropline Benoa Bali Karyaku Dropline Kupang Mutiara Indah Dropline Benoa Bali Putra Makmur 68 Dropline Kupang Ulam Jaya Dropline Benoa Bali Berkat Akbar Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut Berkat Doa Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut C59 Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut Kanaya Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut Popo Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut Putri Tunggal Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut RahmatHidayah Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut RizkyBaru Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut Samudera Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut SumberRezeki Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut TakDisangka Longline Kasuari, Banggai laut KM. Afika Jaya Other Papela Darat, Rote KM. Amheka Other Oeba, Kupang KM. Bintang Jaya Other Oeba, Kupang KM. Kairos Other Oeba, Kupang KM. Risalwa Other Papela Darat, Rote KM. Rizki Ilahi Other Batutua, Rote KM. Usaha Baru Other Batutua, Rote

The vessel GSL 02 caught the highest number of sharks (n=33), followed by Karyaku

(n=30) and Kanaya (n=25, Figure 3). Eight vessels recorded only one shark in the time that they had participated in the CODRS (Figure 3). In total, 207 individuals were identified from 81 fishing days when sharks or rays were photographed. This allowed for an inventory of elasmobranch species caught and an overview of relative bycatch composition. However, the dataset is limited by several factors, as follows.

1) Average shark catch could not be calculated, since only photos containing sharks and/or rays and associated data on dates and vessels were provided, and neither the

9 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES total number of fishing trips nor fishing days (i.e. including those trips and days during which no sharks were caught or recorded) was available for analysis. The rate of shark capture would be overestimated if calculated based only on the days (n=81) on which sharks were recorded.

Other potential sources of bias may cause average catch rates to be underestimated.

2) It was assumed that all crews recorded all sharks caught, taking a photo of each individual shark and ray as instructed. However, several photographs contained more than one individual, with those in the background or on the sides of the image not photographed individually in subsequent photographs. While these were accounted for as best as possible while analyzing the images, this observation suggests that not all crews understood, or followed, the protocol they were given for photographing sharks and rays. It also appears likely that more sharks and rays were caught but not photographed (either as the intended subject of the image or in its background).

3) Another observation suggesting that elasmobranch bycatch may not have been recorded consistently is the relative patchiness of photographs in time and between vessels (Figure 3). For example, the vessel Karyaku caught 18 sharks in one day and

26 sharks in a further 5 days, while the vessel Putri Tunggal only caught one shark in four days (the remaining photographs were of cobia). Several other vessels only caught sharks on a single day and none thereafter. It is not possible to further explore this variation without being able to account for ‘zeros’ in the data, that is, days and trips with no shark and ray captures. However, it raises the question whether fishing crews consistently and reliably photographed all landed sharks and rays, or whether some crews hesitated to do so.

4) While it is assumed that all sharks landed in this fishery constitute bycatch, these species are not necessarily unwanted bycatch and may be retained. Some crews might set their gears in locations known to harbor sharks, especially if they have connections to shark fin or meat traders. These crews, or those who accidentally have

10 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES high numbers of bycatch, may be reluctant to record their entire shark catch. This may have been the case for at least two vessels known to regularly have shark bycatch (pers. comm. Laksmi Larastiti), Purnama and Senang Hati, from which no shark images were available.

These points indicate that the results of this bycatch analysis should be interpreted with caution, particularly for purposes beyond general species identification, documenting the presence of species of concern, and indications of catch size structure (see below, ‘Occurrence of recent pups and juveniles’) until better clarification of crews’ compliance with the data collection protocols and complete data on fishing days and trips are available.

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number of sharks of Number 0

Vessel name

Figure 3. Shark and ray captures by fishing vessel, based on CODRS images provided by the captain of each vessel.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SHARK BYCATCH The maps below (Figures 4 - 6) show the locations of vessels on days when shark and ray bycatch was recorded. Vessels fished in two main geographic regions, the North and South of central/eastern Indonesia (Figure 4). Those in the North fished mainly to the West of Pulau Taliabu in Northern Maluku province (Figure 5), and towards 11 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Sulawesi, while vessels in the South fished the Timor Sea between Rote and Timor

Islands and Australia (Figure 6). The vessel Bintang Jaya recorded shark bycatch from locations nearby Kupang on Timor Island and Pepela on Rote Island, and Putra

Makmur recorded shark bycatch near Flores.

Depending on the EEZ boundary used, some vessels in the South may have set their gear within the Australian EEZ on a number of occasions. This may need to be further checked and confirmed. (Note: there are several EEZ boundary maps available; the newest ones place the vessels in question outside of the Australian EEZ, i.e. within

Indonesian waters).

The data provided reflected no trends in the numbers of sharks caught in the two main fishing areas. Indeed the total number of sharks and rays recorded on CODRS images was almost identical between the North (n = 92) and the South (n = 95). This should, however, be interpreted with caution until the total number of fishing days for each trip, the total number of fishing trips, and the reliability of captains’ bycatch reporting are confirmed.

12 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Figure 4. Map showing geographic locations of fishing vessels on days when shark and ray bycatch was recorded.

Figure 5. Map detail of fishing vessel locations in the North (between Sulawesi and Pulau Taliabu, Northern Maluku).

13 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

Figure 6. Map detail of fishing vessel locations in the South (Timor Sea between Rote/Timor Island and Australia).

14 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

OCCURRENCE OF RECENT PUPS AND JUVENILE SHARKS Although no broad trends can be established from the relatively low number of images available to date, one observation that stands out is the number of neonate or young-of-the-year (YOY) and juveniles caught. At least 63 individuals were deemed YOY or juveniles, based on available life history information on length at birth and maturity. These individuals constitute 30% of the shark catch, and of those photographed on the CODRS measuring board it was noted that many were at or just above the published length at birth (these lengths are noted in the ‘Remarks’ section of Excel spreadsheet). This was particularly observed with tiger sharks

(Galeocerdo cuvier), but also grey reef and silvertip pups. Although some well- managed fisheries target immature sharks, the capture of very young sharks can be problematic in places like Indonesia, where shark populations are deemed to be depleted due in part to excessive removal of adult size classes. In the case of the deep-slope fisheries, however, the large proportion of immature sharks is more likely a result of gear selectivity, whereby the hook and bait size used to catch the target species selects for smaller sharks. Concurrently, this finding is interesting in terms of its contribution to information on the likely habitats and geographic locations of the young of these species. Several shark species are segregated by sex or age classes, and there is a general lack of information on how and where species segregate in

Indonesian waters.

3. SPECIES OF CONCERN

The proportionally high catch of hammerheads warrants attention since both the scalloped and great hammerhead (S. lewini and S. mokarran) are classed as

Endangered on the IUCN Red List. They are also listed on CITES Appendix II, which lists species whose export and trade should be limited. Indonesia is a signatory to

CITES and, according to Indonesian law, shark species on Appendix II must not be exported. Similarly, guitarfish (Rhynchobatidae) and shovelnose rays (Rhinobatidae)

15 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES have some of the highest value fins and meat on the international shark fin market and are classed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Although they have been heavily fished in different parts of Indonesia, there are currently no trade restrictions or other forms of management for these species in place.

Other species with a threat status on the IUCN Red List that were recorded by fishing crews included several species listed as Vulnerable, including gulper sharks (some species are Vulnerable, others data deficient), sandbar sharks, dusky whalers, lemon, fossil, tawny nurse and leopard sharks, and the shortfin mako. Spot-tail, silky, silvertip, grey reef, common blacktip, blacktip reef, and spurdog sharks are all listed as Near

Threatened.

It is not clear whether the shark bycatch from these deep slope fisheries is consumed domestically or sold and exported to the Chinese shark market, but the presence of endangered and/or CITES-listed species in the catch will likely require further investigation depending on the requirements for MSC certification.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING SHARK BYCATCH

CONSISTENT RECORDING OF SHARK AND RAY BYCATCH As noted earlier, there is some indication that shark and ray catches may not be recorded consistently and reliably by all fishing crews that are part of CODRS.

Indicators for this are threefold; 1) the high variation in the number of sharks caught per day and per vessel, and the low number of days for which most vessels submitted shark images; and 2) a sense that the shark bycatch recorded is surprisingly low; and

3) the confirmation that at least two vessels known to regularly have shark bycatch did not submit any images of sharks or rays.

While the low number of sharks is probably closely related to the low number of days on which sharks were recorded, more clarity is needed regarding potential misunderstandings or reluctance of fishers in recording shark bycatch. Several

16 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES reasons have been speculated so far, which fall into two main categories:

1) Fishers do not catch many sharks, and they consistently take photos of every shark and ray they catch. If this is the case (to be confirmed with captains), the following reasons are possible for the low numbers of sharks observed: a) gear selectivity (i.e. sharks are not caught on the gears used); b) the effects of targeted overfishing, leaving a low abundance of sharks in several fishing grounds;

c) un-landed bycatch, i.e. sharks bite through the line once hooked and are thus not observed.

To test for b), consultants working with the fishers could ask them if they have always caught few sharks, or if this trend is relatively recent. For c), it would be good to know if there are any data on the number of hooks that have been bitten off, or if such data are not available, if they could be added to a data sheet given to fishing crews.

Fishers might also be able to report directly (i.e. in a short interview or survey) whether they often lose bait and/or hooks to sharks.

2) Fishers catch more sharks than they take photos of. Again, there are several conceivable reasons for this: d) Fishers do not know that they should be taking photos of every shark landed.

It looks like this is the least likely possibility, given that captains have been trained repeatedly and appear to be well aware of the need to take photos of all sharks. e) Fishers are worried about negative consequences of showing evidence of shark catches. f) Fishers sell the fins (and probably meat) for cash and do not want their bosses or others to know how many sharks they catch. g) Fishers know they should take photos of every shark, but dislike doing so

17 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES because it adds too much work / they do not get paid enough / other reasons.

From discussions via email, it appears that low numbers are not only reported for sharks, but also other species including cobia and jewfish. It therefore appears that there are a few questions that need to be discussed with the internal team before a decision is made on how best to approach clarification. The reasons for the low numbers of sharks, rays, cobia and jewfish may be different (different availability to the fishery, geographic variance in abundance, gear selectivity etc.) or the same

(crew are not documenting catch that they can sell for cash and do not want anyone to know about). Approaching the captains involved in the CODRS should be one avenue to seek answers to these questions. It should be more or less immediately evident if the captains know what causes the low numbers, and whether their reasons are likely to be accurate.

IMAGE COMPOSITION Many of the submitted images were not suited for identification purposes, which made the identification of individuals difficult in some cases, and impossible in others, lowering overall ID confidence (Figure 7). Captains had either been given inadequate instructions on how to take good quality images for species identification, or did not understand the need for certain factors to be take into account when photographing individual fish. The following issues were repeatedly observed:

- More than one shark in one image. This in itself is not necessarily problematic, as long as the following scenarios are avoided:

- Shark is seen from directly above. Some identifying features are difficult or

impossible to recognize from above, so taking photos of sharks laying on their side,

or with the photo being taken from the side of the shark, is best.

18 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

- Several sharks laid on top of each other, such that not all body parts of each individual are visible.

- Photo does not show the entire shark; usually this meant that the upper caudal fin was cut out of the image. However, in some carcharhinids especially, this fin has identifying features without which the confidence in the ID given is reduced. In some images, heads or other parts were also missing.

- Photo shows cut up shark. If possible, always photograph the entire shark before dissecting it.

- Photos taken on the same vessel and same day sometimes appear to show the same animal(s) repeatedly. Only one photo should be taken of each individual to allow for accurate counts.

- Individual(s) that should be recorded are in the background of the image (Figure 8).

As noted in point 1 above, it is not necessarily problematic if more than one individual is visible on the image, as long as each individual is shown fully, with no body parts covered by other animals, fishing gear or boat inventory.

To assist captains in taking higher quality photos for species identification purposes, a Guide for Captains was developed. This two-page document contains examples of ideal and problematic photo compositions. If deemed useful by the TNC team, this guide can be translated into Indonesian, laminated and distributed to vessels participating in CODRS.

19 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES

6% Certain 5% 4% Very likely Likely 9% 40% Possible Not sure 19% Guess

17% Don't know

Figure 7. ID confidence levels assigned to each recorded individual

Figure 8. Example of unideal photo composition. Center shows a cobia, which is not a shark; species of interest are at edges of image and partly covered; 1) an eagle ray, Aetobatus narinari and 2) a reticulated whipray, Himantura uarnak.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This initial assessment of shark and ray bycatch in Indonesian deep-slope snapper and grouper fisheries suggests a relatively low amount of shark bycatch (~207

20 ASSESSING SHARK BYCATCH IN INDONESIAN DEEP-‐SLOPE SNAPPER-‐GROUPER FISHERIES individuals from 153 photographs submitted by 27 vessels, and caught on 81 fishing days), but high species diversity, with at least 36 species from 18 families identified.

The species composition was dominated by Carcharhinids (56%), with spot-tail sharks, tiger sharks and silvertips represented in relatively high numbers. Scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) were the second most abundant bycatch species and, along with similarly abundant whitespotted guitarfish, are a species of conservation concern due to heavy overfishing in the last two decades. Thirty percent of recorded individuals were deemed neonates, young-of-the-year or juveniles, suggesting that these sharks are particularly available to the fishery, possibly due to the hook and bait sizes used. Mapping the locations of fishing vessels on days when shark bycatch was recorded revealed two main fishing grounds in the North and South of central- eastern Indonesia: one to the West of Pulau Taliabu, North Maluku, and one in the

Timor Sea between Rote/Timor and Australia. Total shark bycatch did not differ significantly between the two regions, with almost identical numbers of sharks recorded from each. To allow for more detailed bycatch analysis, it is recommended that the reliability and consistency of bycatch reporting by captains is confirmed. The quality and composition of photographs depicting the catch was often less-than- ideal for identification purposes, which negatively affected overall confidence in species IDs. Suggestions have been made on simple improvements to the way in which photographs are taken to facilitate bycatch monitoring in the future. These suggestions are illustrated in a separate pdf file entitled ‘Guide to taking photos of sharks and rays for species identification’.