The pros & cons of the new exemption in Colombia for artisanal shark and ray catches
In 2021, President Iván Duque passed Decree N˚ 281 which announced a total shark ban for all fishing industries in Colombia, effectively (and supposedly) making all Colombian waters a shark sanctuary. The news was met with worldwide support and criticism equally, because although it painted Colombia as a leader in conservation in Latin America, the new measure also had many flaws. Many critics, including myself, spoke out regarding the law’s lack of inclusion, consideration, and compensation to artisanal, Indigenous, and Black coastal communities with ancestral practices of Colombia.
Left: President Duque announces the total shark fishing ban in 2021.
These communities have been catching and eating sharks for centuries, long before shark populations began decreasing due to overfishing, and are often the most vulnerable and disenfranchised people. The 2021 decree did not detail which communities were consulted, which data was used, and how vulnerable populations would be compensated for the lack of protein and income they relied on from shark catches. The decree did not explain how the new measure would be regulated and enforced, and in fact in September 2021 (a few months after all sharks were protected) there was the largest illegal shark fin trade bust in the history of Colombia, totaling almost 3,500 fins seized. Clear evidence that the shark trade was still ongoing and as strong as ever despite the new regulation.
Above: Over 3,400 shark fins seized at the airport a few months after sharks are protected by decree 281.
Fast forward to January 24, 2024, and the new government announced an amendment to the ban (Resolution 0119 from 2024), making an exception for artisanal and subsistence fishers and communities. Again, the conservation policy was met with equal praise and criticism. Community leaders and fishers rejoiced in the acknowledgement of their livelihoods and historical practices, while hardcore conservationists painted Colombia as opening the opportunity to exploit the shark market and creating a legal loophole with the new amendment.
The ongoings of the shark ban and new amendment is murky, with a lack of transparency and hard data to back up the decisions. Nonetheless, here are my personal pros and cons to the current shark ban amendment.
Pros:
The government is acknowledging the importance and special status that should be granted to the vulnerable coastal communities that historically depend on shark catches for the livelihood.
Artisanal and subsistence fishers may be more motivated to comply with the new amendment (versus the original ban), if they feel they are being taken into consideration and given a (partial) exempt status.
Although both the ban and the amendment are flawed, it opens a pathway for greater discourse regarding shark fisheries, shark conservation, and the vulnerable communities that depend on sharks.
Cons:
There are quite a few cons with the amendment, but the largest and most important criticism is that out of the 15 elasmobranch species (11 sharks, and 4 rays) that were listed as permitted in artisanal and subsistence fisheries, 12 of those species are listed as Near Threated, Vulnerable, and Endangered. How were these species chosen? Where is the data coming from regarding the species population status? Where is the data on the economic importance and protein consumption to fishers? None of these findings were reported.
The second biggest criticism is that it is unclear if these artisanal catches can be commercialized, or just for their own consumption. The amendment says consumption and local (national) commercialization, but in a different press release it says consumption only. Furthermore, how will the product be labeled and traced so that it remains for local community commerce, and not enter the larger international and potentially illegal trade? No information or support is provided on this.
There were no external scientists or organizations consulted. Similar to the original ban from 2021, the amendment in 2024 took most stakeholders by surprise. Science and data-driven policies are needed, and transparency is required to know what is backing up these conservation measures. It is also unclear how and which fishing communities were consulted, and how big was their role in the new amendment.
No (financial nor logistical) support had been provided on how this ban will be enforced, how it will be regulated, what the penalties are, how fishers will be trained to recognize the species they can keep and safely release the ones they can’t. No conservation measure can succeed if we do not know how, and lack the resources, to apply it.
Overall, I would say this new amendment is no more or less impactful or likely to succeed as the original ban, given the lack of transparency, data, and enforcement. Like the original 2021 measure, this new 2024 measure seems to also just be a political ploy with little application… but at least we are talking about it?
Learn More:
Read about my artisanal shark and ray fishing project in Colombia
Sources:
Original Shark and Ray Fishing Ban Decree N˚ 281 from 2021
Video Q&A from the Government