Ecological and socioeconomic dimensions of oceanic shark governance

1 Introduction

Sharks represent one of the most ancient lineages of jawed vertebrates. Fossil evidence shows that they probably originated over 400 million years ago during the Devonian period. Their long evolutionary history has produced a highly diverse group, currently comprising more than 500 extant shark species occupying a wide range of ecological niches, from coastal benthic habitats to the open ocean (Weigmann, 2016). This diversity reflects extensive adaptive radiation, including variations in body size, trophic strategy, and habitat use, which has enabled sharks to persist through multiple mass extinction events (Simpfendorfer and Dulvy, 2017).

Ecologically, sharks play a pivotal role in marine ecosystems. Sharks perform a variety of ecological functions, ranging from apex and mesopredators to scavengers and competitors, depending on the species and ecological context (Dedman et al., 2024). They regulate prey populations and influence community structure through top-to-down control, often generating trophic cascades that affect lower trophic levels and ecosystem functioning (Dedman et al., 2024; Su et al., 2025). Beyond direct predation, sharks contribute to ecosystem connectivity and nutrient cycling across large spatial scales, thereby enhancing ecosystem resilience and stability (Temple et al., 2024). The loss or decline of shark populations has been shown to disrupt food webs, alter community structure, and affect ecosystem functioning across a wide range of marine ecosystems, highlighting the important ecological roles that sharks play as predators, competitors, and nutrient transporters (Roff et al., 2016; Dedman et al., 2024; Fernández-Corredor et al., 2024).

Considering spatial heterogeneity, sharks can be classified into at least three different types of habitats: demersal, coastal and reef-associated, and oceanic. Demersal sharks generally inhabit the sea floor, although some species undertake seasonal or ontogenetic migrations. Likewise, many coastal and reef-associated sharks exhibit varying degrees of residency, site fidelity and philopatry, while also performing regional migrations. In contrast, oceanic sharks are characterized by extensive movements across the open ocean, with many species undertaking large-scale ocean-basin or transoceanic migrations that frequently span multiple national jurisdictions and areas beyond national jurisdiction (Chapman et al., 2015; Heupel et al., 2015). Although oceanic sharks are primarily associated with oceanic environments, and many species undertake extensive migrations (Santos et al., 2021), some species may occasionally use continental shelf waters, oceanic islands, or even coastal areas, typically in association with prey availability or particular oceanographic conditions.

Sharks are undergoing severe global declines driven primarily by anthropogenic pressures, especially overfishing and incidental (non-target) capture (Pacoureau et al., 2021; Dulvy et al., 2024), highlighting urgent management and conservation needs. Nevertheless, the magnitude, drivers, and consequences of population declines vary markedly among shark species, reflecting differences in life-history traits, ecological roles, geographic distribution, and exposure to fisheries. Consequently, the management and conservation measures required to achieve recovery or sustainable exploitation must be tailored to the biological and ecological characteristics of individual species or stocks (Shiffman and Hammerschlag, 2016; Dulvy et al., 2017; Dulvy et al., 2026). Although overfishing is the principal threat to most shark species, the combination of pressures and management challenges differs among ecological groups. For many demersal and reef-associated sharks, fishing mortality is frequently compounded by habitat degradation and loss, particularly in coastal ecosystems (Sherman et al., 2023; Dulvy et al., 2024). In contrast, oceanic sharks are primarily threatened by fishing throughout vast pelagic habitats that extend across multiple national jurisdictions and areas beyond national jurisdiction, creating additional challenges for coordinated international management (Dulvy et al., 2024; Finucci et al., 2024). Pacoureau et al. (2021) estimate that pelagic shark and ray populations have declined by approximately 71% in the last 50–70 years.

The objective of this study is to highlight the need for species-specific conservation and management of oceanic sharks, recognizing that these species differ markedly in their biological productivity, conservation status, ecological roles, and socioeconomic importance. By integrating ecological, fisheries, socioeconomic, and governance perspectives, we examine whether generalized conservation narratives and regulatory approaches adequately capture this complexity and discuss alternatives for conservation and fisheries management.

2 Status of oceanic sharks

Oceanic sharks include less than 30 species of families Alopidae, Carcharhinidae, Cetorhinidae, Lamnidae, Pseudocarchariidae, Rhincodontidae and Sphyrnidae. Although oceanic sharks form a paraphyletic group, they share several biological and ecological traits. Oceanic sharks cover a wide range of sizes, with the majority being large animals, considered marine megafauna. They also typically exhibit long lifespans and, depending on the species, may have relatively low reproductive rates as compared to other fishes. For these reasons, their ecological resilience is not uniform across all species, and management efforts must account for interspecific differences in vulnerability and ecological function.

Reported shark landings compiled by FAO (2025), suggest that oceanic sharks have accounted for more than 70% of reported shark landings since 1997, (Figure 1). This highlights the importance and contribution of pelagic fisheries to the overall shark exploitation and underscores the critical role of fishing pressure as a primary driver in the observed decline of oceanic shark populations. Between 2010 and 2013, oceanic shark catches reached their peak, representing approximately 85–88% of reported total shark landings, and have remained slightly below this peak in subsequent years (2014 to 2023) (Figure 1).

It is also noteworthy that a substantial proportion of global shark landings remain unclassified in any of the above-mentioned functional groups, although taxonomic classification has improved markedly over time, from unclassified levels exceeding 90% in earlier decades to around 50% in recent years. (Figure 1). This likely reflects persistent deficiencies in taxonomic resolution and species identification within catch reporting systems in many regions, where sharks, if recorded at all, are recorded under generic categories rather than being identified to the species or functional group level (Worm et al., 2024). Such reporting gaps limit the ability to assess species-specific population trends and complicates overall conservation and management assessments.

3 Pelagic sharks: blue shark vs. shortfin mako

Since 2010, the combined annual catches of blue shark (Prionace glauca) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrhinchus) have accounted, on average, for over 80% of the total reported global catches of oceanic sharks (FAO, 2025). Both the blue shark and the shortfin mako are managed by tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (tuna-RFMOs) and are now listed under Annex II of both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS). However, these two species represent almost opposite realities. The shortfin mako is one of the least productive pelagic sharks and has declined sharply in several ocean basins. It is currently experiencing overfishing in the North Atlantic and Indian Ocean, and is classified as overfished in the South Atlantic, which has prompted international concerns, and even zero retention policies in some regions (e.g., North Atlantic). In contrast, according to the most recent stock assessments conducted by tuna RFMOs, blue shark populations appear to have remained relatively stable in all assessed stocks, owing to their much higher productivity and potentially lower interspecific competition due to the decline of other shark species (Xu, 2022). Consequently, the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for blue shark is substantially higher than that of other pelagic sharks, and this species has supported continued commercial exploitation at comparatively much higher catch levels (Cortés et al., 2015).

Therefore, targeted oceanic shark fisheries as a whole are largely sustained by a single species. Thus, blue shark fisheries contribute significantly to global food security by supplying affordable protein to communities with scarce resources and underpinning local economies (Pincinato et al., 2022).

Ensuring the sustainable use of the blue shark, while rebuilding depleted shortfin mako populations, and at the same time preserving ecosystem integrity, remains a major challenge for fisheries science and management (Báez et al., 2026).

The effective management of oceanic sharks like other shared migratory fish stocks, requires a multilateral, coordinated approach. Key actors include tuna-RFMOs regulating fisheries of oceanic migratory species, coastal states where these species also occur, fleets that exploit those species, international agreements such as CITES and the CMS, and conservation NGOs.

4 Regulatory actions: the case of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

Recent regulatory efforts, particularly those led by tuna-RFMOs and international conservation agreements such as CITES, have contributed to measurable progress on oceanic sharks, albeit through different pathways and at varying paces.

Tuna-RFMOs tend to have well established scientific bodies that are responsible for developing data collection procedures and analysis including stock assessments and mitigation measures. These bodies also provide advice to the Commissions on the need for specific conservation and management measures. Over the past two decades, numerous collaborative projects have been developed among scientists from the various tuna-RFMOs. For example, the ecological risk assessments conducted within International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) (Cortés et al., 2010, 2015; Murua et al., 2018) provided the first comprehensive evaluations of the susceptibility and productivity of numerous shark species affected by pelagic longline fisheries. These assessments helped identify species at greatest risk, highlighted critical data gaps, and established research priorities that subsequently guided the development of more robust stock assessment approaches and monitoring programs. Similar collaborative efforts have also facilitated the exchange of expertise, the development of common indicators, and the implementation of coordinated research activities, leading to greater consistency in scientific advice among tuna-RFMOs. As a result, management authorities have increasingly benefited from more reliable and comprehensive scientific information when considering conservation and management measures, including bycatch mitigation requirements, retention prohibitions, catch limits, and improved monitoring and reporting obligations.

ICCAT could be an example of this process. ICCAT has progressively developed a comprehensive framework to address the conservation and management of pelagic shark species incidentally captured in tuna and tuna-like fisheries. Since the mid-1990s, ICCAT’s approach has evolved from preliminary data collection and institutional coordination toward increasingly sophisticated scientific assessments and binding conservation measures. Initial efforts began in 1995 with the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on Bycatch, which recognized the need to improve statistical data and stock assessments for sharks. Early collaboration with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the influence of international initiatives, such as the International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) (https://www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/en/), reinforced the importance of precautionary approaches and systematic data collection. By the late 1990s and early 2000s (Figure 2, landmark event 1), ICCAT had formalized its scientific structure through the creation of a Subcommittee on Bycatch under the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), which later evolved into the Subcommittee on Ecosystems, reflecting a broader ecosystem-based management perspective (https://www.iccat.int/en/bycatch.html).

A critical milestone occurred in 2004 with the first stock assessments of key pelagic shark species, notably blue shark and shortfin mako. These assessments highlighted uncertainties related to data quality but provided initial insights into stock status, suggesting relatively healthy blue shark populations but potential historical declines in shortfin mako. That same year, ICCAT adopted its first binding conservation recommendation (Rec. 04-10), introducing measures such as mandatory reporting, full utilization of shark catches, finning restrictions, and the promotion of live release practices (Figure 2, landmark event 2).

Subsequent years saw a steady expansion of both scientific and regulatory frameworks. The development of Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), particularly from 2008 onward, marked a significant methodological advance, enabling prioritization of management actions for data-limited species (Cortés et al., 2010). These assessments informed several conservation measures, including prohibitions on retention for particularly vulnerable species such as the bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) (ICCAT Rec. 09-07), the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) (ICCAT Rec. 10-07), and certain hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae) which are subject to retention prohibitions under ICCAT conservation measures (ICCAT Rec. 10-08). Once retention prohibitions and other catch restrictions are implemented, reported catches and fishery-dependent data for the affected species typically decline substantially, resulting in a reduced availability of information for stock assessment. Consequently, while these measures are expected to contribute to conservation, their direct effects on population trends are often difficult to quantify with confidence.

ICCAT also strengthened its compliance mechanisms and data requirements, mandating detailed data reporting of nominal catch statistics and catch and effort data at a finer scale, including discards and size frequencies. The establishment of the Shark Research and Data Collection Programme (SRDCP) further institutionalized research priorities, focusing on reducing key uncertainties in stock assessments through improved biological sampling, observer data, tagging and modeling approaches (Anonymous, 2014).

Throughout the 2010s, ICCAT adopted increasingly species-specific management measures, as in the case of shortfin mako with several recommendations established over time with retention bans, catch limits, and rebuilding strategies (ICCAT Recs 10-06, 14-06, 17-08, 19-06) (Figure 2, landmark event 3).

A pivotal development was ICCAT’s Commission amendment of the convention to explicitly include oceanic, pelagic, and highly migratory elasmobranchs within the convention area, reinforcing its mandate over these species (ICCAT Rec 19-01).

Recent measures (2020–2024) show a continued commitment to conservation, including updated recommendations for blue shark management, protection for whale sharks, and prohibitions on retaining mobulid rays. These actions reflect both improved scientific understanding and increasing alignment with international conservation frameworks, including coordination with CITES and other regional fisheries management organizations. Where stock assessments are available, some CITES Parties use these assessments as part of the scientific information supporting Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs).

5 Socio-economic aspects

Concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of shark populations persist within the scientific community. On the other hand, a growing wave of citizen-led initiatives has gained force, advocating for the reduction of targeted shark fisheries and the international trade of shark products (Báez et al., 2025). While these initiatives are often driven by noble intentions and public concern, their real-world implications are complex. Measures such as the EU’s proposed “Stop Finning – Stop the Trade” initiative and the U.S. Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act aim to eliminate economic incentives for shark fishing by restricting fin trade. However, the effectiveness of these approaches is debatable (Báez et al., 2025). Limiting market access for fins can reduce targeted fishing pressure on some species, particularly where regulations are enforced and traceability is assured. On the other hand, such restrictions may inadvertently encourage the redistribution of fishing effort or fishing operations towards jurisdictions with weaker governance, where monitoring, enforcement and fisheries reporting capacity are often more limited (Österblom et al., 2010; Miller and Sumaila, 2014). This can lead to unregulated practices, inaccurate statistical reporting, and the deterioration of previously well-managed, sustainable fisheries. Moreover, these measures often focus on fin trade as the primary driver of shark mortality, overlooking the role of important meat markets, and incidental bycatch in pelagic fisheries. Additionally, the assumption that all shark fishing is inherently unsustainable ignores the many nuances required in modern fisheries governance. As the blue shark case shows, some shark species can support well-managed, economically viable fisheries. Banning all shark product trade fails to distinguish between species with different biological traits, ecological roles and conservation statuses. Furthermore, the socioeconomic dimension of shark fisheries is frequently underestimated in international debates. While public discourse in enriched countries often associates shark products with luxury items such as shark fin soup, the reality is far more nuanced. In many parts of the world, shark meat represents an affordable and accessible source of animal protein, being a key component of local population diets. In some impoverished and emerging countries, consumption has risen steadily, reflecting both dietary preference and economic needs (Pincinato et al., 2022). Data compiled by FAO, however, do not consider the substantial volume of shark meat consumed by local populations outside the scope of international trade. Much of this consumption occurs in informal or subsistence economy contexts and is often underreported or entirely absent from official fisheries statistics. As a result, the true extent of shark meat’s role in supporting food security and local economies, particularly in coastal and some island communities, is most probably significantly underestimated (Seidu et al., 2022; Karnad et al., 2024; Jabado et al., 2026). Without viable economic alternatives or international support, extensive bans risk alienating key stakeholders and driving fishing underground. Rather than contributing to conservation, such outcomes may ultimately increase illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries, mortality rates and result in a lack of data that will hinder scientific work including stock assessments, with impacts on the species recoveries and long-term conservation.

6 Discussion

Shark conservation has increasingly become a central issue in global marine governance, largely driven by studies evidencing population declines across multiple species and ecosystems. However, the present analysis highlights that the drivers, magnitude, and implications of these estimates are far more complex and heterogeneous than is often reflected in public discourse or generalized policy approaches. In particular, important distinctions emerge among ecological groups of sharks and between species with markedly different biological productivity, resilience, and exposure to anthropogenic pressures.

From 2012 to 2019, oceanic shark mortality decreased by an estimated 7%, purportedly because of coordinated management actions. In the same period coastal shark mortality rose by 4% (Worm et al., 2024). Despite this improvement, fishing pressure on oceanic species remains high, and many populations continue to face significant conservation risks. At the same time, trade restrictions and blanket prohibitions on shark products may generate unintended consequences, including the displacement of fishing effort to regions with weaker governance and the undermining of data collection systems essential for stock assessments and to provide sound scientific advice. Moreover, such measures risk overlooking the significant role that shark fisheries play in food security, particularly in impoverished local economies where shark meat constitutes an affordable and often essential source of animal protein for impoverished communities including in first countries. These socioeconomic and governance trade-offs must therefore be considered alongside biological indicators when evaluating the effectiveness of conservation strategies.

Blue shark fisheries are among the most extensively monitored and internationally regulated shark fisheries worldwide, particularly under tuna-RFMOs and complementary frameworks such as CITES. This management architecture includes stock assessments, reporting obligations, finning regulations, catch controls, observer programs, and international trade monitoring. The evolution of ICCAT provides an important example of how international governance frameworks can progressively integrate ecosystem-based and science-driven approaches for shark conservation. Over the last three decades, ICCAT has transitioned from relatively limited bycatch considerations toward increasingly sophisticated management systems incorporating ecological risk assessments, species-specific measures, enhanced data reporting, and coordinated conservation strategies. These developments demonstrate that effective shark conservation does not necessarily require blanket prohibitions, but rather adaptive governance capable of distinguishing among species with different ecological characteristics, conservation status, and fisheries dynamics.

At the same time, the conservation status of many shark species is strongly influenced by factors beyond direct fishing. Coastal and reef-associated sharks are often more vulnerable to habitat degradation, coastal development, pollution, and localized overexploitation, while oceanic sharks face challenges associated with highly migratory behavior across jurisdictions with uneven governance capacity. Consequently, generalized policy narratives focused exclusively on prohibiting shark fishing or shark fin trade may fail to address the diversity of threats affecting shark populations globally.

The recommendations adopted during the First Joint Tuna RFMOs Bycatch Working Group Meeting (Anonymous, 2019) remain highly relevant for improving the conservation and management of oceanic sharks (Anonymous, 2019). These included strengthening cooperation among tuna RFMOs and with other international organizations, such as CITES, promoting outreach and capacity-building initiatives to improve species identification, data collection and biological sampling, thereby reducing taxonomic uncertainty and improving the quality of fisheries data. The Working Group also emphasized that improved training in the handling and safe release of elasmobranchs could contribute to reduce incidental mortality. Importantly, the meeting highlighted the need to ensure that the implementation of new conservation and management measures does not compromise the availability and quality of fishery-dependent data required for stock assessments. To this end, the recommendations called for increased observer coverage, the establishment of minimum standards for human observer programs to enable robust estimates of total bycatch, consideration of socioeconomic impacts in management advice, and strengthened implementation and compliance with mitigation measures.

7 Actionable recommendations

Several steps could contribute to such overall oceanic shark management and conservation goals.

First, expanding the coverage of species-specific stock assessments beyond the few well-studied species such as blue shark and shortfin mako. For data-limited species where conventional assessments are not yet feasible, this could include the application of length-based methods (e.g., length-based spawning potential ratio approaches) to derive stock status indicators and biological reference points, complemented by ecological risk assessments and spatial risk frameworks to prioritize management toward the most vulnerable species. Where sufficient data and biological knowledge are available, Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) frameworks may also offer a promising avenue for testing the robustness of candidate management procedures, although their relative novelty in the tuna-RFMO context and data requirements for building credible operating models may currently limit their applicability. It also needs to be recognized that the implementation of a given framework does not in itself guarantee outcomes that are favorable to the stocks or the fishing communities that depend on them.

Second, improving taxonomic resolution in catch reporting, particularly in regions where a large proportion of shark landings remains unclassified, through investment in observer programs, expansion of electronic monitoring systems (EMS) to increase coverage where human observers are impractical, and port sampling and genetic identification tools.

Third, fostering arrangements for further collaborative research among scientists. Much of the high-resolution data needed to improve shark assessments, including fine-scale spatial and operational (set-level) data, is often sensitive and available only under specific confidentiality agreements. Establishing and expanding those trusted scientific networks for sharing and jointly analyzing such data would substantially enhance the quality of the analyses and scientific recommendations.

Fourth, ensuring that trade-related conservation measures are developed in coordination with fisheries management bodies and accompanied by capacity-building support for developing nations whose coastal communities depend on shark fisheries for food security and livelihoods.

Fifth, strengthening coordination between RFMOs, CITES, CMS, and national management agencies to reduce regulatory gaps and inconsistencies for highly migratory species.

Together, these actions would move global oceanic shark governance toward an improved, evidence-based framework, more capable of reconciling conservation objectives with the socioeconomic realities of shark fisheries.

8 Conclusion

The long-term sustainability of shark populations will depend on balancing ecological conservation with socioeconomic realities. Future management frameworks should therefore prioritize species-specific and ecosystem-based approaches, strengthen international cooperation, improve scientific data collection and assessment methods, and recognize the critical role that some shark fisheries continue to play in food security and coastal livelihoods. Simplistic narratives may facilitate public communication, but they are unlikely to provide effective solutions for the highly complex conservation challenges.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Mark E. Bond, Florida International University, United States

Reviewed by: Sarah Fowler, Save Our Seas Foundation, Switzerland

Jasmin Graham, Minorities in Shark Sciences, United States