Shark Conservation: Threats, Finning, and Protection Efforts

Shark conservation addresses the accelerating decline of cartilaginous fish populations worldwide, with finning representing one of the most visible and preventable causes of mortality. This article examines the primary threats sharks face, the mechanics and scale of shark finning, the regulatory frameworks designed to curb overexploitation, and the practical conservation measures available to researchers, fisheries managers, and policy professionals. The evidence presented draws on peer-reviewed studies of shark population status, life-history vulnerability, trade identification methods, and regional fisheries management outcomes.

The Current State of Global Shark Populations

Global shark biodiversity is in decline, with numerous species facing extinction because of anthropogenic influence. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List classifications provide the standard framework for assessing extinction risk, and current assessments show that a substantial proportion of shark species fall into threatened categories. A 2025 analysis of the genus Carcharhinus, which includes many of the most commercially important requiem sharks, found that simulated extinction scenarios removing species from highest to lowest threat level would result in marked homogenization of morphology and ecology. Along this extinction trajectory, trait structures become increasingly depauperate, marked by contracting depth ranges and declining body-size diversity. The diverse dental morphologies shaped over millions of years are at risk of disappearing, eroding the genus capacity to support varied ecological roles [5].

The scale of decline is substantial. A 2024 study of Carcharhinus sharks in Indonesian waters reported a global population decline of around 70% over the last half-century, signaling the urgency of shark fisheries regulation [11]. This decline is not uniform across species or regions. Shelf habitats are dominated by placental viviparous species that rarely occupy other environments, and these species show higher intrinsic vulnerability due to their larger maximum size, larger size at birth, larger size at maturity, and annual or biennial reproduction. These life-history traits indicate lower productivity and thus higher intrinsic vulnerability in shelf habitats where fishing mortality is known to be high. Consequently, placental viviparous species reveal a higher proportion of species listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List compared to oviparous species [6].

Regional assessments illustrate the pattern. Along the Egyptian Mediterranean coast, 69 cartilaginous species were recorded up to 2025, comprising 2 chimaeras, 41 sharks, and 26 rays and skates. The highest species diversity was observed in Zone D, from western Alexandria to Matrouh, followed by Zone C off the Alexandrian coast. In 2025, total annual catch reached 665,820 kg, with Damietta recording the highest landings at 274,350 kg. Among elasmobranchs, Glaucostegus cemiculus accounted for the highest catch at 109,100 kg, followed by Carcharhinus plumbeus at 95,500 kg [4]. These figures demonstrate that elasmobranch landings remain substantial in regions where monitoring and enforcement capacity is limited.

Shark Finning: Mechanics, Scale, and Drivers

Shark finning is the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins, and discarding the body at sea. The practice is driven by the high value of shark fins in international trade, particularly for shark fin soup, a status symbol in parts of East Asia. The fin trade operates through complex supply chains that span multiple countries and jurisdictions, making regulation and enforcement challenging.

The scale of the fin trade is difficult to quantify precisely because processed shark products are hard to identify to species level. Fins, meat, and liver oil all present identification challenges that have hindered efforts to implement regulations aimed at promoting sustainable use of commercially important species and protection of imperiled species. Genetic approaches to identify shark products exist but are typically based on sequencing or amplifying large DNA regions and may fail to work on heavily processed products in which DNA is degraded [7].

A 2017 study described a multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay based on two short fragments of the cytochrome oxidase I gene. This assay can identify to species all sharks currently listed on the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and most shark species present in the international trade. It achieves species diagnosis based on a single PCR and one to two downstream DNA sequencing reactions. The assay is capable of identifying highly processed shark products including fins, cooked shark fin soup, and skin-care products containing liver oil [7]. This tool represents a practical advancement for enforcement agencies seeking to verify that traded products comply with international regulations.

The fin trade continues even for species protected under international regulations. A 2025 study documented ongoing trade of fins from critically endangered rays, specifically wedgefish and giant guitarfish, despite international regulations. The study also described a novel PCR test to detect rays among shark fins [9]. This finding underscores a persistent gap between regulatory intent and enforcement outcomes.

Knowledge gaps among fishers compound the problem. Research in Aceh Province, Indonesia, found that knowledge and understanding of fishers regarding shark protection and conservation regulations were still very limited, so that the exploitation of sharks has increased. Observations in five coastal areas found that based on IUCN criteria, one species was in the least concern category, five species were near threatened, two species were vulnerable, one species was endangered, and one species was critically endangered. Based on CITES criteria, two species fell into Appendix II [8]. The study concluded that the sharks caught in the coastal area of Aceh Province as a whole are in the IUCN red list category, yet fishers continued to target them without adequate regulatory awareness.

Life History Traits and Intrinsic Vulnerability

Understanding why some shark species are more vulnerable than others requires examining their reproductive strategies and habitat use. A 2026 assessment of intrinsic vulnerability mechanisms found that shelf habitats are dominated by placental viviparous species that rarely occupy other environments. In contrast, oviparous species are found in both shelf and deep-sea habitats but are absent from pelagic environments due to a lack of substrate for egg deposition [6].

Oviparous species reveal a significantly lower maximum size, size at birth, and size at maturity, as well as continuous reproduction, all of which are indicators of relatively high productivity and thus lower intrinsic vulnerability. Placental viviparous species reveal a larger maximum size, size at birth, and size at maturity, as well as annual or biennial reproduction. These life-history traits are indicative of lower productivity and thus higher intrinsic vulnerability [6].

The practical implication for fisheries management is that species with low productivity cannot sustain the same fishing mortality rates as more productive species. Management measures must be species-specific or at least account for the reproductive biology of the target assemblage. The study also noted that threats to deep-sea oviparous species and to aplacental and lecithotrophic viviparous species, which are abundant in deeper waters, are likely to increase in the future due to expanding deep-sea fisheries [6].

International Regulatory Frameworks

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CITES was established in 1973 to address the increasing impact of trade on the conservation of wild species. The Convention considers threatened species from two angles: those threatened with extinction and those not yet threatened. The appropriate trade regulations are adopted based on the threat level and the degree of protection [10].

CITES operates on three appendices. Appendix I lists all species threatened with extinction that are or could be affected by trade. Appendix II includes all species that could become threatened with extinction if trade in specimens of these species were not subject to strict regulation. Appendix III includes all species declared to be subject to regulation intended to prevent or restrict their exploitation and requiring the cooperation of other Parties for the control of trade [10].

The effectiveness of CITES has been the subject of significant study. However, the control of the effectiveness of the Convention cannot be conducted with regard to all species threatened with extinction, as it would be both reductive and inaccurate. The CITES system is largely based on scientific advice and information, with authorizations or refusals to export based on the classification of the species in question [10].

For sharks, CITES listings have expanded over time to include numerous species of requiem sharks, hammerhead sharks, thresher sharks, mako sharks, and guitarfish. The listing of a species in Appendix II requires that exporting countries make non-detriment findings, demonstrating that exports will not harm the species survival in the wild. This requirement creates a formal mechanism for linking trade to sustainability assessments.

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

Tuna regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) have jurisdiction over large areas of oceanic habitat where sharks are caught as bycatch in tuna and billfish fisheries. A 2015 analysis examined the complexities of oceanic shark management by these organizations and concluded that banning is not enough [16]. The analysis highlighted that RFMO measures must include catch limits, effort controls, data reporting requirements, and compliance mechanisms to be effective.

The practical challenges facing RFMOs include the mixed nature of shark catches, the difficulty of identifying species at sea, the lack of reliable catch data from many fleets, and the limited enforcement capacity in remote oceanic areas. RFMO measures have included finning bans, prohibitions on retaining certain species, and requirements to release sharks alive, but the effectiveness of these measures depends on observer coverage and port state controls.

National and Regional Legislation

National legislation varies widely in its approach to shark conservation. Some countries have implemented finning bans that require sharks to be landed with fins naturally attached, which facilitates species identification and catch data collection. Other countries have established shark sanctuaries in their exclusive economic zones, prohibiting shark fishing and trade in shark products.

A 2017 analysis examined strategies for the United States and European Union to combat shark finning in China and Hong Kong, focusing on the transition from shark finning to shark fishing [13]. The analysis recognized that demand-side measures, including trade restrictions and consumer awareness campaigns, are necessary complements to supply-side regulations.

Research in the Riau Islands Province of Indonesia found that there is not much that can be expected for the protection of Carcharhinus sharks in the area, given that there is no strong legal basis and the government weak political will in this matter [11]. Five shark species from the Carcharhinus genus were identified in the study: blacktip reef shark, blacktip shark, sandbar shark, spot-tail shark, and blackspot shark. All of these sharks are still caught, consumed, and traded in this area. According to the IUCN, the current population conservation status of these species ranges from near threatened for the spot-tail shark to endangered for the sandbar shark [11].

At a Glance: Shark Conservation Status and Management Measures

Conservation Measures and Their Implementation

Finning Bans and Fins-Attached Policies

The most direct regulatory response to shark finning is the requirement that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. This policy achieves several objectives: it eliminates the practice of finning at sea, it facilitates species identification of landed catches, it improves catch data quality, and it creates a deterrent effect by requiring vessels to carry the full carcass, which occupies space and reduces the economic incentive for targeting sharks solely for their fins.

The transition from finning bans to comprehensive shark fishing regulations represents an evolution in policy thinking. A 2017 analysis argued for a strategy that moves beyond simply banning finning to regulating shark fishing as a whole, including catch limits, gear restrictions, and trade measures [13]. This approach recognizes that finning bans alone do not address the underlying drivers of shark mortality, which include targeted fisheries for shark meat, liver oil, and other products.

Protected Areas and Spatial Management

Marine protected areas can provide refuges for shark populations, particularly in coastal habitats that serve as nursery grounds. The Egyptian Mediterranean coast study identified Zone D as a hotspot for diversity, nursery, and reproductive activity, highlighting the need for conservation in that area [4]. Spatial management measures must be designed with knowledge of shark movement patterns, habitat use, and life-history requirements to be effective.

The effectiveness of protected areas depends on enforcement capacity and compliance. In many regions, particularly in developing countries, the resources available for monitoring and enforcement are limited. Community-based management approaches that involve fishers in the design and implementation of conservation measures can improve compliance and outcomes.

Trade Monitoring and Species Identification

The implementation of CITES listings for sharks requires effective trade monitoring, which in turn requires the ability to identify products to species level. The multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay described in 2017 provides a practical tool for this purpose, capable of identifying highly processed shark products including fins, cooked shark fin soup, and skin-care products containing liver oil [7].

The ongoing trade of fins from critically endangered rays despite international regulations demonstrates the need for continued development and deployment of identification tools [9]. Enforcement agencies require access to reliable, cost-effective testing methods that can be applied to seized products. The PCR test for detecting rays among shark fins represents an advancement in this area, allowing enforcement to extend beyond sharks to related species that face similar threats.

Fisher Education and Awareness Programs

Research in Aceh Province found that limited knowledge and understanding of fishers regarding shark protection and conservation regulations contributed to increased exploitation [8]. Education programs that inform fishers about the conservation status of the species they catch, the regulations that apply, and the long-term benefits of sustainable practices can improve compliance and reduce bycatch of vulnerable species.

The Egyptian Mediterranean study recommended raising awareness among fishers to reduce the capture of juveniles and pregnant individuals, especially during the periods of March to May and October to December [4]. These seasonal recommendations align with reproductive cycles and can reduce the impact of fishing on population recruitment.

Practical Assessment and Implementation Steps

For fisheries managers, conservation professionals, and researchers seeking to assess shark conservation needs and implement protection measures, the following steps provide a structured approach:

1. Document species composition of landings. Conduct port sampling to identify species caught, measure size distributions, and record reproductive status. Use the species identification tools available, including genetic methods for processed products [7].

2. Assess conservation status of each species. Cross-reference documented species with IUCN Red List classifications and CITES appendices. Note that local populations may be more or less threatened than the global assessment indicates [8][11].

3. Identify critical habitats. Map nursery areas, reproductive aggregations, and feeding grounds. The Egyptian Mediterranean study demonstrated that diversity and reproductive activity can be concentrated in specific zones, allowing targeted spatial management [4].

4. Evaluate current regulatory coverage. Determine which species are covered by existing national legislation, CITES listings, and RFMO measures. Identify gaps where species are caught and traded without regulatory oversight [11].

5. Implement monitoring and enforcement tools. Deploy genetic identification methods for trade products, establish observer coverage on fishing vessels, and strengthen port state controls [7][9].

6. Develop seasonal management measures. Restrict fishing during peak reproductive periods. The Egyptian Mediterranean study recommended strengthened control of fishing and trade from April to October, with emphasis on April to May [4].

7. Engage fishers in conservation planning. Conduct education programs that explain the rationale for regulations and the conservation status of target species. The Aceh Province study demonstrated that knowledge gaps among fishers contribute to overexploitation [8].

8. Establish monitoring and evaluation systems. Track catch trends, compliance rates, and population indicators over time. Adjust management measures based on observed outcomes.

Records and Measurements for Conservation Monitoring

Effective shark conservation requires systematic data collection and record keeping. The following measurements provide the foundation for assessing population status and management effectiveness:

Catch composition data. Species identification, numbers, sizes, and sex ratios of sharks landed or caught as bycatch. These data allow assessment of which species are most affected by fishing and whether management measures are reducing catches of vulnerable species.

Reproductive status data. Records of pregnant females, gravid females, and neonatal individuals provide information on reproductive timing and habitat use. The Egyptian Mediterranean study identified March to May and October to December as critical periods for juvenile and pregnant individual capture [4].

Trade data. Volumes and species composition of shark products entering international trade. Genetic testing of processed products provides species-level data that visual inspection cannot achieve [7][9].

Tagging and recapture data. Mark-recapture studies provide information on growth rates, movement patterns, and survival. A 2015 study of blacktip reef sharks documented high capacity to survive and recover from small or even large and severe wounds, with healing rates, recovery, and survival being important factors to consider when assessing impacts of habitat degradation and fishing stress on shark populations [3].

Fishery-independent survey data. Standardized surveys using baited remote underwater video, underwater visual census, or trawl surveys provide population trend data independent of fishery catches.

Common Failure Patterns in Shark Conservation

Conservation programs can fail to achieve their objectives for identifiable reasons. Recognizing these patterns allows managers to adjust strategies before populations decline further.

Regulatory gaps. Species that are not listed under CITES or national legislation can be traded without restriction. The Riau Islands study found no strong legal basis for protection of Carcharhinus sharks in the area [11]. Even when regulations exist, they may not cover all life stages or all fishing sectors.

Enforcement limitations. Regulations are only effective if they are enforced. Limited observer coverage, inadequate port inspection capacity, and corruption can undermine even well-designed measures. The ongoing trade of critically endangered ray fins despite international regulations illustrates this failure pattern [9].

Knowledge deficits among stakeholders. When fishers do not understand the conservation status of the species they catch or the rationale for regulations, compliance suffers. The Aceh Province study found that limited knowledge and understanding of fishers regarding shark protection and conservation regulations contributed to increased exploitation [8].

Inadequate species identification. When catches and trade products cannot be identified to species level, it is impossible to assess the impact of fishing on individual species or to enforce species-specific regulations. Processed products such as fins, meat, and liver oil present particular challenges [7].

Single-measure approaches. Policies that address only one aspect of the problem, such as finning bans without catch limits or trade restrictions without demand reduction, are unlikely to achieve conservation objectives. The analysis of RFMO management concluded that banning is not enough [16].

Ignoring life-history vulnerability. Management measures that do not account for the reproductive biology of target species can set catch levels that are unsustainable. Placental viviparous species with low productivity require more conservative management than oviparous species with higher productivity [6].

Welfare and Safety Context

Shark conservation intersects with animal welfare considerations in several ways. The practice of finning, in which sharks are returned to the water alive but unable to swim effectively, causes prolonged suffering and mortality. Even when sharks are landed and killed, the methods used can affect welfare outcomes.

Research on wound healing in blacktip reef sharks provides relevant context. The 2015 study documented umbilical scar healing in wild-caught neonatal sharks while being reared for 30 days in flow-through laboratory aquaria in French Polynesia, survival and recovery of free-swimming sharks in Australia and French Polynesia following a range of injuries, and long-term survival following suspected shark-finning activities. Laboratory monitoring, tag-recapture records, telemetry data, and photo-identification records suggest that blacktip reef sharks have a high capacity to survive and recover from small or even large and severe wounds [3].

The study suggested that individual survival may depend more on handling practices and physiological stress instead of the extent of physical injury. This finding has implications for the ethics of tagging practices used in elasmobranch research and for the development of handling guidelines that minimize stress and improve survival rates for released sharks [3].

For fisheries that catch sharks incidentally, the development of best practices for handling and release can reduce post-release mortality. These practices include minimizing air exposure, using appropriate release tools, and avoiding the use of gear that causes severe injury.

Limitations of Current Knowledge

Several limitations constrain the effectiveness of shark conservation efforts. Population assessments for many species are based on limited data, particularly for deep-sea species and those in developing country fisheries. The intrinsic vulnerability of deep-sea oviparous species and aplacental and lecithotrophic viviparous species is likely to increase in the future due to expanding deep-sea fisheries, but current data are insufficient to quantify these threats precisely [6].

Trade data are incomplete due to the difficulty of identifying processed products and the scale of illegal trade. The CITES system is difficult to regulate due to the scale of illegal trade [10]. Genetic identification tools exist but are not universally available to enforcement agencies, particularly in developing countries.

The effectiveness of CITES has been the subject of significant study, but the control of the effectiveness of the Convention cannot be conducted with regard to all species threatened with extinction, as it would be both reductive and inaccurate [10]. This limitation applies more broadly to conservation governance, where the complexity of ecological and social systems makes simple performance metrics inadequate.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Conservation professionals should escalate concerns to appropriate authorities or seek additional expertise under the following circumstances:

Rapid population decline. If monitoring data indicate a sharp decline in catch per unit effort or abundance indices for a threatened species, escalate to fisheries management authorities and consider emergency measures.

Evidence of illegal trade. If genetic testing or trade monitoring reveals ongoing trade in species listed under CITES Appendix I or II, escalate to CITES enforcement authorities and customs agencies [7][9].

Regulatory gaps. If assessments identify species that are caught and traded without any legal protection, escalate to policy makers to advocate for new listings or legislation [11].

Enforcement failures. If regulations exist but are not being enforced, escalate to the relevant enforcement agencies and document the specific failures observed.

Emerging threats. If new fisheries are developing in deep-sea habitats or other areas where vulnerable species occur, escalate to fisheries managers to ensure precautionary measures are in place before significant mortality occurs [6].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is shark finning and why is it harmful?

Shark finning is the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins, and discarding the body at sea. The practice is driven by the high value of shark fins in international trade. Finning is harmful because it causes high mortality of sharks, including species that are already threatened, and it wastes the rest of the animal. The practice also undermines fisheries management because landed fins without bodies prevent accurate species identification and catch data collection.

Which shark species are most at risk of extinction?

Species with low productivity due to their life-history traits are most at risk. Placental viviparous species with larger maximum size, larger size at birth, larger size at maturity, and annual or biennial reproduction show higher intrinsic vulnerability and a higher proportion of threatened listings in the IUCN Red List compared to oviparous species [6]. Examples include the sandbar shark, which is listed as endangered, and several species of Carcharhinus sharks listed as vulnerable [11].

How does CITES protect sharks?

CITES regulates international trade in listed species through a system of appendices. Appendix I lists species threatened with extinction that are or could be affected by trade. Appendix II includes species that could become threatened with extinction if trade were not subject to strict regulation. For Appendix II species, exporting countries must make non-detriment findings demonstrating that exports will not harm the species survival in the wild [10].

What is the difference between a finning ban and a fins-attached policy?

A finning ban prohibits the practice of removing fins and discarding the body at sea. A fins-attached policy goes further by requiring that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. The fins-attached approach facilitates species identification, improves catch data quality, and creates a deterrent effect by requiring vessels to carry the full carcass.

How can shark products be identified to species level?

Processed shark products such as fins, meat, and liver oil are difficult to identify visually. Genetic methods, including a multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay based on two short fragments of the cytochrome oxidase I gene, can identify to species all sharks currently listed on CITES and most shark species present in the international trade. The assay works on highly processed products including fins, cooked shark fin soup, and skin-care products containing liver oil [7].

Why do fishers continue to catch threatened sharks?

Research in Indonesia found that knowledge and understanding of fishers regarding shark protection and conservation regulations are often very limited, so that exploitation of sharks has increased [8]. In some regions, there is no strong legal basis for protection and weak government political will [11]. Economic pressures and the high value of shark products also drive continued fishing.

What role do marine protected areas play in shark conservation?

Marine protected areas can provide refuges for shark populations, particularly in coastal habitats that serve as nursery grounds. The Egyptian Mediterranean coast study identified a specific zone as a hotspot for diversity, nursery, and reproductive activity, highlighting the need for conservation in that area [4]. Protected areas are most effective when combined with other measures such as catch limits and trade regulations.

What should be done to reduce the capture of juvenile and pregnant sharks?

Seasonal management measures can reduce the capture of juveniles and pregnant individuals during peak reproductive periods. The Egyptian Mediterranean study recommended strengthened control of fishing and trade from April to October, with emphasis on April to May, and raising awareness among fishers to reduce capture of juveniles and pregnant individuals during March to May and October to December [4].

Related Articles

• Genome International
• Genome International
• Genome International
• Conservation Biology Jobs
• DVM Programs Compared: US, Caribbean, and International Veterinary Schools

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus) show high capacity for wound healing and recovery following injury.. Conservation physiology, 2015.
• Catchability Pattern of Cartilaginous Fishes with an Updated Their Diversity and Distribution Along the Egypt's Mediterranean Coast: Conservation and Bycatch Challenges.. 2026.
• Extinction threatens to cause morphological and ecological homogenization in sharks.. 2025.
• Assessing mechanisms of intrinsic vulnerability in sharks occupying different marine environments. 2026.
• A multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay to identify processed shark products in the global trade. PLoS ONE, 2017.
• Conservation status of shark fish in the Aceh province coastal area. E3S Web of Conferences, 2020.
• Ongoing trade of fins from critically endangered rays (wedgefish and giant guitarfish) despite international regulations and a novel PCR test to detect rays among ‘shark’ fins. Conservation Genetics, 2025.
• CITES And The International Protection Of Biodiversity. South Eastern European Journal of Public Health, 2025.
• IDENTIFICATION, CONSERVATION STATUS, TRADE AND LEGAL PROTECTION BASIS OF CARCHARHINUS SHARK CAUGHT IN THE WATERS OF RIAU ISLANDS PROVINCE, INDONESIA. International Journal of Conservation Science, 2024.
• Ensuring Patient Privacy through Regulations on Electronic Medical Records and Personal Data Protection. Proceedings of the First International Cyber Law Conference, ICL-C 2023, 11 November 2023, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2025.
• From shark finning to shark fishing: A strategy for the U.S. & EU to combat shark finning in China & Hong Kong. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 2017.
• Knowledge and Practices of Expert Fishermen of South Bahia, Brazil, Regarding the International Shark Fin Market. Human Ecology, 2017.
• Sharks: Conservation, governance and management. Sharks Conservation Governance and Management, 2014.
• Banning is not enough: The complexities of oceanic shark management by tuna regional fisheries management organizations. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2015.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.