Mouton Et Al - 2024 - ISRAs - LATAM

Marine Policy 171 (2025) 106448
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Shortfalls in the protection of Important Shark and Ray Areas undermine

shark conservation efforts in the Central and South American Pacific
Théophile L. Mouton a , Adriana Gonzalez-Pestana a,b, Christoph A. Rohner a,c , Ryan Charles a ,
Emiliano García-Rodríguez a , Peter M. Kyne a,d , Amanda Batlle-Morera a ,
Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara a,e,f, Asia O. Armstrong a,g, Enzo Acuña h ,
Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto a,b,i, Randall Arauz j,k, Cristopher G. Avalos-Castillo a,l, Ely Augustinus a ,
Sandra Bessudo k,m, Enrique Barraza n , Carlos Bustamante a,o , Elpis J. Chávez k,p ,
Eduardo Ramon Espinoza k,q,r , Mario Espinoza a,k,s,t, Ana Hacohen-Domené a,u,
Alex R. Hearn a,k,v , Grettel M. Hernández w , Felipe Galván-Magaña x , José A. Gonzalez-Leiva y ,
James T. Ketchum k,z,aa , Felipe Ladino m , Frida Lara-Lizardi k,ab,
Jorge Manuel Morales-Saldaña a,ac,ad , Naití Morales Serrano ae,
Jeffry Madrigal-Mesén p,af , Paola A. Mejía-Falla a,ag,ah,
Andrés F. Navia a,ag, Gabriela M. Ochoa ai,aj , Marta D. Palacios x,z,ak,al,
César R. Peñaherrera-Palma k, Francisco Polanco-Vásquez a,am,
Yehudi Rodríguez-Arriatti an , Luz E. Saldaña-Ruiz ao ,
Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki a,ao , Javier Tovar-Ávila ap,aq,
Ángel J. Vega ap,aq , Ximena Velez-Zuazo a,ar, Melany Villate-Moreno as,
Ilena Zanella at , Rima W. Jabado a,au,av,*
a
International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Dubai 29588, United Arab Emirates
b
Facultad de Biología Marina, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru
c
Marine Megafauna Foundation, West Palm Beach, USA
d
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
e
Tethys Research Institute, Milano 20121, Italy
f
IUCN Joint Species Survival Commission (SSC)/World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force, Gland, Switzerland
g
School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Qld, Australia
h
Departamento de Biología Marina and Center for Ecology and Sustainable Management of Oceanic Islands (ESMOI), Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad
Católica del Norte, Casilla, Coquimbo 117, Chile
i
ProDelphinus, Miraflores, Lima, Peru
j
Marine Watch International, 2440 16th Street #305, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
k
MigraMar, 2099 Westshore Rd, Bodega Bay, CA 94923, USA
l
Centro de Estudios del Mar y Acuicultura, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Ciudad Universitaria, zona 12, ciudad de Guatemala, Mexico
m
Fundación Malpelo y Otros Ecosistemas Marinos, Bogotá, Colombia
n
Dirección de Ecosistemas y Vida Silvestre, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Col. y Calle Las Mercedes, San Salvador, El Salvador
o
CHALLWA, Laboratorio de Biología Pesquera, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander von Humboldt, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Recursos Biológicos,
Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile
p
Centro Rescate de Especies Marinas Amenazadas (CREMA), San José, Costa Rica
q
Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos, Av. Charles Darwin, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador
r
Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INABIO) Quito, Ecuador
s
Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
t
Centro de Investigación en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
u
Biology Department, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala
v
Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Galapagos Science Center, Diego de Robles sn y Pampite, Cumbaya,
Quito, Ecuador
* Corresponding author at: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Dubai 29588, United Arab
Emirates.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.W. Jabado).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106448
Received 21 December 2023; Received in revised form 24 September 2024; Accepted 13 October 2024
Available online 30 October 2024
0308-597X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
T.L. Mouton et al. Marine Policy 171 (2025) 106448
w
Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura, Km 3, 5 Carretera Norte, Managua 11032, Nicaragua
x
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas, La Paz 23096, Mexico
y
Centro de Investigaciones Marinas y Limnológicas, Universidad Francisco Gavidia (CIMARyL-UFG), El Salvador
z
Pelagios Kakunjá A.C., La Paz 23060, Mexico
aa
Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste (CIBNOR), La Paz 23096, Mexico
ab
ORGCAS, La Paz 23060, Mexico
ac
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa 0843-03092, Panama
ad
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, Canada
ae
Center for Ecology and Sustainable Management of Oceanic Islands (ESMOI), Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile
af
Mantas Costa Rica, San Ramón, Alajuela, Costa Rica
ag
Fundación colombiana para la investigación y conservación de tiburones y rayas, SQUALUS, Calle 10A No. 72-35, Cali, Colombia
ah
Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS Colombia, Av. 5N No 22N-11, Cali, Colombia
ai
Institute of Environment, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University (FIU), 3000 NE 151st Street, North Miami, FL 33181, USA
aj
Ilili, 500 Half Moon Bay Rd., Roatan, Bay Islands, Honduras
ak
Mobula Conservation, La Paz 23075, Mexico
al
The Manta Trust, Catemwood House, Norwood Lane, CorscombeDorset DT2 0NT, UK
am
Wildlife Conservation Society, Guatemala
an
Shark Defenders, Ciudad de Panamá, Panama
ao
Departamento de Oceanografía Biológica, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California (CICESE), Mexico
ap
National Fisheries and Aquaculture Institute (INAPESCA), Mexico
aq
Centro de Capacitación, Investigación y Monitoreo de la Biodiversidad en el Parque Nacional Coiba (CCIMBIO-CRUV-UP), Universidad de Panamá, Santiago,
Veraguas, Panama
ar
Center for Conservation and Sustainability, Smithsonian National Zoological Park and Conservation Biology Institute,Washington, DC, USA
as
Fundación MarAdentro, Bahía Solano, Chocó, Colombia
at
Asociación Conservacionista Misión Tiburón, Carrillo de Guanacaste 50503, Costa Rica
au
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia
av
Elasmo Project, Dubai 29588, United Arab Emirates
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Global biodiversity targets require nations to designate 30 % of their marine waters as protected areas by 2030.
Area-based conservation Sharks, rays, and chimaeras (hereafter ‘sharks’) are key components of aquatic ecosystems; however, over a third
Biodiversity are globally threatened with extinction. Across the Central and South American Pacific Ocean region, we (i)
Conservation
assessed trends in Marine Protected Area (MPA) expansion and extent across the 12 nations of the region; (ii)
Governance
quantified the spatial overlap between MPAs and Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRAs); and (iii) evaluated the
Spatial planning
Chondrichthyes effectiveness of the current MPA governance structure at protecting sharks and their critical habitat. There has
been a recent rapid increase in the establishment of MPAs with 90 % of current MPAs designated since 2010. Yet,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, and Honduras still protect less than 10 % of their waters. We find that ISRAs
overlap with all MPAs by only 15.6 % and with no-take MPAs by 7.3 %. This raises concerns about the low level
of protection afforded to critical shark habitats in the region. Of 182 MPAs identified, 41.8 % do not have a
management plan, comprising 39.8 % of the total MPA surface area. Mexico, Costa Rica, and Colombia have
relatively strong governance frameworks in place and, along with Panama, Honduras, and Ecuador, represent the
highest overlap between MPAs and ISRAs. However, the contribution of the remaining six countries to shark
protection via MPAs is low based on limited spatial overlap with ISRAs (<2 %). As countries mobilise to meet the
30×30 target, we propose considering ISRAs as a key component of spatial planning when designing new MPAs,
designating existing partially protected areas as no-take zones, or reshaping the boundaries of existing MPAs.
1. Introduction To halt the global biodiversity crisis, protecting places with high
conservation value is crucial [14,15]. Area-based protection is increas
The current global biodiversity crisis results from anthropogenic ingly advocated as a key tool to revert current declining biodiversity
activities, particularly overexploitation, habitat modification, and trends and reduce species extinction risk [16]. Marine Protected Areas
climate change [1,2]. These activities impact 87–90 % of the global (MPAs), if well designed and managed, can be an effective and viable
ocean surface [3,4] and marine defaunation rates are expected to rapidly tool to reduce biodiversity loss, increase resilience to human and
intensify as human use of the oceans further industrialises [5]. Some climate-induced threats, reduce fishing mortality, rebuild fish pop
marine species are more at risk than others due to extrinsic (e.g., se ulations, and deliver essential ecosystem services [17,18]. Despite some
lective harvesting or incidental catch) and intrinsic factors (e.g., low MPAs benefiting shark conservation (e.g., [19-22]), most are considered
reproductive potential) [6,7]. The most recent global IUCN Red List of ineffective at conserving migratory and/or wide-ranging species (e.g.,
Threatened Species™ (hereafter ‘IUCN Red List’) assessment estimated [23]). Spatial planning approaches, including the extent of protection
that one-third (37 %) of sharks, rays, and chimaeras (hereafter ‘sharks’) afforded, often fail to consider and incorporate biological, behavioural,
are at risk of extinction [8] and one species is already Extinct [9]. and ecological attributes that determine habitat use for different shark
Overfishing is the primary threat to all shark species and is confounded species across different life-stages [24-26]. For highly migratory species,
with other threats such as loss and degradation of habitat [8]. Many which can move long distances across a wide range of environments
sharks play key roles in aquatic ecosystems and dominate high trophic [27], MPAs often need to be large or dynamic to sufficiently protect
levels through direct predation effects (i.e., prey consumption) or indi them. However, many existing MPAs are too small or have limited
rectly through risk effects (e.g., prey behaviour; [10,11]). Declines in overlap with critical habitats to effectively conserve sharks (e.g., [23,
shark populations can lead to changes in the functioning of ecosystems 24]). The effectiveness of MPAs also depends on their ability to limit
and the services they provide [12,13]. Considering that sharks are the anthropogenic activities, especially unsustainable fishing practices,
second most threatened group of vertebrates on the planet after am within their boundaries [28]. Further, the presence of other anthropo
phibians, action is urgently needed to recover populations. genic threats (e.g., mining) in the vicinity of these MPAs may also
2
diminish their effectiveness. Considering that most MPAs can have 2. Materials and methods
multiple conservation objectives, including some socio-economic ones,
it can be difficult to have a standardised measure of the effectiveness of 2.1. Study area
each protected area [29].
Rapid gains in MPA extent were seen following the adoption of the The Central and South American Pacific region covers the Food and
Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010, which included a commitment to Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Fishing Area 87
conserve 10 % of coastal and marine areas through effective and equi and the eastern part of FAO Fishing Area 77. It encompasses a large area
tably managed networks of protected areas and sustainable manage of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, spanning from the Gulf of Cali
ment of marine living resources (Aichi Target 11; [30,31]). With the fornia, Mexico to southern Chile. It also includes the oceanic islands of
adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Revillagigedo Archipelago (Mexico); Clipperton (a French state prop
(GBF) in 2022, Target 3 ‘to protect and conserve 30 percent of land and erty); Cocos Island (Costa Rica); Coiba (Panama); Malpelo (Colombia);
sea areas through well-connected systems of protected areas and other Galápagos (Ecuador); Rapa Nui, Salas y Gómez, Juan Fernández, and
effective area-based conservation measures by 2030’ must now be Desventuradas (Chile); along with large expanses of high seas. We
achieved (30×30 target; [31]). In 2023, United Nations (UN) member acknowledge that Mexico is generally considered part of North America,
states also agreed on a legal framework through the High Seas Treaty, a however, due to the biogeography and distribution of sharks in this
legally binding instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the region, Mexico was divided into various regions with the Gulf of Cali
Sea, on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological di fornia and southern coast included within the Central and South
versity in areas beyond national jurisdiction [28]. Achieving these America Pacific region. This region is considered one of the most pro
global conservation goals with area-based management approaches will ductive and highly dynamic oceanic regions in the world and is influ
help to mitigate ongoing biodiversity loss, build climate resilience, and enced by major ocean currents, wind-driven upwellings, and diverse
ensure food security [32,33]. climatic conditions [38]. Within this region, 188 shark species have
In designing effective MPAs, the development and implementation of been reported to occur, comprising 95 shark, 82 ray, and 11 chimaera
robust management plans is pivotal to their success [17,34]. Specific to species [39].
sharks, management plans should recognize their Conservation Value
[35] and account for the varied processes that are essential for the 2.2. Important Shark and Ray areas
survival of these species. Since overfishing is the primary cause of
population declines in sharks, global shark mortality needs to be dras A regional expert workshop was held in Bogotá, Colombia, from 3–7
tically reduced to rebuild depleted populations and restore marine October 2022 [40]. All Central and South American Pacific countries
ecosystems with functional predators [8]. By tailoring conservation were represented, with 55 experts attending the hybrid meeting.
measures to address the specific needs of different shark species, MPAs Country representatives proposed areas they considered critical for the
can ensure a more comprehensive and tailored approach to shark pro survival of sharks, rays, and chimaeras (hereafter ‘sharks’) based on
tection (e.g., as suggested for climate resilience; [34]). Management available data. Details of the ISRA process can be found in Hyde et al.
plans should therefore encompass measures to regulate fishing activ [36] and the ISRA Guidance on Criteria Application [41]. Briefly, the
ities, mitigate potential threats such as habitat degradation, and protect ISRA Criteria allow the delineation of an area according to the known
critical habitats. regular or predictable presence and/or activities of sharks. Four criteria
The Important Shark and Ray Area (ISRA) approach was designed to incorporating seven sub-criteria are considered: Vulnerability (i.e.,
contribute robust ecological information to area-based management. species listed as threatened [Critically Endangered, Endangered, or
This expert-driven approach has the potential for wide-ranging policy Vulnerable] on the IUCN Red List, or listed as threatened with extinction
and conservation outcomes [36]. The ISRA framework identifies by national regulatory and legal frameworks that assess the extinction
discrete, three-dimensional portions of habitat important for one or risk of species), Range Restricted (i.e., where a species’ distribution is
more shark species, that are delineated and have the potential to be entirely limited to one Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) or two adjoining
managed for conservation [36,37]. The ISRA Criteria consider the LMEs), Life-History (i.e., Reproductive Areas, Feeding Areas, Resting
vulnerability, range restriction, diverse life histories, and distinct attri Areas, Movement, or Undefined Aggregations), Special Attributes (i.e.,
butes of sharks and can be applied to all environments where these Distinctiveness [related to distinct biological, behavioural, or ecological
species occur. ISRAs can therefore be used to identify priority areas characteristics] and Diversity [i.e., species richness]). Species meeting
where spatial planning approaches can improve shark conservation and one or several of the aforementioned criteria are considered Qualifying
to evaluate if existing spatial approaches provide sufficient protection. Species. Overall, after undergoing review by an independent panel of
All ISRAs are publicly available via an online atlas (www.sharkrayareas. experts [36], 65 ISRAs were delineated in the region [40], and their
org). Thirteen ISRA regions, covering the world’s marine and inland boundaries were considered for this study.
waters, have been delineated and are being assessed. In 2022, ISRAs
were delineated in the Central and South American Pacific region, 2.3. Marine protected areas
though their overlap with MPAs and the robustness of existing gover
nance frameworks at protecting these areas has yet to be assessed. To obtain the most recent set of MPAs from countries in the Central
Here, we investigate MPAs in the Central and South American Pacific and South American Pacific region, we considered MPAs that have been
region to (1) assess temporal trends in MPA extent and expansion and Designated (i.e., established or recognized by law or other authoritative
evaluate country-level progress in meeting global protection targets, rulemaking) with defined boundaries and did not include those that
specifically Target 3 of the GBF; (2) examine and quantify the spatial have been Proposed/Committed but have not been officially designated
overlap between MPAs and ISRAs; and (3) evaluate the existing gover [17]. We downloaded MPAs from the World Database on Protected
nance framework across the regional MPA network using a Shark Areas (WDPA - https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/themat
Management Robustness Index. Finally, we provide recommendations ic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA) in March 2023. Moreover, we examined
on how ISRAs can be integrated into marine spatial planning by official government websites while consulting with experts from each
decision-makers and resource managers. country to determine whether additional MPAs should be included that
have been designated by the government and have a published MPA
polygon with clear boundaries (Table A1). Spatial data for the Atlantic
Ocean were also downloaded for those seven countries in the region that
possess an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic. For Mexico,
3
MPAs in the north-eastern Pacific outside the Central and South Amer 2.5. Shark Management Robustness Index
ican Pacific region were also downloaded. Boundaries were verified by
comparing the information available in the WDPA with those provided We assessed the governance structure in place that would allow
in MPA management plans and official government websites. We protected areas to contribute to shark conservation through a Shark
considered two groups of MPAs according to their level of protection: Management Robustness Index. Here, governance was defined as the
no-take MPAs (where any type of extractive activity is forbidden; i.e., measures in place to conserve or reduce mortality of sharks within MPAs
those aligning with IUCN categories I, II, or III; following [42]]) and as defined in their management plans. For this, existing management
partial MPAs [also referred to as multiple-use MPAs]; those aligning plans were thoroughly reviewed against specific criteria that assessed
with IUCN categories IV, V, VI, and other types of classification). IUCN the design and planning of the MPA in relation to shark conservation.
categories are reported in the WDPA, however, if national experts Management plans were retrieved from official government or legally
and/or management plans provided updated information on the type of mandated organisations and agencies (Table A1). Further, we define
MPA (no-take or partial/multiple-use) that differed from information Conservation Values as those species that are conservation targets
available on the WDPA, the updated information was used. Our final set within an MPA, require management actions, and are therefore key el
comprised 65 no-take MPAs and 117 partial/multiple-use MPAs ements of the planning and monitoring of a protected area [45]. Con
(Table A1). We include some discussion of proposed areas not included servation Values is a tool that allows the prioritisation of conservation
in our analysis or proposed management changes in the context of our efforts and indicators of endangerment [35]. Each MPA was then scored
results based on expert knowledge at the country level. according to seven criteria (Table 1). The first criterion evaluated the
Protected areas can have multiple zones where only parts of the MPA existence of a management plan. If a plan was not published, then the
are designated as a no-take zone, while extractive activities are allowed other criteria were not considered (i.e., score of 0). This is because the
in others. The WDPA considers this type of MPA as a category IV MPA or first stages in the establishment of an MPA (i.e., Designated and
above, without specifying which area inside the MPA is designated as a Implemented) requires an approved management plan [17]. We did not
no-take zone. To accurately identify all no-take zones in our MPA assess the validity of management plans (i.e., updated or outdated). The
dataset, we checked for potential zoning within each MPA, by second criterion evaluated the key management measures that protect
comparing the information provided by the WDPA with MPA manage sharks (e.g., fishing bans). The third criterion assessed whether sharks
ment plans. Detailed shapefiles for each zoned MPA were requested from were included in the objectives of the MPA, as a Conservation Value.
government organisations, MPA managers, and researchers in each Criteria four to six were aligned with the ISRA Criteria to determine
country. If the boundaries of the zoning were described with sufficient whether vulnerability, range restriction, life-history, and special attri
details in official documents, we created shapefiles using standard GIS butes were taken into consideration [36].
protocols in ArcGIS Desktop 10.8 (ESRI Inc.). Overall, we compiled We adopted a binary coding approach and assigned ‘No’ a score of 0,
zoning information for 16 MPAs accounting for 27.2 % of all MPA extent and ‘Yes’ a score of 1 for each question posed to assess these criteria.
in the region. Here, zoned MPAs were considered as two separate MPAs because the
To assess the extent of MPAs in each nation and expansion required no-take and multi-use zones within them can differ widely in size and
to meet the 30×30 target, we examined the extent of both no-take MPAs age. We then summed individual MPA scores for each MPA to calculate
and partial MPAs as the percentage of EEZ covered by MPAs. For those the Shark Management Robustness Index for each [50,51].
countries with coastlines on the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, we report To understand variations in the index’s total score in relation to the
MPA expansion and extent as a percentage of their EEZ for both bodies year of MPA establishment and MPA size (km2), we used a generalised
of waters. Finally, we assessed progress against Aichi Target 11 (10 % linear mixed effect model (GLMM) fitted by maximum likelihood esti
protection) by measuring MPA expansion (for both no-take and partial mation with a Poisson distribution and using countries (n = 11) as
MPAs individually; defined as increases in areas designated as MPAs) for random effects. The country list excluded France since it has a single
the period 2010–2023 (i.e., post-Aichi Target 11 period; [43]). MPA (i.e., Clipperton Island - Île de la Passion). Marine protected area
size was log-transformed prior to model computation and both predictor
variables standardised to zero, with one unit variance to allow com
2.4. Overlap between MPAs and ISRAs parison of estimates. Visual examination of residual diagnostic plots did
not reveal obvious deviations from homoscedasticity, and analyses of
We measured the percentage area of ISRAs overlapping with MPAs in the residuals indicated a notable tendency for the residuals to conform to
the Central and South American Pacific region at two different spatial a normal distribution. We ran the GLMM using the glmer function in the
scales (all ISRAs in the region combined and ISRAs within the EEZ of lme4 R package v.1.1–33 [52]. We tested for model parsimony by
each country) and two designations levels (all MPAs [i.e., regardless of modelling all combinations of predictor variables and comparing model
management type] and no-take MPAs only). Because some ISRAs over fits using the correction for small samples of Akaike’s Information Cri
lapped each other, overlap analysis between ISRAs and MPAs were all terion (AICc; [53]), using the dredge function in the MuMIn package
performed after dissolving the boundaries of our ISRA polygons (i.e., v.1.47.5 (Bartón, 2023). Model performance (i.e., marginal and condi
merging into a single multi-polygon). For Mexico, three Pacific coast tional r-squared: R2m and R2c, respectively) was assessed with the
MPAs were not included in the analysis as those are located outside the model_performance function in the performance package v. 0.7.0 [54],
boundaries of the ISRA Central and South American Pacific ISRA region, and marginal and random effects visualised with the sjPlot package
on the west coast of the Baja California peninsula (i.e., El Vizcaíno, Islas v.2.8.9 [55].
del Pacífico de Baja California, and Isla Guadalupe). Measuring overlap
at different spatial levels allows us to identify national variations in MPA 2.6. Sensitivity of Shark Management Robustness Index results
overlap with ISRAs. Measuring overlap at different designation levels
identifies potential conservation gains that could be obtained if partial We assessed the sensitivity of the Shark Management Robustness
MPAs were to become no-take MPAs. We measured the extent of Index results to variations in the number and type of questions used to
delineated ISRAs within each country’s EEZ in the region using the calculate the total score. We re-ran the GLMM with the total score of the
st_area function from the sf package v.1.0–10 [44]. We did this after index using: (1) questions 1–3, and (2) questions 1–3 in combination
intersecting our spatial layer of ISRAs with a spatial layer of EEZs from with the cumulative sum of questions 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
the Central and South American Pacific region using the st_intersection Therefore, five models were computed in total, with the index’s total
function in sf. We repeated the same analysis for ISRAs and MPAs at each score gradually ranging from 3 to 7. In the first model, the first three
spatial level and for both protection levels. questions were used because the current goal of MPAs should be to
4
Table 1 2010–2023, and all MPA extent in 2023); (2) MPA overlap with ISRAs
The seven questions and their rationale used to assign scores to calculate the (two indicators: no-take MPAs, all MPAs); (3) MPA governance (index
Shark Management Robustness Index. scores, as predicted random effects, using the five different total scores
N Question Rationale to account for sensitivity of the index as indicators). Because the three
1 Does the MPA have a management MPA management plans are essential
different categories had a different number of indicators, we weighted
plan? for achieving and maintaining the scores of the indices in the PCA by the number of indicators in their
conservation goals, ensuring respective category (i.e., 1/4, 1/4, 1/4, 1/4, 1/2, 1/2, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/
sustainable use of marine resources, 5, 1/5). All indices were standardised prior to PCA computation. PCA
and fostering cooperation among
was computed using the dudi.pca function from the Ade4 R package
stakeholders involved in managing
the protected area [17,34]. v.1.7–22 [56]. We further classified countries into clusters based on
2 Is the MPA a no-take zone? No-take zones are instrumental for their position on the first two axes of the PCA. The first two axes of the
the conservation of shark populations PCA were used because these accounted for the majority (>85 %) of the
by creating areas where shark fishing variation in the data, with the other axes representing low variation
and mortality can be reduced,
especially since overfishing is the
(<8 %). We used the NbClust function in the NbClust R package v. 3.0.1
primary cause of population declines [57], using euclidean distances and Ward’s D2 clustering method. This
in sharks [8]. These zones contribute function provides a comprehensive framework for determining the
to broader marine conservation optimal number of clusters in a dataset based on consensus among a
efforts, benefitting not only sharks
large set of different clustering indices.
but the ecosystems on which sharks
depend (e.g., [46,23,22]).
3 Are sharks included as a Conservation Recognizing the importance of sharks 3. Results
Value? in MPAs contributes to prioritising
their conservation, the overall 3.1. Important Shark and Ray Areas
success of conservation efforts, and
benefits the species and the
communities that depend on it [35]. The 65 ISRAs of the Central and South American Pacific region
4 Has the extinction risk of species been It is crucial for MPAs to be covered 5,732,266 km2 (min = 0.1, median = 915, mean = 79,717, max
recognized in the MPA design? strategically located in areas hosting = 3,021,320 km2, representing 15.6 % of the region) and occupied both
threatened shark species because
national waters (64 % of the area) and waters beyond national juris
these regions serve as critical habitats
for the survival and recovery of these diction (36 %; representing 7.5 % of the high seas in this region). These
populations [47]. ISRAs were delineated for 96 species encompassing 47 shark (49 % of
5 Is the regular and predictable Establishing MPAs in areas where shark species reported from the region), 47 ray (57 % of ray species
occurrence of range-restricted shark range-restricted species occur is reported from the region), and two chimaera (18 % of chimaera species
species considered in the MPA design? essential for preserving unique
reported from the region) species from 12 orders and 33 families. Of
biodiversity. This conservation
approach ensures the survival of these, 59 species (63 %) are threatened with extinction.
species with limited geographic
distributions and maintains the 3.2. Marine protected areas
ecological integrity of specific regions
[19,48].
6 Have life-history attributes of sharks MPAs that consider the life history of The first MPA of the Central and South American Pacific region was
(i.e., reproduction, feeding, resting, species are crucial for the intrinsic created in 1935, in the Archipelago Juan Fernandez, Chile (52 km2;
movement, aggregations) been value of those species. By protecting Fig. 1 A & B). From 1945–1969, six MPAs were created across the region
acknowledged? their essential habitats and life stages, (10,035 km2). Marine protected area expansion rapidly increased from
networks of connected MPAs
contribute directly to the well-being,
1970 to 2010 with the creation of 111 MPAs (253,946 km2; Fig. 1 A &
survival, and resilience of sharks B). Between 2010–2023, an additional 53 MPAs were created
within their ecosystems [25]. (2,557,863 km2), which accounted for 90.4 % of the total MPA network
7 Have areas of special attributes (i.e., Preserving hotspots of shark diversity area in 2023. As a consequence, marine protected areas cover 7.7 % of
hotspots of shark diversity or areas of and areas of distinct behaviour is vital
the Central and South American Pacific region, with only 3.7 % of the
distinct behaviour) been considered in for maintaining biodiversity,
the MPA design? supporting ecosystem stability, and region covered by no-take MPAs.
ensuring the health and resilience of There were contrasting patterns of recent MPA expansion among
aquatic ecosystems. Such areas are countries (Fig. 2 A). Between 2010–2023, expansions represented more
critical for the conservation of a than 18 % of the waters of Panama, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Costa
variety of shark species and
Rica; 6–8 % of waters in Honduras, Peru, and Ecuador; and less than 1 %
contribute to the broader objectives
of marine protection and in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala (Fig. 2 A). By March 2023,
sustainability [49]. Panama, Chile, and Colombia had met the 30 % protection target (Fig. 2
B) while Costa Rica, Mexico, Ecuador, and Nicaragua had only met Aichi
Target 11 (i.e., 10 % protection) (Fig. 2 B).
reduce shark mortality. In the subsequent models, we tested the sensi
Countries with noteworthy no-take MPA expansion during the
tivity of the results to the cumulative addition of each question from 4 to
2010–2023 period included Chile (23.5 %), Panama (13.7 %), and
7.
Mexico (10.3 %; Fig. 2 A). Notable no-take MPA extents (i.e., ≥7 %)
were noted for Chile, Panama, Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, and
2.7. Congruence among indicators of protection Ecuador. In the remaining countries, no-take MPA extent was less than
3 % (Fig. 2 B).
To understand the relative rank of each country and based on their
scores for all indicators measured, we mapped countries in a two- 3.3. Overlap between MPAs and ISRAs
dimensional space using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). There
were eleven indicators in total within three categories: (1) MPA All Central and South American Pacific ISRAs overlapped with
expansion and extent (four indicators: no-take MPA expansion country EEZs within this region to some extent (minimum overlap =
2010–2023, no-take MPA extent in 2023, all MPA expansion 8.9 %, mean = 61.3 %, max = 100 %; Table A2, A3). The highest
5
Fig. 1. A: Cumulative number and B: area, covered by marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Central and South American Pacific region over time. Bars on the right of
the plots show the percentage of MPAs that are considered no-take or partial MPAs. No-take zones within partial MPAs were considered IUCN Category II.
Fig. 2. A & B.: The percentage of waters covered by MPAs for each country in the Central and South American Pacific region. For those countries with a coastline on
the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, MPAs established on both coasts were considered for this analysis, providing an overall picture of the country’s MPA expansion during
the 2010–2023 period and extent in 2023. Dots show: A: (1) no-take MPA expansion from 2010 to 2023, and (2) all MPA expansion from 2010 to 2023. B: (1) no-take
MPA extent in 2023, and (2) all MPA extent in 2023. C: Percentage ISRAs overlap with MPA(s) by country of the Central and South American Pacific region. Values
are given both for all MPAs (blue) and no-take MPAs (green). The two dots are connected by a black line to emphasise the difference between no-take and all MPAs.
national level overlap between ISRAs and MPAs was in Colombia 6 ray species), and three at the genus level (two shark and one ray
(67.8 %), Mexico (51.8 %), Panama (37.9 %), Costa Rica (30.1 %), species) (Fig. 4 A; Table A4). No MPA management plans mentioned
Honduras (20.4 %), and Ecuador (19 %; Fig. 2 C). In all other countries, chimaeras as a Conservation Value. These 28 species represent 14.9 % of
the overlap between ISRAs and MPAs was <2 %. When considering no- the regional species richness and 29.2 % of the ISRA Qualifying Species
take MPAs only, overlap was highest in Mexico (40.8 %), Panama in the region. Whale Shark Rhincodon typus and Scalloped Hammerhead
(25.2 %), Colombia (14.9 %), Costa Rica (10.3 %), and Ecuador (6.8 %). Sphyrna lewini were the most frequently mentioned species, followed by
However, in each of the remaining seven countries, the overlap with all the Pacific Eagle Ray Aetobatus laticeps (Table A4).
MPAs was ≤0.2 %. Finally, at the scale of the combined area of all ISRAs, Seventeen (9.3 %) MPAs in six countries noted the extinction risk (i.
15.6 % overlapped with all MPAs, while 7.3 % overlapped with no-take e., Vulnerability) of sharks. Five MPAs (2.7 %) from three countries (El
MPAs (Fig. 3). Salvador, Costa Rica, and Colombia) included six range-restricted spe
cies as a Conservation Value (Table A4). Eighteen (9.9 %) MPAs rec
ognised the importance of considering habitats critical for the life-
3.4. Shark management robustness
history of sharks (e.g., reproduction, feeding, movement). Two MPAs
(1.1 %) recognised the importance of protecting shark diversity.
Of the 182 MPAs designated in the Central and South American
For each of the five models assessed, model comparison based on
Pacific region, 106 (58.2 %; 45 no-take and 61 partial) had a manage
AICc consistently revealed that the model incorporating both predictor
ment plan (60.2 % of the total MPA extent in the region). This varied
variables demonstrated the lowest AICc value (Table A5). All GLMMs
widely between countries with Nicaragua having the lowest number of
converged towards similar results, suggesting low sensitivity of the
MPAs with a management plan (n = 1; 20 % of its MPAs) and Costa Rica
index total score to question inclusion (Fig. 4). However, model fits
the highest (n = 22; 85 %). Twenty MPAs (11.0 %; including eleven no-
increased gradually with the addition of questions in the index’s total
take) in six countries included sharks as a Conservation Value. Twenty-
score, indicating better relationships with year of MPA establishment
eight were mentioned at the species level (19 shark and nine ray spe
and MPA size as more questions were added (Fig. 4 B; inset plot). The
cies), including 20 species globally threatened with extinction (14 shark;
6
Fig. 3. Central and South American Pacific region (boundaries are indicated by the black box in maps A and B). A: Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRAs; pink
areas), and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs; grey lines). Three-letter codes inside the EEZs represent the corresponding jurisdictions. CHL, Chile; COL, Colombia;
CRI, Costa Rica; ECU, Ecuador; FRA, France; GTM, Guatemala; HND, Honduras; MEX, Mexico; NIC, Nicaragua; PAN, Panama; PER, Peru; SLV, El Salvador. B: Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs); C: Overlap between ISRAs and no-take MPAs (green), and with partial MPAs (blue).
Shark Robustness Management Index for MPAs in the region ranged the second axis (27.7 %) distinguished countries with higher MPA
from 0 to 6 (mean = 1.45, SD = 1.38), out of a maximum possible score governance (positive axis 2 values) from those having high MPA extent
of 7. Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador had the highest score and expansion (negative axis 2 values; Fig. 5 A). Consensus among the
(Fig. 4 B). Year of MPA establishment and MPA size were both signifi clustering indices suggested that there were three major groups of
cant predictors (Table A6). Year of MPA establishment was negatively countries (Fig. 5 B). Mexico, Colombia, and Costa Rica (Group 1) had
related to Shark Robustness Management Index (Fig. 4 C), whereas MPA relatively high values of all three categories of indicators (positive axis 1
size was positively related (Fig. 4 D). values; mid axis 2 values). Chile and Panama (Group 2) had high MPA
extent and expansion but a low recognition of sharks in governance
frameworks (negative side of axis 2). Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, El
3.5. Congruence among indicators of protection
Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua (Group 3) had the lowest values for
all three categories (mid and negative axis 1 values; Fig. 5 B).
The first axis of the PCA (57.5 % of variation explained) ranked
countries according to all three categories (MPA extent and expansion,
MPA overlap with ISRAs, and MPA governance) with positive values
having high scores and negative values low scores (Fig. 5 A). In contrast,
7
Fig. 4. A – The species considered of Conservation Value in MPA management plans and their global IUCN Red List threat status. ‘NA’ denotes a grouping of species
without an IUCN Red List status. B -D Results of Shark Robustness Management Index for Central and South American Pacific region MPAs as obtained from
Generalised Linear Mixed-effects Models. Models were computed with the maximum score of the index gradually increasing from 3 to 7 (as indicated by the legend;
for further details refer to Methods). B - Estimates (black points) and 95 % confidence intervals (black lines) for each country (predicted random effects). The inset
bar plot in the bottom right corner shows the R-squared values (marginal [R2m; purple] and conditional [R2c; black]) of each model. C - Marginal effects of year of
MPA establishment to the index. D - Marginal effects of MPA size on the index.
4. Discussion shark habitats (i.e., ISRAs) highlighting that current MPAs are likely to
offer limited protection for sharks and the habitats they depend on.
Our results highlight a rapid expansion in MPAs designation in the Here, we consider and discuss: (1) the expansion of MPAs in the region
Central and South American Pacific region from 2010 to 2023. This and mismatch with ISRAs; (2) the governance structure of MPAs in
trend varied significantly between countries that are at diverging stages relation to shark conservation; and (3) the use of ISRAs in marine spatial
of reaching global biodiversity targets. Over 40 % of designated MPAs planning. Our findings provide an opportunity to ensure shark-specific
do not have management plans with shortcomings also identified in needs are incorporated into future MPA design and establishment in
existing governance frameworks with regards to shark, ray, and the region.
chimaera (hereafter ‘shark’) conservation. Further, in most countries,
there is a clear mismatch between no-take MPAs and identified critical
8
Fig. 5. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of all indicators of protection (eleven indicators in total, belonging to three categories: MPA extent and expansion
(black), MPA overlap with ISRAs (blue) and MPA governance in relation to shark conservation (green). A: Indicators’ scores in the PCA. Indicators are coloured by
their respective category and the black segments point to the centroid of the index scores by category. B: Countries’ scores in the PCA.
4.1. MPA expansion and mismatch with ISRAs with the life-history and movement ecology of species [27] are consid
ered. This is especially the case since almost half of MPAs in the Central
Commitments to Aichi Target 11 prompted countries to establish and South American Pacific do not have management plans. For
MPAs in the region, which resulted in a nine-fold increase in their extent instance, while Chile and Panama have already protected over 40 % of
between 2010–2023. Still, despite Panama, Chile, and Colombia having their waters, only about 30 % of their MPAs have published manage
protected over 30 % of their waters, several countries have yet to ach ment plans. While an MPA declaration is a start, implementation and
ieve global conservation goals. In fact, Guatemala, El Salvador, effective management is required to achieve species recoveries. Without
Honduras, and Peru have also yet to reach the 10 % stipulated under management plans, MPAs are essentially ‘paper parks’ that offer limited
Aichi Target 11. If we consider the current pattern of MPA expansion to protection to biodiversity ([17]; [59]).
assess likely performance against Target 3 of the GBF (30 % protected), With 36 % of ISRAs occurring in the high seas and no overlap with
many countries in this region are unlikely to meet this target without existing MPAs, these areas do not currently benefit from any area-based
dedicated effort and action. management. Habitats and ecosystems in the high seas are often over
While MPAs are a key mechanism for preserving marine and coastal looked and generally some of the least protected on Earth [4]. The
biodiversity, those that allow fishing cannot maintain all levels of identification of ISRAs in oceanic and/or areas beyond national juris
biodiversity in a natural condition [46]. Even with the rise in MPA diction has the potential to guide the design of large, offshore, dynamic,
establishment over the last decade, no-take MPAs coverage in the Cen or mobile MPAs that can ensure shark protection requirements are met
tral and South American Pacific region has remained low. Overall, with [60]. Some countries have moved away from focusing only on
7.7 % of waters covered by MPAs, only 3.7 % have been designated as conserving coastal habitats and increased protection by designating
no-take MPAs. Notwithstanding potential fisheries measures in place in oceanic MPAs (e.g., the Galapagos Marine Reserve in Ecuador, Revilla
each country, this leaves 96.3 % of the region subject to fishing. With gigedo Archipelago in Mexico, and Rapa Nui and Salas y Gómez in
overfishing being the main threat to sharks [8], this low coverage is a Chile). This has ensured protection is ‘representative’ of different hab
significant concern for their conservation. Our results suggest that itats while countries inched closer to meeting their global targets [61].
sharks in this region would likely receive twice as much spatial pro This trend of designating oceanic MPAs within EEZs and in the high seas
tection if existing MPAs did not allow fishing within their boundaries (i. is likely to continue increasing due to political and ecological reasons
e., 15.6 % of ISRAs overlapped with MPAs, while only 7.3 % overlapped [4]. Four transboundary MPAs encompassing high seas waters have
with no-take MPAs) and were well monitored and enforced, without the already been established globally, including the Pelagos Sanctuary for
need to establish new MPAs. El Salvador and Guatemala have yet to marine mammals in the Mediterranean Sea [62,63]. Costa Rica,
establish no-take MPAs, while others have few (e.g., Honduras, Ecuador, Panama, and Colombia have committed to join their marine
Nicaragua, and Peru). Delineated ISRAs in these countries therefore reserves to form one interconnected area known as the Eastern Tropical
provide an opportunity for countries to expand the protection level of Pacific Marine Corridor [64], where there is evidence of ecological
existing partial MPAs to ensure that critical shark habitat can be pre connectivity for sharks [21], also confirmed through the ISRA process
served. This is especially important since we also found a high degree of [40]. The impending ratification of the High Seas Treaty now offers a
mismatch between MPAs and ISRAs with 84.4 % of critical shark habitat legal framework for the designation of protected areas in international
not overlapping with designated MPAs. Only Mexico, Panama, waters which can conserve biodiversity [28]. There are no guarantees
Colombia, Costa Rica, and Ecuador had designated no-take MPAs that that MPAs established in the high seas will be designed to regulate
markedly overlap (range 6.8–40.8 %) with ISRAs within their EEZs. The fisheries and this mandate might remain with existing Regional Fisheries
remaining countries had less than 0.2 % of ISRAs under full protection. Management Organizations [28]. Nevertheless, having ISRAs delineated
While no-take MPAs have been shown to support the protection and in the high seas provides an opportunity to ensure that shark conser
recovery of reef shark populations (e.g., [22,58]), there remains vation is considered in two-thirds of the ocean and offers some hope for
considerable uncertainty on how no-take Central and South American threatened populations of species that can migrate across entire ocean
Pacific MPAs might be benefiting shark conservation when factors such basins. Ocean governance needs to be considered and multilateral
as protected area size, age, remoteness, and enforcement [23,50], along cooperation will be critical to ensure the establishment and enforcement
9
of these MPAs. known to occur within Costa Rica’s largest MPA, the Isla del Coco Na
Our findings provide insights into the overlap of known critical shark tional Park [73]. In Colombia, the declaration in 2021 of a blanket ban
habitat with MPAs, but we recognise that they only constitute a starting on all marine shark fishing in artisanal and industrial fisheries has been
point. It is important to note that using designated marine protected criticised for its potential to drive fishing and trade underground, fuel
areas only for analysis may conceal and lead to the omission of locally criminality, and marginalise fisher communities [66,68]. Sharks are
important conservation areas (e.g., [43]). Other area-based manage vital components of livelihoods, economies, and food security in these
ment conservation tools, which may or may not have management countries [66] and therefore prohibiting shark fishing and implementing
priorities directly related to biodiversity conservation, can also provide measures to reduce bycatch without considerations for the livelihoods of
broader benefits [17,61] and contribute to reducing shark mortality. For Indigenous and local communities can have significant impacts and
example, Golfo Dulce in Costa Rica, which overlaps with an ISRA, has exacerbate challenges in compliance and enforcement. This is especially
been designated as a Responsible Marine Fishing Area where some true since there are very few programs across the region that provide
fishing gears have been banned (I. Zanella, pers. obs.). Honduras has economic alternatives to the shark artisanal fishers, such as ecotourism
been declared a Shark Sanctuary where targeted shark fisheries are or aquaculture (e.g., [68]). Therefore, when planning and delineating
banned across EEZ waters (G. Ochoa, pers. obs.). While noting that in new or existing MPAs, it is important to ensure ecological and
most situations there are still challenges with implementation and socio-economic outcomes are considered so that nature, and the people
dealing with the incidental catch of sharks, a comprehensive overview of that depend on it, can benefit from the establishment of the MPA
the overlap of management areas (e.g., shark sanctuaries, areas with (Manghbjai et al., 2015; [74]). Understanding the value and use of
seasonal fishing closures, or where gear restrictions are enforced) with aquatic ecosystems by local communities is relevant to MPA design, as
ISRAs is needed to fully understand the contribution of various these factors can be opportunities or challenges to MPA success [75,76].
area-based management approaches to shark conservation. Overall, it appears that protected areas that ban fishing (i.e., no-take) are
often perceived as leading to direct economic losses by displacing and
4.2. MPA governance structure reducing fishing effort (e.g., [77]). Critical to the success of MPAs is
therefore consultation with local communities during the design phase
Our review of MPA management plans highlighted an overall low and when developing regulations [78]. In Costa Rica, partially protected
level of recognition of sharks with only 11 % of these highlighting sharks areas have more support than no-take MPAs by fishers and working with
as a Conservation Value. Most ISRA Qualifying Species (70.8 %) are not the fishing sector ensures their commitment and active participation in
considered as Conservation Value in MPAs of the Central and South the establishment of new MPAs (M. Espinoza, pers. obs.). In the
American region. This focused primarily on a few charismatic species Colombian Pacific, partial MPAs declared with the active involvement of
already protected nationally or listed on international conservation fishing communities have facilitated their participation in important
treaties (e.g., Whale Shark and Scalloped Hammerhead). The utilitarian processes such as control and surveillance and the establishment of
value of these species was most highlighted in management plans and management agreements (P. Mejía-Falla pers. obs.). In this context,
this pattern was also consistent with these species being those with the delineated ISRAs can be used to design new partial/multiple-use MPAs
highest dive tourism value within these protected areas [64]. This biased that incorporate no-take zones or include resource use areas that pro
prioritization undermines the protection of shark biodiversity. For MPAs hibit or manage (e.g., temporal closures, use of deterrents, post-capture
to be effective at conserving sharks, management plans need to incor handling) the use of fishing gears that interact with sharks (e.g., gillnets,
porate critical shark habitat and clearly identify the susceptibility of longlines, trawls) in consultation with fishing communities.
these species to extractive activities within the area and set objectives Ecological factors are also a key consideration in MPA planning, as
and strategies to reduce their impact. Readily available ISRA informa most MPAs aim to preserve marine biodiversity. Although this study
tion can directly be used for the development of such management focuses on sharks, this group of fishes can be used as indicators of
plans. Our results indicate that most MPAs in this region have been ecological health, environmental quality, and biodiversity and abun
designed without considering the basic ecology of the species they are dance of other marine taxa [79], [80,81]). Therefore, sharks could be
trying to protect (e.g., [65]). Management Robustness Index scores also used as umbrella species whose presence or abundance provide infor
decreased with increasing years of MPA establishment. This suggests mation about the state of an ecosystem [82,79,81]. Umbrella species
that most recently established MPAs either were not designed to protect have been successfully used to select where protected areas should be
sharks or lack clear management plans addressing the protection of established and to monitor the outcomes of their implementation [83,
critical shark habitats. These scores underline a lack of political will and 84].
the need to develop, incorporate, and implement robust plans for shark Albeit a relatively low percentage, the mention of sharks does indi
management in current and future MPAs in the Central and South cate acknowledgment of the importance of sharks, and some political
American Pacific region. In this sense, ISRAs are essential tools that can will to address issues related to their conservation that can be capitalised
allow governments to take immediate steps to better incorporate sharks on (e.g., [85]). Across most countries in this region, shark species are
into MPA management and allow MPA practitioners to accelerate the often solely considered as a fishery resource and are not considered in
development of objectives and strategies to reduce shark mortality, national extinction risk assessments which is an important step towards
including monitoring indicators that can inform on the status of shark designing conservation measures [86,87]. Still Colombia, Mexico, and
populations in relation to MPA boundaries. Costa Rica, which have the highest scores in terms of governance
The differences in MPA management plans are likely due to the framework in the region, have recognized the threatened status of sharks
various political climates across the region, legislative requirements, through a national extinction risk status. This may indicate commitment
resource availability, and community acceptance. Even a clear political to increasingly consider sharks in the context of biodiversity conserva
will to conserve and recover shark species requires overcoming signifi tion and eventually in the design and establishment of MPAs. Indeed,
cant monitoring and enforcement challenges. This is largely due to lack Ecuador has already designated MPAs based on available information on
of coordination between government agencies, corruption, internal shark migration patterns (Hermandad Marine Reserve) and on the
conflicts, and overall limited capacity to monitor and enforce fisheries identification of reproductive areas (Puerto Cabuyal) (E. Espinoza, pers.
regulation due to inadequate resources and limited public participation obs.), although a management plan for the latter has yet to be published.
in decision-making [66,64,67,68]. Despite their legal designation, Further, some of the countries with low performance on the Shark
varying levels of illegal extractive activities often occur in MPAs with Robustness Management Index are showing signs of increasing marine
evidence that illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing activ protection for sharks. For example, the government of Guatemala is
ities persist [69-72]. For example, illegal fishing of large pelagic fish is considering expanding current protected areas with a new proposed
10
MPA, Las Lisas. This proposed MPA overlaps with an ISRA and its draft effectiveness of their current area-based management approaches for the
management plan includes hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae) as species conservation of sharks. Important Shark and Ray Areas are a new tool in
of Conservation Value (A. Hacohen-Domené and C. Avalos-Castillo, biodiversity conservation that can benefit shark populations and will
pers. obs.). The Ministry of Environment in Peru has also proposed a prove essential in informing which areas should be prioritised in spatial
new MPA that overlaps with an ISRA where the Whale Shark is planning. Critical to these efforts is the incorporation of research and
considered as a Conservation Value, representing the first time a shark is monitoring components to ensure that the impact and recovery of spe
considered as a priority in Peruvian MPAs (A. Gonzalez-Pestana, pers. cies (especially those considered threatened) can be measured and
obs.). evaluated.
Our study does not evaluate implementation and management While a critical element of conservation, protected areas alone will
effectiveness, but only the governance framework and representation of not solve the shark biodiversity crisis. To optimise biodiversity conser
critical shark habitat by MPAs. Further research is needed to incorporate vation outcomes, we suggest that these should be used in conjunction
information on the validity of available management plans (i.e., whether with similar spatial-based initiatives to identify critical areas and to
they have been updated since they were developed), operational design and/or support networks of MPAs in national and international
monitoring indicators and targets, and enforcement assessments of waters while taking into account factors such as connectivity and socio-
MPAs to allow for a critical evaluation of management effectiveness [88] economic considerations. Effective shark conservation will further
and whether they are benefiting shark conservation. require a multi-pronged approach to recognize sharks as wildlife and a
component of biodiversity rather than simply a fishery resource. The
4.3. Use of Important Shark and Ray Areas in marine spatial planning implementation and monitoring of fisheries and trade management
measures is essential in this regard. However, the delineation of ISRAs
Amidst the likely upcoming race to meet protected area coverage now provides an opportunity to ensure that the most important sites for
targets (i.e., 30×30), it is important for countries to have tools such as sharks are properly designated as we move closer to implementing our
ISRAs available to make decisions on protecting areas that can goal to conserve 30 % of the planet by 2030.
contribute to shark conservation, rather than protecting areas oppor
tunistically because of few competing interests [89]. The ISRA approach CRediT authorship contribution statement
can help achieve conservation targets by defining which processes are
most important for critical shark habitat protection and delineating Théophile L Mouton: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
these areas of importance. Our study revealed positive trends and draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
shortfalls in MPA governance across the Central and South American Adriana Gonzalez-Pestana: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
Pacific region. These can be used by stakeholders to further design or original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptu
improve MPA governance in the region. By assessing MPA overlap with alization. Christoph Rohner: Writing – review & editing. Ryan
critical shark habitat, we highlight where current MPA coverage gaps Charles: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Conceptualization.
exist, which can inform future planning and evaluation of important Emiliano García-Rodríguez: Writing – review & editing, Data curation,
biodiversity conservation measures [90,91]. The framework used in this Conceptualization. Peter Kyne: Writing – review & editing, Data cura
study can also be used as a baseline for further research to model and tion, Conceptualization. Amanda Batlle-Morera: Writing – review &
identify drivers of MPA governance across nations. As countries mobilise editing, Data curation, Conceptualization. Giuseppe Notarbartolo di
to meet the 30×30 target, resource managers will strive to identify new Sciara: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Conceptualization.
MPAs, designate existing partially protected areas as no-take zones, or Asia Armstrong: Writing – review & editing. Enzo Acuña: Writing –
reshape the boundaries of existing MPAs. Considering ISRAs as a key review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto:
component in spatial planning, along with the integration of other Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Randall Arauz:
area-based or seascape of biodiversity importance approaches (e.g., Key Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Cristopher
Biodiversity Areas [KBAs; [92]]; Ecologically or Biologically Significant Avalos-Castillo: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation.
Marine Areas [EBSAs; [93]]; Important Marine Mammal Areas [IMMAs; Ely Augustinus: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation.
[94,95]]) can further ensure that areas of high biodiversity are Sandra Bessudo: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation.
protected. Enrique Barraza: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation.
It is key that any future MPA expansions do not simply increase MPA Carlos Bustamante: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data
size, but also perform effectively against the overarching goal of pre curation. Elpis Chávez: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data
serving biodiversity. This approach will avoid areas simply becoming curation. Eduardo Espinoza: Writing – review & editing, Resources,
‘paper parks’. We also note that expansions will need to be coupled with Data curation. Mario Espinoza: Writing – review & editing, Resources,
support from local communities. Sharks are commercially important Data curation. Ana Hacohen-Domené: Writing – review & editing,
species and potential impacts on industry and communities need to be Resources, Data curation. Alex Hearn: Writing – review & editing, Re
considered. In partial MPAs that include sustainable fisheries objectives, sources, Data curation. Grettel Hernández Fernández: Writing – re
ISRAs can provide a strong foundation for delineating robust and view & editing, Resources, Data curation. Felipe Galvan-Magana:
effective zoning for well-designed no-take or multi-purpose areas that Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. José González-
can confer shark conservation benefits. Further, ISRAs should be Leiva: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. James
considered when designing fisheries and other management strategies, Ketchum: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Felipe
such as regulating gear use or prioritising improved enforcement in Ladino: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Frida
delineated areas. Lara Lizardi: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation.
Jorge Morales-Saldaña: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data
5. Conclusions curation. Naiti Morales Serrano: Writing – review & editing, Re
sources, Data curation. Jeffry Madrigal-Mesén: Writing – review &
For the global 30×30 target to be met, recurrent assessments of editing, Resources, Data curation. Paola Mejía-Falla: Writing – review
protected area extent, governance, and coverage of biodiversity are & editing, Resources, Data curation. Andrés Navia: Writing – review &
necessary [96]. There are large disparities in MPA extent and overlap editing, Resources, Data curation. Gabriela Ochoa: Writing – review &
with ISRAs across countries in the Central and South American Pacific editing, Resources, Data curation. Marta Palacios: Writing – review &
region. These results hold important management implications and editing, Resources, Data curation. Cesar Peñaherrera-Palma: Writing –
provide opportunities for decision-makers and managers to evaluate the review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Francisco Polanco-
11
Vasquez: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Yehudi [9] Constance, J., Ebert, D.A., Fahmi, Finucci, B., Simeon, B. & Kyne, P.M. 2023.
Urolophus javanicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2023: e.
Rodríguez-Arriatti: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data cura
T60095A229337053.
tion. Luz Erandi Saldaña Ruiz: Writing – review & editing, Resources, [10] S. Dedman, J.H. Moxley, Y.P. Papastamatiou, M. Braccini, J.E. Caselle, D.
Data curation. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki: Writing – review & editing, Re D. Chapman, J.E. Cinner, E.M. Dillon, N.K. Dulvy, R.E. Dunn, Ecological roles and
sources, Data curation. Javier Tovar-Ávila: Writing – review & editing, importance of sharks in the Anthropocene Ocean, Science 385 (6708) (2024)
adl2362.
Resources, Data curation. Angel Vega: Writing – review & editing, [11] K.I. Flowers, M.R. Heithaus, Y.P. Papastamatiou, Buried in the sand: Uncovering
Resources, Data curation. Ximena Velez-Zuazo: Writing – review & the ecological roles and importance of rays, Fish Fish 22 (1) (2021) 105–127.
editing, Resources, Conceptualization. Melany Villate-Moreno: [12] J.K. Baum, B. Worm, Cascading top-down effects of oceanic predators, J. Anim.
Ecol. 78 (2009) 699–714.
Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Ilena Zanella: [13] M.R. Heithaus, A. Frid, A.J. Wirsing, B. Worm, Predicting ecological consequences
Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curation. Rima Jabado: of marine top predator declines, Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 202–210.
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project [14] J.R. Allan, H.P. Possingham, S.C. Atkinson, A. Waldron, M. Di Marco, S.
H. Butchart, V.M. Adams, W.D. Kissling, T. Worsdell, C. Sandbrook, The minimum
administration, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity, Science 376
(6597) (2022) 1094–1101.
[15] R.T. Corlett, Safeguarding our future by protecting biodiversity, Plant Divers. 42
(4) (2020) 221–228.
Declaration of Competing Interest [16] J.E.M. Watson, N. Dudley, D.B. Segan, M. Hockings, The performance and potential
of protected areas, Nature 515 (2014) 67–73.
The authors confirm there are no competing interests. [17] K. Grorud-Colvert, J. Sullivan-Stack, C. Roberts, V. Constant, B.H.E. Costa, E.
P. Pike, N. Kingston, D. Laffoley, E. Sala, J. Claudet, A.M. Friedlander, D.A. Gill, S.
E. Lester, J.C. Day, E.J. Gonçalves, G.N. Ahmadia, M. Rand, A. Villagomez, N.
Acknowledgements C. Ban, J. Lubchenco, The MPA guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the
ocean. Science 373 (6560) (2021) eabf0861, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
abf0861.
This project was funded by the Shark Conservation Fund, a philan [18] Z.M. Topor, D.B. Rasher, J.E. Duffy, S.J. Brandl, Marine protected areas enhance
thropic collaborative pooling expertise and resources to meet the threats coral reef functioning by promoting fish biodiversity, Conserv. Lett. 12 (4) (2019)
facing the world’s sharks and rays. The Shark Conservation Fund is a e12638.
[19] P.S. Albano, C. Fallows, M. Fallows, O. Schuitema, A.T. Bernard, O. Sedgwick,
project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. The Important Shark and N. Hammerschlag, Successful parks for sharks: No-take marine reserve provides
Ray Areas (ISRA) team would like to recognize contributions to the conservation benefits to endemic and threatened sharks off South Africa, Biol.
project by Dr Mark Priest and Daniel Fernando and are grateful for their Conserv. 261 (2021) 109302.
[20] M.E. Bond, J. Valentin-Albanese, E.A. Babcock, D. Abercrombie, N.F. Lamb,
support. Special thanks are also extended to the Important Shark and A. Miranda, E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Chapman, Abundance and size structure of a reef
Ray Areas Independent Review Panel composed of Dr Colin Simpfen shark population within a marine reserve has remained stable for more than a
dorfer, Dr Ana Barbosa Martins, Dr Ryan Daly, and Dr Vanessa Jaiteh decade, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 576 (2017) 1–10.
[21] A.P. Klimley, R. Arauz, S. Bessudo, E.J. Chávez, N. Chinacalle, E. Espinoza,
who provided guidance and feedback on all ISRA proposals. Finally, we J. Green, A.R. Hearn, M.E. Hoyos-Padilla, E. Nalesso, Studies of the movement
thank all those who contributed their knowledge and expertise to help ecology of sharks justify the existence and expansion of marine protected areas in
delineate Important Shark and Ray Areas and Areas of Interest in the the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Environ. Biol. Fishes (2022) 1–21.
[22] C.W. Speed, M. Cappo, M.G. Meekan, Evidence for rapid recovery of shark
Central and South American Pacific region. populations within a coral reef marine protected area, Biol. Conserv. 220 (2018)
308–319.
[23] R.G. Dwyer, N.C. Krueck, V. Udyawer, M.R. Heupel, D. Chapman, H.L. Pratt,
Appendix A. Supporting information
R. Garla, C.A. Simpfendorfer, Individual and population benefits of marine reserves
for reef sharks, Curr. Biol. 30 (3) (2020) 480–489, e485.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the [24] C.A. Birkmanis, J.C. Partridge, L.W. Simmons, M.R. Heupel, A.M. Sequeira, Shark
online version at doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106448. conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection, Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 21 (2020)
e00862.
[25] A. Chin, F.J. Molloy, D. Cameron, J.C. Day, J. Cramp, K.L. Gerhardt, M.R. Heupel,
Data availability M. Read, C.A. Simpfendorfer, Conceptual frameworks and key questions for
assessing the contribution of marine protected areas to shark and ray conservation,
Conserv. Biol. 37 (1) (2023) e13917.
All ISRA data are available freely online. The remaining data will be [26] R. Daly, M.J. Smale, S. Singh, D. Anders, M. Shivji, C.A.K. Daly, J.S. Lea, L.L. Sousa,
available upon request. All code associated with this work will be B.M. Wetherbee, R. Fitzpatrick, Refuges and risks: Evaluating the benefits of an
uploaded onto GitHub upon acceptance of the manuscript expanded MPA network for mobile apex predators, Divers. Distrib. 24 (9) (2018)
1217–1230.
[27] M.R. Heupel, C.A. Simpfendorfer, M. Espinoza, A.F. Smoothey, A. Tobin,
References V. Peddemors, Conservation challenges of sharks with continental scale migrations,
Front. Mar. Sci. 2 (2015) 12.
[28] J. Claudet, C.M. Brooks, R. Blasiak, Making protected areas in the high seas count,
[1] R. Dirzo, H.S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N.J. Isaac, B. Collen, Defaunation in
Science 380 (6643) (2023) 353–354.
the Anthropocene, Science 345 (6195) (2014) 401–406.
[29] D. Pelletier, Assessing the Effectiveness of Coastal Marine Protected Area
[2] S.T. Turvey, J.J. Crees, Extinction in the Anthropocene, Curr. Biol. 29 (19) (2019)
Management: Four Learned Lessons for Science Uptake and Upscaling, 2020 |,
982–986.
Front. Mar. Sci. 7 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.545930.
[3] B.S. Halpern, M. Frazier, J. Potapenko, K.S. Casey, K. Koenig, C. Longo, J.
[30] H. Carr, M. Abas, L. Boutahar, O.N. Caretti, W.Y. Chan, A.S. Chapman, S.N. de
S. Lowndes, R.C. Rockwood, E.R. Selig, K.A. Selkoe, Spatial and temporal changes
Mendonça, A. Engleman, F. Ferrario, K.R. Simmons, The Aichi Biodiversity Targets:
in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean, Nat. Commun. 6 (1) (2015)
achievements for marine conservation and priorities beyond 2020, PeerJ 8 (2020)
1–7.
e9743.
[4] K.R. Jones, C.J. Klein, B.S. Halpern, O. Venter, H. Grantham, C.D. Kuempel,
[31] CBD) 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework. Fifteenth meeting.
N. Shumway, A.M. Friedlander, H.P. Possingham, J.E. Watson, The location and
Montreal, Canada. 〈https://www.cbd.int/gbf/〉.
protection status of Earth’s diminishing marine wilderness, Curr. Biol. 28 (15)
[32] A. Arneth, P. Leadley, J. Claudet, M. Coll, C. Rondinini, M.D. Rounsevell, Y.J. Shin,
(2018) 2506–2512, e2503.
P. Alexander, R. Fuchs, Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate
[5] D.J. McCauley, M.L. Pinsky, S.R. Palumbi, J.A. Estes, F.H. Joyce, R.R. Warner,
and food, Glob. Change Biol. (2023).
Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean, Science 347 (6219) (2015)
[33] Y.J. Shin, G.F. Midgley, E.R. Archer, A. Arneth, D.K. Barnes, L. Chan, S. Hashimoto,
1255641.
O. Hoegh-Guldberg, G. Insarov, P. Leadley, Actions to halt biodiversity loss
[6] L.R. Lemke, C.A. Simpfendorfer, Gillnet size selectivity of shark and ray species
generally benefit the climate, Glob. Change Biol. 28 (9) (2022) 2846–2874.
from Queensland, Australia, Fish. Manag. Ecol. (2023), https://doi.org/10.1111/
[34] C. Lopazanski, B. Foshay, J.L. Couture, D. Wagner, L. Hannah, E. Pidgeon,
fme.12620.
D. Bradley, Principles for climate resilience are prevalent in marine protected area
[7] D. Pauly, V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, F. Torres Jr, Fishing down marine
management plans, Conserv. Lett. (2023) e12972.
food webs, Science 279 (5352) (1998) 860–863.
[35] V. Capmourteres, M. Anand, Conservation value: a review of the concept and its
[8] N.K. Dulvy, N. Pacoureau, C.L. Rigby, R.A. Pollom, R.W. Jabado, D.A. Ebert,
quantification, Ecosphere 7 (10) (2016) e01476.
B. Finucci, C.M. Pollock, J. Cheok, D.H. Derrick, Overfishing drives over one-third
[36] C.A. Hyde, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, L. Sorrentino, C. Boyd, B. Finucci, S.
of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis, Curr. Biol. 31 (21) (2021)
L. Fowler, P.M. Kyne, G. Leurs, C.A. Simpfendorfer, M.J. Tetley, Putting sharks on
4773–4787, e4778.
12
the map: A global standard for improving shark area-based conservation, Front. [64] S.R. Enright, R. Meneses-Orellana, I. Keith, The Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine
Mar. Sci. (2022) 1660. Corridor (CMAR): The emergence of a voluntary regional cooperation mechanism
[37] P.M. Kyne, G.N. di Sciara, A.B. Morera, R. Charles, E.G. Rodríguez, D. Fernando, A. for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity within a
G. Pestana, M. Priest, R.W. Jabado, Important Shark and Ray Areas: a new tool to fragmented regional ocean governance landscape, Front. Mar. Sci. 569 (2021).
optimize spatial planning for sharks, Oryx 57 (2) (2023) 146–147. [65] N.A. Morales, M. Heidemeyer, R. Bauer, S. Hernández, E. Acuña, S.J. van Gennip,
[38] J.T. Pennington, K.L. Mahoney, V.S. Kuwahara, D.D. Kolber, R. Calienes, F. C.F. Gaymer, Residential movements of top predators in Chile’s most isolated
P. Chavez, "Primary production in the eastern tropical Pacific: A review.", Prog. marine protected area: Implications for the conservation of the Galapagos shark,
Oceanogr. 69 (2-4) (2006) 285–317. Carcharhinus galapagensis, and the yellowtail amberjack, Seriola lalandi, Aquat.
[39] IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. 2022a. Inventory of Knowledge: Geographic Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31 (2) (2021) 340–355.
Ranges of Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras in the Central and South American Pacific, [66] G.A. Castellanos-Galindo, P. Herron, A.F. Navia, H. Booth, Shark conservation and
Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRA) Region 12. August 2022. Dubai: IUCN SSC blanket bans in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3 (2021) e428,
Shark Specialist Group. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.428.
[40] Jabado, R.W., García-Rodríguez E., Kyne P.M., Charles, R., Gonzalez-Pestana A., [67] D.H. Guzmán, R.L. Mier, A. Vergara, C.B. Milanes, Marine protected areas in
Priest, M., Battle-Morera, A., Notarbartolo di Sciara G. (2023). Central and South Colombia: A historical review of legal marine protection since the late 1960’s to
American Pacific: A regional compendium of Important Shark and Ray Areas. IUCN 2023, Mar. Policy 155 (2023) 105726.
SSC Shark Specialist Group, Dubai, UAE. [68] V. Puentes, P.A. Mejía-Falla, J.G. Ramírez, L.M. Manjarrés-Martínez, J.
[41] IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. 2022b. Important Shark and Ray Area (ISRA): M. Rodriguez-Barón, L.A. Zapata, J. Tavera, F. Gómez-Delgado, C.G. Barreto,
Guidance on criteria application. Version 1, August 2022. Dubai: IUCN SSC Shark E. Zambrano, A.A. Villa, A.F. Navia, Analysis of sharks and marine batoids
Specialist Group. conservation measures in Colombia: implications for their populations and
[42] J. Day, N. Dudley, M. Hockings, G. Holmes, D. Laffoley, S. Stolton, S. Wells, stakeholders, Mar. Policy 145 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Guidelines for applying the IUCN Protected Area Management categories to marine marpol.2022.105264.
protected areas, Wenzel (2019). [69] Arias, A., Pressey, R.L., Jones, R.E., Álvarez-Romero, J. and Cinner, J.E. (2014).
[43] M.S. Farhadinia, A. Waldron, Ż. Kaszta, E. Eid, A. Hughes, H. Ambarlı, H. Al- Optimizando la coacción y el cumplimiento en áreas marinas protegidas oceánicas:
Hikmani, B. Buuveibaatar, M.A. Gritsina, I. Haidir, Current trends suggest most el caso del Parque Nacional Isla del Coco, Costa Rica.
Asian countries are unlikely to meet future biodiversity targets on protected areas. [70] A. Arias, R.L. Pressey, Combatting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing with
Communications, Biology 5 (1) (2022) 1221. information: a case of probable illegal fishing in the tropical Eastern Pacific, Front.
[44] E. Pebesma, Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data, Mar. Sci. 3 (2016) 13.
R. J. 10 (1) (2018) 439–446, https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009. [71] B.J. Bergseth, A. Arias, M.L. Barnes, I. Caldwell, A. Datta, S. Gelcich, S.H. Ham, J.
[45] Granizo, T., M. Molina, E. Secaira, B. Herrera, S. Benítez, O. Maldonado, M. Libby, D. Lau, C. Ruano-Chamorro, P. Smallhorn-West, Closing the compliance gap in
P. Arroyo, S. Ísola and M. Castro (2006). Manual de Planificación para la marine protected areas with human behavioural sciences, Fish Fish (2023).
Conservación de Áreas. PCA. Quito. TNC y USAID. [72] L.A. Carr, A.C. Stier, K. Fietz, I. Montero, A.J. Gallagher, J.F. Bruno, Illegal shark
[46] M.J. Costello, B. Ballantine, Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take fishing in the Galápagos Marine Reserve, Mar. Policy 39 (2013) 317–321.
Marine Reserves: 94% of Marine Protected Areas allow fishing, Trends Ecol. Evol. [73] Cristina González-Andrés, et al., Illegal fishing in Isla del Coco National Park:
30 (9) (2015) 507–509. Spatial-temporal distribution and the economic trade-offs, Mar. Policy 119 (2020)
[47] L.N. Davidson, N.K. Dulvy, Global marine protected areas to prevent extinctions, 104023.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 (2) (2017) 0040. [74] S. Sarker, M.J. Rahman, M.M. Rahman, M. Akter, M.S. Rahman, M.A. Wahab, MPA
[48] A.S. Rodrigues, S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, zoning integrating socio-ecological data in the South East coast of Bangladesh,
L.D. Fishpool, G.A. Da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, Effectiveness of the Mar. Policy 133 (2021) 104736.
global protected area network in representing species diversity, Nature 428 (6983) [75] P.F.M. Lopes, S. Pacheco, M. Clauzet, R.A.M. Silvano, A. Begossi, Fisheries,
(2004) 640–643. tourism, and marine protected areas: conflicting or synergistic interactions?
[49] C. Pimiento, C. Albouy, D. Silvestro, T.L. Mouton, L. Velez, D. Mouillot, A.B. Judah, Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015) 333–340.
J.N. Griffin, F. Leprieur, Functional diversity of sharks and rays is highly [76] T. MacKeracher, A. Diedrich, C.A. Simpfendorfer, Sharks, rays and marine
vulnerable and supported by unique species and locations worldwide. Nature, protected areas: A critical evaluation of current perspectives, Fish Fish 20 (2)
Communications 14 (1) (2023) 7691. (2019) 255–267.
[50] G.J. Edgar, R.D. Stuart-Smith, T.J. Willis, S. Kininmonth, S.C. Baker, S. Banks, N. [77] B.S. Halpern, S.D. Gaines, R.R. Warner, Confounding effects of the export of
S. Barrett, M.A. Becerro, A.T. Bernard, J. Berkhout, Global conservation outcomes production and the displacement of fishing effort from marine reserves, Ecol. Appl.
depend on marine protected areas with five key features, Nature 506 (7487) (2014) 14 (4) (2004) 1248–1256.
216–220. [78] P. Guidetti, M. Milazzo, S. Bussotti, A. Molinari, M. Murenu, A. Pais, N. Spanò,
[51] S.M. O’Regan, S.K. Archer, S.K. Friesen, K.L. Hunter, A global assessment of R. Balzano, T. Agardy, F. Boero, G. Carrada, R. Cattaneo-Vietti, A. Cau,
climate change adaptation in marine protected area management plans, Front. R. Chemello, S. Greco, A. Manganaro, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, G.F. Russo,
Mar. Sci. 8 (2021) 711085. L. Tunesi, Italian marine protected area effectiveness: does enforcement matter?
[52] D. Bates, M. Maechler, B. Bolker, S. Walker, Fitting linear mixed-effects models Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008) 699–709, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.013.
using lme4, J. Stat. Softw. 67 (1) (2015) 1–48, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067. [79] B.L. Gilby, A.D. Olds, R.M. Connolly, N.A. Yabsley, P.S. Maxwell, I.R. Tibbetts, D.
i01. S. Schoeman, T.A. Schlacher, Umbrellas can work under water: Using threatened
[53] C.M. Hurvich, C.L. Tsai, Regression and time series model selection in small species as indicator and management surrogates can improve coastal conservation,
samples, Biometrika (1989) 297–307. Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci. 199 (2017) 132–140.
[54] Lüdecke, et al., performance: An R Package for Assessment, Comparison and [80] H. Natsukawa, F. Sergio, Top predators as biodiversity indicators: A meta-analysis,
Testing of Statistical Models, J. Open Source Softw. 6 (60) (2021) 3139, https:// Ecol. Lett. 25 (9) (2022) 2062–2075.
doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139. [81] G.J. Osgood, M.E. McCord, J.K. Baum, Chondrichthyans as an umbrella species-
[55] Lüdecke D. (2023). _sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science_. R complex for conserving South African biodiversity, Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 42 (1) (2020)
package version 2.8.14, <〈https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot〉>. 81–93.
[56] S. Dray, A.B. Dufour, The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for [82] E. Fleishman, R.B. Blair, D.D. Murphy, Empirical validation of a method for
ecologists, J. Stat. Softw. 22 (2007) 1–20. umbrella species selection, Ecol. Appl. 11 (5) (2001) 1489–1501.
[57] M. Charrad, N. Ghazzali, V. Boiteau, A. Niknafs, NbClust: an R package for [83] T.M. Caro, S. Girling, Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone,
determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set, J. Stat. Softw. 61 (2014) Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species, Island Press, Washington, DC, 2010.
1–36. [84] F.M. Pouzols, A. Moilanen, A method for building corridors in spatial conservation
[58] M.E. Bond, E.A. Babcock, E.K. Pikitch, D.L. Abercrombie, N.F. Lamb, D. prioritization, Landsc. Ecol. 29 (2014) 789e801.
D. Chapman, Reef sharks exhibit site-fidelity and higher relative abundance in [85] A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, E.E. Becerril-García, O. Berdeja-Zavala, A. Ayala-
marine reserves on the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, PloS One 7 (3) (2012) e32983. Bocos, Shark ecotourism in Mexico: Scientific research, conservation, and
[59] V. Relano, D. Pauly, The Paper Park Index’: Evaluating Marine Protected Area contribution to a Blue Economy, in: Advances in Marine Biology, 85, Academic
Effectiveness Through A Global Study of Stakeholder Perspectives, Mar. Policy 151 Press, 2020, pp. 71–92.
(2023) 105571. [86] A. Gonzalez-Pestana, J. Alfaro-Shigueto, J.C. Mangel, A review of high trophic
[60] S.M. Maxwell, K.M. Gjerde, M.G. Conners, L.B. Crowder, Mobile protected areas for predator-prey relationships in the pelagic Northern Humboldt system, with a focus
biodiversity on the high seas, Science 367 (6475) (2020) 252–254. on anchovetas, Fish. Res. 253 (2022) 106386.
[61] M. Fernández, M. Rodríguez-Ruiz, S. Gelcich, L. Hiriart-Bertrand, J.C. Castilla, [87] J.T. Ketchum, M. Hoyos-Padilla, A. Aldana-Moreno, K. Ayres, F. Galván-Magaña,
Advances and challenges in marine conservation in Chile: A regional and global A. Hearn, F. Lara-Lizardi, G. Muntaner-López, M. Grau, A. Trejo-Ramírez, D.
comparison, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2021) 1–12, https://doi.org/ A. Whitehead, Shark movement patterns in the Mexican Pacific: a conservation and
10.1002/aqc.3570. management perspective. In, Adv. Mar. Biol. 85 (1) (2020) 1–37.
[62] K. Gjerde, L. Reeve, H. Harden-Davies, J. Ardron, R. Dolan, C. Durussel, S. Earle, J. [88] J. Geldmann, L. Coad, M. Barnes, I.D. Craigie, M. Hockings, K. Knights,
A. Jimenez, P. Kalas, D. Laffoley, N. Oral, Protecting Earth’s last conservation F. Leverington, I.C. Cuadros, C. Zamora, S. Woodley, N.D. Burgess, Changes in
frontier: scientific, management and legal priorities for MPAs beyond national protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis, Biol.
boundaries, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2016) https://doi.org/ Conserv. 191 (2015) 692–699.
10.1002/aqc.2646. [89] O. Venter, A. Magrach, N. Outram, C.J. Klein, H.P. Possingham, M. Di Marco, J.
[63] G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, T. Agardy, D. Hyrenbach, T. Scovazzi, P. Van Klaveren, E. Watson, Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term aspirations
The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. of biodiversity conventions, Conserv. Biol. 32 (1) (2018) 127–134.
Freshw. Ecosyst. 18 (2008) 367–391.
13
[90] S. Chan, S. Bauer, M.M. Betsill, F. Biermann, I. Boran, P. Bridgewater, H. Bulkeley, [94] G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, E. Hoyt, R. Reeves, J. Ardron, H. Marsh, D. Vongraven,
M.M. Bustamente, A. Deprez, F. Dodds, The global biodiversity framework needs a B. Barr, Place-based approaches to marine mammal conservation, Aquat. Conserv.:
robust action agenda, Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 (2) (2023) 172–173. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (2016) 85–100.
[91] M.A. MacNeil, D.D. Chapman, M. Heupel, C.A. Simpfendorfer, M. Heithaus, [95] M.J. Tetley, G.T. Braulik, C. Lanfredi, G. Minton, S. Panigada, E. Politi,
M. Meekan, E. Harvey, J. Goetze, J. Kiszka, M.E. Bond, Global status and M. Zanardelli, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, E. Hoyt, The Important Marine Mammal
conservation potential of reef sharks, Nature 583 (7818) (2020) 801–806. Area network: a tool for systematic spatial planning in response to the marine
[92] G. Eken, L. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L.D. Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, mammal habitat conservation crisis, Front. Mar. Sci. 9 (2022) 841789, https://doi.
P. Langhammer, P. Matiku, E. Radford, Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation org/10.3389/fmars.2022.841789.
targets, BioScience 54 (2004) 1110–1118. [96] S.L. Maxwell, V. Cazalis, N. Dudley, M. Hoffmann, A.S. Rodrigues, S. Stolton,
[93] CBD) (2008) Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention P. Visconti, S. Woodley, N. Kingston, E. Lewis, Area-based conservation in the
on Biological Diversity at its Ninth Meeting UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/20, p. 12. twenty-first century, Nature 586 (7828) (2020) 217–227.
14

Mouton Et Al - 2024 - ISRAs - LATAM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mouton Et Al - 2024 - ISRAs - LATAM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mouton Et Al - 2024 - ISRAs - LATAM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marine Policy 171 (2025) 106448

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Shortfalls in the protection of Important Shark and Ray Areas undermine

You might also like