India’s nearshore fisheries overlap with shark and ray habitats

Small-scale fishing along India’s coasts, often seen as sustainable, is emerging as a threat to sharks and rays.
Elasmobranchs need local management actions rooted in species biology. Current bans and protections often overlook elasmobranch breeding cycles, habitats, and species distribution, leaving vulnerable populations unprotected.
Effective conservation also requires participatory approaches that combine ecological research with fishers’ knowledge, ensuring both biodiversity and livelihoods are sustained.

Along the sun-baked shores of India, where fishing boats dot the horizon and seafood fuels local economies and communities, small-scale fishing is more than a livelihood — it’s a way of life for millions of fishers. Globally, small-scale fisheries support 90% of the world’s fishing population and account for at least 40% of the global fish catch.

Often overshadowed by industrial fleets, small-scale fishing is widely seen as more sustainable. Yet its scale tells a different story. Globally, more than 75% of coastal/elasmobranchs — sharks, rays and guitar fish — are threatened with extinction due to nearshore fisheries which are small-scale fishing activities that typically occur within a few kilometres from the shoreline. They overlap with critical habitats for sharks and rays, placing some of the ocean’s most vulnerable creatures at risk.

Sharks are routinely caught as part of almost every type of marine fishery, from small traditional boats to large industrial trawlers. India, once the world’s second-largest shark-catching nation, now ranks third. But this drop reflects declining populations, not reduced fishing pressure. With late maturation, slow growth and reproduction, elasmobranchs are vulnerable to fishing pressures and can struggle to recover once depleted.

A recent study from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, examined what drives nearshore elasmobranch catch at two major landing sites — Visakhapatnam on the east coast and Malvan on the west. They found that catch patterns are shaped by local factors such as species ecology, fishing gear diversity, number of fishing vessels, fishing frequency and even real-time knowledge-sharing among fisher networks.

“Small-scale fisheries in India are driven by daily decisions based on local fish ecology and environmental conditions, where fishers adapt their methods, like using hook and line or gillnets, depending on the species present. A blanket regulation, such as banning hook and line in a certain season, disregards this nuanced and practical knowledge of fishers,” says Imran Samad, research scholar at IISC and author of the study. The study suggests that conservation strategies must be rooted in local ecological realities and fisher practices.

Bamboo sharks are live along the coast, especially in areas with rocks and corals. A recent study found that nearshore elasmobranch catch patterns were influenced by local factors like fishing frequency. The study assessed two major landing sites — Visakhapatnam and Malvan. Image by Imran Samad. — Bamboo sharks live along the coast, especially in areas with rocks and corals. A recent study found that nearshore elasmobranch catch patterns were influenced by local factors like fishing frequency. The study assessed two major landing sites — Visakhapatnam and Malvan. Image by Imran Samad.

Two varied ecosystems and fishing approaches

The study highlights differences between the two sites. In Malvan, elasmobranchs were more dispersed across shallow, varied habitats, including estuaries, mangroves, and reefs. In Visakhapatnam, catches were concentrated in localised hotspots, likely reflecting targeted fishing practices. Despite greater fishing intensity in Malvan, catch probabilities and rates were higher in Visakhapatnam. Gillnets were the most effective gear for catching elasmobranchs. In Malvan, small-mesh gillnets caught a higher number of individuals, and large-mesh gillnets captured a more diverse mix of species, including guitarfish, rays, and small sharks. Meanwhile, in Visakhapatnam, both small- and large-mesh gillnets yielded similar species catch.

India’s marine waters host over 160 elasmobranch species, with a quarter of them threatened, including critically endangered species such as the scalloped hammerhead and the wide-nosed guitarfish. Most elasmobranch species rely on habitats near the continental shelf as breeding areas, feeding grounds and neonatal nurseries, where nearshore fishing activities take place.

Nearshore fishing activities are difficult to map. Some West Coast states define exclusive zones for small-scale fishing by depth, while others define them by distance from shore. Samad and team also report similar findings. Malvan’s fisheries operated mostly at 10–40 metres depth, within a mosaic of habitats including estuaries, mangroves, and reefs, which likely support a wider range of elasmobranch species. Conversely, Visakhapatnam’s fisheries operated in deeper waters but closer to the coast (2–15 km offshore), in areas altered by human activity and pollution and less suitable for elasmobranchs.

Small-scale fishing, with its wide range of practices and fluid definitions, is largely unregulated. The impact of small-scale fishing on sharks and rays is not well studied, and the available catch data are often underestimated. A few studies that exist highlight that the small-scale gillnet fleets that target tuna in India and Sri Lanka cause significant bycatch of dolphins, sea turtles, manta rays, and devil rays.

“Calling all nearshore activity ‘small-scale’ may be misleading. Gillnet and trawl fishing can have large impacts on bycatch and on particular species”, says Kartik Shanker, Professor, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and co-author of the study. “Fisheries need to be evaluated on the basis of the nature and amount of impact they have on species and ecosystems, with consideration of local livelihoods as well.”

Management policies left unimplemented

India has made policy strides in marine protection. In 2001, the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) added 10 species of sharks and rays under protection, followed in 2015 by a ban on shark fin exports. Today, 26 species are legally protected.

Yet these measures fall short in practice. Many species listed in WLPA are rarely encountered in Indian fisheries, and some such as the river shark and giant guitarfish — are not found in Indian waters at all, and the illegal shark fin trade continues despite the export ban.

A single spotted eagle ray caught in a trawler operating off the coast of Malvan. Its tail was chopped off to avoid injuries from its venomous barbs or stinger. Image by Imran Samad.

Another typical management strategy is seasonal fishing bans that aim to protect the breeding seasons of major commercial species. However, their effectiveness is limited, and their impact on elasmobranch remains largely unknown. Studies show these bans miss the breeding periods of about 60% of species, especially on the West Coast.

The mismatch between policy and fisheries biology, combined with weak monitoring and enforcement, continues to hinder the recovery of elasmobranch populations.

While export bans were designed to reduce demand, new drivers are emerging. Research by Divya Karnad of Ashoka University shows that local consumption and tourist appetite for shark meat — including juveniles — fuels targeted catches in some regions. Continuous removal of young and pregnant individuals from nursery and breeding habitats can undermine population recovery.

“Although India ranks among the top three shark-producing nations globally, elasmobranchs make up only 1-2% of the country’s total annual marine fish landings,” says Shoba Joe Kizhakudan, Head, Finfish Fisheries Division at ICAR-CMFRI, Kochi. “There are no large-scale, exclusively targeted fisheries for sharks and rays, except by a few communities”.

Traditional monitoring, experts argue, alone falls short, leaving critical gaps in our understanding of elasmobranch populations — their movements, genetic diversity, and population boundaries. Filling these gaps requires ecological and genetic research, alongside data from fisheries.

“Fisheries policies often prioritise economic growth, increased production, conflict reduction, etc. Biology and life history of individual species rarely feature in fisheries policy considerations. This needs to change if we are to create effective conservation strategies”, says Mayuresh Gangal, Nature Conservation Foundation, Bengaluru.

Bringing together ecology and local knowledge

Understanding species biology, together with fishers’ knowledge, is essential for developing context-specific management plans. Samad and team suggest that their study offers a robust approach to capture the dynamic and diverse nature of nearshore fisheries, providing insights to guide locally tailored conservation actions.

“With India’s complex fisheries involving multiple gears, fishing grounds, and species, developing and implementing localised management plans is not an easy task. However, participatory management and awareness among not only communities but also consumers can certainly help,” says Kizhakudan.

“I think it’s a three-part solution: understanding what needs to be done locally, figuring out how to implement it, and fully engaging local communities. Too often, they are left out of discussions, seen either as targets or passive recipients. The community and local governments are the main players. We are just facilitators bringing in knowledge. Once they are involved, we start to see new, more effective ways to solve the problem,” says Shanker.

When asked about the feasibility and efficacy of designing local-level action plans for elasmobranch conservation in India’s marine sector, Gangal says, “Management actions should match the scale at which biodiversity actually lives — its ecology and life history. For some species and situations, local measures are effective, like safeguarding nursery habitats of species like guitarfish or sawfish. For others, we need broader, even national policies. Conservation is effective where the scale of action fits the life history of the species.”

Banner image: A variety of sharks and rays caught in a trawler. Image by Imran Samad.