Does legislation affect elasmobranch conservation and research in Brazil? A case study from Paraná State

  • Natascha Wosnick UFPR
  • Aline Cristina Prado UFPR
  • Eloísa Pinheiro Giareta UFPR
  • Isis Danielle Cury da Cruz UFPR
  • Ingrid Hyrycena dos Santos Universidade do Vale de Itajaí
  • Renata Daldin Leite UFPR
Palavras-chave: artisanal fishing, processing, evisceration, beheading, endemic species, legislation.


In Brazil, regulations for fishing for elasmobranchs are scarce, as well as insufficient monitoring and management. The first catch regulation for the group was published in 1998 (IBAMA No. 121/98). Despite the ban on finning, the legislation provides legal support for evisceration and decapitation prior to landing. Such practices have become particularly problematic for proper monitoring since decharacterization impairs the correct identification of species. In addition, processing is detrimental to research, as many studies rely on sampling of biological material (e.g., blood), posing an additional challenge for researchers using commercial fishing animals for scientific purposes. This study aimed to characterize the frequency of this practice in a representative artisanal fishing community in the fishing of elasmobranchs. The three years of monitoring show that landing patterns of gutted and beheaded animals are influenced by the species caught and the catch volumes of the day. In addition, endangered species protected by legislation were mostly landed already processed. We discuss the findings focusing on the need to revise the legal framework for the commercial landing of elasmobranchs and possible promising ways to address this challenge.



Abercrombie DL, Clarke SC, Shivji MS. 2005. Global-scale genetic identification of hammerhead sharks: application to assessment of the international fin trade and law enforcement. Conservation genetics, 6(5), 775-788.

Anderson ED. 1990. Estimates of large shark catches in the Western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 1960–1986. In: Elasmobranchs as Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and the Status of the Fisheries. Proceedings of the Second United States–Japan Workshop East–West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9–14 December 1987, pp. 443–454. Ed. by H. L. Pratt, S. H.Gruber, and T. Taniuchi. NOAA Technical Report NMFS, 90. 518 pp.

Andriguetto-Filho JM, Chaves PT, Santos César, Liberati SA. 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do estado do Paraná. Martins, AS, Haimovici M, Andriguetto-Filho JM, A pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais, 117-140.

Barletta M, Lima AR, Dantas DV, Oliveira IM, Neto JR, Fernandes CA, ... and Costa MF. 2017. How can accurate landing stats help in designing better fisheries and environmental management for Western Atlantic estuaries?. Coastal Wetlands: Alteration and Remediation. pp. 631-703. Springer, Cham.

Barreto R, Ferretti F, Flemming JM, Amorim A, Andrade H, Worm B, Lessa R. 2016. Trends in the exploitation of South Atlantic shark populations. Conservation Biology. 30: 792-804.

Bornatowski H, Abilhoa V. 2012. Tubarões e raias capturados pela pesca artesanal no Paraná: guia de identificação. Hori Consultoria Ambiental. Hori Cadernos Técnicos, n° 4. 124 pp.

Bornatowski H, Braga RR, Vitule JRS. 2013. Shark mislabeling threatens biodiversity. Science, 340(6135): 923-923.

Bornatowski H, Braga RR, Barreto RP. 2018. Elasmobranchs Consumption in Brazil: Impacts and Consequences. Advances in Marine Vertebrate Research in Latin America. 251 – 62.

Bradai MN, Saidi B, Enajjar S. 2018. Overview on Mediterranean Shark’s Fisheries: Impact on the Biodiversity. Marine ecology: Biotic and abiotic interactions, 211-230.

Bunholi IV, da Silva Ferrette BL, De Biasi JB, de Oliveira Magalhães C, Rotundo MM, Oliveira C, Foresti F, Mendonça FF. 2018. The fishing and illegal trade of the angelshark: DNA barcoding against misleading identifications. Fisheries Research. 206:193–197.

Cardeñosa D, Quinlan J, Shea KH, Chapman DD. 2018. Multiplex real‐time PCR assay to detect illegal trade of CITES‐listed shark species. Scientific Reports, 8, 1–10.

Clarke S, Milner-Gulland EJ, Bjørndal T. 2007. Social, economic, and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics, 22(3), 305-327.

Coll M, Navarro J, Palomera I. 2013. Ecological role, fishing impact, and management options for the recovery of a Mediterranean endemic skate by means of food web models. Biological Conservation, 157, 108-120.

Compagno LJV. 1990. Shark exploitation and conservation. In: Elasmobranchs as Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and the Status of the Fisheries. Proceedings of the Second United States–Japan Workshop East–West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9–14 December 1987, pp. 391–414. Ed. by H. L. Pratt, S. H.Gruber, and T. Taniuchi. NOAA Technical Report NMFS,90. 518 pp.

Davidson LNK, Krawchuk MA, Dulvy NK. 2015. Why have global shark and ray landings declined: improved management or overfishing?. Fish and Fisheries, 17(2), 438-458.

Dent F, Clarke S. 2015. State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper (FAO), eng no. 590.

Domingues RR, Caltabellotta FP, Amorim AF. 2016. Length–length and length–weight relationships of Carcharhinus falciformis and C. signatus (Carcharhinidae: Carcharhinus) caught by commercial fisheries in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 6, 83-86.

Dulvy NK, Simpfendorfer CA, Davidson LNK, Fordham SV, Bräutigam A, Sant G, Welch DJ. 2017. Challenges and Priorities in Shark and Ray Conservation. Current Biology, 27(11): 565-572.

FAO. International plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. 2019. Web site. iSharkFin. FI Institutional Websites. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 24 March. [cited 23 jul 2019].

Feitosa LM, Martins APB, Giarrizzo T, Macedo W, Monteiro IL, Gemaque R, Nunes JLS, Gomes F, Schneider H, Sampaio I, Souza R, Sales JB, Rodrigues-Filho LF, Tchaicka L, Carvalho-Costa LF. 2018. DNA-based identification reveals illegal trade of threatened shark species in a global elasmobranch conservation hotspot. Scientific Reports. 8: 3347.

Gemaque R, Monteiro ILP, Gomes F, Sodré D, Sampaio I, Sales JBL, Rodrigues-Filho LFS. 2017. Why implement measures to conserve the diversity of Elasmobranchs? The case of the northern coast of Brazil. Revista da Biologia, 17(2), 1-7.

Giglio VJ, Bertoncini ÁA, Ferreira BP, Hostim-Silva M, Freitas MO. 2014. Landings of goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara, in Brazil: despite prohibited over ten years, fishing continues. Natureza & Conservação, 12(2), 118-123.

Gomes UL, Signori CN, Gadig OB, Santos HR. 2010. Guia para identificação de tubarões e raias do Rio de Janeiro. Technical Books, Rio de Janeiro.

Herrón P, Stäbler M, Castellanos-Galindo G, Díaz JM, Wolff M. 2019. Towards ecosystem-based assessment and management of small-scale and multi-gear fisheries: insights from the tropical eastern Pacific. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 127.

Holden MJ. 1974. Problems in the rational exploitation of elasmobranch populations and some suggested solutions. Sea Fisheries Research, pp. 117–137. Ed. by F. R.Harden-Jones. Paul Elek, London.

Iglésias SP, Toulhoat L, Sellos DY. 2010. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. Aquatic Conservation. 20(3):319-33.

Kolmann MA, Elbassiouny AA, Liverpool EA, Lovejoy NR. 2017. DNA barcoding reveals the diversity of sharks in Guyana coastal markets. Neotropical Ichthyology. 15(4), e170097

Ministério de Estado da Pesca e Aquicultura - MPA/Ministério do Meio Ambiente - MMA. 2012. Instrução Normativa n. 14, de 26 de novembro de 2012. Diário Oficial da União. 1:34-35.

Ministério do Meio Ambiente – MMA.1998. Portaria n. 121-N, de 24 de agosto de 1998. Diário Oficial da União.

PAN Tubarões - Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação dos Tubarões e Raias Marinhos Ameaçados de Extinção. 2014. Website. In: ICMBio - Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade [online]. Brasília. [cited 24 jul 2019].

Staffen CF, Staffen MD, Becker ML, Lofgren SE, Muniz YCN, de Freitas RHA, Marrero AR. 2017. DNA barcoding reveals the mislabeling of fish in a popular tourist destination in Brazil. Peerj. 5.

Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 476–494.

Thorson TB. 1987. Human impacts on shark populations. In: COOK, S.F. (ed.) Sharks – an injury into biology, behavior, fisheries and use. Oregon State University, USA. 31-37p.

Torres-Rojas YE, Hernández-Herrera A, Galván-Magaña F, Alatorre-Ramírez VG. 2010. Stomach content analysis of juvenile, scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini captured off the coast of Mazatlán, Mexico. Aquatic Ecology, 44(1), 301-308.

Vögler R, Milessi AC, Quiñones RA. 2003. Trophic ecology of Squatina guggenheim on the continental shelf off Uruguay and northern Argentina. Journal of Fish Biology, 62(6), 1254-1267.

Vooren CM, Klippel S. 2005. Diretrizes para a conservação de espécies ameaçadas de elasmobrânquios. Ações para a conservação de tubarões e raias no sul do Brasil, 213-228.

Walker TI. 1998. Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of shark fisheries. Marine and Freshwater research, 49(7), 553-572.