Annex 5
R. M. Oddenyo et al., Kenyan sharks baseline assessment report for the national
plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks (Kenya Fisheries
Service, 2018)
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
1
KENYA SHARKS BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL
PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
SHARKS
Oddenyo, R. M., Mueni, E., Kiilu, B., Wambiji, N., Abunge, C., Kodia, M. A., Obota, C., Musembi,
P., Muthiga, N., Bernard, J. and Mwasi, L. (2018) Kenyan shark baseline assessment report
for the national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Kenya
Fisheries Service.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
2
ABSTRACT
Shak ad a f a f Kea fih landings for a long period with records dating back to
the 1980s (Marshall, 1997). Out of a total of 45 species of sharks and rays that have a geographic
range including Kenyan waters and have been assessed by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 19 are classified as threatened globally in the Red List (IUCN,
2018) amounting to ~ 40% while 9 species representing ~20% are categorised as near threatened.
The remainder of species assessed and whose distribution spans Kenyan waters are either data
deficient or of least concern in the IUCN Red list contributing to ~25% and ~15% of sharks and
rays assessed in the country (IUCN, 2018). These findings are of much concern, and require
focused interventions. The process of drafting the National Plan of Action for Sharks and Rays
(NPOA-Sharks and Rays) was initiated by the State Department of Fisheries (SDF) in 2014 to
comply with the guiding principles established in the International Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), in line with the FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 2000). In 2017, the Kenya Fisheries Service (KeFS,
formerly the SDF) in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) set out to
complete this process. Kenya has now developed a baseline assessment report, which is an
important first step towards the development of a NPOA-Sharks and Rays for Kenya. This report
has been compiled by team of experts and collaborating organizations with the objective of
creating a fi e ad deelig Kea NPOA- Sharks and Rays.
Key words: Incidental catch, IUCN Red List, NPOA-Sharks, baseline assessment report
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Background 5
Oeie of Kena hak fihe 6
1.2.1 Off-shore fisheries 6
1.2.2 Inshore/ coastal fisheries 7
1.3 Origin and Purpose of the NPOA-Sharks 9
1.4 Objectives of the NPOA sharks 10
1.5 Data sources 11
1.6 The Shark Fishery in Kenya 12
2.0 SHARK CATCHES IN KENYAN FISHERIES 13
2.1 Catch trends in artisanal and semi-industrial fisheries 13
2.2 Shark catch species composition and its distribution in the artisanal and industrial
fisheries. 14
2.3 Shark Catches in recreational fisheries 18
2.4 . Fishing dynamics 20
2.4.1 Fishing craft and gears used in capturing sharks 20
2.4.2 Shark landings by gear 22
3.0 SHARK FISHERY STOCK STATUS AND BIOLOGY 25
3.1 Stock status 25
3.2 Biology of sharks 26
3.2.1 Feeding Ecology 26
3.2.2 Exploitation rates, mortality rates, length frequencies, size at maturity, breeding,
growth rates, CPUE, MSY 27
3.3 Sharks in Marine Protected Areas 28
4.0 SHARK TRADE AND MARKETS 30
4.1 Global shark catch and markets 30
4.2 Domestic markets for shark products 30
4.2.1 Trends in export and imports of shark products 30
4.3 Markets for other shark products 31
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
4
4.3.1 Shark fins 31
4.4 By-products associated with directed or target shark fisheries 32
4.5 Shark fishery value chain 33
4.6 Tourism 33
4.7 Socioeconomic significance of sharks and rays to coastal communities in Kenya 33
4.7.1 Livelihoods 34
4.7.2 Perceptions on shark and rays 35
7.0 DISCUSSION 36
8.0 GAPS ESTABLISHED IN THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THEIR
RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 38
9.0 REFERENCES 40
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Globally, shark populations in many coastal and open water ecosystems have substantially
decreased over the past few decades raising concerns on their diversity, abundance and
biological role as top predators. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) estimates that out of 1041 species of chondrichthyan (sharks, rays and chimaeras)
assessed, nearly a quarter are at higher levels of vulnerability (Dulvy et al., 2014, Davidson
et al. 2016)). A large proportion of these species are directly targeted by various fisheries
or caught as bycatch. Furthermore, sharks exhibit characteristics such as slow growth rates
and attaining sexual maturity at late life stages than a majority of fishes making them
susceptible to overfishing which could lead to loss of biodiversity. Because of this concern,
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation adopted the International Plan of
Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) developed by
member countries in 1999. The IPOA-Sharks calls upon member states to create national
plans, activities and and strategies that promote sustainable use, conservation and
management of sharks and rays.
Shak and a fom pa of Kena fish landings for a long period with records dating
back to the 1980s (Marshall, 1997). Sharks fall in the order within an ancient group of
cartilaginous fishes in the class Chondrichthyes. Out of a total of 45 species of sharks and
rays that have a geographic range including Kenyan waters and have been assessed by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 19 are classified as threatened
globally in the Red List (IUCN, 2018) amounting to ~ 40% while 9 species representing
~20% are categorised as near threatened. The remainder of species assessed and whose
distribution spans Kenyan waters are either data deficient or of least concern in the IUCN
Redlist contributing to ~25% and ~15% of sharks and rays assessed in the country (IUCN,
2018).
Sharks and rays are captured by different fisheries sectors, namely the recreational,
industrial and artisanal sectors. Recreational fishing, also termed as sport fishing or game
fishing is whereby fishers catch fish for pleasure. This form of fishery is different from industrial
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
6
fishing, which involves catching fish for sale on a large-scale basis, or artisanal fishing, which
entails catching fish on a small-scale basis to provide animal protein and in some cases as a
source of income. Sharks are harvested primarily for their meat, fins, skin, cartilage and
liver (Musick, 2005). In Kenya, shark meat is either sold fresh, deep fried or salted and
dried. Fins are primarily exported to Hong Kong, China and Spain according to trade data
recorded by the Kenya fisheries service between the years 2006-2015.
Overview of Kenyas shark fishery
1.2.1 Off-shore fisheries
Kena offhoe fihe compie mainl of hee locall flagged and foeign licened
fishing vessels from Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN), targeting the highly migratory
tuna and tuna-like species which migrate through the Kenyan EEZ. The local fishing fleet
currently comprise of two longliners, while the DWF fleets mainly comprise purse seiners
and long liners operating under a fishing licensing scheme. There is also a fleet of 8-10
semi-industrial longline vessels operated by small scale fishers . Substantial amounts of
shark catches have been recorded as by-catch in these industrial fisheries, especially from
catch declarations and regional observer reports.
Kena fome Fisheries Act CAP 378 required foreign fishing vessels to apply for a fishing
licence under regulation 6 whereby the fishing plan of the vessel had to be provided. This
plan was to outline the area of fishing, the exact number of fishing crafts, estimates for
arrival and departure, proposed duration of fishing plan and outline of the calls into the
Kenya ports during the duration of the plan. The new Fisheries Management and
Development Act No. 35 of 2016, in addition to these requirements outlined in the old
Fisheries Act requires foreign fishing vessels to land, trans-ship and declare catches in the
country. Fisheries Act CAP 378 limied he con benefi fom i EEZ fiheie
especially from value addition activities associated with the value chains in trans-shipment,
landing and processing or even from trade in by-catch. It was also a major gap in data
collection and comparison of by-catch declarations that the new Fisheries Management and
Development Act No. 35 of 2016 has been set in place to fill.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
7
1.2.2 Inshore/ coastal fisheries
A major proportion of the coastal fishery in Kenya is artisanal (small scale mostly operated
using canoes) with few motorised artisanal boats especially in the Northern Coast of Kenya.
Some commercial exploitation of the prawn fishery is undertaken in the Malindi- Ungwana
bay on the north coast. Similar to most countries in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO)
region, substantial shark landings as well occur as by-catch have been reported in artisanal
(especially gillnets and longlines) and prawn trawl fisheries.
Notably, rich inshore marine fishing grounds are located in and around Lamu Archipelago,
Malindi-Ungwana bay, North Kenya Banks, and Malindi Bank. These are areas where the
two major Kenyan rivers (Tana and Sabaki) empty into the sea and therefore making them
productive. Prawn trawling in the rich inshore fishing grounds within the Malindi-
Ungwana bay area has been carried out since the 1970s. The south coast inshore fishery
also comprises of extensive biodiversity mix, including seagrasses, mangroves, sandy
beaches, rocky-shore cliff species, coral reefs etc., and a wide reef platform running several
kilometres seaward, thus enabling the thriving of abundant reef and reef-associated
fisheries.
Relatively large quantities of sharks are landed from the artisanal fishery on the north
coast of Kenya in comparison to that landed in the south coast especially in Kipini and
Ziwayuu Island in Tana River County (Kiilu et al., 2019; Oddenyo, 2017) (Fig 3). For
example, 306 tons of sharks were landed in the year 2011 from the artisanal fishery alone,
with Tana River County contributing 34% of the sharks (Fisheries Department Annual
Report, 2011). This artisanal shark fishery also supports 411 fishers (out of a total of
13,000 fishers coast wide) (Marine Frame Survey Report, 2014). Recent studies have also
revealed that commercial prawn trawlers also catch significant amounts of shark bycatch
(Kiilu et al., 2019). Despite there being a number of surveys that have been conducted on
sharks, the abundance of sharks along the whole Kenyan coastline has not been
determined.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
8
1.2.3 Recreational Fisheries
Marine recreational fishing along the Kenya coast dates back to the days of Ernest
Hemingways in the and lae became moe pominen in he Thee ae no
records of shark catches in these early years, but since mid-1980s, shark species have been
recorded in Kenya recreational fisheries. The 1980s also mark a change in the Kenyan
recreation fishing ethic whereby sport fishing anglers switched from a catch and kill to a
catch, tag and release policy which allowed most of the gamefish species to be tagged using
conventional hydroscopic plastic tags. The main gamefish species include marlin, sailfish,
swordfish, tuna, kingfish, wahoo, and giant trevally among others. Evidence of about 18
species of sharks tagged by recreational anglers between 1987 and 2016 have been
documented by the African Billfish Foundation (ABF) and the Kenya Association of Sea
Anglers (KASA).
Game fishing methods and techniques vary according to the time of the day, area fished, the
species targeted, angler preferences, and the resources available such as the size of the
boat. Some of the methods practiced include trolling, bottom fishing and casting. The
Kenyan marine recreational fishery consists of both sport fishing charter boats (sometimes
referred to as charter sport fishing) and private sport fishing boats. The latter is
characterized by the number of days fished which is usually a few times during a given
fishing season and not for charter purposes.
Trolling with baited hooks and lures is conducted by charter and private boats in coastal
waters and near seamounts. According to the ABF tagging reports, data submitted by sport
fishing captains indicate that between 1987 and 2015, the quantity of coastal and pelagic
sharks caught by troll gear varied yearly based on species of sharks. For instance, highs of
450kg for a tiger shark and 1000kg for the whaleshark. The total number of sharks tagged
in recreational fisheries averaged ranged between 1 and 25 between 1986/87 2015/16
and peaked in 2003/04 and 2004/05 with 68 and 78 shark species tagged respectively. It
is important to note that data reported for the purposes of this section only includes
species of sharks tagged and release through the African Billfish Foundation tagging
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
9
programme. Anecdotal evidence from recreational anglers has shown that a significant
number of sharks are still landed or released without tagging.
1.3 Origin and Purpose of the NPOA-Sharks
In the year 1998, the UN-Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) organized experts
meeting to consult on an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks). IPOA -Sharks aimed to address the growing concern
for the rapid increase in shark catches and its impact on the populations of sharks and
associated species. The overarching goal of the IPOA-Shak i o ene he coneaion
and management of sharks and their long-em ainable e
To achieve this goal, the IPOA-Sharks suggests that member states of the FAO with fisheries
that either target sharks, or regularly take sharks as incidental catch, should develop a
National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA-Sharks).
Under this voluntary framework, participating States are encouraged to assess their
current shark populations, identify threats to these populations, and provide special
attention to vulnerable or threatened species. Member states are also encouraged to
improve catch reporting, increase catch utilization, and enhance frameworks for broad
stakeholder consultation. As a member State of the UN, Kenya has an obligation to develop
a NPOA-Sharks.
The IPOA-Sharks identifies management principles at a strategic level and proposes a suite
of generic operational objectives for NPOA-Sharks. Approximately, 24 species of sharks
have been recorded, from artisanal field survey assessments (KeFS). In addition,, Kenya has
developed a comprehensive fisheries management system for managing extractive
fisheries and for protecting threatened and endangered marine species from the effects of
fishing through the enactment of the Fisheries Management and Development Act No. 35 of
2016. This law is applicable to shark species as it does to other forms of aquatic life in the
Kenyan fisheries. However, in the development of the NPOA-Sharks, prescription of
measures and actions need to focus on a management system specific to sharks and rays
species.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
10
Wihin he FAO IPOA-Sharks, the term "sharks" includes all species of sharks and related
species of skates and chimaeras (class Chondrichthyes). In line with the overall definition
of hak i i impoan o noe ha he IPOA pinciples and provisions apply to all of the
species.
In 2014, The State Department for Fisheries and the Blue Economy (SDF&BE) initiated the
process of drafting the National Plan of Action for Sharks and Rays (NPOA-Sharks and
rays). A roadmap to complete the document was developed comprising of three steps,
namely; 1) Development of draft shark assessment baseline report 2) Ecological Risk
Assessment and 3) Drafting of the NPOA- sharks plan. In 2017, the Kenya Fisheries Service
(KeFS) in collaboration with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and contributing
partners started the process by preparing the baseline report. This document signifies the
first step towards developing a national plan of action for sharks and rays.
1.4 Objectives of the NPOA sharks
The de facto objectives of the National Plan of Action for Sharks would follow those
outlined in the Fisheries Management and Development Act, 2016 (No. 35 of 2016) which
i o poec manage e and deelop he aaic eoce in a manne hich is
consistent with ecologically sustainable development, to uplift the living standards of the
fishing communities and to introduce fishing to traditionally non-fishing communities and
o enhance food eci and o mee commimen ha hae been made inenaionall
The implementation of these objectives shall be guided by the following principles adopted
from the Fisheries Management and Development Act, 2016 (No. 35 of 2016) to suit the
shark and ray fisheries:
i. Application of the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management in the shark
fishery.
ii. Encouraging equity between parties that utilize shark resources.
iii. Application of the precautionary approach to the management.
iv. The development of the shark fishery at no less standard than is set out in any
international agreement.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
11
1.5 Data sources
Information used in this document was obtained through a desktop study of published
sources and technical reports and field surveys with a primary focus on data from fish
landings. Different datasets and information sources that were relevant to this work
included the following:
a) Catch Assessment Surveys (CAS) and Annual Statistical Bulletins (Kenya Fisheries
Service)
b) Status of the Fisheries reports (Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI).
c) By-catch Assessment and Mitigation in Western Indian Ocean Fisheries project
(BYCAM)-WIOMSA MASMA grant
d) Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Food and Agricultural Organisation
of the United Nations (FAO) reports.
e) Baited remote underwater visual surveys (A Rocha Kenya).
f) Journal article (Kiilu et al., 2019)
g) M.Sc. theses on the distribution and ecology of sharks (Kiilu et al., 2016 and
Oddenyo, 2017).
h) African Billfish Foundation (ABF) - Database
i) Kenya Association Sea Anglers (KASA)
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
12
1.6 The Shark Fishery in Kenya
Shak hae been eploied in he Kenan eioial ae ince he lae b offshore
industrial foreign fishing vessels, artisanal fishing vessels and recreational boats that
opeae ihin Kena EEZ Fig
Kenya has jurisdiction over her 12nm territorial waters and licences artisanal fishers as
well industrial and recreational vessels to carry out fishing within this exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Landing sites that have recorded catches of sharks and rays.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
13
2.0 SHARK CATCHES IN KENYAN FISHERIES
2.1 Catch trends in artisanal and semi-industrial fisheries
The shark fishery in Kenya entails both targeted as well as incidental catches. The smallscale
fishery targeting sharks is made up of artisanal fishers utilizing canoes, outriggers or
wooden boats powered either by oars, long sticks, sail or engines (Fulanda, 2011; Samoilys
et al. 2011; Munga, 2014). Shark catches have been recorded in semi-industrial offshore
fisheries that use handlines in the North Kenya Banks. Nearshore fishers in sites such as the
Malindi-Ungwana bay utilize various types of gear such as seine nets, monofilament nets
and handlines to capture sharks.
In Mombasa County, semi-commercial vessels using long lines are reported to target sharks
which mostly consist of thresher sharks, Alopii sp. and mako sharks, Isurus sp. (Kiilu and
Ndegwa, 2013). Sharks have also been reported as by-catch in industrial prawn fishery that
operate in the Ungwana bay. Records at the Kenya Fisheries Service indicate that there was
a steady decrease in shark catch between the year 1984 to 2000 from a total weight of 275
MT to 115 MT (Fig. 2). However, this trend changes from the year 2000 to 2015 with an
increase in catches and peak weight of 373 MT in 2012 which could possibly imply to
higher exploitation rates of these species (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Catch in metric tons and value in Kenya shillings of sharks in Kenya between 1984
and 2015. Source: KeFS Annual Statistical Bulletin.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Value (000' KES)
Weight (M tons)
Year
Weight (kgs) Value (KES 000')
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
14
2.2 Shark catch species composition and its distribution in the artisanal and
industrial fisheries.
Sharks and rays are landed on the entire Kenyan coastline from Kiunga in the north coast of
Kenya close to the Somalia border to Vanga, a site located at the Kenya-Tanzania border
(Fig. 3).
Sites in the Kenyan coast that contribute the largest proportion of catch in metric tonnes
include Kizingitini, Kipini, Mbuyuni, Watamu and Mombasa Old Port.
Published data for the period 1989-1994 and 2007-2015 indicates that a number of shark
species have been landed on the Kenyan coast (Table 2). However, these data consist of
aggregated landings from different data sources.
The species composition of shark catches recorded from 1989 to 2016 is poorly known
except for key species that are distinguished under national statutory requirements, largely
for IOTC, SWIOFC, FAO. These comprise Mako sharks, Isurus spp. at 37% by number of the
catch and Blue sharks, Prionace glauca at 34% (Table 2). The remaining sharks identified to
species level comprise of 29% by number of the catch between these periods with a large
proportion from the family Carcharhinidae (Kiilu and Ndegwa, 2013, Kiilu et al., 2019, Kiilu,
2016, Oddenyo, 2017).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
15
Figure 3. Main shark landings stations and estimated proportion of landed sharks (by
weight) along the Kenyan Coast
Shark landings at the county level indicate that Kilifi lands the greatest catch in terms of
weight at 1,011,556 M. Tons from the year 2014-2016 contributing to 56% of the total
catch (Table 1). This was followed by Kwale at 21% of the total catch. Lamu and Mombasa
county each contributed to 10 % of the total catch per county while Tana River county
contributed to only 4% of the catch at 69,772 M. Tons. The families that contributed most
to the landings were Carcharhinidae and Dasyatidae at 26%. Mylobatidae contributed to
13% of the catch whereas the families Sphyrinidae, Mobulidae and Rhinobatidae
conibed o of he cach The caego mied pecie conibed o 34% of the
catch which highlights the need to increase capacity in the knowledge of taxonomy and
identification of shark and ray species. There was also the possibility of misclassification
between the families carcharhinidae and sphyrhindae
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
16
Table 1. Mean landed wet weight of sharks and rays in the Kenyan coast at the county level
from the year 2014-2016. Source: KeFS.
Family (Common
Name)
Landed weight (MT)
Kilifi Kwale Lamu Mombasa
Tana
River
Total
Carcharhidae (Sharks) 270,569 29,287 19,429 107,727 39,010 466,022
Dasyatidae (Sting
rays) 343,697 78,180 22,457 14,985 3,144 462,463
Myliobatidae (Manta
rays) 88,552 86,994 2,047 28,818 25,431 231,842
Sphyrinidae
(Hammerhead
sharks)
19,667 344 229 90 - 20,329
Mobulidae (Devil
rays) 2,828 1,712 - 7,849 - 12,390
Rhinobatidae
(Guitarfishes/skates) 485 - - - - 485
Mixed species 285,759 180,957 135,036 5,533 2,187 609,472
Total 1,011,556 377,474 179,198 165,002 69,772 1,803,00
3
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
17
Table 2. Known shark species in catch landings in Kenya between 1989-1994 and 2007-2015. Numbers represent number of sharks caught.
Species Caught 1989/90
a
1990/91
a
1991/92
a
1992/93
a
1993/94
a 2007b 2008b 2009b 2010
b
2011
b
2012/13c,
d
2014/2015
e TOTAL
IUCN
Redlist
category
Saw fish, Pristis microdon - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 CR
Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna
lewini - - - - - - - - - - 965 397 1362 EN
African spotted catshark,
Holohalaelurus punctatus - - - - - - - - - - 13 - 13 EN
Spiny shark, Squalus acanthias - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 7 EN
Hammerhead Spyrna spp. - - 1 1 2 - - - - - - - 4 EN
Mako Isurus spp. 8 7 8 6 11 2,035 3,354 6,093 327 1 - - 11835 VU
Smooth hammerhead shark,
Sphyrna zyggaena - - - - - - - - - - 70 - 70 VU
Zebra shark, Stegostoma fasciatum - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 3 VU
Oceanic white tip, Carcharhinus
longimanus - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 VU
Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier 1 3 9 7 3 - - - - 4 1 - 24 NT
Blue shark, Prionace glauca - - - - - 2,427 4,408 3,514 695 - - - 11044 NT
Grey reef shark, Carcharhinus
amblyrhynchos - - - - - - - 233 223 456 NT
Blacktip reef shark, Carcharhinus
melanopterus - - - - - - - - - - 59 101 160 NT
Blacktip shark, Carcharhinus
limbatus - - - - - - - - - - 487 - 487 NT
Bullshark, Carcharhinus leucas - - - - - - - - - - 32 - - -
Silky shark, Carcharhinus
falciformis - - - - - - - - - - - 103 103 NT
Copper shark, Carcharhinus
brachyurus - - - - - - - - - - - 32 32 NT
Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus
galapensis - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 NT
Crocodile shark, Pseudocharias
kamoharai - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 3 NT
Blackspot shark, Carcharhinus
sealei - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 NT
Yellowspotted catshark, Scyliorinus
capensis - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 NT
Shortnose spurdogg, Squalus
megalops - - - - - - - - - - 9 - 9 DD
African angelshark, Squatina
Africana - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 4 DD
Smallfin gulper shark,
Centrophhorous muloscensis - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 DD
Shark, Other 4 5 5 9 4 200,538 63,238 34,393 - 55 - - 298242
TOTAL 13 15 23 23 20 205,000 71,000 44,000 1,022 60 284 881 322341
Source: a.Marshall, 1997b. Wekesa, 2012 c. Kiilu and Ndegwa, 2013, dKiilu et al., 2019, eOddenyo, 2017, Temple et al, 2017. Key: CR-Critically Endangered, ENEndangered,
VU--Vulnerable, NT-Near Threatened, DD-Data Deficient
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
18
2.3 Shark Catches in recreational fisheries
Most species of sharks recorded in recreational fisheries are caught using rod and reel. Out
of 18 species of sharks documented to date, the black tip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) is
the most caught species followed by the Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) and silver
shark (Carcharhinus albimarignutus) respectively (Fig. 4).
Figure 4: Trends of percentage sharks tagged in recreational fisheries (1987-2016) and
weight (kg). Source: African Billfish Foundation (ABF).
Further analysis of the shark tagging data showed that months of August December had
relatively high quantities of shark catches based on total weight (Fig. 5). This could possibly
imply increased productivity for sharks in during these months, but there is need for
additional assessment to examine the factors that influence this observation.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
19
Figure 5: Monthly weight of sharks tagged from recreational fisheries; data from 1987 -
2016. Source: African Billfish Foundation (ABF)
To date 545 species of sharks have been tagged by Kenyan recreational fisheries using the
African Billfish Foundation tags. Notable recaptures of tagged sharks from Kenyan waters
have been recorded in places as far as the Seychelles (two recaptures of Silky shark).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
20
2.4 . Fishing dynamics
Sharks are captured by a diversity of fishing crafts and gears along the Kenyan coastline.
These crafts and gears are outlined below. Their names are in the native Swahili language
hence the italics. English names are in brackets.
2.4.1 Fishing craft and gears used in capturing sharks
a. Dau
This is a flat-bottomed fishing craft with ribs at the bottom and pointed at one end. Sharks
contributed to a high portion of the catch taken by dau in the year 2012, at 26% (Fig 6). It is
common in Tana River and Malindi where rivers Tana and Sabaki drain into the sea and
hae no coal eef de o ilaion De o he fla nae of i boom i an ideal caf fo
area with muddy bottoms especially at the shore. In the year 2016, dau contributed to 13%
of the total number of crafts that captured sharks.
Figure 6. Main target species for Dau fishing craft in 2012. Source: KeFS.
b. Hori
Hori is a flat-bottomed fishing boat pointed at both ends used mostly in the shallow waters
propelled by sail/paddles. It is strengthened by ribs (mataruma) on sides and the floor. The
large sized hori craft are used outside the reefs and in the year 2012 captured sharks at
15% of their total catch (Fig. 7). Hori contributed to 11% of all the crafts that captured
sharks in the year 2016.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
21
Figure 7. Main target species for Hori craft in 2012. Source: KeFS.
c. Mashua
Mashua, a craft pointed on one end V-shaped bottom and sail propelled or engine, were the
main craft type that captured the sharks in 2012 (Fig. 8). This is due to the large size and
ability to exploit far away fishing grounds. Apart from sharks at 26%, they also targeted
other pelagic especially tuna and kingfish the three species constituting 48% of the main
target species for the craft. The crafts are also popular with the lobster fishers as many
fishers can fit into one vessel during the fishing expedition. In the year 2016 Mashua was
the most prominent craft used in capturing sharks and rays at 53% of the total crafts.
Figure 8. Main target species for mashua fishing craft. Source: KeFS.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
22
d. Mtori
Mtori, are crafts with V- shaped bottoms pointed at both ends and ribs propelled by an
outboard Engine/or sail and, are mainly found in Lamu. They mainly used by fishers who
catch lobsters at 28% and sharks at 24% based on the 2012 marine frame survey. In the
year 2016, Mtori contributed to 5% of the craft that captured sharks and rays. During the
SE monsoons when exploitation of the fishing grounds outside the reefs are difficult, they
are used by fishers who target such reef species as scavengers and rabbitfishes (Fig. 9).
Figure 9. Main target species for mtori fishing craft. Source: KeFS.
2.4.2 Shark landings by gear
Different gears are known to target or catch sharks as bycatch based on the operation of
the gear. The mode of operation and other details are described in Samoilys et al. (2011).
Gillnet contribute the highest proportion (62%) of the gears that target or catch sharks
according to marine frame survey 2016 most common gear. Historically, gill nets have been
the major gear used in targeting sharks in areas such as Kiunga. However, over the past
four decades, a decline of 85% in shark catches has been noted and is attributed to the use
of gillnets (Samoilys and Kanyange, 2008). Other gears that capture sharks include long
lines at 23%, monofilament nets at 10%, hand lines at 3% and fence traps at 2% (Fig. 10).
The two gears most used in targeting sharks, gillnets and long lines, vary at the county
level. Gillnets are mostly used in Lamu, Kilifi and Kwale counties at 97%, 54% and 43%
respectively. Long lines are mostly used in Mombasa, Tana River and Kwale counties at
78%, 50%, and 50%, respectively (Fig. 11).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
23
a. Gill net
The 2016 frame survey results and even those of previous surveys indicated that gillnet
fishery is more of set gillnets accounting for 50% or 1,925 gillnets, or drift gillnets which
account for 40% or 1,531 pieces. Very few are actively used, 10%, or 379 gillnets. This is
also being studied under the BYCAM MASMA project https://bycamwio.weebly.com/
From the 2016 frame survey results, the 6-inch mesh sizes gillnets are the most common
and catch a wide variety of species (Samoilys et al. 2017) but not shark species (CORDIO
unpublished data). 668 of the total 3,835 gillnets (17%) captured sharks with single
vertical panels of 4 6 inches which were mainly set gillnets in the 2016 marine frame
survey (Fig. 12).
Figure 12. Proportions of species captured by gill nets in the year 2016. Source:
KeFS
b. Long line
The 2016 marine frame survey indicates that most longlines hooks were used to capture
sharks (37%) and snappers (23%) (Fig 13).
Black skin(Fute)
0%
Carangids(Kolekole
)
5%
Catfish(Fumi)
4% Crabs(Kaa)
0%
Grunter(Pamamba
)
King4 F%ish(Nguru)
5%
Lobsters(Kamba
Mawe)
8%
Mullets(Mkizi)
8%
Octopus(Pweza)
0%
Others(Specify)
5%
Parrot
Fish(Pono)
1%
Prawns(Kamba)
1%
Rabbit
Fish(Tafi)
15%
Sail fish (Suli Suli)
2%
Scavengers(Tangu)
7%
Sharks(Papa)
17%
Snappers(Pali)
9%
Tilapia(Ngege)
1%
Tuna(Jodari)
8%
Gill net
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
24
The distribution in use of longline hooks during the frame survey 2016 indicate that over
80% of hook sizes used in Kilifi County are size <4 (1,126 hooks) and size 4-7 (1,334
hooks). In Lamu County; most of the hooks are size 4-7 (2,695 hooks or 58%) and size 8-10
(1,790 hooks or 38%). Mombasa County has the highest number of longline hooks and the
most common used hooks are size 4-7 (3,487 hooks or 64%). Size 4-7 and size 8-10 are
used across all Counties during the last six frame surveys while in 2016, size < 4 hooks are
used in Kilifi (1,126), Mombasa (520), Lamu (49) and Kwale (41).
Figure 13. Proportions of species captured by long lines in the year 2016. Source:
KeFS
c. Handline
Hand-line referred to single twine on which baited hook(s) is/ are attached. It can also
include a stick onto which a hook is attached. Fishers have modified the traditional
handline with one hook to the use of a handline with 7 9 hooks especially targeting deep
water demersal species above 40nm offshore.
Carangids(Kolekole
)
4% Catfish(Fumi)
4%
King Fish(Nguru)
2%
Lobsters(Kamba
Mawe)
5%
Marlin(Duaro)
1%
Mullets(Mkizi)
1%
Others(Specify)
Prawns(Kamba) 2%
1% Sail fish (Suli Suli)
4%
Scavengers(Tangu)
5%
Sharks(Papa)
37%
Snappers(Pali)
23%
Tuna(Jodari)
11%
Long lines
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
25
Handlines catch a variety of both targeted and incidental species including sharks. In 2014
Marine Frame Survey, sharks represented <1% of the catch (Fig. 14). In Ziwayuu Island and
Kipini village, Tana River county sharks are majorly caught as bycatch with the handline
gear (Oddenyo, 2017).
Figure 14. Proportions of species captured by hand lines in the year 2016. Source:
KeFS.
3.0 SHARK FISHERY STOCK STATUS AND BIOLOGY
3.1 Stock status
To date, there have been no stock assessment for shark species in Kenya. However, a
recent study on growth and reproductive parameters of four shark species in Kipini and
Ziwayuu Island (Fig. 2), found differences in sex ratios in the landings suggesting sexspecific
movement of some species to the fishing grounds locations (Oddenyo 2017).
Females of S. lewini species were more frequently caught in which could lead to
recruitment failure whereby most females are eliminated from the population resulting in
a decrease in mature females that would reproduce in the next recruitment year. 36% of
female and 63% of male C. amblyrhynchos (grey reef shark) were caught at sizes less than
Lopt. Ninety eight percent (98%) of S. lewini (scalloped hammerhead shark) landed were
smaller than Lopt). For C. melanopterus (grey reef shark), 95% of the specimens landed
were less than Lopt. C. falciformis (silky shark) had lengths larger than Lopt (Table 3).
Black
skin(Fute)
1% Carangids(Kolekole
)
6%
Catfish(Fumi)
1%
Crabs(Kaa)
0%
Grunter(Pamamba
)
King Fish(N5g%uru)
2% Mullets(Mkizi)
Others(Specify) 0%
9% Parrot Fish(Pono)
0%
Prawns(Kamba)
0%
Rabbit Fish(Tafi)
2%
Sail fish (Suli Suli)
0%
Scavengers(Tangu)
54%
Sea Cucumber
0%
Sharks(Papa)
0%
Snappers(Pali)
14%
Tilapia(Ngege)
0%
Tuna(Jodari)
5%
Handline
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
26
Table 3. Growth parameters of sharks landed at Kipini following Froese and Binholan
(2000) empirical equations. (Lmax, maximum observed length; Lasymptotic length; Lm,
mean length at first maturity; Lopt, length at maximum possible yield per recruit and < Lopt,
proportion less than length at maximum possible yield per recruit) Source: Oddenyo, 2017.
SPECIES Lmax
(cm)
L
(S.E.
range)
(cm)
Lmfemale
(S.E.
range)(cm)
Lmmale
(S.E.
range)
(cm)
Lopt
(S.E.
range)
(cm)
<
Lopt
(%)
Sphyrna lewini
(Scalloped
hammerhead
shark)
254 257.4
(217.1-305.2)
146.7
(110.6-194)
111
(79.2-155.9)
172.9
(146.2-204.6) 98
Carcharhinus
amblyrhynchos
(Grey reef
shark)
133 136.2
(114.8-161.5)
80.3
(60.6-106.3)
63
(44.9-88.4)
89.1
(75.3-105.4) 46
Carcharhinus
falciformis
(Silky shark)
132.5 135.7
(114.4-160.9)
80
(60.4-106)
62.8
(44.8-88.1)
88.7
(75-105) 0
Carcharhinus
melanopterus
(Blacktip reef
shark)
127.5 130.6
(110.2-154.9)
77.2
(58.3-102.2)
60.7
(43.3-85.1)
85.5
(72.1-100.9) 95
3.2 Biology of sharks
3.2.1 Feeding Ecology
The generally high percentage indices of relative importance (%IRI) for fishes in the diet of
species are indicative of the highly piscivorous nature of sharks (Oddenyo, 2017; Daly et al.,
2013) (Fig. 15). The large contribution of crustaceans in the diets of the grey reef shark and
the silky shark suggest that teleost fishes may be supplemented by invertebrates as prey in
some species in the Malindi-Ungwana bay area (Oddenyo, 2017).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
27
Figure 15. Percentage Index of Relative Importance of prey items consumed by sharks
caught on the Kenyan Coast. Source: Oddenyo, 2017
The scalloped hammerhead and blacktip reef and bull sharks have a narrow niche breath
suggestive of specialized feeding strategies adopted by these species. Significant
interspecies overlaps in diet existed between the scalloped hammerhead, bull, grey reef,
copper and blacktip reef sharks in the Malindi-Ungwana bay area indicating likely high
competition for food resources (Oddenyo, 2017). Narrow niche breadths and diet overlaps
may restrict growth rates if food items become scarce in the environment or if climate
induced variability in abundance occurs (Oddenyo, 2017). However, the generalist species;
the grey reef shark and the silky shark may suffer less from prey variations in the
environment.
Trophic levels (TL) of sharks landed ranged from 3.90-4.238 indicating them as apex
predators with the bull shark registering the highest trophic value of 4.238 and the silky
shark the lowest at a value of 3.90 (Oddenyo, 2017).
3.2.2 Exploitation rates, mortality rates, length frequencies, size at maturity, breeding, growth
rates, CPUE, MSY
a. Growth, mortality, exploitation rates and recruitment patterns of sharks
Kiilu et al. (2019) reported in S. lewini a total mortality, Z, of 1.69 yr-1 which is high
compared to 0.56 yr-1 mortality rate observed by Liu and Chen (1999) for the species in
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
28
Northwestern Pacific. The high total mortality of S. lewini in Kenya is likely related to the
juvenile composition of the specimens in the landings that could eventually lead to
recruitment overfishing and raise the fishing mortality. S. lewini have been reported to be
exploited beyond optimum levels (E= 0.6), indicating that increasing fishing pressure on its
fishery is not sustainable for the species in the long run (Kiilu et al., 2019). The exploitation
rate of C. limbatus, C. melanopterus, C. amblyrhynchos and C. leucas seem to be below
optimum levels at E< 0.5 (Kiilu et al., 2019). The juveniles are vulnerable to the gill nets and
beach sein nets of artisanal fishermen who fish close to the shore in the estuaries and bays,
and this may lead to the danger of recruitment overfishing (sensu Pauly et al., 1998) and
stock collapse (Kiilu, 2016).
b. Shark fin-body weight relationships and ratios
Studies of The fin weight-bodyweight ratio for S. lewini and C. limbatus didtributed across
the Kenyan waters was estimated at 7.4% (n= 479) and at 5.7% (n=280)which is slightly
higher than the universally used threshold ratio of 5%. This indicates that the ratio may
vary between species (Kiilu, 2016). The fin-weight to body-weight linear relationships
reported for S. lewini and C. limbatus suggest that fin-weight (a commercial product) is a
good predictor of body weight in the two species (Kiilu, 2016) and hence useful in
compliance aspects.
3.3 Sharks in Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected Areas have been established in Kenya to protect and conserve marine
and coastal biodiversity and managed by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) There are four notake
marine national park that are protected from any form of extractive activities. There
are also six national reserve mostly around the parks that allow traditional fishing
activities and act as a buffer zone for the parks. No-take MPAs in Kenya have been
acknowledged as successful in restoring fish biomass and biodiversity and have been cited
as the most effective in the region (McClanahan et al, 2007). However, reserve have run
short of their objectives with high exploitation rate and use of destructive and illegal gears
experienced and almost with no difference with fished areas (Samoilys and Obura, 2011).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
29
In recent years, marine conservation has moved to a more collaborative management
approach through adopting Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) mainly for fisheries
and other marine resource management (Rocliffe et al. 2014). In the last decade 24 LMMAs
have been established in the country with varying levels of protection (McClanahan et al,
2016; Kawaka et al, 2017).
There is limited information available on sharks in marine protected areas in Kenya.
Elasmobranch assessment has been carried out in Watamu Marine National Park and
Reserve, the oldest protected area in the country. Thirteen species of elasmobranchs
representing 8 families were recorded from Underwater Visual Census (UVC) and Baited
Remote Underwater Videos (BRUVs) including juveniles of three of them (Table 4). The
survey also observed five of these species in fisheries catches around the reserve as bycatch.
Anecdotal information also reported sightings of tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)
around the area specifically by deep sea recreational fishers (Musembi et al, 2017).
Table 4. Shark species identified in the Watamu Marine National Park.
Family Species IUCN Redlist
category
Sharks
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus melanopterus Near Threatened
Carcharhinidae Triaenodon obesus Near Threatened
Rhincodontidae Rhincodon typhus Vulnerable
Rays
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari Near Threatened
Dasyatidae Himantura uarnak Vulnerable
Dasyatidae Neotrygon kuhlii Data Deficient
Dasyatidae Pastinachus sephen Data Deficient
Dasyatidae Taeniura lymma Near Threatened
Torpedinidae Torpedo sinuspersici Data Deficient
Mobulidae Mobula Kuhlii Data Deficient
Mobulidae Manta alfredi Vulnerable
Guitarfishes
Rhinidae Rhina ancylostoma Vulnerable
Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus halavi* Vulnerable
*An unknown guitarfish is thought to be Glaucostegus halavi (Melita Samoilys and Rima
Jabado), although the species is only known from the Red Sea, Persian gulf and India.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
30
4.0 SHARK TRADE AND MARKETS
4.1 Global shark catch and markets
The global values of shark landings from the FAO Fisheries Commodities database (FAO,
2010) rose from around US$400 million in 1990 to over US$1 billion in 2000, declining to
around US$800 million in 2006. Because of the low economic value of sharks and rays, few
resources have been put into the collection of fisheries landings data (FAO, 2010).
4.2 Domestic markets for shark products
The Kenyan and Tanzanian markets for shark meat are substantial and Kenya imports
shark meat from neighbouring countries (Barnett, 1996). Important transhipment ports for
dried shark fins include Kenya and South Africa in Africa although the UAE and Yemen also
appear to be important transhipment hubs (McCoy and Ishihara, 1999).
4.2.1 Trends in export and imports of shark products
Shark fin exports in Kenya between the years 1990 to 1995 indicated a steady decline from
10 mt in 1990 to 4.3 mt in 1995 (Fig. 16) (Kenya Fisheries Service data). The total weight of
shark fin exported between 2006 and 2015 fluctuated with a high 31.2 mt in 2008 to a low
of 5.6 mt in 2012. There has been a gradual increase in shark fin exports from 2012 to 2015
(Fig. 16) (Kenya Fisheries Service data).
The value of shark fin in terms of KES/Kg showed a rise from KES.187/Kg in 1987 to KES.
824/Kg in 1992 (Kenya Fisheries Service data). There was also a rise in value between
2006 to 2015 with the lowest registered export value of KES.31.9/Kg in 2008 to the highest
most recent value of KES.721.6/Kg registered in the year 2015 (Fig. 16) (Kenya Fisheries
Service data).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
31
Figure 16. Shark fin exports in metric tons and value in KES/Kg between 1987-1995 and
2006-2015. Source: KeFS
4.3 Markets for other shark products
4.3.1 Shark fins
For the period between 2006 and 2015 the largest importer of shark fins/tails from Kenya
was Hong Kong, China with a total of 53.9 mt (74.3%) (Kenya Fisheries Service data). This
was followed by, Spain at 18.5 mt (25.5%), all of which were frozen. Singapore and China
registered minimal imports of shark fin from Kenya at 54 Kgs (0.1%) and 60 Kgs (0.1%)
respectively (Fig. 17). Shark fin exports to China and Singapore were dried as a means of
preservation (Kenya Fisheries Service data).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
32
*Frozen shark fins/tails were multiplied with a correction factor of 0.25 according to
Clarke (2004). Source: KeFS.
Figure 17. Proportions of shark fin/tail biomass exported to various destinations from
2006-2015 from Kenya. Source: KeFS
Markets for shark meat, cartilage, skin, liver oil and fins exist in Africa and the Middle East
(Barnett, 1996). Dried and salted shark meat is common as it provides a convenient form in
which to transport the product in areas where shelf-life would otherwise be limited
(Vannuccini, 1999).
4.4 By-products associated with directed or target shark fisheries
By-products from sharks include carcasses, fins, liver, skin, cartilage and jaws. Carcases are
used as a source of protein whilst fins are majorly traded in international market for fin
soup.
Shark liver in the artisanal fisheries to coat boat hulls to prevent biofouling. Shark skin has
been used as a material in making wallets and bags. Cartilage obtained from sharks has
been used in the development of glue. On the other hand, shark jaws are mainly collected as
souvenirs by local and international tourists. Despite the anecdotal knowledge on the use
of various shark by-products, little is known about their value chain and socioeconomic
significance in the country.
Singapore, 0.1% Guangzhou,
China, 0.1%
Hong Kong,
China, 74.3%
Vigo, Spain,
25.5%*
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
33
4.5 Shark fishery value chain
Sharks caught by artisanal fishers in Kenya are sold in the local markets through a variety
of market chains. These include fishers selling directly to consumers; fishers to traders and
middlemen; and fishers to retailers. Sharks are either sold fresh, deep fried or salted and
sun dried.
4.6 Tourism
Sharks also play a role in ecotourism and recreation globally in the form of sports angling,
or game fishing (Clarke et al., 2005). Whale sharks and manta rays form part of the dive
tourism in some areas like Watamu, although they are sighted seasonally especially from
November to January. Anecdotal information from dive operators in Watamu suggest a
decline in shark sightings in the last two decades. Whale sharks and manta ray sightings
have reduced in the past several years (Musembi et al, 2017).
4.7 Socioeconomic significance of sharks and rays to coastal communities in Kenya
Information on the socio-economic significance of sharks and rays to the local livelihoods is
inadequate.
However, a recent first-time study conducted by KMFRI under the BYCAM project provides
some baseline findings on the socio-economic importance of sharks and rays along the
Kenya coast. The project study sites included Kiunga, Kizingitini, Mashamasha, Kitau,
Kiwayu, Kipini, Mareroni, Bamburi, Gazi, Mwaepe, Mkunguni, Shimoni and Vanga.
Preliminary results indicate that sharks and rays comprise various proportions of catch in
weight at different landings sites with the largest proportions caught at Mkunguni (~70%)
followed by Kaleloni (~40%) (BYCAM, unpublished data). Lower proportions of catch were
reported for Kiwayu, Kizingitini, Mashamasha, Mareroni and Kitau sites ranging between
10-30% of the catch in terms of weight (Fig. 18a) (BYCAM, unpublished data).
Respondents in Shimoni were the only ones who mentioned rays to be part of their catch
contributing to 30% of their total catch in kilogrammes (BYCAM, unpublished data)
(Fig.18b).
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
34
Figure 18. Proportions in kilograms of the total catch at selected landing sites of a) sharks
and b) rays. Source: BYCAM, unpublished data. (To be updated)
4.7.1 Livelihoods
Fishing has been reported as the main source of income for most coastal communities
contributing to > 80% of their household income. In Kiunga, 100% of income was from
fishing (BYCAM, unpublished data) (Table 5). In Mkunguni, Kizingitini and Shimoni sites
where sharks and rays were reported to contribute large proportions of the total catch,
respondents indicated that ~87% of their income was obtained from fishing (Table 5). All
fishers were above 35 years of age while the level of education ranged between 6 years and
3 years (Table 5). The number of members per household ranged between four and five
with Kizingitini having the largest household size at ~5 members per household (BYCAM,
unpublished data).
Table 5. Social metrics obtained from communities in selected sites along coastal Kenya.
Source: BYCAM, unpublished data.
Landing
sites
Age of
respondent
Level of
education
Years
in
fishing
Household
size
Contributors
per HH
Fishers
per HH
%
Income
from
fishing
Origin-%
locals
Bamburi 49.4 6.2 25.8 2.5 1.6 1.1 88.6 54.5
Gazi 43.1 4.4 27.5 2.5 1.4 0.9 87.7 73.3
Kipini 39.4 3.5 17.9 3.4 2.3 1.3 79.5 42.9
Kiunga 51.8 2.7 36.2 4.2 1.8 2.0 100.0 100.0
Kiwayu 42.5 4.7 21.1 3.1 2.4 1.1 94.4 100.0
Kizingitini 52.2 3.9 30.4 4.8 1.7 1.4 85.8 100.0
Mkunguni 42.8 3.0 33.4 2.9 1.5 0.8 86.7 10.0
Mwaepe 47.3 4.2 25.3 2.9 1.9 1.2 86.9 13.8
Shimoni 51.5 5.0 22.5 2.7 1.6 1.2 87.1 3.2
Vanga 42.5 3.6 18.7 2.4 1.7 1.3 90.4 19.2
Farming, fishing related activities, small-scale trading and tourism activities were reported
as alternative livelihoods in all the sites surveyed (BYCAM, unpublished data). There were
fewer alternatives in the north coast sites, with an average of three including casual jobs,
farming and animal husbandry in Kizingitini and Kiwayu. Kipini stood out as a site with
numerous alternative livelihoods in the North Coast totalling 10 and may be due to the
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
35
location of the site at the location where River Tana flows into the Indian Ocean.
Respondents interviewed in Kiunga fully relied on fishing and failed to mention any
alternative livelihoods (BYCAM, unpublished data).
Alternative livelihoods undertaken by community members were site specific, for example,
in Mkunguni the main alternative livelihood mentioned was farming and animal husbandry
whereas in Shimoni tourism was mentioned most. Farming and animal husbandry was
mentioned as alternative for a majority of the sites surveyed (BYCAM, unpublished).
4.7.2 Perceptions on shark and rays
Catch trends
Community members were interviewed on how they perceived changes in shark and ray
catches through time by stating whether they increased, decreased or were the same
(BYCAM, unpublished). Majority of the respondents stated that catches had decreased over
time. Based on these findings, some of the factors affecting the catch and value of sharks
and rays included: (i) seasonal variation, (ii) technological changes, (iii) overexploitation,
(iv) inadequate enforcement of regulations for sustainable practices, (v) lack of proper
gear, (vi) availability of markets and demand for sharks and by-products and (v) natural
/supernatural phenomena (BYCAM, unpublished)
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
36
7.0 DISCUSSION
Kenya has a diverse composition of sharks and rays in its marine waters which provide a
wide array of ecosystem values and services. However, there are a number of threats that
currently face sharks and rays. These include harvesting of juveniles in the artisanal fishery
of species such as S. lewini and C. melanoterus with >90% of their catch being below the
length corresponding to age at maximum sustainable yield per recruit, there is also the
exportation of fins in the international markets as Hong Kong and Spain. Sharks caught in
the artisanal fishery are mainly utilised locally as a source of protein. They are either sun
dried and salted, frozen or deep fried as a means of preservation. Fins are normally stored
separately due to their value and are later sold in the international market.
Results of the yearly Marine Frame Surveys undertaken by the KeFS suggest that sharks
comprise ~25% of the catch in the dau, mashua and mtori vessels. In terms of gears
targeting sharks, a recent survey conducted in 2016 found that 668 of a total of 3,835
gillnets targeted sharks. Similarly, the largest proportion of catch in longlines was sharks at
37%. Handlines and the illegal monofilament net caught <5% of sharks in the year 2016.
Shark fins obtained in the Kenyan fishery have an international market in Hong Kong,
Guanzhou, Spain and Singapore as evident from KeFS records. The largest importer of
shark fins/tails from Kenya was Hong Kong, China totaling to 53.9 mt. Information of the
species of sharks and rays from which the fins are obtained is however sparse.
With regard to the management and conservation of sharks rays, Kenya participates in
several international and regional organizations and bodies concerned with fisheries in
ode o aain he ainable e of hee eoce A a naional leel Kena appoach
to managing its fisheries and oceans resources is based on a constitutional commitment to
ecological sustainability (Constitution of Kenya 2010; Part 2- Land and Environment),
integrated fisheries management (Fisheries Development and Management Act, FMDA-
2016), and the precautionary approach (FMDA 2016; National Oceans and Fisheries Policy
2008).
Kenya has domesticated resolutions made by IOTC members on the conservation,
management and transhipment of sharks and rays in the FMDA, 2016 and by extension the
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
37
Draft Fisheries Regulations. However, no fisheries conservation and management
measures are in place for any of the hammerhead sharks already in Appendix II of the
CITES and that are substantially harvested as juveniles in Malindi-Ungwana bay, or any
other sharks and rays, whether in Appendix I and II of the CITES. This gap shall therefore
be sufficiently addressed in this NPOA- Sharks. The same NPOA- Sharks will also address
the harvesting and trade in controlled shark species, the harvesting and trade of which is
currently based on solely expert opinion of the fisheries managers of the KeFS.
Harvesting of sharks and rays for aquaria is largely unregulated, and more data is required
to make conclusive and informed decisions on the shark stocks. In the meantime, the
precautionary approach towards their management and other appropriate management
measures need to be complied with.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
38
8.0 GAPS ESTABLISHED IN THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THEIR
RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following gaps and recommended management actions were established based on the
assessment of sharks in Kenya as of 2018 (Table 6):
Table 6. Gaps and recommended management actions for sharks in Kenya
Gaps Recommended management actions
Collection and, as appropriate sharing, in a
timely manner complete and accurate data and
information concerning sharks.
Streamlining data collection protocols (species
identification, data recording and
management) in order to improve data quality
and consistency
Enhance shark fishery bycatch reporting
Awareness creation.
The stock status of sharks and rays in the
country has not been assessed for a majority of
species.
An assessment of the status of shark and ray
species in the country.
There is a lack of management measures for
hammerhead sharks.
Enforcement of management measures with
regard to hammerhead sharks with regulations
in trade as an appendix II species in CITES.
Paucity of information on the value chain and
trade of sharks.
Undertaking a value chain analysis to species
level of shark products and by-products
Dealing with IUU enforcement and control. Enforcement of existing regulations governing
sharks under national legislation as well as
regionally internationally ratified agreements.
A lack of information on interactions of the
shark fishery with other fisheries and their
linkages.
An evaluation of interactions of the shark
fishery with other fisheries and their linkages.
Paucity of information on migrant fishers and
their effects on sharks.
An evaluation of the effects of migrant fishers
on sharks.
Biology and ecology of a majority of shark and Conducting biological and ecological
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
39
ray species. evaluations on shark and ray species.
There is a need for a risk assessment to be
conducted on the implementation of a national
plan of action for sharks.
Conducting a risk assessment on the
implementation of a national plan of action for
sharks based on the best available information.
The country does not have a National Plan of
Action document for sharks in place.
Development of a National Plan of Action
document for sharks based on the assessment
report and risk assessment.
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
40
9.0 REFERENCES
Barnett R (1996) Shark Fisheries and Trade in East and Southern Africa. Pp. 329339 in
TRAFFIC Neok The Wold Tade in Shak a Compendim of TRAFFIC
regional studies. Volume I. TRAFFIC Network, Cambridge, UK.
Clarke S, Burgess GH, Cavanagh RD, Crow G, Fordham SV, McDavitt MT, Rose DA, Smith M,
Simpfrendorfer A. (2005) Socio-economic significance of chondrichthyan fish. In
Fowler SL, Cavanagh RD, Camhi M, Burgess GH, Cailliet GM, Fordham SV,
Simpfendorfer CA, Musick JA (comp. and ed.). 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras:
The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. IUCN/ SSC Shark
Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 461 pp.
FAO (2010) Global commodities production database
www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/globalcommodities-production/query/en
FAO (2012) Review of the implementation of the international plan of action for the
conservation and management of sharks. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1076. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO (1996) FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries - Precautionary Approach
to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions 2. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
Fulanda B, Ohtomi J, Mueni E, Kimani E (2011) Fishery trends, resource-use and
management system in the Ungwana Bay fishery Kenya. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 54,
401414.
IUCN, 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3 www.iucnredlist.org
Downloaded on 23 May 2018.
Kiilu, BK (2016). Distribution, abundance and some biological aspects of sharks (Pisces:
Chondrichthyes) on the Kenyan coast. MSc thesis, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
(Aquatic Resources Management), School of Natural Resource Management,
University of Eldoret, Kenya.
Kiilu BK, Kaunda-Arara B, Oddenyo RM, Thoya P & Njiru JM (2019) Spatial distribution,
seasonal abundance and exploitation status of shark species in Kenyan coastal
waters, African Journal of Marine Science, 41:2, 191-201, DOI:
10.2989/1814232X.2019.1624614
Kiilu, BK, Ndegwa S (2013) Shark by catch Small scale tuna fishery interactions along the
Kenyan coast. IOTC-2013-WPEB09-13.
Marshall NT (1997) Trade in Sharks and Shark Products in Kenyan Waters. TRAFFIC
East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. In Marshall NT and Barnett R (eds). (1997).
The trade in sharks and shark products in the Western Indian and Southeast
Atlantic Oceans. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
McCoy MA, Ishihara H (1999) The socio-economic importance of sharks in the US Flag
Areas of the Western and Central Pacific (Admin. Rep. AR-SWR- 99-01). Prepared
Annex 5
IOTC-2019-WPEB15-11
41
for the US Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest
Region. Gillett, Preston and Associates Inc., USA.
Munga CN, Omukoto JO, Kimani EN, Vanreusel A (2014) Propulsion-gear-based
characterisation of artisanal fisheries in the Malindi-Ungwana Bay, Kenya and its
use for fisheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management 98 (2014) 130139.
Elsevier.
Musembi P, Cowburn B, and Sluka R. (2017). Biodiversity and Conservation of
Elasmobranchs in Watamu Marine National Park and Reserve. A Rocha Kenya.
Musick JA (2005) Shark Utilization. In J. Musick and R. Bonfil, eds. Elasmobranch fisheries
management techniques. pp. 223236. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 474.
Rome, FAO.
Obura D, Rowat D, Nicholas A, Pierce D (2013) Whale sharks in the Indian Ocean. Swara.
October-December 2013. www.eawildlife.org.
Oddenyo, RM (2017). Trophic ecology and the exploitation status of sharks (Pisces:
Elasmobranchii) in North Coastal of Kenya. MSc thesis, Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences (Aquatic Resources Management), School of Natural Resource
Management, University of Eldoret, Kenya.
Pauly, D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R and Torres FC J Fihing don
maine food eb Science 279:860- 863.
Samoilys MA and Kanyange NW 2008. Natural resource dependence, livelihoods and
development: Perceptions from Kiunga, Kenya. IUCN ESARO 2008.
Samoilys, MA (1988). Abundance and species richness of coral reef fish on the Kenyan
coast: the effects of protective management and fishing. Proc. 6th int. coral Reef
Symp. 2: 261-266
Vannuccini S (1999) Shark utilisation, marketing and trade. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
No. 389. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Wekesa PN (2012) Kenya National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean
Tuna Commission. IOTC-2012-SC15-NR13.
Annex 5
Annex 6
“SCAA Aeronautical Information Publication”, Somalia Civil Aviation Authority, 2020,
available at: http://aip.scaa.gov.so/ (last accessed: 21 December 2020)
23/12/2020 SCAA Aeronautical Information Publication
aip.scaa.gov.so 1/3
(Http://Aip.Scaa.Gov.So/)
Call us for any help
+11 22 54 6665 (tel:+1122546665)
Home (http://aip.scaa.gov.so/)
Login (http://aip.scaa.gov.so/login)
Contact (http://aip.scaa.gov.so/contact/)
SCAA Aeronautical Information
Publication
Somali Civil Aviation Authority (SCAA) is committed to providing quality assured
Aeronautical data and Aeronautical Information necessary for the safety, regularity
and efficiency of civil aviation in Somalia.
To achieve this, SCAA has investment in information management systems with
increased focus on managing aeronautical data and aeronautical information in a
digital production platform for the integrated aeronautical information (AIP),
NOTAM, Flight plan, pre-flight information Bulletin(PIB), aeronautical maps &
charts including management of electronic terrain and obstacle data (eTOD)
1. Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) (http://www.scaa.gov.so)
2. Amendment service to the AIP (AIP AMDT) (http://www.scaa.gov.so)
3. Aeronautical Information Circulars (AIC) (http://www.scaa.gov.so)
4. Aeronautical Maps and Charts (http://www.scaa.gov.so)
(http://aip.scaa.gov.so/)
23/12/2020 SCAA Aeronautical Information Publication
aip.scaa.gov.so 2/3
(Htt
p://
ac
eo
o.
Co
m/)
(Htt
ps:/
/lu
s.
oog
le.C
om
/)
(Htt
ps:/
/
itte
r.C
om
/)
(Htt
p://
ss.
Co
m/)
(Htt
ps:/
/
.
Lin
e
in.C
om
/)
(http://aip.scaa.gov.so/)
elcome to eronautical nformation ulication () page that provies more information aout omalia viation.
o :
ai :
A :
CONTACT US
+252 154 (tel:)
(tel:)
aisscaa.gov.so (mailto:)
(mailto:)
cc uiling en e nternational irport ogaishuomalia
Annex 7
“About FGC”, Federal Government of Somalia, November 2020, available at: https://
mof.gov.so/fgc (last accessed: 21 December 2020)
(/)
About FGC
Background
The Financial Governance Committee (FGC) was established in early
2014 by mutual agreement between the Federal Government of
Somalia (FGS), donors, and international nancial institutions (IFIs) to
provide a forum for dialogue on strategic nancial governance issues.
By its composition, the FGC is a hybrid Somali-international body that
is expected to meet every four to six weeks.
The objective of the FGC is to improve nancial governance in
Somalia, as a foundation for overall good governance, economic
development, and political stability. It allows the FGS to access
independent and transparent international advice on policy and
implementation modalities in important areas of nancial governance.
The FGC is nancially supported by the World Bank administered
Multi-Partner Fund (MPF), whose support makes the FGC possible.
Nine donors have generously committed funds to the MPF. These
include the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the
Commission of the European Communities (EU), the Finnish Ministry
for Foreign Affairs, Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, the
Royal Norwegian Embassy, the Swedish International Development
Cooperation (SIDA), the Swiss Agency for Development Co-operation
(SDC), the United Kingdom’s Department for International
Development (DfID), and the World Bank State and Peace-building
Fund (SPF).
FGC Role/Activities
The role of the FGC is to:
Provide a forum at which members can discuss sensitive or
Partnerships
and
Programs
Financial
Governance
Committee
Staff-
Monitored
Program
Debt
Management
Special
Financing
Facility For
Local
Development
Score(/Score)
Use Of
Country
Systems
Recurrent
Cost And
Reform
Financing
Project
Public
Financial
Management
Search...
Annex 7
condential nancial governance issues and agree upon actions
that should be taken to overcome challenges or weaknesses.
Provide direct policy and technical advice – or source that advice
from external experts – on critical nancial governance issues to
Somalia state institutions and/or international partners.
Oversee progress and actions specically in the areas of asset
recovery, public nancial management, and public procurement, and
any other specic nancial governance issues requested by the
government.
Provide temporary oversight and review of future concession and
public procurement contracts with or above a value of US$ 5 Million
until such time as functional national procurement systems have
been established as provided for under the draft Public
Procurement, Disposal and Concessions Act (2015).
Strengthen transparency on nancial governance by sharing
information on issues for which the FGC has the responsibility and
by encouraging Somali state institutions to make information
available.
Issue regular reports on nancial governance challenges and
progress, and the extent to which FGC recommendations have been
implemented by key stakeholders.
Facilitate the role and strengthening of Somali nancial governance
and oversight institutions and support the development of a
broader public dialogue on nancial governance.
Membership
Members of the FGC are drawn from Somali institutions and
international partners. The agreed composition of the FGC is as
follows:
Ministry of Finance (Chair);
Governor of the Central Bank of Somalia;
Representative, Oce of the President;
Representative, Oce of the Prime Minister;
Solicitor General;
Chair of Parliamentary Finance Committee;
World Bank delegate;
African Development Bank delegate;
Recent
News
Rehabilitation of the
Ministry of Fisheries
and Marine
Resources Building
(/news/rehabilitationministry-
Volume III - Annexes 5-36