Sharks and Rays Conservation in the Age of Global Trade Regulations

Lead

Sharks and rays are ancient denizens of the oceans, evolving alongside other marine life for hundreds of millions of years. Today they face one of the steepest declines in marine biodiversity. Over half a century, overfishing, habitat destruction, and international trade have eroded their numbers, threatening the stability of entire ecosystems. Scientists estimate that up to 100 million sharks and rays are killed annually for meat, liver oil, and trade. Populations have fallen roughly 70% since the 1970s, a trajectory that has accelerated in the last decade. In December 2025, nations moved to expand protection by listing more than 70 shark and ray species under CITES, a development that could shift trade flows and conservation outcomes. This article interrogates what the protections achieve, where they may fall short, and how a global framework can align science with livelihoods.

Analytics perspective on sharks and rays

Sharks and rays occupy critical niches in marine food webs. Their decline reverberates through prey communities, alters trophic cascades, and weakens the resilience of entire ecosystems. The data reveal a straightforward pattern: high exploitation coupled with low reproductive output translates into slow population recovery. The elasmobranch fossil record underscores their longevity and late sexual maturity, making them especially vulnerable to sustained fishing pressure.

Key quantitative findings shape the analytic frame:

• Global declines: Overfishing and bycatch have driven shark and ray populations down by approximately 70% since the 1970s. This is not a minor setback; it represents a structural shift in oceanic ecosystems.
• Mortality scale: An estimated 100 million sharks and rays are killed each year for meat, liver oil, and other trade products, underscoring the scale of unsustainable use.
• Reproductive biology: Many sharks and rays mature late and produce relatively few offspring, yielding limited capacity to rebound after heavy removal events.
• Trade and governance link: The pace and pattern of international trade shape direct removals and clandestine flows, creating a mismatch between national protections and migratory populations.

To translate these data into policy-relevant insights, we must ask: why do some populations rebound more quickly than others? The answer lies at the intersection of biology, geography, and governance. Species with broader ranges and more resilient life histories respond more readily to protection and enforcement. Conversely, highly migratory taxa that span international borders face ongoing removals that current measures struggle to curtail. In this global frame, sharks and rays become a litmus test for how well the international community translates scientific consensus into enforceable trade controls.

LSI terms weave through the analysis: batoids (the rays), elasmobranchs (the broader group), overfishing, bycatch, fisheries management, marine biodiversity, trade regulation, and CITES dynamics. These terms help connect biology to policy, revealing that protection is not a single action but a suite of coordinated responses across species, geographies, and markets.

Contrasts in sharks and rays across regions

Not all sharks and rays respond to threats in the same way. Where governance, enforcement, and market incentives align, populations show signs of stabilization. Where they diverge, declines persist or accelerate. The two most iconic taxa—whale sharks and manta rays—illustrate these dynamics, while deeply data-poor groups like gulper sharks and wedgefishes reveal the blind spots in global protections.

Case studies: whale sharks, manta rays, and their fragile edge

Whale sharks, the ocean’s largest fish and a prominent draw for ecotourism, face dual pressures: capture and ship-strike risks. They feed at surface zooplankton blooms, concentrating interactions with vessels and fishing fleets that traverse major migratory routes. As protections strengthen under Appendix I, we should expect lower direct trade pressure and fewer incentives to slaughter them for fins or oil. Yet effectiveness hinges on vigilant enforcement at ports and the ability of range states to harmonize fisheries policies along migratory corridors.

Manta rays and devil rays share similar vulnerabilities. Their large size, slow reproductive rates, and attraction to tourism create overlapping incentives for protection and exploitation. The Appendix I designation curbs commercial trade, but illegal networks can exploit gaps in supply chains and the demand for exotic products. In practice, the merit of such protections depends on credible monitoring, rapid responses to violations, and regional cooperation that transcends national boundaries.

Gaps and risks among lesser-known taxa: gulper sharks, sawfish, and wedgefishes

Gulper sharks illustrate a critical danger: a liver-oil economy once sustained heavy fishing pressure on deep-sea species. Their vulnerability lies in restricted distributions and high value markets, which makes enforcement challenging. Sawfish, once thriving in many coastal systems, face severe endangerment, with their distinctive rostrum becoming a symbol of near-extinction risk. For wedgefishes and guitarfishes, zero-quota designations temporarily halt trade, buying time for recovery but risking substitution effects and black-market activity if demand stays robust.

These cases expose a fundamental theme: global protections can fail if they ignore local realities. Community livelihoods, illegal markets, and enforcement bandwidth determine whether international rules translate into real protection on the water. The global plan gains legitimacy when local benefits—such as improved fishery yields, ecotourism revenue, and ecosystem services—outweigh the costs of compliance for fishers and traders.

Cause and effect: drivers and policy impacts

Understanding how protection translates into outcomes requires tracing the chain from drivers to responses and ultimately to population trajectories. The primary forces shaping sharks and rays today include fishing pressure, habitat degradation, and the governance of international trade. Each driver interacts with another, generating complex outcomes that policymakers must anticipate.

Fisheries pressure, bycatch, and habitat loss

Overfishing remains the dominant driver of decline. Bycatch in pelagic longlines and gillnets disproportionately affects slow-reproducing sharks and rays. Habitat loss—especially in coastal nurseries and estuaries—reduces juvenile recruitment and weakens resilience. Climate-driven shifts in prey distribution compound these pressures, pushing more individuals into high-risk areas and contact with fisheries. The cumulative effect is fewer juveniles reaching maturity, compounding the risk of collapse for vulnerable species.

• Bycatch reduction opportunities: gear modifications, real-time bycatch avoidance systems, and observer programs can lower incidental removals.
• Habitat protection: safeguarding nurseries and critical foraging grounds preserves recruitment pathways essential for recovery.
• Climate adaptation: protecting thermal refugia and migratory corridors helps species track prey and favorable conditions.

Role of international trade and markets

The international trade regime amplifies or mitigates stock declines. When a species sits on Appendix I, trade is tightly controlled, reducing incentives to harvest for export. Appendix II, while less restrictive, can still impose export controls that slow overexploitation. Changes in consumer demand, price signals, and alternative market channels shape effective protection levels on the water.

• Appendix I mechanics: import/export permits are granted only in exceptional circumstances, creating strong disincentives for trade.
• Appendix II dynamics: export permits depend on demonstrating non-threatening population levels, linking trade to conservation status.
• Market responses: shifts to substitutes or non-protected species may occur, potentially offsetting gains unless enforcement keeps pace.

How CITES design shapes recovery trajectories

CITES listings create a framework for national laws, not a single lever. Effective recovery requires robust national regulations, transparent reporting, and cross-border enforcement. The whale shark, once migrated across broad oceanic routes, shows that legally binding protections can slow declines, but only with complemented actions: economic support for compliant fishers, monitoring, and regional cooperation. The zero-quota designations for guitarfishes and wedgefishes demonstrate a precautionary stance, buying time while data and management frameworks mature.

Expert reconstruction: pathways to sustainable futures for sharks and rays

Policy design must translate ecological knowledge into enforceable protections without crippling communities that rely on coastal resources. The recent CITES moves provide a catalyst, but the lasting impact depends on three linked pillars: robust implementation, integrated data sharing, and inclusive governance that aligns conservation with livelihoods. Here we reconstruct a credible pathway for sharks and rays that respects ecological limits and human needs.

Policy design: from Appendix I to II and beyond

Move beyond binaryAppendix I/II distinctions toward a tiered, evidence-based framework. The aim is to couple trade restrictions with adaptive management that scales with population status. For high-value, slow-mrowing species, asset-rich protections help maintain population buffers while enabling sustainable harvesting in select areas under strict quotas and independent monitoring. Periodic reassessment, data-driven triggers, and regional agreements become the backbone of effective protection.

Key steps include:

• Transparent stock assessments: collaborative science between range states yields credible population estimates and recovery benchmarks.
• Targeted trade controls: dynamic permits, enforcement, and traceability reduce illegal trade and leakage.
• Regional compacts: shared migratory corridor management aligns protections with movement biology.

Monitoring, data, and cooperation across borders

Data sharing remains the linchpin of credible management. National agencies, regional fisheries management organizations, and international bodies must synchronize monitoring protocols to produce comparable indicators. Real-time reporting on catches, bycatch, and trade flows improves responsiveness and reduces the chance that declines outpace policy action. Cooperation extends beyond government agencies to include fisheries groups, Indigenous and local communities, and tourism sectors that benefit from healthy ecosystems.

• Standardized indicators: abundance, juvenile recruitment, and bycatch rates tracked consistently across regions.
• Independent verification: third-party audits and transparent data portals build trust and deter misreporting.
• Community co-management: livelihoods and conservation goals align through participatory governance and benefit-sharing schemes.

Local livelihoods, ecotourism, and community resilience

Protecting sharks and rays offers economic opportunities when communities shift toward sustainable use. Ecotourism around whale sharks, manta rays, and other charismatic species can generate incomes that exceed short-term catches. Yet, effective ecotourism requires training, safety standards, and equitable distribution of benefits. When communities see tangible rewards from conservation, enforcement gains legitimacy and compliance strengthens.

• Alternative livelihoods: certified ecotourism, reef protection, and guided research visits diversify income sources.
• Education and outreach: local knowledge integrates with scientific data to improve management decisions.
• Risk management: diversified livelihoods buffer communities against market shocks and policy changes.

Ultimately, the fate of sharks and rays hinges on aligning science with policy and people. The 2025 CITES expansion signals global concern for these taxa, but sustained success requires continuous data flow, adaptive governance, and inclusive strategies that honor both biodiversity and human livelihoods. If implemented with discipline and transparency, these protections can begin to bend a long arc away from extinction toward recovery for sharks and rays.

Conclusion

The protection of sharks and rays through CITES represents a critical inflection point in marine conservation. The gains depend on how well governments translate listings into enforceable restrictions, how effectively monitoring and data sharing operate, and how communities participate in co-creating sustainable futures. The ocean’s oldest predators deserve more than symbolic protection; they require robust, globally coordinated action that preserves ecological processes and sustains the people who depend on them.

Integrated enforcement and livelihoods pathways

To translate protections into actual recovery, the missing link is coordinated enforcement, transparent data sharing, and credible benefits for communities that rely on coastal resources. This section outlines practical approaches that connect science, policy, and people in real terms.

These visuals illustrate how protection outcomes hinge on enforcement credibility, market incentives, and cross-border governance. A practical path blends trade controls with adaptive management and regional compacts that align with migratory patterns and local livelihoods.

• Stock assessments — transparent, joint estimates that feed policy triggers
• Trade controls — dynamic permits and robust chain-of-custody
• Regional compacts — shared migratory corridor management and enforcement capacity

Policy design should progress beyond binary classifications toward a tiered, evidence-based framework that scales protections with population signals, while ensuring that local communities retain viable livelihoods. Transparent reporting, independent verification, and regional cooperation are the backbone of durable success.