Listening to Fishers to Better Protect Deep-Water Sharks: What Three Workshops Across the Azores Revealed

As part of the Marine Beacon project, three participatory workshops were organised with professional and recreational fishers from the Azorean islands of Terceira and São Miguel. Discussions with fishers from these two islands provided insights into their local fishing practices and experiences with accidental catches of deep-water sharks, highlighting both common perspectives and differences in their experiences. Beyond collecting scientific information, the workshops created a space where practical knowledge, scientific expertise and conservation challenges could be openly discussed.

Controversies: One Ocean, Different Realities

The workshops clearly demonstrated that there is no single perception of deep-water shark bycatch across the Azores. On Terceira, many fishers described accidental shark catches as relatively infrequent and often considered them a secondary issue compared with other fishing constraints. By contrast, participants from São Miguel reported much more frequent interactions with sharks, particularly in deeper fishing grounds, and described important economic losses caused by damaged catches, damaged fishing gear and additional fishing time.

Opinions also differed regarding the ecological status of deep-water sharks. Some participants viewed these species simply as natural components of the marine ecosystem whose presence should be accepted. Others believed that shark populations had increased over recent years and questioned whether current protection measures remained appropriate. These contrasting perceptions illustrate one of the major challenges facing fisheries management: fishers' local observations do not always coincide with the limited scientific information currently available.

Another important source of debate concerned the lack of reliable information. Because most deep-water shark species are protected and cannot legally be landed, official statistics provide only a partial picture of accidental captures. Fishers therefore possess valuable field observations, yet these remain largely absent from existing scientific databases.

Possible Solutions: Building Conservation Together

Despite their different experiences, fishers from both islands identified several common pathways for reducing accidental shark catches while maintaining viable fisheries.

The first approach consists of adapting fishing practices whenever possible by changing fishing locations, fishing depths or fishing schedules to avoid periods and areas where shark interactions appear to be more frequent. While some fishers already apply these strategies informally, others emphasised that local environmental conditions often limit their flexibility.

The second family of solutions concerns technological innovation. Across all three workshops, participants expressed genuine curiosity about light-based and electric deterrent devices designed to discourage shark interactions without affecting target species. Although these technologies are still under development, participants generally viewed them as promising and emphasised the need for further testing under commercial fishing conditions.

Participants also recognised the importance of improving the handling and release of accidentally caught sharks. Sharing practical guidance and developing best-practice protocols could increase post-release survival while reducing risks for fishers themselves.

Perhaps the strongest consensus emerged around collaboration between science and fisheries. Fishers from both islands expressed interest in contributing directly to knowledge production through voluntary reporting programmes using photographs or mobile applications. Participatory mapping exercises were equally valued, demonstrating that combining scientific models with fishers' local ecological knowledge produces more realistic assessments of where fisheries and sharks overlap.

Difficulties in Implementation: From Good Ideas to Practical Action

While many potential solutions were identified, the workshops also highlighted why implementation remains challenging.

Economic considerations emerged across the workshops as the principal barrier. Most fishers considered deterrent technologies potentially useful but questioned whether the expected benefits justified the financial investment, particularly when shark bycatch was perceived as relatively limited.

Operational constraints also remain significant. Participants generally regarded release cages as impractical because they require additional equipment and time and may interfere with normal fishing operations. Likewise, modifying fishing areas or fishing depths is not always possible due to weather conditions, fishing grounds, target species or economic constraints.

Knowledge gaps represent another important obstacle. Many participants acknowledged that identifying deep-water shark species remains difficult, making it harder to apply species-specific conservation measures or to validate scientific distribution models. The willingness to participate in voluntary monitoring programmes also varied between the two islands, suggesting that successful citizen science initiatives will require long-term trust and continued dialogue.

Finally, the workshops revealed that regulations alone cannot ensure effective conservation. Some participants acknowledged that accidentally caught sharks are still occasionally used as bait despite existing legal prohibitions. This highlights the importance of complementing regulations with practical, acceptable and economically realistic solutions developed jointly by scientists, fishers and managers.