lemonde.fr
Maldives to Lift Shark Fishing Ban
The Maldives will lift its ban on shark fishing in November 2024, prioritizing the gulper shark fishery to boost the national economy, despite concerns from environmental groups about the impact on its image as a shark sanctuary and the potential harm to its tourism industry.
- What are the immediate economic and environmental implications of the Maldives' lifting its ban on shark fishing?
- The Maldives will lift its decades-long ban on shark fishing, specifically targeting the gulper shark, starting in November 2024. This decision, announced by President Mohamed Muizzu, aims to boost the national economy by re-establishing a significant income source. The ban, initially implemented in 2010, was lifted after the government determined that the economic benefits of shark fishing outweighed those of shark-related tourism.
- How does this policy reversal impact the Maldives's image as a global leader in marine conservation, given its vulnerability to climate change and commitment to environmental protection?
- This policy reversal comes after a period where tourism revenue surpassed that of shark fishing. However, the government now believes that a regulated gulper shark fishery, coupled with a comprehensive management plan, will generate substantial income. This decision highlights a shift in economic priorities, potentially impacting the Maldives's image as a global shark sanctuary.
- What are the potential long-term ecological and economic consequences of resuming shark fishing in the Maldives, considering sustainable tourism practices and climate change vulnerability?
- The long-term consequences of this decision remain uncertain. While the government anticipates increased revenue from shark fishing, there are concerns about the sustainability of this practice and potential damage to the marine ecosystem. This move may also negatively affect the Maldives's reputation as a leader in marine conservation and climate change mitigation, potentially impacting tourism revenue in the long run.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story by initially highlighting the economic benefits of shark fishing, which could sway readers to view this decision as purely positive. While the concerns of environmental groups are included, the initial focus on economic gain might lead to a more favorable perception of the decision among readers. The headline, while not explicitly biased, could be improved by highlighting the controversy more directly.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, however, phrases like "deeply troubling" (in the quote from Shark Guardian) are somewhat loaded and reflect a subjective opinion. More neutral alternatives could be 'concerning' or 'of significant concern'. The use of the word "vowed" to describe Muizzu's commitment to land reclamation could be interpreted as slightly positive, implying determination. A less charged term such as "pledged" or "committed" might be preferred for neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of the economic factors that might have influenced the decision to lift the ban, such as potential overfishing of tuna or other economic pressures. It also doesn't detail the specifics of the "comprehensive management plan" for gulper shark fishing, leaving the reader to wonder about its effectiveness in preventing overfishing. The long-term environmental impact on the coral reef ecosystem is not thoroughly addressed.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the choice is between shark fishing and tourism. The reality is likely more nuanced, with potential for sustainable practices that balance both. The article does not explore these alternatives.
Sustainable Development Goals
The lifting of the shark fishing ban in the Maldives directly threatens marine biodiversity and the sustainability of the ocean ecosystem. This action undermines the country's previous reputation as a global shark sanctuary and could negatively impact the long-term health of its marine environment. The rationale is supported by the statement from Shark Guardian expressing alarm over the policy reversal and highlighting the risks to the long-term health of the nation's tourism-dependent economy which relies heavily on a healthy marine ecosystem.