Content uploaded by Kym T. Collins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kym T. Collins on Oct 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1149
Developing a Code of Conduct for whale shark interactions
in Mozambique
SIMON J. PIERCE
a,b,c,
, ADRIANA ME
´NDEZ-JIME
´NEZ
b
, KYM COLLINS
b
, MARCELA ROSERO-CAICEDO
b
and
ARA MONADJEM
d
a
Manta Ray and Whale Shark Research Centre, Marine Megafauna Association, Praia do Tofo, Inhambane, Mozambique
b
All Out Africa Research Unit, P.O. Box 153, Lobamba, Swaziland
c
Eyes on the Horizon, Praia do Tofo, Inhambane, Mozambique
d
All Out Africa Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Swaziland, Private Bag 4, Kwaluseni, Swaziland
ABSTRACT
1. The whale shark (Rhincodon typus) is a popular focal species within the global marine tourism industry.
Although this has contributed to increased protection being granted to the species in several countries, tourism
itself can be detrimental to the sharks in the absence of appropriate management. Potential impacts can be
mitigated, at least in the short term, by adherence to well-designed interaction guidelines.
2. A burgeoning marine tourism industry based on swimming with whale sharks has developed at Tofo Beach
in Mozambique. However, no formal management is currently in place at this site.
3. The behaviour of whale sharks during interactions with boats and swimmers were recorded during 137
commercial snorkelling trips run from Tofo Beach over a 20 month period. Whale sharks were encountered on
87% of trips, which operated year-round.
4. Boat proximity and shark size were significant predictors of avoidance behaviour. No avoidance responses
were recorded at 420 m boat distance.
5. The mean in-water interaction time between sharks and swimmers was 8 min 48 s overall. There was a
significant decrease in interaction times during encounters where sharks expressed avoidance behaviours, and
also in cases where sharks had expressed boat avoidance behaviour before swimmers entered the water.
6. It is suggested that mean encounter times can be extended through adherence to a basic Code of Conduct for
operators and swimmers that enforces minimum distances between the sharks, boats and swimmers. Using
encounter time as a measure of the ‘success’ of interactions holds promise, as longer encounters appear to be
indicative of lower impacts on sharks while also providing higher customer satisfaction for swimmers.
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 1 March 2010; Revised 20 August 2010; Accepted 22 August 2010
KEY WORDS: Rhincodon typus; tourism; behavioural ecology; management; conservation
INTRODUCTION
The huge size, placid disposition and planktonic diet of the
whale shark, Rhincodon typus (Smith), has resulted in the
species becoming a popular focus of the global marine tourism
industry (Graham, 2004; Compagno et al., 2005; Catlin and
Jones, 2009). Whale sharks aggregate predictably in certain
tropical and sub-tropical locations to target ephemeral bursts
in local productivity such as plankton blooms (Clark and
Nelson, 1997; Taylor, 2007), fish spawning events (Heyman
et al., 2001) or crab larval release (Meekan et al., 2009). Some
of these areas are, in turn, subject to high tourist visitation
during these periods as people travel to view and swim with the
sharks (Davis et al., 1997; Graham, 2004; Ca
´rdenas-Torres
et al., 2007; Quiros, 2007; Rowat and Engelhardt, 2007; Catlin
and Jones, 2009).
Whale shark tourism can give a significant boost to regional
economies, with global revenue estimated to be US$47.5
million in 2004 (Graham, 2004). The annual value of each
of the 106 individual whale sharks identified in Belize was
*Correspondence to: Simon J. Pierce, Manta Ray and Whale Shark Research Centre, Marine Megafauna Association, Praia do Tofo, Inhambane,
Mozambique. E-mail: simon@marinemegafauna.org
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
estimated to be US$34, 906 in 2002 (Graham, 2004), while
whale shark tour participants spent AU$6.0 million (US$4.5
million) in the Ningaloo region of Western Australia in 2006
(Jones et al., 2009). A high proportion of whale shark tourism
sites are located within developing nations, providing a
compelling economic incentive for these countries to protect
or manage the species (Graham, 2004). Given that whale
sharks have been the subject of large, targeted fisheries in
several countries (Pravin, 2000; Alava et al., 2002; Chen and
Phipps, 2002), the advent of tourism may provide a direct
alternative to extractive harvesting in some areas (Topelko and
Dearden, 2005; Pine et al., 2007).
Shark-related tourism is sometimes viewed as a
controversial activity, particularly when the sharks are
attracted with bait (Topelko and Dearden, 2005; Laroche
et al., 2007). However, whale shark tourism usually involves
either snorkelling or scuba diving with sharks that have not
been actively attracted to observers (Graham and Roberts,
2007; Quiros, 2007) and has thereby largely avoided many of
the perceived negative aspects of the broader industry. In
practice, whale shark tourism has many similarities to in-water
interactions with marine mammals. The latter industry is
comparatively well-studied, and research on a number of large
and small cetacean species has demonstrated that tourism may
have detrimental impacts at an individual, group or population
level (e.g. Bejder and Samuels, 2004; Lusseau, 2005; Bejder
et al., 2006a,b; Stensland and Berggren, 2007). Such impacts
can include both short-term behavioural avoidance and
longer-term population declines (Bejder and Samuels, 2004;
Bejder et al., 2006b). The real or potential impacts of whale
shark tourism are less understood, although certain in-water
swimmer behaviours have been shown to cause short-term
disturbance to the sharks (Quiros, 2007). Increasing tourist
visitation has anecdotally been linked to declines in whale
shark sighting rates in Belize (Graham, 2007) and to other
impacts, such as boat strikes (Ca
´rdenas-Torres et al., 2007;
Rowat et al., 2007), in other locations.
Tofo Beach in southern Mozambique has recently emerged
as an international hot-spot for whale shark encounters.
Although whale sharks have been known to aggregate in the
area for some time (Wolfson, 1986), political circumstances
within the country and a general lack of infrastructure
prevented commercial nature-based marine tourism from
developing until the late 1990s. International tourists now
travel to the region year-round specifically to swim with the
sharks, and at least seven operators currently offer daily
snorkelling trips (‘ocean safaris’). Whale shark tourism has
been identified as a key strategic niche market by the
Mozambican government (Ministe
´rio do Turismo, 2004).
The Mozambican national development plan for tourism
aims to safeguard and manage natural assets to create
desirable tourism products, while simultaneously monitoring
the resources to ensure that tourism itself does not cause
damage (Ministe
´do Turismo, 2004). In most countries where
whale shark tourism is now established, it has proven
necessary to manage interactions through legislation or
voluntary codes of practice to reduce the potential for
negative impacts on the sharks (Davis et al., 1997; Ca
´rdenas-
Torres et al., 2007; Quiros, 2007). No legislation pertaining
specifically to whale shark encounters is presently in place in
Mozambique. The objectives of the present study were to
examine the short-term behavioural responses of whale sharks
to boat and swimmer interactions. Using this information,
we provide explicit recommendations for management of this
burgeoning tourism industry through the development of a
best-practice Code of Conduct for interactions with the
species.
METHODS
Study site and ocean safari procedures
Praia do Tofo (Tofo Beach) (231510S, 351320E) is a small
seaside resort town situated in Inhambane province,
Mozambique, about 400 km north-east of the nation’s
capital, Maputo (Figure 1). At the time of writing,
November 2009, ocean safaris were offered by four operators
at Tofo Beach. Another three operators ran from Barra, which
lies slightly to the north of Tofo, yet searched the same
geographic area for whale sharks. Generally, two or three
operators run ocean safaris on a given day, except during
inclement weather. The main attraction of these ocean safaris
is swimming with whale sharks, although swimmers will also
enter the water opportunistically with bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops sp.), humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and
manta rays (Manta spp.).
All observations in the present study were made from
a single operator using 8.2 m rigid-hull inflatable craft.
The operational capacity of these vessels was 16–19 people,
usually including three or four staff: a skipper, spotter and a
divemaster/guide. For commercial reasons, trips were rarely
conducted without a minimum of five paying clients. The
majority of trips were made in the middle of the day (between
11 am and 2 pm) to fit in between regular scuba dives and to
facilitate boat-based visual searching for whale sharks through
reduced glare from the sun. Searches were aided on the
majority of trips by the use of a removable spotting chair,
which raised a single observer to approximately 3 m above sea
level to broaden the search corridor. Sharks were sighted by
their dark silhouettes or exposed fins as they swam close to the
Tofo Beach
.
.
Inhambane
Tropic of Capricorn
.50 km
Figure 1. Tofo Beach and surrounding coastline. Inset shows the
location of Tofo in Africa.
S. J. PIERCE ET AL.
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
surface. Search distances were dictated by the number and
duration of animal encounters en-route. Normally an S-shaped
search pattern was driven along the coast from approximately
100 m past the surf-line to 1000 m from shore, with a one-way
travel distance of approximately 6 km. Water depths in this
area range from 5 to 30 m over a predominantly sandy
substrate. Total trip durations were 90–120 min. Trip
characteristics are similar between all the operators working
from Tofo.
Before the trip, a briefing was given onshore to cover
basic safety aspects, boating and whale shark interaction
procedures. A varying amount of environmental interpretation
was provided before and during the trip, but swimmers were
always specifically told not to touch or otherwise harass the
sharks. Upon spotting a shark, the boat was manoeuvred to
place it in or near to the anticipated path of the whale shark.
Swimmers entered the water and snorkelled with the shark
until the encounter was ended by either the shark increasing
speed or diving, swimmers due to fatigue, or operator time
constraints or safety concerns (i.e. when the shark was close to
the surf line).
Data collection and analysis
Observations of whale shark interactions were collected between
January 2008 and August 2009, excluding July and August 2008.
The location of each shark encountered was noted along with
weather conditions and Beaufort sea state. As swimmers entered
the water, the proximity of the shark to the boat, number of
swimmers in the water, estimated underwater visibility and sea
surface temperature (SST) were recorded. The total length of
each shark was estimated, sex was distinguished by the presence
or absence of claspers on the pelvic fins, and the body surface
was examined for wounds or scars.
Behavioural observations for each shark were collected
from both above and within the water. The shark’s initial
response to the boat was categorized as either (a) no reaction;
(b) dive; (c) change of direction; or (d) interaction with the
boat through purposeful close investigation including
occasional ‘bumps’ to the hull or motors. These reactions
were categorized as either avoidance (b) or (c), or no avoidance
(a) or (d). A logistic regression was employed to test whether
the measured variables (in this case SST, sea state, underwater
visibility, sex, size, proximity of boat or scarred/non-scarred)
were significant predictors of behaviour. The effect of boat
proximity on behavioural response was specifically tested using
a Mann–Whitney rank sum test (owing to non-normality of
data), and the influence of the number of boats present
examined using a chi-squared test (w
2
).
In the water, a basic ethogram of each shark’s behaviour in
the presence of swimmers was created to record slow
swimming (SS), where the shark remained swimming at a
slow constant rate, or fast swimming (FS) where the shark was
obviously swimming more quickly or accelerated during the
encounter. When the shark was obviously feeding, its
behaviour was categorized as passive feeding (PF), surface
gulping (SG) or underwater gulping (UG). Diving (D) was
noted during the encounter, and behavioural responses to
swimmers such as avoidance (A), change of direction (CD),
banking (B) or interaction (IS), where the shark actively
followed swimmers, were also collated. These behaviours were
summarized as either (1) avoidance, defined as either A, or two
or more of FS, D, CD or B, or (2) no avoidance, comprising all
other behavioural observations. Logistic regression was used
to test whether this binomial response was influenced by
whether the shark was feeding, the number of swimmers in the
water, size and sex of the shark, the presence of external scars,
SST, visibility or sea state.
Total encounter time (in min), defined as the time between
the first swimmer entering the water and the last swimmer
exiting the water, was recorded for each whale shark
interaction. Due to the non-normality of data, the effects of
boat avoidance and in-water avoidance behaviours on
encounter time were specifically assessed using Mann–
Whitney rank sum tests.
RESULTS
In total, 411 interactions with whale sharks were recorded
from 137 trips. Between 0 and 14 shark encounters were
recorded on each trip, with a mean and standard deviation of
3.072.71. At least one shark was sighted on 87.0% of trips.
The number of trips per month where data were collected for
this study varied from 0 to 15. Sharks were sighted in all
months, although there was a significant monthly variation in
the number of sharks sighted per trip (ANOVA on ranks,
17 d.f., Po0.001). The highest mean number of sharks was
recorded in October 2008 (5.572.85 per trip) and the lowest in
August 2009 (0.370.50 per trip) (Figure 2). In both 2008 and
2009, the mean number of sharks observed declined in the
austral winter (Figure 2), indicating that whale sharks move
away from the Tofo region during this season. Sharks were
feeding during 19.4% of encounters.
Behavioural responses to the boat
The proximity of the boat to the shark when swimmers entered
the water ranged from a minimum of o1 m to a maximum of
40 m, with a mean of 7.175.98 m. Where both the proximity of
the shark and its reaction to the boat was recorded (n5264
occasions), an avoidance response was noted during 32.7%
of encounters. Boat proximity (P50.026) and shark size
(P50.015) were the only two significant predictors of
avoidance response among the measured variables (Table 1).
The odds ratio for boat proximity shows that for each extra
metre between the shark and boat, the shark was 0.882 times
less likely to show an avoidance response. Similarly, larger
sharks were less likely to avoid the boat, with each metre of
length decreasing avoidance responses by 0.620 times. Specific
testing of boat proximity effects found mean approach
distances of 5.574.97 m and 7.676.08 m in cases of
avoidance and no avoidance, respectively. No avoidance
responses were noted at proximities 420 m.
Behavioural responses to swimmers
Total encounter times ranged from o1 to 49 min. Excluding
encounters where either the operator ended the encounter
prematurely or swimmers from other boats entered the water
with the shark (n527), the overall mean encounter time was
8 min 48 s78 min 9 s. Swimmers from two or more boats
entered the water with an individual shark on 20 occasions.
The shark exhibited distinct avoidance behaviour upon the
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WHALE SHARK INTERACTIONS IN MOZAMBIQUE
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
arrival of the second group of swimmers during 60.0% of these
encounters, indicating a significantly higher probability of
avoidance behaviour compared with single-boat encounters
(w
2
549.84, 1 d.f., P5o0.001).
Behavioural observations were collected for 402 normal
(single boat per shark) in-water interactions. Avoidance
behaviour was noted during 34.6% of these interactions.
Instant diving or abrupt directional changes in response to
swimmer presence (within 30 s of swimmers sighting the shark)
were recorded on 17 occasions (4.8% of in-water interactions),
resulting in encounter times of o1 to 5 min. Encounter time was
negatively related to the expression of avoidance behaviour by
sharks (rank sum test, P50.035), with average encounter times
of 8min 6s78min 2s, and 9min 6s78 min 0 s in cases
where sharks did and did not exhibit avoidance behaviour,
respectively. The only significant predictor of avoidance
behaviour among the measured variables was SST, with each
11C increase in SST corresponding with a 0.842 time decrease in
avoidance responses (Table 1). The number of swimmers per
encounter ranged from 1 to 18, with a median of 11 and a mean
of 10.873.66. There was no obvious relationship between the
number of people in the water and encounter time (linear
regression, 351 d.f., P50.738; Figure 3).
In-water interaction times were also significantly related to
the prior reaction of the shark to the boat. Mean encounter
time was significantly reduced from 8 min 48 s77 min 18 s in
cases where the shark had shown no boat avoidance, to 7 min
0s77 min 39 s when the shark had exhibited an avoidance
reaction (rank sum test, P50.007).
DISCUSSION
Whale sharks were sighted in every calendar month,
confirming Tofo Beach as having one of the few known
year-round aggregations of the species. There was some
observational evidence for seasonal variation in shark
abundance, with a September/October peak. However, as
trip distance and duration – and therefore the total number of
whale sharks encountered – varied according to the length of
tourist interactions with individual sharks, detailed analysis
of seasonal abundance awaits a more standardized approach.
2008
JM O M
No. of shark encounters
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2009
FMA J J A S NDJF AMJ J A
11 2
1
8
3
4
8
15
28
11
8
11
12
9
11
9
4
Time period
Figure 2. Seasonal variation in shark encounters during 2008 and 2009 (7SD). Numbers above SD lines denote the number of trips undertaken
during that month.
Table 1. Significant predictors of whale shark avoidance behaviours
during interactions with boats and with swimmers, derived from
logistic regression
Boat avoidance Swimmer avoidance
Factor Boat proximity Shark size Sea surface temperature
Pvalue 0.026 0.015 0.006
Odds ratio 0.882 0.620 0.842
Coefficient 0.125 0.478 0.172
Number of swimmers
0
Encounter time (min)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
24681012141618
Figure 3. Mean encounter time (7SD) plotted against the number of
swimmers present.
S. J. PIERCE ET AL.
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
The overall success rate of tours, i.e. where one or more
sharks were sighted, was 87.0% over the study period. This
figure is higher than the seasonal sighting rates at Ningaloo Reef
in Western Australia (81.6% between 1996 and 2004) (Mau and
Wilson, 2007) and Gladden Spit in Belize (69% between 1998
and 2003) (Graham and Roberts, 2007). The mean number of
whale sharks encountered per trip at Tofo (3.0) was higher than
the mean number of interactions recorded per trip at Ningaloo
between 1996 and 2004, which was 2.6 initially, declining to 1.2
during the period of that study (Mau and Wilson, 2007). This is
a notable point, considering that snorkelling trips at Tofo utilize
boat-based searches along a relatively small length of coast,
whereas in Ningaloo spotter planes are employed to locate the
sharks over a broader area (Mau and Wilson, 2007). The
number of sharks encountered per trip during September and
October at Tofo were similar to in-season rates at Donsol in the
Philippines (6.6 and 8.15 interactions per trip in 2004 and 2005,
respectively) (Quiros, 2007) and Gladden Spit (2 to 6 sharks per
trip between 1998 and 2003) (Graham and Roberts, 2007). The
high trip success rate and mean number of interactions observed
over the period of the present study suggest that Mozambique
has considerable potential as a whale shark tourism destination,
with a ‘product’ that rivals or exceeds more established whale
shark tourism destinations. These results also support aerial
survey data from the South African and southern Mozambican
coasts that had previously recorded relatively high numbers of
whale sharks close to Tofo (Cliff et al., 2007).
Customer satisfaction with in-water interactions with dwarf
minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in Australia was
significantly associated with the duration of the encounter
(Valentine et al., 2004), and the same appears to be true
for swimmers with whale sharks (Catlin and Jones, 2009).
In the present study, the expression of short-term avoidance
behaviour by individual whale sharks was linked to a
reduction in encounter time. Therefore, encounter time
appears to have potential as a crude measure of the overall
‘success’ of interactions. For the purposes of the following
discussion, it is explicitly assumed that the primary aim of any
management intervention will be to maximize encounter times,
which is most easily achievable through the minimization of
avoidance behaviour.
A significant link was found between the expression of
avoidance behaviour by sharks and the proximity at which
swimmers entered the water from the vessel. Boat avoidance
behaviour was also associated with shorter encounter times
during ensuing in-water interactions with individual sharks.
This suggests that disturbed sharks either have a heightened
stress response, or in some cases dived before a close interaction
with swimmers could take place. Martin (2007) suggested that
boat avoidance behaviour in whale sharks may be related to
either the low-frequency noise signature of the motors or to a
perceived potential for boat strikes. Scars from small boat
strikes have previously been recorded from Mozambican whale
sharks (Speed et al., 2008), although the observed frequency of
occurrence at Tofo was considerably lower than that reported
from other aggregation sites (Ca
´rdenas-Torres et al., 2007;
Rowat et al., 2007). The presence of scarring was not identified
as a significant predictor of avoidance behaviour in the present
study, although this analysis did not specifically examine
injuries from boats.
Boat avoidance behaviour was not observed at (estimated)
distances 420 m in the present study. These data suggest that
this distance represents a useful initial value for a boat
exclusion radius around sharks. This recommended distance
considerably exceeds the present mean swimmer discharge
distance of slightly over 7 m, suggesting that training
programmes will need to be implemented for skippers and
guides to ensure changes in current behaviour. Given that a
reduction in boat avoidance behaviour is likely to significantly
increase mean in-water encounter times overall, the
application of this new exclusion distance should be
emphasized in training. There is no internationally-applied
boat exclusion radius in use at present, as the situations and
practical realities differ between sites. Code of Conduct
recommendations around the world vary from 5 m in Bahia
de los Angeles, Mexico (Ca
´rdenas-Torres et al., 2007), to 10 m
in Yum Balam, Mexico (Remolina et al., 2007) and 30 m in
Western Australia (DEH, 2005). Furthermore, the high
frequency of avoidance behaviour exhibited by sharks when
interacting with more than one boatload of swimmers clearly
suggests that, as laid out in most national Codes of Conduct,
only one boat should be ‘in contact’ with a shark at one time,
whilst any others maintain a reasonable distance (i.e. outside
the proposed 20 m exclusion radius).
Swimmer interaction times recorded in the present study
represent an intra-site baseline value for future adaptive
management measures. Inter-site interaction times are likely
to be less useful to the formulation of Mozambican
management procedures, as shark behaviour is likely to
change according to feeding strategy and the specific
characteristics of each location. For example, the average
length of interactions in the Philippines, where a higher
proportion of sharks were feeding while observed (in 2005),
was only 3 min (Quiros, 2007). Conversely, mean interaction
times at Ningaloo Reef declined from 27 min in 1996 to 7 min
in 2004, although some interim years remained high, with the
decline possibly influenced by changes in operator procedures
(Mau and Wilson, 2007). Although data on swimmer
behaviours were not collected in the present study, other
studies have shown that maintaining a distance of 3 m from the
body of the shark and 4 m from the tail result in a reduction of
avoidance by sharks. These distances minimize the potential
for accidental touching and also reduce swimmer perceptions
of crowding, thereby improving the quality of the encounter.
Underwater visibility is generally high enough at Tofo to make
these distances practical, unlike in Mexico and the Philippines
where visibility is often poor. In the current study, however,
the physical number of swimmers in the water had no apparent
effect on encounter length, although the mean number of
swimmers was higher than that recommended by most Codes
of Conduct (Quiros, 2007; Remolina et al., 2007; Catlin and
Jones, 2009). It seems likely that, rather than the sheer
presence of swimmers, their behaviour and proximity to the
shark is the important factor to consider in future studies and
management assessments. Sea surface temperature was a
significant predictor of avoidance response, with higher
temperatures associated with decreased encounter times. As
the metabolic rate of ectothermic sharks are strongly affected
by ambient water temperatures (Carlson et al., 2004), this
result may suggest that whale sharks swim faster or are more
responsive to swimmer approach under warmer conditions.
Although the results of the present study show that an
unmanaged tourism industry in Mozambique could have the
potential to cause short-term behavioural modification in
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WHALE SHARK INTERACTIONS IN MOZAMBIQUE
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
whale sharks, basic mitigation measures should be relatively
simple to implement. The results as shown can reasonably be
taken to approximate the natural behaviour of skippers and
guides, as no formal interaction guidelines were in place during
the study. An increased effort to educate front-line operators
in appropriate interaction techniques is therefore integral to
the success of any new management strategies. Experience
from other countries has shown that instituting accountability
procedures for these staff members is also an important
element, as even relatively low levels of non-compliance can
lead to negative short-term behavioural impacts (Quiros,
2007). Recent studies from Ningaloo Reef in Australia
(Meekan et al., 2006; Holmberg et al., 2008, 2009), Mahe in
the Seychelles (Rowat et al., 2009) and Gladden Spit in Belize
(Graham and Roberts, 2007) have demonstrated that whale
sharks can be temporarily resident or show fidelity to feeding
sites. This suggests the potential for sharks to be repeatedly
exposed to tourist operators, which could result in cumulative
impacts. Quiros (2007) found that sharks sighted for the first
time at Donsol were significantly more likely to exhibit
avoidance behaviour when interacting with swimmers than
sharks encountered repeatedly, which suggests that some
degree of habituation may occur. However, results from
long-term studies on bottlenose dolphins suggest that in some
cases, rather than becoming habituated, sensitive individuals
may simply leave the area (Bejder et al., 2006a,b). This can
lead to long-term population declines even in the absence of
obvious short-term behavioural modification (Bejder et al.,
2006a,b). Given that the length of coast where tours are
conducted in Mozambique is relatively small, a large
proportion of sharks utilizing this area are likely to be
exposed to tourism. This could exacerbate the potential for
negative impacts on Mozambican sharks and highlights the
importance of ongoing monitoring to assess the medium- to
long-term impacts of tourism on whale sharks in this area.
Mozambique plans to attract 4 million tourists annually by
2020 (Ministe
´rio do Turismo, 2004). Such increasing tourist
numbers make it vital to introduce active management for
Mozambique’s whale shark tourism industry to ensure high
quality experiences for swimmers while minimizing detrimental
impacts on the sharks. The Mozambican government is
presently focused on poverty reduction rather than
environmental sustainability. Consequently, realizing the
potential non-consumptive economic value of whale sharks is
likely to be an important management consideration.
However, if this vision of sustainable growth is to be
achieved, iconic tourist species such as whale sharks require
enhanced protection and a dedicated management strategy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This is the 15th communication of the All Out Africa Research
Unit (www.alloutAfrica.org). Thanks to all the All Out Africa
volunteers and research coordinators who collected the data
used in the present study, and to Tofo Scuba for providing
support for this research project. SJPs work on this project was
also supported by grants from Project AWARE Foundation
(International) grant 450, and the PADI Foundation grant 23,
and from Casa Barry Lodge. Thanks to Juerg Brunnschweiler
and John Baxter for their helpful comments on the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alava MNR, Dolumbalo
´ERZ, Yaptinchay AA, Trono RB.
2002. Fishery and trade of whale sharks and manta rays in
the Bohol Sea, Philippines. In Elasmobranch Biodiversity,
Conservation and Management:Proceedings of the
International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia,
July 1997, Fowler SL, Reed TM, Dipper FA (eds). IUCN:
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK; 132–148.
Bejder L, Samuels A. 2004. Evaluating the effects of
nature-based tourism on cetaceans. In Marine Mammals:
Fisheries,Tourism and Management Issues, Gales N,
Hindell M, Kirkwood R (eds). CSIRO Publishing:
Melbourne, Australia; 229–256.
Bejder L, Samuels A, Whitehead H, Gales N. 2006a.
Interpreting short-term behavioural responses to disturbance
within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour 72:
1149–1158.
Bejder L, Samuels A, Whitehead H, Gales N, Mann J,
Connor R, Heithaus M, Watson-Capps J, Flaherty C,
Krutzen M. 2006b. Decline in relative abundance of
bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance.
Conservation Biology 20: 1791–1798.
Ca
´rdenas-Torres N, Enriquez-Andrade R, Rodriguez-Dowdell N.
2007. Community-based management through ecotourism in
Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico. Fisheries Research 84: 114–118.
Carlson JK, Goldman KJ, Lowe CG. 2004. Metabolism,
energetic demand and endothermy. In Biology of Sharks and
their Relatives, Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds).
CRC Press: Boca Raton, USA; 203–224.
Catlin J, Jones R. 2009. Whale shark tourism at Ningaloo
Marine Park: a longitudinal study of wildlife tourism.
Tourism Management 3: 386–394.
Chen VY, Phipps MJ. 2002. Management and Trade of Whale
Sharks in Taiwan. TRAFFIC East Asia: Taipei, Taiwan.
Clark E, Nelson DR. 1997. Young whale sharks, Rhincodon
typus, feeding on a copepod bloom near La Paz, Mexico.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 50: 63–73.
Cliff G, Anderson-Reade MD, Aitken AP, Charter GE,
Peddemors VM. 2007. Aerial census of whale sharks
(Rhincodon typus) on the northern KwaZulu-Natal coast,
South Africa. Fisheries Research 84: 41–46.
Compagno L, Dando M, Fowler S. 2005. Sharks of the World.
HarperCollins: London.
Davis D, Banks S, Birtles A, Valentine P, Cuthill M. 1997.
Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing
tourism in an Australian marine protected area. Tourism
Management 18: 259–271.
DEH. 2005. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) recovery plan
issues paper. Department of the Environment and Heritage:
Canberra, Australia.
Graham RT. 2004. Global whale shark tourism: a ‘golden
goose’ of sustainable and lucrative income. Shark News 16:
8–9.
Graham RT. 2007. Whale sharks of the western Caribbean:
an overview of current research and conservation efforts
and future needs for effective management of the species.
Gulf and Caribbean Research 19: 149–159.
Graham RT, Roberts CM. 2007. Assessing the size, growth
rate and structure of a seasonal population of whale sharks
(Rhincodon typus Smith 1828) using conventional tagging
and photo identification. Fisheries Research 84: 71–80.
Heyman WD, Graham RT, Kjerfve B, Johannes RE. 2001.
Whale sharks Rhincodon typus aggregate to feed on fish spawn
in Belize. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 275–282.
Holmberg J, Norman B, Arzoumanian Z. 2008. Robust,
comparable population metrics through collaborative
S. J. PIERCE ET AL.
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
photo-monitoring of whale sharks Rhincodon typus.Ecological
Applications 18: 222–233.
Holmberg J, Norman B, Arzoumanian Z. 2009. Estimating
population size, structure, and residency time for
whale sharks Rhincodon typus through collaborative
photo-identification. Endangered Species Research 7: 39–53.
Jones T, Wood D, Catlin J, Norman B. 2009. Expenditure and
ecotourism: predictors of expenditure for whale shark tour
participants. Journal of Ecotourism 8: 32–50.
Laroche RK, Kock AA, Dill LM, Oosthuizen WH. 2007.
Effects of provisioning ecotourism activity on the behaviour
of white sharks Carcharodon carcharias.Marine Ecology
Progress Series 338: 199–209.
Lusseau D. 2005. Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins
Tursiops spp. in Milford Sound, New Zealand, is related to
boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295: 265–272.
Martin RA. 2007. A review of behavioural ecology of whale
sharks (Rhincodon typus). Fisheries Research 84: 10–16.
Mau R, Wilson E. 2007. Industry trends and whale shark
ecology based on tourism operator logbooks at Ningaloo
Marine Park. In The First International Whale Shark
Conference:Promoting International Collaboration in Whale
Shark Conservation,Science and Management. Conference
Overview,Abstracts and Supplementary Proceedings, Irvine
TR, Keesing JK (eds). CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
Research: Wembley, Australia; 45–52.
Meekan MG, Jarman SN, McLean C, Schultz MB. 2009.
DNA evidence of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) feeding on
red crab (Gecarcoidea natalis) larvae at Christmas Island,
Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 60: 607–609.
Meekan MG, Bradshaw CJA, Press M, McLean C, Richards
A, Quasnichka S, Taylor JG. 2006. Population size and
structure of whale sharks Rhincodon typus at Ningaloo Reef,
Western Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 319:
275–285.
Ministe
´rio do Turismo. 2004. Strategic Plan for the Development
of Tourism in Mozambique (2004–2013).Volume 1.
Repu´ blica de Moc-ambique Ministe
´rio do Turismo: Maputo,
Mozambique.
Pine R, Alava MNR, Yaptinchay AA. 2007. Challenges and
lessons learned in setting-up a community-based whale
shark ecotourism program: the case in Donsol, Philippines.
In The First International Whale Shark Conference:Promoting
International Collaboration in Whale Shark Conservation,
Science and Management. Conference Overview,Abstracts
and Supplementary Proceedings, Irvine TR, Keesing JK (eds).
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research: Wembley,
Australia; 36–44.
Pravin P. 2000. Whale shark in the Indian coast—need for
conservation. Current Science 79: 310–315.
Quiros AL. 2007. Tourist compliance to a Code of Conduct
and the resulting effects on whale shark (Rhincodon typus)
behavior in Donsol, Philippines. Fisheries Research 84:
102–108.
Remolina SJF, Pe
´rez RJJ, Gonza
´lez CJM, de la Parra VR,
Betancourt SN, Trigo MM, Gonza
´lez ML, Antele MJ.
2007. Whale shark management strategies, with the
participation of local stakeholders, in Yum Balam,
Mexico. In The First International Whale Shark Conference:
Promoting International Collaboration in Whale Shark:
Conservation,Science and Management. Conference Overview,
Abstracts and Supplementary Proceedings,IrvineTR,
Keesing JK (eds). CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
Research:Wembley,Australia;31–35.
Rowat D, Engelhardt U. 2007. Seychelles: a case study of
community involvement in the development of whale
shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact. Fisheries
Research 84: 109–113.
Rowat D, Meekan MG, Engelhardt U, Pardigon B, Vely M.
2007. Aggregations of juvenile whale sharks (Rhincodon
typus) in the Gulf of Tadjoura, Djibouti. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 80: 465–472.
Rowat D, Speed CW, Meekan MG, Gore MA, Bradshaw CJA.
2009. Population abundance and apparent survival estimates
of the vulnerable whale shark Rhincodon typus in the
Seychelles aggregation. Oryx 43: 591–598.
Speed CW, Meekan MG, Rowat D, Pierce SJ, Marshall AD,
Bradshaw CJA. 2008. Scarring patterns and relative
mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. Journal of
Fish Biology 72: 1488–1503.
Stensland E, Berggren P. 2007. Behavioural changes in female
Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in response to boat-based
tourism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 332: 225–234.
Taylor JG. 2007. Ram filter-feeding and nocturnal feeding
of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) at Ningaloo Reef,
Western Australia. Fisheries Research 84: 65–70.
Topelko KN, Dearden P. 2005. The shark watching industry
and its potential contribution to shark conservation. Journal
of Ecotourism 4: 108–128.
Valentine PS, Birtles A, Curnock M, Arnold P, Dunstan A.
2004. Getting closer to whales — passenger expectations and
experiences, and the management of swim with dwarf minke
whale interactions in the Great Barrier Reef. Tourism
Management 25: 647–655.
Wolfson FH. 1986. Occurrences of the whale shark, Rhincodon
typus Smith. In Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes, Uyeno T, Aria R,
Taniuchi T, Matsuura K (eds). Ichthyological Society of
Japan: Tokyo, Japan; 208–226.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WHALE SHARK INTERACTIONS IN MOZAMBIQUE
Copyright r2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2010)
