The Leopard Whipray (Himantura leoparda) is closely related and similar in shape and dorsal disc pattern to the Reticulate Whipray (H. uarnak) and Honeycomb Whipray (H. undulata). These three species are in the ‘uarnak’ species-complex, a subgroup of mainly reticulated, ocellated, or spotted whiprays. The Leopard Whipray can be distinguished by its unique arrangement of midscapular denticles and the leopard-like markings on the dorsal surface of adults and large specimens. Juveniles of the three species are born at different sizes and vary slightly in colour patterns and denticle shapes (Manjaji-Matsumoto and Last 2008, Last and Stevens 2009). Despite these differences, it can still be difficult to visually separate the species and misidentifications in the 'uarnak' species-complex are likely.

The Leopard Whipray (Himantura leoparda) is a large (to 149 cm disc width, DW) ray that is widespread in the Indo-Pacific Oceans from South Africa to Australia and north to Japan. It is demersal in inshore and coastal waters from the surface to a depth of at least 81 m. The species is targeted and taken as bycatch across its range with multiple fishing gears including trawl, gill nets, hook and line, and longlines and retained for the meat and the high-value skins that are processed into leather. There is a long history of overfishing of inshore populations and fishing pressure remains high across the species’ entire range, except in Australia, and it has minimal refuge from high fishing pressure. Whiprays larger than 100 cm DW have limited biological productivity and the Leopard Whipray has an inferred generation length of 20 years. There are no species-specific time series, although population trends from congeneric species, combined rays data, and reconstructed landings data infer significant declines across parts of its range while in other parts the population is suspected to be stable. Thus, it is suspected that the Leopard Whipray has undergone a population reduction of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (60 years) due to actual levels of exploitation and habitat degradation, and it is assessed as Endangered A2cd.

The Leopard Whipray is widespread in the Indo-West Pacific, and occurs from South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal) to the Red Sea (Egypt and possibly Saudi Arabia) and Persian Gulf and east to the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and north to the Ryukyu Islands of Japan (Last et al. 2016, Bineesh et al. 2020). In the Red Sea, records are available from Egypt but are based on citizen science and in Saudi Arabia, studies potentially refer to the Leopard Whipray as Coach Whipray (H. uarnak) (e.g., Spaet and Berumen 2015). The species also occurs in the eastern Mediterranean, likely as a Lessepsian migrant (Ali et al. 2010, 2013; Yucel et al. 2017; Bariche et al. 2020; Ebert and Dando 2021; Saad et al. 2021).

There is no information available on population size, structure, or trend for the Leopard Whipray. Despite the lack of species-specific trend data, population trends can be inferred from information on congeneric species, combined rays, and reconstructed landings data. Although landings data are not a direct measure of abundance, these can be used to infer population reduction where landings have decreased while fishing effort has remained stable or increased.

In the Persian Gulf, the Leopard Whipray is commonly recorded in the catches. In the United Arab Emirates, these rays are often captured in gillnet fisheries but are regularly discarded and so do not always occur in fish markets. Fisher interviews indicate that the large rays survive well after discarding (R. Jabado unpub. data 2023) and as such, significant declines are unlikely there. Leopard Whiprays are less common than Coach Whiprays in the Persian Gulf (Jabado et al. 2018). This species is likely present in low numbers in Iranian waters of the Gulf of Oman and was observed in targeted stingray (Dasyatidae) fisheries using demersal gillnets in April 2021, and in research trawl surveys in February 2020 (M. Rezaie-Atagholipour unpub. data 2023). Demersal trawl surveys in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman have suggested an overall increase in the biomass of rays (Valinassab et al. 2006, Valinassab 2016).

The population of Leopard Whipray has declined significantly off India and Pakistan due to intense and increasing fishing activities. In India, for example, the annual average catch of rays landed by trawlers at New Ferry Wharf, Mumbai, between 1990–2004 was 502 tonnes (t). During this period trawler hours doubled, and consequently the catch rate declined by 60% from 0.65 kg/hr in 1990 to 0.24 kg/hr in 2004 (Raje and Zacharia 2009). This is an ~93% decline over three generation lengths of the Leopard Whipray (60 years). The same study showed a decline of 83% in the average landings of the Coach Whipray between 1990 and 2004. Although the Coach Whipray is likely the more common species in India, identification is problematic, and species-specific data is not considered reliable (K.V. Akhilesh pers. comm. 21 March 2017). It is therefore reasonable to assume that this decline is reflective of the situation for the Leopard Whipray, and this decline is equivalent to a 99% decline over the past three generation lengths (60 years). In Pakistan, the populations of both local Himantura species have declined by ~50% since 1999 and over the past three years, catches of the Leopard Whipray have been further decreasing (Moazzam and Osmany 2021, M. Khan pers. comm. 25 March 2017), the equivalent of an ~95% decline over the past three generation lengths. Combining available information, it is inferred that this species has declined by at least 30% over the past three generation lengths (60 years) across the Arabian Sea and its adjacent waters.

In South Africa, catches of this species are relatively small and have been consistently less than one t annually since 2010 (DFFE 2022). Targeted and unmanaged fisheries for whiprays in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zanzibar, are likely to be leading to population reduction. Whiprays, including Leopard Whipray, were considered at moderate risk from these fisheries (Temple et al. 2019). In Sri Lanka, the Leopard Whipray occurs regularly in landings (D. Fernando unpub. data 2023). Overall marine fishes reconstructed landings have increased 4-fold from 150,000 t in 1950 to 500,000 t in the 2000s (O’Meara et al. 2011). Coastal fisheries still account for about 67% of the marine fishes caught, but these fisheries are likely to be increasingly overfished because, “it became clear that the coastal sector had limited capacity for further expansion” and many attempts were made to expand the fishing more towards the offshore areas (Dissanayake 2005). In Bangladesh, local fishers have indicated a steep decline in rays over their fishing careers (Haque et al. 2021, 2022). Fishers reported that when fishing for larger rays in 2000s, a 7-day trip would yield over 1,000 individuals. Recent 7-day fishing trips now only yield 1–20 large ray individuals. This has led to fishers using other net types because of the large decline in ray catches (Haque et al. 2022).

In Myanmar, reconstructed marine fisheries landings data are available from 1950 (Booth and Pauly 2011). In general fisheries catches (all species, not just rays) increased steadily from about 200,000 t in 1950 to about 700,000 t in the late 1990s. From the late 1990s a rapid increase in landings from offshore fishing saw an increase in annual landings to almost 1.5 million t. Estimates of shark and ray landings from 1950 to the late 1990s varied between 15,000 t to 35,000 t with no substantial trend. However, from the late 1990s landings increased to around 40,000 t per year. This increase in landings is assumed to reflect the increase in offshore fishing that occurred during this period. These are substantial reconstructed catches (this level of catch would place Myanmar in the top 20 shark fishing nations globally; Okes and Sant 2019) for a nation with a relatively small Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Despite the increase in shark and ray landings during the period since 1950 there are significant concerns for the status of many species. Trawl surveys in Myanmar undertaken by the Norwegian research vessel Dr Fridtjof Nansen in 1978–1980 and 2013–2018 showed a 62% decline in catch rates of rays between surveys with a noted shift from larger long-lived species to smaller short-lived species (Krakstad et al. 2014, FAO 2020a). Declines in ray catch rates were greater than the decline of shark catch rates. Surveys of local markets from 2006–2010 (San San Khine 2010) demonstrated that landings are dominated by small short-lived species, which is typical of over-exploited elasmobranch communities (Lam and Sadovy de Mitcheson 2011). These same surveys also reported a 49% decline in landings during this period, despite no reduction in fishing effort.

There are no species-specific ray landings data from Thailand, however, data are available on combined ray landings from 1998–2018. Ray landings peaked in 2003 with over 18,000 t reported but rapidly decreased and have been under 4,000 t since 2011, a decrease of ~78% in 8 years (Krajangdara 2019). In the Philippines, reconstructed catch data of all combined ray species from municipal and commercial fisheries shows that annual landings rose from 4,160 t in 1976 to a peak of 10,990 t in 1991, then declined to 2,600 t in 2006 (NFRDI 2017). This indicates a decrease of 76% in 16 years from 1991–2006 which equates to a 99% reduction over three generation lengths (60 years).

There are four lines of evidence throughout Malaysia that can be used to infer population trends including catch reconstructions for eastern Peninsular Malaysia, western Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak (Zeller and Pauly 2016). In eastern Peninsular Malaysia, whipray catches increased starting in the late 1960s reaching a peak of over 13,000 t in 1999. Catch since decreased and was ~7,700 t in 2014, a 53% decrease in 15 years (less than one generation length), despite a still increasing fishing effort. In western Peninsular Malaysia, whipray catches increased throughout the 1960s and fluctuated between 7,000 and 13,000 t until 2009 where it stabilized at ~6,500 t for five years, a decrease of ~50% from the peak catches. In Sabah, whipray catches steadily increased from 1950 to 1994. In 1995, whipray catch peaked at ~11,550 t. It has since decreased to just over 6,000 t, despite constant effort. This equated to an inferred population decrease of ~60% over 19 years (Zeller and Pauly 2016). In Sarawak, whipray catches increased dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s and remained during the early 1980s until they declined steeply despite increasing effort before rising again with steep effort rises to a peak of 7,700 t in 1997 after which they declined to ~4,500 t per year since 2004; a 42% decrease over 7 years (Zeller and Pauly 2016). Overall, in Malaysia, whipray abundance is suspected to have been reduced by over 50% across all regions in the past 10–20 years. When scaled to three generation lengths of the Leopard Whipray (60 years), this indicates a suspected population reduction of 93–99%.

There are four lines of evidence throughout Indonesia that can be used to infer population trends, three catch reconstructions and a research survey trend: catch reconstruction for eastern Indonesia, central Indonesia, and the Indian Ocean portion of Indonesian EEZ specifically western Sumatra and Java (hereafter ‘Indian Ocean’), and research survey data in 1976 and 1997 in the Java Sea that can be used to show changes in relative abundance. Catch of whiprays increased throughout Indonesia starting in the 1960s. In eastern Indonesia, catch has since decreased 45% between 1998 at 300 t and the early 2000s to the most recent catch estimate of 167 t in 2014 (Zeller and Pauly 2016). In central Indonesia, whipray catch increased dramatically throughout the early-1970s to 2000, from 30 t to 200 t per year and has since decreased by 45% (Zeller and Pauly 2016). Catches are still increasing in the Indian Ocean; however, this increase may be related to increasing fishing effort and demand for rays in the area and likely does not reflect the actual population trend (Blaber et al. 2009). These rising catches are unsustainable and instead arise from shifts in fishing effort into deeper waters due to decreased catch closer to shore (Dharmadi pers. comm. 18 May 2020). Finally, research surveys from 1976 to 1997 shows more than a 90% decline in ray catch-per-unit-effort throughout the Java Sea in 20 years (Blaber et al. 2009). With the increased catch through parts of Indonesia there has also been increased effort and therefore, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) is likely decreasing, suggesting an overall decrease in the population of chondrichthyans (White and Dharmadi 2007). Considering these catch trends, the suspected population reduction of Leopard Whipray in Indonesia is 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (60 years).

In Australia, the Leopard Whipray population is suspected to be stable based on limited catch rates, managed fisheries, and significant parts of its range that are unfished or with minimal fishing effort (Kyne et al. 2021). Actual levels of exploitation are high across most of the range of this species and declines in whiprays or rays can be considered representative of population reduction of the Leopard Whipray. Overall, the species has suspected population declines of 90% over three generation lengths (60 years) in parts of its range, such as in India, but is suspected to be stable in other parts, such as the Persian Gulf, South Africa, and Australia. Thus, across its entire range, it is suspected that the Leopard Whipray has undergone a 50–79% population reduction over the past three generation lengths (60 years) due to levels of exploitation and habitat degradation.

The Leopard Whipray is demersal on soft substrates and is mainly inshore and coastal though it also occurs on the continental shelf to at least 81 m depth (White et al. 2006, Manjaji-Matsumoto and Last 2008, M. Rezaie-Atagholipour, unpub. data 2023). The biology of this species is poorly known, partly due to confusion with other species of the ‘uarnak’ species-complex (Last et al. 2016). It reaches a maximum size of approximately 149 cm disc width (DW) and males mature at 70–94 cm DW (White and Dharmadi 2007, Last et al. 2016, M. Rezaie-Atagholipour, unpub. data 2023). Reproduction is viviparous with litter sizes of 1–7, year-round reproduction, and size-at-birth of approximately 20 cm DW (White et al. 2006, Rastgoo et al. 2015, Yucel et al. 2017). As there is no information on this species’ age-at-maturity and maximum age, generation length was inferred as 20 years based on data for the Blackspotted Whipray (Maculabatis astra). Female Blackspotted Whiprays have an age-at-maturity of nine years and maximum age of 29 years (Jacobsen and Bennett 2011), resulting in a generation length of 19 years. The maximum size of the Leopard Whipray is considerably larger (~140 cm DW) than that of the Blackspotted Whipray (80 cm DW) so it is likely the generation length of the Leopard Whipray is at least 20 years.

The Leopard Whipray is caught across its range as target and incidental catch by a wide range of coastal fisheries that include demersal trawl, Danish seine, gillnet, dropline and longline, and handline gears (White et al. 2006, Blaber et al. 2009). It is retained in some parts of its range for the meat and high-value skin. Its preference for inshore coastal waters increases its susceptibility to capture with much of its range outside of Australia intensively fished.

In the Western Indian Ocean (FAO region 51), marine fisheries catches reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) increased from the 1960s to the 1990s but have levelled off since 1999 suggesting stocks are fully fished. There is concern for serial depletion with the number of species landed near-doubling from only 85 in 1971 to 152 reported in 2000. More than 60 million people reside within 100 km of the coast of the Western Indian Ocean and there is great dependence on marine resources for food and employment (van der Elst et al. 2005). In contrast to many other regions of the world, where industrial fisheries with high-technical gear predominate, fishers in the Western Indian Ocean operate primarily at the subsistence and artisanal level. For example, in Tanzania in the early 2000s, no more than 5% of fishers were active in industrial fishing, the other 95% being artisanal (van der Elst et al. 2005). Artisanal catches are underreported and most small-scale, artisanal, and subsistence coastal fisheries within the Western Indian Ocean are considered to be fully- or overexploited, especially where they are found close to population centres. The number of underexploited fisheries in the coastal zone has tended to decline and by the early 2000s, such fisheries were an exception (e.g., Pierce et al. 2008). Whiprays, including Leopard Whipray, dominated the small-scale fisheries marine megafauna catches (elasmobranchs, marine mammals, and sea turtles) across Kenya, Zanzibar, and northern Madagascar from 2016–2017 and were captured by handline, longline, bottom-set, and drift gillnet gear (Temple et al. 2019).

In Pakistan, in 2017 about 2,000 trawlers operated in shelf waters, targeting shrimp in shallow waters and fish in outer shelf waters (M. Khan pers. comm. 6 February 2017). Since approximately 2010, there have been targeted fisheries for stingrays in Pakistan and Islamic Republic of Iran using demersal-set gillnets (Moazzam and Osmany 2021). In Iran, there is increasing fishing effort with the number of licensed vessels increasing over the last two decades from 9,977 in 2001 to 10,739 in 2022 (IFO 2008, 2022). Coastal rays faces two threats in the Iranian waters. Firstly, the demersal shrimp trawl fishery operating in the Persian Gulf every year from August to December, where approximately 500 trawlers incidentally catch at least 8,000 t (roughly equal to 10 million individuals) of coastal rays. Secondly, the stingray targeted fishery using demersal gillnets operating in the Gulf of Oman that started over a decade ago, where about 6,500 t (roughly equal to two million individuals) of rays are landed at approximately 50 landing sites (Rezaie-Atagholipour et al. 2022).

In India, juvenile rays are found in estuaries and high fishing effort, particularly with stake and doll nets, occurs in this habitat. The majority of the geographic distribution of the Leopard Whipray in the region overlaps with intense coastal fisheries. For example, during the 2000s, there were approximately 24,554 trawl vessels operating in the Indian part of the range (CMFRI 2010). The shallow depth distribution means this species is unlikely to have a depth refuge. Since the 1970s, there has been a significant increase in coastal fishing effort and power with about 6,600 trawlers operating in the Indian state of Gujarat in the early 2000s (Zynudheen et al. 2004). This number increased to 11,582 trawlers in 2010 (CMFRI 2010). Furthermore, in 2010, there were 13,400 gill netters operating along the west coast, with many other types of net gear also deployed in coastal areas (CMFRI 2010).

In Sri Lanka, fishing takes place all around the coast, but primarily within the continental shelf. The potential yield from coastal fish resources was previously estimated at 250,000 t per year with 170,000 t per year from coastal pelagic species and 80,000 t from demersal species (Blindheim and Foyn 1980). By the early 2000s, coastal fisheries still accounted for about 67% of the marine fishes caught, but there were some uncertainties regarding further expansion of coastal fishing activities (Wijayaratne 2001). Most crafts operate in the coastal fishery which consists of traditional non-motorised crafts and fiberglass reinforced plastic boats with inboard engines. Both types of vessels are generally day boats, not venturing far from the coast.

In Bangladesh, the marine capture fisheries can be subdivided into subsistence (small-scale, non-commercial), artisanal (small-scale, commercial), and industrial (large-scale, commercial) fisheries sectors. Among the commercial catch, more than 90% is landed by artisanal fishing vessels, while industrial fisheries contribute around 6% to the total landed catch (Ahmad 2004). Each trawling vessel is equipped with trawl gear as well as demersal set longline gear to target shark and rays. There has been an increase in fishing vessels since about the mid-2000s. Many trawlers in the southwest region of the country will go to sea for 5–10 days and sometimes more than 15 days and return with greater landings of larger ray species (A.B. Haque unpub. data 2020). Bangladesh has a substantial artisanal fishing fleet that operates throughout the coastal regions. In 2017–2018 there were 67,669 vessels reported to be operating (DoF 2018). All benthic rays in Bangladesh are targeted with non-baited demersal longlines (1–10 km) with 10,000–30,000 hooks that operate in 5–40 m depth (A.B. Haque unpub. data 2020). Anecdotal reports indicate a steep decline in rays during the 2000s (Ullah et al. 2014, A.B. Haque unpub. data 2020). This decline is concurrent with steep increases in artisanal and subsistence fisheries effort (Pauly et al. 2020). The artisanal fishing vessels land 90% of the total marine catch and generally operate inshore at depths of 0–40 m but can operate to 80 m (Hoq et al. 2014, A.B. Haque unpub. data 2020).

In Myanmar, since 2004, sharks and rays are largely taken as incidental catch (Howard et al. 2015, Mizrahi et al. 2020). These inshore fisheries are relatively small-scale and include many subsistence level fishers. At times since 1950, significant numbers of foreign vessels have operated in Myanmar waters targeting fish and shrimp. These vessels have operated in both inshore and offshore areas. International Labour Organisation (2015) estimated the number of vessels participating in the small-scale inshore fishery to be about 26,000 in 2013, with about 50% of them unpowered. The number of locally operated larger offshore vessels numbered 2,846 in 2013, having increased nearly 30% since 2009. Foreign fishing vessels numbered 153 in 2013, but had historically been much higher. Foreign vessels were banned in 2014. In Thailand, the gulf coast is considered one of the most overfished regions of the world due to the rapid industrialization of their fishing fleet (Sylwester 2014). The number of Thai trawlers peaked in 1989 at ~13,100 boats (Poonnachit-Korsieporn 2000), which was reflected in the catch-per-unit-effort which declined from 300 kg per hour in 1963 to 20–30 kg per hour in the 1990s (Poonnachit-Korsieporn 2000). In Malaysia, fishing effort has been increasing since 1950 (Pauly et al. 2020). The number of vessels across all sectors more than doubled from 22,800 vessels in 1950 to 50,150 vessels in 2014 with fisheries fully exploited by the late 1970s (Teh and Teh 2014, Zeller and Pauly 2016). Small-scale inshore fisheries provide the main supply for local consumption (Teh et al. 2009).

In the Philippines, all incidental catch appears to be retained as discards are virtually non-existent (Palomares and Pauly 2014). The fishing fleet in the Philippines rapidly expanded in the 1960s and 1970s as small-scale artisanal fisheries became motorized and evolved into commercial fisheries. By the 1980s, overfishing was apparent throughout the Philippines, but government and foreign aid continued to subsidize motorizing of artisanal vessels into the late 1990s (Palomares et al. 2014). The commercial fleet operating in the Philippine EEZ tripled from the 1960s (2,100 vessels) to 2014 (6,400 vessels) (Palomares et al. 2014). ‘Baby trawlers’ operate intensively in inshore waters and in waters less than 13 m deep, waters traditionally reserved for small-scale artisanal fishers (Palomares et al. 2014). The small-scale fleet increased ten-fold from 1950 (~30,500 vessels) to the mid-1990s (~ 338,700 vessels) and while the fleet size has since remained relatively stable, the effort in terms of engine power has continued to rise, as has the number of subsistence vessels (Pauly et al. 2020).

In Indonesia, small-scale fisheries comprise most (~90%) of fisheries production (Tull 2014). In some regions, effort by these small-scale fisheries has tripled when taking population growth into account (Ramenzoni 2017). Sharks and rays are an important resource in Indonesia and are the main livelihood for some communities (Sadili et al. 2020). Indonesia catches the highest number of chondrichthyans in the world with the catch of rays rising as shark fisheries collapse. In 2003, rays comprise over 50% of chondrichthyan landings, up from 32% in 1981 (White et al. 2006). Stingrays contributed the most (95%) to elasmobranch catch by Danish seines (cantrang) that operated in the Java Sea (Fahmi et al. 2008). Intensive longline and gillnetting occurs throughout the Malacca Strait, with some mini-trawl operations and Danish seines operating throughout Kalimantan and the Java Sea (Fahmi pers. comm. 15 May 2020). Thus, the actual level of exploitation of this species could be extremely high throughout the Indonesian portion of its range.

In Papua New Guinea, this species is caught in the Gulf of Papua Prawn Fishery where it represented 95%, although juveniles may not be effectively excluded (Griffiths et al. 2006).

This species’ preference for inshore coastal waters means it is also threatened by extensive habitat degradation, including pollution and clearing, and destructive fishing practices. Large coastal areas, in particular mangroves, have been lost in Indonesia and Malaysia through land conversion for urban development, shrimp farms, and agriculture. Across Indonesia and Malaysia from 1980 to 2005, the area of mangroves was reduced by 30% (FAO 2007, Polidoro et al. 2010).

The Leopard Whipray is used mainly for its meat, but also for its high-value skin that is processed into leather and for its cartilage that is sometimes used for medicinal purposes (White et al. 2006, Last et al. 2010). In Iran, the Leopard Whipray is not commercially important and is used for fish meal production (Rezaie-Atagholipour et al. 2022, M. Rezaie-Atagholipour unpub. data 2023). In Pakistan, wings of stingrays including this species are exported to southeast Asia (Moazzam and Osmany 2021). Throughout Southeast Asia, the meat is consumed fresh or dried and salted for human consumption. In Indonesia and Malaysia, the meat is considered good quality and is consumed locally and traded internationally (Sherman et al. 2020). Larger rays, like this species, are very desirable in Bangladesh for their meat and skin. Ray meat is consumed locally and exported. The skins from large rays are exported to Myanmar, Thailand, and Malaysia to be made into accessories (e.g., handbags). Smaller rays are retained for their meat, but the skins are too small to be utilized. Small rays are often dried whole for local consumption and export. There has been some increase in the demand of ray meat in cosmopolitan areas and some anecdotal information suggests in restaurants as well (Sherman et al. 2020).

No species-specific measures are in place. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman have banned trawling in their waters while Iran, Pakistan, and India have seasonal trawl bans that might benefit the species. In India, the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park and Sunderbans biosphere reserve could protect this species (K.K. Bineesh unpubl. data 2020). Kuwait is the only country across the range of this species with regulations specifically banning catches of rays. Sri Lanka does not have commercial trawl fisheries. However, incidental catches likely occur in other fisheries (e.g., gillnetting). There has been limited management of shark and rays in Myanmar. In 2004, two shark reserves were designated in the Myeik Archipelago where targeting sharks and rays is prohibited (Notification 2/2004) (Howard et al. 2015). In 2008, a nationwide ban on the targeting of sharks was announced. Despite the nationwide ban sharks and rays continue to be captured in large numbers, partly because there is little or no enforcement, and little knowledge of it in fishing communities (MacKeracher et al. 2020).

In the Philippines in 1981, there were 5-year closures of the trawl and purse seine fisheries in the waters of Bohol, Cebu, and Negros Oriental and in 1983 in Batangas (Palomares and Pauly 2014, FAO 2020b). In 1998, active fishing gears, including trawlers, ‘baby trawlers’, purse seines, and tuna longlines, were prohibited within municipal marine waters (<3 nautical miles (nm) from shore). In 1998, a ban was also legislated on muro ami gear (an encircling net and pounding devices) and other gear destructive to coral reefs and marine habitats (FAO 2020b). Trawlers within commercial waters have been required since 2010 to use Juvenile and Trashfish Excluder Devices under the Fisheries Administrative Order 237 series of 2010 (D. Tanay pers. comm. 18 April 2020), which may reduce the retention of larger sharks and rays (Brewer et al. 2004). In the Philippines, there are ~>1,800 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (NFRDI 2017, CTI 2020). Some of these MPAs are known to provide shark and ray protection including Donsol, Malapascua, Cagayancillo MPAs, and Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (NFRDI 2017, Murray et al. 2018). Throughout Indonesia there are 196 MPAs making up 239,428 km² and in Malaysia, there are 51 MPAs making up 5,462 km² (CTI 2020). Although the species may occur in these MPAs, many MPAs in the region are not well enforced and unlikely to provide any tangible relief from fishing pressure. Australia mandates the use of bycatch reduction devices in trawl fisheries and across most of the Australian range, there is a prohibition on retention of sharks and rays.

To conserve the population and to permit recovery, a suite of measures will be required which may include species protection, spatial management, bycatch mitigation, and harvest and trade management measures (including international trade measures). Effective enforcement of measures will require ongoing training and capacity-building (including in the area of species identification). Catch monitoring is needed to help understand population trends and inform management.