IntroductionOver one-third of chondrichthyan (shark, ray and chimaera) species are threatened with extinction globally. Overfishing driven by human consumption is a key threat for >95% of threatened elasmobranch species (Dulvy et al., 2021). Research on consumption has largely focussed on the shark fin trade, which, as a luxury product, has received considerable conservation attention (Clarke et al., 2006; Dent & Clarke, 2015; de Mitcheson et al., 2016). Recent trends indicate that even as the fin trade continues to imperil threatened species, the international demand for shark fins from South-East Asia is declining (Jeffreys 2016; Jaiteh et al., 2017; Cardeñosa et al., 2022). Meanwhile there is increasing evidence for more complex drivers, such as the local and global trade in other elasmobranch products, such as meat (e.g. Braccini et al., 2020; Karnad et al., 2020). Elasmobranch meat trade is actually higher in volume and value than the fin trade, but remains poorly studied and misunderstood by conservation actors due to the lack of supply chain transparency (Niedermüller et al. 2021; Rangel et al., 2021). The value of the shark and ray meat in the period 2012–2019 comprised 63.41% (US$ 2.6 billion) of the total shark and ray trade value (US$ 4.1 billion; Niedermüller et al. 2021). If shark meat suppl chains are mistakenly likened to shark fin supplies, ineffective conservation campaigns result, which don’t mitigate the actual, local threats to elasmobranchs (Braccini et al., 2020). With demand for elasmobranch meat, rather than fins, driving their fisheries in some parts of the world, improving our understanding of meat consumption is key to conserving this threatened group of species (Barbosa-Filho et al., 2019; Bornatowski et al., 2017; Karnad et al., 2020).The northern Indian Ocean is critical for elasmobranch conservation, because fisheries here are a significant threat (Dulvy et al., 2021). This region has an established tradition of local and regional elasmobranch meat consumption (Haroon, 2010; Karnad et al., 2020). For instance, in nineteenth-century India, shark meat was consumed by women after childbirth, and by African sailors (Day, 1889). This practice of consumption continues and includes not only sharks but guitarfish, wedgefish, stingrays and devil rays, in fresh and dried form (Hossain et al., 2013; Haque et al., 2021). Species, such as Scoliodon laticaudus (Spadenose shark), Rhizoprionodon acutus (Milk shark), R. oligolinx (Gray sharpnose shark) and Himantura uarnak (Reticulate whipray), are used as lactogogues (enhancing milk production), while H. uarnak is also used to treat dysentery, wheezing and bronchitis in Tamil Nadu state (Esakkkimuthu et al., 2018). Consumption was historically limited to the poorer sections of society, including coastal and tribal people in South Asia and Myanmar (Haroon, 2010). The profile of consumers may have changed since elasmobranch meat trade is now economically important enough to justify continued direct/indirect fishing, despite a decline in the fin trade (Karnad et al., 2020). Demand for fresh, salted, and dried elasmobranch meat increased since the 1960’s and 1970’s in South Asia and globally (Frej & Gustafsson, 1990; Jit et al., 2014). Even deep-sea sharks likeEchinorhinus brucus , Hexanchus griseus , Alopias superciliosus , Centrophorus spp . and Squalus spp . are now involved in the meat trade in India (Akhilesh, 2014). Despite this evidence, there is little research on patterns of domestic shark meat consumption, particularly in India, which is the third largest harvester of sharks, globally (Gupta et al., 2022; Lack & Sant, 2009).Understanding elasmobranch meat trade and consumption as an important driver of harvests in India is crucial. Such research will allow us to identify leverage points for changing unsustainable behaviours (Veríssimo et al., 2020). Restaurants are an important driver of, and mirror, household seafood consumption patterns in India (Karnad et al., 2021). Restaurants have also been implicated in promoting elasmobranch meat consumption, such as in China (Fabinyi & Liu, 2014). Research on restaurant menus offer insight into shifts in fisheries landings, supply chains and consumer preferences (Van Houtan et al., 2013). Therefore this research examines the sale and consumption of elasmobranch meat in India’s restaurants. We identify the prevalence and availability of elasmobranch meat in restaurants within urban and tourist centres across nine coastal states in India. We explore the species groups involved, the demand from specific clientele, and the key characteristics of restaurants that serve elasmobranchs through a detailed study in the state with the highest elasmobranch availability in restaurants. Specifically, we examine whether tourism is driving elasmobranch meat consumption. We also investigate elasmobranch meat prices, whether demand is created through a restaurant’s recommendation, and the factors that might promote restaurants’ switching to alternatives to elasmobranch meat.METHODSTo evaluate the prevalence and availability of elasmobranch meat in restaurants, we conducted surveys of online restaurant menus in two cities each of nine coastal states (and one union territory) between October 2020 and December 2021 (Figure 1 and Table 2). The chosen cities had the largest population of cities in that state. Details of how these surveys were conducted are available in Table 1 and Appendix 1. Restaurants were classified based on price as high (>9 USD), medium (USD 3-9) and low (<3 USD).To explore the species involved, the clientele and demand, and the key characteristics of restaurants we conducted semi-structured interviews in English and local languages, with restaurant owners and managers, over the phone and in person, The procedure and questions are detailed in Appendix1 and 2 respectively. We ensured to interview people from at least three restaurants in each price category per city. Due to the high number of restaurants advertising elasmobranchs in Goa we interviewed forty three percent of Goa restaurants whose online menus featured elasmobranchs, as well as 21 restaurants with offline menus featuring elasmobranchsTo corroborate responses about supply-demand and provide context from the trade perspective, we opportunistically (since elasmobranch trade is in some cases illegal and otherwise contentious in India) identified three male, highly experienced traders who targeted elasmobranchs as key informants for qualitative interviews. We also conducted a focus group discussion with three experienced restaurant owners in Goa who did not participate in interviews to explain and verify data about demand and alternatives to shark meat.Data from the online menus were analysed using RStudio (version 1.0.44) and Microsoft Excel. Since prices of the same dish vary between restaurants in the high, medium and low price categories, elasmobranch dish prices were standardised as a proportion of the average cost of other seafood at each restaurant. Descriptive statistics were produced from interview data. Monte Carlo simulations (1000 iterations; Ulam and Metropolis, 1949) were used to quantify the reported elasmobranch meat served in a subset of restaurants. Classification trees helped to identify the characteristics of elasmobranch meat consumers in Goa.RESULTSPrevalence and availabilityWe identified 2649 seafood restaurants with online menus (Table 2), of which 292 mention shark meat on their menus. No restaurant specifically identified rays on their menu, although traders (n=3) report the substitution of less expensive ray meat for shark meat in restaurants. The state of Goa (33.5%) had the highest proportion of elasmobranch meat selling restaurants, followed by Tamil Nadu (34.6%) and Maharashtra(4.6%). Restaurants in Gujarat, West Bengal and Odisha did not feature elasmobranchs on the menu (Karnad 2022b). There was only one restaurant out of 2649 that served shark fin soup as part of its Chinese cuisine. All restaurants only advertised shark meat.Prices for elasmobranch meat dishes in restaurants were available only for the cities of Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Puducherry and Thane (Figure 2). Most restaurants that served elasmobranchs were in the medium and low price category with the average price being USD 2.6 ± 0.5 per dish. The highest prices for elasmobranch dishes were in Chennai (9.72 USD) and the lowest prices in Hyderabad (2.01 USD) (Figure 2). The mean quantity of shark meat reportedly sold in restaurants varied from 0.25–10.9 (±4.8) kg per restaurant per week. Assuming average sales throughout the year, we calculated that restaurants, outside Goa, with online menus featuring elasmobranchs could sell 124.6 (±15.5) tonnes of elasmobranch meat sales per year, which is about 41533 sharks weighing 3kg (average weight of small-bodied sharks) and is equivalent to 5.2% of the annual landings (MPEDA, 2020).Species involved, clientele and demand across IndiaA total of 102 phone interviews across the rest of India and 65 interviews (44 phone & 21 in person) were conducted in Goa. More interviews were conducted in the North Goa district (65%) where more restauants (69%) are located. Majority of the interviewees in Goa were from medium priced restaurants (48.4%) followed by high (21.8%) and low (14%) priced restaurants. For consistency, responses for all questions are presented as a percentage of total interviews unless specified otherwise.Species: None of the interviewees distinguished species but most (92%) preferred “baby sharks”, i.e. small-bodied sharks and juveniles of large-bodied sharks. Of these, in Goa, interviewees preferred sharks weighing 1–2kg (32%, n=65), followed by 5–7kg (12%, n=65). In Chennai and Puducherry, all interviewees preferred Milk Shark (Rhizoprionodon acutus; Vulnerable (IUCN, 2021)) bought whole with fins intact. However, they were unable to distinguish between the Milk Shark and several similar looking species. Interviewees in Mumbai (37%, n=49) also bought elasmobranchs whole (small-bodied sharks and juveniles of large-bodied sharks) to sell as “baby sharks” or as boneless pieces (50%). In Goa (n=65) thirty seven percent served “baby shark”, while others (15%) served hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp .), sharks whose fins had black-tips (12%), and “white shark” (3%).Clientele and Demand: In all cities surveyed, elasmobranch meat was primarily sold in restaurants serving regional and coastal cuisine (99%, n=292). Interviewees explained that elasmobranch meat was a signal of “traditional” regional, coastal cuisines, and a symbol of of authenticity. Consequently restaurants that had elasmobranchs on the menu also usedlocal language names for other dishes e.g. Meen Kuzhambu instead of fish curry on an English language menu in Chennai and Puducherry. Sura puttu (minced shark) was the only elasmobranch dish listed in Chennai and Puducherry. An interviewee from Chennai explained “Sura puttu is the most famous dish… [Other dishes] are an acquired taste that does not cater to many customers. ” Mori or Mushi curry and fry, as well as “Baby shark masala” were the only elasmobranch dishes in Mumbai and Thane (n=61). These dishes were found in restaurants that served Malvani (62%), Konkani (27%), Maharashtrian (29%) or Goan (4%) cuisine.Sraavu Varutharacha curry was the name for elasmobranch meat dishes in Kerala.Most (65%) restaurants in Goa (n=65) began serving elasmobranch meat to meet the high demand from customers, because it was “traditionally part of Goan cuisine” (18%). Shark meat was specifically ordered by customers (69%), but Goa restaurants (17%) also recommended fresh shark. The two main groups who specifically ordered shark meat dishes were locals from Goa (63%, henceforth Goans), who preferred sharkAmbotik (46%, n=44), a Goan dish. and foreign tourists (60%). Russians, British, Germans and Israelis in Goa preferred butter garlic shark (23%) and shark fry (22%). Foreign tourists reportedly preferred shark meat for its distinct, acquired taste (58%), because it was easy to eat with soft bones (15%), was a part of their diet at home (12%), but not easily available in their home country (9%). Shark meat was not preferred by domestic tourists in Goa (15%); who were reluctant to try shark meat even when it was recommended. The classification tree analysis (CP = 0.05, R squared = 0.72) showed that shark meat was very popular during the tourist season in Goa (November to March, Figure 3), although over one third (38%) felt that there was no seasonality and that restaurants in high tourist zones would feel the financial impact of removing sharks from the menu (21.5%). The focus group discussion confirmed this, saying, “there really is no alternative for boneless shark meat ”. Ten restaurants in Goa had stopped serving shark meat, because it was expensive (n=4) or had no demand (n=4). Only 2 interviewees reported substituting other seafood with elasmobranch meat.Thirty five percent of Goa interviewees rated shark meat within the top six best-selling dishes, but twenty three percent rated it unpopular. Shark dishes were ranked as both profitable (42%) and unprofitable (29%), and key informants explained that profits depended on fluctuating availability and price. Whole sharks were preferred to fillets or pieces (79%). Important source markets in Goa were the Panjim jetty (29%), Madgaon fish market (31%) and smaller local markets (22%). Only six percent bought elasmobranchs from other states, including Karwar, Karnataka and Kollangodu, Kerala. Many (32%) found no changes in size, abundance, demand or price of elasmobranchs over time. Only a few respondents noticed increased price (18%), reduced quantity (17%), and reduced demand (6%).
