Bycatch Reduction Technologies and Their Adoption in Sri Lanka's Gillnet Fisheries

This is a difficult decision and one that will need significant support from the state, local government, independent authorities, and civil society to gain broad acceptance globally as these technologies all greatly reduce bycatch in gillnet fisheries by allowing removal of incidental species while minimizing impact on target harvests; however this has not been implemented worldwide. Here we summarize the literature on determinants of fishers' adoption or non-adoption of bycatch mitigation technologies, framing our findings through a Diffusion-of-Innovations framework to detect and classify predictors, before directly comparing this literature with quantitative insights from the strongest available evidence regarding Sri Lankan fisher compliance to a thresher shark landings ban policy implemented in 2012 It is based on two contrasting international case studies: the near full voluntary adoption of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) by Georgia (USA) shrimpers by means of collaborative, field-tested extension activities; and a more ambiguous outcome regarding Sri Lanka's 2003 prohibition on thresher shark targeted fishing which has been largely undermined through undocumented bycatch and expressed institutional alienation of fishermen. We find that bycatch reduction technologies appear to succeed more or less depending on how they are implemented (e.g. fisher involvement in design, perceived economic risks, and trust in the regulatory body as opposed to strictly technical efficacy), and this trend holds also for Sri Lanka based on its regulatory history. As no trials have been published on net lighting or other gear-based bycatch reduction devices in the gillnet fisheries of Sri Lanka, the current evidence relevant to adoption in-country is based on research concerning compliance with species bans rather than research relating to gear-technology adoption. This analysis synthesizes existing materials to inform the potential implementation of gear-based bycatch mitigation measures in Sri Lankan gillnets, and does not present new field or survey results.

bycatch reduction technology, technology adoption, diffusion of innovations, gillnet, Sri Lanka

1. Burgher, K. M., Wang, J. H., Barkan, J., Swimmer, Y., & Senko, J. F. (2026). Artificial light reduces elasmobranch bycatch in gillnets across multiple wavelengths and taxonomic groups. Biological Conservation, 315, 111658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111658 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Collins, C., Letessier, T. B., Broderick, A., Wijesundara, I., & Nuno, A. (2020). Using perceptions to examine human responses to blanket bans: The case of the thresher shark landing-ban in Sri Lanka. Marine Policy, 121, 104198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104198 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Dulvy, N. K., Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Pollom, R. A., Jabado, R. W., Ebert, D. A., Finucci, B., Pollock, C. M., Cheok, J., Derrick, D. H., Herman, K. B., Sherman, C. S., VanderWright, W. J., Lawson, J. M., Walls, R. H. L., Carlson, J. K., Charvet, P., Bineesh, K. K., Fernando, D., . . . Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2021). Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Current Biology, 31(21), 4773–4787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fernando, D., & Stewart, J. D. (2021). High bycatch rates of manta and devil rays in the "small-scale" artisanal fisheries of Sri Lanka. PeerJ, 9, e11994. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11994 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Jenkins, L. D. (2023). Turtles, TEDs, tuna, dolphins, and diffusion of innovations: key drivers of adoption of bycatch reduction devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 80(3), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac210 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Senko, J. F., Peckham, S. H., Aguilar-Ramirez, D., & Wang, J. H. (2022). Net illumination reduces fisheries bycatch, maintains catch value, and increases operational efficiency. Current Biology, 32(4), 911–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Suuronen, P. (2022). Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers' responses to bycatch reduction technologies. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79(4), 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Sweeney Tookes, J., Yandle, T., & Fluech, B. (2023). The role of fisher engagement in the acceptance of turtle excluder devices in Georgia's shrimping industry. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 80(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Uhlmann, S. S., & Broadhurst, M. K. (2015). Mitigating unaccounted fishing mortality from gillnets and traps. Fish and Fisheries, 16(2), 183–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12049 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Effect of Corn Stover and Pineapple Peel Ratio in Silage on Fermentability, Total Gas Production, and Gas Kinetics in Rumen (In Vitro)
• Reproductive Performance of Friesian Holstein Dairy Cows in the First Lactation at the BBPTU-HPT Baturraden
• Mapping Research Trends on Black Soldier Fly Larvae Oil as Animal Feed: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2021 to 2026
• Effect of Yeast Fermented Feed on Native Sheep of Bangladesh
• Analysis of Personal and Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Purchasing Behavior of Flavored Pasteurized Milk Among Universitas Padjadjaran Students