seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

The IUCN Red List Standards and Petitions Working Group (SPWG) has approved a status of Vulnerable (A2bd) for the olive Ridley, as recommended by the ASC. This comes at the end of a long process that included a 2006 petition of the former EN listing, and the submission of a new draft assessment prepared by Alberto Abreu and Pamela Plotkin. The details of the process are summarized in a memo from the SPWG that can be seen at the MTSG website. We encourage all the members to read this enlightening memo, as it demonstrates the processes and complexities of the work of species Red Listing. Congratulations and deep thanks to the reviewers, Alberto Abreu and Pam Plotkin.

The hawksbill draft assessment will also be submitted soon to the IUCN. A 2-month member review generated numerous comments; a number of respondents came out in favor of the final hawksbill assessment, and support was echoed for the robustness of the data analysis and level of effort expended on the assessment. Congratulations to Jeanne Mortimer and Marydele Donnelly for a job exceptionally well done. Soon to come are the Red List Assessments for the loggerhead and flatback as well, if all goes according to the ASC’s plan.

Thanks also to all who contributed to the lively on-line dialogue related to the IUCN Red List criteria as they apply to marine turtles. In brief, several members have argued that the IUCN Red List criteria are not well suited for widely distributed and long-lived species such as marine turtles, and have urged the MTSG to liaise with IUCN to consider the development of criteria, either global or regional-scale , that would result in better reflecting the status of marine turtles. This important issue was addressed at the MTSG Burning Issues Workshop in August, 2006, at which time a study was commissioned. That study has resulted in a recently drafted “White Paper” on the topic of sea turtles and the IUCN Red List criteria, in which Jeff Seminoff and Kartik Shanker outline several options and opportunities for moving forward in ways that enhance our abilities to properly assess extinction risk in sea turtles. This document will soon be made available for broader member review, and it will be the topic of discussion at the 2d of two MTSG gatherings to be held at the XXVIII Sea Turtle Symposium in Loreto, Mexico on Saturday January 26 from 09:00-12:00.

The MTSG has also committed to pursuing regional assessments to define priority populations for conservation attention, and we are currently planning a regional workshop (S. Atlantic) to take place in Uruguay in October. The regional assessment for Mediterranean sea turtles will soon be completed also.

MTSG Representation at Meetings. The MTSG leadership has spent the last few months representing the MTSG at various fora, and summaries of those meetings are presented below.

The IUCN/SSC Sustainable Use Specialist Group (SUSG) convened a Strategic Planning Meeting during 10-13 July 2007 at White Oak Plantation, Florida, to which Co-Chair Nicolas Pilcher was invited as representative of the MTSG. The meeting was hosted by the Chair of the SUSG Jon Hutton and the Chair of the SSC, Holly Dublin. The meeting was convened to review the mandate and raison d’ętre of the SUSG, particularly as it relates to the Precautionary Principle guidelines adopted by IUCN at its 67th meeting of the IUCN Council on 14-16 May 2007. The meeting was attended by a number of SUSG Steering Council members, TRAFFIC, the IUCN Species Programme, and a number of Specialist Group Chairs. The meeting was preceded by the distribution of an interesting review of the sustainable use (SU) and how it relates to the precautionary principle (PP) by Rosie Cooney, who originally drafted the guidelines for IUCN. Many interesting questions were considered -- What is meant by sustainable use? Does it mean consumptive use? Does it include non-consumptive use? Does consumptive use include extraction of plants, or parts of plants? The IUCN definition of sustainable may be completely different in other sectors of society. For instance, some groups refer to the sustainable use of refrigerators – so if you thought the MTSG grapples with these concepts, as was raised during the last AGM, be aware that the world at large grapples with an even wider issue: what do people mean? What is sustainable and what is not?

The meeting addressed a number of points related to the use of flora and flora (including various uses of marine turtles, both consumptive and non consumptive and examples of sustainable and unsustainable use), and examined how to move forward with regard to the concept of use. A final report by the SUSG is pending, and will be made available to the MTSG membership at our website once released.

Shortly after the SUSG meeting in Florida, a second meeting of the Marine Conservation Subcommittee of the SSC was convened in Gland, Switzerland (IUCN headquarters), and this meeting was also attended by Co-Chair Nicolas Pilcher.

Chaired by Claudio Campagna and Yvonne Sodovy, the MCSC is responsible for advising and assisting the Chair of the SSC on all marine matters. The Gland meeting was convened to move forward with priorities identified in the strategic planning and preparatory meetings (August 2006 and December 2005; a copy of the reports from these meetings is available upon request). The core aim was to decide on focal actions for the next few years, and determine where the MCSC should invest efforts and resources. The first segment of the meeting was taken up with short updates by members related to their relevant interests and focal areas (Global Marine Species Assessment, bycatch, invasive species, etc) following which the group prioritized activities developed and augmented since the previous meeting. A significant portion of the meeting was also related to the activities of the MCSC at the upcoming IUCN world congress in Barcelona in 2008. While the MCSC and related meetings are not aimed specifically at marine turtles, it does allow us to keep marine turtle conservation issues towards the top of the priority list for IUCN. A final report of this meeting is pending.

Finally, we report on the progress of the dialogue between the Tata group of companies and IUCN regarding the proposed development of a port on the coast of Orissa, some 15 km from Gahirmatha, one of the key mass nesting beaches in India – and the world for that matter. In an earlier update we noted that IUCN had been requested to look into the case and determine options for the path forward. A report of the original scoping mission conducted in December 2006 can be found at <http://www.dhamraport.com/download/dhamraport_iucnreport.pdf>. This is an interesting and widely disputed case as previous arguments have rarely addressed the biology of the turtles themselves, and have more often than not been generalized and ineffective. At present the construction of the port is being contested in the high court in India, and no resolve is expected any time soon. However, in the meantime development of the port continues. It is IUCN’s viewpoint that no port would be a great option, but if the port is to be developed, IUCN would much rather it be developed while taking on board the very best mitigation measures (for example during the dredging work period, and for lighting> then with none at all. These mitigation measures would rely in great part on the MTSG and its colleagues, given the longstanding history of dealing with these exact issues, and for that reason N. Pilcher has been involved in the discussions related to the port development and IUCN at the request of the SSC Chair. Recently Nick presented the options and alternatives and potential scenarios to all IUCN member organizations at a meeting in Delhi, which drew both favorable and unfavorable responses. Some NGOs argue that the port would be a complete catastrophe for turtles in the region, while others contend that development will inevitably take place, and that they would much prefer it to be guided by sound science and mitigation efforts.

IUCN’s position has been criticized by some agencies, who claim it capitulated to industry and gave the green light to continue to build, but this could not be further from the truth: The port has all clearances required by the Indian and Orissa State governments and is proceeding with construction. IUCN, being neither an advocacy body not able to interfere with the laws of any sovereign nation, can not force the port to stop construction – the port made it very clear that this was not one of their potential solutions. Only the High Court in India may do this, and they have not done so to date. Given this situation, and the fact that construction is ongoing, IUCN sees a role in mitigating to the fullest extent any potential impacts the port may have. IUCN does not ‘greenstamp’ commercial interests, and neither will it support efforts which are clearly going to mean the complete loss of major turtle populations. In the interests of turtles, we feel the MTSG should continue to be involved in this process, and we will keep you updated as developments occur.

The MTSG AGM will take place on Tuesday, January 22d from 08:00-09:00 in Loreto, Mexico at the XXVIII Sea Turtle Symposium. Please come one and all.