MTN 13:1-4 Editorial

seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Editorial

N. Mrosovsky

A conference on turtles, titled the "World Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation" is soon to open in Washington. Far from Washington, out in the Indian ocean, lie a group of small islands, the Seychelles. Only 50-100 thousand people live on these islands and their views are not likely to be heard in Washington. But the history of recent efforts there to conserve sea turtles is an instructive one for participants to ponder.

In 1968 the Seychelles proclaimed a complete ban on taking green turtles. The intent was to give time for assessment of stocks and for devising a management plan that would enable exploitation of this resource without endangering it. Assistance was sought from IUCN. Unfortunately nothing materialized, letters from the Seychelles went unanswered, momentum was lost (see Salm, 1976; Frazier, in press). During this time there was considerable poaching and pressure to lift the ban increased. The Seychellois resented being told they could not eat turtle when it was an important and traditional source of meat. After resisting these pressures for a while, in 1976 the government, disillusioned, as one high official put it, by the apparent unwillingness of the international conservation movement to do anything for the green turtles of Seychelles, other than wring their hands in dismay at any proposal to modify the ban, rescinded it in favour of less complete restrictions.

The predicament of the Seychelles government is not unique. It exemplifies problems facing many countries with sea turtles. The political realities are often such that conservation is not possible unless governments are making, and are seen to be making, turtles available to local peoples as a source of food or income. Bans and sanctuaries have their place but more effort and imagination should be devoted to management plans.

But how can rational plans be devised when there are so many gaps in our understanding of turtle biology? In an imperfectly known world some risks have to be taken. Conservationists have not shrunk from other risks. They have flown turtles around the Caribbean, they have flown them around the Gulf of Mexico. They have raised them for many months in artificial conditions, fed them food that may not be abundantly available in the wild, and released them in places unfrequented by turtles of that age class. Thousands of eggs have been incubated in plastic boxes above ground at unnatural temperatures, possibly masculinizing the population (Mrosovsky, 1978). Plenty of risks have been taken. We do not imply such risks are unjustified. These are matters for debate in Washington. It will probably be impossible to obtain much agreement, only to be informed and flexible; if things turn out well, a risk is justified, even if the grounds for taking it were not especially strong.

At least with the risk-taking in making recommendations for harvesting, there are a few simple points that provide some guidance. If a turtle population is to remain stable, then each animal will have to be replaced. Assuming an equal sex ratio, hatchlings from 2 eggs from each female on average will have to survive to maturity. Since turtles lay many eggs in their lifetime, often several hundred, sometimes many more, depending on the species and population, protection, at the vulnerable egg stage should be able to compensate for harvesting (see Hirth and Schaffer, 1974, for additional points). Such protection does not need special technology. Much can be achieved by patrols to reduce human interference and by wire netting to reduce animal predation. The difficulties arise in determinining just what size quotas should be; it must not be forgotten that predation continues beyond the egg stage. Recommendations should only be made with an appreciation of local environmental and social conditions and of the likelihood that protective measures will be enforced. But despite unknowns and problems, we still feel that controlled use of turtle resources is not just something for the future; there are places, such as the Seychelles, where it is appropriate now.

In facing such problems, it may be worth recalling some cases where use and protection are being combined. At Trengganu, Malaysia most of the eggs laid by leatherbacks are taken, as they have been for decades. However, for a number of years now a small percentage have been protected and the hatchlings later released. The State authorities in Trengganu sell rights to collect eggs on particular stretches of beach. The fees received from the licenced egg collectors go towards running the hatchery and looking after eggs on part of the beach set aside for conservation and tourists. People making their living collecting eggs obviously want the turtles to be undisturbed while nesting and they are, not therefore, especially enthusiastic about sightseers. They also have an interest in the success of conservation. However, although the leatherbacks at Trengganu appear to be holding their own despite many years of intensive egg harvesting, some biologists consider the number of eggs set aside for the hatchery, about 20%, to be too low. They fear that a population crash from over exploitation in the past has only been delayed by the longevity of the adults. Unfortunately, although many data have been collected, lack of full published accounts prevents informed evaluation. But if it was felt wise to increase the numbers protected, either as an insurance against disaster or as a chance of boosting populations to higher levels, it would only require adjustment to the controls, not a dismantling of the whole social machinery. The latter is excellent: Malaysians themselves eat most of the eggs and have a stake in the success of conservation and biologists from the Fisheries Department are able to exert, if not total control, at least a major influence on events at the rookery.

Use of turtle resources is also contemplated in South Africa. It is said that once the number of loggerheads nesting there reaches a certain preset target, the regulations giving complete protection on the Tongaland beaches will be replaced by others permitting limited cropping. If after years of protection turtles have increased in numbers and a system for monitoring the population established, this development should in principle be applauded. The details of implementation have not been made available yet.

Conservation combined with consumption of green turtle eggs has been practiced for the last few years in Surinam. Prior to 1964, most turtle eggs in Surinam were taken and adults were also being killed. Gradually the main beaches were declared nature reserves and extensive tagging and other studies were carried out. Later complete protection was relaxed and eggs were sent to the market place in Paramaribo. The proceeds helped pay for the programme (Schulz, 1975). Although initially there was some discontent among Carib Indians who previously made money by selling eggs (Kloos, 1971), this was ameliorated by employing some of them an the reserves. Together with former poachers, using their knowledge of the environment and the animals, they contributed greatly. Where formerly predation was at a devasting level, now the turtles in Surinam receive a large measure of protection, at least some employment is provided, protein is made available in the market at reasonable prices, a partial safeguard against political changes, and because monitoring of the numbers nesting continues, the quotas can be adjusted if appropriate, hopefully after awhile toward a greater take of eggs.

Most important, in the examples of the Trengganu and the Surinam programmes, both government and people are involved. This gives conservation roots in the cultural matrix and makes it robust. By contrast there are examples of fragile conservation schemes - schemes that may be appropriate in the circumstances but are nevertheless fragile in that they are not well embedded into the workings of the society. What would happen at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, if biologists from the United States stopped going there? Without the foresight of one man, the President of Costa Rica, the park boundaries at Tortuguero would have been gravely diminished this year (see item on Costa Rica below). And what of the conservation through the military in Mexico? It might seem the strongest conservation of all not simply to have regulations but to have them enforced by marines with automatic weapons. This may indeed be an essential measure to prevent collapse of certain turtle populations there, but in the long run guns may not be as effective as giving people a hand in managing their own resources for their good.

The Seychelles ban was an example of fragile conservation because it was socially unacceptable, politically impossible. Robust conservation must take account of the political realities in many of the countries with turtles still left and of their wishes for management programmes.

References

Frazier, J. (In press). Marine turtle management in the Seychelles. Environmental Conservation.

Hirth, H.H. and Schaffer, W.M. 1974. Survival rate of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, necessary to maintain stable populations. Copeia, 2, 544-546.

Kloos, P. 1971. The Maroni River Caribs of Surinam. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.

Mrosovsky, N. 1973. Editorial. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 9, 1-2.

Salm, R.V. 1976. Marine turtle management in Seychelles and Pakistan. Environmental Conservation, 3, 267-268.

Schultz, J. P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 143, 1-143.