seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Marine Turtle Newsletter 31:2-4, © 1984

Guest Editorial: Ostional Management Options

Peter C. H. Pritchard
Florida Audubon Society, 1101 Audubon Way, Maitland, FL 32751 USA

In March 1984 (MTN 27:1-2), I solicited opinions regarding alternative management/exploitation policies for olive ridleys and their eggs at Playa Ostional in Pacific Costa Rica. Replies were not numerous, but they were thoughtful and useful. Their content is summarized below. Relatively brief comments were received from Nat Frazer (WHOI) and Steve Price (WWF - Canada). Frazer expressed commiseration that this topic had not been discussed at the meeting of the IUCN Marine Turtle Group, and suggested that it be discussed at a sea turtle symposium at some future date. Price offered kind words on the objective treatment of my presentation and expressed the opinion that Option 2 (controlled egg harvest) was the most promising.

Nicholas Mrosovsky (U. Toronto) agreed with Price that Option 2 seemed well worth exploring, but cautioned that compensatory measures should also be taken (i.e., that eggs normally lost through causes other than human take be protected in numbers commensurate with those taken for human use). This philosophy is discussed further in his recent book (Mrosovsky, 1983). Mrosovsky also cautioned that taking eggs from some arribadas in their entirety would be inadvisable, since it could result in an inappropriate sex ratio among the season's hatchlings.

The two longest replies were received from David Owens (Texas A&M) and Fernando Crastz Peters (Circulo Herpetologico de Panama). Both also felt that Option 2 was the policy of choice and that rather elaborate procedures would be necessary to ensure that abuses did not occur. Owens suggested that a sea turtle cooperative be formed to manage turtles and eggs at Ostional and that the cooperative be directed by a board with representatives from Ostional Village, the Fisheries Department, the University of Costa Rica, and the IUCN Turtle Group. He suggested a five-year plan, with provision for annual modifications. Some eggs would be collected from each arribada, the pigs would be kept out, and about 50% of the annual egg production would be sold in Costa Rica. Profits would be divided between a village development fund and a turtle conservation fund. The former would establish a modest beach hotel scheme which might ultimately provide enough revenue from turtle-watching tourists that sale of eggs would not be essential; the latter would fund complete protection of ridleys at Nancite, other research on Lepidochelys olivacea, and possibly sea turtle research and conservation throughout Costa Rica. The village would hire an enforcement officer and two or three egg collectors. Consistent long-term employment for a few people was thought better than one night's work for 100; the policy of collecting some eggs from each arribada was consistent with this as well as biologically preferable. Villagers who wanted eggs to feed their pigs would have to buy them at the wholesale price. Quotas, practices and personnel would be evaluated and adjusted annually by the University of Costa Rica team and the first year's profits would go toward a study of how best to develop tourism. No head starting, transplantation or artificial imprinting was recommended.

Fernando Crastz worked at Ostional from 1978-1981, and thus has first-hand knowledge of the situation there. He also favored Option 2, arguing that Options 3 (uncontrolled utilization of eggs) and 4 (utilization of turtles in international commerce) were dangerous, while Option 1 (complete protection) might result in the same reduced recruitment that occurs at Nancite. He noted that using the turtles for food might result in people of Pacific Costa Rica becoming large-scale consumers of sea turtles, similar to those on the Caribbean coast. Crastz also recommended that pigs be excluded and only those persons already resident in Ostional be allowed to enter the nesting zone; that a season for controlled exploitation of eggs by local people be established; that eggs laid between arribadas not be exploited; that egg collection be legal during the first one or two days of major arribadas; that all eggs laid during the hottest month be taken (since generally speaking the heat is so intense that these do not develop); that eggs legally taken be packed in boxes marked with the Seal of the Ostional Cooperative and vendors of eggs not so packaged be severely punished; that a scientific presence be established to monitor the situation and make recommendations for modifications of the protocols for exploitation of the eggs; that turtle farms be required to release juvenile turtles with an ecologically appropriate sex ratio; and, most important of all, that honest and corruption-free enforcement officers be appointed. Nothing should be done to encourage the movement of people from other parts of Costa Rica to the Ostional area, or to allow anyone to become completely dependent on the turtle eggs for either employment or profits.

I found it encouraging that Option 2 was so uniformly favored among the respondents; no one suggested "complete protection at all costs," or exploitation of the turtles themselves. Legalizing egg trade in Costa Rica would require changes in the law but may be acceptable if the law permitted marketing of eggs only by the Optional Cooperative and incorporated safeguards in packaging requirements. For example, boxes might be required to bear the seal of the Cooperative and seals could be of a type that must be torn or cut open and thus usable only once.

Determining which eggs to collect obviously requires careful thought. It is important to avoid producing an unnatural sex ratio among hatchlings. This might be achieved by collecting equal fractions of eggs laid in the shade and in exposed areas, or by collecting half of each arribada rather than certain arribadas their entirety. However, Crastz's comment that eggs tend to fail uniformly during the hottest part of the season, if confirmed, suggests that eggs could be harvested heavily during those months. Collecting a fraction of the eggs in a given arribada could be done either by establishing a mark near the middle of the beach and collecting all eggs up to that mark (collecting being on the other side of the mark during the subsequent arribada), or by collecting just during the first two days of an arribada. Either approach would help reduce the number of eggs already in the beach during subsequent arribadas and might have a positive effect on hatchling recruitment from those later nests.

Both Owens and Crastz issued important caveats regarding the possibility of individuals' becoming economically dependent upon the egg exploitation. Such dependency provides pressure for high quotas whether or not large numbers of turtles nest in a given season. Such pressure is now felt intensely in Surinam, where an economic crunch has put conservation workers on reduced salary and obliged them to sell 400,000 green turtle eggs during the 1984 season in order to fund the conservation effort. Owens' suggestion to generate income from tourism that might reduce the economic necessity of collecting eggs in years of reduced nesting is an excellent one. However, I disagree with him on the number of people who would be needed to collect the eggs. Two or three people on full-time egg duty would be overwhelmed during arribadas and idle at other times. Eggs should be collected as they are laid, to ensure freshness and to avoid probing or digging in the beach to locate nests (which would result in exposure or destruction of older nests unsuitable for market purposes). This would require the services of most people in the village for a couple of days per month.

Owens makes an important point in recommending against head-starting, relocation of nests, or artificial imprinting. Those are unproven and expensive techniques, justified only in cases of extreme urgency (such as at Rancho Nuevo with L. kempi). Crastz did not support farming, but stated that if L. olivacea were farmed, natural populations should be augmented by release of farm-reared stock. I recommend strongly against farming of L. olivacea; the farmed products could not compete in the marketplace with wild products and their existence would greatly complicate law enforcement efforts.

Careful thought must be given to the question of the distribution of revenues within the Ostional community. Those living near but not in the village may claim a share of the profits of a "regional" or "national" resource. Also, those who currently fatten their pigs on the eggs would have to share in the largesse or they might either attempt to subvert the plan or simply continue to lead their pigs to the beach despite any prohibition. Owens' suggestion of an egg-funded tourism facility is excellent but the distribution of profits to all deserving claimants may not be automatic.

Mrosovsky, N. 1983. Conserving Sea Turtles. British Herpetological Society, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London. 176pp.