A need to align and integrate incentive strategies. Lessons learned from turtle protection in eastern Indonesia

Transcription

1 207 A need to align and integrate incentive strategies. Lessons learned from turtle protection in eastern Indonesia Creusa Hitipeuw and Lida Pet-Soede WWF Indonesia Jl. Mega Kuningan lot 8.9/A9 Kawasan Mega Kuningan Jakarta 12950, Indonesia Abstract Reviews of the status of the sea turtle populations in the Indo Pacific region (Limpus, 1994; 1997) reveal a declining trend since decades that is most likely due to unregulated human activities. The deterioration of key habitats that are important during different life stages of turtle populations and activities related to targeted and non-targeted catch put the survival of all seven globally known species of sea turtles at great risk. Fuelled by growing concern around the globe many conservation activities have been set in motion. Strengthened by well-directed research, various locally applied conservation strategies at least attempt to enhance the nesting and hatching success of turtles and thus give some hope for the future. However, to truly turn the tide and allow for restoration of seriously reduced populations (such as Pacific Leatherback and Loggerhead turtles) in time, a more integrated and global strategy needs to be considered. This paper aims to provide some examples of how local conservation efforts in Indonesia, directed at one particular turtle population (Western Pacific Leatherback turtle), need to be linked with policy development, advocacy, management and community empowerment at larger geographical, ecological and administrative scales in order to increase the durability and efficiacy of such local initiatives. INTRODUCTION The long life history, the wide range migration behaviour and the various values to mankind make sea turtles vulnerable to many forms of mortality. Deterioration of critical habitats, indiscriminate collection of eggs and capture of adults for consumption or other use and bycatch of turtles in fishing gear along migratory routes and at foraging areas, all contribute to the problem. Multiple threats require multi-dimensional approaches and strategies. All stocks of leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) and loggerheads (Caretta caretta) are showing a drastic decline in the Pacific Ocean basin (Limpus and Limpus, 2003; Kamezaki et al., 2003; Sarti et al., 1996; Spotila et al., 1996). For Pacific leatherback turtles in particular, there has been an alarming decline at known nesting sites across the Pacific (Spotila et al., 1996) such as in Malaysia (Chan and Liew, 1996), and more recently eastern Pacific populations have collapsed (Sarti et al., 1996). The use of advanced research techniques that include the use of genetic and telemetry tools have improved our understanding that a larger management unit is required than the nesting beach alone and has led to calls for international cooperation in conservation

2 208 management (Dutton et al., 1999). Using the same tools, some conclusions and facts revealed the major impact of high seas fisheries on several sea turtle populations in the Pacific, such as the leatherback turtle (Dutton, Balazs and Dizon, 1997). Given the drastic decline of the Pacific leatherback, all possible measures including reduction/elimination of traditional uses that might be relatively small compared to other threats, must be put into action. Under given population status, traditional take will consequently exceed the levels that sea turtle populations can sustain and therefore recovery is jeopardized. Sea turtles have since long formed a central element in the customs and beliefs of many peoples in the Pacific region; however, such beliefs manifest themselves in many different ways. Some prohibit direct consumption of particular species (totem, sacred animal, e.g. West Papua for leatherbacks; WWF unpublished ), while others consider turtles as traditional (consecrated) diet given to them by their ancestors (Kei islanders). Elsewhere turtles are considered as a chiefly food reserved for special occasions as weddings and funerals 1 while others are accustomed to periodic restrictions on use (e.g. most Pacific islanders). Aside from being consumed for different reasons, turtles provide other cultural values that continue to tie many indigenous people together in a rapidly changing world. To facilitate acceptance and implementation of actions that restrict traditional use, we could apply lessons from cases in Malaysia and Costa Rica where revenue and jobs were created from non-extractive uses of sea turtles. Developing turtle-related tourism is often mentioned in relation to conservation and it has indeed proven to generate greater revenue compared to extractive uses such as for shells, meat, eggs, and other products (Troeng and Drews, 2004). Unfortunately, the remote character of many turtle habitats makes the tourism option not always eligible. This paper summarizes the most relevant impacts of local communities on turtle populations common throughout the Asia Pacific (Liew, 2002; Limpus, 1994; 1997; Rupeni et al., 2002). It includes some examples that present other approaches used to stimulate community participation in conservation activities especially at sites critical to recovery of the highly endangered leatherback turtle. A brief evaluation of their impact is provided and placed in the larger context of leatherback turtle conservation. Some recommendations are given to expand and strengthen the scope of local work through effective policy schemes and strong law enforcement at the national and international level. Understanding impacts of coastal community on turtle populations Arguably the most significant impacts of coastal activities on turtle populations in developing countries derive from adult poaching, egg harvesting and conversion of critical habitats. 1 To Balinese Hindus (Indonesia), the turtle is well regarded for its capacity to retreat into its shell and for carrying the world on its back. Here, turtles are sacrificed and the meat is consumed during special ceremonies.

3 209 Adult poaching Most sea turtle species inhabit coastal areas with sea-grass meadows and coral reefs where they interact with fishing activities and coastal community settlements. For a long time, turtles have provided an important source of protein for local villagers. In most cases, local fishers considered encountering turtles while fishing for their families daily meal as good fortune. Other village members developed an interest to consume turtle meat, and the introduction of sea turtle meat to a nearby town consumers created a commercial value of sea turtle species (mostly greens and hawksbill). Soon considered a delicacy, restricted supply from its seasonal appearance resulted in high market demands (WWF Indonesia, 2002). Green turtles are used to serve religious needs and feasts which further induced massive turtle consumption into the life styles of a large majority in traditional communities. To meet this market demand under conditions of a continuously increasing human population, more and more people engaged in this trade and focused on roaming nesting habitats for easy capture. High market demands created exclusive business opportunities and jobs for a number of people in a wide range of occupations such as boat crew and vendors. This shift from subsistence use to a cash trade well-targeted fishery combined with the predictability of timing and location of turtle abundance has exposed most nesting populations such as in eastern Indonesia to levels of commercial exploitation that cannot be sustained (Hitipeuw, 2002). Similarly, a developing commercial value of hawksbill turtles (particularly so as stuffed figures or for their shells in jewellry) significantly contributed to a decline of hawksbill populations. Large volumes of past exports to Japan and other Asian countries and existing domestic markets reduced the chance of population recovery, even with restriction of local consumption. This market indeed provided an alternative livelihood option for poor rural communities. Additionally, a lack of direct market access of remote coastal communities induced establishment of access/use agreements with outside poachers in return for direct payments in term of cash or household necessities (Hitipeuw, 2002). Egg harvesting While turtle meat is always regarded a tasty delicacy by everyone, eggs of all turtle species are edible and have become alternate protein source especially for communities living near nesting sites. Local consumption is usually relatively small and possibly even sustainable. However, the introduction of this alternative protein source at local markets induced the commercialism of turtle eggs. For Malays communities in Malaysia and Indonesia (Kalimantan especially), turtle eggs are worth more than chicken or duck eggs due to perceived remedial values. Collection of turtle eggs started to provide business opportunities and, for example, in eastern Kalimantan the legal concession rights and collection fees granted by local authorities to individual businesses have contributed significantly to regional revenues in the past. The concessions have been revoked; however, low enforcement capacity has allowed the development of a black market for turtle eggs for local consumption 2. In other areas, local communities granted exclusive rights to outsiders to collect turtle eggs at nearby beaches during the nesting season. In Papua, such harvest rights were traded for household necessities such as sugar, rice, salt, soap, cigarettes and cooking utensils. 2 The eggs are now protected from collection and egg concession are no longer granted.

4 210 During the peak periods of commercial collection which coincided with peak nesting seasons, all nesting activities sighted were subject to harvesting as there has been no limits associated with the rights (Salm, Petocz and Soehartono, 1982; Sumantri and Djuharsa, 1985; Petocz, 1987; Stark, 1993; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002). Competitive use of turtle habitats (habitat conversion) Turtle nesting beaches are often located on uninhabited islands, which are sometimes considered sacred to nearby communities. One of the many examples is a green turtle rookery on the island of Enu-Karang (declared a Marine Nature Reserve), in the middle of the Arafura Sea that is respected by Arunese as the land of their origins (Schultz, 1987; 1996). However, while these areas are mostly inaccessible and under land-tenure systems of the particular indigenous communities, some nesting beaches especially when located on the larger islands (such as those used by leatherback turtles) are subject to coastal development that includes human settlement (WWF-KSDA, 1994; WWF-Sorong, 1999) and coastal tourism. Furthermore, for example in Papua the beaches are used by timber companies to access lumber camps and vice versa, to take lumber out of the area via sea transport (WWF, 2000; 2001a; 2001b; 2001c). These activities have direct impacts on nesting turtles. Logs washed up on the beach present a barrier to both adult turtles attempting to nest, and to hatchlings seeking the ocean. Logging in the hinterland threatens the beach structure due to removal of vegetation and changes in natural drainage patterns. Additionally, increased human activity associated with the logging may lead to an increase in poaching. Fishing activities adjacent to nesting areas The tendency to congregate during nesting seasons at major nesting sites most likely makes sea turtles especially susceptible to fishery operations in the same areas. Only little information is available on the degree of mortality due to incidental take by coastal fishing gears. Arauz (2003) evaluated the impact of coastal artisanal fisheries near important nesting beaches in the Central America Region. Inshore, small-scale gillnets and longlines in tropical regions create obstacles for sea turtles trying to reach the beach. Collectively, unattended nets set in shallow waters and fisheries other than shrimping in coastal waters were identified as the second largest source of mortality to sea turtles (National Research Council, 1990), and the issue has since received considerable attention (Luctavage et al., 1997). The coastal waters off the north coast of Papua, where a large nesting site of Pacific leatherback occurs, are important sites for coastal pelagic fisheries in the region. Based on the licensing records issued by local fisheries authority a substantial increase of pelagic fishing activities (artisanal fisheries) increased during the last ten years and includes fishing gears such as tuna longlines, gillnets, trammel nets and some other traditional type of fisheries such as trap nets and lift nets from platforms with submerged lights (Bagan). Sea conditions dictate that most fishing activities occur during the eastern monsoon, when the sea surface is calm, and this happens to coincide with the peak-nesting season in Jamursba-Medi beach. There is no quantification of the fisheries induced mortality of turtles; however, communities living along the north coast and north islands of Papua have reported seeing stranded leatherback entangled in fishing nets and other marine debris (Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002). Recent satellite tracking results showed back and forth movement of females to the nesting sites during breeding seasons. The occurrence of large aggregations of nesting leatherbacks, especially during the peak of the nesting season, and the presence of coastal fishing activities at the same time, suggested a potential interaction of turtles and fisheries.

5 211 Local protection of a Globe-Trotter : lessons learned from leatherback conservation in eastern Indonesia On the basis of the various socio-cultural and socio-economic aspects of traditional and commercial use of turtles and their eggs, two locally defined strategies that allow sustainable conservation action of Pacific leatherbacks involving indigenous communities are being implemented (by WWF Indonesia). Considering that conditions vary much between two locations that provide important functions for the leatherback, two cases are presented that call for different cultural and economic approaches (Juliany and Schneider, 2002; WWF, 2001b; 2001c) A Case Study I Reducing mortality due to traditional hunting of leatherbacks at their foraging ground in Kei Kecil Islands, Moluccas Province, eastern Indonesia: Socio-Cultural Approach Brief history - cultural/economic content. The leatherback turtle has large local cultural significance as it is the symbol of ancestors and the seven ridges on its shell reflect the number of local customary groups in Kei Islands. It provides sacred food for clan groups in seven villages and historically it is considered a domesticated animal (turtles turned around when they were asked so). A legend regarding the occurrence of leatherback and how the species served local needs of a sacred diet resides at nine particular villages that are in possession of hunting rights. The fact that the legend relates to this sacred purpose of turtle meat since so long established the assumption that leatherback has resided in their surrounding waters since forever and that they will never go extinct. Importantly, the institutional implementation of customary beliefs and rules relating to hunting practices is clear to all communities involved including the strict prohibition of its commercial use. The hunting frequencies vary among clan groups (village) and depend on frequencies of livelihood (income generating) activities such as the start of the crop planting season, fishing, seashells and sea cucumber collection, and on frequencies of social activities such as

6 212 church-related events and on the climate (rainy season). More hunting occurs when the hunting area is better accessible. When people sight leatherback nearby they perceive this as the turtles offering themselves (sacrifice) to be caught. Catches by one or several groups of people must be equally shared amongst all village members, thus the more populated villages are the more turtles are hunted. The highest record of the hunting rates was over 100 adult males and females during the hunting period (Suárez and Starbird, 1996). Approach taken. Considering the critical endangered status of Pacific leatherback due to various threats, the reduction of adult mortality (such as from direct hunting) may far outweigh the protection of eggs at the nesting beach in terms of contributions to the recovery effort. A well-structured outreach programme that builds on the cultural significance of the hunting practices updates the local understanding on the status of the turtle population and links this to their own customary laws explaining what the dire status of the turtle population means for continuation of their customs and beliefs. Dissemination of indigenous and modern-scientific knowledge for different target groups is a critical component in such a program. Strongly linked with this outreach, an intensive empowering process such as finding out other protein sources, development of hunting regulations, could be initiated that also builds on existing customary laws and institutional frameworks. As the customary law is highly respected locally, the adoption of sustainable harvest regulations into the framework of existing customary law should be an indicator of the project s objective of conserving sea turtles. Results to date. Since the cultural-related conservation issues are often sensitive to be addressed, a preliminary phase of the outreach programme is the hard part of the overall and often a time-consuming process. Since the leatherback are considered a sacred diet, historically provided by their ancestors, the people in these communities believe these turtle will not become extinct. The major challenge in achieving significant reduction in hunting at leatherback foraging grounds would be to change perception on the fate of the species. The result of consultation with local communities reflected a general concern of the people regarding sustainability of the traditional practice following their observations on the lower abundance of the turtles in the surrounding waters at present compared with the past years. However, factors other than direct hunting such as sea traffic and pollution are also seen as causes for the observed declines. This suggests a need for education programmes on turtle ecology and threats to sea turtles and their habitats before taking further steps towards the promotion of sustainable hunting schemes within the existing customary institution. Lessons learned. Supporting local people to maintain their socio-cultural links with their environment would be seen locally as an obvious benefit and has proved effective for some indigenous communities in the Pacific region such as aboriginals (Hunter and Williams, 1997; Jelinek, 1997), Solomon islanders (Leary and Orr, 1997) and Fijian people (Rupeni et al., 2002). Empowering indigenous communities to develop solutions for addressing the hunting is the key factor. Despite this being a time-consuming process for most of the examples mentioned, such management approach was deemed important. Traditional hunting in Kei Islands is aimed at the leatherback turtles, most critically endangered turtle species in the Pacific and its extinction is feared if immediate intervention to reduce the mortality is not pursued. It is often that new initiatives such as conservation programmes are well accepted by most traditional communities when financial support (on a short-term basis) is included in the overall project framework. Further, the most common response such as what s in it for us if we are doing conservation reflected economic

7 213 benefits people expected from participating in conservation. Therefore, conservation programmes should be designed to encourage local participation in conservation actions with a main focus to sustain traditional lifestyles, using financial assistance to gain trust and accelerate the empowering processes. An innovative quick fix approach complementing a long-term, community empowering process should be preferred. Market factors that drive the degree of hunting, as mentioned in the previous section, provide a good baseline for the development of relevant economic-related activities. Way forward. In order to achieve a significant reduction of hunting, it is obvious that quick (financial) intervention should be focused in the first place on the more densely populated villages or those with the community that holds the local mandate for customary-related decision making. A lack of means of transportation for direct access to the nearby town market, and a lack of skills to diversify as well as increase cash crop production influence local capacity to income-generating activities during the hunting season. Livelihood supports, such as assessing potential marketable crops, provide skills to increase the production and explore ways to resolve limited market access (e.g. generate outside support for provision of means of transportation). Such support can be considered as a trade-off for participation of indigenous community in conservation of globally important species. This would even fit with local beliefs and translated as a reward from ancestors to save leatherback (ancestor s reward). Case Study II. Protection of nesting habitat at Jamursba Medi, West Papua Province, eastern Indonesia: Socio-Economic Approach Brief history - cultural/economic content. In terms of local administrative jurisdiction, Jamursba Medi beach is divided between two coastal villages. According to the beliefs of these communities, leatherback turtles are members of the human race that have adapted to live at sea. The occurrence of a rock that appears like a leatherback turtle is part of a legend that lives within the communities. Leatherback turtles provide eggs (as protein source) for people, so keeping the adults alive (no poaching) will ensure the continuation of egg harvesting for subsistence purposes. Slaughtering of leatherback turtles is considered taboo to the communities but there is no taboo against slaughtering other turtle species that also occur in the region. Unfortunately, before the conservation project was established, a commercial market for turtle eggs and meat existed in the district town outside the jurisdiction of the two villages and this stimulated outsiders (fishermen) to come and harvest the eggs and trade household items with the local people in exchange for access to the turtles. Approach taken. Following an observation of a drastic decline of the nesting populations, WWF in partnership with a local government agency started conservation activities in the early 1990s with a field-based programme with the objective of eliminating egg poaching on the beach. Clans residing in two adjacent villages claim traditional ownership over the beach area, so the first step was to build a good relationship with these communities and have their support for turtle conservation work. Activities to date include community-based beach patrols and control of feral predation and have resulted in a significant reduction of humaninduced threats, especially egg poaching and habitat disturbances (Stark, 1993; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; WWF, ). Results to date. Over the course of the conservation activities, local communities have supported WWF s efforts to conserve leatherback turtles and their nesting habitats in Papua. The recruitment of beach patrol personnel was based on the decision of the community, and

8 214 the practices of harvesting and trading eggs with outsiders and local consumption have been abandoned in support of conservation aims. The setting aside of land around the beach for conservation would not have been possible without the complete agreement of the local communities, and the results of on-going beach patrols and monitoring have shown that conservation efforts have been successful in practically eliminating all poaching of adult turtles and collection of eggs. Lessons learned. Key to the success of these efforts is that they build upon the customary connection between the community and the turtles while at the same time offering an alternative source of income be provided to those community members who conduct patrols. Although the conservation programme was able to link traditional beliefs regarding sea turtles with conservation and support, part of the project had to address sustainable development needs for the wider community as well, i.e. solutions that contributed to poverty reduction. Providing salaries for beach patrols partly addresses this need, but only for some community members and is not sustainable as it still depends on project funds. More often now, the communities request assistance for micro-enterprise development and other economic activities to replace income derived from activities that previously involved exploiting turtles. However, other forms of development involving natural resource exploitation, such as timber and mining, are increasing in the vicinity of the nesting beach, and will potentially offer more lucrative options to local villagers, encouraging them to engage in activities that may be in conflict with conservation aims unless (short-term) benefits generated from conservation activities are generated. The recent establishment of a log-pond facility adjacent to the turtle-nesting beach is an example of such an actual conflict between development and conservation goals. Way forward. Current ideas on further strategies therefore include a more integrated approach to support some of the economic needs of the larger community and to address other economic developments that are ongoing in the area (Juliany and Schneider, 2002; WWF, 2001b) Why our approaches were not fully effective: combining lessons from both cases The projects at Kei and Jamursba Medi provide clear examples of areas that are of highest conservation priority because of levels of biodiversity or the presence of endangered species and that are also home to extremely impoverished communities. The challenge of biodiversity conservation is to ensure that conservation goals are compatible with sustainable development goals, that communities are included as part of the solution, by using approaches that are socio-politically acceptable, economically viable and ecologically sustainable. This is particularly true where land ownership is under traditional tenure regimes and where the remote character of the area means that interventions must be perceived to serve the economic and cultural interests of communities. Strategies that add value to resources and reduce the negative impacts of their extactive use through community management, should provide clear reasons for the community to participate in conservation. When using community based approach to achieve conservation targets, the basic question is how to allow local people to contribute to and, at the same time, benefit from conservation. Local communities need to be empowered to manage their natural resources on a continuous basis. So-called empowered management regimes serve beneficial purposes such as giving recognition to communities and reinforcing self-determination, and the results include direct benefits to the action contributing to local

9 215 livelihood systems include effective grass roots level management of the resource take (harvest) and isolation of illegal activities (Hunter and Williams, 1997). In Jamursba Medi the purpose of the former protected area scheme initiative was the protection of the surrounding hinterland as a buffer zone for maintaining the integrity of the entire ecosystem and watershed. The project faced the rejection of the local communities due to failure in demonstrating the economic benefits derived from protected area designation. Second, establishing a nature reserve (e.g. wildlife sanctuary) faced challenges related to land tenure issues. In addition, people in the communities often perceived the reserve as depriving them of their traditional rights and of their opportunities to exploit resources for their own social and economic needs. However, insufficient capacities of management authority in managing and enforcing such a remote sanctuary suggested a need to involve local communities in management activities. An integrated approach Regulation or prohibition of sea turtle harvesting in remote undeveloped areas should be seen from the perspective of local food and income security. A number of reasons can be provided for people to give up turtle as part of their diet and to forego income opportunities from direct sales or trading of use rights. Short descriptions of cultural, economic and legal inducements are provided here as inputs to a broader discussion on how to ensure community support for effective conservation. Cultural reasons for conserving sea turtles The high cultural status of sea turtles has provided powerful motivation for sea turtle conservation action in the Pacific region. Restrictions on external trade as well as on nontraditional methods of capture (such as the use of outboard-powered boats for turtle hunting) have been implemented successfully in recent years (Adam, 2003). Translating the dire state of turtle populations into impacts on sustained implementation of customary and religious activities would provide a powerful incentive for participation and acceptance for conservation. Economic inducements for conserving sea turtles A management approach that involves carefully selected private sector investments and development can demonstrates that the nature reserve itself could provide the means to generate small businesses and employment opportunities to supplement or replace local livelihoods, such as community logging, ecotourism. Additionally, it can draw attention to the benefits of institutional strengthening as a way of enabling community-based approaches to be effectively implemented and sustained. This strategy is often pursued actively by NGOs to facilitate acceptance of new regulations and to minimize risks of low compliance. On-the-ground management of nesting beaches often includes protecting nests from predation, relocating nests from vulnerable to less vulnerable areas of tidal submersion, and patrols against poaching. These activities require manpower and thus provide job opportunities for a small group of local communities - as for example in Jamursba Medi, Papua. The down-side of project-oriented conservation activities is that these jobs will disappear when the funds for a project dry up unless alternative funding can be secured. Thus, this approach is not sustainable.

10 216 Ecotourism is an option that could create both conservation outcome and provide for successful community development in the longer term. The creation of new jobs and the provision of environmentally friendly sources of income offer a means of promoting not only protection of turtles, but also the ecosystem as a whole. Particularly in areas where a variety of interesting features are present, ecotourism has a greater change of succeeding and can provide a larger number of job opportunities with different skills (guides, cooks, technical support staff, administrative staff) and can provide a more diverse range of financial benefits (from selling of souvenirs to fish, etc). It can also lead to the creation of different economic activities such as gardening, fishing or chicken farming. Ecotourism should, of course, not create additional pressure on the ecosystem and resources through immigration of more people into the area. In Jamursba Medi, there are terrestrial species in the adjacent forest area including mammals such as tree kangaroos and cuscus; reptiles such as iguanas and snakes; and birds such as birds of paradise, cockatoos, parrots, and Kasuaris. These might provide benefits to local people by appealing to a global eco-tourism market as a protected, intact ecosystem that contains this unique variety of rare and unusual species. Further, relatively unspoilt Jamursba Medi marine ecosystem provides an ideal place for marine biological research and the people are a living museum of the coastal community culture in Papua, especially for the culture of communities living along the coast of the Kepala Burung Cape. The communities cultural resonance with sea turtles offers an opportunity for integrating traditional lifestyle with sustainable development activities, and opens up opportunities for linking future conservation programmes with community-based natural resource management, eco-tourism enterprises and biological research. Unfortunately for Jamursba Medi there are still many challenges to overcome when developing eco-tourism or large-scale research. The region is remote and inaccessible, especially during the monsoon season. Basic infrastructure is lacking, malaria is rife, and there are alternative sites in Indonesia, such as the Berau Islands and Komodo, that offer similar combinations of marine and terrestrial natural wonders which are closer to regional travel centers. Furthermore, private sector involvement can be very valuable for ensuring the commercial success of tourism enterprises, but it needs to be carefully guided and monitored to ensure that the conservation philosophy and practices upon which these schemes have been built are maintained and ensure a fair sharing of benefits to the communities involved. Importantly, even when well-implemented, the above alternative or complemantary activities will not ensure that the quality of nesting habitats is maintained in full, especially if there are hinterland activities that impact on the nesting beaches. Again the Jamursba Medi case provides a good example of a situation where there is the likelihood of conflict with individual interests within the community (such as landowners) and where there are clear financial incentives for pursuing forest concessions. The presence of logging companies in the hinterland adjacent to the nesting beach could be minimized through establishment of a terrestrial protected area that includes some of the forest. However, customary and communal use rights of coastal beaches, adjacent land and water, and the resources in these areas, suggest the cash loss to the communities by foregoing extraction of forest resources or the right to trade timber concessions may need to be paid in the form of a direct compensation payment. An option here could be to establish long-term lease to gain control over land use activities in favour of sea turtles and their very critical habitats: a conservation concession.

11 217 Money gained from such lease may be pooled into community trust fund (established institution) to ensure financial benefits to community members through for example credit schemes for livelihood development and to management costs of sea turtle conservation. A conservation concession is an option to safeguard the nesting habitats and to allow for long-term recovery through appropriate management interventions. The specifics of the conservation concession may vary from one region to another depending on the economic opportunities the area provides and the needs of local communities. In the eastern Pacific, where the value of nesting habitats competed with coastal development such as tourism, land acquisition was the only proposed option to save the leatherback nesting habitats. Legal support of sea turtle conservation efforts While implementation of protected areas that are legally gazetted only works with support of local stakeholders, the actual gazettment reflects legal documents that follow national policy and remains, nevertheless, a critical step. Often it is impossible to achieve full consensus among all stakeholders, and it is necessary to enforce existing laws on intruders and those who do not abide by the law. Furthermore, even when local communities are convinced and supportive of the need for conservation actions, they face challenges when dealing with outsiders who do not respect conservation goals. A well-designed legal framework can strengthen the position of local communities against outsiders and then their enforcement can be supported from additional sources such as the navy and/or marine police. Local communities then have the incentive to act upon their commitments as they are ensured that others will also have to keep to the rules. Discussion All of the above approaches require participation of multiple stakeholders. Community-based management and the more comprehensive collaborative management schemes for nesting beach conservation must be strengthened within the legal and institutional frameworks that govern the access and use of resources important to sea turtle habitat sites/areas. Preventing habitat loss can be achieved through: engaging in spatial planning; upgrading the protection status of remaining natural habitats; making land uses more compatible with conservation (stopping illegal habitat conversion); integrating local communities and companies in habitat conservation efforts; and encouraging companies to introduce so-called best practices in their operations. It is clear that innovative approaches that can quickly demonstrate direct benefits for the wider community from conservation will encourage more people to engage in beach and poaching management activities. However, considering the many aspects of the problem, any approach to sea turtle conservation in local communities needs to integrate various mechanisms that, together, start to address the underlying multi-dimensional root causes of declines in sea turtle populations. Any such comprehensive strategy also needs to be embedded in a framework to accomplish change at local, national and international scales. It thus needs to build on four main elements of work: policy development and implementation; promoting change through campaigns that raise awareness on issues and solutions; community empowerment to allow and facilitate involvement in long-term management and, practical management at field level to create living examples of protection and restoration of the turtle populations.

12 218 Recommendations and action points Policy development and implementation: Protect of critical habitats and maintain their ecological integrity using mechanisms such as conservation concessions. Regulate access and use of other resources at important locations for sea turtles by incorporating traditional land-claims in national legal and institutional frameworks. Reduce bycatch and/or accidental catch and link these effots to programs that have strong penalties for noncompliance. Pay for the management of local key habitats. Important angle to awareness campaigns: Management measures such as regulation of sea turtle harvest or substitution of sea turtles with other forms of food must be seen from the perspective of local food security and the sustainability of traditional take that maintain socio-cultural aspects of the indigenous communities. Priority components of community empowerment: Focus on existing customary institutional frameworks to link sustainable traditional use of sea turtles and habitats with support to the development of skills and financing of appropriate acceptable alternatives for local communities. Practical management: Create cross sectoral collaborations (forestry, tourism, fisheries) that strongly involve local communities such as beach patrols, predator control, saving of vulnerable eggs and that allow fisheries management around the nesting sites. Communicate early about the values and benefits of conservation to the multiple stakeholders involved to improve the chances of success. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors like to thank the organizing committee for the invitation and opportunity to present WWF s work with partners on conservation of leatherback turtles at this meeting. Furthermore, the authors thank the larger WWF network for support in preparation of the presentation. REFERENCES Adams, T Turtles and fisheries in the Pacific Community area. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Paper presented at the Bellagio Conference on Conservation of Sea Turtles in the Pacific Ocean, Milan, November Arauz, R Challenges of Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Fisheries in Pacific Costa Rica and Central America. Background paper submitted for Bellagio Conference on Conservation of Sea Turtles in the Pacific Ocean, Milan, November 2003.

13 219 Chan, E.H. & Liew, H.C Decline of the leatherback population in Terengannu, Malaysia Chelonian Conservation Biology, 2: Dutton P.H., Balazs, G.H. & Dizon, A.E Genetic stock identification of sea turtles caught in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. In Epperly S.P., & Braun, J. (compilers), Proceedings of the 17 th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SEFSC, 415: Dutton, P., Broderick, D. & Fitzsimmons, N Defining Management Unit: Molecular Genetics. In Kinan, I. (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Co-operative Research and Management Workshop, 5-8 February 2002, pp Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu H: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Dutton, P.H., Bowen, B.W., Owens, D.W., Barragan, A. & Davis, S.K Global phylogeography of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Zoology, London. 248: Hitipeuw, C. 2002: Status of Sea Turtle Populations in the Raja Ampat Islands. In Donnelly, R., Neville, D., & Mous, P.(eds), Report on a rapid ecological assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia, held 30 October 22 November 2002, pp Report from The Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Sanur, Bali Indonesia. Hitipeuw, C. & Maturbongs, J Marine Turtle Conservation Programme Jamursba- Medi Nesting Beach, North Coast of the Bird s Head Peninsula, Papua. In Kinan, I. (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Co-operative Research and Management Workshop, 5-8 February 2002, pp Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu H: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Hunter, B. & Williams, R Sustainable hunting: in search of solution. Marine Turtle Conservation and Management in Northern Australia. Workshop proceeding, Kennet et al. (eds), pp Jelinek, A Community involvement in managing threatened marine turtles. Marine Turtle Conservation and Management in Northern Australia. Workshop proceeding, Kennet et al. (eds), pp Juliany, S. & Schneider, H The Outer Island Iioregional Programme: Integrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning in Kalimantan and Papua. Evaluation report of USAID-WWF programme No. 497-A Kamezaki, N., Matsuzawa, Y., Abe, O., Asakawa, H. & Fujii, T Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. In: Bolten et al (Eds). Loggerhead turtles. Smithsonian Book Press. Washington D.C., USA, pp Limpus, C.J. & Limpus, D.J Loggerhead turtles in the equatorial and southern Pacific Ocean: A species in decline. In: Bolten A.B., Witherington B.E. (Eds). The Biology Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Smithsonian Institutions Press, Washington DC, USA. Pp

14 220 Leary, T. & Orr, M Cooperative indigenous community management of marine turtles: A case study of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area, Solomon Islands. Marine Turtle Conservation and Management in Northern Australia. Workshop proceeding, Kennet et al. (eds), pp Liew, H.C Status of marine turtle conservation and research in Malaysia. In Kinan, I. (ed.). Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Co-operative Research and Management Workshop, 5-8 February 2002, Pp Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu H: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Limpus, C Current decline in Southeast Asian turtle population. 13 th SeaTurtle Symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341, pp Annual Limpus, C Marine turtle populations of Southeast Asia and Western Pacific region: distribution and status. Workshop Proceeding Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia. Wetland International-Indonesia Program, pp Luctavage, M.E., Plotkin, P., Witherington, B. & Lutz, P.L Human Impacts on Sea Turtle Survival. In Lutz & Musick (eds). The Biology of Sea Turtles CRC Press. National Research Council Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention, National Academy Press, Washington D.C Petocz, R.G Nature Conservation and Development in Irian Jaya. Pustaka Grafiti, Jakarta. Rupeni, E., Mungubhai, S., Tabunakawai, K. & Blumel, P Establishing replicable community based turtle conservation reserves in Fiji. In Kinan, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Co-operative Research and Management Workshop, 5-8 February 2002, pp Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu H: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Salm, R.V., Petocz, R.G. & Soehartono, T Survey on coastal area in Irian Jaya. UNDP/FAO National Park Development Project, WWF Indonesia Programme, Bogor. Sarti, M.L., Eckert, S.A., Garcia, T. & Barragan, A.R Decline of the world's largest nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 74: 2-5. Schultz, J Observation of sea turtles in Indonesia. Unpublished report to IUCN, Bogor. 55pp. Schultz, J Marine Turtles in Aru. In Nooteboom, H. (ed), The Aru Archipelago: Plants, Animals, People and Coservation, pp Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection. No. 30. Spotila, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Steyemark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. & Paladino, F.V World population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are Leatherback going extinct? Chelonian Conservation Biology, 2:

15 221 Stark, M Field survey of leatherback nesting beaches in the Bird s Head Region, Irian Jaya, Suárez, A. & Starbird, C.H Subsistence hunting of Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Kai Islands, Indonesia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2(2): Suárez, A., Dutton, P. & Bakarbessy, J Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting on the north Vogelkop coast of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In Kalb, H. & Wibbels, T. (eds) Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC, 443: 260. Sumantri, A. & Djuharsa, E Laporan Sementara Pengelolaan Habitat Penyu Belimbing (Dermochelys coriacea), Pantai Jamursba Medi Kepala Burung, Irian Jaya. WWF/IUCN Project 1528 Report. Teguh, H Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in Jamursba-Medi Beach, Irian Jaya. WWF Indonesia-Sahul Bioregion Sorong Field Office, Sorong. Troeng, S. & Drews, C Money Talks: Economic Aspects of Marine Turtle Use and Conservation. WWF. Switzerland; WWF Newsroom Press Release WWF Project Brief Profile. Three monthly Report for PKA, Dept. of Forestry. WWF Development and Conservation in Sorong area. Internal Report WWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia). WWF. 2001a. About Logging Companies in Sorong District and the Development of the Activities of HPH PT Multi Wahana Wijaya (in Bahasa Indonesia). WWF. 2001b. An analysis of the institutional framework of local government & local NGOs with regard to natural resources and ecosystem conservation development in Sorong District. Internal Report WWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia). WWF. 2001c. Analysis of threats to proposed National Park Jamursba Medi Tamrau Utara. Internal Report WWF Indonesia, Bioregion Sahul Irian Jaya 2001 (in Bahasa Indonesia). WWF Indonesia Values of Sea Turtles. WWF Indonesia Website ( designed in WWF-KSDA Community extension project in villages adjacent to Jamursba Medi. Internal WWF report. WWF-Sorong Survey on Biodiversity of Jamursba Medi Turtle Nesting Beach. Internal Report. WWF Indonesia - Sahul Bioregion, Jayapura. (Bahasa IndonesiaWWF Stakeholder workshop on Protected Area Designation for Jamursba Medi Tamrau. Workshop proceedings. (Bahasa Indonesia).

16 222

17 223 Socio-economic aspects of management measures aimed at controlling sea turtle mortality: a case study of Orissa, India Sebastian Mathew 1 International Collective in Support of Fishworkers 27 College Road, Chennai , India The international conservation fraternity's protect everything philosophy does real conservation - which surely includes sustained/yield utilization as opposed to mere preservation, a great disservice in that it makes the countries in the developing world feel that total protection alone represents advanced thinking. This results in blanket conservation laws being brought in which prevent the operation of conservation through good utilization schemes which would substantially benefit the populations. H. R. Bustard, Should Sea Turtles be Exploited? Marine Turtle Newsletter, 15: 3 5, 1980 Abstract Along the coasts of the State of Orissa (India), olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea), the most abundant marine turtles in the world, congregate in large numbers to mate and to nest on a seasonal basis, in the shallow coastal waters. These areas also happen to be the richest fishing grounds of Orissa, especially for shrimp. Interactions between fishing activities and sea turtles, and the resulting mortality of sea turtles, have been reported since the 1970s, but seem to have increased in the 1990s as a result of an expanding fishing fleet, especially bottom trawlers. Experiences made in implementing various management measures to reduce sea turtle mortality due to fishing are presented, with particular emphasis on the consequences that these have had on traditional fishing communities. Suggestions for possible socio-economic indicators to monitor the impact of these measures on fishing communities are also presented. 1 We would like to acknowledge the following persons or organizations for providing inputs that immensely helped in the preparation of this paper: Aarthi Sridhar, Consultant, Bangalore; Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Government of Orissa, Basudev Tripathy, Sea Turtle Project, Purunabandha, Ganjam, Orissa; Bivash Pandav, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun; Bodiga and Jagmiya, artisanal fishermen, Paradip, Orissa; the Coast Guard Regional Headquarters (East), Chennai; Kartik Shanker, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore; Kharnasi Jai Jaganath Primary Marine Cooperative Society; Nolia Teppa Community, Paradip; Orissa Traditional Fish Workers Union (OTFWU), Aryapali; Rahal Mishra, Utkal Marine Fisheries Cooperative Society, Paradip; Sandukut Marine Primary Fisheries Cooperative Society, Paradip; Subash Nayak, Kartikeshwar Matchyajibi Sangha, Paradip; and Tarun Kumar Pattnaik, former President, Orissa Marine Fish Producers Association, Paradip.

18 224 INTRODUCTION There are reported instances of fishery-turtle interactions that lead to the incidental catch of turtles resulting in their mortality all over the world. The frequency of such instances seems to have increased over time. The expansion of shrimp bottom trawling and longline and driftnet fishing for tuna seems to have played a significant role in increasing such interactions over the past decade. In India turtle mortality caused by fishing is reported from the 1970s and seems to have exacerbated in the 1990s as a result of expanding fishing fleet, especially bottom trawlers. The problem is most acutely manifested in Orissa, the poorest State of India, on the eastern seaboard, where olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea), the most abundant marine turtles in the world, congregate in large numbers to mate and to nest on a seasonal basis, almost every year in the shallow coastal waters. These breeding habitats in the river mouths also happen to be the richest fishing grounds of Orissa, especially for shrimp. The marine turtle congregations occur in the peak fishing season. Interactions between such congregations and bottom trawl and gillnet fishing have been reported from This is perhaps the most striking example of such interactions in the world, involving the protection, almost every year, of an estimated adult olive ridley population and their breeding and nesting grounds on the one hand, and the livelihood interests of about fishers and fishworkers entirely dependent on coastal fisheries, on the other. Marine turtles in Indian history Tortoises and sea turtles are both worshipped as God and consumed as food in India. They are worshipped as the Kurma avatar 2 of Vishnu, the God of Preservation in Hinduism. The poor, irrespective of their caste and community, consumed the eggs and meat of tortoises and sea turtles in several parts of the country until turtle hunt and trade were banned. In West Bengal, which used to be the biggest market for turtles and turtle eggs, turtle meat was eaten on Pausha Sankranti, a harvest festival dedicated to Laxmi, the Hindu Goddess of Harvest and Wealth. The earliest historical reference to large aggregations of turtles on the Orissa coast is from the 18 th century travel accounts of an English trader, Alexander Hamilton, entitled A New Account of the East Indies. He refers to prodigious number of sea tortoises resorting to lay their eggs on the Orissa Coast (Hejmadi, 2000). Since the 13 th century boatloads of turtle eggs from Orissa were traded with the neighbouring state of West Bengal (Chadha and Kar, 1999). About 100 boatloads, up to eggs, were sold every year since The poorer segments of the population mainly consumed these eggs. Dried turtle eggs were also used as cattle-feed. The legal trade of turtle eggs went up to 1.5 million eggs in the 1970s (Chadha and Kar, 1999). The Government of Orissa formerly sold the rights for collection of approximately two million eggs per annum. These licences were cancelled following the advice of Robert Bustard, an FAO crocodile expert who in 1975 reported to the conservation community about mass nesting of Lepidochelys olivacea in Orissa. Adult marine turtles were also traded during the nesting season from Orissa to Calcutta, the capital of West Bengal, and on the east coast of India. There was illegal targeted turtling off Orissa coast for a brief period of ten years, from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, allegedly introduced by Bengali fishers who settled in Orissa in the 1970s (Chadha and Kar, 1999). An estimated to Kurma means tortoise and avatar means incarnation.

19 225 marine turtles, both male and female, were sold illegally in every season by the Bengali fishermen, which continued well into the 1980s (Chadha and Kar, 1999). Status of olive ridley population and its main habitats in India According to the Report of the Expert Scientific Panel on Sea Turtles (Government of India, 2000), five of the eight species of sea turtles found worldwide occur in the Indian coastal waters. These are olive ridley (also called oliveback loggerhead turtle or Pacific ridley), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea schlegelii), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta gigas). The most common sea turtle found in Indian waters is olive ridley. The single most important breeding area for olive ridleys in the Indian Ocean is Orissa, which has three known rookeries, in Gahirmatha, Devi river mouth and Rushikulya (Pandav, Choudhury and Shanker, 1998) (see Figure 1). Telemetric studies of olive ridleys that nest in Orissa suggest that while some of them remain in waters off Orissa, others migrate to Sri Lankan waters after nesting (Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). Olive ridleys are found in shallow coastal waters of India on the eastern seaboard, particularly off the Orissa coastline from mid-october to April/May. The Gahirmatha beach, which extends from Dhamra to the Hansua river mouth (or Barunei as used in official records) to a distance of 35 km, is believed to be the most important rookery for olive ridley in the Indian Ocean. The Devi river mouth and Rushikulya river mouth are the other rookeries in Orissa. It has been suggested through genetic studies that olive ridley rookeries on the eastern seaboard of India "are distinct from other ridleys worldwide and might be ancestral to populations in other ocean basins" (Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). Mass nesting data for Gahirmatha is available since The arribadas have most often been reported between January and March, with occasional reports during April and May, with 44 percent being reported in March, the largest occurrence in any single month 3. Based on comparison of statistics of mass nesting estimates for Gahirmatha for the period to , it is concluded "that Gahirmatha has had no drastic decline in the nesting population over the last 25 years" (Shanker Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). There were years when there was no mass nesting in Orissa, for example, in 1982, 1988, 1997, 1998 and 2002 (Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). The sandbar extensively used from 1989 to 1996 by olive ridleys in Gahirmatha, Orissa, decreased in area from 1.0 km 2 during , to km 2 in 1998 as a result of cyclones and erosion and subsequently increased to 0.52 km 2 in 1999, when an arribada took place after a gap of two years. The reason for the lack of mass nesting events in 1997 and 1998 could be attributed to natural causes rather than human activities (Prusty, Sahoo and Mehta, 1999). 3 Estimated from Table 3 of Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury 2004.

20 226 Figure 1 Source: ICSF. Based on Admiralty Charts 2058 and Compiled 2003 Incidental catch of olive ridley Until the 1980s there had been subsistent harvesting of green turtle in the Gulf of Mannar in Tamil Nadu and target turtling for olive ridley along the Orissa and West Bengal coast on the eastern seaboard of India (Silas et al., 1983). However, there has been no targeted turtling in India since the 1980s. Incidental catch of olive ridleys in nylon and multifilament gillnets and bottom trawls has been reported since the 1980s mainly from Orissa (Kar, 1980). There are also reports of incidental catch of turtles in large-meshed gillnets from all over India (Government of India, 2000). The breeding season of olive ridleys coincide with the main marine fishing season in Orissa, especially for shrimp resources and this has exacerbated the olive ridley-fishery interactions. The stranding figures for olive ridleys in Orissa coast decreased from in (Silas et al., 1983) to in 1994 and increased to per year in 1999 (Shanker,

21 227 Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). The mortality for all turtle species for the rest of India was 3 000, and for 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively (Government of India, 2000). About 99 percent of mortality was on India s eastern seaboard, a total of nearly dead turtles were found along the Orissa coast between 1993 and 1999, while current mortality rates are believed to be nearly turtles per year (Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). Fishing is considered to be the greatest threat facing the olive ridleys in Orissa (Shanker, Pandav and Choudhury, 2004). The main cause of death is believed to be drowning in bottom trawls 4 and entanglement in certain types of gillnets, in which about 90 percent of mortality has occurred during December to February (Government of India, 2000). Marine turtle protection measures in India India is a signatory to the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and a party to the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). All five species of sea turtles found in Indian waters are protected under the Indian Wildlife Protection Act 1972 which is implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Forests at the national level and by the state Forestry Departments at the state level. Its scope is up to the limits of Indian territorial waters. Marine turtles have been included in Schedule I of the said Act which provides total legal protection to turtles from being hunted or traded. Indian legal regimes for the protection of marine turtles are thus confined to the terrestrial and marine habitats of turtles, especially up to the limit of territorial waters. There are no provisions under existing fisheries legislation explicitly to protect turtles as target species or as incidental catch, except for the requirement to use TEDs in some coastal States. The definition of fish in Indian state-level fisheries legislation, with the exception of Gujarat, does not include marine turtles. On 22 April 1975 the Gahirmatha beach was included in the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary to protect the rookery of olive ridleys. To prevent targeted turtling, the Forestry Department sought the help of the Coast Guard in in apprehending fishing vessels engaged in turtling from the neighbouring state of West Bengal (Silas et al., 1983). On 27 December 1993, under the Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1982, (OMFRA) clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 5, fishing was prohibited within a radius of 20 km of the Gahirmatha area of the Bhitarkanika Sanctuary for a period of two years. On the same day, by another notification, under Section 3 (a) of OMFRA, the Fisheries Department authorized the Forestry Department "to check fishing activities which have been prohibited within the radius of 20 km of Gahirmatha beach." These notifications have since been renewed on a biennial basis. 4 The Government of Orissa, under the Orissa Fisheries Corporation, introduced bottom trawling in Under the private sector, bottom trawling was undertaken since The total number of trawlers increased to about 949 in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 states: "The Government may, having regard to the matters referred to in sub-section (2) (which states: ""specified area" means such area in the sea along the entire coastline of the State but not beyond territorial waters, as may be specified by the Government, by notification"), by order notified in the official Gazette, regulate, restrict or prohibit-- (c) catching in any specified area of such species of fish and for such period as may be specified in the notification.

22 228 Another notification was issued by the Fisheries Department on 6 June 1997 prohibiting fishing by trawlers within 20 km seaward radius of Orissa coast from Jatadhar river mouth to Devi river mouth and from Chilika river mouth to Rushikulya river mouth from 1 January to 31 May every calendar year (see Figure 1). This notification was amended on 20 May 2000 to prohibit fishing by trawlers only up to a seaward distance (instead of seaward radius) of 20 km from the high tide line of Orissa coast from Jatadhar river mouth to Devi river mouth and from Chilika river mouth to Rushikulya river mouth for the same period. The intent of the notification, although unstated, is to prevent olive ridleys from being accidentally caught in trawl nets in the mating grounds in Devi and Rushikulya river mouths. The notification, however, does not mention the coordinates of the boxes prohibited for trawlers. On 27 September 1997 the waters around Bhitarkanika were declared as Gahirmatha (Marine) Wildlife Sanctuary to protect the olive ridley marine turtle in its nesting and breeding habitat, under section 26A of the Wildlife Protection Act The sanctuary of km 2 has a marine area of km 2 and a land area of 27 km 2 (Chadha and Kar, 1999). The sanctuary is demarcated into a core area of km 2 and a buffer zone of km 2. The Indian Coast Guard has been appointed as wildlife warden of Gahirmatha sea turtle sanctuary in 1998, with the power to stop and seize fishing vessels, especially trawlers, and to hand them over to the Forestry Department for further action. Further, on 20 March 2003, the Orissa Fisheries Department issued another notification under section 3 (b) of OMFRA authorizing the Coast Guard to implement the provisions of the Act in response to the interim directions of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by the apex court, the Supreme Court of India, dated 7 March 2003 "to enable the Coast Guard to seize and impound trawlers operating in restricted zone" (CEC, 2003). The CEC further observed after a visit to Orissa between 10 and 14 February 2004 in its report dated 06 April 2004 (CEC, 2004) that trawlers should be prohibited from fishing from 1 November to 31 May every year up to a distance of 20 km towards the sea from the high tide line in Gahirmatha, Devi river mouth and Rushikulya to substantially reduce turtle mortality. Punishment for hunting or trading marine turtles, or destroying its habitat in a marine sanctuary is a criminal offence with imprisonment upto a maximum period of three years and a fine upto Rs (US$555) in a State where the per capita income of a fisherman per year is just one-third of this fine. Violation of OMFRA is adjudicated under a designated fisheries officer with a minimum fine of Rs (US$110), or five times the value of the fish catch on board; cancellation of registration; and forfeiture of the fishing vessel. Although the reason for the prohibition of fishing off Gahirmatha has not been mentioned in the Government notification, it is seemingly for the protection of olive ridley marine turtles, which is not a targeted species of fish. However, the scope of Section 4 of OMFRA is to regulate, restrict or prohibit "catching in any specified area of such species of fish ". Neither the OMFRA nor the Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 1983, define what fish or fishing is, and whether or not marine turtles are indeed treated as fish or as animals other than fish that could become incidental catch. The Fisheries Department notification prohibiting fishing in the Gahirmatha area does not make any exemption for any kind of fishing although according to the Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 1983, "Non-Mechanized Traditional Fishing Crafts shall be allowed to operate freely without any restrictions. Waters up to five kilometres from the shore shall be reserved exclusively for such fishing crafts and in no case any other type of

23 229 Mechanized Fishing vessels shall be allowed to operate in that area". Thus, the five-km zone is created to protect the interests of those who work onboard non-mechanized fishing vessels. Under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of the Section 4 of Wildlife Protection Act 1972: "the need to protect the interests of different sections of persons engaged in fishing, particularly those engaged in fishing using traditional fishing craft such as catamaran, country craft or canoe" should be regarded by the Government while making an order to regulate, restrict or prohibit, catching fish in any specified area under sub-section (1). While small mechanized vessels of less than 10 HP and fishing with monofilament nets of shorter length and smaller mesh size are permitted in the buffer zone, no fishing activity whatsoever is permitted in the core area of the sanctuary 6. It is unclear if the requirement to "protect the occupational interests of the local fishermen" as per Section 18 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is fully met by allowing access for certain types of fishing activities to the buffer zone of the sanctuary. While declaring a sanctuary that includes parts of the territorial waters of India there is further provision in the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, that the "right of innocent passage of any vessel or boat through the territorial waters shall not be affected by the notification issued under sub-section (1)" (declaration of a sanctuary). However, the 2004 CEC report suggests that innocent passage through the core area of the sanctuary should be allowed only for traditional fishermen on local fishing vessels. Several of the existing legal provisions to protect the livelihood and occupational interests of fishers are thus not adequately ensured in specific instruments that are designed to protect turtle habitats. Three agencies are authorized to implement turtle conservation measures, viz., the Coast Guard, the Forestry and the Fisheries Departments of Orissa. According to a written communication from the Department of Operation, Indian Coast Guard, dated 20 February 2004, between and , a total of 185 fishing vessels were apprehended for violation of turtle protection measures. The Coast Guard also tries to deter illegal fishing vessels in no trawling and no fishing zones for protection of turtles before apprehending them. Arrests and detention are also made by the Forestry and Fisheries Departments. According to the Fisheries Department of Orissa, 72 fishing vessels were seized in and 19 vessels in for violation of the no trawling and fishing zone under the Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act Most of the arrests were of trawlers found within the no fishing zone off Gahirmatha, Devi and Rushikulya. The Coast Guard seems to incur an annual expenditure of about US$1.4 million for monitoring the no trawling and fishing zones during the turtle congregation period, November to May. Among apprehensions of fishing vessels for breaking fishing rules and regulations in the Indian maritime waters, those for protecting marine turtles appears to be the highest in number. Moreover, the amount spent on enforcement of turtle conservation measures in Orissa seems to be the highest on the fisheries-related enforcement front in India. Requirement to use turtle excluder device Trials with turtle excluder nets was recommended in 1983 with a view to modifying bottom trawls during the nesting season of turtles in India (Silas et al., 1983). In 1996 to fulfil legal obligations in the US with regard to the requirement to import shrimp only from 6 Minutes of the Meeting of the High Power Committee held on at hrs under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Orissa, for protection of olive ridley sea turtles.

24 230 countries having a marine turtle conservation programme comparable to that of the US, a Training-Cum-Demonstration Workshop on the need and method of installing and using the turtle excluder device (TED) by shrimp fishing vessels was organized at Paradip, Orissa, from 11 to 14 November One of the resolutions was that the "Government of India formulate appropriate and timely policies, their implementation and enforcement thereof so that India is not placed in a disadvantageous position in relation to other shrimp exporting countries" (recommendations of the workshop quoted in Chadha and Kar, 1999). In 1998 an Expert Scientific Panel (ESP), set up by the Government of India on sea turtles, also recommended on intuitive merit that TEDs be made mandatory for all trawlers on the eastern seaboard of India as well as Kerala on the west coast (Government of India, 2000). An amendment to the Orissa Marine Fishing Rules 1983, was made in 2001, ostensibly in response to directions given to the State Government by the Orissa High Court dated 14 May 1998 in the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), India, Petitioner v. State of Orissa and others, Respondents 7, requiring mandatory use of TEDs for all trawlers in areas within and around Bhitarkanika Sanctuary, and at the recommendations of the ESP. The amendment, Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation (Amendment) Rules 2001 dated 17 April 2001 made it mandatory for all mechanized fishing vessels to use TEDs round the year 8. Some 540 fully subsidized TEDs have so far been distributed to trawler operators in Orissa (CEC, 2003). The trawler operators are reluctant to use TEDs because of its potential impact on their shrimp and fish catch. They would rather tie up their vessels than use TEDs, 20 to 30 percent of their catch is feared to get lost if TEDs are fitted to the belly of their trawls; they argue that the fish would escape through the escape hatch provided for turtles. Moreover, the problem is further exacerbated in multispecies fisheries where there are fish of different size as target catch, as well as shrimp and other crustaceans. It is further feared that turtles or ray fish, if stuck to the mouth of TEDs, might block the path of fish to the cod end. In a Memorandum by the All Orissa Coordination Committee of Trawler Owners submitted on 12 February 2002, at the Valedictory Session of a Workshop-cum- Demonstration on TED in Paradip, Orissa, organized by the Directorate of Fisheries, Orissa, and Project Swarajya, an NGO, it was pointed out that TEDs should not be thrust upon the trawler owners of Orissa. The Committee said it is willing to consider TEDs only if its members are allowed to undertake trawling operations in the no trawling and fishing zones. The Committee said its members could even consider fully closing down their fishery during the turtle-nesting season if they are sufficiently compensated by the Government. Some conservationists are also not sure if TED would be the best solution to prevent turtle mortality in the waters of Orissa. They fear that larger aggregations of turtles can clog turtle excluder devices. If there is a large catch fish do escape from TEDs, as it has been observed in field trials conducted by the Wildlife Institute of India 9. It is also impractical to expect a trawler with at least five sets of trawl gear to have TEDs for every trawl net. Moreover, different types of trawl gear such as low open bottom trawls and high open bottom trawls are not separately studied with TEDs. The efficacy of TEDs is also not studied in 7 Petition filed for certain direction to State Government so that flora and fauna of certain wildlife sanctuary is protected and ecological balance is maintained. 8 In this amendment TED is defined as a device duly approved by the authorized officer and used for the purpose of the cod end in the net (trawl) rigged for fishing. 9 Discussion with Basudev Tripathy, Sea Turtle Project, Purunubandha, Orissa, dated 26 January 2004.

25 231 different types of turtle congregations, in different sea bottom conditions and at different depths 10. The turtle congregations are almost entirely found within 5 km from the seaboard and effective protection of what turtle biologists call reproductive patches turtle congregations comprising reproductively active adults would be the best way to protect the breeding turtles, which in any case are not confined only to the spatially bound no fishing zone or the marine sanctuary, argues a turtle biologist (see footnote 10). This mainly presupposes identifying such patches and protecting them in a targeted manner, instead of guarding large spatial entities that may or may not be active turtle habitats. He also argues that such dynamic conservation measures in conjunction with strict implementation of the 5 km near-shore non-mechanized fishing zone, in particular, can significantly reduce the interaction between turtles and trawl fisheries. This would be the best way to bring down mortality rates of adult sea turtles. Also from the cost of enforcement point of view, this would be a far cheaper option. In Orissa trawlers accounted for 35 percent of the total marine fish production of tonnes in From 458 in 1992, the number of registered trawlers in Orissa has more than doubled to 949 in They account for the largest share of shrimp production in Orissa, and shrimp accounts for more than 50 percent of the value of marine fish production. In spite of loss of about 54 percent of the trawling grounds to turtle conservation grounds it is surprising that the trawler fleet showed such phenomenal growth in the 1990s. From only day trawling the fleet has diversified into day and multi-day trawling. The actual number of hours spent fishing by a mechanized trawl unit has been increasing quite dramatically in Orissa, while the fish catch per hour of fishing effort has been declining steadily from 1997 to The trawl sector thus shows clear signs of economic overfishing and the largest number of turtle mortality in bottom trawlers was reported in the 1990s. It is possible to argue that turtle mortality was also a symptom of increasing fleet capacity of trawlers. The day trawlers that fish illegally within the prohibited 5 km zone, dragging for shrimp, cause almost the entire turtle mortality that is attributed to trawlers. Those who own day trawlers are the poor among trawl operators. The multi-day trawlers called sona meaning gold introduced from Andhra Pradesh, are not believed to have any interaction with turtles since these vessels (investment of US$27 000, at 2004 prices) fish much further away from turtle congregations. Proposed proscription of gillnets In view of the alleged excessive fishing being done in the nesting sites, one of the interim directions of the CEC to the Government of Orissa, dated 7 March 2003, was to ban all gillnets operating within 5 km of the three nesting sites, for a period of three months (CEC, 2003). Thus, outside the core of the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary artisanal and smallscale fishing vessels using gillnets were also brought under turtle protection measures for the first time irrespective of the type of gillnets they have been using and the relative impact of these units on turtle congregations. The CEC has since made another visit to Orissa from 10 to 14 February 2004 to ascertain if the earlier interim directions were complied by the Government of Orissa. 10 Discussion with Bivash Pandav, Wildlife Institute of India dated 23 February 2004.

26 232 In our field trip in Orissa from 22 to 28 January 2004 we noticed about 15 different types of gillnets, including nylon trammel nets, being used in Orissa that catch anything from sharks and rays to sardines and shrimps. These gears are made of nylon monofilament, nylon multifilament, and high-density polypropylene (HDP). According to artisanal gillnet fishers in several coastal villages, while nylon monofilament nets of mesh sizes 20 mm, 50 mm, 70 mm and 90 mm are safe for turtles (turtles can easily break the webbing with their flippers, argue these fishers), nylon multifilament gillnets of 140 mm (to catch sea bass), 250 to 280 mm (to catch sting rays) are not safe for turtles. They said they could agree to a ban on such gears, if necessary. But they are against a blanket ban on all forms of gillnets, which is the mainstay of fishers of Orissa. The traditional fishers explained the interaction between turtles and fisheries. There is a relationship between flood-water discharge from rivers into the coastal waters, aggregation of jellyfish and arribadas. Turtles feed on jellyfish, and it removes one major predator that competes with the fishers, for target species and, therefore, they welcome turtles, said fishermen in two fishing villages. There are about fishing vessels (motorized and non-motorized) in the artisanal and small-scale sector that use gillnets. In addition, there are about 700 mechanized gillnetters. These vessels combined are a source of livelihood for about fishworkers in Orissa. In 2001 motorized gillnet vessels (investment varying from US$4 000 to US$10 000, at 2004 prices) contributed 34 percent of the total marine fish production of Orissa, and it has been showing an increasing trend since Although the total number of motorized gillnet vessels almost doubled from in 1992 to in 2001, the catch per hour of fishing effort has increased quite dramatically between 1991 and According to a Wildlife Institute of India study on incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles (Gopi, 2002), strandings of sea turtles are much less in areas where monofilament gillnets are the dominant mode of fishing method. Thus the interaction of motorized/non-motorized fishing vessels using monofilament gillnets does not seem to have a significant impact on turtle mortality. In a petition dated 19 February 2004, the Orissa Traditional Fish Workers Union (OTFWU) brought to the attention of the Chairman of the CEC that ever since the 2003 interim directions of the CEC there are prohibitions not only on trawlers but on all types of fishing vessels, both mechanized and non-mechanized, in the core of the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary and its buffer zone, as well as in other non-mechanized fishing zones and no trawling zones, using different types of gillnets. The petition alleged that there was highhandedness in implementing turtle protection measures by the Forestry Department. The OTFWU observes in its petition: This ban is compounded with arrests, bribes, extortion and other forms of harassment, which in the long run is detrimental to any conservation effort. Ironically this treatment has been meted out in areas where local people are actively engaged in turtle conservation efforts. Therefore what has in actuality happened after the 7 March 2003 interim direction is that excesses of the Forestry Department have increased in the coastal areas and the livelihoods of the traditional fisherfolk are in jeopardy. The petition further highlighted the plight of thousands of artisanal fishers living in the proximity of the Gahirmatha sanctuary, that they have to first cross the core of the sanctuary (see Figure 2) to reach the buffer zone where fishing is permitted, that the fishers are harassed by the Forestry Department officials while passing innocently through the core area (this is in spite of provisions for safe passage through the core of a sanctuary guaranteed by the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972).

27 233 The OTFWU was not clear about the rationale behind the boundaries of the marine sanctuary, which extends to areas where turtles do not congregate; they wondered why the southern boundaries of the sanctuary could not be redrawn to allow for artisanal fishing with passive gear in those rich fishing grounds. It also expressed fears that introducing no fishing zones in Devi and Rushikulya, where currently no such ban exists, would have an adverse impact on life and livelihood of artisanal fishing communities who are one of the poorest sections of the Orissa population. The OTFWU further pleaded that efforts should be made to work on conservation practices along the lines of a Community Reserve in Devi and Rushikulya after undertaking scientific research and consultative meetings of fishing communities, researchers and scientists as well as Forestry and Fisheries Departments. The OTFWU highlighted some of the problems that exacerbate the poor living conditions of artisanal fishing communities, which include uncontrolled and indiscriminate trawling, industrial and civic pollution of the sea, development projects such as ports, military establishments and operations, oil and gas exploration, rare earth mining from the coastal areas, intensive prawn culture, collection of prawn seeds by fine-meshed nets, and uncontrolled and irresponsible tourism. Finally, the OTFWU made the following demands in relation to marine turtle conservation: (1) traditional fishermen must be made partners in conservation efforts at all levels; (2) no traditional fishing gear should be banned without adequate and scientific study and data; (3) fishworkers displaced due to ban on any particular gear should be provided with adequate financial assistance for shifting to any other allowable gear; (4) all affected fishers of that area must be compensated if there is complete ban on any particular area for a particular period, for the loss of income during the duration of the ban; and (5) traditional fishers using traditional gears should be differentiated from mechanized gears like trawling. The remedial measures proposed by the CEC in its report of 6 April 2004 (CEC, 2004) address several of the concerns of the OTFWU. It relented on its early recommendation to ban all forms of gillnetting and agreed to allow for fishing by non-mechanized traditional gillnet fishing vessels using small-meshed, monofilament gillnets with a maximum length of 300 m within 5 km of the high tide line in all areas along Orissa s seaboard, which includes the three nesting sites and the turtle congregation zones. It also allows for motorized fishing vessels using gillnets of similar specifications as above to fish within 5 km of the high tide line in all areas except the 5 km exclusion zones around the mass nesting sites. The CEC, however, proscribed multifilament large-meshed gillnets as well as all gillnets monofilament and multifilament above 140 mm mesh size as a precautionary measure. The 2004 CEC Report further suggests that the Coast Guard should be requested to demarcate the turtle congregation zones as well as the 5 km limits around the mass nesting sites using marking buoys. The 2004 CEC report also recommends that, if any boat on inspection at sea is found not using a TED or has stitched shut the escape hatch of the trawl net, its license should be cancelled, the boat impounded and a fine levied for the first offence (CEC, 2004). It also suggests bringing the trawler fleet under a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).

28 234 Figure 2 Source: ICSF, Based on Admiralty Charts 2058 and Compiled 2003 The 2004 CEC Report further highlights, inter alia, the importance of community participation in turtle conservation measures, provision of alternative livelihood to fishers from traditional fishing communities who are affected by turtle conservation measures, and declaring a moratorium on new fishing licenses for trawlers. CONCLUSION The closed areas around Gahirmatha, Devi and Rushikulya, and the 5-km band of inshore waters where trawling is totally prohibited would constitute km 2, which is about 54 percent of the territorial waters adjacent to the Orissa coast of India closed for bottom trawling. The area closed to artisanal fisheries is km 2 (Gahirmatha region), which is about 14 percent of Orissa s territorial waters. The closed area in Gahirmatha alone is believed to affect the livelihood of artisanal fishers, about fishers in