5.157. Explaining fisheries production in Thailand, Kent (1984:7) described the same phenomenon. He wrote: "High export levels, low import levels, declining overall production, increasing trashfish production and increasing [human] population have combined to reduce available per caput fish supplies". "The Philippines and Thailand have well developed fisheries. At the same time there is widespread protein-energy malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, iron deficiency, and iodine deficiency in these countries. Fisheries products can be used to respond to these problems." (Kent, 1984:25). Yet, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that increased fishing effort - notably for shrimp - is to fuel "increasing needs for exports" (Tuoc, 1995), not to feed local populations.

5.158. A number of writers have explained that fishing is a way of life and resource base for millions of small scale fishers; the fate of these people is germane to any discussion of fisheries, and marine conservation for many reasons. To start with, small scale fishers comprise about 90 per cent of all those employed in the fishing sector; furthermore, they produce a third of the world's food fish, and the bulk of all fisheries products consumed in the Third World derive from small-scale fishers (Ben-Yami in: Bailey et al., 1986). Yet, these millions of people have little if any political clout and few economic resources; they are at the mercy of development activities, run by national and international elites.

5.159. These evaluations of the social impacts of modern fisheries are not new, nor are they ensconced in hard-to-find academic literature. Social scientists have been writing about this serious problem for decades. Recent publications in the non-academic press also have described these issues in great detail. Two excellent sources of recent information on the contemporary state of fisheries, highly readable and thoroughly documented are Professor James R. McGoodwin's book Crisis in World's Fisheries: People, Problems, and Politics (1990) and a special issue of the Ecologist, edited by Simon Fairly (1995) and containing a dozen major and minor articles describing the intricacies of modern fisheries. In addition, O'Riordan (1994) reviewed the crux of modern fisheries in the widely read weekly, New Scientist. Finally, Dr. Daniel Pauly - dean of southeast Asian fisheries biology - has been elucidating these points for more than a decade (e.g., Pauly, 1988; 1995; Pauly and Neal, 1985; Pauly and Chua, 1988).

5.160. What is more, the same general conclusions were arrived at recently at a regional meeting on Coastal and Marine Biological Diversity, held at Subic Bay, Philippines from 24-25 October, 1996; at least three of the countries involved in the present dispute were represented: Malaysia, Thailand and US (DENR and WRI, 1997). The first Key Issue identified as needing to be regulated was: "Excessive levels of fishing effort - both commercial and artisanal - and the use of destructive fishing gears and methods. One of the key points which was detailed in this synthesis was: "Protection of CBCRM (Community-Based Coastal Resources Management) areas from external predators that local communities are unable to fend off on their own - such as commercial trawlers, cyanide fishing operators, and coastal developers." (p. 5, emphasis added). It is noteworthy that in this regional report, commercial trawlers were identified alongside cyanide fishers. The report goes on to state that: "Artisan fishermen constitute one of the poorest social sectors in the region and are highly dependent on fish for protein and cash income, but are exploited by middlemen and squeezed by commercial vessels operating in nearshore waters." (pp. 6-7). "Livelihoods of artisan fishermen throughout the region are increasingly threatened by competition with commercial vessels fishing in nearshore waters - despite the many laws reserving these waters for local fishermen." (p. 7). "Subsidies for development of commercial fisheries have in many cases led to over-capacity - and thus to overfishing." (p. 7).

5.161. It is also important to point out that the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development has clearly described the social and political risks involved in globalization, and the form of development characterized by modern fisheries (e.g., Utting, 1995). See also Annex I: The Issue of Bycatch in Modern Fisheries, with Special Reference to Shrimp Trawls.

5.162. In summary, the good intentions of development programmes for the modernization (= mechanization and technification) of Third World fisheries, as a rule have not taken into account fundamental social factors, especially the distribution and availability of food for those sectors of the population that are at risk. The people who are in a position to benefit from development initiatives are those who have access to capital and political power. For example, it is normal for those people who already have substantial financial resources to influence the creation of, and then gain access to (if not monopolize), government subsidies, while those who lack such financial resources are unable to obtain the subsidies, which purportedly were created for them. Those who do not enjoy economic and political advantages, are by definition the majority - in developing countries, they are the vast majority of citizens and producers. Yet, under these sorts of development schemes, this majority is unable to compete for limited fisheries resources, even though they may have a longer term dependence and interrelationship with them than do those who take advantage of the new technology. The end result is typically an increase in productivity with concomitant decreases in equity of income and wealth, as well as increasing social polarization: greater excesses in wealth for the elite and deeper depression of poverty for the masses. Analysis of civil conflicts in South East Asia have repeatedly referred to this process of social polarization as a primary contributing factor to unrest (Phillips, 1965; Nakahara and Witton, 1971; Milne and Mauzy, 1986; Europa, 1997). Thus, an ever-widening gap between an elite minority and an impoverished majority can lead to intense civil disorder and strife - even open warfare. This is hardly an environment in which effective conservation and resource management can be implemented.

5.163. As pointed out earlier in this section, resource conservation (for sea turtles in this case) will not be effective without considering - and resolving - basic social problems. If traditional sources of livelihood are taken away, people are likely to resort to the simplest alternatives available, despite laws and conservation plans. When the less powerful sectors of society perceive growing social inequity, it only exacerbates the lack of compliance with state regulations, and the greater the social polarization, the greater the chances of conflict and anarchy. Civil strife and lawlessness are by no means absent from industrialized societies (Kaplan, 1994). Indeed, there is a long and bellicose history of conflict in the specific case of the US shrimp fishery, notably in the Gulf of Mexico (Weber et. al., 1995; Tucker et. al., 1997). At one level, the reasons for conflict may appear distinct from those of the "Third World", simply because degrees of socio-economic development are so different. However, in the end, the root causes are comparable, for they have to do with struggles for access to and control of both resources and political power.

5.164. Hence, socio-economic factors do influence the choice and enforcement of conservation programmes.

Mr. M. Guinea:

5.165. In countries such a India, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia, the so-called bycatch, in US terms, is a commodity with either a subsistence or retail value. The entire catch has a value. Sea turtles do not have a commodity value in the shrimp trawls and are released according to cultural or religious beliefs. India, Pakistan and Malaysia have indicated that because of these religious beliefs, sea turtles are not killed, but only their eggs are eaten. As these countries are multiracial, "outsiders" are implicated in the direct mortality of sea turtles. The sea turtle research unit in Malaysia is educating people about the presence of a living embryo in each sea turtle egg. This may prove effective in reducing the consumption of sea turtle eggs in that country. Other countries may follow this example, as few convincing arguments had been provided to dissuade people from eating turtle eggs.

5.166. Conservation programmes should emanate from within a country so that implications on cultural, economic and social issues can be addressed at the same time. Reasons for such general conservation measures may have their origins elsewhere but the conservation programmes should have a national focus and flavour.

Mr. H.-C- Liew:

5.167. In a developed country like the United States, the level of education is higher, there is extensive mass media communication, cheap protein available, and people are more aware of their environment and the need for conservation. They could also afford to have strict conservation management policies and effective enforcement. Turtle meat producing farms that used to operate in the Cayman Islands have stopped operations and all turtle eggs are saved and protected for hatching. Hence, turtle mortalities caused by egg harvesting or killing for meat is well under control and no longer an issue in turtle conservation. These causes of mortality being removed, turtle conservationists in the United States could concentrate their efforts on other more apparent causes of mortalities, like incidental capture in shrimp trawls.

5.168. In developing countries like India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Thailand, conservation management practices and their enforcement may not share the same effectiveness. Turtle eggs are still eaten, either through legalized harvesting or poached due to poor enforcement or poverty. Their turtles are still being slaughtered for meat in some of these countries or by neighbouring countries. Thousands of green turtles are still being slaughtered in Bali each year to sustain a cultural practice there. Fishing technologies like shrimp trawling may not be as developed or still artisanal to be of prime impact on turtle populations. They may even be using other fishing methods which may have a greater impact on sea turtles than shrimp trawling, like the ray-net or "pukat pari" in Malaysia. Some Asian cultures believe that the act of releasing turtles into the sea will bring good luck and longevity. As such, thousands of hatchlings are not released immediately to the sea on hatching but kept in enclosures for days or even months for release by the public. All these factors do influence the way conservation programmes are run and can differ from country to country.

Dr. I. Poiner:

5.169. I am not qualified to comment.

2(c) What are the sea turtle conservation measures that should be implemented on a priority basis? Are those the same for all sea turtle populations and all countries concerned, or do they differ among countries and regions, and species or populations of sea turtles?

Dr. S. Eckert:

5.170. While it is difficult to speak to socio-economic aspects of the fishing industry in the countries involved in the dispute, there are some ideas I can put forward relative to sea turtles and sea turtle conservation and economics. By far the best and most economical approach to conserving sea turtle populations is to eliminate the problems that caused sea turtle populations to decline in the first place (Frazer, 1992). Sea turtle populations have incredible resilience and ability to restore themselves once the anthropogenic perturbations have been removed. With the generally plastic reproductive capacities (faster growth in times of good food abundance = shorter maturity times and possibly higher reproductive output) of reptiles, turtle populations probably have the capacity for rapid growth and for sustaining very large population sizes, once they are left alone.

5.171. The most commonly utilized conservation method to restore sea turtle populations is to enhance reproductive output. Generally this means protecting reproductive females on the beach and during interesting intervals in the water (which Malaysia is doing very effectively for leatherbacks nesting at Rantau Abang by combining on-shore nest protection with an offshore sanctuary) and by protecting nests on the beach. Such an approach can be done quite economically, and often local peoples can be employed to assist in the conservation activities, thus benefiting the local economy as well as investing local people in the process. Every country involved in this dispute has such programmes. However, given the structure of sea turtle populations, nesting beach protection alone is not enough to restore sea turtle populations (Crouse et. al., 1987).

5.172. With the exception of passing laws to limit (or prohibit) the intentional harvest of turtles, very little is being done by most of the countries in this dispute to protect juvenile or resident adult sea turtles. The United States with the regulatory strength of the Endangered Species Act its TED regulations and for the US mainland, its lack of cultural desire to harvest sea turtles is the one exception. The reasons for this are probably both economical as well as social. Local peoples in many of the countries have harvested turtles for generations and unenforced regulations are not going to limit the opportunistic efforts to harvest turtles (Johannes, 1986). Economically, sea turtles can provide income, either for meat or shell, and despite its illegality, turtle products are often available in many of these countries. Even in the United States, there are problems where historically turtles were harvested (e.g. territories in the Western Pacific). Thus conservation efforts which include regulatory enforcement and environmental education are still needed.

5.173. A frequently touted method proposed to enhance survival of sea turtle offspring is known as headstarting. The basic strategy is to rear sea turtle hatchlings for between a few months and 1 year and release them to the wild when it has been assumed that they should have a higher survival rate. This is a labour and cost intensive procedure, and it is not yet proven to be successful for enhancing sea turtle populations. Two problems with the technique have challenged its application as a conservation measure. The first is that it has not been demonstrated that such turtles will reproduce on their natal beach. To date, and despite the release of over 20,000 yearly turtles, only 2 head started turtles have been known to nest in the Kemp's ridley head start project in the United States (Shaver, 1996). While these nestings provide some hope that head started turtles might reproduce, such nestings may have also been anomalous. There is a very valid concern that interrupting the typical life cycle of hatchling turtles, which requires a crawl to the sea and a pelagic life stage will yield turtles unable to return to nest. The second problem is that such efforts are very expensive and no cost benefit analysis has been undertaken. The United States spent millions of dollars to rear and release approximately 1,000 Kemp's ridley hatchlings per year. Further, there has not been any determination of whether head started turtles have a survival advantage over in situ produced hatchlings. The questions that must be answered before undertaking such an exercise are: (i) will head started turtles become reproductive members of the population; (ii) will they reproduce on beaches suitable for their species/population; (iii) are their survival rates significantly higher than in situ hatched turtles; and (iv) is this approach more cost effective than simply fixing the problem that reduced the population in the first place (e.g. TED's) and/or is there a more cost efficient means to mitigate for the problem (e.g., enhancing beach production). At this time headstarting is not considered a valid conservation tool.

5.174. Priority actions that must be taken by all countries irrespective of species or region are (i) identify turtle stock boundaries; (ii) assess threats in all stages of the life history for each stock; (iii) eliminate all incidental take in fisheries; (iv) eliminate all on-the-beach sources of mortality; and (v) enhance production of offspring. As noted earlier, we are finding it more difficult to restore sea turtle populations than previously anticipated precisely because we are unable to account for the entire ranges of each stock and what problems they face. Clearly, eliminating all sources of anthropogenic mortality is critical to restoration of declining populations. However, it is very easy to miss major sources of mortality until we understand where to look for those sources. This is particularly true in international waters, where jurisdiction of stocks is unclear.

Dr. J. Frazier:

5.175. Biological priorities for sea turtle conservation programmes, independent of where they are carried out, focus on providing adequate protection of the habitat which is critical for the animals, during the different stages of their life cycle; this means protecting nesting beaches, feeding grounds, areas of refuge and migratory routes. In addition, the populations must be protected from levels of mortality, independent of what those sources of mortality are, which are greater than the population's capacity of regeneration. Since most sea turtle populations have declined - some dramatically - and since mortality on animals that are breeding or near breeding is most costly to the population, a general priority is to reduce mortality on those animals that have a high reproductive value.

5.176. Because of the complex nature of the sea turtle life cycle, and long period to maturity, individuals are vulnerable to multiple sources of mortality. Hence, to increase the chances of recovery of the population, each of these sources of mortality must be reduced, for simply reducing one of many sources of mortality is unlikely to provide adequate protection, if significant numbers are being removed for other causes. This involves an integrated approach to reducing diverse threats, as has been described in various global and regional strategies for sea turtle conservation (e.g., World Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation, 1982; IUCN, 1995; 1996; in press).

5.177. Each conservation programme must take into account the environmental, social and political conditions where it is to be carried out, hence the assigning of priorities involves social, political and economic considerations. One consideration - especially in these times of privatization - is for conservation activities to be carried out in such a way that they do not cost the State, but are self-supporting, or are born by a segment of society. When a segment of society is involved in an activity which has direct repercussions on the environment and resources used by the rest of society, it is normal to require this sector to contribute to conservation actions. Where an industry makes a profit, carrying out actions that present a risks to the rest of society, it is just that this industry bear the costs of eliminating, or in the very least reducing, the risks.

5.178. Take for example an enterprise which carries out activities, exploiting resources that are public property or property of the nation; consider that this extraction for private gain is done without investing in the nurturing or maintenance of these resources. Further, the actions involved in extracting these resources have direct repercussions on the environment; they reduce other immediately harvestable resources, as well as resources potentially useful to society at a later date. In addition, the undertaking is subsidized by public funds, on both a national and international level. Should this enterprise be completely free to profit, causing multiple costs to society?

5.179. The case of modern fishing industry fits the above example (McGoodwin, 1990; Fairley, 1995): it is highly profit oriented; it exploits common property marine resources, regularly with great intensity; it does not routinely invest in the maintenance of these resources; its patterns of exploitation have direct effects on resources that other enterprises and society could benefit from; there are usually substantial subsidies from public funds to develop and run these modern fisheries. Of the different types of modern fishery, shrimp trawling fits the above description easily. What is more, on a global level although shrimp constitutes less than 2.3 per cent of annual landings of marine catches, shrimp trawling is responsible for more than a third of annual bycatch discards - some 9.5 million tons (Teutscher, 1995b:11; Clucas, 1997a:7); this problem is especially critical in tropical waters (Alverson et. al., 1994). Clearly, the relative benefits of shrimp trawling must be evaluated in the context of the environmental and social problems that it causes.

5.180. On an international level, fisheries scientists have identified that a major priority is to reduce bycatch destruction from fishing activities, notably from shrimp trawling. Thus, eliminating, or at least substantially reducing, mortality of large turtles from shrimp trawling activities conforms with both biological and socio-political priorities. One way to accomplish this is to completely ban trawling, as has been done in much of Indonesia, and as has been called for by fishers from many nations of the Third World (O'Riordan, 1994; SAMUDRA, 1994). A less drastic measure is to use bycatch exclusion devices (BEDs) in shrimp trawling; the TED is a BED developed to exclude turtles (see Appendix 1 "The Issue of Bycatch in Modern Fisheries, with Special Reference to Shrimp Trawls", contained in Annex II of this Report).

Mr. M. Guinea:

5.181. The nesting habitats should be preserved as should the offshore refuge habitats for nesting females. Only those fishing activities that do not harm adult sea turtles or hatchlings should be permitted within the offshore sanctuary. Mitochondrial DNA techniques should be used to determine the genetic make up of the breeding unit. This will assist in determining the relative impact of anthropogenic activities on members of that unit. The survivorship of each stage of the life cycle should be maximized (Limpus, 1997). This should involve either leaving the nests in situ on the nesting beach or relocating the eggs to a hatchery within 2 hours, or using ice to cool the eggs during long periods of transport. Hatchery techniques should aim for an 80 per cent hatching success with a bias of about 70 per cent females. Hatcheries should not hold hatchlings, but ensure that hatchlings enter the water at night in a manner as close as possible to a normal hatching event. Responsible fishing techniques should be employed. Bottom set gill nets and tangle nets should be set at seasons and at times when sea turtles are neither abundant nor active. Mesh size, hanging ratio, gauge and material should be such that non-target species are not in danger of being caught. Nets should be checked regularly for entangled sea turtles. Trawls over areas where sea turtles occur should be of short duration (60 minutes) and employ TEDs.

5.182. The procedures should be similar in many countries. There will be some behavioural differences displayed by the sea turtles and cultural differences present in the human custodians. The procedure of securing the nesting beach and increasing survivorship at each stage in the life cycle should ensure the breeding unit will increase to a stable level.

Mr. H.-C. Liew:

5.183. All measures that prevent sea turtles from being killed would be of priority. These are:

• Conservation measures or techniques that reduce the incidental catch of adult and juvenile turtles in fishing gears e.g.: (i) use of TEDs in trawlers (shrimp and fishing); (ii) regulate or ban the use of high seas gill-nets; (iii) regulations to protect turtles or restrict the use of fishing methods harmful to turtles off their nesting grounds during the nesting season.
• Conservation measures to curb the hunting and trade of live turtles, adults and juveniles, for meat and other turtle products.
• Conservation measures to curb commercial exploitation of eggs, both legal and illegal.
• Conservation measures to curb the destruction of nesting grounds by beachfront development, seawalls, land reclamation, etc
.
• Conservation measures to curb the destruction of feeding grounds by trawlers, pollution, land reclamation, etc.
• Conservation measures to prevent the killing or drowning of turtles in man-made structures (e.g. oil rigs) or by powered watercrafts.
• Conservation measures to curb marine pollution to reduce the mortality of hatchlings, juveniles and adults caused by marine debris like plastic bags, tar balls, styrofoam, etc.
• Conservation measures to prevent the inducement and spread of diseases that may be anthropogenically related, e.g. fibriopapillomas.
• Measures to reduce losses due to unsuitable or poorly managed hatchery practices

5.184. In general, ranked high in the list would be measures that protect the adults and juveniles but in places where exploitation of eggs is still substantial, they would still be ranked high. Differences in priority would exist for different populations, regions and species as explained in earlier answers given.

Dr. I. Poiner:

5.185. Priority conservation measures for sea turtle conservation will not be the same for all sea turtle populations and all countries concerned. It would be inappropriate to implement uniform measures. For example, in the United States the incidental capture of sea turtles in shrimp nets was/is identified as the major source of anthropogenic mortality for loggerhead, Kemp's ridley and green turtles when compared to other known sources of mortality. Management measures e.g., use of TEDs to reduce this mortality was/is a high priority. In the Indo-Pacific the major sources of anthropogenic mortality on loggerhead turtles are egg predation, incidental capture of sub-adult and adult sea turtles in shrimp nets and the incidental capture of the pelagic phase in high-seas long-line fishing. For green turtles it is egg predation and the harvest of sub-adult and adults for meat; for olive ridley turtles it is egg predation and the incidental capture of sub-adult and adults in trawl and gill net fisheries. In developing and evaluating conservation measures it is important to assess the impact of the full range of mortalities on a stock using both robust population models complemented by empirical studies of the sources of mortalities (Chaloupka and Musick, 1996).

2(d) Have some sea turtle populations found in the waters of the countries involved in this dispute stabilized or recovered so that there is not or will soon not be a risk of extinction of the populations concerned? If so, where has the stabilization or recovery occurred, what measures permitted it, and would the same measures also be effective with respect to other sea turtle populations found in the waters of the countries involved in this dispute?

Dr. S. Eckert:

5.186. To the best of my knowledge, no nesting population of sea turtles has shown any recovery in any of the countries of dispute. There are encouraging signs that the Kemp's ridley nesting population may be growing (Marquez et. al., 1996a); however, this opinion has been challenged (Ross, 1996). If there is a recovery it is likely due to the required use of TED's in the United States and Mexico and to the protection afforded nesting females. However, it is far too early to state conclusively that this population is recovering and it will take quite a few years of continued population growth before this population can be considered "recovered". As I noted earlier, it takes many years of monitoring before a population trend can be determined when using nesting females or egg production as an indicator. In that regard, it is erroneous to assume that a trend in green turtle populations can be determined after only a few years.⁴⁰⁵ This is simply not the case, and particularly so for green turtles in the western Pacific which seem to have exceptionally long remigration intervals (Limpus, 1995). The "trend" described by Malaysia will not be valid for at least another 15 or more years, depending on the maturity time of the turtles within this population. To conclude that this stock is recovering is optimistic but not defendable based on the data presented Malaysia.

Dr. J. Frazier:

5.187. Examples of recovery of sea turtle populations are few and far between. Limpus (1995) felt that green turtles in Florida, Hawaii and Sabah, hawksbills in Sabah, and Kemp's ridley in Tamaulipas (and the Gulf of Mexico) showed signs of recovering. The case of Kemp's ridley has been evaluated in detail by the Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG, 1996:18), and it was concluded that "the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the early stage of exponential expansion".

5.188. This not withstanding, I am unaware of conclusive evidence for the recovery of any sea turtle population in any of the five countries involved in this dispute so that there is not or will soon not be a risk of extinction. TEWG (1996:18) made it clear that, despite the exponential increase in numbers of nests of Kemp's ridley, an "intermediate recovery goal" could not be expected before the year 2020. Furthermore, it is unclear if the "stabilization" of a population after a decline removes it from risk, or is desirable in terms of biological conservation.

Mr. M. Guinea:

5.189. Few data are available about the size and stability of the breeding units of the species that nest in Pakistan. India has one of the largest populations of olive ridleys. Data are scant about the size and regularity of the arribadas at Gahirmatha. Estimates of the size of the nesting population are 150,000 in 1976 but none in 1977 (Davis and Bendi, 1978), 200,000 in 1978, 130,000 in 1979 (Kar and Bhaskar, 1992), 286,00 in 1985 and 600,000 in 1991.⁴⁰⁶ This indicates that the population is increasing or at least stable. Malaysia's leatherback population has been in decline for some years.⁴⁰⁷ However, the green turtle population at Terengganu has declined to about 2,945 nests per year which is 38 per cent of 1956 figures. Because of a history of egg harvesting the population is expected to decline further. The green turtle nesting on the Turtle Islands of Sabah have staged a remarkable recovery, as have the hawksbills.

5.190. In the above areas, the stability has been obtained by conservation measures aimed at protecting the nesting beaches and offshore refuges by a system of reserves and sanctuaries. Legislation to protect nesting turtles and their eggs was passed and enforced. In Malaysia, great effort has gone into hatcheries which have had varied, but improving, success in their hatch rates. As eggs were purchased from collectors, the coastal communities were involved to some extent with the conservation of the sea turtles.

Mr. H.-C. Liew:

5.191. As quoted by Limpus (1997), .."[t]he Sabah (Malaysia)/Philippines stock (of green and hawksbill turtles) may be showing recovery after 25 years of intensive conservation management in Sabah and 12 years in the Philippines". The conservation efforts accorded here were to protect the islands where turtles nest and to operate hatcheries in these islands for the eggs. Though shrimp trawlers do operate around these islands and do catch sea turtles, no TED use is enforced. Apart from some turtle stranding records and boat inspections by park rangers of trawlers that infringe the park boundary (Suliansa et. al., in press), there is no comprehensive study on the impact of shrimp trawlers on sea turtles in these waters. The impact, if found to be significant, may negate other conservation efforts and would need urgent attention.

5.192. The same measures can be effective for other sea turtle populations but they must work in tandem with other conservation strategies to be successful. Saving the eggs and protecting nesting turtles on the beach only while allowing them to be killed in the sea will not work. Neither would the use of TEDs on shrimp trawlers, while allowing turtles to be hunted or killed by other gears, or eggs collected for consumption, or destroying feeding and nesting grounds be effective. It is important for each region, country or state to assess their own sea turtle populations, examine the threats affecting them, and prioritize the conservation strategies accordingly.

Dr. I. Poiner:

5.193. Sea turtles are very long lived animals that mature at a relatively late age (ca 30 to 50 years). The interval between breeding events is also very extended (ca 5 to 15 years, depending on the species). While many eggs are produced, and egg predation is high, natural mortality of sub-adults and adults is probably relatively low. Because recruitment to the adult population is low, recovery from low population number (if non-natural sources of mortality have been removed) will be slow, and there is no clear documented cases of recovery in the world. Modelling studies of loggerhead turtles in the United States following the introduction of TEDs which should have reduced mortalities suggest recovery will be slow e.g., 70 years or more was required for the simulated population to increase by an order of magnitude (Crowder et. al., 1994).

To Continue With Chapter 5.194

⁴⁰⁵ See above paragraph 3.9 (a) and (b).

⁴⁰⁶ See above paragraph 3.51.

⁴⁰⁷ The Status of Major Sea Turtle Populations in Malaysia, (http://www.upmt.edu.my/seatru/mals3.htm).