193. Final comments, you have heard a lot of testimony in the last day and a half about sea turtles. The take-home message is that global sea turtle populations are in trouble. I think we are all in agreement with that. There seems to be a message that TEDs reduce mortality in sea turtles and that shrimp fisheries often, if not always, provide a source of mortality to sea turtle populations. I think we are all very clear on that. You heard some discussion about the biology of the animals and where we agree and disagree and how we are trying to play the numbers games and trying to understand what is going on out there. All that stuff is reflective on more of a management decision that has to made as to how are your resource management dollars best spent and how are your resources towards conserving sea turtles best spent. You have heard from us that we could probably go on for another three or four or five days on that same issue. It would be up to the individual countries as to how they approach that. But, I think that we are all in agreement that you need to take a balanced approach to the conservation of your turtles. You need to address them in the water as well as on the land and all aspects of their life histories and so that is what I have for my conclusion. Thank you.

Chairman

194. Thank you very much indeed. Doctor Frazier.

Dr. Frazier

195. Thank you for your patience with us. The first page of questions from Thailand, I know that Arauz from Costa Rica has been working with TEDs with the fishermen in Costa Rica and he has told me that he does not think it's difficult - you have to work with the fishermen. I have worked with Gabriel Olguin in Campeche in Mexico, and Gabriel is convinced that it is not that difficult in Mexico to use TEDs. It's a matter of will, I think. If the fisherman wants to do it, he can learn to do it. It is like any kind of gear, it has to be learnt. I have said that before, it is not simply a matter of sticking it in the net and it's magically going to work. Other colleagues have mentioned the need for training and I am in total agreement with that. But it is not difficult to use properly, I don't believe it is difficult to use properly. "TED requirements are very easy to evade and many shrimpers ...". Well, there are two parts to the question. Are TED requirements easy to evade? Yes, all requirements are easy to evade. Drug import requirements are easy to evade, gun requirements are easy to evade, all requirements are easy to evade, it depends on the will of the person. The second part of the question, well perhaps Liew mentioned that if people are against them they won't use them. It depends on the shrimpers. This is why Ian pointed out the need for extension. Clearly the shrimpers must be working with the fisheries people. Part 3, "TED requirements are not easily enforced". Again I think that's a re-phrasing of the earlier question. Any requirements can be evaded. Perhaps to put this in context one needs to look at this with other sorts of requirements. It is my impression that area closures, I tried to mention before, I believe area and time closures are very useful, and I believe there are excellent laws that exist that address those issues. However, depending on the characteristics of the fishery, as Ian pointed out, those might not be effective and it may be easier to put TEDs into shrimp trawl nets. Another reason which I tried to explain before is, I see this not so much as a technical problem, but as a social problem in biological conservation. To try and impress upon trawlers they must be more selective, they must use their gear better. They should go towards a step to reducing this tremendous destruction that is caused by bottom trawling. The fourth question "mandating TED requirements does not guarantee that sea turtle mortality is reduced". Definitely not. We can mandate everything we like and nothing will happen unless there is a response by society. We can mandate against drugs, we can mandate against poverty, that won't get rid of it. But, if we don't make some effort to impress society, what are our options? Do we sit and wait? I don't know. This is a political question really, I don't see this as a biological question. It is a very relevant question.

196. "Are the experts aware that Thailand was unable to develop the TEDs within the short 4 month period provided by the US measures?" Again, I think this is really to be answered by a Thai fisheries expert who was involved in this. This is not something I have been involved in. I do know that Thailand made a major effort to send fisheries experts, I believe to the NMFS laboratory in Pascagoula [Mississippi, USA], if I'm wrong I can be corrected. I'm very certain they sent their fisheries people to Mexico, to see designs that were in use in another country outside the US. I believe Thailand made a major effort to learn from other experiences and to adapt this. That's about all I can say on that question. "Are the experts aware that the Thai TEDs are not found effective in actual use?" I know of very little about this, I have tried to assemble the information I can get. There is a fisheries expert at Bandit at SEAFDEC. If it's necessary I'll find it. There is one report published in the proceedings of a regional meeting where an expert from Thailand reported having testing TEDs, the Thai Turtle Free Device, and that clearly shows that, as far as he was concerned, it was functioning. I have looked through that report quite carefully and my impression is that he was convinced that it was working well, that it would be usable in Thai waters. Now, that same reply seemed to come from another report from Malaysia published in the same meeting and another report coming from the Philippines, I have cited those in the Annex on bycatch. So, my impression is that fisheries experts in three countries in South East Asia feel that the Thai Turtle Free Device is useful. Perhaps, implicit in this question is a submission I think that came with Thailand about an analysis which was done this year. I don't remember the author's name. Now, this showed that there was a tremendous loss of economic value from the use of the Thai Turtle Free Device. The difficulty I have in interpreting that, is that the analysis was done based on 1995, I believe, when the Thai Turtle Free Device was not used and then the next year when the device was used. So, in the first instance we are comparing between two years as well as, with or without Turtle Free Device. So, we have several complications in interpreting the data. What concerns me for many reasons is, if I look at production of prawn from Thailand over those years, I see a decline. Firstly, it concerns me that there is a decline and that's general throughout most regions, there has been a decline. But it also concerns me in interpreting the data because if there is a decline then it means comparing one year and then a later year, I can't tell whether anything I've changed in my fishery is due to that change or to the decline which is in the background. So, I have difficulty in interpreting that data.

197. Finally, "do experts believe that four months is sufficient time to ... all steps necessary?" It is a very short time, I would much rather see more time. Other experts have expressed reasons why. I think that Thailand has shown that with political will, these things can be done quickly. I would much rather see more time for many reasons. I believe, however, that in many countries the fisheries experts have been expressing a need to do this for years. There is an FAO document, which I have cited in the Annex, where fisheries experts concluded that they are really not being listened to. Excuse me if I overstep my role, but please make sure that your fisheries people get this support, they need it, this is imperative. So, I would like to say that this is very frustrating, that there is so much to discuss and so little time. In general, I don't have any contentions with the generality of the comments, there are a few fine things that I think we could discuss further. The focus of the comments of other colleagues, I am in agreement with. As I said, there are fine points which I would prefer to discuss further. Michael mentioned something which, I believe, is valid and that is the value of these environmentally friendly shrimp, what's happened to that? Now, something which I was not able to include for lack of time, there is an attempt now, curiously by the organization which pushed this through the courts, the Earth Island Institute, to make shrimp caught in trawls which have TEDs more valuable, "turtle friendly shrimp", and make it marketable, economically more useful. So, I believe that there is every reason why the countries represented here should make use of that. Sell their shrimp at a higher value, make the consumers assume these social and ecologic costs which are now externalised. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be doing this. Again this is outside my purview, I am not an economist, but I don't see why they shouldn't. As I said this is very frustrating, we have opened such a tremendous number of Pandora's boxes. This could go on for years and we are quite capable, but I better shut up.

Chairman

198. Thank you very much. Mr Guinea perhaps you can be equally brief.

Mr. Guinea

199. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will address the first three questions (a), (b) and (c) [question 1 by Thailand]. These three questions are all related to the willingness of fishermen or boat operators to accept TED technology and, associated with, there this is also the trust that is generated by the sea turtle experts in saying that you need to use TEDs to protect sea turtles. Now, that trust component is a very difficult thing to generate externally. Trust is far better generated internally within a country, if a country has made a commitment and believes that what they are doing is the correct thing, then this trust will flow through. When we are looking at generating trust you can look at the long-term goals of survival of sea turtles, where that may be an element of generating trust or you may be looking at short-term goals, such as producing more value for a product. However, if the fisheries are unwilling to adopt TED technology, then all these problems associated with implementation, enforcement and non-compliance will continue. So it's generally a matter of generating trust within a country. Mandating a TEDs requirement, there's no guarantees in biology. I think nobody's going to give you the guarantee that TEDs are going to be the sole answer to sea turtle conservation. They may make a contribution to sea turtle conservation and that contribution may vary from country to country, from breeding unit to breeding unit and also from species to species, but there is no guarantee. I was also going to make one comment relating to Dr. Eckert, to his example of speed limits. I would just like the record to show that I do drive at the speed limit and not otherwise. On the second page the first two questions [questions 2 and 3 by Thailand] I believe we are not dealing with those. Relating to the third question [question 4 by Thailand], I believe that 4 months is insufficient time to have a technology developed, not only from the physical but also developing a trust within the fishery that this technology is for their betterment. I would not like to put a time-limit on the development of TEDs. I think TEDs are going to be in those areas even in the United States, I imagine, they will undergo refinement, improvement, modifications. We've already seen things such as the soft TEDs removed from some areas. There's arguments over top shooting and bottom shooting TEDs, so I think TED technology is not going to be static, but I think if a country is going to implement TEDs, then it should be done on a basis where the operators of the vessels adopt the use of the TEDs for either the betterment of the fishery or their own financial gain or for some goal. So, the implementation of the TEDs should really take as long as required.

Chairman

200. Thank you very much indeed. Any final words Mr. Liew?

Mr. Liew

201. Thank you. I'll try to make it short for fear of overstepping my bounds. Actually I'm in total agreement with what Jack Frazier has said, so most of the things that he said is similar to my views. There are a few things that I want to raise, some slight changes. Basically, it is in the Thai TED where he did mention about the recent report in 1997. I agree using 1995 data and comparing it with 1997 data, it is hard to accept, but I suppose for Thailand that was the only data they had. What should have been done was to have some trawlers without the TEDs and some trawlers with the TEDs, operating in more or less the same area and then you compare them and that would give you a much better indication as to whether it works or whether it doesn't work. Nonetheless, if you look at the indepth report, they also mention things like operating costs and they found that with TEDs the costs of operation seem to have increased, in terms of usage of fuel and all that. Those things you can take but not so much on the catch rate, you can't compare between 1995 and 1997. In general, to close, I'm really sort of not against TEDs neither am I against turtles, God forbid. The problem is the incidental capture of turtles in trawlers. They do exist and TED is a possible solution. The complainant countries have, I don't know whether I am overstepping my bounds here, but the complainant countries have been sort of slow in addressing the problem. I mean it took them something like 15 years or so before they started looking at TEDs. This was probably because of the apprehension they have of using TEDs on the kind of trawlers they have, which target fish and prawns. So there is this apprehension. So, I mean the US here will be in the best possible position because of the expertise to come in to help develop a much more suitable technical TED. They may start with a simple TED but it has to be done with proper research and studies, not trying to get all the fishermen to use it and then they start to complain about it because it doesn't work, they are loosing a catch and all that kind of thing. You find that they don't comply and then it is very hard to convince them to accept TED usage. It has to be done in a way where the fisherman sort of accept the device. It has to be done that way. I think I'll end with that, thank you very much.

Chairman

202. Thank you very much. Dr. Poiner.

Dr. Poiner

203. Thanks Mr. Chairman. Firstly, just addressing the questions of Thailand. Again briefly in terms of [question 1 (a)], I think it really does depend on the implementation process and the attitude of the fishers in terms of how difficult or otherwise TED use with time is in the fishery. In terms of the other questions that TED requirements are easy to evade, yes, again if fishermen want to evade something, they will tend to work out a way of evading it. Similarly, in terms of where TEDs are required, again evasion you can do it again. It highlights the need to have the support of the operators, in this case the fishermen, in terms of the use of gear modifications like TEDs, if they are going to be incorporated in the fishery. "TED requirements are not easily enforced." Many, if not most requirements of fishers at sea are difficult to enforce and will always be an issue and always expensive, so the answer is yes. "Mandating TED requirements does not guarantee that sea turtle mortality will be reduced." I will agree with that. Mandating TEDs will not ensure sea turtle mortality will be reduced, however, appropriately and properly implemented regimes that could or may or may not include TEDs could help in terms of reducing turtle mortalities. In terms of the other questions, I was not aware of the first two points, so I will say the answer is no, I am not aware of it. Do I believe that 4 months is sufficient time? Definitely not. I don't think 4 months is sufficient time to effectively implement those sorts of changes in any fisheries, let alone the fisheries like the complex trawl fisheries in a place like Thailand. In terms of final points, again I will just make the final point that I too, like many of my colleagues, have the view that the turtle stocks, many if not most turtle stocks are severely depleted, in low numbers and I think it's very important that we do something about it and doing something about it means trying to eliminate some of these anthropogenic mortalities. Also it's clear for many populations and many species that incidental capture in trawl fisheries is an important source of mortality and I think that we need to reduce it. However, we should not make what I think would be a fatal assumption that just reducing that source of mortality would be the solution for the species. I think that reduction needs to be in the context of a wider programme to reduce all the important source of mortalities because we really at this point cannot distinguish between them for many of the populations. And I finally make the comment that I have made several times is that the use of TEDs is only one measure, but only one measure, of several that are available, that may be useful in terms of reducing full capture of sea turtles. Thanks Mr. Chairman.

Chairman

204. Well thank you very much. I think at this stage I would like to express my thanks to all the experts. They've given us both yesterday afternoon and today as well as in writing before that the benefit of their wisdom and I certainly think they have helped very considerably the work of this Panel by giving us a very good picture of the scientific and technical background to the problems of sea turtle conservation and sea turtle behaviour. So, I would really like to express my very warm thanks to them for that. I think that concludes our work today and I would like to thank everyone for participating and in particular our experts who have been so helpful and so patient with us and with our questions.

Thank you very much indeed.

Appendix 1

QUESTIONS BY THE PARTIES AT THE MEETING WITH THE EXPERTS

Questions by Malaysia

To Dr. Eckert:

1. You have formulated a hypothesis for the migration of leatherback to justify US jurisdiction over the sea turtles stocks of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. What hypothesis can you propose to justify US jurisdiction over the sea turtle stocks of India and Pakistan?

2. You have not provided answers to the question "Are you aware of data on the rate of turtle stranding in areas where TEDs are currently required or on the relationship between turtle stranding and shrimping activities in areas where TEDs are required?" Data released to the CTURTLE List through the internet has actually shown that turtles still strand in large numbers even as recently as 1997 in areas where TEDs are required.

3. You have worked on the leatherback population of St. Croix. What were the major conservation measures taken there? Would you say that the population there is showing signs of recovery? What was the nesting population size when you were working there in the mid-1980s? What is the current nesting population size? Would you say that protecting the nesting females on the nesting beaches, and protecting the eggs undergoing incubation have contributed towards the build-up of the nesting population in St. Croix?

4. Malaysia has submitted rebuttals to some of the points raised by you in your responses to the questions from the Panel. We would like to have your comments in writing.

To all the experts:

5. In you expert opinion would trade prohibition on the import of shrimp to the United States by itself save the sea turtles from shrimp trawlers and extinction?

6. What is the acceptable recognized method of determining the population size of breeding units of sea turtles, especially in assessments of population trends?

7. Please tell us your views about the concept of unit stocks or populations or breeding units of sea turtles.

8. When studies on any particular sea turtle population are made, would the results apply to the population being studied, or would you as a scientist, generalize your data for all sea turtles, irrespective of the species or where they occur?

9. Notwithstanding the status listings of sea turtles provided in the IUCN Red Data Book and CITES, would you not say that there are sea turtle populations in the world which are quite healthy and which have benefited from long term conservation programmes started some 30 years ago?

10. Data provided by Henwood and Stuntz, 1987 and numerous other reports of turtle mortalities in shrimp trawls, as well as stranding data show that loggerheads are the predominant species impacted followed by Kemp's ridleys. Based on all scientific evidence available, and the feeding habits of loggerheads would you agree that the loggerhead turtle is the species which is most vulnerable to shrimp trawling, followed by Kemp's ridleys and these species are found in the U.S. and not in Malaysia.

Qestions by the United States

1. There appears to be some disagreement over whether sea turtles should be analyzed in terms of specific populations of nesting sea turtles, and whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that certain populations of nesting sea turtles have stabilized. Leaving aside these specific populations - in particular the Malaysian Sabah Turtle Islands population - aren't there other sea turtles found in each of the Complainants' waters that are members of populations which are not yet showing signs of recovery? If such sea turtles suffer incidental mortality in shrimp trawl nets, wouldn't this contribute to the endangerment of sea turtles?

2. Mr. Guinea has performed a calculation, based on the reproductive values of sea turtles, and concludes that an annual mortality of 5,000 sea turtles nesting at Gahirmatha is "relatively minor". It was unclear to us whether this was merely an example explaining how "reproductive values" affect conservation analyses, or whether Mr. Guinea meant this as a definitive opinion that shrimp trawling off Gahirmatha is not a concern. Could the other experts also comment on this matter?

3. All of the experts have noted various causes of sea turtle mortality, including mortality on the beaches, and due to incidental mortality in shrimping and fishing operations. Does the existence of all of these threats to sea turtles make it more important, or less important, to prevent sea turtle mortality in shrimp trawl nets?

4. Do the experts agree that TEDs, when properly installed and used, reduce the mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawl nets?

5. If all the world's shrimp trawling fleets used TEDs, would this contribute to the reduction to the threat to sea turtles? Note: We are not asking whether the use of TEDs would be sufficient to conserve sea turtles, but whether the use of TEDs would contribute to sea turtle conservation. We are also not asking the separate, sociological question of the best way (such as the adoption of regulations or the promotion of voluntary use) to encourage shrimp fishermen to use TEDs.

6. Both Dr. Poiner and Mr. Guinea mention time and area closures as a helpful approaches to sea turtle conservation. Could the experts comment on this, and in particular, address whether sea turtle mortality could also occur in areas where, and during times when, shrimp trawling is not banned. Do we have enough knowledge to identify all potential "hot spots" where sea turtles and shrimp fisheries interact?

7. Could Dr. Eckert please elaborate on his statement that seasonal migrations would not be expected in regions with warm waters?

8. Mr. Guinea noted that the adoption of TEDs by a shrimp trawling fleet would take 6-8 years. Could the experts comment on this point, particularly in light of Mr. Guinea's comment that Thailand modified existing technology to create an elegant and effective TED within a matter of months?

Questions by Thailand

1. Several of the experts have commented on the high number of turtle strandings that occur in the United States where and when TEDs are required. Do the experts agree that this evidence demonstrates any or all of the following: (a) even after years of implementation, TEDs are difficult to use properly; (b) TEDs requirements are easy to evade and many shrimpers in areas where TEDs are required believe that reasons exist to evade the requirements; (c) TEDs requirements are not easily enforced; and/or (d) mandating a TEDs requirement does not guarantee that sea turtle mortality will be reduced?

2. Although Thailand was able to quickly modify an existing TEDs design in order to receive certification from the United States, are the experts aware that Thailand was unable to develop the TEDs within the short-four-month time period provided by the U.S. measures?

3. Are the experts aware that the Thai TEDs has not been found effective in actual use?

4. Do the experts believe that four months is sufficient time to select and modify gear, train shrimper, and take all other steps necessary to implement a TEDs requirement?