Marine turtles are a group of harmless

reptiles inhabiting every ocean basin, the

distribution of some species ranging from

Arctic Circle to Tasmania

Rajagopalan, M

Vijayakumaran, K

CMFRI Digital Repository

Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E Sen, No. 170. 2001 978 On a whale sharls, Rhincodon typus Smith, landed at Dakti Dahanu and Gungwada, Thane ^  Maharashtra On 21s t December 1999, a whale s h a r k Rhincodon typus Smith (Male) got entangled in a nylon gill net (locally called wagrajal] at about 0400 hrs., at a depth of 40M. was landed at Dakti Dahanu & Gangwada. It was alive but "subse-quently died at about 0800 hrs . on the same day. The shark towed to the shore was laying for three days as there was no demand for the flesh and fins. The various body measurements taken were as follows. Whale sha rk landed at Dakti Dahanu Total length - 625cm Standard length - 490 " Head length - 150 " Girth of body (maximum) - 210 " Width of mouth - 73 " Vertical height on first donsal fin - 58 " Second dorsal fin - 17 " Anal tin - 15 " Lengdiofcaudal fin along upper margin - 180 " Snout to origin of First dorsal fin - 269 " Second dorsalfln - 411 " Pectoral fin - 115 " Pelvic fin - 351cm Analfln - 417 " Inter space between First and second dorsal - 73 " Anal and caudal - 58 " Pectoral and pelvic origin - 170 " Pelvic and anal origin - 48 " Other body measurements Length ofpectoral fin along outer origin - 115 " Length of pelvic fin along outer margin - 55 " Length of second dorsal - 43 " Length of first dorsal - 92 " Length of clasper - 33 " Approximate weight (Tonnes) - 1.8 " The local fishmerchant bought the fish for Rs.6,000/-. It was cut into pieces after 3 days of landing, liver and skin were removed. The liver weighed 96 kg and yielded 25 litres of qual-ity oil. The flesh was buried in the soil Reported by : S.K. Kamble and U.H. Rane, Dahanu Field Centre of CMFRI, Dahanu 979 Conservation of marine turtles and shrimp exports Marine turtles are a group of harmless reptiles inhabi t ing every ocean basin , the distr ibution of some species ranging from Arctic Circle to Tasmania. The seven speceis of sea t u r l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g two famil ies , Chelonldae and Dermochelyidae, are the only living members of a large and diverse marine r a d i a t i o n of C r y p t o d i r a n t u r t l e s wh ich originated from early Eocene to Pleistocene period. Sea turtes surpasses all other living vertebrates in longevity, some of them living for more than 150 years. In the wild, they exhibit slow growth and take long periods {15 to 50 yea r s or more) to a t t a in matur i ty , depending on the species and geographical area. The mos t s t r ik ing fea tu re of mar ine turtles is their sterotypic nesting behaviour. Year after year they visit selected beaches in all parts of the world to lay their eggs. This mass n e s t i n g b e h a v i o u r is p e r h a p s a survival mechanism to overcome the effect of predation and other adverse environmental conditions. However, this nesting behaviour has become the weakest aspect in the life cycle of turtles as man, the most powerful predator, enters the p i c t u r e . Adul t t u r t l e s a re c a u g h t a n d slaughtered by the coastal population all over the world, apart from extensive poaching of the eggs and invasion of nest ing beaches. This i n d i s c r i m i n a t e exp lo i t a t ion and h a b i t a t d e s t r u c t i o n h a s t h i n n e d down the tu r l e population to such a level that if allowed to 12 Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T &E Sen. No. 170, 2001 TABLE. 1 lUCN s t a t u s of t he seven s p e c i e s of m a r i n e t u r t l e s a n d the i r ava i lab i l i ty in f ishing a r e a s (FAO) in I n d i a n O c e a n SI. No. I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Cominon name Loggeiiiood Green Hawksbill Kemp's ridley Olive ridley Leatherback Flatback Scientific name Caretta caretta Chela nla raydas Eretraochelys Imbrlcata Lepldochelys kempU Lepldochelys ollvacea Dermcchelys coriacea Natator depressus lUCN status ' EN EN CR CR EN EN V Available areas In Indian Ocean 51 and 57 51 and 57 51 and 57 Not present 51 and 57 51 and 57 57* • Only along the coast of Australia EN - Endangered, CR - Critically Endangered, V - Vulnerable Source : 'lUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Croup, »FAO (1990) continue, the sea turtles would be pushed to the verge of ex t inc t ion . F o r t u n a t e l y the international Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN) has classified all the seven spec ie s of t h e sea t u r t l e s as thereatened or endangered (Table-1). Quoted in the Red Da ta Book, the i r commerce is prohibited in those countries that have signed the Convention on In te rna t iona l Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). All the five species of marine turtles available in Indian waters are placed in Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Development of TED : While efforts are taken all over the world for conservation of the nesting population by protecting beaches and other measures , incidental cap ture of sea turtles in the fishing nets, especially shrimp trawls became a threat to the turtle population. Instead of swimming away from an approaching net, turtles try to outswim the trawl bu t get caught once they tire. Therefore, efforts were directed towards development of by-catch reduction devices. The US nat ional Marine Fisheries Services developed Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) for u s e by commerc i a l fishermen. TEDs are panels of large mesh webbing or metal grids inserted as barriers into the cod end of the funnel - shaped shrimp trawls. As the trawls are dragged along the bottom, shrimps and other small animals pass through the TED and into the cod end at the end of the trawlnet while sea turtles, sharks, and fish too large to get through the panel are deDected out. In the US, TED was reported to reduce by catch by upto 97 per cent. In the absence of TED, sea turles become trapped in the net for as long as it is towed underwater and sometimes drown or undergo physiological changes tha t resu l t in death . Prior to the required used of TEDs in the US, tens of t h o u s a n d s of sea tur t les were drowned In shrimp nets every year. Different designs of TED were developed in the US and used in large shrimp trawlers in Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic from eighties. Although shrimp fishermen feared TEDs would cost the shrimping industry millions of dollars in equ ipmen t and lost ca tch , TEDs were successfully implemented In the United States and elsewhere. TEDs were reported to reduce fuel costs by excluding non-shrimp species that often outweigh shr imps by ten to one and provide a better quality catch (the shrimps are not crushed by other species). US Embargo on Shrimp Export : In early n ine t i e s when the US s h r i m p f i shermen complained of shrimp losses and increasing cost of operation due to TEDs, the Congress enacted an embargo programme. The intention of this embargo was obviously to perpetuate the comparative disadvantage globally in order to 'level the playing ground'. However, the global application of the embargo became effective only after the o rder of the US Cour t of 13 Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E Sen. No. 170, 2001 TABLE. 2 Import of shrimp (all types) In thousand tonnes into the US from different countries during 1990-1999. COUNTRY Thailand Ecuador Mexico India Indonesia China Rep. of Panama Bangladesli Brazil others Total isgo 25 38 19 14 9 ' 57 5 7 4 44 222 1991 45 49 17 18 12 35 6 5 4 48 239 1992 54 55 14 18 14 49 6 8 6 40 264 1993 67 49 20 19 13 31 6 10 4 44 263 1994 81 48 23 23 11 23 7 9 5 47 277 1995 78 52 33 18 5 15 9 0 2 61 273 1996 73 44 31 19 10 8 9 9 I 60 264 1997 73 64 34 20 13 13 11 10 0 56 294 1998 92 65 35 20 15 7 10 6 1 55 306 1999 115 50 35 20 16 9 8 9 70 332 In ternat ional Trade prohibi t ing import of shrimp and shrimp products into the United States, harvested by "citizens or vessels or nations not certified under public law 101-162". The effort of National Fisheries Institute, USA to challenge the verdict, became futile and the embargo came into effect on 1 May 1996. More than 50 odd countries exporting shrimp to the US were left with somewhat 'do or die' option with regard to the adoption of TED. About th ree l akh t onnes of sh r imp consumed in the US were imported, mainly from Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico and other countries (Table-II). Marine turltes were under serious threat in all these nations. India's stake was very high because the US was the second largest buyer of Indian shrimps accounting for nearly 18 percent of i ts sh r imp expor t s (Table-Il l) . After the embargo, while most of the countries geared up to implement TED programmes, the US officials "certified" those nat ions with only artisanal fisheries or having comparable TED r e g u l a t o r y p r o g r a m m e . T h o u g h a n i m a l protection groups in the US exerted pressure for a total ban on shrimp import, an extra ordinary legal appeal and a subsequent order by the court exempted aquaculture products from the ban. Another legal appeal resulted in a r u l i n g , wh ich clar i f ied t h a t s h r i m p harvested with gear that did not harm sea turtle should not be banned. Thus according to Richard E Gutting Jr. , the embargo of US$ 1 billion was reduced to less than 20 million. Ironically, shrimp from "non-certified" nations caught by mechanised trawlers is banned even if they are fitted with TEDs. This means t h a t there is no incentive for voluntar i ly adopting conservation measures. WTO Ruling : The US government ' s requirement for the use of TEDs became one of the most bitterly fought regulations in the history, of fisheries management.Mexico and 13 other Central and South American nations took the lead, mainly because under a 1989 law the US Department of State banned the import of s h r i m p s from any coun t ry not taking adequate measures to conserve sea turtles in commercial shrimp fisheries. Following the US embargo of 1996, in 1997 four Asian countries - Thailand, India, Malaysia and Pakistan -challenged the US decision to ban shrimp impor t s from c o u n t r i e s wi th i n a d e q u a t e mar ine turt le conservation measures . The TABLE.3 Value (in lakh rupees) realized from major markets for frozen shrimp from India during the period 1992-1999. Country Japan USA European Union others Total Total QuanUty (t) 1992 61995 12150 18447 13439 106031 71237 1993 86382 16885 25232 25173 153672 83720 1994 150269 39299 45660 16930 252158 105395 1995 1440S3 28134 46306 15271 233764 92851 1996 165359 34416 45503 17913 263191 103427 1997 206491 46534 29394 28534 310953 106297 1998 221264 45684 30484 40408 337840 101112 1999 19331 54067 45916 37924 336238 103070 14 nations took the case to a WTO dispute panel, which interprets WTO rules. The Appellate Body of WTO gave a ruling against the US Embargo on shrimp imports. Leading environmental organizations condemned the WTO ruling. While the WTO has the power to suspend free trade rules for conservation reasons, the panel allegedly ignored the relevant International conservation agreement including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and ruled that the US ban was illegal. After an appeal by the US, the WTO finally acknowledged the potential of such a trade restriction to protect the environment. However, It still judged the US action to be illegal, rulling in favour of free trade. The Worldwide Fund for nature (WWF) believed that the WTO is failing to fulfil the mandate contained in the preamble of its own charter. In a subsequent paper, the WWF demanded that the WTO integrate environmental concerns and sustainable development issues into any future trade agreement and promote t rade that is environmentally responsible and that encourages sustainable development. Many have not fully understood why the WTO ruled against the US measure for protecting an endangered species and have failed to recognise the importance of the Appellate Body's ruling in the so-called shrimp/turtle case. The ruhng recognised that under WTO rules governments have every right to protect human, animal or plant life and health and to take measures to conserve exhaustible resources. GATT's Article XX allows governments to take "measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health" (Art. XX (b)) and "measures related to the conservation of na tura l resources" (Art. XX (g)). The opening part of Article XX says that any environmental action must be applied without arbi t rary or unjstifiable discrimination and must not Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E Sen, No. 170, 2001 const i tu te a disguised restr ict ion on international trade. In other words if a government wants to take action to improve its environment or protect natural resources, such measures must be applied equally to domestic and foreign products without discrimination. The US lost the case because It discriminated. It provided countries in the Western hemisphere mainly in the Caribbean, technical and financial assistance and longer transition periods for their fishermen to start using TEDs. It did not give the same advantages, to the four Southeast Asian countries (India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand) that filed the complaint with the WTO. This was a violation of the most-favoured nation principle - treating one's trading partners equally. Implementing TED in India : Large-scale mortalities (as high as 50.000 in the past five years), of Olive Ridleys by drowning in trawl nets on Orissa coast have been reported by Operation Kachhapa*. A preliminary survey conducted earlier had shown that trawlers operating along the upper East Coast encounter on an average 2-10 turtles per year In their net and morality are very rare. Data on incidental capture and drowning of turtles elsewhere in the Indian waters are lacking. However, incidential capture of turltes in the trawl nets are likely elsewhere also but certainly not in such magnitude as Orissa coast, where world's second largest rookery for Olive Ridley Is located. Efforts to implement TED programme in India had not yielded satisfactory results even as the shrimp exports from the country to the US goes with mandatory certificate that no turtle has been harmed in the process of Its capture. MPEDA has taken enough steps to popularize TEDs by distributing it freely to the fishermen all along the coast. The state 15 departments of fisheries, forest and wild Ufe p ro tec t ion agenc ies a re a lso involved in organizing workshops and demons t ra t ion programmes. However, there seems to be very little response from the fishing community. Experimental trawling with TED in Indian waers has demonstrated its effectiveness in excluding turtles from entering the cod end of the net. However, loss of valuable fish catch has been reported by all. Trails with a Georgia super shooter TED, conducted by CIFNET recorded up to 43 percent loss in catch through the e s c a p e m e n t c h u t e . The o p e r a t i o n a l economics of shrimp trawlers in India depend both on the shrimp and fish catch. In the larger vessels, the proceedings from the sale of fish catch are given as incentive for the crew. In s u c h c a s e s t h e crew would be reluctant to at tach TED to their net and loose part of their incentive. Thus the resistance of fishermen in adopting TED could easily be understood. Enforcement of TED or any regulation has i ts l imi ta t ion s ince it is p rac t i ca l ly Impossible to monitor its compliance by the fishermen at the sea. Moreover, the top down aproach in imposing conservation measures has its drawback and cannot be sustained. Any such measures without the active co-operation of the stakeholders at lower s t ra ta would no t yie ld t h e a n t i c i p a t e d results.Therefore, the most important aspect is educating and involving the crew of the fishing vessels, apar t from the owners and m a n a g e r s of t h e v e s s e l , in t h e TED Implemenatat ion p rogrammes . Even some incentive packages to their co-operation and in compensa t ion of loss of the incent ive foregone may be thought of in the initial stage. Mar. Fish. Jnfor. Serv., T & E Sen, No. 170, 2001 Another factor to be taken care in TED implementation programme Is the spatial and t empora l a spec t of enforcement . Having identif ied the a r ea and s e a s o n s of m a s s nes t ing , special m e a s u r e s to protect the nesting population by declaring closed areas and season with suitable patrol has to be planned and Implemented. While voluntary adoption of TED by fishermen is likely to take some more time, its use in the identified period and areas mus t be implemented on priority basis. The co-operation of Indian Navy and Coast Guard are to be used for th is p u r p o s e . In t h e long r u n , t h e s a t e l l i t e t r a c k i n g , r e m o t e s e n s i n g a n d o t h e r t e c h n o l o g i e s c o u p l e d wi th m o d e r n communication systems, could be used for developing an early warning system, which could be implemented in the ' responsible fishing' framework. Conservation measures on the nesting beaches have to be evolved involving the local f ishing communi t i e s . Participatory approaches for management of natura l resources are the best way to achieve sustainable exploitation and management of r e s o u r c e s . E d u c a t i n g t h e c o a s t a l communi t ies and empowering them are a p re requ i s i t e for acheving s u c c e s s in any participatory approach in conservation and management of natural resources. * Operation Kachhapa is collaboratiue ejfort between the state government (Orissa Forest Department), and NGOs (Wildlife Protectilon Society ojlndia. New Delhi and Wildlife Society of Orissa, Cuttack) which aims to protect sea turtles through enforcement, monitoring and creating awareness) Prepared by : M. Rajagopalan and K. Vijaya Kumaran, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi. 16 

Conservation of marine turtles and shrimp exports

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/3702/1/Article_09.pdf

Conservation of marine turtles and shrimp exports

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository