Marine turtle conservation 599
approaches. Action on any one of these areas alone is un- likely to be effective. For example, even though prohibitive legislation may be in place, community members will still harvest marine turtle specimens if the risk of being caught is low (CITES, 2019), and bycaught turtles will still be re- tained if maritime surveillance is poor (Boura et al., 2016; Quiñones et al., 2017). Over half of the survey participants considered raising environmental literacy, awareness and participation of stakeholders a top priority to eliminate illegal activities. Participants also considered improving law enforcement, management, conservation interventions and monitoring to be priorities. These findings are sup- ported by studies demonstrating that community education and awareness of marine turtle conservation, combined with better legislation and enforcement, lead to decreases in illegal harvest (Boura et al., 2016; Hancock et al., 2017). Conservation priorities for marine turtles appear to be
consistent over time, as the main measures that participants considered suitable for curbing illegal activities echo recom- mendations from the literature (e.g. Nada & Casale, 2011; Lam et al., 2012; Marco et al., 2012; Campbell, 2014; IOSEA Marine Turtles MOU, 2014; Antonio & Matillano, 2016; Boura et al., 2016; Hancock et al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2017). It is great the presentation of issues through sur- vey questions may have triggered participant accessibility bias, in which judgement is disproportionally influenced by information that comes more easily to mind (Martin et al., 2011). However, our findings reveal the need to seek novel ways of doing conservation. For example, govern- ment–NGOcooperation can help overcome government re- source constraints, which were noted by some participants (e.g. WWF has helped build Colombia’s capacity for the identification of traded turtle specimens, WWF, 2016; Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has helped Mexico patrol marine areas for poachers, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 2019). Our findings mirror calls for more inclusive marine turtle conservation interventions incorporating alternative views and sustainable use (Delisle et al., 2018; Sardeshpande & MacMillan, 2019). Although we have found that some progress has been
achieved, our findings demonstrate the need for stronger efforts to address continuing illegal harvest, use and trade. Based on perceived challenges to curbing illegal activities, how to address them, and lessons learnt, we recommend that future marine turtle conservation interventions priori- tize the following eight matters to curb illegal harvest, use and trade: (1) undertake dialogue, collaborative manage- ment and planning with primary resource users; (2)ensure that project leaders thoroughly understand local socio-eco- nomic and ecological contexts; (3) adopt multi-dimensional approaches addressing fisheries management, enforcement and legislation; (4) tackle illegal harvest, use and trade at na- tional level; (5) implement sustainable and locally-adapted alternatives to illegal activities; (6) establish coordinated
mechanisms to prevent wildlife cybercrime; (7) further knowledge of marine turtle reproductive biology, habitat use, threats fromfisheries and illegal activities, and the relation- ship between the latter two; (8) implement disincentives for unlawful practices. By looking at illegal harvest, use and trade through the
lens of researchers and practitioners,we have identified global priorities for marine turtle conservation. Notwithstanding that our findings require empirical validation, we believe they will contribute to the planning of successful conservation interventions that aim to curb illegal activities both locally and globally.
Acknowledgements We thank all participants for sharing their knowledge, survey pre-testers and colleagues for their advice, and the University of Bayreuth and the Elite Network of Bavaria for cover- ing software costs. Our research received no specific grant from any funding agency, or commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contributions Study design: all authors; data collection: LLL; data analysis: LLL, AN; writing, revision, editing: all authors.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research did not require ethical approval from the University of Bayreuth (where LLL was based), but neverthe- less followed the guidelines of the British Sociological Association (2017) and otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ANTONIO,R.&MATILLANO,J.(2016) Nesting incidence, exploitation and trade dynamics of sea turtles in Balabac Strait Marine Biodiversity Conservation Corridor, Palawan, Philippines. The Palawan Scientist, 8, 32–47.
BARRIOS-GARRIDO, H., ESPINOZA-RODRÍGUEZ, N., ROJAS- CAÑIZALES,PALMAR, J.,WILDERMAN, N.,MONTIEL-VILLALOBOS, M.G. & HAMANN,M.(2017) Trade of marine turtles along the Southwestern Coast of the Gulf of Venezuela. Marine Biodiversity Records, 10, 15.
BOURA, L.,ABDULLAH,S.&NADA,M.(2016) New Observations of Sea Turtle Trade in Alexandria, Egypt. Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles, Athens, Greece.
BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (2017) British Sociological Association Statement of Ethical Practice 2017. BSA Publications, Durham, UK.
CAMPBELL, C.L. (2014) Conservation Status of Hawksbill Turtles in the Wider Caribbean, Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Regions. Secretariat Pro Tempore of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Falls Church, USA.
CASALE, P., BRODERICK, A., CAMINAS, J., CARDONA, L., CARRERAS, C., DEMETROPOULOS,
A.et al. (2018) Mediterranean sea turtles: current knowledge and priorities for conservation and research. Endangered Species Research, 36, 229–267.
CITES (2019) Status, Scope and Trends of the Legal and Illegal International Trade in Marine Turtles, its Conservation Impacts, Management Options and Mitigation Priorities (CoP18 Inf. 18). CITES CoP18, Geneva, Switzerland.
DELISLE, A., KIM, M.K., STOECKL, N., LUI,F.W.&MARSH,H.(2018) The socio-cultural benefits and costs of the traditional hunting of
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 592–600 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001210
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
