Marine turtles in Cambodia 163


stakeholders on the island of Koh Tang. This process aimed to validate anecdotal reports in the area that identified a his- torically significant nesting site. This initial interview work was followed by an assessment of current and historic nest- ing across all four coastal provinces, during November– December 2016, through combined interviews and nesting beach surveys. We conducted semi-structured interviews with members of coastal Community Fisheries and the Fisheries Administration, with a snowball sampling method used to identify individuals with specific knowledge of mar- ine turtle nesting grounds, who could in turn recommend other suitable participants (Bryman, 2012). We read all in- terviewees a verbal statement prior to their participation that explained the research purpose and asked for their vol- untary consent. After the interviews, Fauna & Flora and Fisheries Administration staff surveyed areas identified as potential nesting beaches, either on foot or by driving a boat close to shore, with observers searching for turtle tracks or other nesting signs. Building on the knowledge of priority nesting beaches


obtained from the 2016 assessment, further intermittent nesting surveys were conducted during 2016–2022 by the Fisheries Administration, Fauna & Flora and partners (Fig. 1). These included beach surveys during 2018–2020, which Fauna & Flora, the Fisheries Administration and the NGO Projects Abroad carried out on the offshore islands of Koh Kras, Koh Torteung and Koh Kong Krav (Koh Kong prov- ince). The surveys involved walking a predetermined stretch of beach whilst looking for signs of nesting activity. During September–December 2020, five trained volunteers con- ducted beach surveys in high-priority areas on the islands of Koh Tang, Koh Pring, Koh Thas and Koh Thmei in Preah Sihanouk province. Surveys are ongoing at the time of writing, and they continue to employ boat-based and on-foot methods as appropriate to each site. All nesting beach survey routes are recorded on GPS devices to track survey effort.


Bycatch surveys (2016–2018)


Weconducted marine turtle bycatch surveys in 28 ports and fishing villages across all four coastal Cambodian provinces during 2016–2018, again using a snowball sampling method (Bryman, 2012). We asked government officials in each coastal province to recommend places known for significant marine turtle bycatch, and we also interviewed fishers to identify locations with high bycatch over the past 10 years. We asked fishers who reported experience of bycatch in their interview responses to suggest others who could have captured marine turtles accidentally. We then approached these people for additional interviews. To collect standar- dized information on bycatch gear types and numbers of turtles caught, we disseminated a structured interview ques- tionnaire that included questions on fisher demographics, fishing gear used and fishing grounds, and marine turtle


bycatch experience. We read all survey participants a pre- pared statement that explained their participation was vol- untary and confidential.


Results


Provincial consultation workshops (2015) During the provincial consultation workshops, a total of 233 historical turtle sighting events were reported for 2005–2015, and we digitized these results from participant-drawn maps, although there was potential for double-counting of turtle sightings by participants (Fig. 2). Sightings were collated per 1 × 1 km grid square, to indicate potential spatial hot- spots. These maps illustrate where turtles have been seen, but are not indicators of absolute abundance. When asked about the value associated with turtles, state-


ments varied amongst the provinces. In Koh Kong, marine turtles were recognized as being ‘nearly extinct’ and respon- dents expressed a desire for ‘the next generation to know the species’,whereas in Kampot and Kep their value in gener- ating income from tourism was identified. The results also indicated the value of turtles as a consumptive resource, with responses suggesting their meat was eaten in all provinces, with consumption being most prevalentinKampotand Kep, where 24% of respondents reported eating turtle meat more than once per year. Eggs were reportedly eaten in both Koh Kong and Preah Sihanouk, but not in Kep and Kampot. Based on the ranking of threats, to which 100 participants


gave their input, trawling was identified as the greatest fish- ery threat to marine turtles across all coastal provinces, fol- lowed by hook-and-line fishing in Koh Kong and Preah Sihanouk (Table 2). In Koh Kong, 80%(n = 17) of partici- pants were concerned about the number of turtles being caught by J-shaped hooks, both deliberately and as bycatch. In contrast, in Kampot and Kep coastal development was the second greatest threat. Spatial hotspots of high trawl fishery intensity and of high levels of turtle bycatch were also identified through this process (Figs 3 & 4). Participants identified coastal development as the third


greatest scoring threat overall, although the ranking of this threat varied by province (Table 2). Coastal development impacts were reported for both turtle nesting and feeding areas, predominantly through construction, dredging and sand mining on beaches, mangroves and seagrass habitats. In addition, participants identified large development com- panies as the stakeholders having the greatest impacts onmar- ine turtles and the degradation of their habitats, given their perceived role in driving coastal development in Cambodia. Discussions of solutions focused on addressing fishing


impacts, which was generally agreed to be the highest- priority threat. The most frequently proposed solutions were increased compliance with fisheries legislation gov- erning high-risk gear, and increased information sharing


Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 160–170 © Fauna & Flora International, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000862


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