Skip to main content

Turning turtle



In September this year, the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department issued an order that banned all forms of fishing within a radius of 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) at 90 sites along the State’s coastline. It was passed to safeguard migrating olive ridley sea turtles. Extending from January to the end of April, the ban is applicable across eight coastal districts — from Chennai in the north to Kanyakumari in the south.

Is such an extreme measure necessary? Do such bans actually aid the conservation of olive ridleys?

Alarmist accounts



The ban can be traced back to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Madras High Court, interrogating the State government’s efforts on turtle conservation. It was filed by the judges themselves ( suo motu ) who were moved by a newspaper article (January 2015) on the nature of fisheries-induced mortality of sea turtles. But the fact is that when turtles drown in trawl nets, it is incidental and not intentional capture. Further, it is true that thousands of turtles nest between January and March only if one considers the entire coast of Tamil Nadu, not just Chennai. However, the olive ridley is the most common sea turtle species worldwide, so the State constitutes only a small part of their breeding habitat, even on India’s east coast.

The High Court, advised by its amicus curiae , ordered the State government to furnish details on measures it had taken to protect the turtles in Tamil Nadu. Eventually a “standard operating procedure” (SOP) was submitted by the Fisheries Department. Next, the court appointed an independent expert to audit the government’s report. His assessment pronounced the government’s measures as deficient and once again emphasised the significance and decline of the sea turtle population in the State to argue for a more intensive conservation programme. Together, the newspaper article and the audit report helped construct an unwarranted sense of crisis with respect to the olive ridley.

Unfortunately, this resembles the situation in Odisha where some conservationists have raised an alarm for over a decade but turtle populations have remained stable despite the high mortality. But the adversarial approach has only served to set back attempts to hold discussions between fishing communities and conservationists.

Solutions sans imagination

In Tamil Nadu, following the standard, narrow script of wildlife-in-crisis, the audit report made a series of recommendations to severely restrict various fishing operations. However, it did note that the Fisheries Department’s intention to ban all types of craft and gear during the turtle breeding season would “create unnecessary hardship to small-scale fishers”. Instead, the report clearly stated that the ban should apply only to motorised vessels above 10 HP, and larger mechanised ones. But certain conservation groups in the State proposed changes to the SOP that were once again drastic in nature; these include intensive surveillance, patrolling and confiscation of certain gears. There was absolutely no mention of consultation with the affected parties and only a vague recommendation that compensation must be provided.

On the other hand, the regulation of marine fisheries does remain a key issue here. In the 1960s, the State’s Fisheries Department began focussing on increasing production and offered extensive support for mechanised fishing. This created intense conflicts because small-scale fishers found themselves marginalised by the department’s programmes on land and mechanised fishers at sea. It was to protest against such biased policies that the National Fishworkers’ Forum was formed. One of its significant moves was to force the government to pass the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing (Regulation) Act (TNMFRA) in 1983. The Act restricts the operation of mechanised vessels (over 15 HP) to areas beyond 3 nautical miles (5.5 km) but within the territorial limits, so that coastal waters are reserved for small-scale fishing.

However, in practice, the TNMFRA is poorly enforced and it is militant protests by small-scale fishers in the southern districts of the State that have led to some restrictions on trawling, at least in these areas.

So it seems entirely unjust that this Act is now being used to ostensibly protect turtles and altogether ban small-scale fishing in 90 locations. Again, this situation mirrors Odisha where laws originally created to protect small-scale fishermen were invoked to harass them under the pretext of turtle conservation. A decade of experience there shows that this helps neither fishers nor turtles. Finally, by suggesting that the responsibility of fixing a long-term, complex fisheries problem should be divided between multiple agencies under the umbrella of the Sea Turtle Task Force, conservationists in Tamil Nadu have actually helped to disperse accountability.

Long-term perspective

Due to this narrow focus on a single species and its presumed decline, the Tamil Nadu turtle conservation campaign has missed the opportunity to tackle the underlying problem of faulty fisheries policies and their impact on both the marine environment and the people dependent on them. In addition, by not explicitly acknowledging the rights of small-scale fishers, their long-standing demand for better State regulation of the marine sector and their support for turtle conservation in the past, the campaign has further alienated this community. Even if the ban were to be repealed, the sense of injustice is sharp and will diminish support for turtle conservation. Extreme approaches to conservation have repeatedly proved counterproductive in India. Building community support and driving policy changes that ensure socioeconomic justice may seem like tedious alternatives but they are essential for long-term conservation and sustainability.

Madhuri Ramesh and Muralidharan M. are with the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and Dakshin Foundation, Bangalore, respectively. With inputs from Rahul Muralidharan, Kartik Shanker, Aarthi Sridhar, Marianne Manuel and Naveen Namboothri.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i