seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Trade in marine turtle products also had significant value within the Fijian economy in the early 1800s (Guinea 1993). During that period, a large turtle fishery operated in Fiji to source both meat and shell trade for Asian markets. Fiji also hosted a smaller industry that used hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) scutes to make various artefacts including toilet sets, cigarette cases and jewel boxes (Levy 1949, cited by Guinea 1993). Later, during the 1980s and 1990s, marine turtles were sold at many of the commercial markets of Fiji. Green and hawksbill turtles were the most common, but Doyle (1998) reported the sale of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the markets of Suva in 1997. Today, turtles continue to play a significant role in the subsistence economy of many Fijian communities (Hirth 1971, Jit 2007).

Concern over the decline in marine turtles led the Fiji Government to place a one year ban on the harvest of marine turtles in 1995, which was facilitated by considerable public outreach during the Year of the Sea Turtle initiative coordinated by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). A three year ban was then implemented from May 1997 to December 2000, followed by an amendment to the Fisheries Act in 2004. The amendment provided for a moratorium, effective from February 2004 until 31 December 2008, on killing of turtles; digging and poaching of eggs; and all sales of turtle flesh and shell. The amendment also included a provision for exemption from the moratorium for take for traditional purposes (Government of Fiji 2004).

The open sale of turtles in the markets no longer occurs but there is anecdotal information that there is still a substantial catch of turtles for subsistence and traditional use and a possible black market for commercial sales (Seeto, J. pers obs. March 2008). This study details the extent of turtle use in the following locations in an attempt to assess the success of the current moratorium: 1. handicraft and municipal markets on the island of Vitilevu; 2. four villages among the Mamanuca Islands.

Figure 1. Map of Vitilevu Island, Fiji showing sites of the market survey. Map produced using MAPTOOL <https://seaturtle.org/maptool/>.

Market survey at Vitilevu: A market survey for turtle products was carried out, following the recommendations of Tambiah (1999), at 102 different shops in handicraft centres and municipal markets at seven locations around the island of Vitilevu from April 2006 to February 2007. The survey targeted centres and markets frequented by tourists (Figure 1). Any turtle carapaces or derivatives such as combs, spoons, bangles, necklaces and pendants on display at the surveyed shops were recorded. The curved carapace lengths (CCL) of carapaces were measured, and they were photographed and identified to species. Informal interviews were carried out with vendors to ascertain additional information about sale prices and markets, as well as fishery information such as location and date of capture. Vendors were generally cooperative, with all but one allowing inspection of their products.

Village surveys in the Mamanuca islands: Household surveys about turtle use were carried out in four villages in the Mamanuca islands. The Mamanuca's consist of 27 islands southwest of Vitilevu, most of which are popular tourist destinations with hotels and resorts. The villages of Solevu, Tavua, Yanuya and Yaro were surveyed, which are located on the largest islands of Malolo, Tavua and Yanuya (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of the Mamanuca Islands showing the resorts and the villages surveyed Map produced using MAPTOOL <https://seaturtle.org/maptool/>.

Acceptable and traditional village protocols were followed with respect to informing village chiefs and elders about the survey and requesting permission. The household surveys involved in-depth, interviews carried out in the Fijian language. Households were chosen ad-hoc for interviews. The interviews sought information on the numbers and species of turtles consumed, as well as the nature of the events for which turtles were harvested. A turtle conservation awareness presentation was carried in each village following the household surveys, which featured open discussions with the communities on the turtle conservation issues, especially with regard to the provisions for traditional use within the existing turtle harvest legislation. This process also yielded anecdotal information, which was also recorded.

Table 1. Turtle carapaces found in markets and tourist shops in Vitilevu, Fiji 2006-2007.

Market Surveys at Vitilevu: A total of 102 shops or stalls were visited and 28 hawksbill and 29 green turtle carapaces were found (Table 1). The cost of the carapaces depended on their size, with prices ranging from US$14 to US$124 (FJ$25 to FJ$200). The average price for a hawksbill carapace was US$37 (FJ$60), whereas that of green carapaces was US$42 (FJ$67). During the survey carried out from December to February, a large quantity of derivatives and products were found in the Suva handicraft market (Table 2). No turtle products were found in the Lautoka municipal market during this survey.

Table 2. Numbers and prices of turtle carapace products found in the handicraft market in Suva, Fiji 2006-2007.

The carapaces on sale ranged from 37.5-73.9 cm CCL for hawksbills, and 40-66.5 cm CCL for green turtles. The mean CCL of hawksbills was 44.5 cm, which was slightly smaller than the mean CCL of green turtle carapaces found (49.9 cm), but was not significantly different (Figure 3). The majority of the shells for both species are below adult sizes for these species in the region (see Hirth 1997 and Marcovaldi et al. 1999), indicating that most are juveniles, with a few carapaces of sub-adults.

Figure 3. Frequencies of the CCL of turtle carapaces found in markets and tourist shops in Vitilevu, Fiji 2006-2007.

The carapaces on sale in the Nadi area were reported to be from the Lau island group in eastern Fiji, while the vendors in Suva reported that carapaces are brought in from outer islands in the Northern and Western areas of Fiji and along the outer coastal settlements of Suva.

Table 3. Turtles consumed in 2007 by villages of Tavu.

Mamanuca Village Surveys: The household surveys revealed that during 2007 a total of 261 turtles were consumed in the four villages of Yaro, Tavua, Solevu and Yanuya (Table 3). Of these turtles, 34% (n=88) were harvested for subsistence consumption whereas 66% (n=173) were consumed during traditional occasions, including funerals, weddings, birthdays and other church or school functions (Figure 4). Most of these turtles were consumed during the months of January to September.

Figure 4. Numbers of turtles consumed for subsistence and various traditional occasions in 2007 by the four villages in the Mamanuca Island Group, Fiji.

Detailed data on species captured were not collected, but the villagers indicated that most were hawksbills, which seems likely given that there is limited amounts of typical green turtle foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass beds) in the Mamanucas' waters. In addition in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific hawksbills are not considered toxic unlike in other areas of the Indian and Pacific oceans, where chelotoxicity has been documented (Fussy et al. 2007).

The carapaces sold in the municipal markets at Vitilevu are largely from juvenile or sub adult turtles, and as reported by Hirth (1971), appear to be sourced from the Northern and Western areas of Fiji and along the outer coastal settlements of Suva. Carapace vendors in the Suva area suggested that customers buying hawksbill turtle shells often originated from Asian countries and anecdotal information from the respondents in the Suva market also suggests the presence of an illegal trade of hawksbill shells with Asian fishing boats. The quantities of turtle products found in the Suva markets indicate the presence of a trade that is in direct contravention of Fijian legislation.

Significant implementation and enforcement of the moratorium for non-subsistence use has occurred in various parts of Fiji and this appears to be reflected in the survey results (Table 1). For example, the survey revealed no turtle products in the handicraft market in Lautoka, where vendors reported that the Department of Fisheries conducted an awareness campaign on illegal trading of CITES listed species or derivatives in early February 2008 Similarly, CITES posters and leaflets were found posted in a handicraft market along the coral coast, suggesting that there has been some effort at raising awareness of the moratorium.

Mamanuca Survey: The household survey conducted in the four villages of Mamanuca suggested that 261 turtles were harvested in 2007 with 66% used for traditional occasions. However, there were no requests to the Minister of Fisheries for an exemption to the legislation. The respondents reported that the application for permits to harvest turtles was not a priority as most of them were not aware of the turtle moratorium. This issue as raised by our survey was the first time that they had been made aware of the moratorium.

The results from the villages in the Mamanuca Islands confirm anecdotal information from other villages and suggest that illegal harvesting of marine turtles still continues amongst coastal communities. In spite of the turtle awareness focused on households during the 2007 survey, a follow up survey is recommended to monitor any change on turtle harvest for 2008. There are no data on turtle populations in Fiji but all evidence (Batibasaga et al. 2003) suggests a decline in nesting green and hawksbill turtles.

The results of these surveys confirm that turtles continue to be harvested in Fiji in contravention to the current legislation, and that the provisions and processes that allow traditional take are poorly understood with low compliance in the study areas. The data suggest that there is a need for greater awareness amongst these communities, as well as amongst the traders in local markets where compliance with and enforcement of the current legislation is weak. More effort is required by the authorities and other interested parties to ensure that the current Moratorium is more effective, so that it is not only enforced, but is understood by those it is designed to regulate. Therefore this paper strongly recommends that the Turtle Moratorium (expired 31 December 2008) should be extended for the next 10 years.

Acknowledgements: The survey of markets was initiated when the senior author was a staff of the Department of Environment with considerable encouragement from the late Manasa Sovaki. The Mamanuca study was carried out while the authors were attached to the Institute of Marine Resources, the University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. Financial support for the Mamanuca study was supplied by grants to the Institute of Marine Resources from the Regional Natural Heritage Programme of the Australian Governments Ministry of Environment and Water Resources and the Faculty of Islands and Oceans Research Committee. We thank the Mamanuca Communities and their spokespersons namely the village of Yaro, Tavua, Solevu and Yanuya in sharing information on turtle consumptions. The acknowledgement is also extended to the Nadroga/Navosa Provincial Council, and the Mamanuca Environment Society for their support and assistance. Dedication also goes to the staff of the Institute of Marine Resources especially to Ms. Cherie Morris for editing and Ms. Seruwaia Olive for administration assistance. We also thank the MTN editor Matthew H. Godfrey and the anonymous reviewer for their encouragement and useful comments and additional appreciation to MHG for his assistance in the preparation of the maps.

BATIBASAGA, A. QAUQAU & S. WAQAINABETE. 2003. Notes on Fijian sea turtles: estimates on population status. Fiji Fisheries Department, Suva, Fiji. Unpublished manuscript.

BOYLE, M. 1998. Sea turtles of Fiji: aspects of population biology and conservation implications of harvesting. MSc. Thesis. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

FUSSY, A, P. POMMIER, C. LUMBROSO & L. DEHARO. 2007. Chelonitoxism: new case reports in French Polynesia and review of the literature. Toxicon 49: 827-832.

GOVERNMENT OF FIJI. 2004. Laws of Fiji - Fisheries (Protection of Turtles) (Amendment) Regulations.

GUINEA, M.L. 1993. Sea turtles of Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme Reports, No. 65, Apia, Fiji, 48pp. Available at: <http://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countries/Fiji/35.pdf>.

HIRTH, H.F. 1971. South Pacific Islands - marine turtle resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 34pp.

HIRTH, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758). Report No. 97(1), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 120pp.

JIT, J.N. 2007. Status of sea turtle conservation in Fiji. An assessment of the international, regional and national focus. M.A Thesis, University of the South Pacific, Fiji. Available at: <http://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countries/Fiji/6.pdf>.

LEVY, N. 1942. The turtle and the tortoise shell industry. The Fiji Society of Science and Industry, p 183-185.

MORGAN, R. C. 2007. Property of spirits: hereditary and global value of sea turtles in Fiji. Human Organization 66: 60-68.

TAMBIAH, C. 1999. Interviews and market surveys. In: K.L. Eckert, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4, pp. 156-161.