(MY) policies on turtles

[Guest guest]

Policies turning turtle in Terengganu - Malaysiakini on line

Fahri Azzat

Oct 20, 06 6:04pm Adjust font size:

 

The leatherback turtle is the largest of all turtles. In the 1960s, up

to 10,000 leatherbacks would land on the Terengganu shores to lay

their eggs each year. Fast forward 40 years with technological,

intellectual and spiritual developments and now we're lucky if even a

handful show up. Governmental, non-governmental associations and

various conservation groups worldwide are unanimous: the leatherback

is doing the dodo. In fact, the US has classified it as an endangered

species since the 1970s.

 

Malaysia's regular hubbub to being a regional hub for everything from

movie-making to bio-technology to technological advancement are

strangely muted on the topic of environmental conservation. However,

in its place we are hankering to be a hub of wanton malicious

capitalism.

 

The Terengganu head of agricultural and regional department, Mohamad

Jidin Shafie, was recently reported by the BBC to have claimed that

the conservation efforts and policy of turtle eggs have failed.

Apparently banning turtle egg collection merely raises prices and

encourages poaching. He then turned turtle by announcing that the

state government is considering licencing turtle egg collection in key

breeding areas.

 

Mohamad Jidin disappointingly did not proffer any sensible reasons for

the failure of the conservation efforts. However, I am willing to

hazard a guess that it has to do with a lack of enforcement stemming

from corruption.

 

Let me explain why. I am certain that the Terengganu government would

have first identified all the active and dense nesting areas. This

would not be terribly difficult. After all, turtles like human beings

are creatures of habit so they return to their earlier nesting area.

Naturally the government would understand that it is just these areas

that would attract thieves and poachers, and should therefore be

diligently and sufficiently monitored by the agricultural and regional

department enforcement officers.

 

These officers would be properly equipped with the proper surveillance

and prevention equipment for deterrence. For argument's sake, I am

willing to assume that the Terengganu government and the agricultural

and regional department enforcement officers are terribly efficient,

diligent, dedicated and really care about the welfare of the

leatherbacks. In sum, they are competent to deal with the situation.

 

Now if we accept this explanation and my assumption is then that the

only way those turtle eggs could move from underneath the sand to the

market stands in such great numbers is if these enforcement officers

were bribed by the thieves and poachers. This is the only conclusion I

can draw if I want to avoid concluding that the Terengganu government

is incompetent in dealing with the extinction of the leatherbacks.

 

Let's now assume for one moment that the regional department

enforcement officers are both competent and incorruptible. This

assumption cannot hold because if it were true, then the amount of

turtle eggs hitting the market would not be so great until it become a

good for trade. The number actually stolen would be very small and the

market for it smaller. So clearly, the illegal sale of these eggs can

only happen if the regional department enforcement officers are

corrupt or incompetent, but not the converse of both.

 

But happily, there is no doubt that the Terengganu agricultural and

regional department itself is incompetent. Their licencing proposal to

replace the conservation policy is proof of this. Firstly, if the

agricultural and regional departments cannot even curb theft of the

eggs, how would licencing collectors make it any easier?

 

A total ban on collection makes it easier because anybody caught with

the eggs can be prosecuted. If the licencing proposal is realised, not

only would these enforcement officers have to deal with whether that

person has a licence, (Malaysia being the hub for piracy of

intellectual property) they also will in time have to deal with

whether the licences are genuine.

 

What they also do not seem to understand is that licencing in a

culture prone to corruption is propitious of its perpetuation. And how

does licencing promote sustainability? Secondly, implicit in this

proposal is that 'if you can't eradicate it, regulate it'. It may be

able to do this with certain moral offences like prostitution and

drugs as has been done in countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland

and Great Britain. However, one cannot apply this to a species that

cannot be reared and facing extinction. The sheer illogic of this

proposal should warrant Mohamad Jidin's resignation.

 

It is, however, heartening to note that the Terengganu government

really does care for its citizens. When it comes down to a few of its

citizens selling these eggs for a few ringgit a piece and a turtle

species that has survived for more than a hundred million years, it

has decisively come down in the former's favour. This is

understandable, turtles cannot vote and don't avoid taxes.

 

I am also glad that the Terengganu government has not wallowed in

depression at the leatherback turtle's impending extinction and taken

steps earlier this year to jettison it as its symbol and sports

mascot. They have replaced it with the clown fish because it was 'more

agile and dynamic'. That may be true of the fish, but not of the

government or the clowns in there.