Effects of community-based management on amazon river turtles: a case study of Podocnemis sextuberculata in the lower Amazon floodplain, Pará, Brazil

Limit or prohibit specific fishing methods

A site comparison study in 2009 on a flood plain with a variety of lakes and channels in Pará, Brazil (Miorando et al. 2013) found that areas that had community-based management (CBM) of fishing practices – including limiting use of gill-nets, seasonal fishing restrictions, protecting turtle nesting beaches and a ban on turtle trading – had more river turtles Podocnemis sextuberculata, Podocnemis unifilis and Podocnemis expansa than areas without CBM. The effect of different aspects of the management programme cannot be separated. Turtles were more abundant in areas with CBM (321 individuals) than in areas without CBM (33 individuals). For Podocnemis sextuberculata, abundance was higher in areas with CBM (14 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours) than in areas without (2 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours), and turtle biomass was also greater (with CBM: 20 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours; without CBM: 3 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours). The fishing agreement that formed the CBM programme had been in place for 20–30 years. While 13 communities in the area were a part of the fishing agreement, only two implemented the agreement. Turtle numbers were sampled at 14 sites (7 with CBM; 7 without CBM) in August–October 2009 using gill nets (15 nets/site; 215 m² nets; 3 each of 5 mesh sizes) with help from local fishers.

(Summarised by: William Morgan)

Engage local communities in conservation activities

A site comparison study in 2009 on a flood plain with mixed lakes and channels in Pará, Brazil (Miorando et al. 2013) found that areas with community-based management (CBM) of fishing practices, including limiting use of gill-nets, seasonal fishing restrictions, protecting turtle nesting beaches and a ban on turtle trading, had more river turtles than areas without CBM. The effect of different aspects of the management programme cannot be separated. Overall, turtles (including Podocnemis sextuberculata, Podocnemis unifilis and Podocnemis expansa) were more abundant in areas with CBM (321 individuals) than in areas without CBM (33 individuals). Podocnemis sextuberculata abundance and biomass was higher in areas with CBM (14 individuals and 20 kg biomass/1,000 m² netting/12 hours) than in areas without (2 individuals and 3 kg  biomass/1,000 m² netting/12 hours; data of other species not provided). The fishing agreement that formed the CBM programme had been in place for 20–30 years. While 13 communities in the area were a part of the fishing agreement, only two implemented the agreement. Turtle numbers were sampled at 14 sites (7 with CBM; 7 without CBM) in August–October 2009 using gill nets (15 nets/site; 215 m² nets; 3 each of 5 mesh sizes) with help from local fishers.

(Summarised by: William Morgan)

Establish temporary fishery closures

A site comparison study in 2009 on a flood plain with a variety of lakes and channels in Pará, Brazil (Miorando et al. 2013) found that areas that had community-based management (CBM) of fishing practices – including seasonal fishing restrictions, limiting use of gill-nets, protecting turtle nesting beaches and a ban on turtle trading – had more river turtles Podocnemis sextuberculata, Podocnemis unifilis and Podocnemis expansa than areas without CBM. The effect of different aspects of the management programme cannot be separated. Turtles were more abundant in areas with CBM (321 individuals) than in areas without CBM (33 individuals). For Podocnemis sextuberculata, abundance was higher in areas with CBM (14 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours) than in areas without (2 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours), and turtle biomass was also greater (with CBM: 20 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours; no CBM: 3 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours). The fishing agreement that formed the CBM programme had been in place for 20–30 years. While 13 communities in the area were a part of the fishing agreement, only two implemented the agreement. Turtle numbers were sampled at 14 sites (7 with CBM; 7 without CBM) in August–October 2009 using gill nets (15 nets/site; 215 m² nets; 3 each of 5 mesh sizes) with help from local fishers.

(Summarised by: William Morgan)

Protect habitat: All reptiles (excluding sea turtles)

A site comparison study in 2009 on a flood plain with lakes and channels in Pará, Brazil (Miorando et al. 2013) found that areas with community-based management (CBM) of fishing practices, that included protecting turtle nesting beaches, limiting use of gill-nets, seasonal fishing restrictions, and a ban on turtle trading had more river turtles (Podocnemis sextuberculata, Podocnemis unifilis and Podocnemis expansa) than areas without CBM. The effect of different aspects of the management programme cannot be separated. Turtles were more abundant in areas with CBM (321 individuals) than in areas without CBM (33 individuals). For Podocnemis sextuberculata, abundance was higher in areas with CBM (14 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours) than in areas without (2 individuals/1,000 m² netting/12 hours). Turtle biomass was also greater with CBM (20 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours) than without CBM (3 kg/1,000 m² netting/12 hours). The fishing agreement that formed the CBM programme had been in place for 20–30 years to protect nesting beaches and reduce illegal trade; though consumption of turtles was still permitted. While 13 communities in the area were a part of the fishing agreement, only two implemented the agreement. Turtle numbers were sampled at 14 sites (7 with CBM; 7 without CBM) in August–October 2009 using gill nets (15 nets/site; 215 m² nets; 3 each of 5 mesh sizes) with help from local fishers.