Despite legal protection the illegal exploitation of marine turtles for their meat and eggs has continued since 1972 and almost certainly continues. The activities that have been identified by several researchers as posing the greatest threats to marine turtles in Sri Lanka are as follows.

The collection of marine turtle eggs from the rookery for consumption sale for consumption and for sale to marine turtle hatcheries:

                 
Marine turtle egg collection by the coastal communities of Sri Lanka has been widely reported by various researchers. In 1982 Dattari & Samarajeewa claimed that through out the island wherever good beaches are present egg collection especially in densely populated areas is 100%”. This seems to be the most realistic evaluation to date of any form of marine turtle exploitation in Sri Lanka. Evidence to support this claim is provided in several reports and accounts. (Banks 1972 Lambert 1973 Loris 1973 Banks 1977 Wickremasinghe 1981 Wickremasinghe 1983   Jinadasa 1984 Gunawardene 1986 Perera 1986 Perumal 1986 Hewavisenthi 1990.) A letter published in “Loris” in 1973 stated that due to intense egg collecting activity observed at that time the author would be “suprised if any [marine turtle nests] survive between Hambantota and Kirinda”. Another letter published in Loris in 1986 describes the “rampant and indiscriminate capture and plunder of turtle eggs that occur frequently in our coastal towns”. It is not unrealistic to believe that wherever the relatively impoverished coastal communities have access to marine turtle rookeries almost all the eggs will be taken.

In 1994 Richardson recorded 16 operational marine turtle hatcheries and reports show that at least 6 other hatcheries have been operational since 1972. (Wickremasinghe 1982 March for Conservation 1983 Perera 1986 Richardson 1995.)

The idea of the hatchery is to collect recently laid eggs from nearby rookeries or buy them from egg collectors and re-bury them in protected areas of land on or close to the beach. Sri Lanka’s first turtle hatchery was established at the Bentota Beach Hotel in 1972. From 1972 to 1982 reports seem to indicate that when the eggs hatched and the hatchlings emerged from the nests at the hatcheries they were either released immediately or retained in captivity for a maximum of 24 hours. But in 1982 a concrete tank was built to retain hatchlings for display to visitors at the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society’s (WNPS) hatchery at Kosgoda. This action started a trend of hatchery practice in Sri Lanka which was probably to invalidate the hatchery’s marine turtle conservation efforts for much of the following 14 years. (Wickremasinghe 1982.) By 1986 Gunawardene and Perera were reporting that hatchlings were retained at the Kosgoda hatchery for a period of 3 days. The reason given for hatchling retention was no longer for display to visitors but instead to allow the “umbilical opening” of the hatchlings to heal. According to Perera the umbilical opening is apparently “prone to predatory attacks” and the practice of retaining hatchlings until the opening heals gives them a “better survival rate”. 

Almost all of the hatcheries that are operational at the time of writing retain their hatchlings in captivity for at least three days before they are released. The technical reasons for hatchling retention vary from “allowing the hatchlings to grow bigger and stronger” to the “umbilical opening theory”. However these explanations are neither logical nor supported by scientific evidence. The main reason why hatchlings are retained in hatcheries is for display to fee-paying tourists. Not only is this practice illegal but also deleteriously disruptive to the hatchlings natural behaviour and invalidates the entire hatchery process with regards to turtle conservation.

In nature when hatchlings emerge from the nest they immediately crawl to the sea. Once in the sea they swim continuously for approximately 24-48 hours without feeding gaining nourishment form a residual yolk in their stomachs. This behaviour has evolved to take the hatchlings away from the dangerous coastal waters that abound with predators and takes them to the ocean currents. After 48 hours the hatchlings’ behaviour changes to a foraging behaviour by which time they are being carried by epipelagic currents to feeding areas of floating debris. (Mrosovsky 1983 Wyneken and Salmon 1992.)

In hatcheries the hatchlings swim continuously for about the first two days of captivity after emergence from the nest thus exhausting their residual yolk supply. On the third day the hatchlings’ begin to feed and sometimes bite one another causing injuries that become infected. Even if they are unharmed when they are released on the fourth day the hatchlings have neither the instinct nor the nutritional reserves to allow them to escape the predator-rich coastal waters and swim out to their traditional feeding grounds. One can therefore assume that there is a higher mortality rate amongst hatchery-retained hatchlings than those that hatch naturally. (Richardson 1995.) It is quite possible that since hatchling retention has been extensively practiced at least 10 years ago and possibly even before the mortality rate of all hatchery-released hatchlings has been 100% in the first few days after their release.

Both Hewavisenthi and Richardson concluded that current hatchery management practices have not been proven to be contributing to marine turtle conservation in Sri Lanka. (Hewavisenthi 1993 Richardson 1995.) Thousands of eggs have been collected for these hatcheries and yet up to the time of writing and to the best of the author’s knowledge all bar one (March for Conservation Bundala) of the hatcheries have not been authorised by the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The hatcheries have therefore multiplied and have carried on their illegal and destructive activities unchecked by any authorities. They continue to publicise themselves in magazines and newspapers even explaining the value of the “umbilical opening theory” and the tourists still pay to see “turtles being protected”. (Ellis 1995 Daily News [Sri Lanka] 27.4.1995.) 

In their current state the hatcheries pose what may be described as a “dual threat” to turtle conservation. Their methods as yet are unproven to be of any conservation value and at the same time their proliferation gives the impression that “something is being done” to protect marine turtles in Sri Lanka. This impression has led to complacency towards turtle conservation amongst the general public and the relevant government authorities.

However both Hewavisenthi and Richardson stated that hatcheries could play a positive role in the conservation of marine turtles in Sri Lanka if their practices are modified and continuously monitored. Richardson’s report provides recommendations for the establishment of a “hatchery license scheme” as mentioned in Hewavisenthi’s paper. This scheme is designed to improve hatchery management practices and Richardson includes a set of “draft hatchery practice guidelines” based on current scientific opinion. In 1995 the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC) carried out a census of Sri Lanka’s hatcheries with a view to introducing a system to improve hatchery management. At the time of writing the DWLC has not yet acted on data gained during the census (pers. comm. DWLC).

The slaughter of nesting female turtles at the rookery: Although this form of exploitation has been reported by various authors there is no data on numbers of nesting female turtles killed at any specific location for a given period. Hewavisenthi states “not a single nesting female is spared (from slaughter) along the western coast.” (Hewavisenthi 1990.) According to the observations and experiences of the author of this report this particular claim is not true in the present day. The author has observed many female turtles returning to the sea after nesting along the South-Western coast between 1993 and up to the time of writing. However the slaughter of nesting female turtles is mentioned by various authors which indicates that this may once have been and may still be a significant threat to marine turtle populations in Sri Lanka. (Loris 1958 Banks 1977 Wickremasinghe 1981 Jinadasa 1984 Gunawardene 1986).

As in most sexual species reproductive females are the most valuable members of a population in terms of population continuity. The slaughter of a female turtle would represent the destruction of thousands of eggs that the turtle could potentially produce in her reproductive lifetime. Therefore if this form of exploitation persists today it must be considered a significant threat to marine turtle populations either locally or nationally as those members of the population that ensure continuity are being most affected.

The incidental and deliberate by-catch of marine turtles in fishing gear:

Previous data and reports on the extent of turtle by-catch in Sri Lanka are confusing due to their contradictory nature. In 1984 Jinadasa estimated via a series of calculations based on generalised assumptions that marine turtle by-catch for the entire island was approximately 12-15 turtles per week. He suggested therefore that a by-catch of approximately 400 turtles was a realistic albeit “conservative” estimate of the total and annual marine turtle by-catch for the whole of Sri Lanka. (Jinadasa 1984.) Hoffman apparently also made a similar estimate in 1975. (Wickremasinghe 1981.) However it seems likely that these were probably gross underestimates when one considers reports by other authors. Gunawardene in 1986 estimated that in Kandakuliya alone approximately 10 turtles were landed and butchered per day and Perera witnessed the butchering of 16 turtles over a 3 day period in May of the same year. (Gunawardene 1986 Perera 1986.) In early 1994 TCP staff witnessed the butchering of 13 turtles at Kandakuliya in one morning and found the recently butchered remains of 6 turtles during another visit. When interviewed local fishermen said that at least 20 turtles were butchered each week. If we take into account the observations of these authors and the TCP staff it is quite feasible that the number of turtles landed and killed in Kandakuliya alone has possibly been over 1000 annually for the last 10 years.

The fishermen of Jaffna have long had a tradition of fishing for turtles. Contrary to his citation by Wickremasinghe Hoffman is cited by Hewavisenthi as estimating the annual by-catch of turtles in Jaffna in the mid-’70’s to be around 1 500. Hoffman is also cited as estimating that a total of 3 000-5 000 turtles were caught islandwide. (Hewavisenthi 1990.) Somander’s description of how in Jaffna over 100 turtles could be caught by the nets of one boat over a 4-5 day period in 1963 seems to support the latter Hoffman citation. (Somander 1963.) Due to the current political circumstances information regarding turtle by-catch in Jaffna is scarce.  However a recent interview conducted by the author with a refugee who fled Jaffna in 1990 suggested that the practice of turtle fishing was extensively carried out by the Jaffna fishermen up until 1990.

Dattari and Samarajeewa revealed that turtle by-catch did not only occur in the North western fishing communities of Sri Lanka. (Dattari & Samarajeewa 1982.) During their survey they found turtle carapaces in almost every fishing community located along the Southern South Western Western and North Eastern coasts. The fisherman interviewed throughout the island during their study confirmed that turtles were often caught and drowned in their nets. Indeed the fishermen were of the “unanimous opinion” that the mortality caused by their nets was the major cause for the decline in turtle populations around the island. From this Dattari & Samarajeewa concluded that turtles are caught and killed “in most coastal villages” of Sri Lanka. From their report we can perhaps assume that even the higher estimates of turtle by-catch suggested in the past were conservative and indeed marine turtle by-catch poses a significant threat to Sri Lanka’s marine turtle populations.

The slaughter of the Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) for the illegal tortoiseshell industry:

Historically Sri Lanka has been a source of raw materials for the tortoiseshell trade and finished tortoiseshell items. (Hewavisenthi 1990.) Tortoisehell modern extent of this trade in Sri Lanka has recently been comprehensively documented derives exclusively from the carapace scutes of the Hawksbill turtle. Turtle Conservation Project and the U.K. based “Environmental Investigation Agency (E.I.A.)”. (Richardson [TCP] 1994 Currey & Matthew 1995.) Richardson found that at least 104 shops were openly and illegally selling tortoiseshell products. The EIA discovered among other things that the majority of the raw hawksbill scutes are illegally smuggled from the Maldives to Sri Lanka in consignments of dried fish. As a result of the publicity surrounding the Richardson’s  report and the EIA’s televised investigations of the tortoiseshell industry the Ceylon Tourist Board (CTB) and the Department of Wildlife Conservation initiated a series of educational and enforcement actions in an attempt to stop the trade.

The CTB appointed a specialised “Task Force” to deal with illegal tourist related activities including the trade in protected species. (Daily News [Sri Lanka] 15.6.1995). The Task Force immediately wrote to 325 retailers registered with the CTB informing them of the law with regards to selling turtle products. The Task Force was also instrumental in the distribution of the TCP’s tourist awareness “anti-tortoiseshell” posters and has assisted in the permanent display of these posters at the Katunayake Airport in Colombo. Shortly after the CTB corresponded with the retailers the DWLC made a number of raids on shops in Colombo which were illegally selling tortoiseshell items. During the raids DWLC officers confiscated tortoiseshell items and some of the offending vendors were prosecuted during cases which received some publicity in the popular Sri Lankan daily press. The Ministry of Transport Environment and Women’s Affairs appointed a “Co-ordinating committee on the Protection of Dolphins/ Turtles”.  At the time of writing the author is unaware of any contribution that this committee has had towards marine turtle protection in Sri Lanka.

Other threats to marine turtles in Sri Lanka:

Threats to Sri Lanka’s marine turtle populations do not come only from man’s desire for turtle products. Unsustainable exploitation of marine turtle habitat and uncontrolled environmentally insensitive development of industries close to marine turtle habitat can result in indirect as well as direct effects to marine turtle populations. Marine turtles are also very likely to be affected by the predicated global climate changes caused primarily by the accumulation of the world’s industrial pollution. What follows is an outline of the published information relating to activities that further endanger Sri Lanka’s marine turtle populations.

The destruction of nesting habitats due to coastal development: It has been well documented that bright lights and excessive human activity on rookeries will deter female turtles from nesting and will disorientate hatchling turtles emerging from the nest. (Carr et al 1978 Ehrhart 1979 Fletemeyer 1979 Mortimer 1982 Bandre & Mackmakin 1983.) Because marine turtles have evolved to a marine habitat nesting female turtles are slow and clumsy on land and therefore extremely vulnerable to predation. Nesting female turtles tend to be nervous and vigilant when they haul themselves ashore at night to find a suitable nesting site at the back of the beach. Thus they are easily scared back into the sea and thus prevented from nesting when they detect bright lights or excessive activity on the beach.

Nocturnal disturbance at rookeries is a particularly serious threat as recent studies seem to be confirming the long held belief that female turtles when sexually mature return virtually exclusively to their natal beach to nest. (Meylan et al 1990.) Comparative genetic studies of nesting populations of turtles show distinct similarities of DNA structure between individual turtles using the same beach. Similar studies indicate that there is distinct DNA structure differences between populations of turtles nesting on different beaches. These findings would be expected if generations of female turtles nest on the same beach on which they themselves were born. If female turtles show a limited flexibility of choice regarding the rookery they frequent (i.e. they instinctively nest at their natal rookery and will not nest elsewhere) then nocturnal disturbance at rookeries can prevent entire colonies form reproducing. This would inevitably lead to the extinction of local populations at disturbed rookeries.

Hatchling turtles usually emerge from the nest at night and find their way to the sea by orienting towards the brightest and lowest horizon. Under natural conditions hatchlings would therefore crawl towards the light reflecting off the surf and away from the darker and higher inland horizon. Bright lights situated at the back of rookeries cast an arc of light which has the effect of making the inland horizon brighter and lower than the sea. Hatchlings therefore orientate towards bright inland lights leaving themselves more vulnerable to predation as well as dehydration if they do not reach the sea before the sunrise. (Raymond 1984.)

Dattari and Samarajeeva identified coastal development as a significant threat to marine turtle nesting habitat in Sri Lanka. (Dattari & Samarajeewa 1982.) They suggested that the main threats resulting from development of rookeries were increased light disturbance increased human activity and increased access to remote rookeries leading to exploitation of nesting females and their eggs. To date no one has quantified the actual effect that development at turtle rookeries has had on the breeding populations of marine turtles in Sri Lanka. Dattari and Samarajeewa implied that artificial lighting on Matara beach was responsible for the complete cessation of turtle nesting there. They also described Hikkaduwa Bentota and Beruwela as places where little nesting occurred and where there was a high degree of tourist development at the back of the beach.
It is interesting to note that Bentota is mentioned in this context in a report written in 1982. Before that year and since 1953 Bentota has been mentioned by several authors as a marine turtle rookery used by all five species of turtle. (Deraniyagala 1953 A.G.R.W. 1968 Banks 1972 Banks & Banks 1977 Wickremasinghe 1979 Wickremasinghe 1981.) In 1968 it was described as a “habitual place for nesting turtles” and in 1972 the first hatchery in Sri Lanka was established at the Bentota Beach Hotel. In December 1976 5 nests were recorded in two nights and in a period of just over four months in 1982 almost 10 000 eggs (representing a little less than 100 nests) were buried at the Bentota hatchery. Sadly by that time according to Dattari and Samarajeewa turtles had stopped coming to nest on Bentota beach and the hatchery collected it’s eggs from beaches south of Bentota. Unfortunately there is no data on the annual number of turtle nests occurring on Bentota beach since 1953. Therefore although it seems plausible one can only speculate as to whether or not the apparent demise of Bentota beach’s nesting turtle population was caused by disturbance of the rookery from the expanding tourist development there.

The destruction of Sri Lanka’s coral reefs: Mining and gathering of corals for the production of lime is a common occurrence in some coastal areas such as Rekawa. The firewood for burning corals is obtained by destroying the surrounding mangrove forests and coconut plantations. Removal of corals increases the sea erosion in Rekawa resulting the loss of natural fisheries harbor. The beach erosion can be correlated to reef degradation because without the offshore reef to break waves beaches are subject to the full force of ocean waves. The coastal vegetation that was once abundant in Rekawa is destroyed due to the erosion. This in turn has resulted in the loss of nesting habitats for the marine turtles in Rekawa.        
 
The government banned the removal of corals and also destroyed many lime kilns as a conservation measure in Rekawa area. This has resulted in the loss of avenues of income for community members who gathered corals who transported the corals to the limekilns who supplied firewood from mangrove forests etc. This clearly shows the chain connection between the coastal communities and their surrounding natural resources. Removal of a single part of the chain will negatively affect the whole community dependency system.  Even though the government has prohibited the breaking of corals and cutting of mangroves etc it has not found adequate alternatives for the coastal communities to survive. Hence these communities are forced to seek alternate avenues of income. The community members who lived on breaking coral and cutting mangroves have now got used to collect sea turtle eggs and kill turtles for flesh. This indicates that the coastal communities are shifting the use of natural resources for their livelihood in a destructive manner.

Coral reefs in Rekawa are valuable resources and important parts of the Rekawa ecosystem. Some community members of Rekawa depend on coral reefs for lime production food and protection from waves. It has been found that the coral reef habitats provide the nursery grounds for many edible marine fish stocks. Despite the ecological significance and beauty of reefs they are being threatened in Rekawa by anthropogenic causes such as coral mining over fishing and pollution. Coral mining a prohibited activity brings a lucrative income to Rekawa community members. Due to the law enforcement in 1995 coral mining has reduced for some extent but currently increased soon after the close down of beach patrols by local police. About 200 women who made a living by mining corals lost their income during the police patrols and some of them returned to the destructive coral mining practice once again due to poverty. 

Beach Erosion: The effects of coral mining and lime production acts as a catalyst for beach erosion.  The result of this erosion can be very dangerous for the nesting period of the turtle it is both un-safe for the turtle and the laid eggs upon the eroded sands.

Global warming and rising water levels:  In 1998 Sri Lanka had undergone the “El-Nimo” effect.  Causing the sea water temperature to rise causing the coral bleaching effect.  To this day the coral reefs are still recovering from this devastating natural disaster.  

Contamination by agricultural and industrial pollutants:  From this action the chemicals and pollutants from industrial company’s who mismanage their disposal of chemical waste runs into the seas of Sri Lanka resulting to damage and death to marine life.