Chairman

68. Do other experts want to take on those points?

Dr. Eckert

69. Just a couple of points. Liew's point taking an example from Malaysia is very good on a number of fronts, not just for the problems sustained by the Malaysians with their leatherbacks which was really, I consider it, through no fault of their own, there was simply no scientific knowledge at the time to suggest that the 10 per cent egg buy-back that they were executing in Malaysia was not going to be adequate to restore the population. And also having worked in Malaysia for some time I have to say that Malaysia has one of the best conservation programmes for marine turtles anywhere in the world. They have really taken hold of the situation relative to the conservation of their nesting stocks, and done very, very well. It's been a very admirable effort.

70. A quick comment about the reproductive value point that Liew was bringing up. The reproductive value curves, the references they are making to that, is the value of the individual towards supporting the population reproductively. The only time that you would want to use a terminology such as caloric value or something along those lines is that would be more of a fisheries biomass term relative to harvesting the egg or the adult. If you were going to harvest an adult, how much of a protein yield are you going to get? So the reproductive curve is based on the ability of the individual to support the stability of a population. That's why that value is expressed as it is. The models that were done for that are arguably difficult to work with. They are based on loggerheads, and much of the data is on declining population for loggerheads. That's why you see such a wide range. When we say it takes 1,000 to 10,000 eggs to yield 1 adult, it is because of the lack of precision in a lot of those estimates. But what is clear is qualitatively, that it takes a whole lot of production of eggs, because of the high mortality and small size classes to get one adult. That's why we use what seem to be a very broad range of numbers. There is probably nothing to suggest that those numbers aren't within the ball park for all species because we see very similar reproductive strategies across all species. Reproduction in marine turtles is very conservative and so those numbers are probably not so far off for the other species as well. And as Liew well pointed out, we definitely need to take a balanced approach to all of this. The example that I gave in my report of the leatherbacks in Mexico is a very good one. In Malaysia they had an almost 100 per cent egg harvest for many, many years and probably until the mid-1980s didn't have a lot of at-sea mortality, that we are aware of, that we can quantify. There may have been some trawling mortality that Chan and Liew have documented very well but there was also the high-seas driftnet fishery that kicked in in the early 1980s. So that population decline was probably due primarily to the egg taking and it took 40-50 years to actually see it start being reflected in a distinctive manner on the population.

71. In Mexico we have a different situation. The Mexicans have done extraordinarily well at protecting their beaches, they have the marines out there, camped out on the beach to protect their nesting females and their eggs and they have severely limited mortality for upwards of 15 years and maybe a little longer on leatherbacks. Yet we have seen in excess of 90 per cent decline in that population in 10 years. The primary reason for that is that we weren't taking a whole population approach to our conservation. We didn't know that the Chileans or the Chilean and the Peruvian gill-net fisheries were taking large numbers of leatherbacks. And we didn't figure that out until last year when we put satellite transmitters on them. So it is a classic example of being blind-sided from the other direction. It wasn't the egg-take issue, it was the high-seas take. Again it hammers home this point, that you have to manage these populations in a holistic sense, that you have to understand all the sources of mortality and you have to deal with those. Now the conservative approach relative to shrimp fishing is if you have mortality associated with shrimp fishing that you have to fix it. It's the bottom line. How you want to approach that? You have heard quite a bit of variation and I am sure that you are going to have to wrestle with that on your own, but the bottom line is that if you've got a problem, you've got to fix it.

Chairman

72. Thank you very much. Do any of the other experts want to take on these points at this time?

Dr. Frazier

73. In my comments to the Panel, I tried to, in the best terms I could, to simplify this aspect of the concept of the breeding value. This is a magic number, it is not something you go out and measure. It is a way of synthesizing, in one number, many different aspects in the ecology of an animal. To try and visualize very simply in a column of numbers, this animal represents more in the reproduction and maintenance to the population than this animal in this stage. It is an abstraction, the fact that hatchlings are 1 and breeding females are 584, that can be changed. The hatchlings can be 0.5 if we like. 1 is used simply because that's the unit to start with. It's simply a matter of convenience. The end number will vary from population to population, and will certainly vary within a population through time, depending on how those ecological processes are operating. The reason for doing this is to simplify many different things that are happening in the ecology of an animal, to very simply come up with a list and say this is where there is more importance in maintaining the population. I don't think any sea turtle biologist would recommend omitting protection on all stages. This gets us back to this integrated approach. The way perhaps to use these numbers is, if I protect a handful of eggs, or if I protect one large animal just about to breed, where will I have more value in my population? Although I have lots of eggs here that could potentially become breeders or have an animal here which is just one. By the odds of biology (and biology is not a pure science, its a science of statistics and stochastic processes) this handful of eggs is not anywhere near the value of this one animal by the chances. So if I have the opportunity to protect this animal, my instantaneous response to the population is likely to be much greater than protecting these eggs. This does not mean I should ignore the eggs, it simply means that I should not be deceived into protecting large numbers of eggs is going to give me an immediate response and necessarily going to protect the population. This again takes out of biology into the social sciences. We see this a great deal in Mexico. Scott has mentioned that. There is a big impact politically in protecting eggs because politicians can go to the beach and have their pictures taken, they can be displayed in local newspapers and they can be seen protecting turtles. It's very visual, it's charismatic and that leads us to a danger in focusing and in omitting the other aspect which is not visible to us, and that's what happens in the ocean. At no point in my submissions, and I don't think in anyone here, would anyone want to omit protection of the different life stages. That's not an issue, we want to integrate it. The breeding value is simply an abstraction to try and focus where an individual may have more value. One egg does not have as much value stochastically as one individual which is near to breeding or indeed breeding. That's simply the matter.

Chairman

74. Thank you. Dr. Poiner.

Dr. Poiner

75. The issue of a reproductive value, again I would agree with Dr. Frazier that I don't think there is a lot of argument about the reproductive value of an egg versus a mature female for example. However, I think that in making an assessment of the impact of an activity there is the other part of the equation that needs to be taken into consideration, that's the relative mortality rates on those different stages. And that's invariably done under modelling, in modelling studies, and then you get into, what some would argue into the lap of the gods, because you are starting to make some of the assumptions, and what you find when you actually look at the modelling studies, the differences that are often predicted usually relate to different levels of mortality on different stages fed into the models. Hence the important issue is that there are two bits of data, you need not just the reproductive value data in terms of making those assessments. But I would agree with Dr. Frazier that the important issue here is that you need to focus on the whole population, all sources of mortality and obviously in any management situation, in any population stock, given that you probably won't be able to deal with all of them, you deal with the bigger ones or the most important ones first. Hence it is important to know what they are, and where they're acting and at what stage of the population they're acting.

Chairman

76. Thank you. Dr. Eckert

Dr. Eckert

77. From a management perspective I often argue with resource managers on this. Using these value curves and saying that approximately 500 eggs equal 1 adult turtle, what that also suggests from a conservation management perspective is that you should be able to afford that much more effort to protecting those juveniles and adults. I often hear from managers that it is so expensive to protect juveniles and adults because we have to do fishery modifications, we have to whatever and yet, those adults are worth 500 times more than an egg on a beach. So if you're going to protect your animals you should be allocating your resources in a similar manner and in a world of limited resources, you don't have enough money to do everything, and that's understood. So when you look at these things, you say "OK, how much is it going to cost to protect those eggs on the beach? Yes, I have to do that". And I also have to realize that I get more conservation bank from my buck by protecting the adults as well. So you need to balance it, but also be aware that, yes, it is more expensive to go out there and protect those juveniles and adults, but you're getting a lot more return for that value that you're putting into that conservation effort.

Chairman

78. Thank you very much. Dr.Guinea you had a point on this?

Mr. Guinea

79. Yes, thank you. I'll just make it a comment here. This magic figure of 584 does raise some problems in that it tends to bind us into a set way of thinking. The figure 584 has been produced for computer synthesis. This figure enables certain numbers in certain columns to add up to a certain prescribed number at the end. In the Australian studies of loggerheads, the figure, instead of 584, was somewhere between 200 and 400. And so that's within the same species, be it two different reproductive units or demographic units. So this will change from breeding unit to breeding unit, but its use is just to make rows and columns, add up to suitable numbers. Now whether it is actually viable in the field, in real life, is another point altogether. A conservative approach is that anything that is impacting negatively on any of the stages of the sea turtle life-cycle should in fact be addressed. Now I have mentioned this already. if it's a death through incidental capture in gill nets that should be addressed. If it's a problem of excessive harvesting, then that should be addressed. There are a few advantages in having shore-based conservation activities. These advantages come from community involvement, in that more and more people become involved in the conservation process. If you're going to have your conservation process restricted to the back decks of trawling vessels some kilometres off the coast, the community is not involved in that process. The community doesn't see the process going on, and they may be led to believe that "Yes, sea turtles are secure because we have TEDs on the nets on the vessels that are operating off-shore". I think a better all-encompassing approach is to have the community at the village, state or parish level involved with protecting their turtle beach and having resources put into that to focus on sea turtles and the state of the oceans but not to the exclusion of protecting sea turtles at sea and from various forms of mortality, be it shrimp trawlers or gill nets or whatever.

Chairman

80. Thank you very much. Dr. Liew.

Mr. Liew

81. In general I agree that we have to take care of both, but I brought this point up because there were some statements saying that protecting adults is more important than protecting eggs. We have to look at both, and not only look at both, we have to look at situations, populations. Some populations, you find that eggs are not the problem, you don't really need to protect them, because they are already well-protected. That's why you have to concentrate on the adults. But there are certain other populations where egg harvesting is the problem. So that is where you have to, and in these countries they usually have very limited financial resources for conservation. All conservations have very limited resources for some reason and that is why they have to concentrate more on the eggs because they are really having problems with the eggs. They don't really get enough quota for protection because they are still harvested, legally or illegally or whatever, or even in cases where you have problems of predation so that is where you find that you need to channel your attention to protection of the eggs. And if, of course, adults also have problems definitely you need to. But every population you have to weigh the situation and see which is of more priority and where you should channel your resources.

Chairman

82. Thank you very much. We had an extended discussion from the experts. Of course we'd be happy to go on with that, but I think it might be more efficient if we interrupted it at this stage and allowed the parties, each in turn, to make their comments and put their questions for the experts and I think once we have heard those five interventions that would be a suitable point at which to break for tonight so that the experts can then have time to reflect and come back tomorrow morning with their round of responses. As I indicated earlier we propose the parties to follow the order which had been established in our earlier meetings, which is to say to begin first with the complaining parties, in the order of Thailand, India, Pakistan and Malaysia and then to turn finally to the United States. So perhaps I could invite the Ambassador of Thailand to give his comments and questions. You have the floor.

The Ambassador of Thailand

83. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the chance to appear before you again and to witness this very interesting conversation this afternoon. I must say from the outset that as you know I am no expert in shrimp and turtle apart from a great lover of turtles and of a fond eater of shrimps. So I find this discussion this afternoon extremely educational and interesting. It reminds me of the first morning that we brought this case to you Mr. Chairman We were very concerned and very worried about the time and effort that we should put in. But I think that it is more than compensated by the knowledge that we have gained today. Well, I'd like to say given the fact that I am no expert on this, and given the complexity of the matters at hand, and given the fact that we have a very high quality discussion by the experts this afternoon and they also show a high degree of professionalism and professional ethics, I have not much to say this afternoon. But I would certainly like to reflect upon what has been said so far by the five experts and I shall come back to you tomorrow. I would like to consult with my expert back home. I simply would like to say that, number one is to thank the experts for their input because you have worked hard to answer all these questions raised by the Panel, and we have made our comments to your responses and I think that I don't want to repeat them here today or tomorrow. Secondly, I must say that we appreciate not only your effort but we have learned a great deal from what you have said in your written responses and from your intervention this afternoon. I only hope that we would have a better understanding of this very complex matter so that both the conservation and the enforcement could be better done to the benefit of all. I think I will leave it at that, I thank Mr. Guinea for pointing to the Thai TED. I think it looks better than our Thai financial flu which is floating around over there!

Chairman

84. Thank you Mr. Ambassador. Perhaps I could now invite the representative of India to put questions and comments on behalf of his delegation.

The representative of India

85. The issue we are looking at today is sea turtle conservation problems and that is the purpose of this meeting and before I express any comments or views on this, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the experts for having provided us and my delegation especially with such an enlightening experience and of course to say that, since that this is the first meeting that we are having in the New Year to wish all of you a very happy and prosperous New Year. Having said that Mr. Chairman, our delegation has no specific question to put to the experts. We have heard with a lot of interest the view that sea turtle conservation has to be looked at in a holistic manner, in an integrated manner. It is something that we ourselves are very much committed to and have worked at actively towards promoting in our own way and I think I should just stop there and let the work carry on. Thank you.

Chairman

86. Thank you very much. Perhaps I could now turn to the representative of Pakistan.

The representative of Pakistan

87. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I am extremely grateful to you for this opportunity and my delegation owes a debt of gratitude to the worthy experts for their very enlightening comments. In fact for me this is the first lesson in marine biology and certainly I need a little more time to reflect on what they said, but I greatly appreciate the kind of very knowledgeable comment they made on various issues. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman

88. Perhaps I could now turn to the representative of Malaysia and invite him to make whatever comments or questions he might have.

The representative of Malaysia

89. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, like the rest of my colleagues around the table, would like to thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the panel and our distinguished experts. I too do not profess to be a turtle expert, being a trade man, I found these discussions extremely enlightening. One thing I definitely learnt is that there is no single prescription to an illness, it all depends on the degree of the illness. I would like to take the example of having the flu. If it is a simple flu, you just take a Panadol, but if it is a bad case of flu, then you go for antibiotic or maybe even a jab. The point that I am trying to say is that one thing I learnt today is that conservation takes many different aspects and methods of conserving turtles. Mr. Chairman, Malaysia has already put in its questions in writing yesterday.

Chairman

90. On that point you are referring to the questions that were included in the written comments on the reports that we had from the experts. Perhaps we could invite the experts tomorrow to address those points.

The representative of Malaysia

91. Sure, Sir, and we would also like to reserve our right in the event that we would like to come back to any further questions.

Chairman

92. I think that concludes the points from the complaining parties, although I note that there may well be the possibility of further questions tomorrow, additional to the ones that have already been put forward by Malaysia. There will no doubt be time for those, if anything further eventuates. Can I now turn to the United States and ask if they have comments and questions that they wish to put forward?

The representative of the United States

93. I first want to thank the Panel for again coming to Geneva for this very difficult case. I want to thank also the Panel and the parties and the experts for trying to accommodate our scheduling requests and I know that our delegation spoke to all of the parties and they all agreed to our request. Unfortunately, we still couldn't get it right it quite right, Mr. Balton was not available to come, he sends his regrets. Of course I'd like to thank the experts. They did an outstanding job of a massive amount of information and a very limited amount of time. I think they've done Ph.D thesis in a few weeks.

94. Just a preliminary comment on the procedure. Pakistan presented all new facts, basically responding on their own respect to the questions and Malaysia in its brief also presented new facts. It was a new conservation programme involving different coloured boats and different exclusion zones which wasn't present in their prior briefs. We are not commenting on that, we understand that there is not the time for new information but we would ask if that is something that the Panel wants to consider, that we of course be given a chance to respond to it. We also have developed a list of questions which I could read to you now, or else Mr. Andersen was suggesting that we could also type them up very quickly and fax them tonight if that would be more convenient or I could do both.

Chairman

95. I think if you have them available in writing, I think it would help everybody and save our time now. If you could just read them out, they would then be read into the record and then tomorrow they could just be answered. If we could have the written version tonight, that would be helpful for the experts to prepare their answers.

The representative of the United States

96. There's been some dispute among the experts about the recoveries of various populations and even about whether one can define various populations. Our question about that is, leaving aside the specific populations and in particular the Malaysian Sabah Turtle Island populations which is much discussed, aren't there other sea turtle populations found in each of the complainants waters that are members of populations which are not yet showing signs of recovery? Further, if such sea turtles suffer incidental mortality in shrimp trawl nets, wouldn't this contribute to the endangerment of sea turtles?

97. This is a question, referring to Mr. Guinea's response and also to the other experts as well. Mr. Guinea performed a calculation based on the reproductive values of sea turtles and concluded that the annual mortality of 5,000 sea turtles from Gahirmatha was "relatively minor". It was not clear to us reading that, whether that was intended to be an analysis of threats to Gahirmatha or merely a hypothetical example. In any event, could the other experts comment on whether shrimp trawling on that level would be relatively minor, shrimp trawling mortality would be relatively minor off the coast India?

98. All the experts have noted various causes of sea turtle mortality, including mortality on the beaches and due to incidental mortality in shrimping and various fishing operations. Our question is: does the existence of all of these threats to sea turtles make it more important or less important to prevent sea turtle mortality in shrimp nets? In other words, I think we have to go to the analogy used by Mr. Liew and also by Malaysia. If the patient comes in with a heart condition and a kidney condition and a lung condition and the doctor says we should treat all three because the patient is seriously ill, is it appropriate to say well don't bother treating the heart condition because there is also two other serious conditions.

99. I think I have heard the answer to this, but it is important to clarify. Do the experts agree that TEDs, when, properly installed and used, reduce the mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawl nets? Related question: if all the world's shrimp trawl fleets used TEDs, would this contribute to the reduction in the threat to sea turtles? Note that we are not asking whether TEDs would be sufficient, but whether they would contribute to sea turtle conservation, whether it would help. We are also not asking a sociological question about how TEDs should come about to be used, about whether it should be voluntary or mandatory, but just the scientific question, that if TEDs were used properly would it help sea turtle conservation.

100. This is a question to Dr. Eckert: there is a comment in your answer that seasonal migrations would not be expected in regions with warm waters. I think there is some confusion about what that meant. I think it would be helpful if that statement could be clarified. Question to Mr. Poiner. In his statements he noted that 6-8 years would be helpful for the adoption of TEDs. We have also heard talk that the Thai TED is very effective and in fact beautiful and apparently was adopted in just a matter of months or for about a year. We would just like the experts to discuss that. Question to all the experts, Mr. Liew in particular: there has been a lot of talk about beach conservation versus conservation of adult turtles. Our question is would the use of TEDs exclude the adoption of beach conservation programmes. Is there some reason why a country can't do both? Question to all the experts: both Dr. Poiner and Mr. Guinea mentioned time and area closures as helpful approaches to sea turtle conservation. Could the other experts comment on this and in particular address whether sea turtle mortality remains a problem in areas where and during times when shrimp trawling is not banned?

101. Follow-up question. I believe Mr. Poiner noted that there was contemporaneous monitoring going on in Australia which helped these bans and whether that same monitoring is used in any of the complainant countries. Follow-up question to that is also about "hot spots", whether we have enough science to really select all of the hot spots where sea turtles and shrimp trawling might interact. Mr. Chairman, I hope that would be most of my questions but I hope that we would be able to reserve our rights to ask a few more questions tomorrow because we've heard a lot today.

Chairman

102. Thank you. I note then that there will be the possibility of further questions tomorrow from at least three of the participants. Meeting adjourned until 9.30 am. tomorrow.

Second day - 22 January 1998

Mr. Chairman

103. Last night, just before we closed the meeting, the US asked to have the opportunity to respond to any material that was contained in the comments from the parties on the expert's reports. Any material that was either further argumentation or new evidence that had not been produced at the previous meeting because we had at that time closed off the process. I would just like to recall in this context the opening remark I made at the beginning of the session yesterday, which was to the effect that it's not the purpose of this meeting to hear further argumentation or new evidence, that the process was really intended for hearing the experts, and questions and comments to the experts and I added that the Panel will not take account of interventions outside this framework. That also was intended to apply to the documents submitted prior to this meeting as well. In other words, to the extent that they fall outside this framework, they will not be taken into account by the Panel for arriving at our conclusions. So, for that purpose we don't see that there should be a need to respond to it at this stage.

The representative of the United States

104. Thank you Mr. Chairman we are certainly comfortable with that, we were just then expecting none of these new arguments would be reflected in the descriptive part of the Panel's Report. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman

105. No, that is not quite. The documents have already been submitted and everything that would be here will actually appear as part of the record. What I'm talking about is what we're actually going to take account of, as opposed to what we are not going to take account of, and that fact will be mentioned in the descriptive part. Is that sufficient?

The representative of the United States

106. That's fine, thank you.

The representative of Malaysia

107. Mr. Chairman thank you very much for giving us the floor. We have just heard what you have just stated and we will certainly adhere to that decision. But just for the record, yesterday the US had stated that Malaysia had in our comments introduced the new facts and I think we would like to be given the opportunity to respond to that. Can we do that now or later?

Mr. Chairman

108. You mean you wish to point to the document to which bits you consider are or are not. By all means, please do.

The representative of Malaysia

109. Malaysia's comments on the "zoning of trawling activities in Malaysia" as per paragraph 1 of our comments on responses of experts [Section V, paragraphs 5.313-316] is not a new effect. The comments are an amplification of what we had stated earlier in our submission, i.e. Malaysia's second submission, answers to questions posed by the Panel to the Parties, in answer to question 27, paragraph 10.7 to 10.8 at page 14 and is a response to Annexes I and II of Mr. Frazier. Thank you.

Chairman

110. Thank you. The Panel takes note of that remark. Passing on, perhaps we can now go back to the questions that we were last night gathering from the parties to put to the experts this morning. We had some questions that were included in the Malaysian document. These are the ones after page 20 headed "Questions to the Experts". The first four were for Dr. Eckert and the other six were for all experts. We also had questions from the United States which have since been confirmed and circulated in writing, I hope everybody has those. There are eight of those questions. There were two other parties last night who indicated that they might possibly have questions this morning, can I inquire whether that is so on or not. Malaysia?

The representative of Malaysia

111. Not at this point Sir.

Chairman

112. Can I ask the Ambassador of Thailand whether he is likely to have any questions this morning?

The Ambassador of Thailand

113. I am working on one or two questions, Mr. Chairman, and I will let you know as soon as possible.

Chairman

114. Thank you. Very well, in that case we will proceed to ask the experts to respond to the questions that are already there, that's to say the ones that are in the Malaysian document and the US questions and, as yesterday perhaps, I can give the floor in alphabetical order to the experts to respond to these. You have the floor Dr. Eckert.

Dr. Eckert

115. Thank you. I guess I'm starting here with the questions from the Malaysian Delegation.¹ In answering to the first question about the hypothesis of migrations relative to joint jurisdiction by the United States and the country of Malaysia, I have presented the data that I have used to construct that hypothesis yesterday during the presentation. I feel very strongly that the hypothesis is very well supported actually by the scientific evidence available. There may be some question as to its publication status and whether it is in press, some of it is in press currently and I have to say that the information is so recent - this tracking study in the Pacific is currently ongoing - and it will probably be a matter of at least two years before that project is in a position to publish that information. So, you will need to take the information as I present it as a scientific expert as it stands. As I said before I do believe that hypothesis is quite well supported. The other issue I presented yesterday was that there is a potential for cross jurisdictional relationship between Malaysia and the US in the green turtle populations as well. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands do have green turtle populations foraging and nesting. There is actually a nice little nesting population in Tinian of green turtles who are well within the migratory distances travelled by green turtle females post-nesting and that certainly does not even include juvenile foraging habitats or juvenile migrations which we know so much less about. So I think there is good solid evidence to propose that there is a possible joint jurisdiction between Malaysian leatherback and Malaysian green turtles stocks. That's the basis of that answer.

116. The answer relative to rates of turtles strandings where TEDs are currently required. I don't have a lot of information on that. Probably the best study to date that I am aware of is that by Crowder et. al., showing that in actual use, if I remember correctly, there was a 44 per cent reduction in strandings due to the use of TEDs in shrimp nets. Relative to the relationship between turtle strandings and shrimping activities in the reports, such as that on sea turtles that has been described here, you have to remember that it is something of an ongoing discussion on that information. The information at this point can really be considered quantitatively factual. What they are basically seeing is that their strandings do continue and the question is why are those continuing. Is it an enforcement issue, is it an issue of TED design, is it an issue of closure areas, is it an issue of pulse fishing - this is one of the things that Jack Frazier described in his report. There is also some possibilities, there haven't been a lot of tests done on a CPUE basis so there is some question that there may be continued strandings simply due to the fact that populations are getting larger out there. The fact that turtle excluder devices have gone into effect have meant that some of these populations are showing a relatively nice response and if you have efficiency of 97 per cent and you have 3 per cent of the turtles still getting captured, which is what TEDs are supposed to do, 3 per cent may represent a larger number in real numbers just based on that fact there are more turtles out there to catch. So there is a number of things ongoing in the debate, that's why it is posted on something like CURTLE which is a discussion network for sea turtle biologists.

To Continue With Chapter 117

¹See Appendix 1 to this Annex.