INTERVENTION SUMMARY

The critical decline of sea turtle populations along Brazil’s extensive coastline was a serious problem, driven by widespread and unsustainable local practices. In key nesting areas, the harvesting of eggs and the opportunistic killing of nesting females for subsistence severely threatened future generations, while accidental bycatch from artisanal fishing also contributed to their mortality. This initiative focused on the establishment of a national conservation program, Projeto TAMAR, which implemented interventions that combined direct on-the-ground protection with deep community integration and socio-economic support. The protection strategy involved establishing a network of 21 permanently staffed conservation stations to patrol beaches and safeguard nests, either by protecting them in their natural location or by moving eggs to secure hatcheries. The community integration strategy focused on providing alternative livelihoods by hiring former poachers as conservation staff, running extensive environmental education programs, and investing directly in local services like schools and healthcare to shift social norms and increase compliance with conservation laws. The intervention was promising, as it led to a drastic reduction in the harvesting of eggs and nesting females in project areas and a significant increase in the number of protected nests. The program's community-focused strategy also successfully fostered greater local awareness and improved attitudes toward conservation. However, the evidence for this success is largely circumstantial, as other contributing factors cannot be ruled out. Additionally, the study did not measure the ultimate impact on the overall recovery of the sea turtle populations.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

The problem was the critical decline of sea turtle populations along Brazil's coasts, primarily driven by local fishermen and villagers engaging in widespread egg poaching and opportunistic harvesting of nesting females for subsistence during seasonal nesting periods (September-April on mainland, December-May on islands) in key coastal and island nesting areas, and artisanal fishermen causing sea turtle mortality from accidental bycatch in coastal feeding areas by discarding "stunned" turtles due to fear of legal punishment.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Establishment of Conservation Stations: The project created a network of 21 permanently staffed research and conservation bases along 1,100 km of coastline. At these sites, staff actively protected nests by either covering them with mesh to deter predators or by relocating eggs from high-threat areas to secure open-air hatcheries. Over time, this strategy adapted, with nearly 70% of nests eventually being left protected in their natural locations. (Increase the Effort- harden target, control access to facilities; Increase the Risks - extend guardianship, strengthen formal surveillance; Reduce the Rewards - remove targets).

Alternative Livelihood Development: A core strategy was the direct employment of local villagers, including former poachers, who made up 85% of the program's 400 staff members. This provided a primary source of income and elevated their status within the community, redirecting local conservation knowledge. The program also assisted residents in creating new income sources, such as oyster and mussel farming, to reduce their economic dependence on turtle harvesting. (Increase the Risks - extend guardianship, assist natural surveillance; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustration and stress, neutralize peer pressure).

Environmental Education and Outreach: The program conducted extensive education campaigns through visitor centers, school programs, and youth initiatives. A key component was the targeted training that taught fishermen how to safely revive and release turtles caught as bycatch. The project also solidified community support by investing a significant portion of its non-governmental funds directly into local schools and health facilities. (Remove Excuses: alert conscience, assist compliance; Reduce Provocations - reduce frustrations and stress, discourage imitation).

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The intervention was promising, leading to a drastic reduction in the killing of nesting females and the collection of eggs in project areas. As the project expanded its network of conservation bases, the number of protected nests significantly increased, and harmful practices, like harvesting, ceased in the main project zones. There were also observed behavioral changes, such as fishermen learning to revive and safely release turtles caught accidentally as bycatch. However, the study lacks a comparison area to prove a direct cause-and-effect link, and its mechanisms were not formally tested with data. Importantly, the impact on overall sea turtle population recovery was not measured, leaving the final conservation outcome uncertain.

How do We Know?

The intervention was promising because it led to a drastic reduction in the primary threats of egg poaching and the killing of nesting turtles in project areas. This success was driven by a multi-faceted approach that combined the direct employment of former poachers, providing them with economic alternatives, with extensive community education that shifted social norms and increased compliance. Nevertheless, the study lacked the scientific controls needed to definitively prove a cause-and-effect link and did not measure the ultimate impact on the sea turtle population's recovery.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

No. The study did not measure the intervention's impact on wildlife populations.

ASSESSMENT

While the study did not measure the overall recovery of the sea turtle population, the intervention was effective at reducing immediate threats. It successfully reduced poaching pressure on nesting females.

The intervention targeted local fishermen and former poachers as the principal actors responsible for harvesting sea turtles and their eggs. The study described how a combination of community-based economic support and increased on-site surveillance led to behavioral change. Specifically, providing direct employment and alternative livelihoods was expected to influence behavior by reducing the rewards of poaching and reducing the economic provocations driving the activity. At the same time, the increased presence of conservation staff and direct protection of nests were expected to deter poachers by increasing the risks and effort of illegal harvesting, and by physically removing the targets to secure hatcheries.

The intervention was guided by extensive context research conducted beforehand, including a two-year survey of 6,000 km of coastline. This analysis identified the primary nesting areas and confirmed that the main threat was widespread egg and turtle harvesting for subsistence, which directly guided the placement of first conservation stations. The effectiveness of the intervention was heavily influenced by this context: because poaching was for subsistence, the strategy of providing alternative livelihoods was highly effective. The program also adapted to specific challenges, such as developing a targeted educational campaign when it was discovered that fishermen's fear of punishment for bycatch was leading to turtle deaths. While the study does not discuss potential difficulties in applying this intervention elsewhere, it does frame the program as a "working experimental model" intended to be adaptable for other countries.

The intervention was co-administered by the Brazilian government and a dedicated partner NGO, Fundação Pró-TAMAR. The core implementation strategy was deep community integration through the establishment of 21 conservation stations staffed by 400 people, 85% of whom were local villagers and former poachers. Over the program's duration, its nest protection strategy successfully adapted from using secure hatcheries to leaving nearly 70% of nests in their natural locations. The key to this successful implementation was building a deep bond with the local communities, which was achieved by having staff live in the villages and investing directly in local schools and healthcare. The program faced several challenges that required adaptive management. For example, logistical difficulties in staffing remote island stations were managed through flexible staff rotations. When the initial NGO partnership became unmanageable as the program grew, a new, dedicated partner NGO was formed to ensure administrative and financial stability. This adaptive approach was central to overcoming operational hurdles.

The case study does not provide a detailed financial analysis or a cost/benefit analysis. It does indicate that the project received significant funding from the Brazilian government and other sources. These funds were used to cover the costs of hiring staff, building and maintaining conservation stations, and running community programs. While not quantified, the costs are inferred to be substantial.

SCP COLUMNS

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi (1999)

Year Range

1982-1999

Country

Brazil

Landscape

Coast

Target Species

Turtle

Problem type

Poaching; Egg harvesting; Accidental deaths

Source: Marcovaldi, M. Â., & Dei Marcovaldi, G. G. (1999). Marine turtles of Brazil:the history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biological Conservation, 91(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00043-9