Follow by Email

Thursday, May 4, 2017

DRAFT

Sea Turtle Restoration Project of Turtle Island Restoration Network and Mas Kagin Tapani in partnership with Karkum villagers

LESSONS LEARNED IN COMMUNITY-MANAGED MARINE AREA IN KARKUM, MADANG, PAPUA NEW GUINEA


WENCESLAUS MAGUN

Wren McLean enjoying Karkums nature's paradise.
Picture: Wenceslaus Magun

AUGUST 2017

© Correspondence to Wenceslaus Magun (project coordinator)
Email: magun.wences@gmail.com
Blog: maskagintapani.blogspot.com
Facebook: Save PNG’s Endangered Turtles

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

The task of creating a “desk top” Lesson’s Learned on Karkum Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) depends on availability of project reports, and individuals from Karkum, Mirap, Kimadi, Magubem, Sarang and other people who were willing to provide information and insight.

I am indebted to Paul Lokani, Mama Graun’s Executive Director, for recognising the efforts Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) and Mas Kagin Tapani (MAKATA) in extending the leatherback sea turtles’ conservation from Huon Coast, in Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea (PNG) to coastal communities in Madang, and asking me to write this report.

My special thank you goes to Robert Khonn, Otto Khonn, Mark Khonn, Kenneth Lilai, Adolph Lilai, James Kila, Willie Mayang, Joe Parek, Andrew Ungai, Collins Yapen, Justin Mabo, late Joe Khonn and Francis Nanai and other members of Karkum, Mirap, Kimadi, Magubem and Sarang communities who have established this project and strive to sustain it. These individuals and their community members’ stories made it possible to compile this report.

I am also grateful to Mr. Lokani, Barbara Masike, Tanya Zeriga-Alone, Jeff Kinch, Judith Damon, Dr. Eric Kwa, Todd Steiner, Peter Fugazzotto, Caginiveisaqa Vesikula, Yolarnie Amepou, Professor Challapan Kaluwin, John-Mark G Genolagani and late Roy Banka for equipping me with additional electronic copies and hard copies of resource materials.   These resource materials enabled me to learn stories from TIRN’s STRP, other non government organisations (NGOs), government and Community Based Organisations’ (CBOs) projects on community conservation in PNG, biodiversity law and policy and related regulations drawing similarities of how we all grapple to balance conservation outcomes while meeting community needs.

I am grateful to Ms Tanya Zeriga-Alone and Judith Damon for reviewing my first draft report and Ian Mannix for editing and proof reading the final draft report.

I hope that this paper will stimulate discussion and help find solutions to achieving sustainable community based, and community driven resource planning and management tools to meet global goals and Papua New Guinea’s 4th National Goal and Directive Principles, and Protected Areas policies, Vision 2050, Fauna (Protection and Control Act) 1966/1978, National Strategy For Responsible Sustainable Development – Addendum To The Development Strategic Plan 2010-2030, and related policies.

SUMMARY

This paper documents the Karkum villagers’ efforts in taking steps to save the critically endangered leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coreacea) in Madang, Papua New Guinea.
It shares lessons learnt from the STRP in Karkum and the local communities in Madang. It highlights the root causes of environmental destruction, which often begins with lack of community control over resources and the inequitable distribution of power; the “Seven Steps” used from community entry process to establishing Karkum Community Managed Marine Area (CMMA) Conservation Deed (CD) on 17th November 2008; and the successes and challenges the communities encountered and suggestions for improvement.
This paper was informed by literature review, review of project activities and interviews with key stakeholders.
Capacity building workshops from June 2006 till December 2013 gradually saw villagers in Karkum and the neighbouring communities shifting from habitual killing, harvesting and eating leatherback turtles to conserving them. 
But this project was not without challenges and it is not yet complete. The future of the leatherbacks remains uncertain.
The exit of the Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) and the Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) program in the Western Pacific in 2008 saw the establishment of Mas Kagin Tapani Association (MAKATA) in April 2008 but long-term funding constraints have been a major setback to sustain the project. This has contributed to community’s lack of trust in TIRN STRP/MAKATA.  
This challenge was fuelled further by conflicts emanating from community livelihood projects. These caused violations of CMMA Conservation Deed (CD) rules and penalties and Gildipasi aborting ties with MAKATA. 
To sustain the STRP MAKATA is seeking long-term funding. Funds will be used for strategic planning, organisations structure and governance, staff recruitment, staff training, establishment of an office in Madang and execution of the STRP. This project provides an assessment of the initial achievement and means of verification and the risks and important assumptions.
It asks:  ”How can we manage STRP in PNG at the grassroots level to meet global goals and national policies in ways that increase community benefits?”
It offers in return a profound opportunity: By saving sea turtles, communities who share their beaches with the turtles can help save marine habitats and biodiversity, sustain their cultures, manage their food source, as well as create education, recreational, and economic opportunities.


Wenceslas Magun
August 2017


DECLARATION

I hereby declare and certify that the information and work contained in this project is original and has been compiled based on facts collected from various reliable sources as acknowledged and referenced as Literature Cited.  This work has not been submitted elsewhere for publication or any other academic award.

Signature...........................                                                     Date................................

 Table of Contents


1.  INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.  AIM AND OBJECTIVE.................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.  METHODS........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
4.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.  STRP seed germinates in Madang............................................................................................................................ 4
4.1.(i).  Background...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.(ii).   Can Karkums sustain STRP?.................................................................................................................................. 5
4.2.  Seven STRP Resource Management Steps....................................................................................................... 4
4.2.(i).  Step 1: Community Entry, Community Facilitation..................................................................................... 5
4.2.(ii).  Step 2: Inform, Empower and Advocate (IEA)................................................................................................ 5
4.2.(iii).  Step 3: Land Use Planning and Boundary Mapping.................................................................................. 5
4.2.(iv).  Step 4: Conservation Management Areas Matrix ..................................................................................... 5
4.2.(v).  Step 5: Conservation Deed....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.(vi).  Step 6: Conservation Deed Review...................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.(vii).  Step 7: Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................................................................ 5
4.3.  PROJECT CHALLENGES.......................................................................................................................................................... 4
     4.3.(i).  Karkum Village Guest House................................................................................................................................... 5
     4.3.(ii).  Gildipasi aborts ties with makata........................................................................................................................ 5
     4.3.(iii).  Mirap villagers want their own CMMA CD................................................................................................. 5
     4.3.(iv).  Violation of CMMA CD rules and penalties................................................................................................ 5
     4.3.(v).  MAKATA sustains STRP........................................................................................................................................... 5
     4.3.(vi).  Climate Change Effects............................................................................................................................................ 5
     4.3.(vii).  UNDP GEF-SGP aborts 4th quarter grant..................................................................................................... 5
     4.3.(viii).  Revival of Karkum’s STRP................................................................................................................................... 5
     4.3.(ix).  Karkums shift from eating leatherbacks to saving them........................................................................ 5
4.1.(x).  Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
     4.3.(xi).  Summary of Lessons Learned................................................................................................................................ 5
5.  CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
6.  APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
6.1.(i).  www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed.................................... i-iii6.2.(i).  Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed (ENGLISH COPY)............................................... iv-xi6.2.(i).  Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed (PIDGIN COPY)............................................... xii-xix
7.  LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
  

INTRODUCTION


Sea turtles are a “keystone species” or a critical component of the marine environment. A keystone species plays an important role in the ecosystem by being a key feature in the functioning of the ecosystem.  If the keystone species is removed it will have an adverse effect on other parts of the ecosystem.  Saving keystone species helps prevent its ecosystem processes from collapsing.

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is a keystone species.  It is the most unique of the seven species of sea turtles. It is critically endangered and is at the brink of extinction in the Pacific Ocean.  

This paper examines the Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) at Karkum Village, Madang province, Papua New Guinea.

The Karkum Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) was an initiative of the Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) a US-based Non Government Organisation (NGO) in 2006-2008 and sustained by Mas Kagin Tapani (MAKATA), a local NGO in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

The aim of STRP is to prevent the loss of endangered turtles, cultures, marine habitat, eco-systems, and biodiversity. It also strives to restore food sources, stimulate alternative economic opportunities and promote human dignity.  To achieve this, the STRP aims to establish an enabling environment for marine and near-shore resource management plans through the resource owners. Part of the STRP involves the establishment and management of “Community Managed Marine Areas” (CMMAs), so legal rules apply to their management as well as the bodies in charge of managing them using a Conservation Deed (CD).

Consistent with the spirit of the STRP criteria have been identified for legal applications and management of CMMAs set up by the STRP. These include:
•          Land tenure remains with resource owners wherever possible;
•          Resource owners must have a large amount of input into the development of the CD; and

•          CMMAs must be ‘community owned’ and managed.
Figure 1: Welcome to Karkum STRP.  The billboard is a 
gift from NAILSMA.  Picture: Wenceslaus Magun

The STRP vision is twofold.  First - to ensure endangered leatherback sea turtles, other endangered sea turtles and the marine resources and their habitats in the Bismarck Sea are saved, protected and restored.  Second - the inhabitants who dwell off the bounty of these resources can sustainably use them to improve their lifestyles, socially and economically, and in harmony with their culture.

After two and a half years (June 2006-December 2008) of project activities in Madang, TIRN closed the STRP program in the Western Pacific. That meant no more funding to sustain the Karkum turtle project.  The end of funding meant ongoing activities planned for beach monitoring and tagging, as well as projects monitoring and evaluation exercises, also ceased.

With support from TIRN, Mas Kagin Tapani Association (MAKATA) was established and incorporated in April 2008.

Since January 2009, MAKATA has been helping community based groups in turtle conservation efforts.  To fund MAKATA, the project coordinator went into a taxi business! The venture stalled when the taxi broke down.

In 2011 MAKATA managed to secure a small grant from the United Nations Development Program   Global Environment Facility-Small Grant Proposal (UNDP GEF-SGP).  The funding enabled MAKATA to extend the project to Kimadi, Magubem and extended the turtle awareness and land boundary survey for Sarang.

Unfortunately, midway through this process, the UNDP GEF-SGP cancelled the grant saying for “technical reasons” it did not meet the UNDP GEF-SGP policy, and all plans to complete phase four of the project activities ended.

The call by Mama Graun for Lesson’s Learned article from MAKATA comes at a time the group is facing financial difficulties and challenges from within and from its core partners.

This paper highlights how some of these experiences have helped MAKATA learn many lessons.  It has given the group time to reflect, reconcile and reassess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and prepare them to develop flexible program activities with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound programs.

The benefits of this endeavour are diverse and abundant.  TIRN’s STRP/MAKATA’s work contributes towards tackling the challenges of our age and expanding the knowledge of our world to improve the quality of life on our planet and the outlook for humankind.

The Karkum’s STRP CMMA CD experience points out that leatherback sea turtles are facing an environmental tragedy which need immediate attention, but as a vehicle for shifting how humans view their relationship with the natural world.

MAKATA wants to share the lessons in a hope these will help other projects in PNG.


2.         AIM AND OBJECTIVE

This paper documents the Karkum villagers’ efforts in saving the critically endangered leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coreacea) in Madang, Papua New Guinea. 

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the paper is to share lessons learned:

·         Explores why it is critical for local communities to actively participate in saving leatherback sea turtles.  Highlights the root causes of environmental destruction, which often begin with lack of community control over resources and the inequitable distribution of power;
·         To share the lessons learned from using the “Seven steps resource management planning process” from community entry to CMMA through Conservation Deed (CD); and
·         To share successes and challenges the communities encountered and suggestions for improvement.

3.         METHODS

This paper was informed by a literature review, a review of project activities and interviews with key stakeholders.  It included a review of all project activities conducted for Karkum with support from TIRN’s STRP under the MAKATA.

Key village leaders at Karkum, in the neighboring villages and friends of Karkum’s STRP, were interviewed on the status of the project from the dates of initial project activities to its current status.  Published media articles and related literature on Karkum’s turtle conservation efforts were also studied.

4.         RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. (I).             BACKGROUND

Efforts to save the leatherbacks are being amplified by the author using his own time and personal resources when funding ceased.  He promotes STRP work and awareness on Facebook[2], blog[3], face to face interactions, meetings, conferences and through other communication tools.

From these campaigns Karkum and the local communities learned that sea turtles are ancient ocean dwellers.  They have lived on the earth for 150 million years, since before the time of Dinosaurs.  All seven species of sea turtles are endangered and protected under various national laws and international treaties[4]

Leatherbacks populations have declined in all ocean basins to an estimated 30-40,000 adult female in 1996[5].  The death of more than one percent of the adult female Pacific leatherback population each year could lead to its extinction[6].  STRP informed local communities that the Pacific leatherbacks have experienced the greatest decline, with populations reduced by 95% in the last several decades[7].  They further learned that the Pacific leatherback sea turtles’ population is considered critically endangered because they are in decline for decades[8].  The dramatic decline of leatherback sea turtles is signalling a threat to the balance and biodiversity of the oceans[9].

Furthermore, these communities learned that if the turtles are gone, it will greatly affect their food source and cultural heritage.  They realised that creating a fauna sanctuary or protected areas will also help sustain their ecosystems, conserve endangered species and biodiversity, maintain their spirituality, create educational service, trigger entertainment and recreational opportunities, and provide economic development.

Many villagers who attended STRP trainings were privileged to learn about PNG’s Constitution (1974) “Goal 4. – We declare our natural resources & environment to be conserved – wisely used & replenished for the benefit of future generations[10].

The STRP team broadened their knowledge to see beyond their traditional knowledge of turtles.  Information about PNG being a very fortunate country to be a perfect host of four of the seven turtle species which include: leatherbacks, Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Green (Chelonia mydas) and the Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) impressed the local communities.  It also strengthened their traditional knowledge about how turtles have a very important link traditionally and culturally for most of the 13 Maritime Provinces.

They learned that in PNG some studies on inter-nesting and migratory movements of female leatherback turtles were conducted at Kamiali Wildlife Management Area (WMA), in the Huon coast of Morobe, by scientists from Kamiali Integrated Conservation Development Group, Office of Environment and Conservation, and NOAA Fisheries, between 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 nesting seasons.  Further aerial survey of nearly 2800 km of the north Papua New Guinea coastline was conducted during January 2004[11].


Figures 2-3:  Leatherbacks nesting sites and
migratory routes, courtesy of TNC.

Information on the population stock structure and sizes of the leatherback sea turtles’ rookeries in the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu are unknown[12].  This information was also delivered to them.

Moreover, the local communities learned further that leatherback turtles are globally and regionally important shared species as indicated by satellite tracking data showing migration routes through these countries and on their way to feeding grounds around Australia, and the California Current ecosystem offshore of the United States[13].

They also learned that leatherbacks forage in Gulf of Mexico and Southern California and nest on the Huon coast, which is situated very close to Lae, an industrial city in Morobe, Madang, New Ireland, East and West New Britain and Bougainville; and the beaches of Indonesia, PNG and Solomon Islands support the largest remaining Western Pacific leatherback turtle populations;

STRP informed the coastal communities that:  “The leatherback turtle is currently the only sea turtle in PNG that is listed as protected fauna under the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/1976 (Kula and George, 1996), which stipulates that any person who knowingly buys, sells, offers or consigns for sale, or has in possession or control of a protected animal is guilty of an offence and the penalty is K 500. Any person who takes (kills) a protected animal, in contravention of a condition of a permit is guilty of an offence and the penalty is
K 40/animal.”  Jeff Kinch.

Knowledge about leatherbacks being the largest sea turtle in the oceans intrigued the coastal communities.  They learned that the largest known leatherback was three meters long and weighed 908 kg, coast of Wales 1998[14].

STRP also learned that due to lack of effective enforcement and awareness of the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/76 by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)/ Conservation Environment and Protection Authority (CEPA), many of the local communities did not know much about the laws governing sea turtles.

From these interactions villagers who attended turtle trainings learned that sea turtles return to their original nesting beaches to lay their eggs after spending most of their lives at sea.  If they are not caught, killed and eaten, or their eggs harvested for sale at the local markets or also eaten, then the possibility of seeing the next generations of turtles surviving is very slim.

Other threats to turtles include:  Over-harvesting of turtles and predation of eggs and hatchlings by dogs, feral pigs, and goannas.  In PNG the over-harvesting of turtle eggs has become an issue in the last 20 years when eggs began to be sold at local markets in towns and cities.  Scientists believe commercial fishing and eggs harvesting (especially in the Western Pacific) is the most likely cause of the decline[15].  The other sources of pollution include land-based pollution from major agricultural developments which use chemicals such as oil palm plantations.  This are then washed into the river and this also cause major disturbance to the water temperatures.  These changes affect important turtle habitats, especially coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangrove forests and nesting beaches[16]. Unless current fishing practices are changed, Pacific leatherbacks will be extinct in as little as 10-30 years (Lewison et al., 2004). Furthermore, alarming threats facing sea turtles today come from land based mining activities that practice deep sea tailing, and riverine tailing disposal and from the proposed experimental deep seabed mining soon to be underway in Solwara 1.

The local communities were therefore encouraged to save the Western Pacific leatherbacks from extinction and to protect them where they nest, migrate and forage.

Related information can be found in Step 2: Inform, Empower and Advocate (IEA).

4.1. (II).            CAN KARKUMS SUSTAIN STRP?

Steps taken by Karkum villagers and other coastal communities in Madang, to save the remaining populations of the leatherbacks sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) through the STRP face turbulent times.

Rebellious factions in the community have killed and eaten turtles after Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) ceased due to lack of funding.  Unless supported, Karkum villagers’ steps to save the leatherback sea turtles that come to nest on their beach may not succeed.

Karkum village within Ward Seven of the Sumgilbar Local Level Government (LLG) is about 75kilometers northwest from Madang town.  This tribal indigenous community comprises of Ugerken, Neneng, Gorkom and Niwap/Kirkur clans.  They speak the Gawak language.  Karkums dwell at the coastal tropical plains and in the hinterlands.  They share common boundaries with Baskan, Dimer, Mirap and Sarang villages.  Two thirds of the villagers are Roman Catholics, whilst minority groups have joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church and other protestant denominations.

Karkums rely heavily on garden food crops like taro, banana, yam, sweet potato, vegetables and greens, and protein from sea and the bush.  Their main cash crops are betel nut, mustard, coconut, and cacao.  Few villagers also own and operate passenger motor vehicles (PMVs) and trade stores.  The village has a small water supply project which is in dire need for funding.  Unless it is maintained and upgraded it won’t meet the increased number of households at 149 with an estimated population of 862 persons that continues to grow with an annual growth rate of 0.3% in 2011[17].

Other services in the village include Karkum Christian Academy school, Karkum resource centre, and nearby school at the St. Paul’s Mirap parish.  They also have a village court and Ward Seven Member to maintain law and order and governance in the community.  Karkums usually travel to Mugil Catholic Health Centre about 30 minutes drive towards Madang town or travel to Bunabun Lutheran Sub Health Centre heading towards Bogia for medical service.  The Bunabun Lutheran Sub Health Centre which is also about 30 minutes drive away.  For minor injuries or illnesses they walk to Mirap Aid Post if it is functional to get treatment whilst major illnesses are referred to the Madang general hospital.

Towards the end of 2006, a team of Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN)[18] executives comprising of Todd Steiner, executive director, his wife Lynette McLamb, and program director, Peter Fugazzotto visited Karkum.  The team had also been to the Huon Coast in Morobe province and Tokain in Madang before stopping at Karkum.  Their mission was to set up a Western Pacific STRP after recruiting the author/project coordinator as their Western Pacific Campaigner.

Figure 4:  Picture:  (Left to right) Todd Steiner,
TIRN’s executive director, wife Lynette McLamb,
and Peter Fugazzotto, TIRN’s program director
at Jais Aben, Madang, PNG in late 2006.
Picture:  Wenceslaus Magun


After planting their first STRP seed at Karkum and Tokain, the team left for US happy that coastal communities in PNG who share their beaches with the turtles can now be empowered to save the sea turtles under their program.

4.2       SEVEN STRP RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STEPS

The author/project coordinator adapted and tailored seven practical resource management steps to implement STRP in Karkum, Tokain, Kimadi, Magubem and Sarang in north coast and Mur, Sel, Seure, Lalok, Male and Bom-Sagar in Rai coast.

Due to lack of long-term funding STRP concentrated much of its activities in Karkum.

4.2. (I).             STEP 1:  COMMUNITY ENTRY AND COMMUNITY FACILITATION.

Community Entry and Facilitation process is a very critical component of STRP’s resource management plan.  Any mistake made during this entry process can have a fatal effect on the project.  It can make or break the STRP.

The author used his experience with WWF, CI and local NGOs to develop a process that aimed at preventing STRP from creating false community expectations.  He also maximized limited resources and limited funds STRP had to help Karkums establish their CMMA-CD.

To achieve this objective he engaged experienced Community Facilitators (CFs) from the Bismarck Ramu Group (BRG), a local NGO in Madang to help him.  Before visiting Karkum and other local communities, he met with the CFs for briefings.

During the briefings, CFs were reminded to ensure that they avoided creating false “cargo cult”[19] expectations from the community.  He encouraged his team to use public motor vehicles (PMVs) or dinghy to reach local communities.  His team members were advised to live with the community and eat food the community provided.  The CFs were instructed not to bring in store goods from Madang town or outside of Karkum into the village unless it was necessary.  This principle applied to all field patrols STRP was involved in.

During time in the village they were instructed to spend more time listening to the villagers’ stories then talking.  The CFs were urged to pay close attention to community dreams, issues, problems, government, companies, charity or church activities, infrastructure and social services, ward development plans, economic projects, traditional folklores relating to turtles or biodiversity, language, songs and dances, religion, customary conservation practises and similar stories before carrying out social mapping exercise.

Through story-telling the CFs documented the significance of turtles with the local communities.  These stories were later shared with the communities during turtle training workshops.  Through these workshops communities began to see why it is important to save species such as the green, hawksbill, and leatherbacks because these turtles are important culturally, economically and nutritionally.  They confirmed that turtles play a very significant role in their traditional cultures because of their importance through spiritual, ceremonial and medicinal values.  The CFs and the author also learned that turtle legends, songs and dances are told and performed to this day because of this special relationship with turtles.

From this exercise, communities themselves told the team that turtle populations, fish and other marine resources were dwindling as modern fishing skills and methods were introduced and used in the communities to meet economic, social and cultural demands for their rapidly increasing population.

Once this task was completed, the CFs held debriefings with the author.  At the debriefings they presented all the relevant information and data gathered from their community entry, workshop facilitations and social mapping activities.  This process enabled the STRP team to identify community training needs and prepare lessons and materials for their next patrol(s).

Folklore, dance and rituals.

The stories gathered in Karkum, and Tokain in north coast and in Mur, Yamai and Male in Rai coast revealed that these villagers have folklores, songs, dances and rituals which tell of how they originated or have links with the leatherbacks and other sea turtles.

Yamai villagers even have a traditional “singsing” or dance called “Dalal” connecting them with the leatherbacks.  In this singsing, Yamai dancers imitate the leatherbacks coming to nest at their beach.

Dawang clan in Mur have a folklore that tells of how they originated from leatherbacks.  They also practise a sacred ritual enabling them to call leatherbacks to shore before killing them for protein.  The meat from the leatherback is exchanged with relatives in the inland villages for taro.

According to Karkum’s chief Joseph Parek, the leatherback represents a woman who deserted her husband because he poured hot soup over her back as she went under the house to collect a spoon made of coconut shell.  The spoon was intentionally dropped by her husband who had planned to punish her wife with this action.  The husband did that after catching her wife cheating him by feeding him flash from her vagina cooked with fresh garden food and vegetables.  In frustration about what her husband did to her, she ran to the beach, climbed onto a tree (named) and jumped into the sea.  There she transformed herself into a leatherback and swam away.  But the thought of leaving behind her two children without feeding them urged her to do something.  So many years later she returned to nest at the beach in the hope that her two children and her descendants can feed off from her eggs.  Every time she comes to nests, a bird (named) will sing songs to signal her arrival so her children would follow the echoes of the bird to the beach to find their ‘mother’ and harvest her eggs for meal.

For generations, Karkums have been doing this.  They have not only harvested the leatherbacks eggs but have even slaughtered the female leatherbacks for protein.

Using these information Karkums and coastal communities in Madang were encouraged to do something about this.

Figure 5:  Karkum villagers identifying issues
affecting turtles and their marine resources and
finding ways to protect them in one of their
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) workshop.
Picture:  STRP CF team.

The Community Entry and Facilitation process adapted and used by STRP gave communities power to manage their own resources.  STRP recognised their strengths and encouraged them to use their customary and local knowledge and practises to be stewards of their natural resources.  This step ensured that STRP did not impose rules and regulations for Karkum and the neighboring coastal communities to manage and sustainably use their resources.

STRP complemented local communities’ traditional experiences, with modern scientific knowledge about turtles, and their habitats.  The communities were also empowered to see how their flora and fauna interact with each other.  They learned that by destroying a species of plant or animal or their habitats or not managing and sustainably using their resources, this can lead to drastically impacting the entire ecosystem.  Many of the villagers who participated in the STRP trainings confirmed that this is evident in their local communities.

After several visits to the different communities and sharing stories with them, these communities were able to make free informed and consent decision to work with STRP.  This was done through a formal letter written to STRP and signed by their community elders, community based organisations (CBOs) or through a verbal consent inviting STRP to work with them.  Once permission was granted to STRP to work with Karkum and the neighboring communities, formal work began.

Relevant stories gathered from Karkum and the neighboring local communities through this baseline study were documented and later used to conduct STRP work.  The stories helped STRP planned and delivered trainings and other services to these communities.  It also helped STRP to design, develop, produce and disseminate educational awareness materials and news stories on turtles both for the local communities in Madang and a wider audience.

4.2. (II).            STEP 2:  INFORM, EMPOWER AND ADVOCATE (IEA).

Since leatherbacks are a migratory species STRP ensured that its advocacy activities were not limited to Karkum and the neighboring coastal communities in Madang only but were disseminated to a broader audience.  To achieve that objective, STRP captured issues and concerns gathered from the local communities and designed, developed, produced and distributed educational awareness materials widely.


Figures 6-7:  STRP promotional awareness
T-shirts, flyers, bumper stickers, and 

brochures were produced and disseminated 
widely.  Pictures:  Wenceslaus Magun

STRPs stories were also published in the mainstream media.  Stories written by James Kila, Ruth Konia, Alison Anis, the author and other journalists about Karkum’s leatherback conservation efforts appeared in The National[20], Post-Courier[21], Sunday Chronicles[22] and Wantok newspapers.

The author also shared stories of the project activities in meetings; conferences; workshops in PNG and abroad.  He continues to use Facebook, and blog.  Short videos were produced by Scott Waide, Bismarck-Ramu Group staff and the author and uploaded on YouTube[23].

Karkum’s stories were also written by Peter Fugazzotto[24] and Todd Steiner[25] from TIRN and captured in other scientific journals.

Participants at the Madang Spatial Planning Workshop at Jais Aben on 13-14 November 2013 and at the Mamose Regional Workshop on National Awareness and Consultation on the Protected Areas Policy - the Implementation Plan Development and Legal Framework workshop at the Lae International Hotel from 17-19 May 2016 were informed about the Karkum’s leatherback turtle conservation efforts.

Gerehu Secondary School students and staff and stakeholder partners who attended the 12th Senior Official Meeting and 6th Ministerial Meeting of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fish and Food Security at the conference at Laguna Hotel, in Port Moresby, from the 31 October to 3 November 2016 were further informed about the Karkum STRP.  They also received brochures, and posters about Karkum’s STRP initiative.

Some of these materials reached Pomio, East New Britain Province; staff of Climate Change Development Authority (CCDA); Conservation Environment and Protection Authority (CEPA); and partner NGOs.

Similar presentations were made in other national, regional and international meetings, workshops, and conferences.

Furthermore, Karkum’s STRP effort was documented in the PNG National Plan of Action 2010-2013, Goal # 5: Threatened Species Status Improving, page 41[26].

Figure 8: In 2014, third year Madang Teachers College
students visited Karkum as part of their Marine 

Environment Education Training in partnership 
with Mahonia Na Dari a local NGO in 
West New Britain. The training was facilitated 
by Adolphina Luvongit.  The students got a brief 
about the Karkum STRP from Mark Khon and 
Adolph Lilai.  Picture: Adolphina Luvongit

As a result of this, more than 5,000 villagers and other target groups outside of Madang were informed, educated and motivated to wisely save, restore, protect and sustainably use their resources.

In 2009, between 23-28 November, a delegation of indigenous Australians representing the National Alliance of Indigenous Land and Sea Managers (NAILSMA) visited Karkum and spent a few days in the village.  They shared stories about their resource management efforts in Australia.  They also gave Karkums an I-Tracker, sponsored a billboard and supported the community with information material[27].

Figure 9:  Mirap STRP beach rangers assist 
NAILSMA's scientists in 2009 to count the 
leatherback  sea turtles hatchlings empty 
egg shells.  Unfortunately due to lack of 
proper beach monitoring, no data was 
collected.  Picture: Tedius Tulem



Donations to Karkum included library books, computer and accessories from TIRN and MAKATA. The former Australian High Commissioner to PNG, Ian Kemish, donated funding for a community hall in appreciation of the STRP.  The hall is a multi-purpose facility used for village meetings, trainings, and clinics for women and children and by Karkum Christian Academy staff and students[28].

Additional key messages developed and delivered to Karkum, other communities and stakeholders include:

·         Pacific leatherbacks are divided into two populations, the Eastern Pacific leatherbacks and the Western Pacific leatherbacks.  Eastern Pacific leatherbacks primarily nest in Central America and spend most their lives offshore of nesting beaches or migrating to foraging areas in the South Pacific[29];

·         Western Pacific leatherbacks nest along the beaches of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and migrate to forage offshore of Australia in the North Pacific or the California Current ecosystem offshore of the United States[30];

·         There are only a few large nesting populations of the critically endangered leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) left in the world, and in PNG we have only a few major nesting sites to conserve for the future generation;

·         Turtles are migratory – Green and Hawksbills have also been tracked from the Solomon Islands to Australia and PNG;

·         The waters and beaches of the Western Pacific are important nesting beaches, feeding areas and nurseries for leatherbacks, hawksbills, green and loggerheads;

·         The world’s oceans are in a state of decline.  Populations of sea turtles, sharks and whales are remnant compared to historical accounts of abundance.  Fisheries worldwide are also over fished or in states of collapse(www.seaturtles.org);

·         Females have two oviducts.  These structural adaptations help insure that females lay large clutches of fertile eggs (www.seaturtles.org);

·         Sea turtles are reptiles.  Their closest relatives are snakes, lizards, crocodiles, and alligators (www.seaturtles.org);

·         These turtles are important culturally, economically and nutritionally for the peoples of the Pacific and Indonesia; however they are threatened from natural and human impacts;

·         Indonesia, PNG, Solomon Islands agree to conserve leatherback turtles Jakarta, (ANTARA News)- 28 Aug 06:  Indonesia, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on conservation and management of western Pacific leatherback turtle nesting sites, feeding areas and migratory routes in the three states.  The three countries reached the agreement in a workshop of the 3rd Meeting of Tri-National Partnership to the Conservation and Management of Leatherback Turtles which was being held in Bali`s popular tourist resort of Jimbaran on August 28-30, the Forest Ministry said in a statement made available to ANTARA here Monday (8/28)[31].

 Leatherback information obtained from the (WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005) and used in the project awareness include:

·         Sea turtles’ hydrodynamic body shape and paddle shaped limbs or flippers make them agile swimmers;

·         Though fully adapted to marine life, sea turtles depend on land to complete the most critical stage of their life cycle, reproduction;

·         They build their nests and deposit their eggs only on tropical and sub-tropical sandy beaches;

·         The leatherback turtle is the only sea turtle without shell;

·         Listed as endangered in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and also in the legislations of nearly all the countries where they have nesting beaches;

·         Live around the world in both tropical and subtropical waters of Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean;

·         They dive deeper and swim into colder waters than other sea turtles;

·         Adult leatherbacks have been known to dive up to 1500 meters deep;

·         Leatherbacks take 8-15 years to reach reproductive maturity;

·         Leatherbacks lay 50-180 eggs per nest and incubation takes 50-55 days;

·         Primary breeding grounds in the Western Pacific are in Papua-Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands;

·         The longest known migration journey of a leatherback turtle was from Barat, Indonesia to California and back covering 12,000 miles (Pincetich et al., Conservation advocacy increases protection for Critically Endangered Pacific Leatherback sea turtles, 2012)

The Pacific leatherback turtle population is crashing.  The leatherbacks’ population is dropping dramatically and is dangerously critical.  Principle causes of the decline include[32]:

o   Domestic and commercial poaching and exploitation of sea turtle eggs and females;
o   Interaction with fisheries and accidental entanglement in marine pollution and debris and drowning in tuna, swordfish, and other fishing gear (long lines and gillnets), and watercraft strikes;
o   Development and destruction of nesting beaches, beachfront lighting;
o   The disposal of human waste and other pollutants lead to ingestion of plastic bags pose a very serious threat to the nesting females;
o   Between 1985 and 1995, the number of leatherback turtle nests at a key beach in Mexico dropped from 6500 to less than 500.  The South American swordfish fishery expanded tremendously during this same time and may be a significant factor;

The TIRN’s STRP/MAKATA used some of this information to develop educational awareness posters, brochures, t-shirts’ promotional slogans etc.  However the information, communication and educational awareness and promotional materials produced so far has not been sufficient to meet target communities’ needs and those of other stakeholders.

Figure 10:  Communication training for Basken, 
Sarang, Mirap, and Karkum participants was 
conducted at Karkum by Caginiveisaqa Vesikula 
from SeaWeb Pacific from the 17-21 September 2013.
Please see video: They come home,
Picture and Video: Wenceslaus Magun

There are other communications tools yet to be used.  This was raised in a Communications workshop conducted at Karkum, by SeaWeb, a sister NGO in partnership with MAKATA. These tools include drama, visual art, songs and dances, and other forms of expressive arts. The workshop recommended that more local communities be empowered with communication skills to amplify this cause.  Participants at this workshop learned to take minutes, create drama, and other communication skills.

Some lessons learned from this exercise include:

·         Ongoing research, development, production and dissemination of awareness materials is needed but due to lack of funding, this much needed information, communication and educational awareness materials could not be designed, produced and disseminated to target communities and relevant stakeholders;
·         Lack of cooperation from DEC/CEPA to supply data and related information on sea turtles’ conservation in PNG;
·         Lack of funding to purchase quality computer(s) and accessories, software, digital cameras, video cameras and other tools and accessories necessary to produce awareness materials;
·         Insufficient community training to build Karkum and other coastal communities’ capacities to produce and disseminate awareness materials or conduct their own awareness activities;
·         No monitoring and assessment conducted to assess communities’ information, communication and educational awareness needs or impact of these awareness materials and the Communications training;
·         Lack of funding to hire skilled personnel (graphic artist, website designer, video producer, jingles, and radio drama writers etc) to help design, develop, produce and disseminate educational awareness materials using appropriate communication tools;
·         The group lacked funding to engage actors, musicians, sculptures, comedians, dances, painters to translate awareness materials into art forms; or even partner with top sport celebrities as ambassadors of STRP;
·         No funding to pay for airtime on radio for jingles, radio-drama, TV commercials, supplements, or advertisements etc;
·         Communities not motivated enough to drive educational awareness on their own using drama, songs and dances and other forms of expressive arts;
·         Schools lacked adequate, sufficient and reliable educational awareness materials on forests and marine environment;
·         School teachers needed Marine and Forest Environment Education Program in-services; and
·         MAKATA needed to strengthen the existing partnership with Mahonia Na Dari (MND).  MND is a local NGO in West New Britain specialized in MEEP to be engaged to conduct this training.

4.2. (III).           STEP 3: LAND USE PLANNING AND BOUNDARY MAPPING

Through the PRA workshops, the CFs enabled the local communities to develop their land use plans.  This information was later captured on butcher papers.  Information gathered from these trainings were then used to gather raw GPS data to develop their resource maps.  This exercise has led to developing STRP project site maps in Madang.

The STRP project site maps have been documented in the Madang Sustainable Development Ridges to Reefs Gaps and Priorities – 12 February 2014 document on page 42/105[33].  Furthermore, it is also captured in the Low Emission Land Use Planning for Madang Province: Options and Opportunities, Banka et al, June 2015[34].

Figure 11:  Adolph Lilai from Karkum collecting
data using GPS equipment for Karkum, Mirap, 

Yadigam, Tokain, Magubem, Kimadi, and Sarang 
villages.  He is assisted in Karkum by Chief Joe Parek.
Picture: Wenceslaus Magun


While this process proved successful for Kimadi, Magubem, Tokain and Yadigam, the group could not reach consensus on the boundary maps for Mirap and Karkum.

Despite at least ten meetings there seemed no likelihood of a positive outcome.  Since time was running out against the STRP schedule, the author proceeded to create Karkum CMMA-CD using the Karkum-Mirap conservation areas map anyway to meet STRP timeframe.


Figures 12-13: Map 13:
 Karkum-Mirap Conservation
Area has 508 hectares.

Karkum-Mirap Conservation Area has 508 hectares, and Kimadi Conservation Area is 550 hectares.

The process of bulldozing the Karkum-Mirap map under Karkum CMMA-CD just to meet STRP schedule has not been accepted by Mirap villagers.

The process to establish Karkum CMMA-CD using Karkum-Mirap map therefore needs to be reviewed.  Miraps and Karkums need to resolve this matter amicably.  If Miraps insisted that they should have their own map and their own CMMA-CD, will Karkum change their mind and accept their proposal?  This is contentious and remains a critical matter which needs to be reviewed and addressed with both communities.

For this to happen, STRP needs funding so it can conduct Problem Tree analysis workshop(s), land mediation, review social maps for both Mirap and Karkum, and help both Mirap and Karkum resolve this issue.

4.2. (IV).          STEP 4: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AREAS MATRIX

At Karkum, villagers felt it was convenient for them to adapt the Conservation Deed (CD) process and not use a “Wildlife Management Area” (WMA) which comes under the Conservation Areas Act 1978.  They learned that Conservation and Protected Areas (PA) laws and policies were weak[35] leaving coastal areas and marine resources which they rely on for sustenance open to exploitation by domestic and foreign interests.  With the CD they would have more control and power over their resources[36].

Figure 14:  Community Facilitator
Yorba Yurki conducting a Conservation
Management Areas Matrix training at
Karkum village. Picture: ­Wenceslaus Magun

The CD gave them the opportunity to create their own rules and penalties and sanctions. They realised that the CD was more user-friendly as it maintained customary practises and offered them an opportunity to be direct custodians and stewards of their resources.  Karkums realised that by using CD they would not be mere spectators and observers on their own land, water, sea and other natural resources but be able to manage their own resources and not wait for outsiders to come and do this job for them.

4.2. (V).           STEP 5: CONSERVATION DEED

Karkum CD was signed on 17 November, 2008 by three representatives representing the four clans in Karkum.  This effectively binds Ugerken, Neneng, Gorkom and Niwap/Kirkur clans as parties to the Contract.  (Appendix 9.2: CD copies in English and Tok Pidgin).

The media reported on the signing (Appendix 9.1) and also in www.seaturtles.org.

The Conservation Deed (CD) process creates a Community-managed Marine Area (CMMA) using CD amongst tribal, clan groups and conveniently with other relevant stakeholders.  The laws and penalties imposed in the CD are then regulated and enforced by the communities themselves.  The use of CD’s is relatively new in the conservation arena but is traditionally accepted and used.

The signing of their CD enabled them to assert their customary rights, to respond to threats, to assist with land and sea management and planning, to identify the most important areas for protection and to record and safeguard their traditional knowledge[37]. Since it is a community orientated conservation area; Karkum villagers used Appendix 8:  Section 41, (p), (q), (s), (z) 42, 44 (o), (p), (q), (s), (ae), 98 (1) of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Government (1997) to protect their turtle nesting sites along the coast using CD as a tool[38].

What is a Conservation Deed?

It is a product of a community-driven process that results in increased community awareness, education, and training.  It is a formal legal document from the community that creates a community managed conservation area and a long-term community stake in the protection of natural resources in ways that also meet the economic and social needs of the community.

Robert H. Horwich in a Landowner's Handbook of Relevant Environmental Law in Papua New Guinea year. 2005, states that "The Conservation Deed is a recent innovation which might be considered something like a 'People's Conservation Area.'…[S]ome lawyers feel it may be the strongest kind of legal land protection…"

Conservation Deeds are a relatively new innovation in PNG, spearheaded by the work of the Bismarck Ramu Group (BRG).  The first Conservation Deed was signed by eleven clans of Wanang Village in the Sogeram region of Madang Province in June 2000, the culmination of two years’ training and community facilitation by the BRG.  Activities leading up to and following that event contributed toward the blocking of the operations and expansion of Madang Timbers in the Sogeram Forest Management Area.  For the past seven years, there has been no logging in the area.

STRP had successfully implemented two plans for innovating off the current BRG Conservation Deed Trust model.

First Conservation Deeds, as part of the overall BRG conservation process, were implemented by forest communities.  STRP applied it to coastal/maritime communities, planned and implemented by the partners including each local coastal community, local planning committees, their contract CFs and community CBOs and facilitators.

The second innovation used was a "people empowering people" approach.  The group tapped into the experience and knowledge of the Simbukanam, Imbap and Karkum people to facilitate a process in which these community members were the ones to assist their coastal neighbours to set up their marine conservation areas and eventually sign the Karkum CMMA-CD.

Amongst other ‘Terms of Contract’ the Parties agreed to this CMMA-CD is a legal document which binds the parties to their promises and can be enforced in the National Court of Justice.

The CMMA-CD process stipulates that harvesting and consumption of the leatherback sea turtle and all other turtle species is prohibited.  A range of fines and other punitive measures against offenders were also incorporated into the CMMA-CD.  This CMMA-CD was counter-signed by STRP beach rangers, a Village Court Magistrate, and Sumgilbar Local Level Government (LLG) president.  It was witnessed by more than 1000 people including chiefs from neighbouring villages, NGO representatives, Madang CSO representatives and a representative of the Madang Governor’s office.

For the next five years commencing from the date of the execution of their deed, Karkum villagers agreed that they shall conserve their land and sea including the forests, and water resources in their mapped conservation area.

The CMMA-CD is recognised under the “Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Targets”, including a goal of “effectively and equitably” managing 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by 2020 Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Guideline, 2004[39].  It also enforces the Fourth National Goal and Directive Principles[40]; the PNG’s Protected Area policy[41]; Protected Areas Bill 2016, 20 September 2016[42]; Interim report 9, February 2017 Management effectiveness of Papua New Guinea’s Protected areas, March 2017[43]; and the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/1976)[44].

Figure 15:  Nineng clan members Mathew Dalek
and Francis Nabuai signing their Conservation Deed
on 17th November, 2008 at Karkum.  They were
assisted by STRP CFs Adolph Lilai standing far
left, and Leeray Robin wearing cap centre. 
The launching was witnessed by more than 1000 people.
Picture:  By Wenceslaus Magun.

In short, the CD was used by Karkum villagers because:

  • PNG governments’ process of creating and managing protected areas has not proven to be effective;
  • Resources owners are in control, they own the process, they make and enforce laws and gain direct benefits from conservation efforts;
  • To assert customary rights;
  • To respond to threats;
  • To assist with land/sea management and planning;
  • To identify the most important areas for protection; and
  • To record and safeguard traditional knowledge.

Some of the issues that affected Karkum’s CMMA-CD include:

  • Conflict of interest resulting from inflow of cash from the Karkum village guest house which spilled over to the breaking of laws enacted in the Karkum CMMA-CD;
  • Village Court system not effective and not able to impose penalties stipulated in the Karkum CMMA-CD;
  • Wantok system may also be a hindrance in ensuring the magistrate strictly applies the principles of justice and does not take sides with relatives or kinsmen who may have violated the rules and penalties in the Karkum CMMA-CD;
  • A general lack of trust, respect for the elders and clan leaders by some young people in the village;
  • Misconception and rumours of the project spread amongst rival parties within the community who saw the STRP as a medium of “Cargo cult” thus inciting certain elements in the community to think that STRP was using the community for its own gain;
  • Lack of ample time to study Karkum CMMA-CD rules and penalties with the communities so they are well versed on to the CMMA-CD’s content before launching it;
  • No money to hire lawyer and team to return to Karkum to review their CMMA-CD and the Seven Resource Management Planning process used to reach this outcome; and
  • Karkum villagers were not given the opportunity to decide other alternative resource management planning options to use after this experience.

4.2. (VI).          STEP 6: CONSERVATION DEED REVIEW

The few key Karkum leaders who attended this workshop learned that:

Consistent with the spirit of the STRP, there are criteria identified for legal applications and management of CMMA-CDs set up by the STRP.  These include:
  • Land tenure remains with the resource owners wherever possible;
  • Resource owners must have a large amount of input into the development of their CD laws for management of the CMMAs, as well as for management plans; and
  • CMMAs or Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) must be community ‘owned’ and managed.
After the UNDP GEF-SGP fourth grant was aborted, MAKATA could not do further follow-up workshops to review Karkums CMMA-CD.  This greatly affected STRP’s relationship with the community.

4.2. (VII).         STEP 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The author said that reports from the monitoring and evaluation exercises conducted by STRP team during and after the project phase has helped him in compiling this report.

One of the key elements of project management is monitoring and evaluation.  This step enables the organisation to measure its activities against objectives, and targets.  It enables the organisation to find its weaknesses, strengths and opportunities and assist find alternative steps to improve based on specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and timely targets.

When the UNDP GEF-SGP’s fourth grant was aborted it prevented MAKATA from engaging an independent contract officer to carry out monitoring and evaluation exercise for the project.

Thus adhoc assessments were carried out by the author on voluntary basis after funding ceased.

Having gone through this experience the author recommended that an external contract officer be engaged to do an independent monitoring and evaluation assessment for the Karkum STRP.  This will provide a comprehensive and fair view of the STRP.

He pointed out further that with lack of funding MAKATA could not do a staff retreat to discuss the projects plans and outcomes and develop its next plan of actions.  The author reiterated that with lack of funds, MAKATA could not hold a board meeting, or engage an accounting firm or private accountant to audit the group.  He further stressed that this had also prevented MAKATA from holding Annual General Meeting(s) (AGM).  With no AGM the group could not assess its efforts on the ground, address in-house management and governance issues and allow members to join MAKATA.

4.3.      PROJECT CHALLENGES

With success come challenges.  This paper highlights some of the Project Challenges STRP encountered and lessons gained from this experience.

4.3. (I). `          KARKUM VILLAGE GUEST HOUSE

Balancing conservation outcomes with key livelihood projects encourages local communities who take steps to conserve and sustainably use their resources.  But not all goes well.  Sometimes this livelihood projects can destroy conservation initiatives.  That can happen if feasibility study or studies, finance literacy, and related trainings are not conducted to ease tensions or empower the communities to manage their income generating projects in a accountable and transparent manner.  These short comings can lead to the closer of such projects.  This is a key lesson encountered at Karkum which can help address future resource management plans.

Despite establishing a vibrant Village Guest House in 2008 and operating it successfully into 2009, internal disputes soon crippled this cottage industry and affected the STRP objectives.

In 2009 Karkums earned more than K29,000.00 from local and international tourists visiting their village.  According to the former Ward Seven Member for Karkum, Mark Khon, tourists came to see leatherbacks, the surrounding habitat, its flora and fauna and enjoy the rich, unique and diverse traditional cultures it has when STRP promoted their efforts on multi-media.  Mr Khon revealed this information to a SPREP delegation who visited Karkum in September 2010.  He said tourists came from as far as Denmark, USA, Australia, and the South Pacific, officials from DEC/CEPA, provincial government representatives, local tourists and others.

Figure 16:  In September 2010, Jeff Kinch and a
delegation from the South Pacific Regional
Environment Program (SPREP) visited Karkum.
Mr Kinch encouraged Karkums with their
STRP.  The awareness took place in front of
the Karkum Village Guest house.
Please see video: They come back: 
https://t.cp/Nt5NcaY1m0
Picture and Video:  Wenceslaus Magun & 
Scott Waide

With the inflow of money, jealousy amongst different groups within the community over equity distribution of wealth ignited tensions.  These flared into conflict resulting in the demolition of their once thriving village guest house.  The leatherback sea turtles’ tourist attraction immediately lost its popularity, attractions and customers for a certain period.

Lessons learned from this project show that prior to encouraging communities to embark on any community livelihood projects, feasibility studies must be carried out.  These study/ies will determine the viability of any proposed project.  It will also recommend the necessary capacity building training exercises needed prior to, during and even after the operations of the business venture.  The study will also identify possible threats and recommend steps to deal with these threats.

4.3. (II).            GILDIPASI ABORTS TIES WITH MAKATA

When STRP began its project, it did a baseline study and turtle awareness, Land Use Planning, and Boundary Mapping for Mirap, Yadigam, Tokain, Kimadi and Magubem.  But when TIRN pulled out the neighboring Tokain village through their Gildipasi Planning Community (GPC), a Community-based Organisation (CBO) didn’t want to work with MAKATA to sustain STRP.

This experience may look negative from the outset.  However, the author sees this as a positive step heading in the right direction.  He pointed out that it is good to see GPC take ownership of their resource management planning process.  He said, Institutions like TIRN or MAKATA can come and go but the local communities will always be there.  He reiterated that because of this it is therefore good to see GPC taking ownership of their resource management plans and driving the process.

On the other hand the author said this experience demonstrates that lack of long-term funding can cause local communities to lose trust in NGOs.  The author reiterated that for MAKATA a newly established local NGO, this is not a positive indicator and a hard lesson for the organisation to learn from.

4.3. (III).           MIRAP VILLAGERS WANT THEIR OWN CMMA-CD

The neighbouring Mirap village supported the project but did not want to be part of the Karkum CMMA-CD.  After holding almost 10 informal and formal meetings with key leaders from Mirap including Anton Dagil, late Mechior Kasap, and others, they expressed dissatisfaction to collaborate with Karkums under one conservation area map and sharing a common CMMA-CD.  They insisted to have their own conservation area map and CMMA-CD.

Listening to both Miraps and Karkums the author realised that this is a complex issue and that more time is needed to iron out this differences and help both communities to reach consensus.

The author believes a common shared value of saving the leatherback sea turtle can leverage Miraps and Karkums to reach consensus over their grievances and find lasting solution for their CMMA-CD.

He pointed out that with support from STRP some positive outcomes have been achieved. These positive outcomes should help both communities find common shared values necessary to help sustain their STRP.  These positive outcomes include:

  • Madang Government documenting their STRP CMMA-CD in its Spatial Planning document[45]; and

  • In its related document, “The Low Emission Land Use Planning for Madang Province: Options and Opportunities,” Banka et al, June 2015 USAID Lowering Emission in Asia’s Forests (USAID LEAF)[46].

In addition, the National Government through the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) now (CEPA), has even captured this project in its Coral Triangle Initiative document[47].

The author is optimistic that Mirap and Karkum villagers can build from these positive outcomes to iron out their differences.  He recommended that MAKATA should be assisted so it can conduct Problem Tree Analysis workshop(s), dialogue, or any other customary practises to help Karkum and Mirap find a way forward in strengthening their STRP initiative.

4.3. (IV).          VIOLATION OF CMMA-CD RULES AND PENALTIES

Another challenge Karkums experienced is the violation of their CMMA-CD rules.  This disrupted their initiative to save and restore the population of the leatherbacks and also help them manage and sustainably use their marine and terrestrial resources.

The conflict of interest over the village guest house was one of the major causes of this rebellious action.  Disgruntled community members mounted reckless actions against the CMMA-CD rules. Their actions influenced others to disregard the rules and penalties imposed in their CD.  Adhoc monitoring and evaluation by the author indicated that even the local village court officials, and the Ward Member could not settle disputes and penalize those found to violate the CMMA-CD rules or impose penalties.  These challenges tested the effectiveness of the CMMA-CD conservation tool.  It provides an opportunity to learn from and improve.

For MAKATA this means that either the communities did not understand the CMMA-CD rules and penalties and were not familiar with them before they were enacted as law and enforced or that they did not respect their elders representing each clan who signed the CMMA-CD at the launching.

The monitoring and evaluation exercise carried out by the author showed that there was lack of respect by certain elements in the community.  These individuals intentionally killed green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and harvested their eggs for consumption with the aim to disrupt STRP and their Village Guest House for their own ego and personal gain.

At some point in Karkums CMMA-CD, these negative actions destroyed the once well respected Karkum STRP.  These negative actions caused their fish and other marine resources to decline.

James Kila a journalist from Karkum reaffirmed this negligent behaviour when he contacted the author and requested MAKATA to return to Karkum, and team up with key leaders from the village to address this situation.

This can be done if MAKATA is supported with funding assistance.

4.3. (V).           MAKATA SUSTAINS STRP

The exit of TIRN and the establishment of MAKATA to sustain its STRP provide an opportunity for local communities who share their beaches with the leatherbacks and other sea turtles to take ownership of this endeavour.

The challenges faced by local communities and MAKATA in the absence of TIRN in sustaining STRP is healthy.  It provides an opportunity for MAKATA to take lead in this project.  In ensuring that this happens, the author and MAKATA’s Board have developed the organisations Constitution, Finance Management policy, Staff Manual Handbook and other related policies, and strategies that will take STRP into new heights once implemented.

4.3. (VI).          CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS

Beaches in the Karkum area are fragile.  King tides are already washing nesting habitats away.  It is predicted that Global Warming will result in higher sea levels, in which case, king tides will be even more serious.  They continue to wash away leatherback turtle’s nests habitats.  If this continues, leatherback sea turtles may not return to nest at Karkum or Mirap but migrate to other nesting beaches.

Further urgent research is needed to determine the possible impact on the nesting sites of leatherbacks from rising sea levels.

4.3. (VII).         UNDP GEF-SGP ABORTS FOURTH GRANT

In 2011 MAKATA secured a small grant from UNDP GEF-SGP.  The funding enabled the organisation to extend the project to Kimadi, Magubem and Sarang villages.  Sadly, midway through the project activities the group could not continue their STRP efforts.  When the author submitted MAKATA's third quarter report to the UNDP GEF-SGP it was turned down on technical reasons as per the UNDP GEF-SGP policy.

The author pointed out a couple of lessons learned from this experience.

First, the technical reason used against MAKATA was unfair even if it was legally correct.  He asserted that he had followed the first and second quarter acquittals process to acquit funds in the third quarter report.  Since a precedent was set, and was accepted by the previous grant coordinator; he did not see any reason not to follow the same procedure to acquit the third grant report.

Secondly, he said by forfeiting the fourth grant, it grounded all plans to complete phase four of their STRP activities.  What emanated from this experience according to the author was that it gave a severe blow to MAKATA and to the STRP.  As highlighted above, communities lost trust in MAKATA.  It also made it difficult for MAKATA to seek funding from other donors.

The author said, as a local NGO just starting up, such experience is not good for the group.  He stressed that such experience discourages them from pursuing a worthy cause and urged donor agencies operating in PNG to be lenient to Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and local NGOs.

He added that by strictly adhering to the UNDP GEF-SGP’s terms and conditions, he could have avoided this problem.  However, in doing so he would have condoned a “cargo cult” practise which he strongly advocates against.  Thus, he said for losing the fourth grant as a matter of not complying strictly with the UNDP GEF-SGP’s grants policy is in the long-term in favour of MAKATA’s principles and philosophy and is therefore worth the pain and sacrifice.

4.3. (XIII).        REVIVAL OF KARKUM’S STRP

Positive steps occurred in 2016.

According to a newspaper article[48] and reports received from Karkum leaders, Karkum Christian Academy revived the STRP with support from the GPC after receiving funding from The Christensen Fund, a philanthropist group in US.

The author believes, to achieve global goals at community level, such as saving critically endangered leatherback sea turtles, all parties must be engaged and involved.  He stressed that by working in harmony, and with a concerted, cohesive and collaborative effort, actions pushing leatherback sea turtles to the verge of extinction can be contained.

Additional views elicited from reliable sources outside of Karkum revealed that there is lack of ownership of the Karkum STRP project.  Former Madang Administrator, Clant Alok who once visited Karkum for the opening of a local Church there, said he was impressed with STRP efforts in Karkum.  However he observed that Karkums did not take ownership of the project.

Mr Alok said, unless Karkums, Miraps and the neighboring communities take ownership of this project, sustainable resource management of the critically endangered leatherback turtles, its habitat and their marine resources will continue to face threats by the locals themselves.

Figure 17:  A tambu sign pegged in a nesting site at Karkum

Mr Alok further pointed out that there are no "tambu" or forbidden signs placed along the beach front indicating that there is a leatherback sea turtle conservation site to warn outsiders visiting Karkum.  He further recommended that notices or posters and flyers be placed in a billboard in Karkum to inform visitors about the STRP; like the one placed at the Varirata National Park in the Central Province.

"Our people must value nature as a source and not just a resource,” he said.  “When we take nature as a source for our sustenance, we will take steps to look after it.  But when we take nature as a resource, we will continue to extract minerals, fish, gas, timber etc and add to the long list of unabated natural resource extraction contributing to humans’ negative foot print of environmental destruction"[49].

4.3. (IX).          KARKUMS SHIFTS FROM EATING LEATHERBACKS TO SAVING THEM

As a result of the STRP’s work, adult female leatherbacks that came to nest at Karkum where protected and released back to sea since 2008.  In 2013, leatherback sea turtle hatchlings were also released back to sea.  Unfortunately, this exercise was not properly done because there was no marine biologist on the ground to supervise their efforts.  To ascertain the positive outcome of the STRP, beach monitoring, and tagging exercise must be carried out.  Data collected from this effort will contribute to the national and global initiative to save and restore leatherbacks population in the Western Pacific.  This can be done if local communities’ STRP initiatives are supported with long-term funding.

Figure 18: In 2008, Justin Mabo and other Karkum  
villagers conducted a turtle tagging and monitoring  
exercise. In September 2013, Karkum villagers 
jubilantly released leatherback sea turtle   hatchlings 
back to sea.  
  Please see video: They come home,
Picture and video: Wenceslaus Magun

4.3. (X).           NEXT STEPS

MAKATA’s monitoring and evaluation exercises conducted both during and after funding ceased indicated that problem tree analysis workshop(s) and related trainings must be conducted to find possible solutions to problems affecting the STRP.  The exercise further showed that there is need for training needs analysis exercise.  Through this exercise STRP can identify training needs gaps and look for resources, technical or professional assistance to support the Karkum STRP.  These trainings will help Karkums find long-term solutions to their STRP and livelihood project(s) and hopefully enable them to take full ownership of the STRP.  Unless this is done the challenge to fulfil the Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/76 and related laws and policies won’t materialize at the grassroots level.

In addition, to effectively conduct beach monitoring exercises and tag leatherbacks in Karkum and other coastal communities, long-term funding is needed.  Without long-term funding to address this issue Karkums and other coastal communities in Madang cannot provide authentic data to relevant authorities.  The local communities can only provide photos and amateur videos of leatherbacks and their hatchlings released to sea from their beaches as proof of successfully saving and restoring the leatherbacks.

4.3. (XI).          SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED.

Who is responsible?
Lesson Learned
Recommendation
Government
Lack of support from CEPA on data, funding, equipment, sharing knowledge and technical support.
CEPA to visit Karkum and neighboring villages and support them in their technical needs.
CEPA to collaborate with MAKATA sustain STRP
MADANG politicians and administration to support local communities and MAKATA sustain STRP.
Donor
Too strict
Be lenient in local NGOs and CBOs particularly those that are just starting.
Donor
Timing of project milestone not flexible
Be flexible
Livelihood Project
Livelihood activities not viable
There must be a proper feasibility study carried out by a qualified Business Development Officer prior to engaging in any community livelihood project.
Training needs analysis workshop be carried out. 
Adhere to the recommendations from these assessments.
CBOs
Lack of financial literacy skills
Adequate and appropriate financial management and literacy training must be conducted prior to supporting communities with the community livelihood project.
Local Projects Partner
Lack of community control over resources
Engage independent consultant to carry out a monitoring, and evaluation exercise to assess the situation on the ground.
Adhere to recommendations made from this assessment.
Livelihood Projects
Inequitable distribution of power and wealth
Problem Tree analysis workshop needed.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop(s).
Livelihood Projects
Jealousy
Problem Tree analysis workshop needed.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop(s).
CBOs & MAKATA
No capacity building exercises
MAKATA needs long-term funding and fund raising drive.
MAKATA needs full time staff who can visit Karkum and other coastal communities more often and listen to their needs, challenges, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to assist them.
CBOs & MAKATA
Lack of capacity to sustain STRP
Staff and CBO leaders’ capacity building is needed based on their training needs analysis assessment.
CBOs & MAKATA
Lack of resources for project
Fund raise
Politicians, Madang Administration to support MAKATA
CBOs & COMMUNITY LIVELIHOOD OWNERS
Conflict of interests resulting from inflow of cash from the Karkum village guest house which spilled over to the breaking of laws enacted in the Karkum CMMA-CD.
Problem Tree Analysis Workshop(s) needed to find root causes of the problems and their solutions.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop.
Village Court Magistrate, Council, Court Officials, District Magistrate, Clan and community leaders
Village Court system not effective to impose penalties stipulated in the Karkum CMMA CD laws.
Legal Training needed
Village Court Magistrate, Council, Court Officials, District Magistrate, Clan and community leaders
Wantok system hindered application of justice on those who violated the rules and penalties in the Karkum CD.
Legal Training needed
Village Court Magistrate, Council, Court Officials, District Magistrate, Clan and community leaders
A general lack of trust, respect for the elders and clan leaders
Problem Tree Analysis Workshop needed to find root causes of the problems and their solutions.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop(s).
Community and all stakeholders
Misconception and false rumours of the project spread amongst rival parties within the community who saw the STRP as a medium of “Cargo Cult”
Problem Tree Analysis Workshop needed to find root causes of the problems and their solutions.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop(s).
Community and all stakeholders
Many members of the community did not fully grasp the intent, rules and penalties of the CMMA-CD
Problem Tree Analysis Workshop needed to find root causes of the problems and their solutions.
Adhere to recommendations from this workshop(s).
CBO and MAKATA
Lack of funding to do project related activities (infrastructure, staff recruitment, board meeting, audit of finances, annual meetings, capacity building)
Fund raising
Politicians, Madang Administration and companies to support MAKATA
Climate Change Effects
When adverse natural events such as rising sea levels or king tides destroying turtles habitats
CCDA, CEPA, and relevant stakeholder partners invited to assist
Further research needed to find solutions to this situation.
DONOR
When the project funder aborts funding it suddenly stopped the project activities
UNDP GEF-SGP to be lenient to local NGOs and CBOs and not be too strict with their grant policies.
CBO & MAKATA
No tools to communicate project idea
Work in partnership with other relevant NGOs
Fund raise
Local politicians, Madang administration, and business houses to support the MAKATA and local communities
Karkum & Mirap CMMA Map & CD
Miraps want their own CMMA Map & CD
Karkum & Mirap to find amicable solution to this turmoil
MAKATA can assist if funded to run Problem Tree Analysis Workshop(s) and training needs analysis assessment to meet other training needs.
NB:  This table should be reviewed at a strategic management or project planning workshop.

5.         CONCLUSION

This paper reveals that if Karkum and other local communities who share their beaches with the critically endangered leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), are not supported, their actions to prevent leatherbacks from being pushed further to the verge of possible extinction can fail.  Although Karkum villagers have managed to successfully save some leatherbacks and their hatchlings since 2008, with support from the STRP, this report pointed out that disgruntled community members disrupted this initiative by killing and eating sea turtles.  This has seen members of Karkum seeking help from MAKATA to return and help them restore and sustain this project.  Furthermore, the STRP monitoring and evaluation report indicated that there is need for Problem Tree Analysis workshop(s), and other related training.  It also recommended the review of Karkum and Mirap CMMA-CD.  Lessons learned from Karkum STRP CMMA-CD experience points out that Karkums and the other coastal communities should also take ownership of the STRP to sustain it.  The long-term sustainability of STRP in Karkum, and in other coastal villages in PNG hinges on sufficient and long-term funding.  Without adequate funds, resources, infrastructure and full time staff, MAKATA cannot help coastal and offshore island communities in PNG meet global, national and regional goals and objectives in saving, protecting and restoring the leatherback population.
       
6.        APPENDICES

6.1.www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed................................ 1





6.2. KARKUM CONSERVATION DEEDS........................................................................................ i-iii
6.2.(I).  ENGLISH COPY.......................................................................................................... iv-xi









6.2.(II).  TOK PIDGIN COPY................................................................................................. xii-xix








7.         LITERATURE CITED

Banka et al, Low Emission Land Use Planning for Madang Province: Options and Opportunities, (USAID Lowering Emission in Asia’s Forests (USAID LEAF) www.leafasia.org), June 2015.

Benson et al., Beach Use, Internesting Movement and Migration of Leatherback Turtles, Dermochelys Coriacea, Nesting on the North Coast of Papua New Guinea, 2007.

Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Code of Conduct, The TkarihwaiƩ:ri Code of Ethical Conduct to Ensure Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities Relevant to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011.
Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Guidelines, 2004.  (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Vision 2 – February 2013).

Dutton et al., Status and Genetic Structure of Nesting Populations of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Western Pacific, 2007.

GoPNG, Constitution of Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 1975 with Amendments through 2014.

Genolagani, A Discussion on Forest Conservation Laws in Papua New Guinea with Reference to the Provincial Laws - Papua New Guinea Institute of Biodiversity, Program 7: Policy and Law, August 2007.

GoPNG, Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Government (1997) Section 41, (p), (q), (s), (z) 42, 44 (o), (p), (q), (s), (ae), 98 (1) of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Government (1997).

GoPNG, Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/1976.

GoPNG, Environment Act 2000.

GoPNG, Environment (Amendment) Act 2002.

GoPNG, ALMAMI Rural Local Level Government, Environment and Conservation Law, 2002.

GoPNG, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, October 2006.

GoPNG, Madang Forest Conservation Law, 2007.

GoPNG, National Strategic Plan Taskforce, PAPUA NEW GUINEA VISION 2050, 2007.

GoPNG Papua New Guinea’s National Biosafety Framework, Final Draft, 20 October 2005.

GoPNG, Papua New Guinea Marine Program on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security, National Plan of Action 2010-2013, Goal # 5: Threatened Species Status Improving, page 41 (www.coraltriangleinitiative.org).

GoPNG, Independent State of Papua New Guinea, Papua New Guinea Policy on Protected Areas, 2014.

GoPNG, Draft Bill, (Draft 8), Independent State of Papua New Guinea, Madang Provincial Government, Forest and Marine Protection Law, 2015.

GoPNG, 2016 Protected Areas Bill 2016, 20 September 2016.

GoPNG, Interim report 9, February 2017 Management effectiveness of Papua New Guinea’s Protected areas, March 2017.

GoPNG, National Planning and Monitoring, Papua New Guinea Strategic Plan 2010-2030, “Our guide to success” March 2010.

GoPNG, PNG National Statistical Office, 2011.

Helden, Lessons Learned in comm-based conservation in PNG, July 2005.

Hof, Regional Hawksbill Crisis Workshop, August 2016.

Kinch, A Socio-economic Assessment of THE HUON COAST Leatherback Turtles Nesting
Beach Project (Labu Tale, Busama, Lababia, and Piawa), Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea, July 2006.

Kinch, Leatherback-Handbook-SPREP, Leatherback Turtles, “Their Future is in our Hands”,
2008.

Kinch et al., LeatherbackSurvey-Bougainville-Final-1, Assessment of Leatherback Turtle
Nesting and Consumptive Use in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, 2009.

Kwa, Biodiversity Law and Policy in Papua New Guinea, May 2004.

Kwa et al., Access and Benefit Sharing: Policy and Legal Implications for Papua New Guinea, October 2006.

Kula et al., Protected Fauna of Papua New Guinea, January 1996.

Kula and George, the leatherback turtle is currently the only sea turtle in PNG that is listed as protected fauna under Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), 5-Year Review, Summary and Evaluation, November 2003.

NAILSMA delegation visited the site between 23-28 November 2009.  See the following links for background information:
(http://www.oceanrevolution.org/)
(http://www.nailsma.org.au/about_nailsma/index.html); (http://www.nlc.org.au/index.html);
(http://www.klc.org.au/).

Magun et al., TIRN’s STRP and MAKATA’s project reports, 2006-2013.

Pincetich et al., Conservation advocacy increases protection for Critically Endangered Pacific Leatherback sea turtles, 30 April, 2012.

Pincetich et al., IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012. (http://www.iucnredlist.org).

Robert H. Horwich., A Landowner's Handbook of Relevant Environmental Law in Papua New Guinea year. 2005.

United Nations, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 3 March 1973/22 June 1979.

United Nations, International Trade (Fauna and Flora) Act 1979.

United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992.

Wangunu, Evaluation of Coringa Herald National Nature Reserve management plan and the turtle monitoring program for green turtles (Chelonia mydas), 2008.

MEDIA ARTICLES:

Conservation Seed Planted in the Western Pacific: Reflecting on our Pilot Program in Papua New Guinea (https://seaturtles.org/newssection/conservation-seed-planted-western-pacific-reflecting-pilot-program-papua-new-guinea/).

Children take lead in leatherback turtle conservation effort, (www.postcourier.com.pg/Children take lead in leatherback turtle conservation effort. By JAMES KILA, Weekend Courier, Friday, August 19, 2016).

Community banking project gets off in Madang, Sunday October 30, 2011, page 17:  See (www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Community banking project gets off in Madang, page 17).

From enjoying the meat to saving the leatherback: See (www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/From enjoying the meat to saving the leather back – Karkum transformation).

Indonesia, PNG, Solomon Islands agree to conserve leatherback turtles Jakarta, (ANTARA News)- 28 August 06, (http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20060708/060828-4.htm).

Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed. See (www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed in Sunday Chronicle, Sunday December 28, 2008, pages 34-35 and also in (www.seaturtles.org.).

New community hall for Karkum village (www.thenational.com.pg/New community hall for Karkum village, April 11, 2010).

NAILSMA visited Karkum between 23-28 November 2009See the following links for background information:
(http://www.oceanrevolution.org/);(http://www.nailsma.org.au/about_nailsma/index.html; (http://www.nlc.org.au/index.html); (http://www.klc.org.au/).

Running a cab to sustain STRP:  See (www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Running a cab to save turtles in Madang).

Sea Turtle Restoration Project, April 2002, Sea Turtle Fact Sheet Leatherback (Dermochelys Coriacea).

Sea turtles are reptiles.  Their closest relatives are snakes, lizards, crocodiles, and alligators (http://www.earthsbirthday.org/EDSS/seaturtles/slideshow/).

Why we need to protect our endangered species 2006: Year of the Sea Turtle.  (http://www.news.vu/en/news/environment/060103-2006-The-Year-Of-The-Sea-Turtle-Vanuatu.shtml).

WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005.

Video:





[1] (Pincetich et al., 2012; IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/).
[2] Wenceslaus Magun, Madang Indigenous People’s Concern, Save PNG’s Endangered Turtles.
[3] Maskagintapani.blogspot.com
[4] WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005.

[5] (Spotila et al., 1996);
[6] (Spotila et al, 1996);
[7] (Spotila et al., 2000)
[8] (Spotila et al, 1996, 2000; IUCN 2004)
[9] (Spotila et al., 2000)
[10] (GoPNG, Constitution of Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 1975 with Amendments through 2014)
[11] (Benson et al, CCB, 2007)
[12] (Dutton et al., Status and Genetic Structure of Nesting Populations of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Western Pacific, 2007) even though they nest in these countries
[13] (Benson et at., 2011).
[14] (WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005)
[15] (Pincetich et al., Conservation advocacy increases protection for Critically Endangered Pacific Leatherback sea turtles, 2012; WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005
[16] (WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005)
[17] National Statics, 2011 (Sum_Fig-CU Level– Madang)
[18] www.seaturtles.org
[19] Author’s views on how cargo is used by politicians, government officials, traders, missionaries, and NGOs to entice locals to obtain land or achieve other objectives.
[20] (www.thenational.com.pg/New community hall for Karkum village, April 11, 2010).

[21] (www.postcourier.com.pg/Children take lead in leatherback turtle conservation effort. By JAMES KILA, Weekend Courier, Friday, August 19, 2016).
[22] (www.sundaychronicle.com.pg/Karkum Villagers sign Conservation Deed in Sunday Chronicle, Sunday December 28, 2008, pages 34-35
[23] They Come Back, https://t.cp/Nt5NcaY1m0; They come home, https://t.co/1dNOecUK6L; and
Against All Odd, Preservations of Leatherback turtles, BRG films: (YouTube.com/watch?v=v7jTv62dy2c&sns=fb)

[25] Pincetich et al., Conservation advocacy increases protection for Critically Endangered Pacific Leatherback sea turtles, 30 April, 2012.

[26] www.coraltriangleinitiative.org
[27] See the following links for background information (http://www.oceanrevolution.org/); (http://www.nailsma.org.au/about_nailsma/index.html); (http://www.nlc.org.au/index.html); (http://www.klc.org.au/)
[28] (New community hall for Karkum village, April 11, 2010 www.thenational.com.pg
[29] (Shillinger et al., 2009);
[30] (Benson et al., 2011)
[32] (Pincetich et al., Conservation advocacy increases protection for Critically Endangered Pacific Leatherback sea turtles, 2012; WPLT Brief for the PNG Delegation to the 16th SPREP Meeting, Apia Samoa, October 2005).

[34] (USAID Lowering Emission in Asia’s Forests (USAID LEAF) www.leafasia.org).

[35] (Kwa, Biodiversity Law and Policy in Papua New Guinea, May 2004)
[36] (Robert H. Horwich., A Landowner's Handbook of Relevant Environmental Law in Papua New Guinea year. 2005).

[37] Maskagintapani.blogspot.com
[38] Maskagintapani.blogspot.com

[39]  CBD Guideline, 2004 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Vision 2 – February 2013)
[40]  (Constitution of Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 1975 with Amendments through 2014)
[41]  (Papua New Guinea Policy on Protected Areas, 2014)
[42]  (Protected Areas Bill 2016, 20 September 2016)
[43]  Interim report 9, February 2017 Management effectiveness of Papua New Guinea’s Protected areas, March 2017
[44]  Fauna (Protection and Control) Act 1966/1978).
[47] www.coraltriangleinitiative.org
[48] See: (www.postcourier.com.pg/Children take lead in leatherback turtle conservation effort, By JAMES KILA, Weekend Courier, Friday, August 19, 2016).
[49] Interview with author