As a conservation compromise<\/a> to balance livelihoods and turtle protection, the state\u2019s Department of Fisheries (DoF) introduced a licensing system in 1951, auctioning rights to harvest eggs from designated beaches. In 1961, it added a buyback scheme, paying licensed collectors to hand over eggs for relocation to protected hatcheries.<\/p>\n With limited resources, the DoF partnered with NGOs like Marine Conservation and Research Organisation Malaysia (PULIHARA), which has run buyback efforts since 2016. While the scheme helped divert eggs from markets, it also faced financial and logistical challenges \u2014 especially until 2022, when Terengganu expanded its leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) egg ban to cover all species, ending legal egg sales altogether.<\/p>\n Now, a study<\/a> published in Ocean & Coastal Management in May 2025 offers the clearest picture yet of the buyback model\u2019s conservation impact \u2014 and its limits \u2014 in this new legal landscape.<\/p>\n \u201cWe wanted to better understand the conservation impact of our efforts \u2026 and whether such a model could remain viable in the long term,\u201d said lead author Seh Ling Long, who conducted the study while at PULIHARA and now works as a senior program officer at wildlife trade watchdog TRAFFIC.<\/p>\n During the five-year study period, from 2016 to 2021, PULIHARA bought more than 71,000 green turtle (Chelonia mydas) eggs from 700 nests and relocated them to protected hatcheries. The outcomes were promising: hatching and emergence success averaged 77.6% and 74.1%, respectively.<\/p>\n Eggs collected and relocated by PULIHARA staff consistently outperformed those collected by licensed egg harvesters and later sold to conservation groups \u2014 highlighting the value of proper handling and shorter relocation distances. The study didn\u2019t compare results with eggs left to hatch naturally, as none were left in place. \u201cEggs left in situ would likely have been poached,\u201d Long said, \u201cso we were unable to compare hatching success between in-situ and ex-situ incubation at our sites.\u201d<\/p>\n In the U.S., natural nests in Florida<\/a> have been found to have hatching success rates of 75\u201395%, compared to 68\u201388% for relocated ones. In Australia, monitored green turtle nests<\/a> showed success rates of around 70%.<\/p>\n Yet the scheme\u2019s reach was limited: the eggs purchased represented just 2.1% of all eggs laid annually in Terengganu over the study period, and protecting them cost more than 275,000 ringgit (about $65,000). \u201cEven with growing financial support each year, we were still unable to purchase all available eggs,\u201d Long told Mongabay. \u201cThis highlighted the need to evaluate the effectiveness and limits of the scheme.\u201d<\/p>\n Some researchers, like marine biologist Nathan Robinson, a postdoctoral fellow at Spain\u2019s Institute of Marine Sciences, who wasn\u2019t involved in the study, say the approach is inherently flawed and question its long-term sustainability.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom my perspective, it seems somewhat inefficient (and potentially counterproductive) to pay people to collect sea turtle eggs so that these eggs can then be buried again,\u201d Robinson told Mongabay by email. \u201cFor this reason, I\u2019m surprised the authors suggest the scheme could reach its full potential if conservation entities had sufficient funding and licensed egg collectors were motivated to sell all their collected eggs.\u201d<\/p>\n A costly mission<\/p>\n Scaling up has come with growing pains. As egg purchases increased, PULIHARA has had to expand hatchery capacity and establish a second site. Beach erosion during monsoon seasons forced hatcheries further inland, while bigger field teams meant higher costs for housing, transport and logistics.<\/p>\n \u201cFuel, construction materials, wages \u2014 everything added up,\u201d Long said. One of the thorniest issues, she added, was maintaining cooperation with licensed egg collectors, whose willingness to sell varied depending on season and price.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile some accepted MYR 3 [0.71 U.S. cents] per egg, others asked for MYR 4 [94 cents],\u201d Long said. \u201cSince collectors could previously sell turtle eggs for consumption, we had to offer competitive prices while staying within budget.\u201d<\/p>\n The DoF helped facilitate these relationships by organizing meetings between NGOs and collectors. Despite the challenges, the study found that many collectors handled eggs with care, avoiding old or spoiled clutches and preserving viability during transport.<\/p>\n \u201cThis indicates that the collectors took care to handle the eggs properly,\u201d Long said, \u201chelping to maintain their viability.\u201d<\/p>\n The 2022 ban on all turtle egg sales, long sought by conservationists, has created uncertainty for the buyback model. The model remains in place as egg collectors transition to new livelihoods, helping them retain some income while enabling conservation groups to protect more eggs. But with collectors now reliant solely on conservation purchases, the pressure on these groups to secure enough funding has grown.<\/p>\n \u201cSince the ban, the purchase price dropped from MYR 3 to MYR 1.50 [71 to 35 cents], and PULIHARA has received fewer clutches,\u201d Long said.<\/p>\n Licensed collectors now report lower nesting activity, though it\u2019s unclear whether this is due to real biological decline, loss of incentive, or underreporting.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are reports of illegal turtle egg sales despite the trade prohibition,\u201d Long said. \u201cIt remains unclear how many eggs are slipping through the cracks and ending up on the black market.\u201d<\/p>\n She called for further investigation into whether eggs from licensed beaches \u2014 areas where collectors are granted exclusive rights under the Turtles Enactment of 1951 \u2014 are being diverted illegally, and what social or economic forces are driving this.<\/p>\n While the study points to short-term benefits, some argue it\u2019s time to move on from the buyback scheme entirely.<\/p>\n Robinson pointed that the paper compared hatching success between buyback eggs and those relocated by conservationists. \u201cHowever, the article never tackles the broader question of whether buy-back methods are the best solution to address over-harvesting of sea turtle eggs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Robinson said he wasn\u2019t surprised by the high hatching success rates, noting that sea turtle eggs can be safely moved within 12 hours of laying. What concerned him more was the scheme\u2019s structure.<\/p>\n \u201cA more practical solution would be to come up with incentives for people to not collect the eggs\u201d in the first place, he said.<\/p>\n Robinson suggested that funds used for buybacks could be redirected to employ egg harvesters as beach monitors who protect nests and collect scientific data, or to support alternative livelihoods such as ecotourism.<\/p>\n \u201cThus, I would like for future research to tackle the ethics behind the buy-back scheme,\u201d Robinson added.<\/p>\n Long, however, said she still sees value in the buyback tool as a key to ease the transition away from the turtle egg trade. \u201cWhile conservationists do advocate for the eventual phasing out of the licensing and buy-back systems, it is important to recognise the on-the-ground realities without overlooking the practical challenges faced by implementing agencies,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s not just a matter of stopping the practice \u2014 it requires viable, well-resourced alternatives.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, she advocates for volunteer opportunities, such as night patrols and hatchling releases, to help foster a deeper\u00a0 connection with the species.<\/p>\n She said she hopes these efforts will spark a deeper cultural shift \u2014 one that sees turtles not as commodities, but as vital parts of Malaysia\u2019s coastal ecosystems.<\/p>\n \u201cWitnessing the slow and vulnerable journey of sea turtles often sparks a sense of care and responsibility,\u201d Long said. \u201cThrough such experiences, we hope to inspire lasting awareness and behavioural change in support of turtle conservation.\u201d<\/p>\n Banner image: A leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Image by Emilie Ledwidge \/ Ocean Image Bank<\/a>.<\/p>\n Concerns of illegal sea turtle trade persist in Bali as police foil smugglers<\/a><\/p>\n Citation:<\/p>\n Long, S. L., Chellaiah, D., Zaaba, N. A., Gan, J. Y., Shamsul Azmil, N. I., & Abdul Rahman, R. (2025). Does the egg buy-back scheme work as a conservation tool? A case study for green turtle (Chelonia mydas) egg protection in Terengganu, Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 268, 107731. doi:10.1016\/j.ocecoaman.2025.107731<\/a><\/p>\n ![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/6133097542_a05ac19ef4_k.jpg\")
<\/a>A green turtle in Pulau Sipadan, Sabah. Image by Bernard DUPONT via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/turtle-lays-eggs.jpg\")
<\/a>A sea turtle lays eggs at Turtle Islands National Park in Borneo. Image by Mike W. via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>).
\nThe ban changes the game<\/p>\n![\"Turtle](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/27608482150_1bbdfae824_h.jpg\")
<\/a>For generations, people have collected, sold and eaten the eggs as a delicacy, supporting coastal livelihoods but stressing turtle populations. Image by Choo Yut Shing via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0<\/a>).
\nRoom for rethinking<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/hatchling-malaysia.jpg\")
<\/a>A turtle hatchling makes its way to the sea at Turtle Islands National Park in Borneo. Image by Mike W. via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n