The Meeting opened at 09:30 on 3 June 1999 at the Keskin Hotel in Dalyan, Turkey with Opening Remarks and Introductions. Four documents were distributed to participants: Meeting Agenda (Appendix I), Background Document (Appendix II), List of Participants (Appendix III), and a reprint 1/ on the history and structure of MEDCOAST, a regional network which focuses on coastal and sea management in the Mediterranean. 

Erdal OZHAN and Karen ECKERT, Meeting Hosts, and Douglas HYKLE, Convener of the Meeting on a Pan-Mediterranean Marine Turtle Symposium, offered welcoming remarks in turn. Karen ECKERT served as Chair for the morning session. As per the first agenda item, each participant was asked to comment on “the status of, and issues and needs associated with, present sea turtle conservation efforts in the Mediterranean basin from national and international perspectives.” The following interventions (presented here in summary form) were made:

Atila URAS and Ayse ORUC, DHKD — There are 17 sea turtle nesting beaches on the Turkish coast. The DHKD is involved in issues surrounding trawl fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean and its effects on sea turtles. Sea turtles are viewed as a “flagship” species for the larger issues of integrated coastal zone management. The DHKD views a regional network as important, especially as it supports the common goals of regional sea turtle NGO's. Information sharing is important, “we are only as strong as our [individual and collective] database.”

Ebru Coskun KAMILOGLU, Ministry of Environment (Turkey) — As part of its mandate to protect coastal habitats and species, the Ministry collaborates with Sedat YERLI in undertaking sea turtle research and conservation projects in Turkey. The Ministry serves as Coordinator for a national Steering Committee of NGOs, Government agencies and Universities, which gives a mechanism for the results of sea turtle research and conservation projects to factor into policy decisions. The linkages between the collection of field data and policy-level decisions are important, and a network should seek to strengthen these ties.

Sedat YERLI, Hacettepe University — He has been involved in sea turtle work for more than a decade, variously sponsored by WWF, DHKD and the Ministry of Environment. The first survey he conducted was in 1988, and it was repeated in 1994. In 1997-1998, the University 
 
 

______________

1/ OZHAN, Erdal. 1999. Coastal and Sea Management in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: MEDCOAST's Accomplishments and Challenges for the Future, p.52-74. In: R. Rajagopalan (Editor), Pacem in Maribus XXV: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Ocean Institute, 15-18 November 1997, Malta. International Ocean Institute, Madras.
 
 

(with support from the Ministry of Environment) surveyed the east (1997) and west (1998) coasts of Turkey, with species emphasis on Specially Protected Areas. Several publications have resulted from this work.

Annette BRODERICK, University of Wales Swansea — A network would be very useful in providing a mechanism for the compilation of information on sea turtle status and distribution in the Med Region. It would also be very useful to have communication at the project level regarding standard techniques and reporting. In the case of Cyprus, we sometimes get turtles tagged elsewhere and there is no central office or centralized database where one can request information on tag origin. There is so little that can be done to protect sea turtles in the absence of a unified regional approach, and this is especially true when the animals are at sea. Our satellite telemetry research clearly demonstrates international travel.

Doug HYKLE, CMS Secretariat — The emergence of a regional NGO network should work in collaboration with the existing RAC/SPA network, as Governments are already comfortable with RAC/ SPA. CMS does not see itself being directly involved in a NGO network, but it would be willing to be a supporting partner and collaborator. Building on the comments of previous speakers about needing to consolidate information on a regional scale, the Med symposium proposed by CMS would give scientists the opportunity to share their data with a regional audience, both on site and later through published proceedings. 

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS, STPS — STPS is a national NGO founded in 1983. It has a very democratic structure with an Annual Assembly and the election of a 7-member Board. With the help of some 400 volunteers from all over the world, an average of 2700 loggerhead sea turtle nests have been monitored each year. In all, more than 2500 females have been tagged over the last 15 years. Tag returns are documented from Tunisia, the Northern Adriatic Sea, Sicily, Malta and elsewhere. The STPS is also involved in at-sea projects with colleagues in Italy and Spain, especially in the area of fisheries interactions (the current project is co-funded by the European Commission and coordinated by Dr. Luc Laurent). The group has a good relationship with RAC/ SPA and other inter-national bodies, and has at times taken advantage of the pressure that international bodies can exert on the Greek government to encourage conservation at local and national levels. It is clear that the protection of sea turtles can only occur if “we all work together at all levels.” STPS believes that the international conventions provide an excellent context, and NGOs should participate more fully in these instruments. Mr. Margaritoulis serves as the new Regional Chair (Mediterranean and Northeastern Atlantic Region) for the global IUCN/ SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group; as part of these new duties the STPS has established a listserv discussion group and is preparing a regional newsletter. As Mr. Margaritoulis could not be present in Dalyan, Dimitrios served as his representative.

Atef OUERGHI, RAC/SPA — The office of RAC/SPA oversees implementation of the Action Plan for the conservation of Mediterranean marine turtles, adopted in 1989 under the aegis of the Barcelona Convention. The Action Plan was recently revised (Arta, October 1998) and a daft list of priority actions for its further implementation was produced to be annexed to the Action plan (Tunis, February 1999). During the last 10 years RAC/ SPA has undertaken several relevant initiatives, including sponsoring nesting beach assessments and other data-collection efforts, organising training sessions, and developing technical reports and didactic materials on marine turtles conservation, most of which were carried out in close cooperation with NGOs throughout the region. RAC/SPA has been a very successful mechanism for regional cooperation and the office hopes to work closely with any NGO network which might develop.

Filiz DEM¤RAYAK, MEDASSET U.K. — A regional sea turtle conservation network would do well to emphasize data exchange and the promotion of standard techniques and protocol so that data are comparable at national and international levels. The most important point is to share lessons learned. Otherwise, ground surveys continue with all good intentions but without a larger result. The support of a regional network would also be useful in lending impetus to national species recovery planning, to ensuring that such plans are consistent among countries, and perhaps in facilitating their funding (for implementation). It is vital that NGOs, Universities and Governments work together, “if one leg is missing, the effort will fail.” It seems logical that a regional database, web page, symposium, and newsletter could be administered by a network.

Lily VENIZELOS, MEDASSET / Greece — MEDASSET was founded in the UK as an inter-national NGO in 1988, and in Greece as a separate entity in 1993. Both organisations work closely together, and have the same goals. Although they are separate entities, the secretariat for both is located in the Athens office. Since 1990 MEDASSET has surveyed more than 7000 km of Med coastline and this information has been published, providing valuable information to national and international groups at the decision-making level. Since 1988 MEDASSET has been an Observer at the Barcelona and Bern Conventions. Other activities include satellite-tracking, marine debris, fisheries bycatch and other ocean-based projects, the EuroTurtle web site (hosted by Kings College and featuring the MEDASSET database), studies of the impacts of tourism, and media and public awareness campaigns. As for the network, we must be pragmatic and realize that in order for it to be effective, it must have very broad participation. A follow-up meeting is needed with broader regional participation.

Coffee Break

During the second half of the morning session, the following questions served to guide the discussion : “How do you visualize a regional network being structured?” “Are there models that we can draw upon?” 

Erdal OZHAN emphasized the importance of “a structure without redundancy that draws on everyone's strengths.” For point was made that it might not be practical to have only one Focal Point from each country (in Turkey, for example, there are several key groups who would want to be involved). Karen noted that while WIDECAST has only one or two Focal Points (“Country Coordinators”) in each country, the network has many members in each country; it is for practical reasons that the Focal Point acts as an information conduit ... a link between the international (regional) network and the national players.

Filiz DEM¤RAYAK observed that national networks do not exist in most countries, and promoting coordination at the national level could be a function of the regional network. It is important to decide on a structure that is sustainable over the long term, and this will require a change in philosophy so that people are committed to working together. Perhaps this should start at the national level, with key players getting together in each country to elect a Focal Point to represent them to the regional network.

Erdal OZHAN agreed with the importance of national collaboration, but suggested that it would entail a great delay if national meetings (and the organization of national networks) were required before a regional network could be organized. The formation of a regional network would most likely lend impetus to the formation of national networks! The regional network might learn from the structure of some well organized national networks, such as the STPS which includes a Board, Scientific Advisers, Focal Points and Members. Are there other models at the national level that would be useful to examine?

Annette BRODERICK noted that focusing on national representation may not be practical, and that the network might be better served by comprising itself of Focal Points from the relevant NGOs throughout the Region, keeping in mind the ideal situation in which each country has at least one NGO represented in the regional network. The membership could then elect an Executive Committee, or its equivalent, for decision-making. A comment was offered that we “not forget to make provision for extra-territorial experts and resources.”

Several points followed in close succession, including (i) in the WIDECAST model the Executive Director's job is one of service to the regional representation; that is, to respond to priority needs of constituent members (e.g., providing or facilitating training, distributing educational materials, maintaining a centralized tag database, offering assistance with fund raising, or uniting the region's NGOs behind a particular issue); the “network” is simply a way of collaborating to reach shared goals, it's not viewed as another layer of bureaucracy; (ii) Med players are faced with historical conflicts that do not lend themselves to collaboration; (iii) organizers should be realistic and realize that not everyone will want to join the network; and (iv) keeping historical conflicts in mind, choosing a Coordinator from outside the Region might have its advantages (e.g., UNICEF just elected a Chair from outside the Region).

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS questioned the whole concept of a network, emphasizing that the group had yet to define what we meant by “network” and expressing concern that we were simply trying to cover up existing problems. Problems exist at many levels, starting at the “cellular” level; that is, at the level of the local NGO. In many cases, there are no active local NGOs, and this gives rise to parachute scientists who drop in, study sea turtles for a season, turn in a report and act the part of an expert, only to be replaced by another outsider the following year. Where there are no local NGOs, there can be no network. Problems continue at the “organismal” level; that is, there is a pervasive lack of support by technical institutions and universities. (In Greece it's virtually impossible to get local university students to participate in field projects, especially in areas with few amenities.) Moreover, there is not enough support from Government. Agencies come together and adopt action plans, but NGOs must push Governments to follow-through. Finally, at the “ecology” (ecosystem) level there are likely to be a whole host of problems, perhaps as yet unforeseen. For example, will an international NGO (if that is what our network is to be) be able to support local NGOs in any meaningful way?

Lunch

Doug HYKLE served as Chair of the afternoon session, which consisted of (i) oral presentations about the structure, history and objectives of WIDECAST (Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network); (ii) the structure, history and objectives of MEDCOAST; and (iii) the history of the idea of “MEDSETCON”, the provisional acronym of the Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network. In brief, MEDSETCON was conceived by Erdal OZHAN and Karen ECKERT in October 1997 at an international meeting of marine scientists on Orcas Island, Washington USA. They have promoted the concept at regional Mediterranean forums since November 1997, when Erdal participated in the 10^th Ordinary Meeting of the Mediterranean Action Plan in Tunis and met with Mr. Saied (Director, RAC/SPA), Mr. Barbieri (expert, RAC/SPA) and Mrs. Venizelos (Founder, MEDASSET) to discuss the concept and plan for the First Regional Consultation.

Coffee Break

Erdal OZHAN began the discussion by noting that the MEDCOAST and WIDECAST models were quite different from one another, and that neither offered a perfect template for a Med sea turtle conservation network. He asked the group to keep the discussion focused on aspects of MEDCOAST and WIDECAST that were useful and transferable. And to ask ourselves, “What do we WANT to achieve as a network, what CAN we achieve as a network, and HOW do we go about it?” It was suggested that we review the objectives listed in the meeting Background Document (Appendix II) and that we seek agreement on them. A “vote” on the objectives listed in the Background Document was set aside as the first order of business on 4 June.

Filiz DEM¤RAYAK suggested that it might be useful to know in advance who is working where and to what end; in this way, project redundancy is avoided and dialogue among scientists and among projects is encouraged. Information transfer is a serious problem, and perhaps more so within countries than among countries. There needs to be more emphasis on the publication of data, perhaps this could be encouraged by the network and by donors as well.

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS noted that the formation of a regional network is a very serious undertaking, very “important” and very “delicate.” He suggested that the meeting lacked the necessary regional representation to make decisions on a regional network, even on a preliminary level. There are many sea turtle projects in the region, and competition for money and other “turf” considerations offer persistent impediments to collaboration. The first step should be to ascertain whether Med project administrators wanted to work together as a network. He offered to initiate a discussion of the issue on the MTSG's new Internet-based listserv and, in this way, attempt to assess regional interest in the idea of networking.

After thanking Dimitrios for his thoughtful comments, Doug HYKLE countered with his concern that the newly created listserv would not be a useful tool in gauging interest across so large a region, and on such a complex question.

Erdal OZHAN also agreed with Dimitrios in that organizing a regional network was a very serious undertaking, would present many challenges to the region, and that he would not be prepared to “sign on” to something that was not likely to succeed in the long term. He reminded the meeting that networks bring people together, not projects. The new network would not be responsible for the success of projects, and the history of an individual project would not feature as importantly into the structure and function of the network as the commitment of people to work together to enhance the survival prospects of shared populations of sea turtles. He agreed that funding was competitive, but did not agree that it was scarce. His experience has been that networks can serve to enhance project funding by emphasizing cooperation, not competition (this is viewed favorably by donors). He responded to repeated charges that the meeting lacking sufficient representation to make decisions and asked, “Who are we missing?” He noted that the DHKD was representing WWF, as well as their own project portfolio. After considerable deliberation, none of the participants could think of a major sea turtle project in the region that was not represented at the meeting. Nevertheless, he agreed with fellow participants that additional discussion and input would certainly be needed before the network could become functional, and that the purpose of this first consultation was simply to achieve consensus among the major players that a regional network was a useful undertaking. The decisions of this meeting “are only the beginning”, but where would we be without the first step? Finally, he asserted that the extension of the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group into the Mediterranean Region would not likely be sufficient to “stir the passions” of the region, simply because the MTSG was, by definition, a global body of experts assembled to serve the purposes of IUCN and not conceived to be an inclusive network at regional or sub-regional levels.

Filiz DEMIRAYAK noted that the network must be transparent and democratic, and not be a threat to national initiatives. She also noted that not everyone was likely to join the network at the beginning; maybe those who did not join at the beginning would join as time went on ... and maybe not. Either way, the purpose of the network would be to provide a basis for cooperation for those who did choose to participate. There are many urgent issues that receive scant attention, such as the loss of habitat. If we do not start something soon, if we continue to simply discuss it and too much time passes, it will be too late. Maybe we should make a list of those who should be present at the next meeting, and get on with discussing where we go from here?

Annette BRODERICK agreed that some degree of organization for the new network must be arranged to ensure the success of a second meeting, and to see the idea of a regional network through to its ultimate conclusion. 

Monica AUREGGI emphasized the need for a follow-up meeting because the present meeting was not sufficiently inclusive to generate a final decision and a time table for implementation. This first meeting is the starting point, and now the next step must be taken ... and at the same time we should consider the work of other entities already playing a regional role, such as MEDASSET and the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group, so as to avoid a duplicate effort.

Ebru Coskun KAMILOGLU suggested that we distribute the Minutes from this first consultation and solicit feedback from other regional colleagues. Noting that the structure of the network was undefined, she suggested that additional input might enhance clarity. She reiterated the fact that it is difficult to maintain national unity and open channels of communication, and that networking should be emphasized at the national as well as the international level.

Atila URAS agreed that it would be especially useful to have input from other Mediterranean countries, especially with regard to information transfer and other core activities.

Erdal OZHAN reminded the meeting that the model of the network would be determined by its Founding Members, and that only a few individuals/groups need be involved at the beginning. As is always the case with a new idea, the network would take its structure, function, identity and passion from a core group of organizers. In order to be truly effective, he visualized the network maturing into a well established regional NGO guided by several devoted persons and serving a broad regional constituency.

Ayse ORUC stated that, from her point of view, there was no doubt as to the value of a network and the objectives listed in the Background Document. To reach a common goal, we must work together. There is no other way. The attendance at this first meeting is quite sufficient to move ahead with the idea. We must start along this long path, or we will never reach our goal.

Atef OUERGHI agreed that the concept of a non-governmental network had obvious value to the region, and asked the group to keep in mind, as the discussion continued, that RAC/SPA had many of the same objectives [as were listed in the Background Document] in mind and that related activities were already being implemented at inter-governmental levels.

Lily VENIZELOS noted that some of the objectives listed in the Background Document were being undertaken by NGOs, as well, especially regional NGOs (e.g., WWF, IUCN) and some of the larger national groups. Where should be boundaries of responsibility be set? This is very important. If the network is to be an NGO, it must be an international NGO. She was not clear that the network had to be an NGO, but she couldn't think of another organizational model. She suggested that one output of the meeting be a questionnaire distributed with the Minutes and a cover letter, asking colleagues from throughout the Region to share their ideas with the Organizers.

Filiz DEMIRAYAK summarized the discussion as taking two views: (i) it is necessary to have a larger regional consensus (than is possible at this meeting) before we can move forward on the idea of a regional network, and (ii) it is sufficient to move forward with agreement among a smaller group, but one which includes representatives drawn from the Region's major projects and NGOs. Each view has pros and cons. She asked the Organizers whether they had done any background research on successful regional networks, and their origins. Finally, Filiz made the point that network need not begin with formal organization as an NGO, but that the founders should decide whether or not they wanted to form an NGO. 

Erdal OZHAN summarized the session with the following points of consensus: (i) networking is valuable at the regional level, and should be emphasized at the national level as well; (ii) at a Mediterranean scale the meeting is not representative geographically, but it does embrace most of the region's major players with regard to sea turtle research and conservation; (iii) the meeting does provide a basis for moving forward with creating a regional sea turtle conservation network. MEDCOAST, for example, began with seven interested institutions and in three years it doubled to its membership to 14. If we fall short of establishing a network here, it will not be because we lack representation, but because we failed to reach agreement on the initial structure of the new organization. Therefore, the first order of business for the morning session should be to elect a Steering Committee and to task it with (i) convening a second regional consultation, (ii) designing a questionnaire for the purpose of soliciting input (on the idea of a regional network) from a larger group of colleagues, and (iii) ensuring that the results of the questionnaire are distributed.

After some brief announcements, Doug HYKLE, Session Chair, adjourned the meeting.
 
 

The Meeting reconvened at 09:30 on 4 June 1999 with Opening Remarks and Announcements. Erdal OZHAN served as session Chair, intending to focus on follow-up activities and the election of a Steering Committee. He was reminded of a suggestion made the previous day that it might be useful for the meeting to consider ranking possible objectives of the regional network, as set forward in the Background Document (see Appendix II). In this way, the meeting might provide insight or guidance to the Steering Committee with respect to the objectives. 

The votes of nine participants present (excluding Hosts and Observers) were as follows, with the number of votes recorded first for “highest priority”, followed by the number of votes received for successively lower priority levels 2, 3, and 4. In the first case, for example, eight of the participants viewed objective (i) to be of highest priority, while one participant considered that it should be given a second place ranking. The meeting offered modifications (to the original text as presented in the Background Document) to objectives (i) and (iv), as seen in italics.
 
 

Rankings, continued ...
 
 

By majority, but not consensus, the meeting considered objectives (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii) and (viii) to be of special interest. The point was made that, at the appropriate time, there would be value in prioritizing the objectives further into short-, medium- and long-term action categories.

The next topic of discussion was the Steering Committee: “How do we proceed?” The point was made that the overall tone of Thursday's discussion had been positive, taking into consideration the great many questions and ambiguities that remain (and that are difficult to clarify at this early stage). With this in mind, the Chair suggested that the meeting consider electing a Steering Committee to take the lead in further exploring the idea of a regional network, including soliciting additional input from NGO's and experts not present at this first consultation.

Discussion ensued on whether election of a Steering Committee, as such, was premature in that the meeting had really only decided that the idea was worth pursuing, not that it should be implemented. Further, the structure of the “network” remained vague, with ideas ranging from passive venues for communication and collaboration, such as a regional listserv, Internet site or collective database, to the creation of an autonomous international NGO with staff and program responsibilities. Concerns were raised that the three countries in attendance (Turkey, Greece, Italy) should not take it upon themselves to make binding decisions for colleagues throughout the region. Finally, the point was made that careful consideration be given to related actions underway or planned in the region, such as the listserv sponsored by the Mediterranean Regional Office (hosted by the STPS-Greece) of the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG).

Notwithstanding, there was consensus that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, follow-up action would be needed and someone would have to take the lead. Erdal OZHAN suggested that a Steering Committee be elected as an action of the meeting, and pledged that MEDCOAST and WIDECAST would continue to act as Facilitators. The function of the Steering Committee would be “to pursue the idea of creating a regional sea turtle conservation network, including what can be done and how it might best be accomplished.” A top priority would logically be the circulation of a questionnaire designed to generate feedback on the network idea from colleagues throughout the Mediterranean Region.

Discussion ensued once again over whether the decision to elect a “Steering Committee” was premature at this stage of the network's development. The suggestion was made that “Working Group” might be a more accurate title. There was also discussion of the practical value of a smaller group of “Facilitators” to whom specific tasks would be assigned in preparation for a Second Regional Consultation later in the year. 

Coffee Break

Two open votes (no secret ballots) were held. 

The first vote was to document the meeting's decision to endorse a “Working Group” comprised of the NGOs and individual experts participating in the meeting: CHELON (Italy), DHKD (Turkey), MEDASSET (U.K., Greece), STPS (Greece), Dr. Annette BRODERICK (U.K.) and Dr. Sadat YERL¤ (Turkey). RAC/SPA and CMS were designated Observers. 

The second vote was to document the meeting's decision to endorse a core group of “Facilitators” to implement the decisions of the meeting and to prepare for a Second Regional Consultation later in the year.

Both votes were unanimous.

Following the votes, the Chair invited STPS and DHKD to serve as NGO “Facilitators”, along with WIDECAST and MEDCOAST, and invited Annette BRODERICK to serve as an individual member. All but the STPS agreed. The STPS representative indicated that approval would have to come from their Board of Directors. 

The meeting formally tasked the Facilitators with the following responsibilities: (i) finalize and distribute the Minutes; (ii) assemble a regional mailing list of NGO's, institutions and individuals involved in Mediterranean sea turtle conservation; (iii) design a comprehensive questionnaire to solicit feedback from colleagues throughout the Region on the desirability, feasibility and creation of a Mediterranean sea turtle conservation network; (iv) make arrangements for a Second Regional Consultation (i.e., a follow-up meeting to expand the dialogue on the idea of a regional network); and (v) fund raise for follow-up activities. The meeting also agreed that it would be useful to discuss the idea of a regional network at all appropriate opportunities, and not simply wait until the Second Regional Consultation meeting to reopen the dialogue.

The final order of business was the Resolution of the Meeting. A draft Resolution was circulated, critiqued, altered in minor ways, and adopted (see Appendix III).

Several participants made interventions along the lines that something grand had been started at this meeting, and that even if a formal regional network did not emerge, the seeds of solidarity and a renewed commitment to collaboration had been sown. The meeting offered its sincere gratitude to Erdal OZHAN and Karen ECKERT for bringing all parties together, for sharing their expertise and enthusiasm, and for working so hard to keep the meeting focused and productive.
 
 

In keeping with the decision of the Meeting that the “Facilitators” (as identified above) be tasked with the following responsibilities: (i) finalize and distribute the Minutes; (ii) assemble a regional mailing list of NGO's, institutions and individuals involved in Mediterranean sea turtle conservation; (iii) design a comprehensive questionnaire to solicit feedback from colleagues throughout the Region on the desirability, feasibility and creation of a Mediterranean sea turtle conservation network; (iv) make arrangements for the Second Regional Consultation; and (v) fund raise for follow-up activities — the Facilitators met at Keskin Hotel on 5 June 1999, from 13:30 - 14:30 hr. The following decisions were made:

(i) Finalize and distribute the Minutes, including the Resolution of the Meeting.
    Facilitator with Responsibility: Karen Eckert

Timeline:

Timeline:

Timeline:
 

Timeline:

3 June 1999 Thursday

Background and Rationale:

Two species of sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (green turtle) and Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle), still nest on the beaches of the Mediterranean Sea. Three other species (Eretmochelysimbricata, hawksbill; Dermochelys coriacea, leatherback; and Lepidochelyskempii, Kemp's ridley) are considered rare or accidental species in the region. Due to a variety of anthropogenic threats, the northern shores of the Mediterranean and eastward as far as the Greek islands in the Ionian Sea have been lost as important nesting grounds for sea turtles. The most active nesting beaches are located mainly along the shores of Greece and Turkey, and to a lesser extent Libya, Cyprus, Egypt and Tunisia. 

Sea turtles are highly endangered throughout the Mediterranean basin. They are threatened by coastal (mainly tourist-oriented) development, pollution, incidental catch in commercial fisheries, and direct harvest. Insufficient enforcement of existing legislation and inadequate public awareness and participation in conservation measures also contribute to the depleted status of these ancient reptiles. Mediterranean threats to sea turtles have implications far beyond the region. For example, many loggerhead turtles caught in longline fisheries are U.S.-born juveniles that inhabit the Mediterranean Sea as juveniles. 

There is an urgent need to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in commercial fisheries, reduce and control turtle fisheries, identify and protect major nesting beaches (with their adjoining waters) and foraging grounds, strengthen national legislation to conform to conservation treaty obligations, enforce existing conservation legislation, promote “turtle friendly” coastal development policies, investigate the movements and migratory ranges of Mediterranean sea turtles, support more effective coordination among existing and future research and conservation efforts, and enhance public awareness of the regional and global plight of sea turtles.

Organized efforts to protect turtles and critical nesting habitat in the Mediterranean date back to the 1970's. Conservation activities, mostly at local or national levels, were greatly enhanced in the 1980's and 1990's through the support of international organizations and initiatives, including the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), World Wide Fund for Conservation of Nature (WWF), the Convention for Migratory Species (CMS), World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Council of Europe, and the European Union. 

Nevertheless, the implementation of conservation efforts has been largely orchestrated and undertaken at the national level, with little international collaboration for regional management. Such collaboration is essential due to the migratory nature of these species. It is clear that despite national efforts, sea turtles cannot be effectively protected in one area of the Mediterranean Sea whilst being killed in another area of the basin.

The Mediterranean Action Plan, which recently (October 1998) convened a Meeting of Experts on the implementation of its Action Plan for the Conservation of Mediterranean Sea Turtles, provides a uniquely useful inter-governmental forum for regional strategic action. What is lacking, however, is a regionally inclusive and largely non-governmental network to advocate for sea turtle conservation in ways that are not practicable at the inter-governmental level. 

The purpose of this consultation, co-sponsored by MEDCOAST and WIDECAST (Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network), is to explore the potential for developing a network of non-governmental organizations to promote sea turtle conservation in the Mediterranean. By utilizing the experience of MEDCOAST (a regional network which focuses on coastal and sea management in the Mediterranean) and WIDECAST, we hope to provide the spark that ignites what, for the sake of discussion, we refer to as MEDSETCON: MEDiterranean SEa Turtle COnservation Network.
 
 

Purpose and Scope:

MEDSETCON is envisioned to be a Mediterranean network active on issues surrounding the conservation and management of threatened and depleted sea turtles in the Mediterranean basin. MEDCOAST and WIDECAST are willing to serve as facilitators in the creation of MEDSETCON. As the network becomes functional, it will be an independent NGO, ideally serving as a Partner Organization of SPA RAC/MAP-UNEP. 

In a similar way, MEDCOAST is an autonomous NGO network and a Partner Organization of MAP; furthermore, PAP/RAC of MAP is a member institution of the MEDCOAST network. In the Caribbean Sea, WIDECAST is an autonomous NGO network and a Partner Organization of the UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP). CEP publishes and distributes WIDECAST's major outputs, including national sea turtle recovery action plans, standard guidelines and criteria for conservation and management, etc.

To achieve its mission MEDSETCON should actively seek to define an integrated (i.e., local, national and regional) conservation strategy that, at the very least, supports a regional scientific research and conservation campaign, promotes best practices, facilitates training, encourages broad public participation, enhances the credibility of the region's NGO sector (particularly at the policy level), strengthens the working relationship between conservation and scientific entities, standardizes data collection and reporting, provides a means of communication among network members, attracts donors and other supporters, and achieves measurable sea turtle conservation results.
 
 

Goal:

To create an inclusive regional network of sea turtle NGO's, scientists, conservationists, educators, policy-makers and others capable of taking effective, collaborative action to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of sea turtles in the Mediterranean Region.
 
 

Objectives:

This first regional consultation, at the Keston Hotel in Dalyan, is expected to adopt a Resolution on the desirability of a regional sea turtle network in the Mediterranean Region, to identify a Steering Committee, and to articulate near-term milestones on the road to achieving a regional network. The meeting may also wish to address the following issues:

AUREGGI, MONICA
CHELON: MARINE TURTLE
CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH
PROGRAM 
V.LE VAL PADANA 134/B 00141 ROME
ITALY
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

BRODERICK, ANNETTE
MARINE TURTLE RESEARCH GROUP
SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF WALES SWANSEA
SA2 8PP U.K.
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

DEMİRAYAK, FİLİZ
MEDASSET U.K.
c/o MEDASSET SECRETARIAT
1 (c) LICAVITOU STREET
ATHENS 10672
GREECE
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL: ,
 
 

DIMOPOULOS, DIMITRIOS
SEA TURTLE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF 
GREECE (STPS)
SOLOMOU, 57 GR 104-32 ATHENS
GREECE
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

ECKERT, KAREN L.
WIDECAST: WIDER CARIBBEAN SEA 
TURTLE CONSERVATION NETWORK
17218 LIBERTAD DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127
USA
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

HYKLE, DOUGLAS (OBSERVER)
UNEP/CMS SECRETARIAT
UNITED NATIONS PREMISES IN BONN
MARTIN LUTHER KING STR., 8 D-53175 BONN
GERMANY
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

KAMİLOĞLU, EBRU COŞKUN
TURKISH MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
TURKEY
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

MO, GIULIA (OBSERVER)
ICRAM
VIA DI CASALOTTI 300
00166 ROME, ITALY
TEL:
FAX: ,
E-MAIL:
 
 

ORUÇ, AYŞE
DHKD
P.O. BOX 971 SİRKECİ, 34436 İSTANBUL
TURKEY
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

OZHAN, ERDAL
MEDCOAST
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
06531 ANKARA
TURKEY
TEL: – 40
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

OUERGHI, ATEF
MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN
REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER FOR
SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS 
BOULEVARD DE L’ENVIRONMENT 
BP TUNIS CEDEX
TUNISIA
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

URAS, ATİLA
DHKD 
P. O. BOX 971 SİRKECİ, 34436 İSTANBUL
TURKEY
TEL: /18 (Ankara)
FAX: (Ankara)
TEL: (Istanbul)
FAX: (Istanbul)
E-MAIL:
 
 

VENIZELOS, LILY
MEDASSET / GREECE
1 (c) LICAVITOU ST., ATHENS 10672
GREECE
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

YERLİ V., SEDAT
HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
AQUATIC LIFE LABORATORY
SAL, 06532 ANKARA
TURKEY
TEL: -01
FAX:
E-MAIL:
 
 

The participants in the “First Consultation (Meeting) to Facilitate the Creation of a Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network”, Dalyan, Turkey, 3-4 June 1999 :

INSPIRED by Agenda 21, adopted by the U. N. Conference on Environment and Development, which recognizes the need to protect and restore endangered marine species and to conserve their habitats, and the Barcelona Convention, as amended, which advocates for a “coordinated and comprehensive regional approach” to protecting the Mediterranean Sea;

ACKNOWLEDGING that in accordance with the best available scientific evidence, species of sea turtles in the Mediterranean Region are depleted and endangered, and that some populations may face imminent risk of extinction;

RECALLING that Mediterranean sea turtles are currently protected by the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), and the Protocol [to the Barcelona Convention] concerning Specially Protected Areas of the Mediterranean,

REALIZING that despite a laudable degree of protection from national and international legislation and treaties, and ongoing conservation efforts, Mediterranean sea turtles continue to be subject to exploitation, mortality, injury, displacement, pollution and habitat loss as a direct or indirect result of human-related activities;

CONSIDERING that sea turtles are highly migratory and that their protection requires cooperation among stakeholders at all levels (local, national and regional);

RECOGNIZING the importance of cooperative conservation efforts, including information exchange, compatibility in data collection and reporting, the consistent application of best practices, and coordinated responses to issues of shared concern; 

RECOGNIZING the importance of integrating the efforts of scientists and NGO's into national and inter-national policy-making, and

CONCERNED that present levels of cooperation and collaboration in the areas of research, conservation, edu-cation and public awareness are insufficient to secure the survival of sea turtles in the Mediterranean Region; 

AGREE :

To pursue the feasibility and the creation of a Mediterranean sea turtle conservation network, which has as its goal “to create an inclusive regional network of sea turtle NGO's, scientists, conservationists, educators, policy-makers and others capable of taking effective, collaborative action to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of sea turtles in the Mediterranean Region.”