Second Consultation to Facilitate the Creation of a

Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network

 

MINUTES

 

11 - 12 November 2000

Hotel Flamenco - Cairo, Egypt

 

 

Sponsored by

 

Prof. Dr. Erdal ÖZHAN

Chairman, MEDCOAST

Middle East Technical University

06531 Ankara, TURKEY

 

 Dr. Karen L. ECKERT

Executive Director, WIDECAST

[Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network]

San Diego, California 92127 USA

 

 

With Support from

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Pew Fellows Collaborative Initiatives Fund

 

 

The Meeting opened at 14:30 hr on 11 November 2000 at the Hotel Flamenco in Cairo, Egypt with Opening Remarks and Introductions. Meeting packets, including an Agenda (Appendix I), List of Participants (Appendix II), Resolution of the “First Consultation to Facilitate the Creation of a Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network” (Appendix III), the Questionnaire mandated by the First Regional Consultation (Appendix IV) and an analysis of responses to that Questionnaire (Appendix V), were distributed to all participants. Karen ECKERT and Erdal ÖZHAN, Meeting Hosts, offered welcoming remarks in turn.

Karen ECKERT noted that the Second Regional Consultation was the latest in a series of events that had marked a three-year effort to facilitate the creation of a Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network [informally referred to as “MEDSETCON”], and she expressed her hope that specific recommendations on how to move forward would be forthcoming from the Meeting. She emphasized the migratory movements of sea turtles and the importance of region-wide conservation and management schemes. She wished the Meeting every success in designing a mechanism for effective collaboration among stakeholders within and among range states, and primarily at the NGO level since long-standing agreements already exist at inter-governmental levels.

Erdal ÖZHAN spoke of his personal passion for sea turtles, which led him to organize the first sea turtle monitoring efforts in Turkey some 15 years ago. He expressed his commitment to the idea of networking and collaborative action, nationally and internationally, and noted that trusted and transparent venues for communication are fundamental to the success of networking. He joined with ECKERT in offering the Meeting his best wishes for a successful session and tangible results.

Before proceeding with the agenda, there was some discussion of the acronym “MEDSETCON”, which, it was agreed, is too close to the internationally recognized acronym “MEDASSET” (Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles). Other ideas were put forward, including MEDCONSET, METCON, MARMED, and MEDSET. MARMED, or MarMed, seemed preferred by participants. The need to design a logo was also discussed. It was agreed that final decisions on these matters would be left to the new network’s Secretariat and Executive Committee, in consultation with the membership.

A round of introductions started with Emrah BILGE, DHKD (Turkey) -- He noted that he was Project Officer for the “Coastal Zone Management and Marine Turtles in Turkey” project (Marine and Coast Programme) of DHKD, the WWF-Affiliate Organization in Turkey. His work focuses on capacity building for policy-makers, local NGOs, government officials, and resource managers, but not the larger public per se. DHKD publishes a newsletter six times per year, and works directly with NGO partners to build conservation awareness. The organization, which has an advisory role to Government, is also involved in data collection.

Lily VENIZELOS pointed out that DHKD and MEDASSET have sometimes targeted the same areas for conservation action, and that it would be valuable to cultivate more consistent communication between the two groups to avoid duplication and programmatic confusion. The suggestion was made (and endorsed by several participants) that groups active in Mediterranean sea turtle research and conservation communicate more regularly, perhaps by means of a website, with regard to project proposals and intended work plans; also that research data are published and made available more regularly.

Emrah BILGE (continued) B The highest density green turtle nesting beach in the Mediterranean is at Kazanli, a 1 km beach with some 200 nests per year. There are efforts underway to protect this beach, as it is threatened by commercial development and pollution. In 2000 it will be monitored as one of Turkey=s Index Beaches. There are many monitored beaches in Turkey, and while DHKD does not oversee the fieldwork in each case, they are aware that data have been collected in the country for more than a decade.

Lily VENIZELOS, MEDASSET (Greece) B MEDASSET is a regional NGO with offices in Athens. MEDASSET(UK) is an international NGO based in the U.K. Both collaborate with a number of national and regional NGO partners. Both organizations are involved with public awareness and education, study opportunities for university students, EC issues and other international campaigns, and research. She shared with the group a selection of projects sponsored by MEDASSET, including an assessment of anthropogenic impacts on the nesting beaches of Crete, the EuroTurtle website, a 2-yr follow-up study of the three most important green turtle nesting beaches in southern Turkey (threatened by coastal development, pollution, tourism) and, at its unique resource center in Athens, compiling relevant scientific literature in an electronic form for ease of distribution. She noted that MEDASSET had contested an award by British Airways to Belek, Turkey, for “sustainable tourism development” because, in fact, the development there is very bad for sea turtles and other coastal fauna and habitat. She said that MEDASSET would present an assessment of the status of the green turtle in the Mediterranean to the next Bern Convention Meeting at Council of Europe. She anticipated support from the Convention to open a file on Turkey and to fully protect the three most important green turtle nesting beaches in the Mediterranean, all of which are in Turkey. She drew the Meeting=s attention to the extremely depleted status of the brackish water Nile softshell turtle, Trionyx triunguis. She concluded her remarks by saying that a regional network is urgently needed, and that it would be an important source of support to MEDASSET and others fighting virtually single-handedly against powerful regional (commercial) interests and policy-maker’s inactivity.

Brendan GODLEY, Marine Turtle Research Group (Wales, U.K.) B He noted that he was representing himself and his wife, Annette, together, and that they brought to the table several opportunities to assist in the creation and implementation of the regional network: (i) a history of research in the region since 1992, (ii) an opportunity, as Editors of the global Marine Turtle Newsletter, to publicize the work of the network, (iii) an opportunity, as members of the International Travel Committee for the annual international sea turtle symposium to help Mediterranean colleagues attend the symposium, and (iv) a circle of professional colleagues from outside the Mediterranean to peer-review and otherwise assist with national and regional initiatives. He emphasized that the regional network was sorely needed, that something tangible must be initiated soon, and that the region would clearly benefit from a shared platform for advocacy, as opposed to individual groups trying to “fight the system” unilaterally. He believes the network should advocate for regional priorities and be apolitical.

Erdal ÖZHAN, MEDCOAST (Turkey) B He provided a brief overview of MEDCOAST=s experience as a regional network in the Mediterranean. He attributed the organization=s remarkable success over the last eight years to its size (15 professional institutions: “not too big, not too small”), consistent administration and leadership, filling of a niche that had not been filled before, and proceeding with an agenda that had clear regional import. MEDCOAST emphasizes information sharing (e.g. more than 6,000 pages of technical material has been assembled and published), training (e.g. more than 200 professional and government officials have been formally trained), and a pride of involvement. Its products are public and peer-reviewed, and provide a relevant example of what a regional sea turtle network could also accomplish. MEDCOAST collaborators are now considering cooperative research initiatives, and collaborative consultancies, and he made the point that a sea turtle network would similarly lend itself to this kind of positive interaction and collaboration toward shared goals.

 

Coffee Break

Karen ECKERT summarized the results of the First Regional Consultation (Dalyan, Turkey, 3-4 June 1999), including the creation of a “Working Group” comprised of the NGOs and individual experts participating in that Meeting: CHELON (Italy), DHKD (Turkey), MEDASSET (U.K. and Greece), STPS (Greece), Dr. Annette BRODERICK (U.K.) and Dr. Sedat YERL¤ (Turkey). [RAC-SPA and CMS were designated Observers.] In addition, the First Regional Consultation elected a Steering Committee defined as a core group of “Facilitators” tasked with implementing the decisions of the Meeting and preparing for a Second Regional Consultation. The Facilitators are comprised of two national NGOs (STPS, DHKD), two regional NGOs (WIDECAST, MED-COAST) and one individual member (Dr. Annette Broderick).

These Facilitators were tasked with the following responsibilities: (i) finalize and distribute the Minutes; (ii) finalize the roster of NGOs, institutions and individuals involved in Mediterranean sea turtle research and/or 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.

In response to the mandate, comprehensive Minutes to the First Regional Consultation, including a Resolution (see Appendix III) supporting the creation of a regional sea turtle conservation network, were drafted, circulated to meeting participants, finalized (based on participant feedback) and adopted. Bound copies of the Minutes were distributed to all participants, as well as to selected stakeholders in the Region. In addition, a draft roster of groups and individuals involved in Mediterranean sea turtle research and/or conservation was compiled, a draft roster of media contacts was prepared (to facilitate sharing of information regarding progress made in the creation of the new network), and a Questionnaire (Appendix IV) was developed in partnership with DHKD and STPS to solicit feedback from stakeholders other than those participating in the First Regional Consultation. Questionnaire results were later compiled and analyzed (see Appendix V), and made available on the provisional “MEDSETCON” website maintained by MEDCOAST (www.metu.edu.tr/ home/wwwmdcst/medsetcon/index.html). [n.b. Minutes to the First Regional Consultation are also available at this site.]

Erdal ÖZHAN suggested that, building on these successes, the objectives of the Second Regional Consultation should be to (i) discuss and agree on the structure and a provisional address for the network to facilitate communication, and (ii) develop and delegate tasks which must be done in order to “unveil” the new network at the Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference in 2001. The Meeting agreed.

He invited participants to consider, during the evening hours, the structure and purpose of the regional sea turtle network, based on results of the questionnaire included in the Meeting Packet. Specifically, he mentioned membership requirements (individuals? institutions? both?); governance (should the biggest and most active NGOs have an institutional role in governance?); structural arrangements; hosting of the Secretariat/coordinating entity; sponsorship of regional services (e.g. tagging database, website, environmental education clearinghouse); and liaison with the inter-governmental community.

Karen ECKERT encouraged participants to think about a structure that would democratically serve the entire region. After some brief announcements, she adjourned the Meeting at 18:20 hr.

 

* * * * *

 

The Meeting reconvened at 09:30 hr on 12 November 2000 with Opening Remarks and Announcements. Karen ECKERT Chaired the morning session, which began with a renewal of Introductions by participants.

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS, Sea Turtle Protection Society (Greece) B As Director of the STPS, he explained that STPS hosts a rescue and stranding center for sea turtle rehabilitation, has a long history sea turtle nesting beach monitoring in Greece, and sponsors a well developed environmental education program. STPS was a key player in designation of the first National Marine Park for sea turtles in the Mediterranean Region (Zankynthos), and the first protected area in Greece with a management agency in place.

Dimitris MARGARITOULIS, IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) (Greece) B As Mediterranean Chair of the MTSG, he noted that there are some 250 MTSG-affiliated experts in the world, about 25 of whom are working in the Mediterranean Sea. The MTSG was established as a Specialist Group of IUCN in the 1970s under the leadership of Dr. Archie Carr. The current Chair is Dr. Alberto Abreu (UNAM, Mexico). The MTSG is a volunteer network with the objective of providing expert advice, typically upon request, to the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The group has established a listserv (MedTurtle) to serve both its membership and the Mediterranean community; a centralized tagging database is being contemplated.

Atef OUERGHI, RAC-SPA (UNEP/MAP) (Tunisia) B RAC-SPA is responsible for implementing UNEP=s “Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas” in the Mediterranean region. The objective is to protect both natural sites, as well as threatened species associated with protected areas. The office is also responsible for the Action Plan for Mediterranean Sea Turtles, revised and adopted in 1999, which seeks to protect, conserve and enhance sea turtle populations in the region with special attention given to the green turtle. The agenda includes protecting feeding, nesting and migratory habitat, with an emphasis on scientific research and support for selected individual projects.

Michael WHITE, Ionian Sea Research Centre (Greece) B He is the Kefalonia Project Officer for the Ionian Sea Research Centre, an NGO which focuses on the coastal zone, including the interaction between the land and the sea. He is involved in sea turtle nesting beach monitoring, as well as research with the Mediterranean Monk Seal. His primary emphasis is networking and environmental education, including getting residents (and visitors) involved in conservation issues (e.g. he has established a sightings network in the coastal waters of Kefalonia and organized community-based beach clean-ups). He noted that Greece convened two coastal zone management meetings this year, and the Government is beginning to take formal notice of coastal zone issues.

 

Coffee Break

Karen ECKERT summarized the discussions of Day 1, and invited Erdal ÖZHAN to provide the Meeting with a summary of the results of the questionnaire (see Appendix V).

Erdal ÖZHAN reminded the Meeting that the First Regional Consultation discussed various options for creating a network, and reached consensus on a list of network objectives (see Appendix VI, taken from the Minutes of the First Regional Consultation). The Meeting also agreed that the objectives should be ranked (prioritized) by a wider audience, in addition to soliciting additional information from regional colleagues on the structure and function of the new network. To that end we circulated a questionnaire on these topics, and also asked for input on databases of “sea turtle experts” and media contacts.

The DHKD took the lead in circulating the questionnaire to 150 colleagues, compiling responses from 44 persons from 13 countries, and providing the results to MEDCOAST to include on the provisional “MEDSETCON” website. Based on the feedback received, we renamed the “Expert Roster” to read “Roster of Resource People”. [Lily VENIZELOS was credited with providing a list of Media Contacts, and the Meeting expressed its appreciation to MEDASSET for this important contribution.] About 30% (44/150) of those who received the questionnaire responded to it - a very favorable response ratio - and in reviewing their responses it is clear that our colleagues throughout the region are even more positive about the creation of a regional network than we are! All but one respondent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that it would be useful to create a regionally inclusive and largely NGO-based Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network; 72% said they would participate and 61% believed that the network would directly enhance their own work.

Lily VENIZELOS commented that the results of the questionnaire were very useful and informative.

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS emphasized that for the process of network creation to be successful, transparency and democracy were important. He also noted that the complex and sometimes contentious politics of the Region were a reality, whether we liked it or not, and that we should not expect to solve these long-standing issues in this forum. Specifically, the controversial status of Northern Cyprus has been a persistent topic of discussion at our Regional Consultations, and he recommended that this issue be dealt with as a priority by the Secretariat entity of the new network, and that the decision regarding how to treat Northern Cyprus within the network be coincident with current United Nations decisions. He also recommended that sensitive political issues, such as this one, not be stumbling blocks preventing us from moving forward in creating a regional sea turtle network.

A general discussion of this topic followed, and there was strong agreement by participants that any science/conservation network operating effectively in the region must be seen as apolitical. The comment was also made that in the case of Northern Cyprus, where well established sea turtle research and conservation projects are based, the local players ought to be consulted about how they would like to be represented (geographically/politically) in the network.

 

Erdal ÖZHAN apologized for the oversight of designating “North Cyprus” as a “country” in the analysis of Questionnaire results, and the meeting agreed that Column 3 in the analysis should read “region”, rather than “country”.

Brendan GODLEY suggested that one large NGO act as network Secretariat, and that this NGO be capable of absorbing routine costs (e.g. communication) and providing a part-time staff member to the network. In addition, a handful of key NGOs should contribute their skills to membership on an Executive Committee. General membership should be offered both to individuals and to institutions; governments need not participate in a formal way since the inter-governmental forums in the region are well developed. The members of the Executive Committee should be elected, and serve staggered (3-year?) terms. Tasks not provided by Executive Committee members should be volunteered or solicited from the membership as needed, and MOUs should be drafted for ongoing tasks (e.g. newsletter, tagging database, website, literature database). Ideally the Secretariat office should be permanently established, but Terms of Reference must allow a periodic (3-year?) evaluation of the Secretariat by the Executive Committee.

Karen ECKERT suggested that the Executive Committee/ Governing Council consist of no more than 6-10 members, perhaps with 3 permanent members and the others to be elected by the membership. Other participants expressed similar ideas.

Erdal ÖZHAN expressed his view that regular turnover of the Secretariat might significantly diminish the functional efficiency and regional standing (respect) for the network. A primary purpose of the Secretariat is to be the “face” of the network, to maintain finances, and to solicit resources and cultivate contacts for the network. Turnover may lead to successive Secretariat offices essentially “starting over” with these important tasks.

Brendan GODLEY agreed, but emphasized that there needed to be an “escape clause” whereby the Executive Committee (and membership?) could relocate the Secretariat if the need arose.

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS added that while routine turn-over of the Secretariat office may well be damaging to the network, an “escape clause” was necessary to avoid the network becoming a “one-man show” and to provide the network with a democratic mechanism to validate or change their leadership and representation.

Brendan GODLEY agreed, and recommended that the Secretariat, both for purposes of democracy and personal sanity, delegate as much of the network=s business as possible. In this way the network would be decentralized and another advantage would be realized - that is, participation in shared regional programs would increase on the part of national NGOs. As NGOs work together, the networking concept becomes stronger and more durable.

Lily VENIZELOS endorsed the “escape clause” for the Secretariat, and noted that the job of Secretariat was indeed a very large responsibility and whoever accepted that responsibility would need a great deal of support from network participants/members. She suggested that the Secretariat forge strong partnerships with the Executive Committee and others, thereby setting an example at the highest levels that the network was an inclusive body.

 

Coffee Break

Max KASPAREK asked for clarification on the long-term involvement of WIDECAST and MEDCOAST and if either would consider accepting the role of Secretariat for the new network.

Erdal ÖZHAN responded that this network “is an idea that needs to fly on its own”, but that MEDCOAST and WIDECAST have made it clear that they are willing to continue their participation in an advisory capacity. In addition, MEDCOAST is interested in using its experience in convening international technical meetings and training workshops to help the new network do the same. WIDECAST has offered to facilitate exchanges between Caribbean and Mediterranean project staff, and to share specific relevant experience, such as in bylaws and governance, national species recovery planning, etc.

Atef OUERGHI informed the Meeting that a “Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference” would be sponsored as a trilateral effort between RAC-SPA and the Bern and Bonn Convention Secretariat offices in October 2001. The site of the conference had yet to be decided.

Erdal ÖZHAN urged Atef to use his influence to avoid scheduling the Pan-Med conference between 23-27 October, as it would then directly conflict with a pre-arranged MEDCOAST meeting (which UNEP is also a sponsor!) as well as a WIDECAST regional training workshop at the University of Barbados (24-26 October 2001) ... thereby eliminating any possibility that he or Karen ECKERT could participate in this important Mediterranean event.

Michael WHITE asked how long it took to get WIDECAST fully functional in the Caribbean region.

Karen ECKERT responded that it took about 9 years, ... but mainly because the network lacked committed leadership between its inception in 1981 and the selection of its first salaried Executive Director in 1990. The bottom line is that somebody has to take charge - both in conducting the coalition=s business and motivating members to work together to achieve shared goals.

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS expressed the view that “it doesn=t appear there are too many people yet ready to participate in a regional network. It sounds good on paper, but can it be implemented at this time?” He suggested that a great deal more preparatory work must be done. He also emphasized that STPS is supportive of the idea, and believes that the first footings have been placed. But now there is a need to make a “live organization” that will attract people. To this end there must be very specific targets, objectives, and a “vision”, and these must be written down for people to evaluate and discuss. Bylaws are a priority, as are criteria for membership.

Erdal ÖZHAN responded that colleagues throughout the region are apparently quite interested in participating in such a network (see Appendix V), and that we already have clear objectives (see Appendix VI) as well as criteria for involvement documented in the Minutes of the First Consultation (June 1999).

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS expressed his concern that a large “unwieldy” network with a diverse membership would be difficult to govern. Are we biting off more than we can chew? Do we need to get more input from our regional colleagues? He suggested that the network begin as a relatively small group of dedicated NGOs and individuals who can “spread the word” and keep the idea alive, rather than attempt to unveil the finished product from the start. He also suggested that the network have an annual or biannual meeting of members, perhaps associated with an annual or biannual Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference. Funding will be an issue, and so it=s logical that network meetings be scheduled in a complimentary way to the regional scientific conferences, rather than competing with them.

Lily VENIZELOS agreed that the network needed to be attractive to people, and that it needed an air of official status and “glamour” ... similar to the relationship that WIDECAST has with the UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme. We have UNEP, IUCN, WWF, etc. here in the Mediterranean and we need to court relationships with these larger entities. These linkages are important for many reasons, including status, contacts, and resources. She also noted that the larger NGOs, including STPS, MEDASSET, and DHKD already have a large portfolio of projects - how will they handle new responsibilities? Maybe a group or coalition of NGOs should assume the role of governance for the new network.

Karen ECKERT agreed, and noted that this was clearly a point of agreement. She reminded the Meeting of the discussion earlier in the day regarding the role of the Secretariat and an Executive Committee.

Lily VENIZELOS expressed her view that we then get on with it and start delegating real responsibility to a core group of people. She asked, “What is the best way to utilize the individual skills of the groups represented at this Meeting?”

Emrah BILGE shared with the Meeting a notice from WWF indicating that DHKD would be restructured into “WWF-Turkey” in a short time, and that the transition would bring additional support from WWF-International. DHKD looks forward to using this newly emerging relationship, and the resources it will bring, to participate in a very positive way in the new network. He offered the DHKD as an “interim Secretariat” for the network and suggested that the DHKD be charged with specific tasks, such as drafting Bylaws for circulation and review.

Lily VENIZELOS mentioned that WWF-Greece is also involved in sea turtle issues, especially with regards to protected areas.

Brendan GODLEY asked whether BILGE=s offer came with the blessing of the highest levels of administration in DHKD.

Emrah BILGE responded that it did.

Brendan GODLEY suggested that when an NGO offers (or agrees) to take on a task, it should be incumbent upon that NGO to have (or seek) funding and other resources to accomplish the task.

Dimitris MARGARITOULIS commented that he was unable to attend the First Regional Consultation (Turkey, June 1999), but that he had reviewed the Minutes and he wondered, “what is the need for such a regional network?” With the success of intergovernmental commitments and activities, what more is there to contribute? It is the business of RAC-SPA, for example, to pass Resolutions and to implement the Mediterranean Action Plan - who implements “our” Resolutions or recommendations? Maybe the primary role of a regional sea turtle conservation network, at least at the beginning, should be to define the relationship between the new network and the existing convention entities. He suggested that the Pan-Mediterranean Conference might be a good forum for this discussion. He also noted that the network cannot produce an Action Plan (because the region has already negotiated such a Plan), but the network could have a formal role in implementing the Action Plan at the local level.

Atef OUERGHI agreed, and suggested that such a discussion (i.e. the relationship between the new network and existing regional collaborative mechanisms, especially those at the inter-governmental level) be placed on the agenda for the Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference.

Karen ECKERT expressed her opinion that this be one aspect of the network=s identity (i.e. its relationship to the Mediterranean Action Plan), but not the whole of its identity. There are many aspects of sea turtle research and conservation that are not adequately covered by existing venues, and these aspects were very well described and discussed during the First Regional Consultation in Dalyan.

Brendan GODLEY agreed, and stated his view that there were in fact a great many “bread and butter issues on the ground” that are not adequately addressed, or addressed at all, in the Action Plan. The Action Plan fits within the mandate of existing conventions and inter-governmental interests, but there is a need in the region for a broader vision and more collaboration at the project level, including information exchange, personnel training, standardized reporting, and advocacy, when appropriate, from the non-governmental scientific community.

Dimitris MARGARITOULIS responded that he had not intended to suggest that having some role in implementing the Action Plan be the only activity taken by the network, but simply that it might lend continuity to the regional agenda already in place, “visibility” and “stature” to the network (as has already been discussed), and strengthen existing mechanisms. Also, by fitting into the agenda set by the Action Plan, it might be more likely that the network would receive funding from UNEP.

Erdal ÖZHAN suggested that it works both ways - that is, the network would logically play a role in implementing the existing Action Plan at the local level, but also contribute to it and advocate for change as necessary. He recalled the concerns of some participants at the First Consultation that we needed broader representation, more time, additional resources, a more specific agenda, and other things before we could get started. But look where we=ve come! These discussions have been very rewarding and stimulating, and have served to ignite and sustain a long-standing dialogue that had never reached any conclusion or action. Now we have a core group of dedicated supporters, we have solicited (and analyzed) our broader input, and we have come now together again to take the next small steps to realizing our shared vision. As our boat floats, it will bring other boats with it. Things do take time, but with that in mind ... let=s not have any more delays!

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS followed with a challenge to the Meeting – “Ok, so what decisions need to be taken now, in order to move us forward?” He suggested that we discuss the following: (i) network type (e.g. should it be constituted as an independent NGO?); (ii) network membership criteria; (iii) network address (e.g. interim Secretariat?); (iv) major structural entities (e.g. Secretariat, Executive Committee, other committees); (v) the role/responsibility(s) of members (e.g. information sharing, reporting); (vi) Bylaws, at least in draft form; (vii) a follow-up meeting of the interim Secretariat and major players to adopt the Bylaws; and (viii) renewed tasks for the existing Working Group/Facilitators.

Karen ECKERT suggested that membership should not be confined to established academics, NGO personnel, or project directors, but instead embrace people from any walk of life whose daily responsibilities involve sea turtles, coastal habitat management, or related conservation issues. This might include protected areas managers, local educators, or specialists in coastal zone management, pollution, or sea turtle husbandry/ rehabilitation. She asked participants to give Dimitrios= questions some thought over the lunch break.

 

Lunch

Erdal ÖZHAN chaired the Afternoon Session, and began with a brief summary of the morning’s deliberations, calling the interchange “fruitful and constructive”. He noted that certain details still needed to be worked out, and these should include but not necessarily be limited to: (i) address/ interim address for the Secretariat; (ii) provisional structure for the network, including rules of governance (e.g. Bylaws, Terms of Reference); (iii) and recommendations for follow-up action.

 

The discussion that followed resulted in these points of consensus:

Structure and Governance -

 

Action Taken -

STPS                              MEDCOAST

MEDASSET                   WIDECAST

DHKD                            RAC-SPA

MTRG                            ISRC

CHELON *                    MTSG *

* CHELON and MTSG (rep: Juan Antonio CAMINAS) were confirmed post-meeting by Dimitris MARGARITOULIS

 

DHKD (Chair), STPS, MEDASSET

(WIDECAST, MEDCOAST will provide copies of their Bylaws)

 

 

With DHKD's offer on the table, Erdal ÖZHAN asked for other nominations. MEDASSET was nominated by STPS. Lily VENIZELOS gracefully declined, citing insufficient staff and resources, but she offered full support, help and collaboration to DHKD if they were to assume secretariat duties. Seeing no other nominations, the Chair (Erdal ÖZHAN) called for discussion. The discussion that ensued had inescapable political overtones, but also functional concerns about whether DHKD was in a position (having many and diverse existing program responsibilities in Turkey) to take on the role of Interim Secretariat. But there was consensus that, “if we wait we lose time and momentum - and what do we gain? We gain nothing.” Someone observed, “If we can’t even make interim decisions harmoniously, how will we ever make the hard decisions later on?”

Erdal ÖZHAN urged the meeting “not to let our politics pollute our decision-making” and, seeing no further discussion, called for a vote on the motion that DHKD assume the role of Interim Secretariat for the period of approximately one year until the convening of the first Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference. The vote, by show of hands, was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 2 abstaining.

Karen ECKERT reminded the Meeting that when the Bylaws are concluded, the role of the Secretariat will be fully defined. At that point, any NGO in the Mediterranean Region can bid on the privilege of hosting the Secretariat. The Bylaws will also define the criteria for membership (e.g. categories, procedures), as well as election and terms of service for officers (i.e. Executive Committee members, including the Secretariat), voting, discipline, quorum issues, regular meetings, and changes to the Bylaws. Over time it may become clear that the network would benefit from independent standing, and the Bylaws should not rule this option out. The results of the questionnaire illustrate that the region is split on this point, with 46% of our colleagues thinking that the network should be hosted by an existing NGO and 43% thinking that it should be an independent international NGO.

Atef OUERGHI requested input from the Meeting on whether RAC-SPA could host the new regional network.

Erdal ÖZHAN responded that, in his view, NGOs and governments tend to view things differently, and perhaps a complementary relationship would be more beneficial for both parties. Nonetheless, when the criteria have been established and the Bylaws adopted, UNEP should feel free to express its desire, if it has one, to host the network. (A short discussion of this point ensued, and the consensus was that NGOs and academics would benefit from an apolitical forum in which to collaborate, exchange information, and advocate to the inter-governmental community.)

 

Other Decisions -

 

Coffee Break

Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS observed that, because of the interim nature of the IEC, WIDECAST and MEDCOAST are still needed as “parents” of the emerging concept of a regional sea turtle network in the Mediterranean Region. Before a full-fledged Secretariat can be established, the Bylaws must be fully defined. Prior to that time, continued support and oversight by these established networks would be very useful.

Erdal OZHAN responded that MEDCOAST and WIDECAST stand ready to assist in any and all ways, but that the purpose of this ongoing dialogue and data-gathering exercise is most definitely to launch the new network as a self-governing entity independent of its “parents”.

Brendan GODLEY suggested that for this to happen, the first priority must be the Bylaws. He suggested that the Meeting focus on the responsibilities of the DHKD as Interim Secretariat.

 

It was agreed that the responsibilities of the Interim Secretariat were to be as follows:

Michael WHITE asked for clarification on the difference between a “member” and a “supporter”.

Atef OUERGHI suggested that details such as that should be considered in the draft Bylaws, and then circulated for review and comment.

Erdal OZHAN suggested that the Bylaws, after having been approved by the Bylaws Task Force and the IEC, be posted to the AMEDSETCON@ website (hosted by MEDCOAST).

 

Follow-up Actions:

Emrah BILGE thanked the Meeting for the vote of confidence in electing the DHKD as Interim Secretariat and agreed to take the lead in soliciting copies of Bylaws from relevant organizations that might serve as models during the drafting process. Deadlines - by 1 March 2001 DHKD will have identified gaps in the draft Bylaws and allocated writing assignments to Task Force members; by 1 June 2001 a complete draft will be submitted to the IEC for comment.

The following were suggested as potentially relevant Bylaw “models”:

Lily VENIZELOS – MEDASSET(UK)
Atef OUERGHI - MedPAN
Brendan GODLEY - MEDMARAVIS
Dimitrios DIMOPOULOS - MEDWET (Ramsar)
Karen ECKERT - WIDECAST
Erdal ÖZHAN - MEDCOAST

 

Third Regional Consultation to Facilitate the Creation of a Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network:

The Meeting agreed that the Third Consultation should convene at the Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conference, but that Erdal ÖZHAN and Karen ECKERT could not be involved if the conference convened in late October 2001. The Meeting had earlier agreed that it would be the responsibility of the Interim Secretariat to convene the Third Regional Consultation, but specific responsibility for this important task was left unresolved pending further information on the time and place of the regional conference. (E.g. If the Conference is held in Greece, it was agreed that STPS should take the lead in organizing the Third Regional Consultation.) The Meeting agreed that the primary purpose of the Third Consultation would be to make specific recommendations, based on the Bylaws, about constituting a Secretariat office, Executive Committee, and membership. Fund-raising was also raised as an important aspect for the Third Consultation to consider.

 

Concluding Business:

Brendan GODLEY suggested that the network adopt/endorse the regional tagging center created by the IUCN-MTSG. There was no objection.

Karen ECKERT suggested that once the Bylaws had been approved by the Bylaws Task Force and the members of the IEC, they should be submitted to the experts that comprise the IUCN-MTSG in the Mediterranean, and that MTSG comment would be very useful.

Lily VENIZELOS complimented the meeting on its achievements, and she felt sure that all tasks would be carried out with transparency, grace, and commitment. She offered, on behalf of the Meeting, her profound gratitude to Erdal ÖZHAN and Karen ECKERT for their leadership.

Erdal OZHAN thanked all participants for their contributions, and for their continued commitment to a Mediterranean Sea Turtle Conservation Network. The Meeting was adjourned.