Rhodes, 20 Years On

Two decades have now elapsed since the landmark First International Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal, held on the Greek island of Rhodes in May 1978. As we edge towards the millennium, it is perhaps time to take stock of some of the achievements and failures in our efforts to conserve this critically-endangered species.

Happily, those who were predicting the extinction of Monachus monachus by the year 2000 – including me – have been proved wrong. Graphs charting the inexorable decline of the species, based on known and assumed mortalities, appeared compelling in the late 1970’s, yet the conclusions drawn from them have not withstood the test of time. There are several possible reasons for this, including the unreliability of survey methods, and a tendency to underestimate individual numbers of this shy, elusive species that continues to survive along remote coastlines. It is equally possible that, as population numbers declined, seals became that much harder to find and to kill. To some extent, it is also conceivable that human observers have underestimated the resilience of a species long renowned for its intelligence and cunning. There is also the unquantifiable influence of ecological awareness, which, although painfully slow in its ability to effect any meaningful change, has undeniably begun to seep into isolated communities.

Population estimates are, of course, subject to reassessment as new data become available. In the case of the monk seal, this had led to a particularly quirky side-effect, in that today’s population estimates (400-600 individuals) are virtually identical to the numbers presented at Rhodes 20 years ago. For many of the reasons outlined above, however, this gives little cause for celebration. Indeed, monk seals have been effectively extirpated from several important regions during the two decades since Rhodes, including the Adriatic coasts of Croatia, the Galite archipelago of Tunisia, the Black Sea and Marmara.

Furthermore, there has been little progress in establishing the network of inter-connecting marine parks and reserves that were identified as the overriding priority at Rhodes (and at almost every successive conference). Greece may have chosen four important seal habitat areas as Natura 2000 reserves (see Regional News, this issue), yet it remains to be seen when these will have effective management authorities, guards and patrol boats. Virtually the same can be said for Turkey, whose government has, during past international conferences, spared little effort in praising itself for its commitment to Monachus, and broadcasting its achievements in creating reserves for the species. Yet realities at ground-zero require a rather more sober assessment than those offered from the conference hall podium.

In September-October last year, we visited 7 protected areas that, at one time or another, have been portrayed as offering refuge to the monk seal. These included Specially-Protected Areas (SPAs) at Foça, Gökova, Fethiye-Göcek and Datça-Bozburun, the monk seal protection zone at Bodrum, the Dilek National Park opposite the Greek island of Samos, and finally, the Olimpos Bey Daglari National Park. While the list may seem impressive enough on paper, it must be said that not one of these reserves could boast even so much as a functioning patrol boat, much less an efficient management plan. As a result, illegal fishing, a boom in pleasure boating and cave-exploring tourism have all cast serious doubt on the conservation viability of these areas for monk seals.

Although the pathway from Rhodes is littered with unfulfilled promises, it should not be assumed that the conservation of the monk seal is a lost cause. In at least two areas where protected zones have been established – Madeira and the Northern Sporades islands in Greece – monk seal populations appear to be either stable or showing encouraging signs of increase. Some four years ago, the Foça SPA was reporting similar results, although it is not entirely clear whether the loss of its patrol boat to mechanical failure and government indifference has adversely affected the local recovery of the species.

A less prominent failure in implementing conference resolutions surrounds international coordination and information exchange. Although this may seem somewhat insignificant compared to other priorities, weakness in these two key areas can have profoundly negative repercussions.

This is particularly true of the ambitious, ‘big-ticket’ projects that have been approved, funded and pursued without adequate consultation or review by the wider scientific and conservation community. Few will need reminding of the substantial resources and human effort required to force cancellation of captive breeding schemes by Antibes Marineland in 1990 and 1994. Despite serious doubts about the wisdom of a Spanish-led initiative to translocate monk seals from the Sahara Occidental to the Canary Islands, it still remains to be seen whether this EC–funded 2 million ECU project will proceed – with or without the approval of its belatedly-appointed Scientific Steering Committee. Hawaiian scientists sprung a similar surprise on the conservation community at the January 1997 Monaco Workshop [see Monachus in Monaco, this issue], and appeared to suggest that captive breeding of Monachus schauinslandi was now virtually inevitable. At least, that was the distinct impression conveyed – particularly when business cards were handed out bearing the name and corporate logo of the new captive breeding facility.

There can be little doubt that such high-stakes, high-tech projects have pushed monk seal conservation to the brink of crisis in recent years, effectively diverting attention and scarce resources from the most urgent priorities. Despite appearances, there is actually little disagreement on what those priorities might be. Indeed, a majority of scientists and conservationists involved in the study and protection of Monachus monachus have endorsed a set of specific guidelines that advocate a precautionary, sequential approach to monk seal conservation. These unambiguously reflect the first priority of action: in situ protection, including a network of protected areas, guards and patrol boats.

To a great extent, the invasive, ex situ projects that have dominated monk seal conservation in recent years have thrived behind closed doors. Public scrutiny and open debate were discouraged. Outsiders were often regarded – perhaps with sound rationale given the nature of some of these schemes – with suspicion and distrust. It was for this reason – and to fulfil one of the recommendations contained in the aforementioned Conservation Guidelines – that we decided to launch The Monachus Guardian.

We hope that this will provide a lively forum for international debate on all matters relating to monk seals, however controversial or contentious. In the spirit of open discussion, we encourage a wide-ranging exchange of views – even if they are at variance to The Monachus Guardian’s fundamental policy towards monk seal conservation.

If there is any remaining doubt as to what that policy might be, it can best be summed up by paraphrasing Bill Clinton’s legendary mantra on the economy: "It’s in situ protection, Stupid."

William M. Johnson, 20 May 1998