THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL CONSERVATION GUIDELINES · 1. Effective international coordination of...

1

William M. Johnson

David M. Lavigne

THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL

CONSERVATION GUIDELINESMultilingual Edition: English, French, Greek, Spanish, Turkish

2

Copyright © 1995, 1998 William M. Johnson, David M. Lavigne, IMMA Inc.

Published 1998 by

International Marine Mammal Association Inc.1474 Gordon StreetGuelph, OntarioCanada, N1L 1C8Fax. 519 - 767 0284

http://www.imma.org

Layout: Matthias Schnellmann

Cover Illustration: Phoca monachus. From: Beschreibung der Münchs-Robbe,Johann Herrmann [sic], 1779.

Photographs and Illustrations: Cover, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Archive W. M. Johnson;Fig. 1, S. Hertig / Archäologisches Institut der Universität Zürich;Fig. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, Matthias Schnellmann; Fig. 7, Parque Natural da Madeira;Fig. 9 Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal / MOm.

Cataloguing in Publication Data

Johnson, W. M. (William Miles), 1954 -Lavigne, D. M. (David Martin), 1946 -

The Mediterranean Monk Seal: Conservation Guidelines (2nd edition)

ISBN 0-9698171-4-2

1. Mediterranean Monk Seal. 2. Conservation. 3. Sequential Approach.II. Title.

– Printed on recycled paper –

3

Fra

nçai

sÅ

ëëç

íéê

ÜE

spañ

olT

ürkç

e

CONTENTS

English

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Conservation Guidelines:I. International Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

II. Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16III. Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17IV. Legislation & Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19V. Education & Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VI. Rescue & Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23VII. Translocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VIII. Captive Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

French – Directives de conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Greek – Ïäçãßåò ÄéáôÞñçóçò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Spanish – Directrices sobre conservación . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Turkish – Koruma Kýlavuzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

NotesExtracts from Conference Resolutions 1978-1994

I. International Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134II. Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

III. Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137IV. Legislation & Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139V. Education & Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

VI. Rescue & Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143VII. Translocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

VIII. Captive Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Endorsements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

4

Fig. 1. Caeretan hydria (detail), circa 520 B.C.

5

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The first edition of these Guidelines was published in 1995. It attempted tosynthesize resolutions and action plans proposed for Mediterranean monk seals overthe period 1978-1994. In keeping with the source material, the Guidelines wereoriginally published only in English (Johnson & Lavigne 1995).

To make the Guidelines more accessible, we have produced this 2nd edition, whichincludes translations in French, Greek, Spanish and Turkish. In so doing, we have– with the help of bilingual colleagues – gone to some lengths to ensure that thetranslations are accurate. If, however, any differences still remain among the variousversions, please defer to the English text, which remains the definitive version.

In addition, this version of the Guidelines includes a list of endorsements received asof 29 September 1997.

William Johnson & David Lavigne18 March 1998

6

A Brief Note on Semantics

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,“it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

~ Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass ~

The word conservation means different things to different people. To avoid anyambiguity, the word is used in the present document simply to mean ‘preservation fromdestructive influences… protection from undesirable changes’ (OED, 1989).

Consistently, the words conservation community merely refer to those who have bothinterests and expertise in the conservation – as defined above – of Mediterranean monkseals. The conservation community to which we refer, therefore, includes experts fromgovernments, non-governmental organisations and the academic community in thefields of: marine policy and law; marine mammal biology (e.g. population dynamics,population genetics) and management (e.g. the relevant management authorities);animal welfare and veterinary medicine (e.g. rescue, rehabilitation and captivebreeding); ethics; public education; etc.

OED. 1989. Conservation. pp. 764-765. In The Oxford English Dictionary, SecondEdition, Vol. III. Prepared by J. A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

7

“Since time immemorial the Mediterranean monk seal Monachusmonachus (Hermann 1779) has been part of the natural fauna of thecoastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the WestCoast of Africa north of Mauritania. It was a well-known figure of

Antiquity; Plutarch, Pliny, Aristotle and Homer all include Monachusmonachus in their writings. In those days, the monk seal was a

common inhabitant of the Greek coast and other areas. Today, themonk seals live wildly in their primeval range around the

Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic seas, but are now confined chieflyto remote cliffbound coasts and islets. It is estimated that the numberof monk seals has been reduced by 90% in the last 50 years and thatthe entire monk seal population is now reduced to between 500 and800 individuals… [The monk seal] preceded man on this world by

several millions of years; it is a non competitive species. We all have aduty to save this species, now perilously near extinction.”

~ Mustafa K. Tolba, Executive Director, United NationsEnvironment Programme, First International Conference on the

Mediterranean Monk Seal, Rhodes, Greece, May 1978 ~

“…there is no longer time for discussion – only for action.”

~ Resolution, Second International Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal, La Rochelle, 1984 ~

“The parties to the Barcelona Convention included among theirpriority targets to be achieved by 1995 the protection of the

Mediterranean monk seal.”

~ Resolution of Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, Genoa, 9-13 September 1985 ~

“Action must be taken now.”

~ Action Plan for the Management of the Mediterranean monk seal, United Nations Environment Programme, 1987 ~

From International Conferences…

8

Fig. 2. Le phoque à ventre blanc. From: Supplément à l’histoire naturelle,M. le Comte de Buffon, 1782.

9


CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

1. INTRODUCTION

The Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) is Europe’s most endangeredmarine mammal. Threats to its survival were clearly identified at the FirstInternational Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal convened in Rhodes,Greece in 1978 (Ronald & Duguy, 1979; Anon. 1990). They include:

1. Increased adult and juvenile mortality because of deliberate killing(mostly by fishers).

2. Increased adult and juvenile mortality caused by incidental entanglementin fishing gear.

3. Increased adult and juvenile mortality due to human disturbance(activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping).

4. Increased pup mortality caused by pupping in unsuitable locations, due toloss of preferred habitat.

5. Poor condition due to lack of food as a result of overfishing.

6. Reduced fecundity and pup survival [possibly] caused by inbreedingdepression.

The Rhodes Conference also produced a set of clearly defined action prioritiesdesigned to stem and reverse the decline of the monk seal. They include:

1. Effective international coordination of monk seal conservation activities.

2. Effective enforcement of legislation prohibiting the direct killing andharassment of monk seals, and government actions to encouragecoexistence between fishers and seals.

3. Benign scientific research to identify and monitor monk seal habitatareas.

10

4. The establishment of a network of reserves and protected areas.

5. Education and public awareness programmes.

6. Rescue and rehabilitation of wounded, stranded and orphaned seals.

Numerous meetings followed in the wake of the landmark Rhodes Conference (for arecent review see Israëls, 1992), yet all generally reiterated and re-emphasised itsrecommendations and conservation priorities. Arguably, it is this that speaks mosteloquently of the one overriding and persistent problem affecting monk sealconservation: the failure to translate recommendations and priorities into effectiveactions.

Nonetheless, a few tangible benefits for the species have been realised in the sixteenyears since Rhodes. Protected areas have been established in Greece, Madeira,Mauritania and Turkey, and detailed plans have been drawn up for a marine park toprotect the world’s largest surviving monk seal colony on the Côte des Phoques inthe Sahara Occidental (Anon., 1994a). Even more importantly, scientific reportsindicate that in at least two areas where protected zones have been established – theNorthern Sporades and Madeira – monk seal populations seem to be showingencouraging signs of increase (HSSPMS, 1993; Neves, 1992). Since theestablishment of a conservation area near Foça, Turkey in 1993, the WWF FoçaPilot Project has also reported an increase in seal sightings (Cirik & Güçlüsoy,1994). In addition, the establishment of a mobile intensive care station in theNorthern Sporades Marine Park has demonstrated that rescue and rehabilitation ofstranded and orphaned seals is a feasible component of a conservation strategy. Inanother important contribution to the survival of the species, education and publicawareness programmes are being implemented in several countries.

Despite these important strides, many fundamental problems remain unresolved.There has been little progress, for example, in establishing the network ofinterconnecting reserve areas envisaged at Rhodes. Similarly, the vital aim ofencouraging coexistence between seals and fishers through direct aid andcommunity assistance schemes remains elusive. Adequate funding also continues tobe scarce or erratic, particularly for practical conservation measures at a grassrootslevel. Though originally envisaged as a crucial component of a conservationstrategy, scientific research – frequently taking the lion’s share of resources – hasoften proceeded without the vital integration of practical initiatives designed to

Introduction

11

protect the species. Most importantly of all, international coordination has remainedvague and haphazard.

Arguably, this lack of coordination has created a climate in which fragmented andill-considered actions – some posing potentially serious threats to monk seals – havebeen able to thrive. Proving particularly contentious have been captive breeding andtranslocation initiatives, approved, funded and pursued without adequateconsultation or review by the wider scientific and conservation community (Johnson& Lavigne, 1994). While it may be an exaggeration to portray monk sealconservation as being in a state of crisis, these controversies have undoubtedlyserved to cloud the conservation agenda and to divert attention, labour and scarceresources from more urgent priorities.

Widespread misgivings over a captive breeding feasibility study for monk seals atAntibes Marineland have been well-documented, and have forced postponement ofthe project on two occasions (Johnson & Lavigne, 1994). History looks set to repeatitself in a project to translocate monk seals from the Côte des Phoques to Isla deLobos, or other locations, in the Canary Islands (ICONA, 1994a,b). The EuropeanCommunity LIFE programme awarded this project some one million ECUs evenbefore it had been reviewed by the wider scientific and conservation community,including the IUCN Seal Specialist Group. In so doing, the European Union appearsto have disregarded an earlier scientific review published by the Council of Europe,in which Isla de Lobos was specifically rejected as a potential translocation site inthe Canary Islands (Hernandez, 1986). The report states:

“It would appear that the Monk Seal (‘Lobo Marino’) became extinctin the Canary Archipelago a century ago (Garcia Cabrera, 1971),although vagrant individuals are occasionally observed… [A] smallgroup of islands and islets situated off the north coast of Lanzarote…appear[s] to be the best site for the reintroduction of the Monk Seal inthe Canary Islands. Isla de Lobos (declared a Natural Park in 1983) isexcluded on the basis of its close proximity to urbanized areas, and ingeneral, owing to its high degree of deterioration… Unfortunately…declaration as a Natural Park is the least indicated protection statusfor the islets since according to the Spanish Legislation of NaturalProtected Areas (Law 15/1975, 2nd May), Natural Parks are

Introduction

12

Introduction

contemplated as areas where the general public is in contact withnature. Consequently, the area needs to be urgently reclassified undera more stringent protection category (Strict Reserve?), in order toimpede free access to the public.”

Both the French captive breeding project and the Spanish translocation proposal(which is only now being reviewed by a scientific committee on behalf of IUCN andthe European Commission) illustrate the problems posed by inadequateinternational coordination and cooperation in monk seal conservation.

This particular lack of coordination hampers information exchange betweenprojects, hinders public support and fund-raising initiatives, impedes effectivelobbying of governments to institute specific conservation measures, such as thecreation of marine reserves, and generally has a disruptive influence on monk sealconservation efforts. On a more fundamental level, the absence of effectivecoordination is inadvertently encouraging the current trend towards fragmentation ofinitiatives. Such fragmentation runs counter to the recommendations and prioritiesidentified at Rhodes and reiterated at subsequent meetings.

In order to address these crucial issues, we felt that a comprehensive re-examinationof conference resolutions would be particularly timely. Accordingly, we reviewedthe resolutions and action plans of all the major monk seal conservation meetingsand conferences (see Notes). From these, we attempted to synthesise a single set ofconservation guidelines, which is presented in the following section. We hope thatthese guidelines will encourage a reappraisal of current monk seal conservationinitiatives, and highlight failings and shortcomings that require urgent remedialaction.

13

2. CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

The following Guidelines are based on the resolutions of internationalmonk seal conferences spanning sixteen years. Source references, inthe form of extracts from conference resolutions, are provided in theNotes section of this publication. The Guidelines are presented belowunder the headings: International Coordination, Scientific Research,Habitat Protection, Legislation and Enforcement, Education andPublic Awareness, Rescue and Rehabilitation, Translocation, andCaptive Breeding.

I. INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION

1. In 1989, the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean ActionPlan (in association with the Council of Europe and the Barcelona, Bern andBonn Conventions) assumed the role of international coordinator ofMediterranean monk seal conservation activities. In view of this, and in order tomeet effectively its responsibilities in this regard, a central coordinating officefor the conservation of the Mediterranean monk seal, adequately staffed andfunded, should be established under the auspices of UNEP/MAP. ThisInternational Coordinating Unit (ICU) should be operated in full consultationand partnership with the IUCN Seal Specialist Group and NGOs accredited toMAP. Broad-ranging discussions between these parties should be conducted inestablishing the ICU’s terms of reference and operational mandate.

2. The ICU should create a comprehensive register of all relevant governmental,inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, projects andindividuals concerned with the conservation of Mediterranean monk seals. Thisregister should be distributed to all relevant parties.

3. In formulating policy and activities, the ICU should be advised by a standingcommittee of experts. This advisory committee should reflect diversespecialisations in the field of marine mammal conservation, includinginternational marine policy and law, marine mammal management, population

14

The Mediterranean Monk Seal

dynamics, genetics, veterinary medicine, marine park management, educationand public awareness, rescue and rehabilitation, animal welfare, environmentalphilosophy, fundraising and lobbying. Members should also include officialrepresentatives of range states.

4. Projects likely to have a significant or international impact on the conservationof the species (such as translocation, captive breeding and potentially invasivescientific research) should be reviewed both by the advisory committee and bythe wider scientific and conservation community before implementation. Theconsultative process should include all relevant IUCN specialist groups. TheICU should ensure that both scientific and ethical concerns are fully addressedin the review process.

5. The ICU and its advisory committee should actively seek and encourageconsistent and long-term funding for high-priority monk seal conservationprojects, including the establishment and management of protected areas,scientific research to identify monk seal populations in urgent need of

Fig. 3. Fishers with a dead monk seal in Menorca, Spain, circa 1945.

15

Conservation Guidelines

protection, economic assistance to local fishing communities (to encouragethem to protect seal colonies), and educational campaigns.

6. Information exchange should be regarded as a vital component of thecoordinating process. A biannual newsletter, published by the ICU orcontracted to an NGO, would serve as a useful vehicle for the dissemination ofnews and information focusing on monk seal conservation activitiesinternationally.1

7. The ICU should coordinate a central register for all monk seal conservation andresearch activities.2 Reports, proposals and other publications should be lodgedwith the central register. To aid information exchange, the coordinating officeshould publish abstracts, and provide full copies upon request. As an aid toresearch, projects should also be encouraged to provide their reports oncomputer disk. The coordinating office should also consider making reportsavailable through the Internet.

8. The ICU should publish a report of its activities on an annual basis.

1 Up until April 1992, the University of Guelph, Canada, published The Newsletter of theLeague for the Conservation of the Monk Seal. This publication, which has served aunique and important role in information exchange, should be relaunched and publishedon a regular basis.2 The Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique and the Sea Mammal ResearchUnit, Cambridge, already operate and administer The Monk Seal Register, acomputerised database collating all records of past and present sightings of monk sealswithin the European Union. There are plans to expand the Register to include countriesoutside the E.U., including Morocco and Turkey. A further expansion of the databaseforesees the digitizing of all photographs and drawings of individual monk seals so thatthey can be incorporated into the computer database.

16

II. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

1. All scientific research and monitoring of the Mediterranean monk seal shouldbe conducted with minimum disturbance to individuals and populations. Onlyscientific research directly aiding, rather than conflicting with, conservationpriorities should be conducted.

2. In assessing scientific research for funding and other forms of support, priorityshould be given to research programmes of a demonstrably practical valueaimed at enhancing the survival of individuals and the protection, recovery andconservation of the species.

3. Scientific research should form an integral part of a broad-ranging recoveryplan for the species. Wherever possible, research programmes should tie-inclosely with other conservation initiatives being implemented in the region,such as the establishment of protected areas, and public awareness andeducation programmes. In particular, priority should be given to:

Fig. 4. Installing an automatic camera in a seal cave on Piperi, Northern Sporades.


17

a. Non-invasive monitoring of seal populations in protected areas throughdirect observation and the use of appropriate technology (e.g. ‘cameratraps’, video recording).

b. Surveys aimed at identifying sites most suitable for the establishment ofadditional protected areas.

c. The reappraisal of previous population surveys and previous proposals forprotected areas.

d. Socio-economic research to ascertain how local communities may benefitfrom the conservation process and thus be encouraged to protect monk sealsand their habitat. Such research should also attempt to establish thepossibilities of achieving effective, intermediate protection of important sealcolonies through the direct involvement of local authorities.

4. All forms of potentially invasive scientific research (e.g. those involvingcapture, transport, translocation or captive breeding) must be subject to wide-ranging assessment and consultation by the international scientific andconservation community, including the relevant IUCN specialist groups, priorto funding and implementation.

5. The results of scientific research should be made available through the centralregistry (see Section I - 7).


III. HABITAT PROTECTION

1. Recognising that the Mediterranean monk seal is critically endangered due todirect killing, human encroachment, harassment and disturbance, the creation ofprotected areas must be the overriding priority for the conservation of thespecies.

2. Because most surviving monk seal populations are small and highly dispersed,the establishment of an interconnecting network of national parks, reserves andprotected areas is urgently required to protect the species. The network shouldinclude breeding and feeding sites, and, where appropriate, dispersal corridors,which can serve to connect seal populations within and beyond national borders.

18

Fig. 6. Signposted regulations in the Foça Specially Protected Area, Turkey.

Fig. 5. An IFAW-donated MOm patrol boat on duty in the Northern Sporades MarinePark.


19

3. Human access to monk seal reserves and protected areas should be strictlycontrolled. While buffer zones could be used for traditional, non-intensivefishing activities and non-intensive eco-tourism opportunities, core zonesshould remain free of human disturbance, such as fishing, tourism and boattraffic, which should be strictly prohibited.

4. Local communities should be fully involved in establishing monk seal reservesand protected areas. Though the final aim must be to achieve a permanentnetwork of reserve areas through national legislation, the critical status of themonk seal will not permit long delays in the legislative process. Therefore,every effort should be made to achieve rapid, intermediate protection ofimportant seal habitats through the involvement of local communities, and byimplementing economic assistance schemes to local fishing communities.

5. Reserves and protected areas require detailed management plans and a long-term commitment of funds, resources and equipment. To be effective,management plans should include training programmes for managers and staffof protected areas, and sufficient human resources and equipment to ensureenforcement of protection regulations.


IV. LEGISLATION & ENFORCEMENT

1. Governments, through national, bilateral and multilateral initiatives, should aimto establish a network of reserves and protected areas to safeguard monk sealhabitat.

2. Complex legislation and a wide-ranging consultative process are normallyrequired to establish national parks and protected areas. Such measures areoften a prerequisite for long-term success, yet delays inherent in the processhave sometimes acted as a deterrent to the creation of protected areas. While itmay not always be possible to expedite this process when creating marine parkscovering large geographical areas, national legislation that can allow the rapidprotection and guarding of smaller areas is essential.

20

3. In European Union nations, the designation of Special Areas of Conservationfor the monk seal, as required under EU law, should be achieved throughimplementation of Directive 92/43/EEC-Natura 2000 on the Conservation ofNatural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora.

4. Governments must ensure strict enforcement of regulations prohibiting thedirect killing and harassment of monk seals, the use of dynamite and chemicalsfor fishing operations, and the carrying of firearms in boats.

5. National programmes for the protection of the monk seal should develop aframework where local communities, particularly those dependent on fishingand tourism, may benefit from the conservation process. Recognising thatcommunity participation is a crucial component of any conservation strategy,national programmes should encourage local initiatives and the involvement oflocal people.

6. Governments must ensure that monk seal conservation measures areincorporated into fisheries policies and legislation. Priorities should include theprohibition of fishing activities in key sensitive areas occupied by the species.

7. To encourage the co-existence of fishers and monk seals, governments must beprepared to offer compensation or alternative opportunities to localcommunities (such as providing replacement fishing gear or other aid) in orderto achieve regulation and control of fishing activities in areas where monk sealslive.

8. Governments should ensure that projects endorsed by national programmesreceive the necessary financial support to achieve their aims.

9. Governments should ensure effective management and guarding of protectedareas, including providing for the adequate training of personnel and theprocurement of necessary equipment.

10. National programmes for the conservation of the monk seal should establish arescue network to ensure that wounded or orphaned seals can receive rapidveterinary assistance and rehabilitation when the need arises (see Section VI).

11. Governments and national programmes for the conservation of the monk sealshould ensure that local authorities, particularly police, port police and harbourauthorities, receive adequate information regarding the protection of the


21


species, strictly enforce existing legislation, and receive adequate instructionsfor the reporting of dead, wounded or abandoned seals to a nationalcoordinating unit.

12. Governments should ensure that the conservation of the monk seal is includedin the national curriculum of the educational system, and that relevanteducational materials are made available to schools.

V. EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS

1. Direct killing by fishers, arising from hostile human attitudes towards the monkseal, has been identified as the main cause for the decline of the species. Sincesuch attitudes are often deeply entrenched, education and public awarenesscampaigns should be implemented throughout the entire range of the species.

2. Information campaigns should enlist the support and involvement of fishers,fishing authorities, harbour-masters, teachers, school children and the generalpublic.

3. Resources should be made available to expand information and educationcampaigns, with emphasis on areas designated as high priorities for theestablishment of protected areas for monk seals.

4. Education and public awareness programmes conducted at a local level shouldbe planned and coordinated as an integral part of each national programme forthe conservation of the monk seal. It should be emphasised that by stimulatingthe involvement of local communities, information campaigns can often yieldadditional benefits for the conservation of species, allowing a canvassing ofpublic opinion and offering other valuable information-gathering opportunities.In this respect, information campaigns may prove more effective whenintegrated with socio-economic research and monk seal population surveys. Ifproperly structured, and supplied with the necessary resources and expertise, anexpanded role for teams conducting information campaigns might encompass:

a. Verifying the existence of seal colonies in preparation for subsequent,detailed scientific research.

22

b. Assessing local threats to the monk seal, such as deliberate killing byfishers, and disturbance by residents or tourists.

c. Formulating practical initiatives with the local community that can beimplemented to protect seal colonies, such as the compensation of fishers, orother community assistance schemes to allow the intermediate protection ofseal populations, and the establishment of an observer system to monitor the‘protected’ area.

5. Every effort should be made to develop and improve educational materials, inorder to stimulate public interest in the issue of monk seal conservation. Films


Fig. 7. Cover of an educational booklet published by the ParqueNatural da Madeira.

23


and videos, posters, educational publications for schools, for example, canprove vital and effective tools in achieving this aim.

6. Education packages should be developed for tourists and the tourist industry,particularly in areas where tourism threatens habitat and breeding areas. Everyeffort should be made to encourage tour operators to become partners in monkseal conservation, through sponsorship and the publication and distribution ofeducational materials. They should also be discouraged from organising tours tosensitive areas.

7. Information materials should also be produced for military authorities,industrial developers and the shipping industry, detailing actions that should betaken to support the conservation of the monk seal.

8. Samples of all educational materials produced in various countries should beheld at a central registry or focal point – such as the International CoordinatingUnit (see Section I) – to serve as a useful reference for other groups. The libraryshould also strive to collect photographic and other archival material forpossible use by similar projects in other countries.

VI. RESCUE & REHABILITATION

1. Rescue and rehabilitation of wounded, stranded or orphaned monk seals shouldbe subject to strict scientific and ethical protocols to prevent collection ofindividuals that do not require treatment. Protocols, reviewed and approved bythe wider conservation community, should also cover handling, transport,feeding, veterinary care, and release.

2. A mobile intensive care station, acting as a rescue and rehabilitation facility, iscurrently situated on the island of Alonissos in the Northern Sporades MarinePark, Greece.3 A similar facility has been proposed for Mauritania/Western

3 This intensive care station is operated jointly by the Hellenic Society for the Study &Protection of the Monk Seal (MOm), based in Athens, and the Seal Rehabilitation andResearch Centre, based in Pieterburen, the Netherlands.

24

Fig. 9. MOm Rescue Network sticker, providing instructions to members of thegeneral public.

Fig. 8. An orphaned monk seal pup in the MOm/SRRC Intensive Care Station onAlonissos.


25

Sahara near the Côte des Phoques seal colony. Should any additional rescue andrehabilitation facilities be deemed necessary, they should initially be establishedonly within the current range of surviving monk seal populations to reducestress associated with long-distance transport.

3. Rescue or observer networks should be established or improved to increase thelikelihood that wounded, stranded or orphaned seals will be located. Great caremust be taken, however, to ensure that healthy seals do not fall victim tooverzealous volunteers or members of the general public.

4. Following rehabilitation, seals should be released in protected areas, preferablyin the region where they were originally found.

5. Rescue and rehabilitation facilities should provide training opportunities in thecare and handling of captive monk seals, generating knowledge and expertiseuseful in any future translocation and captive breeding programmes (SeeSections VII and VIII respectively).

6. Recognising the potentially substantial risks of disease transmission associatedwith the transport of animals to and from rescue centres, and with reintroductionto the wild, comprehensive quarantine and assessment procedures should beimplemented throughout any rescue, rehabilitation and release programme.Such programmes should only be initiated after consultation with the widerscientific community and the IUCN Specialist Groups on Seals, Reintroductionand Veterinary Care.


VII. TRANSLOCATION

1. As a conservation strategy, translocation aims to reintroduce monk seals tohabitats historically occupied by the species. Nonetheless, it must be recognisedthat translocation is an invasive procedure that may pose significant andunwarranted threats to the monk seal population and the individuals concerned.Therefore, any proposals that involve the capture and translocation of healthyindividuals to new habitat areas should be subject to wide consultation and

26

approval by the scientific and conservation community prior to funding andimplementation. In addition to scientific matters, the consultation processshould also address ethical and animal welfare concerns.

2. Translocation of Mediterranean monk seals – an as yet untried conservationstrategy – holds certain potential risks to wild populations and the individualsconcerned. It is therefore strongly recommended that any proposal totranslocate animals be based on a cautious and sequential approach designed tominimise negative impacts. This should be achieved through a wide-rangingconsultation and review process, and through full integration with otherconservation priorities, such as habitat protection, scientific monitoring, andrescue and rehabilitation. Consistent with a sequential strategy, initialtranslocation release sites should be within the historical range of thepopulations from which the translocated animals originated, and adjacent to thelimits of the monk seal’s current range.

3. All translocation proposals should incorporate the following safeguards:

a. Project Evaluation. Comprehensive scientific and animal welfare input isrequired to devise broad-ranging criteria governing translocation projects.An international, independent, panel of experts, acting under the auspices ofUNEP/MAP, should formulate protocols governing translocation, reviewproposals, and monitor any approved projects for compliance.

b. Consultation. Prior to approval, funding and implementation, translocationprojects should also be subject to review and comment by the widerscientific and conservation community, including relevant IUCN specialistgroups. Ethical and animal welfare concerns should be fully addressedduring the review process.

c. Training . Project staff should receive comprehensive training in the careand handling of seals.

d. Release Site Protection. The release site of any translocation must bestrictly protected by legislation. Effective guarding of the area must beimplemented and all potential threats, such as fishing and disturbance bytourism and development, neutralised before translocation proceeds.

e. Post-Release Monitoring. Following translocation, scientific monitoringand tracking of the released animals must be implemented to evaluate the


27

success of the programme, and to provide feedback for assessingsubsequent proposals.

4. The removal of healthy animals from the wild should not be considered untilsuch time that effective in situ conservation measures have been implemented,and that scientific monitoring indicates that the source population in question isrelatively abundant, and increasing or stable. If any attempt to translocateanimals proves unsuccessful, then the reasons for failure must be understoodbefore further translocations are attempted.

5. Animals should only be translocated to habitats formerly occupied by thespecies.

6. Recognising the potentially substantial risks of disease transmission associatedwith translocation and reintroduction, comprehensive quarantine andassessment procedures should be implemented prior to release. Suchprogrammes should only be initiated after consultation with the IUCNSpecialist Groups on Seals, Reintroduction and Veterinary Care.


VIII. CAPTIVE BREEDING

1. It must be recognised that captive breeding of any species of monk seal is anuntried and untested procedure that may pose significant and unwarrantedthreats to the seal populations and individuals concerned. Therefore, anyproposals to institute captive breeding of the species or related feasibilitystudies should be subject to comprehensive review by the scientific andconservation community prior to funding and implementation. In addition toscientific matters, the consultation process should address ethical and animalwelfare concerns.

2. The objectives of any captive breeding programme should be:

a. In the first instance, to increase the size of surviving, depleted and possiblydeclining monk seal populations towards a stable equilibrium, e.g. ‘carryingcapacity’.

28

b. Having achieved objective (a), to provide seed stock for reintroductionprogrammes into suitable (and only into legally protected) habitats formerlyoccupied by the species.

3. In order to minimise transportation mortalities, disease transmission, anddifficulties posed by acclimation to a foreign environment (e.g. climaticconditions, photoperiod), any captive breeding project should initially occurwithin the current range of surviving monk seal populations. Furthermore,animals should be detained only in dedicated facilities where it is possible tolimit their exposure to human interference.

4. In view of the potential risks to the wild populations and the individualsconcerned, captive breeding initiatives should follow a cautious, sequentialapproach designed to minimise negative impacts. This should be achievedthrough a wide-ranging consultation and review process, and through fullintegration with other, related, conservation priorities, such as habitatprotection, rescue and rehabilitation, and translocation.

5. All captive breeding projects should incorporate the following safeguards:

a. Project Evaluation. Comprehensive scientific and animal welfare input isrequired to devise broad-ranging criteria governing captive breeding projects.An international, independent, panel of experts, acting under the auspices ofUNEP/MAP, should formulate protocols governing captive breeding, reviewproposals, and monitor any approved projects for compliance.

b. Consultation. Prior to approval, funding and implementation, captivebreeding projects should also be subject to review and comment by thewider scientific and conservation community, including relevant IUCNspecialist groups. Ethical and animal welfare concerns should be fullyaddressed during the review process.

c. Training . Project staff should receive comprehensive training in the careand handling of seals.

d. Release Site Protection. The release site of any captive breeding projectmust be strictly protected by legislation. Effective guarding of the area mustbe implemented and all potential threats, such as fishing and disturbance bytourism, must be neutralised before release proceeds.

e. Post-Release Monitoring. Following release, scientific monitoring and


29

tracking of the released animals must be implemented to evaluate thesuccess of the programme, and to provide feedback for assessingsubsequent proposals.

6. Should captive breeding ultimately be deemed necessary (following the imple-mentation of more urgent priorities, such as in situ protection and rescue andrehabilitation), suitable facilities should be established within the current rangeof the Mediterranean monk seal, in as close proximity as possible to populationsinvolved in the programme. To reduce the risks of disease transmission andother potential problems (e.g. reproductive incompatibility) any captive breed-ing feasibility study should initially use animals from a single population.

7. Recognising the potentially substantial risks of disease transmission associatedwith reintroduction and restocking, comprehensive quarantine and assessmentprocedures should be implemented prior to release. Such programmes shouldonly be initiated after consultation with the IUCN Specialist Groups on Seals,Reintroduction and Veterinary Care.


Fig. 10. Protecting the monk seal in its natural habitat is reflected in all conferenceresolutions as the overriding priority for action.

30

3. DISCUSSION

“No one action by itself is enough. The different components ofthe management plan are mutually reinforcing and must be

taken together to have a chance of success.”

~ Action Plan for the Management of the Mediterranean monk seal, United Nations Environment Programme, 1987 ~

Our review of conference resolutions and action plans for the conservation of theMediterranean monk seal reveals an extraordinary and encouraging consensus ofopinion on issues ranging from international coordination to habitat protection, frompublic awareness to captive breeding. Furthermore, the recommendations, spanningover sixteen years of scientific research, field experience and informed debate,remain as pertinent today as ever. Yet, it is also clear that those concerned with theconservation of Mediterranean monk seals have been more successful at holdingmeetings and agreeing on priorities than they have been at translating thesepriorities into action.

Indeed, despite all the meetings and all the good intentions, monk seal conservationactivities in recent years have become increasingly dispersed and fragmented, thedivisions drawn both by nationality and by the particular category of action involved.All too often, the essential components of current conservation activities, rangingfrom scientific research to in situ protection, remain essentially separate entities.They are rarely integrated into a mutually reinforcing and interdependent strategy.As a consequence, the attainment of conservation objectives has been severelycompromised.

Few would argue that monk seal conservation efforts would not benefit from theintegration of activities, as reflected in the various conference resolutionssynthesised in the previous section. To a large degree, such integration is dependentupon efficient national and international coordination. At one time or another overthe last sixteen years, various international bodies have claimed responsibility forthis crucial role, including IUCN, the Council of Europe, the European Communityand UNEP. Yet effective international coordination has remained a largelyunfulfilled promise.

31

The resultant vacuum has allowed particularly controversial issues, such as captivebreeding and translocation, to dominate the conservation agenda. In many respects,these issues are symbolic of the current fragmentary approach to monk sealconservation. Though widely portrayed in conference resolutions and in the widerconservation literature as measures of “last resort” (see Norse 1993, p. 223), which“…should be viewed with caution and only used… when reduction of threats and insitu protection methods have failed,” they have been pursued regardless, and haveattracted major funding allocations (e.g. ICONA, 1994a,b).

Though entirely separate from one another organizationally, it must be stressed thatthe French captive breeding feasibility study4 and the Spanish translocation projectare not the separate issues they first appear to be, since both centre around the Côtedes Phoques monk seal population in the Sahara Occidental. Furthermore, two otherinitiatives, equally unrelated to one another on an organizational level, also focus onthe Côte des Phoques: a Dutch rescue and rehabilitation project, and Moroccanplans to establish a national park in the area.

The existence of these disparate, and to some extent competing, initiatives mightappear to pose a dilemma of such magnitude and complexity that any meaningfulsolution would seem remote. Yet, our review of past conference resolutions andconservation action plans suggests that there is much scope for agreement and close,inter-project cooperation as long as those initiatives are subject to effectiveinternational coordination.

From the outset, there seems to be general agreement among all concerned partiesthat in situ protection of Mediterranean monk seals and their habitats is aprerequisite for their conservation. Priorities include legal protection againstharassment and killing, the establishment of protected areas, enforcement to ensurecompliance with protection measures and, importantly, the implementation ofeducation and public awareness programmes.

4 It is perhaps important to note that the aim of the recently postponed French ‘Programmeto Save the Monk Seal’ was not captive breeding per se, but – according to TechnicalWorking Group Guidelines – “to demonstrate that monk seals can be successfullycaptured and maintained in captivity for at least 2 years” (Anon., 1994b).

Discussion

32

In view of the apparent consensus of opinion on these aspects of the debate, acoordinated approach to monk seal conservation would seem logical, plausible anddesireable. It would also be consistent with the conservation guidelines summarizedin the previous section.

A sequential and precautionary approach to monk seal conservation was, in fact,implicit in the recommendations of the Rhodes International Conference in 1978(Ronald & Duguy, 1979). Essentially, this approach would follow the guidelinespresented in the previous section, with each stage being implemented, subject toscientific research and evaluation, in an orderly and sequential manner.

Steps VI, VII and VIII of the sequence: Rescue and Rehabilitation, Translocationand Captive Breeding, respectively, involve direct human intervention with livinganimals and warrant a few additional comments. Where opportunities presentthemselves, it would seem appropriate to establish rescue and rehabilitation centresto care for wounded, stranded and orphaned seals. Normally, rehabilitated animalswould be returned to their original habitat. Subject to agreed protocols and stringentreview, rehabilitated animals could also be translocated to protected areashistorically used by the species, but still within the historical range of the populationconcerned. Such translocations would not impact wild populations – therehabilitated animals would presumably have died without human intervention –and, if sufficient numbers of animals were available, they would provide a low risk(for the population as a whole) opportunity for evaluating the use of translocation asa tool in Mediterranean monk seal conservation.

Translocation of healthy animals, removed from the wild – such as that currentlyproposed by Spain – is much more problematic. Past experience tells us that thechances for successful translocation of threatened or endangered species aregenerally low, especially for carnivores (like monk seals) with delayed maturity anda low reproductive rate and, hence, a low rate of population increase (Griffith et al.1989).

Ultimately, translocations are only deemed successful if they result in an increase inthe size of an existing population or in the establishment of a new and self-sustainingpopulation (see Griffith et al. 1989). In the case of the Hawaiian monk seal(Monachus schauinslandi) small numbers of animals have been translocated in

Discussion

33

recent years and, in at least one location – Kure Atoll – have successfullysupplemented an existing population. Most recently, however, when an attempt wasmade to reintroduce Hawaiian monk seals to a former breeding site at Midway Atoll,all 18 translocated animals died or disappeared in short order (Marine MammalCommission, 1995).

Regardless, the available information indicates that Mediterranean monk seals arenot ideal (or even good) candidates for translocation. Such action should not beentertained, therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that it is unlikely to have anegative impact on the wild, donor population(s) and that adequate research hasbeen done so that the likelihood of a successful translocation is maximized (see fore.g. Griffith et al. 1989).

The last stage in the sequence of conservation actions is captive breeding.Conceivably, a captive breeding programme might be initiated as a final stage in therescue and rehabilitation process; rehabilitated animals could (again subject tocomprehensive assessment and stringent review) be used to establish a captivepopulation for captive breeding feasibility studies. Alternatively, animals removedfrom the wild might be used to establish a captive breeding colony. In either case,however, it must be recognized that Mediterranean monk seals are not goodcandidates for captive breeding programmes. Previous attempts to keep theseanimals in captivity have generally failed and the number of animals thought to berequired for a “successful captive breeding programme” – estimated by some to beon the order of 20 animals, with the aim of having a captive population of about 100animals by the early 21st century (Anon., 1990, p. 7) – would seem to exceed thenumber that might reasonably be obtained from rescued and rehabilitated animals orcollected from the wild without risk to the donor population(s).

Even in the best case scenario, it would take years to establish a sustainable captivepopulation and, even if that objective were ever achieved, it would presumably bedecades before sufficient numbers of animals would be available for release to thewild.

The above caveats notwithstanding, the successful implementation of an integratedprogramme based on the conservation guidelines presented previously, pursuingpriorities according to a carefully formulated and sequential strategy, would be fully

Discussion

34

dependent upon effective international coordination. Such coordination wouldinclude reviewing proposals originating from various nations, ensuring that thelimited funds available for monk seal conservation are channelled toward projects ofhighest priority and merit, and facilitating information exchange among interestedparties.

Of course, there is nothing new to the sequential approach to monk sealconservation advocated here. It emerges naturally from the conference resolutionsand conservation action plans that have been proposed previously for Mediterraneanmonk seals. To date, only the translation of this approach into effective action hasproved wanting.

Discussion

Fig. 11. Monachus monachus: foreflipper.

35

LE PHOQUE MOINEDE LA MÉDITERRANÉE

DIRECTIVES DE CONSERVATION

SOMMAIRE

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2. Directives de conservation:I. Coordination internationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

II. Recherche scientifique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42III. Protection de l’habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43IV. Législation et application des lois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44V. Éducation et sensibilisation du public . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

VI. Secours et réhabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48VII. Déplacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

VIII. Reproduction en captivité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Fra

nçai

s

36

1. INTRODUCTION

Le phoque moine de la Méditerranée (Monachus monachus) est le mammifèremarin le plus menacé d’extinction de l’Europe. Les dangers menaçant sa survie ontété clairement identifiés lors de la Première conférence internationale sur le phoquemoine de la Méditerranée tenue à Rhodes, en Grèce, en 1978 (Ronald & Duguy,1979; anonyme, 1990). Ils comprennent:

1. Un accroissement de la mortalité adulte et juvénile en raison de la chasse(par les pêcheurs surtout).

2. Un accroissement de la mortalité adulte et juvénile suite à desempêtrements accidentels dans les engins de pêche.

3. Un accroissement de la mortalité adulte et juvénile en raison de l’activitéhumaine (tourisme, pêche, transport maritime).

4. Un accroissement de la mortalité chez les jeunes phoques causée par desmises bas à des endroits inappropriés faute d’un habitat de premierchoix.

5. Une mauvaise santé en raison d’un manque de nourriture résultant d’unepêche excessive.

6. Une réduction de la fécondité et de la survie des jeunes phoques due[possiblement] à une dépression consanguine.

Les participants à la conférence de Rhodes ont également établi un ensemble demesures prioritaires clairement définies visant à arrêter et à renverser le déclin de lapopulation de phoques moines. Parmi ces mesures, notons:

1. La coordination internationale des activités mises en place en vue deconserver le phoque moine.

2. La mise en application de lois interdisant la chasse et le harcèlement desphoques moines et l’imposition de mesures gouvernementalesencourageant la coexistence des pêcheurs et des phoques.

3. Le financement de quelques projets de recherche scientifique visant àidentifier et à surveiller les habitats du phoque moine.

4. L’établissement d’un réseau de réserves naturelles et de zones protégées.

5. La création de programmes d’éducation et de sensibilisation du public.

37

6. Le secours et la réhabilitation de phoques blessés, en détresse etorphelins.

Bien que de nombreuses réunions aient suivi cette conférence historique de Rhodes(pour un compte rendu récent, voir Israëls, 1992), toutes ont plus ou moins réitéré etsouligné les recommandations et les priorités qui y avaient été établies. C’estjustement cette impossibilité de traduire des recommandations et des priorités enactes concrets qui caractérise le mieux le problème le plus sérieux menaçant laconservation du phoque moine.

Néanmoins, on a observé quelques améliorations au cours des seize années qui ontsuivi la conférence de Rhodes. Des zones protégées ont été désignées en Grèce, àMadère, en Mauritanie et en Turquie, et des plans détaillés ont été dressés en vue decréer un parc marin sur la Côte des Phoques dans le Sahara occidental (anonyme,1994a), là où vit la colonie de phoques moines la plus importante du monde. Maisles résultats les plus prometteurs proviennent de rapports scientifiques révèlant quedans au moins deux régions où des zones protégées ont été établies – les Sporadesdu Nord et Madère – les populations de phoques moines semblent montrer dessignes d’accroissement encourageants (HSSPMS, 1993; Neves, 1992). Depuis lacréation d’une zone de conservation près de Foça, en Turquie, en 1993, le projet-pilote Foça du Fonds mondial pour la nature a également signalé un accroissementdu nombre de phoques aperçus (Cirik & Güçlüsoy, 1994). De plus, l’établissementd’un poste de soins intensifs mobile dans le parc marin des Sporades du Nord apermis de démontrer qu’il était possible d’inclure le secours et la réhabilitation desphoques en détresse et des orphelins à une stratégie de conservation. La mise enœuvre de programmes d’éducation et de sensibilisation du public dans plusieurspays contribue par ailleurs grandement aux efforts de conservation de l’espèce.

En dépit de ces progrès importants, de nombreux problèmes fondamentauxdemeurent irrésolus. Par exemple, peu de démarches ont été faites en vue d’établirle réseau de réserves naturelles interreliées envisagé au cours de la conférence deRhodes. De la même façon, nous sommes loin de notre objectif de coexistence desphoques et des pêcheurs, lequel devait être atteint grâce à des systèmes d’aidedirecte et d’assistance communautaire. Les fonds continuent de manquer et lefinancement reste irrégulier, surtout pour les mesures de conservation pratiques debase. Bien qu’elle ait été perçue à l’origine comme un élément essentiel de lastratégie de conservation, la recherche scientifique – qui engloutit souvent la plusgrande partie des ressources – a fréquemment été menée sans que l’on y intègre les

Introduction

38

initiatives pratiques vitales à la protection de l’espèce. Finalement, le point le plusimportant à souligner est que la coordination internationale est toujours demeuréevague et mal organisée.

Il serait permis d’avancer que ce manque de coordination a créé un climat propice àla prise de décisions inconséquentes et irréfléchies – certaines présentant desmenaces potentielles sérieuses pour les phoques moines. Ainsi, la reproduction encaptivité et les initiatives de déplacement approuvées, financées et exécutées sansétude préalable ni consultation adéquate avec la communauté scientifique etécologiste se sont avérées particulièrement contentieuses (Johnson & Lavigne,1994). Bien qu’il puisse être exagéré de dire que la conservation du phoque moineest en état de crise, il est clair que ces controverses ont nui aux activités deconservation et contribué à détourner l’attention, la main-d’œuvre et les ressourcesdéjà peu abondantes de priorités plus urgentes.

Une étude de faisabilité sur la reproduction en captivité des phoques moines àAntibes Marineland (Johnson & Lavigne, 1994) a dû être remise à deux reprises enraison de la vive opposition qu’a suscitée ce projet. L’ histoire semble prête à serépéter dans le cas d’un projet de déplacement de phoques moines de la Côte desPhoques à Isla de Lobos, ou ailleurs dans les îles Canaries (ICONA, 1994a,b). Leprogramme LIFE de la Communauté européenne a accordé à ce projet environ unmillion d’ECU avant même qu’il ait été révisé par la grande communautéscientifique et écologiste, y compris le groupe de spécialistes sur les phoques del’Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature et de ses ressources(UICN). En agissant ainsi, l’Union européenne semble n’avoir tenu aucun compted’une étude scientifique publiée antérieurement par le Conseil de l’Europe, danslaquelle Isla de Lobos avait été spécifiquement rejetée comme site d’accueilpotentiel dans les îles Canaries (Hernandez, 1986). Ce rapport indiquait en effet:

«Il semblerait que le phoque moine (“Lobo Marino”) soit disparu desîles Canaries il y a un siècle (Garcia Cabrera, 1971), bien que l’on y enaperçoive quelques-uns à l’occasion… [Un] petit groupe d’îles etd’îlots situés au large de la côte nord de Lanzarote… semble être lemeilleur endroit pour la réinsertion du phoque moine dans les îlesCanaries. Isla de Lobos (déclarée parc naturel en 1983) est exclue enraison de sa proximité des zones urbanisées et surtout de son degréélevé de détérioration… Malheureusement… la désignation de parcnational est celle qui protège le moins les îlots puisque, selon les lois

Introduction

39

espagnoles sur les espaces naturels protégés (Loi 15/1975, 2 mai), lesparcs naturels sont considérés comme des aires où le grand public peutêtre en contact avec la nature. Par conséquent, il est urgent que cettezone soit reclassée dans une catégorie de protection plus sévère(réserve strictement protégée?) afin d’empêcher le libre accès aupublic.»

Le projet français de reproduction en captivité et la proposition espagnole dedéplacement (qui n’est revue que maintenant par un comité scientifique au nom del’UICN et de la Commission européenne) illustrent bien les problèmes que posentune coordination et une coopération internationales inadéquates en ce qui a trait à laconservation du phoque moine.

Ce manque de coordination fait obstacle à l’échange d’information entre lesresponsables des différents projets, entrave le soutien du public et les initiatives definancement, empêche la prise de moyens de pression efficaces auprès desgouvernements afin qu’ils instituent des mesures de conservation précises, commela création de réserves marines, et a généralement un effet perturbateur sur lesefforts mis en oeuvre dans le but de conserver le phoque moine. D’un point de vueplus fondamental, cette absence de coordination efficace encourageinvolontairement la tendance actuelle vers la fragmentation des initiatives, ce qui vaà l’encontre des recommandations et des priorités identifiées à la conférence deRhodes et réitérées lors des réunions suivantes.

Afin de régler ces problèmes critiques, nous avons pensé qu’une réévaluationapprofondie des résolutions prises à la conférence s’avérerait particulièrementopportune et avons donc revu les résolutions et les plans d’action de toutes lesréunions et conférences importantes ayant eu lieu par la suite sur la conservation duphoque moine (voir Notes). Nous avons ensuite tenté de résumer le tout en un seulensemble de directives de conservation, lesquelles sont présentées dans la sectionsuivante. Nous espérons que ces directives donneront lieu à une réévaluation desinitiatives de conservation actuellement en place, et mettront en évidence les échecset les lacunes exigeant un redressement urgent.

Introduction

40

1. DIRECTIVES DE CONSERVATION

Les directives suivantes s’appuient sur les résolutions adoptées auxconférences internationales sur le phoque moine qui ont eu lieu surune période de seize ans. Les sources apparaissent sous formed’extraits de résolutions des conférences dans la section «Notes» de laprésente publication. Les directives sont présentées ci-après sous lesrubriques Coordination internationale, Recherche scientifique,Protection de l’habitat, Législation et application des lois, Éducationet sensibilisation du public, Secours et réhabilitation, Déplacement, etReproduction en captivité.

I. COORDINATION INTERNATIONALE

1. En 1989, le Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement (PNUE) /Plan d’action pour la Méditerranée (PAM) (en association avec le Conseil del’Europe et les conventions de Barcelone, de Berne et de Bonn) a assumé le rôlede coordonnateur international des activités de conservation du phoque moinede la Méditerranée. Afin d’être en mesure de s’acquitter efficacement de sesresponsabilités à cet égard, le PNUE/PAM devrait créer un bureau decoordination central pourvu du personnel et des ressources financièresadéquates pour mener à bien les projets de conservation du phoque moine.Cette unité de coordination internationale (UCI) fonctionnerait en collaborationétroite avec le groupe de spécialistes sur les phoques de l’UICN et lesorganisations non gouvernementales accréditées auprès du PAM, ets’engagerait à mener des discussions approfondies avec ces différents groupesafin de définir son mandat.

2. L’UCI devrait dresser une liste complète des organisations et projetsgouvernementaux et intergouvernementaux ainsi que des personnes travaillantà la conservation du phoque moine de la Méditerranée. Cette liste devrait êtredistribuée à tous les intéressés.

3. L’UCI devrait formuler ses politiques et organiser ses activités en se basant surles conseils d’un comité permanent d’experts. Ce comité consultatif devrait

41

représenter diverses spécialisations du domaine de la conservation desmammifères marins, dont les politiques et le droit maritimes, la gestion desmammifères marins, la dynamique des populations, la génétique, la médecinevétérinaire, la gestion des parcs marins, l’éducation et la sensibilisation dupublic, le secours et la réhabilitation, la protection des animaux, la philosophieenvironnementale, le financement ainsi que les pressions politiques. Le comitédevrait également comprendre des représentants officiels des pays d’habitat.

4. Le comité consultatif et la communauté scientifique et écologiste en généraldevraient réviser tous les projets pouvant influencer la conservation de l’espècede façon significative ou à l’échelle internationale (par exemple le déplacement,la reproduction en captivité et les recherches scientifiques susceptibles de poserdes risques pour l’espèce) avant leur exécution, et le processus de consultationdevrait inclure tous les groupes de spécialistes pertinents de l’UICN. L’UCIdevrait par ailleurs s’assurer qu’on étudie à fond les questions d’ordrescientifique et éthique au cours du processus de révision.

5. L’UCI et son comité consultatif devraient s’engager activement à recueillir desfonds et à promouvoir le financement régulier et à long terme des projets deconservation du phoque moine hautement prioritaires, y comprisl’établissement et la gestion de zones protégées, les recherches scientifiquesvisant à identifier les populations de phoques moines ayant un urgent besoin deprotection, l’aide économique aux communautés de pêcheurs locales (pour lesencourager à protéger les colonies de phoques) et les campagnes éducatives.

6. L’échange d’information devrait être considéré comme une composanteessentielle du processus de coordination. L’UCI, ou une ONG engagée àcontrat, pourrait par exemple publier un bulletin semestriel, excellent moyen derépandre les nouvelles et l’information axées sur les activités de conservationdu phoque moine à l’échelle internationale.1

1 Jusqu’au mois d’avril 1992, l’université de Guelph, au Canada, publiait le bulletin de laligue pour la conservation du phoque moine (Newsletter of the League for theConservation of the Monk Seal). Cette publication, qui a joué un rôle unique et de grandeimportance dans l’échange d’information sur ce sujet, devrait être relancée et publiéerégulièrement.

Directives de conservation

42

7. L’UCI devrait conserver un dossier central de toutes les activités deconservation et de recherche touchant le phoque moine,2 dans lequel onverserait tous les rapports, propositions et autres publications. Pour contribuerà l’échange d’information, le bureau de coordination devrait publier desrésumés et fournir des copies complètes de documents sur demande. Il faudraitencourager les différents groupes concernés à soumettre leurs rapports surdisquettes afin de faciliter le travail de recherche. Le bureau de coordinationdevrait également songer à mettre les rapports à la disposition des utilisateursd’Internet.

8. L’UCI devrait publier un rapport annuel de ses activités.

II. RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE

1. Toutes les recherches et observations scientifiques sur le phoque moine de laMéditerranée devraient être faites en prenant soin de perturber le moinspossible le ou les phoques étudiés. Seules les recherches scientifiquesconformes aux priorités de conservation devraient être menées.

2. Au moment de l’évaluation des recherches scientifiques aux fins definancement et d’autres formes d’appui, la priorité devrait être accordée auxprogrammes de recherche à valeur pratique démontrable axés surl’accroissement de la survie des animaux et la protection, le retour et laconservation de l’espèce.

3. La recherche scientifique devrait faire partie intégrante d’un plan global deretour de l’espèce. Dans la mesure du possible, les programmes de recherche

2 L’Institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique et le Sea Mammal Research Unit(groupe de recherche sur les mammifères marins) de Cambridge exploitent et gèrent déjàle Monk Seal Register (registre du phoque moine), une base de données informatiséeréunissant toutes les déclarations, présentes et passées, de personnes ayant vu desphoques moines au sein de l’Union européenne. Il est question d’élargir le registre afind’inclure des pays ne faisant pas partie de l’Union européenne, dont le Maroc et laTurquie. L’amélioration de la base de données prévoit aussi la numérisation de toutes lesphotographies et de tous les dessins des phoques moines afin de les intégrer à la base dedonnées informatisée.

Le phoque moine de la Méditerranée

43

devraient être étroitement liés aux autres initiatives de conservation mises enœuvre dans la région, notamment l’établissement de zones protégées, ainsi quela sensibilisation du public et les programmes d’éducation. La priorité devraitêtre accordée tout spécialement aux activités suivantes :

a. La surveillance discrète des populations de phoques dans les zonesprotégées, par l’observation directe et l’utilisation de techniquesappropriées (par exemple appareil- photo caché, enregistrement vidéo).

b. La réalisation d’études visant à identifier les sites les plus appropriés pourl’établissement de zones protégées supplémentaires.

c. La réévaluation des relevés de population et des propositions de zonesprotégées précédents.

d. La poursuite de recherches socio-économiques visant à vérifier comment lescommunautés locales pourraient profiter du processus de conservation etainsi être encouragées à protéger le phoque moine et son habitat. Cesrecherches devraient également contribuer à établir les possibilités d’enarriver à une protection intermédiaire efficace des colonies de phoquesimportantes grâce à la participation directe des autorités locales.

4. Avant leur financement et leur mise en oeuvre, toutes les formes de recherchespotentiellement agressantes (par exemple celles qui comportent la capture, letransport, le déplacement ou la reproduction en captivité) devraient êtreévaluées de façon approfondie par la communauté scientifique et écologisteinternationale, y compris les groupes de spécialistes pertinents de l’UICN.

5. Les résultats des recherches scientifiques devraient pouvoir être obtenus dudossier central (voir Section I – 7).

III. PROTECTION DE L’HABITAT

1. Étant donné que la survie du phoque moine de la Méditerranée est sérieusementmenacée en raison de la chasse ainsi que de l’envahissement, du harcèlement etde la perturbation par l’homme, la création de zones protégées doit être lapriorité absolue pour la conservation de l’espèce.


44

2. Puisqu’il ne reste principalement que des colonies de phoques moines petites ettrès dispersées, il s’avère urgent d’établir un réseau de parcs nationaux, deréserves et de zones protégées interreliés si l’on veut protéger l’espèce. Ceréseau devrait comprendre des aires de reproduction et d’alimentation et,lorsque cela s’y prête, des corridors de dispersion pouvant servir à relier lespopulations de phoques au sein et au-delà des frontières nationales.

3. Il faudrait contrôler de façon rigoureuse l’accès aux réserves de phoquesmoines et aux zones protégées. Des zones tampons pourraient être utiliséespour des activités de pêche traditionnelle et d’éco-tourisme non intensives, maisla majeure partie du territoire devrait demeurer exempte de toute perturbationpar l’homme. La pêche, le tourisme et la circulation maritime devraient y êtrestrictement interdits.

4. Les communautés locales devraient participer activement à l’établissement deréserves et de zones protégées pour le phoque moine. Bien que l’objectif ultimedoive être l’imposition de lois nationales exigeant la création d’un réseaupermanent de réserves, la situation critique dans laquelle se trouve le phoquemoine ne permet pas les longs délais du processus législatif. Par conséquent, ilne faut épargner aucun effort pour protéger le plus rapidement possible leshabitats importants de phoques, en encourageant la participation descommunautés locales et en mettant en œuvre des systèmes d’aide économiquepour les pêcheurs locaux.

5. La création de réserves et de zones protégées exige des plans de gestiondétaillés et l’engagement de fonds, de ressources et d’équipement à long terme.De plus, pour qu’ils soient efficaces, ces plans de gestion devraient incorporerdes programmes de formation pour les directeurs et le personnel des zonesprotégées et suffisamment de ressources humaines et d’équipement pourassurer l’application des règlements de protection.

IV. LÉGISLATION ET APPLICATION DES LOIS

1. Par l’entremise d’initiatives nationales, bilatérales et multilatérales, lesgouvernements devraient chercher à établir un réseau de réserves et de zonesprotégées pour sauvegarder l’habitat du phoque moine.


45

2. Des lois complexes et des consultations approfondies sont normalementnécessaires pour établir des parcs nationaux et des zones protégées, et de tellesmesures constituent même souvent une condition préalable au succès d’unprojet à long terme. Toutefois, les délais inhérents à ce processus ont parfois nuià la création de zones protégées. Bien qu’il ne soit pas toujours possibled’accélérer ce processus dans le cas de la création de parcs marins couvrant degrandes régions géographiques, il est essentiel de mettre en vigueur une loinationale pouvant permettre la protection rapide des petites zones.

3. Dans les pays de l’Union européenne, des zones de conservation spéciales pourle phoque moine devraient être désignées, tel que requis en vertu de la loi del’Union européenne et conformément à la directive 92/43/EEC-Natura 2000sur la conservation des habitats naturels de la faune et de la flore.

4. Les gouvernements doivent assurer la stricte application des règlementsinterdisant la chasse et le harcèlement des phoques moines, la pêche avecdynamite et produits chimiques, de même que le transport d’armes à feu parbateau.

5. Les programmes nationaux pour la protection du phoque moine devraient êtrestructurés de façon à ce que les communautés locales, surtout celles quidépendent de la pêche et du tourisme, puissent profiter du processus deconservation. Il est essentiel de reconnaître le rôle crucial que jouent lescommunautés dans toute stratégie de conservation, et de concevoir desprogrammes nationaux qui stimulent leurs initiatives et leur participation.

6. Les gouvernements doivent veiller à ce que les mesures de conservation duphoque moine soient intégrées aux politiques et aux lois en matière de pêche.Les priorités devraient comprendre l’interdiction des activités de pêche dans lesrégions vulnérables occupées par l’espèce.

7. Les gouvernements doivent être prêts à offrir une compensation ou dessolutions de rechange aux communautés locales (par exemple le remplacementd’équipement de pêche ou autre forme d’aide) afin d’encourager la coexistencedes pêcheurs et des phoques moines et d’ainsi réussir à réglementer et àcontrôler les activités de pêche dans les zones où vivent des phoques moines.

8. Les gouvernements devraient s’assurer que les projets appuyés par desprogrammes nationaux reçoivent le soutien financier nécessaire dont ils ontbesoin pour atteindre leurs objectifs.


46

9. Les gouvernements devraient assurer la gestion et la garde efficaces des zonesprotégées, ce qui signifie entre autres qu’ils ont à fournir une formationadéquate et l’équipement nécessaire au personnel.

10. Les programmes nationaux pour la conservation du phoque moine devraientcomporter un réseau de secours facilitant le traitement médical rapide et laréhabilitation des phoques blessés et orphelins (voir Section VI).

11. Les programmes gouvernementaux et nationaux de conservation du phoquemoine devraient contribuer à ce que les autorités locales, plus particulièrementla police, ainsi que le service de sécurité et l’administration portuaires, soientbien informés sur les mesures de protection de l’espèce, appliquentrigoureusement les lois en vigueur, et reçoivent des directives adéquates leurpermettant de signaler les phoques morts, blessés ou abandonnés à une unité decoordination nationale.

12. Les gouvernements devraient s’assurer que la question de la conservation duphoque moine est intégrée au programme national du système éducatif, et queles documents éducatifs pertinents sont mis à la disposition des établissementsd’enseignement.

V. ÉDUCATION ET SENSIBILISATION DU PUBLIC

1. La mise à mort directe par les pêcheurs, marque d’hostilité humaine envers lephoque moine, a été identifiée comme étant la cause principale du déclin del’espèce. Puisque ce genre d’attitude est souvent profondément ancré chez lesgens, des campagnes d’éducation et de sensibilisation du public devraient êtrelancées dans tous les pays d’habitat de l’espèce.

2. Les organisateurs des campagnes d’information devraient s’assurer le soutien etla participation des pêcheurs, des autorités régissant la pêche, des directeurs deport, des enseignants, des écoliers et du grand public.

3. Il faudrait offrir des ressources permettant d’élargir la portée des campagnesd’information et d’éducation et mettre l’accent sur les régions hautementprioritaires pour l’établissement de zones protégées pour le phoque moine.


47

4. La planification et la coordination de programmes d’éducation et desensibilisation du public appliqués à l’échelle locale devraient faire partieintégrante de chaque programme national de conservation du phoque moine. Ilfaudrait souligner que la participation des communautés locales rend souventles campagnes d’information plus favorables à la conservation de l’espèce, carelle permet d’obtenir un aperçu de l’opinion publique et de recueillir d’autresrenseignements intéressants. À cet égard, les campagnes d’information peuvents’avérer plus efficaces lorsqu’elles sont intégrées à des recherches socio-économiques et à des relevés de population de phoques moines. Si elles sontbien structurées et possèdent les ressources et les connaissances nécessaires, leséquipes menant les campagnes d’information peuvent jouer un rôle plusimportant et se charger des activités suivantes:

a. Vérifier l’existence de colonies de phoques en vue de recherchesscientifiques détaillées subséquentes.

b. Évaluer les menaces locales pour le phoque moine, par exemple la chasseou encore la perturbation par les résidents ou les touristes.

c. Élaborer avec la communauté locale des initiatives pratiques pouvant êtremises en place afin de protéger les colonies de phoques, comme lacompensation des pêcheurs ou autres systèmes d’assistance à lacommunauté pour permettre la protection intermédiaire des populations dephoques, et l’établissement d’un système d’observation pour surveiller lazone «protégée».

5. Il faudrait faire un effort particulier pour réviser le matériel éducatif existant eten produire du nouveau, afin d’intéresser le public au problème de laconservation du phoque moine. Des films, des vidéos, des affiches, ainsi quedes publications éducatives destinées aux établissements d’enseignement, parexemple, peuvent représenter des outils efficaces et essentiels à la réalisation decet objectif.

6. Des trousses éducatives destinées aux touristes et l’industrie du tourismedevraient être conçues, surtout dans les régions où le tourisme menace l’habitatdu phoque moine et ses aires de reproduction. Les voyagistes devraient êtrefortement encouragés à s’associer au mouvement de conservation du phoquemoine en commanditant des projets et en publiant et distribuant des documentséducatifs. Ils devraient également être dissuadés d’organiser des voyages dansles zones particulièrement touchées.


48

7. Les autorités militaires, les responsables du développement industriel et lesadministrateurs de l’industrie du transport maritime devraient égalementrecevoir des documents informatifs décrivant en détail les mesures à prendrepour soutenir les efforts de conservation du phoque moine.

8. Des échantillons de tous les documents éducatifs produits dans les différentspays devraient être conservés à un bureau central des dossiers ou à un centre decoordination – comme l’unité de coordination internationale (voir Section 1) –où ils pourraient servir de référence utile aux autres groupes. Il serait égalementbon de rassembler des photographies et autres archives à la bibliothèque,lesquelles pourraient être utilisées pour des projets similaires dans d’autrespays.

VI. SECOURS ET RÉHABILITATION

1. Le secours et la réhabilitation des phoques moines blessés, en détresse etorphelins devraient être effectués conformément à des protocoles scientifiqueset éthiques stricts afin de prévenir la capture de phoques ne nécessitant aucuntraitement. Révisés et approuvés par la grande communauté écologiste, cesprotocoles devraient également traiter de la manipulation, du transport, del’alimentation, des soins vétérinaires et de la remise en liberté des animaux.

2. Un poste de soins intensifs mobile servant également d’unité de secours et deréhabilitation est présentement installé sur l’île d’Alonissos, dans le parc marindes Sporades du Nord, en Grèce.3 Des installations semblables ont étésuggérées pour la Mauritanie/le Sahara occidental, près de la colonie de la Côtedes Phoques. Si des unités de secours et de réhabilitation supplémentairess’avéraient nécessaires, elles devraient initialement être établies uniquement ausein de l’habitat actuel des populations survivantes de phoques moines afin deréduire les tensions associées au transport des animaux sur une longue distance.

3 Ce poste de soins intensifs est dirigé conjointement par la Hellenic Society for the Study& Protection of the Monk Seal (société hellénique pour l’étude et la protection du phoquemoine), établie à Athènes, et le Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre (centre derecherche et de réhabilitation des phoques), établi à Pieterburen, aux Pays-Bas.


49

3. Il faudrait créer des réseaux de secours ou d’observation ou améliorer ceux déjàen place afin d’accroître les chances de repérage des phoques blessés, endétresse ou orphelins. Cependant, il faut prendre bien soin de veiller à ce que lesphoques en santé ne soient pas victimes du zèle de volontaires ou de membresdu grand public.

4. Une fois réhabilités, les phoques devraient être remis en liberté dans des zonesprotégées, de préférence dans la région où ils ont été trouvés.

5. Les centres de secours et de réhabilitation devraient offrir de la formation sur lesoin et la manipulation des phoques moines en captivité, transmettant ainsi desconnaissances et des techniques qui seront utiles dans tout futur programme dedéplacement et de reproduction en captivité (voir Sections VII et VIII,respectivement).

6. Vu les risques potentiels importants de transmission de maladies associés autransport d’animaux vers les centres de secours et hors de ceux-ci ainsi qu’à laréinsertion en milieu naturel, tout programme de secours, de réhabilitation oude remise en liberté devrait inclure des procédures de quarantaine etd’évaluation rigoureuses. De tels programmes ne devraient être appliquésqu’après consultation auprès de la grande communauté scientifique et desgroupes de spécialistes sur les phoques, la réinsertion et les soins vétérinairesde l’UICN.

VII. DÉPLACEMENT

1. Le déplacement constitue une stratégie de conservation visant à réinsérer lephoque moine dans des habitats occupés historiquement par cette espèce.Néanmoins, il faut reconnaître qu’il représente une action d’ingérence qui peuts’avérer inutilement dangereuse pour l’espèce en général et les phoques moinestouchés. Par conséquent, toute proposition exigeant la capture et le déplacementde phoques sains vers un nouvel habitat devrait faire l’objet de consultationsapprofondies et recevoir l’approbation de la communauté scientifique etécologiste avant de pouvoir être financée et mise en application. En plus desquestions d’ordre scientifique, il faudrait aborder les problèmes relatifs àl’éthique et à la protection des animaux.


50

2. Le déplacement du phoque moine de la Méditerranée – stratégie deconservation non encore éprouvée – comporte certains risques potentiels pourles populations sauvages et les animaux touchés. On recommande doncfortement que toute proposition de déplacement d’animaux soit formulée selonune approche prudente et séquentielle afin de minimiser les effets négatifs. Ilsera possible d’atteindre cet objectif par un processus de consultation et derévision à grande échelle, ainsi que par l’intégration complète de cette stratégieaux autres priorités de conservation, telles que la protection de l’habitat, lecontrôle scientifique, et le secours et la réhabilitation. Conformément à unestratégie séquentielle, les sites de remise en liberté après le déplacement initialdevraient se situer au sein de l’habitat historique des populations d’où viennentles animaux déplacés, et être près des limites de l’habitat actuel du phoquemoine.

3. Toutes les propositions de déplacement devraient tenir compte des mesures deprotection suivantes :

a. Évaluation du projet. Il importe d’obtenir toutes les données scientifiquesrelatives à la protection des animaux avant d’établir les critères générauxqui permettront de régir les projets de déplacement. Un comité internationalindépendant de spécialistes devrait être formé sous les auspices du PNUE/PAM afin d’élaborer des règlements en la matière, d’étudier lespropositions soumises et de superviser tout projet de déplacement afin des’assurer qu’il respecte les directives.

b. Consultation. Avant d’être approuvés, financés et mis en application, lesprojets de déplacement devraient également être étudiés par la communautéscientifique et écologiste en général, y compris les groupes de spécialistespertinents de l’UICN. Ce processus de révision permettrait par ailleurs derégler tout problème d’éthique ou de protection des animaux.

c. Formation. Le personnel participant aux projets devrait recevoir uneformation approfondie sur le soin et la manipulation des phoques.

d. Protection des sites de remise en liberté. Le site de remise en libertéchoisi doit être protégé rigoureusement par la loi et surveillé étroitement, ettoute menace potentielle (par exemple la pêche, le tourisme ou ledéveloppement) éliminée avant de procéder au déplacement.

e. Surveillance après la remise en liberté. Après le déplacement, il faudraitmettre en place un système scientifique d’observation et de contrôle des


51

animaux remis en liberté afin d’évaluer la réussite du programme et derecueillir des données permettant de juger du bien-fondé de propositionsultérieures de déplacement.

4. Aucun animal en santé ne devrait être retiré de son milieu naturel avant que desmesures de conservation in situ efficaces aient été instaurées et que le contrôlescientifique de la population en question indique qu’elle apparaît relativementabondante et à la hausse ou stable. Si une tentative de déplacement d’animauxéchoue, il faut connaître les raisons de cet échec avant de tenter d’autresdéplacements.

5. Les animaux ne devraient être déplacés que vers des habitats que l’espèce adéjà occupés.

6. Vu les risques potentiels importants de transmission de maladies associés audéplacement et à la réinsertion des phoques, il serait important de mettre enplace des procédures de quarantaine et d’évaluation complètes avant la remiseen liberté. De tels programmes ne devraient être mis en œuvre qu’aprèsconsultation auprès des groupes de spécialistes de l’UICN sur les phoques, laréinsertion et les soins vétérinaires.

VIII. REPRODUCTION EN CAPTIVITÉ

1. Il faut reconnaître que la reproduction de n’importe quelle espèce de phoquesmoines en captivité est une méthode non éprouvée et non vérifiée qui peutprésenter des dangers importants injustifiés pour l’espèce en général et lesphoques touchés. Par conséquent, toute proposition de reproduction encaptivité ou d’étude de faisabilité connexe devrait être révisée de façonapprofondie par la communauté scientifique et écologiste avant l’étape definancement et la mise en œuvre. En plus des questions d’ordre scientifique, ilfaudrait aborder les problèmes d’éthique et de protection des animaux.

2. Un programme de reproduction en captivité devrait avoir comme objectifs :

a. D’abord, accroître la population survivante de phoques moines réduite etpossiblement en déclin jusqu’à ce qu’elle atteigne un équilibre stable –capacité limite de l’habitat.


52

b. Une fois l’objectif « a » atteint, fournir des animaux reproducteurs pour desprogrammes de réinsertion dans des habitats appropriés (et seulement ceuxprotégés légalement) anciennement occupés par l’espèce.

3. Afin de minimiser le taux de mortalité pendant le transport, la transmission demaladies et les difficultés que posent l’acclimatation à un environnementétranger (conditions climatiques, photopériode), tout projet de reproduction encaptivité devrait initialement être réalisé à l’intérieur de l’habitat despopulations survivantes de phoques moines. En outre, les animaux devraientêtre gardés uniquement dans des installations spécialisées où il est possible delimiter les contacts humains.

4. Compte tenu des risques potentiels qu’ils posent pour les populations sauvageset les phoques touchés, les projets de reproduction en captivité devraient êtreinstaurés de façon séquentielle et prudente afin de minimiser les effets négatifs.Cela sera rendu possible grâce à un processus de consultation et de révision àgrande échelle, ainsi que par l’intégration complète du projet aux autrespriorités de conservation telles que la protection de l’habitat, le secours et laréhabilitation, et le déplacement.

5. Toutes les propositions de reproduction en captivité devraient tenir compte desmesures de protection suivantes :

a. Évaluation du projet. Il importe d’obtenir toutes les données scientifiquesrelatives à la protection des animaux avant d’établir les critères générauxqui permettront de régir les projets de reproduction en captivité. Un comitéinternational indépendant de spécialistes devrait être formé sous lesauspices du PNUE/PAM afin d’élaborer des règlements en la matière,d’étudier les propositions soumises et de superviser tout projet dereproduction en captivité approuvé afin de s’assurer qu’il respecte lesdirectives.

b. Consultation. Avant d’être approuvés, financés et mis en application, lesprojets de reproduction en captivité devraient également être étudiés par lacommunauté scientifique et écologiste en général, y compris les groupes despécialistes pertinents de l’UICN. Ce processus de révision permettrait parailleurs de régler tout problème d’éthique et de protection des animaux.

c. Formation. Le personnel participant aux projets devrait recevoir uneformation approfondie sur le soin et la manipulation des phoques.


53

d. Protection des sites de remise en liberté. Le site de remise en libertéchoisi doit être protégé rigoureusement par la loi et surveillé étroitement, ettoute menace potentielle (par exemple la pêche ou le tourisme) éliminéeavant de procéder à la remise en liberté.

e. Surveillance après la remise en liberté. Après la remise en liberté, ilfaudrait mettre en place un système scientifique d’observation et de contrôledes animaux remis en liberté, afin d’évaluer la réussite du programme et derecueillir des données permettant de juger du bien-fondé de propositionsultérieures de reproduction en liberté.

6. Si, en dernière analyse, la reproduction en captivité est jugée nécessaire (aprèsl’application de mesures plus urgentes, comme la protection in situ ainsi que lesecours et la réhabilitation), il serait recommandé d’établir les installationsrequises au sein de l’habitat actuel du phoque moine de la Méditerranée, etaussi près que possible des populations visées par le programme. Par ailleurs,afin de réduire les risques de transmission de maladies et d’autres problèmespotentiels (par exemple l’incompatibilité reproductive) les animaux utilisésdans les études de faisabilité de la reproduction en captivité devraientinitialement provenir d’une même population.

7. Vu les risques potentiels importants de transmission de maladies associés à laréinsertion et au repeuplement des phoques, il serait important de mettre enplace des procédures de quarantaine et d’évaluation complètes avant la remiseen liberté. De tels programmes ne devraient être exécutés qu’après consultationauprès des groupes de spécialistes de l’UICN sur les phoques, la réinsertion etles soins vétérinaires.


54

3. DISCUSSION

«Aucune mesure isolée n’est suffisante. Les différentes composantes du plan degestion se complètent et doivent être prises ensemble si on veut réussir.»

~ Plan d’action pour la gestion du phoque moine de la Méditerranée,Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement, 1987 ~

Notre révision des résolutions et des plans d’action adoptés lors des conférencespour la conservation du phoque moine de la Méditerranée révèle un consensusd’opinion encourageant et assez extraordinaire sur des sujets allant de lacoordination internationale à la protection des habitats, en passant par lasensibilisation du public et la reproduction en captivité. De plus, lesrecommandations, étalées sur seize ans de recherche scientifique, d’expérience surle terrain et de débats informés, demeurent aujourd’hui tout aussi pertinentesqu’elles l’étaient alors. Toutefois, il est également évident qu’il s’est avéré plusfacile de tenir des réunions et d’établir des priorités que de transformer ces prioritésen actes concrets.

En effet, malgré toutes les réunions et toutes les bonnes intentions, les activités deconservation du phoque moine au cours des dernières années sont devenues de plusen plus dispersées et fragmentées, et ce tant en fonction de la nationalité que de lacatégorie précise des mesures en cause. Trop souvent, les activités essentielles auxprojets de conservation, comme par exemple la recherche scientifique et laprotection in situ, demeurent en grande partie des entités distinctes; elles sontrarement intégrées afin de devenir interdépendantes et se compléter. Parconséquent, l’atteinte des objectifs de conservation est sérieusement compromise.

Il est clair que les projets de conservation du phoque moine bénéficieraient del’intégration d’activités, comme il en ressort des différentes résolutions deconférences résumées à la section précédente. Toutefois, une telle intégrationdépend en grande partie d’une coordination nationale et internationale efficace et, aucours des seize dernières années, différents organismes internationaux ont acceptécette responsabilité cruciale, dont l’UICN, le Conseil de l’Europe, la Communautéeuropéenne et le PNUE. Nous sommes pourtant encore loin d’avoir réalisé cettecoordination internationale.

55

Le vide qui en résulte a permis à des sujets particulièrement discutables, comme lareproduction en captivité et le déplacement, de dominer le programme deconservation. À de nombreux égards, ces questions symbolisent l’approchefragmentaire actuellement utilisée dans le domaine de la conservation du phoquemoine. Bien qu’elles aient généralement été présentées dans les résolutions desconférences et la documentation sur la conservation comme des mesures de «dernier recours » (voir Norse 1993, p. 223) qui «… devraient être considérées avecprudence et utilisées seulement… lorsque la réduction des menaces et les méthodesde protection in situ ont échoué », elles ont néanmoins été poursuivies et dessommes importantes y ont été allouées (par ex. ICONA, 1994a, b).

Ainsi, même s’ils sont complètement séparés du point de vue organisationnel, il fautsouligner que l’étude de faisabilité française sur la reproduction en captivité4 et leprojet de déplacement espagnol ne sont pas aussi distincts qu’ils peuvent sembler àpremière vue, puisque tous deux se concentrent sur la population de phoquesmoines de la Côte des Phoques dans le Sahara occidental. Qui plus est, deux autresinitiatives, sans plus de rapport l’une avec l’autre sur le plan organisationnel, sontégalement axées sur la Côte des Phoques : un projet de secours et de réhabilitationhollandais, et des plans marocains de création d’un parc national dans la région.

L’existence de ces initiatives disparates et, jusqu’à un certain point, concurrentes,peut sembler représenter un dilemme si important et si complexe qu’une solutionpositive puisse paraître lointaine. Toutefois, notre révision des résolutions et desplans d’action proposés lors des conférences passées suggère une grande possibilitéd’entente et de coopération entre les projets pourvu qu’ils soient soumis à unecoordination internationale efficace.

Depuis le début, il semble que tous les groupes intéressés aient été d’accord sur lefait que la protection du phoque moine de la Méditerranée in situ constitue unecondition préalable à sa conservation. Les mesures jugées prioritaires comprennentpar ailleurs l’application de lois contre le harcèlement et la chasse, l’établissement

4 Il peut être important de noter que l’objectif du programme français de sauvegarde duphoque moine qui a récemment été suspendu n’était pas la reproduction en captivité ensoi, mais – selon les directives du groupe de travail technique – « de démontrer que lesphoques moines peuvent être capturés avec succès et être maintenus en captivité pendantau moins deux ans » (anonyme, 1994b).

Discussion

56

de zones protégées, l’imposition de moyens de pression visant à assurer le respectdes mesures de protection et, surtout, la mise en œuvre de programmes d’éducationet de sensibilisation du public.

Vu le consensus apparent sur ces aspects du débat, il semblerait logique, plausibleet souhaitable d’établir une stratégie coordonnée de conservation du phoque moine,ce qui serait également en accord avec les directives de conservation résumées dansla section précédente.

De fait, les recommandations de la conférence internationale de Rhodes de 1978(Ronald & Duguy, 1979) présentaient implicitement un plan de conservation duphoque moine élaboré selon une approche séquentielle et prudente. Une tellestratégie respecterait les directives présentées à la section précédente, chaque phaseétant soumise à une recherche et à une évaluation scientifiques, de façon ordonnée etséquentielle.

Les étapes VI, VII et VIII de la séquence – respectivement le secours et laréhabilitation, le déplacement, et la reproduction en captivité – demandentl’intervention directe de l’homme auprès d’animaux vivants et justifient doncquelques commentaires additionnels. Là où cela est possible, il sembleraitapproprié d’établir des centres de secours et de réhabilitation pour les phoquesblessés, en détresse et orphelins. Normalement, les animaux réhabilités seraient parla suite retournés à leur habitat d’origine. Dans la mesure où des règlements et unprocessus de révision rigoureux sont mis en place, les animaux réhabilitéspourraient aussi être déplacés vers des zones protégées habitées historiquement parl’espèce, mais toujours au sein de l’habitat historique des populations en cause. Detels déplacements n’affecteraient pas les populations en milieu naturel – on présumeque les animaux réhabilités seraient morts sans intervention humaine – et si unnombre suffisant d’animaux étaient présents, ils permettraient d’évaluer à peu derisques (pour l’ensemble de la population) l’utilisation du déplacement commeméthode de conservation du phoque moine de la Méditerranée.

Le déplacement d’animaux en santé, enlevés de leur milieu naturel– tel que lepropose actuellement l’Espagne – est beaucoup plus problématique. Lesexpériences effectuées par le passé démontrent que les chances de réussite dedéplacements d’espèces menacées ou en voie d’extinction sont généralementminces, surtout dans le cas des carnivores (comme les phoques moines) à maturité

Discussion

57

physiologique retardée et à faible taux de reproduction et, par conséquent, à faibletaux d’accroissement de population (Griffith et coll. 1989).

Finalement, les déplacements ne sont jugés réussis que s’ils se traduisent parl’accroissement d’une population existante ou par l’établissement d’une nouvellepopulation stable (voir Griffith et coll., 1989). Dans le cas du phoque moine des îlesHawaii (Monachus schauinslandi), de petits groupes d’animaux ont été déplacés aucours des dernières années et, à un endroit au moins – l’atoll Kure – la populationexistante a été complétée de façon réussie. Plus récemment, toutefois, dans le cadred’une tentative de réinsertion du phoque moine des îles Hawaii dans un ancien sitede reproduction à l’atoll Midway, les 18 animaux déplacés sont morts ou ont disparuà court intervalle (Marine Mammal Commission, 1995).

Les données dont nous disposons actuellement indiquent que le phoque moine de laMéditerranée n’est pas un candidat idéal (ni même un bon candidat) pour ledéplacement. Une telle mesure ne devrait donc pas être entreprise, à moins qu’ilpuisse être démontré que le déplacement en question ne risque pas d’avoir un effetnégatif sur les populations sauvages donneuses et que des recherches adéquates ontété effectuées afin de maximiser les chances de réussite du déplacement (voir par ex.Griffith et coll. 1989).

La dernière étape de la séquence des mesures de conservation est la reproduction encaptivité. En théorie, un programme de reproduction en captivité peut être amorcécomme dernier stade du processus de secours et de réhabilitation; les animauxréhabilités pourraient (encore une fois à la condition d’avoir fait l’objet d’uneévaluation et d’une révision rigoureuses) être utilisés pour l’établissement d’unepopulation en captivité aux fins d’études de faisabilité de la reproduction encaptivité. Les animaux retirés de leur milieu naturel pourraient aussi servir à établirune colonie de reproduction en captivité. Cependant, dans un cas comme dansl’autre, il faut reconnaître que le phoque moine de la Méditerranée ne constitue pasun bon candidat à un programme de reproduction en captivité. Toute tentative demaintien de ces animaux en captivité a généralement échoué par le passé. De plus, lenombre d’animaux considéré nécessaire à l’établissement d’un programme dereproduction en captivité réussi – 20 selon certains, l’objectif étant d’avoir unepopulation en captivité d’environ 100 animaux d’ici le début du 21e siècle(anonyme, 1990, p. 7) – dépasse le nombre que l’on pourrait raisonnablement

Discussion

58

regrouper parmi les animaux secourus et réhabilités ou pris dans la nature, sanscraindre de nuire aux populations donneuses.

Même dans le meilleur des cas, il faudrait des années pour établir une population encaptivité stable et, si jamais cet objectif se réalisait, il s’écoulerait probablement desdécennies avant que l’on obtienne un nombre suffisant d’animaux pour la remise enliberté dans la nature.

En dépit des problèmes susmentionnés, un programme intégré, fondé sur lesdirectives de conservation présentées précédemment et respectant les prioritésétablies selon une stratégie séquentielle soigneusement élaborée pourrait êtreimplanté, mais dépendrait entièrement d’une coordination internationale efficace.Les groupes chargés de cette coordination auraient entre autres à réviser lespropositions provenant des différents pays, à s’assurer que les fonds limités allouésà la conservation du phoque moine soient canalisés vers des projets hautementprioritaires et utiles, et à faciliter l’échange d’information entre les partiesintéressées.

Bien sûr, l’approche séquentielle prônée ici n’a rien de nouveau. Elle émergenaturellement des résolutions et des plans d’action qui ont été proposés pour laconservation du phoque moine de la Méditerranée lors des conférences passées. Ilne reste plus maintenant qu’à transformer cette approche en actes concrets efficaces.

Discussion

59

Ç ÌÅÓÏÃÅÉÁÊÇ ÖÙÊÉÁ

ÏÄÇÃÉÅÓ ÄÉÁÔÇÑÇÓÇÓ

ÐÅÑÉÅ×ÏÌÅÍÁ

1. ÅéóáãùãÞ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2. Ïäçãßåò ÄéáôÞñçóçò:I. ÄéåèíÞò Óõíôïíéóìüò . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

II. ÅðéóôçìïíéêÞ Åñåõíá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67III. Ðñïóôáóßá Âéïôüðùí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69IV. Íïìïèåóßá & ÅöáñìïãÞ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70V. Åêðáßäåõóç & Åõáéóèçôïðïßçóç Êïéíïý . . . . . . . . 72

VI. ÄéÜóùóç & ÅðáíÝíôáîç . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74VII. ÌåôåãêáôÜóôáóç . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

VIII. ÁíáðáñáãùãÞ óå Áé÷ìáëùóßá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3. ÓõæÞôçóç . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Åëë

çíé

êÜ

60

1. ÅÉÓÁÃÙÃÇ

Ç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá (Monachus monachus) åßíáé ôï ðëÝïí áðåéëïýìåíïèáëÜóóéï èçëáóôéêü ôçò Åõñþðçò. Ïé áðåéëÝò êáôÜ ôçò åðéâßùóÞò ôçòåðéóçìÜíèçêáí îåêÜèáñá óôï Ðñþôï ÄéåèíÝò ÓõíÝäñéï ãéá ôç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ Öþêéáðïõ ðñáãìáôïðïéÞèçêå óôç Ñüäï (ÅëëÜäá) ôï 1978 (Ronald & Duguy, 1979:Anon. 1990). Ðñüêåéôáé ãéá:

1. ÁõîçìÝíç èíçóéìüôçôá åíçëßêùí êáé íåáñþí åî áéôßáò çèåëçìÝíçòèáíÜôùóÞò ôïõò (êõñßùò áðü øáñÜäåò).

2. ÁõîçìÝíç èíçóéìüôçôá åíçëßêùí êáé íåáñþí ðïõ ðñïêáëåßôáé áðüôõ÷áßá ðáãßäåõóÞ ôïõò óå áëéåõôéêü åîïðëéóìü.

3. ÁõîçìÝíç èíçóéìüôçôá åíçëßêùí êáé íåáñþí åî áéôßáò ôçò áíèñþðéíçòðáñåíü÷ëçóçò (äñáóôçñéüôçôåò üðùò ï ôïõñéóìüò, ç áëéåßá êáé çíáõôéëßá).

4. ÁõîçìÝíç èíçóéìüôçôá íåïãåííçôùí åîáéôßáò ôçò áðþëåéáò ôùíåíäåäåéãìÝíùí ãéá áóöáëåßò ãåííÞóåéò âéïôüðùí.

5. ÊáêÞ öõóéêÞ êáôÜóôáóç åîáéôßáò ôçò Ýëëåéøçò ôñïöÞò, ðïõ åßíáéáðïôÝëåóìá ôçò õðåñáëßåõóçò.

6. Ìåßùóç ãåííçôéêüôçôáò êáé áýîçóç èíçóéìüôçôáò íåïãåííçôùí[ðéèáíþò] ëüãù ìåßùóçò ôïõ ãåíåôéêïý õëéêïý.

Áðü ôï ÓõíÝäñéï ôçò Ñüäïõ ðñïÝêõøå Ýíá óýíïëï îåêÜèáñá ðñïóäéïñéóìÝíùíðñïôåñáéïôÞôùí äñÜóçò, ó÷åäéáóìÝíùí íá ðñïùèÞóïõí ôçí áíÜêáìøç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, üðùò:

1. Áðïôåëåóìáôéêüò äéåèíÞò óõíôïíéóìüò åíåñãåéþí äéáôÞñçóçò ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.

2. ÁðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ åíßó÷õóç ôçò íïìïèåóßáò ðïõ áðáãïñåýåé ôçíçèåëçìÝíç èáíÜôùóç êáé ðáñåíü÷ëçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò êáéðñïþèçóç êõâåñíçôéêþí åíåñãåéþí ðïõ åíèáññýíïõí ôç óõíýðáñîçøáñÜäùí êáé öþêéáò.

3. ÅðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá ãéá ôïí åíôïðéóìü êáé ôçí ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ôùíâéïôüðùí ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.

61

ÅéóáãùãÞ

4. ºäñõóç åíüò äéêôýïõ ðñïóôáôåõìÝíùí ðåñéï÷þí.

5. ÐñïãñÜììáôá åêðáßäåõóçò êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò ôïõ êïéíïý.

6. ÄéÜóùóç êáé åðáíÝíôáîç ðëçãùìÝíùí, áâïÞèçôùí êáé ïñöáíþíöùêéþí.

ÐïëõÜñéèìåò óõíáíôÞóåéò ðñáãìáôïðïéÞèçêáí ìåôÜ ôï ÓõíÝäñéï ôçò Ñüäïõ (ãéáìéá ðñüóöáôç åðéóêüðçóç äåò Israëls, 1992), áëëÜ üëåò ãåíéêÜ åðáíÝëáâáí êáéÝäùóáí Ýìöáóç óôéò åéóçãÞóåéò êáé ôéò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò ðñïóôáóßáò ðïõ Ýèåóååêåßíï. Ôï ãåãïíüò áõôü áðïêáëýðôåé ôï ìåãáëýôåñï ðñüâëçìá ðïõ ó÷åôßæåôáé ìåôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò: ôçí áðïôõ÷ßá ôçò ìåôáôñïðÞò ôùíåéóçãÞóåùí êáé ôùí öñáóôéêþí ðñïôåñáéïôÞôùí óå áðïôåëåóìáôéêÝò åíÝñãåéåò.

Ðáñ� üë� áõôÜ, äåêáÝîé ÷ñüíéá ìåôÜ ôçí Ñüäï, êÜðïéåò óçìáíôéêÝò åíÝñãåéåò Ý÷ïõíáðïäþóåé ùöÝëç ãéá ôï åßäïò. ÐñïóôáôåõìÝíåò ðåñéï÷Ýò Ý÷ïõí äçìéïõñãçèåß óôçíÅëëÜäá, ôç ÌáäÝéñá, ôç Ìáõñéôáíßá êáé ôçí Ôïõñêßá, êáé ëåðôïìåñÞ ó÷Ýäéáêáôáñôßóôçêáí ãéá ôç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò èáëáóóßïõ ðÜñêïõ ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôçòìåãáëýôåñçò áðïéêßáò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò óôïí êüóìï, ôçò Côte des Phoques óôçÄõôéêÞ Óá÷Üñá (Anon., 1994a). Ïé åðéóôçìïíéêÝò áíáöïñÝò áðïäåéêíýïõí üôé óåôïõëÜ÷éóôïí äýï ðåñéï÷Ýò üðïõ Ý÷ïõí äçìéïõñãçèåß æþíåò ðñïóôáóßáò - óôéòÂüñåéåò ÓðïñÜäåò êáé óôç ÌáäÝéñá - ïé ðëçèõóìïß ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáòöáßíåôáé ðùò ðáñïõóéÜæïõí åíèáññõíôéêÜ óçìÜäéá áíÜêáìøçò (HSSPMS, 1993;Neves, 1992). Áðü ôï 1993, Ýôïò ßäñõóçò ðñïóôáôåõüìåíçò ðåñéï÷Þò êïíôÜ óôçÖþêáéá ôçò Ôïõñêßáò, ôï Ðñüãñáììá - Ðéëüôïò ôïõ WWF ãéá ôç Öþêáéá Ý÷åéáíáöÝñåé áýîçóç ôùí åìöáíßóåùí öùêþí (Cirik & Güçlüsoy, 1994). ÅðéðëÝïí, çäçìéïõñãßá åíüò Óôáèìïý Ðåñßèáëøçò óôï ÈáëÜóóéï ÐÜñêï ôùí ÂïñåßùíÓðïñÜäùí Ý÷åé áðïäåßîåé ðùò ç äéÜóùóç êáé ç åðáíÝíôáîç áâïÞèçôùí êáéïñöáíþí öùêþí áðïôåëåß óõóôáôéêü óôïé÷åßï ìéáò óôñáôçãéêÞò äéáôÞñçóçò. ÌéáÜëëç ïõóéþäçò óõìâïëÞ óôçí åðéâßùóç ôïõ åßäïõò åßíáé ôá ðñïãñÜììáôáåêðáßäåõóçò êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò ôïõ êïéíïý ðïõ åöáñìüæïíôáé óå äéÜöïñåò÷þñåò.

ÐáñÜ áõôÜ ôá óçìáíôéêÜ âÞìáôá, ðïëëÜ èåìåëéþäç ðñïâëÞìáôá ðáñáìÝíïõíÜëõôá. ¸÷åé óçìåéùèåß ìéêñÞ ðñüïäïò, ãéá ðáñÜäåéãìá, üóïí áöïñÜ óôçäçìéïõñãßá åíüò äéêôýïõ áëëçëïóõíäåüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí ðñïóôáóßáò, üðùò åß÷åðñïãñáììáôéóèåß óôç Ñüäï. Ðáñïìïßùò, ï æùôéêüò óôü÷ïò åíèÜññõíóçò ôçò

62

óõíýðáñîçò öþêéáò êáé øáñÜäùí ìÝóù ðñïãñáììÜôùí Üìåóçò âïÞèåéáò êáéêïéíïôéêÞò åíßó÷õóçò ðáñáìÝíåé áíåíåñãüò. Åðßóçò, ç åðáñêÞò ÷ñçìáôïäüôçóçåîáêïëïõèåß íá åßíáé óðÜíéá Þ ðåñéóôáóéáêÞ êáé åéäéêÜ üóïí áöïñÜ óôç ëÞøçðñáêôéêþí ìÝôñùí ðñïóôáóßáò óå åðßðåäï âÜóçò. Ðáñ� üôé áñ÷éêÜ åß÷å áíáäåé÷èåßùò Ýíá óçìáíôéêü óõóôáôéêü ìéáò óôñáôçãéêÞò äéáôÞñçóçò, ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá- ðïõ óõ÷íÜ ëáìâÜíåé ôç ìåñßäá ôïõ ëÝïíôïò ôùí ðüñùí - Ý÷åé ðïëëÝò öïñÝòðñï÷ùñÞóåé ÷ùñßò ôç æùôéêÞ åíóùìÜôùóç ðñáêôéêþí ðñùôïâïõëéþíó÷åäéáóìÝíùí ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôïõ åßäïõò. Êáé ôï óçìáíôéêüôåñï üëùí, ïäéåèíÞò óõíôïíéóìüò Ý÷åé ðáñáìåßíåé áóáöÞò êáé ôõ÷áßïò.

Ìðïñåß íá õðïóôçñé÷èåß ðùò, áõôÞ ç Ýëëåéøç óõíôïíéóìïý Ý÷åé äçìéïõñãÞóåé Ýíáêëßìá óôá ðëáßóéá ôïõ ïðïßïõ áðïóðáóìáôéêÝò êáé êáêþò åííïïýìåíåò åíÝñãåéåò -ïñéóìÝíåò ìå åíäå÷üìåíåò óïâáñÝò áðåéëÝò ãéá ôç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá - Ý÷ïõíáöåèåß íá åõäïêéìÞóïõí. Éäéáßôåñá áìöéóâçôÞóéìåò Ý÷ïõí áðïäåé÷èåß ïéðñùôïâïõëßåò áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá êáé ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò, ïé ïðïßåòÝ÷ïõí åãêñéèåß, ÷ñçìáôïäïôçèåß êáé ôåèåß óå åöáñìïãÞ ÷ùñßò åðáñêÞ åîÝôáóç áðüôçí åõñýôåñç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ êïéíüôçôá êáé ôçí êïéíüôçôá äéáôÞñçóçò (Johnson &Lavigne, 1994). Áí êáé ìðïñåß íá èåùñçèåß õðåñâïëÞ ôï íá ðáñïõóéÜæåôáé çäéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ùò èÝìá åîáéñåôéêÞò êñéóéìüôçôáò, áõôÝò ïéäéåíÝîåéò Ý÷ïõí áíáìöéóâÞôçôá âïçèÞóåé íá �èïëþóïõí ôá íåñÜ� óôçí áôæÝíôáôçò äéáôÞñçóçò êáé íá åêôñáðåß ç ðñïóï÷Þ, ç áðáó÷üëçóç êáé ïé ëéãïóôïß ðüñïéáðü ôéò ðëÝïí åðåßãïõóåò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò.

Ç åõñýôåñá äéáäåäïìÝíç áíçóõ÷ßá ãýñù áðü ìéá ìåëÝôç ãéá ôï ðüóï åöéêôÞ åßíáé çáíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ãéá ôéò ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò óôï Antibes Marinelandåßíáé êáëÜ èåìåëéùìÝíç, êáé Ý÷åé åðéâÜëåé ôçí áíáâïëÞ ôïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò óå äýïðåñéðôþóåéò (Johnson & Lavigne, 1994). Ç éóôïñßá öáßíåôáé ðùò ðñüêåéôáé íáåðáíáëçöèåß óå Ýíá ðñüãñáììá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò Ìåóïãåéáêþí öùêþí áðü ôçíCôte des Phoques óôçí Isla de Lobos, Þ óå Üëëåò ôïðïèåóßåò, óôéò ÊáíÜñéåòÍÞóïõò (ICONA, 1994a,b). Ôï ðñüãñáììá LIFE ôçò ÅõñùðáéêÞò Êïéíüôçôáòåðéäüôçóå áõôü ôï ðñüãñáììá ìå ðåñßðïõ Ýíá åêáôïììýñéï ECU ðñïôïý áõôüåîåôáóèåß áðü ôçí åõñýôåñç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ êïéíüôçôá êáé ôçí êïéíüôçôáäéáôÞñçóçò, óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíçò ôçò ÏìÜäáò Åéäéêþí ãéá ôç Öþêéá ôçò IUCN.Ìå áõôÞí ôçí ðñÜîç, ç ÅõñùðáúêÞ ¸íùóç öáßíåôáé íá áãíïåß ðáëáéüôåñçåðéóôçìïíéêÞ áíáöïñÜ ðïõ åîÝäùóå ôï Óõìâïýëéï ôçò Åõñþðçò, óôçí ïðïßá ç Isla

ÅéóáãùãÞ

63

de Lobos åéäéêÜ, áðïññßöèçêå ùò ðéèáíÞ ôïðïèåóßá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò óôéòÊáíÜñéåò ÍÞóïõò (Hernandez, 1986). Óôçí áíáöïñÜ åðéóçìáßíïíôáé ôá åîÞò:

�Öáßíåôáé ðùò ç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá (‘Lobo Marino’) åîáöáíßóôçêå áðüôï Áñ÷éðÝëáãïò ôùí Êáíáñßùí åäþ êáé Ýíáí áéþíá (Garcia Cabrera,1971), áí êáé ðåñéðëáíþìåíá æþá ðáñáôçñïýíôáé êáôÜ êáéñïýò� [¸íá]ìéêñü óýìðëåãìá íÞóùí êáé íçóßäùí ðïõ âñßóêåôáé áíôßêñõ ôçò âüñåéáòáêôÞò ôçò Lanzarote� öáßíåôáé ðùò åßíáé ç êáëýôåñç ôïðïèåóßá ãéá ôçíåðáíåéóáãùãÞ ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò óôéò ÊáíÜñéåò ÍÞóïõò. Ç Isla deLobos (ðïõ áíáêçñý÷èçêå Åèíéêü ÐÜñêï ôï 1983) áðïññßðôåôáé ëüãùôçò óôåíÞò ãåéôíßáóÞò ôçò ìå áóôéêÝò ðåñéï÷Ýò, êáé ãåíéêÜ, åî áéôßáò ôçòìåãÜëçò õðïâÜèìéóÞò ôçò� Äõóôõ÷þò� ç áíáêÞñõîç ôçò óå ÅèíéêüÐÜñêï óõíéóôÜ ôï ëéãüôåñï åíäåäåéãìÝíï êáèåóôþò ðñïóôáóßáò ãéá ôéòíçóßäåò áöïý, óýìöùíá ìå ôçí ÉóðáíéêÞ Íïìïèåóßá ðåñß ÐñïóôáóßáòÖõóéêþí Ðåñéï÷þí (Íüìïò 15/1975, 2á Ìáßïõ), ôá ÅèíéêÜ ÐÜñêáèåùñïýíôáé ùò ïé êáôåîï÷Þí ðåñéï÷Ýò üðïõ ôï êïéíü Ýñ÷åôáé óå åðáöÞ ìåôç öýóç. ÊáôÜ óõíÝðåéá, åßíáé åðåßãïõóá áíÜãêç íá ôåèåß ç ðåñéï÷Þ êÜôùáðü áõóôçñüôåñï êáèåóôþò ðñïóôáóßáò (Ðåñéï÷Þ ÁõóôçñÞòÐñïóôáóßáò;), þóôå íá åìðïäéóôåß ç åëåýèåñç ðñüóâáóç ôïõ êïéíïý.�

Êáé ôï Ãáëëéêü ðñüãñáììá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá êáé ç ÉóðáíéêÞ ðñüôáóçìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò (ç ïðïßá ìüëéò ðñüóöáôá Üñ÷éóå íá åîåôÜæåôáé áðü ìéáåðéóôçìïíéêÞ åðéôñïðÞ åê ìÝñïõò ôçò IUCN êáé ôçò ÅõñùðáúêÞò ÅðéôñïðÞò)áðïêáëýðôïõí ôá ðñïâëÞìáôá ðïõ ðñïêýðôïõí áðü ôïí áíåðáñêÞ äéåèíÞóõíôïíéóìü êáé óõíåñãáóßá óôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.

ÁõôÞ ç óõãêåêñéìÝíç Ýëëåéøç óõíôïíéóìïý ðáñáêùëýåé ôçí áíôáëëáãÞðëçñïöüñçóçò ìåôáîý ðñïãñáììÜôùí, èÝôåé öñáãìïýò óôçí õðïóôÞñéîç ôïõêïéíïý êáé ôéò ðñùôïâïõëßåò åîÝõñåóçò ïéêïíïìéêþí ðüñùí, åìðïäßæåé ôçíáðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ Üóêçóç ðßåóçò óôéò êõâåñíÞóåéò þóôå íá èåóðßóïõíóõãêåêñéìÝíá ìÝôñá äéáôÞñçóçò, üðùò åßíáé ç äçìéïõñãßá èáëÜóóéùí ðåñéï÷þíðñïóôáóßáò, êáé Ý÷åé ãåíéêÜ ìéá áðïäéïñãáíùôéêÞ åðßäñáóç óôéò ðñïóðÜèåéåòäéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Ç áðïõóßá óõíôïíéóìïý åíèáññýíåé ôçíôñÝ÷ïõóá ôÜóç ãéá áðïóðáóìáôéêÝò ðñùôïâïõëßåò êáé áõôü Ýñ÷åôáé óå áíôßèåóç ìåôéò óõóôÜóåéò êáé ôéò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò ðïõ åðéóçìÜíèçêáí óôç Ñüäï êáé óåìåôáãåíÝóôåñåò óõíáíôÞóåéò.

ÅéóáãùãÞ

64

Ãéá íá óôñáöïýìå óå áõôÜ ôá êñßóéìá æçôÞìáôá, èåùñÞóáìå ðùò ìéá åêôåôáìÝíçåðáíåîÝôáóç ôùí óõíåäñéáêþí øçöéóìÜôùí èá Þôáí éäßáéôåñá åðßêáéñç. ¸ôóé,êÜíáìå ìéá áíáóêüðçóç ôùí øçöéóìÜôùí êáé ôùí ó÷åäßùí äñÜóçò üëùí ôùíêõñéþôåñùí óõíáíôÞóåùí êáé óõíåäñßùí ãéá ôçí äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞòöþêéáò (äåò Notes). Åðé÷åéñþíôáò ôç óýíèåóç åíüò êáé ìüíïõ óõíüëïõ ïäçãéþíäéáôÞñçóçò, ôï ïðïßï ðáñïõóéÜæåôáé óôï åðüìåíï ìÝñïò, åëðßæïõìå üôé èáðñïùèÞóïõìå ôçí åðáíåêôßìçóç ôùí ðñüóöáôùí ðñùôïâïõëéþí äéáôÞñçóçò ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, êáé èá åðéóçìÜíïõìå åëáôôþìáôá êáé áäõíáìßåò ðïõáðáéôïýí åðåéãüíôùò äéïñèùôéêÞ äñÜóç.

ÅéóáãùãÞ

65

2. ÏÄÇÃÉÅÓ ÄÉÁÔÇÑÇÓÇÓ

Ïé áêüëïõèåò Ïäçãßåò åßíáé âáóéóìÝíåò óôá øçößóìáôá ôùí äéåèíþíóõíåäñßùí ãéá ôç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá ðïõ êáëýðôïõí äåêáÝîé ÷ñüíéá.ÐáñáðïìðÝò óå ðçãÝò, ìå ôç ìïñöÞ áðïóðáóìÜôùí áðü óõíåäñéáêÜøçößóìáôá, ðáñÝ÷ïíôáé óôï ôìÞìá ôùí Óçìåéþóåùí (äåò Notes) áõôÞòôçò äçìïóßåõóçò. Ïé Ïäçãßåò ðáñïõóéÜæïíôáé ðáñáêÜôù ìå ôïõò åîÞòôßôëïõò: ÄéåèíÞò Óõíôïíéóìüò, ÅðéóôçìïíéêÞ ¸ñåõíá, ÐñïóôáóßáÂéïôüðùí, Íïìïèåóßá êáé ÅöáñìïãÞ, Åêðáßäåõóç êáéÅõáéóèçôïðïßçóç Êïéíïý, ÄéÜóùóç êáé ÅðáíÝíôáîç, ÌåôåãêáôÜóôáóç,êáé ÁíáðáñáãùãÞ óå Áé÷ìáëùóßá.

I. ÄÉÅÈÍÇÓ ÓÕÍÔÏÍÉÓÌÏÓ

1. Ôï 1989, ôï UNEP/MAP, Ðåñéâáëëïíôéêü Ðñüãñáììá ôùí ÇíùìÝíùí Åèíþí/Ìåóïãåéáêü Ó÷Ýäéï ÄñÜóçò (óå óõíåñãáóßá ìå ôï Óõìâïýëéï ôçò Åõñþðçò êáéôéò ÓõìâÜóåéò ôçò Âáñêåëþíçò, ôçò ÂÝñíçò êáé ôçò Âüííçò) áíÝëáâå ôï ñüëïôïõ äéåèíïýò óõíôïíéóôÞ ôùí åíåñãåéþí äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.Ãéá íá áíôáðïêñéèåß áðïôåëåóìáôéêÜ óôá êáèÞêïíôÜ ôïõ ùò ðñïò áõôüí ôïñüëï, Ýíá êåíôñéêü Ãñáöåßï Óõíôïíéóìïý ôçò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞòöþêéáò, ðñÝðåé íá éäñõèåß, åðáíäñùèåß êáé ÷ñçìáôïäïôçèåß õðü ôçí áéãßäá ôïõUNEP/MAP. ÁõôÞ ç ÄéåèíÞò ÓõíôïíéóôéêÞ ÌïíÜäá (ÄÓÌ) ðñÝðåé íáëåéôïõñãÞóåé óå óõíåñãáóßá ìå ôçí ÏìÜäá Åéäéêþí ãéá ôç Öþêéá ôçò IUCNêáé ìå Ìç ÊõâåñíçôéêÝò Ïñãáíþóåéò ðïõ åðéêõñþíïõí ôï MAP. ÐñÝðåé íáäéåîá÷èïýí åõñåßáò Ýêôáóçò óõæçôÞóåéò ìåôáîý áõôþí ôùí ðëåõñþí ãéá íáêáèïñéóôïýí ôá üñéá áñìïäéüôçôáò êáé áíÜèåóçò Ýñãïõ ôçò ÄÓÌ.

2. Ç ÄÓÌ ðñÝðåé íá äçìéïõñãÞóåé Ýíáí ðëÞñç êáôÜëïãï üëùí ôùíêõâåñíçôéêþí, äéáêõâåñíçôéêþí êáé Ìç Êõâåñíçôéêþí Ïñãáíéóìþí,ðñïãñáììÜôùí êáé áôüìùí ðïõ áó÷ïëïýíôáé ìå ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Áõôüò ï êáôÜëïãïò ðñÝðåé íá ìïéñáóôåß óå üëá ôáó÷åôéæüìåíá ìÝñç.

66

Ç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ Öþêéá

3. ÊáôÜ ôç äéáäéêáóßá äéáìüñöùóçò ðïëéôéêÞò êáé äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí, ç ÄÓÌðñÝðåé íá óõìâïõëåýåôáé ìéá ìüíéìç åðéôñïðÞ åìðåéñïãíùìüíùí. ÁõôÞ çóõìâïõëåõôéêÞ åðéôñïðÞ ðñÝðåé íá áðïôåëåßôáé áðü åéäéêïýò óå ðïëëÜðáñåìöåñÞ áíôéêåßìåíá ôïõ ôïìÝá äéáôÞñçóçò èáëÜóóéùí èçëáóôéêþí, üðùò:äéåèíÞò èáëÜóóéá ðïëéôéêÞ êáé äßêáéï, äéá÷åßñéóç èáëÜóóéùí èçëáóôéêþí,äõíáìéêÝò ðëçèõóìþí, ãåíåôéêÞ, ðåñßèáëøç, äéÜóùóç êáé åðáíÝíôáîç,äéá÷åßñéóç èáëÜóóéùí ðÜñêùí, åêðáßäåõóç êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóç êïéíïý,ðåñéâáëëïíôéêÞ öéëïóïößá, åîåýñåóç ïéêïíïìéêþí ðüñùí êáé äéåîáãùãÞëüìðõ. Óôá ìÝëç ðñÝðåé, åðßóçò, íá óõìðåñéëáìâÜíïíôáé åðßóçìïéåêðñüóùðïé ôùí êñáôþí ôçò ðåñéï÷Þò.

4. ÐñïãñÜììáôá ôá ïðïßá ìÜëëïí èá Ý÷ïõí óçìáíôéêÝò Þ äéåèíåßò åðéðôþóåéòóôç äéáôÞñçóç ôïõ åßäïõò (üðùò ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç, ç áíáðáñáãùãÞ óåáé÷ìáëùóßá êáé ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá ðïõ åíäå÷ïìÝíùò ðáñåíï÷ëåß ôá æþá),ðñÝðåé íá áîéïëïãïýíôáé êáé áðü ôç óõìâïõëåõôéêÞ åðéôñïðÞ êáé áðü ôçíåõñýôåñç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ êïéíüôçôá, êáèþò êáé áðü ôçí êïéíüôçôá äéáôÞñçóçòðñéí ôçí åöáñìïãÞ ôïõò. Ç óõìâïõëåõôéêÞ äéáäéêáóßá ðñÝðåé íá ðåñéëáìâÜíåéüëåò ôéò ó÷åôéæüìåíåò ÏìÜäåò Åéäéêþí ôçò IUCN. Ç ÄÓÌ ðñÝðåé íáäéáóöáëßæåé üôé êáé ôá åðéóôçìïíéêÜ êáé ôá çèéêÜ æçôÞìáôá êáëýðôïíôáéðëÞñùò áðü ôç äéáäéêáóßá áîéïëüãçóçò.

5. Ç ÄÓÌ êáé ç óõìâïõëåõôéêÞ ôçò åðéôñïðÞ ðñÝðåé åíåñãÜ íá áíáæçôïýí êáé íáåíèáññýíïõí ôçí åîáóöÜëéóç ôáêôéêÞò êáé ìáêñïðñüèåóìçò ÷ñçìáôïäüôçóçòãéá õøçëÞò ðñïôåñáéüôçôáò ðñïãñÜììáôá äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞòöþêéáò, óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíçò ôçò äçìéïõñãßáò êáé äéá÷åßñéóçòðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí, ôçò åðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò ãéá ôïí åíôïðéóìüðëçèõóìþí ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ìå Üìåóç áíÜãêç ðñïóôáóßáò, ôçòïéêïíïìéêÞò âïÞèåéáò ðñïò ôéò ôïðéêÝò áëéåõôéêÝò êïéíüôçôåò (þóôå íáåíèáññõíèïýí íá ðñïóôáôåýïõí ôéò áðïéêßåò ôçò öþêéáò), êáé ôùíåêóôñáôåéþí åíçìÝñùóçò.

6. Ç áíôáëëáãÞ ðëçñïöïñéþí ðñÝðåé íá èåùñåßôáé ùò Ýíá æùôéêü óõóôáôéêü ôçòóõíôïíéóôéêÞò äéáäéêáóßáò. ¸íá åîáìçíéáßï åéäçóåïãñáöéêü äåëôßï,äçìïóéåõìÝíï áðü ôçí ÄÓÌ Þ áíáôåèåéìÝíï äéá óõìâïëáßïõ óå êÜðïéá ÌÊÏ,èá áðïôåëïýóå ÷ñÞóéìï ü÷çìá ìåôÜäïóçò åéäÞóåùí êáé ðëçñïöïñéþí ðïõ

67

Ïäçãßåò ÄéáôÞñçóçò

åóôéÜæïõí óôéò äéåèíåßò äñáóôçñéüôçôåò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞòöþêéáò.1

7. Ç ÄÓÌ ðñÝðåé íá Ý÷åé ôçí åõèýíç åíüò ãåíéêïý êáôáëüãïõ ôùíäñáóôçñéïôÞôùí ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.2 ÁíáöïñÝò,ðñïôÜóåéò êáé Üëëåò åêäüóåéò ðñÝðåé íá êáôáãñÜöïíôáé óôïí êáôÜëïãï áõôü.Ãéá ôçí ðñïþèçóç ôçò áíôáëëáãÞò ðëçñïöïñéþí, ôï óõíôïíéóôéêü ãñáöåßïðñÝðåé íá äçìïóéåýåé óõíüøåéò, êáé íá ðáñÝ÷åé ðëÞñç áíôßãñáöá ôïõêáôáëüãïõ êáôÜ ðáñáããåëßá. Ãéá ôçí ðñïþèçóç ôçò Ýñåõíáò, ôá ðñïãñÜììáôáðñÝðåé åðßóçò íá ðáñïôñýíïíôáé íá äéáèÝôïõí ôéò áíáöïñÝò ôïõò óå äßóêïçëåêôñïíéêïý õðïëïãéóôÞ. Ôï óõíôïíéóôéêü ãñáöåßï ðñÝðåé åðßóçò íáìåëåôÞóåé ôç äéáêßíçóç ôùí áíáöïñþí ìÝóù ôïõ ÉíôåñíÝô.

8. Ç ÄÓÌ ðñÝðåé íá äçìïóéåýåé ìéá Ýêèåóç ôùí äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí ôçò óå åôÞóéáâÜóç.

II. ÅÐÉÓÔÇÌÏÍÉÊÇ ÅÑÅÕÍÁ

1. Ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá êáé ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ðñÝðåéíá äéåîÜãåôáé ìå åëÜ÷éóôç ðáñåíü÷ëçóç óå Üôïìá êáé ðëçèõóìïýò. Ìüíï çåðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá ðïõ Üìåóá åíéó÷ýåé ôéò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò äéáôÞñçóçòðñÝðåé íá äéåîÜãåôáé.

1 ÌÝ÷ñé êáé ôïí Áðñßëéï ôïõ 1992, ôï ÐáíåðéóôÞìéï ôïõ ÃêïõÝëö óôïí ÊáíáäÜ, äçìïóßåõåÔï Åéäçóåïãñáöéêü Äåëôßï ôçò ¸íùóçò ãéá ôçí ÄéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò Öþêéáò.ÁõôÞ ç äçìïóßåõóç, ç ïðïßá Ý÷åé ðáßîåé Ýíá óçìáíôéêü êáé ìïíáäéêü ñüëï óôçí áíôáëëáãÞðëçñïöïñéþí, ðñÝðåé íá åðáíåêäïèåß êáé íá äçìïóéåýåôáé óå ôáêôéêÞ âÜóç.2 Ôï Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique êáé ç ÌïíÜäá ÅñåýíçòÈáëáóóßùí Èçëáóôéêþí ôïõ Êáßçìðñéôæ, Þäç ëåéôïõñãïýí êáé äéåõèýíïõí Ôïí ÊáôÜëïãïôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ìéá âÜóç äåäïìÝíùí óå çëåêôñïíéêü õðïëïãéóôÞ ç ïðïßáôáîéíïìåß üëåò ôéò áíáöïñÝò ðáñüíôùí êáé ðáñåëèüíôùí ðåñéðôþóåùí åíôïðéóìïýÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò óôá ðëáßóéá ôçò ÅõñùðáúêÞò ¸íùóçò. ÕðÜñ÷ïõí ó÷Ýäéá ï ÊáôÜëïãïòáõôüò íá êáëýðôåé ÷þñåò êáé åêôüò ôçò Å.Å., óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíïõ ôïõ Ìáñüêïõ êáé ôçòÔïõñêßáò. Ìéá ðåñáéôÝñù áíáâÜèìéóç ôçò âÜóçò äåäïìÝíùí ðñïâëÝðåé ôçí øçöéáêÞìåôáôñïðÞ üëùí ôùí öùôïãñáöéþí êáé ôùí ó÷åäéáóìÜôùí áôüìùí ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò,þóôå íá ìðïñïýí íá åíóùìáôùèïýí óôç âÜóç äåäïìÝíùí ôïõ çëåêôñïíéêïý õðïëïãéóôÞ.

68

2. Ãéá ôçí åîåýñåóç ÷ñçìáôïäüôçóçò êáé Üëëùí ìïñöþí õðïóôÞñéîçò ôçòåðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò ðñïôåñáéüôçôá ðñÝðåé íá äßíåôáé óå åñåõíçôéêÜðñïãñÜììáôá ðïõ íá óôï÷åýïõí óôçí óôçí ðñïóôáóßá, áíÜêáìøç êáéäéáôÞñçóç ôïõ åßäïõò.

3. Ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá ðñÝðåé íá áðïôåëåß áíáðüóðáóôï ôìÞìá åíüòåõñýôåñïõ ó÷åäßïõ áíÜêáìøçò ôïõ åßäïõò. ¼ðïõ åßíáé äõíáôüí, ôá åñåõíçôéêÜðñïãñÜììáôá ðñÝðåé íá åßíáé óôåíÜ óõíäåäåìÝíá ìå Üëëåò ðñùôïâïõëßåòäéáôÞñçóçò ðïõ åöáñìüæïíôáé óå ìéá ðåñéï÷Þ, üðùò ç äçìéïõñãßáðñïóôáôåõìÝíùí ðåñéï÷þí, êáé ôá ðñïãñÜììáôá åêðáßäåõóçò êáéåõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò ôïõ êïéíïý. ÓõãêåêñéìÝíá, ðñÝðåé íá äïèåß ðñïôåñáéüôçôáóôá åîÞò:

á. Ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ðëçèõóìþí ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò óå ðñïóôáôåõüìåíåòðåñéï÷Ýò ÷ùñßò íá ðáñåíï÷ëïýíôáé ôá æþá, ìå Üìåóç ðáñáôÞñçóç êáé÷ñÞóç êáôÜëëçëçò ôå÷íïëïãßáò (ð.÷. �ðáãßäåò êÜìåñáò�, âéíôåïóêüðçóç).

â. ×áñôïãñÜöçóç ìå óêïðü ôïí åíôïðéóìü ôùí ðéï êáôÜëëçëùí ðåñéï÷þíþóôå íá ÷áñáêôçñéóèïýí ðñïóôáôåõüìåíåò.

ã. Åðáíåêôßìçóç ðñïçãïõìÝíùí ÷áñôïãñáöÞóåùí êáé ðñïçãïõìÝíùíðñïôÜóåùí ãéá äçìéïõñãßá ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí.

ä. ÊïéíùíéêïïéêïíïìéêÞ Ýñåõíá ãéá íá åîáêñéâùèåß ðþò ìðïñïýí ïé ôïðéêÝòêïéíüôçôåò íá åðùöåëçèïýí áðü ôá ðñïãñÜììáôá äéáôÞñçóçò êáé Ýôóé íáåíèáññõíèïýí íá ðñïóôáôåýïõí ôéò ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò êáé ôïõòâéïôüðïõò ôïõò. Ìéá ôÝôïéá Ýñåõíá ðñÝðåé, åðßóçò, íá ðáñÜó÷åé ôéòäõíáôüôçôåò ðñïóôáóßáò óçìáíôéêþí áðïéêéþí ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáòìÝóù ôçò Üìåóçò áíÜìåéîçò ôùí ôïðéêþí áñ÷þí.

4. ¼ëåò ïé ìïñöÝò åðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò ðïõ åíäå÷ïìÝíùò ðáñåíï÷ëåß ôá æþá(üðùò ð.÷. áõôÞ ðïõ ðåñéëáìâÜíåé óýëëçøç, ìåôáöïñÜ, ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç ÞáíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá) ðñÝðåé íá õðüêåéíôáé óå åõñåßá áîéïëüãçóç êáéáðü ôçí äéåèíÞ åðéóôçìïíéêÞ êïéíüôçôá êáé áðü ôçí êïéíüôçôá äéáôÞñçóçò,óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíùí ôùí ó÷åôéêþí ÏìÜäùí Åéäéêþí ôçò IUCN, ðñéí áðü ôç÷ñçìáôïäüôçóç êáé åöáñìïãÞ ôïõò.

5. Ôá áðïôåëÝóìáôá ôçò åðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò ðñÝðåé íá äçìïóéåýïíôáé óôïãåíéêü êáôÜëïãï (äåò ôá ÊåöÜëáéá I - 7).


69

III. ÐÑÏÓÔÁÓÉÁ ÂÉÏÔÏÐÙÍ

1. Áíáãíùñßæïíôáò üôé ç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá åßíáé Üìåóá áðåéëïõìåíï åßäïòåîáéôßáò ôçò çèåëçìÝíçò èáíÜôùóçò êáé ôçò áíèñþðéíçò, åóêåììÝíçò êáé ìç,ðáñåíü÷ëçóçò, ç äçìéïõñãßá ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí ðñÝðåé íááðïôåëÝóåé ôç ìÝãéóôç ðñïôåñáéüôçôá ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôïõ åßäïõò.

2. ÅðåéäÞ ïé ðëçèõóìïß ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò åßíáé ìéêñïß êáé äéÜóðáñôïé, çäçìéïõñãßá åíüò áëëçëïóõíäåüìåíïõ äéêôýïõ åèíéêþí ðÜñêùí êáé ðåñéï÷þíðñïóôáóßáò ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôïõ åßäïõò åðåßãåé. Ôï äßêôõï ðñÝðåé íáðåñéëáìâÜíåé ðåñï÷Ýò äéáôñïöÞò êáé áíáðáñáãùãÞò êáé, üðïõ åíäåßêíõôáé,èáëÜóóéïõò äéáäñüìïõò åðéêïéíùíßáò, ïé ïðïßïé ìðïñåß íá âïçèÞóïõí þóôå íáóõíäåèïýí ðëçèõóìïß öþêéáò åíôüò êáé åêôüò ôùí åèíéêþí óõíüñùí.

3. Ç áíèñþðéíç ðñüóâáóç óå ðñïóôáôåõüìåíåò ðåñéï÷Ýò ðñÝðåé íá åëÝã÷åôáéáõóôçñÜ. Åíþ ïé ðåñéöåñåéáêÝò æþíåò èá ìðïñïýóáí íá ÷ñçóéìïðïéçèïýí ãéáðáñáäïóéáêÝò, ìç-åíôáôéêÝò áëéåõôéêÝò êáé ïéêïôïõñéóôéêÝò äñáóôçñéüôçôåò,ïé ðõñÞíåò ðñÝðåé íá ðáñáìÝíïõí åëåýèåñïé áðü áíèñþðéíåò ðáñåíï÷ëÞóåéò,üðùò ç áëéåßá, ï ôïõñéóìüò êáé ç èáëÜóóéá óõãêïéíùíßá, ç ïðïßá ðñÝðåé íááðáãïñåýåôáé áõóôçñÜ.

4. Ïé ôïðéêÝò êïéíüôçôåò ðñÝðåé íá áíáìåéãíýïíôáé åíåñãÜ óôç äçìéïõñãßáðåñéï÷þí ðñïóôáóßáò ãéá ôç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá. Áí êáé ôåëéêüò óôü÷ïò ðñÝðåéíá åßíáé ç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò ìüíéìïõ äéêôýïõ ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí ðïõèá åðéêõñþíåôáé áðü ôçí åèíéêÞ íïìïèåóßá, ç êñßóéìç êáôÜóôáóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò äåí åðéôñÝðåé ìåãÜëåò êáèõóôåñÞóåéò óôçí íïìïèåôéêÞäéáäéêáóßá. Ùò åê ôïýôïõ, ðñÝðåé íá êáôáâëçèåß êÜèå ðñïóðÜèåéá ãéá ôçíðñáóôáóßá óçìáíôéêþí âéïôüðùí ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ìÝóù ôçòáíÜìåéîçò ôùí ôïðéêþí êïéíïôÞôùí êáé ôçò ðáñï÷Þò ïéêïíïìéêÞò âïÞèåéáòðñïò ôéò ôïðéêÝò áëéåõôéêÝò êïéíüôçôåò.

5. Ïé ðñïóôáôåõüìåíåò ðåñéï÷Ýò áðáéôïýí ëåðôïìåñÞ ó÷Ýäéá äéá÷åßñéóçò êáéìáêñï-ðñüèåóìç äÝóìåõóç ÷ñçìÜôùí, ðüñùí êáé åîïðëéóìïý. Ãéá íá åßíáéáðïôåëåóìáôéêÜ, ôá ó÷Ýäéá äéá÷åßñéóçò ðñÝðåé íá ðåñéëáìâÜíïõíðñïãñÜììáôá åðéìüñöùóçò ôùí äéåõèõíôþí êáé ôïõ ðñïóùðéêïý, êáéåðáñêåßò áíèñþðéíïõò ðüñïõò êáé åîïðëéóìü ãéá ôç äéáóöÜëéóç ôçòåöáñìïãÞò ôùí êáíïíéóìþí ðñïóôáóßáò.


70

IV. ÍÏÌÏÈÅÓÉÁ & ÅÖÁÑÌÏÃÇ

1. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò, ìÝóù åèíéêþí, äéìåñþí êáé ðïëõìåñþí ðñùôïâïõëéþí,ðñÝðåé íá Ý÷ïõí ùò óôü÷ï ôç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò äéêôýïõ ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùíðåñéï÷þí ãéá ôç äéáóöÜëéóç ôùí âéïôüðùí ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.

2. Ìéá ðåñßðëïêç íïìïèåóßá êáé ìéá åõñåßá óõìâïõëåõôéêÞ äéáäéêáóßááðáéôåßôáé óõíÞèùò ãéá ôç äçìéïõñãßá åèíéêþí ðÜñêùí êáé ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùíðåñéï÷þí. ÔÝôïéá ìÝôñá áðïôåëïýí óõ÷íÜ ðñïûðüèåóç ãéá ìáêñï-ðñüèåóìçåðéôõ÷ßá, áëëÜ ïé êáèõóôåñÞóåéò Ý÷ïõí ïñéóìÝíåò öïñÝò ëåéôïõñãÞóåéáðïôñåðôéêÜ. Åíþ äåí ìðïñåß íá åßíáé ðÜíôá äõíáôüí íá åðéóðåýóåé êáíåßò ôçäéáäéêáóßá, üôáí äçìéïõñãïýíôáé èáëÜóóéá ðÜñêá ðïõ êáëýðôïõí ìåãÜëåòãåùãñáöéêÝò ðåñéï÷Ýò, ìéá åèíéêÞ íïìïèåóßá ðïõ íá åðéôñÝðåé ôçí Üìåóçðñïóôáóßá êáé öýëáîç ìéêñüôåñùí ðåñéï÷þí åßíáé ðñùôáñ÷éêÞò óçìáóßáò.

3. Óôá êñÜôç ôçò ÅõñùðáúêÞò ¸íùóçò, ï ÷áñáêôçñéóìüò Åéäéêþí Ðåñéï÷þíÐñïóôáóßáò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, üðùò ðñïâëÝðåôáé áðü ôç íïìïèåóßáôçò Å.Å., ðñÝðåé íá åðéôåõ÷èåß ìÝóù ôçò åöáñìïãÞò ôçò Ïäçãßáò 92/43/EEC-Natura 2000 ðåñß Ðñïóôáóßáò Öõóéêþí Âéïôüðùí ¢ãñéáò ×ëùñßäáò êáéÐáíßäáò.

4. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá äéáóöáëßóïõí ôçí áõóôçñÞ åöáñìïãÞ ôùíêáíïíéóìþí ðïõ áðáãïñåýïõí ôçí çèåëçìÝíç èáíÜôùóç êáé ðáñåíü÷ëçóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ôç ÷ñÞóç äõíáìßôç êáé ÷çìéêþí ïõóéþí óôçí áëéåßá, êáéôç ìåôáöïñÜ ðõñïâüëùí üðëùí óå óêÜöç.

5. Ôá åèíéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ðñÝðåéíá äçìéïõñãÞóïõí Ýíá ðëáßóéï ìÝóá óôï ïðïßï ïé ôïðéêÝò êïéíüôçôåò,éäßáéôåñá åêåßíåò ðïõ åîáñôþíôáé áðü ôçí áëéåßá êáé ôïí ôïõñéóìü, íá ìðïñïýííá åðùöåëçèïýí áðü ôçí äéáäéêáóßá äéáôÞñçóçò. Áíáãíùñßæïíôáò üôé çêïéíïôéêÞ óõììåôï÷Þ åßíáé Ýíá êñßóéìï óõóôáôéêü êÜèå óôñáôçãéêÞò ãéáäéáôÞñçóç, ôá åèíéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá ðñÝðåé íá åíèáññýíïõí ôéò ôïðéêÝòðñùôïâïõëßåò êáé ôçí áíÜìåéîç ôùí êáôïßêùí ôïõ ôüðïõ.

6. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá åîáóöáëßóïõí üôé ôá ìÝôñá äéáôÞñçóçò ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò åßíáé åíóùìáôùìÝíá óôçí áëéåõôéêÞ ðïëéôéêÞ êáé


71

íïìïèåóßá. Ïé ðñùôïâïõëßåò ðñÝðåé íá ðåñéëáìâÜíïõí ôçí áðáãüñåõóç ôùíáëéåõôéêþí äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí óå åõáßóèçôåò ðåñéï÷Ýò-êëåéäéÜ üðïõ æåé ôï åßäïò.

7. Ãéá íá åíèáññýíïõí ôç óõíýðáñîç øáñÜäùí êáé ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ïéêõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá åßíáé äéáôåèåéìÝíåò íá ðñïóöÝñïõí áðïæçìßùóç ÞÜëëåò åíáëëáêôéêÝò ëýóåéò óôéò ôïðéêÝò êïéíüôçôåò (üðùò åðé÷ïñçãÞóåéò ãéáôçí áíôéêáôÜóôáóç ôïõ áëéåõôéêïý åîïðëéóìïý, Þ Üëëç âïÞèåéá) Ýôóé þóôå íáåðéôåõ÷èåß ï Ýëåã÷ïò ôùí áëéåõôéêþí äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí óå ðåñéï÷Ýò üðïõ æïõíïé ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò.

8. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá äéáóöáëßæïõí üôé ïé åñãáóßåò ðïõ åðéêõñþíïíôáéáðü ôá åèíéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá, èá ëáìâÜíïõí ôçí áðáñáßôçôç ïéêïíïìéêÞõðïóôÞñéîç ãéá ôçí åðßôåõîç ôùí óôü÷ùí ôïõò.

9. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá äéáóöáëßæïõí ôçí áðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ äéá÷åßñéóç êáéöýëáîç ôùí ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí, óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíçò ôçò ðáñï÷Þòåðáñêïýò åêðáßäåõóçò ãéá ôï ðñïóùðéêü êáé ôçò ðñïìÞèåéáò ôïõ áðáñáßôçôïõåîïðëéóìïý.

10. Ôá åèíéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá ãéá ôçí äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ðñÝðåéíá äçìéïõñãÞóïõí Ýíá äßêôõï äéÜóùóçò ðïõ íá åîáóöáëßæåé ôçí ôá÷åßáðåñßèáëøç êáé åðáíÝíôáîç ðëçãùìÝíùí Þ ïñöáíþí öùêþí, üôáí õðÜñ÷åéáíÜãêç (äåò ôï ÊåöÜëáéï VI).

11. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò êáé ôá åèíéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ðñÝðåé íá äéáóöáëßæïõí üôé ïé ôïðéêÝò áñ÷Ýò, éäéáßôåñá çáóôõíïìßá, ç ëéìåíéêÞ áóôõíïìßá êáé ïé ëéìåíéêÝò áñ÷Ýò, ëáìâÜíïõí åðáñêÞðëçñïöüñçóç ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôïõ åßäïõò, üôé åöáñìüæïõí áõóôçñÜôçí õðÜñ÷ïõóá íïìïèåóßá, êáé üôé ëáìâÜíïõí åðáñêåßò ïäçãßåò ãéá ôçìåôáöïñÜ íåêñþí, ôñáõìáôéóìÝíùí Þ åãêáôáëåëåéììÝíùí öùêþí óå ìßáåèíéêÞ óõíôïíéóôéêÞ ìïíÜäá.

12. Ïé êõâåñíÞóåéò ðñÝðåé íá äéáóöáëßæïõí üôé ç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞòöþêéáò ðåñéëáìâÜíåôáé óôá ÁíáëõôéêÜ ÐñïãñáÜììáôá ôïõ ÅêðáéäåõôéêïýÓõóôÞìáôïò êÜèå ÷þñáò êáé üôé ó÷åôéêü åêðáéäåõôéêü õëéêü äéáôßèåôáé óôáó÷ïëåßá.


72

V. ÅÊÐÁÉÄÅÕÓÇ & ÅÕÁÉÓÈÇÔÏÐÏÉÇÓÇ ÊÏÉÍÏÕ

1. Ç Üìåóç èáíÜôùóç áðü øáñÜäåò, ç ïðïßá ïöåßëåôáé óôçí áíèñþðéíçå÷èñüôçôá ðñïò ôç ÌåóïãåéáêÞ öþêéá, Ý÷åé åîáêñéâùèåß üôé åßíáé ç êõñéüôåñçáéôßá ìåßùóçò ôïõ ðëçèõóìïý. ÅðåéäÞ ìéá ôÝôïéá óôÜóç åßíáé óõ÷íÜ âáèåéÜñéæùìÝíç, åêóôñáôåßåò åêðáßäåõóçò êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò ôïõ êïéíïý ðñÝðåéíá ðñáãìáôïðïéïýíôáé óå üëåò ôéò ðåñéï÷Ýò üðïõ áðáíôÜôáé ôï åßäïò.

2. Ïé åêóôñáôåßåò ðëçñïöüñçóçò ðñÝðåé íá æçôïýí ôçí õðïóôÞñéîç êáé áíÜìåéîçôùí øáñÜäùí, ôùí áëéåõôéêþí áñ÷þí, ôùí ëéìåíáñ÷þí, ôùí äáóêÜëùí, ôùíìáèçôþí êáé ôïõ åõñýôåñïõ êïéíïý.

3. ÐñÝðåé íá äéáôßèåíôáé ðüñïé ãéá ôç äéÜ÷õóç ôçò ðëçñïöüñçóçò êáé ôùíåêóôñáôåéþí åêðáßäåõóçò, ìå Ýìöáóç óôéò ðåñéï÷Ýò ðïõ Ý÷ïõí ÷áñáêôçñéóèåßùò ìÝãéóôçò ðñïôåñáéüôçôáò ãéá ôç äçìéïõñãßá ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þíãéá ôéò ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò.

4. Ôá ðñïãñÜììáôá åêðáßäåõóçò êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò êïéíïý, ôá ïðïßáäéåîÜãïíôáé óå ôïðéêü åðßðåäï ðñÝðåé íá ó÷åäéÜæïíôáé êáé íá óõíôïíßæïíôáé ùòáíáðüóðáóôá ìÝñç êÜèå åèíéêïý ðñïãñÜììáôïò ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. ÐñÝðåé íá äïèåß Ýìöáóç óôï üôé ìå ôï íá ðñïêáëïýíôçí áíÜìåéîç ôùí ôïðéêþí êïéíïôÞôùí, ïé åêóôñáôåßåò ðëçñïöüñçóçò ìðïñåßðïëëÝò öïñÝò íá áðïäþóïõí åðéðëÝïí ùöÝëç ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôïõ åßäïõò,óêéáãñáöþíôáò ôçí êïéíÞ ãíþìç êáé ðáñÝ÷ïíôáò åõêáéñßåò ãéá ôçóõãêÝíôñùóç ðïëýôéìùí ðëçñïöïñéþí. Áðü áõôÞ ôçí Üðïøç, ïé åêóôñáôåßåòðëçñïöüñçóçò ìðïñåß íá áðïäåé÷èïýí ðåñéóóüôåñï áðïôåëåóìáôéêÝò üôáíóõíäõÜæïíôáé ìå êïéíùíéêïïéêïíïìéêÞ Ýñåõíá êáé êáôáãñáöÞ ðëçèõóìþí ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Áí åßíáé ïñèÜ äïìçìÝíåò êáé åöïäéáóìÝíåò ìå ôïõòáðáñáßôçôïõò ðüñïõò êáé ôï áíèñþðéíï äõíáìéêü, ïé ïìÜäåò ðïõ äéåîÜãïõí ôéòåêóôñáôåßåò ðëçñïöüñçóçò ìðïñåß íá Ý÷ïõí Ýíá äéåõñõìÝíï ñüëï ðïõ íáðåñéëáìâÜíåé:

á. Åíôïðéóìüò áðïéêéþí öþêéáò êáé ðñïåôïéìáóßá ãéá ëåðôïìåñÞåðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá.

â. Åêôßìçóç ôïðéêþí áðåéëþí êáôÜ ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, üðùò çåóêåììÝíç èáíÜôùóç áðü øáñÜäåò, êáé ç ðáñåíü÷ëçóç áðü êáôïßêïõò Þáðü ôïõñßóôåò.


73

ã. Ó÷åäéáóìüò äñÜóåùí ìå ôçí ôïðéêÞ êïéíüôçôá ðïõ íá ìðïñïýí íáåöáñìïóèïýí ãéá ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôùí áðïéêéþí öþêéáò, üðùò çáðïæçìßùóç ôùí øáñÜäùí, Þ Üëëá ó÷Ýäéá êïéíïôéêÞò âïÞèåéáò ðïõ íáåðéôñÝðïõí ôçí ðñïóôáóßá ôùí ðëçèõóìþí ôçò öþêéáò óå ôïðéêü åðßðåäïêáé ç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò óõóôÞìáôïò ðáñáêïëïýèçóçò ôçò�ðñïóôáôåõüìåíçò� ðåñéï÷Þò.

5. ÊÜèå ðñïóðÜèåéá ðñÝðåé íá êáôáâÜëëåôáé ãéá ôçí áíÜðôõîç êáé âåëôßùóç ôïõåêðáéäåõôéêïý õëéêïý, ìå óêïðü íá æùçñÝøåé ôï åíäéáöÝñïí ôïõ êïéíïý ãéáôçí õðüèåóç ôçò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Ïé ôáéíßåò êáé ïéâßíôåï-ôáéíßåò, ïé áößóåò, ïé åêðáéäåõôéêÝò åêäüóåéò ãéá ó÷ïëåßá, ãéáðáñÜäåéãìá, ìðïñåß íá áðïäåé÷èïýí æùôéêÜ êáé áðïôåëåóìáôéêÜ åñãáëåßá ãéáôçí åðßôåõîç áõôïý ôïõ óôü÷ïõ.

6. ÅêðáéäåõôéêÜ ðáêÝôá ðñÝðåé íá äçìéïõñãçèïýí ãéá ôïõò ôïõñßóôåò êáé ôçíôïõñéóôéêÞ âéïìç÷áíßá, éäéáßôåñá üðïõ áðåéëïýíôáé åîáéôßáò ôçò âéüôïðïé êáéðåñéï÷Ýò áíáðáñáãùãÞò. ÐñÝðåé íá êáôáâëçèåß êÜèå ðñïóðÜèåéá ìå óôü÷ïôçí åíèÜññõíóç ôùí ôáîéäéùôéêþí ðñáêôüñùí íá óõììåôÜó÷ïõí åíåñãÜ óôéòðñïóðÜèåéåò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ìÝóù åðé÷ïñçãÞóåùí êáéôçò Ýêäïóçò êáé äéÜèåóçò åêðáéäåõôéêïý õëéêïý. ÐñÝðåé åðßóçò íááðïôñÝðåôáé ç ïñãÜíùóç åêäñïìþí óå åõáßóèçôåò ðåñéï÷Ýò.

7. Ç Ýêäïóç åíçìåñùôéêïý õëéêïý ãéá ôéò óôñáôéùôéêÝò áñ÷Ýò, ôïõòâéïìç÷áíéêïýò ïñãáíéóìïýò êáé ôç íáõôéëßá, ôï ïðïßï íá áíáöÝñåéëåðôïìåñþò ôéò åíÝñãåéåò ðïõ ðñÝðåé íá ãßíïõí ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò åßíáé áíáãêáßá.

8. ÐñÝðåé íá öõëÜóóïíôáé äåßãìáôá üëïõ ôïõ åêðáéäåõôéêïý õëéêïý ðïõåêäßäåôáé óå äéÜöïñåò ÷þñåò óå Ýíá ãåíéêü êáôÜëïãï-åõñåôÞñéï Þ óå ÜëëïêÝíôñï � üðùò ç ÄéåèíÞò ÓõíôïíéóôéêÞ ÌïíÜäá (äåò ôï ÊåöÜëáéï I) � þóôå íá÷ñçóéìåýóïõí ùò äåéãìáôïëüãéï óå Üëëåò ïìÜäåò. Ç âéâëéïèÞêç ðñÝðåé,åðßóçò, íá óõëëÝãåé öùôïãñáöéêü êáé Üëëï áñ÷åéáêü õëéêü ãéá åíäå÷üìåíç÷ñÞóç áðü ðáñüìïéá ðñïãñÜììáôá óå Üëëåò ÷þñåò.


74

VI. ÄÉÁÓÙÓÇ & ÅÐÁÍÅÍÔÁÎÇ

1. Ç äéÜóùóç êáé ç åðáíÝíôáîç ôñáõìáôéóìÝíùí, áâïÞèçôùí Þ ïñöáíþíÌåóïãåéáêþí öùêþí ðñÝðåé íá õðüêåéôáé óå áõóôçñÜ ðñùôüêïëëáåðéóôçìïíéêïý êáé çèéêïý ðåñéå÷ïìÝíïõ, ãéá íá áðïöåýãåôáé ç ðåñéóõëëïãÞáôüìùí ðïõ äåí Ý÷ïõí áíÜãêç èåñáðåßáò. Ôá ðñùôüêïëëá, ðïõ åîåôÜæïíôáé êáéåãêñßíïíôáé áðü ôçí åõñýôåñç êïéíüôçôá ðñïóôáóßáò, ðñÝðåé åðßóçò íáêáëýðôïõí ôá æçôÞìáôá ìåôáöïñÜò, äéáôñïöÞò, ðåñßèáëøçò êáéáðåëåõèÝñùóçò.

2. ¸íáò Óôáèìüò Ðåñßèáëøçò ðïõ ëåéôïõñãåß ùò ìïíÜäá äéÜóùóçò êáéåðáíÝíôáîçò, Ý÷åé åãêáôáóôáèåß óôç íÞóï Áëüííçóï óôï ÈáëÜóóéï ÐÜñêïôùí Âïñåßùí ÓðïñÜäùí ôçò ÅëëÜäáò.3 Ìéá ðáñüìïéá ìïíÜäá Ý÷åé ðñïôáèåßãéá ôç Ìáõñéôáíßá/ÄõôéêÞ Óá÷Üñá êïíôÜ óôçí áðïéêßá öùêþí Côte desPhoques. Óå ðåñßðôùóç ðïõ êÜðïéåò åðéðëÝïí ìïíÜäåò äéÜóùóçò êáéåðáíÝíôáîçò êñéèïýí áðáñáßôçôåò, ðñÝðåé óôçí áñ÷Þ íá äçìéïõñãçèïýí ìüíïóôéò ðåñéï÷Ýò ðïõ æïõí ðëçèõóìïß ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ãéá íá ðåñéïñéóèïýíôá ðñïâëÞìáôá ìåôáöïñÜò ôïõò óå ìåãÜëåò áðïóôÜóåéò.

3. ÐñÝðåé íá äçìéïõñãçèïýí Þ íá âåëôéùèïýí ôá äßêôõá äéÜóùóçò Þ ôá äßêôõáðáñáêïëïýèçóçò, þóôå íá áõîçèïýí ïé ðéèáíüôçôåò åíôïðéóìïýôñáõìáôéóìÝíùí, áâïÞèçôùí Þ ïñöáíþí öùêþí. Ðáñ� üëá áõôÜ ðñÝðåé íáëáìâÜíåôáé ìÝñéìíá þóôå ïé õãéåßò öþêéåò íá ìçí ðÝöôïõí èýìáôá êÜðïéùíåèåëïíôþí ìå õðåñâïëéêü æÞëï Þ ôïõ åõñýôåñïõ êïéíïý.

4. ÌåôÜ ôçí åðáíÝíôáîç, ïé öþêéåò ðñÝðåé í� áðåëåõèåñþíïíôáé óåðñïóôáôåõüìåíåò ðåñéï÷Ýò, êáôÜ ðñïôßìçóç óôçí ðåñéï÷Þ óôçí ïðïßá áñ÷éêÜâñÝèçêáí.

5. Ïé ìïíÜäåò äéÜóùóçò êáé åðáíÝíôáîçò ðñÝðåé íá ðáñÝ÷ïõí åõêáéñßåò ãéáåêðáßäåõóç óôçí ðåñßèáëøç áé÷ìÜëùôùí Ìåóïãåéáêþí öùêþí, êáé íáðáñÜãïõí ãíþóç ðïõ íá ÷ñçóéìåýåé óå ìåëëïíôéêÜ ðñïãñÜììáôá

3 Áõôüò ï Óôáèìüò Ðåñßèáëøçò Ý÷åé ôåèåß óå ëåéôïõñãßá áðü ôçí Åôáéñåßá ãéá ôçí ÌåëÝôç &Ðñïóôáóßá ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò Öþêéáò (ÌÏm), ðïõ åäñåýåé óôçí ÁèÞíá, óå óõíåñãáóßá ìåôï ÊÝíôñï ÅðáíÝíôáîçò êáé ¸ñåõíáò ôçò Öþêéáò, ðïõ åäñåýåé óôï Pieterburen, óôçíÏëëáíäßá.


75

ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò êáé áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá (Äåò ôá ÊåöÜëáéá VII êáéVIII áíôßóôïé÷á).

6. Áíáãíùñßæïíôáò ôïõò åíäå÷ïìÝíùò óïâáñïýò êéíäýíïõò ìåôÜäïóçòíïóçìÜôùí ðïõ óõíäÝïíôáé ìå ôç ìåôáöïñÜ æþùí óå êáé áðü êÝíôñáäéÜóùóçò, êáé ìå ôçí åðáíÝíôáîÞ ôïõò óôç öýóç, ðñÝðåé êáè� üëç ôç äéÜñêåéáïðïéïõäÞðïôå ðñïãñÜììáôïò äéÜóùóçò, åðáíÝíôáîçò êáé áðåëåõèÝñùóçò íáôçñïýíôáé ïé õãåéïíïìéêïß êáíïíéóìïß. ÔÝôïéá ðñïãñÜììáôá ðñÝðåé íáåãêáéíéÜæïíôáé ìüíï ìåôÜ áðü óõíåñãáóßá ìå ôçí åõñýôåñç åðéóôçìïíéêÞêïéíüôçôá êáé ôéò ÏìÜäåò Åéäéêþí ãéá ôç Öþêéá, ôçò IUCN.

VII. ÌÅÔÅÃÊÁÔÁÓÔÁÓÇ

1. Ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç, ùò óôñáôçãéêÞ äéáôÞñçóçò, óôï÷åýåé óôçí åðáíÝíôáîç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò óå âéïôüðïõò óôïõò ïðïßïõò éóôïñéêÜ æïýóå ôï åßäïò.Ùóôüóï, ðñÝðåé íá áíáãíùñéóèåß ðùò ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç åßíáé ìéá áäéÜêñéôáåðåìâáôéêÞ äéáäéêáóßá ðïõ ìðïñåß íá ðñïêáëÝóåé óïâáñÝò êáéáäéêáéïëüãçôåò áðåéëÝò óôïõò ðëçèõóìïýò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Ùò åêôïýôïõ, ïðïéáäÞðïôå ðñüôáóç ðåñéÝ÷åé ôçí óýëëçøç êáé ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçõãéþí áôüìùí óå íÝïõò âéïôüðïõò ðñÝðåé íá åãêñßíåôáé áðü ôçí åðéóôçìïíéêÞêïéíüôçôá êáé áðü ôçí êïéíüôçôá äéáôÞñçóçò ðñéí ÷ñçìáôïäïôçèåß êáéõëïðïéçèåß. Åêôüò áðü ôá åðéóôçìïíéêÜ èÝìáôá, ðñÝðåé åðßóçò íá åîåôáóèïýíæçôÞìáôá çèéêÞò êáé åõçìåñßáò ôùí æþùí.

2. Ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò � ìéá ìÝ÷ñé ôþñá ìçäïêéìáóìÝíç óôñáôçãéêÞ äéáôÞñçóçò � åíÝ÷åé ïñéóìÝíïõò ðéèáíïýò êéíäýíïõòãéá ôïõò Üãñéïõò ðëçèõóìïýò êáé ôá Üôïìá ðïõ ìåôáêéíïýíôáé. Êáôüðéíôïýôïõ, õðïãñáììßæåôáé üôé êÜèå ó÷Ýäéï ãéá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç æþùí ðñÝðåé íáâáóßæåôáé óå ìéá ðñïóåêôéêÞ ðñïóÝããéóç, ó÷åäéáóìÝíç Ýôóé þóôå íáåëá÷éóôïðïéÞóåé ôéò áñíçôéêÝò åðéðôþóåéò. Áõôü ðñÝðåé íá ðñáãìáôïðïéåßôáéìÝóù ìéáò åõñåßáò äéáäéêáóßáò óõóêÝøåùí êáé óýíäåóçò ìå Üëëåòðñïôåñáéüôçôåò äéáôÞñçóçò, üðùò ç ðñïóôáóßá âéïôüðùí, ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞðáñáêïëïýèçóç, ç äéÜóùóç êáé ç åðáíÝíôáîç. Óýìöùíá ìå ìéááëëçëïäéÜäï÷ç óôñáôçãéêÞ, ïé áñ÷éêïß ÷þñïé ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò êáé


76

áðåëåõèÝñùóçò ðñÝðåé íá âñßóêïíôáé åíôüò ôçò éóôïñéêÞò áêôßíáò äñÜóçò ôùíðëçèõóìþí áðü ôïõò ïðïßïõò ðñïÞëèáí ôá æþá ðïõ ìåôáêéíïýíôáé, êáé íáåßíáé ãåéôïíéêïß ìå ôéò ðåñéï÷Ýò üðïõ áðáíôÜôáé óÞìåñá ç ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéá.

3. ¼ëá ôá ó÷Ýäéá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò ðñÝðåé íá ëáìâÜíïõí ôéò áêüëïõèåòðñïöõëÜîåéò:

á. Áîéïëüãçóç ôïõ ÐñïãñÜììáôïò. Ãéá ôï ó÷åäéáóìü ðñïãñáììÜôùíìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò ìå åõñýôåñá êñéôÞñéá åëÝã÷ïõ áðáéôåßôáé åéóñïÞåðéóôçìïíéêþí, êáèþò êáé óôïé÷åßùí ãéá ôçí åõçìåñßá ôùí æþùí. ÌéáäéåèíÞò, áíåîÜñôçôç åðéôñïðÞ åìðåéñïãíùìüíùí õðü ôçí áéãßäá ôïõUNEP/MAP ðñÝðåé íá äéáìïñöþóåé ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçðñùôüêïëëá, íá åîåôÜæåé ðñïôÜóåéò, êáé íá ðáñáêïëïõèåß ôçí åîÝëéîç ôùíðñïãñáììÜôùí ðïõ Ý÷ïõí åãêñéèåß.

â. ¸ëåã÷ïò. Ðñïôïý åãêñéèïýí, ÷ñçìáôïäïôçèïýí êáé åöáñìïóèïýí, ôáðñïãñÜììáôá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò, ðñÝðåé íá õðüêåéíôáé óôçí åîÝôáóç êáé ôïó÷ïëéáóìü ôçò åõñýôåñçò åðéóôçìïíéêÞò êïéíüôçôáò êáé ôçò êïéíüôçôáòäéáôÞñçóçò, óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíùí ôùí ó÷åôéêþí ÏìÜäùí Åéäéêþí ôçòIUCN. ÆçôÞìáôá çèéêÞò êáé åõçìåñßáò ôùí æþùí ðñÝðåé íá ìåëåôçèïýíåðáñêþò êáôÜ ôç äéáäéêáóßá åîÝôáóçò.

ã. Åêðáßäåõóç. Ôï ðñïóùðéêü ôïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò ðñÝðåé íá ëÜâåéïëïêëçñùìÝíç åêðáßäåõóç óôçí ðåñßèáëøç öùêþí.

ä. Ðñïóôáóßá Ðåñéï÷þí ÁðåëåõèÝñùóçò. Ç ðåñéï÷Þ áðåëåõèÝñùóçò óåêÜèå ðñüãñáììá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò ðñÝðåé íá ðñïóôáôåýåôáé áõóôçñÜ áðüôç íïìïèåóßá. ÐñÝðåé íá ãßíåôáé áðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ öýëáîç ôçò ðåñéï÷Þò êáéüëåò ïé åíäå÷üìåíåò áðåéëÝò, üðùò ç áëéåßá êáé ç ðáñåíü÷ëçóç áðü ôïíôïõñéóìü êáé ôçí áíÜðôõîç, ðñÝðåé íá åîïõäåôåñþíïíôáé ðñïôïý áñ÷ßóåé çìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç.

å. Ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ÌåôÜ ôçí ÁðåëåõèÝñùóç. ÌåôÜ ôçí ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç,ðñÝðåé íá ãßíåôáé åðéóôçìïíéêÞ ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ôùí áðåëåõèåñùìÝíùíæþùí þóôå í� áîéïëïãçèåß ç åðéôõ÷ßá ôïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò êáé ôááðïôåëÝóìáôá íá ÷ñçóéìåýóïõí óôï ó÷åäéáóìü íÝùí ðñïãñáììÜôùí.

4. Ç áðïìÜêñõíóç õãéþí æþùí áðü ôï öõóéêü ôïõò ðåñéâÜëëïí äåí ðñÝðåé íáó÷åäéÜæåôáé Ýùò üôïõ åöáñìïóèïýí áðïôåëåóìáôéêÜ in situ ìÝôñá äéáôÞñçóçò,êáé Ýùò üôïõ äåßîåé ç åðéóôçìïíéêÞ ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ðùò ï ðëçèõóìüò


77

ðñïÝëåõóçò åßíáé åðáñêÞò, áõîÜíåôáé, Þ åßíáé óôáèåñüò. Áí êÜðïéáðñïóðÜèåéá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò æþùí áðïäåé÷èåß áíåðéôõ÷Þò, ôüôå ôá áßôéá ôçòáðïôõ÷ßáò ðñÝðåé íá ãßíïõí áíôéëçðôÜ ðñïôïý åðé÷åéñçèïýí ÜëëåòìåôåãêáôáóôÜóåéò.

5. Ôá æþá ðñÝðåé íá ìåôåãêáèßóôáíôáé ìüíï óå âéïôüðïõò óôïõò ïðïßïõò æïýóåðáëáéüôåñá ôï åßäïò.

6. Áíáãíùñßæïíôáò ôïõò ðéèáíïýò êéíäýíïõò ôçò ìåôÜäïóçò áóèåíåéþí ðïõó÷åôßæïíôáé ìå ôç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç êáé ôçí åðáíÝíôáîç, ðñÝðåé íáåöáñìüæïíôáé ïé õãåéïíïìéêïß êáíïíéóìïß ðñéí ôçí áðåëåõèÝñùóç. ÔÝôïéáðñïãñÜììáôá ðñÝðåé íá ðñáãìáôïðïéïýíôáé ìüíï ìåôÜ áðü óõíåñãáóßá ìå ôéòÏìÜäåò Åéäéêþí ãéá ôç Öþêéá ôçò IUCN.

VIII. ÁÍÁÐÁÑÁÃÙÃÇ ÓÅ ÁÉ×ÌÁËÙÓÉÁ

1. ÐñÝðåé íá áíáãíùñéóôåß ðùò ç áíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ïðïéïõäÞðïôååßäïõò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò åßíáé ìéá ìç äïêéìáóìÝíç äéáäéêáóßá ðïõ ìðïñåßíá ðñïêáëÝóåé óïâáñÝò êáé áäéêáéïëüãçôåò áðåéëÝò óôïõò ðëçèõóìïýò ôçòöþêéáò êáé óôá Üôïìá ðïõ ëáìâÜíïõí ìÝñïò óå áõôÞí. Êáôüðéí ôïýôïõ,ïðïéåóäÞðïôå ðñïôÜóåéò ãéá ôçí õéïèÝôçóç ôçò áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßáêáèþò êáé ïé ó÷åôéæüìåíåò ìåëÝôåò âéùóéìüôçôáò ðñÝðåé íá õðüêåéíôáé óååõñåßá åîÝôáóç áðü ôçí åðéóôçìïíéêÞ êïéíüôçôá êáé ôçí êïéíüôçôáäéáôÞñçóçò ðñéí ôç ÷ñçìáôïäüôçóç êáé ôçí ðñáãìáôïðïßçóÞ ôïõò. Åêôüò áðüôá åðéóôçìïíéêÜ èÝìáôá, ðñÝðåé íá åîåôÜæïíôáé æçôÞìáôá çèéêÞò êáéåõçìåñßáò ôùí æþùí.

2. Ïé áíôéêåéìåíéêïß óêïðïß êÜèå ðñïãñÜììáôïò áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßáðñÝðåé íá åßíáé:

á. Êáô� áñ÷Þí, ç áýîçóç ôùí õðáñ÷üíôùí ðëçèõóìþí ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáòðïõ åìöáíßæïõí ìåßùóç ìå óôü÷ï ôç äéáóöÜëéóç ìéáò óôáèåñÞòéóïññïðßáò, ð.÷. �öÝñïõóá éêáíüôçôá�.

â. Åöüóïí Ý÷åé åðéôåõ÷èåß ï áíôéêåéìåíéêüò óêïðüò (á), ç åëåã÷üìåíçáíáðáñáãùãÞ áôüìùí ãéá ðñïãñÜììáôá åðáíÝíôáîçò óå âéïôüðïõò(êáé


78

ìüíï óôïõò íïìéêÜ ðñïóôáôåõìÝíïõò), óôïõò ïðïßïõò æïýóå ôï åßäïòðáëáéüôåñá.

3. Ãéá ôçí åëá÷éóôïðïßçóç ôùí èáíÜôùí êáôÜ ôç ìåôáöïñÜ, ôçò ìåôÜäïóçòíïóçìÜôùí, êáé ôùí äõóêïëéþí åãêëéìáôéóìïý óå Ýíá îÝíï ðåñéâÜëëïí (ð.÷.êëéìáôïëïãéêÝò óõíèÞêåò, öùôïðåñßïäïò), êÜèå ðñüãñáììá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óåáé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé áñ÷éêÜ íá ðñáãìáôïðïéåßôáé åíôüò ôçò åðéêñÜôåéáò ôùíõðáñ÷üíôùí ðëçèõóìþí ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. ÅðéðëÝïí, ôá æþá ðñÝðåé íáêñáôïýíôáé ìüíï óå åéäéêÝò åãêáôáóôÜóåéò óôéò ïðïßåò åßíáé äõíáôü íáðåñéïñéóôåß ç áíèñþðéíç ðáñÝìâáóç.

4. ËáìâÜíïíôáò õð� üøéí ôïõò ðéèáíïýò êéíäýíïõò ãéá ôïõò Üãñéïõò ðëçèõóìïýòêáé ãéá ôá Üôïìá ðïõ ëáìâÜíïõí ìÝñïò, ôá ðñïãñÜììáôá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óåáé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé í� áêïëïõèïýí ìéá ðñïóåêôéêÞ åîÝëéîç, ó÷åäéáóìÝíç íáåëá÷éóôïðïéåß ôéò áñíçôéêÝò åðéðôþóåéò. Áõôü ðñÝðåé íá åðéôåõ÷èåß ìÝóù ìéáòåõñåßáò äéáäéêáóßáò óõóêÝøåùí êáé óýíäåóçò ìå Üëëåò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò ôçòäéáôÞñçóçò, üðùò ç ðñïóôáóßá âéïôüðùí, ç äéÜóùóç, ç åðáíÝíôáîç êáé çìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç.

5. ¼ëá ôá ðñïãñÜììáôá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé íá ðåñéëáìâÜíïõíôéò áêüëïõèåò ðñïöõëÜîåéò:

á. Áîéïëüãçóç ôïõ ÐñïãñÜììáôïò. Ãéá ôï ó÷åäéáóìü ðñïãñáììÜôùíáíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ìå åõñýôåñá êñéôÞñéá åëÝã÷ïõ, áðáéôåßôáéåéóñïÞ åðéóôçìïíéêþí êáèþò êáé óôïé÷åßùí ãéá ôçí åõçìåñßá ôùí æþùí.Ìéá äéåèíÞò, áíåîÜñôçôç åðéôñïðÞ åìðåéñïãíùìüíùí õðü ôçí áéãßäá ôïõUNEP/MAP ðñÝðåé íá äéáìïñöþóåé ôá ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôçí áíáðáñáãùãÞ óåáé÷ìáëùóßá ðñùôüêïëëá, íá åîåôÜæåé ðñïôÜóåéò, êáé íá ðáñáêïëïõèåß ôçíåîÝëéîç ôùí ðñïãñáììÜôùí ðïõ Ý÷ïõí åãêñéèåß.

â. ¸ëåã÷ïò. Ðñïôïý åãêñéèïýí, ÷ñçìáôïäïôçèïýí êáé åöáñìïóèïýí, ôáó÷Ýäéá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé åðßóçò íá õðüêåéíôáé óôçíåîÝôáóç êáé ôï ó÷ïëéáóìü ôçò åõñýôåñçò åðéóôçìïíéêÞò êïéíüôçôáò êáé ôçòêïéíüôçôáò äéáôÞñçóçò, óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíùí ôùí ó÷åôéêþí ÏìÜäùíÅéäéêþí ôçò IUCN. ÆçôÞìáôá çèéêÞò êáé åõçìåñßáò æþùí ðñÝðåé íáìåëåôçèïýí åðáñêþò êáôÜ ôç äéáäéêáóßá åîÝôáóçò.

ã. Åêðáßäåõóç. Ôï ðñïóùðéêü ôïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò ðñÝðåé íá ëÜâåéïëïêëçñùìÝíç åêðáßäåõóç óôçí ðåñßèáëøç öùêþí.


79


ä. Ðñïóôáóßá Ðåñéï÷þí ÁðåëåõèÝñùóçò. Ç ðåñéï÷Þ áðåëåõèÝñùóçò óåêÜèå ðñüãñáììá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé íá ðñïóôáôåýåôáéáõóôçñÜ áðü ôç íïìïèåóßá. ÐñÝðåé íá ãßíåôáé áðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ öýëáîç ôçòðåñéï÷Þò êáé üëåò ïé åíäå÷üìåíåò áðåéëÝò, üðùò ç áëéåßá êáé çðáñåíü÷ëçóç áðü ôïí ôïõñéóìü êáé ôçí áíÜðôõîç, ðñÝðåé íáåîïõäåôåñþíïíôáé ðñïôïý áñ÷ßóåé ç áðåëåõèÝñùóç.

å. Ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ÌåôÜ ôçí ÁðåëåõèÝñùóç. ÌåôÜ ôçí áðåëåõèÝñùóç,ðñÝðåé íá ãßíåôáé åðéóôçìïíéêÞ ðáñáêïëïýèçóç ôùí áðåëåõèåñùìÝíùíæþùí þóôå í� áîéïëïãçèåß ç åðéôõ÷ßá ôïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò, êáé ôááðïôåëÝóìáôá íá ÷ñçóéìåýóïõí óôï ó÷åäéáóìü íÝùí ðñïãñáììÜôùí.

6. Óå ðåñßðôùóç ðïõ ç áíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá êñéèåß ôåëéêÜ áðáñáßôçôç(êáôüðéí õëïðïßçóçò ðåñéóóüôåñï åðåéãüíôùí ðñïôåñáéïôÞôùí, üðùò in situðñïóôáóßá, äéÜóùóç êáé åðáíÝíôáîç), ðñÝðåé íá äçìéïõñãçèïýí ïé êáôÜëëçëåòåãêáôáóôÜóåéò åíôüò ôçò åðéêñÜôåéáò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, óå ãåéôíßáóç ìåôïõò ðëçèõóìïýò ðïõ ëáìâÜíïõí ìÝñïò óôï ðñüãñáììá. Ãéá íá ìåéùèïýí ïéêßíäõíïé ìåôÜäïóçò íïóçìÜôùí êáé Üëëá åíäå÷üìåíá ðñïâëÞìáôá (ð.÷.áíáðáñáãùãéêÞ áóõìâáôüôçôá) êÜèå ìåëÝôç âéùóéìüôçôáò ôçò áíáðáñáãùãÞòóå áé÷ìáëùóßá ðñÝðåé áñ÷éêÜ íá áîéïðïéåß æþá áðü Ýíá ìüíï ðëçèõóìü.

7. Áíáãíùñßæïíôáò ôïõò ðéèáíïýò ïõóéáóôéêïýò êéíäýíïõò ìåôÜäïóçò íïóçìÜôùíðïõ óõíäÝïíôáé ìå ôçí åðáíÝíôáîç êáé åíäå÷ïìÝíùò ôçí áýîçóç ôïõðëçèõóìïý áíáâßùóç, ðñÝðåé íá åöáñìüæïíôáé åêôåôáìÝíá õãåéïíïìéêÜ ìÝôñáðñéí ôçí áðåëåõèÝñùóç. ÔÝôïéá ðñïãñÜììáôá ðñÝðåé íá åöáñìüæïíôáé ìüíïìåôÜ áðü óõíåñãáóßá ìå ôéò ÏìÜäåò Åéäéêþí ãéá ôç Öþêéá ôçò IUCN.

80

3. ÓÕÆÇÔÇÓÇ

�Êáììßá ðñÜîç áðü ìüíç ôçò äåí åßíáé áñêåôÞ. Ïé åðéìÝñïõò Üîïíåò ôïõó÷åäßïõ äéá÷åßñéóçò åßíáé áëëçëï-õðïóôçñéæüìåíïé êáé ðñÝðåé íá äïõëåýïõí

ìáæß ãéá íá Ý÷ïõí ðéèáíüôçôåò åðéôõ÷ßáò.�

~ Ó÷Ýäéï ÄñÜóçò ãéá ôç Äéá÷åßñéóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò, ÐåñéâáëëïíôéêüÐñüãñáììá ÇíùìÝíùí Åèíþí, 1987 ~

Ç áíáóêüðçóç ðïõ êÜíáìå ôùí øçöéóìÜôùí êáé ôùí ó÷åäßùí äñÜóçò ãéá ôçäéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò áðïêáëýðôåé ìéá åêðëçêôéêÞ êáéåíèáññõíôéêÞ ïìïöùíßá áðüøåùí ãéá èÝìáôá áðü ôïí äéåèíÞ óõíôïíéóìü óôçíðñïóôáóßá âéïôüðùí êáé áðü ôçí åíçìÝñùóç ôïõ êïéíïý Ýùò ôçí áíáðáñáãùãÞ óåáé÷ìáëùóßá. ÅðéðëÝïí, ïé åéóçãÞóåéò, ðïõ êáëýðôïõí ðÜíù áðü äåêáÝîé ÷ñüíéáåðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò, åìðåéñßáò óôï ðåäßï êáé äçìïóßïõ äéáëüãïõ, ðáñáìÝíïõíóÞìåñá ó÷åôéêÝò üóï ðïôÝ. ¼ìùò, åßíáé åðßóçò îåêÜèáñï ðùò áõôïß ðïõåíäéáöÝñïíôáé ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò Þôáí ðåñéóóüôåñïáðïôåëåóìáôéêïß óôï íá äéïñãáíþíïõí óõíáíôÞóåéò êáé íá óõìöùíïýí ãéá ôéòðñïôåñáéüôçôåò ðáñÜ óôï íá ìåôáôñÝðïõí áõôÝò ôéò ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò óå äñÜóç.

ÐñÜãìáôé, ðáñ� üëåò áõôÝò ôéò óõíáíôÞóåéò êáé ôéò êáëÝò ðñïèÝóåéò, ïéäñáóôçñéüôçôåò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ôá ôåëåõôáßá ÷ñüíéá ãßíïíôáéüëï êáé ðéï áðïóðáóìáôéêÝò, åîáéôßáò ôùí äéáöïñþí óôçí åèíéêüôçôá êáé óôá åßäçäñÜóåùí. ¼ëï êáé ðéï óõ÷íÜ, ïé Üîïíåò ôùí äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí äéáôÞñçóçò, áðü ôçíåðéóôçìïíéêÞ Ýñåõíá Ýùò ôçí in situ ðñïóôáóßá, ðáñáìÝíïõí êáôÜ êáíüíáîå÷ùñéóôÝò ïíôüôçôåò. ÓðÜíéá åíïðïéïýíôáé óå ìéá áëëçëï-õðïóôçñéæüìåíç êáéáëëçëï-åîáñôïýìåíç óôñáôçãéêÞ, ìå áðïôÝëåóìá, ç åðßôåõîç ôùí áíôéêåéìåíéêþíóêïðþí äéáôÞñçóçò íá äéáêõâåýåôáé óïâáñÜ.

Ëßãïé èá éó÷õñßæïíôáí üôé ïé ðñïóðÜèåéåò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáòäåí èá åß÷áí íá ùöåëçèïýí áðü ôçí åíïðïßçóç ôùí äñáóôçñéïôÞôùí, üðùòöáßíåôáé áðü ôá äéÜöïñá óõíåäñéáêÜ øçößóìáôá ðïõ óõíèÝóáìå óôï ðñïçãïýìåíïìÝñïò. Óå ìåãÜëï âáèìü, ìéá ôÝôïéá åíïðïßçóç åîáñôÜôáé áðü ôïí áðïôåëåóìáôéêüåèíéêü êáé äéåèíÞ óõíôïíéóìü. Óå äéÜöïñåò óôéãìÝò ôá ôåëåõôáßá äåêáÝîé ÷ñüíéá,äéÜöïñá äéåèíÞ óþìáôá Ý÷ïõí áíáëÜâåé ôçí åõèýíç áõôïý ôïõ êñßóéìïõ ñüëïõ,óõìðåñéëáìâáíïìÝíçò ôçò IUCN, ôïõ Óõìâïõëßïõ ôçò Åõñþðçò, ôçò ÅõñùðáúêÞò

81

Êïéíüôçôáò êáé ôïõ UNEP. ¼ìùò ï áðïôåëåóìáôéêüò äéåèíÞò óõíôïíéóìüò Ý÷åéðáñáìåßíåé ìéá ìÜëëïí áíåêðëÞñùôç õðüó÷åóç.

Ôï êåíü ðïõ Ý÷åé äçìéïõñãçèåß Ý÷åé åðéôñÝøåé óå éäßáéôåñá áìöéëåãüìåíáæçôÞìáôá, üðùò ç áíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá êáé ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç, íáêõñéáñ÷Þóïõí óôçí çìåñÞóéá äéÜôáîç ôçò äéáôÞñçóçò. Áðü ðïëëÝò ðëåõñÝò, áõôÜôá èÝìáôá óõìâïëßæïõí ôçí ôñÝ÷ïõóá áðïóðáóìáôéêÞ ðñïóÝããéóç óôç äéáôÞñçóçôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò. Áí êáé Ý÷ïõí ðáñïõóéáóèåß óå óõíåäñéáêÜ øçößóìáôáêáé óôçí åõñýôåñç öéëïëïãßá ôçò äéáôÞñçóçò ùò �Ýó÷áôá� ìÝôñá (äåò Norse 1993,ó. 223), ôá ïðïßá ��ðñÝðåé íá åîåôÜæïíôáé ìå åðéöýëáîç êáé íá åöáñìüæïíôáéìüíï� üôáí ç ìåßùóç ôùí áðåéëþí êáé ôùí in situ ìåèüäùí ðñïóôáóßáò Ý÷ïõíáðïôý÷åé,� Ý÷ïõí ðáñ� üëá áõôÜ åðéäéù÷èåß, êáé Ý÷ïõí ðñïóåëêýóåé ìåßæïíåòêáôáìåñéóìïýò ïéêïíïìéêþí ðüñùí (ð.÷. ICONA, 1994á, â).

Ðáñ� üëï ðïõ ïñãáíùôéêÜ åßíáé åíôåëþò îå÷ùñéóôÜ ôï Ýíá áðü ôï Üëëï, ðñÝðåé íáõðïãñáììéóèåß ðùò ç ÃáëëéêÞ ìåëÝôç âéùóéìüôçôáò ôçò áíáðáñáãùãÞò óåáé÷ìáëùóßá4 êáé ôï Éóðáíéêü ðñüãñáììá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò äåí åßíáé ôüóïîå÷ùñéóôÜ èÝìáôá üóï öáßíïíôáé åê ðñþôçò üøåùò, ãéáôß êáé ôá äýï áöïñïýí óôïíðëçèõóìü ôïõ Côte des Phoques óôç ÄõôéêÞ Óá÷Üñá. ÅðéðëÝïí, äýï Üëëåòðñùôïâïõëßåò, ôï ßäéï Üó÷åôåò ïñãáíùôéêÜ ç ìéá ìå ôçí Üëëç, åðßóçò åóôéÜæïõíóôï Côte des Phoques: Ýíá Ïëëáíäéêü ðñüãñáììá äéÜóùóçò êáé åðáíÝíôáîçò, êáéÌáñïêéíÜ ó÷Ýäéá ãéá ôç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò åèíéêïý ðÜñêïõ óôç ðåñéï÷Þ.

Ç ýðáñîç áõôþí ôùí îå÷ùñéóôþí, êáé ùò Ýíá âáèìü áíôáãùíéóôéêþí,ðñùôïâïõëéþí ìðïñåß íá öáíåß üôé èÝôåé Ýíá äßëçììá ôÝôïéïõ ìåãÝèïõò êáéðïëõðëïêüôçôáò þóôå ïðïéáäÞðïôå ëýóç ìå íüçìá íá öáßíåôáé áðüìáêñç. ¼ìùò,ç áíáóêüðçóç ðïõ êÜíáìå ôùí ðåñáóìÝíùí óõíåäñéáêþí øçöéóìÜôùí êáéó÷åäßùí äñÜóçò ãéá ôçí äéáôÞñçóç äåß÷íåé ðùò õðÜñ÷åé ìåãÜëï ðåñéèþñéï ãéáóõìöùíßá êáé óôåíÞ óõíåñãáóßá, åöüóïí áõôÝò ïé ðñùôïâïõëßåò õðüêåéíôáé óåáðïôåëåóìáôéêü äéåèíÞ óõíôïíéóìü.

ÓõæÞôçóç

4 Åßíáé ßóùò óçìáíôéêü íá óçìåéùèåß üôé ï óôü÷ïò ôïõ Ãáëëéêïý �ÐñïãñÜììáôïò ãéá ôçíÓùôçñßá ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò Öþêéáò� ðïõ ðñüóöáôá óôáìÜôçóå íá åöáñìüæåôáé äåí Þôáí çáíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá áõôÞ êáèåáõôÞ, áëëÜ � óýìöùíá ìå ôéò Ïäçãßåò ôçò Ôå÷íéêÞòÏìÜäáò Åñãáóßáò � �íá áðïäåé÷èåß ðùò ïé ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò ìðïñïýí íááé÷ìáëùôéóèïýí êáé íá æÞóïõí óå áé÷ìáëùóßá ãéá ôïõëÜ÷éóôïí 2 ÷ñüíéá� (Anon., 1994â).

82

ÓõæÞôçóç

Áðü ôçí áñ÷Þ, öáßíåôáé ðùò õðÜñ÷åé ãåíéêÞ óõìöùíßá ìåôáîý üëùí ôùíåíäéáöåñüìåíùí ðëåõñþí üôé ç in situ ðñïóôáóßá ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò êáéôùí âéïôüðùí ôçò åßíáé ðñïûðüèåóç ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóÞ ôïõò. Ïé ðñïôåñáéüôçôåòðåñéëáìâÜíïõí ôçí íïìéêÞ ðñïóôáóßá êáôÜ ôçò ðáñåíü÷ëçóçò êáé ôçò èáíÜôùóçò,ôç äçìéïõñãßá ðñïóôáôåõüìåíùí ðåñéï÷þí, ôçí åöáñìïãÞ ôïõ íüìïõ þóôå íáäéáóöáëßæåôáé ç óõììüñöùóç ìå ôá ìÝôñá ðñïóôáóßáò êáé ôçí õëïðïßçóçðñïãñáììÜôùí åêðáßäåõóçò êáé åõáéóèçôïðïßçóçò ôïõ êïéíïý.

Ìå âÜóç ôçí öáíåñÞ ïìïöùíßá ùò ðñïò áõôÝò ôéò ðëåõñÝò ôçò óõæÞôçóçò, ìéáóõíôïíéóìÝíç ðñïóÝããéóç óôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò èá Þôáíåýëïãç êáé åðéèõìçôÞ. Èá Þôáí åðßóçò óõíåðÞò ìå ôéò ïäçãßåò äéáôÞñçóçò ðïõðåñéëçðôéêÜ áíáöÝñèçêáí óôï ðñïçãïýìåíï ìÝñïò.

Ìéá åðéöõëáêôéêÞ ðñïóÝããéóç óôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò åß÷åðñÜãìáôé ðñïôáèåß áðü ôï ÄéåèíÝò ÓõíÝäñéï ôçò Ñüäïõ ôï 1978 (Ronald & Duguy,1979). ÏõóéáóôéêÜ, áõôÞ ç ðñïóÝããéóç èá áêïëïõèïýóå ôéò ïäçãßåò ðïõðáñïõóéÜóôçêáí óôï ðñïçãïýìåíï ìÝñïò, ìå êÜèå óôÜäéï íá ðñáãìáôïðïéåßôáé,êáôüðéí åðéóôçìïíéêÞò Ýñåõíáò êáé áîéïëüãçóçò, ìå ôÜîç êáé áëëçëïäéáäï÷Þ.

Ôá âÞìáôá VI, VII êáé VIII ôçò áêïëïõèßáò: Ç ÄéÜóùóç êáé ç ÅðáíÝíôáîç, çÌåôåãêáôÜóôáóç êáé ç ÁíáðáñáãùãÞ óå Áé÷ìáëùóßá, áíôßóôïé÷á, ðåñéëáìâÜíïõíôçí Üìåóç áíèñþðéíç åíáó÷üëçóç ìå æùíôáíÜ æþá êáé áðáéôïýí êÜðïéá åðéðëÝïíó÷üëéá. ¼ðïõ ðáñïõóéÜæïíôáé ïé åõêáéñßåò, öáßíåôáé ðùò åßíáé êáôÜëëçëç çäçìéïõñãßá êÝíôñùí äéÜóùóçò êáé åðáíÝíôáîçò ãéá ôçí ðåñßèáëøç ôùíôñáõìáôéóìÝíùí, áâïÞèçôùí êáé ïñöáíþí öùêþí. ¸ðåéôá, ôá æþá èááðåëåõèåñþíïíôáí óôïí áñ÷éêü ôïõò âéüôïðï. Óýìöùíá ìå ôá éó÷ýïíôáðñùôüêïëëá, ôá åðáíåíôáãìÝíá æþá èá ìðïñïýóáí íá ìåôåãêáèßóôáíôáé óåðñïóôáôåõüìåíåò ðåñéï÷Ýò ðïõ âñßóêïíôáé åíôüò ôçò éóôïñéêÞò åðéêñÜôåéáò ôïõðëçèõóìïý. ÔÝôïéåò ìåãêáôáóôÜóåéò äåí èá åß÷áí åðßäñáóç óôïõò Üãñéïõòðëçèõóìïýò � ôá åðáíåíôáãìÝíá æþá èá åß÷áí ðéèáíþò ðåèÜíåé ÷ùñßò ôçíáíèñþðéíç åðÝìâáóç � êáé, áí õðÞñ÷å éêáíüò áñéèìüò õãéþí æþùí, èá ðáñåß÷áí ôçäõíáôüôçôá -ìå ìéêñü êßíäõíï (ãéá ôï óýíïëï ôïõ ðëçèõóìïý)- áîéïëüãçóçò ôçòìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò ùò ìÝóïõ äéáôÞñçóçò ôçò ÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò.

Ç ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç õãéþí æþùí ðïõ ìåôáöÝñïíôáé áðü ôï öõóéêü ôïõò ðåñéâÜëëïí� üðùò áõôÞ ðïõ ðñïôåßíåôáé ôþñá áðü ôçí Éóðáíßá � åßíáé ðïëý ðéïðñïâëçìáôéêÞ. Ç åìðåéñßá ôïõ ðáñåëèüíôïò ìáò ëÝåé üôé ïé ðéèáíüôçôåò

83

ÓõæÞôçóç

åðéôõ÷çìÝíùí ìåôåãêáôáóôÜóåùí áðåéëïýìåíùí åéäþí åßíáé ãåíéêÜ ìéêñÝò, åéäéêÜãéá ôá óáñêïöÜãá ìå ÷áìçëïýò áíáðáñáãùãéêïýò ñõèìïýò (üðùò ïé ÌåóïãåéáêÝòöþêéåò) êáé, ùò åê ôïýôïõ, ÷áìçëü ñõèìü ðëçèõóìéáêÞò áýîçóçò (Griffith ê.á.1989).

ÔåëéêÜ, ïé ìåôåãêáôáóôÜóåéò èåùñïýíôáé åðéôõ÷åßò ìüíïí üôáí êáôáëÞãïõí óåáýîçóç ôïõ ìåãÝèïõò åíüò õðÜñ÷ïíôïò ðëçèõóìïý Þ óôç äçìéïõñãßá åíüò íÝïõ êáéáõôïóõíôÞñçôïõ ðëçèõóìïý (äåò Griffith ê.á. 1989). Óôçí ðåñßðôùóç ôçò Öþêéáòç ìïíá÷üò ôçò ×áâÜçò (Monachus schauinslandi) ìéêñïß áñéèìïß æþùí Ý÷ïõíåãêáôáóôáèåß ôá ôåëåõôáßá ÷ñüíéá êáé, óå ôïõëÜ÷éóôïí ìéá ôïðïèåóßá � ôï KureAtoll – Ý÷ïõí åðéôõ÷þò óõìðëçñþóåé ôïí õðÜñ÷ïíôá ðëçèõóìü. Ðéï ðñüóöáôá,üìùò, üôáí Ýãéíå ìéá ðñïóðÜèåéá åðáíÝíôáîçò ôçò Öþêéáò ç ìïíá÷üò ôçò ×áâÜçòóå ìéá ðáëéüôåñç ðåñéï÷Þ áíáðáñáãùãÞò óôï Midway Atoll êáé ôá 18 æþá ðïõìåôåãêáôáóôÜèçêáí ðÝèáíáí Þ åîáöáíßóôçêáí ðïëý óýíôïìá (Marine MammalCommission, 1995).

ÎÝ÷ùñá áðü áõôü, ïé ðëçñïöïñßåò ðïõ õðÜñ÷ïõí äåß÷íïõí üôé ïé ÌåóïãåéáêÝòöþêéåò äåí åßíáé éäáíéêïß (ïýôå êáëïß) õðïøÞöéïé ãéá ìåôåãêáôÜóôáóç. Ìéá ôÝôïéáðñÜîç äåí èá Ýðñåðå íá åîåôÜæåôáé, ëïéðüí, åêôüò áí ìðïñåß í� áðïäåé÷èåß ðùòåßíáé áðßèáíï íá Ý÷åé áñíçôéêÝò åðéðôþóåéò óôïõò Üãñéïõò, äüôåò ðëçèõóìïýò êáéüôé åðáñêÞò Ýñåõíá Ý÷åé ãßíåé þóôå ç ðéèáíüôçôá ìéáò åðéôõ÷çìÝíçòìåôåãêáôÜóôáóçò íá ìåãéóôïðïéåßôáé (äåò ð.÷. Griffith ê.á. 1989).

Ôï ôåëåõôáßï óôÜäéï óôçí áêïëïõèßá ôùí åíåñãåéþí äéáôÞñçóçò åßíáé çáíáðáñáãùãÞ óå áé÷ìáëùóßá. Åßíáé äõíáôü, Ýíá ðñüãñáììá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óåáé÷ìáëùóßá íá áðïôåëÝóåé ôï ôåëåõôáßï óôÜäéï óôçí äéáäéêáóßá äéÜóùóçò êáéåðáíÝíôáîçò. Ôá åðáíåíôáãìÝíá æþá èá ìðïñïýóáí (ðÜëé êáôüðéí åõñýôáôùíóõóêÝøåùí êáé áõóôçñÞò ðáñáêïëïýèçóçò) íá ÷ñçóéìïðïéçèïýí ãéá ôçäçìéïõñãßá åíüò áé÷ìÜëùôïõ ðëçèõóìïý ãéá ìåëÝôåò âéùóéìüôçôáò ôçòáíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá. ÅíáëëáêôéêÜ, æþá ðïõ Ý÷ïõí ìåôáöåñèåß áðü ôçöýóç ìðïñïýí íá ÷ñçóéìïðïéçèïýí ãéá ôç äçìéïõñãßá ìéáò áðïéêßáòáíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá. Óå êÜèå ðåñßðôùóç, üìùò, ðñÝðåé íá áíáãíùñéóèåßðùò ïé ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò äåí åßíáé êáëÝò õðïøÞöéåò ãéá ðñïãñÜììáôááíáðáñáãùãÞò óå áé÷ìáëùóßá. Ðñïçãïýìåíåò ðñïóðÜèåéåò íá êñáôçèïýí áõôÜ ôáæþá óôçí áé÷ìáëùóßá Ý÷ïõí ãåíéêÜ áðïôý÷åé êáé ï áñéèìüò ôùí æþùí ðïõèåùñåßôáé üôé áðáéôåßôáé ãéá Ýíá �åðéôõ÷çìÝíï ðñüãñáììá áíáðáñáãùãÞò óå

84

ÓõæÞôçóç

áé÷ìáëùóßá� � ðïõ õðïëïãßæåôáé áðü ìåñéêïýò üôé åßíáé ôçò ôÜîçò ôùí 20 æþùí, ìåóôü÷ï ôç äçìéïõñãßá áé÷ìÜëùôïõ ðëçèõóìïý 100 ðåñßðïõ æþùí ìÝ÷ñé ôéò áñ÷Ýòôïõ 21ïõ áéþíá (Anon., 1990, ó. 7) � öáßíåôáé íá õðåñâáßíåé ôïí áñéèìü ðïõìðïñåß ëïãéêÜ íá ðñïêýøåé áðü æþá ðïõ Ý÷ïõí äéáóùèåß Þ åðáíåíôá÷èåß Þðåñéóõëëå÷èåß áðü ôçí Üãñéá êáôÜóôáóç ÷ùñßò êßíäõíï ãéá ôïõò äüôåòðëçèõóìïýò.

Áêüìç êáé óôï êáëýôåñï óåíÜñéï, èá Ýðáéñíå ÷ñüíéá ãéá íá äçìéïõñãçèåß Ýíáòâéþóéìïò áé÷ìÜëùôïò ðëçèõóìüò êáé, áêüìç êáé áí áõôüò ï óôü÷ïòðñáãìáôïðïéïýíôáí êÜðïôå, ðéèáíþò èá ðÝñíáãáí äåêáåôßåò ìÝ÷ñé íá ðñïêýøåééêáíüò áñéèìüò æþùí ãéá áðåëåõèÝñùóç óôç öýóç.

ÐÝñá áðü ôéò ðáñáðÜíù ðñïåéäïðïéÞóåéò, ç åðéôõ÷çìÝíç åöáñìïãÞ åíüòåíïðïéçìÝíïõ ðñïãñÜììáôïò âáóéóìÝíïõ óôéò ïäçãßåò äéáôÞñçóçò ðïõðáñïõóéÜóôçêáí ðñïçãïõìÝíùò, ôï ïðïßï áêïëïõèåß ðñïôåñáéüôçôåò óýìöùíá ìåìéá ðñïóåêôéêÜ äéáìïñöùìÝíç óôñáôçãéêÞ, èá Þôáí ðëÞñùò åîáñôçìÝíç áðü Ýíáíáðïôåëåóìáôéêü äéåèíÞ óõíôïíéóìü. ¸íáò ôÝôïéïò óõíôïíéóìüò èá åìðåñéåß÷åðñïôÜóåéò ðïõ èá ðñïÝñ÷ïíôáí áðü äéÜöïñá Ýèíç, äéáóöáëßæïíôáò üôé ïéðåñéïñéóìÝíïé ÷ñçìáôéêïß ðüñïé ðïõ äéáôßèåíôáé ãéá ôç äéáôÞñçóç ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò äéï÷åôåýïíôáé óå Ýñãá ýøéóôçò ðñïôåñáéüôçôáò êáé áîßáò êáéäéåõêïëýíïíôáò ôçí áíôáëëáãÞ ðëçñïöïñéþí ìåôáîý ôùí åíäéáöåñüìåíùí ìåñþí.

ÖõóéêÜ, äåí õðÜñ÷åé ôßðïôá êáéíïýñãéï óôçí ðñïóÝããéóç ôçò äéáôÞñçóçò ôçòÌåóïãåéáêÞò öþêéáò ðïõ ðñïôåßíåôáé åäþ. ¼ëá áíáäåéêíýïíôáé ìÝóá áðü ôáóõíåäñéáêÜ øçößóìáôá êáé ôá ó÷Ýäéá åíåñãåéþí äéáôÞñçóçò ðïõ Ý÷ïõí ðñïôáèåßðáëáéüôåñá ãéá ôéò ÌåóïãåéáêÝò öþêéåò. ÌÝ÷ñé ôþñá áõôü ðïõ Ý÷åé ëåßøåé åßíáé çìåôáôñïðÞ áõôÞò ôçò ðñïóÝããéóçò óå áðïôåëåóìáôéêÞ äñÜóç.

85

LA FOCA MONJEDEL MEDITERRANEO

DIRECTRICES SOBRE CONSERVACION

INDICE

1. Introducción . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

2. Directrices sobre Conservación:I. Coordinación Internacional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

II. Investigación Científica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92III. Protección del Hábitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93IV. Legislación y su Aplicación . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94V. Educación y Sensibilidad Pública . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

VI. Rescate y Rehabilitación . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98VII. Traslocación . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

VIII. Reproducción en Cautividad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

3. Comentario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Esp

añol

86

1. INTRODUCCION

La foca monje del Mediterráneo (Monachus monachus) es uno de los mamíferosmarinos que tiene un mayor peligro de extinción en Europa. Las amenazas a susupervivencia fueron claramente identificadas en la Primera ConferenciaInternacional sobre la Foca Monje del Mediterráneo, que tuvo lugar en Rodas,Grecia, en 1978 (Ronald & Duguy, 1979; Anon. 1990). Éstas comprenden:

1. Aumento en la mortalidad de las poblaciones adulta y juvenil debido aagresiones intencionadas (principalmente por parte de los pescadores).

2. Aumento en la mortalidad de las poblaciones adulta y juvenil debido acapturas incidentales en los aparejos de pesca.

3. Aumento en la mortalidad de las poblaciones adulta y juvenil debido a laperturbación causada por las actividades del ser humano (como turismo,pesca y navegación).

4. Aumento en la mortalidad de las crías debido a la reproducción enlugares no apropiados porque han perdido su hábitat de preferencia.

5. Reducción de la disponibilidad de alimento debido a la sobrexplotaciónpesquera.

6. Disminución de la fecundidad y de la supervivencia de las crías causadas(posiblemente) por depresión por consanguinidad.

En la Conferencia de Rodas también se estableció una relación de prioridadesorientadas a detener e invertir el proceso de disminución de la foca monje. Éstascomprenden:

1. Coordinación internacional efectiva sobre las actividades deconservación de la foca monje.

2. Implantación efectiva de legislación prohibiendo las agresiones directasy el acoso a las focas monje, y acciones por parte de los gobiernos paraestimular la coexistencia entre los pescadores y las focas.

3. Identificación y observación del comportamiento en las zonas de hábitatde la foca monje mediante métodos benignos de investigación científica.

4. El establecimiento de un sistema de reservas y áreas protegidas.

5. Programas educativos y de sensibilización pública.

6. Rescate y rehabilitación de las focas heridas, enfermas o huérfanas.

87

Como consecuencia de la Conferencia de Rodas, que estableció un hito histórico, sellevaron a cabo muchas reuniones (ver una reseña reciente en Israëls, 1992), en lasque, en líneas generales, se reiteraron y re-enfatizaron las recomendaciones yprioridades de conservación. Resulta claro que el principal problema en laconservación de la foca monje es la incapacidad en convertir las recomendaciones yprioridades en acciones concretas.

Sin embargo, en los dieciséis años que han transcurrido desde la Conferencia deRodas se han producido algunos beneficios tangibles para la especie. Se hanestablecido áreas protegidas en Grecia, Madeira, Mauritania y Turquía, y se hanpreparado planes detallados para establecer un parque marino en la Côte desPhoques, en el Sahara Occidental, para proteger la mayor colonia de focas monjehoy superviviente (Anon. 1994a). Más importante aún, los informes científicosindican que, por lo menos en dos áreas donde se establecieron zonas de protección,– las Espóradas del Norte y Madeira – las poblaciones de focas monje muestransignos alentadores de crecimiento (HSSPMS, 1993; Neves, 1992). Desde que seestableció en 1993 una zona de conservación cerca de Foça, Turquía, el ProyectoPiloto Foça del WWF también ha informado sobre un incremento en la observaciónde focas (Cirik & Güçlüsoy, 1994). Además, el establecimiento de una estaciónmóvil de cuidados intensivos en el Parque Marino de Espóradas del Norte hademostrado que el rescate y rehabilitación de focas enfermas o huérfanas es unelemento factible en una estrategia de conservación. Como otra contribuciónimportante a la supervivencia de la especie se están implantando en varios paísesprogramas de educación y sensibilización pública.

A pesar de estos importantes progresos, quedan por resolver muchos problemasclave. Por ejemplo, ha habido poco adelanto en el establecimiento del sistema deáreas de reserva interconectadas previsto en Rodas. Igualmente, el importantísimoobjetivo de fomentar la coexistencia entre las focas y los pescadores medianteplanes de ayuda directa y asistencia comunitaria siguen sin concretarse. Laprovisión adecuada de fondos también es escasa o irregular, especialmente para lasmedidas prácticas de conservación. La investigación científica, pensadaoriginalmente como un elemento fundamental en toda estrategia de conservación– llevándose frecuentemente la mayor parte de los recursos – ha actuado, a menudo,sin la imprescindible integración de las iniciativas prácticas diseñadas para protegera la especie. Y más importantes aún, las acciones de coordinación internacional hansido imprecisas e incoherentes.

Introducción

88

Se puede afirmar que esta falta de coordinación ha propiciado accionesfragmentadas y poco recomendables, algunas de las cuales representaban unapotencial amenaza para las focas monje. Las iniciativas de traslocación y dereproducción en cautividad, que han demostrado ser sumamente conflictivas, fueronplanteadas, aprobadas y financiadas, sin asesoramiento ni evaluación adecuados porparte de las comunidades científica y de conservación (Johnson & Lavigne, 1994).Si bien sería una exageración afirmar que la conservación de la foca monje seencuentra en estado de crisis, la controversia ha servido, sin duda, para desacreditara los programas de conservación y distraer la atención, mano de obra y escasosrecursos, de prioridades más urgentes.

Las dudas, ampliamente extendidas, sobre un estudio de viabilidad para lareproducción en cautividad de la foca monje han sido bien documentadas, y en dosocasiones han forzado la postergación del proyecto (Johnson & Lavigne, 1994).Parece que la historia ha de repetirse en el caso del proyecto de traslocación de lasfocas monje de Côte des Phoques a la Isla de Lobos, o a otros lugares, en las IslasCanarias (ICONA, 1994a,b). El programa LIFE de la Comunidad Europea le asignóa este proyecto un millón de ecus, aún antes de haber sido analizado por lacomunidad científica y de conservación, incluído el Grupo Especialista en Focas dela UICN. Al hacerlo, la Unión Europea parece haber desatendido un análisiscientífico anterior, publicado por el Consejo de Europa, en el que específicamenteno fue aceptada la Isla de Lobos, en las Islas Canarias, como un posible lugar para latraslocación (Hernández, 1986). El informe dice:

“Aunque a veces se observan animales errantes, parece ser que laFoca Monje (‘Lobo Marino’) se extinguió hace un siglo en elArchipiélago Canario (García Cabrera, 1971), …el mejor lugar pararestablecer la Foca Monje en las Islas Canarias parece ser unpequeño grupo de islas e islotes, ubicadas frente a la costa norte deLanzarote… Se excluye la Isla de Lobos (que fue declarada ParqueNatural en 1983) por su cercanía a zonas urbanizadas, y en general,debido a su alto grado de deterioro… Lamentablemente… declarar losislotes como Parque Natural es la condición de protección menosapropiada, pues según la legislación española sobre áreas naturalesprotegidas (Ley 15/1975, 2 de mayo), los parques naturales sonconsiderados áreas donde el público entra en contacto con lanaturaleza. En consecuencia, a fin de impedir el libre acceso al

Introducción

89

público, es urgente que la zona sea reclasificada a una categoría deprotección más rigurosa (¿Reserva Absoluta?)”.

Tanto el proyecto francés de reproducción en cautividad, como la propuestaespañola de traslocación (que recién ahora está siendo analizada por un comitécientífico bajo los auspicios de la UICN y la Comisión de Europa) ilustran losproblemas que se presentan por la inadecuada coordinación y cooperacióninternacional en la conservación de la foca monje.

Esta especial falta de coordinación obstaculiza el intercambio de información entrelos proyectos, impide el apoyo del público y las iniciativas para la obtención defondos, impide ejercer presión de manera efectiva sobre los gobiernos paraestablecer medidas efectivas de conservación, como la creación de reservas marinasy, en general, perjudica los esfuerzos de conservación de la foca monje. La falta decoordinación efectiva está alentando, inadvertidamente, la actual tendencia a lafragmentación de iniciativas. Esta fragmentación va en contra de lasrecomendaciones y prioridades definidas en Rodas y reiteradas en las reunionesposteriores.

Consideramos que para atender estos importantes aspectos es especialmenteoportuna la revisión integral de las resoluciones de la conferencia y, por este motivo,hemos revisado las resoluciones y planes de acción de todas las reuniones yconferencias importantes sobre la conservación de la foca monje (ver Notes). Apartir de éstas hemos tratado de compendiar un conjunto único de directrices para laconservación, que presentamos en la siguiente sección. Esperamos que estasdirectrices inspiren las iniciativas de conservación sobre la foca monje y adviertansobre los errores y deficiencias que necesitan una corrección urgente.

Introducción

90

2. DIRECTRICES SOBRE CONSERVACION

Las siguientes directrices se basan en las resoluciones de lasconferencias internacionales sobre la foca monje a lo largo dedieciséis años. Las referencias a las fuentes, en forma de extractos delas resoluciones de las conferencias, se ofrecen en la sección Notas(Notes) de esta publicación. Las directrices se presentan acontinuación bajo los títulos: Coordinación Internacional,Investigación Científica, Protección del Hábitat, Legislación y suAplicación, Educación y Sensibilización Pública, Rescate yRehabilitación, Traslocación, y Reproducción en Cautividad.

I. COORDINACION INTERNACIONAL

1. En 1989, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente/Plan deAcción para el Mediterráneo (en asociación con el Consejo de Europa y lasConvenciones de Barcelona, Berna y Bonn) asumieron el papel decoordinadores internacionales de las actividades para la conservación de la focamonje del Mediterráneo. Por esto, y a fin de cumplir con sus responsabilidadesde una manera más eficaz, debe establecerse bajo los auspicios de PNUMA/PAM, una oficina de coordinación para la conservación de la foca monje delMediterráneo, con el personal adecuado y debidamente financiada. Esta Unidadde Coordinación Internacional (UCI) debe funcionar con el asesoramiento y enasociación con el Grupo Especialista en Focas de la UICN y las ONGacreditadas ante el PAM. Entre estas partes debe discutirse y acordarse elcometido y mandato operativo de la UCI.

2. La UCI debe crear un registro completo de todas las organizacionesgubernamentales, intergubernamentales y no gubernamentales, proyectos ypersonas implicadas en la conservación de la foca monje del Mediterráneo. Elregistro debe ser distribuído a todas las partes relevantes.

3. Al formular sus políticas y actividades, la UCI debe ser asesorada por un comitépermanente de expertos. Este comité asesor debe incorporar expertos endiversas especialidades en el campo de la conservación de los mamíferos

91

marinos, tales como el derecho y la política internacional marítima, la gestiónde los mamíferos marinos, dinámica de poblaciones, genética, medicinaveterinaria, gestión de parques marinos, educación y sensibilización pública,rescate y rehabilitación, protección de los animales, gestión del medioambiente, obtención de fondos y actividades de presión sobre los gobiernos. Elcomité debe incluir también a representantes oficiales de cualquier país quealbergue la especie, aunque sea de manera esporádica.

4. Tanto el comité asesor como la comunidad científica y de conservación, debenexaminar aquellos proyectos que pudieran ser relevantes para la conservaciónde la especie (tales como la traslocación, la reproducción en cautividad o lainvestigación científica potencialmente invasora), antes de que estasactividades se lleven a cabo. El proceso de asesoramiento debe incluir a todoslos comités especializados relevantes de la UICN. La UCI debe comprobar que,en el proceso de revisión, se atiendan de manera apropiada tanto los aspectoscientíficos como los de orden ético.

5. La UCI y su comité aesor deben potenciar y alentar activamente la financiacióncontinuada y a largo plazo de los proyectos altamente prioritarios deconservación de la foca monje, incluyendo el establecimiento y administraciónde áreas protegidas, la investigación científica para identificar aquellaspoblaciones de focas monje que tienen necesidad urgente de protección, laayuda económica a las comunidades pesqueras locales (para alentarlas aproteger las colonias de focas), y las campañas educativas.

6. El intercambio de información debe ser considerado como un elemento vital delproceso de coordinación. La publicación de un boletín semestral de noticias porla UCI, o bajo contrato con una ONG, serviría como medio útil de difusión denoticias e información centradas en la conservación internacional de la focamonje.1

1 Hasta abril de 1992, la Universidad de Guelph, Canadá, publicaba The Newsletter ofthe League for the Conservation of the Monk Seal. Esta publicación, que ha jugado unpapel singular e importante en el intercambio de información, debería reiniciarse ypublicarse regularmente.

Directrices sobre Conservación

92

7. La UCI debe coordinar un registro central de todas las actividades deconservación e investigación sobre la foca monje.2 Los informes, propuestas yotras publicaciones deben estar contenidas en un registro central. Para ayudar alintercambio de información, la oficina de coordinación debe publicarresúmenes analíticos y suministrar copias completas cuando éstas seansolicitadas. Estos informes deben poder también suministrarse en soporteinformático a fin de favorecer su difusión e investigación. La oficina decoordinación debe también evaluar la posibilidad de ofrecer el acceso a losregistros a través de Internet.

8. La UCI debe publicar anualmente un informe de sus actividades.

II. INVESTIGACION CIENTIFICA

1. Todas las actividades de investigación científica y observación de la foca monjedeben efectuarse con la menor perturbación posible a los ejemplares y a lapoblación en general. Sólo se deben llevar a cabo actividades de investigacióncientífica que ayuden a las necesidades prioritarias de conservación y evitaraquéllas que las entorpezcan.

2. Al evaluar la asignación de fondos u otras formas de apoyo a actividades deinvestigación científica debe darse prioridad a los programas de investigacióncon probado valor práctico orientados a mejorar la supervivencia de losanimales y la protección, rescate y conservación de la especie.

3. La investigación científica debe formar parte integral del plan de recuperaciónde la especie. Los programas de investigación deben estar íntimamente ligados,en la medida de lo posible, a otras actividades de conservación que se esténdesarrollando en la región, como el establecimiento de áreas protegidas y

2 El Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique y la Sea Mammal Research Unit,Cambridge, ya operan y administran The Monk Seal Register, una base de datos porcomputadora ordenando todos los registros pasados y presentes de observación de focasmonje dentro de la Unión Europea. Hay planes para ampliar el Registro a fin de incluirpaíses fuera de la UE, incluyendo a Marruecos y Turquía. Una ampliación adicional de labase de datos prevé la digitalización de todas las fotografías y dibujos de ejemplares, demanera que puedan ser incorporadas a la base de datos por computadora.

La Foca Monje del Mediterráneo

93

programas de sensibilización pública y educación. En particular debe darseprioridad a:

a. Observación del comportamiento de la foca monje de manera no invasiva enlas áreas protegidas mediante la observación directa y utilizando tecnologíaapropiada (p. ej. cámaras camufladas, grabación en vídeo).

b. Inspecciones para determinar los lugares más adecuados para estableceráreas protegidas adicionales.

c. La re-evaluación de estudios de la población y de propuestas anterioressobre áreas protegidas.

d. La investigación socioeconómica para establecer cómo se pueden beneficiarlas comunidades locales del proceso de conservación y, de esta manera,alentarlas a proteger a la foca monje y su hábitat. Esta investigación debe,además, evaluar métodos para lograr la protección eficaz de las colonias defocas con la participación directa de las autoridades locales.

4. Toda forma de investigación científica potencialmente invasora (p. ej.: aquéllasque incluyen la captura, transporte, traslocación o reproducción en cautividad)debe ser sometida a evaluación y asesoramiento por la comunidad científica y deconservación internacional, incluyendo a los grupos especializados relevantesde la UICN, antes de que le sean asignados fondos o se decida suimplementación.

5. Los resultados de la investigación científica deben estar disponibles a través deun registro central (ver secciones 1 – 7)

III. PROTECCION DEL HABITAT

1. Al aceptar el hecho de que la foca monje se encuentra en grave peligro deextinción debido a las agresiones directas, intrusión del ser humano, acoso yperturbación, la prioridad absoluta en la conservación de la especie debe ser lacreación de áreas protegidas.

2. Debido a que las poblaciones de foca monje son pequeñas y se encuentran muydispersas, es necesario establecer urgentemente un sistema interconectado deparques nacionales, reservas y áreas protegidas, que aseguren la protección de


94

la especie. La red debe incluir lugares para reproducción y alimentación y, si esnecesario, corredores para la dispersión que permitan establecer un nexo entrelas poblaciones de focas dentro de las fronteras nacionales y con el exterior.

3. El acceso del ser humano a las reservas y áreas de protección de la foca monjedebe ser controlado estrictamente. Si bien podrían establecerse zonasintermedias en las que se permitan las actividades de pesca y el ecoturismo decarácter no intrusivo, las zonas centrales deben permanecer libres de todo tipode perturbación por parte del ser humano (como pesca, turismo y navegación),actividades que deben estar estrictamente prohibidas.

4. Las comunidades locales deben participar plenamente en el establecimiento dereservas y áreas de protección de la foca monje. Si bien el objetivo final debeser lograr un sistema permanente de áreas de reserva mediante legislaciónnacional la situación crítica en que se encuentra la foca monje no permite lasdemoras dilatadas del proceso legislativo. Por tanto, se debe hacer todo elesfuerzo posible para lograr la protección en forma rápida y transitoria de loshábitats importantes de la foca monje mediante la participación de lascomunidades locales y mediante la implantación de programas de ayudaeconómica a las comunidades pesqueras locales.

5. El establecimiento y mantenimiento de las reservas y áreas protegidasdemandan detallados planes de administración y compromisos de financiación yde suministro de recursos y equipo a largo plazo. Los planes de administración,para ser eficientes, deben incluir programas de formación para funcionarios ypersonal administrativo de las áreas protegidas y recursos humanos suficientes,así como equipo para garantizar la aplicación de los reglamentos de protección.

IV. LEGISLACION Y SU APLICACION

1. Los gobiernos deben actuar para establecer un sistema de reservas y áreasprotegidas que permitan resguardar el hábitat de la foca monje medianteiniciativas nacionales, bilaterales y multilaterales.

2. El establecimiento de parques nacionales y áreas protegidas requierecomplicados procesos legislativos y de asesoramiento. Tales medidas son, a


95

menudo, un requisito previo para garantizar su eficacia a largo plazo; sinembargo, en algunas ocasiones las demoras inherentes al proceso handesalentado la creación de áreas protegidas. Si bien no siempre es posibleacelerar el proceso cuando se crea parques marinos que abarcan grandesextensiones geográficas, es indispensable que la legislación a escala nacionalpermita una acción inmediata para proteger y resguardar áreas de dimensioneslimitadas.

3. En las naciones de la Unión Europea, la designación de Áreas Especiales deConservación de la foca monje debe lograrse, como establece la legislación dela U.E., mediante la implantación de la Directiva 92/43/CEE-Natura 2000sobre la Conservación de los Hábitats Naturales de la Fauna y Flora Salvaje.

4. Los gobiernos deben asegurar la aplicación estricta de las disposiciones queprohiben las agresiones directas y la persecución de la foca monje, el uso dedinamita y sustancias químicas en las operaciones de pesca, y la posesión dearmas en los botes de pesca.

5. Los programas nacionales para la protección de la foca monje deben desarrollarun sistema en el que las comunidades locales, especialmente aquéllas quedependen de la pesca y el turismo, puedan beneficiarse del proceso deconservación. Dado que la participación comunitaria es un elementoimportante en toda estrategia de conservación, los programas nacionales debenpromover las iniciativas locales y la participación de la población.

6. Los gobiernos deben garantizar que las medidas de conservación sonincorporadas en su política y legislación pesquera. Dentro de sus prioridadesdebe incluirse la prohibición de actividades pesqueras en las áreas vulnerablesclave ocupadas por la especie.

7. A fin de fomentar la coexistencia entre pescadores y las focas monje, losgobiernos deben ofrecer compensaciones u oportunidades alternativas (comoreposición de aparejos de pesca y otro tipo de ayuda) a las comunidades localesa fin de asegurar el respeto a la reglamentación y el control de las actividadespesqueras en las zonas donde habitan las focas monje.

8. Los gobiernos deben garantizar que los proyectos que cuentan con el respaldode los programas nacionales reciben el apoyo económico necesario para lograrsus objetivos.


96

9. Los gobiernos deben garantizar la eficiente administración y vigilancia de lasáreas protegidas, así como ofrecer una adecuada formación al personal yasegurar el equipo necesario para su funcionamiento.

10. Los programas nacionales de conservación de la foca monje deben tenerdisponible un sistema de rescate para asegurar que los animales heridos ohuérfanos reciben de manera rápida ayuda veterinaria y rehabilitación si ello esnecesario. (Ver Sección VI).

11. Los gobiernos y los programas nacionales para la conservación de la foca monjedeben asegurar que las autoridades locales, en particular la policía y lasautoridades portuarias, están adecuadamente informadas sobre la protección dela especie, la aplicación estricta de las leyes vigentes, y las acciones a llevar acabo cuando se informe a la unidad de coordinación nacional de la existencia deejemplares muertos, heridos o crías abandonadas.

12. Los gobiernos deben incluir la conservación de la foca monje en el plan deestudios del sistema nacional de educación y deben asegurarse de que elmaterial educativo relevante esté a disposición de los colegios.

V. EDUCACION Y SENSIBILIDAD PUBLICA

1. La muerte por parte de los pescadores, resultante de la actitud hostil del serhumano hacia las focas monje, ha sido identificada como la causa principal deldeclive de la especie. Puesto que tal actitud está a menudo profundamenteenraizada, las campañas de educación y sensibilización pública debendiseñarse de manera apropiada.

2. Las campañas de información deben contar con el apoyo y participación de lospescadores, autoridades pesqueras, capitanías de puertos, maestros, colegialesy del público en general.

3. Debe disponerse de recursos para difundir las campañas de información y deeducación, en particular en las zonas designadas como de alta prioridad para elestablecimiento de áreas de protección para la foca monje.

4. Los programas de educación y sensibilización públicas que se llevan a cabolocalmente deben planificarse y coordinarse de manera que formen parte


97

integral de los programas nacionales para la conservación de la foca monje.Debe insistirse en que, al estimular la participación de las comunidades locales,las campañas de información pueden a menudo generar beneficios adicionalespara la conservación de la especie al permitir consultas de opinión pública yotras vías útiles de recolección de información. En este sentido, las campañasde información podrían ser muy eficaces si se incorporan a la investigaciónsocioeconómica y a los estudios de la población de la foca monje. Las tareas delos equipos que llevan a cabo las campañas de información, si se les da unaestructura adecuada y se pone a su disposición recursos y personalexperimentado, podrían además incluir:

a. La verificación de la existencia de colonias de focas monje, como trabajopreliminar que serviría de base para posteriores investigaciones científicasde mayor profundidad.

b. La evaluación de las amenazas a la foca monje, tales como las agresionesdeliberadas por parte de los pescadores y su perturbación por residentes oturistas.

c. La formulación de iniciativas a las comunidades locales que puedaneventualmente ser implantadas para proteger las colonias de focas, talescomo las compensaciones a los pescadores u otros programas de ayuda quepermitan la protección inmediata de las poblaciones de focas y elestablecimiento de un sistema de observación para controlar la zona“protegida”.

5. Se deben hacer todos los esfuerzos para desarrollar y mejorar los materialeseducativos a fin de estimular el interés del público sobre el problema de laconservación de la foca monje. En particular, las películas y vídeos, carteles olas publicaciones educativas para las escuelas pueden ser herramientas de granutilidad para este fin.

6. Deben desarrollarse paquetes educativos para turistas y para la industria delturismo, en especial en las zonas donde aquél signifique una amenaza para elhábitat y las zonas de reproducción. Deben hacerse todos los esfuerzos paralograr que las empresas turísticas colaboren activamente en la conservación dela foca monje mediante el patrocinio y publicación y distribución de materialeducativo. Se les debe persuadir para que no organicen excursiones turísticas alas áreas donde el problema de la conservación es delicado.


98

3 Esta estación de cuidados intensivos es administrada en forma conjunta por la HellenicSociety for the Study & Protection of the Monk Seal (Sociedad Helénica para el Estudio yProtección de la Foca Monje), ubicada en Atenas, y el Seal Rehabilitation and ResearchCentre (Centro de Rehabilitación e Investigación de la Foca), ubicado en Pieterburen,Países Bajos.

7. Además, debe prepararse material informativo para las autoridades militares,las empresas de desarrollo industrial y la industria naviera, explicandodetalladamente las acciones que se requieren para apoyar la conservación de laespecie.

8. Deben guardarse ejemplares de todos los materiales educativos producidos endistintos países en un registro central – como la Unidad de CoordinaciónInternacional (ver Sección I) – para que sirvan como material de referencia paraotros grupos. La biblioteca debe esforzarse en recopilar material fotográfico yotros materiales de archivo para que, si se precisan, estén a disposición deproyectos similares en otros países.

VI. RESCATE Y REHABILITACION

1. El rescate y rehabilitación de las focas heridas y crías abandonadas o huérfanasdeben ser sometidos a estrictos protocolos científicos y éticos a fin de evitar lacaptura de ejemplares que no requieren tratamiento. Los protocolos, que debenser revisados y aprobados por la comunidad de conservación, deben tambiénincluir los aspectos de manejo, transporte, alimentación, cuidado veterinario yliberación.

2. Actualmente está ubicada en la isla de Alonissos, en el Parque Marino deEspóradas del Norte, Grecia,3 una estación móvil de cuidados intensivos para elrescate y la rehabilitación de focas monje. Se ha propuesto la creación de unainstalación similar en Mauritania/Sahara Occidental, cerca de la colonia defocas de la Côte des Phoques. Si se considerara necesaria la habilitación deinstalaciones adicionales para el rescate y rehabilitación, inicialmente éstas seestablecerían únicamente dentro de la actual zona donde existen poblacionessupervivientes de focas para disminuir el coste que implica el transporte agrandes distancias.


99

3. Deben establecerse o perfeccionarse sistemas de vigilancia y rescate paraaumentar las posibilidades de localizar focas heridas, crías abandonadas ohuérfanas. No obstante, debe tenerse mucho cuidado para evitar que focas enbuenas condiciones de salud sean innecesariamente rescatadas por voluntarioso personas no especializadas demasiado entusiastas.

4. Después de la rehabilitación, las focas deben ser liberadas en áreas protegidas,preferentemente en la región donde fueron encontradas inicialmente.

5. Las instalaciones para rescate y rehabilitación deben servir como lugar deformación en el cuidado y manejo de las focas monje en cautiverio, lo queservirá de base para el conocimiento y experiencia necesarios en potencialesprogramas de traslocación y reproducción en cautividad. (Ver las secciones VIIy VIII, respectivamente)

6. Si se conoce que existen riesgos potenciales de transmisión de enfermedadesrelacionadas con el transporte de los animales hacia y desde los centros derescate y con su reintroducción en su ambiente natural, deben implantarseprocedimientos integrales de cuarentena y evaluación en todo programa derescate, rehabilitación y liberación. Estos programas deben iniciarse sólodespués de haber consultado con la comunidad científica en general y con losGrupos de Especialistas en Focas, Reintroducción y Cuidados Veterinarios dela UICN.

VII. TRASLOCACION

1. Como parte de la estrategia de conservación, la traslocación tiene comoobjetivo reintroducir a las focas monje en los hábitats históricamente ocupadospor la especie. No obstante, debe reconocerse que la traslocación es unprocedimiento invasivo que puede plantear serias e injustificadas amenazas a lapoblación de focas y a los ejemplares afectados. Por tanto, cualquier propuestaque signifique la captura y traslocación de ejemplares sanos a un nuevo hábitatdebe ser sometido a consulta y aprobación de la comunidad científica y deconservación antes de su financiación e implantación. El proceso deasesoramiento, además de los aspectos científicos, debe también atender lasconsideraciones éticas y de protección de los animales.


100

2. La traslocación de la foca monje del Mediterráneo, estrategia de conservaciónque aún no ha sido probada, encierra ciertos riesgos potenciales tanto para laspoblaciones salvajes como para los ejemplares afectados. Es por esta razón quese recomienda encarecidamente que cualquier propuesta para la traslocación deanimales se fundamente en un enfoque cauteloso que se desarrolle por etapas, afin de reducir al mínimo los impactos negativos. El diseño de esta actuacióndebe hacerse mediante un proceso amplio de asesoramiento y de revisión ymediante la plena integración de otras prioridades de conservación, tales comola protección del hábitat, observación científica y rescate y rehabilitación. Loslugares en que finalmente se liberen las focas deben estar ubicados dentro de laszonas históricas de ocupación de la población de la que provienen los animalesy deben ser adyacentes a los límites de las zonas actualmente ocupadas por lasfocas monje.

3. Toda propuesta de traslocación debe incorporar las siguientes precauciones:

a. Evaluación de proyectos: Es necesario que los criterios que deben regir latraslocación de los animales integren los aspectos científicos y deprotección de los animales. Un panel independiente de expertosinternacionales, que actúe bajo los auspicios del PNUMA/PAM, debeformular los protocolos que rijan la traslocación, revisar las propuestas ycontrolar todo proyecto aprobado para su ejecución.

b. Asesoramiento: Antes de su aprobación, financiación e implantación, losproyectos de traslocación deben ser, además, sometidos a revisión ycomentados por la comunidad científica y de conservación, incluyendo losgrupos especialistas pertinentes a la UICN. Los aspectos de orden ético y deprotección de los animales deben ser ampliamente tratados durante esteproceso de revisión.

c. Formación: El personal del proyecto debe recibir una formación integralen el cuidado y manejo de focas.

d. Protección de los lugares de liberación. Los lugares de liberación de losanimales deben ser estrictamente protegidos mediante legislación. Conanterioridad a la traslocación debe implantarse un control estricto de la zonade liberación, neutralizando toda amenaza potencial, tal como la pesca, laperturbación por parte del turismo, o el desarrollo.

e. Seguimiento posterior a la liberación. Inmediatamente después de latraslocación debe iniciarse la observación científica y seguimiento de los


101

animales para evaluar el éxito del programa y para proporcionarinformación para la evaluación de propuestas posteriores.

4. No debe considerarse la opción de retirar animales sanos de su ambiente naturalhasta que hayan sido implantadas medidas de conservación in situ efectivas y laobservación científica indique que la población fuente de la que se trate esrelativamente abundante y esté en crecimiento o sea estable. Si fracasara algúnintento de traslocar animales, antes de intentar otras operaciones detraslocación se debe identificar las causas de este fracaso.

5. Los animales deben ser traslocados sólo a hábitats ocupados anteriormente porla especie.

6. Si se supone la existencia de riesgos potenciales de transmisión deenfermedades debido al transporte de los animales hacia y desde los centros derescate y con su reintroducción a su ambiente natural, deben implantarseprocedimientos integrales de cuarentena y evaluación antes de su liberación.Estos programas deben iniciarse sólo después de haber consultado con lacomunidad científica en general y con los Grupos de Especialistas en Focas,Reintroducción y Cuidados Veterinarios de la UICN.

VIII. REPRODUCCION EN CAUTIVIDAD.

1. La reproducción en cautividad de cualquier especie de foca monje es unprocedimiento que no se ha probado anteriormente y que puede plantearamenazas importantes e injustificadas a las poblaciones de focas y a losejemplares afectados. Por tanto, cualquier propuesta para poner en marcha lareproducción en cautividad de la especie o estudios de viabilidad sobre el temadebe ser sometida a una revisión integral por la comunidad científica y deconservación antes de su financiación e implementación. El proceso derevisión, además de los aspectos científicos, debe también atender lasconsideraciones éticas y de protección de los animales.

2. Los objetivos de todo programa de reproducción en cautividad deben ser:

a. En primer lugar, aumentar el tamaño de las poblaciones de focas monjesupervivientes, mermadas y en posible declive, hasta que éstas alcancen un


102

nivel de equilibrio estable, p. ej. cuando alcancen la capacidad de carga delmedio.

b. Una vez logrado el objetivo (a), suministrar sementales para los programasde reintroducción a hábitats adecuados (y solo a aquéllos legalmenteprotegidos), que hubieran sido ocupados anteriormente por la especie.

3. A fin de reducir al mínimo las muertes inherentes al transporte, la transmisiónde enfermedades y las dificultades planteadas por el proceso de aclimatación aun ambiente extraño (p. ej. variaciones en las condiciones climáticas,fotoperíodo, etc), todo proyecto de reproducción en cautividad debe llevarse acabo, inicialmente, dentro de la zona ocupada por la población de focas monjede donde se hayan extraído los ejemplares utilizados en el programa. Además,los animales deben ser mantenidos sólo en instalaciones dedicadasexclusivamente a ese fin y en las que sea posible limitar su exposición a lapresencia del ser humano.

4. En virtud de los riesgos potenciales a las poblaciones y a los ejemplaresafectados, las iniciativas de reproducción en cautividad deben enfocarse concautela y desarrollarse por etapas para reducir al mínimo los impactosnegativos. Esto debe efectuarse mediante un proceso amplio de asesoramiento yrevisión, y mediante una plena integración con otras prioridades deconservación afines, como la protección del hábitat, el rescate y larehabilitación, y la traslocación.

5. Todo proyecto de reproducción en cautividad debe incorporar las siguientesprecauciones:

a. Evaluación de proyectos. Es necesario que los criterios que deben regir latraslocación de los animales integren los aspectos científicos y deprotección de los animales. Un panel independiente de expertosinternacionales, que actúe bajo los auspicios del PNUMA/PAM, debeformular los protocolos que rijan la reproducción en cautividad, revisar laspropuestas y controlar todo proyecto aprobado para su ejecución.

b. Asesoramiento. Antes de su aprobación, financiación e implementación,los proyectos de reproducción en cautividad deben ser, además, sometidos arevisión y discutidos por la comunidad científica y de conservación,incluyendo a los grupos especialistas pertinentes de la UICN. Los aspectosde orden ético y de protección a los animales deben ser ampliamente


103

tratados durante este proceso de revisión.

c. Formación. El personal del proyecto debe recibir una formación integralen el cuidado y manejo de focas.

d. Protección de los lugares de liberación. Los lugares de liberación de todoproyecto de reproducción en cautividad deben estar protegidosestrictamente, mediante una legislación apropiada. Antes de su liberacióndebe implantarse un control estricto de la zona de liberación, neutralizandotoda amenaza potencial, tal como la pesca y la perturbación por parte delturismo y el desarrollo.

e. Seguimiento posterior a la liberación. Inmediatamente después de laliberación debe iniciarse la observación científica y seguimiento de losanimales para evaluar el éxito del programa y para proporcionarinformación para la evaluación de propuestas futuras.

6. Si la reproducción en cautividad fuera considerada necesaria (una vez hayansido implementadas medidas más urgentes, como la protección y rescate yrehabilitación in situ), las instalaciones apropiadas deben establecerse dentrode la zona actualmente ocupada por la foca monje del Mediterráneo , lo máscerca posible de la población de la que se han extraído los ejemplares utilizadosen el programa. Para reducir el riesgo de transmisión de enfermedades y otrosproblemas potenciales (p. ej. incompatibilidad de reproducción), todo estudiode viabilidad de reproducción en cautividad debe ser inicialmente efectuadocon animales pertenecientes a una misma población.

7. Dado que existen importantes riesgos potenciales de transmisión deenfermedades relacionados con la reintroducción de los ejemplares nacidos encautividad a su ambiente natural deben implantarse procedimientos integralesde cuarentena y examen veterinario antes de la liberación. Estos programasdeben iniciarse sólo después de haber consultado con la comunidad científica ylos Grupos de Especialistas en Focas, Reintroducción y Cuidados Veterinariosde la UICN.


104

3. COMENTARIO

“Ninguna acción es autosuficiente. Los distintos elementos del plan de acciónse refuerzan mutuamente y, para tener posibilidades de éxito,

deben ser abordados en forma conjunta.”

~ Plan de Acción para la Gestión de la Foca Monje,Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, 1987 ~

Nuestro análisis de las resoluciones de las conferencias y planes de acción para laconservación de la foca monje del Mediterráneo revela un consenso greneralizado yalentador sobre temas que van desde la coordinación internacional hasta laprotección del hábitat, desde la sensibilización pública hasta la reproducción encautividad. Además, las recomendaciones, que cubren un período de dieciséis añosde investigación científica, experiencia sobre el terreno y debate informado, son hoytan vigentes como siempre. Sin embargo, es también claro que aquellos a quienesles concierne la conservación de la foca monje del Mediterráneo han tenido máséxito en organizar reuniones y ponerse de acuerdo sobre las prioridades, que entraducir tales prioridades en acciones.

En efecto, a pesar de todas las reuniones y de todas las buenas intencionesexpresadas, las actividades sobre la conservación de la foca monje se han vuelto enaños recientes cada vez más dispersas y fragmentadas, provocándose divisionestanto por la nacionalidad de origen como por la categoría particular de las accionesen discusión. Muy frecuentemente, los componentes esenciales de las actividades deconservación actuales, desde los que afectan a la investigación científica hasta laprotección in situ, continúan siendo, en esencia, dos entes separados. Rara vez seintegran en una acción estratégica de apoyo mutuo e interdependiente. El resultadoes que se ha comprometido seriamente la posibilidad de lograr los objetivos deconservación.

Algunos alegarán que los esfuerzos de conservación de la foca monje no sebeneficiarán de la integración de actividades, como lo sugieren varias resolucionesde la conferencia, resumidas en la sección anterior. En gran medida, dichaintegración depende de una coordinación eficiente, tanto a nivel nacional comointernacional. En uno u otro momento, a lo largo de los últimos dieciséis años,varios organismos internacionales han reclamado la responsabilidad sobre este

105

papel crucial, incluyendo la UICN, el Consejo de Europa, la Comunidad Europea yel PNUMA. Sin embargo, no se ha conseguido una coordinación internacionaleficaz.

El vacío resultante ha dado lugar a que proyectos especialmente polémicos, comolos de reproducción en cautividad y traslocación, hayan acabado dominando laagenda de conservación. En muchos sentidos, esta situación simboliza el enfoquefragmentario actual de la conservación de la foca monje. Aunque estos dos tipos deproyecto han sido ampliamente tratados en las resoluciones de las conferencias y enla vasta literatura de conservación como medidas de “último recurso” (ver Norse1993, p. 223), que “… deben ser tomadas con cautela y usadas sólo…cuando hayanfracasado los métodos de control de las amenazas y de protección in situ,” en amboscasos se ha procedido a su aplicación y han recibido importantes asignaciones defondos (p. ej. ICONA, 1994a,b).

Si bien el estudio de viabilidad francés4 sobre la reproducción en cautividad estáseparado por completo, desde el punto de vista organizativo, del proyecto españolde traslocación, ambos temas no son tan independientes como a primera vistaparecen ser, pues ambos se centran sobre la población de focas monje de la Côte desPhoques, en el Sahara Occidental. Más aún, otras dos iniciativas, igualmente sinrelación alguna entre ellas desde el punto de vista organizativo, que también centransu atención en la Côte des Phoques: un proyecto holandés de rescate yrehabilitación, y los planes marroquíes de establecer un parque nacional en el área.

La existencia de estas iniciativas dispares, y que en cierta medida compiten,plantean un dilema de tal magnitud y complejidad que toda posibilidad de soluciónparece remota. A pesar de todo, nuestro análisis sobre las resoluciones deconferencias pasadas y de los planes de acción de conservación indican que haymuchas posibilidades de coincidencia y de estrecha cooperación entre los proyectos,siempre que esas iniciativas estén sujetas a una eficaz coordinación internacional.

Desde el inicio parece haber un acuerdo general entre todas las partes de que laprotección in situ de las focas monje y sus hábitats es un requisito previo para su

4 Es importante hacer notar que el objetivo del recientemente postpuesto ‘Programa paraSalvar la Foca Monje’ francés, no era la reproducción en cautividad per se, sino – deacuerdo con las Directrices del Grupo Técnico de Trabajo – “demostrar que se puedecapturar y mantener cautivas con éxito focas monje hasta, por lo menos, dos años”(Anon., 1994b).

Comentario

106

conservación. Entre las prioridades están la protección por ley contra el acoso y lasagresiones, el establecimiento de áreas protegidas, la aplicación de la ley paragarantizar las medidas de protección y, de manera destacada, la implantación deprogramas de educación y de sensibilización pública.

Habida cuenta del aparente consenso de opinión sobre estos aspectos del debate,parece lógico, posible y deseable un enfoque coordinado sobre la conservación de lafoca monje. También sería coherente con las directrices de conservación resumidasen la sección anterior.

Por cierto, el enfoque cauteloso y por etapas estaba ya en forma implícita en lasrecomendaciones de la Conferencia Internacional de Rodas de 1978 (Ronald &Duguy, 1979). En realidad, este tipo de enfoque vendría a continuación de lasdirectrices que se presentan en la sección anterior, cuyas distintas etapas seimplantarían de manera ordenada y en secuencia, condicionadas a los resultados dela investigación científica y su evaluación.

En las etapas VI, VII y VIII de las acciones: Rescate y Rehabilitación, Traslocacióny Reproducción en Cautividad hay intervención directa del ser humano sobre losanimales y se justifican algunos comentarios adicionales. Parecería apropiado que,siempre que se presente la oportunidad, se establezcan centros de rescate yrehabilitación para el cuidado de ejemplares heridos, crías abandonadas ohuérfanas. Normalmente, los animales rehabilitados serían reintegrados a su hábitatoriginal. No obstante, los animales rehabilitados podrían también ser traslocados, enbase a protocolos pactados y bajo una supervisión rigurosa, a áreas protegidas quehan sido históricamente habitadas por la especie, pero siempre dentro de la zonahistórica de distribución de la población en cuestión. Tales traslocaciones notendrían impacto sobre las poblaciones salvajes – los animales rehabilitados, sesupone, habrían muerto sin la intervención humana – y, en caso de que hubiera unnúmero suficiente de animales, representarían una oportunidad con bajo riesgo(para la población en su totalidad), como para considerar el recurso de latraslocación como un instrumento alternativo de conservación de la foca monje.

La traslocación de animales sanos retirados de su ambiente natural – como elproyecto propuesto actualmente por España – es mucho más complejo.Experiencias pasadas demuestran que las probabilidades de una traslocaciónexitosa de especies en peligro o en riesgo de extinción son generalmente bajas,especialmente en carnívoros (como la foca monje) con una edad avanzada de

Comentario

107

maduración y un bajo índice de reproducción y, consecuentemente, bajo índice decrecimiento poblacional (Griffith y otros. 1989).

Las traslocaciones son consideradas exitosas sólo cuando traen como resultado unincremento en el tamaño de la población existente o el establecimiento de una nuevapoblación que se sustenta por sí misma (ver Griffith y otros. 1989). En el caso de lafoca monje de Hawaii (Monachus schauinslandi), en años recientes se hatraslocado un reducido número de animales y, en por lo menos una localidad – elAtolón de Kure –, se ha logrado con éxito la creación de una población. Másrecientemente, sin embargo, cuando se trató de reintroducir focas monje Hawaianasen un lugar de reproducción en el Atolón de Midway, los 18 ejemplares desplazadosmurieron o desaparecieron rápidamente (Marine Mammal Commission, 1995).

Pese a todo, la información de que se dispone indica que la foca monje delMediterráneo no es un candidato ideal (ni siquiera bueno) para ser traslocado. No sedebe considerar esta posibilidad a menos que se pueda demostrar que es pocoprobable que la acción vaya a tener un efecto negativo sobre el ambiente natural yla(s) población(es) donante(s), y que se ha hecho la investigación necesaria paraoptimizar las posibilidades de éxito de un desplazamiento. (Ver p. ej. Griffith yotros, 1989).

La última etapa de la secuencia de las acciones de conservación es la reproducciónen cautividad. Potencialmente podría iniciarse un programa de reproducción encautividad como la etapa final del proceso de rescate y rehabilitación. Los animalesrehabilitados podrían usarse (condicionado siempre a una evaluación integral ysupervisión rigurosa) para establecer una población cautiva con la finalidad deevaluar la viabilidad de la reproducción en cautividad. Como alternativa, podríanusarse los animales retirados de su ambiente natural para establecer una coloniacautiva para la reproducción. En cualquier caso, sin embargo, debe reconocerse quelas focas monje del Mediterráneo no son buenas candidatas para programas dereproducción en cautividad. Los intentos anteriores de mantener en cautividad aestos animales en general han fracasado y la cantidad de animales que se pensabaera necesaria para un “programa de reproducción en cautividad exitoso” – quealgunos estimaban en alrededor de 20 con la idea de tener una población cautiva deunos 100 animales a comienzos del siglo 21 (Anon., 1990, p. 7) – parece exceder laque pudiera lograrse, razonablemente, con los animales rescatados y rehabilitados ocapturados de su ambiente natural sin incurrir en riesgos para la(s) población(es)donante(s).

Comentario

108

Aún en una situación óptima se precisarían muchos años para establecer unapoblación cautiva que se pudiera mantener y, aún si se lograra, pasaríanposiblemente décadas antes de lograr la cantidad suficiente de ejemplares para suliberación en su medio natural.

Aún a pesar de estas advertencias, lograr con éxito programas integrales que sebasen en las directrices de conservación propuestas, en búsqueda de prioridadessegún una estrategia cuidadosamente planteada y por etapas, dependerá plenamentede una eficaz coordinación internacional. Ésta debe incluir la revisión de propuestasefectuadas por varios países, la garantía de que los escasos fondos disponibles parala conservación de la especie se canalicen a los proyectos de mayor prioridad ymérito, y facilitar el intercambio de información entre las partes interesadas.

Naturalmente, no hay nada nuevo en el enfoque por etapas de la conservación de lafoca monje por el que aquí abogamos. Fluye de manera natural de las resolucionesde las conferencias y de los planes de acción de conservación propuestosanteriormente para la foca monje del Mediterráneo. A la fecha, sólo falta convertireste enfoque en acción eficaz.

Comentario

109

AKDENÝZ FOKU

KORUMA KILAVUZU

ÝÇÝNDEKÝLER

1. Önsöz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

2. Koruma KýlavuzuI. Uluslararasý Eþgüdüm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

II. Bilimsel Araþtýrma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116III. Yaþamalaný Korumasý . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117IV. Kanunlar ve Yaptýrýmlar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118V. Eðitim ve Kamuoyu Bilinçlendirme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

VI. Kurtarma ve Rehabilitasyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121VII. Yer Deðiþtirme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

VIII. Esaret Altýnda Üretim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

3. Tartýþma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Tür

kçe

110

1. ÖNSÖZ

Akdeniz foku (Monachus monachus) Avrupa�nýn nesli en fazla tehlike altýnda olandeniz memelisidir. Bu türün yaþamýna yönelik tehditler 1987�de Yunanistan�ýnRodos adasýnda toplanan Birinci Akdeniz Foku Uluslararasý Konferansý�nda açýk birþekilde ortaya konmuþtur (Ronald ve Duguy,1979). Bu tehditler þunlardýr:

1. Kasýtlý öldürme nedeniyle (çoðunlukla balýkçýlar tarafýndan) genç veyaþlý ölüm oranýnýn artmasý.

2. Balýkçý aðlarýna rastlantý olarak takýlmalarýndan dolayý genç ve yaþlýölüm oranýnýn artmasý.

3. Ýnsanlarýn sebep olduðu rahatsýzlýklardan dolayý genç ve yaþlý ölümoranýnýn artmasý (turizm, balýkçýlýk ve gemi taþýmacýlýðý vb.).

4. Tercih edilen yaþam alanýnýn yok olmasý nedeniyle; uygun olmayanyerlerde meydana gelen doðumlar sonucu yavrularýn ölüm oranýnýnartmasý.

5. Aþýrý balýk avcýlýðý sonucu besin yetersizliðinin neden olduðu kötükoþullar.

6. Genetik olarak çok yakýn olan bireylerin çiftleþmesi sonucundadoðurganlýðýn ve yavrularýn yaþama þansýnýn [muhtemelen] azalmasý.

Rodos Konferansý ayný zamanda Akdeniz foklarýný azalmasýný önlemek ve durumutersine çevirmek amacýyla açýk þekilde tarif edilmiþ bir dizi öncelikli çalýþmayý dabelirlemiþtir. Bu çalýþmalar þunlardýr:

1. Akdeniz foklarýnýn etkili bir þekilde korunmasý için eþgüdümün saðlanmasý.

2. Akdeniz foklarýnýn kasti öldürülmelerini ve rahatsýz edilmeleriniyasaklayan hükümlerin etkin olarak uygulanmasýný ve balýkçýlar ilefoklarýn uzlaþmalarýný saðlayacak resmi çalýþmalar.

3. Akdeniz fokunun yaþam alanlarýnýn tanýmlanmasý ve izlenmesi içinbilimsel araþtýrmalar.

4. Rezerv ve koruma alanlarý iletiþim aðýnýn kurulmasý.

5. Eðitim ve kamuoyu bilgilendirme programlarý.

6. Yaralý, zor durumda olan ve öksüz foklarýn kurtarýlmasý ve rehabilitasyonu.

111

Önsöz

Dönüm noktasý olan Rodos Konferansý doðrultusunda birçok toplantý gerçekleþtirildi(bu konuda güncel bilgi için bakýnýz Israëls, 1992). Bu toplantýlarýn tümünde de,genel olarak koruma öncelikleri ve önerileri yinelendi ve tekrar vurgulandý. Birdeðerlendirme yapmak gerekirse; Akdeniz fokunun korunmasýný etkileyen veüzerinde pek durulmayan en önemli sorun þu þekilde açýklanabilir: Önerileri veöncelikleri etkili çalýþmalara aktarmadaki baþarýsýzlýk.

Rodos�tan beri geçen on altý yýl içinde türün yararýna en azýndan bir kaç çalýþmayapýlmýþtýr. Yunanistan�da, Maderia�da, Moritanya�da ve Türkiye�de koruma bölgelerioluþturulmuþtur. Batý Sahrasý�nda, Côte des Phoques�de, dünyanýn en büyükAkdeniz foku kolonisini korumak için bir deniz parkýnýn ayrýntýlý planlarýhazýrlanmýþtýr (Anon., 1994 a). Daha da önemlisi; bilimsel raporlara göre en az ikikoruma alanýndaki (Kuzey Sporatlar ve Maderia) Akdeniz foku populasyonlarý ümitverici yükselme iþaretleri göstermektedir (HSSPMS, 1993; Neves, 1992). 1993�deTürkiye�de, Foça yakýnlarýndaki koruma alanýnýn kurulmasýndan beri, WWF FoçaPilot Projesi de fok gözlemlerinde artýþ olduðunu rapor etmiþtir (Cirik ve Güçlüsoy,1994). Ayrýca Kuzey Sporatlar Deniz Parký�nda kurulan taþýnabilir yoðun bakýmistasyonu, zor durumda olan ve öksüz foklarýn kurtarýlmalarý ve rehabiliteedilmelerinin, koruma stratejisinin uygulanabilir bir parçasý olduðunu ispat etmiþtir.Türün yaþamasýna önemli bir destek de birçok ülkede yürütülen eðitim ve kamuoyubilinçlendirme çalýþmalarýdýr.

Bu önemli adýmlara raðmen, birçok sorun hala çözülememiþtir. Örneðin; RodosKonferansý�nda belirtilen, rezerv alanlar arasý iletiþim aðýnýn kurulmasýnda çok azgeliþme saðlanmýþtýr. Buna benzer olarak; foklarýn ve balýkçýlarýn doðrudan vetoplumsal yardým planlarý yoluyla uzlaþtýrýlmalarýnýn saðlanmasý konusununyaþamsallýðý yeterince anlaþýlamamýþtýr. Özellikle, köklü pratik koruma önlemleriiçin mali destek hala az ve düzensizdir. Aslýnda, koruma stratejisinin önemli birparçasý olarak düþünülen bilimsel araþtýrmalar, sürekli olarak olanaklarýn aslanpayýný almýþ ve çoðu kez türü korumaya yönelik pratik önceliklerle yaþamsalbütünlükleri saðlanamadan ilerlemiþtir. Daha da önemlisi; uluslararasý eþgüdümbelirsiz ve geliþigüzel kalmýþtýr.

Eþgüdüm eksikliði nedeniyle oluþan bu ortamda � Akdeniz foklarý için ciddipotansiyel tehdit oluþturan � parça parça ve saðlýksýz çalýþmalar bile baþarýya ulaþmaþansý yakalayabilmiþtir. Özellikle esaret altýnda üretim ve yer deðiþtirme giriþimleri

112

Önsöz

konusundaki planlar; geniþ tabanda korumacý gruplara danýþýlmadan ve tekrargözden geçirilmeden onaylanmýþ, destek bulmuþ ve gerçekleþtirilmeleri yolundaçaba harcanmýþtýr (Johnson ve Lavigne, 1994). Akdeniz foklarýnýn korunmasýný krizdurumu olarak tanýmlamak bir abartý sayýlamayacakken; bu tartýþmalar hiç þüphesizkoruma gündemine gölge düþmesine neden olarak dikkatleri, çabalarý ve kýsýtlýkaynaklarý daha acil önceliklerden baþka yöne çevirmiþtir. Akdeniz foklarýnýnAntibes Marineland�de esaret altýnda üretilmesi çalýþmalarý konusundaki yaygýnkuþkular iyi bir þekilde belgelenmiþ ve iki kez projenin ertelenmesini zorunlukýlmýþtýr (Johnson ve Lavigne, 1994). Geçmiþe bakýldýðýnda; Akdeniz foklarýnýnCôte des Phoques�den Isla de Lobos�a veya Kanarya Adalarý�nda baþka yerlereyerleþtirilmesi þeklinde bir projenin de gündeme geldiði görülür (ICONA,1994a,b).Avrupa Topluluðu LIFE programý bu projeyi, IUCN Fok Uzmanlarý Grubunu daiçeren bilimsel korumacý topluluðun görüþünü almadan, bir milyon ECU iledesteklemiþtir. Avrupa Birliði ayný zamanda, Avrupa Konseyi tarafýndan yayýmlananve Kanarya Adalarý�ndaki Isla de Lobos�un potansiyel yerleþtirme mevkii olmasýnakarþý çýkan ilk bilimsel incelemeyi de önemsememiþ görünmektedir. Adý geçenincelemenin raporunda (Hernandez, 1986) þöyle denmektedir:

�Gezgin bireylerin ara sýra gözlenmesine raðmen; Akdeniz fokunun(Ýspanyolca: Lobo Marino) Kanarya Adalarý�nda neslinin bir asýr öncetükendiði anlaþýlmaktadýr (Garcia Cabrera, 1971)� Lanzarote�unkuzey kýyýsýnda bulunan küçük bir adalar ve adacýklar grubu�Akdeniz fokunun Kanarya Adalarý�na yeniden yerleþtirilmesi için enuygun yer olarak görülmektedir. Isla de Lobos (1983�de Milli Parkolarak ilan edilmiþtir) þehirleþmiþ alanlara yakýnlýðý ve genel olarakileri derecede bozulmuþ olmasý nedeniyle yeniden yerleþtirme içinkullanýlmasý öngörülen alan içerisinde düþünülmemiþtir� Maalesef�Ýspanyol Doða Koruma Bölgeleri Yasasý�na göre (Yasa 15/1975, 2Mayýs) doðal parklarýn halkýn doða ile iliþki içinde olduðu yerlerolarak düþünülmesi nedeniyle; Doðal Park statüsü bu adacýklarýnkorunabilmesi için yetersizdir. Sonuç olarak halkýn serbest giriþininönlenmesi amacýyla, bu alanýn acil olarak daha sýký bir koruma statüsüiçinde yeniden sýnýflandýrýlmasý gereklidir.�

Hem Fransýzlarýn esaret altýnda üretim projesi hem de Ýspanyollarýn yer deðiþtirmeönerisi (þu anda IUCN ve Avrupa Komisyonu adýna bilimsel bir komite tarafýndan

113

Önsöz

gözden geçirilmekte olan tek öneridir) Akdeniz fokunun korunmasýndaki yetersizuluslararasý eþgüdüm ve iþbirliðinin ortaya çýkardýðý problemleri göstermektedir.

Bu belirgin eþgüdüm eksiklikleri projeler arasý bilgi alýþveriþini zorlaþtýrýr, halkdesteðini ve mali kaynak artýrýmý giriþimlerini engeller, hükümetlerin deniz stoklarýnýnyaratýlmasý gibi özel koruma önlemleri ortaya koymada etkili görüþmeler yapmasýnýönler ve genel olarak Akdeniz fokunu koruma çabalarýnda yýkýcý etkisi vardýr. Dahada önemlisi; etkin eþgüdüm eksikliði giriþimlerin bölünmesi doðrultusunda var olaneðilimi arttýrmaktadýr. Bu bölünmeler, Rodos�ta belirlenmiþ ve ondan sonrakitoplantýlarda tekrarlanmýþ önerilere ve önceliklere ters düþmektedir.

Bu çok önemli sorunlarý anlatmak için, konferans sonuçlarýnýn kapsamlý olarakyeniden incelemesi özellikle yerinde olacaktý. Buna göre; baþlýca Akdeniz fokukoruma toplantý ve konferanslarýnýn sonuçlarýný ve eylem planlarýný yeniden gözdengeçirdik (bakýnýz: Notes). Bu bilgilerden yola çýkarak; bir sonraki bölümdesunulmuþ olan Koruma Kýlavuzu�nu oluþturmaya çalýþtýk. Bu kýlavuzun, güncelAkdeniz foku koruma giriþimlerini ve giderilmesi için acil eylem gerektireneksiklikleri ve ihmalleri yeniden deðerlendirmede yardýmcý olacaðýný umuyoruz.

114

2. KORUMA KILAVUZU

Aþaðýdaki kýlavuz, son on altý yýl içerisinde yapýlmýþ olan uluslararasýkeþiþ foku konferanslarýnda varýlan sonuçlara dayanýlarakhazýrlanmýþtýr. Bu çalýþma için kullanýlan kaynaklar, Notes bölümünde,konferans sonuçlarýndan alýntýlar þeklinde verilmiþtir. Kýlavuz þubaþlýklarý taþýyan bölümlerden oluþmaktadýr: Uluslararasý Eþgüdüm,Bilimsel Araþtýrma, Yaþam Alaný Korumasý, Kanunlar ve Yaptýrýmlar,Eðitim ve Kamuoyu Bilinçlendirme, Kurtarma ve Rehabilitasyon, YerDeðiþtirme, Esaret Altýnda Üretim.

I. ULUSLARARASI EÞGÜDÜM

1. 1989�da Birleþmiþ Milletler Çevre Programý / Akdeniz Eylem Planý (UNEP/MAP) (Avrupa Konseyi, Barcelona, Bern ve Bonn Sözleþmeleri ile birlikte)Akdeniz fokunu koruma çalýþmalarýnýn uluslararasý eþgüdümünü üstlendi. Budoðrultuda, sorumluluðun hakkýyla yerine getirilebilmesi için, yeterli eleman veparasal kaynaða sahip bir eþgüdüm merkezinin UNEP/MAP himayesindekurulmasý gerekir. Bu Uluslararasý Eþgüdüm Birimi (International Coordina-tion Unit, ICU), IUCN Fok Uzmanlarý Grubu�nun ve MAP tarafýndan tanýnmýþolan sivil toplum kuruluþlarýnýn danýþmanlýðý altýnda ve onlarla tam bir iþbirliðiiçerisinde çalýþmalýdýr. Bu gruplar arasýnda, ICU�nun görevlerini veuygulattýrma gücünü belirleyecek geniþ kapsamlý tartýþmalargerçekleþtirilmelidir.

2. ICU tüm ilgili hükümetlerin, resmi kuruluþlarýn ve sivil toplum örgütlerinin,projelerin ve Akdeniz fokunun korumasý ile ilgilenen bireylerin kapsamlý birkaydýný tutmalýdýr. Bu kayýtlar tüm ilgili kuruluþlara daðýtýlmalýdýr.

3. ICU politika ve eylemlerini belirlerken daimi bir uzmanlar kurulunadanýþmalýdýr. Bu danýþma kurulu uluslararasý deniz hukuku, denizmemelilerinin korunmasý, deniz memelilerinin yönetimi, populasyon dinamiðive genetiði, veteriner hekimlik, deniz parklarý yönetimi, hayvan saðlýðý, çevrefelsefesi, kaynak artýrýmý, eðitim, kamuoyu bilinçlendirme ve lobicilik gibi

115

Koruma Kýlavuzu

farklý dallardan uzmanlar içermelidir. Üyelerin arasýnda hükümetlerin resmitemsilcileri de bulunmalýdýr.

4. Türün korunmasýný ileri derecede veya uluslararasý boyutta etkilemesimuhtemel olan projeler (yer deðiþtirme, esaret altýnda üretim, türe rahatsýzlýkverme ihtimali olan bilimsel araþtýrmalar gibi) uygulamaya geçirilmeden önce,hem danýþma kurulu hem de daha geniþ bir tabanda bilim adamlarý vekorumacýlar tarafýndan yeniden gözden geçirilmelidir. Bu danýþmaçalýþmalarýna tüm ilgili IUCN uzmanlýk gruplarý da dahil edilmelidir. ICU hembilimsel, hem de ahlaki konularýn gözden geçirilmesini saðlamalýdýr.

5. ICU ve onun danýþma kurulu; koruma alanlarýnýn kurulmasý ve yönetimi, acilolarak korunmaya ihtiyaç duyan Akdeniz foku populasyonlarýnýn belirlenmesiiçin bilimsel araþtýrmalar, yerel balýkçý topluluklarýna yardým (fok kolonilerinikorumalarý için teþvik etmek amacýyla) ve eðitim kampanyalarý içeren ileriöncelikli Akdeniz foku koruma projeleri için aktif bir þekilde tutarlý ve uzunsüreli kaynaklar araþtýrmalý ve bu tür çalýþmalarý teþvik etmelidir.

6. Bilgi alýþveriþi, eþgüdümün yaþamsal bir parçasý olarak algýlanmalýdýr. ICUtarafýndan basýlacak veya bir STÖ (Sivil Toplum Örgütü) ile kontratlý olarakyýlda iki kere yayýmlanacak bir bülten; Akdeniz fokunu koruma çalýþmalarýhakkýndaki haber ve bilginin uluslararasý boyutta yayýlmasý için faydalý bir araçolacaktýr.1

7. ICU tüm Akdeniz foku koruma ve araþtýrma çalýþmalarýný kapsayacak merkezibir kütüðün eþgüdümünü saðlamalýdýr.2 Raporlar, öneriler ve diðer yayýnlar bu

1 Nisan 1992�ye kadar Kanada Guelph Üniversitesi tarafýndan Akdeniz FokununKorunmasý Birliði Bülteni (The Newsletter of the League for the Conservation of theMonk Seal) adlý bir bülten yayýnlanmýþtýr. Bilgi paylaþýmýnda konusunda tek olan veönemli bir görev yerine getirmiþ olan bu bültenin düzenli bir þekilde tekrar yayýnlanmasýgereklidir.2 Bilgisayar ortamýnda bir veri tabaný olan, Avrupa Birliði�ndeki tüm geçmiþ ve güncelfok gözlemlerinin kaydedileceði Akdeniz Foku Kütüðü (The Monk Seal Register) halihazýrda Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique ve Sea Mammal Research Unittarafýndan gerçekleþtirmiþ ve iþletilmektedir. Kütüðün, Fas ve Türkiye�yi de içermeküzere, Avrupa Birliði dýþýndaki ülkeleri de kapsayacak þekilde geniþletilmesiplanlanmaktadýr. Veri tabanýnýn geniþletilmesinde bir ileri adým olarak; foklarýn fotoðrafve çizimlerinin sayýsallaþtýrýlarak veri tabaný içerisinde saklanmasý öngörülmektedir.

116

Akdeniz Foku

merkezi kütük içinde dosyalanmalýdýr. Eþgüdüm bürosu bilgi alýþveriþineyardým etmek için özetler yayýnlamalý ve istenildiðinde tam kopyalarý dagöndermelidir. Araþtýrma kolaylýðý için, projelerin raporlarýný bilgisayardisketinde vermeleri teþvik edilmelidir. Eþgüdüm bürosu ayrýca internetaracýlýðý ile de raporlara ulaþýlmasýný saðlamalýdýr.

8. ICU, çalýþmalarý hakkýnda yýllýk bir rapor yayýmlamalýdýr.

II. BÝLÝMSEL ARAÞTIRMA

1. Akdeniz foklarý üzerindeki tüm bilimsel araþtýrmalar ve izleme çalýþmalarý,bireylere ve populasyona en az rahatsýzlýk verilecek þekildegerçekleþtirilmelidir. Sadece, koruma öncelikleri ile çatýþmayan ve doðrudankoruma çalýþmalarýna yardýmcý olacak bilimsel araþtýrmalar yürütülmelidir.

2. Bilimsel araþtýrma için maddi kaynak ve diðer yardým þekillerinideðerlendirmede öncelik, fok bireylerinin hayatta kalmalarýný saðlamayayönelik; türün korunmasýný, durumunun iyileþtirilmesini ve idare edilmesinehedeflenmiþ kanýtlanabilir pratik bir öneme sahip araþtýrma programlarýnaverilmelidir.

3. Bilimsel araþtýrma, türün geniþ kapsamlý iyileþtirme planý içerisinde bütününbir parçasýný oluþturmalýdýr. Araþtýrma programlarý, mümkün olan her yerde,koruma bölgelerinin saptanmasý, kamuoyu bilinçlendirme ve eðitim gibibölgede yürütülen koruma giriþimleri ile yakýn iliþki içinde olmalýdýr. Önceliközellikle þu konulara verilmelidir:

a. Doðrudan gözlem ve uygun teknolojik (örneðin:�kamera tuzaklarý�, videokaydý) yöntemlerle, koruma bölgelerindeki fok nüfusunun rahatsýzlýkvermeden izlenmesi.

b. Yeni koruma alanlarýnýn kurulmasý için en uygun yerlerin belirlenmesinihedefleyen araþtýrmalar.

c. Yakýn geçmiþteki populasyon incelemelerinin ve koruma bölgesiönerilerinin yeniden gözden geçirilmesi.

117

Koruma Kýlavuzu

d. Yerel toplumlarýn koruma yöntemlerinden nasýl yararlanabileceðini veböylece Akdeniz foklarýný ve onlarýn yaþam alanlarýný korumak amacýylanasýl teþvik edilebileceklerini anlamak için sosyo-ekonomik araþtýrmalar.Bu tür araþtýrma, yetkililerin doðrudan katýlýmý ile önemli fok kolonilerininorta seviyede etkin korunmasýný baþaracak olanaklarýn saptanmasýna daçalýþýlmalýdýr.

4. Potansiyel rahatsýzlýk kaynaðý olan tüm bilimsel araþtýrmalar (örneðin:yakalama, taþýma, yer deðiþtirme ve esaret altýnda üretim) kaynak temininden veuygulama aþamasýndan önce ilgili IUCN uzmanlar grubunu da içerenuluslararasý bilimsel ve korumacý topluluk tarafýndan detaylý olarakdeðerlendirilmelidir.

5. Bilimsel araþtýrmalarýn sonuçlarý, merkezi kütük yoluyla, ulaþýlabilir olmalýdýr(Bakýnýz : I. ve VII. Bölüm).

III. YAÞAM ALANI KORUMASI

1. Akdeniz fokunun kasti öldürmeler, insan kaynaklý rahatsýz edilmeler vedüþmanlýklar nedeniyle neslinin ciddi þekilde tehlike altýnda olduðunudüþünürsek; koruma alanlarýnýn saptanmasý, türün korunmasý için en fazlaönceliðe sahip olmalýdýr.

2. Halen varlýklarýný devam ettiren Akdeniz foku populasyonlarýnýn birçoðununküçük ve birbirlerinden uzak olmasý nedeniyle, türün korunmasý için birbiriylebaðlantýlý bir milli parklar, rezervler ve koruma alanlarý aðýnýn acilenoluþturulmasý gereklidir. Bu að üreme ve beslenme yerlerini kapsamalý; uygunolan yerlerde, milli sýnýrlar içinde ve ötesindeki fok populasyonlarýnýbirleþtirmeye yardýmcý olacak þekilde geçiþ koridorlarý içermelidir.

3. Ýnsanlarýn fok koruma bölgelerine giriþleri sýký þekilde denetlenmelidir. Tam-pon bölgeler geleneksel, yoðun olmayan balýkçýlýk faaliyetleri ve eko-turizmolanaklarý için kullanýlýrken; çekirdek bölgeler balýkçýlýk, turizm ve teknetrafiði gibi insan faaliyetlerinden uzak tutulmalý ve bu faaliyetler tamamenyasaklanmalýdýr.

118

Akdeniz Foku

4. Akdeniz foku koruma bölgelerinin kurulmasýnda yerel halkýn katýlýmý tamolarak saðlanmalýdýr. Son hedef ulusal yasalar vasýtasýyla bir rezerv alanlarý aðýoluþturmaksa da; Akdeniz foklarýnýn kritik durumlarý, yasalarýn hayatageçirilmesindeki gecikmelere izin vermemektedir. Bu nedenle; yerel halkýnkatýlýmýnýn saðlanmasý ve yerel balýkçý topluluklarýnýn, ekonomik durumlarýnýyükseltmeleri için desteklenmesi yoluyla, önemli fok yaþam alanlarýnýn hýzlý veorta vadede korunmasý için her çaba gösterilmelidir.

5. Rezervler ve koruma bölgelerinin ayrýntýlý yönetim planlarýna, uzun vadeliekonomik garantiye, kaynaklara ve araçlara gereksinimi vardýr. Yönetimplanlarý, etkili olabilmeleri için, koruma bölgelerindeki yönetici ve personeleyönelik eðitim programlarýný, kanunlarý uygulamak için yeterli insan kaynaðýnýve donanýmý içermelidir.

IV. KANUNLAR VE YAPTIRIMLAR

1. Hükümetler ulusal, ikili ve çok taraflý giriþimler yoluyla; Akdeniz foku yaþamalanlarýný güvence altýna almak için bir rezervler ve koruma bölgeleri aðýoluþturmayý hedeflemelidir.

2. Milli parklarýn ve koruma bölgelerinin saptanmasýnda normal olarak karmaþýkyasalar ve geniþ kapsamlý danýþmanlýk çalýþmalarý gerekmektedir. Bu gibiönlemler uzun süreli baþarý için çoðu zaman gereklidir. Bununla beraber,yöntemin doðasýnda var olan gecikmeler bazen koruma bölgelerininoluþturulmasýný engelleyici rol oynarlar. Geniþ coðrafi bölgeleri kapsayan denizparklarýnýn kuruluþunda bu yöntemin çabuklaþtýrýlmasý her zaman mümkünolmadýðýndan; küçük bölgelerin hýzlý koruma ve emniyet altýna alýnmasýnýsaðlayacak ulusal yasalarýn önemi büyüktür.

3. Avrupa Birliði ülkelerinde, A.T. yasasýnda da gerekliliði belirtilmiþ olan,Akdeniz foku için Özel Koruma Bölgeleri�nin tayin edilmesinde Doðal Yaþamalanlarýnýn, Yabanýl Fauna ve Floranýn Korunmasý hususundaki Yönerge 92/43-EEC-Natura 2000’e uygun hareket edilmelidir.

4. Hükümetler; Akdeniz foklarýnýn kasti olarak öldürülmelerini, taciz

119

Koruma Kýlavuzu

edilmelerini, balýkçýlýkta dinamit ve kimyasal madde kullanýmýný ve teknelerdeateþli silah taþýnmasýný yasaklayan kanunlarýn sýký þekilde uygulanmasýnýsaðlamalýdýr.

5. Akdeniz fokunun korunmasýna adanmýþ ulusal programlar, özellikle balýkçýlýkve turizme baðýmlý olan yerel halkýn koruma uygulamalarýndan yararsaðlayabilmesi için bir iþ planý geliþtirmelidir. Toplumsal katýlýmýn her korumastratejisinin önemli bir parçasý olduðunu düþünerek; ulusal programlar yerelgiriþimleri ve yerel halkýn katýlýmýný teþvik etmelidir.

6. Hükümetler, balýkçýlýk politikasý ve kanunlarýnýn Akdeniz fokunu korumaönlemlerini de kapsamlarý altýna almasýný saðlamalýdýr. Öncelik, türünbulunduðu hassas anahtar bölgelerde su ürünleri avcýlýðýnýn yasaklanmasýnaverilmelidir.

7. Hükümetler balýkçýlarýn Akdeniz foklarý ile uzlaþmasýný teþvik amacýyla;kanunlar hazýrlayabilmek; Akdeniz foklarýnýn yaþadýðý bölgelerde balýkçýlýkfaaliyetini kontrol edebilmek ve yerel halka tazminat veya seçme fýrsatý(balýkçýlýk takýmýnýn yerine bir baþkasýný saðlamak veya diðer yardýmlar)vermek için hazýrlýklý olmalýdýr.

8. Hükümetler, ulusal programlar ile desteklenen projelerin amaçlarýna ulaþmasýiçin gerekli ekonomik desteði alacaklarýný garanti etmelidir.

9. Hükümetler, eðitilmiþ personel ve gerekli vasýtalarý saðlayarak; korumabölgelerinde etkili yönetim ve korumayý gerçekleþtirmelidir.

10. Akdeniz fokunu korumaya yönelik ulusal programlar, gerektiðinde yaralý veöksüz foklarýn hýzla veteriner yardýmý almalarýný ve gerektiðinde rehabiliteedilmelerini saðlamak için bir kurtarma aðý kurmalýdýr.

11. Hükümetler ve Akdeniz fokunu koruma programlarý, özellikle polis, limanpolisi ve liman sorumlularý gibi yerel yetkililerin türün korunmasý için yeterincebilgilendirilmelerini; mevcut yasalarýn sýký bir þekilde uygulanmasý ve ölü,yaralý, terkedilmiþ foklarýn bir ulusal eþgüdüm birimine bildirmesi içineðitilmelerini saðlamalýdýr.

12. Hükümetler Akdeniz foku korumacýlýðýný eðitim sistemindeki ulusal müfredatprogramýna koymalý ve ilgili malzemeyi okullarýn kullanýmýna hazýrbulundurmalýdýr.

120

Akdeniz Foku

V. EÐÝTÝM VE KAMUOYU BÝLÝNÇLENDÝRME

1. Ýnsanoðlunun düþmanca bakýþ açýsý nedeniyle, Akdeniz fokunun balýkçýlartarafýndan kasýtlý olarak öldürülmesinin; türün azalmasýndaki baþlýca etkenolduðu belirlenmiþtir. Bu gibi davranýþlarýn kökleri derinde olduðundan; eðitimve halký bilinçlendirme kampanyalarýnýn türün tüm daðýlým alanýndayürütülmesi gerekir.

2. Bilgilendirme kampanyalarý balýkçýlarýn, balýkçýlýk ile ilgili yetkililerin, limanamirlerinin, öðretmenlerin, okul öðrencileri ve kamuoyunun desteðini vekatýlýmýný saðlamalýdýr.

3. Bilgi ve eðitim kampanyalarýný yaygýnlaþtýrmak için gereken imkanlarkullanýma hazýr olmalý ve Akdeniz foklarý için yüksek öncelikli olduðudüþünülen olasý koruma bölgelerine özel önem gösterilmelidir.

4. Yerel düzeyde yürütülecek olan eðitim ve kamuoyu bilinçlendirme programlarý,Akdeniz fokunu korumak için hazýrlanacak ulusal programlarýn bir parçasýolarak planlanmalý ve koordine edilmelidir. Bilinçlendirme kampanyalarý, yerelhalkýn katýlýmýný saðlayarak, bilgi toplama imkaný da oluþturur ve böylece türünkorunmasý için ek bir yarar saðlayabilir. Buna göre bilinçlendirmekampanyalarý, sosyo-ekonomik araþtýrmalar ve Akdeniz foku populasyonincelemeleri ile bir bütün halinde daha etkili olabilir. Uygun þekildeyapýlandýrýlmasý, gerekli olanaklar ve uzmanlýklarýn saðlanmýþ olmasýdurumunda; bilgilendirme kampanyalarýný yürütecek ekiplerin geniþletilmiþgörevleri þöyle sýralanabilir:

a. Fok kolonilerinin varlýðý hakkýndaki bilgilerin, daha sonraki ayrýntýlýbilimsel araþtýrmalara taban oluþturmasý amacýyla saðlamasýný yapmak.

b. Balýkçýlar tarafýndan kasýtlý öldürme ve yerliler veya turistler tarafýndanrahatsýz edilme gibi Akdeniz foklarýna yönelik yerel tehditlerideðerlendirmek.

c. Balýkçýlara tazminat ödenmesi ya da benzeri toplumsal yardým sistemleriyoluyla fok kolonilerinin orta düzeyde korumasýný saðlayacak uygulamayayönelik giriþimleri ve koruma bölgesinin izlenebilmesi için bir gözlemizleme sistemini yerel toplumla birlikte oluþturmak.

121

5. Akdeniz fokunun korumasý konusunda kamuoyu ilgisini canlý tutmaktakullanýlacak eðitim gereçlerini üretmek ve geliþtirmek için gayret sarfedilmelidir. Örneðin film ve videolar, posterler, okullar için eðitsel yayýnlarýn buamaca ulaþmada yaþamsal ve etkili araçlar olduðu gerçektir.

6. Özellikle, turizmin foklarýn yaþama ve üreme alanlarýný tehdit ettiði bölgelerdeturistler ve turizm için eðitim programlarý geliþtirilmelidir. Tur operatörlerinindestekleme, yayýn ve eðitim araçlarýnýn daðýtýmý yoluyla Akdeniz fokukorumacýlýðýnýn bir parçasý olmalarýný özendirmek için çaba gösterilmelidir.Tur operatörleri hassas bölgelere tur düzenleme fikrinden de vazgeçirilmelidir.

7. Bilgilendirici malzemeler ayný zamanda askeri idareciler, sanayiciler ve gemiendüstrisi için de üretilmelidir.

8. Çeþitli ülkelerde üretilmiþ tüm eðitim malzemelerinin örnekleri diðer gruplariçin referans oluþturacak þekilde merkezi bir kütükte ya da odakta (UluslarArasý Eþgüdüm Birimi gibi � Bakýnýz: I. Bölüm) saklanmalýdýr. Bu kütüphane,diðer ülkelerdeki benzer projelerin olasý kullanýmý için fotoðraf ve diðer arþivmalzemelerini de toplamaya çaba göstermelidir.

VI. KURTARMA VE REHABÝLÝTASYON

1. Yaralý, zor durumda ve öksüz Akdeniz foklarýnýn kurtarma ve rehabilitasyonu,tedaviye gereksinimi olmayan bireylerin toplanmasýný önlemek için titiz birbilimsel ve ahlaki protokole baðlanmalýdýr. Geniþ bir tabanda, ilgili korumacýgruplar tarafýndan gözden geçirilmesi ve onaylanmasý gereken protokol; taþýma,besleme, veteriner bakýmý ve salývermeyi de kapsamalýdýr.

2. Kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon binasý görevi görecek taþýnabilir bir yoðun bakýmistasyonu Yunanistan�ýn Alonissos Adasý�ndaki Kuzeybatý Sporatlar DenizParký�nda bulunmaktadýr3 . Benzer bir tesisin Batý Sahra / Moritanya için, Côte

Koruma Kýlavuzu

3 Bu yoðun bakým ünitesi Atina�da üstlenmiþ olan Hellenic Society for the Study andProtection of the Monk Seal (Mom) ve Pieterburen / Hollanda�da bulunan SealRehabilitation and Research Centre tarafýndan ortaklaþa iþletilmektedir.

122

Akdeniz Foku

des Phoques�daki fok kolonisi yakýnýnda da kurulmasý önerilmektedir. Bunlarharicinde bir kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon tesisinin kurulmasý gerekligörüldüðünde, uzun mesafe taþýma ile ilgili gerilimi azaltmak amacýyla, tesisinAkdeniz foku populasyonunun bugünkü yaþam alaný içinde kurulmasýdüþünülmelidir.

3. Yaralý, zor durumda ve öksüz foklarýn bulunma olasýlýðýný çoðaltmak içinkurtarma ve izleme aðý, kurulmalý veya geliþtirilmelidir. Bununla beraber,saðlýklý foklarýn aþýrý gayretli gönüllüler ve halktan kiþilerin kurbaný olmamalarýiçin çok dikkat edilmelidir.

4. Rehabilitasyonu takiben foklar koruma bölgelerine, tercihen ilk bulunduklarýbölgeye salýnmalýdýr.

5. Kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon tesisleri, esaret altýndaki Akdeniz foklarýnýn bakýmýve onlara nasýl davranýlacaðý hakkýnda, gelecekteki yer deðiþtirme ve esaretaltýnda üretim programlarýnda faydalý olacak bilgi ve becerinin aktarýmý içineðitim olanaðý da saðlamalýdýr (bakýnýz : VII. ve VIII. Bölüm).

6. Foklarýn kurtarma merkezlerine veya merkezlerinden taþýnmalarý ve gerisalýnmalarý sýrasýnda hastalýk taþýmalarý olasýlýðý düþünülerek; tüm kurtarma,rehabilitasyon ve salýverme programlarýnda kapsamlý karantina vedeðerlendirme iþlemleri yapýlmalýdýr. Bu gibi programlar tüm ilgili bilimadamlarýnýn ve IUCN Foklar, Yeniden Salýverme, Veteriner Bakýmý uzmangruplarýnýn danýþmanlýðý ile baþlatýlmalýdýr.

VII. YER DEÐÝÞTÝRME

1. Bir koruma stratejisi olarak yer deðiþtirme, Akdeniz foklarýnýn geçmiþtenbugüne kadar bulunduklarý yaþam alanlarýna yeniden salýnmasýný hedefler.Bununla beraber; yer deðiþtirmenin Akdeniz foku populasyonu ve onunbireyleri için önemli ve haksýz tehditler içeren bir iþlem gibi göründüðü kabuledilmelidir. Bu nedenle, saðlýklý bireylerin yakalanýp yeni yaþam alanlarýnayerleþtirilmesini kapsayan teklifler, kaynak saðlama ve yürütmede öncü olacakbilimsel ve korumacý grubun kapsamlý danýþmanlýðý ve onayýna baðlý olmalýdýr.

123

Koruma Kýlavuzu

Bilimsel konularýn yanýsýra, etik ve hayvan saðlýðý konularýnda da ilgiliuzmanlardan bilgi alýnmalýdýr.

2. Akdeniz foklarýnýn yer deðiþtirilmesi, denenmemiþ bir koruma stratejisi olarak,yabanýl populasyona ve onun bireylerine yönelik olasý bazý tehlikeler içerir.Bundan dolayý; hayvanlarýn yer deðiþtirilmesi ile ilgili bir teklifin, olumsuzetkilerin azaltýlmasýný hedefleyen yaklaþýmlar üzerine kurulmuþ olmasý kuvvetleönerilmektedir. Bu da yaþam alaný korumasý, bilimsel izleme, kurtarma verehabilitasyon gibi diðer koruma önceliklerinin karýþýmý ile ve geniþ kapsamlýdanýþma ve yeniden gözden geçirme yöntemleri vasýtasýyla saðlanabilir. Yerdeðiþtirme için ilk ele alýnacak yöreler, bu hayvanlarýn tarihsel daðýlým alanlarýiçerisinde ve mevcut Akdeniz foku yaþam alaný sýnýrlarýna yakýn olmalýdýr.

3. Tüm yer deðiþtirme önerileri aþaðýdaki güvenlik önlemlerini kapsamalýdýr:

a. Proje Deðerlendirmesi. Yer deðiþtirme projelerinin dayanacaðý geniþkapsamlý kriterlerin yönlendirilmesi, detaylý bilimsel ve hayvan saðlýðýbilgisi gerekmektedir. UNEP/MAP�in gözetiminde hareket edecek biruluslararasý baðýmsýz uzmanlar paneli, yer deðiþtirmeyi kapsayan protokolühazýrlamalý; önerileri yeniden gözden geçirmeli ve onaylanmýþ projeleribitimlerine kadar izlemelidir.

b. Danýþma. Yer deðiþtirme projeleri onaylama, kaynak bulma veuygulamadan önce ilgili IUCN uzman gruplarýný da kapsayan geniþletilmiþbilimsel ve korumacý topluluðun yeniden gözden geçirip yorumlamasýnýgerektirmektedir. Yeniden gözden geçirme iþlemi sýrasýnda etik ve hayvansaðlýðý ile ilgili kaygýlar tümüyle dile getirilmelidir.

c. Eðitim. Proje elemanlarý foklarýn bakýmý ve onlara nasýl davranýlacaðýkonusunda kapsamlý eðitim almalýdýr.

d. Salýverme Alanýnýn Korunmasý. Herhangi bir yer deðiþtirmede, salývermealaný yasa ile sýký bir þekilde korunmalýdýr. Bölgede etkili bir korumayürütülmeli; balýkçýlýk, turizm ve yapýlaþma gibi olasý rahatsýzlýk tehditleriyer deðiþtirme iþleminden önce etkisiz hale getirilmelidir.

e. Salýverme Sonrasý Ýzleme. Yer deðiþtirmeyi takiben programýn baþarýsýnýdeðerlendirmek ve daha sonraki önerileri deðerlendirebilmek içingerekecek verileri elde etmek amacýyla; salýverilen hayvanlar bilimselolarak gözlenmeli ve izlenmeli ve takip edilmelidir.

124

Akdeniz Foku

4. Var olan kolonilerde yerinde koruma önlemleri uygulanmadýðý sürece, saðlýklýhayvanlarýn doðal yaþam ortamlarýnda alýnarak baþka bir yereyerleþtirilmelerinin, türün korunmasýnda etkisi olmayacaðý düþünülmelidir. Yerdeðiþtirme çalýþmasýnda kullanýlmasý düþünülen ana koloninin sayýcaazalmakta, sabit ya da artmakta olduðu bilimsel çalýþmalarla takip edilebilir.Eðer hayvanlarýn yer deðiþtirmesi ile ilgili herhangi bir çaba baþarýsýzlýklasonuçlanýrsa; daha sonraki yer deðiþtirme çalýþmalarýndan önce bununnedenleri ortaya konmalýdýr.

5. Hayvanlar mutlaka türün tarih içerisinde kullanmýþ olduðu yaþam alanlarýnataþýnmalýdýr.

6. Yer deðiþtirme ve doðaya tekrar salýnmalarý sýrasýnda hastalýk taþýmalarý gibiönemli bir risk olasýlýðýný düþünerek, foklar tekrar salýverilmeden önce yoðunkarantina ve deðerlendirme iþlemlerine tabi tutulmalýdýr. Bu gibi programlarIUCN Foklar, Yeniden Yerleþtirme ve Veteriner Hekimliði Uzman Gruplarýnýndanýþmanlýðýndan sonra baþlatýlmalýdýr.

VIII. ESARET ALTINDA ÜRETÝM

1. Keþiþ foklarýn herhangi bir türünü esaret altýnda yetiþtirmenin �daha öncegerçekleþtirilmemiþ ve denenmemiþ bir uygulama olarak�; fokpopulasyonlarýna ve bireylere önemli ve sonuçlarý öngörülemeyecek tehditleroluþturabileceði düþünülmelidir. Bundan dolayý, türün esaret altýndayetiþtirilmesine yönelik öneriler veya bununla ilgili ön hazýrlýk, kaynak bulmave uygulamalar bilimsel ve korumacý camianýn önceden yapacaðý kapsamlýincelemeye baðlý olmalýdýr. Bilimsel konulara ilave olarak, danýþmanlýkuygulamasý etik ve hayvan saðlýðý ile ilgili konularý da kapsamalýdýr.

2. Esaret altýnda üretim programlarýnýn amaçlarý þöyle olmalýdýr:

a. Ýlk hedef; halen varlýklarýný sürdüren, aþýrý derecede azalmýþ ve muhtemelenazalmakta olan Akdeniz foku populasyonlarýnýn kararlý bir denge noktasýna(örneðin:�taþýma kapasitesi�) ulaþtýrýlmasýdýr.

b. Ýlk hedef (a) gerçekleþtirildikten sonra, Akdeniz foku tarafýndan tarih

125

Koruma Kýlavuzu

içerisinde kullanýlmýþ uygun yaþam alanlarýnda (sadece yasal olarakkorunanlarda) uygulanacak yeniden yerleþtirme programlarý için kaynakoluþturmak.

3. Taþýma sýrasýndaki ölümleri, hastalýk taþýma ve yabancý bir çevrenin þartlarýnýnneden olduðu güçlükleri (örneðin:iklim özellikleri, fotoperiyod ) en azaindirmek için; esaret altýnda üretim projesi Akdeniz foklarýnýn mevcut yaþamalanlarý içinde olmalýdýr. Ayrýca hayvanlar, insan müdahalesi etkisinisýnýrlamanýn mümkün olduðu, yalnýzca bu iþe tahsis edilmiþ tesislerdegözaltýnda tutulmalýdýr.

4. Doðal populasyon ve bireyler için olasý riskler göz önüne alýndýðýnda, esaretaltýnda üretim giriþimleri, olumsuz etkileri en aza indirmek için, kuþkulu vedüzenli bir yaklaþýmý takip etmelidir. Bu da, geniþ kapsamlý danýþma ve yenidengözden geçirme uygulamalarý; yaþam alaný korumasý, kurtarma, rehabilitasyonve yer deðiþtirme gibi diðer koruma ile ilgili önceliklerin bir arada düþünülmesiile baþarýlacaktýr.

5. Tüm esaret altýnda üretim projeleri aþaðýdaki önlemleri içermelidir:

a. Proje Deðerlendirmesi. Esaret altýnda üretim projelerinin dayandýðý çokçeþitli kriterlerin yönlendirilmesi için bilimsel konularda ve hayvan saðlýðýhususunda geniþ bilgi birikimi gerekmektedir. UNEP/MAP�in gözetimindehareket eden bir uluslararasý, baðýmsýz uzmanlar paneli, esaret altýndaüretimi kapsayan protokolü hazýrlamalý, önerileri yeniden gözden geçirmelive kabul edilmiþ projeleri sonuçlandýrýlana kadar takip etmelidir.

b. Danýþma. Esaret altýnda üretim projeleri onaylama, kaynak bulma veuygulamadan önce, ilgili IUCN uzman gruplarýný da kapsayan, geniþ birtabanda bilimsel ve korumacý camianýn yeniden gözden geçiripyorumlamasýný gerektirmektedir. Yeniden gözden geçirme iþlemi sýrasýndaetik ve hayvan saðlýðý ile ilgili kaygýlar tümüyle dile getirilmelidir.

c. Eðitim. Proje elemanlarý foklara bakým ve davranma konusunda kapsamlýeðitim almalýdýr.

d. Salýverme Alanýnýn Korunmasý. Herhangi bir esaret altýnda üretimprojesinin salýverme alaný yasa ile sýký bir þekilde korunmalýdýr. Bölgedeetkili bir koruma yürütülmeli; balýkçýlýk, turizm ve yapýlaþma gibi olasý

126

Akdeniz Foku

rahatsýzlýk tehditleri yer deðiþtirme iþleminden önce etkisiz halegetirilmelidir.

e. Salýverme Sonrasý Ýzleme. Yer deðiþtirmeyi takiben programýn baþarýsýnýölçmek ve daha sonraki önerileri deðerlendirebilmek için gerekli salývermesonrasý verileri elde etmek amacýyla; salýverilen hayvanlar bilimsel olarakizlenmelidir.

6. Esaret altýnda üretimin sonuçta gerekli olduðu düþünülüyorsa (türün yerinde �insitu’ korunmasý, kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon gibi acil önceliklerin yerinegetirilmesinin ardýndan) Akdeniz foklarýnýn mevcut yaþam alanlarý içinde veuygulanacak program ile ilgili populasyona mümkün olduðunca yakýn, uyguntesisler kurulmuþ olmalýdýr. Hastalýk taþýma ve diðer olasý riskleri azaltmak için(örneðin: üreme baþarýsýzlýðý) herhangi bir esaret altýnda üretim olabilirlikçalýþmasý baþlangýç olarak tek bir populasyondan hayvanlarý kullanmalýdýr.

7. Foklarýn bir yöreye yeniden yerleþtirilmesi ve burada sayýlarýnýn arttýrýlmasýsýrasýnda olasý önemli hastalýk risklerini düþünerek, salývermeden önce yoðunkarantina ve deðerlendirme iþlemleri yapýlmalýdýr. Bu gibi programlar IUCNFoklar, Yeniden Yerleþtirme ve Veteriner Hekimliði Uzman Gruplarýnýndanýþmanlýðýndan sonra baþlatýlmalýdýr.

127

3. TARTIÞMA

�Tek baþýna hiç bir eylem yeterli deðildir. Yönetim planýnýn tümbileþenleri birbirlerini kuvvetlendirmektedir ve baþarý þansýnýn

olmasý için hepsi birlikte ele alýnmalýdýr.�

~Akdeniz Fokunun Yönetimi Ýçin Eylem Planý,Birleþmiþ Milletler Çevre Programý, 1987~

Akdeniz fokunun korunmasý için konferans sonuçlarýný ve eylem planlarýný yenidengözden geçirmemiz, uluslararasý eþgüdümden yaþam alaný korumasýna, halkýbilinçlendirmeden esaret altýnda üretime kadar deðiþik konularda olaðanüstü vecesaret verici bir fikir birliðini ortaya koymaktadýr. Ayrýca öneriler, on altý yýldanberi süregelen bilimsel araþtýrmalar, arazi deneyimleri ve tartýþmalar her zamanolduðu gibi bugün de geçerliliklerini korumaktadýr . Ancak, Akdeniz fokununkorunmasý ile ilgili camianýn, toplantýlar tertip etmek ve bu öncelikler konusundafikir birliðine konusunda; öncelikleri ve kararlarý eyleme dönüþtürmekten çok dahabaþarýlý olduklarý da açýktýr.

Gerçekte, tüm toplantýlara ve iyi niyete raðmen, son yýllarda gerçekleþtirilenAkdeniz foku koruma çalýþmalarý milliyet ve disiplin farklýlýklarý doðrultusundabirbirinden baðýmsýz olarak yürümüþtür. Tümü de (bilimsel araþtýrmadan yerindekorumaya kadar) mevcut koruma stratejisinin yaþamsal unsurlarý olmalarýnaraðmen; uygulamada ayrý baþlýklar olarak kalmýþlardýr. Bunlarýn ender olarakbirbirlerini güçlendirici ve birbirleri ile iliþkili bir strateji bütünlüðü vardýr. Sonuçolarak; korumacýlýk hedeflerinden hýzla uzaklaþýlmaktadýr.

Akdeniz fokunu koruma çabalarýnýn �konferans sonuçlarýnýn sentezi olan dahaönceki bölümlerde bahsedilen� eylem bütünlüðünden yarar saðlamayacaðýnýsavunanlar da vardýr. Eylem bütünlüðü, büyük ölçüde etkin bir ulusal veuluslararasý eþgüdüme baðlýdýr. On altý yýl içinde ayný veya deðiþik zamanlarda,çeþitli uluslararasý kuruluþlar (IUCN, Avrupa Konseyi, Avrupa Topluluðu ve UNEPde dahil olmak üzere) bu çok önemli rolün sorumluluðunu sahiplenmiþlerdir.Uluslararasý eþgüdüm, þu ana kadar büyük ölçüde gerçekleþtirilmemiþ bir sözolarak kalmýþtýr. Ortaya çýkan boþluk, özellikle esaret altýnda üretim ve yerdeðiþtirme gibi çeliþkili konularýn koruma gündemine hakim olmasýna neden

128

Tartýþma

olmuþtur. Birçok yönden bu konular, Akdeniz foku korumacýlýðýnýn mevcutparçalanmýþ yaklaþýmýn göstergesidir. Konferans sonuçlarýnda ve diðer korumaliteratüründe (bakýnýz Norse 1993, s.223) �son çare� önlemi olarak görülmüþolmasýna ve �tehditlerin azalmasýnda ve yerinde koruma çabalarýnda baþarýsýzolunmasý durumunda düþünülmelidir� diye geniþ þekilde tanýmlanmýþ olmasýnaraðmen; yer deðiþtirme ve esaret altýnda üretim planlarýnýn ardýndan gidilmiþ vekorumaya için kullanýlabilecek kaynaklarýn önemli bir kýsmý bu tür projelereayrýlabilmiþtir (örneðin: ICONA, 1994a, b).

Uygulayýcý organizasyonlarý tamamen farklý olmasýna raðmen; hem Fransýzlarýnesaret altýnda üretim olabilirlik projeleri4 ve hem de Ýspanyol yer deðiþtirme projesi,ilk anda göründüðünün tersine, çok farklý konular deðildir: Her iki proje de BatýSahra�daki Côte des Phoques Akdeniz foku populasyonu üzerine tasarlanmýþtýr.Ayrýca; organizasyon düzeyinde ikisi de birbiriyle baðlantýsýz diðer iki giriþim deCôte des Phoques üzerinde odaklanmýþtýr: Bir Hollanda kurtarma-rehabilitasyonprojesi ve Faslýlar�ýn bölgede bir milli park kurma niyetleri. Bu tamamenbirbirinden baðýmsýz ve bir ölçüde rekabet içerisinde olan giriþimlerin, herhangi biranlamlý çözümü uzaklaþtýracak boyutta ve güçte bir çýkmaza yol açacaðýdüþünülmeliydi. Bununla beraber, geçmiþ konferans sonuçlarýný ve korumaçalýþmasý planlarýný yeniden gözden geçirmemiz; uzlaþma ve etkili uluslararasýeþgüdümü hedeflediði sürece, projeler arasýndaki yakýn iþbirliði için çok olanakolduðunu ortaya koymaktadýr.

Baþlangýçta, Akdeniz fokunun yerinde ve yaþam alanlarý ile beraber korunmasýnýnöncelikle gerekli olduðu konusunda tüm ilgili taraflar uzlaþmýþ görünmektedir.Öncelikler, rahatsýzlýk ve öldürmeye karþý yasal koruma, koruma bölgelerininoluþturulmasý, koruma önlemleri ile uyum saðlayacak bir uygulama ve daha daönemlisi eðitim ve halký bilinçlendirme programlarýnýn yerine getirilmesidir.

Tartýþmanýn bu görüþleri üzerindeki fikir birliði, Akdeniz foku korumacýlýðýnaiþbirliði içinde bir yaklaþýmýn mantýklý, uygun ve istenen þey olacaðýný gösteriyordu.Bu durum; önceki bölümde özetlenmiþ olan koruma kýlavuzuna da uygun olacaktý.

4 Belki de belirtmekte fayda var; Fransýzlarýn, ertelenmiþ olan �Akdeniz FokununKorunmasý Programý�nýn amacý aslýnda esaret altýnda üretim deðildir. Amaç; TeknikÇalýþma Grubu Kýlavuzu�na göre �Akdeniz foklarýnýn baþarýlý bir þekildeyakalanabileceðini ve esaret altýnda en az iki yýl yaþatýlabileceðini göstermek� tir.(Anon.,1994b).

129

Tartýþma

Bu ardýlcý ve dikkatli yaklaþým, aslýnda, 1978�deki Rodos UluslararasýKonferansý�nýn önerilerinin esas ruhunu oluþturmaktaydý (Ronald ve Duguy, 1979).Gerçekte bu yaklaþým, bir önceki bölümde sunulan, her bir aþamasý düzenli veardýþýk tarzda yerine getirilmiþ bilimsel araþtýrma ve deðerlendirmeye baðlý kýlavuzuizleyecekti.

Bu sýranýn VI., VII. ve VIII. Basamaklarý; Kurtarma ve Rehabilitasyon, YerDeðiþtirme ve Esaret Altýnda Üretim �önem sýrasýyla� insanýn canlý hayvanlarladoðrudan temasýný içerir. Olanaklar nerede kendini gösterirse; yaralý, zor durumdave kimsesiz foklarýn bakýmý için kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon merkezlerininkurulmasý uygun görülüyordu. Çoðunlukla rehabilite edilmiþ hayvanlar orijinalyaþam alanlarýna döneceklerdi. Uzlaþmaya varýlmýþ protokole ve sýký bir gözdengeçirmeye baðlý olarak; rehabilite edilmiþ hayvanlar, ilgili populasyonun tarihselyayýlma alaný içinde bulunan koruma bölgelerine taþýnacaklardý. Bu gibi yerdeðiþtirmeler yabanýl populasyonu etkilemeyecek � rehabilite edilmiþ hayvanlarinsan müdahalesi olmaksýzýn öleceklerdi � ve eðer yeterli sayýda hayvan mevcut ise(populasyonun tümü için) Akdeniz fokunu korumak amacýyla yer deðiþtirmefýrsatýný deðerlendirmek daha düþük bir risk oluþturacaktý.

Doðadan yakalanacak saðlýklý hayvanlarýn yer deðiþtirilmesi (Ýspanya tarafýndangüncel olarak önerildiði gibi) daha büyük sorunlar içermektedir. Geçmiþ deneyimlertehdit altýnda veya nesli tehlike altýnda olan türlerin baþarýlý þekilde yer deðiþtirilmeolasýlýðýnýn, özellikle (Akdeniz foklarý gibi) gecikmiþ bir ergenlik, üretkenlik vedüþük seviyede populasyon artýþý gösteren etoburlar için oldukça az olduðunugöstermiþtir (Griffith et al. 1989).

Sonuçta yer deðiþtirmeler, varolan populasyonun arttýrýlmasý veya kendi yaþamlarýnýsürdürecek yeni bir populasyonun oluþturulmasý ölçüsünde baþarýlý sayýlmaktadýr(Bakýnýz Griffith et al. 1989). Havai keþiþ foku (Monachus schauinslandi)durumunda olduðu gibi; geçmiþ yýllarda hayvanlarýn küçük bir kýsmý taþýnmýþ ve tekbir yerde (Kure Atoll) varolan populasyon ile baþarýlý þekilde bütünleþmiþtir.Bununla beraber yakýn zamanlarda, Havai keþiþ foklarýnýn Midway Atoll�dekiüreme yerlerine kazandýrýlmasý için yapýlan giriþimde, taþýnan 18 hayvan kýsa süredeölmüþ veya gözden kaybolmuþtur (Marine Mammal Commission, 1995).

Önem verilmese de, var olan bilgiler Akdeniz fokunun yer deðiþtirme için (uygunolmanýn ötesinde) ideal olmayan adaylar olduðunu göstermektedir. Bu nedenle;

130

Tartýþma

bireylerin alýnacaðý populasyona zarar verilmeyeceðinden kesinlikle eminolunmadýðý ve baþarýlý bir yer deðiþtirme olasýlýðýný en üst düzeye çýkartacakbilimsel çalýþmalar gerçekleþtirilmediði takdirde, bu tür planlar ile meþgulolunmamalýdýr (örnek için Griffith et al., 1989).

Koruma çalýþmalarý dizisinin son basamaðý esaret altýnda üretimdir. Belki bir esaretaltýnda üretim programý kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon yönteminin son aþamasý olarakbaþlatýlabilir. Rehabilite edilmiþ hayvanlar (kapsamlý bir deðerlendirme ve yenidendikkatli gözden geçirme konusudur) esaret altýnda üretim ön hazýrlýk çalýþmalarýndabir populasyon oluþturmak için kullanýlabilir. Bundan baþka, yabanýl doðadanuzaklaþtýrýlmýþ hayvanlar, bir esaret altýnda yetiþtirme kolonisi oluþturabilir. Her ikidurumda da Akdeniz foklarýnýn esaret altýnda üretim programlarý için iyi adaylarolmadýðý kabul edilmelidir. Bu hayvanlarý esaret altýnda tutmak için yapýlan öncekidenemeler genellikle baþarýsýz olmuþ; 21. Yüzyýlýn baþlarýna kadar 100 hayvanlýkesaret altýnda bir populasyona ulaþmayý hedefleyecek baþarýlý bir esaret altýndaüretim programý için, 20 civarýnda hayvana ihtiyaç olduðu tahmin edilmiþtir (Anon.,1990, P.7). Bu sayý, kurtarma ve rehabilitasyon çalýþmalarý ile ya da anapopulasyona zarar vermemek kaydýyla doðadan yakalanarak elde edilebilecek foksayýsýný fazlasý ile aþmaktadýr.

En iyi olasýlýkla, sürdürülebilir bir tutsak populasyonun elde edilmesi senelerialacak ve eðer bu amaç baþarýlsa bile, tahminen, doðaya salýverilmek için gerekliolan sayýya ulaþmak on yýllarý alacaktýr.

Yukarýda anlatýlanlara raðmen, bundan önce sunulmuþ koruma kýlavuzuna dayanan,kurallarý dikkatli konulmuþ düzenli bir stratejiye göre öncelikleri izleyen, bütünlükiçindeki bir programýn yürütülmesi; tümüyle etkin uluslararasý bir eþgüdümebaðlýdýr. Bu tür bir eþgüdüm, çeþitli milletlerden gelen Akdeniz foku içinkullanýlabilir sýnýrlý kaynaklarýn en fazla önceliðe sahip, deðerli projelereyönlendirilmesini saðlayacak ve ilgili gruplar arasýnda bilgi alýþveriþinikolaylaþtýracak gözden, geçirilmiþ önerileri kapsayacaktýr.

Þüphesiz, Akdeniz fokunun korunmasý için burada savunulan ardýþýk yaklaþýmdahiçbir þey yeni deðildir. Bu, Akdeniz foku için daha önceleri önerilmiþ korumaeylem planlarý ve konferans sonuçlarýndan doðal olarak çýkartýlabilir. Bundan sonrayapýlacak olan; bu yaklaþýmýn etkili bir çalýþmaya dönüþtürülmesidir.

131

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was made possible with funds provided by the International MarineMammal Association and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

We thank the following colleagues for their comments and suggestions on earlier draftsof our Conservation Guidelines: Petra Deimer, GSM, Germany; Lenie ’t Hart, Director,Seal Rehabilitation & Research Centre, Pieterburen, the Netherlands; John Harwood,Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St. Andrews, Scotland; Ab Osterhaus,Professor, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Peter Reijnders, Chair,IUCN Seal Specialist Group, Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Den Burg, theNetherlands; Peter Ross, Victoria, Canada; Vrassidas Zavras, President, HellenicSociety for the Study & Protection of the Monk Seal (MOm), Athens.

We also thank the following colleagues for sharing with us their knowledge andexperience in monk seal conservation, which proved valuable to us in editing themanuscript into its final form: Henrique Costa Neves, Parque Natural da Madeira;Harun Güçlüsoy, SAD-Izmir, Foça, Turkey; Cem Kýraç, Ýlksen D. Baþ and N. OzanVeryeri, SAD/AFAG, Turkey.

The authors also wish to express their gratitude to the following individuals andorganisations for their assistance in translating, and/or editing translations, for thismultilingual edition of the Conservation Guidelines:French: Sarah Boudreau, and All Languages Ltd., Toronto, Canada.Greek: Hellenic Society for the Study & Protection of the Monk Seal (MOm), and AllLanguages Ltd., Toronto, Canada.Spanish: Alex Aguilar, and All Languages Ltd., Toronto, Canada.Turkish: Asuman Kabasakal (translation), Harun Güçlüsoy, Yalçýn Savaþ and CemKýraç (review) and A. Emre Örümlü (editing).

132

REFERENCES

Anon. 1990. Urgent Action Meeting for Safeguarding the Mediterranean Monk Sealas a Species, 10-11 December 1990, Texel, The Netherlands. 12 pp.

Anon. 1994a. Parc National de Dakhla. Plan d’Aménagement Secteur N°2, Côtedes Phoques. Ministère de L’Agriculture et de la Mise en Valeur Agricole,Direction des Eaux et Forêts et de la Conservation des Sols, Royaume de Maroc.Document prepared for the UNEP/MAP Meeting of Experts on the evaluation ofthe implementation of the Action Plan for the Management of the MediterraneanMonk Seal. 7-9 October 1994, Rabat, Morocco. 34 pp.

Anon. 1994b. Feasibility study of captive breeding of the Mediterranean monk seal.Guidelines. Programme to Save the Monk Seal (Monachus monachus). ParcNational de Port-Cros. Hyères; France. 12 pp.

Cirik, S. and H. Güçlüsoy. 1994. Project progress report. July 1994-June 1995.WWF Project TR0015. Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal in Turkey.Foça Pilot Project, Foça, Turkey. 32 pp.

Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as aspecies conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science, 245: 477-480.

Hellenic Society for the Study & Protection of the Monk Seal (HSSPMS). 1993. TheHSSPMS Bulletin, HSSPMS, Athens, Greece. 24 pp.

Hernandez, E. 1986. Historical data of the monk seal in the Canary Islands andnotes for its future reintroduction. 1st Meeting of the Expert Group on theMediterranean Monk Seal. September 1986, Strasbourg, France. Council ofEurope, T-PVS (86) 8. 11 pp.

ICONA. 1994a. Feasibility action for the estabilization [sic] of the Atlantic monkseal population. Instituto Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza(ICONA), Consejería de Política Territorial del Gobierno Canario, Madrid, Spain.7 pp.

ICONA. 1994b. Résumé de la Proposition. Reintrodution du Phoque Moine deL’Atlantique dans l’ile de Lobos: experiment pilote. LIFE 94/A.2.2.2. 1 p.

Israëls, L. D. 1992. Thirty Years of Mediterranean Monk Seal Protection – AReview. Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Instituutvoor Taxonomische Zoölogie/Zoölogische Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam,Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Mededelingen No. 28, 65 pp.

133

References

Johnson, W. and D. Lavigne. 1994. Captive Breeding and the Mediterranean MonkSeal – A Focus on Antibes Marineland. International Marine MammalAssociation Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 44 pp.

Marine Mammal Commission. 1995. Annual report to Congress 1994. MarineMammal Commission. Washington, DC. 270 pp.

Neves, H. Costa. 1992. The Monk Seal (Monachus monachus): Conservation andmonitoring on the Desertas Islands – Madeira. Conservation of the MediterraneanMonk Seal – Technical and Scientific Aspects. Council of Europe Press.Environmental Encounters, No. 13: 21-24.

Norse, E. A. (Ed). 1993. Global marine biological diversity. A strategy for buildingconservation into decision making. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Covelo, CA.383 pp.

Ronald K. and R. Duguy (Eds.). 1979. The Mediterranean Monk Seal. FirstInternational Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal. 2-5 May 1978,Rhodes, Greece. Pergamon Press., Oxford, UK. 183 pp.

134

NOTES

From Conference Resolutions & Action Plans 1978-1994

I. INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION

w An international monk seal coordinating body should be established toprovide for continued information exchange (Rhodes, 1978).

w The conservation of all monk seals does not as yet lie under the jurisdiction orcontrol of any single coordinating group; therefore, immediate attentionshould be given to the establishment of an international action group for theconservation of the species (La Rochelle, 1985).

w In September 1989 there was a meeting of coordination of national andinternational programmes on the conservation of the Mediterranean monkseal (Monachus monachus). This meeting was held in Madeira (Portugal),organised by the Council of Europe, together with the United NationsEnvironment Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP), theWorld Conservation Union (IUCN), and the Secretariat of the Convention onthe Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (UNEP/CMS)… Atthis meeting (see document T-PVS (89) 29) it was decided (as arecommendation to Parties to the Barcelona, Bern and Bonn Conventions)that the United Nations Programme for the Environment/MediterraneanAction Plan (UNEP/MAP) coordinate at the international level theconservation activities on the Mediterranean monk seal, mainly through thedevelopment and extension of the Action Plan for the management of theMediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) (Antalya, 1991).

w Coordination, Review and Finance: The Coordinator of the MediterraneanAction Plan (MAP) agreed that the UNEP/MEDU office, Athens, could takeresponsibility for the coordination of the different [monk seal conservation]activities.

The major coordinating functions will be:

a) collect data;

b) create an information network;

c) develop monk seal protected areas; and

d) facilitate regional research projects on monk seals.

135

The Consultation suggested that a person be employed through voluntaryoffers or through projects or contract in order to facilitate coordination ofexisting and new activities for research, protection and management.

The status of the monk seal and the content of [the] management plan shouldbe reviewed by a regional expert meeting every two years and its report besubmitted to the meeting of the contracting parties of the BarcelonaConvention for endorsement (UNEP, 1987).

w The experts on the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), meetingin Rabat, Morocco, 7-9 October 1994, within the framework of theMediterranean Action Plan of UNEP… propose to the Contracting Parties tothe Barcelona Convention:

w to present for advice any Monk Seal conservation project to an internationalscientific committee established to this aim, on the model of similarexisting committees, within the framework of the Barcelona Convention,in close coordination with the Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions, as wellas IUCN. That committee would have, in particular, the following terms ofreferences:

a) review and assess the conservation projects referable to point 21 and 22of the Action Plan [relating to potential translocation and captivebreeding projects];

b) control possible interactions among different projects;

c) advise Contracting Parties, the Secretariats of the Conventions relatedto the conservation of nature, and funding agencies concerned withMonk Seal conservation projects (Rabat, 1994).

II. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

w Scientific research and monitoring [should be conducted] without disturbance[to the species] (Rhodes, 1978; La Rochelle, 1984).

w The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of EuropeanWildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of theConvention… Recommends that the relevant contracting parties embarkwithout delay on the following work:

w promote research on the Monk Seal provided it does not interfere with otherprotection priorities (Council of Europe, 1986/b).

From Conference Resolutions & Action Plans

136

w The development of a network of observers is also important for improvingprotection and knowledge about seal distribution. It will also be important forimproving the reporting of abandoned, dead or injured seals… The meetingnoted that experience with other endangered species was that such networkswere most effective if they were organised through voluntary groups andNGOs, with government departments acting only as coordinators. The riskassociated with such networks is that the activities of over-enthusiasticvolunteers and researchers might increase disturbance to seals and localhostility towards them. Training programmes should therefore be establishedfor volunteers used as observers or in rehabilitation centres (Texel, 1990).

w Research on the species should continue provided it does not interfere withother protection priorities (Antalya, 1991).

w Many important aspects of the monk seal’s biology and behaviour are toopoorly known to plan a complete management strategy for the species, but sofew seals are left that research on them has become very difficult. The situationis too critical to put off action any longer. Plans must be made using the bestdata available, and then adjusted if necessary as more information is obtained.Action must be taken now (UNEP, 1987).

w The establishment of national networks of observers is an extremely effectiveway of determining which areas are of particular importance for the seals. Theexact numbers of seals in these areas can then be determined by intensive studyusing, for example, “camera traps”. Sighting of seals should be reported toappropriate national bodies or focal points (UNEP, 1987).

w An inventory of caves all around the Mediterranean is needed to identifybreeding caves for inclusion in a network of protected areas for monk seals.Such work has already been carried out for sites like Sardinia, Greece(Northern Sporades), Tunisia (Galite) and should be expanded to cover otherareas (UNEP, 1987).

w Research should be conducted so as not to increase the threats to any sealpopulation (UNEP, 1987).

w Regarding research and population monitoring, the meeting of expertsrecommends that Contracting Parties:

w Continue and intensify the efforts to monitor Monk Seal populationsgenerally and, in particular, their dispersal pattern.

w Carry on the studies on habitat requirements.

Notes

137

w Contribute, if they are not already doing so, to the Monk Seal Registerestablished by the Royal Institute of Natural Sciences of Belgium.

w Carry out research and exchange information on technics [sic] andmeasures aimed at minimizing interaction with fishing gear (Rabat, 1994).

III. HABITAT PROTECTION

w Establishment of a network of monk seal reserves is urgently required. Theoverriding problem is loss of suitable habitats. Without undisturbed habitatsfor breeding and feeding the species will soon become extinct (Rhodes, 1978).

w A network of seal reserves in which there is adequate enforcement of laws forthe protection of the species is still urgently required (La Rochelle, 1984).

w Areas should be set aside to allow the species to breed under undisturbedconditions (La Rochelle, 1984).

w The network of reserves should encompass the most important breeding andfeeding habitats of the species, and should also incorporate protected corridorswhich can serve to connect seal populations (La Rochelle, 1984).

w It was generally agreed that more marine reserves for the protection of thespecies were needed. It is of fundamental importance that reserves include aland area for resting and breeding activities to which human access is verystrictly controlled. The marine no-access area has to be at least 200 - 300 m asthat is the range of usual frequentation (at least in Mauritania) by nonwandering animals. In that area no fishing, tourism and boat movementswould be permitted (Council of Europe, 1986/a).

w General information for the public and fishermen was considered to be a veryimportant aspect of the protection of Monk Seals. The whole humanpopulation living close to protected areas or visiting them has to be engaged inwhatever programme of protection is carried out. It is unrealistic to expectsuccess in conservation measures without the help of local populations(Council of Europe, 1986/a).



138

w establish and publish, within two years, a programme for the protection ofmarine and coastal habitats. Monk Seals must be recognised within theseprogrammes as being of critical importance.

w give adequate protection or assistance for protection to areas containingMonk Seals or suitable for their reintroduction or natural recolonisation…

w reinforce or help to reinforce existing protection measures for sealpopulations and/or their habitat… (Council of Europe, 1986/b).

w All countries that still have breeding monk seal populations should makeimmediate efforts for the stringent protection of the remaining seal breedingsites, by isolating seals from incompatible human activities… A network ofmarine reserves should be created across the Mediterranean, covering bothexisting and potential monk seal habitats, so spaced that they can be graduallyrepopulated as other protective measures take effect and the populationrecovers (UNEP, 1987).

w Tourist visits or other human disturbance of breeding and resting sites shouldbe carefully regulated; it should be completely prohibited during the sealbreeding season and while pups are young (UNEP, 1987).

w Training programmes should be developed for protected area managersresponsible for monk seal reserves (UNEP, 1987).

w The establishment of protected areas which include monk seal pupping sites isundoubtedly the most effective way to preserve the species in the wild (Texel,1990).

w It should be recognised that such protection areas require a detailedmanagement plan associated with a long term commitment of funds andresources. Without this there is a risk that the publicity associated with theestablishment of a protected area may actually increase disturbance to theseals in the area (Texel, 1990).

w Priority for action should be given to area protection and to theimplementation of protection measures (control of fishing activities,information campaigns, rescue centres etc.) in areas which are still occupiedby the species (Antalya, 1991).


Notes

139

w To establish reserves in the following areas, which were identified ashaving highest priority:

- in the Mediterranean: the Ionian islands;

- in the Atlantic Ocean: the Cap Blanc area, the ‘Côte des Phoques’.

w To engage themselves to protect zones where the Monk Seal used to occuruntil recently (Rabat, 1994).

IV. LEGISLATION & ENFORCEMENT

w The responsibilities of the governments concerned cannot be stressed enough.It is recommended that each government establishes a national programme formonk seal conservation, which should include relevant action suggested inthis plan and seek benefits from bilateral and international cooperation.[Objectives should include:] Prevention of any trade in specimens orderivatives; preventing deliberate or incidental killing of specimens; full legalprotection of the species in every country; enforcement of existing legislationand the establishment of additional national parks, reserves or other protectedareas (Rhodes, 1978).

w National legislation for the protection of coastal and marine areas is essential.The local and national governments of all countries bordering theMediterranean and the north-west coast of Africa and offshore islands must beinformed of the critical decline of the monk seal population (La Rochelle,1984).

w Each country should be asked to establish and publish a programme for theprotection of marine and coastal habitats. Monk seals must be recognisedwithin these programmes as of critical importance (La Rochelle, 1984).

w Pollution control must also be enhanced if all aquatic species including themonk seal are to be offered an adequate aquatic medium in which to live (LaRochelle, 1984).



140

w establish, within one year, a national programme to protect theMediterranean Monk Seal and its habitats, taking account of therecommendations of the Second International Conference on the MonkSeal [La Rochelle].

w enforcement of existing protection measures, especially regarding fishingactivities.

w finance adequately existing conservation programmes concerning theMonk Seal (Council of Europe, 1986/b).

w In some countries – such as Mauritania – compensation [of fishers for netdamage] has already been discarded in favour of aid to fishermen, a movewhich could be useful in other states. This aid could be channelled throughinvestments in “safer” (for the seals) fishing devices… The proliferation ofgill nets in fishing was pointed out as a major cause of seal deaths, togetherwith direct killing (Council of Europe, 1986/a).

w Improved fishing nets should be developed which seals cannot damage orbecome entangled in, and fishermen should receive the assistance necessary toconvert to using such nets. Research is needed on techniques for repellingseals from fishing equipment and fishing areas (UNEP, 1987).

w The populations of the Mediterranean monk seal have declined rapidly anddrastically. Concerted and effective action by all the countries of theMediterranean concerned is required in order to reverse this trend (UNEP,1987).

w States that have not yet extended legal protection to the monk seal should do soat once (UNEP, 1987).

w Governments are strongly urged to ensure that existing protective measuresare enforced (UNEP, 1987).

w Governments should encourage the co-existence of fishermen and monk sealsby developing programmes which regulate and control fishing activities andprovide additional facilities and opportunities to local fishing communities(UNEP, 1987).

w Governments should ensure strict enforcement of regulations prohibiting theuse of dynamite for fishing operations, the carrying of firearms in boats andthe use of any other illegal fishing techniques endangering the monk seal(UNEP, 1987).

Notes

141

w Governments, whose local monk seal populations have been exterminated,should assist countries with remaining populations in their efforts to protectthese in the hope that recovery of the species will permit its eventualreintroduction throughout its original range (UNEP, 1987).


w To ask the countries which have not done it to give full legal protection tothe species, and to ask countries ensuring protection limited in time andspace to generalize it.

w To ensure the effective implementation of adopted conservation measures,in particular the strict control of potentially dangerous tourism activities;considering that deliberate killing of animals is the main factor leadingpopulations to local extinction, the Contracting Parties are requested tostrengthen control with regard to this.

w Noting that interactions with fishermen still represent an important sourceof mortality, the meeting recommends that appropriate measures to reducethese interactions be expressly included in fishery regulation for all areaswhere the Monk Seal still occurs… Examples of such actions are, inparticular, the prohibition of fishing activities in certain areas of the naturalreserve of the Desertas Islands [Madeira] and in the Marine Park of theNorthern Sporades [Greece]. In addition, fishermen could be persuaded tochange to fishing gear which causes less damage to monk seals and which isless vulnerable to damage by seals, provided they are supplied withappropriate equipment, as has been done in Madeira (Rabat, 1994).

V. EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS

w Public awareness campaigns directed towards the local people, especiallyenlisting the support of fishermen, are needed in several areas (Rhodes, 1978).

w Public awareness is essential if it is to be recognised that the seal is not incompetition with man… Public awareness campaigns must enlist the supportof fishermen, harbour-masters, scientists, and the concerned public (LaRochelle, 1984).


142

w The negative attitudes of most fishermen regarding Monachus was pointedout as the main cause for the disappearance of the species. Direct killing byfishermen has been responsible for the local extinction of seals in Corsica andseveral other spots in Italy and Greece. Yet in [parts of] Turkey, fishermenrespect the seal and consider it “bad luck” or even a sin to kill the animals.Seals often eat from fishing nets and may cause damage to them. They arefrequently entangled in the nets and die as a result. It was clear from thecomments made that urgent action is needed for more fluent communicationwith the fishing community, both through standard information campaignsaddressed to fishermen and through contacts with fishing authorities (Councilof Europe, 1986/a).


w development of information campaigns addressed both to fishermen andthe general public (Council of Europe, 1986/b).

w An urgent information campaign among fishermen in all areas where the sealoccurs must aim to neutralize their antagonism to the monk seal and win theirsupport for protective measures (UNEP, 1987).

w Special information activities should be developed for tourists and the touristindustry in areas where tourism threatens breeding areas (UNEP, 1987).

w Information materials should be produced for military authorities, industrialdevelopers and the shipping industry concerning actions they can take formonk seal conservation (UNEP, 1987).

w Although the monk seal is legally protected throughout much of its range…deliberate killing is known to continue. This must be reduced or halted if thespecies is to survive in the eastern Mediterranean. Improved public awarenessis probably the most effective way to achieve this, although progress is likely tobe slow. It is unlikely that the opinions of older fishermen will be changed, butthe increased chance that illegal killing will be observed and reported shouldact as a deterrent (Texel, 1990).

w The Meeting of Experts recommends that Contracting Parties:

w Continue public awareness programs, taking into account the need toreach, in particular, fishing communities; in addition, fisheries policies

Notes

143

which benefit traditional fisheries in areas where the Monk Seal occursshould be utilized as both awareness and incentive instruments (Rabat,1994).

VI. RESCUE & REHABILITATION

w Initiate a temporary holding facility programme for the survival of [monkseal] orphans or casualties (Rhodes, 1978).

w Wounded or orphaned animals, accidentally caught, must be brought tocentres where they can be properly held in closely-controlled conditions (LaRochelle, 1984).


w creation of centres of survival and rehabilitation for wounded or orphanedanimals which might be caught accidentally (Council of Europe, 1986/b).

w A small number of rescue centres should be established to receive woundedseals and abandoned pups. When they have recovered these seals should bereleased in protected areas, preferably in the region where they were originallyfound (UNEP, 1987).

w Releases of rehabilitated animals have a small, but important, effect on localpopulation size if the released animals can be provided with adequateprotection. Rehabilitation centres will also be important for increasing localpublic awareness, for improving local skills in handling and maintainingseals, and as a source of biological samples to provide information onpopulation genetics and disease incidence. The establishment of goodobserver networks would increase the probability that seals in need ofrehabilitation are found (Texel, 1990).

w These [rehabilitation and rescue] centres should, if possible, be close tolocalities where seals are likely to be found to reduce stress associated withcapture and transportation, and to improve public awareness (Texel, 1990).


144

VII. TRANSLOCATION

w If all other attempts to reverse the species’ decline fail, the following measuresshould be considered: captive breeding; translocation of isolated, non-reproducing individuals to better protected groups; and the transfer of pupsfrom healthy colonies to undersized or newly established ones. All appropriateprecautions to ensure the adequate welfare of the animals and adherence tointernational agreements should be taken (UNEP, 1987).

w A pilot project to determine the practical feasibility of such [translocation andcaptive breeding] programmes may be appropriate if it does not increase therisks to the remaining wild population. The value of such a programme for theconservation of the stocks concerned should also be assessed (UNEP, 1987).

w Reintroduction should not be undertaken until the factors which lead to thelocal extinction of the species have been identified and action has been takento prevent this occurring again (Texel, 1990).

w Protection of areas where the species occurred formerly provides anopportunity for future reintroductions and translocations (Texel, 1990).

VIII. CAPTIVE BREEDING

w Holding animals abandoned and/or wounded for study (biology, ethology),possible captive breeding and subsequent return… should be done only whereacceptable facilities exist, and using only orphans or animals having sufferedcasualties. No attempt should be made to capture the animals from the wild(Rhodes, 1978).

w It should be recognised that uncontrolled attempts to bring free-swimmingmonk seals into captivity might cause the death of both the captured animaland of any wild seals in proximity at time of capture (La Rochelle, 1984).

w Captive breeding should be considered as an aspect of the monk sealconservation programme. It must however be based on an agreed properscientific programme that is to be carried out by one unit and one unit alone.Recognition should also be given that there may be… anatomical and geneticdifferences between the east Mediterranean group and the westMediterranean-North African group (La Rochelle, 1984).

Notes

145

w Scientific opinion is divided as to what is appropriate or unwise. Somepossible actions are controversial and may involve some risk to the seals. Thespecies is known to be sensitive, and its reactions to close observation orcapture are uncertain. However, for a species in danger of extinction, the riskof doing nothing may be even greater and may justify active intervention as alast resort. Such actions should be undertaken only after every effort has beenmade to evaluate and minimize the risks involved (UNEP, 1987).

w If all other attempts to reverse the species’ decline fail, the following measuresshould be considered: captive breeding; translocation of isolated, non-reproducing individuals to better protected groups; and the transfer of pupsfrom healthy colonies to undersized or newly established ones. All appropriateprecautions to ensure the adequate welfare of the animals and adherence tointernational agreements should be taken (UNEP, 1987).

w Experience with Hawaiian monk seals indicates that young animals adaptbetter to captivity than older ones. Animals that were moved a significantdistance north of their normal range did not do well. Water quality (salinityand temperature), day length and ambient temperature may all be importantfactors in the success of a captive breeding programme. Therefore, for a rangeof biological, sociological and political reasons, it is important that anycaptive breeding facilities be constructed as close as possible to the locationwhere seals are obtained (Texel, 1990).

w The aim of a captive breeding programme should be a captive population of c.100 animals by the early 21st century, capable of providing up to 10 animalsper year for reintroduction and reinforcement. It should be recognised thatcaptive breeding programmes are not without risk. There are significant risksof mortality during capture, transport and rehabilitation (up to 10% mortality,probably due to overheating, has been recorded among Hawaiian monk sealsrestrained for only 10-15 minutes on an open beach). Any captive breedingprogramme for monk seals should conform to the standards established by theEuropäische Erhaltungszucht Programme based at Cologne Zoo inassociation with the European Community Association of Zoos andAquariums, and any additional requirements set by the IUCN SpecialistGroups on Captive Breeding, Seals, and Veterinary Care (Texel, 1990).

w There are potentially substantial risks, particularly of disease transmission,associated with reintroduction and restocking. However, these risks can bemuch reduced through proper quarantine and assessment prior to release.


146

Such programmes should only be initiated after consultation with the IUCNSpecialist Groups on Reintroduction and Veterinary Care (Texel, 1990).

w The meeting saw no need, at present, for a captive breeding centre for theeastern North Atlantic population. However, if there is any evidence that thispopulation is declining then weaned pups should be collected, andrehabilitated animals retained, for a captive breeding programme. Theestablishment of a rehabilitation centre… should ensure that there is alreadylocal expertise in seal care should this prove necessary (Texel, 1990).

w Reintroduction should not be undertaken until the factors which lead to thelocal extinction of the species have been identified and action has been takento prevent this occurring again (Texel, 1990).

w We feel it is necessary to make progress for conservation of the Mediterraneanmonk seal. A coordinated action within the frame of the UNEP resolution onthis subject seems to be the most indicated. A managed breeding program inthe natural habitat, in order to come to a number of self sustainable and safegroups in the Mediterranean is the goal… A meeting or workshop [isnecessary] to investigate the opportunity of future action to safeguard themonk seal species. Such a meeting must include representatives of SSC/SealSpecialist Group, SSC/Captive Breeding Specialist Group, UNEP, EEC,[regional governments], and those scientists who have studied the species’problem [in] the last few years (IUCN, 1990).

w The experts present thought that there was no need for a proper captivebreeding programme in the short term. The decline of the species, exceptperhaps in the Western Mediterranean, did not seem to be as sharp as torequire captive breeding measures. There was agreement on the fact thatcaptive breeding facilities should be ready as soon as possible in case theymight be needed. Experience in captive breeding and in capturing andhandling the animals is also needed, although the experts disagreed onwhether the advantages of getting that experience would be outweighed by therisks to the animals undergoing such an experience. In any case it was felt thatcaptive breeding experiences, or the handling of animals to acquire thenecessary experience, should be dealt with in the framework of aninternational agreement and not left to the initiative of a state. It was thusrecommended that any captive breeding programme be discussed at theappropriate political and technical level in the framework of the BarcelonaConvention. There was agreement among the experts present on this point,

Notes

147


and the Secretariat to the Barcelona Convention agreed to present this matterto the appropriate committees (Antalya, 1991).

w There is no immediate need to launch a captive breeding programme (Antalya,1991).

w It is recommended that any captive breeding programme or any pilot researchproject which implies the taking of animals from the wild, their handling orkeeping, be subject to coordination and supervision by the BarcelonaConvention (Antalya, 1991).

w It must be recognised that there is a significant probability that some seals willdie during the study from natural causes, as a result of stress-related effectsduring capture and early captivity, or from other problems later in captivity(PSMS, 1994).

148

SOURCES

Antalya, 1991: Council of Europe. 1992. Conservation of the Mediterranean MonkSeal – Technical and Scientific Aspects. Council of Europe Press. EnvironmentalEncounters, No. 13. 94 pp.

Council of Europe, 1986/a: Council of Europe. 1986a. Group of Experts on theMediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus). 1st Meeting. 15-16 September1986, Strasbourg. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife andNatural Habitats. T-PVS (88) 28: 1-33.

Council of Europe, 1986/b: Council of Europe. 1986b Recommendation No. 6,Standing Committee of 4 December 1986 concerning protection of theMediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus). Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. T-PVS (86) 20. 3 pp.

IUCN Captive Breeding Specialist Group, 1990: IUCN Captive BreedingSpecialist Group. 1990. Mediterranean Monk Seal. Recommendation. p. 127.In Meeting Report, 25-26 August 1990, Copenhagen, Denmark.

La Rochelle, 1984: Ronald, K. and R. Duguy (Eds.). 1984. Les Phoques Moines –Monk Seals. Proceedings of the Second International Conference. 5-6 October1984, La Rochelle, France. Annales de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de laCharente-Maritime, Supplément. 120 pp.

PSMS: Anon. 1994. Feasibility study of captive breeding of the Mediterraneanmonk seal. Guidelines. Programme to Save the Monk Seal (Monachusmonachus). Parc National de Port-Cros. Hyères; France. 12 pp.

Rabat, 1994: United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan.Meeting of Experts on the evaluation of the implementation of the Action Plan forthe Management of the Mediterranean Monk Seal. 7-9 October 1994, Rabat,Morocco. UNEP(OCA)/MED WG. 87/4/Rev. 1.

Rhodes, 1978: Ronald K. and R. Duguy (Eds.). 1979. The Mediterranean MonkSeal. First International Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal. 2-5 May1978, Rhodes, Greece. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. 183 pp.

Texel, 1990: Anon. 1990. Urgent Action Meeting for Safeguarding theMediterranean Monk Seal as a Species. 10-11 December 1990, Texel, TheNetherlands. 12 pp.

UNEP, 1988: UNEP. 1988. Action Plan for the Management of the Mediterraneanmonk seal (Monachus monachus). Annex 4. In Report of the Joint ExpertConsultation on the Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal. 11-12 January1988. Athens, Greece. IUCN/UNEP/MEDU/MM-IC, 1 March 1988:1-8 + 5 Annexes.

149

Prince Sadruddin Aga KhanPresident, Bellerive Foundation,Geneva, Switzerland

Hasan AsmazTurkish Association for theConservation of Nature and NaturalResources, Ankara, Turkey

Stefan AvramovBulgarian Society for the Protection ofBirds, Sofia, Bulgaria

Ýlksen D. BaþSAD/AFAG, Ankara, Turkey

Pierre BélandSt. Lawrence National Institute ofEcotoxicology, Montreal, Canada

Mark BermanEarth Island Institute,San Francisco, USA

Marie-Odile BeudelsInstitut Royal des Sciences Naturellesde Belgique, Brussels, Belgium

Roseline C. Beudels-JamarInstitut Royal des Sciences Naturellesde Belgique, Brussels, Belgium

Luigi BoitaniDept. Animal Biology,University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Peter J.H. van BreeNetherlands Foundation forInternational Nature Protection,Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Peter BroussalisHellenic Society for the Protection ofNature, Athens, Greece

Claudio CampagnaCentro Nacional Patagonico,Puerto Madryn, Argentina

A.J. CadyInternational Fund for Animal Welfare,Yarmouth Port, USA

Lucia da ColTierschutzbund, Zürich, Switzerland

Anne ColletCentre de Recherche sur lesMammifères Marins, La Rochelle,France

Ayhan DedeFaculty of Aquatic Products,University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey


CONSERVATION GUIDELINES

ENDORSEMENTS

150

Petra DeimerGSM/Consultant to the Government ofGermany, Hamburg, Germany

Noëlle DelaquisWorking Group for the Protection ofMarine Mammals, Zürich, Switzerland

Filiz DemirayakThe Society for the Protection of Nature(DHKD), Istanbul, Turkey

Panaiotis DendrinosVice-Chairman, MOm/Hellenic Societyfor the Study & Protection of the MonkSeal, Athens, Greece

Ruud DerixSeal Rehabilitation and ResearchCentre, Pieterburen, The Netherlands

Anne DoncasterInternational Wildlife Coalition,Ontario, Canada

Niki EntrupVier Pfoten, Vienna, Austria

Güner ErgünThe Authority for the Protection ofSpecial Areas, Ankara, Turkey

Peter EvansDept. of Zoology,University of Oxford, U.K.

Barry Gilbert-MiguetBellerive Foundation, Geneva,Switzerland

Jonathan GordonWildlife Conservation Research Unit,Department of Zoology,University of Oxford, U.K.

Conservation Guidelines – Endorsements

Harun GüçlüsoySAD-Izmir, Turkey

Ali Cemal GücüMiddle East Technical University,Institute of Marine Sciences, Içel,Turkey

Luigi GuarreraWWF International MediterraneanProgramme, Rome, Italy

Paolo GuglielmiWWF International MediterraneanProgramme, Rome, Italy

Peter HaddowSeal Conservation Society,Aberdeenshire, U.K.

June HaimoffDalyan, Turkey

Lenie ‘t HartSeal Rehabilitation & Research Centre,Pieterburen, The Netherlands

John HarwoodSea Mammal Research Unit,University of St. Andrews, Fife,Scotland, U.K.

Luc HoffmannFondation Internationale du Bancd’Arguin (FIBA), Le Sambuc, France

Sidney HoltInternational League for the Protectionof Cetaceans, Italy

Djuro HuberBiology Department, VeterinaryFaculty, Zagreb, Croatia

151


Eric HussenotOceanopolis, Brest, France

Azza JiddouCentre National de RecherchesOcéanographiques et des Pêches,Nouadhibou, Mauritania

Susan JoyWildlife & Countryside Link SealsGroup, West Sussex, U.K.

Cem KýraçSAD/AFAG, Ankara, Turkey

Gabriela KüttingUniversity of Sussex, U.K.

Anastasios LegakisZoological Museum, Department ofBiology, University of Athens, Greece

Sigi LüberWorking Group for the Protection ofMarine Mammals, Zürich, Switzerland

Ian MacPhailYoung People’s Trust for theEnvironment, London, U.K.

Christophe MarieFondation Brigitte Bardot, Paris, France

Luca MariniUniversity of Rome, Rome, Italy

Xaver MonbailliuSecretary-General, MEDMARAVIS,St. Maximin, France

Paula MorenoLiga para a Protecção da Natureza,Lisbon, Portugal

François MoutouSociété Française pour l’Etude et laProtection des Mammifères, France

Henrique Costa NevesParque Natural da Madeira,Funchal, Madeira, Portugal

Giuseppe Notarbartolo di SciaraTethys Research Institute, Milano, Italy

Hasan ÖrekEge University, Izmir, Turkey

Albert OsterhausErasmus University, Rotterdam,The Netherlands

Michael O’SullivanThe Humane Society of Canada,Toronto, Canada

Bayram ÖztürkIstanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

Marcella PesceUniversity of Rome, Rome, Italy

Giorgio PilleriNatural History Museum, Paciano, Italy

Francesco RoccaSocietà Zoologica ‘La Torbiera’,Novara, Italy

Peter J.H. ReijndersInstitute for Forestry and NatureResearch, Den Burg, The Netherlands

Keith RonaldTorcan Environmental Systems,Guelph, Canada

152


Naomi A. RoseThe Humane Society of the U.S.,Washington D.C., USA

Peter S. RossVictoria, B.C., Canada

Hajib Saidc/o Centre National de RecherchesForestières, Administration desEaux et Forêts, Rabat, Morocco

Manu San FélixUniversity of Valencia, Spain

Yalçýn SavaþSAD-Izmir, Turkey

David E. SergeantHudson, Canada

Draško ŠermanCroatian National UNESCO-HABCommittee, Dept. of Biology,University of Zagreb, Croatia

Mark SimmondsThe University of Greenwich, U.K.

Magnus SylvénDirector, Europe/Middle EastProgramme, WWF International,Gland, Switzerland

Fritz TrillmichFaculty of Biology, University ofBielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany

Elizabeth J. VedderSeal Rehabilitation & Research Centre,Pieterburen, The Netherlands

Katrin VogelbachVETO - Verband Tierschutz-Organisationen Schweiz,Zürich, Switzerland

Victor WatkinsWorld Society for the Protection ofAnimals (WSPA), London, U.K.

Kim WoodBorn Free Foundation,Coldharbour, Surrey, U.K.

Alexei YablokovCentre for Russian EnvironmentalPolicy, Moscow, Russia

Vrassidas ZavrasChairman, MOm/Hellenic Society forthe Study & Protection of the MonkSeal, Athens, Greece

THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL CONSERVATION GUIDELINES · 1. Effective international coordination of...

Documents

Transcript of THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL CONSERVATION GUIDELINES · 1. Effective international coordination of...