NAVIGATING THE MONK SEAL MAZE –
A GUIDE FOR THE LAYPERSON

In writing this Editorial, we have only one well-considered aim: to address those people who – apparently being of sound mind – persist in their unfounded suspicion that monk seal conservation is not rocket science.

In other words, we aim to provide some much-needed answers to those who, for one reason or another, are still confused. Why, they are emboldened to ask, is the monk seal more endangered than ever, even after some thirty years of ‘urgent measures’, ‘action priorities’, ‘action plans’, and other hyperbole of the conservation trade? How can it possibly take two decades, they demand (apparently being so ill-acquainted with pragmatic realities at ground zero), to produce a simple leaflet, let alone a network of inter-connecting reserve areas?

As any self-respecting bureaucrat will readily admit, issues of this nature are highly complex, some, indeed, to such a degree that few people can ever be expected to understand them. Naturally, it is precisely for this reason that explanations are rarely forthcoming at all.

However, here at The Monachus Guardian – mindful of the criticism that conservation of this one species may, at current projections, take slightly longer than the evolution of a small planet – we shall now do our best to illuminate, to correct the misconceptions of the layperson, to straighten the forked tongue.

We will not – for the sake of our own sanity as much as that of our readers – delve into more tortuous, philosophical aspects of this debate (e.g. the cynical view that a great deal of monk seal conservation might owe more to the survival of human careers than the survival of the species). For now, we shall merely confine ourselves to the subject of ‘Achievement’. Knowledgeable readers versed in diplospeak (or, indeed, its Orwellian counterpart, ‘doublespeak’) will immediately realise that, by employing this term, we mean its polar opposite.

Fortunately, we need look no further for our answers than the bustling town of Arta in the Greek region of Epirus, which graciously hosted the recent United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan Meeting of Experts on the Implementation of the Action Plans for Marine Mammals (Monk Seals and Cetaceans) Adopted Within the Mediterranean Action Plan.

As most readers will no doubt realise, impressive titles of this kind are normally coined by UN staffers to inspire the general public – whose support for monk seal conservation has, after all, been pinpointed as a priority for action since at least 1978. For the sake of brevity, however, we shall, henceforth, confine ourselves to employing official UN-designated acronyms, such as UNEP/MAP RAC/SPA (pronounced ‘RACKSPAR’). Any superficial similarity between these and Soviet-era agro-industrial monoliths like GAZPROM or SOVKHOZ is entirely coincidental – even if they were similarly adept at meeting the targets of their 5-Year Plans.

In much the same vein, the fact that a convocation of this kind – involving vital behind-the-scenes politicking and diplomatic manoeuvring – should be held in a town renowned for its Byzantine cultural heritage, and in conference facilities offered by the Hotel Byzantinon, holds no significance whatsoever.

At this point, for the dual purpose of instructing and entertaining our readers, we present a multiple-choice quiz – a small brain-teaser, if you will – in order to pinpoint the precise reasons for convening a marine mammal conference in the picturesque town of Arta.

We advise readers who answered ‘yes’ on questions 1-3 not to quit their day jobs. Those who unhesitatingly ticked ‘no’ on the same items and ‘yes’ on 4-5 might wish to consider an obviously promising career in executive nature management.

Several alert readers have asked us: "Sir – Why are conferences of this type always held below ground, basically in converted bunkers, devoid of natural light, and yet with generous illumination by fluorescent tubes?" Despite various fanciful theories for this intriguing phenomenon – that we shall not dwell on here – evidence suggests that the unique atmosphere created in such environments stimulates, as it were, a kind of vague, listless daze or abstraction among the assembled delegates, thereby cultivating the precise state of mind required to draft UN conservation documents.

As NGO observers were reminded on several occasions during the course of the proceedings, conference recommendations would be presented to the (Government) Parties to the Barcelona Convention, and must therefore be couched in suitably abstruse diplomatic language. We provide the following example to illustrate this on a practical level.

To avoid the diplomatic impropriety of over-emphasising the need to enact urgent (i.e. now, at once, immediately…) measures, wherever possible, relevant clauses must appear in the past rather than the present tense. Note also, how the aforementioned abstraction process effortlessly removes any direct reference to the offending nations concerned. Incorrect: "Immediate action is required to halt the ongoing killing of monk seals by fishermen in Greece and Turkey…" Correct: "Participants noted, inter alia, a need to address the issue of seal-fishery interactions, which was leading to human-induced mortalities in certain countries…"

Observers were also reminded that any hypothetical decision on who might be made responsible for actually implementing such measures was none of their concern. These were merely Recommendations to the Parties, who, in their infinite wisdom, and in the fullness of time, and at the appropriate juncture, would pronounce judgement on such matters.

In our unstinting efforts to enlighten the layperson, and to disabuse them of any temptation to criticise without due cause, this naturally brings us to Agenda Item 9: Assessment of the Implementation of the Action Plan for the Management of the Mediterranean Monk Seal.

In other words, it was at this particular juncture that the honourable delegates were requested to impart what progress their respective governments had made in the four years since the last UNEP/MAP RAC/SPA conclave in Rabat, Morocco. Naturally, in most cases, this did not take much time. There were, however, several impressive performances, in which the illusion of substance appears to have been created out of nothing more than thin air. Although scarcely credible, others were able to reproduce, in almost perfect facsimile, the same promises they made in 1994, or 1988. One country (note our own scrupulous use of UN protocols) recalled that its own march towards the conservation of the monk seal had started with the declaration of the Dilek Peninsula as a National Park, while studiously neglecting to mention that guards at the main gate (a) Actually have no idea that the Park incorporates a marine protection zone as so frequently alleged and (b) Do not possess even so much as a rowing boat to patrol the area even if they did…

Recalling its former efforts in captive breeding feasibility studies (apparently abandoned – although the responsible delegate offered no explanation of the whys and wherefores) another country stated its willingness to "take appropriate measures". This was subsequently explained as "captive breeding without enforced capture." Presumably, monk seals will be encouraged to volunteer for this programme, but in the spirit of impartiality, we shall refrain from further comment.

In an altruistic display of affection for the monk seal, Morocco risked the official displeasure of the UN, and the censure of its neighbours, to re-announce its 1994 intention to create a National Park in disputed territory on the Côte des Phoques.

In what is fast becoming a fashionable trend, several delegates announced that their respective governments had completed long-running plans to establish protected areas for the monk seal – the only apparent drawback being that the populations they were designed to protect had unfortunately become extinct during the intervening years.

Alert readers will no doubt have noticed, in the second paragraph of this editorial, an obscure reference to a certain "leaflet" that has yet to be published, several years (i.e. 20) after the idea was first mooted (Rhodes, May 1978) and ten years after it (i.e. an information campaign of this kind) was officially adopted by the Parties as a component of the Action Plan (Athens, January 1988). While it may be tempting to criticise, responsible individuals must always caution against precipitate action. Thus, following some lengthy discussions on the merits of finally producing a publication that addresses the threats posed to the monk seal and its fragile habitat by a billion-dollar mass tourism industry, any specific reference in the Arta documents slipped delicately from view (apparently in favour of the more generic "Special attention should be paid to increasing awareness of decision makers" – which, as everyone will no doubt agree, hammers home the required message in no uncertain terms).

A number of participants have asked us to comment upon a curious – if rather spectacular – incident in which roughly half the world’s population of Mediterranean monk seals apparently fell off the edge of the Earth. Again, we shall do our best to oblige, even at the risk of our readers jumping to the conclusion that some UN officials are obviously still convinced that the Earth is flat.

This peculiar diplomatic versus biological reality debate erupted when several scientists and NGOs persisted in their unreasonable demand that specific references to Atlantic populations of monk seals be included in the Recommendations to the Parties. Yet as the honourable Conference Chair so lucidly pointed out to them, under current rules of procedure, the monk seal ceases to exist beyond the Straits of Gibraltar. The geographical limits of the Mediterranean and therefore – by implication – its own Action Plan had apparently escaped their attention. Unfortunately, these same individuals were not to be dissuaded from their unseemly display of recalcitrance, eventually obliging a reluctant (and, it must be said, somewhat ruffled) Chair to propose a deft compromise solution, in which studious ambiguity assuaged their concerns, while removing any possible diplomatic faux pas from resulting documents.

Laypersons, being sadly ignorant of such matters, have questioned why governments and government institutions appear to hold the whip hand (i.e. in funding) when the very people who are making major strides in actually saving monk seals and their habitat are so often devoid of political influence and starved of funds. Why, they demand incredulously, did you spend millions on (a) studying the feasibility of capturing monk seals for a marine circus in France (b) studying the feasibility of capturing animals for what turns out to be a major tourist resort in Spain (c) constructing a weekend villa (i.e. laboratory) for concerned scientists etc. when, of all reserve areas currently established for monk seals in the Mediterranean, 99.9% have inadequate (i.e. non-existent) guarding, management plans or management authorities?

Responsible individuals must caution the layperson against indulging in such criticisms, particularly since a 1997 financial and administrative audit commissioned by the EC delivered a clean bill of health to EC-supported monk seal programmes. The fact that the audit report remains classified can be attributed, not to any bureaucratic intrigue – the usual clarion call of the mischief-maker – but simply to an understandable need to respect confidentiality.

Also, at this dawn of the new millennium, let us not forget that great diplomatic progress has been achieved in encouraging vital cooperation between certain countries in the Eastern Aegean that share both borders and seals. An enduring Cold War in the region had threatened to scupper this 20-year old action priority, until a hastily arranged conclave between the parties concerned forged an 11^th hour compromise. A pledge of "Cooperation" was the first recommendation to be thrown onto the negotiating table, and yet for obvious reasons this proved rather too intense for those at centre stage. Unfortunately, "Collaboration" suffered a similar fate, while a proposed "Communication" was criticised as being too weak by those striving to broker a compromise. At long last, however, agreement was reached and, under Items 17-19, the Recommendation in question now proudly reads: "RAC/SPA should encourage further contacts between conservation projects for monk seals." It was, as the reader can well imagine, an exhilarating moment.

As one honourable delegate conceded privately after the negotiations, "It was a minefield out there." How very true.

Indeed, one might also venture that the 100 Turkish and Greek warplanes engaged in simulated dogfights over Cyprus and the Eastern Aegean at that particular moment, provides, for the layperson, an illuminating demonstration of diplomacy’s often-unappreciated talents.

If so, readers of this calibre may well be shocked to learn of a related criticism, which we can summarise as follows: "Why spend hours negotiating semantics when, if past performance is anything to go by, there is very little chance that the governments will do any of these things anyway?"

In much the same vein, another reader asks: "Sir – In view of the fact that, a) in 1985, the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention announced their intention to achieve the protection of the Mediterranean monk seal by 1995, and that b) there now appears to be only a slim chance of them reaching this deadline without the invention of a time machine, wouldn’t this sorry state of affairs indicate a pressing need to overhaul relevant international mechanisms responsible for the conservation of the species and its habitat?"

We hope that the views expressed above will serve as a cautionary tale, illustrating, in no uncertain terms, how governments and inter-governmental organisations may be held to ransom by arbitrary deadlines (even if, in some inexplicable and inadvisable fit of exuberance, they themselves were responsible for setting such unrealistic time-frames).

We also trust that readers will recognise the extent to which this represents the proverbial slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge. The inevitable dashing of unrealistic hopes will, we maintain, take an inexorable toll. A case in point: an anonymous proposal at Arta to replace the existing UNEP/MAP RAC/SPA conferences with ‘Implementation Workshops’, in which participants would be assigned specific tasks in order to meet the specific targets identified in the Action Plan.

Readers would do well to consider the hidden ramifications of such an audacious plan. Workshops of this kind, it was alleged, would also serve to restructure the administrative hierarchy influencing or governing monk seal conservation internationally. The official status accorded to individuals attending these so-called ‘Workshops’ would no longer reflect their hard-earned rank as government officials, diplomats, or top-notch nature managers, but solely their usefulness to the conservation of the monk seal.

"It appears," ventured one participant, "that we are on the verge of thinking the unthinkable."

Illustrating the depths to which some people may stoop, it was even suggested that government presentations detailing progress at Arta bore more than a passing resemblance to wartime newsreels – those bouncy, breezy, unashamedly upbeat broadcasts that were somewhat economical with the actualité. According to one particularly unrepentant cynic, RAC/SPA might wish to reinforce this particular impression by arranging for rousing, patriotic music to be piped in via our simultaneous translation headphones at subsequent meetings.

We have, naturally, no time to waste on such malicious tittle-tattle. Indeed, such critics, before rushing to judgement, would do well to remember that they may not always be privy to the facts at hand, or conversant with matters that must operate on a different plane, and in the rather more rarefied atmosphere of official confidentiality. Here, we may cite a perfect example: the criticism, heard with rather discourteous frequency at Arta, that no report had been drawn up to assess, with some degree of impartiality, the success or failure of the Parties to implement their agreed Recommendations (or, indeed, RAC/SPA’s own obligations in this regard). This, of course, is nonsense, and rather typical of the misinformation propagated by critics. Indeed, according to credible reports circulating in Arta, a rather comprehensive assessment was prepared for the conference, detailing the gaps, failures and broken promises of governments, but was simply not copied or circulated among the assembled participants.

All of which, we would contend, only serves to demonstrate how ill-informed criticism benefits neither the seeker of truth nor the conservation of Europe’s most endangered marine mammal.

Finally, at this particular juncture, we urge everyone to recall the emotive scenes of delight and relief as the Arta conference drew to a close, with all participants congratulating each other on a job well done!