Development of a Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Stranding Protocol and Database

Development of a Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Stranding Protocol and Database Technical Report MAY 2020 A report by the Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles (MEDASSET)

PREFACE

Page | 2

AUTHORS

Vicky Rae, Eleana Touloupaki

CONTACT DETAILS

MEDASSET - Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles 1c Licavitou St., 106 72 Athens, Greece | T/F: + 30 210 3613572 medasset@medasset.org www.medasset.org

COPYRIGHT

Production and dissemination in full or in part of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorised without any prior written permission provided the source is fully acknowledged and cited.

Cover Photo: ©E. Dornhofer Other Photos: © 2020 MEDASSET, photo E. Touloupaki, E. Starfa Editing & Layout: Eleana Touloupaki, Liza Boura, George Sampson

CITATION

V. Rae, E. Touloupaki. 2020. Development of a Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Stranding Protocol & Database: Technical Report. A report by the Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles (MEDASSET). 36 pp.

DISCLAIMER

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A warm thanks to Dr. Flegra Bentivegna for her significant advice and major contribution in supporting MEDASSET to implement this activity. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the participants of the questionnaire for taking the time to provide their valuable feedback and additional information and contacts, as well as the attendees of the workshop, which took place in Athens on 24 th & 25th of February 2020. This initiative would not have been possible without your support. We would also like to thank the MAVA foundation for funding and supporting this initiative.

ABOUT MEDASSET

With roots back to 1983, MEDASSET was founded in 1988 in the UK and in 1993 in Greece. It is an international NGO registered as a not-for profit organisation in Greece.

MEDASSET plays an active role in the study and conservation of sea turtles and their habitats throughout the Mediterranean, through scientific research, environmental education, advocacy and awareness raising. The organisation is a partner to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and a Permanent Observer-Member to the Bern Convention, Council of Europe, since 1988.

PREFACE

The activity “Development of a Mediterranean Stranding Protocol & Database” report is part of the regional project “Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean Region“ which is funded by the MAVA Foundation and is implemented by ARCHELON, DEKAMER, MEDASSET, MedPAN, NMPZ, RAC/SPA (leader), WWF Greece, WWF Turkey.

PROJECT COORDINATION

Eleana Touloupaki, Liza Boura, Yiannis Marinos (MEDASSET)

PREFACE

Please consider the environment before printing this document

Page | 3

CONTENTS PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. PROJECT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................... 7 3. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.

GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE .............................................................................................................................. 8 3.2.

DATA TYPE COLLECTED ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.3.

PROTOCOLS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.4.

NATIONAL STRANDING NETWORKS AND DATA USE .................................................................................. 10 3.5.

COLLABORATION FOR A PAN-MEDITERRANEAN STRANDING PROTOCOL & DATABASE ............................ 11 3.6.

REQUIREMENTS & CONCERNS .................................................................................................................... 12 4. QUESTIONNAIRE CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 12 5. WORKSHOP .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 6. PAN-MEDITERRANEAN STRANDING PROTOCOL ...................................................................................................... 21 7. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 7.1.

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................................... 28 7.2.

NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................. 29 8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 ANNEX I: PAN-MEDITERRANEAN SEA TURTLE STRANDING PROTOCOL QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................... 31 ANNEX II: RESPONDENTS REPLIES FOR TYPE OF PROTOCOL APPLIED (QU. A4) PER COUNTRY ....................................... 34 ANNEX III: AGENDA OF THE 24TH – 25TH FEBRUARY WORKSHOP ...................................................................................... 36

FIGURES Fig. 1 l Results of Qu A2 of the Questionnaire. The RED line represents the approximate coastline respondents reported working across the Mediterranean ..................................................................................................................... 8 Fig. 2 l Additional data collected as reported by 24 of the 27 respondents (Qu A3). ........................................................ 9 Fig. 3 l Origin of applied protocols implemented by the 26/27 respondents of 15 countries ......................................... 10 Fig. 4 l Map showing National Stranding Networks established (RED), under development (YELLOW) and not established (BLUE)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 Fig. 5 l Round table discussions at the 24th-25th February Pan MED Workshop, Athens……………………………………………….13 Fig. 6 l Dr. Flegra Bentivegna during her presentation at the 24th – 25th February, Pan MED Workshop, Athens…………15 Fig. 7-9 l The three working groups during the breakout sessions at the 24 th – 25th February, Pan MED Workshop, Athens ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16

TABLES Table 1 l List of attendees at the 24th – 25th February Pan - MED Workshop, Athens …………………………………………………14 Table 2 l Comments on the Draft Protocol per the three working groups……………………………………………………………………17

Page | 4

Executive Summary The Mediterranean Sea is a biodiversity hotspot of high importance worldwide and hosts significant sea turtle populations across its range for mating, nesting, as well as for feeding and wintering of adult, sub-adult and juvenile individuals. It is the largest semi-closed basin on our planet surrounded by 22 countries with a total coastline length of 46.000 km, consequently sea turtle strandings occur every day across the Mediterranean, either alive, injured or dead. It is important that these incidents are managed and recorded.

To date, some Mediterranean countries have a National Stranding Network that use a specific protocol for recordings, whereas others operate independently, applying different protocols within the same region. The necessity of the elaboration of a Pan-Mediterranean Stranding Protocol and Database, for data collection regarding sea turtles of the Mediterranean, has been identified as a priority.

MEDASSET perceiving this necessity and priority, with the aim of conserving these emblematic creatures, implemented the activity for the “Development of a Pan-Mediterranean Stranding Protocol & Database” in the framework of the project “Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean Region”.

MEDASSET distributed a questionnaire to all sea turtle stakeholders across the Mediterranean, in order to map the current status, gaps and needs of National Stranding Networks. As next step, it organised a workshop on 24th & 25th February in Athens with representatives from international organisations, ministries, research institutes and NGOs from nine Mediterranean countries: Italy, Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. The key aspect of this meeting was the significant role of the representatives who

Executive Summary

are directly involved with national networks or in the collection of data in their country, as well as the prominent participation of the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) and Regional Activity Centre for Information and Communication (INFO/RAC) of UNEP/MAP. Dr Flegra Bentivegna chaired the workshop and the opening speech was given by MEDASSET's President, Lily Venizelos.

The purpose of the interactive meeting was: a) to present and discuss the results of our survey with the invited experts and b) to formulate the first Draft for the common Mediterranean Protocol and discuss about the technical specifications of the Database, thus setting the first steps in the implementation of the common objective. The Draft which is incorporated in this report will be sent to RAC/SPA, for its finalisation and adoption by the Mediterranean countries in the foreseeable future.

In addition, the Pan-Mediterranean Stranding Protocol and Database will contribute to the exchange of scientific knowledge on the causes of injuries and deaths, to further understand and deal with anthropogenic threats such as marine pollution, entanglement in fishing gear etc. on a regional wide scale.

This initiative will contribute to the formulation and development of a network throughout the Mediterranean, of all directly involved in national stranding networks currently and in the future. This will add to the optimal collection of data applying a common standardised methodology through a harmonised approach, hence addressing the transboundary nature of the sea turtle life history strategy.

Page | 5

1. Introduction 1.1. Although not uniformly distributed, Mediterranean sea turtle populations span the entire basin. Their life history strategy influences their highly migratory behaviour, crossing national borders and occupying both pelagic and neritic marine habitats throughout their life span. At both temporal and spatial scales, sea turtles face numerous threats, and while conservation efforts throughout the Mediterranean have been both successful and multiplied1, these have mainly targeted known nesting sites.

1.2. Monitoring of any in-water species is problematic, requiring technological, human and financial resources. Sea turtles spend almost their entire lives in water and large gaps remain in our knowledge and understanding of their interactions within the marine environment and the full impacts of anthropogenic activities (fishing, marine litter, maritime traffic). One such approach applied to contribute in filling this gap is the collection of data from stranded sea turtles (species, size, sex, cause of death etc.). Previous research has demonstrated that the analysis of such data has helped to determine local and regional population demographics (Lematt-Hama et al., 2019; Lalire & Gaspar, 2019), identifying natural threats (Barrientos et al., 2019) and existing and emerging anthropogenic activity impacts (Foley et al. 2019; Yaghmour 2019) and subsequently can help target conservation efforts.

1.3. Due to sea turtles life history strategy (1.1), it is widely acknowledged that for any conservation measures to be effective, they must be implemented on a Mediterranean- wide regional scale. There are 23 countries that border the Mediterranean Sea, which are subsequently subjected to sea turtle strandings along their coastline. The creation of a Pan- Mediterranean Sea Turtle Stranding Protocol (herein referred to as Pan-Med ST stranding protocol), will contribute to this spatial harmonisation objective. Indeed, its development has already been identified as a priority in the targets and recommendations for the: CONFIDE NTIAL

o

2019 SPA/RAC Updated ‘Action Plan for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine Turtles’ III.2 Research and monitoring. f. Strengthening the regional networks of stranding networks g. Strengthening the data collection of stranded sea turtles through National stranding networks and rescue centres.

o

Demography Working Group of the Conference of the 5th Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles, ‘Demography of marine turtle nesting in the Mediterranean sea: a gap analysis and research priorities’ Recommendation 5: Stranding networks should be created in every Mediterranean country to collect data about turtle size and sample at least skin for stable isotopes and bone for skeletochronology. Stranding networks should be coordinated with rescue centres. A protocol for data and sample sharing should be developed, in addition to sampling protocols.

1

IUCN RED List downgraded the Mediterranean Caretta caretta sub-population from Vulnerable to Least Concern in 2015, due to the success of conservation efforts. It was noted that this new status was conservation dependent (Casale, 2015).

Introduction

Page | 6

1.4. The collection of sea turtle stranding data is actively occurring across the Mediterranean basin at local and national scales, and the applied protocols have been predominately developed independently, at either a local or a national level, with the exception of some international projects. Currently it is uncertain what similarities exist between the methodologies applied, type of data collected, its storage and subsequent analysis, to allow for a comparable analysis on a Mediterranean-wide scale.

1.5. MEDASSET is a partner of the MAVA funded project ‘Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean Region (M7)’, which is coordinated by SPA/RAC and has the overall objective to reduce or minimise human induced direct mortality at a Mediterranean level. During Phase 1.0 (2018 – 2020), the need to ‘Reinforce coordination’ was identified and activities relating to this strategy outlined as ‘Harmonised protocols for monitoring, ensuring that there is collaboration between scientists and managers for adapted application to the sites’. Funding obtained under this framework was secured to begin initiative for developing a Pan-Med ST Stranding Protocol and Database.

2. Project Activities 2.1. In creating a Pan-Med ST stranding protocol, it is first important to form a baseline to understand the status of data collection and its level of homogeneity across Mediterranean countries. To create this baseline a questionnaire was produced by MEDASSET (Vicky Rae & Eleana Touloupaki) in collaboration with Dr Flegra Bentivegna (Annex I), which focused on collecting information pertaining to: i. ii. iii.

What work is currently being conducted on a local level; The work carried out and structure at National level; Willingness for the production of a Pan- Med ST stranding protocol and collation of data.

CONFIDE NTIAL

2.2. To maximise the participation of all relevant organisations within the Mediterranean and to capture both national and intra-national differences (research institutes, rescue centres, NGOs etc.) for this initiative, the questionnaire was disseminated through several online channels via the MEDTurtle forum, MEDASSET Sea Turtle Rescue Map2 contact database and targeted experts.

2.3. Sea turtle scientists, rescue centre managers and regional experts were invited as attendees to a subsequent workshop (section 5) and presented with a draft protocol, to be reviewed and discussed.

The objective of the workshop was to produce a workable sea turtle stranding protocol (Section 6) that can be applied in all countries across the Mediterranean and be presented to SPA/RAC for review of its adoption.

2

The “Database & Online Map of Sea Turtle Rescue & First Aid Centres in the Mediterranean” (Sea Turtle Rescue Map) is a project by MEDASSET, aiming to bridge information, communication, and collaboration gaps in sea turtle conservation. It is the first tool to provide open access to information about all known rescue facilities in the Mediterranean to the public and professionals alike. https://www.medasset.org/our-projects/sea-turtle-rescue-map/

Project Activities

Page | 7

3. Questionnaire Responses 3.1. Geographic Coverage 3.1.1. Twenty-seven respondents representing 15 of the 22 countries surrounding the Mediterranean completed the questionnaire. All with the exception of two respondents were directly involved in sea turtle stranding data collection; one was no longer involved and the other conducted sea turtle research, but not specifically for the collection of stranding data.

3.1.2. Respondents actively involved in the collection of sea turtle stranding data were asked to provide the geographic location of the stretch of coastline where they worked (Qu.A2). In total, the feedback received is representative of approximately 35,545km (76%) of the 46,670km Mediterranean coastline (Fig 1).

CONFIDE NTIAL

Fig. 1 | Results of Qu. A2 of the Questionnaire. The RED line represents the approximate coastline respondents reported working across the Mediterranean.

3.2. Data Type Collected 3.2.1. To establish the type of data currently being collected for stranded sea turtles, participants were asked (Qu.A3) if the following data was recorded; Species, Sex, Measurements (straight length/width; curved length/width) and Condition (alive, dead, decomposed, dried carcass, skeleton bones only). All respondents noted that information pertaining to Species and Measurements were recorded, and 26/27 collected data on Sex and Condition. It was noted by some respondents that due to sexual dimorphism only presenting in mature adults and state of body condition (injury or decomposition state), it was not always possible to record sex and take the carapace measurements of some stranded individuals.

Questionnaire Responses

Page | 8

3.2.2. Additional data was reported as being collected by 24 of the 27 respondents and were compiled (where possible) and classified by the authors into 19 categories (Fig 2) e.g. ‘Diet’ & ‘Stomach Content’. It is important to note that some duplications of the classifications apply e.g. ‘Tissue Samples/ Histology’, ‘Perform necropsy’ and ‘Diet/ Stomach Content’. The option ‘Other’ was purposely presented as an open question to facilitate the freedom for diverse responses.

3.2.3. The most noted additional types of data collected to the presented list (3.2.1) were; ‘Cause of death/ Injuries’ (13), ‘Location of Stranding’ (8), ‘Tissue Samples/ Histology’ (7) and ‘presence of Marine Litter’ (6). Even though ‘Location of stranding’ was one of the highest additional recorded data (8), along with ‘Date’ (2), it is highly likely that these two types of data are underrepresented within all the responses. This type of data is mostly viewed as a standard in the collection of any scientific data.

Responses to Qu A3 for Specifiying additional data collected of Stranded SeaTurtles Boat collison Fisheries Interaction Metal Toxins Marine Litter Pathologies

Additional Data Collected

Tissue Samples/ Histology

Perform Necropsy CONFIDE NTIAL

Scutes # Weight (LIVE) Diet/ Stomach Content Genetic Parasites Skeletochronology Cause of death/ Injuries Epibiont Photos Tag ID Date Location 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Respondents Fig. 2 | Additional data collected a reported by 24 of the 27 respondents (Qu A3).

Questionnaire Responses

Page | 9

3.3. Protocols 3.3.1. Of the 27 respondents, 26 provided feedback for the application of a protocol for the collection of stranded sea turtles. Twenty-two respondents representing 12 countries stated that they applied a protocol and four representing four countries stated that no set protocol was followed. A total of 16 different protocols types were provided by the 22 participants (Annex II).

3.3.2. Multiple respondents providing feedback per country, for instance Tunisia and Spain, provided details of different protocols applied across their region. For Tunisia, three respondents provided details of different protocols; however, harmonisation between these protocols can be implied, with respondents stating similar origin sources and all affirming the transfer of their data to the Tunisian National Stranding Network. In Spain, the harmonisation between protocols was less determined from the responses, with applied personal, project-based and Institute protocols implemented across the country. Additionally, Spanish respondents stated limited data transfer on a National level (two at a local level and one at a national level), as the formalisation of a National Stranding Network is currently under development by the Ministry.

PROTOCOLS (26/27) None, 4

Ministry/ National , 5 Not Specified , 2

CONFIDE NTIAL

INDICIT, 3 International , 3

Internal/ Personal , 9

Fig. 3 | Origin of applied protocols implemented by the 26/27 respondents of 15 countries

3.4 National Stranding Networks & Data Use 3.4.1 Ten of the 15 countries stated that a National Stranding Network was already established, three countries were currently in development and two stated that no National Network existed (Fig 4). In the countries where National Stranding Networks were established, all except one respondent confirmed the transfer of their data to their National Network. In the countries where no National Stranding Network currently exists or are under development, all respondents except Albania and one of the respondents from Spain (3.3.2) stated that the data collected was used for publication and transfer at a local level.

Questionnaire Responses

Page | 10

3.4.2 Most respondents confirmed multi-uses of the data collected, with the highest for publications (20/27) followed by transferring at a National (16/27) and Local (10/27) level, with two respondents stating additionally other uses. It was not asked in the questionnaire to what purpose the data was transferred at National or Local level, but what is apparent is this information is not easily accessible or available to the scientific community.

3.5. Collaboration for a Pan Med Protocol & Database 3.5.1. Despite the establishment of a Pan- Mediterranean Stranding Protocol and Database being stated as a priority in numerous documents (1.3), this initiative is not possible without the support and active participation from relevant organisations and ministries. The final section of the questionnaire addressed this topic and focused on assessing the level of interest amongst the relevant actors to become involved in a Pan-Mediterranean Protocol and to contribute data to a database.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Fig 4 | Map showing National Stranding Networks established (RED), under development (YELLOW) and not established (BLUE)

3.5.2 Two respondents were unable to complete this section; one, no longer worked within the Network and the other required further clarifications of the initiative benefits before being able to answer. All other respondents (26) replied positively to becoming involved in establishing a Pan- Med ST stranding protocol and 22 in contributing this data into a Pan- Med Database. For the latter, one respondent replied negatively and two did not answer the question, however, all three provided the name of the organisation/authority required to give permissions to be involved with a Pan Mediterranean Database (Qu.C2)

Questionnaire Responses

Page | 11

3.6. Requirements/ Concerns 3.6.1 Participants were asked to provide their feedback on what requirements/ conditions would be needed to ensure their collaboration of data entry into a Pan-Med ST stranding database. Of the 22 respondents who replied positively to transferring of data all except two, stated considerations and conditions. These considerations are summarised under the following themes:  Robust Data collection: With potentially a high number of data contributors to a Pan-Med database, concerns for maintaining and ensuring a high standard of the data being collected and inputted were specified. Clear guidelines must be provided in the protocol for the data collection, to ensure its reliability and allow for accurate interpretations.  Simplicity of Database: It was stated by a number of respondents that time and human resources will be a limiting factor to contributors’ ability to participate for data entry. The functionality and ease of use of the database will need to take these factors into account in its formation.  Data Sharing: The most widely expressed concern by respondents related to data ownership and its subsequent analysis. In particular, limitations for sharing data that is part of on-going research, preapproval of the data use, accurate interpretations, and acknowledgement of the data authors. It is essential that participants are provided reassurance for sharing their data through signed agreements and that data sharing processes are clearly defined and adhered to. Additionally, it was also expressed that all contributors should be permitted to view all data provided.  Signed Agreements: An overarching requirement, linked to all of the above is the need to have Signed Agreements for all who contribute, view, and use the data. Specifically, for data entry, data access, data requests and data use.

4. Questionnaire Conclusions

CONFIDE NTIAL

4.1. Participants of the questionnaire provided their overall support and willingness to collaborate in the development of a Pan-Med ST stranding protocol (25/27) and to a slightly lesser extent, collating this data into a common database platform (22/27).

4.2. Despite multiple protocols with differing origins of production currently implemented across the Mediterranean (fig 3), the type of data collected for stranded sea turtles is relatively comparable at a broad scale. All participants commented that they recorded Species and took carapace Measurements and 26/27 collected data on Sex and Condition, where possible (3.2.1). To state if other information was collected, 24/27 respondents provided additional details, for which the authors of this report classified into 19 categories. The most noted additional information was; ‘Cause of death/ Injuries’ (13), ‘Location of stranding’ (8), ‘Tissue samples/ Histology’ (7) and ‘Presence of Marine Litter’ (6). The authors acknowledge that some overlap between the definition of categories exist, as responses were provided in an open question format to allow for diverse feedback. The variation in responses and their interpretation highlights the need for clear definitions to be outlined of the exact type and form of data collected in the production of a stranding protocol. These definitions will also assist in ensuring robust data collection.

4.3. Apparent from the responses, participants that stated that a National Stranding Network is established in their country also had an increase in data collated at a National level. Although outside of the current scope of this initiative (the development of National Stranding Networks), it is an important consideration in developing data entry channels for stream lining the process.

Questionnaire Conclusions

Page | 12

4.4 Concerns and requirements stated by the respondents were primarily related to the collation of data in a common platform; ensuring trust and reliability of the data collected, ease of use of the database, data sharing policies and preparation of signed agreements for participants. Although 22/27 positive responses were received from participants for collaboration of data entry into a common database, it is clear that to ensure the maximum number of participants, any common database initiative must develop in unison a coherent data policy. This policy must address the concerns and requirements outlined by the data collaborators, and include clearly defining accessibility rights and strict agreements pertaining to the use of data, its acknowledgement and publication. Furthermore, as commented by one respondent, the benefits and/outputs of such a collaboration should be defined and communicated to all participants.

4.5. Compilation of respondents feedback and the conclusions drawn provided the basis for the development of the draft protocol, which was further reviewed during the workshop (5).

5. Workshop 5.1. Sea turtle experts from government organisations, research institutes and rescues centres, representing eight countries and two regional organisations were invited (Table 1) to attend a workshop to review and discuss a draft protocol produced considering the feedback received from the questionnaire survey (3 and 4). The workshop (Annex III) was held in Athens on 24th – 25th February and was facilitated by MEDASSET and chaired by Dr. Flegra Bentivegna.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Fig. 5 | Round table discussions at the 24th-25th February Pan MED Workshop, Athens Š 2020 MEDASSET, photo E. Starfa

Workshop

Page | 13

Table 1 | List of attendees at the 24th – 25th February Pan-MED Workshop, Athens

Country

Affiliation

Attendee

Algeria

Science Agronomique-INA

Dr. Mouloud Benabdi

Croatia

Ministry of Environment & Energy

Dr. Jasna Jeremic

Greece

ARCHELON

Mr Dimitris Fytilis

Greece

HCMR

Dr Konstantinos Tsagkarakis

Israel

Israel Nature & Parks Authority

Dr. Yaniv Levy

Italy

External Consultant (MEDASSET), Chair

Dr. Flegra Bentivegna

Lebanon

Université Libanes Fac.Scie.

Dr. Souad Hraoui-Bloquet

Libya

Environment General Authority

Mr. Almokhtar Saied

Tunisia

INSTM and RC Monastir

Dr. Olfa Chaieb

Turkey

DEKAMER

Prof. Yakup Kaska

Regional

SPA/RAC

Ms Lobna Ben Nakhla

Regional

INFO/RAC

Mr Arthur Pasquale

Regional (Hosts)

MEDASSET

Regional (Hosts)

MEDASSET

Mr George Sampson

Regional (Hosts)

MEDASSET

Miss Eleana Touloupaki

Regional (Hosts)

MEDASSET

Miss Vicky Rae

Regional (Hosts)

MEDASSET

Ms Efi Starfa

Workshop

CONFIDE NTIAL

Ms Lily Venizelos

Page | 14

5.2. A draft protocol was prepared by MEDASSET (Vicky Rae & Eleana Touloupaki) and Dr Flegra Bentivegna who presented it to the working group. Its purpose, to establish the mandatory data and set the minimum set of parameters considered essential for a Mediterranean database and enable a Mediterranean regional analysis. The protocol was kept as simple as possible since application will vary per country/ region and will be implemented by stakeholders with varying skill levels, such as sea turtle experts and volunteer beach observers.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Fig. 6 | Dr. Flegra Bentivegna during her presentation at the 24th – 25th February Pan MED Workshop, Athens. Š 2020 MEDASSET, photo E. Touloupaki

5.3. The review and feedback of the presented draft protocol was the main objective of the workshop. To review, participants were split into three separate working groups, after which they regrouped to summarise their discussions. All comments were compiled according to the pertaining data points (Table 2) and the revised protocol was agreed by all participants and presented to SPA/RAC.

Workshop

Page | 15

Fig. 7-9 | The three working groups during the breakout sessions at the 24th – 25th February Pan MED Workshop, Athens. © 2020 MEDASSET, photo E. Touloupaki, E. Starfa

5.4. The authors of this report would like to express a special thanks to ARCHELON who not only participated in the workshop, but alsohosted a site visit for all workshop participants to their Rescue Centre in Glyfada for the second day of the event.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Workshop

Page | 16

Table 2 | Comments on the Draft Protocol per the three working groups DRAFT PROTOCOL

General Comments

Comments Grp1: General observation – most important factor is to consider what kind of platform (paper, mobile app etc.) will be used to collect the data. A mobile app would automatically record number; recorder ID; location.

Grp2: Important to add/ formulate a Code for the recording/ turtle.

1) OBSERVER’s DETAILS

Grp2: Important to add where observer got information i.e. first respondent.

Name, telephone or e-mail 2) AFFILIATION / POSITION

Grp1: Affiliation, not seen as necessary.

Grp 3: Important to state affiliation for records of stakeholder involvement, however this should not be obligatory as some recorders may not want to provide details.

3) RECOVERY OF THE TURTLE

Grp1: Replace ‘Recovery’ to ‘Discovery’. ‘On the beach‘ & ‘in-water’ not necessary

Date CONFIDE NTIAL

Time (24hour format)

Grp2: To add ‘other’ option, to allow for recordings made in relation to illegal trade.

Please circle: a) on the beach

Grp3: Change order of questions - qu3 & qu4 to move to qu1 & qu2.

b) in water 4) STRANDING LOCATION

Grp1: If mobile app platform used, no need to record location (lat/long).

Country & Region Location name (e.g. beach name)

Grp3: Change order of questions - qu3 & qu4 to move to qu1 & qu2.

Latitude Longitude Closest town or landmark

Workshop

Page | 17

5) SPECIES ID 5) A. Species Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas

Grp1: Not reliable if not a biologist. Best to send photo; important to use a scale in photo (bottle/coin). Add species ID guide.

Grp2: For recording made by non-experts, observers should take photos for species ID.

Dermochelys coriacea Unknown

Grp3: To add species ID.

Other 5) B. Reliability of species identification

Grp1: If observer is not an expert reporting, cannot ans 5B.

Uncertain Probable Certain 6) CONDITION OF TURTLE (Please tick): Alive

Grp1: Increased quality of records with video to determine condition. Difficulties in determining ‘Condition’ if turtle is in a cold state.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Injured Fresh dead

Grp2: Catagories confusing between ALIVE and INJURED. Better to split catagories using closed questions. For example ‘ALIVE’ or ‘DEAD’  If ‘ALIVE’, state if injured  If ‘DEAD’ state decomposition state.

Moderately decomposed Severely decomposed

Grp3: Categories confusing- needs rearranging (agree with Grp2 suggestions).

Dried carcass Skeleton bones only 7) MEASUREMENTS curved carapace length (please state type below)

Workshop

Grp1: To add, take photo with object to scale. Or use measurment catagories (0 -10cm; 10 – 25cm etc.).

Different CCl diagrams not necessary, need to specify this is the carapace measurement using diagram (a).

Page | 18

curved carapace width

Grp2: To add CCW measurement in diagram. State by use of tape measure.

weight Grp3: To add ‘Accurate’ or ‘Approximate’

CCL (which measurement)

8) TAG/Any other monitoring device:

Grp1: To add photo of tag (both sides if possible) and any other devices.

Absent Present

Grp3: Add a table to record ‘position of tag’ and ‘type of tag’, to simplify recording.

CONFIDE NTIAL

For PRESENT, please specify type, number, position of tag and tag return contact details 9) STATUS OF STRANDED INDIVIDUAL  Alive: Released or Injured If Injured, send to the nearest rehabilitation center, please indicate name and address of the Center   

Dead: Necropsy, YES or NO If YES, where did you send the carcass for further analysis?

If NO, choose from the list:

Grp1: Important to record outcome of turtle. ‘Necropsy’ not needed, as this is only for experts. Remove ‘buried on beach’, ‘discarded’ and ‘other’- Better to have contact details of appropriate authority.

Grp2: Categories confusing. To add options.

Grp3: Categories confusing. To add options (agreed with Grp2). Add if ‘Sample taken’, as it it not always possible to perform a necropsy, but tissue samples are taken instead.

buried on beach discarded

Workshop

Page | 19

other 10) REMARKS Mark on the drawing on the side, injuries, wounds, position of debris entanglement etc, and everything you find interesting to record.

Please add turtle photos of dorsal and ventral views

Grp1: Request photos. Cannot ask gernal public to move turtle due to health concerns. Important to contact details of relevant authority/ organisation.

Grp2: To add drawing diagram regarding remarks. ‘Additional point to be added regarding the taking of photos, stating dorsal & ventral profiles.

Grp3: Choose visible harmful causes.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Workshop

Page | 20

6. Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Stranding Data Form for Network Participants IMPORTANT HEALTH HAZARD NOTICE: Do NOT touch or attempt to move the sea turtle without appropriate protective garments/ equipment.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY DETAILS: Name & telephone number to be completed for each region/ organisation.

1) OBSERVER’s DETAILS Name:________________________________________________ Telephone number/ e-mail:_______________________________ Recording source (e.g. 1st respondent):_________________________ CONFIDE NTIAL

2) AFFILIATION / POSITION (optional):___________________ _____________________________________________________

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Page | 21

3) DISCOVERY OF THE TURTLE Recording ID Code:_______________________________ Date________________________________________________ Time (24hr format):_____________________________________ Please circle:

Beach

In- water

Other (state below)

_

____________________________________________________ 4) STRANDING LOCATION Country & Region:______________________________________ Location (e.g. the name of the beach):___________________________ CONFIDE NTIAL

Latitude/ Longitude:__________________/__________________ Closest town or landmark:________________________________

5) SPECIES ID A. Species (Please tick) Photo taken with scaled object:

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

YES

NO

Page | 22

CONFIDE NTIAL

UNKNOWN

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Page | 23

B. Reliability of species identification (please circle) Uncertain

Probable

Certain

6) CONDITION OF TURTLE (Please circle): ALIVE If ALIVE, is turtle INJURED:

YES

If DEAD, what decomposition state:

or or

DEAD

NO

Freshly dead Moderately decomposed Severely decomposed

CONFIDE NTIAL

Dried carcass Skeleton bones only

7) MEASUREMENTS Measurement Type (please circle):

Accurate (tape measure) Approximate (include scaled photo)

Curved carapace length:__________________________________ Curved carapace width:__________________________________ If possible weight:______________________________________

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Page | 24

8) TAG/Any other monitoring device (please circle): CONFIDE NTIAL

Absent LOCATION TYPE (plastic/ metal/ device etc.)

or CODE NUMBER

Present (state details below) CONTACT DETAILS

PHOTO TAKEN

Front Right Front Left Rear Right Rear Left Carapace

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Page | 25

9) STATUS OF STRANDED INDIVIDUAL

If ALIVE (please circle):

Released

or

Injured

If INJURED, state name & address of rehabilitation center:

_____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

If DEAD, (please circle): CONFIDE NTIAL

Necropsy (State where):__________________________________________ Samples Taken:

YES

or

NO

Buried/ Discarded (State where):_________________________ _________________________________________________ Other:____________________________________________

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Page | 26

10) REMARKS Mark on the drawing the position of anything of interest e.g. injuries, debris/ fishing gear entanglement etc. Label markings stating possible causes.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Please add turtle photos of dorsal, ventral and views

Observer Signature

Pan-Med ST Draft Stranding Protocol

Focal Point Signature

Page | 27

7. Conclusions 7.1 Workshop Feedback 7.1.1. Considering that this initiative represented the first steps towards the creation of a Pan-MED ST stranding protocol and database, and recognising the importance of a continued collaborative approach in its development, the participants were asked post- workshop to provide feedback, in particular to share their thoughts on this initiatives progression.

7.1.2. Feedback was received from six participants, who all viewed the workshop content as relevant/ very relevant to the development of a Pan-Med ST stranding protocol. Acknowledged as a highly important task, the complexity involving multiple nationalities and organisational institutes, additional personal comments expressed the need to increase the overall time allocated to the sessions. It was noted that this would allow for more discussions of different perspectives and current issues faced and that additional sessions dedicated for presentations of work achieved by certain organisations and nationalities would compliment these talks. In particular during the workshop, some participants proposed the use of a mobile app as a suitable platform for increasing the protocol’s availability and functionality.

7.1.3. The responses received relating to recommendations for ‘next steps’ addressed the aforementioned comments (7.1.2). Overall proposals recommended a longer workshop to allow for extended discussions and more attendees, involving not only more Mediterranean countries, but also more participants from within each country. An extended workshop would also facilitate talks dedicated to the feasibility and development of the protocol in various platforms, i.e. mobile apps. Pre-workshop meeting, it was expressed the need to have additional background information of the work and activities currently performed within each country, to assist attendees in preparation of their ideas and contributions.

CONFIDE NTIAL

7.1.4. The key takeaway elements of the workshop were the indispensable value of networking and sharing on a Pan-Mediterranean scale and in particular the crucial need for the continuing work for establishing collaborative networks. Furthermore from the workshop discussions, the importance of the work contributed by volunteers to sea turtle conservation was both identified and recognised as vital.

Conclusions

Page | 28

7.2 Next Steps 7.2.1. This report provides the initial work completed for the development of a Pan-Med ST stranding protocol and database, funded by the MAVA Foundation M7: Conservation of Mediterranean sea turtles phase 1 programme (2017 – 2020). Currently more funding is being sought to continue this initiative in collaboration with SPA/RAC, funded through the same mechanism under phase 2.0 of the programme (2020 – 2022).

7.2.2. The protocol presented in this report, is the revised protocol, drafted by Dr. Flegra Bentivegna and amended with the inputs provided by the expert attendees of the workshop (Table 1). This protocol is a working document and is subjected to further review (7.2.3). The protocol is to be presented to SPA/RAC for further review among their National Focal Point network.

7.2.3. In consideration of the feedback received from the participants of the initial workshop, another workshop will be organised to accommodate more attendees and countries. To assist with increased participation and allowing for busy work schedules, the organisers will endeavor to use existing meeting events to accommodate this workshop (e.g. Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles).

This workshop will facilitate amongst other activities further reviews of the protocol, work being carried out in different countries, discussions of potential applications, establishing and determining suitable databases platforms.

CONFIDE NTIAL

Conclusions

Page | 29

8. References Barrientos R.G., Hernández-Mora G., Alegre F., Field T., Flewelling L., McGarth S., Deeds J., ChacÓn Y.S., Rojas Arrieta K., Vargas E.C., Artavia K.B. and Stacy B.A.(2019) ‘Scavenging on Mass Mortality of Caribbean Sharpnose Puffer Fish (Canthigaster rostrate- Tetraodontidae).

Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6:466.

DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00466

the Chelonians of Albania’ Vol. 1, no 4. Journal of the IUCN/SSC. Lalire M. and Gaspar P. (2019) ‘Modeling the active dispersal iof juvenile leatherback turtles in the North Atlantic Ocean’.

Movement Ecology 7:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-019-0149-5 Lematt Hama F., Karaica D., Dyc C., Bilal A.S.O., Mohamed Wagne M., Bâ O.Y., Mulliē W and Fretey J. (2019) ‘Sea Turtle stranding events along the Mauritanian coast’ Salamandra 55(3) 1990210.

Sourced https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335320048_S ea_turtle_stranding_events_along_the_Mauritanian_coa st

Casale, P. (2015) ‘Caretta caretta (Mediterranean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015’: e.T83644804A83646294. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20154.RLTS.T83644804A83646294.en. Downloaded on 12 January 2020.

Demography Work Group (2015) ‘Demography of marine turtles nesting in the Mediterranean Sea: a gap analysis and research priorities’ 5th Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles, Dalaman, Turkey, T-PVS/Inf (2015).

UNEP/MAP and SPA/RAC (2019) ‘Action Plan for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine Turtles. (Updated Timetable for the Period 2014- 2019)’ Sourced 20-012020 http://www.racspa.org/sites/default/files/doc_turtles/turtles_timeplan.p df

Foley A.M., Stacy B.A., Hardy R.F., Shea C.P., Minch K.E. and Schroeder B.A. (2019) ‘Characterizing Water-craftRelated Mortality of Sea Turtles in Florida’ The Jounral of Wildlife Management 83(5): 1057-1072.

DOI:10.1002/jwmg.21665Haxhiu I. (1995) ‘Results of studies on the Chelonians of Albania and current data on

Yaghmour F. (2019) ‘Are oil spills a key mortality factor for marine turtles from the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates?’

Marine Pollution Bulletin 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110624

CONFIDE NTIAL

References

Page | 30

Appendix ANNEX I: Pan-Mediterranean Sea Turtle Stranding Protocol Questionnaire CONTACT DETAILS First name

Surname

Affiliation

Position

Address

Phone Number

CONFIDE NTIAL

Email

SECTION A - STRANDING DATA COLLECTION AT LOCAL LEVEL 1.

Yes

Are you involved in collecting data on stranded turtles?

No

2.

In which geographical area do you work?

(Try to define it as much as possible including country, state or other relevant geographical coordinates, as well as latitude and longitude)

3.

What kind of data you collect on a stranded turtles?

Species Sex Measurements (straight length/width; curved length/width)

ANNEX

Page | 31

Condition of turtle (alive, dead, decomposed, dried carcass, skeleton bones only) Other? Please specify

4.

Do you apply a specific Protocol when collecting data?

Yes No

If Yes, can you provide more details about it?

5.

What use do you make of the collected data?

Publications Transfer to other organizations and/or research institute

If yes, is this organization local or national?

CONFIDE NTIAL

National Local

Other uses? Please specify

SECTION B - STRANDING DATA COLLECTION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

1.

Is there a stranding network at national level?

Yes No If yes, what type of organization/institution is involved? (please provide all contact details, including if it is an NGO, Ministry, Research Institute, other)

ANNEX

Page | 32

2.

Do you transfer your data to this national organization?

Yes No

SECTION C - PAN-MEDITERRANEAN STRANDING PROTOCOL AND DATABASE

1.

Would your Stranding Network be interested in:

a) developing a PAN Mediterranean Stranding Protocol?

Yes No

If yes, which organization/authority would provide the authorization for the use of the standardized Protocol?

b) creating a PAN Mediterranean database?

CONFIDE NTIAL

Yes No

If yes, which organization/authority would provide the authorization for the integration of data into the database?

2. What requirements would be needed for you to participate?

3. If not interested, please state what are the reasons and obstacles.

ANNEX

Page | 33

ANNEX II: Respondents’ replies for type of protocol applied (Qu.A4) per country.

COUNTRY

# RESPONSES

PROTOCOL APPLIED

ALBANIA

1

YES: Provided by project

ALGERIA

1

YES: Personal Protocol

CROATIA

1

YES: Internal Protocol

CYPRUS

YES: Synthesis of publication; Research & Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles.

2

FRANCE

NO

YES: Assos Marineland Protocol 2

YES: not stated

GREECE

1

YES: ARCHELON protocol

ISRAEL

1

NO YES: Guideline of the Italian Ministry

ITALY (SARDINIA)

YES: Environmental Ministry Guidelines CONFIDE NTIAL

4

YES: National Guidelines YES: Regional Guidelines (Sardinia)

LEBANON

LIBYA

YES: International Monitoring Protocol 2

Participant not actively involved in the collection of data

1

NO

1

YES: Issued by Local Environment Authority- The Environment Authority of Malta

1

NO

MALTA

MOROCCO

SPAIN

YES: IEO Research Group, Instituto Español de Oceanografía 3

YES : INDICIT YES: Personal Protocol developed through published protocols

ANNEX

Page | 34

COUNTRY

# RESPONSES

TUNISIA

PROTOCOL APPLIED YES: UNEP.MED_ WG.331/9:Draft Guidelines for the development of marine turtle stranding networks and protocols for data collection.

YES: INDICIT

3 YES: Developed the on basis of Guidelines of ACCOBAMS & SPA/RAC and the harmonized protocol INDICIT/ SPA/RAC on marine litter

TURKEY

2

YES: INDICT YES: Standard Stranding Protocol

CONFIDE NTIAL

ANNEX

Page | 35

ANNEX III: Agenda of the 24th – 25th February Athens Workshop

Pan-Mediterranean Stranding Protocol & Database Workshop Programme 24 & 25th February, Athens, Greece th

Monday 24th February (9:00-18:00), Electra Hotel, Athens Chair: Dr Flegra Bentivegna INTRODUCTION (9:00-10:00) i. ii. iii. iv.

Opening Speech, Lily Venizelos, President, MEDASSET Participants Introduction Project Presentation, Eleana Touloupaki & Vicky Rae, MEDASSET INFO/RAC & SPA/RAC Regional Roles, Provisional insights

COFFEE BREAK (10:00-10:15) WORK SESSION 1 (10:15-12:30) i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Data obtained from stranding events, Dr. Flegra Bentivegna The importance and formation of a network, Dr. Flegra Bentivegna Stranding network in the Mediterranean, Dr. Flegra Bentivegna Comments on the questionnaires received: Main Results, Dr. Flegra Bentivegna Proposed Protocol, Dr. Flegra Bentivegna CONFIDE NTIAL

LUNCH BREAK (12:30-13:30) WORK SESSION 2 (13:30-15:30) i. ii.

Breakout sessions: Participants in groups to provide comments and exchange opinions on the proposed protocol Each group to present summary of breakout sessions (round table)

COFFEE BREAK (15:30-15:45) WORK SESSION 3 (15:45-17:00) Revision of the proposed Protocol & final approval (ALL)

CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPS (17:00-18:00) Development of a Pan Med Network and Database

Tuesday 25th February (8:30-12:00) Half day visit to ARCHELON’s Rescue Centre, Glyfada, Athens

ANNEX

Page | 36