Birdlife Policy Brief in Marine and Coastal Biodiversity

S

teve

Ebb

ert

w w w . b i r d l i f e . o r g

BirdLife Policy Brief for CBD COP-10, Nagoya

Marine and Coastal BiodiversityThe marine pelagic environment is the largest realm on Earth, constituting 99% of the biosphere volume. In addition to supplying more than 80% of the fish consumed by humans, pelagic ecosystems account for nearly half of the photosynthesis on Earth, directly or indirectly support almost all marine life and play a major role in the rate and extent of climate change.

To date, marine species and habitats receive almost negligible levels of effective protection from major anthropogenic threats compared with terrestrial habitats, particularly in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). Currently terrestrial protected areas cover 12.2% of the planet’s surface area, whereas Marine Protected Areas occupy only 5.9% of the world’s territorial seas and less than 0.5% of ABNJ; overall less than 1% of the ocean surface has even nominal designation as protected areas.

BirdLife International therefore strongly supports the most stringent and precautionary targets for marine and coastal biodiversity in the CBD’s revised and updated strategic plan, including the following formulations for the respective targets:

Target 6: By 2020, overfishing is ended, destructive fishing practices are eliminated, and all fisheries are managed sustainably.

Target 11: By 2020, at least 20% of terrestrial, inland- water and 20% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through comprehensive, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of effectively managed protected areas and other means, and integrated into the wider land- and seascape.

More specifically, BirdLife, drawing on its specialist expertise, wishes to highlight three topics which have immediate importance for marine biodiversity in general and seabirds in particular:

• Marine Protected Areas and Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)

• Fisheries Bycatch of Non-target Species

• Indicators for Assessment of the State of Marine Environment

1. Marine Protected Areas and Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas

Designation and appropriate management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) has been shown to bring significant benefits to both the conservation of marine biodiversity and human livelihoods. Recognising this, governments – through the CBD and the World Summit on Sustainable Development – have established measurable targets for MPA coverage, to be achieved by 2012:

‘By 2010, terrestrially and 2012 in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national and regional protected area system is established’ (Decision VII/28, CBD 2004).

IUCN estimates that unless progress is accelerated, this CBD goal will not be met until 2060, half a century after the 2012 agreed target1.

In 2008 in Bonn, Germany the Parties to CBD adopted a set of seven scientific criteria and guidance (CBD Decision IX/20 Annex I & II) to identify Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the global marine realm.

In BirdLife’s view, COP-10 must agree and resource far greater efforts to identify EBSAs and to set up MPAs, especially in ABNJ. BirdLife believes the following measures are needed to address the poor coverage achieved to date and meet the MPA target.

Build capacity and enhance collaborationIn many countries the skills needed to identify priority areas for conservation are lacking, and regional workshops, toolkits and other methods of sharing experiences need to be promoted and supported. It is vital to identify and build conservation support for those sea areas which are of the greatest biological significance. Concerted international collaboration is required to achieve this and BirdLife supports decision 5.2.10.

Move towards representivityMuch attention to date has been focused on sedentary species and easily identified habitat (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves), with pelagic and migratory species severely under represented in MPA design.

Ensure adequacy and resilienceSites need to be appropriately placed and on a scale large enough to maintain the ecological viability and integrity of species and habitats, and allow them to survive and adapt in the face of disaster and change.

Ensure connectivityMPA network sites need to be identified during different life history stages; this is absolutely crucial for the survival of migratory pelagic species.

BirdLife believes that seabirds in general and its marine Important Bird Areas (IBAs) Programme specifically, can help inform the designation of MPAs, both in territorial waters, and in ABNJ. BirdLife:

a) Recognises that protecting the most important seabird sites will also encompass much other biodiversity.

b) Promotes marine IBAs as candidate MPAs, and as a key reference for government efforts to achieve the CBD marine target, and so help fulfil Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18.

c) Asks the CBD to recognise that marine IBAs have already undergone rigorous assessment in their identification and should be regarded as candidate EBSAs, because they fulfil several EBSA criteria2.

d) Promotes seabirds as excellent (and relatively easily studied) indicators for the state of the marine environment.

With regards to specific CBD progress on EBSAs in need of protection, BirdLife expects that at COP-10 Parties will:

a) Endorse the COP draft decisions for EBSAs particularly the recommendations calling for the establishment and maintenance of an inventory of EBSAs

b) Recognise that it is impossible to establish effective boundaries for many EBSAs without considering threats and potential future management options.

BirdLife Background

BirdLife International’s Important Bird Area (IBA) programme has, for more than 25 years, been successful at setting priorities and focusing actions for site conservation on land and in fresh waters, and has recently been adapted and extended to the marine environment. A set of quantitative, standardised, globally agreed criteria are used to identify a network of marine IBAs which, at a biogeographic scale, are critical for the long-term viability of naturally occurring seabird populations. BirdLife Partners have been developing model projects to guide the identification of marine IBAs (e.g. in Spain3 and Portugal4) and BirdLife has created a toolkit to help standardise approaches and share experiences5.

Marine IBA data are already informing and contributing in other ways to a range of policy mechanisms, including:

• The EU Birds Directive and Natura 2000 network

• Identification of CBD EBSAs through the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initative (GOBI)

• The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)

• The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

• The Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions

• The Bucharest, Barcelona, Helsinki, and OSPAR Conventions

• Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources for the Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

• Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs).

2. Fisheries Bycatch of Non-target Species

In the CBD COP-10 official draft decision relating to minimising the impacts of destructive fishing practices (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/1/Add.2; item 5.2.12), a key issue in respect of marine biodiversity is management of bycatch and reduction of discards.

Bycatch (incidental mortality) of marine mammals, turtles and seabirds in fishing operations is one of the most pervasive and important threats to the survival of many populations and species. These problems are widespread throughout industrial and artisanal longline, trawl and gill-net fisheries, including tuna fisheries on the High Seas. However, best-practice solutions are widely available for many fishing gears and implementing them would both increase the economic sustainability of fisheries and remove one the greatest threats to the survival of the non-target species. Indeed, obligations to take such action have been clearly outlined in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

BirdLife Background

BirdLife has had long-term involvement with seabird bycatch issues, notably with FAO and RFMOs:

a) assessing known and potential impacts of bycatch on seabirds, especially using remote-tracking data to define overlap with fisheries posing particular threats6;

b) collaborating in formal Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) for seabirds, particularly within tuna RFMOs (WCPFC and ICCAT7) and developing guidelines for the use of ERAs in fisheries bycatch management;

c) contributing to numerous reviews of best-practice mitigation, culminating in the production of definitive Factsheets8, summarising the latest knowledge;

d) undertaking a global review, fishery-by-fishery, of seabird bycatch in longline fisheries.

BirdLife also played a key role in facilitating the development of the FAO-Best Practice Technical Guidelines (BPTG, adopted by FAO in June 2009)9, which provide a vital tool for delivering the IPOA-Seabirds through: (1) advice to assist States and RFMOs in implementation; and (2) extending advice to other relevant fisheries (e.g. trawl and gillnets).

In 2005, BirdLife also established the Albatross Task Force (ATF), to work alongside fishers and fishery managers to implement best-practice bycatch mitigation. The ATF currently employs 14 instructors working in 7 countries in South America and southern Africa and has already achieved some substantial reductions in seabird bycatch. It also includes a detailed mitigation research programme to further improve measures to mitigate seabird bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries.

The priority needs in respect of bycatch management are:

a) Rapid reduction in levels and rates of catch of non-target species through improved use of mitigation in longline and trawl fisheries

b) Better data to measure bycatch levels/rates and their response to improved mitigation

c) More/better coordinated research and development (and use) of new and improved methods for bycatch mitigation, especially for pelagic longlines and for gill-nets

On most seabird bycatch issues and topics we already know enough about:

a) Area/fishery-specific impacts and risks to take appropriate action now;

b) Best-practice mitigation for most types of fishing gear (not gill-nets) to recommend in general, and usually also on a fishery -specific basis, where, when and how to apply the appropriate measures.

Therefore, what we need now are better processes for providing expert advice to all relevant governments, fishery organisations and managers and the political will to implement best-practice recommendations in all appropriate EEZs and in all Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) with responsibilities in ABNJ.

3. Indicators for Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment

Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (SME) is a complex and challenging task. As a minimum, BirdLife recommends that such assessments develop and use a comprehensive system of indicators, reflecting quantifiable and verifiable statistics on:

a) Status of and trends in distribution, abundance and performance of selected marine species, especially those already globally threatened.

b) Number and extent of Marine Protected Areas, including quantitative assessments of their nature and effectiveness, and of the scope and level of implementation of management plans.

c) Proportion of all Marine Protected Areas and all key marine ecosystems under assessed sustainable management, with particular attention to existing and potential threats (e.g. fishing, mineral and hydrocarbon exploitation and energy generation, condition of relevant island and coastal/watershed areas).

d) Status of commercial open-water fisheries in respect of stock status, including relevant indices (CPUE, Marine Trophic Index, metrics of target species), together with discard and bycatch levels and rates for non-target fish, seabird, marine mammal and turtle species.

e) Extent and status of relevant marine aquaculture operations, especially proportions assessed as sustainably managed and associated impacts on genetic structure of wild fish populations, benthos, water column.

f ) Pollution: quality of input from rivers (levels and nature of industrial discharge, etc.), levels of chemical pollutants (PCBs, heavy metals, etc.) in marine species, nature and impact of oil pollution (both chronic and acute), levels of marine debris and of ingested plastics for relevant marine species.

g) Productivity, in terms of phytoplankton chlorophyll-a and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrations for all key areas.

h) Number, biological impact and economic cost of alien (introduced and self-introduced) invasive species.

BirdLife would expect these data to be available for territorial waters of all main states and, through the initiatives of UNCLOS and RFMOs, for all high seas areas in which commercial human activities are conducted and/or which are subject to anthropogenic pressures.

Seabirds as Indicators

Given the magnitude of this task, even for the best documented territorial waters/EEZs, the importance of seabirds in assessing the state of marine ecosystems will be critical. Although relatively few in number, seabirds overall are worldwide in distribution – in all seas and oceans – and compared with other groups of equivalent role in marine systems, exceptionally well-studied. Consequently, their global (IUCN) conservation status is more comprehensive and reliable than for any comparable group of marine organisms. Therefore, both intrinsically and because the status of seabirds is likely to reflect the underlying state of important parts of the coastal and oceanic systems of the world, we need to understand how seabirds are faring, how and why this has changed in recent times, what actions we should take to address the main current threats and what kind of baseline we possess against which to measure future change. BirdLife has just undertaken a global review of this topic10.

The potential role of seabirds as indicators of marine conditions is widely acknowledged. Many studies exist, albeit mainly in temperate and polar regions and in the Northern Hemisphere, which use aspects of seabird biology and ecology, especially productivity and population trends, to infer and/or correlate with aspects of the marine environment, particularly food availability. In addition, seabirds are likely amongst the best potential direct indicators of the levels/impacts of many pollutants (oil, PCBs, heavy metals, marine debris). Seabirds would thus make major direct contributions to SME assessments for indicators 1, 4 (bycatch) and 6 and would be invaluable components for indicators 2 and 3.

Recommendation:

BirdLife therefore advocates establishing, through a combination of existing and new international initiatives, a worldwide seabird monitoring programme, linked to publically accessible databases, which would provide a global network of data on population trends and status of key seabird species (involving data on productivity and survivorship and including as many globally threatened species as possible), as well as on pollutant burdens and impacts and on mortality events, including all relevant bycatch statistics.

References1 Wood L.J., Fish L., Laughren J. and Pauly D. (2008) Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in

information and action. Oryx (2008), 42:340-351

2 BirdLife International (2009) Designing networks of marine protected areas: exploring the linkages between Important Bird Areas and ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ewbcsima-01/other/ewbcsima-01-birdlife-02-en.pdf

3 Arcos, J.M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, B. and Ruiz, A. (2009) Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049-Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife). Madrid. (In Spanish). http://www.seo.org/avesmarinas/flash.html#/1/

4 Ramírez, I., Geraldes, P., Meirinho, A., Amorim, P. and Paiva V. (2008) Áreas Importantes para as Aves Marinhas em Portugal – Important Areas for seabirds in Portugal. Projecto LIFE04 NAT/PT/000213 – Sociedade Portuguesa Para o Estudo das Aves. Lisboa. (In Portuguese and English).

http://lifeibasmarinhas.spea.pt/y-book/ibasmarinhas

5 BirdLife International (2010) Marine Important Bird Areas toolkit: standardised techniques for identifying priority sites for the conservation of seabirds at-sea. BirdLife International, Cambridge UK. Version 1.1: May 2010.

www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Marine_IBA_Toolkit_2010.pdf

6 BirdLife International (2004). Tracking Ocean Wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariform Tracking Workshop, 1-5 Sept, 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge UK: BirdLife International. www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/seabirds/tracking_ocean_wanderers.pdf

7 http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2009_SC-ECO_Rep_ENG.pdf

8 www.birdlife.org/seabirds/bycatch/albatross.html

9 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (Suppl. 2) Fishing Operations - Best Practice to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in capture fisheries (FAO 2009) http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-seabirds/publications/en.

10 BirdLife International (2010) Seabird conservation status and threats: a global assessment. Internal BirdLife report.

BirdLife contacts in Nagoya: Ben Lascelles, Global Marine IBA Coordinator [email protected]

John Croxall, Chair – BirdLife Global Seabird Programme [email protected]