. Marine and coastal biodiversity: review, further elaboration and refinement of the programme of work
Marine and coastal biodiversity: review, further elaboration and refinement of the programme of work
A. Review of the programme of work on marine and coastal biodiversity
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
- Recommends that the conference of the parties:
- takes note that progress has been made in the implementation of the programme of work at the national, regional and global levels and that facilitation of implementation has been undertaken by the secretariat;
- decides that the programme elements of the programme of work still correspond to global priorities, which are not fully implemented, and therefore extends the time period of the programme of work by an additional six years, taking into account the multi-year programme of work of the conference of the parties up to 2010;
- Recognizes that some refinement to the programme of work is needed as a
result of recent developments and new priorities, and that such refinement be
- incorporating the recommendations set out below, in relation to marine and coastal protected areas, mariculture, and the conservation and sustainable use of deep seabed genetic resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, into programme elements 3, 4 and 2 respectively of the programme of work, and developing associated detailed work plans based on these recommendations for consideration by the conference of the parties at its seventh meeting;
- deciding to establish an additional ad hoc technical expert group, which includes representatives of indigenous and local communities, on the topic of integrated marine and coastal area management, for the elaboration of programme element 1. The terms of reference of the expert group are annexed to the present decision;
- considering the elaboration of programme element 5 on invasive alien species in accordance with relevant decisions of the conference of the parties by inviting relevant organizations such as the international maritime organization (imo), the global invasive species programme (gisp), the food and agriculture organization of the united nations (fao), and the ramsar convention on wetlands to work together to develop an international cooperative initiative to address impediments to the management of marine alien species, particularly to address technical problems related to the identification and control of marine invasions;
- emphasizing the implementation of the ecosystem approach in relation to the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity;
- considering the necessity of collaboration between the secretariats of the convention on biological diversity and the regional seas conventions and action plans, including identification of joint programmes of work, based on regionally elaborated criteria for the establishment and management of marine and coastal protected area under regional seas conventions and action plans;
- considering the need for cooperation with, and building on the large marine ecosystems (lme) concept, as well as specific lme projects that are ongoing or planned;
- considering the incorporation of the results of the world summit on sustainable development as priority actions into each appropriate programme element of the programme of work;
- considering the incorporation of enabling activities into the programme of work in order to overcome obstacles to its implementation, including actions to facilitate the formation of cooperative partnerships to enhance capacity and implementation, taking into account the special needs and difficulties experienced by stakeholders in developing countries and by indigenous and local communities;
- considering the setting of clear targets for the implementation of activities, taking into account the plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development and the strategic plan of the convention;
- considering setting a goal for the programme of work to achieve significant reduction of the current rate of marine and coastal biological diversity loss by the year 2010;
- Requests that the executive secretary, in collaboration with a liaison group, elaborate the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity, based on the guidance given in subparagraph 2. Above, and present it for consideration of the conference of the parties at its seventh meeting;
- Recommends that a regular and systematic review of the implementation of the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity be undertaken at six-year intervals.
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT (IMCAM)
1. The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Implementation of Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM)will undertake the following tasks:
(a) Review the work undertaken under programme element 1 (IMCAM) of the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity, including the existing guidance on the Convention on Biological Diversity and IMCAM developed by the Government of the Netherlands; the Ramsar Convention guidelines; relevant regional initiatives; the results of the ad hoc technical expert groups on marine and coastal protected areas and mariculture; the relevant sections of the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; and the obstacles to implementation identified by Parties;
(b) Based on task (a), propose a set of targeted enabling activities that could best overcome the identified obstacles to the implementation of IMCAM nationally and regionally; and propose ways and means, such as partnerships or other means, through which they could be undertaken within the context of the Convention;
(c) Identify existing tools, including policy, institutional, technological and financial tools and mechanisms that can be used to overcome obstacles to national and regional-level implementation of IMCAM. Provide guidance to Parties on the application of such tools;
(d) Based on tasks (a), (b), and (c), propose priority areas for the work of the Convention, aimed at the implementation of IMCAM globally.
(e) When undertaking all of the tasks described above consider the special needs of and difficulties faced by stakeholders in developing countries and indigenous and local communities, and identify ways and means to foster international cooperation to assist those countries.
B. Duration of work
2. The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on the Implementation of IMCAM will start its work after the ninth meeting of SBSTTA, and will complete it no later than the eleventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body, keeping in mind the urgency of this matter taking into account the multi-year programme of work of the Convention.
B. Marine and coastal protected areas
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice recommends that the Conference of the Parties
1. Welcomes the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, 6/ thanks the Governments of New Zealand and the United States of America, and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), for their financial, organizational and technical support for this work, and thanks the Chair and members of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group for their work.
2. Notes that marine and coastal biodiversity is under rapidly increasing and locally acute human pressure, such that globally, regionally and nationally marine and coastal biodiversity is declining or being lost. One of the reasons for this level of threat is the very low level of development of marine and coastal protected areas.
3. Notes that marine and coastal protected areas have been proven to:
(a) Protect biodiversity;
(b) Ensure sustainable use of resources; and
(c) Manage conflict, enhance economic well-being and improve the quality of life;
4. Notes that there are increasing numbers of marine and coastal protected areas, but in many cases they have not been effective because of problems related to their management, size and habitat coverage;
5. Notes also that the data available indicate that regionally and globally, marine and coastal protected area networks are severely deficient, and probably protect a very small proportion of marine and coastal environments and make a relatively small contribution to sustainable management of marine and coastal biodiversity;
Goals of marine and coastal protected areas
6. Agrees that marine and coastal protected areas are an essential element in the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity, and that the establishment of marine and coastal protected areas, where they are within areas under national jurisdiction, shall be in accordance with national legislation, programmes and policies, where they exist, and in accordance with international law where they are in areas beyond national jurisdiction;
7. Notes that there is an international body of evidence demonstrating that those marine and coastal protected areas where extractive uses are excluded have benefits for fisheries in surrounding areas, for communities, and for sustainable tourism and other economic activities within and outside the marine and coastal protected area;
8. Agrees that the goal for work under the Convention relating to marine and coastal protected areas should be:
"The establishment and maintenance of marine and coastal protected areas that are effectively managed, ecologically based and contribute to a permanent representative global network of marine and coastal protected areas, building upon national networks, including a range of levels of protection, where human activities are managed, particularly through national legislation, regional programmes and policies, traditional and cultural practices and international agreements, to maintain the structure and functioning of the full range of marine and coastal ecosystems, in order to provide benefits to both present and future generations.";
9. Notes that the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to promote the conservation and management of the oceans, agreed to develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, such as the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks, by 2012, and time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds and spawning periods and agrees to adopt this approach for the work of the Convention on marine and coastal protected areas, and to develop a strategy to meet this goal, including indicators of progress;
National framework of marine and coastal protected areas
10. Recognizes that marine and coastal protected areas should be a part of a wider integrated marine and coastal area management framework and, accordingly, urges Parties and other Governments with jurisdiction over marine and coastal areas to establish, as a matter of high priority and urgency, an effective marine and coastal biodiversity management framework, covering all areas subject to national jurisdiction, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf areas and deep sea basins, incorporating the elements set out in annex IV below, including by establishing new marine and coastal protected areas and by improving the effectiveness of existing marine and coastal protected areas;
11. Agrees that an effective marine and coastal biodiversity management framework as set out in annex IV would comprise sustainable management practices and actions to protect biodiversity over the wider marine and coastal environment, including an integrated network of marine and coastal protected areas consisting of:
(a) Representative areas where extractive uses are excluded, and other significant human pressures are removed or minimized, to enable the integrity, structure and functioning of ecosystems to be maintained or recovered; and
(b) Other marine and coastal protected areas which may complement the biodiversity objectives of the areas referred to in subparagraph (a) above, where threats are managed for the purpose of biodiversity conservation and/or sustainable use and thus where extractive uses may be allowed;
12. Agrees that the balance between category (a) and (b) marine and coastal protected areas in paragraph 11 above would be selected by the country concerned and that, in selecting an appropriate balance, the country should take into account the advice of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group that certain objectives such as scientific reference areas can only be achieved through the establishment of category (a) marine and coastal protected areas;
13. Notes that there are some benefits of the framework that can be provided with any degree of certainty only by including highly protected areas, and that to achieve the full benefits this network needs to include representative and distinctive areas and contain a sufficient area of the coastal and marine environment to be effective and ecologically viable;
14. Agrees that key factors for achieving effective management of marine and coastal protected areas include good governance, clear legal or customary frameworks to prevent damaging activities, effective compliance and enforcement, ability to control external activities that affect the marine and coastal protected area, strategic planning, capacity-building and sustainable financing;
15. Urges Parties to urgently address, through appropriate integrated marine and coastal management approaches, all threats, including those arising from the land (e.g. water quality, sedimentation) and shipping/transport, in order to maximize the effectiveness of marine and coastal protected areas and networks in achieving their marine and coastal biodiversity objectives taking into account possible effects of climate change such as rising sea levels;
16. Agrees that the participation of relevant stakeholders and indigenous and local communities is essential for achieving the global goal, and for the establishment and maintenance of individual marine and coastal protected areas and national and regional networks;
17. Notes the technical advice provided by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group, contained in annex II below and in its report, relating to marine and coastal protected areas within national jurisdiction, and urges Parties and Governments to utilize that advice in their work to establish a marine and coastal protected area network;
Marine and coastal protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction
18. Notes that there are increasing risks to biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and that marine and coastal protected areas are extremely deficient in purpose, numbers and coverage in these areas;
19. Agrees that there is an urgent need to establish in areas beyond national jurisdiction further marine and coastal protected areas consistent with international law, and based on scientific information, including in relation to areas of seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold-water corals and open ocean;
20. Takes into account that jurisdiction in the high seas is provided for by the law of the sea and requests the Executive Secretary to work with other international bodies, particularly the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority, the International Maritime Organization, regional seas conventions and action plans, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, regional fisheries organizations, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and other relevant organizations, to identify appropriate mechanisms for the establishment and effective management of marine and coastal protected areas beyond national jurisdiction, and report his findings to the Conference of the Parties;
Assessment, monitoring and research priorities
21. Notes that the research priorities and pilot projects set out in annex I will provide important assistance to national and regional efforts to establish and maintain marine and coastal protected areas and national and regional networks;
22. Agrees to incorporate the research priorities and pilot projects contained in annex I below into the programme of work in marine and coastal biodiversity, and requests the Executive Secretary to identify partners to adopt the research priorities and undertake these projects as a matter of urgency;
23. Notes that it is necessary to develop research programmes on the conservation of marine biological diversity resources beyond marine and coastal protected areas, with a view to establishing protected-area networks;
International support for the creation of networks of marine and coastal protected areas
24. Urges Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to provide active financial, technical and other support for the establishment of a global system of marine and coastal protected area networks and the implementation within it of relevant provisions contained in this decision, including identification and removal of barriers to the creation of marine and coastal protected areas, and removal of perverse incentives for unsustainable activities in the marine and coastal environment, pursuant to decision VI/15, on incentive measures, within the framework of relevant marine-related international law;
25. Decides to examine the need for support through the financial mechanism to developing country Parties, in particular the least developed and small island developing States among them, for country-driven activities aimed at enhancing capabilities for activities relating to the establishment and maintenance of marine and coastal protected areas and networks of marine and coastal protected areas and in particular to assist Parties to develop systems to make their marine and coastal protection area networks self-sustaining in the medium to long term;
26. Notes that further technical advice related to network design and in particular ecological coherence of networks will be needed to assist Parties in implementation work, and request the Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau of Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, to identify an appropriate mechanism for developing this advice and either activate that mechanism or report back to Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice if approval by Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice or the Conference of the Parties is necessary.
Monitoring progress toward the global goal
27. Invites the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with relevant organizations and authorities, to provide and maintain up-to-date information on marine and coastal protected areas, in line with the proposed categories for inventory and contextual information set out in annex III below, to provide a basis for the Convention's assessment work;
28. Requests the Executive Secretary to provide an assessment of progress toward the global goal, as part of reporting on the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity.
RESEARCH PRIORITIES, INCLUDING PILOT RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROJECTS
The following research priorities and pilot projects were identified by the AHTEG in response to paragraphs (a) and (d) of the terms of reference. Each is designed to both explore and enhance the linkages between marine and coastal protected areas and the sustainable use of marine and coastal living resources. Achieving the goal of sustainable use of living resources is dependent on the social, economic and cultural context of each MCPA, and therefore a number of the research priorities focus on this aspect of MCPAs. The effects of MCPAs on population size and dynamics (paragraph (d) of the terms of reference) are investigated through priority 2.1 (connectivity and proportionality), priority 2.3 (d) (climate change), priority 3.1 (MCPA size and location versus species and habitat dynamics), and priority 3.6 (b) (Percentage of protection required versus size and dynamics of local population).
A. Establishing a global network of MCPAs
Priority 1.1: Developing and implementing national, regional and global strategies towards establishing networks of MCPAs.
(a) Parties, regional bodies and relevant organizations to bring to the attention of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity existing and planned initiatives towards the development of networks of MCPAs.
(b) Draft action-oriented strategies for establishing MCPA networks, and implement those strategies in line with regional initiatives, for example by holding regional workshops.
B. Inventory and assessment of MCPAs and the global system
Priority 2.1: Assessing the representativeness, connectivity and proportionality of the existing MCPA system.
(a) Undertake initiatives to map ecosystems and habitats within regions and biogeographic areas, and determine the minimum level of broad habitat categories required for assessing representativeness of MCPA networks. Use this as a basis for assessing representativeness of the existing MCPA network. This work should use a high-level framework that is compatible with the basis for global inventory work. One possible approach to this work is to hold regional workshops.
(b) Assess connectivity to determine bioregions, and apply this information for evaluation of the existing MCPA network, as well as for identifying priority areas for the future.
(c) Assess the effectiveness of the current MCPA network regionally and globally for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory species.
Priority 2.2: Developing appropriate databases at the national level to allow for an assessment of MCPA frameworks on a larger (regional/global) scale. Using these data to identify patterns among MCPAs to generate priority needs for future research and approaches for adaptive management.
(a) Develop the high-level framework for the global inventory (see annex IV below), and related advice to national managers on national inventories.
(b) Develop national databases for assessment of selected existing national/regional networks, selecting examples from the range of political, economic and biogeographic situations.
(c) Undertake a global review of the current state of knowledge of MCPAs by region. Provide output in a format understandable for managers and policy makers.
Priority 2.3: Identifying the best indicators for assessing management effectiveness at various scales within an overall system.
(a) Develop and test a suite of effective assessment measures, including indicators, on a number of existing sites (biological, socio-economic and governance-based indicators). Selected pilot sites must cover the range of cold, temperate and tropical regions.
(b) Develop methods for evaluating the effectiveness of entire MCPA networks.
(c) Develop methods for adapting MCPA management in response to possible changing species and habitat distribution patterns, which may result from climate change.
C. Implementation of MCPA networks
Priority 3.1: Develop methods to manage conflicts and generate support for adequate protection of biodiversity through area-specific approaches.
(c) Evaluate the long-term benefits (for example species changes, habitat changes and ecosystem changes) of protecting large-enough/significant-enough critical habitats and ecosystems, by developing case studies.
Priority 3.2: Establishing criteria for choosing MCPAs in countries that lack such criteria.
(a) Provide a conceptual model and best practice examples of criteria for selecting MCPAs, by undertaking linked work in a small number of selected countries.
Priority 3.3: Enhancing social and economic effects of MCPAs, particularly in terms of poverty alleviation.
(a) Development of culturally sensitive MCPA development/management approaches to achieve effective participation, as appropriate, of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders.
(b) Develop adaptive approaches to MCPA establishment and management. This could be done by collection and dissemination of case studies of both best and worst-case examples of the degree to which an understanding of how target communities operate (socially/culturally) and "do business" can affect the success of MCPA establishment and management.
Priority 3.4: Developing effective "learning networks"-networking among MCPAs at the national/international level. Develop and test such networks in a representative range of test countries / regions.
(a) Develop networks of communities/stakeholders of MCPAs to enable them to share and learn from experiences.
(b) Compile information on existing learning networks, and develop guidance for the operation of such networks based on these experiences.
Priority 3.5: Developing effective methods for integrating traditional knowledge into MCPA establishment and management.
(a) Develop guidelines for integration of traditional knowledge, practices and innovation, with the participation of indigenous and local communities and with their prior informed consent in accordance with national legislation, into MCPA establishment and management, and support these by compiling and disseminating case studies on a wide range of examples from places where such initiatives have been undertaken (for example, New Zealand, Chile, the Wider Caribbean).
Priority 3.6: Developing strategies for integrating MCPAs and network development into long-term national and regional planning.
(a) Develop strategies based on past experience and future needs for the range of geographical regions.
(b) Develop methods for estimating the percentage of non-extractive protection required, in conjunction with national monitoring programmes, depending on the size and dynamics of local populations.
(c) Incorporate considerations of sedimentation and water quality into planning and management processes.
GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
9. For countries with no MCPAs or no highly protected MCPAs, the first step should be to develop the first few MCPAs, and the necessary mechanisms to allow future MCPAs and networks to be developed. The goals and objectives of each MCPA should be clearly established when they are created.
10. A strategic planning approach should be adopted at the national and regional levels when developing an ecologically viable framework for MCPA development. This should be based on past experiences in effective management, large-scale factors affecting MCPA viability and long-term goals.
11. Management should focus on ensuring that each MCPA, and the network, are fulfilling the identified goals and objectives. This will require evaluation of effectiveness, and adaptive management over time.
12. Key factors for achieving effective management of MCPAs include good governance, clear legal or customary frameworks to prevent damaging activities, effective compliance and enforcement, ability to control external activities that affect the MCPA, strategic planning, and sustainable financing.
13. Good governance will depend on having one or more bodies, each with the authority and capacity to undertake their responsibilities. When there is more than one body, including, in the case of transboundary areas, bodies in different countries, mechanisms for coordinating and integrating management will be vital.
14. The legal or customary framework should clearly identify:
(a) Prohibited activities that will be contrary to the objectives of the MCPA;
(b) Those activities which will be allowed with clear restrictions or conditions to ensure that they will not be contrary to the objectives; and
(c) A decision-making process for all other activities.
7. Minimizing the number of discretionary activities is desirable in order to minimize potential harmful impacts in the MCPA.
8. Effective enforcement will depend on:
(a) Adequate enforcement capacity, including clear responsibilities, inter-agency coordination, trained and equipped personnel and the necessary legal or customary powers;
(b) Appropriate penalties and associated legal provisions; and
(c) Integration between enforcement, voluntary compliance and management.
9. Governments should be encouraged to urgently address, through appropriate integrated marine and coastal management approaches, all threats, including those arising from the land (e.g., water quality, sedimentation and marine debris), and shipping/transport in order to maximize the effectiveness of MCPAs and the network in achieving their objectives for marine and coastal biodiversity.
10. The AHTEG identified stakeholder participation as essential for achieving the global goal and for the establishment and maintenance of individual MCPAs and regional networks. Stakeholder participation would be particularly important in establishing equitable sharing of benefits accruing from creation of MCPAs. In addition, stakeholder participation would:
(a) Allow decisions to be made in an inclusive and transparent way;
(b) Facilitate the involvement in decision-making and management of a wide range of players, increasing the likelihood of success;
(c) Recognize traditional rights and customs, and other interests of indigenous and local communities and other relevant stakeholders in accordance with national law as appropriate; and
(d) Allow decisions and management to be undertaken at the appropriate level (e.g., through decentralization).
11. It was recognized that the type and extent of participation will depend on local circumstances, including issues such as the traditional rights, customs and traditions of indigenous and local communities in accordance with national law, available mechanisms and governance approaches, and the degree of interest of stakeholders.
12. The AHTEG prepared detailed technical advice to Parties to assist them in developing their systems. This advice has been presented to SBSTTA as an information document.
IMPROVEMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARDS THE GLOBAL GOAL
1. Since 1981, UNEP-WCMC has developed and maintained a global database on protected areas. The importance of this database, which is managed in collaboration with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, has been broadly recognized. Within the database is a subset of clearly identified marine and coastal protected areas.
2. The AHTEG examined available information, consulted UNEP-WCMC (and indirectly WWF-International), and concluded that global data on MCPAs should be improved and/or gathered in the following critical categories:
(a) Location (physical coordinates and country or political unit, including the names of neighbouring country/countries where the MCPA is transboundary);
(b) Total size of the protected area, the relative size of the marine and coastal component and, where transboundary, the total area under country jurisdiction;
(c) Temporal aspects e.g. permanency or seasonality of protection or management;
(d) Type of protection and management proposed or being implemented, using a simple three-tier system:
(i) Representative highly-protected areas where extractive uses are excluded; (ii) Additional MCPAs; (iii) Sustainable management practice in the wider coastal and marine environment.
(e) Effectiveness of protection and management gauged against the regime being proposed or being implemented, using a simple three-tier system:
(iv) Currently fully effective - no significant problems known; (v) Currently partially effective - some deficiencies; (vi) Currently ineffective - significant implementation problems;
(f) Nationally-designated names for type of protection and management e.g. marine park, marine and coastal nature reserve, etc.
(g) Habitats protected and managed (3D not just benthic).
(h) Species protected and managed (3D not just benthic).
(i) Habitats and species specifically excluded from protection/management within the MCPA (i.e. that have no legal protection).
(j) Nature of threats to habitats/species - see table 1.
(k) Name and contact details of person(s) providing the above information and date on which this was done.
3. These data categories are a core set, which would provide the key information needed to evaluate progress, and success. They consist of sufficiently few categories to make data collection rapid, easy and hopefully achievable. They would not only underpin the actions of the Convention in the marine and coastal environments but are also considered to be of value to the wider conservation community at global, regional and national levels.
4. The collection of information on habitats being protected and managed would need to be structured from a standard list. This would speed up and standardize data collection. This would need to consist of no more than 15 categories and would need to take a very high level approach. Such an approach needs to be developed but could use terms such as "coral, sea grass, mangrove, estuary, seamounts, etc.". A similar approach would need to be taken over high-level categories to collect information on threats. Some first thoughts on such categories are provided in table 1. In both cases, a decision at the time of data collection would need to be made on which categories were relevant. Whilst this may cause difficulty on occasions, `fitting' a site into this proposed management framework, any errors would be insignificant at the network, regional and global scales.
5. Data in other fields currently held within the world database on protected area of proven value to a wider audience, such as the IUCN management categories and GIS boundary data, could also be gathered but are not considered to be as important. IUCN category information will be collected for all sites on the United Nations list and so could be integrated into the above `global' categories.
6. It is also important, in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that additional contextual information be gathered for each signatory country on the nature of their marine and coastal environments. This would provide benchmarks against which data return would be analysed, progress tracked and future Convention policy determined. This information should include:
(a) Total area of seas under country jurisdiction in km2 in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the criteria against which this measurement was made (e.g. high water to seaward limit of jurisdiction, low water to seaward limit); and
(b) Habitat and species inventories. In order to assess whether adequate action is being taken, habitat and species inventories to establish global extent and distribution will be required.
7. The former would enable coverage of the marine and coastal protected area network being established under the Convention on Biological Diversity at local, regional and global scales to be tracked, whilst the latter would provide a reference point against which to set future priorities for action under the Convention to address deficiencies. Both are essential for assessing achievement of the proposed global goal.
8. UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), working in collaboration with UNEP regional seas offices and other relevant bodies, provide a vehicle by which such a consolidation and updating of global data on MCPAs could be achieved. The United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration currently chairs the WCPA marine programme, and is interested in using its resources and experience of marine and coastal issues to help develop the information base for making decisions on MCPAs.
9. The advent of Internet-based tools will greatly ease data-gathering and increase the accessibility of the information and its analysis to advise on local, regional and global progress and trends. Internet-based initiatives, and the predominate use of drop-down menus when gathering data from managers and practitioners, will also reduce data entry time and provide major advantages for the consistency and coherency, and ultimately reliability, of the dataset that needs to be gathered.
Examples of six possible high-level categories that could be used globally to structure collection of information on the nature of the principal threats to habitats/species within MCPAs*
High level category
1. Removal (e.g. harvesting, draining to create dry land) 2. Smothering (e.g. by artificial structures, disposal of dredge spoil)
3. Siltation (e.g. run-off, dredging, outfalls) 4. Abrasion (e.g. boating, anchoring, trampling) 5. Selective extraction (e.g. aggregate dredging, entanglement, turf cutting)
6. Noise (e.g. boat activity) 7. Visual (e.g. recreational activity)
8. Introduction of synthetic compounds (e.g. pesticides, antifoulants, PCBs) 9. Introduction of non-synthetic compounds (e.g. heavy metals, hydrocarbons) 10. Introduction of radio nuclides
11. Nutrient enrichment (e.g. agricultural run-off, outfalls) 12. Organic enrichment (e.g. mariculture, outfalls) 13. Changes in thermal regime (e.g. outfalls, power stations) 14. Changes in turbidity (e.g. run-off, dredging) 15. Changes in salinity (e.g. water abstraction, outfalls)
16. Introduction of microbial pathogens 17. Introduction of non-native species and translocations 18. Selective extraction of species (e.g. bait collection, wildfowling, commercial & recreational fishing)
|Note: one MCPA could qualify for a number of high-level categories.|
ELEMENTS OF A MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
A. Purpose of the framework
17. The overall marine and coastal biodiversity management framework should fulfil the three objectives of the Convention, namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
18. The framework would play an insurance/precautionary role to help halt losses in biodiversity and encourage recovery, notwithstanding our imperfect knowledge of the marine environment.
19. The framework should address all elements of biodiversity, as reflected in Annex I to the Convention, including the genetic, species and ecosystem levels.
20. Marine ecosystems include both benthic and pelagic elements. Most species have a mobile stage in their life cycle. As a consequence, marine systems are considered open and dispersing larvae can link distant marine, coastal and inland water habitats. This means that connectivity issues are significant in designing a marine biodiversity management framework, and one MCPA will not be able to protect all the biodiversity within the area. A network approach is therefore essential. The network should be at an appropriate scale, which may in some cases require a regional approach. That regional approach should address proportionality issues on a regional rather than a national scale, for example when one or a handful of countries possess most or all of a particular habitat type or the world population of a particular species.
B. Elements of the framework
5. An effective marine and coastal biodiversity management framework would comprise sustainable management practices and actions to protect biodiversity over the wider marine and coastal environment, including an integrated MCPA network consisting of:
(a) Representative areas where extractive uses are excluded, and other significant human pressures are removed or minimized, to enable the integrity, structure and functioning of ecosystems to be maintained or recovered; and
(b) Other marine and coastal protected areas which may complement the biodiversity objectives of the areas referred to in subparagraph (a) above, where threats are managed for the purpose of biodiversity conservation and/or sustainable use and thus where extractive uses may be allowed.
6. The balance between category (a) and (b) MCPAs in the previous paragraph would be selected by the country and when selecting an appropriate balance the country should take into account the advice of the AHTEG that certain objectives such as scientific reference areas can only be achieved through the establishment of category (a) MCPAs.
7. This framework should take into account national requirements with respect to the interests of indigenous and local communities, such as spiritual and cultural practices and socio-economic interests and, as appropriate, opportunities for the participation of indigenous and local communities in the establishment and management of MCPAs as well as opportunities to protect and promote the use of their knowledge, innovations and practices.
C. Representative areas from which extraction is excluded
8. Such representative areas would be managed to maintain their integrity, structure, functioning, resilience and persistence, or to take restorative or rehabilitative steps for biodiversity. They would encompass a full range of marine and coastal ecosystems (including those that are also unique or special), and be protected from human impacts and the effects of alien species. The key purpose of these areas would be to provide for intrinsic values, to allow us to better understand the marine and coastal environment by acting as scientific reference areas, to contribute towards marine environmental recovery, and to act as insurance against failures in our management. But they will also contribute to other objectives, including socio-economic well-being, sustainable use of fisheries in adjacent areas, and public enjoyment.
9. They should represent all ecosystems and contain examples of all marine biodiversity. They should contain sufficient area and replicates to ensure that they can fulfil their objectives and be ecologically viable over time. The AHTEG was unable to identify any simple formula for identifying whether such areas are representative, as this will depend on local circumstances (e.g., variability in habitats). Nevertheless, experience in terrestrial protected area work, the work on MCPAs to date, and the literature all indicate that the `representative' concept will not be provided by a few small MCPAs.
10. Protection from human impacts would mean that any removal of indigenous biota would be prevented except to the extent necessary to allow essential scientific research and education (i.e., these would be no-take reserves), but also that other practices which significantly impact on biodiversity (e.g. substrate alteration, changes in sediment movements, pollution, visitor disturbance of sensitive species) would be prevented or minimized.
11. These MCPAs would be permanent. They would need to be viable, in the face of changing threats and long-term environmental change (e.g. climate change). Viability might depend on matters such as the nature of the legal protection, the presence of replicates, the design of the individual MCPAs, and the connectivity between MCPAs (directly or using other MCPAs as stepping stones).
12. Although public access may be encouraged in order to generate educational and enjoyment benefits, these benefits would be treated as secondary to the primary purposes listed above. Public access may need to be controlled to prevent unacceptable impacts.
13. Areas would need to be geographically dispersed across biogeographic regions and would need to be ecosystem-based, rather than focus on single species.
D. MCPAs where extractive uses are permitted
14. MCPAs where extractive uses are permitted would contain areas that are subject to site-specific controls that have an explicit biodiversity objective or recognized biodiversity effect. Those controls may also have other objectives (e.g., economic or social objectives). In many countries these may comprise the majority of areas within MCPA networks and deliver most biodiversity benefits. Examples of such controls include controls on fishing methods (e.g., restricting bottom trawling), controls on the removal of certain species (e.g., habitat forming species), rotational closures, and controls on pollution and sedimentation.
15. Amongst the roles for these areas may be to maintain connectivity across the overall network, protect life cycle stages (e.g. as a result of spawning behaviour), and buffer the representative areas where extractive uses have been excluded.
E. Sustainable management of the wider environment
16. The MCPA network would be sitting within a framework of sustainable management practices over the wider marine and coastal environment.
17. Sustainable management practices over the wider marine and coastal environment could include general restrictions that would apply to the entire area (e.g., bans on certain destructive fishing methods), and site-specific restrictions imposed for non-biodiversity purposes (e.g., trawling restrictions to protect cables, restricted areas for defence purposes). These practices can contribute to biodiversity protection in a number of ways, including:
(a) The management of more widespread issues that pose a threat to the effectiveness of individual MCPAs, and ultimately, the aim of regional networks. These threats usually arise from land-based sources, and include issues such as water quality, sedimentation and shipping/transport;
(b) Providing direct benefits to biodiversity (e.g. restrictions on trawling to prevent cable damage can also protect sensitive biodiversity such as corals and sponges);
(c) Protecting wide-ranging marine and coastal biodiversity species which are difficult to address through site-specific measures (e.g. restrictions on fishing practices that cause a by-catch of species such as albatross, marine mammals and turtles); and
(d) Reducing impacts on the connections between MCPAs, e.g., by allowing the movement of larvae between MCPAs.
F. International support for creation and management of MCPA networks
18. The AHTEG identified a large number of impediments to the creation and management of MCPAs at the national level. There are a number of ways in which the international community can help to overcome these impediments. In particular, it can:
(a) Provide active financial, technical and other support for MCPA work; and
(b) Help to identify and remove both the barriers to the creation of MCPAs, and perverse incentives for unsustainable activities in the marine and coastal environment.
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice recommends that the Conference of the Parties:
1. Welcomes the summary report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Mariculture (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/9/Add.2) and the full report of the Group as presented as an information document (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF/6);
2. Expresses its appreciation to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for the technical support and meeting facilities provided for the meeting of the ad hoc technical expert group on mariculture;
3. Takes note of the negative biodiversity effects of mariculture, as described in section II of the summary report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Mariculture, and of the methods and techniques available for their mitigation, as described in section III of that summary report;
4. Notes also that mariculture may have some positive effects on biodiversity, as described in section IV of the summary report;
5. Urges Parties and other Governments to adopt the use of relevant methods and techniques for avoiding the adverse effects of mariculture on marine and coastal biological diversity, and incorporate them into their national biodiversity strategies and action plans;
6. Recognizes the complexity of mariculture activities, the highly variable circumstances of different geographical areas, mariculture practices and cultured species, as well as social, cultural and economic conditions, which will influence mitigation options, and, accordingly, taking into account the special needs of and the difficulties faced by stakeholders in developing countries, recommends that Parties and other Governments adopt the use of the following specific methods, techniques or practices for avoiding the adverse biodiversity-related effects of mariculture:
(a) The application of environmental impact assessments, or similar assessment and monitoring procedures, for mariculture developments, with due consideration paid to the scale and nature of the operation, as well as carrying capacities of the ecosystem, taking into account the guidelines on the integration of biodiversity considerations in environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes and in strategic impact assessment, endorsed by the Conference of the Parties in its decision VI/7 A, as well as the recommendations endorsed in decision VI/10, annex II, on the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities. There is a need to address the likely immediate, intermediate and long-term impacts on all levels of biodiversity;
(b) Development of effective site-selection methods, in the framework of integrated marine and coastal area management, taking into account the special needs and difficulties encountered by stakeholders in developing countries;
(c) Development of effective methods for effluent and waste control;
(d) Development of appropriate genetic resource management plans at the hatchery level and in the breeding areas, including cryo-preservation techniques, aimed at biodiversity conservation;
(e) Development of controlled low-cost hatchery and genetically sound reproduction methods, made available for widespread use, in order to avoid seed collection from nature, where appropriate. In cases where seed collection from nature cannot be avoided, environmentally sound practices for spat collecting operations should be employed;
(f) Use of selective fishing gear in order to avoid/minimize by-catch in cases where seed are collected from nature;
(g) Use of local species and subspecies in mariculture, noting that use of non-indigenous species may be appropriate in some circumstances;
(h) Implementation of effective measures to prevent the inadvertent release of mariculture species and fertile polyploids, including, in the framework of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, living modified organisms (LMOs);
(i) Use of proper methods of breeding and proper places of releasing in order to protect genetic diversity;
(j) Minimizing the use of antibiotics through better husbandry techniques;
(k) Ensure that fish stocks used for fish meal and fish oil are managed in such a way as to be sustainable and to maintain the trophic web;
(l) Use selective methods in industrial fisheries to avoid/minimize by-catch.
(m) Considering traditional knowledge, where applicable as a source to develop sustainable mariculture techniques;
7. Urges Parties and other Governments to adopt best management practices and legal and institutional arrangements for sustainable mariculture, taking into account the special needs and difficulties encountered by stakeholders in developing countries, in particular through implementing Article 9 of Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries, as well as other provisions in the Code dealing with aquaculture, recognizing that it provides necessary guidance to develop legislative and policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels;
8. Requests the Executive Secretary to undertake a comprehensive review of relevant documents on best practices relevant to mariculture, and to disseminate the results, as well as relevant case studies, through the clearing-house mechanism prior to the tenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body;
9. Approves the research and monitoring priorities identified by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Mariculture as outlined in the annex to the present decision, and recommends their implementation as part of the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity;
10. Recommends that the Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other relevant organizations, explore ways and means for implementing these research and monitoring priorities, including an evaluation of means through which mariculture can be used to restore or maintain biodiversity;
11. Recommends that the Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other relevant organizations, harmonize the use of terms in regards to mariculture by further developing and adopting the glossary of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
12. Expresses its support for regional and international collaboration to address transboundary impacts of mariculture on biodiversity, such as spread of disease and invasive alien species;
13. Decides to promote technical exchange and training programmes, and transfer of tools and technology;
14. Decides to examine the need for support through the financial mechanism to developing country Parties for country-driven activities aimed at enhancing capabilities to mitigate the adverse effects of mariculture on biological diversity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROJECTS
The Expert Group recognizes that at the present time there is insufficient information available about the effects of mariculture on biodiversity and its mitigation. Therefore, additional efforts, including through the use of the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities as appropriate, should be developed in the following areas:
(a) General research needs:
(i) Development of research programmes to support establishment of efficient monitoring programmes to monitor impacts of mariculture on marine and coastal biological diversity; (ii) Development of criteria for judging the seriousness of biodiversity effects of mariculture; (iii) Subsequent establishment of monitoring programmes to detect biodiversity effects of mariculture; (iv) Research on the impact of escaped mariculture species on biodiversity; (v) Development of criteria for when environmental impact assessments are required, and for the application of environmental impact assessments at all levels of biodiversity in the context of the guidelines endorsed by the Conference of the Parties in decision VI/7 A (genes, species, ecosystems), and the recommendations endorsed in decision VI/10, annex II; (vi) Noting that the FAO glossary of terms is skewed towards marine capture fisheries, expansion of this glossary with regard to its terminology related to aquaculture; (vii) Reinforcement of global assessments of marine and coastal biological diversity;
(b) Research related to impacts of mariculture on genetic diversity:
(viii) Development of genetic resource management plans for
(ix) Research aimed at understanding genetic effects of biotechnology developments in aquaculture;
(x) Research aimed at understanding genetic structure of both the farmed and wild populations, including:
· Effects of genetic pollution from farmed populations on wild
/ · Maintenance of genetic viability of farmed populations;
· Studies of (genetics of) wild populations as potential new candidates for mariculture;
(c) Research related to impacts of mariculture on species diversity:
(xi) Support for basic global-scale taxonomic studies, possibly in conjunction with the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI); (xii) Support for studies aimed at development of responsible aquaculture using native species; (xiii) Development of methods and techniques for limiting by-catch of seed collection;
(d) Research related to impacts of mariculture on ecosystem diversity:
(xiv) Research on carrying capacity and carrying capacity models for planning aquaculture, especially stocking rates; (xv) Comprehensive studies to quantitatively and qualitatively assess effects of mariculture on biodiversity for various aquatic ecosystems, selected by their sensitiveness degree; (xvi) Research on the competitive nature imposed on marine fisheries by capture and culture fisheries; (xvii) Studies aimed at improved understanding of the effects of inputs, such as chemicals, hormones, antibiotics and feeds on biodiversity; (xviii) Research on the impact of diseases in cultured and wild species on biodiversity;
(e) Research related to socio-economics, culture, policy and legislation:
(xix) Comparative studies on legislation, economic and financial mechanisms for regulating mariculture activity; (xx) Development of quantitative and qualitative criteria to assess mariculture impacts on the environment, including cultural and social impacts, as outlined in the recommendations of decision VI/10, annex II;
(f) Monitoring programmes:
(xxi) Support for mariculture-related disease monitoring programmes at the global level; (xxii) Support for the transfer of biotechnological diagnostic tools for wide use; (xxiii) Update of taxonomic database including genetic diversity at the intra-specific level.
D. Conservation and sustainable use of deep seabed genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction: study of the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice,
Recalling paragraph 12 of decision II/10 of the Conference of the Parties,
Taking note of the study on the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of the deep seabed (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF.3/Rev.1),
Recommends that the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting:
(a) Request the Executive Secretary, in consultation with Parties and other Governments and in collaboration with relevant international organizations, such as the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Seabed Authority and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization to compile and synthesize information on the status and trends of deep sea bed genetic resources and on methods to identify, assess and monitor genetic resources of the deep seabed in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, including identification of threats to such genetic resources and the means for their protection, with a view to addressing processes and activities under Article 4(b) of the Convention and to report on progress thereon to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, which will prepare recommendations for the consideration of the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting;
(b) Invite the United Nations General Assembly to call upon relevant international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International Hydrographic Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, to review issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of the deep seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly regarding appropriate actions;
(c) Invite Parties and other States to identify activities and processes under their jurisdiction or control which may have significant adverse impact on deep seabed ecosystems and species beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, in order to comply with Article 3 of the Convention.
6 / The timeframes for proposed outcomes will have to be agreed to in consultation with Parties. This could be part of recommendation 2 (d) requesting the Executive Secretary, in consultation with Parties, to develop targets for the implementation of the programme of work.