The First International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Panelists and titles of presentations: History and status of IWC whaling sanctuaries Arne Bjørge <strong>The</strong> history and current status of IWC whaling sanctuaries was presented to launch discussion of the topic. IWC whaling sanctuaries: the Brazilian perspective José Truda Palazzo, Jr. Prior to the 1982 global moratorium on commercial whaling, the <strong>International</strong> Whaling Commission was failing to achieve its stated objective of conserving whales for future generations. <strong>The</strong> prohibition, rather than simply the management, of commercial whaling was seen by many as necessary to ensure conservation of the world’s stocks of whales. This position has become even more compelling as novel threats to cetaceans and ocean ecosystems have come to be recognized (e.g., climate change, ocean acidification). Sanctuaries are consistent with the conservation mandate of the IWC. Member nations, especially developing ones, increasingly see sanctuaries as important tools for promoting both the recovery of whale populations and their use for scientific and socio-economic benefits through entirely non-lethal means. High-seas sanctuaries, by preventing the encroachment of pelagic whaling fleets from faraway countries, reinforce the policies of coastal States that prohibit whaling in their own jurisdictional waters and reserve whale resources for non-lethal appropriation by coastal communities. In addition, IWC sanctuaries can help protect whales as they move between other MPAs and provide a framework for MPA managers, policy makers, and other actors to communicate and cooperate. For these conservation benefits to be realized, however, the IWC and its Scientific Committee will need to move from a “prowhaling” perspective to one that embraces non-lethal uses as legitimate and essential for the future of whale species and populations. A review of IWC whaling sanctuaries Doug DeMaster <strong>The</strong> <strong>International</strong> Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed in 1946 as a direct result of over-harvesting of whale species worldwide. <strong>The</strong> IWC periodically adopts new or revises existing regulations by amending the Schedule, which is an integral part of the ICRW. Amendments to the Schedule require a three-quarters majority of those member countries voting. <strong>The</strong> Indian Ocean Sanctuary was established in 1979, while the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was established in 1994. Schedule amendments prohibit commercial whaling in these sanctuaries, although other human activities that could have impacts on whale populations (e.g., fishing, scientific whaling) are not regulated. At 10-year intervals, the IWC is required to review the effectiveness of each sanctuary relative to its associated objectives. This review process has proven contentious within the IWC. To some extent, the lack of consensus is related to how the objectives of these sanctuaries were originally developed. Any review of future ICMMPA <strong>Conference</strong> Proceedings 36
sanctuaries would benefit from careful consideration of how progress on realizing objectives (i.e., effectiveness) could and should be evaluated over time. Two additional sanctuaries – one in the South Atlantic and one in the South Pacific – have been proposed for a number of years but have failed to achieve the necessary threequarters majority to change the Schedule and become designated. Recently, the government of Australia initiated an international non-lethal research program in the Southern Ocean designed to improve understanding of the role of large whales in the ecosystem and of the ecosystem-level impacts of climate change and to provide information needed to promote the recovery of depleted whale populations. Australia has committed $32 million over the next five years to support this research and is seeking supportive international partnerships. Many countries, including the United States, have expressed strong support for the program. Agoa: a project for a marine mammal sanctuary in the French West Indies Christophe Lefebvre A special decree in 1976 accorded protection to all mammals in marine waters under French jurisdiction. Also, France has consistently supported three major international marine mammal sanctuaries: the IWC’s Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean sanctuaries and the Pelagos sanctuary in the Mediterranean Sea. <strong>The</strong> French MPA agency, created by new legislation in 2006, is currently implementing a project initiated by the Eastern Caribbean Coalition for Environmental Awareness to establish a marine mammal sanctuary in the Caribbean region (Agoa). <strong>The</strong> Agoa project was recognized internationally at the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC in 2006. Its goals are to promote the recovery of marine mammal populations in the region and ensure that both the species and their habitat are given the protection intended under French law. Non-lethal research will be supported in the sanctuary, and outreach and awareness efforts will be aimed at policy makers and mariners in the region. Measures to restrict human activities likely to jeopardize marine mammals will be developed and implemented through a stakeholder consultation process. Any Caribbean country that shares the objectives of Agoa is welcome to become associated with the project. Dominica has already indicated its willingness to join. <strong>The</strong> positives (and challenges) of national (EEZ) whale sanctuaries in Oceania and the SPREP whale and dolphin action plan Lui Bell <strong>The</strong> Pacific Islands region that is served by SPREP covers 32 million km 2 and is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the largest continuous marine habitat on the planet. Over half of the world’s known species of cetaceans occur in the region. Cetaceans, along with marine turtles and dugongs, are widely regarded as flagship species and are also recognised as fundamental elements of Pacific Islanders’ culture and heritage. Considerable effort has been devoted in the region to the conservation and protection of these species. SPREP has a 5-year (2008-2012) regional action plan for cetaceans that encourages creation of EEZ-wide sanctuaries as well as other mechanisms or tools, e.g., ICMMPA <strong>Conference</strong> Proceedings 37
Page 1 and 2: ProCeedingS oF tHe FirSt internAtio
Page 3: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIO
Page 6 and 7: Workshop 6: Creating Regulations th
Page 8 and 9: marine biodiversity and ocean healt
Page 10 and 11: catalysts, partners, or support sys
Page 12 and 13: Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Nat
Page 15 and 16: Symposium 1: Designing MPAs and MPA
Page 17 and 18: networks in the public eye, on the
Page 19 and 20: Protected Area of Mediterranean Imp
Page 21 and 22: Mia dolphins, dugongs, and loggerhe
Page 23 and 24: Symposium 2: Managing MMPAs Moderat
Page 25 and 26: The following sugg
Page 27 and 28: • The importance
Page 29 and 30: have been that MPA managers lack ex
Page 31 and 32: capacity building in order to addre
Page 33 and 34: of a cargo vessel (M/V Dunlin Arrow
Page 35 and 36: Symposium 3: Networking for the Fut
Page 37 and 38: spatial extent of such “habitat
Page 39 and 40: Panel 1: Marine Mammal Research wit
Page 41 and 42: used to study smaller-scale habitat
Page 43 and 44: ehavior and cultural trait consider
Page 45 and 46: Bryde’s whales in Southeast Brazi
Page 47 and 48: Ocean-wide, international, collabor
Page 49: into question the efficacy of IWC w
Page 53 and 54: Panel 3: How Can MPAs and Networks
Page 55 and 56: Summaries of Presentations: Ship st
Page 57 and 58: How to deal with temporally and spa
Page 59 and 60: • There is a nee
Page 61 and 62: A key question is: Are time/area cl
Page 63 and 64: • Clear guidelines and standards
Page 65 and 66: • Direct greater attention to the
Page 67 and 68: Improving MPAs and MPA networks - a
Page 69 and 70: such as the following: (1) responsi
Page 71 and 72: Summary of Findings: Protected area
Page 73 and 74: This case study follows a familiar
Page 75 and 76: • Protect whole communities of or
Page 77 and 78: Summary Points from Presentations:
Page 79 and 80: Critical habitat designations under
Page 81 and 82: • Important issues for possible M
Page 83 and 84: Workshop 2: Criteria for Marine Mam
Page 85 and 86: Building networks of MPAs Colleen C
Page 87 and 88: or biological productivity. A great
Page 89 and 90: Workshop 3: Getting Stakeholders to
Page 91 and 92: promise by Queen Victoria surfaced
Page 93 and 94: Postponement of MPA adoption has cr
Page 95 and 96: � Clarify errors and misunderstan
Page 97 and 98: plans and strategies. The</
Page 99 and 100: networking, often still used among
Page 101 and 102:
Workshop 5: MMPAs and MMPA Networks
Page 103 and 104:
Workshop 6: Creating Regulations th
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix 1. List of Training Sessio
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix 3. List of Marine Mammal P
Page 109 and 110:
Australia Petrachenko, Donna <stron
Page 111 and 112:
Chile Cabrera, Elsa Centro de Conse
Page 113 and 114:
Indonesia Himawan, Haryadi Secretar
Page 115 and 116:
New Zealand Slooten, Elisabeth Asso
Page 117 and 118:
Taiwan Lee, Jeng-Di Assistant Profe
Page 119 and 120:
United States Barr, Bradley NOAA Of
Page 121 and 122:
United States Cottingham, David NOA
Page 123 and 124:
United States Hatch, Leila Marine E
Page 125 and 126:
United States Kosaki, Randall Deput
Page 127 and 128:
United States Moran, Patrick Foreig
Page 129 and 130:
United States Roberts, Eric MPS Pro
Page 131 and 132:
United States Uravitch, Joseph Dire
Page 133 and 134:
Members of the Steering Committee B
Page 135:
For More inForMAtion: Visit the con
show all

The First International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?