The First International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

legislation, arrangements under international conventions, and specific threat-reduction measures. Almost all SPREP member countries and territories have legislation that calls for protection of cetaceans; ten have declared national sanctuaries. In partnership with the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), a Memorandum of Understanding has been concluded and signed, thus far, by 11 member countries and five collaborating agencies. Participation in the three international species conventions – CITES (8 member countries and 7 territories), IWC (8 member countries), and CMS (5 member countries) – is widespread in the Pacific Islands region. How can the IWC better contribute to both IWC and non-IWC whale sanctuaries? Mike Donoghue Getting the IWC to play a more positive role in the development of whale sanctuaries will require that: (a) the <strong>International</strong> Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and/or its Schedule is amended, (b) either the review process for Special Permit (“scientific”) whaling is modified or Special Permit whaling is ended altogether, (c) the current opt-out provisions are eliminated, (d) a conflict resolution process is established, and (e) sanctuaries are respected as such. Also, there is a need for improved cooperation between the IWC and other international bodies, especially the Convention on Migratory Species, the Convention on <strong>International</strong> Trade in Endangered Species, and the <strong>International</strong> Maritime Organization. Finally, there should be (a) greater involvement of scientists from developing countries in the IWC Scientific Committee, (b) more sharing of new research (and management) tools and techniques and of expensive technologies and platforms, (c) more mentoring, and (d) continuation and expansion of collaborative non-lethal research in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (particularly through the exciting new Southern Ocean Research Partnership). <strong>International</strong> law in relation to IWC and other international whale sanctuaries Irini Papanicolopulu From a legal point of view, whale sanctuaries can be created under a number of different treaties, including the <strong>International</strong> Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), regional seas conventions (e.g., the Barcelona Protocol on Specially Protected Areas), and ad hoc agreements (e.g., the Mediterranean Marine Mammals [Pelagos] Sanctuary). In addition, whale sanctuaries can be created independently by individual States. For example, a State can proclaim its EEZ as a whale sanctuary, as some Pacific States have done. Individual agreements relating to migratory species that have an unfavorable conservation status and require international agreements for their conservation have been adopted on the basis of Article IV of the CMS. <strong>The</strong>se include ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, the Pacific memorandum of understanding (MOU), and the West Africa and Macaronesia Small Cetacean and Manatee MOU. Treaties, regardless of what they are called (e.g., agreement, convention, treaty), provide for binding obligations on State Parties. Memoranda of understanding imply political commitment. In all cases, the parties to the instrument need to address the issue of third States, that is, States that do not belong to the agreement. ICMMPA <strong>Conference</strong> Proceedings 38
Panel 3: How Can MPAs and Networks of MPAs Ensure Threat Mitigation to Cetaceans? Convener and coordinator: Simone Panigada Rapporteur: Christine Gabriele Objectives: <strong>The</strong> general aim of this panel was to consider whether existing MPAs and MPA networks provide sufficient protection for marine mammals. A number of specific threat factors, along with the mitigation measures that have been used to address them, were illustrated and evaluated. Panelists were also asked to consider how and whether broader national action plans and regional conservation plans could be used to create more effective MMPA networks. Among the specific questions to be addressed were the following: • Do existing MPAs effectively protect marine mammals from ship strikes, bycatch, chemical pollution, acoustic pollution, prey depletion, and habitat degradation? • What elements need to be included in management plans to ensure that MPAs are achieving their goals? • What methods are available to characterize, assess, and manage synergistic effects? • Is critical habitat adequately identified and protected within existing MPAs? • What approaches are available to protect and manage critical habitat that is temporally and spatially dynamic? • How can multi-national and high-seas MPAs be designed and managed? • What real-time tools are available to mitigate the risk of ship strikes in MPAs? Summary of Findings: A basic principle for ensuring that an MMPA or MMPA network is effective is articulation of the management goals that address both ecological and socio-economic dimensions. Objectives should be clear, achievable, and measurable. <strong>The</strong> success of any MMPA is founded on scientific understanding of the ecology and critical habitat of key species and awareness of human activities and potential threats. Science should, among other things, seek to understand the physical mechanisms that cause formation and persistence of biological “hotspots,” focusing on patterns and processes such as retention zones, bathymetric gradients, and upwelling. New design concepts, including dynamic boundaries that can be changed in “real time” and extensive buffers, should be considered where appropriate. Periodic reassessment and re-evaluation of objectives and effectiveness, both internally and by interdisciplinary panels of outside peers, is recommended. Establishing and maintaining public acceptance of an MMPA is accomplished through good stakeholder relations and a broad-based education program. All aspects should incorporate consideration of local, traditional knowledge. ICMMPA <strong>Conference</strong> Proceedings 39
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 and 50: into question the efficacy of IWC w
Page 51: sanctuaries would benefit from care
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?