Original: English
English only
OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC
WORKING GROUP ON IMPACTS ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT (IMPACT)
BREST: 15 – 19 NOVEMBER 1999
The Outcome of the OSPAR Workshops on Selection Criteria for Species and Habitats and/or Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions in the Light of Annex V and the Strategy
Presented by World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)
Background
1. This is a submission by WWF in response to:
a. the Workshop on the Criteria for the Selection of Species and Habitats
Horta, Azores, Portugal, 12-16 July 1999;
b. the Workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions
Oban, Scotland, 6-10 September 1999.
2. This document not only compares the outcome of recent workshops with the requirements arising from the Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992, the Annex V to the OSPAR Convention, the Sintra Statement and the OSPAR Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area. In referring to the draft report Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas - A Framework for Canada’s Oceans commissioned by WWF Canada as at Annex 1 WWF’s North-East Atlantic Programme makes use of an advanced approach to develop protection measures on the basis of selection criteria, classification systems and biogeographic mapping. Following from this WWF’s Proposal for a framework for the systematic classification of all benthic and pelagic habitats in the OSPAR area is developed as at Annex 2.
Action Requested
3. IMPACT is invited to examine WWF’s comments and proposals as attached when
a. evaluating the Faial Criteria and Oban results (agenda item 4);
b. examining the outcome of activities with regard to marine protected areas (MPAs) and any consequential proposals for further activities (agenda item6);
c. discussing the development of programmes and measures related to Annex V (agenda item 7).
4. WWF recalls the following text from the new Annex V to the OSPAR Convention in order to place this submission in context with the legislation (emphasis added in bold):
ARTICLE 2In fulfilling their obligation under the Convention to take, individually and jointly, the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected, as well as their obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 to develop strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,....
ARTICLE 3
For the purposes of this Annex, it shall inter alia be the duty of the Commission: ....
(ii) to develop means, consistent with international law, for instituting protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures related to specific areas or sites or related to particular species or habitats; ...
(iv) subject to Article 4 of this Annex, to aim for the application of an integrated ecosystem approach.
5. We are concerned that while there seems to be a degree of clarity in the necessity to protect threatened and special marine features, there is a complete lack of clarity in the process required to fulfill the true requirements of Annex V and the Biodiversity Convention: to protect a representative range of ALL habitats and species.
6. The following flow chart illustrates a working procedure for OSPAR to apply to the workshop results in Texel 1997, Vilm 1998, Horta 1999 and Oban 1999 to achieve the requirements of OSPAR Annex V and the related Strategy as well as the Sintra Statement which highlighted the need to “promote the establishment of a network of marine protected areas to ensure the sustainable use and protection and conservation of marine biological diversity and its ecosystems.”
7. Two different strings of obligations arise from Annex V with respect to the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North-East Atlantic: the conservation of biological diversity and the protection of marine life against adverse effects of human activities. The obligation to conserve the full range of biodiversity requires an end goal to assess "when the job will be done" and a mechanism to achieve this goal. WWF considers that an appropriate classification system is the first step to assessing "when the job is done". A second step is the identification of a representative system of MPAs based on this classification.
8. During the OSPAR workshop on Habitat Classification and Biogeographic Regions in Oban, September 1999, however, only benthic habitats from the coast to the deep sea bed were tackled. The benthic classification so far is not matched by a comparable classification of the pelagic. WWF is extremely concerned about the lack of expert address of the pelagic classification, particularly as open ocean habitats are of upmost relevance to OSPAR´s remit.
9. In order to illustrate a system for arriving at an end goal WWF has submitted Annex1 to this document. This is an overview of parallel but far more advanced work being undertaken on the Canadian Scotian Shelf. To briefly explain, natural pelagic regions have been further classified into seascapes. The classification system is achieveable even under resticted species and habitat inventories as the principle is based on a minimal set of key physiographic and oceanographic features. By relying on physical and recurrent features, this classification identifies "natural" habitat types even in areas heavily affected by human use. Biodiversity in these highly disturbed areas might be impoverished or, at least, become very different from that which occured previously, but could still recover over time if the source of the disturbance was removed. The classification essentially predicts species assemblages on the basis of natural habitat types. By designating and affording strict protection in a representative network of recurrent habitats, the full range of Canada´s marine biodiversity is properly identified. A full report on the Canadian Scotian Shelf work is due to be published in early 2000 and will be circulated to IMPACT delegates after this time. As the report is not yet available, WWF welcomes further discussion to elaborate this concept at IMPACT or outside IMPACT.
10. The investigation and approriate peer review behind the systematic classification work on the Canadian Scotian Shelf also support our extreme concerns about the offshore classification now adopted as part of the EUNIS classification system. WWF urges IMPACT not to adopt the EUNIS classification system without considering the classification in the context of an overall goal. Further, the EUNIS classification is biased towards coastal and benthic habitats. A systematic approach to the pelagic habitats is required.
11. In order to allow for a systematic approach to the classification of all habitats in the OSPAR Maritime Area the development of an overall classification framework, comparable to the one introduced for the Scotian Shelf is recommended. The systematic classification of all habitats serves as a tool to select a representative fraction of all different habitat types to become part of a biologically representative network of MPAs with the goal to conserve reservoirs of species diversity and abundance.
12. A first proposal on how to integrate the current classification of benthic habitats into an overall classification framework for all habitats is attached (Annex 2).
13. The selection criteria for habitats and species and their application scheme as proposed to IMPACT by the OSPAR workshop at Horta, Azores, 1999, present a great step forward in the procedure to set up lists of priority species/habitats and features to be protected under OSPAR. In particular, WWF supports the hierarchical application procedure proposed by BirdLife International. WWF is in the process of testing the criteria to produce example lists of fish and offshore features. Results of preliminary tests will be available to demonstrate the process at IMPACT 1999.
Annex 1
Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas:
A Framework for Canada’s Oceans
Draft Written by
Jon Day and John Roff
September 1999
Edited by
Josh Laughren and Korry Lavoie
Rationale
A carefully planned, scientifically based network of representative natural areas can help ensure that marine biodiversity is conserved by protecting the habitats and ecological processes upon which species depend. The systematic identification of marine habitat types and the delineation of their boundaries in a consistent classification can ensure that representative examples of Canada’s marine areas are properly identified and protected.
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
A hierarchical framework for MPAs planning has been developed which is firmly based on ecological principles and on the enduring and recurrent geophysical and oceanographic features of the marine environment. The framework uses a natural hierarchical classification of marine environments to determine the diversity of physical habitat types and, when followed to its logical conclusions, reflects the range of conditions that influence species distributions in Canadian waters. It is basically a community-level analysis of marine systems and differs from classifications previously developed (e.g., Harper et al. 1993) in a number of ways:
· The classification described in this report uses physical attributes alone and essentially predicts the expected species assemblages on the basis of documented enduring or recurrent habitat characteristics.
· A major advantage of this approach is that the range of conditions that influence the distribution of organisms can be delineated into geographic units (referred to here as seascapes) by using already mapped geophysical features or by using remote sensing of appropriate surrogate variables. Most importantly, boundaries between habitat types can be defined functionally, even where we lack detailed biological data.
· This classification recognizes and classifies the two major marine environments (the pelagic realm and the benthic realm), which have fundamentally different communities and are driven by different ecological processes.
· By relying on physical and recurrent features, this classification identifies “natural” habitat types even in areas heavily affected by human use. Biodiversity in these highly disturbed areas might be impoverished or, at least, very different from that which occurred previously, but could recover over time if the source of the disturbances was removed.
Application
As a systematic and logical framework that all agencies and jurisdictions can use for their own purposes, the framework has a variety of potential applications. It can be used as the following:
· A common basis in the first step to determine representative MPAs or to assess MPA proposals from an ecological perspective
· A framework within which to plan and manage Canada’s marine environment
· A framework to monitor and report on the state of Canada’s network of MPAs.
· A similar framework for the hierarchical classification of all other aquatic habitats (estuaries, streams, rivers, lakes) could also be developed based on the same fundamental principles and similarly selected geophysical factors.
Discussion about physical parameters as indicators of biological communities:
In this report, we advocate that the physical approach is essentially the only practicable approach in Canadian oceans where biological data is lacking over broad areas. Any biological framework is not easily transportable to or reproducible between regions or coasts, and thus would not provide a consistent national framework for a country such as Canada, with its vast coastline comprising three different oceans. However, wherever biological data does exist, it should be used in conjunction with the framework to optimize any decision making.
Discussion about the necessitiy of a classification framework before setting up a representative system of MPAs:
“Why not just choose distinctive or special areas for MPAs?” Such an approach would mean that MPAs would comprise only those communities about which we have some information. This approach ignores the importance of including representative areas within MPAs, and it also assumes that the important species and areas are the ones we currently know about.
Convention on Biological Diversity:
The Convention on Biological Diversity refers to endangered species, threatened habitats and ecosystem management in specific sections on the following:
· Conserving biodiversity by establishing protected areas (Article 8)
· Recovering endangered species and degraded ecosystems (Article 8)
· Protecting the traditional knowledge of Aboriginal people (Article 8)
· Integrating principles of sustainable use into decision making (Article 10)
· applying economic and social incentives for conservation (Article 11)
Marine Protected Areas and a Representative System
The need for a systematic and representative approach to establishing protected areas in marine environments was not articulated clearly until the International Conference on Marine Parks and Protected Areas, convened by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Tokyo in 1975 (Kenchington 1996).
Today, there are over 1300 MPAs in over 80 countries. These MPAs range in size from several hundred square metres to 343,800 square kilometres (the largest is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park). This wide range of MPAs has been established for a variety of purposes:
· To preserve natural communities and free them from exploitation
· To help preserve important fisheries
· To protect historical and cultural resources
· To establish parks for diving
What Is a Representative System of MPAs?
A representative system of MPAs is one that samples the full range of environmental gradients, or habitat types, at a given scale. Declaring MPAs in the right place and of the right size and the right configuration will most efficiently complete a representative system and help protect biodiversity over the long term. The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (CEAC 1991) stated,
Priority must be placed on protecting representative natural areas. These are the cornerstone of a network of protected areas because of their significant contribution to conserving biological diversity and sustaining ecological processes.
There needs to be a systematic, science-based framework within which to choose MPAs and assess progress toward a representative system. The purpose of this report is to develop a framework that provides the basis for mapping Canada’s oceans down to the level of habitat types, referred to here as seascapes. The representative system would be complete once all the seascapes have been sampled, or captured within an MPA.