an ecosystem approach to management of seamounts in the ... · an ecosystem approach to management...

An Ecosystem Approach toManagement of Seamounts inthe Southern Indian OceanVolume 4 – A Road Map towards sustainable use and

conservation of biodiversity in the Southern Indian Ocean

Serge M. Garcia, Harlan Cohen, David Freestone, Carole Martinez, Nilufer Oral, Alex Rogers, Philomène A. Verlaan and David Vousden

IUCN GLOBAL MARINE AND POLAR PROGRAMME

The designation of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Copyright: © 2013 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes isauthorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided thesource is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Garcia, S.M., Cohen, H., Freestone, D., Martinez, C., Oral, N., Rogers, A., Verlaan, P.A.and Vousden, D. (2013). An Ecosystem Approach to Management of Seamounts in the Southern Indian Ocean. Volume 4 – A Road Map towards sustainable use andconservation of biodiversity in the Southern Indian Ocean. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 32 + iv pp.

This paper is to be read in conjunction with two others: seamount biodiversity (Volume 1), threats to seamount ecosystems (Volume 2) and a legal and institutional gap analysis (Volume 3).

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1605-3

Cover photos: Southwest Indian Ocean, 2011. © IUCN/Aurélie Spadone

Layout by: Tim Davis, DJEnvironmental, UK

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)Publications ServicesRue Mauverney 281196 GlandSwitzerlandTel +41 22 999 0000Fax +41 22 999 [email protected]/publications

IUCN SIO Seamount Governance i

An Ecosystem Approach toManagement of Seamounts in the Southern Indian OceanVolume 4 – A Road Map towards sustainable use and

conservation of biodiversity in the Southern Indian Ocean

Serge M. Garcia, Harlan Cohen, David Freestone, Carole Martinez, Nilufer Oral, Alex Rogers, Philomène A. Verlaan and David Vousden

Acronyms used in the text .............................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................3

1. The SIO Biodiversity Initiative ...................................................................................................8

1.1 Articulation of the SIO Initiative ............................................................................................8

1.2 Principles of the Initiative .....................................................................................................9

1.3 Goals of the Initiative .........................................................................................................10

1.4 Facilitation .........................................................................................................................10

2. The Road Map .........................................................................................................................11

2.1 Principles of the Road Map ...............................................................................................11

2.2 Objectives of the Road Map ..............................................................................................11

2.3 The Road Map process .....................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Funding the Road Map process .............................................................................12

2.3.2 Inception meeting: establishment of the Alliance and the Road Map.......................12

2.3.3 Agreement as to aims and objectives .....................................................................13

2.3.4 Elaboration and adoption of the Management Plan ................................................13

2.3.5 Proposal for adjudication by ITLOS ........................................................................13

3. The SIO Alliance ......................................................................................................................14

3.1 The Alliance concept .........................................................................................................14

3.2 Advantages of the Alliance concept...................................................................................14

3.3 Types of actorsfor the Alliance ...........................................................................................15

3.3.1 Interested States and their institutions ....................................................................15

3.3.2 Multilateral organizations ........................................................................................16

3.3.3 Civil society ............................................................................................................19

3.4 The SIO Collaborative Arrangement...................................................................................19

4. The Biodiversity Management Plan .......................................................................................20

4.1 Objectives of the Management Planning process..............................................................20

4.2 Selected elements of a Management Plan ........................................................................20

4.3 Principles of the Management Plan ...................................................................................20

4.4 Title of the Management Plan ...........................................................................................20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.5 Plan boundary: possible delimitations of the designated management area ......................22

4.5.1 Biophysical considerations..................................................................................22

4.5.2 Biogeographic considerations.............................................................................23

4.5.3 Linkages with other ecosystems .........................................................................24

4.5.4 Existing and potential threats to biodiversity ........................................................24

4.5.5 Existing governance arrangements .....................................................................24

4.6 Legal and institutional frameworks ....................................................................................25

4.7 Description of the management area ................................................................................25

4.8 Description of the management targets ............................................................................25

4.9 Description of past, present and potential activities...........................................................26

4.10 Objectives of the Management Plan..................................................................................26

4.11 Activities to be managed...................................................................................................26

4.12 Financing sources and mechanisms .................................................................................26

5. Final considerations................................................................................................................27

References....................................................................................................................................28

Annex 1: Proposal for adjudication by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the relationship between Marine Protected Areas and fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)...............................................29

Annex 2: Selected Rio+20 ocean commitments of relevance to the SWIOBiodiversity Management............................................................................................31

Box 1: The Sargasso Sea Alliance (SSA) ...................................................................................15

Box 2: The Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Ecosystem Alliance (WIOSEA).......................18

Box 3: Indicative structure of an operational management plan..............................................21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS USED IN THE TEXT

iv

ABNJ Areas Beyond National JurisdictionACAP Agreement on the Conservation of

Albatrosses and PetrelsASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine

EcosystemBIOS Bermuda Institute for Ocean SciencesBMP Biodiversity Management Plan BMPS Biodiversity Management Plan SecretariatBUEI Bermuda Underwater Exploration InstituteCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCCAMLR Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic

Living Marine ResourcesCenSeam The Census of Marine Life field programme

on seamountsCITES Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCLIVAR World Climate Research Programme,

Climate Variability and Predictability ProjectCMS Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn

Convention)COMRA China Ocean Mineral Resources Research

and Development AssociationCSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organization, AustraliaDOALOS (United Nations) Division for Ocean Affairs

and the Law of the SeaEBSA Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine

AreaEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United NationsGEF Global Environment FacilityIGO Intergovernmental organizationIMMS International Marine Minerals SocietyIMO International Maritime Organization IOC Indian Ocean Commission, usually known as

the Commission de l'Océan Indien (COI)IOGOOS Global Ocean Observing System for the

Indian OceanIOTC Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionIPOA-IUU International plan of action to prevent, deter

and eliminate illegal, unreported andunregulated fishing

IRD Institute of Research for Development(France)

ISA International Seabed AuthorityITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the SeaIUCN International Union for the Conservation of

NatureIUU Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated fishingIWC International Whaling CommissionJPOI Johannesburg Plan of ImplementationLME Large Marine EcosystemLOSC Law of the Sea Convention

MCS Monitoring, control and surveillanceMEP Marine environmental protectionMMA Marine Managed AreaMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMPA Marine Protected AreaMSY Maximum sustainable yieldNEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries CommissionNGO Non-governmental organizationNIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Marine

ResearchNIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric

Research, New ZealandNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (USA)OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the North-

East AtlanticPSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas under the

IMORFMO Regional Fisheries Management

OrganisationSIBER Sustained Indian Ocean Biogeochemistry

and Ecosystem ResearchSIO Southern Indian OceanSIODFA Southern Indian Ocean Deepsea Fishers

AssociationSIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries AgreementSSA Sargasso Sea AllianceSWIOFC South West Indian Ocean Fisheries

CommissionSWIOFP South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project

(GEF, World Bank)SWIR Southwest Indian RidgeUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment

and DevelopmentUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the

SeaUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural OrganizationUNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks AgreementUNGA United Nations General AssemblyVME Vulnerable marine ecosystemWCPA World Commission on Protected AreasWIOMSA Western Indian Ocean Marine Science

AssociationWIOSEA Western Indian Ocean Sustainable

Ecosystem Alliance WIOSSA Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Seas

AllianceWOC World Ocean CouncilWSSD World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentWWF World Wide Fund For Nature

Map developed in support of the Initiative; (iii) theconcept, advantages and potential members ofthe Alliance proposed to further develop theInitiative; and (iv) the CollaborativeArrangement needed to formalize the Alliance,and the key elements of the adaptive andcollaborative Management Plan that the Alliancewill adopt and implement.

The SIO Biodiversity Initiative

Institutionally benign and neutral, the SIO Initiativeis informal and voluntary. It intends to promoteintegrated management of biodiversity in the SIOand to mobilize existing and potential interestedparties for that endeavour. It serves as a referencepoint and holds together the first partners at thisearly stage of the process, while no other formalmechanism is yet established.

The Initiative will operate under the followingprinciples:

m Duty to cooperate

m Openness

m Duty to promote sustainable and equitableuse

m Focus on biodiversity and the activitiesimpacting upon it

m Good governance

m Consensus decision-making

m Realism

m Broad participation.

Its goals will include: promotion of integratedmanagement and sustainable use; identification ofpartners for an Alliance in that endeavour; andfacilitation of the Road Map and ManagementPlanning processes (see below).

The Road Map

The Road Map is the document, informally agreedamong the partners, that underpins the processof participative development, adoption andimplementation of the Management Plan. Itindicates the objectives, the expected outputs,the partners and their respective roles, the meansavailable, and the calendar for the activities. Theexpected outcomes include: (i) a voluntary alliance

Marine features such as seamounts areimportant geomorphological structuressustaining marine benthic and pelagic

ecosystems. They are fragile and remain poorlyknown. They cover close to 17 million km2 of theocean and sea area, while tropical forests cover10 million km2 of the entire Earth surface. They areimportant for seabirds, marine mammals andnumerous pelagic and benthic, resident andmigratory species, and are hotspots of biologicalactivity. There is increasing scientific evidence ofand concern about the significant adverseimpacts on seamounts from fisheries and otherextractive human activities both at present (e.g.precious coral exploitation) and in the future (e.g.cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts andpolymetallic sulphide mining, oil and gasextraction).

IUCN and its Members have a long-standingcommitment to achieving effective protection,restoration and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity and ecosystem processes on the highseas. This commitment was reiterated at the2008 IUCN World Conservation Congress andagain at the 2012 World Conservation Congress,which called on States, acting individually orthough multilateral organizations, to promoteconsistent, coordinated and coherent applicationof the best conservation and governanceprinciples and approaches.

Within the framework of an IUCN/GEF/UNDPSouthern Indian Ocean (SIO) Project, IUCNorganized in Rome, on 16–17 July 2012, aManagement Workshop on conservation andmanagement measures applicable to high seasareas in the SIO. The objectives were to: (i) definethe different elements of a governance plan for theregion (specific objectives, actors, actionsrequired for its implementation); and (ii) discussways towards achieving an operationalmanagement plan for the SIO (developconsiderations for an ecosystem approach,identify options for monitoring, control andsurveillance, etc.).

This document briefly presents the proposals fromthe Management Workshop regarding: (i) aBiodiversity Initiative; (ii) the principles,objectives and process included in the draft Road

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Road Map towards sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in the SIO 1

of partners (the SIO Alliance); a CollaborativeArrangement between these partners (the SIOArrangement); and an SIO Management Planformally adopted by the Alliance, under the SIOArrangement. The process will be facilitated byIUCN. Following an inception meeting at whichthe SIO Alliance will be established, the RoadMap partners will agree on the aims andobjectives of their process, and will elaborate aManagement Plan.

The SIO Alliance

The governance and management of biodiversityin the SIO can now more efficiently move forwardthrough a voluntary association of existinginstitutions from interested States and otherinterested parties (e.g. from among the privatesector and civil society) in the form of an Alliance,following the examples of the Sargasso SeaAlliance (SSA) and the Western Indian OceanSustainable Ecosystem Alliance (WIOSEA). TheAlliance is conceived as open and flexible,implying a light administrative burden onmembers. Recognizing the existing mandates ofthe different partners, it will offer a platform forsynergy, with a strong shared focus: theManagement Plan. Potential members include awide range of States, multilateral organizationsand other stakeholders drawn from civil society.

The Collaborative Arrangement

This is a non-legally binding agreement signed byall members of the Alliance to implement togetherthe Biodiversity Management Plan. It morallyengages only its signatories. A draft structure forthe Management Plan, as referred to below, couldbe part of the Arrangement. Because of itsobjective, the Collaborative Arrangement isintended to be a long-lasting institution, requiringconstancy and coherence in the commitment andaction of its signatories. Additional members mightbe added as time goes by.

The Biodiversity Management Plan

The Management Plan contains the details of theagreement among Alliance members and definestheir joint action. Its structure will be determinedby the Alliance. The Management Plan is a

long-term commitment among the partners aimingat conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityin the designated area. The Plan’s generalobjective is to elaborate implementable action forthe protection, conservation and sustainable useof seamount-related biodiversity in the area to bedefined within the Plan. This, in turn, implies anumber of sub-objectives and milestones to beagreed by Alliance members. The content of thePlan and the boundaries of the area to bemanaged have been succinctly outlined but willbe decided by Alliance members. The legalframeworks and relevant institutions from theregion include: UNCLOS, UNFSA, CCAMLR,SIOFA, SWIOFC, IOTC and CBD. TheManagement Plan will describe the managementarea and biodiversity targets, the actual andpotential economic activities impacting uponbiodiversity, and will define objectives in thisregard and identify means and financing sources.

Final considerations

The Road Map needs to be kept simple andpractical. It should be locally driven (e.g. by theinterested parties from the region or thoseoperating in it). Its development andimplementation will follow a step-by-stepapproach and will identify short-term, medium-term and long-term action. The adaptiveManagement Plan might be tested first in pilotprojects before being scaled up. Effectiveinternational cooperation is essential and while thefull process may take some time, it is important tobegin and show that implementation is feasible.

The role of IUCN in starting and facilitating theproject is essential. The Alliance will pool thecompetencies available in the region. Participationof the sector and existing international institution isessential. Last but not least, the Initiative cannotbegin to make progress without the appropriatefunding. Therefore one of the most importanttasks for IUCN, assisted by its Members, will beto raise the funding necessary to conclude theRoad Map and start implementing theManagement Plan, which should also identifylong-term funding sources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 A Road Map towards sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in the SIO

approach to fisheries and its InternationalGuidelines for the Management of Deep-seaFisheries in the High Seas;

m United Nations Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72in a specific manner and in relation togovernance; and

m the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Aichi Targets, particularly No. 6 on sustainablefisheries and No. 11 on Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs, adopted in 2010 with theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020).

International collaboration plays a fundamental rolein the implementation of these instruments. Atinternational level, the role of the UN system (theUNGA, DOALOS, FAO, UNEP, CBD, IMO, ISBA,IOC, UNESCO, etc.) is important. In the absenceof an implementation agreement for UNCLOS onhigh seas biodiversity, regional collaboration isessential. In that context, the potential role of theRegional Seas Programme of UNEP and of theRegional Fisheries Management Organizations(RFMOs) cannot be overstated, although fewhave actually taken effective measures in thisregard. Of particular interest to the region (and inmany ways the exception that confirms the rule) isthe role played by the Commission for theConservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources (CCAMLR), its scientific programmes,its efforts towards management of sustainablefisheries and protection of biodiversity, includingthe development of a regional MPA network (notyet established).

Reiterating many of the important commitmentsmade at UNCED in 1992 and at the WSSD in2002, the Rio+20 Summit agreed to a number of(non-legally binding) commitments, many of whichare central to the conservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity (see Annex 2).

The private sector (and particularly the fisherysector) is a major stakeholder in the region, and itsparticipation is crucial for effective management ofsustainable fisheries and biodiversity conservation.The establishment of the Southern Indian OceanDeepsea Fishers Association (SIODFA) and itsunilateral designation of Benthic Protected Areasin that ocean are a tangible sign of awareness ofthese concerns and willingness to act.

Oceans have a key role in the Earth’sdynamic, sustaining life on the blue planet,regulating climate and feeding humanity.

Economic activities are spreading into the oceanat an accelerating rate, affecting already andpotentially important resources and services thatthe ocean ecosystem can provide. Someecosystem structures and some species areparticularly vulnerable.

Marine features such as seamounts are importantgeomorphological structures which sustain marinebenthic and pelagic ecosystems. They are fragileand remain poorly known. They cover close to 17million km2 of the ocean and sea area, whiletropical forests cover 10 million km2 of the entireEarth surface. They are important for seabirds,marine mammals and numerous pelagic andbenthic, resident and migratory species, and arehotspots of biological activity. There is increasingscientific evidence of and concern about thesignificant adverse impacts on seamounts fromfisheries and other extractive human activities,both at present (e.g. precious coral exploitation)and in the future (e.g. cobalt-rich ferromanganesecrusts and polymetallic sulphide mining, oil andgas extraction).

The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) imposes an obligation on signatoryStates “to protect and preserve the marineenvironment”. This obligation covers the high seasas well as coastal waters. The 1982 Conventionalso provides the legal foundation for themanagement of sustainable use and conservationof ocean resources and biodiversity. On the highseas, States have the obligation to adopt withrespect to their nationals measures for theconservation of living resources (particularly underArticle 117). This duty is strengthened by the1995 UNFSA and the 1993 FAO ComplianceAgreement. In the SWIO area, the framework hasbeen recently strengthened with the coming intoforce, in June 2012, of the South Indian OceanFisheries Agreement (SIOFA). UNCLOS is echoedand specified in a number of instruments, suchas:

m the FAO Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, its technical guidelines for theprecautionary approach and the ecosystem

INTRODUCTION


The general adoption of the ecosystem approachis an additional factor of convergence betweenfisheries management and biodiversityconservation. During the CBD Southern IndianOcean Regional Workshop to Facilitate theDescription of Ecologically or BiologicallySignificant Marine Areas (EBSAs), held inMauritius, (30 July–3 August 2012), twoseamounts of the South West Indian Ridge (SWIR)were proposed as EBSA candidates.

FAO, IUCN and the CBD are actively collaboratingin the parallel and complementary processes ofdefinitions of EBSAs (through the CBD, supportedby IUCN) and vulnerable marine ecosystems(VMEs) (through FAO).

IUCN is strongly committed to the goal ofimplementing effective protection and restorationof biological diversity and productivity andecosystem processes and their sustainable andequitable use in areas beyond national jurisdiction(ABNJ) (including the water column and theseabed). IUCN also supports the establishment ofa representative system of MPAs at regional andglobal scales, including in ABNJ.

The IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC,Jeju, Republic of Korea, 6–15 September 2012)called on States, individually and as Members, tostrengthen regional cooperation in ABNJ of theSouthern Indian Ocean (SIO), particularly throughthe RFMOs, for:

m defining as a matter of urgency specialprotection measures, such as closures, forseamounts, as well as designation andeffective management of MPAs and benthicprotected areas;

m applying the Precautionary Principle andecosystem approach in decision-making,fisheries management and miningmanagement, and ensuring that activities arein conformity with relevant internationalcommitments and resolutions;

m developing an overarching programme ofactivities for sustainable management of SIOseamounts;

m facilitating synergies between regionalinstruments and organizations, and particularly

between SIOFA and CCAMLR fordevelopment of coherent MPA networks;

m ensuring that effective monitoring, control,surveillance and compliance and enforcementmeasures are implemented for all fisheries, insupport of the long-term conservation andsustainable use of seamount biodiversity; and

m requiring the marine private sector and relatedhigh seas stakeholders to better integratemarine conservation and sustainabledevelopment priorities into fishing, maritimetransport, mining, trade, energy, research andother activities with the potential to adverselyaffect the marine environment and itsbiodiversity in ABNJ.

The WCC also called on the IUCN Director-General to fully cooperate with the Members ofIUCN, FAO, CBD, RFMOs, Regional Seasorganizations, the European Union, the IndianOcean Commission and other relevantenvironmental intergovernmental organizations(IGOs) and non-governmental organizations(NGOs), including conservation and industryassociations, and the Global Environment Facility(GEF), to:

m accelerate progress on all aspects of theecosystem approach to seamountmanagement, particularly in the SIO;

m support coherence in decision-makingthrough (facilitating) improved cooperationbetween sectors and competent organizationsfor regulating fisheries and other industrysectors and marine biodiversity conservation;

m contribute to an inclusive, participatory andtransparent governance of human activities inthe SIO on scales appropriate to the marineecosystems;

m encourage new efforts of cooperation amongthe relevant competent organizationsoperating in the SIO to develop a process forecosystem-based management of SIOseamounts;

m facilitate the initiation of a process in order tosupport sustainable management andconservation of SIO seamounts;

m strive for a better understanding of howvarious types of legal, economic and social


INTRODUCTION

the impacts of deep-sea exploration andmining operations (WCC-2012-Res-074-EN/2e);

m encourage mobilization of finance for oceanand regional seas conservation action,including the sustainable management ofmarine ABNJ, with priority given to seamounts,submarine canyons and other vulnerablemarine ecosystems or EBSAs (WCC-2012-Res-074-EN/2g); and

m promote the strengthening or development ofnew agreements at the regional level toencompass the protection of the marineenvironment and conservation and sustainableuse of marine biodiversity beyond nationaljurisdiction, including the development andimplementation of regional MPA networks,where needed (WCC-2012-Res-074-EN /2h).

Regional cooperation on biodiversity conservationand sustainable use in ABNJ of the SouthernIndian Ocean would benefit from the developmentof an overarching programme of activities forconservation and sustainable use of seamounts inthe area that would aim at:

m facilitating synergy in decision-makingbetween regional instruments andorganizations, and more particularly betweenSIOFA and CCAMLR for the development ofcoherent management strategies, includingMPA networks;

m enhancing coherence in decision-makingthrough improved cooperation betweensectors and competent organizations forregulating fisheries and other industry sectorsand marine biodiversity conservation, and todevelop a process for ecosystem-basedmanagement of seamounts;

m requiring better integration by the privatesector and related high seas stakeholders ofmarine conservation and sustainabledevelopment priorities into fishing, maritimetransport, mining, trade, energy, research andother activities potentially impacting the marineenvironment and its biodiversity in ABNJ;

m applying good governance principles andin particular inclusive, participatory andtransparent processes at all the appropriatescales;

incentives may work for or againstimplementation of an ecosystem approach inthe region;

m promote the fundamental human dimension ofan ecosystem approach to food security,poverty eradication and sustainabledevelopment;

m contribute to capacity building, particularly forscientific and technical analyses, dataexploitation and marine spatial planning; and

m document and share experiences on anecosystem approach to marine ecosystemmanagement, including lessons learned fromsuccesses and failures.

Project background

IUCN and its Members have a long-standingcommitment to achieving effective protection,restoration and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity and ecosystem processes in the highseas. This commitment was reiterated at the2008 IUCN World Conservation Congress when,through Resolution 4.031 Achieving conservationof marine biodiversity in areas beyond nationaljurisdiction, IUCN Members called, inter alia, forthe promotion of arrangements, processes andagreements that ensure the consistent,coordinated and coherent application of the bestconservation and governance principles andapproaches, including integrated ecosystem-based management and the precautionaryapproach. It was reiterated further at the 2012World Conservation Congress which adoptedresolutions regarding: (i) the protection of thedeep ocean ecosystem and biodiversity from thethreats of seabed mining (WCC-2012-Res-079-EN); and (ii) the implementation of conservationand sustainable management of marinebiodiversity in ABNJ (WCC-2012-Res-074.EN).The latter calls on States acting individually orthough multilateral organizations to promoteconsistent, coordinated and coherent applicationof the best conservation and governanceprinciples and approaches, through actions to:

m promote the conservation of deep-seabiodiversity, implementation of UNGAresolutions and further assessment ofbiodiversity values in deep ocean areas, and

INTRODUCTION


m applying the Ecosystem Approach(including the precautionary approach) indecision-making in fisheries, mining and otheractivities, ensuring their conformity withrelevant international commitments andresolutions. This would involve: (i) developinga better understanding of how various types oflegal, economic and social incentives maywork for or against implementation of anecosystem approach; (ii) adopting specialprotection measures such as effectivelymanaged fishery closures and MPAs; and (iii)taking into consideration the human dimensionof an ecosystem approach in relation to foodsecurity, poverty eradication and sustainabledevelopment;

m ensuring compliance through effectivemonitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) inall fisheries to support the long-termconservation and sustainable use of marinebiodiversity;

m building capacity, particularly for scientificand technical analyses, data exploitation,MCS and marine spatial planning; and

m documenting best practices to shareexperiences on ecosystem approaches formarine ecosystem management, includinglessons learned from successes and failures.

As part of this mandate, IUCN, in partnership withthe United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), developed a medium-size projectapproved by the GEF in December 2008 entitledApplying an ecosystem-based approach tofisheries management: focus on seamounts in thesouthern Indian Ocean (hereafter termed theIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project).

The project’s overarching objective is to helpimprove marine resources conservation andmanagement in the high seas. Biodiversity-richareas of the SIO, with a particular focus onseamounts, have been chosen to serve as atesting ground. In particular, the project seeks to:

– identify conservation and managementoptions based on a precautionary andecosystem approach, applicable to areas inthe high seas of the SIO, with particular regardto VMEs;

– identify options for managing deep-seafisheries to prevent significant adverse impactson VMEs (e.g. by gear-type, effort and/orarea-based restrictions);

– identify appropriate monitoring, control andsurveillance systems to ensure effectiveenforcement of and compliance withconservation and management plans;

– develop a model management framework forhigh seas biodiversity and important high seasareas in the SIO; and

– work in close collaboration with the fishingindustry to ensure feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the measures, and maximumbuy-in and future compliance.

The IUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project has four maincomponents: (i) improving scientific understandingof seamounts in the SIO (e.g. through researchcruises); (ii) improving the governance framework(e.g. through a legal gap analysis): (iii) developinga model ecosystem-based managementframework for the area; and (iv) communicationsand outreach.

The project has highlighted the importance of theSIO Ridge seamounts for biodiversity, as well theurgent need for concrete measures for theirpreservation and sustainable management of theirresources. The management of human activitiesin ABNJ is particularly critical and requireseffective international collaboration in order toensure their sustainability, safeguard marinebiodiversity and productivity, and maintainecological services.

Purpose of the document

This document is a product of the IUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project. Aimed at stimulating improvedgovernance of biodiversity in the sub-region, itpresents a draft Road Map and the processneeded in the future to formally adopt andimplement an integrated and collaborativeBiodiversity Management Plan for the sub-region.

Structure of the document

The document briefly presents: (i) theBiodiversity Initiative; (ii) the principles,

INTRODUCTION


of ocean biodiversity conservation andsustainable use. More specifically, it is aimed at allthose potentially interested in joining, supportingand participating in the efforts of the IUCN/GEF/UNDP Biodiversity Initiative in the SIO, includingneighbouring coastal States, other interestedcoastal States, international and regionalorganizations dealing with biodiversity, the relevanteconomic sectors, scientific institutions, NGOsand, last but not least, national and internationalfinancial institutions.

objectives and process included in the draft RoadMap; (iii) the concept, advantages and potentialmembers of the Alliance proposed to further theInitiative; (iv) the Collaborative Arrangementneeded to formalize the Alliance; and (v) the keyelements of the adaptive and collaborativeManagement Plan that the Alliance will adoptand implement.

Target audience

This document is aimed generally at IUCNMembers specifically interested in the governance

INTRODUCTION


The Southern Indian Ocean, showing the Southwest Indian Ridge, the location of the proposed management area for the SIO Biodiversity Initiative. Source: GEBCO –

www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gebco_world_map/images/gda_world_map_large.jpg

nonetheless, the process and actions that wouldbe needed for the formal adoption andimplementation of such a plan in the future.

The proposals outlined below stem directly fromthe discussions in the Rome Workshop, as wellas from additional discussions between thecollaborators involved in the preparation of thisdocument.

1.1 Articulation of the SIO Initiative

The elaboration and implementation of a formalmanagement plan in the specific regional contextof the SIO is a complex endeavour in achallenging institutional environment. As no formalinstitutional management structure exists, acomplex but pragmatic process is needed, forwhich the following components are proposed(Figure 1).

1. THE SIO BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE


Within the framework of itsIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project, IUCNorganized in Rome, on 16–17 July

2012, a Management Workshop (hereafter calledthe Rome Workshop) on conservation andmanagement measures applicable to high seasareas in the SIO with the view to: (i) defining thedifferent elements of a governance plan for theregion (specific objectives; actors; actionsrequired for its implementation); and (ii) discussingways towards achieving an operationalmanagement plan for the SIO (developconsiderations for an ecosystem approach;identify options for monitoring, control andsurveillance, etc.).

The Rome Workshop recognized that developingan operational management plan for SIObiodiversity was impossible within the time andinstitutional frameworks available. It discussed,

Figure 1: Components, processes and outcomes of the SIO Initiative

the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) (inparticular Article 118) and customaryinternational law. Article 118 requires that:States shall cooperate with each other in theconservation and management of livingresources in the areas of the high seas.States, whose nationals exploit identical livingresources, or different living resources in thesame area, shall enter into negotiations with aview to taking the measures necessary for theconservation of the living resourcesconcerned.

m Openness: the Initiative is open to all parties,including coastal nations and fishing nations,that have an interest in the conservation andsustainable use of SIO seamount-relatedbiodiversity. It will ensure full access toinformation by all partners and will encouragefull participation of developing countries in thedevelopment and implementation of theManagement Plan and other work;

m Duty to promote sustainable andequitable use: The Initiative draws on theUNCLOS obligation to promote … theequitable and efficient utilization of theirresources, the conservation of their livingresources, and the … protection andpreservation of the marine environment(Preamble) and more specifically the livingresources and marine life (Art. 1.4) … thefauna and flora (Art. 45.b) and the … rare orfragile ecosystems as well as the habitat ofdepleted, threatened or endangered speciesand other forms of marine life (Art. 194.5);

m Biodiversity focus: The Initiative targetsspecifically ‘seamount-related biodiversity’ inthe SIO area, defined as all the resources (offish and other species assemblages, andpossibly genomes, connected to seamountsfor their life cycle, and the related criticalhabitats required for the completion of suchlife cycles. It also includes examples ofvulnerable seamount habitats to beconserved/protected for theirrepresentativeness;

m Impacting activities: The Initiative aims atconsidering all activities undertaken in theBenthic Marine Protected Area, focusing onthose having (or likely to have) a significantadverse impact on seamount-related

The Initiative provides the overall informalframework. It follows on and extends the effortsundertaken within the SIO Project. Institutionallybenign and neutral, the SIO Initiative is informaland voluntary and it intends to promote integratedmanagement of biodiversity in the SIO and tomobilize existing and potential interested partiesfor that endeavour. It serves as a reference pointand holds together the first partners at this earlystage of the process, while no other formalmechanism is yet established.

The final aim of the Initiative is to implement avoluntary Management Plan in a not-too-distantfuture. The elements needed include: (i) a RoadMap; (ii) a SIO Alliance of partners; and (iii) a SIOCollaborative Arrangement among partners.These elements and their relationship areexamined in more detail in the following sections.

The SIO Initiative partnership is open to newmembers, and prospective partners would bewelcomed.

1.2 Principles of the Initiative

The SIO Initiative faces many important challengesas it develops in the ABNJ within an incompletelegal framework and a progressively strengtheninginstitutional framework. It calls for an ad hocAlliance of members with different operationalstatutes (from governments, the private sectorand civil society) acting under a voluntarycollaborative arrangement to produce, adopt andeventually implement a plan that will apply only toAlliance members and other parties voluntarilydeciding to cooperate.

The principles underpinning the Initiative should beboth simple enough to facilitate adhesion of thepartners and clear enough to guide them in theirendeavour. These principles, which are tentativelylisted below, may need to be considered andmodified as necessary, and then adopted by thepartners in the Initiative. Some of these principlesmight also be included in the CollaborativeArrangement. They should, in that case, refer asmuch as possible to agreed international lawinstruments. They may include:

m Duty to cooperate: The Initiative draws onthe duty of States to cooperate as required by

THE SIO BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE


biodiversity at present or in the foreseeablefuture;

m Good governance: The Initiative will promotegood governance and in particular: (i)participation of the main interested parties; (ii)transparency and equity in task allocations,debates, decisions and outcomes; and (iii)systematic performance assessment.

m Consensus decision-making: Asparticipation in the SIO Alliance, theCollaborative Arrangement and theManagement Plan will be voluntary, decisionswill be made by consensus;

m Realism: To facilitate its success, members ofthe Alliance will promote pragmatism overideology, selecting objectives, approachesand measures that are realistic, taking intoaccount the institutional context and meansavailable for implementation, and applying theecosystem and precautionary approaches;and

m Broad participation: Partners will work toensure that developing countries in the regionhave full access to information and areencouraged to fully participate in thedevelopment and implementation of theManagement Plan and other work.

The Initiative might also involve, in the future, morethan just the Management Plan (introducedbelow), which can work as a hub for otheractivities and projects that contribute to the Plan’sobjectives. Such activities might include, forexample, members’ research programmes,specific activities of the IOTC, CCAMLR, IOC/COI)or complementary management plans in otherareas, each wishing to retain their separateidentities.

1.3 Goals of the Initiative

The goals of the SIO Initiative are:

m To promote the integrated management ofseamount-related biodiversity and itssustainable use in the SIO – a model whichmay serve as an example for other regions;

m To facilitate the identification of potentialpartners for the SIO Alliance and to promote

their adhesion to the Initiative as an open andinformal platform for exchanges anddiscussion among all interested parties;

m To facilitate the inception of the nested RoadMap and Management Plan processes and topromote the capacity of neighbouringdeveloping coastal States to participate insuch processes (data processing, research,management); and

m In the future, to host or connect to otherinitiatives in the region that may contribute tothe above objectives.

1.4 Facilitation

Pending the formal establishment of a legitimate‘authority’, the SIO Initiative serves as an informal,initial platform needed for the early phases of theprocess, before the Alliance is constituted and theCollaborative Arrangement is signed. It wassuggested at the Rome Workshop that IUCNcould take on this role. IUCN is alreadysignificantly involved through its participation in theIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project and has thetechnical authority and legitimacy to promote theinitiative with potential Alliance members, severalof which have participated in the activities andworkshops organized by the SIO Project.

The activities needed to prime the process mightinclude:

– promotion of the Initiative with potentialinterested parties (see below) using directIUCN channels, as well as side events at keyinternational meetings and conferences;

– identification of potential funding sources tostart up the Road Map process; and

– organization of an inception meeting (seebelow).

However, if and when the SIO Initiative startsattracting additional and related initiatives, otherinter-partner agreements such as Memoranda ofUnderstanding (MoU) might be needed forspecific projects. Whether an institutional structureis needed to facilitate functioning of the Initiativemay then be decided.

THE SIO BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE


The establishment of the Western Indian OceanSustainable Seas Alliance (WIOSSA) followed asimilar approach. The Alliance concept underwenta more formal development following its adoptionas a ‘way forward’ by the countries of the WIO inApril 2010. It has evolved slowly yet surely asmore and more members signed up to theconcept through non-binding bilateralagreements. At present, its members are formallyconsidering the transformation of the WIOSSAlliance into a multilateral partnership withinternational status.

Similar evolutions are ongoing in the so-called‘Madeira Process’, between the Convention forthe Protection of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR),the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission(NEAFC) and other parties for the management ofselected areas in the North-East Atlantic,1 as wellas in the Sargasso Sea Alliance development2

(see also Box 1 on page 15).

2.1 Principles of the Road Map

The principles for the Road Map are the same asthose listed for the Initiative, namely: (i) duty tocooperate; (ii) openness in membership; (iii) dutyto promote conservation and sustainable andequitable use; (iv) focus on seamount-relatedbiodiversity; (v) focus on management ofimpinging activities; (vi) good governanceprinciples; and (vi) consensus decision-making.

2.2 Objectives of the Road Map

Similarly, the overarching goals of the Road Mapare those of the Initiative. The more operationalobjective of the Road Map is to establish animplementable cooperation and coordinationmechanism and process for the joint elaborationand subsequent implementation of an enforceablesub-regional Management Plan for theconservation and sustainable use of marinebiodiversity in the SIO.

This implies a number of interconnected sub-objectives, such as:

– establishing the SIO Alliance composed ofthose parties having expressed their

The Road Map is the document underpinningthe process of participative development,adoption and implementation of the

Management Plan. It is the document informallyagreed among the partners. It details theobjectives (related to those of the Initiative), theexpected outputs, the partners in the endeavourand their individual roles (coordination, secretariat,funding, scientific activities, etc.), the meansavailable, and the calendar of activities. Theexpected outcomes are:

– a voluntary Alliance of partners: the SIOAlliance;

– a Collaborative Arrangement between thesepartners: the SIO Arrangement; and

– a Management Plan formally adopted by theAlliance, under the SIO Arrangement: the SIOManagement Plan.

Its process is a finite, catalytic activity that endswhen the Management Plan has been formallyagreed and signed. It does not require a long-lasting commitment from the parties. It isstep-wise, pragmatic, simple, open and multi-sectoral. It builds up as new partners step in.Many elements of the Road Map document willbe relevant also for the future Management Plan(e.g. those regarding boundaries, policyobjectives, potential partners, relevant internationalcollaborations). The Road Map will be a new typeof instrument; the first of its type for States andinternational organizations is the Declaration onCollaboration for the Conservation of theSargasso Sea, the adoption of which by theSargasso Sea Alliance is expected in 2013.

Considering the urgency of the biodiversitysituation in the SIO region, the process isexpected to conclude, with a draft ManagementPlan elaborated, within one year after formalizationof the Alliance.

The partners in the Initiative are de facto partnersin the development and implementation of theRoad Map, who subsequently may or may noteventually agree to become part of the Alliance(see below).

2. THE ROAD MAP


1www.neafc.org/system/files/final-Madeira-II-January-2012-note-by-NEAFC.pdf2www.sargassoalliance.org

willingness to contribute to and promote thegeneral objective of conservation andsustainable and equitable use of seamount-related biodiversity in the sub-region;

– agreeing on a Road Map outlining the varioussteps needed to develop and agree on aManagement Plan for seamount-relatedbiodiversity in the SIO area;

– identifying and mobilizing the means neededto implement the Road Map;

– establishing a Secretariat to oversee theimplementation of the Management Plan;

– defining and ranking the long-term policyobjectives of the Management Plan;

– agreeing the geographical delimitation of thearea to be covered by the Management Planand the resources and habitats to be coveredby the Plan;

– considering whether to seek an AdvisoryOpinion from the International Tribunal for theLaw of the Sea (ITLOS) on the protection andsustainable and equitable use of biodiversity inABNJ (a task for two or more States in orderto clarify what is feasible);

– developing an ‘inception programme’ forincoming members, and mobilizing the meansto develop the capacity of new developingcountry members to participate in theprocess.

2.3 The Road Map process

Being informal, the Road Map process could startimmediately, for instance facilitated by IUCN andinvolving those partners already involved in theIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project. In terms of logicalpriorities, the Road Map process should beginwith an initial Alliance that can increase its partnersas the project develops.

2.3.1 Funding the Road Map process

The identification of adequate funding is the sinequa non of the Initiative. Financial support (in cashand in kind) might come, for example, from:

– interested States, e.g. through project funds,assistance in cash or in kind (e.g. researchcapacity), or through their universities ordevelopment agencies;

– existing projects, e.g. IOC, ASCLME,SWIOFP, GEF-FAO ABNJ project in kind,through collaborations;

– GEF funds under International Waters Window(e.g. though a project extension or a newproject);

– the World Bank, to promote sustainable useand investments;

– private foundations/institutions;

– the fisheries section, e.g. SIODFA; and

– environmental foundations.

Co-funding will be assured by the fact that thepartners will fund their own participation inmeetings and may contribute research surveys ordata, as well as experts and technicalcontributions for meetings.

2.3.2 Inception meeting: establishment ofthe Alliance and the Road Map

As facilitator of the process, IUCN will organize theinception meeting. Participants will be invited byIUCN based on preliminary talks conducted withpotential interested parties who recognize theneed for conservation and sustainable andequitable use of SIO biodiversity. At the meeting,participants will discuss and agree on, inter alia,the general objectives of the Road Map, thetiming, the operational support (i.e. a Secretariat),the supervision process, the necessary means,the roles of the different parties in the process,and the rules of procedure. Given the amount ofground to be covered, more than one meetingmight be necessary to finalize the content of thedifferent elements of the Road Map. Thecommitments of the different partners will beoutlined in the Collaborative Arrangement (seebelow).

Those participants who decide to be part of theRoad Map implementation process will constitutethe Alliance, which will formally adopt the RoadMap. At this point, the Alliance will becomeeffective and operational and able to makedecisions regarding implementation. The Alliancewill remain open to new partners – partners thatIUCN, assisted by other Alliance members, willencourage and support.

THE ROAD MAP


2.3.4 Elaboration and adoption of theManagement Plan

Drawing up and adopting the Management Planconstitutes a key activity of the Road Map. Tocomplete the participative process leading to theagreement on and signing of the Plan, a series oftechnical meetings and consultancies will beneeded (see Section 4).

2.3.5 Proposal for adjudication by ITLOS

This document proposes that, during the RoadMap process, two or more Parties to UNCLOSrequest an adjudication by the InternationalTribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the‘Relationship between Marine Protected Areasand Fisheries in Areas Beyond Nationaljurisdiction’ (see Annex 1). This innovativeapproach would require a specific treatyagreement between the Parties envisaging such areferral to ITLOS.

Meetings of the Alliance may be attended byobservers who, having gained an understandingof the objectives of the Alliance, the role theymight play and the contribution they could make,may eventually themselves become members.

2.3.3 Agreement as to aims and objectives

To ensure that members of the emerging Alliancecan agree upon its aims and objectives, a numberof different approaches are possible. One suchapproach (adopted by the Sargasso Sea Alliance)could be the drafting of a ‘Mission Statement’ towhich all parties would commit. Another (adoptedby the SWIO Alliance) could take the form of anexchange of MoUs. And a third approach couldinvolve the drafting of a formal CollaborativeArrangement which sets out the intentions of thedifferent partners in relation to the implementationof the Management Plan. As some of themembers may not have international legalpersonality, such an agreement would not begoverned by international law, a situation thatcould be circumvented via a mutual exchange ofMoUs.

THE ROAD MAP


3.1 The alliance concept

The governance and management of biodiversityin the SIO can now more efficiently move forwardthrough a voluntary association of existinginstitutions from interested States and otherinterested parties (e.g. from among the privatesector and civil society) in the form of an Alliance.

Similar in concept to the Sargasso Sea Alliance orthe Western Indian Ocean Sustainable EcosystemAlliance, the SIO Alliance assumes a partnership(see membership criteria below) of: (i) governments;(ii) international institutions, such as RFMOs andRegional Seas organizations); (iii) scientificinstitutions; (iv) international marine conservationgroups; and (v) private sector donors. Thesepartners will wish to collaborate in the protectionand sustainable use of the biodiversity of theSouthern Indian Ocean. The partnership will aimto mobilize support from a wide variety of nationaland international organizations and governmentsto ensure the success of the Initiative. Morespecifically, it aims at implementing an SIOManagement Plan. Founded on a (still to bedecided) Collaborative Arrangement (see below),the duration of the SIO Alliance would be tied tothat of the Arrangement. Membership of theAlliance would be open-ended, allowing newmembers to join as the Initiative develops.

The SSA and WIOSEA initiatives have similar aimsbut important contextual differences that affecttheir respective evolution. Although the WIOAlliance started earlier, it has taken longer to reachrealization. A significant reason for this has beenthe differences in geopolitical alignment of the twoareas and the absence or presence of mandatedIGOs. The SSA area involves one country(Bermuda), its territorial and EEZ waters, and asurrounding area of the high seas. WIOSEAinvolves ten countries with their various sovereignwaters (with some still unresolved boundaryissues), as well as ABNJ and new areas of jointmanagement of the extended continental shelf. Inthe Western Indian Ocean region the IGOs (whichinclude the Nairobi Convention parties, severalfishery commissions and agreements, and

neighbouring coastal states) are much moresensitive about the participation of non-mandatedparties (many of which are from outside theregion) in policy decisions, even though they seethe value of such an Alliance at the scientific level,including access to research vessels, monitoring,training, etc. These considerations should be keptin mind in developing the SIO Alliance and itsprogramme.

3.2 Advantages of the alliance concept

The Alliance is conceived as open and flexible.This section is strongly inspired from thedescription of the WIOSEA Alliance3. The ‘alliance’concept may provide the following advantages:

m A simple coordinating and facilitationmechanism working through a SteeringCommittee and a Secretariat or CoordinationUnit, ideally operating as part of an existinginstitution with interests or responsibilities inthe region. It represents a much lightercommitment and burden than theestablishment of a new institution to underpinthe management of biodiversity, such as aformal regional commission coveringpotentially the high seas and part of EEZs andextended continental shelves;

m The full recognition and engagement ofexisting mandates and entities (Conventions,Commissions, Associations, projects, etc.)which may already be involved in, orresponsible for many of the management andgovernance activities in the sub-region;

m An open platform aiming at facilitatingsynergies, sharing of experience, commonprojects etc. among its members, as well aswith similar initiatives such as the SSA orWIOSEA;

m A more efficient and timely coordination withinand between countries and various entitieswith interests in the region which will reflectpositively through more efficient use of humanresources and more cost-effective use oflimited funds (thereby reducing the growingstrain on national and regional humanresources in the face of increasing demand);

3. THE SIO ALLIANCE


3www.swiofp.net/documents/SWIOFP4/asclme_swiofp_proposed-alliance_english-email.pdf


Box 1: The Sargasso Sea Alliance (SSA)

The Sargasso Sea Alliance (see Figure 2) is a partnership led by the Government of Bermuda, incollaboration with scientists, international marine conservation groups and private donors, whoall share a vision of protecting the unique and vulnerable ocean ecosystem of the Sargasso Sea.It aims to mobilize support from a wide variety of national and international organizations andgovernments to ensure legal protection for this critical ecosystem, and to provide insights for theestablishment of other Marine Protected Areas on the high seas. It has four key objectives:

• To build an international partnership that will secure recognition of the ecological significanceof the Sargasso Sea and the threats that it faces;

• To use existing regional, sectoral and international organizations to secure a range ofprotective measures for all or parts of the Sargasso Sea to address key threats;

• To establish a management regime for the Sargasso Sea; and

• To use the process as an example of what can and cannot be delivered through existinginstitutions in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The SSA is led by the Bermuda Government. Its partners include: IUCN, IUCN-WCPA, MissionBlue, Marine Conservation Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Atlantic ConservationPartnership, Bermuda Institute for Ocean Sciences (BIOS), Bermuda Underwater ExplorationInstitute (BUEI) and WWF International.

It is a loose alliance of like-minded bodies which have informally bought into a common MissionStatement and appear together on the Alliance website. The leadership of the Government ofBermuda is based on an initial approach to the Prime Minister by IUCN followed by a series ofCabinet Decisions. The only agreement in writing is the Collaboration Arrangement with theOSPAR Secretariat and a similar agreement is planned with the Abidjan Convention. An inter-ministerial meeting is planned for March 2013 among States from around the Sargasso Sea, aswell as range States of some of its iconic species, and with relevant international organizations,to endorse the text of a Hamilton Declaration for Collaboration for the Conservation of theSargasso Sea. It is envisaged that these steps will lead to a State-based CollaborationArrangement and the establishment of a ‘Sargasso Sea Commission’ based in Bermuda as aBermuda-based institution funded by a trust fund.

Source: www.sargassoalliance.org/about-the-alliance

THE SIO ALLIANCE

m A strong, well-organized and united focus forleveraging further funding to enhance existingactivities and to provide additional funding foridentified ‘gaps’ in priority activities; and

m A working mechanism/foundation forimplementation of an agreed ManagementPlan for the targeted area and its biodiversity.

3.3 Types of actors for the Alliance

The Road Map process intends to be open andhighly participative. Successful implementation willrequire the active participation of States with realinterest (in the sense of the UN Fish Stock

Agreement, Part III Article 8). Not all the actorsinvolved in the Road Map process need also tobe actors in the implementation of theManagement Plan. Table 1 (page 17) lists some ofthe key reasons why the potential actors would beinterested in participating in the process.

3.3.1 Interested States and their institutions

The interests of States and their institutions inparticipating in the Alliance and the fulfilment of itsobjectives might include:

m Geographic proximity – i.e. neighbouringcoastal States directly bordering the

management including, for example,Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, SouthAfrica, France;

m Resource extraction – i.e. fishing States(flag States); mining States with exploratoryand other licenses or planning to ask for them;States with interest in marine geneticresources;

m Scientific research in VMEs which are poorlystudied at present and may be critical intransoceanic connectivity of marine biota.Interested institutions might include seamountresearch institutions, e.g. in South Africa,United Kingdom, France (Ifremer) and perhapsalso Australia (AIMS, CSIRO) or New Zealand(CenSeam, NIWA);

m Ecosystem conservation – e.g. for theirintrinsic value or as providers of ecosystemservices, including their role in (and resilience

to) climate change and other threats andfactors of change; and

m Other interests – e.g. States whose flagvessels transport goods through the area,whose companies lay communication cablesin the Management Plan area, or that dependon the shipment of goods through the Alliancearea; States that are involved as Port States inthe transit of products extracted in theManagement Plan area.

3.3.2 Multilateral organizations

The Secretariats of the organizations who haveresponsibility in the management area, particularlyif they conduct work there, might be interested incollaborating, directly or through their projects. Forexample, the following organizations mightbecome involved in one or more of the roles asindicated below:

THE SIO ALLIANCE


Figure 2: The Sargasso Sea Alliance area (www.sargassoseaalliance.org, 28/09/2012)

http://www.sargassoalliance.org/

m IOC/COI – facilitation of collaboration amongComoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, France (forRéunion) and the Seychelles, particularly inscientific research and MCS;

m IOC-UNESCO IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission – scientificcollaboration and data handling; experience inspecies protection and area-basedconservation;

m IOTC – fisheries and tunas and relatedspecies;

m ISA – deep seabed mining and related marineenvironmental conservation, which is muchbroader than biodiversity conservation andwhich ISA must handle for the area underUNCLOS;

m ITLOS – on request, e.g. to advise onbiodiversity protection and fisheries in ABNJ;

m IUCN – scientific advice; guidelines; processfacilitator;

m Nairobi Convention (UNEP) – environmentalmatters within EEZs and potentially beyond;

m SWIOFP – GEF supported, aims at ecologicalmanagement and sustainable use of theSouth-West Indian Ocean’s marine resources.Promotes LME ecosystem-based approach tofisheries. Involves Kenya, Comoros,Mozambique, South Africa, United Republic of

m ASCLME – information on the widerecosystem, scientific collaboration,mobilization of coastal countries. Experienceregarding the development of an Alliance;

m CBD – provision of norms and scientific andtechnical advice on biodiversity; EBSAs;national MPAs:

m CCAMLR – fisheries resources andbiodiversity;

m CITES – eventual trade controls on species atrisk of extinction due to international trade;

m CMS – in cases where migrating species arethreatened in the MPA;

m FAO – fisheries norms; Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries; Complianceagreement; fisheries in ABNJ; EAF; GEF-FAOABNJ project or the FAO-NANSEN project(co-financing, scientific collaboration);

m GEF – potential co-funding institution throughits International Waters Window; collaborationbetween the ASCLME project and theAlliance; provision of information on the widerecosystem; scientific collaboration;mobilization of coastal countries;

m IMMS – International Marine Minerals Society;

m IMO – guidance on navigation issues;establishment of a Particularly Sensitive SeaAreas (PSSA);

THE SIO ALLIANCE


Table 1: Types of interest justifying the participation of potential actors in the BMRM

Party Type of interest*

StatesSovereign rights; geographic and political interest;sustainable use; conservation; research

Multilateral organizationsDevelopment; management; sustainable use; conservation;research

Civilsociety

Industry & related NGOs Livelihoods; sustainable use; management; conservation

Environmental NGOs Conservation; preservation; sustainable use; research;education

Academic institutions Research; conservation; sustainable use; information

*Sustainable resource use includes use, management and long-term conservation

THE SIO ALLIANCE


Box 2: The Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Ecosystem Alliance (WIOSEA)

The process of establishing a Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Ecosystem Alliance emergedthrough collaborative activities of the UNDP-GEF Agulhas and Somali Current Large MarineEcosystems Project (ASCLME) and of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project(SWIOFP) in 2010. Building on the partnerships already established, the idea was endorsed insubsequent ASCLME-related meetings. The original concept for this Alliance was to be broadenough to encompass both policy and managerial level, as well as scientific and technical.

However, during the negotiation process it became clear that the countries felt that anAlliance of Partners that was inclusive beyond the countries and the mandatedintergovernmental organizations (IGOs) would not be acceptable as the countries and IGOswished to maintain their decision-making powers and role separate from any other entities.Consequently, the concept of the Alliance was refocused to the scientific and technical levelalone. The remit given to the ASCLME project is now:

1. To negotiate and enable a formal Alliance of scientific partners and collaborators workingwithin the region based on existing bilateral agreements between ASCLME and otherparties;

2. To formulate and adopt a five-year Ecosystem Monitoring and Science Programme for theregion and to identify the specific areas of cooperation and responsibility that each ofthese Alliance partners can agree to adopt (including any gaps);

3. To develop a five-year Programme for Capacity Building and Training and to identifypotential partnerships within the Alliance to deliver such a Programme at both the nationaland regional levels;

4. To develop a science-based governance mechanism that can translate the results ofscientific studies, research and monitoring into reliable management guidelines and policyadvice for the countries of the region; and

5. To identify a long-term coordination and reporting mechanism to support this Alliance andits partnership process within the region that is sustainable beyond the finite lifetime ofsuch projects as the ASCLME Project.

The SSA is led by the Bermuda Government. Its partners include: IUCN, IUCN-WCPA, MissionBlue, Marine Conservation Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, AtlanticConservation Partnership, Bermuda Institute for Ocean Sciences (BIOS), Bermuda UnderwaterExploration Institute (BUEI) and WWF International.

Existing partners in the Alliance include UN Oceans agencies, NGOs, IGOs, internationallyrecognized scientific and research institutes (e.g. IRD, NIOZ, NOAA) and the marine privatesector via the World Ocean Council. It is important to note that the large marine ecosystem(LME) concept, by definition, extends beyond EEZs and sovereign territories so that thisAlliance would also have to address ABNJ as would the Ecosystem Monitoring and theScience-Based Governance programmes.

Source: Director of ASCLME (pers. comm.). Resolution of the 9th Meeting of IOGOOS/CLIVARand the 3rd meeting of SIBER. 15–19 October 2012, Cape Town, South Africa.

3.3.3 Civil society

The role of civil society is important in moderngovernance. Civil society institutions with expertiserelevant to the area, its resources andecosystems would be welcomed and mightinclude: environmental conservation organizations;companies and associations involved in fishing(e.g. SIODFA), mining (e.g. IMMS); shipping,communication cables; and academic institutions(e.g. WIOMSA) as source of local expertise; otherinstitutions could include the World OceanCouncil as an interface with ocean industry.

3.4 The SIO Collabrative Arrangement

As discussed above (in 2.3.3), members of theAlliance would agree as to its aims and objectiveseither by formally accepting a Mission Statementor by agreeing to become parties to aCollaborative Arrangement. This would be a non-legally binding agreement, signed by all membersof the Alliance, to implement together theBiodiversity Management Plan. It morally engagesonly its signatories. A draft structure of theManagement Plan, as referred to below, could bepart of the Arrangement.

Given the long-term nature of the objectives of theAlliance, the Collaborative Arrangement isintended to be a long-lasting instrument, requiringconstancy and coherence on the part of itssignatories to its commitments and actions.Additional members might be added over time.

Tanzania, Mauritius, Seychelles, France andthe World Bank (www.swiofp.net);

m OSPAR and NEAFC – sharing experience inprotected areas in ABNJ;

m RFMOs – fisheries management, includingstraddling and highly migratory stocks:

– SIOFA – direct competence on fisheries inABNJ;

– CCAMLR – for populations straddling theCCAMLR area and the Management Planarea;

– IOTC – for large pelagic speciesconnected to seamount structures; and

– SWIOFC – for populations straddling outof EEZs into the Management Plan area;

m UNDP – partner in the presentIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project;

m UNEP – guidance on environmental matters;MPAs; integrated space-based management;

m UN-DOALOS – for matters related toUNCLOS implementation;

m UNGA – as a global policy-making institution;and

m World Bank – provision of information throughthe Global Partnership on Oceans and itsSWIOFP project.

THE SIO ALLIANCE


The Management Plan will contain the details ofthe agreement among the members of theAlliance and define their joint action. Its structurewill be determined by the Alliance. The Plan will bea long-term commitment among the partnersaiming at conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity in the designated area. A typicalcomprehensive plan structure is given in Box 3.Some elements are treated in more detail below.Drafted and signed by Alliance members, itsimplementation will require a long time frame anda high level of commitment from the partiesinvolved.

4.1 Objectives of the ManagementPlanning process

The general objective of the Management Plan isto elaborate an implementable Plan for theprotection, conservation and sustainable use ofseamount-related biodiversity in the designatedarea. This requires a series of sub-objectives, toinclude for example:

– agreement on policy goals driving theManagement Plan and on its operationalobjectives, indicators and reference values;

– compilation of technical and spatial informationon resources, habitats and activities;assessment of their present state and trends;identification of bio-ecological and socio-economic threats and issues requiring action;

– selection of a strategy to deal with suchthreats; examination of alternativemanagement approaches; selection of one ormore approaches (depending on availableresources); identification of the measuresneeded, including protected areas;

– clarification of the respective differentiatedroles of the SIO Alliance members inimplementing the Management Plan andenforcing its measures, in line with theirrespective mandates;

– establishment of a data collection andscientific assessment process, andformalization of the performance assessmentprocess (actors involved, timing, resourcesneeded);

– clarification of the measures (controls,penalties) that might be applied according tointernational law;

– identification of the means available for suchimplementation and their partitioning amongthe members of the SIO Alliance; and

– maintenance of a flow of information betweenthe Secretariat and the partners, as well asamong partners.

4.2 Selected elements of a Managemernt Plan

The Management Plan will be developed withinthe Road Map process in a highly participativeand science-based way. Its exact content willdepend on the boundaries selected and on theagreed objectives of the Plan. The following aretherefore suggestions for what might beconsidered in the Plan’s development process bythe Alliance; they are not intended to preempt thatprocess in any way.

4.3 Principles of the Management Plan

The principles guiding the development of theManagement Plan include those expressed at ahigher level for the SIO Initiative itself (see Section1). In addition, more operational principles couldbe adopted that have direct implications for theelaboration process, the approaches used andthe measures taken; e.g. (i) sustainable use; (ii)the precautionary approach; (iii) the ecosystemapproach; (iv) the participative approach; (v) asubsidiarity principle, leaving the action at the level(or with the institution) where it can best beconducted; (vi) multi-sectoral; (vii) formalassessment of performance; and (viii) adaptive.

4.4 Title of the Management Plan

The Management Plan needs a specific title todistinguish it from others that might be establishedin the same region and elsewhere. Since nospecific title was proposed by the RomeWorkshop, the following components for a title aresuggested:

m Type of area – refer to the ManagementPlan’s designated area as a ‘Marine ManagedArea’ (MMA) and not as an MPA; this wouldhelp to assure the highest rate of buy-inpossible and avoid confusion with MPAreserves (the MMA may – and most probablywill – contain, sensu stricto, MPA reserves

4. THE BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN


THE BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN


Box 3: Indicative structure of an operational management plan

Preamble and overarching considerationsList of acronymsDefinitions1. Title of the plan2. Management plan overview3. Scope of the plan

a. Designation of the regulatory area(s)b. Ecosystem(s) included in the areac. Resources included in the aread. Activities to be managede. External stressors

4. Management responsibility: which institution is in charge?5. Legal framework: what laws apply?6. Institutional and governance framework: which institutions participate? With what roles? 7. Policy issues, principles and goals

a. Main issues: preferably rankedb. General principlesc. Policy goals: related to issues and ranked

8. Policy implementation strategya. Sustainable and equitable useb. Conservation of biodiversity

9. Implementation approachesa. The precautionary approachb. The ecosystem approachc. Protected areasd. Good governance: participation, transparency, etc.

10. Management planning processa. What process was used to develop the plan?b. Who was involved?c. How were decisions made?

11. Management frameworka. Management tasks: what do we need to do?b. Operational objectives: what do we want to achieve? By when?c. What are the constraints? What are the accepted limits of what we can do and of what is tolerated?d. Management measures and expected outcomes

12. Scientific assessment frameworka. Ex-ante assessmentb. Recurrent monitoring and evaluation

13. Means of implementationa. What means are available?b. Identify sources of sustainable financing

14. Management rolesa. Who does what?b. Who is responsible for what?

15. Monitoring, control and surveillancea. Monitoringb. Control and surveillancec. Penalties, conflict resolution, courts and appeal

16. Performance assessment and tactical adaptation (short term)17. Auditing and strategic adaptation (medium to long term)18. Communication, mobilization and outreach19. Other questions to be considered by the plan’s developers

together with fishery reserves, buffer zones,sustainable use areas etc.). The Great BarrierReef zoning scheme, adapted to theseamount context, could be taken as anexample of large-scale multiple-use zoning.

m Geographic name – this will depend to alarge extent on the boundaries selected by theAlliance (see below).

m Management target – use the term‘seamount-related biodiversity’ so as toinclude deep-sea benthic species (of interestto SIOFA and SIODFA), pelagic species(IOTC), seabirds (CCAMLR and ACAP),cetaceans (IWC) and pinnipeds.

m Plan purpose – include the terms‘sustainable and equitable use’ and‘conservation’.

4.5 Plan boundary: possible delimitationsof the designated management area

The Alliance will decide on the geographicalboundaries of the area to be covered by theManagement Plan. There is a connectionbetween the actors joining the Alliance (and theirrespective areas of interest) and the geographicalboundaries of the Plan; in particular, whether ornot the Plan will cover parts of EEZs or extendedcontinental shelf. Such boundaries should try toencompass the interests of all concerned, butpragmatism will be needed to reach anacceptable compromise betweencomprehensiveness and feasibility – particularly of data collection, monitoring, control andsurveillance.

The Rome Workshop discussed the variousdelimitations that could be conceived. Looking atthe possible options, workshop participants notedthat a number of potential areas of progressivelylarger extension could be nested as follows:

a) The five seamounts closely studied by theIUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project on the SouthWest Indian Ridge and the single feature onthe Madagascar Ridge;

b) The SWIR from the Central Indian TripleJunction to the boundary with CCAMLR;

c) As in (b) but including the Madagascar Ridge

and Walter's Shoal, and also the portion of theSWIR lying within the CCAMLR area;

d) All ridges within the area under managementof SIOFA; and

e) All seamount and submarine plateau featuresin the Indian Ocean, including the Ninety EastRidge for which a large proportion lies outsidethe SIOFA area and which is known to besubject to deep-sea fishing.

The Rome Workshop indicated that the mostfavourable and logical area for the first iteration ofthe Management Plan would be the area alreadycovered by the IUCN/GEF/UNDP SIO Project:that is, the SWIO from its junction with the CentralIndian Ridge to the border of the CCAMLRmanagement area and the Madagascar Ridge,including Walter's Shoal (see polygon in Figure 3).It also considered that the area covered by theManagement Plan could initially be limited andextended progressively as new members andnew interests become involved in the Initiative andthe Alliance.

4.5.1 Biophysical considerations

The seamounts that could raise the maximuminterest for the Management Plan amongmembers of the Alliance are located along theSouthwest Indian Ridge and the MadagascarRidge. The SWIR crosses a major oceanographicboundary marked by the closely spaced Sub-Tropical Front, the Agulhas retroflection and thesub-Antarctic Front. As the SWIR crosses thisoceanographic boundary, the southernmostseamounts (e.g. Coral) are in sub-Antarctic watersand the northernmost ones (e.g. Atlantis) in sub-tropical waters, with those in between (e.g. Middleof What, Melville and Sapmer) lying in a verycomplex boundary region characterized by eddiesand loops in the frontal system and highly variableoceanography (Reid et al., in submission). Furthernorth, the waters become gradually lessproductive. From a biophysical point of view, itmay therefore be sensible to consider: (i) managing the whole SWIR as one managementunit; or (ii) dividing the SWIR into two units lying,respectively, in subtropical and sub-Antarcticwaters.



a well-defined biogeographic boundary is locatedat the sub-Antarctic Front. Here the pelagiccommunities change in terms of composition andacoustic structure. The benthic communitiesundergo a less well-defined change, with someAntarctic species penetrating as far north asMiddle of What Seamount (e.g. Muraenolepisspp.). The fauna are understudied but seempartially related to that of the South African slope,with some elements more widespread, beingfound also in the Southwestern Pacific (e.g.Solenosmilia spp., Dermechinus spp.), and othersonly described from the Southwestern IndianOcean (e.g. a large proportion of ophiuroids). Thehydrothermal vent fauna of the Dragonhydrothermal vents appear to represent a mix ofelements from the Indian Ocean (scaly-foot

The Madagascar Ridge and the deep-water areasof Walter’s Shoal appear to share at least someaspects of the biology of the SWIR with which it isclosely connected, and its inclusion into themanagement area could also be considered,especially given the fisheries targeting lobsters(Jasus spp.) and other species in the area.

4.5.2 Biogeographic considerations

Decisions regarding boundaries will need to takeaccount of the distribution of important (andthreatened) biodiversity, hotspots, critical habitats,and movements. The work being done to identifyEBSAs (through IUCN and CBD) and VMEs(through FAO) will be useful in that respect.For pelagic ecosystems lying over the seamounts,



Figure 3: The Southern Indian Ocean and significant seamount structures. The polygon (dotted line) indicatesroughly the area suggested during the Rome Workshop as a potential candidate area for the future Management Plan. (Source: courtesy of P. Boersch-Supan Philipp, University of Oxford & St Andrews.

Bathymetry from the GEBCO Digital Atlas 2003.)

gastropod; Rimicaris karei) and elements relatedbut not identical to species from the SouthernOcean (yeti crab and peltospiroid gastropod).Genetic studies on the scaly-foot gastropodindicate a lack of genetic connectivity betweenthe South West Indian Ridge and the vents on theCentral Indian Ridge. Again, this demonstratesthat the region is biogeographically complex, withdistinctive faunal groups and populations beingdetermined by the presence of different watermasses, productivity regimes and complexbottom topography.

4.5.3 Linkages with other ecosystems

The borders of any ocean ecosystem arepermeable in that matter, biomass and otherfactors can and do cross them. It would be usefulto identify the potential factors that may crossboundaries (in and out) and to take these externaldrivers and exports into account. Examples mightbe large ocean predators that cross the region onan annual basis as part of migrations to feeding orbreeding areas.

The SWIR lies within the western part of the sub-tropical gyre of the Southwestern Indian Ocean(along with the Madagascar Ridge). The southernpart the SWIR lies in the sub-Antarctic waters ofthe Southern Ocean. The ridge appears to be animportant feature with regard to predatorpopulations within the region. For example,Antarctic seabirds feed along the ridge, includingspecies – such as white-chinned petrel andwandering albatross – listed on the IUCN RedList. Fur seals, probably from South Africa, havealso been observed on the ridge. The SWIR alsolies on the migratory pathway for cetaceansbetween Madagascar/East Africa and theAntarctic; humpback whales, sperm whales andother species were observed on the 2009 cruiseover the ridge (Rogers et al., 2009).

Strong biophysical coupling between the benthicand pelagic ecosystems over the seamounts islikely to have a strong influence on fisheries in theregion. These include both demersal fishresources directly targeted by deep-sea fishingcompanies and pelagic fisheries for tuna. At widergeographic and even temporal scales, the SWIRis likely to be an important stepping stone forconnectivity of southern hemisphere oceanic

species, particularly the so-called West-Wind Driftspecies (e.g. Jasus spp., Helicolenus moucheziiand other fish species) and also speciesassociated with ‘southern’ cold-water coralcommunities (e.g. Solenosmilia variabilis). It mayalso be important in terms of acting as a reservoirof recruits for Antarctic commercial species, suchas Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichuseleginoides). Some tropical reef-dwelling species(e.g. Ostracion cubiceps) have also beenrecorded on some of the seamounts and so theseamounts may also function as stepping stonesfor the dispersal of these species.

4.5.4 Existing and potential threats tobiodiversity

It is necessary to clearly identify the threats to bemanaged within the Management Plan and, inparticular, to identify areas that are: (i) alreadyirremediably damaged; (ii) potentially recoverable;(iii) of high economic activity; (iv) of high risk ofdamage from future human activities; and (v) asyet unexploited. A difficulty might arise if theseabed and water column of concern/interest aredifferent. Also connections between the surfaceand the bottom will need to be accounted for,especially as the bentho-pelagic coupling isstrong on seamounts in general and in the SWIRin particular.

The SWIR is subject to bottom trawling, gill nettingand potting for a variety of species, includingorange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus, alfonsino(Beryx splendens; Beryx decadactylus), Jasusspp. and possibly sharks. Pelagic systems may betargeted for tuna, especially in the northern part ofthe ridge. Information on existing fisheries isavailable from some fishing companies (e.g. thoseassociated with SIODFA) but other fisheries areunreported and unregulated. Bottom trawling andother fisheries are closely associated with theseamounts themselves. Mid-water and surfacepelagic communities extend over much largerareas around and between the seamounts andmay involve a large part of the Indian and SouthernOceans (e.g. in the case of tuna fisheries).

4.5.5 Existing governance arrangements

The northern part of the SWIR and the high seasportion of the Madagascar Ridge come under the



The Rome Workshop noted that the inauguralmeeting of SIOFA may be an opportunity toidentify some of the most likely players.

4.7 Description of the management area

The management area will be described briefly,focusing on the features that determine theManagement Plan's targets and approaches, e.g.:(i) oceanography; (ii) productivity; (iii) importantbiodiversity elements; (iv) important, vulnerableand threatened species and communities; (v)important sub-ecosystems; (vi) ecosystemfunctions (nursery, feeding, reproduction,migration paths, etc.); (vii) vulnerable habitats(EBSAs) and threatened habitats (VMEs); (viii)threats from economic activities, both land-basedand sea-based; (viii) threats from climate change;(ix) present state of the system; and (x) outlook(likely future threats and evolution).

4.8 Description of the managementtargets

There will be an overlap (and, it is hoped, as closea match as possible) between the area coveredby the Management Plan and the living resourcesand habitats it intends to deal with. The Planshould list the species and key assemblages andtypes of ecosystems included in the area, thegeomorphological structures of interest, and soon. It will have to be decided whether geneticresources are included in the Plan, taking intoaccount the practical implications.

Given that the Management Plan will be jointlyimplemented by the partners within their terms ofreference, it will be both convenient andnecessary to design compartments of theresources corresponding to the mandates of thepartners. To optimize international cooperation, itwill also be important to identify components that‘fall between the cracks’ (i.e. gaps), as well asoverlaps (e.g. species falling under two or morejurisdictions/mandates depending on theapproach taken) or ‘duplications’.

The resources that might be considered forconservation include benthopelagic fish such as

management of SIOFA. The Crozet and PrinceEdward islands4 hotspots touch the SWIR and sopart of the ridge of interest may be included withinthe French and South African EEZs in the region.Further south, the SWIR is under management byCCAMLR. A section of it adjacent to BouvetIsland must be under management by theGovernment of Norway. Tuna fisheries over theridge are overseen by the Indian Ocean TunaCommission. Exploration for seabed mineralresources for the SWIR is overseen through theInternational Seabed Authority which has signedexploration contracts with several entities. For theSWIR, the main contractor is the China OceanMineral Resources Research and DevelopmentAssociation (COMRA) of the People’s Republic ofChina.

The Management Plan will cover mainly ABNJ butmay also include parts of EEZs or continentalshelves if agreement has been reached with therelevant coastal State or States, and ifcompatibility between measures taken in thevarious jurisdictions is assured.

Members of the Alliance will need to decidewhether or not to include pieces of theirjurisdiction in the Management Plan. For example,Seychelles and Mauritius have agreed on theextension of their respective continental shelves.Could they also reach agreement on themanagement of the biodiversity in the superjacentwaters?

4.6 Legal and institutional arrangements

The legal frameworks and relevant institutionsfrom the region include: UNCLOS, UNFSA,CCAMLR, SIOFA, SWIOFC, IOTC and CBD. Atthe regional level there is no implementationagreement of the UNCLOS to deal withbiodiversity in the ABNJ, although generalconservation obligations apply. A collective body(e.g. an ‘Alliance’) could be established to advisethe parties concerned and coordinate decisions.Bilateral MOUs could be used to specify thecollaborations needed. Implementation would bedone in line with each partner’s mandate andinternational law.



4 See Koubbi, Crawford, Alloncle et al., 2012. Estimating the Biodiversity of Planning Domain 5 (Marion and Prince Edward Islands – Del Cano –Crozet) for ecoregionalisation. WG-EMM-12/33 Rev. 1. Available at www.ccamlr.org/en/wg-emm-12/33-rev-1

orange roughy, pelagic armourhead(Pseudopentaceros richardsoni), alfonsino,sharks, and other species such as cardinal fish,snake mackerel and scabbard fish. Shellfish to beconsidered include the lobsters Jasus spp. andProjasus spp.

The Management Plan may also refer to theprotection of some important geomorphologicalfeatures such as seamounts, hydrothermal vents,fracture zones and parts of the abyssal plain.

Remarkable benthic biological communities mightinclude cold-water coral reefs (e.g. CoralSeamount, Middle of What Seamount), coral/sponge gardens (Melville Bank, Middle of What,Atlantis Bank), hydrothermal vent communities(Dragon Vent Field) and mixed communities ofsponges, brachiopods, corals and sea pens oncliffs (Atlantis Seamount, Coral Seamount).

4.9 Description of past, present andpotential activities

Current activities are rather limited, particularly inthe area concerned, but an effort will need to bemade to describe them, their trends, potentialdevelopment and impact. The industriesconcerned include fisheries (fleets, gears, targetspecies, associated and dependent species,catches, discards), mining of oil, gas and minerals(direct impact and contamination) and otheractivities such as navigation and tourism, as wellas discharges from vessels.

Unsustainable practices and threats (present andpotential) arising from each of the activities shouldbe listed, and the evidence of risk given as ameans to increase legitimacy and justify themanagement costs. The description should coverknown and suspected impacts (direct, indirect,instant, cumulative) and include best scientificevidence, the identification of uncertainties, andcalculation of risk.

In describing the activities to be covered by theManagement Plan, the Alliance will need to beaware of the consequences of formally takingthem up in the Plan, in terms of implementation,complexity and manageability.

4.10 Objectives of the Management Plan

The Management Plan will list all the high-levelpolicy goals to which it contributes (see Section A)as well as the specific objectives stemming fromthe detailed descriptions of the resources,activities and threats. This includes:

– promotion of international cooperation onsustainable use of biodiversity;

– sustainable and equitable use of benthic anddemersal biodiversity on seamounts;

– sustainable and equitable use of pelagicbiodiversity;

– protection of endangered species;

– protection of important vulnerable habitats (tosustain resources and protect biodiversity);and

– protection against unsustainable/destructivepractices.

It is important to note, in considering theobjectives of the Plan, that each objective calls foran indicator, a target (desired level), a limit(undesirable level), measures and monitoring.Since some objectives might be contradictory orconflicting, objectives will need to be formallyranked (e.g. based on a risk analysis).

4.11 Activities to be managed

The economic and other activities affecting (orlikely to affect) the ecosystems will need to bemonitored and managed. The list of activities tobe kept under monitoring, and possibly control,will depend on the mandates of the partners in theAlliance. In accordance with the level ofimportance given to them at international level,fisheries should be among the key activities to bemonitored and managed. Other activities will needto be considered by the Alliance as appropriate.

4.12 Financing and mechanisms

Financing is one of the most important concernsfor management sustainability. The ManagementPlan should therefore specify the necessarybudget and the sources of funding available.



The recent coming into force of SIOFA (in 2012)opens an invaluable opportunity to develop aneffective management regime if that institution canstrengthen its capacity. Cooperation betweenSIOFA and IOTC would help to deal properly withthe bentho-pelagic coupling of the ecosystemprocesses. Similarly, cooperation between SIOFAand CCAMLR should help in dealing with theNorth-South coupling of processes (e.g.predation).

Communication, mobilization and outreach will bevery important at all stages of the Initiative, inparticular to promote and activate regional pride inan important initiative on conservation andsustainable/equitable use of biodiversity. TheInitiative should empower coastal States andfacilitate a transfer of science and technology,build effective capacity (in governance andmanagement) and promote fair access toresources.

A number of questions were not fully touched onduring the Rome Workshop and may haveimportance for the Management Plan. One isclimate change and the additional challenge itbrings to the region. The respectiveroles/functions of EBSAs and VMEs need to befinally clarified and their interaction in the regionoptimized, keeping in mind that EBSAs, in dealingwith all sources of impact, have a broader role toplay than VMEs.

The response of ITLOS to the eventual requestmade by Alliance members should help clarify thearticulation of existing legal and institutionalframeworks in dealing with biodiversity in ABNJ.

Last but not least, the Initiative cannot start tomake progress without appropriate funding.Therefore one of the most important tasks ofIUCN, assisted by its Members, will be to raisethe funding necessary to conclude the Road Mapand start implementing the Management Plan.That Plan should also identify long-term sourcesof funding.

The Road Map needs to be kept simple andpractical, and should be locally driven (e.g.by the interested parties from the region or

those operating in it). Its development andimplementation should follow a step-by-stepapproach and should identify short-term, middle-term and long-term action. The adaptiveManagement Plan might be tested first in pilotprojects before being scaled up. Effectiveinternational cooperation is essential and while thefull process may take some time, it is important tomake a start and to show that implementation isfeasible.

The role of IUCN in kick-starting the process willbe fundamental. IUCN should be assisted in thetask by the fact that many of the potential partnersin the Alliance are already cooperating under theframework of the GEF/UNDP/IUCN SIO Project.

The voluntary Alliance will pool the competenciesavailable in the region and optimize cooperationwith a view to establishing the Alliance and havingthe Management Plan drafted as soon aspossible. The governance approach could followsimilar efforts in the ASCLME region and in theSargasso Sea, their experience being beneficial inthis regard.

In addition, many of the principles involved andissues to be addressed are common to initiativesdealing with marine spatial planning and integratedcoastal management, and knowledge (e.g. onbest governance practices) can be drawn alsofrom these initiatives.

To be fully successful, the outcomes of theInitiative must go beyond improvement of currentdata and available science.

In order to address cumulative impacts, theInitiative needs to bring in the economic sectors(at present or potentially) impinging on biodiversityand drawing benefits from the services it delivers.Participation in assessments and decisions willtherefore be a key concept. There is a realintention from SIODFA to cooperate and thisaugurs well for the future. Other sectors will beapproached.

5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS


DRUEL, E. (2011). Marine protected areas inareas beyond national jurisdiction: The state ofplay. IDDRI, Working Papers, 7/11.

DRUEL, E., RICARD, P., ROCHETTE, J. ANDMARTINEZ, C. (2012). Governance of marinebiodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction atthe regional level: filling the gaps andstrengthening the framework for action. StudiesN°04/2012. Iddri, 2012. 102 pp. Available at:www.iddri.org/Publications/Governance-of-marine-biodiversity-in-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction-at-the-regional-level-filling-the-gaps-and-strengthening

FREESTONE, D. AND KILLERLAIN MORRISON,K. (2012). The Sargasso Sea Alliance: Seeking toProtect the Sargasso Sea. International Journal ofMarine and Coastal Law 27: 647-655.

KOUBBI, P., CRAWFORD, R., ALLONCLE, N. et al. (2012). Estimating the biodiversity ofPlanning Domain 5 (Marion and Prince EdwardIslands – Del Cano – Crozet) forecoregionalisation. Available at:www.ccamlr.org/en/wg-emm-12/33-rev-1

READ, J., POLLARD, R. et al. An introduction tothe physical oceanography of six seamounts inthe Southwest Indian Ocean. Deep-Sea ResearchII, In Submission.

READ, J., POLLARD, R. et al. Circulation,stratification and seamounts in the South WestIndian Ocean. Deep-Sea Research II, InSubmission.

ROCHETTE, J. AND DRUEL, E. (2011). Leszones marines protégées en haute mer dans lecadre de la Convention OSPAR : état des lieux etperspectives d’avenir. IDDRI. Idées pour le débat.Working Papers, 3/11.

ROGERS, A.D., ALVHEIM, O., BEMANAJA, E.et al. (2009). Cruise Report ‘Dr. Fritjof Nansen’Southern Indian Ocean Seamounts(IUCN/UNDP/ASCLME/NERC/EAF NansenProject 2009 Cruise 410) 12th November–19th December 2009. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland:188 pp.

SHOTTON, R. (2006). Management of thedemersal fisheries resources of the SouthernIndian Ocean. Report of the 4th and 5th as hocmeetings on potential management initiatives ofdeep-water fisheries operators in the southernIndian ocean (Kameeldrift East, South Africa 12–19/02/2006 and Albion, Petite Rivière, Mauritius,26¬–28/04/2006) including specification ofbenthic protected areas and a 2006 programmeof fishery research. FAO, Rome, FAO FisheriesCircular, No. 1020: 90 pp.

REFERENCES


www.iddri.org/Publications/Governance-of-marine-biodiversity-in-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction-at-the-regional-level-filling-the-gaps-and-strengthening

Consequently, Member States of regionalarrangements and agreements for themanagement, protection, conservation andsustainable development of marine resources,fisheries, environment and biodiversity, withjurisdiction over ABNJ, are uncertain of their rightto enforce compliance in ABNJ with their rules onMPAs and other MEP, living resources, biodiversitymeasures against: (i) non-parties to the relevantregional arrangement/agreement, but parties tothe LOSC; and (ii) non-parties to the LOSC.

Without certainty about their right to enforcecompliance, Member States will not enforce it,and without compliance enforcement, MPAs andother MEP/living resources measures for ABNJare useless. It is imperative that this law of the seaissue be authoritatively resolved at the earliestopportunity.

Proposal

Authoritative resolution is best obtained from anappropriate international tribunal. It is proposedthat this matter be submitted for adjudication inthe first instance to the International Tribunal forthe Law of the Sea (ITLOS). From my reading ofthe LOSC and the ITLOS Rules of Procedure (Iam not an expert on dispute settlement), it wouldappear that two options are available: (i) a non-binding Advisory Opinion; or (ii) a bindingdecision, constraining only on the parties andonly for the matter in question.

To obtain a non-binding Advisory Opinion, atleast two LOSC parties, preferably but notnecessarily in this instance, parties to SIOFA5 (i.e.as of 16 June 2012, Cook Islands, EuropeanUnion, Mauritius, and Seychelles) must enter intoan agreement that: (a) relates to the purposes ofthe LOSC; (b) specifically provides for thesubmission to ITLOS of a request for such an

Introduction

Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are anintegral part of the marine environment. Aneffective, coherent ecosystem approach to marineenvironmental protection (MEP) must includeABNJ. It must also include a mechanism tomanage them. The search for a globalmechanism to manage ABNJ occupies asubstantial proportion of international marineenvironmental governance activity, but a wayforward in the relevant international fora has so farproven to be elusive. Therefore, a regional focuson a ‘local’ ABNJ adjacent to and/or included in aregional marine environment/resourcesgovernance arrangement/agreement, and/or onan ABNJ-MEP/resources arrangement/agreementin its own right, presents a promising alternativeavenue to explore. The SIO seamount projectcould provide this regional focus.

Implementing management plans for the marineenvironment and resources of ABNJ, of whichenforcement of marine protected areas in ABNJare a crucial subset, is an urgent global oceansissue. Lest IUCN’s efforts to establish the SIOMarine Protected Area (MPA) in ABNJ become aSisyphean exercise, finding a mechanism tosecure international compliance with that MPA isthe immediate, principal challenge confronting thisambitious initiative.

The problem

The problem is the lack of clarity in internationallaw of the extent of the so-called high seasfreedom of fishing right (set out in Article 87(1) (e)before the comma) of the 1982 Law of the SeaConvention (LOSC) in light of the restrictions onthat freedom set out in: (i) LOSC Article 87(1) (e)after the comma; (ii) LOSC Article 87(2); (iii) LOSCArticles 116-119; and (iv) LOSC Part XII on MEP.

Text elaborated by P.A. Verlaan

ANNEX 1: PROPOSAL FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND

FISHERIES IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION (ABNJ)


5 The Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) entered into force on 21 June 2012.

opinion; and (c) specifically authorizes a specificbody to make the request (ITLOS Rules ofProcedure Art. 138). This agreement should bebrief and straightforward to draft.

To obtain a binding decision (as qualifiedabove), two possibilities exist:

(i) At least two (again preferably but notnecessarily) LOSC/SIOFA parties must: (a)enter into a special agreement specifying thatadjudication from the ITLOS is sought on thematter by instituting proceedings before theITLOS; and (b) stating their consent thereto.Finally, at least one of the parties thereto mustnotify the ITLOS accordingly (ITLOS Rules ofProcedure Art. 55). This agreement shouldalso be brief and straightforward to draft.

(ii) At least one (again preferably but notnecessarily) LOSC/SIOFA party must make anapplication to the ITLOS indicating: (a) theparty making it; (b) the party against which theclaim is brought; and (c) the subject of thedispute (ITLOS Rules of Procedure Art. 54(1);Article 54(2) sets out further required contentsof the application). As it is assumed that theadversarial nature of this second option willnot be favourably viewed by potentialapplicants for ITLOS adjudication of thismatter, this option is not developed furtherhere.

Other considerations

The parties may consider requesting adjudicationby one of the ITLOS special chambers (fisheriesor marine environment) rather than by the full

ITLOS; this would enable a speedier outcome.However, in the present case, where bothfisheries and marine environmental issues areinvolved, the attention of the full ITLOS is likely tobe required and probably to be preferred.

The procedure is likely to be more complicated ifthe applicants are not also SIOFA parties.

If State-parties involved with this project/SIOFAagree to take the lead as proposed, IUCN couldprovide the substantive and administrative supportmechanism to manage the case itself. Framing ofthe specific questions to be posed will depend onthe option chosen and the parties involved.

Conclusion

Achieving its objective to develop and implementa fully enforceable management framework forMPAs in ABNJ would enable IUCN’s SIOseamount project to offer the global communitythe first complete regional model for maintainingclean, healthy and biologically diverse oceans andseas, qualities that are essential to sustainableuse. Spearheading the initiative to obtain adecisive statement of the international law asproposed in this paper would provide practicalsupport for IUCN’s endeavours to promote MEPand the designation of MPAs in ABNJ in otherfora, strengthen the abilities of regional seasconventions and of regional fisheries managementorganizations/arrangements to enforce theirprovisions against non-parties, and furtherenhance IUCN’s status as a substantive force thatactively contributes to setting the agenda onmarine environmental issues, regionally andinternationally.

PROPOSAL FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND FISHERIES IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION (ABNJ)


urgent basis, the issue of the conservation andsustainable use of marine biological diversity ofareas beyond national jurisdiction including bytaking a decision on the development of aninternational instrument under UNCLOS duringUNGA 69.

163. Marine pollution: We commit to reducepollution on marine ecosystems, including throughimplementing relevant IMO relevant conventionsand follow up of the Global Programme of Actionfor the Protection of the Marine Environment fromLand-based Activities and other relevant initiatives.We commit to take action by 2025 to achievesignificant reductions in marine debris.164. Alien invasive species: We commit toimplement measures to prevent the introductionof, and manage the adverse environmentalimpacts of, alien invasive species including, asappropriate, those adopted in the framework ofthe IMO.

165. Sea level rise and coastal erosion: Wecall on the international community to enhance itsefforts to address the challenges of sea level riseand coastal erosion particularly in developingcountries.

166. Ocean acidification and climate change:We call for support to initiatives that addressocean acidification and the impacts of climatechange on marine and coastal ecosystems andresources. We need to work collectively toprevent further ocean acidification, as well asenhance the resilience of marine ecosystems andof the communities whose livelihoods depend onthem, and to support marine scientific research,

In brief, commitments and recommitments weremade to (headers added):

158. Healthy oceans, ecosystem andprecautionary approaches:6 … “We thereforecommit to protect, and restore, the health,productivity and resilience of oceans and marineecosystems, and to maintain their biodiversity,enabling their conservation and sustainable usefor present and future generations, and toeffectively apply an ecosystem approach and theprecautionary approach in the management, inaccordance with international law, of activitiesimpacting on the marine environment, to deliveron all three dimensions of sustainabledevelopment.”

159. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:We urge countries to implement theircommitments under UNCLOS.

160. Capacity building: We recognize theimportance of building the capacity of developingcountries to be able to benefit from theconservation and sustainable use of the oceansand seas and their resources, and in marinescientific research and transfer of marinetechnology.

161. UN Regular Process: We encourageconsideration by States of the findings of theassessment Regular Process for Global Reportingand Assessment of the State of the MarineEnvironment, including socio-economic aspects.

162. Biodiversity beyond nationaljurisdiction:7 … We commit to address, on an

Summarized by Kristina M. GjerdeIUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme

ANNEX 2: SELECTED RIO+20 OCEAN COMMITMENTS OF

RELEVANCE TO THE SWIO BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT


6 Preambular text to paragraph 158: We recognize that oceans, seas and coastal areas form an integrated and essential component of theEarth’s ecosystem and are critical to sustaining it and that international law, as reflected in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), provides the legal framework for the conservation and the sustainable use of the oceans and their resources. We stress theimportance of the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas and of their resources for sustainable development, includingthrough the contributions to poverty eradication, sustained economic growth, food security, creation of sustainable livelihoods and decentwork, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and the marine environment and addressing the impacts of climate change.

7 Full text of paragraph 162: We recognize the importance of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond areas ofnational jurisdiction. We note the ongoing work under the UN General Assembly of an Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to studyissues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Building on the workof the ad hoc working group and before the end of the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly we commit to address, on anurgent basis, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction including bytaking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

monitoring and observation of ocean acidificationand particularly vulnerable ecosystems.

167. Ocean fertilization: We resolve to continueaddressing with utmost caution ocean fertilization,consistent with the precautionary approach.

168. Restoring fish stocks: We commit tointensify our efforts to meet the 2015 target asagreed to in JPOI to maintain or restore stocks tolevels that can produce maximum sustainableyield on an urgent basis. Including to:

m intensify efforts urgently to maintain or restorefish stocks to levels that can produce at leastMSY by 2015, to do so,

m suspend catch or fishing effort,

m manage by-catch,

m eliminate destructive fishing practices,

m enhance actions to protect vulnerable marineecosystems, incl. effective use of impactassessments.

169. Implementing fishing agreements:We urge States Parties to fully implement theircommitments in the UN Fish Stocks Agreementand for all to implement the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries and the FAOInternational Plans of Action.170. IUU fishing: We recommit to eliminate IUUfishing (JPOI) including by:

m national and regional plans under IPOA-IUU,

m coastal, flag, port state and charter statemeasures, and state of beneficial owners andothers, by identifying vessels engaged in IUUfishing and by depriving offenders of thebenefits accruing from IUU fishing,

m cooperating with developing countries toidentify needs and build capacity, includingsupport for monitoring, control, surveillance,compliance and enforcement systems.

171. IUU fishing: Speeding up ratification of theFAO Port State Measures agreement.172. RFMO performance reviews: We recognizeimportance of transparency and accountability inRFMOs and publicly available regular performancereviews. We encourage implementation ofrecommendations and recommend strengthening

of the comprehensiveness of reviews.

173. Eliminating subsidies: We reaffirm outJPOI commitment to eliminate subsidies thatcontribute to illegal, unreported, and unregulatedfishing and overcapacity taking into account theimportance of this sector to developing countriesincluding through:

m the prohibition of fisheries subsidies thatcontribute to overcapacity and over-fishing,

m encouraging States to further improve thetransparency and reporting of existing fisheriessubsidies programmes through the WTO,

m encouraging States to eliminate subsidies thatcontribute to overcapacity and over-fishing,and

m refraining from introducing new such subsidiesor from extending or enhancing existing suchsubsidies.

174. Fisheries capacity building: We urgeefforts by 2014 to strengthen the capacity ofdeveloping countries to conserve and sustainablymanage and realize the benefits of sustainablefisheries, including through improved marketaccess.

175. Small-scale fisheries access: We committo observe the need to ensure access to fisheries,and the importance of access to markets, bysubsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisherfolkand women fish workers, as well as indigenouspeoples and their communities, particularly indeveloping countries, especially small islanddeveloping States.

176. Coral reefs: We recognize significantcontributions of coral reefs and their vulnerabilityto e.g., climate change, ocean acidification,overfishing, destructive fishing practices andpollution. We support international cooperation aswell as technical collaboration and voluntaryinformation sharing.

177. MPAs: We reaffirm the importance of area-based conservation measures, including MPAs,as a tool for conservation of biological diversityand sustainable use of its components and notethe Aichi target of 10% of oceans by 2020.

SELECTED RIO+20 OCEAN COMMITMENTS OF RELEVANCE TO THE SWIO BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT


About IUCN

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmaticsolutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges.

IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greeningthe world economy by supporting scientific research, managing field projects all overthe world, and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together todevelop policy, laws and best practice.

IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with morethan 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts insome 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices andhundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.

www.iucn.org

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERSRue Mauverney 281196 Gland, SwitzerlandTel +4122 999 0000Fax +41 22 999 0002www.iucn.org

an ecosystem approach to management of seamounts in the ... · an ecosystem approach to management...

Documents