1 / 25

Protecting biodiversity of the deep sea: Policy and practice in Australia’s response.

Protecting biodiversity of the deep sea: Policy and practice in Australia’s response. Jon Nevill University of Tasmania 2007 Society for Conservation Biology Conference Sydney. Presentation overview:. 1.

zenia
Télécharger la présentation

Protecting biodiversity of the deep sea: Policy and practice in Australia’s response.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Protecting biodiversity of the deep sea: Policy and practice in Australia’s response. Jon Nevill University of Tasmania 2007 Society for Conservation Biology Conference Sydney

  2. Presentation overview: 1. On the international scene, Australia has taken a progressive stance towards increasing protection of deep sea biodiversity. 2. On the domestic scene, Australian fishing practice is in violation of both international law and domestic legislation. Domestic fishing practice contravenes core national policies.

  3. Australia is recognised internationally as a leader in marine conservation • Australia has one of the largest networks of marine protected areas; • Australia is one of the few nations to commence implementation of a strategic approach to MPA network development; • Australia was one of the first nations to endorse the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995, and was one of the first nations to introduce mandatory use of the precautionary approach in fishery management plans through amendments to the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act 1991; and • Australia is one of the few nations to attempt to plan on the basis of regional marine ecosystems.

  4. Australia is recognised internationally as a leader in marine conservation • Australia supported calls for a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006. • in 2007, with New Zealand and Chile, Australia has played a key role in the formation of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. This work has included interim controls over bottom trawling on the high seas within the South Pacific Ocean.

  5. 200-1500m Where is the deep sea? Different authors define the deep sea as starting between 200 and 500 m depth. The richest marine environments of the deep sea often lie between 500 and 1500 m, well within the reach of deep sea trawlers.

  6. Is deep sea biodiversity important? The deep sea is a major reservoir of the planet’s biodiversity, most of it unknown and unstudied – the “last great frontier on Earth”. (Roberts 2005, Smith et al. 2006)

  7. Is deep sea biodiversity important? While much of the abyssal region is sparsely populated, the marine life of deep sea benthic ecosystems around features such as seamounts, hydrothermal vents, ridges and trenches is often both rich and abundant.

  8. Is deep sea biodiversity vulnerable? On a typical fishing trip in the NE Atlantic, a trawler sweeps ~33 km2 of sea bed. A single trawl can completely destroy a cold-water coral reef which has taken thousands of years to grow. Hain & Corcoran 2004:121 Image: BBC London

  9. Trawl damage, NE Atlantic ~40% of Lophelia pertusa reefs were damaged or destroyed in Norwegian waters by 2000 (identified coral areas are now protected in the Norwegian EEZ) Damage is similar or worse than ‘blast fishing’. Images by Jan Helge Fosså

  10. Orange roughy bycatch Photo: Greenpeace New Zealand

  11. Is deep sea biodiversity vulnerable? Deep sea bottom trawling commonlytargets spawning aggregations of benthic and demersal fish… In spite of: FAO Code of Conduct 1995: calls for States to “protect critical… nursery and spawning… habitats” (para. 6.8) Johannesburg WSSD 2002: calls for States to implement “time / area closures for the protection of nursery grounds and periods…” (para 32c). SCRFA 2003: “… all fish spawning aggregation sites [should] be conserved” (Statement of Concern 2003). Society for the Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations World Conservation Congress 2004: urges States to “sustain and protect reef fish and their spawning aggregations…” (Recommendation 3.100)

  12. Fishing orange roughy spawning aggregations: Photo: AFMA St Helens Hill is a spawning aggregation site. Like New Zealand, Australian fishery management has aimed at a target reference point of stock biomass above 30% of virgin.

  13. Fishing orange roughy spawning aggregations: In spite of AFMA’s statutory duty to apply the precautionary approach to fishery management, most stocks of orange roughy have dropped below both the target reference point (30% Bo) and the limit reference point (20% Bo). AFMA: Australian Fisheries Management Authority

  14. Use of precaution and ‘best available science’. Scientists reporting through the Australian Deepwater Assessment Group (DAG 2005) appear reluctant to use fully precautionary approaches. For example, after discussing the Eastern Zone orange roughy fishery (which includes St Helens Hill) where estimated biomass fell from an initial 109 k tonnes in 1989 to 11.5 k tonnes in 2002, DAG noted that: “Current management objectives, strategies and performance indicators can no longer be reached for this stock.” Noting also that a 20% Bo limit reference point “is below that recommended for a long lived species and 30% would be more appropriate” DAG (2005:3) suggest: “that an immediate management objective could be to rebuild stock to above the limit reference point (20%) with 50% to 90% probability.”Such a recommendation, given the severity of the decline, and the wide probability range, is arguably the reverse of precautionary. DAG Deepwater Assessment Group (2005), Report to the South East Shark and Scalefish Fishery Assessment Group 2005 Plenary, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

  15. The requirements of international law are not being implemented… • 1982: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: • Articles 117-119: establish a duty to cooperate and take such measures as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas. • Article 194.5: a duty to “protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems” • 1992: Convention on Biological Diversity: • Preamble: emphasizes the importance of prior environmental assessment and the application of the precautionary approach. • Article 3: … States have “the responsibility to ensure that activities within their … control do not cause damage to … areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” • CoP 2006 Decision VIII/21, dealing with genetic resources of the deep sea bed, stresses the need for precaution and requests further investigation of management options.

  16. The requirements of international law are not being implemented… • 1995: UN Fish Stocks Agreement: • Apply the precautionary and ecosystem approaches widely to the conservation and management of straddling and migratory fish stocks in order to protect and preserve the marine environment. • Assess and minimize the impact of fishing activities on non-target and associated or dependent species and their environment [article 5(d), 5(f)]. • Protect biodiversity in the marine environment [article 5(g)]. • Protect habitats of special concern [article 6.3].” • States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures [articles 6.1, 6.2]. • 1995: the voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, formally supported by 124 nations in the Rome Declaration 1999, applies these same requirements broadly to all fishing activities. • Most deep sea bottom trawling activities are entirely inconsistent with the precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fishery management.

  17. International law and national policy are not being implemented… 1972: Stockholm Declaration 1982: World Charter for Nature 1992: Convention on Biological Diversity 1996: National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 2004: (World Conservation Congress) Australia is committed to the protection of representative ecosystems. The conservation of biodiversity, including aquatic biodiversity, requires the protection of representative examples of all major ecosystem types (especially those vulnerable to degradation) coupled with the sympathetic management of ecosystems outside those protected areas.

  18. Protection of representative ecosystems Orange roughy were targeted in all eleven Australian fishing zones in which they occurred in commercial quantities. Only one population, on the Cascade Plateau, is thought to remain in a reasonably healthy state. Where population estimates have been made, in all other zones the population was rapidly fished past both the target and limit reference points. It seems likely that these orange roughy areas represent distinct and important deep sea ecosystems. Australia’s only healthy population of orange roughy has not been protected, and is still being fished, with attendant damage to its habitat – even though orange roughy has been listed as ‘conservation dependent’ under the EPBC Act.

  19. Application of the precautionary approach In 1997, Commonwealth statutes were amended requiring Australian fisheries managers to apply a precautionary approach.Australia had already committed to a precautionary approach through the World Charter for Nature 1982, the Rio Declaration 1992 and the FAO Code of Conduct 1995. A decade later, AFMA has not attempted to systematically apply FAO precautionary guidelines, nor has it developed Australian guidelines for the application of precaution to fisheries management. Over that time, several important Commonwealth fisheries have moved from ‘fully fished’ to ‘over-fished’ in Government assessments.

  20. Application of the precautionary approach AFMA reviewed its Harvest Strategy Policy in 2007. The review failed to adopt a precautionary benchmark contained in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. In spite of the development of a risk assessment framework, the review failed to link risk levels with precautionary default reference points.

  21. Phase-out of destructive fishing practices Through its endorsement of the Johannesburg Implementation Statement 2002, Australia committed itself to phase out destructive fishing practices by 2012. Given the investment of the fishing industry in expensive gear, a phase-out of such practises is likely to take several years, and would need to be preceded by a lengthy consultation program and strategy development. AFMA has made no move towards the development of a strategic approach to the phase-out, and industry involvement in destructive fishing practices continues.

  22. In summary: Current management arrangements aimed at protecting Australia’s deep sea biodiversity are not adequate. Domestic fishing practice contravenes international and national law, and core national policy. The gravity of the issue requires involvement from the marine science community.

  23. This presentation is available at www.onlyoneplanet.com.au

  24. Clearly we are in the midst of one of the great 1993:268 extinction spasms of geological history - E.O. Wilson • Sequential degradation… • Grasslands and woodlands; • Tropical/temperate rainforest; • Island biodiversity; • Rivers, lakes and estuaries; • Shallow water coral reefs; • Deep-sea biodiversity; • Arctic and mountain ecosystems.

More Related