scoping study: protection of vulnerable...

SCOPING STUDY:

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE HIGH SEAS AND DEEP OCEANS BIODIVERSITY AND ASSOCIATED

OCEANS GOVERNANCE

REPORT TO THE UK DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) BY THE JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

25TH MAY 2004

Johnston C.M. 2004 Scoping Study: Protection of vulnerable high seas and deep oceans biodiversity and associated oceans governance. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Scoping study: Protection of vulnerable high seas and deep oceans biodiversity and associated oceans

governance. May 2004

Page 1 of 56

1 Introduction This scoping study has been carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The objectives of the scoping study are to map out how best to integrate effective conservation of vulnerable high seas and deep oceans biodiversity with key economic sectors and pressures, in an approach which:

• Marries ecosystem based management approaches and tools, such as marine protected areas, with the legal framework provided by the UN Law of the Sea;

• Builds on work on protection and conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in OSPAR;

• Commands broad stakeholder recognition and acceptance, and;

• Can be used to guide effectively Defra’s and UK Government policy on conservation of biodiversity on the high seas in regional and international sustainable marine management forums, as well as providing assistance to the wider international community.

This scoping study is necessarily focussed on the North East Atlantic, but with the intention that suggestions and recommendations will be applicable anywhere in the world, with modifications according to the particular regional situation. Further work on identifying vulnerable high seas and deep oceans biodiversity and associated oceans governance will be required, but this report provides a guide to appropriate methodology which could be used.

One of the additional purposes of this report is to contribute towards an addendum report to be submitted to the fifty ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in response to GA resolution A/RES/58/240, adopted on 23 December 2003. Paragraph 52 of this reads that the General Assembly:

“Invites the relevant global and regional bodies, in accordance with their mandates, to investigate urgently how to better address, on a scientific basis, including the application of precaution, the threats and risks to vulnerable and threatened marine ecosystems and biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; how existing treaties and other relevant instruments can be used in this process consistent with international law, in particular the Convention [on the Law of the Sea?], and with the principles of an integrated ecosystem-based approach to management, including the identification of those marine ecosystem types that warrant priority attention; and to explore a range of potential approaches and tools for their protection and management ; and requests the Secretary-General to cooperate and liaise with those bodies and to submit an addendum to his annual report to the General Assembly [of the UN] at its fifty-ninth session, describing the threats and risks to such marine ecosystems and biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction as well as details on any conservation and management measures in place at the global, regional, subregional or national levels addressing these issues;”

In a legal context, ‘high seas’ means the water column in areas outside national jurisdictions in the same sense as used in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Similarly, the term “deep oceans” refers generally to the seabed beyond national jurisdiction – known as ‘the Area’ – and adjacent deep sea. However, the nature of the biodiversity found within the water column (and above it) as well as on the seabed, is determined by physical oceanographic conditions such as temperature, water depth, currents and availability of nutrients, not by legal jurisdictions. Biological communities characteristic of deep seas may occur both within and outside areas of national jurisdiction, and so also may areas of relatively shallow seabed. Consequently, the vulnerable biodiversity of both the seabed and the water column within national jurisdictions is often the same as or similar to that found outside national jurisdictions. In some parts of the world (e.g. in the Mediterranean sea) national jurisdiction may extend only out to 3 nautical miles from shore. High Seas and deep seabed are, therefore, difficult to present on a map as jurisdiction applies differently to areas of seabed, to the water column and to the air above the sea surface. In the context of this report, therefore, the term ‘high seas’ is used generally to indicate biodiversity in areas outside national jurisdictions, whether within the water column, seabed or air above the sea.



Page 2 of 56

2 Methodology Current UK Government policy, based on available evidence and guided also by a precautionary approach, is to identify sites and types of biodiversity vulnerable to human pressures, along with the mechanisms and measures best suited to addressing those pressures. Given the ‘common heritage’ of the high seas, we see this pragmatic approach as of great importance in bringing on board other countries and sectors in order to deliver effective protection, whether it is through a designation of what are regarded as marine protected areas or other means (Eliot Morley response to Tam Dalyell, 3.12.03).

In Europe it is taking more than 25 years to fully implement the Birds Directive (79/409/EC) and more than 12 years to fully implement the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) in the inshore marine environment, and adequate protection of habitats and communities for which protected sites have been and are being identified under these instruments is still not complete. In inshore waters knowledge of the environment and pressures it faces are relatively good, but in offshore waters, and even more so in areas outside national jurisdictions (High Seas), knowledge of both the environment and the pressures it faces is much more sparse. Since the foundation of these legal instruments for conservation is on scientific knowledge of the habitats and species concerned, and on knowledge of the pressures they face, it is likely that protection of vulnerable High Seas biodiversity by similar mechanisms to those used inshore will take at least as long, and more probably much longer to achieve. Therefore, whilst High Seas Marine Protected Areas should be a long-term goal for the International Community, for some vulnerable biodiversity of deep and high seas, we need to take action immediately to manage damaging activities to prevent the loss of or excessive damage to these habitats and species.

There is a precedent in Europe to demonstrate that this kind of approach works in practice, even when a number of States are involved in activities occurring within an area needing protection. The Darwin Mounds, in UK waters outside UK 12nm Territorial Seas, but within the UK Exclusive Fisheries Zone, is an area of cold water coral reef (Lophelia pertusa). As such, it meets the criteria for protection by designation of a Special Area for Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), and subsequent management of the site. Due to legal difficulties, the legal mechanisms for designation of SACs in UK waters outside territorial waters are not yet in place, so the site currently has no formal legal status. However, the Darwin Mounds has been proposed to UK Government as an SAC, and protection of the mounds from bottom trawling was deemed urgent, as damage had already been recorded, and cold water coral habitat is extremely sensitive to physical damage by such activity. Control of fishing activity within this area rests with the EU Member State for its own vessels and with the EU under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for vessels of other Member States. ‘Emergency Measures’ under the CFP were requested and agreed in July 2003 to ban bottom trawling within the Darwin Mounds area, with immediate effect. A permanent measure under the CFP to ban bottom trawling has just been agreed by the EU in April 2004 (Council Regulation (EC) 602/2004).

Firstly, the vulnerable and threatened marine ecosystems and biodiversity need to be identified (see Section 3).

A UK approach to identifying the threats and risks to such ecosystems and biodiversity, which appears highly relevant in an International context for immediate action, involves six steps:

i. identify the sensitivity to threats of aspects of biodiversity which occur on the high seas (see report Section 0);

ii. narrow down the threats to those to which the aspect of biodiversity is highly sensitive (Section 0);

iii. identify the activities which pose those threats (Section 5.2);

iv. identify the geographic location(s) where that biodiversity is vulnerable to the threat (i.e. where the threat occurs in the same area and time as do sensitive aspects of biodiversity);

v. identify existing or required management mechanisms to manage those threats in those areas (Section 5.3);

vi. identify the authorities responsible (or to be responsible) for managing those activities (Section 6).

This would need to be done for each aspect of biodiversity in need of conservation measures. A worked example carried out through this report in the following sections is for Lophelia pertusa cold



Page 3 of 56

water coral reefs. For the other aspects of biodiversity considered in Section 3 below, further work will be required before the assessment of appropriate measures can be completed.

3 High seas biodiversity in need of conservation The abyssal sediment plain is the largest deep-sea habitat, covering nearly 60% of our planet’s surface. Abyssal food chains are nourished by organic debris that sediments down from surface waters where phytoplankton carry out photosynthesis. Only a very small fraction (1% or less) of this surface productivity reaches the deep ocean floor. As a result, nutritional resources and animal life are very scarce. Deposit feeding and suspension feeding are the primary modes of nutrition among the abyssal fauna, along with predation and necrophagy (consumption of dead animals). With the exception of future manganese nodule exploitation, there are few foreseeable threats to the abyssal plain ecosystem. Climate change will affect the distribution and intensity of surface productivity and thus the food supply to the deep sea. However, this is more likely to influence species distribution than survival (Juniper 2003). For other less extensive deep and high seas habitats, as well as for species, there is a need for their conservation due to threats from human activities. For those identified by scientific research so far, and subject to threats from human activity, summary information is presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 below. As scientific research of the deep and high seas continues, the information base for these and other habitats and species will change, and the perceived need for conservation measures to protect these may also change.

Seamounts, rises, banks, volcanic ridges and other elevations form a hard substratum for deep-sea animals which is restricted in distribution compared to the abyssal plain. Because currents are often accelerated by these relief features, they can be heavily colonized by filter-feeding invertebrates, and may provide a focus for highly mobile and generally dispersed marine species such as turtles, cetaceans and fish, due to increased productivity as a result of the increased currents. Strong currents also result in seamounts having fish populations distinctly different from the surrounding abyssal seafloor (Juniper 2003).

As a result of these differences from the abyssal plain, and due to their relative scarcity, such features are the focus of research into deep sea biodiversity and its conservation.

3.1 Habitats and sedentary species or communities

3.1.1 Cold water coral reefs Knowledge of cold water corals has grown rapidly in the last few years. A comprehensive report on the global status and state of cold water corals worldwide is being prepared by UNEP (Friewald et al., in prep.) and is due for publication in early summer 2004. Cold water coral ecosystems occur throughout the world’s oceans, and may form banks or reefs as physically complex as tropical coral reefs. Some of these banks and reefs have existed for hundreds of thousands of years (Friewald et al., in prep.). Cold water coral ecosystems can be found in inshore waters in fjords, but are more usually found along the edges of continental shelf areas and around offshore submarine banks and seamounts in areas of territorial waters and high seas.

Without light, and in relatively nutrient-rich seawater, cold-water coral ecosystems function in a very different way to shallow-water coral systems. Cold-water corals living at depth in the dark, have no light-dependant symbiotic algae (marine plants) as do tropical corals, and therefore they depend on the supply of current-transported particulate organic matter and zooplankton for their food. To capture the food efficiently, many of these cold-water corals produce tree-like branching structures which form the complex three-dimensional habitat or reef. Reef forming corals in cold waters are derived from several systematic groups, the most important of which are the colonial stone corals (Scleractinia), true soft corals (Octocorallia), black corals (Antipatharia) and calcifying lace corals (Hydrozoa) (Friewald et al., in prep.).

The most spectacular reefs are constructed by stony corals, although soft corals form spectacular ‘octocoral gardens’ in the North Pacific (Friewald et al., in prep.). These reefs occur in shallow cold waters in northern latitudes and down to more than a thousand meters below sea level further south. They may vary tremendously in size from small patches of reef a few metres in diameter to vast reef complexes measuring several tens of kilometres across. Such cold-water reefs are constructed by only a few coral species. In the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, Lophelia



Page 4 of 56

pertusa and Madrepora oculata are the most abundant reef builders. Reefs constructed by Oculina varicosa occur on the continental slope off Atlantic Florida and North Carolina. In the southern hemisphere, especially around seamounts and oceanic banks off Tasmania and New Zealand, Goniocorella dumosa and Solenosmilia variabilis are the most prominent reef-building species (Friewald et al., in prep.).

These cold-water reefs are in many ways comparable to shallow-water coral reefs in terms of their three-dimensional topography, ecological function and mode of growth, and like their tropical counterparts, cold-water coral systems are home to thousands of other species. Such species may include animals like sponges, polychaetes (or bristle) worms, crustaceans (crabs, lobsters), molluscs (clams, snails, octopuses), echinoderms (starfish, sea urchins, brittle stars, feather stars), bryozoans (sea moss) and fishes (Friewald et al., in prep.).

Lophelia pertusa is one of the reef forming stony corals. It has a cosmopolitan distribution and the full extent of the present geographic distribution of L. pertusa is still unknown. However, a dense girdle of Lophelia occurrences stretches from the southwestern Barents Sea along the eastern Atlantic continental margin down to West Africa. A similar belt is emerging through ongoing scientific deep-sea expeditions along the western margin of the Atlantic, from off Nova Scotia to the Florida Strait and into the Gulf of Mexico. The northernmost Lophelia occurrence is known the southwestern Barents Sea near Hjelmsøybank at 71°21N, 24°00E (Fosså et al. 2000). The southernmost location is known from the subantarctic Macquarie Ridge off New Zealand at 51°S, 162°01E. The shallowest occurrence of live Lophelia pertusa is recorded at 39 m depth from the Trondheimsfjord, mid Norway and the deepest live occurrences are documented from the New England Seamount Chain, North Atlantic, at 3383 m, and off Morocco, with 2775 m respectively. It is known from few locations in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean (various references in Friewald et al., in prep.).

Oculina varicosa is quite unusual in that it grows both in shallow and deep water. Along the eastern Florida Shelf the deep-water Oculina is an important reef constructor that produces 3 to 35 m high coral ridges and pinnacles in 45 to about 100 m water depth (Friewald et al., in prep.).

Enallopsammia profunda as a framework-constructing species which forms massive colonies up to 1 m thick and is endemic to the Western Atlantic. Its distribution ranges from the Antilles in the Caribbean to off Massachusetts at depths from 146 m to 1748 m and it is often associated with L. pertusa, M. oculata and Solenosmilia variabilis. It is also known from the outer eastern edge of the Blake Plateau at depths of 640 m to 869 m and in association with Lophelia reefs along the Florida-Hatteras-Slope from Miami to South Carolina at depths of 500 – 800 m with a maximum relief of 97 m (various references in Friewald et al., in prep.).

Solenosmilia variabilis forms densely branched colonies similar to Lophelia pertusa. It has a generally cosmopolitan distribution, but it has not been found in Antarctic waters and in the North and East Pacific. Solenosmilia occurs between 220 and 2165 m water depths and often is associated with L. pertusa, Madrepora spp. and E. profunda. Dense Solenosmila aggregations frequently occur on the summits of the South Tasmanian Seamounts in depth of 1300 to 1600 m. Large quantities have been found in the Heezen Fracture Zone in the South Pacific. Solenosmilia also occurs in the Indian Ocean along the slopes of St. Paul and Amsterdam. In the Atlantic it is known from the northern slope of Little Bahama Bank at depths of 1000 – 1300 m and from the Reykjanes Ridge, south of Iceland, in 1000 to 1900 m water depth (various references in Friewald et al., in prep.) .

Soft corals (Octocorallia) are often closely associated with stony coral reefs, for example, the Lophelia reefs off Norway. About 2700 species are scientifically described and most of them belong to the true soft corals (or Alcyonacea). Like the stony corals, true soft corals form large, long-lived colonies packed with myriads of tiny polyps that capture food with their tentacles as suspension feeders. Their colonies are the home of specialised fauna, mostly crustaceans and snails that live permanently on, or within the tissue of the corals. On seamounts or deep shelves especially in the high latitudes where stony corals are not prominent, true soft corals form the backbone of the coral ecosystem and are generally called ‘octocoral gardens’, or ‘forests’. Examples of octocoral gardens are found off Nova Scotia, the Aleutians and many sites along the Pacific coast and on seamounts off Canada and the United States, on Japanese Seamounts and in New Zealand waters. The leather corals (Gorgoniidae) dominate cold-water soft coral ecosystems in terms of spatial coverage. The leather coral group includes precious corals (exploited for jewellery), sea fans and bamboo corals (Friewald et al., in prep.).



Page 5 of 56

Common to all of the cold water coral reef types, is their susceptibility to damage from activities which physically affect the seabed. All coral reefs consist of fragile structures built up over many years, hundreds of years or longer. Since about the mid 1980s there has been increasing pressure, driven by the fishing and hydrocarbon industries, to exploit biological and mineral resources in deeper waters. When academia started to explore cold-water coral ecosystems with sophisticated camera systems in the 1990s, human impacts were already visible and had caused habitat losses in most oceans of the world. Documented and potential sources of impact are:

• Commercial fishing (particularly bottom trawling);

• Hydrocarbon exploration;

• Global increase in CO2;

• Waste disposal;

• Cable-laying;

• Coral trade;

• Other mineral exploration;

• Man-made installations and wrecks (Friewald et al., in prep.).

Due to their very widespread use, and lack of controls on their use in high seas, bottom trawls create the largest disruptive impact of any fishing gear on the seabed in general and especially to coral ecosystems. Commercial trawling on deep shelves and along the continental margins down to 1500 m depth and beyond increased dramatically in the late 1980s. On a typical 15-day trip in the Rockall Trough, Northeast Atlantic, a trawler sweeps approximately 33 km2 of seabed. The detrimental effects of bottom trawling to coral ecosystems are well-documented from various locations; such as the Oculina reefs off eastern Florida, Solenosmilia reefs on the summits of some South Tasmanian seamounts, the oceanic banks in New Zealand waters, from the octocoral gardens in Alaskan waters, coral grounds off Nova Scotia, and Lophelia reefs in Scandinavian waters, off western Ireland and in the northern Rockall Trough. Although fishermen try to avoid trawling over large coral reefs and coral-topped carbonate mounds, as these form seabed obstacles too rough to be swept over, the direct and collateral damage to coral grounds of low relief is high (various references in Friewald et al., in prep.).

Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs are one of the habitats identified in work under OSPAR Annex V (see section 7.1.1) as threatened and/or declining, and work is proceeding to map the occurrence of the habitat in the OSPAR area (including, but not limited to, high seas), and to determine suitable management measures for its conservation. Work is also proceeding in the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) through its cold water coral working group SGCOR to collate scientific information on the distribution and ecology of cold water corals, and on threats to cold water coral reefs (see ICES 2002 and ICES 2003).

3.1.2 Seamount communities Information on the ecology of seamounts in the North-East Atlantic has recently been collated under the OASIS project, funded under the EC 5th Framework Programme (Gubbay 2003). The area covered by the study equates to the OSPAR Maritime Area, see Section 7 below, and two seamounts off the Azores and Madeira are used as case studies (Gubbay 2003). The definition of a seamount may vary, but in general they are undersea volcanoes which are typically cone shaped, rising relatively steeply from the seabed. Some definitions limit them to features which do not emerge above the surface and to circular or elliptical features of volcanic origin (Epp & Smoot 1989). In other cases height is a defining factor with seamounts considered to be features more than 1000m high with limited extent across the summit (Baker et al. 2001). Seamounts can be very large features, not only in terms of their elevation, but also in area, as some are more than 100km across at their base.

There are approximately 810 seamounts (over 100m in height) in the Atlantic ocean (Epp & Smoot 1989), 30,000 seamounts (over 1000m in height) in the Pacific ocean (Smith & Jordan 1988), and an indeterminate number in the Indian ocean (Rogers 1994). In the NE Atlantic most seamounts are along the mid Atlantic ridge and west of Portugal on the Madeira-Tore rise. Three seamounts (Rosemary Bank, Anton Dohrn and Hebrides Terrace seamount) occur in UK waters, within the UK 200nm fishery zone but outside UK Territorial Seas.



Page 6 of 56

Large depth ranges, hard substrata, steep gradients, cryptic topography, fast and variable water currents, clear oceanic water and geographic isolation all combine to make seamounts unique habitats for deep sea and shallow water organisms (Rogers 1994). Unlike most of the rest of the deep sea, which consists of fine muds and sands, hard substrata are common on seamounts because of their volcanic origin, although many also may be capped with or have areas of fine sediments depending on their topography. Seamounts interrupt the flow of water and therefore tides can be amplified creating fast currents, and eddies may form and be trapped over seamounts in closed circulations known as Taylor columns. Other effects include locally enhanced turbulent vertical mixing (various references, in Gubbay 2003).

The enhanced currents that sweep around the seamounts and the exposed rock surfaces provide ideal conditions for suspension feeders, and it is these that often dominate the benthos (Rogers 1994). Corals can be particularly abundant with soft (gorgonian), hard (scleractinarian) and antipatharian (black) corals all recorded on seamounts. Other suspension feeders sometimes found in abundance are sponges, hydroids and sea squirts. Feather stars, starfish, brittlestars, sea cucumbers, molluscs and crabs and lobsters have also been reported. However, the practical difficulties and limited attention given to sampling the fauna of seamounts over the last century means that there is a paucity of information on the benthos, and those data that are available tend to be from a very limited number of locations.

Many studies of plankton around seamounts report qualitative and quantitative differences between plankton communities over the seamounts and those in surrounding oceans. Two main hypotheses have been put forward to explain increased concentrations of plankton around seamounts: 1) localised upwellings which bring nutrients to the surface waters encouraging primary production, and 2) trapping of advected plankton in circulation cells over the seamounts (Rogers 1994).

Fish of seamounts are from a number of different families, but have evolved various ecological and physiological features which enable them to exploit an environment with enhanced currents and greater flux of organic material than much of the deep sea bed. They tend to be exceptionally long lived, with a slow growth rate and very variable recruitment, with recruitment sometimes only successful on a 10 year timescale. Examples of such fish which are commercially important or known to be taken during fishing on seamounts in the NE Atlantic include (ICES 2002) are included in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Examples of fish species subject to commercial fishing on seamounts

Common name Latin name Estimated lifespan

Orange roughy Hoplostephus atlanticus 125 years

Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris >60

Deepwater squalid sharks

Centroscymnus coelolepsis and Centrophorus squamosus

60-70

Redfish Sebastes spp. 45-50

Blue ling Molva dipterygia Approx 30

Great silver smelt Approx. 35

Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 15-20

Ling Molva molva Approx. 20

Tusk Brosme brosme 20

Black scabbard fish Aphanopus carbo 8 to approx. 25 years

Red (Blackspot) seabream

Pagellus bogaraveo 16

Greater forkbeard Physis physis or P. blennoides 15?

Broad alfonsin Beryx sp. 13

Alfonsin Beryx splendens 11



Page 7 of 56

There are various theories on why large concentrations of fish occur around seamounts including the possibility of increased primary production caused by upwelling or because diurnally migrating plankton are trapped during their daytime descent by predators living near the bottom (Rogers 1994). Deep sea fish have been observed to form spawning aggregations on seamounts and offshore banks (Merrett & Haedrich 1997 in Gubbay 2003). Such species include orange roughy on some seamounts in the Azores archipelago (Melo & Menezes 2002 and Barceloss et al. 2002 in Gubbay 2003), blue ling (Molva dipterygia) on a small seamount near the Westman Islands and in a southerly area of the Reykjanes Ridge (Magnusson & Magnusson 1995 in Gubbay 2003), and roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) on the Hatton Bank (ICES 2002). The concentration of commercially valuable fish species around seamounts has been well documented (Gerber 1993, Gordon 2001 in Gubbay 2003).

While adequate information regarding the physical location of seamounts within the OSPAR or ICES areas exists from bathymetric charts (although there may be debate about the precise definition of a seamount), knowledge as to flora and fauna that inhabit them and their sensitivity to fishing exists in only a limited number of cases. Seamount communities are one of the habitats identified in work under OSPAR Annex V (see section 7.1.1) as threatened and/or declining, and work is proceeding to map the occurrence of the habitat in the OSPAR area (including, but not limited to, high seas), and to determine suitable management measures for their conservation.

3.1.3 Deep water sponge aggregations In limited areas deep water sponges occur in very high densities and can make up more than 90% of the catch biomass, excluding benthic fish. It has been reported that one study off the coast of northern Norway took grab samples from an area of less than 3m2, yielding 4,000 sponge specimens belonging to 206 species, 26 of which were not described (Konnecker, 2002). Precise locations are known for a limited number of examples of this habitat close to the shelf break around the Faeroe Islands (Klitgaard and Tendel, 2001), along the Norwegian coast up to West Spitzbergen and Bjørnya (Blacker, 1957; Dyer et al., 1984; Fosså and Mortensen, 1998) and from the Porcupine Seabight (Rice et al., 1990), however they have not all been mapped. Deep water sponge communities are one of the habitats identified in work under OSPAR Annex V (see section 7.1.1) as threatened and/or declining, and work is proceeding to map the occurrence of the habitat in the OSPAR area (including, but not limited to, high seas). Future work for habitats on this list will include determination of suitable management measures for their conservation.

3.1.4 Carbonate mound communities Carbonate mounds are biogenic in nature, and may be formed by different processes. While the full distribution of such mounds within the OSPAR or ICES area is not fully known, they are thought to be widely distributed on the eastern margin of the North Atlantic from the Iberian Peninsula to offshore Norway (Masson et al., 1998). This habitat is the subject of an OSPAR habitat mapping program in progress during 2004. Carbonate mound communities are one of the habitats identified in work under OSPAR Annex V (see section 7.1.1) as threatened and/or declining, and work is proceeding to map the occurrence of the habitat in the OSPAR area (including, but not limited to, high seas). Future work for habitats on this list will include determination of suitable management measures for their conservation.

3.1.5 Hydrothermal vent communities Some of the most unusual marine ecosystems are found at the tectonic plate boundaries in the deep sea where geological forces provide ecosystems with non-photosynthetic energy sources. These ecosystems occur at seafloor hydrothermal vents, which have become sites of intensive scientific research, some of which is related to future mineral resource exploitation (Juniper 2003).

Hydrothermal vents occur along spreading ridges (such as the mid-Atlantic ridge), subduction zones, fracture zones and back-arc basins (Gage & Tyler, 1991), and are caused by seawater penetrating the upper levels of the Earth’s crust through channels formed in cooling lava flows, reacting chemically with hot basalt in the Earth’s crust and then rising back to the sea-bed to vent as superheated water containing compounds such as sulphides, metals, CO2 and methane (Tunnicliffe et al, 1998 in Gubbay, 2002). The water may trickle out from cracks and crevices on the seabed as hot springs (5-250°C), or as very concentrated jets of superheated water (270-380°C). As these concentrated jets of water cool,



Page 8 of 56

minerals dissolved in the water precipitate out in black clouds, giving them their common name of ‘black smokers’. At lower temperatures, sulphides are mostly precipitated within the rocks, making the venting fluids appear cloudier. These are known as ‘white smokers’ (Gage & Tyler, 1991). Hydrothermal vent fields cover relatively small areas of the seabed in water depths of 850-4,000m. The biological communities associated with hydrothermal vents are unusual as they are able to derive energy under conditions where photosynthesis is not possible. These habitats contain a huge diversity of chemoautotrophic bacteria, which form the core of the trophic structure around the vent. Characteristic species include the giant vent clam Calyptogena magnifica, the mussel Bathymodiolus thermophilus, the tube worm Riftia pachyptila, the crabs Cyanograea praedator and Bythograea thermydron and the shrimp Charocaris fortunate. Hydrothermal faunal communities occupy very small areas of the seafloor and many sites contain animal species found nowhere else (Juniper 2003).

While the full distribution of such mounds within the OSPAR or ICES area is not fully known, they are thought to be mainly distributed along the mid Atlantic ridge, from Iceland down to the Azores. Hydrothermal vent communities are one of the habitats identified in work under OSPAR Annex V (see section 7.1.1) as threatened and/or declining, and work is proceeding to map the occurrence of the habitat in the OSPAR area (including, but not limited to, high seas). Future work for habitats on this list will include determination of suitable management measures for their conservation.

3.1.6 Cold seep/gas hydrate communities Apart from hydrothermal vents, other unusual marine ecosystems also found in the deep sea where geological forces provide ecosystems with non-photosynthetic energy sources, are cold seeps (Juniper 2003).

Although hydrothermal vents have attracted most interest, animal assemblages at least partly dependent on chemoautotrophic production have also been found associated with a variety of “seeps” where fluids rich in methane and hydrogen sulphide diffuse from the seafloor along continental margins (Tunnicliffe et al., 2003). Compared to hydrothermal vents, seep flow rates are usually slow and temperatures are only slightly different from the surrounding seawater. In deep waters, seep processes are related to geological phenomena such as subduction, petroleum or natural gas escape, artesian flow, and catastrophic erosion or submarine slope failures.

Seep fluids are rich in methane, produced by microbial or thermal degradation of organic matter in deep subsurface sediments. Migrating seep fluids can be enriched in hydrogen sulphide in near-surface sediments by microbial sulphate reduction coupled to methane oxidation (Martin et al., 1996). Seeps exhibit a fauna taxonomically similar to that of hydrothermal vents – vestimentiferan tubeworms, vesicomyid and mytilid bivalves, and there is evidence of their use of carbon from methane, through symbiotic bacteria (Gage and Tyler 1996).

Cold-seep areas that have so far been studied are at depths ranging from 400 to 6000 m in the Atlantic and the Eastern and Western Pacific and in the Mediterranean Sea; they occur in different geological systems, some on active and some on passive margins. Sibuet and Olu (1998, in Juniper 2003) review the biogeography, biodiversity and fluid dependence of the communities at 24 deep cold seeps. The dominant cold-seep species are large bivalves (families Vesicomyidae and Mytilidae) but there are symbiont-containing species of other bivalve families, Pogonophoran worms, and sponges. Unlike hydrothermal vents, specialized carnivores have not been reported in high abundance. Most of the symbiont-containing cold seep species are new to science. From data reviewed by Sibuet and Olu (1998) only 13 species occurred at both cold seeps and hydrothermal vents. The species richness of cold seep communities decreases with depth, but at several seep sites there is high diversity compared with hydrothermal vents; this may be explained by the greater longevity of seep habitats. In some seep areas, deposits of gas hydrate (methane packed within the crystalline structure of ice) are exposed at the seafloor.

3.2 Mobile animals Mobile marine species such as cetaceans (whales and dolphins), marine turtles, fish and birds occur in or pass through high seas areas. As for habitats, there are very few scientific studies of the distribution,



Page 9 of 56

abundance and ecology of mobile species in these areas, and those that do exist cover different areas and are dispersed amongst different scientific disciplines. An added complication is that these species or groups of species move around, sometimes over vast distances, sometimes under water (and therefore very difficult to track), and so it is very difficult and expensive to gain knowledge of their distribution and movements. Mobile species also cross jurisdictional boundaries, and hence there is a further complication in ensuring their conservation. However, enough is known about threats to some of these species or groups of species, and a precautionary approach based on existing scientific knowledge (data and reasoned arguments) can be employed now, with an emphasis on increased, targeted research to gain and then apply new knowledge.

3.2.1 Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) The Atlas of cetacean distribution in north west European waters (Reid et al. 2003) provides a snapshot of the distribution of all 28 whale and dolphin species that are known certainly to have occurred in the waters off north west Europe in the last 25 years. The area covered by the cetaceans atlas includes only European parts of the OSPAR Maritime Area (see section 7), as that is where the north east Atlantic records of cetaceans are concentrated, but it does include significant areas of high seas. Information is extracted below on those species which occur regularly and in relatively large numbers in high seas of the north east Atlantic, and/or those known to occur in deep waters. A selection of maps is included below from the cetaceans atlas, showing distribution of some species in the north east Atlantic. The maps also show the relative effort put into observations of cetaceans (shaded grey areas), which provides an indication of areas where little or no survey has been carried out (white areas). The prevalence of white areas in high seas in the north east Atlantic demonstrates the very low recording effort for cetaceans in areas away from the coast and outside national jurisdictions. Many of the species included below probably do occur in these high seas areas (as surmised from what is known of their habits and diet), but there is little or no scientific information to indicate their distribution or abundance in these areas.

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); extensively distributed in the northern hemisphere tropical, temperate and polar seas, mainly on the continental shelf and shoals/banks in water less than 200m deep, feeding on a variety of small shoaling fish and zooplankton. Estimated NE Atlantic population 112,000 individuals.

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis); distribution central north Atlantic north to Iceland, apparently favouring pelagic, temperate deep waters (500-3,000m deep) with a more offshore distribution than fin whales or other baleen whales, feeding on surface plankton and small fish. Estimated NE Atlantic population 13,500+ individuals.

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalis); distribution mainly temperate and polar seas of northern and southern hemispheres, living mainly in deep waters (400-2,000m) beyond the continental shelf in areas with high topographic variation (sills, ledges, upwelling areas), feeding on plankton and small shoaling fish. Estimated total population 47,300 individuals.

Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) have a worldwide distribution, and usually occur in deep waters (100-1000m), feeding mainly on euphausiids (krill), but also octopus and squid. The north Atlantic population (around Iceland at least) is indicated to be a maximum of 442 individuals.

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus); distribution worldwide in tropical, temperate and subpolar seas, inhabiting mainly deep oceans (usually 500-2,000m) from the equator to the edge of the polar pack ice. It is the largest of the toothed whales, feeding primarily on cephalopods (squid & octopus) and deep living fish. No reliable population estimate.

Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus); distribution only in temperate, subpolar and polar seas of the North Atlantic, in deep waters, mostly along the continental shelf edge over the 1000m isobath in the north east Atlantic down to southern Bay of Biscay, feeds on squid, fish, crustaceans, sea stars and sea cucumbers. Total population estimated at 40,000 individuals.

Beaked whales (genus Mesoplodon) are relatively infrequently encountered, and difficult to identify. Their distribution is global, but they appear to be absent from polar waters. Sowerby’s beaked whale (M. bidens) is the most frequently seen and stranded species in the north east Atlantic. Their diet consists of deep water (greater than 1000m) species of squid and occasionally fish.



Page 10 of 56

Other species of whale in the north east Atlantic known to occur mainly in deep oceanic waters, but whose distribution and abundance is much less well known, are the pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Beluga (white) whale (Delphinapterus leucas) and Narwhal (Monodon monoceros).

Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) has a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate seas of the northern and southern hemispheres. It occurs in shallow estuaries and bays to the continental shelf edge, but also beyond into deep open oceans. It feeds on a variety of benthic and pelagic fish, as well as octopus, squids and shellfish. No overall population estimate exists.

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) has a worldwide distribution, mainly in tropical, subtropical and warm-temperate oceanic waters. It tends to occur well beyond the continental shelf in depths of 1000m or deeper, feeding on a variety of pelagic and benthic fish, and also squids and crustaceans. The only population estimate for the eastern north Atlantic is 73,843 individuals from SW Ireland down to north west Spain and out to 20º W.

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) is the most numerous offshore cetacean species in the temperate north east Atlantic, and it is among the most numerous throughout the world’s warm-temperate and tropical waters. In the North Atlantic it reportedly favours deep water habitats. In the north east Atlantic common dolphins are found in continental shelf waters, notably to the south west of Britain and Ireland. The limited survey effort achieved in deeper Atlantic waters suggests that common dolphins are widespread in waters well offshore (high seas) to the west of Ireland and Scotland. Population estimates exist for the Celtic sea (75,000 animals) and for a region south and west of this (62,000), with a suggested a total population of around 120,000 individuals for the two areas combined (there was some overlap between the areas).

Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) is confined to temperate and sub-Arctic seas of the North Atlantic, and occurs seaward or along the edges of continental shelves, but they may also be numerous in much deeper, oceanic waters. They seem to favour areas of high bottom relief and around deep submarine canyons, and feed on a variety of fish and squid. Population estimates are difficult to obtain because of confusion with the white-beaked dolphin. An estimate of Lagenorhynchus spp. For the North, Celtic and Baltic in July 1994 was 11,760, but most of these were white-beaked dolphins.

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) is a pelagic species with worldwide distribution, occurring mainly in deep tropical to warm temperate waters, usually seaward of continental shelf breaks. Its diet includes many species of squid and large fish. In the north east Atlantic the species has been recorded only occasionally north of the British Isles, most reports having come from the Bay of Biscay south to the Canary Islands.

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) has a worldwide distribution in tropical, temperate and polar seas in both southern and northern hemispheres, occurring at greatest abundance in colder waters at higher latitudes. It is usually found within 800km of continents and although it generally prefers deep waters it also occurs in shallow bays, inland seas and estuaries. It has a very varied diet of fish, squid, birds, seals, turtles and other cetaceans. No overall population estimate exists, but recent sightings surveys suggest a north east Atlantic population in the region of 3,500 to 12,500 animals.

Three species of cetacean which occur in high seas areas are on the current OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining habitats or species (northern right whale has a mostly coastal distribution (Reid et al. 2003)). Work is in progress to determine appropriate management measures under OSPAR for conservation of harbour porpoise, and future work for species on this list will include measures for bowhead whale and blue whale.



Page 11 of 56

Plate 3.1 Distribution of minke whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)

Plate 3.2 Distribution of sei whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)



Page 12 of 56

Plate 3.3 Distribution of fin whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)

Plate 3.4 Distribution of sperm whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)



Page 13 of 56

Plate 3.5 Distribution of northern bottlenose whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)

Plate 3.6 Distribution of beaked whales in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)



Page 14 of 56

Plate 3.7 Distribution of short beaked common dolphin in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)



Page 15 of 56

Plate 3.8 Distribution of pilot whale in north east Atlantic waters (Reid et al. 2003)

3.2.2 Marine reptiles (turtles) It has not been possible during this scoping study to collate global distributional information on marine turtles in high seas. However, the number of species involved is limited, and a significant amount of data is believed to exist, at least on their breeding areas and migrational routes, and it would be very useful to collate it on a global scale for high seas areas.

Two species of marine turtle (loggerhead and leatherback turtles) are on the current OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining habitats or species (see Section 7.1.1). Work is in progress to determine appropriate management measures under OSPAR for conservation of loggerhead turtles, and future work for species on this list will include leatherback turtles.

3.2.3 Fish There are two main categories of fish stocks which fishers target on the high seas. The first category is that of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks – those species that lie across, or move between, areas within national jurisdiction and areas beyond national jurisdiction. These stocks include a range of tuna and albacore species.

The second category of fish stocks which fishers target on the high seas is exclusively high seas stocks – those that are oceanic in nature, such as orange roughy or oreo and which do not migrate large distances. These stocks have traditionally been viewed as more difficult to exploit; however, with the decline of other fisheries, these stocks have increasingly become the focus of attention as new fisheries are sought. Vulnerable species of fish are those which are endemic to certain areas, are long lived, of low fecundity, and subject to commercial fishing pressure or caught in large numbers as bycatch in fisheries targeted at other stocks. Several such species are mentioned in Section 3.1.2 on seamounts, and include orange roughy and a number of species of sharks and rays.

It has not been possible during this scoping study to collate global distributional information on relevant species of marine fish in high seas areas. The number of species involved is large, and knowledge of their ecology and current distribution is not well documented. Much of the information



Page 16 of 56

on distribution available has been collected for the purposes of fisheries management, and is spread amongst many countries and institutions. In addition, it is usually reported in an aggregated fashion by, for example, ICES rectangles, which limits its usefulness for conservation purposes. It would be very useful to collate such information as exists on a global scale for high seas areas, including mapping of fish distributions, fishery areas and fish catches.

Six species of fish which occur or may occur in high seas areas are on the current OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining habitats or species (see Section 7.1.1). Work is in progress to determine appropriate management measures under OSPAR for conservation of seamount communities, which may include recommendations for certain species of fish such as orange roughy. Future work for species on this list will include the other listed species, but the situation for fish species is complex as most are the subject of commercial fisheries, management of fisheries is outside the remit of OSPAR (see Section 7.1), and the remit of the appropriate regional fisheries management organisation (the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission or NEAFC) is for management and conservation of fish stocks for commercial purposes rather than for nature conservation (see Section 7.2.1).

3.2.4 Seabirds It has not been possible during this scoping study to collate global or North East Atlantic distributional information on relevant species of seabirds for high seas areas. Several species are known to occur in high seas, and for some species threats are well documented, for example, the threats to albatross populations from long line fishing, mostly in the southern hemisphere.

Albatrosses have the highest proportion of threatened species in any bird family on the planet; consequently they are the most vulnerable and threatened of all seabirds. Southern hemisphere albatrosses and petrels are highly migratory species and frequently move within and between State jurisdictions and fishing vessels on the high seas. Some even migrate annually around the world. A major threat to the populations of these species arises from longline fisheries activities, with other threats including human disturbance, pollution, introduced predators, disease, and the effects of climate change. Although most States with breeding populations undertake action to conserve albatrosses and petrels within their national jurisdictions, the highly migratory nature of these species dictates that additional international cooperative action is required.

Little shearwater and Roseate tern occur in high seas areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area and are on the current OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining habitats or species (see Section 7.1.1). Future work to determine appropriate management mechanisms for species on this list will include these two species.

4 Global distribution of biodiversity on the High Seas For management of any activity affecting any particular aspect of biodiversity on the High Seas, as elsewhere, an essential prerequisite is that the distribution of that particular aspect of biodiversity needs to be known and communicated to those who manage the activity in question. Thus, using Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs as an example, a map showing the distribution of reefs, at a scale appropriate to management of relevant activities, is essential. For Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs, some existing information has been collated to map the distribution of the species (not necessarily of reefs) at a coarse scale world-wide, including within national waters and also on the high seas (Friewald et al. in prep).

However, we need locations of known reef areas and maps of these at a finer level of detail to be effective in managing any activities posing a threat to the reefs at an appropriate scale. This should be done by creating or using databases in each region of known occurrences of Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs in a Geographic Information System, and connecting and making these data accessible via the web. Predictive modelling of areas likely to support cold water coral reefs, based on knowledge of their ecological requirements and oceanographic and bathymetric data would also be very useful to target research on their actual occurrence.

In the north east Atlantic, a summary of available information on the distribution of Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs has been produced by ICES, and collation of a database and maps of the distribution of reefs of Lophelia pertusa is already in progress under OSPAR (see Section 7.1.1).



Page 17 of 56

Coordination of such activities for other Regions could be carried out by other International Conventions, and coordination worldwide for cold water coral reefs, could be supported by the International Coral Reefs Initiative (ICRI), who might request an organisation such as UNEP/WCMC (United Nations Environment Program/World Conservation Monitoring Centre) to collate worldwide distribution information for cold water coral reefs.

Collation and mapping of information on the global distribution of vulnerable high seas biodiversity is an essential prerequisite to be able to implement any kind of conservation measure, whether by management of damaging activities directly or by creation of Marine Protected Areas. Cooperative activity focussed on research and mapping such habitats in the North East Atlantic is ongoing through work under OSPAR led by UK, but requires more investment of resources in terms of both time and money by all Contracting Parties.

5 Threats to biodiversity on the High Seas A UK approach to identifying the threats and risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity, which appears highly relevant in an International context for immediate action, was briefly outlined in Section 2 of this report, and is elaborated below. Assessment of threats to vulnerable biodiversity on the high seas could be carried out according to the following steps:

1. The important marine ecosystems and biodiversity need to be identified (see Section 3).

2. The sensitivity of these ecosystems and biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures needs to be assessed;

3. The spatial distribution and temporal intensity of activities that occur on the high seas to which the biodiversity is sensitive, needs to be established;

4. Locations where important biodiversity or ecosystems occur, and where activities to which they are sensitive also occur, need to be identified;

5. Suitable management measures for the pressures and their associated activities then need to be developed in the particular areas in collaboration with the relevant management authority and stakeholders. If no such management authority exists, then consideration will need to be given in relevant International fora to the development of such an authority or the modification of the remit of an existing authority.

5.1 Sensitivity assessment An appropriate method for the assessment of the sensitivity of important high seas biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures needs to be developed. In the UK, management of marine areas for conservation is achieved through joint responsibility of multiple agencies who have marine responsibilities, rather than one authority dictating what management should occur. This approach should also be appropriate for high seas areas, which are the responsibility of all nations.

The approach to assess sensitivity of seabed habitats (and species) to threats has been used in different, but similar ways in different fora in the UK. It is used in formal advice from UK conservation agencies to ‘relevant authorities’ who manage marine areas, under the UK implementation of the EU Habitats Directive. The advice highlights those pressures and associated activities that are known to damage the habitats or species for which the sites were designated, and therefore may require management action in order to prevent or reduce such damage.

A similar, but much more complex, form of the approach has also been used to identify the sensitivity of seabed habitats and species to threats more widely than just within marine protected areas under the EU Habitats Directive (Tyler-Walters 2003, see http://www.marlin.ac.uk/). This work has been largely restricted so far to inshore habitats, and has been carried out at a detailed biotope level. One biotope which occurs in deep and high seas has been assessed: Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs. Detailed information on the biotope, the full sensitivity table and the rationale for the assessments for Lophelia pertusa reefs, are shown on the MarLin website at http://www.marlin.ac.uk/biotopes/Bio_BasicInfo_COR.Lop.htm



Page 18 of 56

Although only one habitat relevant to High Seas has been assessed so far in this manner, there is no reason why this approach could not be applied to existing information on other high seas habitats and species very quickly. The benefits of the approach are that:

• It can be used quickly, based on existing information;

• It identifies the threats specifically and directly, thence activities resulting in these threats and effective management action to control them can be identified and targeted immediately;

• It is a clear and systematic approach that can be applied to habitats and species at any scale, from seamounts and cold water corals to species of cetaceans and turtles;

• It allows easy updating of threats when new scientific information is obtained, or new activities develop or expand.

The MarLin approach as presented at www.marlin.ac.uk/biotopes/Bio_Sens_COR.Lop.htm for Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs is complex, but a similar approach or a in a simplified form using the same principles would be useful to identify in a systematic manner the threats to biodiversity on the High Seas.

As an example of how this approach might be used, the following table is an extraction from the above assessment highlighting those threats for which Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs have either high or very high intolerance, and/or have low or very low recoverability, and/or high or very high sensitivity:

Table 5.1 Summary of threats to which Lophelia pertusa (cold water coral) reef is highly sensitive and intolerant, and with low recoverability (MarLin 2003)

Threat Intolerance Recoverability Sensitivity Species richness

Evidence/ confidence

Substratum loss

High Very low Very high Major decline High

Abrasion and physical disturbance

High Very low Very high Major decline High

Extraction of important species

High Very low Very high Major decline Low

Decrease or increase in temperature

High Very low Very high Major decline Low

Decrease in salinity

Intermediate Very low High Not relevant Moderate

Decrease in water flow rate

Intermediate Very low High Minor decline Low

Decrease in turbidity

Intermediate Very low High No change Low

Displacement Intermediate Very low High Decline Low

Extraction of key or important characterising species

Intermediate Very low High Decline Low



Page 19 of 56

From the information in Table 5.1 it is apparent that, based on assessment of current scientific information, the most important threats to Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs are:

• substratum loss;

• abrasion and physical disturbance;

• extraction of important species; and

• decrease or increase in temperature.

5.2 Activities threatening High Seas biodiversity A range of marine activities may result in threats to High Seas biodiversity as outlined in Section 5.2. Following through with the example of Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs, the Table 5.2 represents an initial list of those activities likely to cause the threats in Table 5.1 to which Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs are highly sensitive, highly intolerant, and with very low recoverability.

Table 5.2 Activities likely to threaten Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs.

Threat Activity

Substratum loss Mining, Bottom trawl/dredge fishing removing hard substrata for settlement,Structures on the seabed (oil/gas rigs, pipelines, cables)

Abrasion and physical disturbance

Bottom trawl/dredge fishing, Loss of fishing nets/other gear and entrapment in reef, Scientific research (sampling), Mining, Installation of structures on the seabed (oil/gas rigs, pipelines, cables etc.), Near-bottom long line fishing Military testing (explosions) in close vicinity of reefs

Extraction of important species Bottom trawl/dredge fishing, Near-bottom long line fishing, Collection of reef species for trade

Decrease or increase in temperature

Global warming, Changes in ocean currents, Industrial discharges (e.g. ‘produced water’ from oil/gas extraction)

Of the above activities, most can be managed, with the exception of global warming and changes in ocean currents – these two are therefore discounted at this stage. For the other activities, they should not be permitted, or should be severely curtailed, where they coincide spatially with Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs.

Following through with the example of loss of substratum as a threat to Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs, the following activities which either occur now, or might occur in future in High Seas areas, are likely to result in loss of substratum:

Seabed mining: for cobalt crusts, manganese nodules or other seabed resources. This activity is most likely to occur on seamounts where these resources are present in relatively shallow waters and therefore relatively more accessible. This activity is not known to occur on High Seas at present.

Bottom trawling/dredging: for species of deep sea fish, for example orange roughy, oreos, scabbard fish, redfish,etc. This activity occurs on seamounts and areas of continental shelf where fish resources are present in relatively shallow waters (down to 1500m) and therefore relatively more accessible. The action of the trawl or dredge when towed across the seabed is to ‘plough’ a large furrow, which may bury or remove pieces of harder material on which coral polyps could settle and grow in an area otherwise composed of sediment. Fishing on seamounts and in areas of cold water corals is known to



Page 20 of 56

occur in many areas of High Seas, but the impact of actual loss of the substratum for settlement of cold water corals is relatively small.

Structures on the seabed: The placement of oil/gas rigs, pipelines, cables etc. on the seabed could remove a proportion of the natural seabed which would otherwise be available for colonisation by corals. Presence of structures on the seabed may also be of positive benefit to the coral species, as such structures may provide hard substratum for colonisation in otherwise sedimentary areas, however, substantial reef structures are unlikely to develop on these structures very quickly due to the relatively slow growth of cold water corals.

This approach could then be followed for the other threats to cold water coral reefs, for example for ‘abrasion and physical disturbance’ (which is likely to pose the greatest threat to cold water coral reefs) and ‘extraction of important species’, etc. In this manner, the principle threats to the aspect of biodiversity considered (in this case cold water corals) are identified in a logical, transparent and systematic way.

In order for this approach to work, detailed information on the spatial and temporal intensity of the activities to be managed will be required. For some activities which are licensed this will be a relatively simple procedure. However for other activities, such as fishing, collection and collation of this information may prove difficult, as information may either not currently be collected, or it may not be collected in a suitable form for such analysis, or may be commercially sensitive.

5.3 Management of activities resulting in threats to High Seas biodiversity Using threats to Lophelia pertusa and other cold water coral reefs as an example, Table 5.3 shows the activities extracted from Table 5.2 which are likely to result in the threats identified in Table 5.1 to which Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs are highly sensitive and with high intolerance and low recoverability. The second column in Table 5.3 shows which International Authority is responsible for the licensing or management of the activities concerned.

Table 5.3 Activities

Activity Responsible authority on High Seas

Seabed mining Licensed by International Seabed Authority under UNCLOS

Placement of structures on the seabed (pipelines, cables)

Licensed by International Seabed Authority under UNCLOS

Bottom trawl/dredge fishing

Loss of fishing nets/other gear and entrapment in reef

Long line fishing

Vessels controlled by their own country (and European Union for EU Member State vessels);

Restrictions on fishing from Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

Scientific research (sampling) Each country under rules in UNCLOS

Military testing (explosions) in close vicinity of reefs

Each country

Collection of reef species for trade Contracting Parties to CITES for species listed on CITES Appendices (e.g stony corals such as Lophelia pertusa)

Placement of structures on the seabed (oil/gas rigs) Licensed by International Seabed Authority under UNCLOS

Industrial discharges (e.g. ‘produced water’ from Licensed by International Seabed Authority



Page 21 of 56

oil/gas extraction) under UNCLOS

Global warming Little or no control: Kyoto protocol

Changes in ocean currents No control

Again, using the example of Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs, and applying the analysis of threats to this aspect of biodiversity, the following sections outline possible mechanisms to achieve conservation of Lophelia pertusa cold water coral reefs.

6 Possible worldwide legal mechanisms to achieve conservation of high seas biodiversity

6.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, and is of strategic importance as the basis for national, regional and global action and cooperation in the marine sector.

6.1.1 UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on the Law of the Sea (formerly UNICPOLOS now ICP) and UN General Assembly (UNGA)

The conclusions of the Feb 2000 workshop ‘Managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on the High Seas, including tools such as Marine Protected Areas: Scientific requirements and legal aspects’ on the Isle of Vilm, Germany, were delivered to the United Nations by Germany in 2000. Marine Protected Areas were not on the agenda for the UNICPOLOS meeting of May 2001 in New York, but it was proposed by the General Assembly that conservation of biodiversity on the high seas be placed on the agenda for the meeting in 2002 (Theil & Koslow 2001).

The third ICP meeting in May 2002 noted that seamounts are one of the underwater features of the high seas that have high levels of endemic species and constitute a large, as yet unevaluated, reservoir of biological diversity that may be threatened by human activities in these areas. The meeting called on the UNGA to invite international and regional organisations to urgently consider how to integrate and improve, on a scientific basis, the management of risks to seamounts within the framework of UNCLOS, and to make suggestions on appropriate management actions. This was subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly who called for urgent coordinated action to integrate and improve the management of seamounts and other underwater features (UNGA, 2002-A/57/L/48 in Gubbay 2003).

At the General Assembly of the United Nations, resolution A/RES/58/240 was adopted on 23 December 2003. Paragraph 52 of this reads that the General Assembly:

“Invites the relevant global and regional bodies, in accordance with their mandates, to investigate urgently how to better address, on a scientific basis, including the application of precaution, the threats and risks to vulnerable and threatened marine ecosystems and biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; how existing treaties and other relevant instruments can be used in this process consistent with international law, in particular the Convention [on the Law of the Sea?], and with the principles of an integrated ecosystem-based approach to management, including the identification of those marine ecosystem types that warrant priority attention; and to explore a range of potential approaches and tools for their protection and management ; and requests the Secretary-General to cooperate and liaise with those bodies and to submit an addendum to his annual report to the General Assembly [of the UN] at its fifty-ninth session, describing the threats and risks to such marine ecosystems and biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction as well as details on any conservation and management measures in place at the global, regional, subregional or national levels addressing these issues;”

This report will form part of the UK contribution towards describing the threats and risks to biodiversity on the high seas, and on conservation and management measures in place at the global and regional level addressing these issues.



Page 22 of 56

6.1.2 UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) The key institution with a general mandate on oceans and law of the sea issues is the UN Secretariat’s Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS). DOALOS acts as the Secretariat for LOSC and related instruments, and provides secretariat services to a number of law of the sea institutions. It monitors and reports to the General Assembly on all aspects related to oceans and the law of the sea. DOALOS coordinates and prepares the Secretary-General’s annual report on oceans and the law of the sea, which is the most comprehensive assessment each year of developments relating to the world’s oceans. DOALOS has, in preparing the report in the last few years, emphasized the need for effective action to manage and conserve biodiversity of the high seas and deep oceans. DOALOS has increasingly become the focal point for efforts to coordinate disparate actors on specific oceans issues (Ascencio & Bliss 2003).

6.1.3 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) The UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), which entered into force in December 2002, creates a legal framework for the establishment of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) to conserve and manage straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Regional fisheries management arrangements, covering waters both within and beyond national jurisdiction, have been established to conserve and manage specific straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in many parts of the world. These arrangements usually create an institution to implement the regulatory regime, a regional fishery management organization (RFMO). While the record of many of these RFMOs in ensuring conservation and sustainable management of target and non-target species is not exactly strong, at least the institutional structures for dealing with conservation and management of straddling stocks, highly migratory stocks, and associated species and ecosystems exist in many cases.

There are few institutional arrangements in place for fish stocks which are not highly migratory or straddling stocks, such as those fisheries which occur around seamounts. This is in part due to the fact that international legal framework relating to such stocks is more general in nature than for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, as no detailed legal framework equivalent to UNFSA has been developed for such stocks on the high seas. Consequently, the general obligations contained in the Law of the Sea Convention to conserve and manage marine living resources of the high seas represent the extent of the legal framework. Nevertheless, there is clearly a need for institutional arrangements to conserve and manage exclusively high seas stocks in order to meet even these general obligations. Some early efforts have been made – for example, the recent discovery of rich orange roughy and demersal grounds on the deep water ridges of the South West Indian Ocean has led Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to collaborate on a mechanism to try to effectively manage these species (Ascencio & Bliss 2003). However this is the exception - as the FAO states “there is a severe risk that, in the absence of effective fishery management regimes, these [high seas deep water] stocks could easily be depleted long before much is known about their populations”.

6.1.4 International Seabed Authority (ISA) The International Seabed Authority is an autonomous international organisation established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Authority is the organisation through which States Parties to the Convention shall, in accordance with the regime for the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area) established in Part XI and the Agreement, organise and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area. There are one hundred and forty five (145) members of the International Seabed Authority (23 January 2004), including UK and European Community.

The principal function of the Authority is to regulate deep seabed mining. The Authority is required to give special emphasis to ensuring that the marine environment is protected from any harmful effects which may arise during mining activities, including exploration.

As part of its substantive work programme, the Secretariat of the Authority also carries out detailed resource assessments of the areas reserved for the Authority; maintains a specialised database of data



Page 23 of 56

and information on the resources of the international seabed area and monitors the current status of scientific knowledge of the deep sea marine environment. The Authority also has the responsibility to promote and encourage marine scientific research in the international seabed area and to disseminate the results of such research.

Ferromanganese crusts are found in many seabed environments throughout the world’s oceans. They are similar in general composition to polymetallic nodules, with manganese and iron oxide minerals comprising the majority of the deposits. Unlike nodule deposits, which usually form on unconsolidated sedimentary surfaces, the crusts grow on hard-rock substrates. Thus, marine ferromanganese crusts typically occur on seamounts, ridges, plateaus, and other projecting seabed surfaces where ocean currents prevent the accumulation of substantial unconsolidated sediments.

Apart from future commercial potential, marine ferromanganese crusts are useful for the study of the geochemical history of the ocean. The metal oxide surfaces of the crusts, exposed for long periods to ocean water, are effective at scavenging a wide array of trace elements from seawater. Certain metals, including cerium, titanium, lead, arsenic, platinum metals, and others, become significantly enriched in crusts compared to their concentrations in other rocks. Over millions of years, changes in seawater composition are recorded in these growing layers of crust. Paleo-climate and paleo-oceanographic studies, using isotopic tracer elements such as Be, Nd, Pb, Hf, Os, Li, B and uranium series elements in the crusts, have a good prospect of containing important clues regarding the geological history of ocean circulation and other global processes (Hein et al. 2000).

In March 2001 the first 15-year contracts for exploration for polymetallic nodules in the deep seabed were signed at the headquarters of the International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea requires compliance with the parallel system, under which each applicant for special status as registered "pioneer investors” should indicate two areas of equal estimated commercial value, one of which would be reserved solely for the conduct of activities by the Authority though its Enterprise or in association with developing States. The other area would be allocated to the pioneer investors as “pioneer area”.

“Every applicant shall cover a total area which need not be a single continuous area, sufficiently large and of sufficient estimated commercial value to allow two mining operations. The applicant shall indicate the coordinates of the area defining the total area and dividing it into two parts of equal estimated commercial value and shall contain all the data available to the applicant with respect to both parts of the area. Such data shall include, inter alia, information relating to mapping, testing, the density of polymetallic nodules and their metal content.

Areas have been designated by the Preparatory Commission to be reserved for the conduct of activities by the Authority resulting from the registration of pioneer investors in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

There is ongoing elaboration, pursuant to article 145 of the Convention, of rules, regulations and procedures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment, the protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention of damage to its flora and fauna from harmful effects that may arise from activities in the Area (UN General Assembly Feb 2003 A/RES/57/141).

Although the ISA is restricted by its mandate to consider exploitation of minerals, it does have an obligation to adopt rules, regulations and procedures for the protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention of damage to flora and fauna of the marine environment. This can be read as authority to regulate seabed biodiversity, if only from the impacts of exploration for and exploitation of minerals. The ISA may also carry out scientific research and has the duty to promote and encourage the conduct of research. Consequently marine scientific research relating to genetic resources is part of this regime. However the ISA clearly cannot establish a regime to deal with bioprospecting per se under its current mandate.

The ISA is the institution with the most direct focus on the high seas and deep oceans. It is the only oceans institution with a field of competence exclusively focused on areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is also in a relatively strong regulatory position: the only way in which an actor can undertake mining activity in the Area is by first obtaining ISA authorization. In many ways, the ISA is ahead of the game: it has erected the regulatory framework before activity has commenced in earnest; it is aware of the need to conserve and manage deep ocean biodiversity; and it is actively considering the problem (Ascencio & Bliss 2003).



Page 24 of 56

However the focus of the ISA is limited to mineral extraction. It does not oversee all aspects of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction – it does not have a direct role in bio-prospecting, for example. Nevertheless, it is well positioned to play a role in the conservation and management of high seas and deep oceans biodiversity.

6.1.5 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is the one global institution with a mandate which includes high seas fisheries. FAO has a global focus on fisheries issues, and describes its objective as “to facilitate and secure the long-term sustainable development and utilization of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture”. FAO works towards this end in a variety of ways, including through regular assessment of the state of the world’s fisheries, the provision of technical assistance, facilitation of standard setting, and providing a technical forum where international fisheries problems can be considered and addressed.

An important component of FAO’s work on fisheries is the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), a subsidiary body of the FAO Council. As FAO states, “the Committee presently constitutes the only global inter-governmental forum where major international fisheries and aquaculture problems and issues are examined and recommendations addressed to governments, regional fishery bodies, NGOs, fishworkers, FAO and international community, periodically on a world-wide basis.” COFI provides a forum for governments to discuss current fisheries issues, and to negotiate global agreements and non-binding instruments (Ascencio & Bliss 2003).

The FAO has turned its attention to high seas fisheries in recent years. The most recent version of the bi-annual FAO report, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, has included assessments of the state of high seas fisheries, and noted the damaging effects of trawling on seamounts to high seas and deep oceans biodiversity. Nevertheless this is a relatively new area for FAO, and, in the absence of effective fisheries management regimes covering these activities, it has not yet been able to recommend action to be taken to address these impacts.

The most significant FAO activity in relation to the marine environment generally is the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, being implemented by Regional Fisheries Organisations and others. In 1997 international agreements were derived, in order to manage the issues concerned with compliance with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

Four International Plans of Action (IPOAs) have been produced to date:

IPOA Seabirds;

IPOA Sharks;

IPOA Capacity; and

IPOA Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU)

The first three IPOAs were endorsed by the FAO Council in November 2000.

IPOA Seabirds:

Seabirds are being incidentally caught in various commercial longline fisheries in the world, and concerns are arising about the impacts of this incidental catch. Key longline fisheries in which incidental catch of seabirds are known to occur are: tuna, swordfish and billfish in some particular parts of oceans; Patagonian toothfish in the Southern Ocean, and halibut, black cod, Pacific cod, Greenland halibut, cod, haddock, tusk and ling in the northern oceans (Pacific and Atlantic). The species of seabirds most frequently taken are albatrosses and petrels in the Southern Ocean, northern fulmars in the North Atlantic and albatrosses, gulls and fulmars in the North Pacific fisheries.

Responding to the need to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in commercial fisheries in the Southern Ocean, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) adopted mitigation measures in 1992 for its 23 member countries to reduce incidental catch of seabirds.



Page 25 of 56

Under the auspices of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), Australia, Japan and New Zealand have studied and taken seabird mitigation measures in their southern bluefin tuna longline fishery since 1994, and in 1995 CCSBT adopted a recommendation relating to ecologically related species, including the incidental mortality of seabirds by longline fishing. The recommendation stipulates a policy on data and information collection, mitigation measures, as well as education and information dissemination. All member nations of CCSBT have made the use of bird scaring lines (tori poles) mandatory in their fisheries.

The United States of America also adopted, by regulation, measures for reducing incidental catch of seabirds for its groundfish longline fisheries. Seabirds were being incidentally caught in various commercial longline fisheries. The United States is currently developing measures to mitigate the incidental catch of seabirds in the Hawaiian pelagic longline fisheries. Several other countries with longline fisheries have adopted similar mitigation measures.

The IPOA Seabirds is voluntary, and applies to States in the waters of which longline fisheries are being conducted by their own or foreign vessels and to States that conduct longline fisheries on the high seas and in the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of other States. States which determine that an IPOA-Seabirds is not necessary should review that decision on a regular basis, particularly taking into account changes in their fisheries, such as the expansion of existing fisheries and/or the development of new longline fisheries.

IPOA Sharks:

The IPOA for sharks takes a similar form to that for seabirds. The term “shark” is taken to include all species of sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras (Class Chondrichthyes), and the term “shark catch” is taken to include directed, bycatch, commercial, recreational and other forms of taking sharks (both target and non-target catches). It applies to States in the waters of which sharks are caught by their own or foreign vessels and to States the vessels of which catch sharks on the high seas.

The Shark-plan should aim to:

• Ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable;

• Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use;

• Identify and provide special attention, in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks;

• Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and co-ordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives within and between States;

• Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks;

• Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function;

• Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2.(g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed);

• Encourage full use of dead sharks;

• Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark catches;

• Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.

IPOA Capacity:

The International Plan of Action should be implemented by States either directly, in co-operation with other States, or through FAO in co-operation with other appropriate intergovernmental organizations, including regional fisheries organizations. States and regional fisheries organizations, as appropriate, are encouraged to give effect to it and to inform FAO of actions taken to implement it.

Conservation: The management of fishing capacity should be designed to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks and the protection of the marine environment consistent with the



Page 26 of 56

precautionary approach, the need to minimize by-catch, waste and discard and ensure selective and environmentally safe fishing practices, the protection of biodiversity in the marine environment, and the protection of habitat, in particular habitats of special concern.

Implementation of IPOAs by States and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) was reviewed in 2001. .A few developing countries and several developed countries were reported to have made good progress in implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and a number of RFMOs have reported significant progress in its application. However, very few countries have initiated action to implement the IPOAs and several countries suggested in their reporting that in future such instruments should include the financial resources for their effective implementation. The bodies included within the review, including NEAFC, indicated (at a level of 90 percent or above) that existing fisheries management plans and/or measures including those adopted by their respective organizations contained key management tools such as: stock specific target points and measures to ensure the level of fishing is commensurate with the state of fisheries resources, prohibited destructive fishing methods, addressed the protection of endangered species, fishing capacity including the economic conditions under which the fishing industry operates, and biodiversity of aquatic habitats and ecosystems (COFI/2001/3 available at www.fao.org, cited 5.4.04).

6.1.6 International Maritime Organisation (IMO) The purposes of the Organization, as summarized by Article 1(a) of the Convention, are "to provide machinery for cooperation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships". Although safety was and remains IMO's most important responsibility, it is also concerned with pollution from shipping and shipping related activities. It is these aspects of IMO’s remit which are relevant to conservation of high seas biodiversity, in particular to mobile species such as birds, cetaceans and turtles.

The most important convention regulating and preventing marine pollution by ships is the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78). It covers accidental and operational oil pollution as well as pollution by chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution. Under MARPOL 73/78, “special areas” may be designated to introduce strict discharge controls of oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage.

IMO's Intervention Convention affirms the right of a coastal State to take measures on the high seas to prevent, mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline from a maritime casualty. The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990 provides a global framework for international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution. A protocol to this convention (HNS Protocol) covers marine pollution by hazardous and noxious substances.

The IMO also has arrangements for identifying sea areas where special conservation or protecting measures apply (PSSA or Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas). Under these arrangements, IMO might designate a particular sensitive sea area which may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities, as well as other type of environmental stress other than shipping. The protective measures include compulsory pilotage schemes or vessel traffic management systems.

In the field of carriage of dangerous goods by sea, the IMO has developed a regulatory framework through SOLAS, Chapter VII and, in a more detailed manner, through the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which applies also to the transport of radioactive material. The 2002 SOLAS amendment provides for the mandatory application of the Code from 1 January 2004.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a key role in relation to the transport of radioactive material. As part of its mandate to establish standards of safety for handling of radioactive substances for protection of health, the IAEA collects and collates information on the inputs of radioactive material into the world’s oceans. In the field of maritime transportation of radioactive material, the IAEA has established transport regulations, and its General Conference has urged States to ensure that their documentation relating to transport of radioactive material meets these regulations. The IAEA General Conference has devised some recommendatory steps in the case of potential



Page 27 of 56

accidents at sea. The General Conference has also called for the elaboration of an effective liability mechanism to ensure compensation for damage, including environmental harm, due to an accident or incident during the maritime transport of these materials. The IMO and the IAEA have sought to work together, and it seems that this cooperation is working. For example, the IMO has taken steps to incorporate the IAEA’s transport regulations into the IMDG Code (Ascencio & Bliss 2003).

6.2 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES or the Washington Convention) was adopted in Washington DC, United States of America in March 1973 and entered into force in July 1975. CITES aims to regulate international trade in species which are endangered or which may become endangered if their exploitation is not controlled. Species covered under CITES are listed in three Appendices, according to the level of protection they need. Each Contracting Party to the Convention designates a Management Authority which issues import and export permits for CITES-listed species, based on advice from one or more Scientific Authorities. As of January 2004 there were 164 Contracting Parties to the Convention.

CITES is implemented within Europe through two EC Regulations (338/97 and 1808/01). These Regulations implement CITES in a stricter manner than is required by the Convention. For instance they include certain non-CITES species, and also contain provisions to prohibit or restrict imports of species which are considered to be a threat to native EC flora and fauna.

Appendix I includes species that may be threatened with extinction and which are or may be affected by international trade. International trade in wild specimens of these species is subject to strict regulation and is normally only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Trade in artificially propagated or captive-bred specimens is allowed, subject to license. Over 800 species are included in Appendix I at present, including ones relevant to high seas such as all marine turtle species, sperm whales and several species of beaked, humpback and bowhead whales, rorquals, marine dolphins and porpoises.

Appendix II includes species not considered to be under the same threat as those in Appendix I, but which may become so if trade is not regulated. International trade in these species is monitored through a licensing system to ensure that trade can be sustained without detriment to wild populations. Trade in wild, captive bred and artificially propagated specimens is allowed, subject to permit. Approximately 29,000 different species are included in Appendix II, including all cetaceans, basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), and corals including stony corals and black corals.

Appendix III contains species that are not necessarily threatened on a global level, but that are protected within individual states where that state has sought the help of other CITES Parties to control international trade in that species.

6.3 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have expressed concern over the increased risks to biodiversity in the high seas. This concern was recorded in Decision VII/5 of the 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7) in 2004, which relates to marine and coastal protected areas, and states for marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, that the COP:

“Notes that there are increasing risks to biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and that marine and coastal protected areas are extremely deficient in purpose, numbers and coverage in these areas;

Agrees that there is an urgent need for international cooperation and action to improve conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, including the establishment of further marine protected areas consistent with international law, and based on scientific information, including areas such as seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold-water corals and other vulnerable ecosystems; and

Recognizes that the law of the sea provides a legal framework for regulating activities in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and requests the Executive Secretary to urgently collaborate with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and relevant international and regional bodies in accordance with their mandates and their rules of procedure on the report called for in General Assembly



Page 28 of 56

resolution 58/240, paragraph 52, and to support any work of the General Assembly in identifying appropriate mechanisms for the future establishment and effective management of marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction;”

However, the Convention has very limited jurisdiction in the high seas. Although the Parties to the Convention recognize that biodiversity in the high seas is under threat, potential practical action under the Convention is restricted due to its scope, as the Convention does not apply to components of biological diversity in areas that are outside the limits of national jurisdiction (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

However, part (b) of Article 4 states that in the case of the effects of processes and activities carried out under the jurisdiction or control of a Contracting Party, the Convention applies everywhere (both in areas within the limits of national jurisdiction and those outside) and would therefore be applicable in high seas areas. One example of such a process covered by the Convention is pollution originating from land affecting high seas ecosystems. The impact of pollution on components of biological diversity located in the high seas would be covered by the Convention. The Convention would however not cover the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity located outside national jurisdiction.

Article 5 also has relevance to the high seas. It states that each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and appropriate, cooperate with other Contracting Parties, either directly or through competent international organizations in respect of areas beyond national jurisdiction or control, for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Such cooperation could, among many other things, cover the establishment and maintenance of specific management regimes in the high seas (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

The basis for the relationship between the CBD and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is established in Article 22 of the CBD, which states that Parties are to implement the CBD “…with respect to the marine environment consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the law of the sea.” This is reinforced by Decision VII/5 of the 2004 8th Conference of Parties, under point 3, where the COP “Agrees that the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity should be applied and interpreted consistently with national law, and where applicable, international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”. However, as noted in the results of a joint study between the two conventions concerning conservation of genetic resources, a legal lacuna (gap) exists with respect to commercially oriented activities relating to marine genetic resources in the high seas (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

In addition to the relevant parts of Articles 4 and 5 mentioned above, two central concepts of the Convention are particularly relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity. These are the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach.

The Parties recognize the ecosystem approach as a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (decision V/6). In decision VII/11 of COP7 the parties recognise that the ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention: conservation; sustainable use; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. In the management of marine and coastal resources, the use of marine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs) within wider coastal zone management strategies, presents an effective tool for the application of the ecosystem approach. Additionally, the ecosystem approach, combined with the obligations under Article 5, could provide a basis for Parties to cooperate in the conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity. Such cooperation might include designating and managing protected areas extending into the high seas, in particular where the high seas area is closely interlinked with or part of the same ecosystem (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

Similarly, the commitment under Article 8(a) to "establish a system of protected areas" needs to be interpreted in light of the ecosystem approach. Consequently, this commitment can also be understood to require Parties to consider the establishment and management of their protected area systems not simply in national terms, but where the relevant ecosystem extends beyond national boundaries, in ecosystem or bioregional terms as well. Paragraph 3 of the annex to decision IV/5 further states that protected areas should be integrated into wider strategies for preventing adverse effects on marine and coastal ecosystems from external activities. This clearly indicates the Parties recognition that conservation and sustainable use are complementary objectives under a marine and coastal area



Page 29 of 56

management strategy, and that protected areas may serve as a tool to accomplish this (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

The precautionary approach is contained in the preamble of the Convention, and is also reiterated in decision II/10 of the Conference of the Parties, which relates to marine and coastal biological diversity. This decision was adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its second meeting in Jakarta in November 1995, and states that:

"The work [of the Convention on conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biological diversity] should not be impeded by the lack of full scientific information and will incorporate explicitly the precautionary approach in addressing conservation and sustainable use issues."

Therefore, the precautionary approach provides for a strong argument for action to be taken to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity, even though the currently existing data on high seas biodiversity is patchy and uneven in nature (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

Contracting Parties to the Convention have called for international collaborative action between relevant conventions, instruments, and institutions, as well as between countries, so that the common goal of providing a mechanism that can be used to achieve conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity may be realised.

6.3.1 Marine Protected Areas CBD COP7 agreed in 2004 that an effective marine and coastal biodiversity management framework would consist of representative areas where extractive uses are excluded, as well as other marine and coastal protected areas, which may allow some extractive uses, but where threats are managed for the purpose of biodiversity conservation and/or sustainable use. The network of such MCPAs would be accompanied by sustainable management practices and actions to protect biodiversity over the wider marine and coastal environment. This framework is essentially an expression of the ecosystem approach.

It should be noted that COP7 recommendations as they relate to marine and coastal protected areas are consistent with the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (see Section 6.4), which set 2012 as the target date for completion of an effectively managed, ecologically representative network of MCPAs within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction (Vierros & Ogolla 2003).

Marine Protected Areas generally, not just in the context of the CBD, are suitable conservation mechanisms for habitats and for sedentary species which remain in one place, or for areas identified as important for particular mobile species or groups of species during part or all of their life cycle.

Declaration of a marine protected area will not in itself achieve protection for any habitats or species within the area. MPAs are only effective if the activities which may result in adverse impacts can be managed within (and sometimes adjacent to) the MPA. Some threats to marine biodiversity cannot be managed by an area-based approach. For example, the dog whelk Nucella lapillus is a more or less sedentary species, and it would appear that a marine protected area would be a suitable mechanism to protect it. However, the main threat to dog whelks in the North East Atlantic is diffuse pollution from Tributyl tin (TBT) antifouling paints used on boat hulls until recently. This activity is not suitable for control by an area-based mechanism such as a marine protected area, it requires wider measures such as banning use of such antifouling paints to remove the source of the pollution.

It takes considerable time to establish MPAs even in the relatively simple context of marine areas under national control and legislation, and can take even longer to achieve successful management of marine activities within these MPAs. On the High Seas, where any management must be achieved by consensus amongst Nations as well as relevant sectoral interests, it is likely to take much longer to both establish MPAs and to manage activities within them. Experience in the UK, the EU and in OSPAR shows that the first stage in establishing MPAs concentrates on defining and agreeing criteria and definitions for their selection, and that this stage may take years, usually more than 10 years. Management of activities within the MPAs is usually not considered until well into this process and after establishment of the MPAs themselves. Whilst for many habitats and sedentary species the establishment of MPAs may be a long-term goal to protect biodiversity, action is needed immediately for some aspects of biodiversity which are already damaged and continue to be so.



Page 30 of 56

The approach of identifying the threats to the biodiversity, the activities which create those threats, and subsequently management actions required to ameliorate those threats, is a much quicker process, is targeted towards those activities causing most damage to the biodiversity and the authorities who manage those activities. It is also not incompatible with establishment of MPAs on the High Seas in the long term.

6.4 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) At the 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg, the UK joined other countries in a range of commitments on marine issues. These included:

• Maintaining the productivity and biodiversity of important marine and coastal areas, including on the high seas;

• The establishment of an effectively managed, ecologically representative network of marine and coastal protected areas by 2012; and

• The application of the ecosystem approach by 2010.

These commitments were part of an attempt to strengthen the marine aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity. At the same time, WSSD underlined the importance of the UN Law of the Sea in providing the framework for oceans issues. At the World Summit, the UK signalled its willingness to work in partnership with the Government of Australia in taking forward implementation of certain of the marine biodiversity WSSD commitments. The importance of action at the regional level to protect marine biodiversity was emphasized in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, adopted at WSSD, which called for “the establishment by 2004 of a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment …”. The UN General Assembly reiterated this call for a regular process of global marine assessment in Resolution 57/141, requesting the Secretary-General to consult all interested parties, to prepare proposals on modalities for the global assessment, and to submit such proposals to the General Assembly in 2003 for consideration and decision. It will inevitably involve a number of existing institutions working together, with UNEP and GESAMP likely to play significant roles. The Global Assessment, once established, should be a valuable tool to enhance understanding of the state of the marine environment, and to guide policy makers at the international level. In order to be truly global, the assessment will need to consider the state of the marine environment of the high seas and deep oceans. If it does so effectively, it could be the first comprehensive assessment of these areas (Ascencio & Bliss 2003).

7 Regional Conventions or Commissions relevant to North East Atlantic High Seas biodiversity conservation

7.1 Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPAR) The 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) adopted in 1998 Annex V, which specifically includes ‘the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the Maritime Area’. The provisions of Annex V fulfil the OSPAR obligations to ‘take necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to … conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been affected’, as well as obligations under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity ‘to develop strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity’.

The OSPAR Maritime Area (see Figure 7.1) consists of territorial waters of Member States of the European Union, also those of Norway, Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, their EEZ’s (or equivalent) and high seas in part of the Arctic ocean and out into the middle of the north east Atlantic Ocean.

Under Article 3 of Annex V, the duty inter alia of the OSPAR Commission is to draw up programmes and measures for the control of human activities. The competences of the OSPAR Convention, however, specifically exclude control of shipping and of fishing - these competencies rest with the



Page 31 of 56

relevant national or International authority. The responsibility of OSPAR is to bring to the attention of these bodies any relevant matters about which OSPAR is concerned.

In relation to matters concerning fisheries on High Seas within the OSPAR Maritime Area the relevant authority for fisheries management would be the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) (see Section 7.2). The mechanism for the OSPAR Commission bringing to the attention of NEAFC any concerns regarding management of fisheries and their effect on biodiversity has not been tested, and may present legal, and possibly political difficulties. Nevertheless, it is the only available mechanism in the North East Atlantic by which High Seas fishing activity may be managed in order to conserve or prevent further damage to High Seas biodiversity. This applies irrespective of whether the particular area concerned has the status of a Marine Protected Area under OSPAR or any other International Instrument (such as the CBD) or not. However, NEAFC currently has a restricted remit only to introduce measures in relation to the preservation of commercial fish stocks in the NE Atlantic, it does not have any more general remit to take measures to reduce environmental damage due to fishing or fishing methods, to implement an ecosystem approach, nor for the conservation of biological diversity more generally.

Implementation of the OSPAR strategy for biological diversity and ecosystems is currently based upon the adoption in 2003 of:

• the Texel-Faial criteria for the selection of threatened and declining species and habitats;

• the OSPAR List of Threatened and Declining Species and Habitats;

• the OSPAR Guidelines for the identification and selection of marine protected areas in the OSPAR marine area;

• the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area;

• OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas.

Section 4.4 (see http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html) of the OSPAR strategy for biological diversity and ecosystems lists actions to be taken by the OSPAR Commission towards developing the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. These actions would complement those of the Contracting Parties. Those actions of relevance to conservation of high seas biodiversity are:

d. consider reports and assessments from Contracting Parties and observers on possible components of the OSPAR network and on the need for protection of the biodiversity and ecosystems in the maritime area outside the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, in order to achieve the purposes of the network as described in paragraph 2.1 of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3;

e. if appropriate, and in accordance with UNCLOS, consider, in consultation with the international organisations having the necessary competence, how such protection could be achieved for areas identified under (d) and how to include such areas as components of the network.

7.1.1 OSPAR initial list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats At its June 2003 Ministerial Meeting in Bremen, the OSPAR Commission reaffirmed its strategy under Annex V, and confirmed that:

‘the Commission will further assess which species1 and habitats need to be protected and those human activities that are likely to have an actual or potential adverse effect on these species and habitats or on ecological processes. For this assessment the following actions [relevant to conservation of high seas biodiversity] shall be taken:

a. on the basis of criteria developed for the selection of such species, habitats and ecological processes, further compilation, to the extent necessary, of lists of species and

1 Wherever in this Strategy the term “species” is used, this includes, where appropriate, populations

of such species.



Page 32 of 56

habitats, including the development of lists of threatened and/or declining species and habitats, taking into account:

(i) inventories of species and habitats in the maritime area;

(ii) relevant lists developed by other international forums;

d. assessment, in accordance with the criteria of Appendix 3 of the 1992 OSPAR Convention, and in the light of work in other international forums, of the following candidate list of human activities:

(i) sand and gravel extraction;

(ii) dredging for navigational purposes, other than within harbours;

(iii) the exploration for oil, gas and solid minerals;

(iv) the placement of structures for the exploitation of oil and gas;

(v) the construction or placement of artificial islands, artificial reefs, installations and structures (including offshore wind-farms);

(vi) the placement of cables and pipelines. This assessment will include an assessment of the scope for action under other international laws;

(vii) the introduction of alien or genetically modified species, whether deliberately or unintentionally;

(viii) land reclamation; f. collection and evaluation of relevant information concerning existing protection

programmes for marine species and habitats and an inventory of marine areas which are already protected;

g. assessment of marine areas which have been adversely affected, with a view to identifying areas for restoration where practicable.

The June 2003 Bremen Ministerial Meeting also adopted the OSPAR initial list of threatened and/or declining habitats and species (Reference Number 2003-14). This list is based on nominations by contracting parties and observers to the Commission, and its purpose is to guide the Commission in setting priorities for its further work on the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. On the list are five habitats of probable relevance to high seas in the north east Atlantic (carbonate mounds, deep sea sponge aggregations, oceanic ridges with hydrothermal vents/fields, Lophelia pertusa reefs, and seamounts). On the list of species there are also species relevant to high seas in the north east Atlantic (basking shark, common skate, spotted ray, orange roughy, and bluefin tuna, loggerhead and leatherback turtles, bowhead, blue and northern right whales and the harbour porpoise). The fish species on the list are subject to management by an international or national fisheries body, and OSPAR has no competence to adopt programmes or measures in relation to the management of fisheries. Where OSPAR considers that action is desirable it will draw the matter to the attention of the relevant authority.

The 2004 meeting of the OSPAR BDC included in its work programme for 2004 requirements to identify relevant information and references on threat to, or decline in the OSPAR area of seamounts and their communities. There was also a commitment to prepare draft case study reports on a selection of six of the habitats and species on the initial list, identifying existing and proposed management measures for each. Those relevant to high seas in the north east Atlantic are Lophelia pertusa reefs, seamount communities, loggerhead turtle and harbour porpoise. BDC also agreed to propose to OSPAR 2004 that OSPAR should write to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission to draw their attention to concerns about threats to cold-water coral reefs on the westward side of the Rockall Bank from fisheries managed within their competence.



Page 33 of 56

7.1.2 OSPAR Marine Protected Areas In terms of OSPAR’s parallel work on Marine Protected Areas, the June 2003 Bremen Ministerial Meeting adopted the following recommendation:

‘to establish the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas and to ensure that by 2010 it is an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas which will:

a. protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities;

b. prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle;

c. protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area.

In this context, the Ministerial statement included the definition of “marine protected area” to mean ‘an area within the maritime area for which protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures, consistent with international law have been instituted for the purpose of protecting and conserving species, habitats, ecosystems or ecological processes of the marine environment’. It also included the statement that the “OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas” means ‘those areas which have been, and remain, reported by a Contracting Party [within its jurisdiction], together with any other area in the maritime area outside the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties which has been included as a component of the network by the OSPAR Commission’.

BDC, in its draft work programme for 2004, invited Contracting Parties or Observers to propose Marine Protected Areas in those parts of the OSPAR Maritime Area beyond national jurisdiction (in addition to areas to be proposed by Contracting Parties within national jurisdiction). In addition, in order to work towards the 2010 target of an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas, a document is being produced by UK for discussion at the OSPAR MASH meeting in autumn 2004, setting out the theoretical and practical aspects of what would constitute an ecologically coherent network of MPAs.



Page 34 of 56

Figure 7.1 OSPAR Maritime Area showing High Seas

51°E

44°W

59°N

42°W

36°N

"High Seas" areas and 200 nm-zones of countries bordering the OSPAR Maritime Area

OSPAR Maritime Area

200 nm-zones without new EEZ-extensions towards 350 nm or foot-baselines of continental slopes or 100 nm-extensions from the 2,500 m isobath

OSPAR contracting parties

"High Seas"

by, Wolfgang Dinter, Annette Groß Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Dec. 2003

7.2 Regional Fisheries Organisations Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs) established under the United Nations (?) may directly establish management measures, may provide scientific and information advice, or may be a combination of both. The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is one of the RFOs that directly establishes management measures (see Section 7.2.1), and the International Council for the



Page 35 of 56

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is one which operates in the North Atlantic and provides scientific and information advice (see Section 7.2.2).

7.2.1 North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) was established, in its current form, in 1980 by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries. The Commission is charged with performing its functions "in the interests of the conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources of the Convention area." The Convention area covers all waters of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, including the 200-mile zones and dependent seas, but not the Baltic Sea and the Belts or the Mediterranean Sea and its dependent seas. This mostly corresponds with FAO Statistical Area 27 (Hedley 2003). The Convention area includes Territorial Seas of the Contracting Parties, and also areas of High Seas (see Figure 7.2).

The Convention applies to all fishery resources except marine mammals, sedentary species, highly migratory species and anadromous stocks.

Membership of the Convention (and the Commission) consists of the European Community, Denmark (in respect of Faeroe Islands and Greenland, which are not in the EC), Iceland, Norway and Russia. Any State (except a Member State of the EC) may accede to the Convention, subject to the approval of three-fourths of all the Contracting Parties.

The basic structure of NEAFC is relatively simple. There is the Commission itself, which is composed of all members, and a Secretariat. There is no internal scientific body since scientific advice is provided by ICES. (There has been a long-standing relationship between NEAFC and ICES, which share principal geographical areas of competence). The Commission is also empowered to set up, on an ad hoc basis, other Committees and subsidiary bodies, as it considers "desirable" for the exercise of its duties and functions. Secretariat services are provided by an independent secretariat based in London.

The Commission may adopt recommendations concerning measures of control and providing for the collection of information relating to fisheries conducted beyond the national jurisdiction of member countries. Each Contracting Party, including the EC, has one vote in the Commission and decisions of the Commission are normally taken by a simple majority, although the Convention provides for some situations, such as on the making of recommendations concerning measures of control on the high seas, where a qualified majority - being a two-thirds majority of votes cast - is required. These decisions enter into force subject to an objection procedure (Hedley 2003).

In exercising its power, the Commission must ensure consistency between:

(a) any recommendation that applies to a stock or group of stocks occurring both within the national jurisdiction of a contracting party and beyond, or any recommendation that would have an effect, because of species interrelationship, on a stock or group of stocks occurring in whole or in part within national jurisdiction of a contracting party; and

(b) any measures or decisions by such contracting party for the management and conservation of that stock or group of stocks concerning fisheries conducted within the Party's national jurisdiction.

NEAFC is empowered to recommend a wide variety of conservation and management measures, although it has not done so in practice (Hedley 2003). They include:

(a) the regulation of fishing gear and appliances, including the size of mesh of fishing nets;

(b) the regulation of the size limits of fish that may be retained on board vessels, or landed or exposed or offered for sale;

(c) the establishment of closed seasons and of closed areas;

(d) the improvement and increase of fishery resources, which may include artificial propagation, the transplantation of organisms and the transplantation of young;

(e) the establishment of total allowable catches and their allocation to Contracting Parties; and

(f) the regulation of the amount of fishing effort and its allocation to Contracting Parties.

In 2003 the NEAFC Commission reviewed scientific information from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) concerning the status of fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic, including



Page 36 of 56

deep sea species. Effective from March 2004 NEAFC introduced a temporary freeze on effort in deep-sea fisheries in the NEAFC Regulatory Area for 2004, and the Commission will seek agreement on a permanent sustainable management system for deep-sea species. Each Contracting Party undertook to limit the effort for 2004 put into the fishing for deep-sea species in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. The effort shall not exceed the highest level put into deep-sea fishing in previous years for the specified species (see Table 7.1). The effort should be calculated as aggregate power, aggregate tonnage, fishing days at sea or number of vessels which participated. At its 2003 meeting, NEAFC also reviewed recent trends in the international management of marine resources, including the ecosystem approach, cooperation with other regional and global organisations, the outcome of the Johannesburg Summit and other developments.

Table 7.1 Deep-sea fish species subject to effort limitation within the NEAFC area in 2004.

Scientific name Common name

Aphanopus carbo Black scabbardfish

Apristuris spp Iceland catshark

Argentina silus Greater silver smelt

Beryx spp. Alfonsinos

Brosme brosme Tusk

Centrophorus granulosus Gulper shark

Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark

Centroscyllium fabricii Black dogfish

Centroscymnus coelolepis Portuguese dogfish

Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier

Dalatias licha Kitefin shark

Deania calceus Birdbeak dogfish

Etmopterus princeps Greater lanternshark

Etmopterus spinax Velvet belly

Galeus melastomus Blackmouth dogfish

Galeus murinus Mouse catshark

Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy

Molva dypterigia Blue ling

Molva molva Ling

Pagellus bogaraveo Red Seabream

Phycis spp. Forkbeards

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland halibut

It is clear from the above information that the purpose of the NEAFC is primarily to ensure conservation of the fish stocks within the North East Atlantic by the establishment of closed areas, closed seasons and other management measures. It is worth bearing in mind that individual EU Member States are not Contracting Parties to the Convention, it is the European Commission that is the Contracting Party and represents their interests. It is also worth noting that since the accession of Poland to the European Union in 2004, there will only be 5 Contracting Parties to the Convention, and the European Commission does not command any additional voting rights than the other Contracting Parties.

Whilst it is stated in Article 14 of the Convention that NEAFC will take scientific advice (insofar as it relates to matters of conservation of fish stocks) from ICES, there is no mention of acting on the advice



Page 37 of 56

of other International bodies, other than ‘The Commission may establish working arrangements with any other international organisation which has related objectives.’

Figure 7.2 High Seas parts of the Convention area for the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (source: NEAFC website www.neafc.org [cited 4.4.04])

7.2.2 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is an intergovernmental science organization founded in 1902. ICES is a leading forum for the promotion, coordination, and dissemination of research on the physical, chemical, and biological systems in the North Atlantic, and for the provision of advice on human impacts on its environment. ICES works with an international community of over 1600 marine scientists from 19 member countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. There are also a number of countries that have affiliate status with ICES: Australia, Chile, Greece, New Zealand, Peru, and South Africa.

ICES works through a number of study groups set up to deal with particular issues. Of particular relevance to conservation of biodiversity on the High Seas are:

• Study group on mapping the occurrence of cold water corals in the north east Atlantic (SGCOR), formed after the European Commission asked ICES "to identify areas where cold-water corals may be affected by fishing”;

• Working Group on the ecosystem effects of fishing activities (WGECO), which includes summarising available information on the distribution of sensitive habitats in the ICES area, and evaluating the adequacy of the information as a basis of scientific advice for an “evaluation of the impact of current fishing practices on sensitive habitats, and suggestions for appropriate mitigating measures.”;

• Working Group on the biology and assessment of deep sea fisheries resources (WGDEEP); and



Page 38 of 56

• Working Group on marine habitat mapping (WGMHM) There are also other working groups whose work may have a bearing on conservation of High Seas biodiversity.

The WGECO recently worked on identifying sensitive habitats – using the definition of a “sensitive habitat” as one which is “easily adversely affected by a human activity, and/or if affected is expected to only recover over a very long period, or not at all” (OSPAR/Texel-Faial criteria). Those sensitive habitats considered by the working group and relevant to High Seas were carbonate mounds, seamounts, and deep sea sponge aggregations.

Information reviewed by WGECO and SGCOR (ICES, 2002b) showed that deep-water trawling does take place in areas of Lophelia pertusa habitats and therefore gives cause for concern, and resulted in the following conclusion: While evidence has been found of damage from gillnets on deep-water biogenic habitats (Fosså et al. 2000), it is not as extensive as that caused by towed gear. Similarly, fishing techniques using bottom longlining and tangle netting are also likely to cause some damage to Lophelia reefs through entanglement and subsequent breakage of coral formations (Steingrimsson, 2002). There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the most effective way of mitigating the impact of otter trawls on Lophelia habitats is to close such areas to this type of fishing. While this would undoubtedly be effective in preserving the Lophelia reef habitat, the practicality of closing all such habitats to trawl fishing is open to question due to the economic burden this would place on fishermen. It is therefore suggested that a management decision be made internationally as to what proportion of the Lophelia habitat is required to be conserved, select a widely dispersed range of sites to minimise the chance of any natural or man-made ecological disaster destroying it completely, and enforce closure. The remaining areas of Lophelia habitat would stay open to fishing.

7.3 European Commission Although most of the activities of the European Commission relate to territorial and EEZ waters of Member States, the Commission is also responsible under the Common Fisheries Policy for policies concerning Member State vessels on the High Seas as well as in the waters of non-Member States. In addition, the Commission is the organisation which represents UK fishing interests on both a Regional and Global scale. The Common Fisheries Policy of the EU, under Regulation 2371/2002 requires that fishing should not have a negative impact on marine ecosystems, and various other measures are required when taking decisions on fisheries management to reduce impact on the marine environment.

The Commission is currently developing a European Marine Strategy under its 5th Framework Action Plan, and the intention is that this strategy will integrate relevant activities of the Regional Conventions (such as OSPAR) with European Community directives, but also to operate on a wider basis than just within Member State’s waters. The strategy may therefore be important in developing the actions of the EU in relation to marine conservation on the High Seas.

7.4 Bonn Convention The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) provides strict protection for 28 endangered migratory species listed on Appendix I. It also includes multilateral agreements for the conservation and management of migratory species listed on Appendix II (i.e. those species considered to have unfavourable conservation status, including all other cetaceans), and promotes the undertaking of cooperative research activities. A number of International agreements have been negotiated under its auspices, two of which (ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS) are relevant to the North East Atlantic area and adjacent seas, and are described in the following sections. Under the Bonn Convention there are also several other agreements with some relevance to conservation of biodiversity on the high seas, including the:

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia;

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concerning Conservation Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa;

Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA);



Page 39 of 56

7.4.1 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS)

ASCOBANS applies to all odontocetes (toothed whales) except the sperm whale within the area of the Agreement, and obliges signatories to apply the conservation, research and management measures prescribed in its Annex. These include monitoring, research, information exchange, bycatch reduction, pollution control and heightening public awareness.

7.4.2 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black and Mediterranean Seas (ACCOBAMS)

The Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black and Mediterranean Seas (ACCOBAMS) was concluded in Monaco in 1996 and entered into force in 2001. ACCOBAMS is the first agreement of its kind to bind the countries of the two seas to work together on a problem of common concern. The Mediterranean and Black Seas hold a diverse range of cetacean species. As with other cetaceans worldwide, the whales, dolphins, and porpoises of this area move between their breeding, feeding and over-wintering ranges, or follow their prey over long distances. En route they encounter a variety of man-made threats, including accidental entanglement in fishing gear (bycatch), marine pollution, acoustic disturbance, hunting, whale-watching and competition with fisheries. The scientific community has been aware for several decades of the importance of the cetacean biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea. Since migrating cetaceans regularly cross national boundaries, and large parts of the Mediterranean Sea are high seas, their effective protection requires international cooperation.

The Agreement requires members to implement a comprehensive Conservation Plan, based first on respect of legislation banning the deliberate capture of cetaceans in fishing zones by their flag vessels or those subject to their jurisdiction, on measures for minimizing incidental capture and, finally, on the creation of protected zones, important for the feeding, breeding and rearing of cetaceans. Governments also undertake to assess and manage human-cetacean interactions, conduct research and monitoring; develop programmes to inform, train and educate the public, and set up emergency response measures. Membership is open to all littoral states and to non-coastal States of the Agreement area (‘third countries’) whose vessels are engaged in activities which may affect cetaceans.

The UK has contributed funding on a voluntary basis to the Agreement and is currently considering, with relevant Overseas Territories, whether to accede to the Agreement.

7.4.3 The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) was adopted in Cape Town, South Africa and opened for signature in Canberra, Australia in 2001. Covering the 21 albatross and 7 larger petrel species of the southern hemisphere, the purpose of the Agreement is to establish a cooperative and comprehensive framework and process to restore these species to a favourable conservation status. The Agreement aims to stop or reverse population declines by coordinating action to mitigate known threats to albatross and petrel populations, and the collection, analysis and dissemination of information. The Agreement will come into force following its ratification by five Signatory States. As of September 2003 there were 10 Signatory States to ACAP, of which four had also ratified.

The UK signed the Agreement in 2001 and is currently working towards ratification, on behalf of itself and a number of Overseas Territories.

7.5 Other Regional Conventions Other International Regional Conventions perform similar functions to those of OSPAR, but apply to different geographical areas. Many of these conventions overlap in geographical area covered, and all differ in their remits and how they could be used to protect marine biodiversity. Some examples of Regional Conventions relevant to conservation of high seas biodiversity are:

Convention on Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)

Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) - for the Baltic Sea



Page 40 of 56

Barents Sea Convention

Barcelona Convention - for the Mediterranean Sea

Convention (and Commission) on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

Some of these Conventions have activities specifically dealing with conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, including those on the High Seas, but they have not been investigated as part of this scoping study, nor have other Conventions which may also have relevance to conservation of biodiversity on the High Seas.

8 Conclusions and recommendations A wide variety of International and Regional instruments of relevance to conservation of high seas biodiversity already exist, some of which are described briefly in this scoping report. Whilst this report only mentions the principle aspects of biodiversity in need of conservation, and does not deal in detail with all threats and all possible mechanisms for control of these threats, it is apparent that in the case of most activities, suitable mechanisms for conservation of vulnerable high seas biodiversity are already in existence. What is required for successful conservation of high seas biodiversity, however, is successful implementation of these mechanisms by all countries using the high seas areas in question. Better identification of the location and extent of vulnerable high seas biodiversity, and better information on the location and extent of certain activities which affect that biodiversity is required, in order to help implement many of the agreements already in existence.

A major activity in all the world’s oceans, which at present is not controlled adequately for conservation of vulnerable biodiversity on the high seas through existing mechanisms, is fishing, particularly by methods which cause damage to the seabed and seabed habitats.

Other activities likely to affect vulnerable marine biodiversity on the high seas are either currently adequately managed, small scale, of limited distribution, or not yet commercially viable (eg. Mining, scientific research). These activities may pose a significant threat in future, but at present do not.

In order to protect vulnerable habitats and species, a proportion of the areas where they occur need urgently to be closed to certain methods of fishing (depending on the relevant habitat or species), or technical measures need further implementation to reduce bycatch. Such areas may eventually become ‘Marine Protected Areas’ under a variety of instruments (CBD, or OSPAR for the North East Atlantic). However, the immediate focus should be on identifying the geographic location of the vulnerable biodiversity, and the relevant activity causing or likely to cause damage, and then on immediate measures to prevent damage to the biodiversity.

In the North East Atlantic, these activities should focus on several initiatives/activities already existing, but in need of financial resources and political encouragement, within OSPAR and ICES:

i. Scientific research, identification and mapping of vulnerable habitats and species (coordinated through OSPAR and ICES);

ii. Identification of the activities threatening or damaging those vulnerable habitats and species (also coordinated through OSPAR and ICES);

iii. Improved dissemination of the actions required to halt or reduce such activities within areas where vulnerable biodiversity is present, to those organisations responsible for management of the relevant activities (e.g. from OSPAR, ICES and the EC (DG Environment) to NEAFC and the European Commission (DG Fish).

The development of Marine Protected Areas under OSPAR and other instruments should continue, but the above should take priority as being the activities most likely to have significant effect in the short term for conservation of marine biodiversity on the High Seas. If the focus on Marine Protected Areas takes priority, with the inevitable emphasis on selection of areas and criteria for this, before management is considered and introduced, then a number of these vulnerable habitats and species may be lost or damaged further before effective mechanisms for their protection are in place and enforced.



Page 41 of 56

9 References

Ascencio A. & Bliss M. 2003 Conserving the biodiversity of the high seas and deep oceans: Institutional gaps in the international system. Workshop on the governance of high seas biodiversity conservation, 16-19th June 2003, Cairns, Australia.

Blacker, R.W. 1957. Benthic animals as indicators of hydrographic conditions and climatic change in Svalbard waters. Fishery Investigations (London), ser. II, 20: 1–49.

Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, M.J., and Poiner, I.R. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 785–798.

Dyer, M.F., Cranmer, G.J., Fry, P.D., and Fry, W.G. 1984. The distribution of benthic hydrographic indicator species in Svalbard waters, 1878–1991. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 64: 667–677.

Epp D & Smoot NC 1989 Distribution of seamounts in the North Atlantic. Nature, 337, 254-257.

Evans WE 1994 Common Dolphin, White bellied porpoise Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758. In: Handbook of marine mammals, Vol 5. The first book of dolphins (eds SH Ridgeway and R Harrison) pp. 191-224. Academic Press, London.

Fosså, J.H., and Mortensen, P.B. 1998. Artsmangfoldet på Lophelia-korallrev og metoder for overvåkning. Fisken og Havet.

Fox, G.M., Ball, B.J., Munday, B.W., and Pfeiffer, N. 1996. The IMPACT II study: preliminary observations on the effects of bottom trawling on the ecosystem of the Nephrops grounds in the N.W. Irish Sea. In: Irish Marine Science 1995, pp 337–354. Ed. by B.F.Keegan and R. O’Connor. Galway University Press Ltd., Galway, 626 pp. ICES 2003 WGECO Report 117.

Friewald A, Fosså, J.H, Grehan, A, Koslow A, & Roberts, M.J. in prep. Cold water coral reefs: Out of sight, no longer out of mind. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series, Cambridge, England.

Gage J.D. & Tyler P.A. 1991. Deep Sea Biology. A Natural History of Organisms at the Deep sea Floor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gjerde, KM (ed.) 2003 Towards a strategy for High Seas Marine Protected Areas. Proceedings of the IUCN, WCPA and WWF Experts Workshop on High Seas Marine Protected Areas, 15-17 January 2003, Malaga, Spain. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Goujon M. 1996 Captures accidentelles du filet maillant dérivant et dynamique des populations de dauphins au large du Golfe de Gascogne. PhD thesis, École Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Rennes.

Gubbay S., 2002. Offshore Directory: Review of a selection of habitats, communities and species of the North-East Atlantic. WWF-UK: North-East Atlantic Programme.

Gubbay, S. 2003 Seamounts of the North-East Atlantic. OASIS, WWF Germany.

Hedley, C. 2003 . Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law: North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission [on line] [cited 04/02/2004]. Available from: <http://www.oceanlaw.net

Hein, J.R., A. Koschinsky, M. Bau, F.T. Manheim, J.K. Jang, and L. Roberts. 2000. Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Pacific. In: Handbook of Marine Mineral Deposits. D.S. Cronan (ed) CRC Press, London. 406 p.

Juniper, K 2003 Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vent and Seep Habitats and Related Governance Issues. Workshop on the Governance of high seas biodiversity conservation, 16-19 June 2003, Cairns, Australia.

Klitgaard, A.B., and Tendel, O.S. 2001. “Ostur” – “cheese bottoms” – sponge dominated areas in Faroese shelf and slope areas. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands, pp. 13–21. Ed. by G. Guntse and O.S. Tendal. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, the Faeroe Islands.



Page 42 of 56

Konnecker, G. 2002. Sponge Fields. In Offshore Directory. Review of a selection of habitats, communities and species of the North-East Atlantic. Ed. by S. Gubbay. WWF-UK. North East Atlantic Programme.

Krost, P. 1990. The impact of otter-trawl fishery on nutrient release from the sediment and macrofauna of Kieler Bucht (Western Baltic). Berichte aus dem Institut für Meereskunde an der Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel. Nr. 200. 157 pp (in German, English summary).

Krost, P., Bernhard, M., Werner, F., Hukriede, W. 1990. Otter trawl tracks in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic) mapped by side-scan sonar. Meeresforschung, 32: 344–354.

Main, J., and Sangster, G.I. 1978. The value of direct observation techniques by divers in fishing gear research. Scottish Fisheries Research Report No. 12, Dept. of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Aberdeen Scotland, 15 pp.

Main, J., and Sangster, G.I. 1981. A study of sand clouds produced by trawl boards and their possible effect on fish capture. Scottish Fisheries Research Report No. 20, Dept. of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Aberdeen Scotland, 19 pp.

Masson, D.G., Bett, B.J., Jacobs, C.L., and LeBas, T.P. 1998. Distribution and biology of recently discovered carbonate mounds in the northern Rockall Trough. Poster presented at Atlantic Frontiers Environmental Forum, Aberdeen University, 6–7 October, 1998.

Messiah, S.N., Rowell, T.W., Peer D.L., and Cranford, P.J. 1991. The effects of trawling, dredging and ocean dumping on the eastern Canadian continental shelf seabed. Continental Shelf Research, 11: 1237–1263.

Rice, A.L., Thursen, M.H., and New, A.L. 1990. Dense aggregations of a hexactinellid sponge, Pheronema carpenteri, in the Porcupine Seabight (northeast Atlantic Ocean) and possible causes. Progress in Oceanography, 24: 179–206.

Rogers, AD. 1994 The biology of seamounts. Advances in marine biology, 30, 305-350.

Schwinghamer, P., Guignè, J.Y., and Siu, W.C. 1996. Quantifying the impact of trawling on benthic habitat structure using high resolution acoustics and chaos theory. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 288–296.

Smith DK & Jordan TH 1988 Seamount statistics in the Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 2899-2919.

Theil, H & Koslow, JA 2001 Managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on the High Seas, including tools such as Marine Protected Areas: Scientific requirements and legal aspects. Proceedings of the expert workshop held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation, Isle of Vilm, Germany, 27 February – 4 March 2000, BfN Scripten 43, Germany.

Tuck, I., Ball, B., and Schroeder, A. 1998. Comparison of undisturbed and disturbed areas. In IMPACT-II. The effects of different types of fisheries on the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems. Ed. by H.J. Lindeboom and S.J. de Groot, NIOZ-Rapport 1998 – 1/RIVO-DLO Report CO 03/98.

Tyler-Walters, H., 2003. Lophelia reefs. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 27/01/2004]. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk

Vierros M. & Ogolla D. 2003 The Convention on Biological Diversity – emerging issues in conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity. Workshop on the governance of high seas biodiversity conservation, 16-19th June 2003, Cairns, Australia.



Page 43 of 56

10 Glossary BDC Biodiversity Committee (of OSPAR)

CAFF Convention on Arctic Flora and Fauna

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; or Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CITES Convention on Trade in Endangered Species

COP Conference of Parties

Defra UK Government Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

FAO UN Food and Agriculture Organisation

HELCOM Helsinki Convention

HSMPA High Seas Marine Protected Area

IMO International Maritime Organisation

IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

ISA UN International Seabed Authority

IUCN World Conservation Union (formerly International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

JNCC UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee

NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention (on the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic)

RFO/RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

UN United Nations

UNGA UN General Assembly

UNICPOLOS/ICP UN Informal Consultative Process on the Law of the Sea

UNCLOS UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas (one of six voluntary commissions of IUCN)

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature (or World Wildlife Fund)

Annex A OSPAR initial list of threatened and/or declining habitats and species ANNEX 6

(Ref. § A-4.15a)

OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC

Scoping study: Protection of vulnerable high seas and deep oceans biodiversity and associated oceans governance. May

2004

Page 44 of 56

MEETING OF THE OSPAR COMMISSION (OSPAR)

BREMEN: 23-27 JUNE 2003

Initial OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats

(Reference Number: 2003-14)

Introduction 1. Paragraph 2.2 of the OSPAR Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area provides that the OSPAR Commission will assess which species and habitats need to be protected. This work is to guide the setting of priorities by the OSPAR Commission for its activities in implementing Annex V to the Convention ("On the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area").

2. The strategy further provides that the OSPAR Commission shall undertake the following actions to provide the basis for that assessment:

a. development of criteria for the selection of such species, habitats and ecological processes (the Texel/Faial Criteria for the identification of species and habitats in need of protection have been adopted by OSPAR 2003 for this purpose);

b. to the extent necessary, compilation of lists of species and habitats, including the development of lists of threatened or declining species and threatened habitats, based upon: (i) the criteria developed under subparagraph (a) above; (ii) inventories of species and habitats in the maritime area; (iii) relevant lists developed by other international forums.

3. This initial list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats has been developed to fulfil these commitments. It is based upon nominations by Contracting Parties and observers to the Commission of species and habitats that they considered to be priorities for protection. The evidence in support of those nominations has been collectively examined by the OSPAR Commission and its subordinate bodies, with the assistance of an OSPAR workshop hosted by the Netherlands in Leiden in September 2001. The data used has been reviewed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), in order to give assurance that its quality is suitable for the purpose for which it has been used2. The information used has been compiled into a justification report, which is being published separately.

4. The purpose of the list is to guide the OSPAR Commission in setting priorities for its further work on the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. The inclusion of a species or of a type of habitat on this list has no other significance.

5. Fish species affected by fishing in this initial list are marked with an asterisk (*). These species are subject to management by an international or national fisheries authority or body. The OSPAR Commission has no competence to adopt programmes or measures on questions relating to the management of fisheries. Where the OSPAR Commission considers that action is desirable in relation to such a question, it is to draw that question to the attention of the authority or international body competent for that question. The inclusion of species affected by fishing in this list must be read in this context.

2 The assessments of that data by the OSPAR Commission and by ICES differ in respect of Polysticta stelleri, Puffinus

assimilis baroli, Thunnus thynnus and Oceanic ridges with hydrothermal vents/fields. The justification for the OSPAR assessment of these species and habitats is set out in the justification report.


2004

Page 45 of 56

6. In order to avoid duplication of work, other international agreements (in particular, EC Directives (including the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna and the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of birds) and measures under the Berne Convention, the Bonn Convention (including its regional agreements) and the Ramsar Convention, amongst other relevant instruments) should also be taken into account by Contracting Parties to the extent that they are bound by them or committed to them.

7. The OSPAR Biodiversity and Ecosystems Strategy makes clear that it may be necessary to consider separate populations of species for the purposes of the strategy on the same basis as whole species. This list therefore specifies certain populations of species where separate treatment is justified, because the different populations are subject to differing pressures. Where this is done, there is no implication that other populations of the same species may be threatened and/or declining.

8. The OSPAR Commission wishes to consider any information that could improve the basis for the judgements that have been made in drawing up this list.

9. This initial OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats will be subject to further development. Species and habitats will be added to or removed from the list, in the light of changes to their conservation status and to the threats they face and in the light of the latest scientific assessments, according to the Texel/Faial criteria.

10. The footnotes form an integral part of the list.


2004

Page 46 of 56

PART I : SPECIES

Common name 11 SCIENTIFIC NAME

English French

OSPAR Regions3 where

the species occurs

OSPAR Regions1 where the species is under

threat and/or in decline

INVERTEBRATES

Arctica islandica (Linnæus, 1767) Ocean quahog praire d’Islande I, II, III, IV II

Megabalanus azoricus (Pilsbry, 1916)

Azorean barnacle balane des Azores V All where it occurs

Nucella lapillus (Linnæus, 1758) Dog whelk pourpre All II, III, IV

Ostrea edulis (Linnæus, 1758) Flat oyster huître plate I, II, III, IV II

Patella ulyssiponensis aspera (Röding, 1798)

Azorean limpet patelle des Azores V All where it occurs

BIRDS

Larus fuscus fuscus (Linnæus, 1758)

Lesser black-backed gull

goéland brun I All where it occurs

Polysticta stelleri (Pallas, 1769) Steller's eider eider de Steller I All where it occurs

Puffinus assimilis baroli (auct.incert.)

Little shearwater puffin obscur V All where it occurs

Sterna dougallii (Montagu, 1813) Roseate tern sterne de dougall II, III, IV, V All where it occurs

Uria aalge (Pontoppidan, 1763) – Iberian population (synonyms: Uria aalge albionis, Uria aalge ibericus)

Iberian guillemot guillemot marmette IV All where it occurs

FISH

*Acipenser sturio (Linnæus, 1758) Sturgeon esturgeon commun II, IV All where it occurs

*Alosa alosa (Linnæus, 1758) Allis shad alose vraie II, III, IV All where it occurs

*Cetorhinus maximus (Gunnerus, 1763)

Basking shark requin pèlerin All All where it occurs

3 The OSPAR Regions are:

I - the Arctic: the OSPAR maritime area north of latitude 62°N, but also including Iceland and the Færoes; II - the Greater North Sea: the North Sea, the English Channel, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat to the limits of

the OSPAR maritime area, bounded on the north by latitude 62°N, on the west by longitude 5°W and the east coast of Great Britain, and on the south by latitude 48°N;

III - the Celtic Seas: the area bounded by, on the east, longitude 5°W and the west coast of Great Britain and on the west by the 200 metre isobath (depth contour) to the west of 6°W along the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland;

IV - the Bay of Biscay/Golfe de Gascogne and Iberian coasts: the area south of latitude 48°N, east of 11°W and north of latitude 36°N (the southern boundary of the OSPAR maritime area);

V - the Wider Atlantic: the remainder of the OSPAR maritime area.


2004

Page 47 of 56

Common name 11 SCIENTIFIC NAME

English French

OSPAR Regions3 where

the species occurs

OSPAR Regions1 where the species is under

threat and/or in decline

Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus (Linnæus, 1758)

Houting corégone oxyringue II All where it occurs

* Dipturus batis (Linnæus, 1758) (synonym: Raja batis)

Common Skate pocheteau gris All All where it occurs

* Raja montagui (Fowler, 1910) (synonym: Dipturus montagui)

Spotted Ray raie douce II, III, IV, V All where it occurs

*Gadus morhua (Linnæus, 1758)– populations in the OSPAR regions II and III4

Cod Cabillaud (morue) All II, III

*Hoplostethus atlanticus (Collett, 1889)

Orange roughy hoplostète orange I, V All where it occurs

Petromyzon marinus (Linnæus, 1758)

Sea lamprey lamproie marine I, II, III, IV All where it occurs

*Salmo salar(Linnæus, 1758) Salmon saumon de l’Atlantique

I, II, III, IV All where it occurs5

*Thunnus thynnus (Linnæus, 1758) Bluefin tuna thon rouge V All where it occurs6

REPTILES

Caretta caretta (Linnæus, 1758) Loggerhead turtle caouanne IV, V All where it occurs

Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761)

Leatherback turtle tortue luth All All where it occurs

MAMMALS

Balaena mysticetus (Linnæus, 1758)

Bowhead whale baleine franche boréale

I All where it occurs

Balaenoptera musculus (Linnæus, 1758)

Blue whale baleine bleue All All where it occurs

Eubalaena glacialis (Müller, 1776) Northern right whale baleine franche noire All All where it occurs

Phocoena phocoena (Linnæus, 1758)

Harbour porpoise marsouin All II, III

4 That is, the populations/stocks referred to in ICES advice as the North Sea and Skagerrak cod stock, Kattegat

cod stock, Cod west of Scotland, Cod in the Irish Sea, Cod in the Irish Channel and Celtic Sea. 5 In accordance with the comments of ICES in its review, the varying states of the numerous different stocks

have to be taken into account. 6 The main threat is the high rate of catch of juvenile fish of the species (SCRS Report, page 59).


2004

Page 48 of 56

PART II - HABITATS

12 DESCRIPTION OSPAR Regions where the habitat occurs

OSPAR Regions where such habitats are under threat and/or in decline

HABITATS

Carbonate mounds I, V V7

Deep-sea sponge aggregations I, III, IV, V V8

Oceanic ridges with hydrothermal vents/fields I, V V

Intertidal mudflats I, II, III, IV All where they occur

Littoral chalk communities II All where they occur

Lophelia pertusa reefs All All where they occur

Ostrea edulis beds II, III, IV All where they occur

Seamounts I, IV, V All where they occur9

Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities I, II, III, IV II, III

Zostera beds I, II, III, IV All where they occur

7 To be confirmed in the light of further survey work being undertaken by Ireland 8 A search for further evidence will be made. 9 A search for further evidence will be made.



Page 49 of 56

Annex B A selection of International fora concerned with protection of High Seas biodiversity

Fifth World Wilderness Congress, 1993 A paper presented to this meeting by Maxine McCloskey led to the formation of an IUCN Working Group on High Seas Marine Protected Areas. This working group convened the Montpelier meeting below in 1999.

IUCN/IOC scientific experts meeting, Montpelier, March 1999 This meeting identified the threat of deep sea trawling to high seas environments, particularly seamounts (Theil & Koslow 2001), and noted that what was missing was a consensus on the legal basis to protect them.

Vilm Workshop, Managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on the High Seas, including tools such as Marine Protected Areas: Scientific requirements and legal aspects, February 2000 This workshop was conceived to try to gain a consensus on the legal basis to protect seamounts on the high seas from the effects of deep water trawling. Participants consisted principally of legal experts in International law and nature protection, with scientists present to advise the group. Unfortunately representatives of UN FAO and IMO were unable to attend. The meeting used the term ‘marine protected areas’ in the general sense of 'integrated treatment of risks arising in a specific area’, rather than based on any specific context.

The ‘Statement of Conclusions’ of the workshop is still very relevant today, although many of the initiatives and actions proposed have developed since 2000. Both the ‘Statement of Conclusions’ and the ‘Summary record’ were published by the German ministry for nature conservation in 2001 (Theil & Koslow 2001). The conclusions of the workshop stated, inter alia, that:

• ‘The UNCLOS provides the framework for all action to conserve biodiversity and other components of the marine environment of the high seas. It is the bedrock upon which all actions must be based’;

• Seven examples (not an exhaustive list) of aspects of the high seas marine environment giving rise to concern were identified as:

i. The ecosystems of seamounts;

ii. Cold water coral communities;

iii. Hydrothermal vents and their communities;

iv. Deep sea fish;

v. Seabirds;

vi. Cetaceans; and

vii. Unique science reference areas (i.e. areas that have been thoroughly studied and therefore provide a reference in space and time).

• Approaches to protect such aspects of the marine environment need to be developed urgently, and must include identifying the risks which need to be managed and establishing the basis for management actions, as well as addressing who should do what and on what timescale;

• Action to manage the risks identified should be channelled to those international organisations competent with respect to those specific sectors or human activities;



Page 50 of 56

• Initiatives by one or more national governments will be needed to invite those organisations to consider such action;

• Complementary measures may need to be adopted by a number of international organisations in order to cover all aspects of the risk management needed;

• For the risks identified during the workshop, the following was concluded:

i. For fisheries impacts on seamount ecosystems, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFOs or RFMOs) or in some cases Regional Seas organisations, would be the most appropriate fora to address the problem. Special inter-governmental conferences were also suggested, but both should strive to include all coastal and user States.

ii. To provide a safety net and to cover areas where there was no competent Regional Organisation, global organisations with responsibility for certain resources should consider whether and what action should be taken. Such organisations would include the CBD for biodiversity, FAO for living marine resources, ISA for mineral resources, and IOC for scientific reference areas or research;

iii. It was also recognised that it could also be appropriate to consider global action for any of the risks identified, for example a resolution of the UN General Assembly on the model of the Driftnet Resolution, or a new or amended inter-governmental agreement.

• Management measures would need to be tailored to each specific case, but would also need to be consistent with the obligations, powers and duties established by UNCLOS.

Malaga Workshop, January 2003 The World Conservation Union (IUCN) is campaigning hard for a strategy on marine protected areas on the high seas. In January 2003 it hosted a workshop in Malaga, Spain “Towards a strategy for High Seas Marine Protected Areas”. This workshop was intended as a first step towards implementing the call for action at WSSD for areas beyond national jurisdiction, with the aim of agreeing a set of actions to enable the establishment of a marine protected areas network in the high seas (Gjerde 2003).

Workshop on the Governance of high seas biodiversity conservation, 16-20 June 2003, Cairns, Australia. The Workshop in Cairns, Australia, was a WSSD partnership initiative sponsored by the Government of Australia in cooperation with partners from the Governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, Cambodia, New Zealand, and the United States of America as well as the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature, the International Oceans Institute, Humane Society International, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The workshop was attended by over 150 participants from 36 countries, intergovernmental organizations (including the Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat, the Convention on Migratory Species Secretariat, the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme), nongovernmental organizations, industry representatives and academic institutions. Participants represented a broad range of scientific, legal, policy, technical and industry expertise on high seas and deep oceans biodiversity. Individuals were invited for their expertise and interest in high seas biodiversity and deep oceans management.

The views expressed in these summary conclusions are a reflection of the broad range of discussions at the meeting, greater international awareness and attention being paid to high seas issues in recent years



Page 51 of 56

and the increasingly urgent need for cooperative action by the international community to improve conservation and management of the high seas and deep oceans.

Noting the breadth of participants at the meeting, the suggestions for action were broad-ranging and are not intended to reflect agreed positions among all participants. They do, however, indicate the extent of possibilities for action which could be negotiated and further discussed by the international community to meet its collective commitment and obligation to conservation and sustainable management of the ocean commons.

While fishing currently has the major impact on the biodiversity of the deep oceans, the workshop acknowledged and discussed a range of other activities that may have potentially damaging impacts, including the laying and operation of submarine cables and pipelines, marine scientific research and bio-prospecting, whaling, military activities, ocean dumping and disposal, the spread of marine debris, introduced marine pests and mineral exploration.

The institutional and legal governance frameworks for the high seas, and the management arrangements which flow from them, need to contemplate the variety of current and potential activities and be flexible enough to accommodate change arising from emerging technologies, increasing scientific knowledge and greater understanding of the interactions between use, management and sustainability.

While the lack of understanding of the biodiversity and dynamics of the high seas continues to be a major impediment to developing appropriate institutional, legal and management responses for conservation and sustainable management, there is a corresponding need for greater and applied oceans governance research.

Awareness of the problems and capacity to address them, both technical and financial, is fundamental to any change in the legal and institutional governance structures which provide the basis for management and conservation activities in the high seas.

It was noted in the summary the delicate international balance of rights and responsibilities in areas outside national jurisdiction. Examples of this balance were discussed, such as: the extent that freedom of the seas should or could be limited in relation to conservation measures; freedoms of navigation in relation to high seas marine protected areas; freedoms of access to high seas biodiversity versus common heritage; and equitable sharing of resources and benefits.

Given the nature of high seas jurisdictional arrangements and the legal and institutional frameworks with competency/mandates in the high seas, the key to the effective long term governance of the high seas and deep oceans is raising awareness of the issues and problems and multilateral cooperation and action – at the international, regional and sub-regional levels. Adaptation or changes to existing governance arrangements, or the establishment of new approaches to provide for improved management and conservation outcomes can, however, be a lengthy process. Consequently the workshop contemplated the need for short term responses that would provide a basis for improved conservation and management on an immediate and interim basis while governance options for medium and longer term approaches to sustainability are developed and agreed.

The following is indicative of matters raised in reports back from the meeting’s working groups. The detail of the working group discussions is contained in the full Meeting Record.

Short Term Options

• United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution for a moratorium on destructive fishing practices, such as unregulated bottom trawling on and around seamounts, cold water corals and other vulnerable underwater features but also pelagic resources of the high seas;

• UNGA resolution related to shipping

• setting forth criteria for establishing the genuine link between vessels and flag states and the consequences for failure to meet those obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other agreements;

• establishment of a voluntary audit scheme to independently assess flag states’ ability to implement their obligations under UNCLOS and other agreements;

• • Immediate establishment of an appropriately resourced coordination and cooperation mechanism within the UN system;



Page 52 of 56

• Urgent capacity building for developing countries and small island developing states, including through their participation in the decision-making processes of relevant regional and international fora and mobilization of appropriate financial and technological resources;

• Publicity and public awareness raising of the value, importance and activity in the deep oceans;

• Development of a pilot high seas marine protected area site;

• Increased applied scientific and governance research;

• Relevant international institutions should identify a focal point on biodiversity of the high seas and deep oceans;

• DOALOS should convene an inter-agency working group on high seas biodiversity under a broader oceans coordinating mechanism; and

• UNGA to call upon relevant international organizations, including the International Seabed Authority, the International Hydrographic Organization, DOALOS and the CBD Secretariat to review issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of the deep seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and to make recommendations to the General Assembly on these issues.

Medium to longer term institutional and governance options

Legal

• Develop agreement(s) to implement the environmental and conservation obligations of UNCLOS to ensure the protection, conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity and ecological processes;

• Amend other Conventions relevant to high seas biodiversity such as MARPOL Annexes I (oil), II (noxious liquid substances), IV (sewage) and V (garbage) to ensure that restrictions on nearshore discharges do not adversely impact biodiversity by transferring discharges to the high seas;

• Amend the World Heritage Convention to extend designations to high seas;

• Address historic dumping issues under the London Convention in relation to liability, compensation and containment/clean up;

• Urgently address the problems of flags of convenience and the primacy of flag state jurisdiction on the high seas;

• Promote increased ratification, implementation and enforcement of international, regional and sub-regional agreements;

• Amend the Convention on Biological Diversity to provide a framework for the establishment of marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management for the oceans and seas beyond national jurisdiction; and

• Develop a framework to address bioprospecting and other activities not specifically regulated by current agreements or institutions to ensure incorporation of relevant environmental obligations and governance principles (for example, the application of the precautionary approach, equity and stakeholder participation).

Institutional

• Encourage IMO and member states to make greater use of existing IMO measures such as Special Areas and particularly sensitive sea areas and to develop new measures, where appropriate, to protect high seas biodiversity and ecological processes;

• Expand the work of the International Seabed Authority to develop regulations beyond exploration and mining in the Area, including the designation of conservation zones and bioprospecting activities, and develop an international regime for deep seabed bioprospecting in areas beyond national jurisdiction based on the principles and objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UNCLOS;



Page 53 of 56

• DOALOS, in coordination with IMO and FAO to define the ‘genuine link’;

• establish or improve national, regional and global inter-agency coordination and cooperation mechanisms to ensure effective management or control of activities affecting marine biodiversity within and beyond national jurisdiction;

• Better coordination between Conventions and Instruments (for example, the Convention on Migratory Species could identify migratory corridors to be protected by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and PSSAs);

• Use the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to address illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing in relation to species of particular concern;

• New RFMOs for exclusively high seas stocks;

• RFMOs to establish protected areas;

• Regional coast-guards;

• A World Oceans Organisation/central authority for environmental management of the oceans;

• A deep sea-bed bioprospecting authority or Global Biotechnology Commission; and

• Creation of an Oceans ‘Interpol’.

Science and Research

• IOC to act as a coordination body between the scientific and oceans policy communities;

• Detailed analysis and assessments of current convention regimes including implementation constraints;

• Identification of an appropriate governance regime of bioprospecting;

• Analysis of RFMOs’ implementation and enforcement experiences and constraints;

• Establishment of a Global and Regional Ocean Governance Research Networks to support better informed decision making;

• Establishment of a Global Marine Assessment to include high seas biodiversity issues; and

• Identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, specifically candidate sites for marine protected areas

Education and Capacity Building

• Better implementation of capacity building obligations in existing agreements;

• Increased training in the legal, science and policy areas related to high seas biodiversity conservation;

• Raising awareness through regional workshops and use of electronic learning tools (particular mention was made of the ‘virtual high seas site’ developed for this workshop);

• Development of a global oceans governance education network;

• Establish effective maritime administrations; and

• Implementation of flagship projects to focus attention on the problems and issues (for example, the effects of marine debris on sea birds and other marine life).

Other ideas

• Development of a Global Oceans Policy; and

• Creation and appointment of a Global Oceans Ambassador.

Next Steps

The workshop was a contribution to the ‘intellectual capital’ necessary to build momentum for change in the way the international community conserves and manages the biodiversity of the ocean commons. Participants were encouraged to identify key related fora in the near and medium term to continue the



Page 54 of 56

development of thinking on the types of issues discussed and the actions needed to conserve and manage the unique environment of the high seas and deep oceans.

10th deep sea biology symposium, Oregon, USA, August 25-29th 2003 This meeting was a scientific symposium on research in deep sea biology. Themes for the meeting were:

Human impacts and exploitation of the deep sea Reproduction and recruitment Experimental community ecology Physiological ecology of deep-sea and midwater animals Biology of the deep Gulf of Mexico History of deep-sea biology Population dynamics and genetics Benthic-pelagic coupling

Symposium papers from the meeting are not yet available.

Deep Sea Fishing, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2003 Participants from almost 40 countries and a range of organisations attended this meeting bringing a wide range of information and skills to the conference. The single session format provided the opportunity for all to gain an up to date appreciation of all components of science, technology, compliance, management and governance issues which are integral considerations to today’s overall governance and implementation initiatives.

An Interim Report which summarises presentations and discussion points from the seven themes is available. It is anticipated the full conference report, covering all sessions, will be available in 2004 after consideration by the Deep Sea 2003 Steering Committee.

Experts in scientific, academic, fisheries management, international law, environmental and fishing industry organisations from almost 40 countries, have identified the need to manage the impacts of deepwater fishing on both the target fish species and the wider marine environment. The conference was supported by a number of international agencies and companies including government fisheries departments, Unilever, the US based Census on Marine Life and NIWA. Conference discussions centred on the need for urgent action to prevent further depletion of the deep sea resources, given that a number of typical species in deep sea fisheries can be depleted in just a few years. Experts suggested a number of short term, medium term and long term actions:

Short term

• Use existing international organisations to take immediate steps such as:

• introducing marine protected areas in deep sea areas

• prohibit destructive fishing methods in sensitive areas

• regulate the activities of fishing vessels on the high seas.

Medium term

• Establish new international arrangements to control the impacts of fishing on deepwater areas of the high seas.

Long term

• Establish a global framework to manage the impacts of fishing in the deep sea of the world's oceans.

IMPAC 1, Melbourne, Australia, October 2005 The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) is one of six voluntary commissions of IUCN, and is a worldwide network of protected area managers and specialists. Australia and WCPA will be



Page 55 of 56

co-hosting IMPAC 1 in October 2005 in Melbourne, Australia. This International Marine Protected Areas Congress will address the WCPA’s marine goal and primary themes.

scoping study: protection of vulnerable...

Documents