Marine biodiversity and spatial management
Setting the stage
• Conserving biodiversity → sustainable provision of present and future ecosystem services
• Spatial management provides a useful mechanism to integrate a variety of management approaches and capitalizes on patterns that are relatively more predictable
• AERD has the requisite information and expertise but we need to make opportunity for integration
Ecosystem Services
• The “Antarctic mystique”• Tourism opportunities• Fishing opportunities and seafood products• “Nutriceuticals” and bio-prospecting• Roles in the Earth’s climate system and carbon
cycle• …
Spatial Heterogeneity of Services
WG-EMM-09/06
invertebrate composition (US AMLR)
krill fishing (CCAMLR)
tourist landings (IAATO)
The US AMLR approach and requirements for advice
data
AERD has a substantial amount of spatial data – these can be integrated with other data
analysis
To date, analysis limited to mapping, spatial smoothing and SSMU-level risk assessments
integrated spatial advice
Need to provide some – recast the MPA concept
Marine Spatial
Planning (MSP)
“Componentized” Spatial Management
Some Mandates
• MPA network (WSSD and CCAMLR)
• Prevent adverse impacts to VMEs (UNGA Resolution 61/105 bottom fishing CMs)
• CCAMLR’s precautionary approach (krill CMs and exploratory fishery CMs)
• Harmonization with CEP
Some Tools
• MPAs*
• VME risk areas*
• SSMUs (krill fishery)*
• SSRUs (toothfish fisheries)
• Experimental harvest blocks (crab fisheries)*
• [ASPAs and ASMAs]
MPAs
• World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) called for a representative network of MPAs by 2012
• Performance Review Panel and NGOs have urged CCAMLR to meet the WSSD objective
• CCAMLR has agreed that MPAs are a matter of priority
• WG-EMM suggested 11 “priority areas” and an analytical approach – these were endorsed in 2008
• “MPAs” may delay sustainability – the “P” provides little acknowledgement that consumptive uses are services too or that conservation includes rational use
Priority Areas and an Approach
SC-CAMLR-XXVIIbioregions
conservation objectives
Layers to Describe Bioregions
63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53
Longitude
63.5
63
62.5
62
61.5
61
60.5
La
titu
de
South Shetlands Finfish Distribution (krill predators)
Physics
Phytoplankton
Krill
Krill Predators (fishes)
Layers to Describe “Conservation Objectives”
Geomorphology courtesy of Phil O’Brien (Geoscience Australia)
VMEs
Pr(penguins vulnerable or endangered) given• catch = 3 mmt throughout 48.1-48.3
• historical dist. of krill fishing
• no climate trend
Humpbacks Fins
Bransfield Strait
Cape Petrels
Layers to Describe “Service Objectives”
WG-EMM-09/06
bioprospecting
fishing
tourism
treat service opportunities as objectives rather than costs?
Spatial Consistency vs. Temporal Variability
62.5 62.0 61.5 61.0 60.5 60.0 59.5 59.0 58.5 58.0 57.5 57.0 56.5 56.0 55.5 55.0 54.5 54.0
Longitude
63.0
62.5
62.0
61.5
61.0
Latit
ude
G . g ibberifrons - AM LR 1998
62.5 62.0 61.5 61.0 60.5 60.0 59.5 59.0 58.5 58.0 57.5 57.0 56.5 56.0 55.5 55.0 54.5 54.0
Longitude
63.0
62.5
62.0
61.5
61.0
Latit
ude
G . g ibberifrons - AM LR 2003
1998 – 38,709 mt
2003 – 9,898 mt
G. gibberifrons
0 to 0.0001
1 to 100
100 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 5000
5000 to 20000
20000 to 40000
40000 to 180000
kg
MPAs, SSMUs, VMEs, etc. → MSP• The various tools are
mostly compatible
• Performance Review Report – provide “coherence” and “compatibility” of CMs
• Need to be practical in application – perhaps parsimony should provide the cost function?
• Ditch the term MPA?Grant (2009) – WG-EMM-09/09
Gaps, threats, and opportunities
• Gap – What about winter?
• Threat – How good will lines on a map be if climate change impacts the distributions of animals and ecosystem services?
• Opportunities – Facilitate collaboration, use “conventional” and “unconventional” information to develop management advice within a common framework, and provide an even broader foundation for ecosystem-based management.
Extending the Program and addressing climate change
• Identify new opportunities or re-prioritize existing work to facilitate data integration and analyses
• Use new and improved technologies to expand the spatio-temporal coverage of the AMLR field program
• Develop new habitat models, behavioral models, etc. and utilize downscaled IPCC scenarios to predict how the spatial distributions of animals and ecosystem services may change as functions of climate
2009/10 AMLR Extensions
Winter!
• Fur seals = 20 Argos PTTs + 10 solar powered geolocators
• Leopard seals = 5 Argos CTDs + 6 Argos PTTs
• Weddell seals = 5 Argos CTDs• Chinstraps = 15 Argos PTTs + 10 solar
powered geolocators• Gentoos = 15 Argos PTTs
Range extender?
• Collaboration with SWFSC Protected Resources Division, NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program, and NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
• 2 birds (1 long range, 1 short)• Calibration flights (including ship-
based launch and recovery) and proof of concept
Trigger Questions 1
Is the current approach sufficient? What should be expanded? What should be de-emphasized?
• Move beyond data collection towards data integration and analysis in a spatial management framework
• Need winter data relevant to spatial management
How should the AERD balance the collection of time-series data with project-based studies?
• Project-based studies can help fill “spatial holes” but multiple years often useful to confirm pattern
Trigger Questions 2
Are the AMLR survey areas and study taxa appropriate given the likely impacts of climate change?
• Expand south to characterize spatial baselines where animals may redistribute? Should we predict spatial distributions before we answer?
What specific aspects of climate change should be the focus of future research?
• Predict future habitats and distributions
• Consider adaptive boundaries