CCAMLR

Rev. 1 Note: This revision corrects minor transcription errors in Table 1.  These transcription errors were in relation to BANZARE Bank inside the Planning Domain.  No changes to the text have been made.

This paper summarises the scientific background to the proposed East Antarctica Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (EARSMPA), including why the EARSMPA will contribute to the Commission achieving the objectives of CCAMLR in Article II, in both conservation and in science relevant to the Commission; the science underpinning the design of the EARSMPA; and why each MPA is important to the EARSMPA.  It is a synthesis of previous submissions since 2010 to CCAMLR, SC-CAMLR and its working groups and workshops and utilises and refers to materials from the reports of the Scientific Committee since the first MPA workshop in 2005.  This paper shows how the EARSMPA is designed to:

• efficiently achieve its general and specific objectives and provide increased certainty over meeting the requirements in Article II for all Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR), notwithstanding the specific conservation objectives to be achieved for harvesting indicated in Article II paragraphs 3(a,b);
• enable the acquisition of knowledge on status and trends in the Southern Ocean ecosystem in different areas in order to adjust fisheries and other activities to achieve sustained conservation of AMLR; and
• facilitate correct attribution of the cause of changes to harvested, dependent or related species, whether that be by harvesting, environmental change or some other factor, in order that the Commission may respond correctly and in a timely manner to observed changes.
   

The Commission has asked the Scientific Committee to review the science supporting a joint New Zealand-United States proposal to establish a marine protected area (MPA) in the Ross Sea Region (RSR).  A substantial amount of material has already been presented to the Scientific Committee and its working groups, and here we provide an abridged and annotated summary of that material.  We organize our summary by linking spatial data to the specific protection and scientific objectives of the jointly proposed MPA, and we summarize science pertaining to coastal areas and the continental shelf, the continental slope, the Balleny Islands and vicinity, and the northern RSR.  A set of maps (provided in an Appendix) illustrates the distributions of animals and ecosystem process areas in relation to the boundaries of the jointly proposed MPA.  When all relevant distributions are simultaneously overlaid on a single map it is clear that the MPA can achieve significant protection and science outcomes, the latter of which may help the Scientific Committee to understand the ecosystem effects of fishing distinct from those of climate change and thus improve the management of toothfish fisheries generally.  To achieve the protection and science objectives of the jointly proposed MPA, the Commission will need to redistribute catches taken by the longline fishery for Antarctic toothfish.  About 20% of the historical catch taken by the fishery was removed from within the boundaries of the proposed MPA.  Although it is not possible to estimate a specific period of time for which the proposed MPA would need to remain in force, several decades are needed to deliver the science outcomes related to understanding the distinct effects of climate change and fishing.

I would like to initiate discussions at this year’s WG-EMM that focus on how we are going to engage a larger group of scientists working for a greater proportion of the year to develop FBM. Part of these discussions should focus on the practicality of implementing FBM – what would the scheme look like on the ground, how could it be resourced and how to involve the fishery operators in our discussions. Our aim is to implement a robust and practical FBM scheme as quickly as possible and we have to engage all stakeholders to do this.