Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.
Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.
CONTENTS PROLOGUE 00 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 00 INTRODUCTION 00 Box I.1 Critical habitat 00 Box I.2 Ecosystem-based management (EBM) 00 Box I.3 The precautionary approach 00 Table I.1 Top dozen whale watching countries and their MPAs for cetaceans 00 1 OCEAN SANCTUARIES, MARINE RESERVES OR PARKS? 00 [a]History of marine protected areas and cetaceans 00 Table 1.1 List of international cetacean sanctuaries and high seas MPAs: existing and proposed 00 Table 1.2 List of national cetacean sanctuaries: existing and proposed 00 [a]Ocean sanctuaries, marine reserves or parks - which one and why 00 Table 1.3 Marine protected areas - names in use around the world 00 Box 1.1 IUCN management categories I-VI for protected areas (PAs), also applied to marine protected areas (MPAs) 00 Table 1.4 The management objectives of the various IUCN MPA/PA categories 00 [a]Biosphere reserves - a strategy for thinking about MPAs 00 [a]Defining critical habitat 00 Box 1.2 Activities excluded from core areas and buffer zones: a proposed management regime for cetacean protected areas 00 [a]Networks of MPAs 00 [a]High seas MPAs 00 Table 1.5 Cetacean species and the location of their critical habitat 00 Table 1.6 International and regional treaties, conventions and other agreements with a bearing on MPAs and the conservation of cetaceans 00 2 WHY SPOTLIGHT WHALES, DOLPHINS AND PORPOISES? 00 [a]Introduction 00 [a]Red List assessment of cetacean species, subspecies and populations 00 Table 2.1 IUCN Red List status designations 00 Table 2.2 Key to world marine regions 1-18 00 Table 2.3 Baleen whales. World distribution and status of species, subspecies and key populations 00 Table 2.4 Toothed whales: sperm and beaked whales. World distribution and status of species, subspecies and key populations 00 Table 2.5 Toothed whales: river dolphins, belugas and narwhals. World distribution and status of species, subspecies and key populations 00 Table 2.6 Toothed whales: ocean dolphins. World distribution and status of species, subspecies and key populations 00 Table 2.7 Toothed whales: porpoises. World distribution and status of species, subspecies and key populations 00 [a]The value of cetaceans for marine-based conservation 00 3 CREATING BETTER MPAs FOR CETACEANS: STEPS TOWARD THE DESIGN, ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS FOR CETACEANS 00 [a]Basic principles 00 [a]Cetacean habitat needs 00 [a]The value of ecosystem-based management 00 [a]Steps to creating better MPAs for cetaceans 00 Box 3.1 Summary of basic requirements for an MPA 00 4 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING CETACEANS TO COMPLEMENT AND SUPPLEMENT MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 00 [a]Conservation strategies for cetaceans besides MPAs 00 [a]Other pragmatic approaches 00 5 HABITAT PROTECTION FOR CETACEANS AROUND THE WORLD: STATUS AND PROSPECTS [a]Introduction 00 Table 5.1 Marine regions: countries, biogeographic zones and key treaties 00 [a]Marine Region 1: Antarctic 00 Case Study 1: Ross Sea - time for nations to act 00 Box 5.1 Notes about the marine region tables (5.2-5.21) in Chapter 5 00 Table 5.2 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Antarctic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 2: Arctic 00 Case Study 2: Svalbard - A complicated protection regime 00 Box 5.2 The view on MPAs in Iceland 00 Table 5.3 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Arctic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 3: Mediterranean 00 Case Study 3: Pelagos Mediterranean Sanctuary for Cetaceans 00 Table 5.4 Mediterranean and Black Sea cetaceans belonging to appendices of international conventions, directives and agreements 00 Table 5.5 Cetacean Research in the Mediterranean, focusing on the Pelagos Mediterranean Sanctuary for Cetaceans 00 Case Study 4: Regno di Nettuno MPA 00 Box 5.3 Legislation on MPAs and cetaceans in Italy 00 Table 5.6 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Mediterranean marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 4: Northwest Atlantic 00 Case Study 5: Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 00 Box 5.4 The flagship US national marine sanctuaries programme 00 Box 5.5 MPA developments in Canada 00 Table 5.7 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Northwest Atlantic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 5: Northeast Atlantic 00 Case Study 6: Shannon River Estuary Special Area of Conservation 00 Case Study 7: Irish Whale and Dolphin Sanctuary 00 Table 5.8 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Northeast Atlantic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 6: Baltic 00 Table 5.9 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Baltic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 7: Wider Caribbean 00 Table 5.10 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Caribbean marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 8: West Africa 00 Table 5.11 MPAs and sanctuaries in the West African marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 9: South Atlantic 00 Box 5.6 Brazil: A wide variety of MPA designations 00 Box 5.7 Argentina: provincial and national laws for wild cetaceans 00 Table 5.12 MPAs and sanctuaries in the South Atlantic marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 10: Central Indian Ocean 00 Table 5.13 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Central Indian Ocean marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 11: Arabian Seas 00 Table 5.14 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Arabian Seas marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 12: East Africa 00 Table 5.15 MPAs and sanctuaries in the East African marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 13: East Asian Seas 00 Case Study 8: Komodo National Park, proposed for expansion 00 Box 5.8 MPAs and cetaceans in Indonesia 00 Table 5.16 Indonesian laws regarding cetaceans and cetacean habitat 00 Table 5.17 MPAs and sanctuaries in the East Asian Seas marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 14: South Pacific 00 Box 5.9 A whale sanctuary for the Cook Islands 00 Table 5.18 MPAs and sanctuaries in the South Pacific marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 15: Northeast Pacific 00 Table 5.19 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Northeast Pacific marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 16: Northwest Pacific 00 Box 5.10 Do MPAs really exist in Japan? 00 Box 5.11 MPAs in Russia 00 Table 5.20 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Northwest Pacific marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 17: Southeast Pacific 00 Case Study 9: Galapagos Marine Resources Reserve and Special Whale Sanctuary 00 Table 5.21 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Southeast Pacific marine region 00 [a]Marine Region 18: Australia/New Zealand 00 Table 5.22 MPAs and sanctuaries in the Australia-New Zealand marine region 00 Epilogue 00 Table E.1 Total sanctuaries and MPAs with cetacean habitat in each marine region 00 References 00 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 00 List of Figures 00 List of Tables 00 List of Boxes 00 List of Case Studies 00 Index INTRODUCTION There are three main driving forces behind this work: 1 The habitat needs of cetaceans - the 84 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises - have been neglected. Marine habitat conservation has lagged behind land conservation. Within marine habitat conservation, cetaceans may be featured in certain reserves but are their needs being adequately met? In most cases the answer is no. We need to look carefully at identifying and protecting critical habitat for cetaceans (see Box I.1). The habitat of these wide-ranging animals is best protected through ecosystem-based management approaches (see Box I.2), using a carefully selected network of marine protected areas (MPAs), modelled along the lines of biosphere reserves, or zoned protected areas, which include both highly protected marine reserves as well as zones to allow human uses such as well-managed marine tourism and fishing. MPA regimes can address some or even most cetacean habitat protection needs, but it is useful to maintain a broad approach to conservation efforts on behalf of cetaceans to include other ecosystem-based protection and management strategies, international conventions and treaties, and other pragmatic approaches. 2 There is more research and information on cetaceans than ever before - though large portions of it are difficult to access. The past three decades have seen the success of photographic identification (photo-ID) and other benign methods of studying cetaceans, including radio and satellite tagging and biopsy of skin and blubber for genetics and to measure contaminant loads and, most recently, diet. This has been the era of studying whales from live animals rather than carcasses, and with these studies, whales and dolphins have revealed certain details of their habitat needs, in many cases for the first time. There remain large gaps with most cetacean species, especially those that spend their lives in deep waters on the high seas, but the growing body of work is exciting, substantial and ready to be acted upon. Yet much cetacean habitat literature remains buried in unpublished reports, conference abstracts and proceedings, sighting databases, conservation organization newsletters, and papers in little known journals that are not easily accessible or known to protected area managers and conservationists who focus on habitat issues. Research-compiling tools such as SEAMAP are starting to address this gap by making species distribution and oceanographic data fully available on the web (see p00). Still, there is much, much more that has never been collected or written down - the local knowledge and wisdom of field biologists who come into contact with cetaceans; whale watch operators and their teams of naturalists, researchers, volunteers and others who spend long days year in and out with whales and dolphins at sea; as well as those who watch from fishing boats, cruise and container ships, private yachts and other ships. Finding, processing and using this knowledge is much more difficult. This document, with its basic details on each proposed or existing MPA, should be seen as a starting point - a grass-roots document to assist with local conservation and to forge new links and connections to existing networks. 3 Cetaceans, because of their educational, scientific and economic value, as well as, in general, their need for large conservation areas, may provide a key to protecting ocean habitats and bringing large new areas under conservation management (Hoyt 1992; Agardy 1997; Augustowski and Palazzo 2003). Some cetaceans are rare or endangered and this provides the most basic conservation rationale. Still, it must be kept in mind that single species or exclusively cetacean-oriented approaches are generally of limited value. The best conservation projects consider the entire ecosystem, monitoring and protecting animals, plants and microorganisms, as well as considering people. They integrate marine areas with coastal communities. Such projects can only come from people with broad ecological and social perspectives. Unlike ocean management on a multijurisdictional basis in which different species are managed separately by various agencies that apply regulations independently of each other, an ecosystem-based management model provides the best approach. That means managing human interactions with ecosystems in order to protect and maintain ecosystem integrity and to minimize adverse impacts. This requires a whole ecosystem approach through ongoing scientific analysis and a commitment to adapt management practice quickly when new information signals a need for change. However, in adopting an ecological, high biodiversity-oriented approach, whales and dolphins should not be overlooked as they have in the past. Pragmatically, cetaceans attract public awareness and tourism, and they require a large habitat area, which can protect many other species. As long as calls for cetacean MPAs are underpinned by solid ecological studies, they may well produce great gains for many more - if not most - of the species involved, including humans. [!box!] Box I.1 Critical habitat Critical habitat refers to those parts of a cetacean's range, either a whole species or a particular population of that species, that are essential for day-to-day survival, as well as for maintaining a healthy population growth rate. Areas that are regularly used for feeding (including hunting), breeding (all aspects of courtship) and raising calves, as well as, sometimes, migrating, are all essential critical habitat, especially if these are always or regularly used. Unlike land-based critical habitat, however, marine critical habitat boundaries may be less fixed, especially in terms of hunting and feeding areas which are dependent on upwelling and other ever changing oceanographic conditions. Baleen whales, for example, are known to feed in and around upwellings which vary depending on local and large scale oceanographic conditions to some extent during a season and from year to year. The implication for MPA design is that more flexible definitions of marine protected areas for cetaceans are needed in some cases. This document argues for larger overall biosphere reserve-type areas which would include a number of flexible, highly protected 'core areas' corresponding to cetacean critical habitat with boundaries that could be adjusted as needed from year to year or even within seasons. Such adjustments should be adaptive, constantly reviewed and sensitive to signals from the wider environment. To achieve this fine-grained kind of critical habitat management, it will be necessary to unravel and understand ecosystem processes and the impacts that humans can have on such processes. An appropriate tool for this is ecosystem-based management (see Box I.2). Critical habitat for cetaceans is a fairly new idea, yet to be fully explored, much less implemented. In the comprehensive US blueprint for MPAs, 'critical habitats' are areas 'such as spawning grounds, nursery grounds, or other areas harboring vulnerable life stages' (Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources 2000). According to this document, 'the primary consideration for implementing marine reserves should be the needs of each biogeographical region based on protecting critical habitats.' It is becoming clear that identifying the critical habitat of cetaceans, the crucial core areas, will be the first step toward good marine management of MPAs with cetaceans. Much research over the next few decades will be focused on defining, locating and understanding the parameters for cetacean critical habitat. Some of these are conventional geographical aspects and others are the more fluid oceanographic parameters such as temperature, salinity and current. For example, recent studies attempting to quantify cetacean habitat patterns in the California Current using a broad suite of oceanographic data was 48 per cent successful in predicting cetacean presence, ranging from 70 per cent for Dall's porpoises to less than 10 per cent for fin whales (Reilly et al 1997). As understanding and measurement of the appropriate parameters becomes sharper, this predictive ability should improve. Thus, critical habitat may be defined as not only the fixed and seasonally changing boundaries of the places cetaceans habitually use, but the less- or non-geographically-based conditions that more precisely define such an area as critical habitat. What we need to do now is, adopting a precautionary approach, conserve sufficiently large marine areas which include cetacean hot spots as well as the areas that we believe may have such conditions so that we can ensure that the options for future conservation are left open. [!box ends!] [!box!] Box I.2 Ecosystem-based management (EBM) Ecosystem-based management is a regime to manage the uses and values of ecosystems with all stakeholders to maintain ecological integrity in the face of the uncertain and ever changing nature of ecosystems. To maintain a healthy marine ecosystem, conservation management needs to uncover through research and take into consideration all the key links within the ecosystem, as well as to manage human activities and their impacts. It is necessary to manage fisheries, chemical and noise pollution, vessel traffic, climate change, agriculture and industrial activities that produce runoff, offshore oil, gas and other mineral industries, among other things, to minimize adverse impacts and to maintain a healthy functioning ecosystem. Ecosystem-based management as a management regime grew out of the widely acknowledged failure of single species management, primarily of fisheries. It is a management regime that seeks to include all the relevant stakeholders. In some countries, it is called 'ecosystem management'. Ecosystem-based management requires an ongoing research commitment to unravel and model the complex linkages in marine ecosystems. And, where knowledge is lacking, a precautionary approach should be invoked to protect the ecosystems which nourish all life and life processes in the sea. The creation of effective marine protected areas is an important way to exercise the precautionary principle to protect ecosystems while research is carried out. In recent years, those in favour of marine mammal, shark and other large predator culling, as well as whaling, have sought to use the language and ideas of ecosystem-based management to argue for so-called fisheries protection - killing predators in a misguided attempt to protect commercial fish stocks. At the same time, some fisheries lobbies have also called for research into trophic interactions which would include killing animals to learn about what they eat and how they function in an ecosystem. Ecosystem research is desperately needed but there are benign techniques available to study what animals eat and associated trophic interactions without killing those animals or disturbing or destroying the complex ecosystems that we are all trying to understand. We are a long way from the Victorian era approach of killing animals to study their life history and ecology. Culling marine predators and other actions that seek to manipulate, disturb or destroy the ecosystem have no place in ecosystem-based management. In The Politics of Ecosystem Management, authors Cortner and Moote (1999) comment that 'Ecosystem management breaks new ground in resource management by making the social and political basis of natural resource management goals explicit and by encouraging their development through an inclusive and collaborative decision-making process. Ecosystem management is based on an ecosystem science that integrates many disciplinary approaches and addresses the ecological issues at very large temporal and spatial scales. Given the recognized complexity and dynamic nature of ecological and social systems, ecosystem management is adaptive management, constantly being re-assessed and revised as new information becomes available.' [!box ends!] In February 1992, I attended the IV World Parks Congress (World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas) in Caracas, Venezuela, which focused world expertise on marine protected areas as one of the main themes. From more than a hundred MPA theorists and practitioners in attendance, there were papers and reports on MPAs, but only two of them even mentioned whales and dolphins. Back then, whales and dolphins were not really on the habitat conservation agenda of countries, agencies or MPA practitioners. This was due in part to the move away from the idea of protecting species, even so-called charismatic megafauna, and a determination to follow ecological criteria. It was also because the relatively recent knowledge about cetaceans and cetacean habitat was just beginning to filter through to MPA workers. The expertise on marine protected areas, through IUCN and other international agencies, drew heavily on the personnel and experience from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, one of the first large marine protected areas and the best studied and managed. The problems of protecting shallow water coral reef habitat for species fixed to the sea floor differ from the demands of trying to protect cetacean habitat for species that sometimes cross ocean basins. The detailed nature of this publication is the result of my own determination and that of WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, to ensure that cetaceans receive the full benefits from MPA conservation. By the time I started researching this book in 1997, things had started to improve a little for cetacean habitat protection. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all gone through extended national debates on MPAs and part of the result has been the identification and naming of a number of MPAs that feature or include cetaceans. The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Arctic Programme has fostered a circumpolar MPA network that is showing results. The European Community, through its Habitats and Species Directive and the growing Natura 2000 network, has stimulated interest and work on small cetacean reserves in Europe. And the tremendous worldwide growth of whale watching (the number of whale watchers more than doubled between 1991 and 1998 from approximately 4 million to 9 million) has led to a number of MPA proposals with built-in socioeconomic rationales (Hoyt 2001). In April 1999, in Peter G H Evans and Erika Urquiola Pascual's presentation on 'Protected Areas for Cetaceans' at the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Cetacean Society, held in Valencia, Spain, they reported that fewer than 3 per cent of all the 1,300 marine protected areas around the world had been established with cetaceans primarily in mind and that half of all 'cetacean MPAs' had been set up in the previous ten years (Evans and Urquiola 2001). This works out to no more than 39 MPAs with cetaceans. In the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, Reeves (2002) prepared a list of 'protected or managed areas intended, at least in part, to benefit marine mammals'; nearly 50 areas specifically feature cetacean habitat. Using wider criteria than Evans, Urquiola and Reeves, and newer research, this book reports the existence of many more existing and proposed MPAs that include cetacean habitat - more than 500 in all (see tables in Chapter 5, pp000-000, and the epilogue, p000). Still, we remain at the dawn of habitat protection for cetaceans. The challenge now will be to obtain high quality habitat protection for cetaceans, improving on and extending the protection in existing MPAs, and building on various cetacean conservation initiatives. To date, most MPAs have taken their lead from land-based protected areas (PAs) in terms of size, boundaries and management strategies. With few exceptions, MPAs tend to be of similar size to PAs. Yet the world ocean occupies nearly three times as much surface area as the land. Using this ratio as a guideline, MPAs ought to be at least three times the size of, or three times more numerous than, land-based parks. The Durban Accord and Action Plan from the V World Parks Congress in 2003 stated that approximately 12 per cent of the world's land area has protected status compared to less than 1 per cent of the world ocean and adjacent seas. This 'less than 1 per cent' may indicate some progress since 1995 when Kelleher et al reported only 0.5 (half a) per cent for all MPA protection but the sea still lags well behind the land. The sea differs fundamentally from the land and requires new ways of thinking and new approaches for conservation. Compared with land, the ocean is not only a horizontal but also a vertical, three-dimensional world, with different biomes, and accompanying species and ecosystems, occurring at different layers of the water column to a depth of seven miles (10 km) in the deepest trenches. Vast streams of water funnel across oceans, on the surface and at depth, carrying nutrients, planktonic life, larval forms, as well as contaminants, in isolated tubes or great fans of water. Columns of water sometimes flow from the sea bed to the surface, or vice versa, shifting on a seasonal basis or in response to climatic fluctuations. Land is comparatively static, while the oceans are mobile, active environments. In view of all this, how large should MPAs be and what level of protection should they have? The larger and better protected, the more they will help replenish marine species and restore ecosystems, say Callum Roberts and Julie Hawkins (2000), citing considerable evidence in their excellent Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide. Yet there is demonstrated value even for the smaller MPAs, as long as they contain substantial portions which are highly protected core areas, rated IUCN Category I, also known as no-take reserves (Ballantine 1995). Still, if MPAs are smaller, then it is important that there are many more of them, forming effective networks, and that the protection is much greater in each one. The problem with MPAs today is that few of them contain highly, or fully, protected core areas. The father of MPAs in New Zealand and a strong proponent of full protection, Bill Ballantine, says that we should aim for 10 per cent of the world ocean to be in fully protected MPAs. And, in a recent joint statement entitled 'Troubled Waters: A Call to Action', more than 1,600 scientists and conservationists declared that we should aim for 20 per cent of the sea as fully protected MPAs by the year 2020. Other calls, mainly to address the worldwide collapse of commercial fisheries, have suggested between 20 and 50 per cent of the sea to be protected to enable over-exploited fish stocks to recover. But much depends on the degree of human impact (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Where human impact is low, 5 per cent may be enough; where it's high, 30 per cent may not be enough. Roberts and Hawkins and many other experts feel that 20 per cent is a minimum average goal, with some areas and habitats needing less protection and others more. The consensus from MPA practitioners around the world at the V World Parks Congress was that at least 20-30 per cent of each marine and coastal habitat should be in highly protected IUCN Category I areas. Yet, according to Roberts and Hawkins (2000), only an estimated 0.0001 (one ten-thousandth, or 0.01 per cent) of the world ocean exists in fully protected marine reserves. Even if this rough estimate is off by a power of ten, those who would protect the world ocean, restore exploited habitats and replenish depleted species have an awesome task in front of them. The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973-82) established territorial seas for coastal countries extending up to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from their coastlines. Furthermore, UNCLOS instituted the idea that countries could claim management jurisdiction of natural resources to the limits of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) automatically extending from 12 nm (22.2 km) to 200 nm (371 km) and out to 350 nm (649 km) if the country can prove that the continental shelf extends uninterrupted. This means that the sea bed within these so-called 'EEZs' can be leased or given away as part of oil or mineral rights, and the fish and other resources in the water itself can be exploited. The countries themselves are responsible for management. Some countries have disputed EEZ claims, have conflicts with neighbouring countries or territories, or have not for one reason or other staked a claim. Others are now in the process of claiming the extra area between 200 nm (371 km) and 350 nm (649 km), based on the latest mapping, with all claims due by 2009 (see Figure I.1). With continental shelf extension claims for as many as 60 countries amounting to 5 per cent of the total ocean sea floor, or 5.8 million square miles (15 million sq km), this marine and sea-bed grab will redefine national territories and the high seas in the next decade (Malakoff 2002). Yet the situation for the rest of this decade is that roughly half the surface area of the world ocean remains in international waters. This is the so-called high seas. The culture of the high seas - with its long history of open access and its role as shipping highway and hunting ground (fish, seals, whales) - has been slow to come under national or international management. Still, international laws, treaties and conventions are beginning to address the means for managing, or jointly managing, the high seas. It is hoped that concern over protecting critical cetacean habitat, and application of the precautionary approach (see Box I.3) to allow for the large gaps in our knowledge, will lead researchers, conservation organizations and governments to ensure that important high seas habitats are protected too, devising new strategies as needed. [Insert Figure I.1] Figure 1.1 The Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the World Ocean This world map shows the limits of the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the nations of the world as of 2004, which generally extend from 12 nm (22.2 km) to 200 nm (371 km) of the coastline of every country. Some of these EEZ's are due to expand over the next decade to up to 350 nm (649 km) depending on whether a country can prove that the continental shelf extends uninterrupted to this extended limit. The result is that more of the high seas will come under national jurisdiction in the future. Still, a substantial area remains on the high seas, and it will require international agreement and cooperation to designate MPAs with critical habitat protection for cetaceans and ecosystem-based management principles. [!box!] Box I.3 The precautionary approach An MPA may be seen as a demonstration of the 'precautionary approach' (a term which originated from discussions of the so-called precautionary principle), which has been widely discussed and defined in recent years as a way to respond and act in the absence of information or scientific proof (Mayer and Simmonds 1996). The precautionary approach considers and incorporates uncertainty to facilitate the decision-making process when knowledge or scientific proof is unavailable. It also ensures that a lack of certainty doesn't stop all action or decision-making. The precautionary approach has become widely accepted across various scientific disciplines, in government as well as private and international arenas. Still, practical implementation of the precautionary approach in terms of conservation in general and ecosystems-based management and cetacean management in particular is still in the early stages. A precautionary approach to decision-making for ecosystems-based management means that 'when in doubt, err on the side of conservation' (Sissenwine and Mace 2001). It can be said that ecosystem-based MPAs and MPA networks, which assist in the management of the whole ecosystem, facilitate the multiple objectives of marine management, including the protection of habitat, biodiversity and fisheries. This approach is the best insurance against uncertainty, effectively embodying the precautionary approach. For a precautionary approach to work, marine policy that includes ecosystem-based management and creation of MPAs must be set up to be explicitly precautionary. In addition, the assessment and periodic reassessment process must be fully precautionary. Finally, the burden of proof for showing that there are no unacceptable ecosystem risks or impacts rests with industry including commercial fishing, shipping, mining and other resource extraction. [!box ends!] Some scientists and conservationists involved with cetaceans have dismissed marine protected areas as being unsuitable and ineffective for protecting cetacean habitat. They have multiple objections: ** The size or scale required to protect cetaceans is not covered by conventional protected area models. ** Cetacean habitat needs are too fluid or difficult to define in terms of providing specific, defined habitat protection areas. ** Cetacean MPAs do little more than allow governments the chance to say that they are doing something for conservation when clearly they are not. Yet more than anything, a marine protected area for cetaceans becomes what stakeholders make of it. Better design and planning in the early stages helps - using ecosystem-based management and ensuring that critical habitats are protected. Of course, there will be limitations of size, legal recourse, and the need to share marine resources. Still, increasingly, MPAs are seen as 'works in progress' that have the capacity to improve and change. It is clear that MPAs require the support and leadership of all stakeholders, including scientists and conservationists, to make them work. A declared MPA signifies a positive intention toward a piece of habitat. It is never an end point. In most cases, real protection requires more than the declaration or the declarer (government agency) ever imagined or intended. That's how it must be - if protection is ever to endure, adapt and function for the desired purpose. There are now and will be in future many other uses for and competing interests in the sea. An example is El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (La Reserva de Biosfera El Vizcaino) in México. The Mitsubishi salt works lobbied the Mexican Government for expansion and was determined to push ahead with development in the gray whale's 'protected' habitat in the lagoons. Perhaps in another time, another country, the development would have proceeded without complaint. Certainly, it would have in México had there not been substantial protest. México's Grupo de los Cien (the Group of 100), together with international conservation groups and scientists, led a determined effort that eventually paid off when the Mitsubishi Corporation backed off. Today, the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve is much stronger for the threats it has faced and overcome. [Insert Figure I.2] Figure I.2 El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve The El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve is a zoned MPA, assembled from several gray whale refuges dating from 1971 when Laguna Ojo de Liebre was made the first whale refuge by Presidential decree. Laguna San Ignacio, first protected in 1979, and also part of the biosphere reserve, is the core of the reserve - the only primary gray whale breeding/calving area in Mexico that remains unaltered by industrial development. In Nov 1988, the entire lagoon complex was officially designated a Unesco MAB biosphere reserve and World Heritage site status followed in 1993. El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve has a long history as a meeting place of gray whales and humans - from the whalers who almost made them extinct to the whale watchers who have presided over their return to their original numbers. It is not an MPA merely on paper. But even a 'paper MPA' can be better than no recognition, no MPA at all. Of course, there is the danger that MPAs encourage the public and government to feel that they are doing something for cetaceans and that cetacean habitat problems are being solved, when in many cases they are not. A paper MPA cannot be allowed to block real conservation efforts. Some paper MPAs were created in good faith without a recognition that an effective MPA takes time and considerable effort to implement. Part of the problem is the length of time needed for the public process to develop and install a management plan. A paper MPA is at least a starting point. It's not just worth 'as little as the paper it's printed on'; it is something that represents the interest and effort of all the people who want to make the paper mean something, indeed much more even than what it may say. Thus, the bottom line is that I believe that we must work within the system, as it were, to make protected areas work, as well as, at the same time, to do all the other things we can to assist with conservation (institute better laws; seek to develop networks of protection through international agreements, such as the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS); ensure that the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and other trade laws and conventions are enforced; promote education regarding cetacean hunting, incidental kills and pollution.) Yet, despite my enthusiasm in general for MPAs, I will endeavour to be critical in my assessments of the proposed and existing MPAs described in the tables for each marine region in Chapter 5. How well do the hundreds of existing MPAs in this volume conserve cetacean habitat? The answer is that, in a few limited areas, MPAs are trying to do an important job for cetaceans and cetacean habitat, but by and large, around the world, cetacean habitat, inside and outside protected areas and international sanctuaries, is little recognized, largely undescribed, marginally protected at best and being degraded every day. In some cases, the animals are being killed in conflicts with fisheries, shipping traffic or pollution of one kind or another such that any habitat protection is rendered almost worthless. In few areas is the management responsive to the seasonally changing habitat needs of cetaceans - if they are even known. It is depressing - but at least these MPAs are something to build on. On the positive side, I see considerable ground for optimism in the numbers of people who are thinking and talking about MPAs for cetaceans. Some of this comes through the growing awareness of the need for more MPAs in general. But perhaps even more of it comes through cetacean tourism. The 10 million or more people a year who go whale watching have built a constituency for cetaceans and MPAs, particularly in the US, Canada, México and a few other countries (see Table I.1). Whale watching occurs in 495 communities and each of these communities has a predictable, accessible population of cetaceans. Even though many of these areas have not been formally identified as cetacean habitat with the suite of studies necessary to confirm this, such predictable cetacean areas are a good indication of future possible cetacean MPA sites. Others, of course, are already MPAs and are using the 'brand name recognition' in various positive ways such as: Stellwagen Bank, New England, USA; Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, California, USA; and Silver Bank Humpback Whale Sanctuary, which was re-named Marine Mammal Sanctuary of the Dominican Republic in 1996. Table I.1 Top dozen whale watching countries and their MPAs with cetaceans Country Whale watchers (land + sea) Whale watching communities Existing MPAs with cetaceans Proposed MPAs with cetaceans MPAs with cetaceans, proposed for expansion 1 USA 4,316,537 90 18 3 1 2 Canada 1,075,304 78 9 12 3 3 Canary Islands 1,000,000 5 12 1 0 4 Australia 734,962 46 38 9 2 5 South Africa 510,000 20 18 3 1 6 New Zealand 230,000 30 2 3 1 7 Ireland 177,600 5 0 8 0 8 Brazil 167,107 14 16 1 0 9 UK 121,125 12 0 6 0 10 México 108,206 14 5 1 0 11 Japan 102,785 23 2 0 0 12 Argentina 84,164 9 17 0 2 __________________________________________________________________ Sources: Hoyt (2001) and data for this book. MPAs do not include national or international cetacean sanctuaries, or MPAs found in overseas island territories belonging to each country. Data for 2003 from the Canary Islands shows 500,000 whale watchers due to stricter controls and permits since the reported number in Hoyt (2001). One of the most valuable ways for a marine protected area to earn money including foreign exchange is through sustainable tourism. In MPAs with cetaceans, whale watching has the power to bring significant revenues into nearby communities. Of course, whale or dolphin watching is successful in waters in many areas of the world which are not part of MPAs. But MPAs which feature or include cetaceans have the added attraction or lustre of a protected area designation. It gives the place where the whale watching occurs a name, an identity, a brand, rather than being an ordinary or nameless piece of ocean (IFAW 1999). The MPA designation becomes a statement of the importance of the area and the whales that live there, as well as a way to sell whale watching and marine tourism. For those who believe that sustainable tourism is an important part of conserving marine ecosystems, MPAs provide a powerful, convincing method for marketing the marine environment. Of course, not every part of every MPA should necessarily be open to tourism. Using the biosphere reserve model, or multi-zone approach, protected areas are commonly divided into various zones which include highly protected core areas, mixed zones allowing tourism and light use, and transition zones with more extensive use and development. Yet managing such areas can be complex. As with any MPA, managers cannot simply erect a fence around it. MPA practitioners must remain open to new management approaches and procedures, as well as scientific findings, as they arise. In the four-volume series A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, the most common refrain, region by region, country by country, is that management programmes are lacking (Kelleher et al 1995b). Since this series was written, awareness of the need for management plans - prepared through a public stakeholder process - has grown, yet, worldwide, most MPAs still require improved management to fulfil their mandates. This comment will be a common refrain in the assessments of individual MPAs in this volume. Besides more and better management, the overall feeling among cetacean scientists is that MPAs that would include cetaceans need more research, improved design, better protection and generally increased size in order to serve the often complex, wide-ranging needs of cetaceans. Some areas do address cetacean needs effectively but these are in the minority. At least, today, there is a growing realization of the importance of protecting cetacean habitat. In Chapter 3, I will recommend a strategy for protecting cetacean habitat, presenting a step-by-step plan for making a good cetacean-based MPA. Some of the details, of course, will vary from place to place but this will provide specific goals to strive for. The key to the process will be determining the critical habitat needs of each population of each species, and ensuring overall ecosystem-based management. Still, to the question of how well MPAs can ultimately protect cetacean habitat, there is no definitive answer. We are just learning the basics about most of the 84 species of cetaceans and their specific habitat needs. Certainly, postage stamp size MPAs are not and will never be the answer for conserving cetaceans. And echoing concerns from various authors (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Birkun 2002; Reeves 2001), I agree that even large, well-designed and managed MPA networks will not be enough by themselves. From within MPAs as well as outside them: ** We need to cut down on the amount of pollution flowing off the land and into rivers and seas. ** We need to ensure that human activities in the sea (fishing, shipping, large-scale whale watching and other marine tourism) do not make it difficult or impossible for cetaceans to live and thrive. We need good marine protection laws and good enforcement of these laws - in national as well as international waters. ** And with all these things, since we are still learning about the best management to maintain or improve an area, we need to invoke the precautionary approach often. We need to recognize that marine protection, as well as management, is an evolving, iterative process in which we learn by doing and then evaluating the results. It is particularly important that the management structures and limitations put in place at the creation of a new MPA do not restrict or hinder the evolution to better management. The 21st century will almost certainly see unprecedented use of the world ocean for international shipping; fishing and mariculture; oil, gas and mineral development, as well as, unfortunately, its traditional use as world dumping ground, including wastes from land. Much of this is fuelled by growing world population - currently considered most likely to peak at around 9 billion in 2070 - 50 per cent more people than the 6 billion alive today (Lutz et al 2001, Wilson 2002). Another factor is human technological prowess that will enable exploration and development in the deep high seas. Our task, those of us who care about cetaceans, is to make a place for cetaceans in the sea - to ensure that what is rightfully theirs and has been for millennia - is well protected. The main thing to say about MPAs is that we must start somewhere. MPAs, such as they are, provide one starting point for protecting cetacean habitat. It remains for us now to take up the challenge and build on this, to take these areas that appeal to tourism marketing boards as well as to ministries of the environment wanting to be seen to be doing something, and to extend them as needed, to help shape the policies and to participate actively in the management. Over time, it is only by taking up the challenge of each area, to fulfil the dreamed-of mandate, that we can hope to turn these into powerful, enduring marine conservation tools - not end points, but living, working tools - for local communities, for the world at large, for whales and dolphins.
Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:
Cetacea -- Conservation.
Cetacea -- Habitat.
Marine parks and reserves.