Spain-UNEP LifeWeb Inter-regional Workshop on Broad-Scale Marine Spatial Planning and
Transboundary Marine Mammal Management
21-24 May 2012, Panama
WORKING DOCUMENT
Options for Building an Institutional Network for Marine Mammals
and Marine Spatial Planning
I. Background/Objective
1.
As one of the underpinning concepts of the present Spain-UNEP LifeWeb Project: "Broad-scale
Marine Spatial Planning of Mammal Corridors and Protected Areas in Wider Caribbean and Southeast
& Northeast Pacific”, countries may collectively benefit from exchanging both scientific information
and best management practices about shared migratory species, so as to sustain such species and the
health of ecosystems they depend on. While several intergovernmental agreements and informal
networks of experts exist in the two regions – the Eastern Pacific (Southeast and Northeast) and the
Wider Caribbean - whose scope may at least partially pertain to the issues of the LifeWeb project - there
may be a need for considering the establishment of a new platform for such networking to jointly
address transboundary management of marine mammals and marine spatial planning (MSP)
opportunities and challenges. This initiative may entail strengthening, expanding and/or linking existing
ones with a view of enhancing cooperation, improving effectiveness, bridging gaps and facilitating
coordination. For instance, there is no institutional framework at present under the auspices of UNEP,
such as a single Regional Seas Programme or other institutional arrangement that encompasses the
entire geographic range of a specific marine mammal migratory species along the Eastern Pacific region
(e.g. the humpback whale which is reported to migrate from Colombia as far north as Canada).
2.
One of the core elements of the LifeWeb Project (as described in its Component 4) is to “provide
policy guidance and institutional networking options to facilitate national/regional polices and protocols
underpinning transboundary governance”. At an initial scoping meeting for the project, it was agreed
to initiate “some institutional network and perhaps advisory group of experts, planners and decisionmakers that would work together toward MSP goals and protection for migratory marine mammals1.”
Further discussion was had about the value of creating a Pacific regional network to serve information
exchange purposes2.
1
LifeWeb Project Design and Planning Workshop: Decision Minutes and Overview of Project Components, 19-20 June
2010, Miami, USA.
2
Report of the Regional Workshop on Integration, Mapping and GIS analysis of Large Cetacean Migration Routes, Critical
Habitats and Human Threats in the Eastern Pacific, 26-28 May 2011, Salinas, Ecuador.
1
3.
The objective of the present working document is provide background for discussions on the
need for and potential scope of such a network, taking into account existing networks in the Eastern
Pacific and Wider Caribbean regions, as well as other successful network models.
4.
While the establishment of an institutional network for marine mammal and MSP experts might
be of importance in both the Wider Caribbean and Eastern Pacific regions, it is widely acknowledged
that the Wider Caribbean already has a very solid and interactive network for this purpose formed
through the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) and associated Marine
Mammal Action Plan. While the present document focuses more on network-building elements relevant
to the Eastern Pacific region, it is not intended to preclude consideration of options for strengthening
existing networks in the Caribbean region.
5.
The establishment of a network would provide an opportunity for Governments, scientists,
professionals and stakeholders to sustain momentum achieved by the present LifeWeb Project and build
upon the achievements and products after the LifeWeb end in December 2012.
II.
Identifying the Need for and Purpose of an Institutional Network for Marine
Mammals and Marine Spatial Planning
6.
One of the first issues to consider is the need and purpose for establishing a network . Among
such purposes would be: (a) provide a forum for an exchange of scientific information on shared marine
mammal species; (b) provide a foundation for exchange of best practices for management options; (c)
share updates about recent developments of interest, and possibly others.
7.
There are a number of different formal and informal arrangements existing in the Eastern Pacific
Region. For example, the South East Pacific Regional Seas Programme under the Lima Convention has
the following member countries: Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Panama. The North East Pacific
Regional Seas Programme under the Antigua Convention has as member countries: Colombia, Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama . The U.S., Canada and
Mexico have created a trilateral network through the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
known as NAMPAN (The North American Marine Protected Areas Network ). In the Caribbean
Region, the SPAW Protocol of the Cartagena Convention counts with 16 member countries: the
Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Barbados, the United States, the Netherlands, France, St Lucia, Grenada, St
Vincent and the Grenadines, Panama, Colombia, Guiana, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago and the
Dominican Republic. There is an informal network known as CaMPAM which includes countries in the
Gulf of Mexico and Wider Caribbean Region, as well as other thematic networks or groups including a
SPAW Working Group that developed the Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals in the
Wider Caribbean Region.
Consideration of Existing Institutional Arrangements Relevant to the Region as well
as Additional Working Models
III.
8.
It is helpful to examine both existing Regional arrangements as well as models for scientific and
manager networks as examples of what might be developed.
2
9.
The UNEP Cartagena Convention and the Caribbean Environment Programme: The
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean
Region (Cartagena Convention) is the only legally binding treaty that provides the legal framework for
cooperative regional and national actions in the Wider Caribbean Region. Intergovernmental meetings
are convened every two years on the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP)
alongside the Meeting of the Contracting Parties (COP). The Protocol Concerning Specially Protected
Areas and Wildlife (the SPAW Protocol), under Cartagena Convention, is designed to protect rare and
fragile ecosystems and habitats, including endangered and threatened species residing therein. A
Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee composed of scientific experts appointed by each Party,
was formed under the SPAW Protocol. Under CEP and SPAW several activities and networks are in
place such as the Marine Mammal Action Plan for the Wider Caribbean, CaMPAM and the Expert
Group on marine mammals for the Wider Caribbean (see below).
10.
Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals in the Wider Caribbean Region: this
Action Plan (Marine Mammal Action Plan – MMAP) has been developed by a dedicated working group
whose establishment was approved by the Parties to the SPAW Protocol. The Working Group is still
active and serves as a platform to exchange scientific and technical information on various issues
relevant for the MMAP. Furthermore, one of the priorities under the MMAP is to create a specific
Expert group where scientists and experts from the entire Region could participate in and provide
guidance on the implementation of the MMAP and other related activities for the conservation of marine
mammals. This Expert group is expected to replace the existing Working Group whose mandate has
expired with the adoption of the MMAP and in which the remaining exchanges are informal, sporadic
and opportunistic.
11.
Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management (CaMPAM) Network : CaMPAM was
created in 1997 under the framework of UNEP-CEP and SPAW Protocol of the Cartagena Convention.
CaMPAM is an informal partnership among managers, educators, NGOs, and other users of marine
protected areas (MPAs) in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region dedicated to building the capacity
of MPA management. Its core mission is to contribute to the creation and effective management of
MPAs in the Caribbean Region (including potentially MPAs for marine mammals as well as networking
between them). It has a dedicated Coordinator who is guided by a Leadership Team comprised of
partners, MPA practitioners and marine conservation scientists. Some of the activities of CaMPAM
include a “Training of Trainers course”, an Internet distribution list, annual scientific and management
technical sessions at the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, a Small Grants program, and a regional
MPA database.
12.
Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape Initiative (ETPS): The Governments of the Eastern
Tropical Pacific region have already taken important steps to promote regional collaboration, especially
with the "San José Declaration", signed in April 2004 by representatives of the Governments of Costa
Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador. The declaration formally establishes the Marine Conservation
Corridor of the Eastern Tropical Pacific between the islands of Cocos, Galapagos, Malpelo and Coiba as
an effective instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of the biological diversity of the Eastern
Tropical Pacific region. It also promotes increased application of relevant international conventions and
environmental laws through capacity building around World Heritage sites and surrounding areas.
3
There is a working group lead by Conservation International (CI) which includes NGOs, scientists,
managers and regional experts.
13.
The South Pacific Permanent Commission (CPPS): CPPS is the Regional Maritime Agency
responsible for the coordination of maritime policies of its member states: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador
and Peru. It was created on 18 August 1952, with the 'Declaration on Maritime Zone.” The Action Plan
of the Southeast Pacific”, to which Panama is also a member, has as general legal framework under the
agreement for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the Southeast Pacific, also
called "Lima Convention" of 1981 which contains provisions for parties to strive, either individually or
through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, to take appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and control
the pollution of the marine and coastal areas of the Southeast Pacific and to ensure a proper
environmental management of natural resources. Under the auspices of the Regional Seas Programme
and the Lima Convention, CPPS also serves as Secretariat for the Plan of Action for the Protection of
Marine Mammals in the South East Pacific which was adopted in 1991 by the five participating
governments to improve their conservation policies on marine mammals in the region. It also provides a
framework for regional and international cooperation.
14.
North American Marine Protected Areas Network (NAMPAN): Created under the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation, NAMPAN represents a tri-national network of resource
agencies, marine protected areas (MPA) managers, and other relevant experts, and is intended to
enhance and strengthen the conservation of biodiversity in critical marine habitats and help foster a
comprehensive network of MPAs in North America (Canada, US & Mexico). NAMPAN is a network of
both important marine places and the institutions and people connected with those places.
15.
Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP): The Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP) is an intergovernmental organization established in 1982, charged with promoting
cooperation, supporting protection and improvement of the Pacific islands environment, and ensuring its
sustainable development. SPREP Members comprise 21 Pacific island countries and territories, and
four developed countries with direct interests in the region. Cooperation is promoted under a Regional
Whale and Dolphin Action Plan (see item on CMS below) and a Longline Cetacean Discussion Group.
16.
International Whaling Commission (IWC): The IWC is a binding convention that has both
regular intergovernmental policy meetings as well as a scientific committee that meets regularly and
also provides a network of experts for exchange of technical information and preparation throughout the
year of scientific reports for consideration at the intergovernmental meeting.
17.
UNEP Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS)/ Scientific Council/
Aquatic Mammals Working Group: The mandate of this group, which serves as the Scientific
Council's expert group on marine and aquatic mammals, was substantively extended at the CMS 10th
Conference of Parties in Norway (November 2011). Much of its design is still in formation, along with
process and directives. It has a chair and will also carry out the Global Programme of Work for
Cetaceans (Res 10.15) by setting priorities for regional activities and by inviting regional experts to
4
participate. It is likely that regional sub-groups or thematic discussion groups will be formed if deemed
useful by committee.
18.
UNEP Convention on Migratory Species / Pacific Cetaceans Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU): This non-binding Memorandum of Understanding was concluded among
countries in the Pacific Islands Region in order to provide an institutional framework for regionally
coordinated conservation efforts for cetaceans. Developed in cooperation with SPREP, this MOU
serves to provide the specific expertise needed for cetaceans and facilitates the implementation of a
Whale and Dolphin Action Plan, which is closely based on that agreed in a SPREP framework.
Signatories of the MOU benefit from support and access to expertise beyond their region through the
CMS framework and strong support from both regional and global civil society organizations. The
CMS Secretariat serves as secretariat for the instrument. A Technical Advisory Group for the MOU is
coordinated through the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS). Meetings of Signatories
reviewing implementation, determining priorities and deciding on future actions are held every 2-3
years.
IV.
How Would Such a Network Operate?
19.
Option 1: A Virtual Network. One option might be modelled after ROLAC’s Climate Change
Programme online communication and exchange platform which includes a Calendar of Events,
Activities, Contacts, Inventory of Regional Centers of Excellence, Inventory of Regional & Global
Networks, Complementary UNEP activities, Feedback & Discussion, Resources & Useful Links. See:
https://sites.google.com/a/unep-rolac.org/regatta-beta/about.
20.
Option 2: Meetings & Information Exchanges: Another option may be to facilitate regular
group meetings alongside the margins of other existing meeting forums like the International
Conference for Marine Mammal Protected Areas bi-annual meeting, IWC or other more regionally
oriented meetings.
V.
Network Design Elements for Consideration
A. Eastern Pacific Region:
21.
Are there any gaps in the existing networks in the region for exchange of scientific and/or
management information on migratory marine mammals and MSP?
22.
Are there benefits for creating or expanding a network for marine mammals and MSP in the
Eastern Pacific where gaps exist?
23.
If so, what would the appropriate geographic scope and purpose of such a network be? Should
the scope track migratory corridors as the organizing unit, or should the network bring in expertise from
across various eco-regions?
24.
Who would be participants in such a network? Scientists, managers, stakeholders, others?
5
B. Wider Caribbean Region:
25.
Is there a need to supplement or strengthen the existing arrangements in the Wider Caribbean to
address the LifeWeb issues? (e.g. CaMPAM).
26.
How can we take opportunity of the Expert Group which establishment is included in the Action
Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals in the Wider Caribbean Region to promote stronger
institutional and expert networking?
27.
While the options above are not all inclusive, extensive or definitive, these are put forward for
consideration by Workshop participants in an effort to generate feedback and with the expectation of
being enriched from insights and discussions.
6