Download English - Caribbean Environment Programme

UNITED
NATIONS
EP
Distr.
LIMITED
United Nations
Environment
Programme
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
18 July 2005
Original: ENGLISH
Regional Workshop of Experts on the
Development of the Marine Mammal Action
Plan for the Wider Caribbean Region
Bridgetown, Barbados, 18-21 July 2005
MAJOR THREATS TO MARINE MAMMALS IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN REGION:
A SUMMARY REPORT
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 1
MAJOR THREATS TO MARINE MAMMALS IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN REGION:
A SUMMARY REPORT
Monica Borobia, Consultant to CEP, Fernando J. da Silva 42, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil 22723-310
1. Introduction
Marine Mammals are vulnerable to natural and mostly human-related threats, caused by activities
on land and at sea. They are affected by changes or interferences that adversely impact marine
ecosystems.
Together, public awareness, scientific research, legislation and education activities have been
responsible for advances in marine mammal conservation world-wide. Despite increased
conservation efforts, including the promotion of species recovery and other initiatives, several
marine mammal species are still threatened with extinction while some are in decline. Others,
while not endangered or threatened, remain below historical levels. On-going and emerging threats
continue to pose risks to this significant group of marine fauna.
There are reasons for concern about the status of marine mammals in the Wider Caribbean region
(WCR)1, where approximately one-fourth of the world's marine mammal species occur, but where
for many countries there is still minimal information on their biology and conservation needs.
Direct exploitation (hunting or live-captures) and incidental mortality (by-catch) in fisheries are
among these concerns. Coastal resources in the Wider Caribbean are under increasing pressure
from development and unsustainable land-use practices. The degradation of critical habitats is also
of concern in many areas. Other potential impacts such as pollution, acoustic disturbance and
tourism development have also been identified.
The present paper was drafted for the purpose of discussions at the Regional Workshop of Experts
for the Development of a Marine Mammal Action Plan (MMAP) for the Wider Caribbean. It
provides (1) a very general and brief overview of “major” threats to marine mammals in the WCR,
which encompass either known or potential threats that deserve attention in the context of the
development of a Marine Mammal Regional Action Plan and (2) an outline of some elements for
consideration at the Workshop to assist on possible ways forward in dealing with such threats and
on getting the MMAP “off the ground” in the WCR, based on some previous experiences and
approaches of relevance. The focus here is on cetaceans, considering that the Regional
Management Plan for the West Indian manatee (UNEP 1995) functions as the instrument for its
1
As defined by the Cartagena Convention means “ the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the
areas of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent thereto, south of 30º north latitude and within 200 nautical miles of the Atlantic coasts of the
States, and in addition, includes for the purposes of the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife-SPAW :
i.
ii.
waters on the landward side of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured and
extending, in the case of water courses, up to the fresh water limit; and
such related terrestrial areas (including watersheds) as may be designated by the Party having sovereignty and
jurisdiction over such areas.”
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 2
conservation and will be covered by other participant for the purpose of the Workshop. Similarly,
other papers and presentations will provide additional specific information for the WCR regarding
the topics covered in this paper.
2. Fisheries interactions
Indirect – By catch
Ecological impacts and mortality rates resulting from by-catches in world fisheries are significant,
affecting finfish (particularly juveniles of commercial species), benthic invertebrates, turtles, birds
and marine mammals.
The problem of marine mammal mortality as a result of interactions with fisheries has been well
known for decades and has been highlighted worldwide, particularly for cetaceans (Read and
Rosenberg 2002). However, progress in addressing the problem has been limited and by-catch has
been identified as the greatest immediate and well-documented threat to cetacean populations
globally (Reeves et al. 2005). While by-catch in gillnets remains a principal concern, incidental
mortality in other gear such as trawl nets also requires attention (Fertl and Leatherwood 1997) as
well as seines and longline gear.
Published information on by-catch of marine mammals in the WCR is scarce (Vidal et al. 1994).
While the US and Mexico have devoted efforts to the Gulf of Mexico, there is generally a lack of
systematic monitoring. The issue is aggravated as relevant data for a sound assessment of the
problem are also missing (e.g. abundance estimates, mortality levels, impact on reproductive
rates). Further, by-catch problems are complex to solve as they involve economic and cultural
dimensions particularly in smaller developing nations.
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
Several bodies and initiatives have attempted to mitigate or are in the process of addressing the
problem of marine mammal by-catch, nationally, regionally and internationally (Reeves et al. 2005
provide a summary of examples for cetaceans). While progress has been achieved, there is no
single, widely applicable solution to the problem.. Principal measures which have been used (alone
or in conjunction) and have contributed to evaluate the magnitude of by-catch and to reduce
marine mammal mortality include: (a) establishment of protected areas/sanctuaries; (b) prohibition,
restrictions in type of gear or closures (time/area) of the fisheries in question; (c) on-board
observer programmes; and (d) use of acoustic deterrent devices (i.e. pinger programmes) and gear
modification.
Pros and cons have been raised regarding various efforts in particular fisheries or marine mammal
species. Lessons learned from other regions and specific situations point out that support from
decision-makers and the general public is essential to engage action for the implementation of
mitigation measures. Technological options can work but require resources, adequate training and
the backing of regulatory framework and depend on the particular situation.
Reducing by-catch and discard of unwanted catch as a non-sustainable practice is presently the
policy of many States and for an increasing number of regional and sub-regional fisheries
2
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 3
management organisations and arrangements, including WCR states. For example, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela are engaged in a large, five-year
Global Project under execution by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for by-catch
reduction in shrimp-trawling, with Guatemala and Suriname also participating (FAO 2005).
A potential strategy for the WCR from the onset of the Action Plan, could be to strengthen
relationships and forge partnerships with fisheries bodies (e.g. the Western Central Atlantic
Fishery Commission FAO-WECAFC covering the WCR, with Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Japan,
Korea, Spain and EU as members) and existing observer programmes taking advantage of ongoing initiatives and expertise, particularly of countries such as the USA and Mexico that have the
most advanced general experience in by-catch reduction devices in the region. Such partnerships,
both nationally and regionally, are likely to contribute to more rapid: awareness of the by-catch
problem, foster dialogue, facilitate understanding of local fisheries interactions and assist
addressing by-catch systematically, including identifying barriers for an improved management
framework in the WCR. The involvement of key local and national fisheries stakeholders in all
stages of devising solutions and eventual implementation of measures is crucial.
Direct Exploitation
Baleen and sperm whales, as well as small and medium-sized cetaceans have been historically
exploited (as has the West Indian manatee) in the WCR. With the exception of the humpback
whale fishery in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, directed fisheries in the WCR usually target
small or medium-sized cetacean species. In his global review of the origins and character of
aboriginal subsistence whaling, Reeves (2002) reports on the takes of humpback and sperm whales
and other odontocetes in the Lesser Antilles. Further information on species known to be involved
will be provided by other workshop participants. The International Whaling Commission has set
catch Limits for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling of Humpback whales taken by Bequians of St
Vincent and The Grenadines, which shall not exceed 20 for the seasons 2003-2007. The quota for
the seasons 2006 and 2007 shall only become operative after the Commission has received advice
from its Scientific Committee that the take of four humpback whales for each season is unlikely to
endanger the stock.
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
Limited data are available for cetacean fisheries where all catches may not be systematically
reported in the Caribbean. Concern about direct takes applies particularly to small and mediumcetaceans, when compared to large whales, which is the responsibility of the IWC.
In the absence of an international regulatory framework addressing small and medium-sized
cetaceans, regional agreements, such as the SPAW Protocol and similar legislative instruments of
other UNEP Regional Seas Conventions (as well as other examples such as ACCOBAMSAgreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous
Atlantic Area and ASCOBANS-Agreement on the Conservation of Small cetaceans in the Baltic
and North Seas agreements under the CMS- Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals) assume particular importance as instruments to foster cooperation and
conservation of small and medium-cetaceans beyond national jurisdictions.
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 4
Often regional instruments can also facilitate and encourage the development and adoption of
national laws and guidelines where such regulations are not already in place. In this context, the
Regional MMAP should be seen as an opportunity to enhance regional and national WCR
capabilities to manage cetaceans, in line with the work of the IWC. As such, measures to advance
knowledge of life history parameters, abundance estimates and feasible systematic monitoring
should be devised for populations targeted for catch, recognizing the uncertain status of such
populations in the WCR.
3. Land-based and Marine activities
Tourism
- Whale and dolphin watching
Coastal regions and marine resources are vital components for the tourism industry in the WCR,
which receives over 32 million international visitors per year (UNEP 1997; Leeds Tourism Group
2004). The general trend is for expansion of tourism with travel to protected areas increasing
(UNEP 2005a). Worldwide, marine mammals have become a significant resource for tourism
with a number of countries in the WCR now offering whale and dolphin watching (Hoyt 1999;
2001).
Concerns arise when intensive and unmonitored boat traffic occur in areas of
reproduction, feeding and socializing of cetaceans increasing the risk of adverse effects to them.
- Captivity
Reeves et al. (2003) report of the issues surrounding live-captures and states: “Removal of live
animals from the wild, for captive display and/or research, is equivalent to incidental or deliberate killing, as the
animals brought into captivity (or killed during capture operations) are no longer available to help maintain their
natural populations. When unmanaged and undertaken without a rigorous program of research and monitoring, livecapture can become a serious threat to local cetacean populations... All too often, entrepreneurs take advantage of lax
(or non-existent) regulations in small island states or less-developed countries, catching animals from populations that
are already under pressure from bycatch, habitat degradation, and other factors”. They further document that
live-capture of bottlenose dolphins have occurred in recent years in Cuba, Bahamas and Mexico,
without adequate assessment of wild populations. Other papers will provide further details on
current captive marine mammals programmes in the WCR.
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
The challenge is effectively managing tourism to prevent it from compromising conservation
goals. In this respect, Reeves et al. (2003) suggest that as a general principle, capture or removal
from wild populations should not occur unless rigorous population assessments are conducted and
reviewed by independent scientists prior to any captures.
National experiences (e.g. humpback watching in the Dominican Republic, as one of the longest
established whale-watching activities in the WCR) in developing and adopting management
measures for whale and dolphin watching should be used along with other existing guidelines (e.g.
IWC’s “General Principles for Whalewatching”) towards adoption of responsible conduct
guidance in the WCR and improvement of specific regulations (as appropriate nationally and
4
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 5
regionally), particularly in the case of activity growth and expansion into potential new areas or
cetacean populations.
It is important that whale and dolphin watching are fully incorporated into tourism management,
both nationally and regionally, by Governments and private sectors. There may be still
considerable opportunity to mobilise and engage the private sector and tourism regional bodies in
the WCR as partner in the implementation of the Regional MMAP not only to promote best
business practices on interactions with cetaceans but also to support regional and national research
efforts towards obtaining basic biology knowledge of species. Current efforts of projects and
initiatives in the region on sustainable tourism development may function as useful platforms for
such a dialogue (for example, possibly the tourism component of the on-going GEF USAID/UNF
International Coral Reef Action Network-ICRAN Mesoamerican Reef project).
Pollution
Chemical and oil pollution, disease and biotoxins, and marine debris can be included under “key
pollution” threats to marine mammals.
Chemical pollutants (persistent organic pollutants-POPs i.e. PCBs- polychlorinated biphenyls are
of particular concern) are considered to have some impact on at least species and populations in
terms of reproductive fitness and disease susceptibility (Reijnders et al. 1999 and other reviews),
albeit difficult to determine definite cause and effect links.
The occurrence of marine mammal die-offs involving various species and regions, including
bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico (Duignan et al. 1996), have brought concerns about
cetaceans vulnerability to disease (e.g. morbilliviruses) and algal biotoxins (e.g. dinoflagellates“red tides”). Such events can be re-occurring and may severely impact species with low
abundance or limited range (Reeves et al. 2003).
The problem of marine debris pollution as a threat to the survival of marine wildlife is well
recognized (Laist and Liffmann 2000). In this context, potential impacts of derelict fishing nets,
ghost-fishing and ingestion of foreign matters on cetaceans in the WCR deserves attention.
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
Most of the countries in the Wider Caribbean Region have adopted legal instruments to control
various aspects pollution to coastal and marine waters, with varying degrees of practical
management and control. Several comprehensive regional projects are under way in support of
pollution control and the implementation of the regional Protocols concerning Pollution from
Land-based Sources and Activities (LBS Protocol) and concerning Co-operation in Combating Oil
Spills in the Wider Caribbean Region (Oil Spills Protocol) under the Cartagena Convention and
CEP’s programme on Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution.
Thus, similarly to question of tourism, the potential for integrating research activities (e.g.
assessing and monitoring exposure of cetaceans to contaminants) and management actions which
would contribute to address marine mammal conservation needs into such projects should be
investigated. For example: (a) an on-going US$ 26 million project “Heavily Contaminated Bays”
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 6
being implemented by the United Nations Development Programme-UNDP and UNEP-CEP and
(b) the Global Environment facility-GEF project “Reducing Pesticide Run-off to the Caribbean
Sea” which will develop National Action Plans for the improved management of pesticides in
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia.
4. Habitat Degradation
Coastal ecosystems are interlinked, with their functioning and resilience depending on dynamic
relationships among species, and physical and chemical interactions within the marine
environment. Habitat loss and modification is the principal factor in the decline of global
biodiversity. The primary causes of habitat loss in the WCR are developments for settlement,
tourism, and agriculture, as well as deforestation and pollution (UNEP 2005b).
Marine and coastal environments in the WCR contain diverse habitats including estuaries and
lagoons, mangroves, beaches, coral reefs and seagrass beds which are increasingly exposed to
stress from coastal development as well as increased fishing, pollution from land-based
(agriculture is a source of increased sediment, nutrient, and pesticide runoff) and marine sources
(oil discharge and spills, sewage, ballast and bilge discharge, and garbage dumping from ships),
and climate change (sea level rise, hurricanes as prone region) (Burke and Maidens 2004) .
All such habitats are of relevance to the life-cycle of marine mammals, specially for
inshore/coastal species of small cetaceans in the WCR, and also from the perspective of their prey
as spawning and feeding grounds and nurseries.
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
The most effective mechanism for conserving biological diversity is to prevent the destruction or
degradation of habitat. In this context, the definition of the WCR under the SPAW Protocol which
allows for consideration of watersheds under national jurisdiction, might be interesting from the
optics of maximizing the potential for habitat conservation, and also considering that the giant otter
(Pteronura brasiliensis) is listed in Annex II of the SPAW Protocol.
Among the approaches and tools that are already in practice in the WCR to reduce effects of
coastal development are coastal zone management (including zoning), environmental impact
assessment, planning and protected areas systems, with the latter being a long-standing key
component implemented under the SPAW Protocol. Governments can play a crucial role in
strengthening these and enforcing such management tools and regulatory options, as can the
private sector through partnership building and alliances in areas of common interest.
Of particular relevance are marine protected areas-MPA/sanctuaries and the importance of a
functional network and effective monitoring/enforcement. Various challenges are associated with
the management of protected areas, particularly in smaller developing nations (e.g. capacity
building of personnel, enforcement/conflict resolution, monitoring, stakeholder engagement). Over
285 MPAs exist in the WCR, but 6% of MPAs are rated as effectively managed and 13 % as
partially (Burke and Maidens 2004) . Nevertheless, experiences with the Marine Mammal
Sanctuary of the Dominican Republic which has been expanded from its original dimension and
humpback whale species coverage, points to MPAs as crucial instruments, specially when
6
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 7
encompassing critical breeding or nursery areas for cetaceans, although recognizing that such
areas may not always provide comprehensive protection to entire cetacean populations nor are the
only desirable measure to address threats.
5. Acoustic Disturbance
The effects of man-made sound on marine mammals has only recently received attention worldwide. Acoustic pollution may disrupt and inhibit feeding and reproduction, may exclude animals
from suitable habitat, or in the extreme may cause direct auditory damage and death (Taylor 2003).
There is also concerns about auditory masking and cumulative impacts of sound.
A broad range of groups/activities is involved as source including shipping/boating, oil and gas
(seismic exploration), research and military (sonars), which are at different stages of dealing with
their potential effects on marine mammals and working towards mitigation measures (e.g.,
geographical or temporal shifts in sound production) to reduce and prevent impacts. Countries in
the WCR have only begun addressing regulatory and other aspects related to ocean noise (e.g.
Venezuela, Bolaños-Jimenéz 2004). Acoustic pollution has been implicated with beaked whale
strandings in the Bahamas where studies have been on-going (Balcomb and Claridge 2001;
MacLeod et al. 2004).
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
Given the limited efforts in addressing ocean noise in the WCR and its transboundary nature,
regional cooperation is crucial, specially in terms of raising awareness of the issue as well as
adoption and consideration of its effects into management/regulatory instruments and legal
frameworks, as appropriate.
Bourke and Maidens (2004) report that most small vessels, including fishing, dive and recreational
boats, remain in coastal waters, but others, including commercial and oil transport and cruise
vessels, crisscross the Caribbean in an intricate network. The cruise ship industry is significant in
the WCR. It accounts for about 58 % of the world’s cruise ship passengers with its volume roughly
quadrupling in the last 20 years. The WCR is also an important oil-producing area where energyrich portions receiving seismic surveys for many years (e.g. Gulf of Mexico), with most of this oil
shipped within the region.
Industries and user groups should be encouraged to engage in the development and testing of
mitigation approaches. While, the effects of noise pollution on the behaviour, distribution and
health of WCR cetacean populations is far from being adequately address, concerns may be higher
for small, vulnerable populations, for areas used for important functions such as reproduction and
feeding.
6. Navigation hazards
Marks on the bodies of living individuals demonstrate that at least some animals can survive
collisions with vessels. Ship strikes are an important obstacle preventing the recovery of North
Atlantic right whales and have been documented for other species and regions (Reeves et al. 2003;
Félix and Van Waerebeek 2004).
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 8
Issues for consideration in the WCR context
As indicated previously shipping and vessel movements of different categories is widespread in the
WCR. The collection of data, including careful analysis of floating and beached carcasses may
prove helpful in assessing the occurrence and potential magnitude of marine mammal
injuries/mortality from ship strikes as well as regulatory requirements for the WCR.
Literature Cited
Balcomb, K.C. and D.E. Claridge. 2001. Mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the
Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8:1-12.
Bolaños-Jiménez, B., L. Bermúdez-Villapol, A. Sayegh, J. N. Mendoza M., and C. Balladares.
2004. Evaluation and Management of the Noise Impact on Marine Mammals in Venezuela - Legal
and Technical Aspects. Abstract. International Policy Workshop on Sound and Marine Mammals,
28-30 September 2004, London.
Burke, L. and J. Maidens. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. The World Resources Institute.
80pp. Washington, DC.
Duignan, P.J., C. House, D.K. Odell, D.K., R.S. Wells, L.J. Hansen, M.T. Walsh, D.J. St. Aubin,
B.K. Rima and J.R. Geraci. 1996. Morbillivirus infection in bottlenose dolphins: evidence for
recurrent epizootics in the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Mammal Sci. 12:
499–515.
FAO. 2005. PROJECT EP/GLO/201/GEF: Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical
Shrimp Trawling through the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of
Management. Project site: www.fao.org/fi/projects/projects.asp
Félix, F. and K. Van Waerebeek. 2005. Whale mortality from ship collisions underreported,
case studies from Ecuador and West Africa. Paper SC/57/BC1 presented to the IWC Scientific
Committee, Ulsan, Korea, May-June 2005.
Fertl, D. and S. Leatherwood. 1997. Cetacean Interactions with Trawls: A Preliminary Review. J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 22: 219-248.
Hoyt, E. 1999. The potential of Whale Watching in the Caribbean. Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society, Bath, UK.
Hoyt. E. 2001. Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures,
and expanding socioeconomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Laist, D.W.and M. Liffmann. 2000. Impacts of Marine Debris: Research and Management Needs.
Special Paper 2. Proceedings from the 4th International Marine Debris Conference on Derelict
Fishing Gear and the Marine Environment,6-11 August 2000, Honolulu, Hawaii.
8
UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/INF.4
Page 9
Leeds Tourism Group. 2004. Sustainable Tourism and Coastal Marine Management
in the Wider Caribbean, Leeds (UK): Leeds Metropolitan University.
MacLeod, C. D., N. Hause and H. Peckham. 2004. Diversity, relative density and structure of the
cetacean community in summer months east of Great Abaco, Bahamas J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 84:
469-474.
Read, A.J. and A.A. Rosenberg. 2002. Draft international strategy for reducing incidental
mortality of cetaceans in fisheries. Available from: www.cetaceanbycatch.org
Reeves, R.R. 2002. The origins and character of ‘aboriginal subsistence’ whaling: a
global review. Mammal Rev. 32: 71–106.
Reeves R.R, P. Berggren, E. A. Crespo, N. Gales, S. P. Northridge, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, W.
F. Perrin, A. J. Read, E. Rogan, B. D. Smith, and K.Van Waerebeek. 2005. Global Priorities for
Reduction of Cetacean Bycatch. WWF Workshop Report 29 pp.
Reeves, R. R., B.D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, (compilers). 2003.
Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’s Cetaceans.
IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix +
139pp.
Reijnders, P.J.H., A. Aguila, and G.P. Donovan (eds.). 1999. Chemical pollutants and cetaceans. J.
Cetacean Res. and Manage.(Special Issue) 1,Cambridge, UK.
Taylor, M. 2003. Habitat degradation in the context of climate change: A review of recent work.
Paper SC/55/E6 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2003, Berlin (unpublished).
16pp.
UNEP. 1995. Regional Management Plan for the West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus. CEP
Technical Report No. 35. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston.
UNEP. 1997. Coastal Tourism in the Wider Caribbean Region: Impacts and Best Management
Practices CEP Technical Report No. 38. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston.
UNEP. 2005a. Forging Links Between Protected Areas and the Tourism Sector, how tourism can
benefit conservation. UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Paris.
UNEP . 2005b . The Caribbean Environment Programme (home page). Marine Issues and Links.
Available from: www.cep.unep.org
Vidal, O., Van Waerebeek, K., and Findley, L.T. 1994. Cetaceans and gillnet fisheries in Mexico,
Central America and the wider Caribbean: a preliminary review. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special
Issue ) 15: 221–233.