Download Annex 2 - IOSEA Turtles

Draft- IOSEA MoU Site Network White Paper
Executive Summary
The Indian Ocean-Southeast Asia region is home to six species of marine turtle, all of
which are important for the conservation of biodiversity. These highly migratory species have
suffered serious decline in recent years in the region, and are currently listed as either
endangered or critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). Many factors have led to this decline, including exploitation for meat, eggs, and shells,
fisheries bycatch, habitat destruction and degradation, pollution, and poor management practices.
Marine turtles depend on specific habitats for various phases of their life cycle, including
suitable beaches for nesting and coastal waters for foraging and reproduction. Yet the importance
of many of these coastal habitats – critical not only for marine turtles, but for a wide range of
biodiversity – is often not recognised. This lack of awareness and understanding of their
ecological value may lead governments to sanction inappropriate development of areas at the
expense of resident biodiversity; with adverse consequences also for the coastal communities
that rely on the services provided by these ecosystems.
In response to these concerns, the IOSEA Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding
has proposed creating a network of sites, centered on marine turtles as a flagship species, in
order to: (1) provide for the effective protection and conservation of critical coastal habitats that
might otherwise not receive such status; (2) enhance recognition of their ecological significance
among decision-makers and other stakeholders; (3) stimulate international collaboration among
managers of sites with common conservation challenges; and (4) promote opportunities for
community development and participatory resource management centered on marine turtles.
1
IOSEA member States have already agreed in principle to pursue the proposal put forth
by the Secretariat which lays out the purpose, goals, and conception the site network. (See
Paragraphs 36-39 from Report of the Fifth Meeting of the IOSEA Signatory States and
Document MT-IOSEA/SS.5/Doc.6.2) By looking at the body of protected site networks already
in existence, it is clear that the IOSEA site network could be implemented in a number of
different ways. Three possible courses of action emerge, and each approach has pros and cons in
terms of the implications for marine turtle conservation and cost-effectiveness. This document is
intended to assist the member States as they consider which approach would best serve their
goals and the goals of the IOSEA MoU.
Origins of the Site Network Concept
A network of sites critical to the conservation of sea turtles was first proposed by the
IOSEA Secretariat at the second meeting of the Signatory States in 2004. The Secretariat
suggested that a Marine Turtle Site Network (MTSN) would be a valuable tool to help fulfill the
main objective of the IOSEA Memorandum of Understanding, which is “to protect, conserve,
replenish and recover marine turtles and their habitats, based on the best scientific evidence,
taking into account the environmental, socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the
signatory States.” The proposal, inspired by existing site networks protecting migratory birds,
outlined the theory behind the site network concept as well as the expected advantages to marine
turtle conservation. It makes clear that the MTSN would directly support several objectives of
the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) which serves as the blueprint for implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding. Chief among these are Objectives 2 and 5, which call for
member states to, respectively, “Protect, conserve and rehabilitate marine turtle habitats,” and
“Enhance national, regional and international cooperation.” The MTSN would also facilitate
2
Objectives 3 and 4 which call for a better understanding of marine turtle ecology through
research and monitoring as well as increased public awareness of, and more participation in,
mitigating threats to marine turtles and their habitats, respectively. Clearly delineated sites
would serve as ideal monitoring points throughout the region. Recognizing these sites for their
importance to marine turtles would raise the profile of these particular conservation sites also
with respect to other associated biodiversity.
With these motives in mind, at the 2006 Meeting of Signatory States in Oman, the
Secretariat introduced a revised version of the MTSN proposal which received broad support
from the Signatory States (Appendix 1). Unfortunately given time and budget constraints, the
Secretariat has not been able to further develop the concept. At the 2008 Signatory State
meeting in Bali, the Signatory States decided to set up an intersessional working group to further
explore the concept, particularly formulating a set of selection criteria for judging the merit of
sites proposed for inclusion in the network. The Advisory Committee has given its
recommendations on this subject, identifying a preliminary list of selection criteria (Appendix 2).
They suggest that sites be included based on a combination, but not necessarily all, of the
following characteristics:

Ecological and biological significance

Current protection and management status

Research and monitoring significance

Socio-political importance

Relevance/significance of site to overall conservation goal of IOSEA
3
While the development of MTSN concept has progressed since the idea was first presented in
2004, there still seems to be some confusion or divergent views about several aspects of the
eventual network; chiefly, how will the sites be evaluated for selection and ultimately chosen,
and what obligations, if any, would be required of each site in terms of management, research,
and training. The purpose of this document is to help clarify some of the issues surrounding the
MTSN by examining the nature of a wide sample of existing site networks and presenting
options as to how the IOSEA could envision the final MTSN.
Existing Site Networks
There is a wide range of site networks already in existence that serve a wide range of
objectives. (Please see the Appendix 3 for a more detailed description of the 17 site networks
examined for this comparison.) Both the process of selecting sites and the selection criteria used
vary considerably between networks. At one end of the spectrum are the Caribbean Marine
Protected Area Network, the Mediterranean Protected Area Network, and the network
maintained by the Regional Intergovernmental Organization for the Conservation of the
Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA). These entities could be considered
the most “hands-off” version of site networks. They leave the selection of sites to the discretion
of the States, essentially combining sites from several national site networks into one database.
Therefore, they do not operate under one uniform set of selection criteria. In this case the goal of
the network is to promote exchange and interaction between sites throughout a region, which is
also one of the goals identified for the MTSN. This would be very useful from a conservation
and efficiency standpoint given that these countries share common marine resources and site
managers could share expertise, education materials, etc. In addition, inclusion of sites in the
network does not entail any additional legal protection on the part of the participating States.
4
A more active approach can be found in many of the bird sanctuary networks, such as the
Western Hemisphere Shore Bird Reserve Network, the Important Bird Areas (IBA) Programme
of Birdlife International, the European Commission’s Birds Directive, and flyway-wide network
efforts. These networks do solicit applications for sites and evaluate the applications based on
specific criteria. However, the criteria for acceptance are based primarily on quantitative
measures, making the selection procedure fairly straightforward and less rigorous than other
networks that take more factors into account. The bird networks use the guidelines developed in
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands to determine whether or not an area is “internationally
important” for conservation: if it supports 20,000 individuals or 1% of the individuals of a
population, it is considered internationally important. For the Convention on Migratory Species’
African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement and the Important Bird Area network, for instance, this
fact alone is enough to include it in the network. While sites can be included that do not quite
meet that threshold if they support waterbirds at a crucial point in their life cycle, the quantitative
measure is the primary factor in the selection process.
An interesting aspect of the Western Hemisphere Shore Bird Reserve Network is that
sites are required to report annually on population trends and conservation activities. This turns
the sites into important tools for shorebird monitoring. This could be a useful strategy for the
IOSEA MTSN to incorporate, especially since marine turtles can be difficult to track and
monitor. However, this does entail placing an extra burden on the Signatory States, which may
be reluctant to commit the resources needed to generate these reports. However, IOSEA
Signatories have already produced rudimentary Site Data Sheets (some 700+ of them) for
inclusion in the Online Reporting Facility, so it might not require too much effort to produce
more detailed summaries for a limited number sites to be included in the MTSN.
5
Finally, the most hands-on approach to creating a site network can be seen in several
networks that carefully weigh a broad list of criteria to choose only the sites that best capture the
interaction between humans and the environment. These are agreements such as the World
Heritage Convention, UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere program, the ASEAN Declaration on
Heritage Parks, and Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance. These networks
take into account both the social and ecological characteristics of a site in order to determine its
importance. They also require serious commitments from the member States. Each site must
have a management plan in place to be considered for the network and considerable research
must be done to demonstrate the importance of the site across the wide range of selection
criteria. From the provisional list of criteria developed by the IOSEA Advisory Committee, it
seems this is the type of selection process that may be envisaged in relation to the IOSEA
MTSN. While the potential scope of the MTSN remains undefined, IOSEA Signatory States
should consider if it is likely that States will be willing to make such a commitment to
nominating and maintaining sites for a MTSN should their number be very large.
Options for Moving Forward with the IOSEA MTSN
Based on the breadth of topics the Advisory Committee has identified for consideration
of site selection, there are three main directions that the IOSEA could go when moving forward
with the site network. These can be broadly categorized as a simple database approach,
piggybacking on an existing habitat-based approach, or developing a new species-habitat hybrid
approach. These classifications refer to the overall purpose of the site network; each may be
used independently or in conjunction with another. Each of these approaches has advantages and
disadvantages, which we will discuss in the following sections.
6
I. Database cataloging of sites that have already been given a “protected” status
As mentioned earlier, this type of site network is designed to serve as a simple catalogue
of all the protected sites that fit under a certain category, usually defined by geographic area.
These networks are generally not based on uniform “selection criteria” like many other site
networks; rather, they are an effort to compile various existing, ongoing conservation efforts of
several countries in the region into one convenient database and provide a forum for protected
site managers to discuss and share their experiences and best practices. Examples of this type of
network include the Caribbean MPA Network, the PERSGA MPA Network, and MEDPAN.
These types of networks are very inexpensive to establish since each country has already done
the necessary work to identify, nominate, and designate these protected sites. At a very low cost,
a ‘static’ database network would give stakeholders (site owners, managers, organizations,
communities in or near the site, etc.) a valuable resource in which to share information and
possibly gain modest recognition for their site from the international community of stakeholders.
The IOSEA website appears already to offer a framework for this sort of network under
the guise of the Projects Database. This database has information on marine turtle conservation
projects conducted throughout the region by government and non-government entities. With
considerable modification, this could serve as a template for a new database created for a MTSN
– which might, for example, show the details of each site, why each was selected, the important
social and ecological aspects of the site, and the conservation activities at that site. In fact, the
IOSEA Online Reporting Facility already strives to do much of this already, in the form of Site
Data Sheets. An additional, front-end application would have to be developed to make certain
attributes of these Data Sheets ‘searchable’. A companion message board could serve to further
facilitate information exchange among network sites. It appears the IOSEA Secretariat is already
7
working towards the message board concept through its efforts to establish a Discussion Forum.
Modifying these existing initiatives (the Project Database, Site Data Sheets, and Discussion
Forum) to support the MTSN would be a relatively simple and inexpensive way to foster
international collaboration. However, a static database with no additional monitoring or
management requirements may not be sufficient to generate dynamic interchange among
network sites or indeed contribute significantly to the conservation of marine turtles on the
ground. In light of this, perhaps a database-type network could be seen as one component of the
MTSN in conjunction with another network type.
II. Habitat-based Approaches - Identifying important eco-systems and establishing a
mechanism to protect them
Many site networks in existence are focused on protecting resources at the habitat or
ecosystem level. Perhaps the best-known example of this type of site network is the Ramsar site
network under the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The convention seeks to preserve the
diversity of wetland types found on the planet, thereby protecting the species found within those
wetlands. Although the convention does allow sites to be designated “internationally important”
based on a large population of an individual species, the focus is squarely on preserving wetlands
as a unique habitat and the biodiversity found within those habitats. Similar approaches to
biodiversity conservation can be found in the EC Habitats Directive, the United States network
of Marine Protected Areas, and ASEAN Heritage Sites. All these site networks primarily use the
ecological significance of the site – either in terms of uniqueness or habitat representativeness –
as the criteria for inclusion in the network.
8
The main benefit of this type of network is that it protects the ecological system as a
whole, not just one specific part of it. Rather than trying to create a site network from scratch,
the IOSEA MoU could use pre-existing habitat-based site networks, such as the Ramsar List, and
select the sites that are important for sea turtle conservation (See Appendix 4 for Ramsar sites in
the IOSEA region identified as important for turtles). Twenty-seven of the 30 current IOSEA
member states are also parties to the Ramsar Convention. These sites could then receive
additional ‘recognition’ under the auspices of IOSEA. This would spare IOSEA new
development costs and avoid new operational costs to the Signatory States by building on
infrastructure already in place. Because many of the IOSEA governments have already gone
through the process of nominating these sites, IOSEA could be assured, in principle, that
Signatory States are committed to protecting them.
However, a major disadvantage of this piggy-backing approach is that most of these sites
were not chosen based on their importance to sea turtle conservation specifically. Indeed, for
most of them, any benefits to sea turtles are likely to be ancillary. It is probable that many more
sites of critical importance to sea turtles, outside these networks will not have met the criteria
specific to the habitat-based site networks. Therefore, adopting this “piggybacking” approach
alone would be sub-optimal for protecting sea turtles. Moreover, the Ramsar list does not
include sites found in Eritrea, Oman, or Saudi Arabia, since these three IOSEA MoU Signatory
States that are not party to that convention.
For these reasons, the “piggybacking” approach
would likely be more effective as a useful reference from which to expand the MTSN rather than
a stand-alone method for constructing the network.
III. Species-Habitat Hybrid Approach - Establish a site network using marine turtles as
flagship species
9
A purely species-based approach to site networks focuses on selecting areas that are
important for the conservation of a specific species or group of species. Since this approach
would be targeted specifically to marine turtles, it is arguably the most effective for their
conservation since it would focus attention on their needs at each stage in their life cycle and
would ideally be able to identify and close gaps where marine turtles are offered inadequate or
no protection. In reality, however, members States with a wide range of biodiversity to
conserve, as well as major donor agencies, may not be prepared to allocate considerable
resources for the apparent benefit of only a single species. While a species-by-species approach
might be the best way to conserve those particular species, it is probably not the most costeffective way to conserve biodiversity overall. States and funding agencies have to consider the
“big picture” when investing in biodiversity conservation, and it is unclear whether they would
be willing to fund the research and management efforts necessary to establish a site network
primarily for sea turtles.
Herein lies the importance of situating core marine turtle conservation activities within a
broader habitat conservation framework, which would have substantial benefits not only for
other elements of biodiversity, but also for the coastal communities of people who depend on
these resources. For the ‘academic’ purpose of defining/framing the network, the site selection
criteria would be based on marine turtles – ideally multiple turtle species – as a charismatic
flagship animal that can underpin and drive the network activities. However, for it to be
ecologically and socially relevant and deserving of financial support, the network should have
goals, activities and tangible benefits that go beyond ‘mere’ marine turtle conservation.
Fortunately, a model for this approach exists in the form of a successful six-year Global
Environment Facility (GEF) project in Asia which supported the conservation of wetlands
10
chosen primarily on the basis of their importance for a single highly endangered migratory bird,
the Siberian Crane. Comparable to the sentiments evoked by marine turtles, this magnificent
bird is a flagship species in its own right. While the underlying motivation for the project was
the conservation of the Siberian Crane – hence the name “UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetland
Project” – in reality the project activities extended to the realms of protected area designation,
water resource management, community participation/co-management, environmental education
etc. A Marine Turtle Site Network might be expected, eventually, to deal with similar issues in
areas selected primarily because of their importance for marine turtles, but with consequences
and benefits extending far beyond the conservation of a single or even multiple turtle species.
The site network need not begin necessarily with such an ambitious objective; nor would
it necessarily entail in the initial stages major, additional resources on the part of participating
countries. In the first phase, an important goal would simply be to identify the sites of
importance, based on the agreed criteria, and facilitate a process that would enable Governments
to formally recognise those sites by granting them status within the Site Network. The more
ambitious components of the site network – described in the concept paper and recognised as its
ultimate overarching objective – would be developed as the necessary resources were secured.
The process of selecting sites for the network could be informed by existing habitat-based
networks, to the extent that they meet the ‘relevance criteria’ for marine turtles, supplemented by
highly critical marine-turtle specific sites that are not included in other networks. This would
allow the IOSEA to improve sea turtle conservation by recognising and protecting sites that were
not previously protected, but it would also provide a way to raise the profile of marine turtle
conservation at existing protected sites without placing high demands on member States.
11
This approach would obviously be more resource intensive than a simple database
approach – in terms of time, financial resources, and investment in personnel – to identify and
manage the network sites. However, if the network were to be founded on the basis of areas of
importance for multiple species of marine turtles, and be further justified on compelling
ecological and socio-political grounds, the overall benefits arising from all of the activities
associated with the site network would be greatly amplified.
12
Appendix 1- Proposal for the establishment of a network of sites of importance for marine turtles of
the Indian Ocean – South-East Asia (IOSEA) region (Version: February 2005)
Appendix 2 – IOSEA Advisory Committee recommendations (Annex 2 to IOSEA SS5 Report)
Appendix 3 - Comparison of Existing Site Networks
Appendix 4- List of Ramsar Sites of importance for sea turtles
13