Special Attributes. Sub-criterion Di: Distinctiveness Areas which sustain populations with important genetic, behavioural or ecologically distinctive characteristics. Sub-criterion Dii: Diversity Areas containing habitat that supports an important diversity of species. These criteria are not hierarchical in design. Any candidate IMMA need only satisfy one of the listed criteria or sub- criteria to successfully qualify for IMMA status. In practice, most cIMMAs satisfy at least two criteria. Any of the 8 IMMA criteria or subcriteria—after filtering by species (sperm, fin, blue etc) and overlaying ship traffic lanes to measure intensity—could potentially identify a place where ship strikes are an issue; there is no one criterion related to ship strike occurrence. However, Criterion A (Species or Population Vulnerability) indicates a threatened species so that could be an additional reason for conservation concern. Criterion Dii on Diversity will indicate multiple species in an area, some more subject to ship strike than others, so that could be an additional reason for conservation concern. Subcriteria Ci Reproductive Areas and Cii Feeding Areas may indicate more intensive use of an area than Ciii Migration Routes. Species spending considerable time in a given area thus may be more susceptible to ship strike if the ship lanes go through the IMMA. Migrating baleen whales indicate seasonal use of an area; sperm and other toothed, and potentially non-migrating baleen whales may have more consistent use of an area. IMMAs, by necessity, draw upon a wide range of data sources in order to assess the relative importance of an area against the IMMA selection criteria. As much as is possible, the data sources should be considered in ensemble. They are divided into primary and secondary currencies of information, considered most suitable for use in the assessment of the selection criteria for the identification of an IMMA. Primary currencies include, in order, abundance of animals, probability of occurrence, observed sightings, area of occupancy, extent of suitable habitat and range. The following secondary currencies of information are also useful to support the identification of an IMMA: records of habitat use, measures of difference, indices of diversity. Approaches that are able to quantify the number of animals likely to occur within a given cIMMA have the highest rank of confidence for potential IMMA end-users. The IMMA process relies upon experts to bring evidence to bear and to summarize it — in that sense it is a group expert participatory process (in contrast, for example, with the IUCN KBA identification process which relies on meeting strict numerical thresholds). The strength/ value of the IMMA tool lies partly in the robust standardized process that has been adopted for identifying IMMAs and putting them on the map. This standardized process being undertaken by the IUCN MMPA Task Force throughout the Southern Hemisphere and, hopefully, after 2021, in the Northern Hemisphere, subject to further funding, aims to create the best possible scenario for the successful integration of these scientifically identified areas into conservation and management. The IMMA network presently includes three regions: the Mediterranean, the Pacific Islands and the North East Indian Ocean and South East Asian Seas. Two additional regions are in process: the Extended Southern Ocean and the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Seas. Two additional regions are funded for 2020 and 2021: the Australia-New Zealand and South East Indian Ocean and the South East and Eastern Central Pacific Ocean. Other areas are under discussion but will not be attempted until after 2021. In the three completed regions, 77 IMMAs have been created, spread across 143 polygons, comprising 2,185,781 km2. The largest is 431,498 km2 in the ▇▇▇▇ Islands Southern Group and the smallest in 45 km2 Akrotiri IMMA (Cyprus), with an average of 28,386 km2. There are also 19 cIMMAs, and 87 AoI on the map and in the database. Of the 77 IMMAs, sperm whales are in 8% of the IMMAs, humpback whales in 7%, fin whales and Cuvier’s beaked whales both comprise 3%. 30 of the 77 IMMAs have as primary species sperm whales or large baleen whales (including Omura’s and ▇▇▇▇▇’▇). IMMAs have buffers, some more than others. Some have indications for zones or specific areas within the IMMA. Sometimes these are marked on the map; more often zoning is part of supporting material in the PDFs that accompany each area. These and other information about threats presented in the supporting material may help to identify areas with ship strike problems. The IWC Scientific Committee has been discussing ship strikes for around 20 years. The early discussions focussed on trying to develop methods to estimate the number of strikes in the context of assessing overall human impacts on populations and particularly those that may be subject to commercial whaling. Estimating the number of deaths from ship strikes has proven challenging in all except the most well studied populations. More recently, the SC has been working closely with the Conservation Committee and its Ship Strike Working Group to implement the IWC Strategic Plan to Mitigate the Impacts of Ship Strikes on Cetacean Populations. The IWC Ship Strikes Strategic Plan can be accessed here: ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇/document_▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ The overall objectives of the Strategic Plan are to: (1) To reduce mortalities and injuries to cetaceans as a result of ship strikes. (2) Increase the application of measures that reduce collision probability, such as re-routing and speed reduction/limits on a global scale. (3) Improve reporting of incidents that do occur to the IWC Ship Strike Database. (4) Increase development/use of avoidance technologies and push for their widespread-standardized where appropriate. (5) Improve collaboration on ship strike issues internationally (e.g. International Maritime Organization (IMO), other IGOs (ACCOBAMS, ASCOBANS), NGOs, Arctic Council). (6) Increase public and industry awareness about the issue and measures used to reduce this threat. The plan itself also attempts to: (1) define and identify areas in which ships and large whales frequently co-occur (“High Risk Areas”) (2) identify large whale populations vulnerable to decline in part due to mortalities associated with ship strikes (3) discuss the possible attributes of some ship strike avoidance technologies (4) identify the need for collaboration among key constituent sectors and (5) discuss the importance of inter-organization communication and the streamlining of data. The IWC has identified that reducing the spatial overlap of both high numbers of whales and high numbers of vessels is likely to remain the best means of reducing ship strikes followed by vessel speed reductions. High risk areas are defined in the strategy as ‘the convergence of either areas of high volume of shipping and whales, or high numbers of whales and shipping’. The Strategic Plan describes seven stages in identifying high risk areas and developing appropriate mitigation strategies (Table 1). The Scientific Committee has also identified specific aspects of these stages where it can contribute (Table 2). Stage 1 High risk area of potential concern identified based on overlap of shipping and whale distribution or a high number of reported incidents. Stage 2 Survey data for whales, AIS data for shipping used to inform risk analysis and local vs international jurisdiction. Stage 3 Consideration of possible practical options based on risk analysis. Recommendations from IWC Scientific Committee, IWC approaches relevant states to offer information and advice. Stage 4 Stakeholder workshops to discuss possible mitigation measures and optimize risk reduction with stakeholder interests. Stage 5 Relevant states consider proposals to IMO assisted by supporting information from IWC.
Appears in 1 contract
Special Attributes. Sub-criterion Di: Distinctiveness Areas which sustain populations with important genetic, behavioural or ecologically distinctive characteristics. Sub-criterion Dii: Diversity Areas containing habitat that supports an important diversity of species. These criteria are not hierarchical in design. Any candidate IMMA need only satisfy one of the listed criteria or sub- criteria to successfully qualify for IMMA status. In practice, most cIMMAs satisfy at least two criteria. Any of the 8 IMMA criteria or subcriteria—after filtering by species (sperm, fin, blue etc) and overlaying ship traffic lanes to measure intensity—could potentially identify a place where ship strikes are an issue; there is no one criterion related to ship strike occurrence. However, Criterion A (Species or Population Vulnerability) indicates a threatened species so that could be an additional reason for conservation concern. Criterion Dii on Diversity will indicate multiple species in an area, some more subject to ship strike than others, so that could be an additional reason for conservation concern. Subcriteria Ci Reproductive Areas and Cii Feeding Areas may indicate more intensive use of an area than Ciii Migration Routes. Species spending considerable time in a given area thus may be more susceptible to ship strike if the ship lanes go through the IMMA. Migrating baleen whales indicate seasonal use of an area; sperm and other toothed, and potentially non-migrating baleen whales may have more consistent use of an area. IMMAs, by necessity, draw upon a wide range of data sources in order to assess the relative importance of an area against the IMMA selection criteria. As much as is possible, the data sources should be considered in ensemble. They are divided into primary and secondary currencies of information, considered most suitable for use in the assessment of the selection criteria for the identification of an IMMA. Primary currencies include, in order, abundance of animals, probability of occurrence, observed sightings, area of occupancy, extent of suitable habitat and range. The following secondary currencies of information are also useful to support the identification of an IMMA: records of habitat use, measures of difference, indices of diversity. Approaches that are able to quantify the number of animals likely to occur within a given cIMMA have the highest rank of confidence for potential IMMA end-users. The IMMA process relies upon experts to bring evidence to bear and to summarize it — in that sense it is a group expert participatory process (in contrast, for example, with the IUCN KBA identification process which relies on meeting strict numerical thresholds). The strength/ value of the IMMA tool lies partly in the robust standardized process that has been adopted for identifying IMMAs and putting them on the map. This standardized process being undertaken by the IUCN MMPA Task Force throughout the Southern Hemisphere and, hopefully, after 2021, in the Northern Hemisphere, subject to further funding, aims to create the best possible scenario for the successful integration of these scientifically identified areas into conservation and management. The IMMA network presently includes three regions: the Mediterranean, the Pacific Islands and the North East Indian Ocean and South East Asian Seas. Two additional regions are in process: the Extended Southern Ocean and the Western Indian Ocean and Arabian Seas. Two additional regions are funded for 2020 and 2021: the Australia-New Zealand and South East Indian Ocean and the South East and Eastern Central Pacific Ocean. Other areas are under discussion but will not be attempted until after 2021. In the three completed regions, 77 IMMAs have been created, spread across 143 polygons, comprising 2,185,781 km2. The largest is 431,498 km2 in the ▇▇▇▇ Islands Southern Group and the smallest in 45 km2 Akrotiri IMMA (Cyprus), with an average of 28,386 km2. There are also 19 cIMMAs, and 87 AoI on the map and in the database. Of the 77 IMMAs, sperm whales are in 8% of the IMMAs, humpback whales in 7%, fin whales and Cuvier’s beaked whales both comprise 3%. 30 of the 77 IMMAs have as primary species sperm whales or large baleen whales (including Omura’s and ▇▇▇▇▇’▇). IMMAs have buffers, some more than others. Some have indications for zones or specific areas within the IMMA. Sometimes these are marked on the map; more often zoning is part of supporting material in the PDFs that accompany each area. These and other information about threats presented in the supporting material may help to identify areas with ship strike problems. The IWC Scientific Committee has been discussing ship strikes for around 20 years. The early discussions focussed on trying to develop methods to estimate the number of strikes in the context of assessing overall human impacts on populations and particularly those that may be subject to commercial whaling. Estimating the number of deaths from ship strikes has proven challenging in all except the most well studied populations. More recently, the SC has been working closely with the Conservation Committee and its Ship Strike Working Group to implement the IWC Strategic Plan to Mitigate the Impacts of Ship Strikes on Cetacean Populations. The IWC Ship Strikes Strategic Plan can be accessed here: ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇/document_▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ The overall objectives of the Strategic Plan are to:
(1) To reduce mortalities and injuries to cetaceans as a result of ship strikes.
(2) Increase the application of measures that reduce collision probability, such as re-routing and speed reduction/limits on a global scale.
(3) Improve reporting of incidents that do occur to the IWC Ship Strike Database.
(4) Increase development/use of avoidance technologies and push for their widespread-standardized where appropriate.
(5) Improve collaboration on ship strike issues internationally (e.g. International Maritime Organization (IMO), other IGOs (ACCOBAMS, ASCOBANS), NGOs, Arctic Council).
(6) Increase public and industry awareness about the issue and measures used to reduce this threat. The plan itself also attempts to:
(1) define and identify areas in which ships and large whales frequently co-occur (“High Risk Areas”)
(2) identify large whale populations vulnerable to decline in part due to mortalities associated with ship strikes
(3) discuss the possible attributes of some ship strike avoidance technologies
(4) identify the need for collaboration among key constituent sectors and
(5) discuss the importance of inter-organization communication and the streamlining of data. The IWC has identified that reducing the spatial overlap of both high numbers of whales and high numbers of vessels is likely to remain the best means of reducing ship strikes followed by vessel speed reductions. High risk areas are defined in the strategy as ‘the convergence of either areas of high volume of shipping and whales, or high numbers of whales and shipping’. The Strategic Plan describes seven stages in identifying high risk areas and developing appropriate mitigation strategies (Table 1). The Scientific Committee has also identified specific aspects of these stages where it can contribute (Table 2). Stage 1 High risk area of potential concern identified based on overlap of shipping and whale distribution or a high number of reported incidents. Stage 2 Survey data for whales, AIS data for shipping used to inform risk analysis and local vs international jurisdiction. Stage 3 Consideration of possible practical options based on risk analysis. Recommendations from IWC Scientific Committee, IWC approaches relevant states to offer information and advice. Stage 4 Stakeholder workshops to discuss possible mitigation measures and optimize risk reduction with stakeholder interests. Stage 5 Relevant states consider proposals to IMO assisted by supporting information from IWC.
Appears in 1 contract