The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

C H A P T E R

4 The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area: towards the establishment of marine spatial protection within international waters in the Southern Ocean P.N. Trathan, S.M. Grant British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Abstract The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (SOI SS MPA) was the first MPA established in international waters anywhere in the World Ocean and as such was a landmark conservation achievement. Here, we consider how the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) overcame historical over-exploitation to implement a precautionary ecosystem-based management framework that continues to evolve over time. We describe the background to the designation of the SOI SS MPA, in the context of CCAMLR’s ambition to implement a system of spatial protection that will provide a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of MPAs that will contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine systems, maintain ecological processes, and protect Antarctic marine biodiversity at all levels. We highlight the bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning approaches used by CCAMLR and describe how CCAMLR has now adopted a formalised process for designating MPAs to ensure that common principles and practices are in place across the CAMLR Convention Area. We discuss how continued designation of further MPAs is now falling short of the initial ambition. Only two MPAs have been agreed, while three others are under active consideration, but with little progress towards designation. The SOI SS MPA was the first to be implemented by CCAMLR, it helped shape the MPA debate during its earliest stages by providing concrete examples of planning approaches, data requirements and steps towards designation. It was a catalyst that helped shape and form the general framework for further MPA development. The SOI SS MPA was the first to offer a draft research and monitoring plan, and to report on MPA research activities during review. The SOI SS MPA remains part of a process that has not yet reached its final conclusion.

Marine Protected Areas https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00004-6

67

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

68

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Keywords: Albatrosses and petrels; Antarctic krill fishery; Benthic ecology; Bioregionalisation; Demersal fisheries; Pelagic ecology; Pygoscelis penguins; Systematic conservation planning; Weddell front.

Introduction Marine protected areas as a tool for conservation in the Southern Ocean Following commitments made by nations in 2002 (WSSD, 2002) to establish a global, representative network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) agreed to prioritise discussions about where and how to establish a system of marine areas for the conservation of biodiversity in the Southern Ocean (CCAMLR-XXIV, paragraph 4.12e4.18). The Commission noted that the process of establishing a CCAMLR protected areas system will also need to account for satisfactory fishery outcomes in terms of the rational use provisions of Article II,1 reflecting the historical debate on conservation and fishing. The Commission noted that MPAs had the potential for, inter alia, protection of: (a) Representative areas e a system of representative areas that would aim to provide a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of MPAs to contribute to the longterm ecological viability of marine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect the Antarctic marine biological diversity at all levels; (b) Scientific [reference] areas to assist with distinguishing between the effects of harvesting and other activities from natural ecosystem changes as well as providing opportunities for understanding of the Antarctic marine ecosystem without interference; (c) Areas potentially vulnerable to impacts by human activities, to mitigate those impacts and/or ensure the sustainability of the rational use of marine living resources. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf (SOI SS) MPA was subsequently established in 2009 as the first MPA to be designated by CCAMLR, and the first anywhere in the world to be designated entirely within internationally managed waters. However, progress towards further designations and a comprehensive system of Southern Ocean MPAs has been slow, with protracted political discussions, concerns over commercial fishing interests, and increasing demands for additional scientific evidence to be provided in support of MPAs, causing delays to the implementation of developed MPA proposals. While the Southern Ocean remains as one of the world’s least impacted marine regions, with comparatively low levels of exploitation, pollution or habitat damage (Halpern et al., 2008), it is by no means pristine, with a history of large-scale and unregulated exploitation of marine resources prior to the implementation of internationally agreed conservation frameworks under the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). Despite the high level of environmental protection now offered by the instruments of the ATS, existing threats to the Southern Ocean ecosystem remain, including from climate change, the potential expansion of existing 1

www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/camlr-convention-text.

Introduction

69

fisheries, and pollutants originating from outside the Antarctic region. Some of these threats can only be tackled through actions taken globally, or outside the Southern Ocean; however MPAs are important in protecting areas vulnerable to impacts from local human activities, and in ensuring that representative examples of Antarctic marine ecosystems are included within a global system of MPAs. Most importantly, MPAs in the Southern Ocean will provide a unique scientific opportunity to study and understand the effects of threats such as climate change, in the absence of any other human impacts.

Historical exploitation in the Southern Ocean Understanding the historical exploitation of the Southern Ocean is important in the context of current ecosystem management, including the development of MPAs, as these past activities have influenced the development of CCAMLR’s management approaches, and their impacts on the ecosystem are still evident today. The living resources of the Southern Ocean have been harvested for over two centuries, despite difficulties associated with its size, access, and remoteness from human populations and markets. Harvesting started in the late 18th century and the subsequent pattern of exploitation followed that experienced elsewhere in the World Ocean, beginning with the large, high value species in the upper trophic levels, before progressing down the food chain to the smaller, less valuable species at lower trophic levels (Pauly et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 2001). Much of the history of exploitation in the Antarctic is already well documented (Laws, 1977; Bonner, 1980, 1984; Everson, 1977; Kock, 1992, 2000), so only a brief summary follows here. Initially, exploitation of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) for their pelts was very profitable; however, rates of harvesting meant that the trade soon became uneconomic. By the end of the 19th century, elephant seals (Mirounga leonina), southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) and some sub-Antarctic penguin species were harvested for oil. However, as these stocks were reduced, again becoming uneconomic, focus shifted to other baleen whales and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). In time, these stocks were also depleted, and other less valuable species were sought, so that by the latter half of the 20th century, fishing for finfish and Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) had begun. Large-scale harvesting of finfish did not start until the late 1960s, first at South Georgia and then, in the early 1970s at Île de Kerguelen (Everson, 1977). After 1978 finfish trawl fisheries expanded to the South Orkney Islands and to other southerly grounds, targeting species such as marbled rockcod (Notothenia rossi) and mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari). These southern grounds yielded good catches for a few years, but by the early 1980s yields declined and remained low until their eventual closure in the late 1980s (see Kock, 1992). Trawl fisheries for C. gunnari now operate only at South Georgia and at Heard and McDonald Islands, whilst those for other demersal fish species remain closed. In the mid-1980s demersal longlines were introduced to catch Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) primarily around South Georgia and at other sub-Antarctic islands (Agnew, 2004); more recently, research fishing for toothfish has expanded rapidly, including for Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) in the Ross Sea, East Antarctica and over the submarine banks to the north of the South Orkney Islands. The fishery for Antarctic krill began early in the 1970s with vessels from Japan and the former Soviet Union catching krill in East Antarctica (CCAMLR, 2017), mainly for human

70

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

consumption. It soon moved to the Scotia Sea where the fishery focussed on three areas; the South Shetland Islands, the South Orkney Islands, and South Georgia. With additional nations entering the fishery, annual catches across this region peaked in 1981/1982 at approximately 528,000 tonnes. Against this backdrop of unrestrained exploitation, concerns about the rapid expansion of the krill fishery, together with fears over potential impacts on non-target species, were key to the establishment of CCAMLR. The agreement of the CAMLR Convention brought an end to unfettered exploitation in the Southern Ocean, such that CCAMLR is now perceived as an exemplar of modern ecosystem-based, precautionary management (Lodge et al., 2007). Moreover, krill catches dropped with the breakup of the former Soviet Union, but have recently begun to increase such that they reached 312,700 tonnes in the 2017/2018 fishing season.

CCAMLR’s management of Southern Ocean fisheries The single objective of the CAMLR Convention is conservation; however, for the purposes of the Convention, conservation also includes rational use. This objective sets CCAMLR apart from any Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO), and is the basis for its whole-ecosystem approach to management. The CAMLR Convention is an integral part of the Antarctic Treaty System, which itself came into force on 23 June 1961, and now represents 64.3% of the world population. Indeed provisions in the CAMLR Convention bind Contracting Parties to important obligations in the Antarctic Treaty. Consequently, the relationship between the CAMLR Convention, the Antarctic Treaty and the Treaty’s Protocol on Environmental Protection, as well as the conservation principles embedded within the Convention itself, ensure that CCAMLR should always remain more than an RFMO. CCAMLR came into force on 7 April 1982 and now comprises 24 Members, plus the EU, or 60.5%2 of the world population. CCAMLR implements its decisions through a series of Conservation Measures (CM),3 which are legally binding on all Contracting Parties. CCAMLR aspires to manage Southern Ocean fisheries within an ecosystem-based framework. Here we consider CCAMLR’s management of the krill fishery in some detail, as it is the only fishery that currently operates in the South Orkney Islands region (Subarea 48.2; see Fig. 4.1) and also one of the major future potential stressors on the natural system. However, we also recognise that in the future, more attention should also be given to finfish fisheries and how their potential development in Subarea 48.2, and elsewhere, might be managed to maintain CCAMLR’s objective.

CCAMLR’s management of the krill fishery CCAMLR sets catch limits using ‘decision rules’ based on population models which determine what proportion of the stock can be harvested whilst still achieving the objective of the Convention, but taking into account the effects of fishing, natural variability and other 2 Includes CCAMLR Members, Acceding States and those countries that are part of the EU, but which are not also Members or Acceding States in their own right. 3

All CCAMLR Conservation Measures can be browsed at www.ccamlr.org/en/conservation-and-management/ browse-conservation-measures.

Introduction

71

FIG. 4.1 The South Orkney Islands lie on the southern Scotia Arc between the Scotia Sea and the Weddell Sea. The boundaries of Statistical Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 are shown in red, as are the boundaries of the CCAMLR Small Scale Management Units (SSMUs) for the krill fishery in black (see Fig. 4.2). The major fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) are shown in pink: Southern ACC Boundary (SACCB); Southern ACC Front (SACCF); Antarctic Polar Front (APF); and Sub-Antarctic Front (SAF). The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA (SOI SS MPA) is shown.

uncertainties. The current catch limit for Antarctic krill is based on scientific data collected during 2000 following a multinational bio-acoustical survey to estimate the standing stock of krill in the southwest Atlantic sector (Trathan et al., 2001). Analysis of the standing stock was completed in 2010, leading to an estimate of 60.30 million tonnes (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 3.29). A precautionary catch limit of 5.61 million tonnes was agreed based on this estimate (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, paragraph 3.30). However, the Commission has also decided that until an allocation of the precautionary catch limit between smaller management units can be agreed, the total combined catch in Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 (see Fig. 4.1) shall be further limited in any fishing season to an interim catch limit of 620,000 tonnes (the so-called ‘trigger level’). The Commission has further agreed that this interim catch limit should be spatially subdivided such that no more than 25% of the trigger level can be taken from Subarea 48.1, 45% from 48.2, 45% from 48.3 to 15% from 48.4. These interim Subarea limits sum to greater than 100% in order to allow

72

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

operational flexibility for the fishery; however, the overall catch across the four Subareas is still limited by the trigger level. The spatial subdivision of the trigger level is thought to be precautionary (Hill et al., 2016); nevertheless, advances in management still need to overcome a severe lack of basic ecological information. Scientific understanding of the Scotia Sea is compromised by ecological changes that have occurred within the past century, including regional warming (Vaughan et al., 2013). Moreover, despite considerable scientific effort, there is still little understanding about the amount of krill consumed by predators, including by recovering populations of marine mammals, seabirds and fish (Trathan and Hill, 2017).

Moving towards enhanced spatial management of the krill fishery Like many other harvested species, krill have a spatial component to their life history (e.g. Trathan et al., 1993). At present, this is not reflected in existing management practices, with for example, no specific protection for krill spawning areas. Similarly, predators of krill also exhibit spatial patterns throughout their life history, with some important spatial foraging constraints, particularly for those species that are central place foragers during breeding. CCAMLR’s decision rule does reflect the need to ensure adequate amounts of krill are left for natural krill predators; equivalent to 75% escapement (the same as the recommendation of Smith et al. (2011) and more precautionary than the recommendation of Cury et al. (2011)). However, the krill fishery still has the potential to cause ecosystem damage if it becomes too spatially concentrated at critical times of year. Such a situation is probable since predictable favoured fishing grounds occur in close proximity to breeding aggregations of land-based krill-dependent predators, with fishing vessels sometimes operating within a few kilometres of predator colonies (Hinke et al., 2017; Trathan et al., 2018; WarwickEvans et al., 2018). In the absence of enhanced management options for the krill fishery, concerns have been raised by scientists (e.g. Jacquet et al., 2010), policy makers and civil society about the impacts of harvesting. Calls for greater limits on the fishery and more precautionary management have been voiced, even in advance of the full precautionary catch limit being allowed, highlighting the need for more comprehensive spatial and temporal protection for key ecosystem components. In considering the benefits of spatial protection, and specifically in the CCAMLR context, CCAMLR recognised (SC-CAMLR-XXIV, Annex 7, paragraph 32) that there was widespread evidence for the known or potential benefits of MPAs for, inter alia, the: (i) Conservation (including restoration) of biodiversity; (ii) Minimisation of detrimental effects of harvesting on non-target species; and (iii) Protection (including restoration) of age classes, life-history stages, stocks and populations of species targeted by harvesting. The Commission therefore recognised that within the Convention Area, there are areas that require special consideration in a representative system of MPAs (CM 91-04). Thus, for example, CCAMLR’s precautionary approach to krill management using an ecosystem-

Bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning

73

based framework could be enhanced through development of appropriately designed MPAs. Indeed such MPAs could allay concerns about fishing vessels operating too close to krilldependent predator breeding sites. CCAMLR has also recognised (SC-CAMLR-XXIV, Annex 7, paragraph 33) that, in common with other international organisations with responsibility for the conservation and management of marine living resources on the high seas, particularly given its wider conservation mandate, that it has a particular responsibility for participating in the current international discussions on the use of MPAs to further important objectives.

Bioregionalisation and systematic conservation planning In recognising the importance of establishing a system of marine areas for the conservation of biodiversity (CCAMLR-XXIII, paragraph 4.13; CEP IX Final Report, paragraphs 94 to 101), the Scientific Committee began to develop methodological approaches for the design and planning of MPAs (CCAMLR, 2005). In the first instance, bioregionalisation analyses to identify the spatial distribution of marine ecosystems was recognised as a useful foundation for developing a representative system of MPAs (Grant et al., 2006). Subsequent analyses refined the classification of pelagic bioregions and benthic habitats (Raymond, 2011; CCAMLR, 2007) and, together with smaller scale, regional classifications (e.g. Dickens et al., 2014; Teschke et al., 2016), have been used as part of the scientific basis for the development of MPA proposals for the South Orkney Islands, the Ross Sea, East Antarctica, the Weddell Sea and the western Antarctic Peninsula. The CCAMLR Scientific Committee also endorsed systematic conservation planning (Margueles and Pressey, 2000) as an important component of work to identify areas for protection to further the conservation objectives of CCAMLR. This process requires the definition of conservation objectives, and uses spatial information on biodiversity patterns and bioregional classifications, ecosystem processes and human activities to identify those areas that should be included within a protected area system in order to achieve the defined objectives (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Lombard et al., 2007). In response to the Scientific Committee’s request for further work on this topic (SC-CAMLR-XXVI, paragraphs 3.85 and 3.86), UK scientists developed a worked example for how the systematic conservation planning methodology might be applied for identifying important areas for conservation in the pelagic environment, using Subarea 48.2 (South Orkney Islands) with particular reference to krill fishing, as a pilot study project. The aim of the worked example was not only to identify areas for enhanced protection or management, but was also to test the utility of the methodology, and to demonstrate the types of data and the range of decisions that would be required to undertake such an analysis. Prior to this planning work for Subarea 48.2, CCAMLR had already recognised that additional spatial protection would be needed for the conservation of biodiversity in this region, and that further work was required to identify candidate areas (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII paragraph 3.19(ii)). Proposals for area protection were developed using a systematic conservation planning approach as endorsed by CCAMLR, the results of which were presented to CCAMLR in 2008 and 2009 (Grant et al., 2008, 2009a; 2009b).

74

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

In this initial planning approach, it was recognised that ecological information for the South Orkney Islands was sparse, but that there were areas worthy of protection where the marine spatial planning process could be tested. In addition, the planning approach took into account ongoing discussions on the development of small-scale management for the krill fishery close to the coast of the South Orkney Islands, and avoided the development of potentially conflicting spatial management proposals before this had been resolved by CCAMLR. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (SOI SS MPA; Fig. 4.1) was established by CCAMLR in 2009 (CCAMLR-XXVIII paragraphs 7.1e7.2; CM 91-03) in order to contribute towards the conservation of biodiversity in Subarea 48.2, and the development of a representative system of protected areas across the CAMLR Convention Area. The SOI SS MPA covers an area of 94,000 km2, and is an area of key importance for Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) encompassing critical post-breeding foraging habitat and moulting habitat; it also includes representative examples of different marine habitats within Subarea 48.2, and unique oceanographic frontal systems. However, the proponents emphasised that further work would be required following this initial pilot designation, to develop a comprehensive and representative system of MPAs that achieved the full range of conservation objectives for Subarea 48.2. In this paper, having explored the history of exploitation in the Southern Ocean and the origin of CCAMLR and its commitment to precautionary ecosystem-based management, including a representative system of protected areas, we now provide a brief summary of the SOI SS MPA, providing further context for its development and current status. We provide additional background by including: (1) a description of the region; (2) scientific activities; (3) threats to the ecosystem; (4) regional MPA objectives, and (5) those achieved by the SOI SS MPA. We then consider (6) the development of a research and monitoring plan for the MPA and (7) how the MPA network for the South Orkney Islands could be extended in the future, including as a component of a wider system of MPAs across the southern Scotia Sea region. Finally, we consider how the dialogue within CCAMLR has changed since the designation of the SOI SS MPA, leading to more protracted discussions and more stringent requirements for future MPA designation, and potentially increasing the difficulty of either designating new MPAs, or extending or refining the existing SOI SS MPA.

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA Description of the region The South Orkney Islands are situated in the Southern Ocean on the southern Scotia Arc at approximately 60
300 to 60
450 S and 44
250 to 46
250 W, some 604 km north-east of the Antarctic Peninsula (Fig. 4.1). They were discovered in 1821 by sealers, Nathaniel Brown Palmer and George Powell. The islands are located on the South Orkney shelf, a submarine plateau which rises from abyssal depths to approximately 300 m, and to even shallower depths closer to the islands. The archipelago has a total land area of about 620 km2, and comprises four main islands: Coronation Island is the largest, measuring 48 km in length with its highest

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

75

FIG. 4.2 The northern Weddell Sea and the southern Scotia Sea showing the Small Scale Management Unit designations: 1 Antarctic Peninsula East (APE); 2 Antarctic Peninsula Drake Passage West (APDPW); 3 Antarctic Peninsula Drake Passage East (APDPE); 4 Antarctic Peninsula Elephant Island (APEI); 5 Antarctic Peninsula Bransfield Strait West (APBSW); 6 Antarctic Peninsula Bransfield Strait East (APBSE); 7 Antarctic Peninsula West (APW); 8 Antarctic Peninsula Pelagic (APPA); 9 South Orkney West (SOW); 10 South Orkney North East (SONE); 11 South Orkney South East (SOSE); 12 South Orkney Pelagic (SOPA).

point at Mount Nivea which rises to approximately 1266 m; Laurie Island is the easternmost of the islands; while the other main islands are Powell and Signy. Smaller islands in the group include Monroe Island, Robertson Island, the Saddle Islands, and Acuna Island. The archipelago is heavily glaciated, with only about 10% of land ice-free in summer. The archipelago lies in the maritime Antarctic from where some of the strongest regional expressions of global climate change have been reported during recent decades (Quayle et al., 2002; Forcada et al., 2006). The physical changes observed have been reflected in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including in changing levels of biological variability. Physical environment The southern Scotia Arc separates the Weddell Sea from the Scotia Sea (Figs 4.1 and 4.2). The South Orkney Islands therefore lie at the outflow of the Weddell Gyre, between the Powell and Jane Basins. The Weddell Sea is an important area of deep water-mass formation and is one of the main driving forces of the World Ocean thermohaline circulation. It exerts

76

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

FIG. 4.3 The South Orkney Plateau showing the path of the Weddell Front (WF) following Heywood et al. (2004). The 500 m isobath is shown in red.

significant influence on the course of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) with consequences for Southern Ocean water-mass characteristics and the spreading and deep ventilation of bottom waters in the South Atlantic, and further northwards (Beckmann et al., 1999; Hellmer et al., 2005). On the southern side of the South Orkney shelf, the Weddell Front follows a path around the northern Powell Basin, south of the South Orkney Islands and around the Jane Basin (Fig. 4.3), forming the southern boundary of the WeddelleScotia Confluence (WSC) (Heywood et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2009). The outflow from the Weddell Sea and the WSC has long been recognised as an area fundamental to the ecology of the Scotia Sea (Deacon and Forster, 1977; Deacon and Moorey, 1975; Muench et al., 1990), particularly for krill (Marr, 1962; Mackintosh, 1972). Indeed, Murphy et al. (2004) showed that most of the krill during the CCAMLR-2000 Synoptic Survey (Trathan et al., 2001) were associated with areas to the south of the ACC in the WSC and farther east in Weddell Sea-influenced waters. The WSC is therefore a critical habitat for krill. Biogeography A benthic geomorphic classification (Dickens et al., 2014) based on a new high-resolution bathymetric dataset provides a geomorphic zonation which now forms a key element for benthic habitat mapping and the analysis of ecosystem properties in the region. The

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

77

classification identifies 15 geomorphic zones with potentially differing ecological properties. Until recently little or no sampling of the benthos within any of the geomorphic zones had been undertaken. A pelagic bioregionalisation undertaken by Grant et al. (2006) shows that the area surrounding the South Orkney Islands includes three pelagic bioregions; Antarctic open ocean; Antarctic shelf; and the Weddell Gyre. This was refined by the analysis of Raymond (2011) which indicated the presence of six bioregions close to the South Orkney Islands; one bioregion in deep oceanic waters; three bioregions in deep oceanic waters with increasing sea-ice cover; and two bioregions on the southern Scotia Arc. The analysis by Raymond (2011) provides plausible habitat types that have considerable congruence with the known oceanographic regimes of the Scotia Sea (Orsi et al., 1995); the habitat types also match closely with the regions described by Longhurst (1998) which reflect the circumpolar structure of the ACC. Benthic ecology and biodiversity The benthic environment around the South Orkney Islands demonstrates exceptionally high species richness (Barnes et al., 2009, 2016). The benthos dominates the biodiversity, marine species there constitute approximately 20% of those recently listed for the entire Southern Ocean (Barnes et al., 2009). The South Orkney Islands represent one of the better-studied polar locations, of known age and with a discrete shelf, hence they symbolise an important source of comparison for biodiversity studies. The South Orkney shelf (defined as the area that is shallower than 1000 m deep; following Clarke and Johnston, 2003) comprises approximately 42,400 km2 and is nearly 400 km from the next nearest shelf north of the Antarctic Peninsula. The shallows of the region are seasonally very productive but, because the archipelago is strongly influenced by the Weddell Sea gyre immediately to the south, are anomalously cold for their latitude (Clarke and Leakey, 1996). Barnes et al. (2009) report 10e30 species in c.0.001 km2 and at least 158 species in c.0.009 km2, which together with historic records means that 1026 marine species are known from the South Orkney Islands (42,400 km2). These records are much greater than those reported by Gutt et al. (2004), who reported 75 to 281 species per 0.003 km2 sample and 829 across samples totalling 0.1 km2 in a much larger adjacent region of the Weddell Sea. The biodiversity at the South Orkney Islands is particularly significant when compared with estimates from Clarke and Johnston (2003), who suggested that about 4200 benthic species had been reported from the Southern Ocean continental shelf, and estimates from Gutt et al. (2004) who estimated that less than a quarter of Southern Ocean species had yet been found. Thus, the estimates of marine biodiversity for the South Orkney Islands are higher than from the Galápagos Islands (often cited as an example of high biodiversity) and Ecuador combined (Barnes et al., 2009). The benthic invertebrates found on the South Orkney shelf present a complex picture with two evident trends (Lockhart and Jones, 2008; Lockhart et al., 2009). Moderate to low densities of benthos appear to typify the outer southern shelf extension. However, in the vicinity of the islands the trend is west to east, whereby a region of low biomass on the western shelf contrasts with a concentration of the greatest biomass recordings documented for this island group to the east and southeast. A number of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME) have been reported in the shallow waters close to the South Orkney Islands. These have been identified from research cruises

78

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

(Lockhart and Jones, 2008; Lockhart et al., 2009; Brasier et al., 2018). Lockhart et al. (2009) reported that 15 of 18 VME indicator taxa were present at the South Orkney Islands. Pelagic ecology and biodiversity The Southern ACC Boundary (SACCB) and the Southern ACC Front (SACCF) within Subarea 48.2 are known areas of importance for foraging Procellariiformes (BirdLife International, 2006) listed under the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP; www.acap.aq), including wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans; IUCN threat status of Vulnerable), black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris; Endangered), grey-headed albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma; Vulnerable), light-mantled sooty albatross (Phoebetria palpebrata; Near-Threatened); southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus; Least Concern), northern giant petrel (Macronectes halli; Least Concern) and white-chinned petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis; Vulnerable). Important breeding populations of other flying seabirds are also present at the South Orkney Islands, including imperial shags (Phalacrocorax [atriceps] bransfieldensis), snow petrels (Pagodroma nivea), cape petrels (Daption capense), southern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialoides), Antarctic prions (Pachyptila desolata), Wilson’s storm-petrels (Oceanites oceanicus) and brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica). Marine mammals are now known to be recovering following depletion and near extirpation after uncontrolled harvesting in the 19th and 20th centuries. Data are sparse, but large numbers of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and occasional southern right whales (E. australis) have been observed to the northwest of the Coronation Island (Viquerat and Herr, 2017; PN Trathan Pers. Obs.). Large numbers of post-breeding male Antarctic fur seals also use the waters of the southern Scotia Arc. Other marine mammals which were not hunted (or only lightly hunted), but which also consume krill are also present across the southern Scotia Arc, including leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) (Staniland et al., 2018), crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophaga) and Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii). The South Orkney Islands are recognised to contain areas of exceptional biodiversity with 23 terrestrial Important Bird Areas (IBAs) (Harris et al., 2015). Pygoscelis penguins represent the majority of the avian biomass across the archipelago, and of the 23 IBAs, 16 were designated because of the large numbers of chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica), 1 because of Adélie penguins, 2 because they hold both chinstrap and Adélie penguins, and 2 because they hold all 3 species of Pygoscelis penguin. All three Pygoscelis species have an IUCN threat status of Least Concern, though regionally, Adélie and chinstrap penguins are known to be in decline (Trathan et al., 1996; Forcada et al., 2006; Forcada and Trathan, 2009; Coria et al., 2011; Trivelpiece et al., 2011; Lynch et al., 2012; Dunn et al., 2016), while gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) are increasing. The last synoptic census of Pygoscelis species across the archipelago was undertaken by Poncet and Poncet (1985) who reported 413,300 pairs of chinstraps, 126,100 pairs of Adélies and 3825 pairs of gentoos. Allowing for early egg loss and nest failure, they estimated around 600,000, 257,000 and 10,000 pairs respectively. Though these populations are known to have changed (Trathan et al., 1996; Forcada et al., 2006; Forcada and Trathan, 2009; Coria et al., 2011; Trivelpiece et al., 2011;

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

79

Lynch et al., 2012; Dunn et al., 2016), the early counts were also probably underestimates. For example, chinstrap colonies on Monroe Island and at Moreton Point to the west of Coronation Island were almost certainly underestimates as no shore landings were made during the survey (S Poncet Pers. Comm.). These two sites currently contain approximately four times the numbers (PN Trathan Pers. Obs.) reported by Poncet and Poncet (1985). The foraging ambit of penguins changes seasonally; predictable and profitable feeding areas are particularly important when birds are constrained during their breeding seasons (Lynnes et al., 2002; Warwick-Evans et al., 2018), and immediately prior to moult (Dunn et al., 2011; Warwick-Evans et al., 2019). The shelf-break is known to be important for most species (Lynnes et al., 2004; Warwick-Evans et al., 2018) while seasonal sea-ice is also an important habitat for Adélie penguins (Forcada et al., 2006; Dunn et al., 2011). Following moult, birds are less constrained and may be able to feed further afield. Consequently, protection of foraging areas for these species, particularly during the breeding season when they are constrained, and post-breeding when animals are preparing for moult, is important and should be a key conservation objective (Warwick-Evans et al., 2018, 2019; Trathan et al., 2018). There are four Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) in the South Orkney Islands, of which only one, Southern Powell Island and adjacent islands (ASPA 111) includes protection of a small, coastal marine area. However, this does not afford protection to marine foraging areas used throughout the breeding season, when birds may travel more than 100 km from their nest sites.

Scientific activities The South Orkney Islands were frequently visited by sealers and whalers during the 19th century, but no comprehensive surveys were carried out until the expedition of William Speirs Bruce on board the Scotia in 1903, which overwintered at Laurie Island. Bruce established a meteorological station, which is still in operation today and run by Argentina; it is the oldest research station continuously staffed in the Antarctic. In 1947, the British built a biological research station nearby on Signy Island. The two stations, Orcadas (Argentina) and Signy (UK) are both CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP; Agnew, 1997) sites and provide information to CCAMLR about the status of the marine ecosystem in Subarea 48.2. Other land-based predator studies have also recently been undertaken by UK, Norwegian and Argentinean scientists; these studies have focused on understanding how and where marine predators preferentially forage (Lynnes et al., 2002, 2004; Dunn et al., 2011; Warwick-Evans et al., 2018; Tarroux et al., 2018; Lowther et al., 2018). The location of the South Orkney Islands archipelago means that a number of important biological and oceanographic ship-based studies have also been carried out in the region, including the UK Discovery Expeditions during the early part of the 20th century, Russian, UK, USA and Argentinean surveys for oceanography, benthic diversity, finfish, krill, zooplankton etc. More recently, the CCAMLR-2000 Synoptic Survey (Trathan et al., 2001; Hewitt et al., 2004), and regular Norwegian krill bio-acoustic surveys of the South Orkney Islands shelf have contributed important knowledge.

80

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Threats to the ecosystem The South Orkney Islands are subject to a number of human-related activities that potentially pose a risk to the marine ecosystem; these include scientific research activities, tourism and harvesting of marine living resources. Regional warming, leading to increased ocean temperatures and ocean acidification, is also of considerable importance. Ecosystem change following the recovery of marine mammals after their decimation in the 19th and 20th centuries is also regionally important (Herr et al., 2016; Viquerat and Herr, 2017). Of particular relevance to the Antarctic Treaty System and especially to CCAMLR, are threats associated with harvesting, including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). The designation of spatial and temporal protection is therefore most relevant for mitigating potential threats associated with current fishing activities, as well as for facilitating scientific studies in areas where the confounding effects of climate change, marine mammal recovery and other human induced factors can be studied in the absence of fishing. Demersal fisheries The southern Scotia Arc was closed for finfish fishing by CCAMLR after the 1989/1990 fishing season, and prospects for reopening commercial fishing in the near future remain remote because the only species that could withstand limited harvesting are Gobionotothen gibberifrons and Lepidonotothen squamifrons (Kock and Jones, 2005). However, these species could only be taken with a considerable by-catch of other species, such as mackerel icefish, having much lower biomass, so that total allowable catches for targeted species would need to be low, limiting the prospects of exploitation. Since 1989/1990, directed fishing for marbled rockcod, Chaenocephalus aceratus, D. eleginoides, Dissostichus spp., Electrona carlsbergi, G. gibberifrons, L. squamifrons, Patagonotothen guntheri, Pseudochaenichthys georgianus and all other species of finfish has been prohibited by CCAMLR under CM 32-02 until at least such time that a survey of stock biomass is carried out and a decision made by the Commission that the area can be reopened to directed fishing. Identifying and protecting spawning and nursery grounds for these fish species would help contribute to the recovery of finfish stocks, including through spatial and temporal protection of larval bycatch in krill fisheries. Historical catches of finfish by the former Soviet Union and historical catches of crabs by the Russian Federation present important opportunities to enhance knowledge; however, not all such data are available. At the time of its negotiation, a small area in the northern boundary of the SOI SS MPA was removed from within the MPA boundaries initially proposed, so that information could be collected about crabs as part of an exploratory fishery, but to date no fishery has been pursued. Recent fisheries research directed towards Dissostichus spp. in Subarea 48.2 on the seamounts to the north and east of the South Orkney Islands archipelago have shown the potential for limited fishing activity, with both D. mawsoni and D. eleginoides caught in the region (SC-CAMLR-XXXVIII, paragraphs 3.123 to 3.128). Alternative preliminary stock hypotheses for D. mawsoni highlight important spawning locations, where larger, more mature fish occur, while juvenile fish may be found in coastal areas shallower than 500 m (Darby and Jones, 2018). Vessels undertaking research fishing in the region have found evidence of IUU activity on seamounts within Subarea 48.2, with fragments of gillnets being recovered (SC-CAMLR-

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

81

XXXV, paragraph 3.230). IUU activity is an ongoing threat, not only to harvested species, but also to species caught as by-catch including other finfish species as well as seabirds and marine mammals. Protecting against IUU must remain a key imperative for CCAMLR, including through reporting by research vessels, tourist vessels and licenced fishing vessels, as well as by other methods such as satellite remote-sensing. Bottom fisheries such as longline fishing for Antarctic toothfish, or crab fishing, have the potential to impact upon ecosystem structure and function in vulnerable areas. In areas where benthic biodiversity in known to be exceptional, such as at the South Orkney Islands (Barnes et al., 2009), any future bottom fishing should be managed so that it does not damage vulnerable marine ecosystems (UNGA 61/105 2006; CM 22-06). Commercial fishing activities should therefore be managed to prevent adverse effects within defined areas as almost all bottom gear types, particularly if used in vulnerable areas, are thought to have the potential to create adverse impacts (Kilpatrick et al., 2011; Shannon et al., 2010) on sensitive benthic communities. Pelagic fisheries The fishery for Antarctic krill mainly operates across Area 48, with regular harvesting in Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3, but almost none in Subarea 48.4. Subarea 48.2 has been targeted by the fishery since 1981, with an increasing focus on areas close to the South Orkney Islands archipelago since that time. During the early years, the fishery operated across the Scotia Sea, but increasingly sought areas where krill were both abundant and predictable. The area to the west of Coronation Island within the Small Scale Management Unit (SSMU) South Orkney West (SOW; Fig. 4.2) has become the principal focus in Subarea 48.2, with almost all of the historical taken catch to date coming from that locality. Since the 2000/01 fishing season, 96.1% of the total catch from Subarea 48.2 has been taken from SOW; equivalent to, 29.9% of the total catch from across Area 48; in contrast, less than 1% of the total catch from across Area 48 has been taken from each of SSMU South Orkney North East (SONE), South Orkney South East (SOSE) and South Orkney Pelagic (SOPA). SOW is a major focus for the fishery even across Area 48; indeed, since 1980, more krill has been harvested from this SSMU than from any other SSMU in the CCAMLR Convention Area. Other krill fishing hotspots do occur, notably to the northeast of South Georgia, (South Georgia East; SGE), in the Bransfield Strait (Antarctic Peninsula Bransfield Strait West, APBSW and Antarctic Peninsula Bransfield Strait East, APBSE), to the north of Elephant Island (Antarctic Peninsula Elephant Island, APEI), to the north of Livingston Island (Antarctic Peninsula Drake Passage West, APDPW), and most recently in Hughes Bay (Antarctic Peninsula West, APW). Though there is variability between years, none of these fishing hotspots have been as heavily fished as SOW. At the South Orkney Islands, as indeed elsewhere across the Scotia Sea, particularly in areas where krill harvesting is concentrated, the krill fishery has the potential to impact upon krill-eating predators, including Pygoscelis penguins and a range of other krill predators including other penguin species, other seabirds, seals, whales and finfish. Such impacts may potentially arise due to the depletion of prey or to the disturbance of krill swarm structure, thereby leading to irreversible ecosystem changes, contrary to Article II of the Convention.

82

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Regional conservation objectives to be achieved by MPAs in Subarea 48.2 Regional MPA objectives for Subarea 48.2 were endorsed by the CCAMLR Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paragraph 3.19) as part of the systematic conservation planning process undertaken to develop the SOI SS MPA proposal, and these remain relevant for consideration in future regional planning processes (Table 4.1). These are also closely aligned with the general conservation objectives subsequently outlined by CCAMLR in its general framework for MPAs (CM 91-04). Protection of representative areas The South Orkney Islands lie on the southern Scotia Arc, within the seasonal sea ice zone. Representative protection in the benthic domain would include areas of the abyssal depths, shelf, shelf-slope and shelf canyon (see O’Brien et al., 2009; Douglass et al., 2014; Dickens et al., 2014). Representative protection in the pelagic domain would include areas of deep oceanic waters with varying proportions of sea ice cover, different water masses in the WSC region, and areas over the southern Scotia Arc (see Raymond, 2011). Protection of key ecosystem processes and critical life history stages The oceanographic fronts close to the South Orkney Islands form part of the ACC and the WSC and are features that are known to be important for the transport of krill across the Scotia Sea (Murphy et al., 2004). These areas potentially reflect areas where important ecosystem processes occur, particularly krill flux. Adélie and chinstrap penguins are important krill predators and are known to be in decline across much of the Antarctic Peninsula and South Orkney Island regions (Forcada et al., 2006; Forcada and Trathan, 2009; Trivelpiece et al., 2011; Lynch et al., 2012); protection of important foraging areas for both these species is therefore of particular relevance. The foraging ambit of penguins changes seasonally, so feeding areas are particularly important when birds are constrained during their breeding seasons (Lynnes et al., 2002), and immediately afterwards during the period when they are recovering body condition (Dunn et al., 2011). Following moult, birds are less constrained and may be able to feed further afield; nevertheless, certain geographic locations may be important during this period whilst birds gain condition in anticipation of the forthcoming breeding season. Combined telemetry data from seabirds breeding at South Georgia (wandering albatross, black-browed albatross, grey-headed albatross, light-mantled sooty albatross, southern giant petrel, northern giant petrel and white-chinned petrel) show that areas to the north of the South Orkney Islands are important for albatrosses and petrels foraging in both winter and summer (BirdLife International, 2006; Grant et al., 2009a, 2009b). Telemetry data to identify the areas at sea used by Procellariiformes and other flying seabirds breeding at the South Orkney Islands are not available; however, these birds probably overlap with some of the areas used by birds from South Georgia (Orgeira et al., 2014). Identifying and protecting spawning and nursery grounds for previously harvested finfish species might contribute to the reduction of larval bycatch by krill fisheries, and could also benefit potential future finfish fisheries.

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

83

Protection of scientific reference areas The South Orkney Islands have been known for almost 200 years; however, ecological knowledge about the region is still relatively sparse. Protected areas therefore offer an important opportunity for enhancing ecological understanding, particularly in monitoring patterns of change, and in facilitating comparative studies with fished areas. Protection of vulnerable areas Bottom trawling is banned throughout the CAMLR Convention Area, and demersal fishing is limited to depths greater than 550 m, so benthic ecosystems already receive considerable protection. However, the presence of VMEs close to the South Orkney Islands does suggest that additional precautionary measures close to the islands would be beneficial, including restricting harvesting methods that interact with the seabed. Maintenance of ecosystem function A number of oceanographic features are understood to be important to the operation of the South Orkney Islands marine ecosystem. These include the Weddell Front (Fig. 4.3), which contributes to the WSC and the transport of krill within the Scotia Sea (Marr, 1962; Mackintosh, 1972). The Weddell Front marks the northern limit of waters characteristic of the Weddell Sea interior and the southern limit of the WSC. The associated current contributes some of the cyclonic transport of the Weddell Gyre. The SOI SS MPA includes the southern portion of the Weddell Front, where it is topographically steered and constrained by the South Orkney Islands shelf. The shelf-break is known to be important for foraging Adélie penguins (Lynnes et al., 2002). Seasonal sea ice is an important foraging habitat for Adélie penguins (Forcada et al., 2006), and for moulting Adélie penguins (Dunn et al., 2011). The SACCB and the SACCF within Subarea 48.2 are both known areas of importance for foraging Procellariiformes (BirdLife International, 2006); telemetry data from animals tagged at South Georgia in Subarea 48.3 show variable amounts of time spent in Subarea 48.2, including wandering albatross (0.1% of time), black-browed albatross (1.5%), grey-headed albatross (3.2%), light-mantled sooty albatross (18.2%), southern giant petrel (13.5%), northern giant petrel (2.0%), and white-chinned petrel (18.7%). Particular attention could therefore be given to the protection of a proportion of their foraging habitats for some of these species, given the relative importance of Subarea 48.2 during their time at sea. Careful consideration should be given to gear types, mitigation methods, and the particular times of day and times of year when these animals use Subarea 48.2 in order that threats can be critically evaluated to reduce by-catch and incidental mortality. Increase resilience to climate change Protecting features that are important to the operation of the South Orkney Islands marine ecosystem from local human impacts might also potentially help maintain resilience or the ability of populations, species and communities to adapt to the effects of climate change.

84

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Specific conservation objectives for the SOI SS MPA In considering the different threats and risks to biodiversity in Subarea 48.2, the temporal and spatial mosaic of ecosystem operations needs to be carefully evaluated. This is because ecological processes are not static and different processes vary over time, ranging from days to weeks and from months to years. This might therefore mean that certain human activities that present a risk to a particular species or habitat at one time of year might not present such a risk at other times. The specific conservation objectives set out for the SOI SS MPA are a subset of the regional objectives for Subarea 48.2, defined in further detail and in relation to specific features (SC-CAMLR-XXXII/BG/19 and CCAMLR CM 91-03; see Table 4.1). TABLE 4.1

Regional and specific conservation objectives to be achieved by MPAs in Subarea 48.2.

Regional conservation objectives for MPAs in Subarea 48.2

Specific conservation objectives for the SOI SS MPA

i) Protection of representative areas

Protection of representative benthic areas in habitat types from the outer shelf and slope into deeper habitats, as well as deep water seamount ridges with restricted distribution Protection of representative pelagic areas across the sea ice zone from the shelf into deeper oceanic waters

ii) Protection of key ecosystem processes and critical life history stages

Protection of areas important to critical life history stages for Adélie penguins

iii) Protection of scientific reference areas

Provision of a scientific reference area

iv) Protection of vulnerable areas v) Maintenance of ecosystem function vi) Increase resilience to climate change

Protection of representative benthic areas Protection of representative examples of benthic marine ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats in the southern Scotia Arc region aims to help maintain their viability and integrity in the long term. The SOI SS MPA aims to protect a representative spectrum of benthic environment types present from the outer shelf and slope into deeper habitats, including for areas that contribute to the representation of benthic biodiversity and habitats in six of the 16 geomorphic zones identified in Subarea 48.2 by Dickens et al. (2014). It also includes deep water seamount ridges in the south of the MPA, ranging from 1000 to 4000 m depth, which have a very restricted distribution in the southern Scotia Sea region (Douglass et al., 2014). Protection of representative pelagic areas Protection of representative examples of pelagic marine ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats in the southern Scotia Arc region aims to help maintain their viability and integrity in the long term. The SOI SS MPA aims to protect a representative spectrum of pelagic

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

85

environment types across the sea ice zone from the South Orkney Islands shelf into deeper oceanic waters, including for areas that contribute to the representation of pelagic biodiversity and habitats in five of the 20 circumpolar pelagic regions identified by Raymond (2011). Regions 1 and 12 are particularly restricted in extent and distribution across the Convention Area (Raymond, 2011), and although only present to a limited extent in the SOI SS MPA, protection of these areas would contribute significantly towards their representation in a wider system of CCAMLR MPAs. Protection of areas important to critical life history stages for Adelie penguins The penguin foraging areas afforded protection by the SOI SS MPA include those that are important after the breeding season has been completed, but which are used by Adélie penguins during the period when they are recovering body condition, prior to the annual moult. This period is particularly important as it is when penguins must replenish reserves lost during breeding, and generate new reserves that will be drawn upon during the moult period, a period of very high energy demand. The geographic area afforded protection by the SOI SS MPA is used by Adélie penguins breeding throughout the South Orkney Island archipelago as well as potentially by penguins breeding elsewhere (Warwick-Evans et al., 2019). After moult the SOI SS MPA is still used by birds as they forage during winter (Dunn et al., 2011). Provision of a scientific reference area The SOI SS MPA provides an important opportunity to investigate the Scotia Sea ecosystem in an area where no fishing is being undertaken, in order to understand the effects of fishing, environmental variability and climate change on marine living resources, and to compare these areas to other, fished areas.

Developing a research and monitoring plan for the SOI SS MPA In 2009 when the SOI SS MPA was designated by CCAMLR, relatively little was known about the marine ecosystem surrounding the South Orkney Islands. Therefore, following the establishment of the SOI SS MPA, the UK immediately began a series of research projects that would enhance understanding about the South Orkney Islands. These include: extensive telemetry work on chinstrap penguins (Trathan et al., 2018; Warwick-Evans et al., 2018); further telemetry work on post breeding Adélie penguins and chinstrap penguins (Warwick-Evans et al., 2019); collaborative work on post-breeding male Antarctic fur seals (A Lowther Pers. Comm.); telemetry work on leopard seals (Staniland et al., 2018); an international benthic survey (Brasier et al., 2018); and an international pelagic survey focussed on krill. This work included collaborations with scientists from Norway, Argentina and the USA, all countries with an interest in the area. The projects were implemented in order to increase understanding, provide additional baseline data, and to inform the development of proposals for further candidate MPAs in the region. In 2011, the Commission agreed that each MPA should have a research and monitoring plan:

86

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

(i) The plan shall specify, to the extent necessary, the scientific research to be undertaken in the MPA, including, inter alia: a. Scientific research pursuant to the specific objectives of the MPA; b. Other research consistent with the specific objectives of the MPA; and/or c. Monitoring of the degree to which the specific objectives of the MPA are being met. (ii) Research activities not in the plan shall be managed according to other Conservation Measures, unless otherwise decided by the Commission. (iii) All Members may undertake research and monitoring in accordance with the plan. (iv) Data will be submitted to the CCAMLR Secretariat and made available in accordance with the Rules for Access and Use of Data for analyses by Members. (v) Unless otherwise agreed by the Commission, every five years, Members conducting activities according or related to the research and monitoring plan will compile a report on those activities, including any preliminary results for review by the Scientific Committee. In 2014 a draft research and monitoring plan for the SOI SS MPA was submitted to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee which was intended to be flexible, enabling, focused on achievement of management objectives, and useful for evaluating the SOI SS MPA and adjacent areas (Trathan and Grant, 2014). The plan was intended to be a ‘living’ document that would develop and evolve as new information was collected, new questions raised and new techniques developed and was designed to: 1. Identify scientific research activities pursuant to the specific objectives of the SOI SS MPA that are designed to inform and support the management of the area designated under CM 91-03; 2. Identify monitoring activities that will help evaluate the extent to which these objectives are being achieved; 3. Identify work that will compare the status of features inside the MPA with that of features outside; 4. Encourage initiation of other research that is consistent with the objectives of the MPA, including research outside the boundaries of the MPA that may contribute to the wider development of spatial management in the region. The draft plan was not formally adopted, as some Members were not able to agree to the contents (see Falling short of the ambition section for consideration of the probable reasons for lack of consensus), but research nevertheless proceeded in accordance with its objectives. A revised draft framework for a research and monitoring plan was submitted to CCAMLR in 2018 (Trathan and Grant, 2018), in advance of the second review of the MPA, scheduled for 2019 and was agreed by the Commission with the additional requirement to include a description of the baseline data relevant to the designation and review of the SOI SS MPA. This includes all data used to justify designation of an MPA, or that describe the state of the Antarctic marine ecosystem at the time an MPA enters into force. The updated research

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

87

and monitoring plan should also consider whether data collected subsequent to adoption of the MPA could constitute baseline data for subsequent reviews. Understanding whether the regional objectives and the specific objectives outlined above are being fulfilled is likely to require additional research in both the benthic and pelagic domains. In the absence of such research, any future fishery expansion will need careful consideration. Benthic research and monitoring Bottom trawling is already banned in the Antarctic through CM 22-05. Areas shallower than 550 m are also closed to exploratory longline fishing under CM 22-08. However, future research needs include work to improve understanding about benthic marine ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats, including using scientific research data to validate derived habitat types (Brasier et al., 2018) identified from geomorphic classifications (Dickens et al., 2014); that is, to address questions related to whether geomorphic classifications provide robust proxies for benthic habitat. Work could include approaches used as part of research fishing protocols such as drop cameras, cameras attached to longlines or other low impact bottom gear. Candidate spawning areas for demersal fish species are likely to be in shallow waters. A level of protection is already provided through existing CCAMLR Conservation Measures; that is application of CM 25-03, CM 26-01, CM 32-02, CM 51-01 and CM 51-07. Nonetheless, future research needs include work to better understand spawning distribution and population status. Benthic closed areas would provide additional precautionary protection; closed areas would also provide additional protection for VMEs. Pelagic research and monitoring Many Procellariiformes are able to range widely, so they are not thought to be as spatially constrained as some other seabird species; indeed, foraging often occurs over oceanic waters (BirdLife International, 2006) and there is no known focus on areas used by the krill fishery, or Dissostichus spp. research fisheries operating in Subarea 48.2. A degree of protection is currently provided through management of fisheries processes through CM 24-02, CM 2502 and/or CM 25-03, CM 26-01 and CM 32-02. However, future research needs include telemetry work for all Procellariiformes breeding locally at the South Orkney Islands. Further work to evaluate interactions between flying seabirds and the krill fishery, and with Dissostichus spp. research fisheries, are needed. Many marine mammals (most phocids and cetaceans) are classified as having a ‘capital breeder’ life history pattern, so are not geographically constrained in their foraging behaviour by the need to repeatedly return to a central place to provision their offspring. Moreover, very few species actually breed at the South Orkney Islands. That said, some species are present there in large numbers and they therefore require access to productive feeding grounds. For phocids, there is no known focus on areas used by the krill fishery, or Dissostichus spp. research fisheries. However, fin whales (and probably humpback whales) do overlap (Viquerat and Herr, 2017) with krill fishing activities, while male Antarctic fur seals also use preferred krill fishing areas (A Lowther Pers. Comm.). Some protection is currently provided through management of fisheries process using CM 25-03, CM 26-01, CM 32-02, CM 51-01 and CM 51-07, but further work is needed. As such, further information about

88

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

fishery-marine mammal interactions is certainly needed, while attention should be given to considering protection of a proportion of their foraging habitat, with consideration given to times of day and times of year in order that threats can be critically evaluated. Research needs therefore include telemetry work for all marine mammal species foraging locally at the South Orkney Islands. Most habitats used by penguins during the breeding season are likely to be spatially constrained, as all species have an ‘income breeder’ life history pattern; indeed, there is a known foraging focus on those areas used by the krill fishery (Warwick-Evans et al., 2018). A level of protection is provided through application of CM 25-03, CM 26-01, CM 32-02, CM 51-01 and CM 51-07. Future research needs include work to characterise competition between the krill fishery and penguins. Given the importance of SOW to the krill fishery, establishment of a krill research zone would be valuable in that area in order to better characterise penguin-krill-fishery interactions. During the penguin breeding season, October to March, seasonal coastal buffers in SONE and SOSE could provide additional precautionary protection. Such buffers, if of longer duration, could also protect young penguins after they fledge and before they disperse for winter, a time when they are naïve and learning to forage for themselves. Research needs include telemetry work for non-breeding penguins foraging locally at the South Orkney Islands. Research needs also include work to characterise body mass recovery, post breeding. During the penguin premoult period, January to March, foraging, at least for Adélie penguins, occurs to the south of the South Orkney archipelago, including in parts of the SOI SS MPA, an area now closed to all commercial fishing (CM 91-03). Little is known about habitat use of most krill-eating species in Subarea 48.2, including most fish and squid. A level of protection is provided through application of CM 25-03, CM 26-01, CM 32-02, CM 51-01 and CM 51-07. Future research needs include work to better understand patterns of biodiversity and to characterise nekton distribution and population status. Seasonal coastal buffers in SONE and SOSE would provide precautionary protection.

Potential for extending the SOI SS MPA in the future As it stands, the SOI SS MPA provides a level of representative protection as well as protection for key ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions and critical life history stages across parts of Subarea 48.2. However, given the connected nature of the ACC and WSC, fulfilment of the general and specific objectives outlined above would provide a higher level of protection. Implementing comprehensive protection in Subarea 48.2 would then help in achieving CCAMLR’s objective and could be delivered through existing Conservation Measures, through the SOI SS MPA, and through implementing further spatial protection measures elsewhere in Area 48, and in other parts of the Convention Area. Proposals for spatial protection in areas adjacent to Subarea 48.2 have already been considered by CCAMLR, but not yet implemented, including for parts of the southern Scotia Arc (Subarea 48.1 and Subarea 48.2), and the Weddell Sea (Subarea 48.5 and Subarea 48.6). In developing the original proposal for the SOI SS MPA, the area used by the postbreeding Adélie penguins was highlighted as important, given the vital need for penguins

Background to the South Orkneys southern shelf MPA

89

to recover body mass after breeding and before moult. Importantly, the area used by Adélie penguins does not conflict with the areas used by the krill fishery, so was considered to be an area where development of an MPA could proceed without conflict between conservation and rational use. Designation of the SOI SS MPA was therefore rapid, with virtually no political opposition. At present, ecological data are almost certainly insufficient to negotiate additional permanent closures, or large-scale redistribution of krill harvesting, particularly given the relatively small krill catches in recent years. However, the krill fishery does have the potential to lead to prey depletion, but careful consideration of krill movement and retention is needed so that this can be evaluated. Management measures, including use of experimental harvest regimes that enhance understanding of ecosystem operation would be beneficial. Understanding the threat posed by krill fishing activities, also requires consideration of the potential effects of displacing the fishery elsewhere. A key issue for CCAMLR therefore, is how to manage krill fisheries at small spatial scales, so that they do not cause irreversible impacts on krill-dependent predators. To date, there are no datasets that categorically demonstrate that krill fishing is having a long-term, irreversible impact upon krill predators. However, without a better understanding of how krill fisheries might impact predators, and under what circumstances, CCAMLR is unlikely to find consensus about how the krill fishery should develop towards the precautionary catch limit, or how areas of ecological importance might be protected in those areas where the fishery operates. Quantifying the actual threat afforded by the krill fishery is now vital for understanding how CCAMLR proceeds with the development of marine spatial planning in the Antarctic Peninsula and southern Scotia Arc (Subarea 48.1 and Subarea 48.2). Indeed, we consider this to be one of the biggest challenges now facing CCAMLR. The greatest potential threat from the krill fishery to the marine system is likely to be in the summer, when fishing vessels operate close to penguin breeding colonies (Warwick-Evans et al., 2018; Trathan et al., 2018) at the time that adult penguins are constrained by the need to provision their offspring. In the past few years the fishery has preferentially operated in Subarea 48.1 where it has repeatedly achieved the interim Subarea catch limit. Therefore, depending upon operational decisions made by the fishery, catches close to the South Orkney Islands are likely to increase in the future. Currently, most catches in Subarea 48.2 are taken from the SOW where no predator monitoring takes place, either of penguins or other krill consumers. In the absence of any such monitoring, the threat from the krill fishery to the marine ecosystem remains difficult to quantify, but must be evaluated as part of any future management approaches. Attempts to experimentally determine how fisheries deplete forage fish stocks and therefore impact dependent species have been attempted in other ecosystems (e.g. Pichegru et al., 2009, 2010, 2012; Bertrand et al., 2012; Sherley et al., 2015, 2017, 2018). However, precautionary closed no-take coastal buffer zones, or depletion experiments, can be difficult to interpret, or may take many years to establish a result. Nevertheless, some studies have shown a significant increase in the range of the daily trips and distances of the dives by birds from the colony and that seabirds may need to forage farther to cope with the regional prey depletion created by intensive fishing behaviour (Bertrand et al., 2012). Bertrand et al. (2012) show that the foraging efficiency of breeding seabirds may be significantly affected by not only the

90

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

global quantity, but also the temporal and spatial patterns of fishery removals. Bertrand et al. (2012) therefore advocate an ecosystem-based definition of the fishery quota, in order to limit the risk of local depletion around breeding colonies using, for instance, adaptive marine protected areas. Similarly, Sherley et al. (2015) examined how chick survival responded to an experimental 3-year fishery closure around Robben Island, South Africa, controlling for variation in prey biomass and fishery catches. They showed that chick survival increased by 18% when the closure was initiated, which alone led to a predicted 27% higher population compared with continued fishing. Currently, the SOI SS MPA (CM 91-03) stands together with a number of existing CCAMLR Conservation Measures to offer protection for Subarea 48.2, including for areas around the South Orkney Islands. To enhance protection, given the remoteness of the South Orkney Islands, any additional evidence is likely to take a number of years to collate. Nevertheless, no-take coastal buffers, or closed areas, would offer precautionary protection for penguins, seals, fish, and VMEs.

Developing the general framework for establishing MPAs in the CAMLR Convention Area In 2011, two years after the designation of the SOI SS MPA, CCAMLR agreed CM 91-04 which provides a general framework for establishing MPAs in the Convention Area. As such, the Commission agreed that future MPAs should be defined with specific objectives consistent with those outlined in CM 91-04; spatial boundaries; a list of activities that are restricted, prohibited, or managed, and any temporal (seasonal) or spatial limits on those activities. It also agreed that a management plan and priority elements for a research and monitoring plan should be provided; these shall include the date when plans would need to be introduced to the Commission. Developing a formalised process for designating MPAs was needed, and an important step for ensuring that common principles and practices were in place across the Convention Area. This was especially important as many Members have a long standing or historical geographic focus in their scientific or fishery operations and only collect relevant environmental, ecological, or fisheries information within their relatively restricted areas of geographic interest. Agreement of the framework took two years but it was not until five years later in 2016 that CCAMLR finally agreed its second MPA, the Ross Sea region MPA (RSR MPA). The protracted discussions surrounding CM 91-04 dramatically altered the dialectic, making the designation of MPAs very much more challenging, especially in terms of requirements for scientific data. Importantly, CM 91-04 stipulates that the period of designation, if any, shall be consistent with the specific objectives of the MPA. Many Members objected to the designation of MPAs with fixed expiry dates, and emphasised that MPAs should be designated indefinitely. Indeed, the IUCN (Day et al., 2012) subsequently emphasised that protected areas should be managed in perpetuity and not as a short term or temporary management strategy. Day et al. (2012) state that long-term protection (over timescales of human generations) is necessary for effective marine conservation. Further, that seasonal closures of an area for a specific purpose (such as fish spawning, whale breeding, etc), in

Falling short of the ambition

91

the absence of any additional biodiversity protection and any primary nature conservation objective are not considered to be MPAs, though seasonal protection of certain species or habitats may be a useful component of management in an MPA. Despite the stringent conditions included in the general framework (CM 91-04) some Members suggested that it was inappropriate to implement a long or indefinite time frame for the designation of any MPA because situations change and mechanisms are needed to refine the original arrangements, so that management can respond to such change. Thus, consideration of the period of designation became enshrined in the general framework for MPAs with CCAMLR. At the time that CM 91-04 was agreed, the UK recognised that as the SOI SS MPA predated CM 91-04, it would be beneficial to harmonise the provisions of CM 91-03 with CM 91-04 where feasible, despite there being no legal obligation to do so. Since 2011, UK scientists have therefore worked to align CM 91-03 with CM 91-04, including by developing a draft research and monitoring plan, and reporting on research activities. Despite the lack of consensus on the draft research and monitoring plan to date, efforts to improve scientific understanding and to enhance management provisions for the SOI SS MPA will continue, with the aim of ensuring that it functions as an integral part of the developing system of CCAMLR MPAs.

Falling short of the ambition In 2005, the Commission endorsed Scientific Committee advice that the primary aim of MPAs was to establish a harmonised regime for the protection of the Antarctic marine environment across the Antarctic Treaty System. It noted that there was a need to develop a strategic approach to MPA design and implementation and a strong need for collaboration at technical and policy levels (CCAMLR-XXII, paragraphs 4.12). After 13 years of intense debate, it is apparent that CCAMLR is falling short of its initial ambition. Only two MPAs have been agreed, while three others are under active consideration, but with little progress towards designation. The establishment of the SOI SS MPA, as the first to be implemented by CCAMLR, helped to move the debate forward during its earliest stages by providing concrete examples of planning approaches, data requirements and steps towards designation. It was a catalyst that helped shape and form CM 91-04, providing a general framework for further MPA development. Following the adoption of CM 91-04 and in accordance with its requirements, the SOI SS MPA was also the first to offer a draft research and monitoring plan, and to report on MPA research activities during its review in 2014. However, the SOI SS MPA was never intended to be stand-alone, but rather to form an initial component of a wider network of MPAs across Subarea 48.2, and across the CCAMLR Convention Area. It was focussed on a geographic area where critical ecological processes occur, but also an area where representative elements of the regional ecosystem could be afforded protection, that is for communities that are thought to be more widespread, but where knowledge remains incomplete. Over the decade since the designation of the SOI SS MPA, the number of proposals to undertake research fishing across the Convention Area has increased significantly, while at the same time progress to designate further MPAs has been fraught with challenges. Research

92

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

fishing has often been allowed to proceed with little requirement for evidence of its potential impacts, and in several instances, research that was previously agreed has not been completed, thus providing no benefit in terms of improved scientific understanding. In contrast, increasing requirements for scientific evidence in support of MPAs have been demanded by some CCAMLR Members, together with extensive requirements for additional research (including research fishing) to be conducted within MPAs once designated. The debate about the designation of MPAs within CCAMLR has essentially become a dialogue about the interpretation of the CAMLR Convention itself e that is about the conservation of marine living resources in the Antarctic, but also acknowledging that rational use, that is fishing, is a legitimate activity. Placing an emphasis on its stated precautionary principle in considerations of both research fishing and MPAs may help CCAMLR return to the previous acceptance of these two imperatives, and to maintain the position of responsible stewardship that it had previously demonstrated. Indeed, Brooks et al. (2016) highlight that the idea of rational use, that is, the mandate to employ precaution in resource exploitation, a critical part of conservation, is being reinterpreted by several CCAMLR Members to defend an unequivocal right to fish and to argue against MPAs that in any way restrict fishing access. However, while CCAMLR’s historic precautionary management paradigm was not to allow fishing unless sufficient data were available to manage a fishery, MPA opponents are now attempting to reverse the burden of proof, requiring that sufficient data be available to show that fishing is damaging the ecosystem to warrant an MPA that restricts fishing. Brooks et al. (2016) go on to argue that such concessions will compromise MPA effectiveness, thus undermining the conservation mandate of CCAMLR and the implementation of science-based marine management more broadly. We agree with this interpretation and suggest that CCAMLR must now return to its roots.

The future of MPAs within the CCAMLR Convention Area Recently, Everson (2015) argued that the key to the historical success of CCAMLR had been the establishment of Conservation Measures that have been developed on clearly defined topics. Until the designation of the SOI SS MPA in 2009, CCAMLR relied mainly upon the management of fisheries processes, rather than spatial or temporal management associated with broader ecosystem objectives. Closed areas and closed seasons were used as management tools, but mostly to facilitate recovery of previously depleted stocks, or where ecological knowledge was virtually non-existent. Everson (2015) concluded that the most effective approach to management should be for a composite of strictly focussed Conservation Measures, the sum of which cover all facets of a MPA; in addition he suggested that this approach enables individual components to be changed without opening a complex legal framework to renegotiation. In part, we sympathise with the suggestions made by Everson (2015); however, the approach used by CCAMLR for developing strictly focussed Conservation Measures to manage fisheries related processes does not adequately protect some key aspects of the marine environment, particularly the protection of representative areas, scientific reference areas, or areas potentially vulnerable to impacts by human activities. Indeed, complex measures are needed where the goals are to ensure adequate protection in the face of climate variability and change, and especially in attempting to disentangle the impacts of climate change

References

93

from other drivers of ecosystem variability, such as harvesting. In order to achieve these objectives, the designation of MPAs remains an important component of CCAMLR’s ecosystem approach to management and conservation. The SOI SS MPA has helped shape attitudes and approaches to the development of a system of marine protected areas in the internationally managed waters of the Convention Area. It was the first MPA designated anywhere in the World Ocean entirely within international waters, and as such it was a landmark agreement. Being the first invites both approval and criticism. The SOI SS MPA has been an attempt to develop consensus, but has so far fallen short of CCAMLR’s original intent. The SOI SS MPA remains part of a process that has not yet reached its final conclusion.

References Agnew, D.J., 1997. Review: the CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring programme. Antarctic Science 9 (3), 235e242. Agnew, D.J., 2004. Fishing South. The History and Management of South Georgia Fisheries. Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands, ISBN 0-9547948-0-X, 126 pp. Barnes, D.K.A., Kaiser, S., Griffiths, H.J., Linse, K., 2009. Marine, intertidal, freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity of an isolated polar archipelago. Journal of Biogeography 36, 756e769. Barnes, D.K.A., Ireland, L., Hogg, O.T., Morley, S., Enderlein, P., Sands, C.J., 2016. Why is the South Orkney Island shelf (the world’s first high seas marine protected area) a carbon immobilization hotspot? Global Change Biology 22, 1110e1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13157. Beckmann, A., Hellmet, H.H., Timmermann, R., 1999. A numerical model of the Weddell Sea: large-scale circulation and water mass distribution. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (C10), 23,375e23,391. Bertrand, S., Joo, R., Smet, C.A., Tremblay, Y., Barbraud, C., Weimerskirch, H., 2012. Local depletion by a fishery can affect seabird foraging. Journal of Applied Ecology 49 (5), 1168e1177. BirdLife International, 2006. Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution within the CCAMLR convention area: results from the global Procellariiform tracking database. CCAMLR Science 13, 143e174. Bonner, W.N., 1980. Whales. Blandford Press, Poole, UK, 278 pp. Bonner, W.N., 1984. Conservation in the antarctic. In: Laws, R.M. (Ed.), Antarctic Ecology, vol. II. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 821e847. Brasier, M.J., Brasier, Grant, S.M., Trathan, P.N., Allcock, L., Ashford, O., Blagbrough, H., Brandt, A., Danis, B., Downey, R., Eléaume, M.P., Enderlein, P., Ghiglione, C., Hogg, O., Linse, K., Mackenzie, M., Moreau, C., Robinson, L.F., Rodriguez, E., Spiridonov, V., Tate, A., Taylor, M., Waller, C., Wiklund, H., Griffiths, H.J., 2018. Benthic biodiversity in the South Orkney Islands southern shelf marine protected area. Biodiversity 19 (1e2), 5e19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2018.1468821. Brooks, C.M., Crowder, L.B., Curran, L.M., Dunbar, R.B., Ainley, D.G., Dodds, K.J., Gjerde, K.M., Sumaila, U.R., 2016. Science-based management in decline in the Southern Ocean: the burden of proof is being turned upside down. Science 354 (6309), 185e187. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4119. CCAMLR, 2005. Report of the CCAMLR Workshop on Marine Protected Areas (Silver Spring, MD, USA, 29 August to 1 September 2005). Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXIV/07. CCAMLR, 2007. CCAMLR Bioregionalisation Workshop (Brussels, Belgium 13e17 August 2007) Update of Benthic Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean. Background Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXVI/BG/28. CCAMLR, 2017. Krill Fishery Report 2017. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. www.ccamlr.org/en/system/ files/00%20KRI48%202017.pdf. CCAMLR-XXII, 2002. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Second Meeting of the Commission. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. CCAMLR-XXIII, 2004. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Third Meeting of the Commission. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. CCAMLR-XXVIII, 2009. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Eight Meeting of the Commission. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

94

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

CEP IX, 2006. Report of the Committee for Environmental Protection. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Clarke, A., Johnston, N.M., 2003. Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanography and Marine Biology 41, 47e114. Clarke, A., Leakey, R.J.G., 1996. The seasonal cycle of phytoplankton, macronutrients, and the microbial community in a nearshore Antarctic marine ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography 41 (6), 1281e1294. Coria, N.R., Montalti, D., Rombola, E.F., Santos, M.M., Garcia Betoño, M.I., Juares, M.A., 2011. Birds at Laurie island, South Orkney Islands, Antarctica: breeding species and their distribution. Marine Ornithology 39, 207e213. Cury, P.M., Boyd, I.L., Bonhommeau, S., Anker-Nilssen, T., Crawford, R.J.M., Furness, R.W., Mills, J.A., Murphy, E.J., Österblom, H., Paleczny, M., Piatt, J.F., Roux, J.-P., Shannon, L., Sydeman, W.J., 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion e one-third for the birds. Science 334, 1703e1706. Darby, C., Jones, C., 2018. Report of the Co-conveners of the CCAMLR Workshop for the Development of a Dissostichus mawsoni Population Hypothesis for Area 48 (19 to 21 February 2018, Berlin, Germany). Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXXVIII/01. Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., Stolton, S., Wells, S., 2012. Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 36 pp. Deacon, G.E.R., Foster, T.D., 1977. The boundary region between the Weddell Sea and Drake passage currents. DeepSea Research 24, 505e510. Deacon, G.E.R., Moorey, J.A., 1975. The boundary region between currents from the Weddell Sea and Drake passage. Deep-Sea Research 22, 265e268. Dickens, W.A., Graham, A.G.C., Smith, J.A., Dowdeswell, J.A., Larter, R.D., Hillenbrand, C.D., Trathan, P.N., Arndt, J.E., Kuhn, G., 2014. A new bathymetric compilation for the South Orkney Islands region, Antarctic Peninsula (49 degrees-39 degrees W to 64 degrees-59 degrees S): insights into the glacial development of the continental shelf. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 15 (6), 2494e2514. Douglass, L.L., Turner, J., Grantham, H.S., Kaiser, S., Constable, A., Nicoll, R., Raymond, B., Post, A., Brandt, A., Beaver, D., 2014. A hierarchical classification of benthic biodiversity and assessment of protected areas in the Southern Ocean. PLoS One 9 (7), e100551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100551. Dunn, M.J., Silk, J.R.D., Trathan, P.N., 2011. Post-breeding dispersal of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) nesting at Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. Polar Biology 34, 205e214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0870-4. Dunn, M.J., Jackson, J.A., Adlard, S., Lynnes, A.S., Briggs, D.R., Fox, D., Waluda, C.M., 2016. Population size and decadal trends of three penguin species nesting at Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. PLoS One 11 (10), e0164025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164025. Everson, I., 1977. The Living Resources of the Southern Ocean. Southern Ocean Fisheries Survey Programme GLO/ SO/77/1. FAO, Rome, Italy. Everson, I., 2015. Designation and management of large-scale MPAs drawing on the experiences of CCAMLR. Fish and Fisheries 18, 145e159. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12137. Forcada, J., Trathan, P.N., 2009. Penguin responses to climate change in the Southern Ocean. Global Change Biology 15, 1618e1630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01909.x. Forcada, J., Trathan, P.N., Reid, K., Murphy, E.J., Croxall, J.P., 2006. Contrasting population changes in sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming. Global Change Biology 12, 411e423. Grant, S., Constable, A., Raymond, B., Doust, S., 2006. Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean: Report of Experts Workshop, Hobart, September 2006. WWF-Australia and ACE CRC, 45 pp. Grant, S.M., Tratalos, J., Trathan, P.N., 2008. Proposed Approach to the Identification of Important Marine Areas for Conservation: Using ‘MARXAN’ Software to Support Systematic Conservation Planning. Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management. WG-EMM-08/49. Grant, S.M., Trathan, P.N., Tratalos, J., Silk, J.R.D., 2009a. Towards a System of Marine Spatial Protection for the South Orkney Islands. Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management. WG-EMM-09/22. Grant, S.M., Trathan, P.N., Tratalos, J., Silk, J.R.D., 2009b. Preliminary Proposal for Marine Spatial Protection Around the South Orkney Islands. Working Paper Submitted by the Delegation of the UK to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXVIII/14. Gutt, J., Sirenko, B.I., Smirnov, I.S., Arntz, W.E., 2004. How many macrozoobenthic species might inhabit the Antarctic shelf? Antarctic Science 16 (1), 11e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102004001750. Harris, C.M., Lorenz, K., Fishpool, L.D.C., Lascelles, B., Cooper, J., Coria, N.R., Croxall, J.P., Emmerson, L.M., Fijn, R., Fraser, W.L., Jouventin, P., LaRue, M.A., Le Maho, Y., Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R., Patterson-Fraser, D.L., Peter, H.-U.,

References

95

Poncet, S., Phillips, R.A., Southwell, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Weimerskirch, H., Wienecke, B., Woehler, E.J., 2015. Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015. BirdLife International and Environmental Research & Assessment Ltd, Cambridge. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948e952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345. Hellmer, H.H., Schodlok, M.P., Wenzel, M., Schröter, J.G., 2005. On the influence of adequate Weddell Sea characteristics in a large-scale global ocean circulation model. Ocean Dynamics 55 (2), 88e99. Herr, H., Viquerat, S., Siegel, V., Kock, K.H., Dorschel, B., Huneke, W.G.C., Bracher, A., Schröder, M., Gutt, J., 2016. Horizontal niche partitioning of humpback and fin whales around the West Antarctic Peninsula: evidence from a concurrent whale and krill survey. Polar Biology 39, 799e818. Hewitt, R.P., Watkins, J.L., Naganobu, M., Sushin, V., Brierley, A.S., Demer, D., Kasatkina, S., Takao, Y., Goss, C., Malyshko, A., Brandon, M.A., Kawaguchi, S., Siegel, V., Trathan, P.N., Emery, J., Everson, I., Miller, D.G., 2004. Biomass of Antarctic krill in the Scotia Sea in January/February 2000 and its use in revising an estimate of precautionary yield. Deep-Sea Research Part II 51, 1215e1236. Heywood, K.J., Naveira Garabato, A.C., Stevens, D.P., Muench, R.D., 2004. On the fate of the antarctic slope front and the origin of the Weddell front. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, C06021. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2003JC002053. Hill, S.L., Atkinson, A., Darby, C., Fielding, S., Krafft, B.A., Godø, O.R., Skaret, G., Trathan, P.N., Watkins, J.L., 2016. Is current management of the Antarctic krill fishery in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean precautionary? CCAMLR Science 23, 31e51. Hinke, J.T., Cossio, A.M., Goebel, M.E., Reiss, C.S., Trivelpiece, W.Z., Watters, G.M., 2017. Identifying risk: concurrent overlap of the Antarctic krill fishery with krill-dependent predators in the Scotia Sea. PLoS One 12, e0170132. Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner, R.R., 2001. Historical over fishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629e638. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199. Jacquet, J., Pauly, D., Ainley, D., Holt, S., Dayton, P., Jackson, J., 2010. Seafood stewardship in crisis. Nature 467, 28e29. Kilpatrick, R., Ewing, G., Lamb, T., Welsford, D., Constable, A., 2011. Autonomous video camera system for monitoring impacts to benthic habitats from demersal fishing gear, including longlines. Deep-Sea Research I 58, 486e491. Kock, K.-H. (Ed.), 2000. Understanding CCAMLR’s Approach to Management. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. www.ccamlr.org/en/system/files/am-all.pdf. Kock, K.-H., 1992. Antarctic Fish and Fisheries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Kock, K.-H., Jones, C.D., 2005. Fish stocks in the southern Scotia Arc region - a review and prospects for future research. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13 (2), 75e108. Laws, R.M., 1977. Seals and whales of the Southern Ocean. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 279, 81e96. Lockhart, S.J., Jones, C.D., 2008. Biogeographic patterns of benthic invertebrate megafauna on shelf areas within the Southern Ocean Atlantic sector. CCAMLR Science 15, 167e192. Lockhart, S., Wilson, N., Lazo-Wasem, E., Jones, C., 2009. Benthic invertebrate composition and characterization of The south Orkney Islands. In: Van Cise, A.M. (Ed.), 2008-2009 Field Season Report Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-445: 67e75. Lodge, M.W., Anderson, D., Løbach, T., Munro, G., Sainsbury, K., Willock, A., 2007. Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Report of an Independent Panel to Develop a Model for Improved Governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, 141 pp. Lombard, A.T., Reyers, B., Schonegevel, L.Y., Cooper, J., Smith-Adao, L.B., Nel, D.C., Froneman, P.W., Ansorge, I.J., Bester, M.N., Tosh, C.A., Strauss, T., Akkers, T., Gon, O., Leslie, R.W., Chown, S.L., 2007. Conserving pattern and process in the Southern Ocean: designing a marine protected area for the Prince Edward Islands. Antarctic Science 19 (1), 39e54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102007000077.

96

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Longhurst, A., 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 398 pp. Lowther, A.D., Trathan, P.N., Tarroux, A., Lydersen, C., Kovacs, K.M., 2018. The relationship between coastal weather and foraging behaviour of chinstrap penguins, Pygoscelis antarctica. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75 (6), 1940e1948. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy061. Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R., Trathan, P.N., Fagan, W.F., 2012. Spatially integrated assessment reveals widespread changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Ecology 93, 1367e1377. Lynnes, A., Reid, K., Croxall, J., 2004. Diet and reproductive success of Adélie and chinstrap penguins: linking response of predators to prey population dynamics. Polar Biology 27, 544e554. Lynnes, A., Reid, K., Croxall, J., Trathan, P., 2002. Conflict or co-existence? Foraging distribution and competition for prey between Adélie and Chinstrap Penguins. Marine Biology 141, 1165e1174. Mackintosh, N.A., 1972. Life cycle of Antarctic krill in relation to ice and water conditions. Discovery Reports 36, 1e94. Margueles, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243e253. Marr, J., 1962. The natural history and geography of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba Dana). Discovery Reports 32, 33e464. Muench, R.D., Gunn, J.T., Husby, D.M., 1990. The Weddell-Scotia confluence in midwinter. Journal of Geophysical Research 95 (C10), 18,177e18,190. Murphy, E.J., Thorpe, S.E., Watkins, J.L., Hewitt, R., 2004. Modeling the krill transport pathways in the Scotia Sea: spatial and environmental connections generating the seasonal distribution of krill. Deep-Sea Research II 51, 1435e1456. O’Brien, P.E., Post, A.L., Romeyn, R., 2009. Antarctic-wide Geomorphology as an Aid to Habitat Mapping and Locating Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Workshop on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. La Jolla, CA, USA 3e7th August 2009. WS-VME-09/10. Orgeira, J.L., Alderete, M., Jiménez, Y.G., González, J.C., 2014. Long-term Study of the At-Sea Distribution of Seabirds and Marine Mammals in the Scotia Sea, Antarctica. Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management. WG-EMM-14/06 Rev. 1. Orsi, A.H., Whitworth III, T., Nowlin Jr., W.D., 1995. On the meridional extent of the antarctic circumpolar current. Deep-Sea Research 42, 641e673. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres Jr., F., 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860e863. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5352.860. Pichegru, L., Grémillet, D., Crawford, R.J.M., Ryan, P.G., 2010. Marine no-take zone rapidly benefit threatened penguin. Biology Letters 6, 498e501. Pichegru, L., Ryan, P.G., van Eeden, R., Reid, T., Grémillet, D., Wanless, R., 2012. Industrial fishing, no-take zones and endangered penguins. Biological Conservation 156, 117e125. Pichegru, L., Ryan, P.G., Le Bohec, C., Van der Lingen, C.D., Navarro, R., Petersen, S., Lewis, S., Van der Westhuizen, J., Grémillet, D., 2009. Overlap between vulnerable top predators and fisheries in the Benguela upwelling system: implications for marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 391, 199e208. https:// doi.org/10.3354/meps08283. Poncet, S., Poncet, J., 1985. A survey of penguin breeding populations at the South Orkney Islands. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 68, 71e81. Quayle, W.C., Peck, L.S., Peat, H., Ellis-Evans, J.C., Richard Harrigan, P., 2002. Extreme responses to climate change in Antarctic lakes. Science 295, 645. Raymond, B., 2011. A Circumpolar Pelagic Regionalisation of the Southern Ocean. Working Paper Submitted to the Second CCAMLR Workshop on Marine Protected Areas. WS-MPA-11/6. SC-CAMLR-XXIV, 2005. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Fourth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. SC-CAMLR-XXVI, 2007. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Sixth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, 2009. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Eight Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. SC-CAMLR-XXIX, 2010. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Twenty Ninth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. SC-CAMLR-XXXV, 2016. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Thirty Fifth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

References

97

SC-CAMLR-XXXVIII, 2018. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the Thirty Eighth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Shannon, L.J., Jarre, A.C., Petersen, S.L., et al., 2010. Developing a science base for implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries in South Africa. Progress in Oceanography 87, 289e303. Sherley, R.B., Ludynia, K., Dyer, B.M., Lamont, T., Makhado, A.B., Roux, J.P., Scales, K.L., Underhill, L.G., Votier, S.C., 2017. Metapopulation tracking juvenile penguins reveals an ecosystem-wide ecological trap. Current Biology 27 (4), 563e568. Sherley, R.B., Barham, B.J., Barham, P.J., Campbell, K.J., Crawford, R.J., Grigg, J., Horswill, C., McInnes, A., Morris, T.L., Pichegru, L., Steinfurth, A., Weller, F., Winker, H., Votier, S.C., 2018. Bayesian inference reveals positive but subtle effects of experimental fishery closures on marine predator demographics. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B 285 (1871), 20172443. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2443. Sherley, R.B., Winker, H., Altwegg, R., van der Lingen, C.D., Votier, S.C., Crawford, R.J., 2015. Bottom-up effects of a no-take zone on endangered penguin demographics. Biology Letters 11 (7), 20150237. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2015.0237. Smith, A.D.M., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano-Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.-J., Tam, J., 2011. Impacts of fishing lowetrophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science 333, 1147e1150. Staniland, L.J., Ratcliffe, N., Trathan, P.N., Forcada, J., 2018. Long term movements and activity patterns of an Antarctic marine apex predator: the leopard seal. PLoS One 13, e0197767. Tarroux, A., Lydersen, C., Trathan, P.N., Kovacs, K.M., 2018. Temporal variation in trophic relationships among three congeneric penguin species breeding in sympatry. Ecology and Evolution 8, 3660e3674. Teschke, K., Pehlke, H., Deininger, M., Jerosch, K., Brey, T., 2016. Scientific Background Document in Support of the Development of a CCAMLR MPA in the Weddell Sea (Antarctica) - Version 2016. Part C: Data Analysis and MPA Scenario Development. Working Paper Submitted to the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management. WG-EMM-16/03. Thompson, A.F., Heywood, K.J., Thorpe, S.E., Renner, A.H.H., Trasviña, A., 2009. Surface circulation at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula from drifters. Journal of Physical Oceanography 39, 3e26. Trathan, P., Croxall, J., Murphy, E., 1996. Dynamics of Antarctic penguin populations in relation to inter-annual variability in sea ice distribution. Polar Biology 16, 321e330. Trathan, P.N., Grant, S.M., 2014. Research and Monitoring Plan for The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (MPA Planning Domain 1, Subarea 48.2). Working Paper Submitted by the Delegation of the European Union to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/11. Trathan, P.N., Grant, S.M., 2018. Draft Research and Monitoring Plan for The south Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (MPA Planning Domain 1, Subarea 48.2). Working Paper Submitted by the Delegation of the European Union to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXXVII/09. Trathan, P.N., Hill, S., 2017. The importance of krill predation in the Southern Ocean. In: Siegel, V. (Ed.), Biology and Ecology of Antarctic Krill. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 321e350. Trathan, P.N., Priddle, J., Watkins, J.L., Miller, D.G.M., Murray, A.W.A., 1993. Spatial variability of Antarctic krill in relation to mesoscale hydrography. Marine Ecology Progress Series 98, 61e71. Trathan, P.N., Watkins, J.L., Murray, A.W.A., Hewitt, R.P., Naganobu, M., Sushin, V., Brierley, A.S., Demer, D., Everson, I., Goss, C., Hedley, S., Katsakina, S., Kawaguchi, S., Kim, S., Pauly, T., Priddle, J., Reid, K., Ward, P., 2001. The CCAMLR-2000 krill synoptic survey; a description of the rationale and design. CCAMLR Science 8, 1e24. Trathan, P.N., Warwick-Evans, V., Hinke, J.T., Young, E.F., Murphy, E.J., Carneiro, A.P.B., Dias, M.P., Kovacs, K.M., Lowther, A.D., Godø, O.R., Kokubun, N., Kim, J.H., Takahashi, A., Santos, M., 2018. Managing fishery development in sensitive ecosystems: identifying penguin habitat use to direct management in Antarctica. Ecosphere 9 (8), e02392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2392. Trivelpiece, W.Z., Hinke, J.T., Miller, A.K., Reiss, C.S., Trivelpiece, S.G., Watters, G.M., 2011. Variability in krill biomass links harvesting and climate warming to penguin population changes in Antarctica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (18), 7625e7628. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016560108. Vaughan, D.G., Comiso, J.C., Allison, I., Carrasco, J., Kaser, G., Kwok, R., Mote, P., Murray, T., Paul, F., Ren, J., Rignot, E., Solomina, O., Steffen, K., Zhang, T., 2013. Observations: cryosphere. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Climate

98

4. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area

Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Viquerat, S., Herr, H., 2017. Mid-summer abundance estimates of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus around The south Orkney islands and elephant island. Endangered Species Research 32, 515e524. https://doi.org/ 10.3354/esr00832. Warwick-Evans, V., Ratcliffe, N., Clewlow, H., Ireland, L., Lowther, A., Manco, F., Trathan, P.N., 2018. Using habitat models for chinstrap penguins Pygoscelis antarctica to advise krill fisheries management during the penguin breeding season. Diversity and Distributions 24, 1756e1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12817. Warwick-Evans, V., Downie, R., Santos, M., Trathan, P.N., 2019. Habitat preferences of Adélie and chinstrap penguins during pre-moult. Polar Biology 42, 703e714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-019-02465-9. WSSD, 2002. United Nations Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002.