Global political responsibility for the conservation of albatrosses and large petrels

Abstract

Migratory marine species cross political borders and enter the high seas, where the lack of an effective global management framework for biodiversity leaves them vulnerable to threats. Here, we combine 10,108 tracks from 5775 individual birds at 87 sites with data on breeding population sizes to estimate the relative year-round importance of national jurisdictions and high seas areas for 39 species of albatrosses and large petrels. Populations from every country made extensive use of the high seas, indicating the stake each country has in the management of biodiversity in international waters. We quantified the links among national populations of these threatened seabirds and the regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) which regulate fishing in the high seas. This work makes explicit the relative responsibilities that each country and RFMO has for the management of shared biodiversity, providing invaluable information for the conservation and management of migratory species in the marine realm.

Mismatches in scale between highly mobile marine megafauna and marine protected areas

“…These MPAs are separated by half an ocean but combined they overlapped with 11.8% of the albatross's total home range, and 15.0% of their core area, a sizable amount for a species with a total home range of over 4 million km 2 (Table 2). Despite this, many black-footed albatross breeding populations additionally depend on habitats that fall under the sovereignty of Japan and Russia, as well as international waters, exemplifying that cooperation within and among nations may be necessary for successful conservation outcomes for some wide-ranging species (Harrison et al, 2018;Beal et al, 2021;Davies et al, 2021a).…”

“…Global targets for MPAs have been proposed and continue to be refined. The United Nations (UN) is actively negotiating the implementation of MPAs in regions beyond national jurisdictions (i.e., the 'High Seas') (United Nations, 2017), regions that are particularly important for marine megafauna (Harrison et al, 2018;Beal et al, 2021;Davies et al, 2021b). Moreover, in 2016 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called to increase the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 from 10% to up to 40% of the ocean to be protected by 2030 (Hilborn, 2016;IUCN, 2016;Jefferson et al, 2021), and many countries and Tribal nations have come out in support of these goals (Allen et al, 2021;Sullivan-Stack et al, 2022).…”

Fisheries bycatch mitigation measures as an efficient tool for the conservation of seabird populations

“…We view this study as an achievement of the significant efforts employed in the conservation of albatrosses and large petrels threatened by fisheries bycatch. This highlights the responsibilities that countries and RFMOs share for the conservation and management of endangered species (Beal et al, 2021). We hope that it will encourage not only the managers to maintain and reinforce protection measures, but also the scientific community to evaluate the demographic and population consequences of such measures.…”

Linking climate change vulnerability research and evidence on conservation action effectiveness to safeguard European seabird populations

“…Second, seabirds are a well‐studied group (Dias et al, 2019) with various conservation actions having been trialled for these species (see below). Finally, as seabirds have large distribution ranges, and often depend on multiple jurisdictions throughout their annual cycles, previous conservation strategies have necessarily been international, which has resulted in a strong network of researchers and practitioners that underpins data collection and policy engagement (Beal et al, 2021).…”