The Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative: Promoting scientific support for global ocean governance

Abstract

Addressing the challenge of protecting biodiversity in the global ocean requires a sound knowledge and understanding of the complex marine environment. Since 2008 the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) has been established as a voluntary dedicated group of marine institutions and scientists working to support conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. A focus has been work to support the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSA) process. GOBI partners have provided expert interpretation of evidence‐based information and sought to compile and collate available information. An effective and coherent global network of marine protected areas must include bioregional representative replicates of features; once described, EBSAs can help focus attention on where and what kind of protective measures may be needed. GOBI is currently undertaking a 5‐year programme of research funded by the German International Climate Initiative, working to strengthen baselines and contribute new data to the EBSA and other processes. This involves developing detailed biogeographies for the Pacific and Indian Oceans, assessing the movement of migratory species, advancing understanding of biodiversity at vents and seeps, developing a model governance system for the Costa Rica Thermal Dome, and incorporating Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Important Marine Mammal Areas. GOBI has taken initiatives to build on the results of the Census of Marine Life and ensure best available marine biodiversity information is considered by states and intergovernmental organizations. GOBI support for ocean governance, including data development and expert consultation, will also contribute to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030). Future challenges include capacity building and new approaches to incorporate traditional knowledge.

Marine Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas for Penguins in Antarctica, Targets for Conservation Action

“…Alternatively, certain species may be considered as "leading" sentinels, whereby population level responses in these species precede observable change in responses of other species or the ecosystem (Hazen et al, 2019). The penguin species that breed in Antarctica and forage in the Southern Ocean, feed extensively on krill or are ice-obligates, and are exemplar species for studying the potential links between system fluctuations and predator populations (e.g., fisheries pressures: Hinke et al, 2017;Trathan et al, 2018;Watters et al, 2020), or Antarctic marine ecosystem responses to environmental perturbations (e.g., climate change: Jenouvrier et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2019;Emmerson et al, 2015;. Indeed, evidence already shows that penguin populations in particular are at risk from overexploitation of resources and climate change (Boersma et al, 2019;Dias et al, 2019;Ropert-Coudert et al, 2019).…”

“…The protection of these areas can also support sustained provision of ecosystem services. Furthermore, recent evidence has shown that in MPAs where fisheries operate and where the spatiotemporal distribution of marine IBAs are effectively accounted for in their design and management plans, these MPAs can provide effective conservation opportunities for seabird species and other marine top predators through appropriately designed spatiotemporal closures of fisheries operations (Heerah et al, 2019;Johnson et al, 2019;Handley et al, 2020).…”

“…No attempt has been made to identify marine IBAs based on the likely at sea distribution of birds from colonies located elsewhere on mainland Antarctica; waters under the jurisdiction of CCAMLR. Given marine spatial planning (MSP) has been deemed a critical tool toward the conservation of penguin species (Boersma et al, 2019;Ropert-Coudert et al, 2019) and that marine IBAs can support MSP initiatives (Heerah et al, 2019;Johnson et al, 2019;Handley et al, 2020), the main objective of this study is to identify a network of marine IBAs for penguins breeding in Antarctica. We considered four species, the Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae), Chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarcticus), Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and Emperor Penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri), which either have large proportions of their global populations breeding in Antarctica, or are endemic to Antarctica (Supplementary Appendix: Penguin species considered).…”

Land–Sea Interaction: Integrating Climate Adaptation Planning and Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Adriatic Basin

“…The MSP pillar of the EU's IMP is regulated by European Directive 2014/89/EU [17], and makes MSP mandatory in planning policies of all coastal Member States [18]. The MSP Directive requires the EU Member States to develop a national maritime spatial plan by 31 March 2021 [19,20], with a minimum review period of 10 years, and establishes an MSP framework, aimed at i) promoting the sustainable growth of maritime economies; ii) the sustainable development of marine areas; iii) the sustainable use of marine resources. Moreover, the Directive states that the minimum requirements for maritime spatial plans must include land-sea interactions, an ecosystem-based approach, coherence between MSP and other processes such as integrated coastal management, the involvement of stakeholders, the use of the best available data, transboundary cooperation between Member States, and cooperation with third countries [21,22].…”

Data_Sheet_1.pdf

“…Thus, advocates of giving strong decisionmaking powers to a future BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body call for a "politically highly influential" design (De Santo, 2018). Increasingly, there are calls to include other forms of knowledge into policy-making across all package elements, including traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (Dunstan et al, 2016;Ridings, 2018;Voigt-Hanssen, 2018;Johnson et al, 2019a;Scott, 2019; and the perspectives of resource managers, interest groups (De Santo, 2018), civil society actors, and the private sector (Kraabel, in press). This part of the BBNJ literature points to existing instruments (see Tables 4, 5), including: the Aarhus convention, with its general principles and approaches of public participation, transparency, and information availability (De Santo, 2018); the FAO's 2009 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas criteria for VME identification based on the best available scientific knowledge and expert judgment (Johnson et al, 2018); the CAMLR Scientific Committee (De Santo, 2018); scientific advice for decision-making in OSPAR and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (De Santo, 2018); and the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) with its climate-related scientific research across the region (Durussel et al, 2017).…”