Falkland Islands Implementation Plan for The

Falkland Islands implementation plan for the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP): review of current work and a prioritised work programme for the future

September 2013

Anton Wolfaardt ACAP coordinator, Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Nick Rendell, Joost Pompert Falkland Islands Government

Paul Brickle South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute

Acknowledgements

Funding for the ACAP coordination project for the UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories has been provided by Defra, OTEP, the British Antarctic Territory (FCO), the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Falkland Islands Government. This implementation plan follows on from the 2006 Workshop organised by Falklands Conservation titled Albatross and Petrels in the South Atlantic: Conservation Priorities. The first version of this plan was published in 2010 (Wolfaardt et al . 2010), and this document represents an updated (2013) version of that plan.

For further information please contact: Nick Rendell Environmental Officer Environmental Planning Department, Falkland Islands Government [email protected]

Cover Illustration: Black-browed Albatrosses in flight; Lino-cut © Leigh-Anne Wolfaardt

Recommended citation: Wolfaardt, A.C, Rendell, N., Brickle, P., Pompert, J. 2013. Falkland Islands implementation plan for the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP): review of current work and a prioritised work programme for the future. Falkland Islands Government. Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Summary

The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) came into force in 2004. It is a multi-national treaty which seeks to maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels that it lists in Annex 1. The United Kingdom (UK) ratified ACAP in 2004, including on behalf of the UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories. Collectively the UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories are breeding range states for 12 of the 30 species currently listed by the Agreement, three of which are endemic, as breeders, to the Tristan Islands. The Agreement and its Action Plan ( http://www.acap.aq/index.php/acap-agreement ) describe the actions that Parties shall progressively implement. The Agreement Action Plan is divided into seven specific but related activities: i) species conservation, ii) habitat conservation and restoration, iii) management of human activities, iv) research and monitoring, v) collation of information, vi) education and public awareness, and vii) implementation.

This document (the Falkland Islands ACAP Implementation Plan) summarises the current status of ACAP-related work in the Falkland Islands, and provides a prioritised programme of future work. It is intended to serve as a tool to guide and coordinate actions that are required to be undertaken in order to meet the (UK and Falkland Islands) obligations of the Agreement. This document represents an updated version of the 2010 ACAP Action Plan for the Falkland Islands (Wolfaardt et al . 2010). Each of the main sections of the plan includes a boxed summary of ACAP requirements, which have been drawn from the text of the Agreement and its Action Plan, an overview of current work related to these requirements and a list of recommended actions. A summary of the recommended actions, their priority rating, and key organisations/departments is provided in Appendix 1.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... i Summary ...... ii 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 ACAP species ...... 2 3 Relevant legislation, conservation listings and plans ...... 3 4 Breeding sites ...... 5 4.1 Current status of the management of ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands ...... 7 4.1.1 Protection status of ACAP breeding sites and species ...... 7 4.1.2 Measures to eliminate, control or prevent the introduction of non-native species to breeding sites ...... 8 4.1.3 Measures to minimise disturbance at ACAP breeding sites ...... 12 4.1.4 Management Plans for ACAP breeding sites ...... 13 4.2 Recommendations ...... 13 5 Status and trends of populations ...... 14 5.1 Current activities relating to monitoring the status and trends of ACAP listed species in the Falkland Islands ...... 15 5.1.1 Black-browed Albatross ...... 15 5.1.2 Southern Giant Petrel ...... 17 5.1.3 White-chinned Petrel ...... 18 5.2 Recommendations ...... 19 6 Foraging range and areas ...... 21 6.1 Current tracking and diet studies on ACAP species in the Falkland Islands ...... 22 6.2 Recommendations ...... 24 7 Fishery related issues ...... 24 7.1 Current status of fishery-related issues in the Falkland Islands and beyond ...... 26 7.2 Recommendations ...... 32 8 Data acquisition and management ...... 33 8.1 Current status of data management in the Falkland Islands ...... 34 8.2 Recommendations ...... 35 9 Education and awareness ...... 35 9.1 Current status of education and awareness in the Falkland Islands...... 35 9.2 Recommendations ...... 37 10 Monitoring and review ...... 38 10.1 Recommendations ...... 38 11 Capacity ...... 38 12 Funding and prioritisation ...... 39 13 References ...... 40 14 Glossary of acronyms ...... 47

Table of Contents

Appendix 1: Summary of recommended actions ...... 49 Appendix 2: Species listed in Annex 1 of ACAP (2009) ...... 62 Appendix 3: ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands ...... 63 Appendix 4: Assessment of threats identified at ACAP breeding sites of the Falkland Islands ...... 65 Appendix 5: Recommendations for landowners with breeding colonies of ACAP species ...... 66 Appendix 6: Standardised census methodology for Southern Giant Petrels ...... 67 Appendix 7: Terms of Reference for the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee ...... 69

1. Introduction The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) came into force in February 2004 (Cooper et al. 2006). The main objective of the Agreement is to maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels that it lists in Annex 1 (Anon. 2006). The United Kingdom (UK), including on behalf of its South Atlantic Overseas Territories 1 (SAOTs), ratified ACAP in 2004, soon after it came into force.

The UK SAOTs are particularly important for the conservation of albatrosses and petrels. Collectively, they are breeding range states to 12 of the 30 species currently covered by the Agreement. For most of these, the SAOTs host significant proportions of the global breeding population, three of which are endemic as breeders to the Tristan da Cunha group of islands (Table 1).

The ACAP Agreement, together with its Action Plan, describes a number of conservation measures that contracting Parties need to implement to improve the conservation status of these threatened seabirds (Anon. 2006). A workshop was held in the Falkland Islands in 2006, at which the main tasks and actions required to improve the conservation status of albatrosses and petrels in the South Atlantic were discussed and assessed. Following the workshop, a report was published setting out the objectives and tasks for each of the UK SAOTs (Falklands Conservation, 2006).

The 2010 ACAP Implementation Plan for the Falkland Islands (Wolfaardt et al. 2010) built on the 2006 workshop and report, and was written to meet the ACAP requirements and thus contribute to the objective of the Agreement, which is to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels. This document, the 2013 ACAP Action Plan for the Falkland Islands, is an updated version of the 2010 plan. Each of the main sections of the plan includes a boxed summary of ACAP requirements, which have been drawn from the text of the Agreement and its Action Plan. The Implementation Plan includes information on the current status of ACAP-related work in the Falkland Islands, as well as linkages to the relevant legislation and biodiversity plans. A summary of the recommended actions, their priority rating, and organisations involved in implementing these actions is provided in Appendix 1. Although this plan deals specifically with ACAP-listed species, the activities will often respond to wider biodiversity issues, and will be implemented as part of broader programmes. Similarly, the Implementation Plan focuses on the Falkland Islands, but also encourages complementary action in other areas, particularly on the High Seas, and the jurisdictional waters of other countries, where albatrosses and petrels from the Falkland Islands are known or are thought likely to be killed.

It is important to note that a range of organisations and individuals undertakes ACAP-related work in the Falkland Islands. This Implementation Plan serves to integrate all of these activities and to ensure that the work is carried out in a coordinated manner.

1.1. The structure of ACAP ACAP is currently ratified by 13 countries. The Secretariat is based in Hobart, Tasmania, and comprises an Executive Secretary and Science Officer. The decision making body of the

1 Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory and the Tristan da Cunha Islands.

Agreement is the Meeting of Parties (MoP), which meets at intervals of not more than three years. The Advisory Committee of ACAP meets twice every three years (at 12 to 18 month intervals), and serves to provide expert advice and information to ACAP Parties, the Secretariat and others . The Advisory Committee has three Working Groups: The Taxonomy Working Group (TWG), the Seabird Bycatch Working Group (SBWG) and since 2011, Population and Conservation Status Working Group (PaCSWG), which combines the functions of the previous Breeding Sites Working Group and Status and Trends Working Group. Although the work of the Agreement is facilitated and supported by the Secretariat, it is the Parties, non-Party Range States and Non-government Organisations, that are responsible for driving the collective work of the Agreement.

As of June 2013, Mark Baxter (Defra) is the UK national contact point for ACAP. The UK, and by extension the UK Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands, is represented in all the Working Groups. Richard Phillips is the co-convenor of the Population and Conservation Status Working Group, of which Anton Wolfaardt is a member. Anton Wolfaardt is the convenor of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group, of which Mark Tasker and Paul Brickle are members. Mark Tasker is a member of the Taxonomy Working Group and is also vice-chair of the Advisory Committee. With Anton Wolfaardt leaving the post of ACAP coordinator, UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories, in June 2013, some of these arrangements will need to be updated.

2. ACAP species Three of the 30 currently-listed ACAP species breed at the Falkland Islands. For two of these species, the Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris , and the Southern Giant Petrel Macronectes giganteus , the Falkland Islands host significant proportions of the global breeding population, ca. 70% of the world total for Black-browed Albatrosses, and ca. 40% of the world total for Southern Giant Petrels.

Table 1: ACAP-listed species breeding on the Falkland Islands, relative size of the population in global terms, and recent (2010) IUCN status and population trends

IUCN status Species Global Importance Recent trend (2013)*

Black-browed Albatross Largest population NT +4% pa 2 Southern Giant Petrel Largest population LC Increasing White-chinned Petrel Very small population VU Unknown

NT – Near Threatened, VU – Vulnerable, LC – Least Concern * The IUCN Red List was revised in September 2013 and is being updated between September and November 2013

2 This figure is taken from Wolfaardt (2012), which collates figures from recent (2010) surveys conducted by Ian and Georgina Strange (Strange & Strange 2011), Falklands Conservation (Baylis 2012) and Baker & Jensz (2012). See below for further discussion.

An additional nine non-breeding ACAP species have been recorded as visitors to the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands (Table 2). For a list of the current species included in Annex 1 of ACAP, see Appendix 2.

Table 2: Non-breeding ACAP-listed species that have been recorded as visitors to the territorial waters of Falkland Islands (from information in White et al. 2002 and Falklands Conservation unpubl. data)

IUCN status Species Visitor status (2013)*

Recorded in all months, highest numbers Wandering Albatross from January to April VU Recorded in all months, peak numbers Northern Royal Albatross recorded from March to July EN Recorded in all months, peak numbers Southern Royal Albatross recorded from March to June VU Light-mantled Albatross Most records from August to November NT Scarce non-breeding visitor; mostly immature, from January to May, peak in Shy/White-capped Albatross April NT Recorded in all months, with a distinct peak Grey-headed Albatross from May to September EN Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross One record (May 2003), Western FICZ EN Buller’s Albatross One record (July 2007) NT Throughout the year, with a slight tendency Northern Giant Petrel for higher numbers during the austral winter LC

EN – Endangered, NT – Near Threatened, VU – Vulnerable, LC – Least Concern * The IUCN Red List was revised in September 2013 and is being updated between September and November 2013

3. Relevant legislation, conservation listings and plans There are a number of national policies and legislation that guide conservation management in the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands Environment Charter was signed jointly by the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) and the UK Minister for Overseas Territories in September 2001. The Environment Charter outlines the environmental management commitments of the UK Government and FIG, and serves as a framework policy to guide the development of management policies and plans.

The Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 1999 was enacted (in 1999) to replace the previous Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1964 , which was geared more towards the protection of economic resources, such as grazing and livestock than conservation management. This updated conservation legislation contains provisions for the strict protection of wild birds (including all ACAP-listed species), wild animals and important wild plants, the prevention and management of introduced species and the designation of National Nature Reserves. It applies to the entire terrestrial area of the Falkland Islands, and the territorial sea, up to 12 nautical miles (nm) offshore.

The Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005 seeks to maintain the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects of fishing activities on the long term sustainability of the marine environment. The Fisheries Ordinance also extends the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 2009 to the full extent of the Falkland Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), i.e. 200nm, including the Falkland Islands Interim Fishery Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ) and the Falklands Outer Conservation Zone (FOCZ) (Figure 2). The Fisheries Ordinance and licensing provisions give the Director of Natural Resources 3 powers to impose conditions on vessels fishing in the jurisdictional waters of the Falkland Islands and on Falklands Islands registered vessels operating on the high seas. This is achieved through a number of mechanisms, including vessel reporting, an observer programme, and licence conditions requiring the use of conservation and mitigation measures, e.g. to reduce the incidental mortality of seabirds in longline and trawl fisheries.

In 2008, FIG published a Biodiversity Strategy, which sets out the desired future for biodiversity in the Falkland Islands, and identifies priority species, habitats, threats and management actions, for the period 2008-2018 (Falkland Islands Government 2008). In April 2011, a workshop was held to review the Biodiversity Strategy, and identify priority actions required to implement the strategy. A number of recommendations were made (http://www.epd.gov.fk/wp-content/uploads/FIBioS%20Workshop%20Final%20Report%20June%202011.pdf ) including on ACAP-related issues, all of which have been incorporated into this ACAP Action Plan. The Biodiversity Strategy is accompanied by the Falkland Islands State of the Environment Report 2008, which documents the current status of knowledge of the state of the environment, both on land and at sea (Otley et al. 2008). It describes the physical and biological environment, as well as the human population, social infrastructure, and commercial and recreational activities undertaken within these habitats, and highlights processes that threaten Falkland Islands wildlife as well as key conservation policies required to manage these threats.

A conservation plan for New Island, an important breeding site for Black-browed Albatrosses, was published in 2007 (Strange 2007). The plan is not a conventional management plan, but rather an account of the biodiversity of the island, and serves as a baseline to inform the future management of the island (Strange 2007). Consequently, it includes both historical and contextual information as well as visions, strategies and policies for the long-term conservation of the island and its wildlife, including three ACAP listed species. In April 2013, the New Island Conservation Trust (NICT) hosted a workshop in Cambridge, UK, to develop a new strategy for scientific research at New Island (New Island Conservation Trust 2013). A number of recommendations were made, including one to develop an updated management plan that covers the whole of New Island. In 2011, a management plan developed for Sea Lion Island, an ACAP species’ breeding site, was adopted, covering the period 2010-2019 (Falklands Conservation 2011). A draft management plan has been prepared for Steeple Jason and Grand Jason Islands (by Falklands Conservation on behalf of the Wildlife Conservation Society and FIG, respectively), globally important breeding sites for Black- browed Albatrosses. These plans aim to review known biological data, assess environmental threats and recommend mitigation methods and management actions to minimise these threats and to enhance the islands' biodiversity, particularly their seabirds. They aim to establish systems for monitoring the key species and identify research priorities.

3 Director of Natural Resources holds responsibilities of the Director of Fisheries 4

The management of the Falkland Islands is also informed by a number of other national policies and International Treaties or Agreements. The most significant of these in relation to ACAP responsibilities is ACAP itself, which was ratified by the UK, including on behalf of the Falkland Islands and other SAOTs, in April 2004. Falkland Islands domestic legislation obliges all Falkland Islands registered vessels to comply with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 regulations, with the exception of Annex IV (sewage from ships). This annex is not applied because the Falkland Islands is unable to comply with the legislative requirement for adequate reception facilities. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 was ratified by the Falkland Islands in 1994. UNCLOS provides a framework for the responsible management of marine resources and a legal regime that affords ocean and coastal states rights and responsibilities for the management and use of fishery resources within their EEZs. Article 61 deals with the impact of the incidental mortality of seabirds and other non-target species and requires coastal states and states fishing on the high seas, to consider the effects on species associated with or dependent upon harvested species, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such associated or dependent species at sustainable levels. The convention also introduces the concept of precautionary management. In 2004, National Plans of Action (NPOA) for both longline (Sullivan 2004a) and trawl (Sullivan 2004b) fishing were adopted by FIG. Both of these plans have subsequently being revised (see below).

Species and habitat action plans are tools used in the Falkland Islands to guide the management of priority species and their habitats. These plans describe the causes of population declines (where these are known), threatening processes, and identify the actions required to arrest and reverse the decline, as well as research and management initiatives required to underpin these actions. The 2006 workshop report on the ACAP priorities of the UK SAOTs (Falklands Conservation, 2006) formed the basis of an ACAP species action plan. This plan was subsequently adapted specifically for the Falkland Islands in 2007, and used to review progress with the prescribed tasks and actions in both 2007 and 2008. This new ACAP Implementation Plan follows on from the 2006 workshop report and the 2007/08 and 2008/09 review documents, and the 2010 ACAP Implementation Plan for the Falklands, and serves to review the current work related to ACAP and provide a prioritised work plan for the future. Consequently, it is considered one of the Falkland Islands priority species action plans. Falklands Conservation has recently received funding from Darwin Plus to implement a project titled: Biodiversity Action Planning in the Falkland Islands. This project will be initiated in mid 2013, and continue until mid-2015. The aim of the process is to review current approaches to action planning in the Falkland Islands together with existing action plans in order to develop guidelines for a strategic approach to prioritisation across species and habitats. This ACAP Implementation Plan is one of the suite of plans that are already in place, and so will be included in the review process.

4. Breeding sites The obligations relating to the conservation of breeding sites encompass broadly the protection and active management of these sites, including the management of non-native species detrimental to albatrosses and petrels, minimising the risk of introducing non-native species, minimising human disturbance associated with tourism and research, and managing breeding site habitats, including the restoration of sites where appropriate. 5

An ACAP database has been developed for information on breeding sites (general information on site characteristics, ownership, threats and management), as well as information relating to the status and trends of populations breeding at the sites. Parties are required routinely to submit data to the database so that these data can be collated, analysed and reviewed to assess the status of breeding sites, threats, their management, and the performance of the Agreement. Data updates are provided by means of a data portal ( http://data.acap.aq/ ).

ACAP requirements: Breeding sites

1. Conserve and, where feasible and appropriate, restore those habitats that are of importance to albatrosses and petrels (Art III, 1a). 2. Protect breeding sites; develop and implement management plans for those sites (AP 2.2.1). 3. Prevent introductions, eliminate or control non-native species detrimental to albatrosses and petrels (Art III, 1b). 4. Minimise and prevent disturbance from tourists and researchers (AP 3.4). 5. Prohibit the deliberate taking of, or harmful interference with, albatrosses and petrels, their eggs, or their breeding sites. Exemptions are possible, but any Parties granting such exemptions shall submit full details of them to the Secretariat (Art III 2). 6. Develop and implement measures to prevent, remove, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects of activities that may influence the conservation status of albatrosses and petrels. These to include appropriate use of environmental impact assessment (Art III 1c; AP3.1). 7. Initiate or support research into the effective conservation of albatrosses and petrels (Art III 1d). 8. Contribute to UK report to Secretariat (to Advisory Committee immediately before each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the action plan and any other relevant points. Specifically the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report: a. identification of internationally important breeding sites; b. reviews of the status at breeding sites of introduced animals, plants and disease- causing organisms known or believed to be detrimental to albatrosses and petrels; c. reviews of the nature of, coverage by, and effectiveness of, protection arrangements for albatrosses and petrels; d. identification of gaps in information as part of the above reviews, with a view to addressing these in future priorities. 9. Breeding sites working group. Submit data on each breeding site (this includes information on presence of introduced species); initiate studies to fill gaps in knowledge.

There has been some debate about what constitutes a breeding site. For consistency and compatibility with other ACAP data (e.g. status and trends data), a hierarchical approach has been used to define each site (Island Group, Breeding Island, Breeding Site) In the case of the Falkland Islands, each of the separate islands and islets is listed as a separate ACAP breeding site, except on the mainland of East and West Falklands, where the actual breeding colony site is defined. In total, 47 ACAP breeding sites are recognised in the Falkland Islands (Appendix 3). In the 2010 ACAP Plan, 44 ACAP breeding sites were listed. Three new sites 6

have recently been added: i) Sand Bay Island (Southern Giant Petrels were recorded breeding at this site in 1998, but the site was not previously recorded in the ACAP database), ii) Sea Lion Island, Choiseul Sound, where Southern Giant Petrels were first recorded breeding in 2011 (Poncet and Passfield 2011) and iii) Top Island, Port William (where White- chinned Petrels were first recorded breeding in 2005 (Reid et al. 2007) and confirmed in October 2012 (Poncet et al . 2012). Southern Giant Petrels had been added as a breeding species on New Island (Appendix 3). The species has previously been recorded breeding at New Island (Strange 2007), but this was not reflected in the 2010 ACAP plan and ACAP database, which has since been addressed.

This database also includes a list of threat criteria, which are used to assess the scope (proportion of population affected) and severity (intensity) of threats at each breeding site. The threat criteria are restricted to those affecting ACAP species at the breeding site (i.e. not those occurring at sea), and are only included/assessed if the threat has been documented in some way at the site in question, and is likely to have a negative impact (population decline in the next decade) on an ACAP species. Potential or suspected threats are thus not included. The only threat (to ACAP species) in the Falkland Islands identified by ACAP using this approach is predation of White-chinned Petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis by feral cats Felis catus at New Island (Appendix 4). It must be noted though that although the scope of this threat is recorded as very high, both the severity and level of the threat are recorded as low (see also below), chiefly because of lack of documentation to the contrary.

Although the ACAP approach of only including documented threats linked to population declines (and excluding potential or suspected threats) may be viewed as insufficiently precautionary, it is currently considered as the only realistic means of ensuring objective assessments of threats across species and sites. The database will be continually updated, so as new evidence comes to light regarding a particular threat, this can be incorporated in the database and re-assessed.

4.1 Current status of the management of ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands The overall vision of the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy is to “ conserve and enhance the natural diversity, ecological processes and heritage of the Falkland Islands, in harmony with sustainable economic development”. It is important to note that the majority (37 of 47, or 79%) of the ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands are privately owned (Appendix 3) 3. It is thus crucial that a consultative and collaborative approach is adopted in the management of breeding sites in the Falkland Islands, one in which all stakeholders are actively engaged. The distribution of the Falkland Islands ACAP breeding sites is shown in Figure 1.

4.1.1 Protection status of ACAP breeding sites and species The 1999 Conservation Ordinance affords full protection to all ACAP species and breeding sites in the Falkland Islands. In particular, the 1999 Ordinance prohibits the capture or killing of a protected wild animal (all ACAP species), taking or destroying the eggs of a protected animal, and damaging or destroying the breeding site or resting place of a protected animal. The majority of the breeding sites for ACAP species are privately owned; only 10 of the 47

4 Sites managed by quasi-government organisations primarily for purposes other than conservation (mainly agriculture and tourism) are treated here as privately owned.

ACAP breeding sites have been proclaimed National Nature Reserves (NNRs) (Appendix 3). Consequently, although the ACAP species are protected by the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance 1999 and its amendments, breeding site conservation management objectives are best achieved through a collaborative approach between the various government departments, private landowners and other stakeholders. Falklands Conservation is currently leading an OTEP-funded project to develop a Protected Areas framework for the Falkland Islands, including reviewing existing designations and producing guidelines for Protected Area management plans.

4.1.2 Measures to eliminate, control or prevent the introduction of non-native species to breeding sites The occurrence of introduced (non-native) mammals on islands is an issue of global conservation concern, and is generally considered to represent a threat to the albatrosses and petrels listed under ACAP, especially the smaller, burrow-nesting species. In the Falklands, large colonies of Black-browed Albatrosses and Southern Giant Petrels are present on islands with rats, mice and cats and these ACAP species do not appear to be impacted by these invasive alien species. However, little work has been carried out on the impact of rodents on seabirds in the Falkland Islands (but see below and Quillfeldt et al. 2008). Both the Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus and the Black or Ship Rat Rattus rattus are present in the Falkland Islands, although the Black Rat is thought only to occur presently on New Island (Brown et al. 2001; Strange 2007).

The Beaver Island LandCare Group (and latterly Falklands Conservation) continues to implement a rat eradication programme in the Falkland Islands. The primary objective of this work is to restore native habitats which have been lost to introduced Norway rats and increase productive foraging and breeding habitats for bird and invertebrate populations. The presence of ACAP species has been a consideration in selecting sites to be eradicated. A number of sites have already been cleared of rats, including Governor Island, an ACAP site with breeding Southern Giant Petrels, where an eradication operation was implemented in August 2008. Follow up monitoring of cleared sites forms part of the rat eradication programme; a minimum of three rat breeding seasons is required between the eradication attempt and the assessment of the success (or not) of the eradication.

The House Mouse Mus musculus , is also present at a number of the ACAP breeding sites in the Falklands, and although there is currently no evidence that House Mice are a direct threat to ACAP species in the Falkland Islands, recent work on Gough Island (Tristan da Cunha) indicates that predation by House Mice reduces severely the breeding success of the Tristan Albatross Diomedea dabbenena, and is contributing towards the ongoing and rapid decline in numbers of Tristan Albatross (Cuthbert et al . 2004; Wanless et al . 2007, 2009). It is important to note that House Mice were not formerly considered to pose a threat to large seabirds; it was only in 2000 that their impact on Tristan Albatrosses and other seabirds became known (Cuthbert et al. 2004). It is also important to note that mice are the only rodents present on Gough Island, and that in the absence of rats have grown larger and have expanded their niche to become more formidable predators than other island populations of mice.

Figure 1: Distribution of ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands (from Falklands Conservation)

Therefore it should not be assumed that because mice are a threat to seabirds on Gough Island, they will automatically pose a similar threat to seabirds in the Falklands. However, it does mean that rodent eradication plans for sites with both rats and mice need to be developed and implemented holistically, with due consideration of the potential consequences of eradicating rats, but not mice, from these islands.

Falklands Conservation, in collaboration with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Wildlife Conservation Society, have conducted an investigation of the impacts of House Mice on seabirds, and other avifauna, at Steeple Jason Island. Initial outputs of this work indicate that storm petrel (Hydrobatidae) burrows are rare in areas where mice were most abundant; camera traps on storm petrel burrows revealed regular mouse visitation and ground-nesting passerines showed sign of mouse predation (Bolton and Stanbury 2010, 2011), and that nesting densities of Wilson’s Storm Petrels Oceanites oceanicus are substantially lower on Steeple Jason, where mice are present, than at Grand Jason Island, which is mouse-free (Anon. 2010). An investigation into the feasibility of broadcasting poison bait aerially to eradicate House Mice concluded that this approach appears promising, but that Striated Caracaras Phalcoboenus australis are vulnerable to primary and possibly secondary poisoning (Rexer-Huber et al. 2012). Further feasibility work, including on the likely impact on target species, is planned for 2013, which will inform the management of House Mice on Steeple Jason Island.

Other introduced mammals considered to pose threats to ACAP species, either directly through predation or indirectly through habitat degradation and destruction, which are present in the Falklands, include Feral Cats Felis catus, European and Cottontail Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus and Sylvilagus floridanus ), Brown Hares ( Lepus europaeus ) and Patagonian or Grey Foxes Lycalopex griseus (although the latter are not present at any of the ACAP breeding sites). Cattle ( Bos taurus ) and sheep ( Ovis aries ) are also present at a number of the ACAP breeding sites.

Predation of White-chinned Petrels by Feral Cats at New Island is formally identified as a threat in the ACAP database. However, both the severity and level of the threat are recorded as low (Appendix 4). Research carried out at New Island has shown that cats on New Island feed predominantly on Rabbits, Black Rats, and Thin-billed Prions Pachyptila belcheri , with no evidence that Black-browed Albatrosses were consumed (Matias & Catry 2008, Quillfeldt et al. 2008). There is some evidence that Feral Cats prey on the chicks of White-chinned Petrels, but in spite of this the relatively small colony of White-chinned Petrels at New Island (between 30 to 40 nests) has remained stable since 1972 (Reid et al.. 2007). The policy of the New Island Conservation Trust, as expressed in Strange (2007), is to continue to monitor the impact of invasive species, such as the Feral Cat, to understand better the interactions between the suite of alien species present on the island, and prepare and implement plans, as far as is practicable, to control their populations, or where possible, to eradicate them. The management of introduced predators on New Island was discussed at a workshop in April 2013 (New Island Conservation Trust 2013). It was agreed that all of the introduced predators (cats, rats, mice and rabbits) need to be considered collectively. Consequently, any plan to eradicate these introduced mammals should attempt to remove all four species in one programme of work. A key recommendation of the workshop was to commission a study to investigate the feasibility of eradicating all introduced predators from New Island to inform the appropriate management approach. This feasibility study is in progress at time of writing and

will be similar to the feasibility work described earlier for Steeple Jason Island. There may also be a need to develop an appropriate monitoring plan that would include the collection of baseline information. Given the potential impact of Feral Cats on the small population of White-chinned Petrels at New Island, the implementation of a control programme in the immediate vicinity of the White-chinned Petrel colony was recommended to be considered (New Island Conservation Trust 2013).

A review of biosecurity in the Falkland Islands was published in 2004 (Simpson and Hellstrom 2004). The review included a range of recommendations with application to legislation, risk management, education, surveillance and inspection. One of the key recommendations of the report was the appointment of a Biosecurity Officer, which has since been taken up by FIG. The importing of items into the Falkland Islands is controlled by the Department of Agriculture: Senior Veterinary Officer (fauna) and Senior Agricultural Advisor (flora); the day to day implementation of biosecurity policy is carried out by the Biosecurity Officer (based in the Department of Agriculture).

Internal or intra-island biosecurity is coordinated by the Environmental Planning Department of FIG. Falklands Conservation, the South Atlantic Invasive Species (SAIS) project, coordinated by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on behalf of the Governments of the UK SAOTs, and FIG carried out a review of internal quarantine measures in relation to rodents. Included in this work was a report by Christie (2007) providing recommendations on quarantine and biosecurity measures to prevent the incursion of rodents to sites which are currently rodent-free. As a consequence of this work, four islands were identified as priority sites requiring special biosecurity and quarantine attention. These four islands, Carcass, Lively, the Speedwell/George/Barren group and Sea Lion islands (all of which are ACAP species breeding sites), were selected because they are relatively large, currently rodent-free, inhabited by humans and frequently visited, thus placing them at risk with respect to rodent incursions. To date (June 2013), island-specific Biosecurity Plans have been developed for Sea Lion, Carcass and Kidney islands. The plans include actions to minimise the risk of rodent introductions, surveillance work to check for the presence of rodents (bait stations), and a contingency component to be implemented if there is evidence of potential rodent occurance. The Environmental Planning Department of FIG is responsible for facilitating the ongoing implementation and review of these plans. The development of Biosecurity Plans for these sites is seen as the first phase in the process of strengthening internal biosecurity and quarantine measures, and it is intended that similar plans will later be developed for other sites.

A South Atlantic Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan was developed at a regional meeting of the SAOTs on Ascension Island in May 2009. The strategy, which aims to provide a focus for the SAOTs to develop and implement effective prevention and response mechanisms to reduce the impact of invasive alien species (Shine and Stringer 2009), forms a useful tool to guide action in the Falkland Islands. The Strategy was formally adopted by FIG (through Executive Council) in 2010. The ACAP biosecurity and quarantine guidelines also provide a useful tool to assist in the development of biosecurity protocols for the Falkland Islands, and can be downloaded from: ( http://www.acap.aq/index.php/en/resources/acap- conservation-guidelines/1073-biosecurity-guidelines).

FIG and Falklands Conservation undertake a range of public awareness initiatives with respect to biosecurity and quarantine measures, liaising with all key stakeholder groups, including the military, government, landowners and the general public. In 2007 the FIG Ports and Harbours booklet (Falkland Islands Government, 2009) was updated to highlight better relevant biosecurity measures, and a biosecurity poster was developed for the Falkland Islands Government Air Service (FIGAS) and helicopter services. One of the key challenges is to ensure a coordinated, integrated and strategic approach to both national biosecurity (transport into the islands) and intra-island biosecurity, with strong leadership from FIG. It is important to note that the biosecurity regime within the Falkland Islands also has an impact on the environment of South Georgia, as many vessels visiting South Georgia come via the Falkland Islands. This applies particularly to the biosecurity provisions in place at the Falkland Interim Port and Storage System (FIPASS), which is commonly used for mooring and storage purposes by vessels and/or cargo transhipments destined for South Georgia.

The RSPB has recently undertaken a prioritisation exercise for all of the islands within the UK Overseas Territories, reviewing the presence of invasive species at each site, how these affect native species, and whether eradication of the invasive species is feasible (RSPB, in prep). The value of removing invasive species was calculated for 2,499 islands in the UKOTs, based on the irreplaceability of the native species, severity of impact of the invasive species, and current feasibility for eradication. This report will contain information on alien animal and plant species, as well as identifying the highest priority islands for biosecurity implementation.

4.1.3 Measures to minimise disturbance at ACAP species’ breeding sites Most of the ACAP species’ breeding sites in the Falkland Islands are privately owned, and so measures to minimise disturbance to ACAP species (and more broadly) must involve constructive communication and engagement with landowners, agriculture and tourism industries and various government departments. Research carried out in the Falkland Islands requires a research permit from the FIG Environmental Planning Department, as well as permission from the relevant landowner.

The Falkland Islands Countryside Code was adopted by FIG in 2000/01, and provides guidelines on how to minimise disturbance and other negative impacts on the wildlife and environment of the Falkland Islands. The Countryside Code is included in all material produced for visitors to the Islands. In 2006, Falklands Conservation produced a more detailed guideline document for landowners with breeding ACAP species (Yates and Crofts, 2006), an excerpt of which is provided in Appendix 5. These guidelines recommend a minimum approach distance of 6m for nesting seabirds generally, and ideally 200m, but no closer than 50m for nesting Southern Giant Petrels, which are particularly sensitive to disturbance in the Falkland Islands. In some cases, the 6m minimum approach distance is not practical. This is the case for some of the sites at which tourists can view Black-browed Albatrosses, where thick tussac grass on the periphery of colonies may require a closer approach. As long as people approaching such a colony of Black-browed Albatrosses are cautious and only approach as close as is necessary to view the birds, these are unlikely to be disturbed.

The Environmental Planning Department of FIG receive Post-Visit Reports (PVRs) for all IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators) registered vessels landing at sites outside of Stanley. FIG also requires PVRs from all visits (researchers and tourists) to 12

FIG-owned islands. The PVRs include, inter alia , details regarding the number of passengers, duration of visit, and places visited, and are used by FIG to compile annual statistics for reporting purposes. They also provide a mechanism for visitors to report opportunistic observations, and are used by FIG to monitor visitor numbers at particular sites.

Tourism is an increasingly important activity in the Falkland Islands, and one which needs to be encouraged and responsibly managed. Some recent examples of initiatives implemented to manage potential disturbance, especially in relation to ACAP breeding sites, include the development of a small jetty for offloading cruise ship passengers at Barren Island, the maintenance of hides to view Southern Giant Petrels at Sea Lion Island and Pebble Island, the development and implementation of a conservation plan at New Island (Strange 2007), the construction and maintenance of a path for tourists to access and view the Black-browed Albatross colony at West Point Island, and fencing off the Black-browed Albatross colony at Grave Cove, Dunbar to protect the nesting habitat and courting and nesting birds from grazing sheep. These activities have been carried out by the landowners, with support in some cases from FIG, Falklands Conservation and local, UK and international funds, and highlight again the important role of landowners and the need for a collaborative approach to conservation management in the Falkland Islands.

4.1.4 Management Plans for ACAP species’ breeding sites Formal Management Plans are in place, or are under development, for a few ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands. Although there is currently no standard format or guidelines for the development of site management plans in the Falkland Islands, these are under development through the current Protected Areas project being managed by Falklands Conservation. It is intended that this ACAP plan provides guidance on the necessary management requirements for ACAP species that could be developed into formal management recommendations and Management Plans as these are developed and reviewed.

4.2 Recommendations 4.2.1 Ensure that the project underway to develop a Protected Areas Framework and guidelines for site management plans in the Falkland Islands is informed by the principles outlined in this ACAP plan. 4.2.2 For sites at which ACAP species breed and for which a formal Management Plan is under development or review (e.g. Steeple Jason, Grand Jason, Kidney Island, New Island), ensure that these plans include a full specification of appropriate management actions in relation to the ACAP species (as outlined generally in this ACAP plan). 4.2.3 For sites at which ACAP species breed and which are in ownership of FIG or Conservation Organisations and Trusts, develop formal management recommendations for ACAP species at these sites, with a view to including these in comprehensive formal Management Plans in the future. Particular priorities are the remaining islands in the Jason Group and Beauchêne Island. 4.2.4 Once sufficient examples of agreed best-practice in respect of ACAP species at these sites (in 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) are available, the approaches therein should

be discussed with owners of other sites at which ACAP species breed, with a view to developing appropriate site-specific management and species conservation practices for these sites. It is important to develop consistent and, where feasible, coordinated, standards of management approaches and implementation (at least insofar as site-specific differences permit). 4.2.5 Develop/strengthen and implement a formal biosecurity strategy and plan with strict quarantine measures to prevent the introduction and transfer of invasive animals, plants and diseases, especially in respect of rodents and avian diseases (for ACAP species). It is important that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, that these actions are taken up in biosecurity/quarantine legislation and protocols and are strictly implemented, and that monitoring protocols are in place to check compliance with prescriptions. Some key biosecurity requirements for ACAP species include the following: a. Ensure that islands which are currently free of rodents remain that way by implementing and extending to other sites the Island Biosecurity Plans. b. Strengthen quarantine and surveillance protocols for vessels and aircraft arriving in the Falkland Islands. c. Ensure that strict quarantine protocols are implemented on all vessels and aircraft moving between islands, which should be expected to demonstrate that they are rodent-free. d. Revisit the suite of reports dealing with biosecurity and quarantine measures in the Falkland Islands (Simpson and Hellstrom (2004), Christie (2007) and the draft South Atlantic Invasive Species strategy, compiled after the SAIS workshop at Ascension Island in May 2009) to identify the priority actions that need to be taken forward and how these should be implemented. 4.2.6 Ensure robust management of biosecurity risks and disturbance associated with tourist activities. 4.2.7 Maintain Post-Visit Report (PVR) system, and use information to compile an annual report for dissemination to key stakeholders. 4.2.8 Use the report of the investigation into the feasibility of eradicating House Mice (and assessment of non-target impacts)at Steeple Jason Island to inform management actions. 4.2.9 Complete the investigation into the feasibility of eradicating all introduced predators from New Island and use outcomes to inform the appropriate management approach. 4.2.10 Consider management options for local control of the Feral Cat population in the vicinity of the small White-chinned Petrel colony at New Island.

5. Status and trends of populations The UK has an obligation to monitor the status and trends of ACAP-listed species breeding at each of its Overseas Territories, and thus contribute to the overall assessments of the conservation status of each species. 14

ACAP requirements: Status and trends

1. Initiate or support research into the effective conservation of albatrosses and petrels (Art III 1d). 2. Undertake relevant research and monitoring (AP 4.1). 3. Contribute to UK report to Secretariat (to Advisory Committee to each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the Action Plan and any other relevant points. Specifically the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report assessments and reviews of the status of populations of albatrosses and petrels, including an assessment of population trends of the species, especially those in poorly known areas and of species for which few data are available.

ACAP’s Population and Conservation Status Working Group (PCSWG) is responsible for collecting, collating and updating demographic and population data for each ACAP-listed species and to produce assessments of the status and trends of these species. Parties are required to submit status and trend and other data to a relational ACAP database that integrates and curates status and trends, breeding sites and taxonomy data. In addition to facilitating the coordinated storage and management of these data, the database is also used for the ACAP Species Assessments, the framework for which is built in to the ACAP database. The ACAP Species Assessments aim to collate the most recent scientific information on population status and trends, distribution, threats, as well as any conservation measures that are in place for the 29 albatross and petrel species currently listed under the Agreement. The usefulness of the ACAP database as a management tool is dependent on the timely provision of updated data from the breeding range states (or data holders) to the ACAP Secretariat so that it can be incorporated into the database and used in analyses. The information collated in the database can also be used for the purposes of education and public awareness. The Species Assessments are available online ( http://www.acap.aq/acap-species ), and are intended to be updated for each ACAP Advisory Committee meeting, as new material is available.

5.1 Current activities relating to monitoring the status and trends of ACAP-listed species in the Falkland Islands When considering the monitoring of ACAP listed species, it is useful to distinguish between annual monitoring of study plots and intermittent much larger-scale censuses of entire islands or archipelagos. Both forms of monitoring take place in the Falkland Islands, and are currently undertaken by a number of different individuals and organisations, including Falklands Conservation, the New Island Conservation Trust and associated researchers.

5.1.1 Black-browed Albatross Approximately 70% of the global population of Black-browed Albatrosses breeds in the Falkland Islands. Black-browed Albatrosses breed at 12 distinct sites in the west and south of the archipelago. There have been a number of full and partial site counts of breeding birds since 1964, with complete archipelago-wide surveys conducted in 1986, 2000, 2005, and most recently in 2010 (Prince 1982; Thompson and Rothery 1991; Huin 2001; Huin and Reid 15

2007; Strange 2008; Strange and Strange 2011; Baylis 2012a; Baker and Jensz 2012). There have been two separate approaches to census and monitor archipelago-wide numbers of Black-browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands, one using aerial photographic surveys (Strange 2008; Strange and Strange 2011, Baker and Jensz 2012), and the other using ground and boat based survey methods, including direct counts of colonies on the ground, use of transects and quadrats to estimate nest densities, and from colony and boat-based photography (Huin 2001; Huin and Reid 2007; Baylis 2012a). There have also been differences between these two census initiatives in the timing of counts. The aerial surveys have generally taken place at the commencement of breeding (late September/early October, except in 2010 when an additional aerial survey was conducted later in the breeding season), whereas the ground-based surveys have been conducted later in the breeding season (October/November), once the majority of birds have laid eggs.

Until 2005 these two main breeding survey initiatives, using aerial and ground-based methods, reported contrasting population trends. Archipelago-wide surveys conducted in 2000 and 2005 using ground based methods, and comparing these with previous estimates, resulted in reports of sustained declines of between 0.7%-1.08% per annum (Huin and Reid 2007). On the other hand, reports of aerial photographic surveys of the Falklands’ population concluded that the population – and indeed most colonies – increased between 1986 and 2005 (Strange 2008). It is clear that the very large size of some of the colonies, especially those at Beauchêne and Steeple Jason islands, and the often complex nature of the nesting terrain, present substantial challenges for conducting rigorous censuses of the Falklands’ population.

Most recently surveys of all breeding sites, using the same methods that had been used previously, were conducted in 2010. In order to better understand the possible reasons for the discrepancies in the breeding population and trend results previously reported, a project was initiated to conduct simultaneous aerial and ground based counts at selected colonies. Consequently, aerial photographs were taken of all colonies in late September/early October, consistent with the methodology used previously (Strange and Strange 2011). The ground based survey was conducted from late October to mid-November, consistent with the methods used in the 2000 and 2005 surveys (Baylis 2012a). The September/October surveys coincide with the commencement of the egg-laying period, whereas the ground surveys in October/November coincide with early to mid-incubation. In order to assess differences between estimates derived from ground and aerial based survey methods, aerial photographs were also taken of eight of the 12 colonies on 11 November 2010, to coincide with the ground survey period. It was intended that the counts from the November aerial photographs could also be compared with those derived from the September/October photographs to assess how the timing of the census may influence estimates of breeding birds.

The aerial and ground-based surveys conducted in 2010 both revealed an increase in the Black-browed Albatross population of at least 4% per annum between 2005 and 2010. Although there are survey-specific differences in the population estimates and the percentage change patterns in the population, the positive trend from both these surveys is supported by demographic data (Catry et al. 2011) and an additional aerial photographic survey conducted later in the 2010 breeding season than the aerial initial survey (Baker and Jensz 2012). The results from the 2010 ground-based survey indicate that the population has also increased since the first archipelago-wide ground survey in 2000, and possibly even since the initial

ground based surveys were conducted at Beauchêne and Steeple Jason Islands in the 1980s. Current estimates for the annual breeding population in the Falkland Islands range between 475, 500 and 535,000 breeding pairs. Based largely on these results from the Falkland Islands, but supported by recent census results from Chile, which show that the Black-browed Albatross population at Diego Ramirez and Ildefonso increased by 23% between 2002 and 2011 (Robertson et al. in prep.), BirdLife International finalised downlisting the species from ‘Endangered’ to ‘ Near Threatened’ in September 2013 with a formal update to the red list due in November 2013. This proposal was supported by ACAP’s Population and Conservation Status Working Group in April 2013. The change, together with other proposed changes to the Red List status of bird species, was available for comment on the online BirdLife Threatened Bird Forums ( www.birdlife.org/globally-threatened-bird-forums ) until September 2013.

Falklands Conservation has been carrying out annual monitoring of population trends and productivity at selected Black-browed Albatross colonies at Steeple Jason since 2004. An annual demographic study, in which all adults and chicks are banded, was initiated at Steeple Jason in 2006. The number of breeding pairs from all of the monitored sites increased by about 16% between 2005 (the date of the last archipelago-wide census) and 2008 (Pistorius 2009). Breeding success was variable during this period, ranging from 40.5% in 2005 to 61.6% in 2007; adult survival for the period 2007/08-2008/09 was estimated to be about 94% (Pistorius 2009; Falklands Conservation, unpubl. data), similar to the estimate from New Island (see below). A more detailed analysis of the data from Steeple Jason showed that between 2006 and 2012, with the exception of 2010, estimated annual survival rates of adult Black-browed Albatrosses breeding at Steeple Jason ranged between 93.6% and 95.7% (95% CI: 89.8%-97.5%); the low survival estimate of 79.8% (95 % CI: 75.3 – 83.6 %) in 2010 coincided with very low breeding success (around 5 % of pairs raised chicks) and increased adult mortality at the site following a severe storm event in December 2010 (Wolfaardt et al . 2012; Stanworth 2013).

Breeding success and survival data have been collected annually at New Island by Paulo Catry and the New Island Conservation Trust since 2003. This work forms part of a comprehensive demographic and breeding ecology study of Black-browed Albatrosses at New Island. The average annual breeding success for the period 2004 to 2012 was 60.1% ± 16.3% (std); adult survival for the period 2003-2009 was 94.6%, with a range of 93.2-95.5% (95% CI) (Catry et al. 2011; P. Catry and New Island Conservation Trust, unpubl. data).

5.1.2 Southern Giant Petrel The first complete census of Southern Giant Petrels in the Falkland Islands was conducted during the 2004/2005 breeding season. In this census, the Southern Giant Petrel population was estimated to comprise just less than 20,000 pairs, breeding at 38 locations, with colony size ranging from one to 10,936 breeding pairs (Reid and Huin 2008). Although no previous archipelago-wide censuses have been conducted, the results indicate the Southern Giant Petrel to be more numerous in the Falkland Islands than previously thought, and provide a strong indication that the population has increased since the 1950s (Reid and Huin 2008). The results confirm the global importance of the Falkland Islands for Southern Giant Petrels, which supports approximately 40% of the global population (Patterson et al. 2008; Reid and Huin 2008). Recent analyses of trend data for the global population have been used to downlist the threat status of the species from Near Threatened to Least Concern (BirdLife International 2009). 17

Falklands Conservation has carried out monitoring of population trends of Southern Giant Petrels at Steeple Jason since 2000, with annual monitoring of population trends and breeding success at a number of sites on Steeple Jason and at Sea Lion Island since 2004, although monitoring at Sea Lion has been discontinued. The monitoring of these study colonies has indicated that the Southern Giant Petrel population at Steeple Jason Island increased linearly between 2000 (n = 987) and 2005 (n = 1,686) at an average rate of 19.6% per annum. In recent years the increase has slowed. Between 2006 and 2009 the average rate of increase was 2.7% per annum. Between 2010 and 2011, the number of Southern Giant Petrel breeding pairs increased by 5.3%, from 1,748 to 1,841 breeding pairs (Baylis 2012b). Breeding success was highly variable, with an average fledging success of 49% for the period 2004-2008 (Pistorius 2009); breeding success declined markedly in 2011, to an average of just 14% (from 35% in 2010) (Baylis 2012b). Previous monitoring work at the Sea Lion Island colony has been terminated due to the difficulty of obtaining accurate counts without causing disturbance.

In October 2011, Southern Giant Petrels were recorded breeding for the first time on Sea Lion Island (Choiseul Sound), with an estimated breeding population of between 12 and 15 pairs (Poncet and Passfield 2011). The birds have likely colonised the island within the last 10 years as there were none breeding at the site in 2000 (Poncet and Passfield 2011). The 2010 ACAP plan mistakenly omitted Southern Giant Petrels as breeding species from three other sites: New Island, Ship Island and Sand Bay Island, near the Arch Islands. Appendix 3 and the ACAP database have been updated to reflect the current breeding status of Southern Giant Petrels at these sites.

5.1.3 White-chinned Petrel The first formal survey of all known colonies of White-Chinned Petrels in the Falkland Islands was carried out during the 2004/05 and 2005/06 breeding seasons. A total of 55 active burrows was observed at three islands: Kidney Island (27 pairs), Bottom Island in Port William (2 pairs) and New Island (26 pairs) (Reid et al. 2007). The total figure should be considered a minimum estimate, especially at Kidney Island, where the very high density of burrow-nesting Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus likely results in some White-chinned Petrel burrows being overlooked. Furthermore, it is possible that thorough surveying of other tussac islands (with suitable nesting habitat) will reveal additional White-chinned Petrel colonies. Indeed, in October 2012, White-chinned Petrels were recorded breeding at Top Island (near Bottom Island) in Port William (Poncet et al. 2012). On the basis of the October 2012 surveys it is estimated that there are ca. 20,200 burrows on Top Island, the majority of which are Sooty Shearwater nests. Approximately ten White-chinned Petrels were observed displaying in one area of the island, and several other pairs were observed elsewhere; a single bird was seen sitting in the entrance of a large burrow on the north coast. On the basis of this information, it is difficult to estimate the size of the White-chinned Petrel population at Top Island, but is thought to be in the order of tens rather than hundreds of pairs (Poncet et al . 2012). It is thought that many of the individuals observed in the waters of the Falkland Islands (White et al. 2002) are from the much larger South Georgia population (Berrow et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2006).

Historical estimates suggest that the population on Kidney Island was much larger ( c. 1000 breeding pairs) (Woods and Woods 1997) than was estimated in the recent census. However, the historical estimates were not based on systematic surveys, so it is difficult to compare the 18

estimates. The colony at New Island may have remained relatively stable between 1972 and 2005, despite the presence of Feral Cats there (Reid et al. 2007). However, given observations of predation and the potential impact of Feral Cats on the small population of White-chinned Petrels at New Island, the implementation of a trapping programme in the immediate vicinity of the White-chinned Petrel colony is recommended (see section 4.1.2). It is likely that the population of White-chinned Petrels in the Falkland Islands has always been small; it currently represents less than 1% of the global population (Reid et al. 2007). Given the small population size, and the fact that it is known to suffer fisheries-related mortality outside Falkland Islands waters, the White-chinned Petrel is at risk of becoming locally extinct.

Given the disturbance and difficulties associated with conducting detailed demographic and productivity studies on burrowing petrels, it is not considered feasible and appropriate to conduct such studies on White-chinned Petrels in the Falkland Islands. However, ongoing (occasional) monitoring of the population size, together with surveys of other tussac islands which provide suitable habitat, would be useful. Poncet et al. (2012) conducted burrowing petrel transect surveys of Top and Bottom islands (in Port William) in October 2012. The surveys were too early in the season to quantify the occupancy levels of burrows, and therefore obtain an estimate of the populations on these islands, of which Top Island is a new breeding site for White-chinned Petrels. Poncet et al . (2012) highlight that given their proximity to Stanley and the baseline burrow surveys that they conducted, Top and Bottom islands, as well as Kidney Island, are good sites for long-term monitoring of White-chinned Petrels.

5.2 Recommendations Monitoring of the status and trends of ACAP-listed species in the Falkland Islands is important to determine if management measures are achieving their objectives. The monitoring strategy should ideally include a combination of annual monitoring of breeding numbers (one survey during incubation) and productivity (one chick count shortly before fledging) of representative (selected) study colonies, comprehensive demographic studies at a sample of study colonies to assess adult and juvenile survival, recruitment and other demographic parameters that help identify the underlying causes of population trends, and complete archipelago censuses less frequently – once every 10 years.

Because ACAP species are long-lived, for monitoring programmes to contribute useful information on the status and trends of ACAP species and possible reasons for population changes, they need to be of a long-term nature. For certain species (Southern Giant Petrel, and White-chinned Petrel), intensive monitoring is problematic due to logistical challenges and/or the sensitivity of the species - including nesting habitat - to disturbance. Given the relative population sizes of the three ACAP species breeding in the Falkland Islands, the percentage contribution of the Falkland Islands population to the global population, and the conservation status of each species, it is recommended that the order of priority for monitoring the status and trends of these ACAP species is: 1) Black-browed Albatross, 2) Southern Giant Petrel and 3) White-chinned Petrel.

Black-browed Albatross 5.2.1 On the basis of the recent assessment of census methodologies for Black- browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands (Wolfaardt 2012, 2013), conduct archipelago-wide aerial surveys (together with ground calibration techniques) of breeding birds once every 10 years according to the guidelines provided in Wolfaardt (2013). It is important that these archipelago-wide surveys are seen as part of a broader framework of monitoring, which includes more detailed annual monitoring (see 5.2.2). 5.2.2 Maintain annual monitoring of population size and demographic parameters at Steeple Jason Island and New Island study colonies (including banding adults and chicks), ensuring sufficient sample sizes to estimate accurately these demographic parameters. 5.2.3 Consider initiating annual monitoring at a third site in the Falklands.

Southern Giant Petrel 5.2.4 Maintain annual monitoring of population trends and productivity at Steeple Jason Island. 5.2.5 Develop and implement protocols for archipelago-wide censuses of Southern Giant Petrels. Archipelago-wide surveys should take place at least once every 10 years. The next census should therefore take place around 2015. Given their susceptibility to human disturbance, and following the methods used in the previous survey, it is recommended that archipelago wide surveys are conducted using aerial photography, possibly complemented by ground counts at sites where these are feasible or preferable. The timing of the survey is important and should take place as soon as possible after most birds have laid eggs. There is limited data on breeding phenology in the Falklands, and based on these, mid-November would seem to be an optimal period (but further investigation is required). Aerial photographs should be taken from a helicopter, rather than a fixed wing aircraft, maintaining an altitude of at least 300m (Reid and Huin 2008). If any disturbance is noted, the altitude should be increased. Further guidelines to inform the development of detailed protocols are provided in Appendix 6. 5.2.6 On the basis of the results of the census conducted in 2015 (see 5.2.5), investigate the selection of additional sites for annual or regular monitoring of population trends. This monitoring may involve ground counts or include sites that are surveyed by means of aerial photography.

White-chinned Petrel 5.2.7 Develop and implement long-term monitoring programmes for White-chinned Petrels breeding at Kidney, Top, Bottom and New Islands, based on previous surveys (Poncet et al. 2012; Reid et al. 2007; P. Catry, unpubl. data) that can be used to assess breeding success, and changes in abundance and distribution. Conduct work especially carefully to ensure minimal damage is caused to the nesting habitat.

5.2.8 Identify islands with suitable nesting habitat, and survey for presence of White- chinned Petrels. This could be combined with other survey work in the Falkland Islands (e.g. ongoing shorebird and Cobb’s Wren surveys), or specifically planned.

6. Foraging range and areas Albatrosses and petrels face a range of threats, both on land and at-sea. Chief amongst these is at-sea fisheries-related mortality. It is important to acquire data on foraging ranges and key foraging areas within these ranges for all ACAP species so that the spatial and temporal overlaps between the distribution of these species and fishing effort can be assessed, and used to inform the better management of seabird-fisheries interactions.

The Global Procellariiform Tracking Database, developed and maintained by BirdLife International as a repository for all albatross and petrel tracking data, is an important international tool for the conservation of albatrosses and petrels (BirdLife International 2004). All researchers collecting albatross and petrel tracking data are encouraged to contribute their data to the database so that they can be collated and used for regional analyses, especially to determine overlap between seabird distribution and fisheries effort. BirdLife International and others have already used these data for a range of conservation purposes, especially relating to assessments for Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs), demonstrating their value as an important conservation tool (e.g. BirdLife International 2006; Phillips and Small 2007; Taylor and Small 2008). It should be noted that access to these data is subject to the approval of the data holders.

ACAP requirements: Foraging range and areas

1. Conserve and, where feasible and appropriate restore those (marine) habitats, which are of importance to albatrosses and petrels (Art III, 1a). 2. Develop management plans for important areas at sea (AP 2.3.2). 3. Develop and implement measures to prevent, remove, minimise or mitigate the adverse effects of activities that may influence the conservation status of albatrosses and petrels (at sea). These include appropriate use of environmental impact assessment (Art III 1c; AP 3.1). 4. Initiate or support research into the effective conservation of albatrosses and petrels (at sea) (Art III 1d). 5. Contribute to the UK report to the Secretariat (to Advisory Committee and to each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the Action Plan and any other relevant points. Specifically, the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report: a) reviews to characterise, on the best available evidence, the foraging range (and principal feeding areas within this range) and migration routes and patterns, of populations of albatrosses and petrels; b) reviews of data on the distribution and seasonality of fishing effort in fisheries which affect albatrosses and petrels; c) identification of information gaps as part of the above reviews, with a view to addressing these in future priorities.

6.1 Current tracking and diet studies on ACAP species in the Falkland Islands A three year intensive study of the at-sea distribution of seabirds and marine mammals around the Falkland Islands (the majority of the FICZ and FOCZ) took place between 1998 and 2001, culminating in the publication of an at-sea distribution atlas for these taxa, which include all ACAP breeding species as well as a number of non-breeding visitors (Table 2; White et al. , 2002). Adult Black-browed Albatrosses from Saunders Island, Beauchêne Island, Steeple Jason and New Island have been tracked using loggers, satellite transmitters and GPS devices to determine at sea-distribution and assess overlap with fishing effort during the breeding season and inter-breeding period (Grémillet et al. 2000; Huin 2002; Granadeiro et al. 2011; Catry et al. 2013; Granadeiro et al . 2013). These studies have shown that Black-browed Albatrosses from the Falkland Islands rely mainly on marine resources within the Patagonian Shelf area, which is also used extensively by a number of commercial fisheries. The foraging range of birds differs depending on the stage of the breeding cycle, with a much more restricted foraging range during chick rearing than during incubation (Huin 2002). These studies also highlight colony differences in foraging areas.

Paulo Catry and colleagues have been tracking individual Black-browed Albatrosses during the early chick-rearing period from New Island, and more recently (from 2009/10) from Steeple Jason Island, using GPS devices. They collaborated with the Directorate of Natural Resources (DNR) (comprising the Falkland Island Fisheries Department) to use Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data to conduct a fine-scale analysis of the overlap between the tracked birds and the fishing vessels (within the waters of the Falkland Islands). The results show a high degree of segregation between the study birds from New Island and fishing activities, and differences between birds at New Island and Steeple Jason in the degree of association with fishing vessels (Granadeiro et al. 2011).

These results indicate the need for further investigation of the relationships between large- scale overlap of distributions of albatrosses and fishing effort and the fine-scale behaviour which influences direct interactions and bycatch mortality (see Torres et al . 2013; Croxall et al . in press). Such studies will benefit from additional fine-scale tracking data in combination with fine-scale fishing (VMS) data; however interpretation of interaction potential will also require direct observations by scientific observers on relevant fishing vessels.

The tracking studies on Black-browed Albatrosses has been developed further by modelling observed distribution of foraging activity taking account of environmental variables, fisheries activity (from VMS data), accessibility to feeding grounds and intra-specific competition (Catry et al. 2013). The resulting models can be used to make predictions regarding the distribution of albatrosses from different colonies and different years, and thus help identify important areas, and how these might change over time. Recently, the tracking and VMS data have been complemented by isotope analysis of feather and blood to investigate the extent to which individual Black-browed Albatrosses specialise on fisheries discards. Interim results suggest that individual Black-browed Albatrosses foraging over the Patagonian shelf do not specialise on fisheries waste (Granadeiro et al. 2013), which may have important implications for the management of discards to minimise the risk of seabird mortality associated with trawl fisheries (see section 7).

Consideration is also being given to deploying GPS devices on immature birds (an age group for which little information is available) from New Island, where many banded pre-breeders have been recorded back on the island. Their tracking (and demographic) work at New Island 22

is complemented by diet studies of Black-browed Albatrosses, using regurgitates and stable isotope analyses.

Falklands Conservation initiated a large scale exercise in April 2002 to monitor the dispersal of colour marked fledglings from Steeple Jason Island. Observations of colour marked birds from National Observer Programmes along the Patagonian Shelf indicate rapid dispersal of these immature birds away from the Falklands to the northern reaches of the Patagonian Shelf, and the waters offshore of Brazil (Sullivan et al. 2003). Satellite tracking of three fledglings from Steeple Jason from April to August 2007 similarly showed rapid movement of fledglings to Brazilian shelf waters (Huin 2007).

Most of the tracking data collected in the Falkland Islands have been submitted to the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database. The data have been used in a scientific assessment of the impacts on seabirds of fisheries within the area of application of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) (ICCAT Sub-Committee on Ecosystems, 2009), and to develop products for other RFMOs. Given the high degree of overlap of ACAP species from the Falkland Islands with ICCAT fisheries, the results of this assessment and the implementation of management recommendations to reduce bycatch levels are of critical importance (see Section 7.1). Data available in the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database have also recently been used to inform the development of candidate marine Important Bird Areas, the results of which are available in the BirdLife International marine IBA e-atlas, available via www.birdlife.org/datazone/marine .

In 2010 and 2011 Black-browed Albatrosses from Steeple Jason Island (n=5 in both years) were tracked during the winter period using geolocators. The tracked birds were largely restricted to neritic waters off South America, making extensive use of the Patagonian Shelf, an area in which high levels of seabird bycatch are recorded (Hedd et al . 2012).

The Southern Giant Petrel and the White-chinned Petrel have not been tracked in the Falkland Islands. Both of these species are known to be killed as bycatch in longline and trawl fisheries, so information on their distribution at sea and overlap with fisheries would be of value. However, given the small size of the White-chinned Petrel population in the Falkland Islands relative to the global population, and the increasing population trend and susceptibility to disturbance of Southern Giant Petrels, there are no current plans to conduct remote tracking of these species.

Of the ACAP species breeding in the Falklands, the Black-browed Albatross is considered the greatest priority. Continued tracking work will lead to a better understanding of inter-annual and inter-site differences in foraging movements. The winter period and immature/pre- breeding birds are particularly important gaps to address. The identification of seabird distribution data gaps, and how best to address them, especially in relation to the potential impacts of hydrocarbon activities, is being progressed by the Falkland Islands Offshore Hydrocarbons Environmental Forum (FIOHEF).

Paulo Catry and colleagues initiated a diet-sampling programme for Black-browed Albatrosses at New Island in 2004 (using a combination of methods), and undertake this work annually during the breeding season. This work has recently been progressed by combining tracking and VMS data with isotope analyses from feathers and blood (Granadeiro et al. 2013).

Falklands Conservation and ISPA plan to initiate a diet monitoring programme on Black- browed Albatrosses at Steeple Jason Island, following the methods outlined in McInnes et al (2013). This method involves analysing faecal DNA samples. A diet monitoring programme would provide information on the extent to which albatrosses include and rely on fisheries discards and fish offal in their diet, as opposed to natural prey. The methods are relatively simple and do not pose the risk of nest desertion by adults.

6.2 Recommendations 6.2.1 Continue remote-tracking work at New Island and Steeple Jason Island, and potentially other sites, systematically updating and filling gaps in a prioritised manner, with particular attention to assessing interannual variability and covering critical age-classes, and all stages of breeding and life cycles. 6.2.2 Use GPS and other tracking data to progress further work on fine-scale analysis of spatio-temporal overlap of fishing effort (from VMS data) with the foraging distribution of Black-browed Albatrosses in the waters of the Falkland Islands. 6.2.3 Complement such studies with concurrent data from direct observations of seabird/vessel interactions by scientific observers on relevant fishing vessels 6.2.4 Ensure all tracking data are submitted regularly and made available to the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database for use in updated analyses. 6.2.5 Ensure a coordinated approach to tracking work on ACAP (and other) species in the Falkland Islands. 6.2.6 Seek opportunities to collaborate with researchers and institutions involved with tracking work on ACAP species at other sites and thus contribute to regional and global assessments and/or reviews of albatross and petrel distribution and overlap with fisheries. 6.2.7 Investigate further the oceanographic and biological drivers of seabird distribution around the Falkland Islands, and identify foraging hotspots. Use results to provide management recommendations, including in relation to identification of potential Marine Protected Areas in Falkland Islands waters. 6.2.8 Following the analysis and publication of the diet data already collected, consider designing and implementing an ongoing diet-sampling and monitoring programme for Black-browed Albatrosses, based on the protocols outlined in Phillips (2006), complemented by tracking and isotope analyses.

7. Fishery-related issues The management of seabird-fisheries interactions, particularly the reduction of incidental mortality of seabirds in longline and trawl fisheries, is a critical objective of ACAP. The waters around the Falkland Islands are particularly important for albatrosses and petrels, both those breeding on the islands, and non-breeding visitors. Given the wide-ranging nature of albatrosses and petrels, it is also important to consider and manage threats that occur outside of the jurisdictional waters of the Falkland Islands, as these pose a significant threat to Falkland Island birds, particularly during migration and when not breeding. The management

of these threats – both on the high seas and in the jurisdictional waters of other nations - requires concerted international action.

ACAP’s Seabird Bycatch Working Group (SBWG) works together with the ACAP Parties and non-governmental Organisations to assess, reduce and mitigate negative interactions between fisheries activities and albatrosses and petrels. The overall aims of the SBWG are to identify actions that will assist in assessment, mitigation and reduction of negative interactions between fishing operations and albatrosses and petrels, and to develop technical information and products to assist Parties, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and other relevant international and national bodies to reduce seabird bycatch.

ACAP requirements: Fishery related issues

1. Develop management plans for important areas at sea (AP 2.3.2). 2. Ensure sustainability of marine living resources that provide food for albatrosses and petrels (AP 2.3.1 a). 3. Take appropriate operational, management and other measures to reduce or eliminate the mortality of albatrosses and petrels resulting incidentally from fishing activities (AP 3.2.1). 4. Adopt measures agreed in other fora for the conservation of albatrosses and petrels [at sea]. 5. Help ensure others do the same. Take all measures to eliminate IUU fishing (AP 3.2.2). 6. Support the implementation of the actions elaborated in the FAO International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, which complement the objectives of this Agreement (Art III 1h). 7. Tackle/avoid pollution (AP 2.3.1 b). 8. Initiate or support research into the effective conservation of albatrosses and petrels [at sea] (Art III 1d) 9. Collect reliable and verifiable data on interactions with fisheries (AP 4.2). 10. Contribute to UK report to Secretariat (to Advisory Committee to each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the Action Plan and any other relevant points. Specifically the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report: a. identification and assessment of known and suspected threats affecting albatrosses and petrels [at sea]; b. identification of existing and new methods by which these threats may be avoided or mitigated; c. reviews, and updating on a regular basis, of data on the mortality of albatrosses and petrels in, inter alia , commercial, and other relevant fisheries; d. reviews of data on the distribution and seasonality of effort in fisheries which affect albatrosses and petrels; e. reviews of the nature of, coverage by, and effectiveness of, protection arrangements for albatrosses and petrels [at sea].

7.1 Current status of fisheries-related issues in the Falkland Islands and beyond The conservation of sustainable fishery resources through effective management is a primary objective of the Falkland Islands Government. Fishing activities in and around the Falkland Islands are thus strictly regulated and managed.

There has been a multinational fishing fleet operating in the Falkland Islands since the mid 1970’s. In 1987 FIG declared the Falkland Islands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ), comprising an area of 150nm from the geographical centre of the islands, and began regulating the fishery through the management of a licence system. In 1994, FIG extended this zone to 200nm, measured from the baseline around the islands, to the north, east and south of the islands, thus creating the Falklands Outer Conservation Zone (FOCZ) (Figure 2).

The Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005 was enacted in 2005 and gives legislative effect to a modernisation of fisheries policy, including the introduction of transferable property rights for up to 25 years and a new licensing system. The increased security through the allocation of long-term property rights is intended to encourage diversification of activities, and an increased investment in research and development (Harte and Barton, 2007a, 2007b). The Fisheries Ordinance has as a key objective that “ the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non- target species and the long term sustainability of the marine environment .”

The Falkland Islands fisheries target squid ( Illex argentinus and Loligo gahi ) and a range of finfish species, by means of jiggers, trawlers and longline vessels; potting for Patagonian Toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides has also been trialled. In terms of effort, the main types of fishing activity in the Falkland Islands are trawling and jigging.

Seabird bycatch has been estimated annually for longline vessels targeting Patagonian Toothfish in the Falkland Islands since 2001/2002. The Falkland Islands fisheries observer programme has reported mortality of seabirds in the longline fishery since this commenced in 1994. The Falkland Islands [National] Plan Of Action-Seabirds for longliners (NPOA-L) was adopted in March 2004 with the objective of reducing seabird mortality in the longline fishery to below 0.01 birds/1000 hooks by 2004/05 and further to 0.002 birds/1000 hooks by 2006/07 (Sullivan 2004a). The estimated rate of seabird bycatch, predominantly Black-browed Albatrosses, associated with longline fishing in the Falkland Islands declined from 0.016 birds/1000 hooks in 2001/2002 to 0.005 seabirds/1000 hooks in 2003/04 (Reid and Sullivan 2004; Otley et al. 2007); the target set for 2004/05 (of less than 0.01 birds/1000 hooks) was reached in 2002/03. This was achieved due to a number of factors, including the implementation of a long-term observer programme, good house-keeping; including the correct design and use of tori line, correct line weighting regimes, bait thawing, offal management and the use of bird scaring curtains (e.g. Brickle curtain ) around the hauling bay. The target of 0.002 birds/1000 hooks was reached by 2005/06.

Since the 2007/08 fishing season there have been no seabird mortalities recorded in the longline fishery within the jurisdictional waters of the Falkland Islands, and only one seabird killed on a Falkland Islands longline vessel operating outside of the Falkland Islands EEZ (FIFD, unpubl. data). This zero mortality rate is due to the effective implementation of

mitigation measures, and the recently adopted umbrella system of longlining, which poses less of a risk to seabirds due to the more rapid sinking of the hooked line (see below).

Figure 2: Falkland Islands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ), the Falklands Outer Conservation Zone (FOCZ) and regional currents

The longline fishery in the Falkland Islands currently comprises one vessel, which has since July 2007 used the ‘cachalotera’/’umbrella’ or ‘Chilean longline’ system, comprising a net sleeve placed on secondary vertical lines (Moreno et al . 2008). Although this system was originally designed to reduce depredation of hooked fish by toothed whales, it has been shown to reduce substantially the risk of seabird bycatch as a consequence of significantly faster sink rates of the hook lines compared with the traditional Spanish double line longline systems (Moreno et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2010). The 2004 NPOA-L was updated in 2010/11, and the revised version covers the period 2011-2015 (Janzen et al. 2011). The NPOA-L (2011) is annually reviewed by the Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee (see below).

In the Falkland Islands, most of the incidental mortality of seabirds occurs in trawl fisheries. Seabirds are generally attracted to vessels as they have learnt that the vessels are potential

sources of food (discharged offal and bycatch in the case of trawlers), and are at risk of being killed as a result of interactions with trawl gear (cables/warps and the net). An estimated 1529 birds (the majority of which were Black-browed Albatrosses) were killed in 2002/03, mostly after being dragged underwater by the warp cable while feeding on factory discharge at the stern of the vessel (Sullivan et al. 2006b).

In 2001/2002 Falkland Conservation’s Seabirds At Sea Team (SAST) and the FIFD designed and started to test potential mitigation devices. Three mitigation devices were tested in the austral spring of 2003. The analyses indicated that bird scaring lines were by far the most effective at reducing contact rates with the warp and thus mortality (Sullivan et al. 2006).

Bird scaring lines were subsequently adopted throughout the Falkland Islands finfish fishery. During 2004/05, subsequent to the implementation of bird scaring lines in the finfish fishery, SAST conducted observations to establish a mortality estimate. Results indicated a reduction in seabird mortality of 90% (Reid and Edwards 2005).

The Falkland Islands [National] Plan of Action-Seabirds for trawling (NPOA-T) was adopted in 2004 (Sullivan 2004b), and was one of the first NPOA-Seabirds to be developed for trawl fisheries. Between 2004 and 2008, the Albatross and Petrel Programme of Falklands Conservation (the successor to the SAST) deployed dedicated seabird observers onboard trawlers to carry out a range of monitoring activities, and to obtain estimates of seabird mortality in the different trawl fleets (e.g. Crofts 2006a, b, c; Sancho 2009a). Fisheries observers from the FIFD have also been responsible since 2006 for recording seabird mortality associated with trawlers for this same purpose. Current evidence indicates that seabird mortality is greatest in the finfish fishery, followed by the pelagic trawl fishery; trawl vessels catching Loligo gahi have the smallest impact on seabirds, mostly owing to limited discharge by these vessels (compared with finfish trawlers) (Sancho 2009a). An assessment of seabird bycatch in the trawl fisheries of the Falkland Islands led in 2009 to the revision and updating of the NPOA-T (Sancho 2009b), which was adopted by FIG in February 2010. The NPOA-T is reviewed annually by the Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee (see below).

One of the shortcomings identified in the assessment of seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries and the review of the NPOA-T was the lack of precision in the seabird mortality estimates. In order to try and address this, the FIFD have employed a dedicated seabird observer since April 2011. The seabird observer works only on seabird related issues, and is responsible for data collection, training, investigating novel mitigation measures, designing research and monitoring programmes, and outreach.

Although the introduction of bird scaring lines has led to a large reduction in the number of seabirds incidentally killed, the mortality estimates have remained at an average of more than 500 birds per annum from 2007 until present (Sancho 2009a; Black 2010; Parker 2012, 2013). These are minimum estimates based on the number of carcasses hauled aboard. It is known that some corpses become dislodged from fishing gear, and other birds can suffer injuries resulting in subsequent death; both these categories of birds are not accounted for in annual mortality estimates.

The ultimate solution to the problem of seabird bycatch associated with trawlers is the retention or strategic management of fish waste (offal and discards) (Munro 2005). In the short-term there are significant constraints to overcome this issue. These relate to the current 28

design of trawlers, and the difficulty of fitting or modifying vessels to include facilities for onboard storage of waste or a meal plant. It is important to continue pursuing medium to long term solutions to the cause of the problem, and simultaneously to investigate and implement shorter-term bycatch mitigation measures that deal with the consequence of the problem. It has been suggested that reducing the volume of fisheries discards may reduce feeding opportunities for scavenging seabirds (Votier et al. 2004, 2008), such as Black-browed Albatrosses. However, studies of Black-browed Albatrosses in the Falklands have revealed that discards likely make only a small contribution to the overall energy budget (Thompson 1992; Thompson and Riddy 1995), and that individual birds do not seem to specialise on fisheries discards (Granadeiro et al. 2013). These findings suggest that reducing the volume and rate of fisheries waste discharge will result in an overall benefit to the population, by making vessels less attractive and thus reducing the opportunities for potential fatal interactions with trawl gear.

As has been indicated, bird scaring lines have been found to be the most effective mitigation measure for reducing seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries in the Falkland Islands. Although bird scaring lines are effective at mitigating seabird bycatch, their performance is reduced in certain conditions, especially in rough seas and strong crosswinds. The approach adopted in the Falkland Islands has been to assess continuously the efficacy of bird scaring lines and to introduce design modifications to improve performance (e.g. Crofts 2006c; Snell et al. 2011; Parker et al. 2013a). In addition to testing modified and new designs of mitigation measures, the FIFD, together with Falklands Conservation and the ACAP coordinator, have initiated research to investigate the extent and nature of undetected, or cryptic seabird mortality associated with trawl vessels (Parker et al. 2013b). The initial results of this research indicate that at least 23% of the total mortalities and severe injuries recorded were not observed from the trawler, highlighting the potential level of undetected mortality in trawl fisheries. This research also demonstrated the value of a warp attachment device that increases the likelihood that seabirds killed on trawl warps are retained until hauling. This preliminary study has produced promising results and provides a platform for further work to develop a correction factor to account for undetected (cryptic) mortality of seabirds in the trawl fisheries of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands Illex Jigging Assessment Directive was published in 2004 providing guidance for a thorough assessment of the extent and nature of the incidental catch of seabirds on squid ( Illex argentinus) jiggers operating in the Falkland waters and the wider Patagonian shelf (Sullivan 2004c). The Jigger Directive was assessed by Falklands Conservation in 2006/07. Mortality estimates confirmed earlier fisheries observations that incidental mortality associated with this fishery is minimal (Reid et al. 2006). The issue of seabird mortality resulting from jigging is inherently different to that associated with longline and trawl fishing; with jigging it is not the fishing activity itself that is problematic, but the deliberate targeting of seabirds. This is therefore not bycatch in the true sense but the desire of the crew for a variety of protein in their diet that leads to direct targeting of birds from lines deployed behind the vessel specifically for this purpose. Consequently, observers cannot accurately quantify the level of mortality (unless they were present on every vessel) because crew on a vessel will obviously refrain from such activities when an observer is present. The FIFD have undertaken to act upon any suspicion of targeting seabirds during spot checks (for example, if floating fishing gear was deployed astern or feathers and body parts found aboard). There is substantial variation in the estimates of birds killed in this manner, and it is

certainly an issue that requires further investigation and attention. Education materials have been prepared by Falklands Conservation, and are disseminated in multiple languages to the jigging vessels.

A fishery protection vessel with a Fisheries Officer and an aircraft provide surveillance of the 200 nautical mile zone around the Falklands throughout the year. The level of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activity in this zone is considered to be low. As a consequence, much of the fishery protection effort is focused on ensuring that vessels are complying fully with the requirements of the fishery.

All licenced fishing vessels have to comply with licence conditions that include a suite of seabird bycatch mitigation measures. The FIFD implements a national observer programme, which includes a dedicated seabird observer who works mostly in the trawl fleet.

All Parties to ACAP are required to submit annually seabird bycatch and associated fisheries data by means of an online reporting template. Data are reported per fishery, which for the Falkland Islands includes the following: i) demersal longline fishery for Patagonian Toothfish, ii) demersal finfish trawl fishery, iii) demersal Loligo trawl fishery, iv) pelagic trawl fishery and v) Illex jigger fishery. The data reported includes information on the characteristics of the fishing fleet effort, fishing effort, observed and estimated seabird bycatch, use of mitigation measures and the amount of fishing effort observed. Data up until and including the 2011/12 fishing season (July to June) have been submitted to ACAP using the online reporting forms. The data for the 2012/13 fishing season have not yet been submitted. The ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group is in the process of reviewing the data submitted by Parties. At the meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group in May 2013 it was recommended that in order to develop and use meaningful indicators in relation to seabird bycatch, it is necessary to improve the resolution of the data provided. It was recommended that bycatch and fisheries effort data be provided at a spatial scale of 5x5 degrees grid square or finer, for each quarter of the year. This would enable the total number of individuals (by species) killed annually in each fishery to be estimated, and would serve as a useful indicator for ACAP that could be used to assess and track the performance of the Agreement. There are a number of issues that need to be resolved or at least accounted for in order to progress the development of the bycatch reporting and assessment framework. This process will continue intersessionally, with feedback expected at the next meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group in August- September 2014.

In 2012 the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee was established. The Committee serves as a review body and engaging mechanism for seabird bycatch and mitigation generally, and to conduct regular (annual) reviews of the NPOA-S (longline and trawl fisheries). It is made up of representatives from the Falkland Islands Government (Fisheries and Environment), the fishing industry, and relevant Non-Government Organisations with expertise in seabird bycatch and related work. The Committee, which is chaired by the Environment Officer of FIG, meets twice a year, or additionally as required, and is responsible for advising and providing recommendations to the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Planning Department for onward consideration within FIG. The Terms of Reference of the Committee is provided in Appendix 7.

ACAP species from the Falkland Islands are also impacted by longline and trawl fishing activities outside of its EEZ - on the high seas, and within the jurisdictional waters of other countries, mainly those located along the Patagonian Shelf, such as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and southern Brazil (e.g. Neves and Olmos 1998, Bugoni et al. 2008, Favero et al. 2010, 2013, Jiménez et al. 2009, 2012). On the basis of the degree of overlap between seabirds and RFMO fisheries and the characteristics of species that are known or likely to be caught in these fisheries, ICCAT is considered to be the most important RFMO for albatrosses and petrels from the Falkland Islands. The UK, in collaboration with ACAP and other colleagues, has been actively involved in highlighting the impacts of ICCAT fisheries on seabirds, and encouraging the adoption of effective mitigation measures in these fisheries. This work has been driven via the ACAP RFMO engagement strategy, which aims to facilitate a co-ordinated approach amongst ACAP parties to improve seabird conservation measures within RFMOs. In the case of ICCAT, the Commission adopted in November 2011 Recommendation 11-09 (binding measure), which requires vessels fishing south of 25 degrees south to use two of three listed mitigation measures. These measures are based on ACAP’s best practice advice, which is for all three measures to be used simultaneously. Although the ICCAT Recommendation falls short of this advice, by only requiring two of the three measures to be used, this represents a significant improvement on what was required previously.

Revised or supplementary seabird conservation measures or resolutions were also adopted by the other four tuna regional fisheries management organisations (tRFMOs) during 2011-12: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Action is now required to ensure the effective implementation of these conservation measures and in some cases to strengthen the current requirements. The ability to assess and monitor impacts of fisheries on seabird populations is dependent on the quantity and quality of data collected by observer programmes within RFMOs, and this remains an important area to address. The development and implementation of methods to assess and review the effectiveness of mitigation regulations is also urgently required.

Given the importance of ICCAT fisheries for seabird conservation in the South Atlantic region, it is important that the UK and UK Overseas Territories delegations of ICCAT continue to work together with other Contracting Parties to progress efforts to reduce seabird bycatch. It is also important that the UK and UKOT actively participate in the broader ACAP RFMO engagement strategy. The South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation has recently been established, and covers an area which is used by ACAP species from the Falkland Islands and the other South Atlantic OTs. The UKOTs are not members of this RFMO, but it would be useful to investigate how best to advance seabird conservation objectives within this RFMO, including through the ACAP RFMO engagement strategy.

The EU Action Plan for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Fisheries was adopted in November 2012 ( http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/seabirds/consultation_document_en.pdf ) The plan, which was informed by the FAO Best Practice Technical guidelines, is important for the Falkland Islands and the other UKOTs, as it applies to vessels fishing in EU waters and EU flagged vessels fishing elsewhere. Unfortunately, in April 2013 the EU Council of Ministers failed to endorse the implementation of the Community Plan of Action. The UK and the

Netherlands were the only countries to support the plan. Given the importance of EU flagged vessels (including distant water fleets) for ACAP species, securing the support of the EU Council and subsequent implementation of the plan is an important step towards reducing seabird bycatch associated with EU vessels, wherever they operate.

7.2 Recommendations A multi-pronged approach is required to eliminate or minimise bycatch of Falkland Islands’ albatrosses and petrels. Firstly, it is important that rigorous management and monitoring of the various fisheries within the Falkland Islands EEZ takes place to ensure full compliance with conservation and other measures and so minimise incidental mortality of seabirds in these fisheries. Because mortality is also taking place outside of the jurisdictional waters of the Falkland Islands, it is important that organisations and countries responsible for fisheries management in these areas (on the high seas and within the jurisdictional waters of other nations) are encouraged and assisted to reduce and ultimately eliminate seabird bycatch.

7.2.1 Ensure the ongoing implementation of the NPOA-Seabirds (Longline), and conduct regular reviews of progress (see also 7.2.3). 7.2.2 Ensure the ongoing implementation of the NPOA-Seabirds (Trawl), and conduct regular reviews of progress (see also 7.2.3). 7.2.3 Annual reviews of two NPOA-Seabirds by the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee, and provision of advice on all seabird bycatch related matters to FIG, especially to the Fisheries and Environment Committees. The Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee has been established relatively recently, and it is important that its work is formalised and progressed. 7.2.4 Ensure continued collection and annual reporting of seabird bycatch data, both to the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee and to ACAP, ensuring that all reporting requirements are met (see also 7.2.3 and 7.2.5). 7.2.5 Actively engage in the process to develop further the ACAP bycatch data reporting framework. 7.2.6 Continue to test improvements to the current suite of seabird bycatch mitigation measures. Support and participate in relevant bycatch mitigation research, both within the Falklands and more broadly. The priority area of research for the Falkland Islands is in the trawl fisheries, including measures to deter birds from the dangerous fishing gear and offal management (see 7.2.7). 7.2.7 Investigate the short, medium and long-term offal management options for use in the trawl fisheries of the Falkland Islands, and adopt best practice practicable measures. 7.2.8 Develop further the research initiated in 2012 investigating the nature and extent of undetected seabird mortality associated with trawl gear, and use to improve the accuracy of seabird mortality estimates. 7.2.9 Collate information on the incidence of deliberate take of ACAP species (and other seabirds) by the jigging fleet, including possible reasons, solutions and management interventions.

7.2.10 UK with other European Union (EU) ACAP Parties (France, Spain) to seek to ensure better engagement by European Commission in environmental issues relating to external fisheries, especially to address the matter of seabird- fisheries interactions and seabird bycatch mitigation in RFMOs. Securing support for the formal adoption and implementation of the EU Action Plan for Seabirds is especially important. 7.2.11 UK to include seabird bycatch expertise at priority RFMO meetings (or at least engage experts prior to and following relevant meetings). 7.2.12 UK to participate actively in the ACAP RFMO engagement strategy. ICCAT is of particular importance for birds from the Falkland Islands and the rest of the South Atlantic, but the other tuna RFMOs are also important, as is the newly established South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. 7.2.13 UK to seek to work with other ACAP Parties (such as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil) to support or initiate measures to reduce seabird bycatch within the south-west Atlantic. 7.2.14 Work with fishing companies that operate in the Falkland Islands to ensure that successful mitigation of seabird bycatch mitigation by their vessels in these waters is complemented by the same measures when these and other vessels operate in other areas where there are risks of seabird bycatch. 7.2.15 Collaborate with other countries/organisations to help reduce bycatch (sharing of expertise and advice) and IUU fishing within and outside of the Falkland Islands EEZ. 7.2.16 Encourage and support initiatives by industry, governments and RFMOs to combat IUU fishing.

8. Data acquisition and management ACAP requires Parties to contribute to the development and implementation of systems for collecting, analysing and curating a range of data, as well as exchanging information. The ACAP Secretariat has developed a relational database and online reporting templates for the submission of data on breeding sites, population status and trends, seabird bycatch and associated fisheries information, all of which are accessed by means of a web portal (http://data.acap.aq/ ). The centralised storage and management of these data is a requirement of the Action Plan of the Agreement, and enables regular monitoring and review of the collective success of Parties in addressing the objective of the Agreement (i.e. to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for albatrosses and petrels). These data and information are also used for the compilation of the ACAP Species Assessments, and for education and public awareness purposes. Parties are required to update data at least annually. The web portal can be used to update data throughout the year, but a deadline is set by the Secretariat prior to each Advisory Committee meeting so that Party Implementation Reports incorporate the most current data.

The ACAP Action Plan requires the Advisory Committee to review and update regularly data on mortality of albatrosses and petrels in commercial and other relevant fisheries (Action Plan 5.1 (f)). Bycatch trends for ACAP species will serve as a performance indicator of the

Agreement. Consequently, Parties are required to submit these data, in a standardised manner, to the SBWG as part of their annual reporting (see section 7).

8.1 Current status of ACAP data management in the Falkland Islands Most of the historical and current breeding site and status and trend data on albatrosses and petrels of the Falkland Islands have been and continue to be collected by Falklands Conservation, New Island Conservation Trust and individuals associated with these organisations. Most of these data have been analysed by the respective organisations and individuals and presented in various reports, management and action plans and scientific publications. Fisheries observer data, including incidental mortality of seabirds, are currently included in annual reports produced by the FIFD. These data have also been submitted to the ACAP Secretariat, summaries of which have been incorporated into the online Implementation Reports for the UK (required before each meeting of the Advisory Committee, and Meeting of Parties).

It is important to ensure that all these data are collected, reported and used in a coordinated manner, both in terms of the ACAP reporting requirements, as well as for informed decision making within the Falkland Islands. The recently established South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI) is in the process of developing a data management and Geographical Information System (GIS) mechanism for the South Atlantic. It is anticipated that this system will be used to curate data collected in the Falkland Islands, and potentially other South Atlantic OTs.

ACAP requirements: Data acquisition, management, transmission and dissemination

1. Collect reliable and verifiable data on interactions with fisheries (AP 4.2). 2. Exchange information and results from albatross and petrel, and other relevant, conservation programmes (Art III 1g). 3. Collaborate to develop systems for collecting and analysing data, and exchanging information (Art V a). 4. Exchange information regarding adoption and enforcement of legislative and other management approaches to conservation of albatrosses and petrels (Art V b). 5. Contribute to UK report to Secretariat (to Advisory Committee to each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the Action Plan and any other relevant points. Specifically the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report: a) assessments and reviews of the status of populations of albatrosses and petrels, including an assessment of population trends of the species, especially those in poorly known areas and of species for which few data are available; b) reviews, and updating on a regular basis, of data on the mortality of albatrosses and petrels in, inter alia , commercial, and other relevant fisheries; c) reviews of data on the distribution and seasonality of effort in fisheries which affect albatrosses and petrels; d) reviews of the status at breeding sites of introduced animals, plants and disease causing organisms known or believed to be detrimental to albatrosses and petrels; identification of gaps in information as part of the above reviews, with a view to addressing these as future priorities.

8.2 Recommendations 8.2.1 Contact all relevant parties to identify outstanding data and ensure that all historical and recent data on albatrosses and petrels are incorporated into the ACAP database, and that future (updated) data are captured routinely, properly maintained and submitted to ACAP. 8.2.2 Ensure that all researchers/data holders conducting research on albatrosses and petrels in the Falkland Islands provide their data to the Falkland Islands Government, and the ACAP coordinator, for inclusion in the ACAP database, subject to the ACAP rules for accessing and using such data and intellectual property rights. 8.2.3 Develop a mechanism for the coordinated management of ACAP and biodiversity data (including spatial data) in the Falkland Islands. 8.2.4 Maintain a list of research and monitoring projects of relevance to albatrosses and petrels in the Falkland Islands. 8.2.5 Ensure that seabird bycatch reporting requirements of ACAP are met (new protocols are currently being developed – this is the same action as outlined in 7.2.4 and 7.2.5 ).

9. Education and awareness Dissemination of information and targeted training and awareness programmes are crucial to promote and support the objectives of ACAP, especially in the Falkland Islands, where most of the ACAP breeding sites are privately owned, and so management is best achieved through improved understanding and voluntary support rather than legislative protection. It is also important that efforts in this area are coordinated, and that information, lessons learnt and experience are exchanged and shared between ACAP Parties and other target audiences to maximise the benefits of education and awareness building initiatives.

9.1 Current status of education and awareness in the Falkland Islands Environmental education and increasing environmental awareness are priority objectives of Falklands Conservation, which are implemented in a number of ways and to a range of audiences. Seabird conservation and the problem of seabird bycatch and the effective use of mitigation measures have been the subject of a range of educational materials (e.g. videos, posters and pamphlets) that have been produced by Falklands Conservation and disseminated to fishing fleets, and the broader public. Falklands Conservation have also developed a document for owners and managers of ACAP breeding sites that provides recommendations for minimising disturbance and related impacts at these sites (see Appendix 5).

ACAP requirements: Education and awareness 1. Exchange information and results from albatross and petrel, and other relevant, conservation programmes (Art III 1g). 2. Undertake exchange of expertise, techniques and knowledge (Art V f). 3. Ensure the existence and appropriateness of training for, inter alia , the implementation of conservation measures (Art III 1e) 4. Develop and implement training programmes on conservation techniques and measures to mitigate threats affecting albatrosses and petrels (Art V e). 5. Develop and maintain programmes to raise awareness and understanding of albatross and petrel conservation issues (Art III 1f). 6. Implement education and awareness programmes for users of areas where albatrosses and petrels may be encountered (Art V c). 7. Design and implement comprehensive programmes for public information in relation to the conservation of albatrosses and petrels (Art V d). 8. Promote the objectives of this Agreement and develop and maintain coordinated and complementary working relationships with all relevant international, regional and subregional bodies. 9. Contribute to UK report to Secretariat (to Advisory Committee to each session of Meeting of Parties). The report should cover all above points as expanded upon in the action plan and any other relevant points. Specifically the Advisory Committee aims to include in its report: a) reviews of education and information programmes aimed at conserving albatrosses and petrels.

Falklands Conservation also manage the Watch Group – a programme for children to get involved in conservation activities, and produce a range of education books, leaflets and other materials for use by the local schools, the public in general and visiting tourists.

FIG produces posters and educational leaflets dealing with biosecurity and other conservation matters. The Environmental Studies Budget of FIG has been used to fund various school outings, including to ACAP breeding sites, to raise awareness and interest in conservation issues. Although not specifically focussed on ACAP issues, the Environmental Planning Department of FIG has established a mechanism to communicate more effectively with the rural community of the Falkland Islands, including owners of ACAP breeding sites, through including a representative of the Rural Business Association (RBA) on the Environmental Committee. The RBA representative provides advice from an agricultural perspective and also disseminates information to the wider rural community on behalf of FIG.

In 2012 a study was initiated to determine the ways and means whereby existing institutions and decision making processes in the Falkland Islands can be used to integrate environmental issues into decision making. The Environmental Mainstreaming project was designed to identify short, medium and long term actions necessary to promote the concept underlying the project - the fundamental importance and economic value of the natural environment - and establish a common understanding of what is needed to integrate environmental issues into the planning processes in the Falkland Islands. A formal advisory group has recently (March 2013) been established, which serves to facilitate environmental mainstreaming and to advise central Government on how best to incorporate environmental issues into decision making processes. The Environmental Mainstreaming Group is chaired by 36

the Falkland Islands Government Head of Policy and administered by the Environmental Planning Department.

All of the main organisations involved in ACAP work in the Falkland Islands maintain websites, which are regularly updated with information, reports, news stories, and collectively contain a wealth of information and resources that promote general awareness of the conservation importance of the Falkland Islands, as well as providing guidelines and information for those visiting the islands. ACAP’s web-site provides a broad range of useful information on albatrosses and petrels, including daily news articles, and number of guideline documents.

• ACAP ( www.acap.aq ) • Beaver Island LandCare Group (http://www.southgeorgiasurveys.org/ ) • Environmental Planning Department (FIG) ( http://www.epd.gov.fk/?page_id=14 ) • Falklands Conservation ( http://www.falklandsconservation.com/ ) • Falkland Islands Fisheries Department (FIG) ( http://fis.com/falklandfish/ ) • New Island Conservation Trust ( http://www.falklandswildlife.com/ ) • South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute ( http://www.south-atlantic-research.org/ )

9.2 Recommendations 9.2.1 Promote the objectives of ACAP through the fora and mechanisms available (e.g. school curriculum, website, meetings); identify additional mechanisms to disseminate information. Maintain the profile of the Falkland Islands as critical sites for the conservation of albatrosses and petrels, and of the work that is being undertaken to address the range of threats in and around the Falkland Islands and elsewhere. 9.2.2 Establish a more formal link with the Rural Business Association of the Falkland Islands, and make use of the annual Farmer’s Week activities to promote ACAP and its objectives, especially to owners of ACAP breeding sites. 9.2.3 Make best use of opportunities that arise as a result of outside researchers or individuals working in or visiting the Falkland Islands, by for example requesting that they present a public talk or presentation while in Stanley, and provide every opportunity for local Falkland Islanders to participate in research and monitoring activities. 9.2.4 Investigate opportunities to engage broadly with fishing captains and crews on issues relating seabird conservation and especially bycatch mitigation. 9.2.5 Collaborate with other Parties and organisations in the development and implementation of regional and international education and awareness programmes. 9.2.6 Share expertise and collaborate with other South Atlantic Overseas Territories and other countries whose jurisdictional waters are important for South Atlantic albatrosses and petrels (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Namibia, South Africa and Uruguay) to encourage conservation (principally bycatch mitigation) of albatrosses and petrels in these areas. 37

9.2.7 Ensure this ACAP Action plan is used to inform the Environmental Mainstreaming initiative, and the work of the Environmental Mainstreaming Group.

10. Monitoring and review The progress of this Implementation Plan should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure continued communication among parties and ongoing assessment of the conservation status of albatrosses and petrels in the Falkland Islands and the efficacy of actions directed at addressing threats. This will allow the Action Plan to be updated in response to issues identified in the review process, and for further refinement of actions and priorities, thus ensuring an adaptive management approach. The progress of the plan should be reviewed annually. In addition to reviewing formally the progress of the Action Plan, the annual review process will also be used for organisations/departments and individuals to provide feedback on their ACAP-related activities. Ideally, the review process should take place prior to ACAP Advisory Committee meetings and Meetings of Parties (MoPs), allowing enough time to collate the necessary information and prepare for these meetings and inform the development of the UK ACAP Implementation Report, the submission of which is required prior to meetings of the Advisory Committee and Meeting of Parties. Advisory Committee meetings take place at intervals of about 18 months, and MoPs every two to three years. Once the dates of these meetings are known, the timing of the annual review of the ACAP plan should be set or adapted. A comprehensive review of the Implementation Plan should be carried out once every five years.

Given the range of individuals and organisations involved in ACAP-related work in the Falkland Islands, the review process will be conducted via email. It is proposed that the UK SAOT ACAP coordinator draft a template for the annual review, solicit the necessary inputs from the relevant parties, undertake the review with FIG, and email the written review document to all parties for further inputs. A comprehensive review of the Implementation Plan should be carried out once every five years.

10.1 Recommendations 10.1.1 Use the table in Appendix 1 as a standardised template for the annual review of the Action Plan. 10.1.2 Conduct annual review of plan, with inputs from all parties. 10.1.3 Ensure that UK ACAP Implementation Reports are provided to the ACAP Secretariat within timelines specified.

11. Capacity Soon after the UK ratified ACAP it was realised that there was an urgent need to coordinate better the work and reporting requirements of ACAP, both between the relevant OTs and also between the OTs and metropolitan UK. The ACAP coordinator post was thus established to help ensure a greater level of strategic engagement on cross-territory and international issues,

to assist with the planning and implementation of ACAP work, to take responsibility for the reporting requirements, and thus contribute to the UK fulfilling their obligations in respect of ACAP, and indeed to biodiversity conservation objectives more broadly. The post is supported by funds from UK and OT government departments, and is based in the Falkland Islands. Funding for the post, which has since expanded in scope to include both ACAP and more general nature conservation work, has been committed up until mid 2014. At the most recent Project Steering Group meeting for the post, members of the Steering Group (OTs and UK government departments) highlighted the importance of the post, and expressed their wish that it be extended for at least another three years.

11.1 Recommendations 11.1.1 Secure funding to ensure the continuation of the ACAP coordinator post for another three year period.

12. Funding and prioritisation A range of organisations and individuals undertake ACAP-related work in the Falkland Islands. This plan covers the full range of ACAP work and serves to ensure that this work is properly coordinated. FIG, together with the UK Government, has overall responsibility for meeting the ACAP objectives. FIG will never have sufficient resources to carry out (or fund) all of the actions listed in this plan itself, and external funding will be necessary. In both cases, it is important that actions are prioritised.

Priority ratings (High, Medium, Low ) for actions in Appendix 1 are based on the following principles: a) the main focus now should be on species of worst conservation status and on actions most likely to promote improvements to conservation status; b) the need to focus on at-sea issues as these are the most important, the most difficult and will likely take the longest; c) links to the UK’s main formal obligations of reporting to ACAP should be afforded High priority; d) compilatory and related exercises should not be afforded High priority, unless directly related to a) above or are an essential precursor for crucial conservation action.

13. References:

Anon 2006. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. ACAP2 Agreement: Final. Amended, Second Meeting of Parties, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13-17 November 2006, 25pp. www.acap.aq

Anon 2010. Surveying burrowing Prions and Petrels on Steeple Jason and the impacts of introduced mice. Falklands Conservation Newsletter 1: 1.

Baker GB, Jensz K. 2012. Analysis of aerial photographs of breeding Black-browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands. Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants, Kettering, Australia.

Baylis AM. 2012a. Interim report of the 2010 Falkland Islands archipelago-wide census of Black-browed Albatross. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Baylis AM. 2012b. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme. Annual Report 2011/12. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falklands Conservation.

Berrow SD, Croxall JP, Grant SD. 2000. Status of White-chinned Petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis Linnaeus 1758, at Bird Island, South Georgia. Antarctic Science 12 : 399-405.

Black AD 2010. An assessment of seabird bycatch in Falkland Island trawl fisheries: July 2009 to June 2010. Unpublished Report. Falkland Islands Fisheries Department. Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Brown J, Brickle P, Hearne S, French, G. 2010. An experimental investigation of the ‘umbrella’ and ‘Spanish’ system of longline fishing for the Patagonian Toothfish ( Dissostichus eleginoides ) in the Falkland Islands: Implications for stock assessment and seabird by-catch. Fisheries Research 106: 404–412.

BirdLife International. 2004. Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1-5 September 2003, Gordon's Bay, South Africa . BirdLife International: Cambridge, UK.

BirdLife International (prepared by C. Small and F. Taylor). 2006. Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution within the CCAMLR Convention Area: results from the Global Procellariiform database. CCAMLR Science 13: 143-174.

BirdLife International 2009. Species factsheet: Macronectes giganteus . Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 25/10/2009.

Bolton M, Stanbury A. 2010. Distribution of House Mice ( Mus musculus ) and burrowing seabirds on Steeple Jason and Grand Jason Islands, Falklands, South Atlantic. Unpublished trip report, RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Bolton M, Stanbury A. 2011. Assessing the impact of House Mice ( Mus musculus ) on the native fauna of Steeple Jason, Falkland Islands. Unpublished trip report, RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Brown D, Chadderton L, Brown K. 2001. Rat eradication programme. A report to Falklands Conservation . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Bugoni L, Mancini PL, Monteiro DS, Nascimento L, Neves TS. 2008. Seabird bycatch in the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery and a review of capture rates in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research 5: 137-147.

Catry P., Forcada J, Almeida A. 2011. Demographic parameters of Black-browed Albatrosses Thalassarche melanophris from the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 34 : 1221-1229.

Catry P, Lemos RT, Brickle P, Phillips RA, Matias R, Granadeiro JP. 2013. Predicting the distribution of a threatened albatross: The importance of competition, fisheries and annual variability. Progress in Oceanography 110: 1-10.

Christie A. 2007. Recommended quarantine and biosecurity measures to ensure the continued rat-free status of Important Bird Areas and rat-free areas in the Falkland Islands. Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 25 pp.

Cooper J, Baker GB, Double MC, Gales R, Papworth W, Tasker ML, Waugh SM. 2006. The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels: rationale, progress and the way forward. Marine Ornithology 34: 1-5.

Crofts S. 2006a. Preliminary assessment: seabird interactions in the pelagic southern blue- whiting ( Micromesistius australis ) surimi fishery in the Falkland waters - December 2006 . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 16 pp.

Crofts S. 2006b. Seabird interactions in the Falkland Islands Loligo trawl fishery 2005/2006 . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 23 pp.

Crofts S. 2006c. Seabird trawl mitigation development. Environmental effects and practicality of paired tori line performance: testing buoys vs cones . Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands, 23 pp.

Croxall JP, Small C, Sullivan B, Wanless RW, Frere E, Lascelles B, Ramirez I, Sato M, Yates, O. In press. Appropriate scales and data to manage seabird-fishery interactions: comment on Torres et al. (2013). Marine Ecology Progress Series .

Cuthbert R, Sommer E, Ryan, P., Cooper J, Hilton G. 2004. Demography and conservation of the Tristan Albatross Diomedea (exulans) dabbenena . Biological Conservation 117 : 471-481.

Falklands Conservation. 2006. Albatross and Petrels in the South Atlantic: Priorities and Conservation . Falklands Conservation: London, UK, 92 pp.

Falklands Conservation. 2011. Sea Lion Island National Nature Reserve Management Plan. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Falkland Islands Government. 2008. Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy, 2008-2018 . Falkland Islands Government: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 29 pp.

Falkland Islands Government. 2009. Falkland Islands Ports and Harbours Information – 2009. Falkland Islands Government: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 36 pp.

Favero M, Blanco G, García G, Copello S, Seco Pon JP, Frere E, Quintana F, Yorio P, Rabuffetti F, Cañete G, Gandini M. 2010. Seabird mortality associated with ice trawlers in the Patagonian shelf: effect of discards on the occurrence of interactions with fishing gear. Animal Conservation 14 : 131-139.

Favero M, Blanco G, Copello S, Seco Pon JP, Patterlini C, Mariano-Jelicich R, García G, Berón MP. 2013. Seabird bycatch in the Argentine demersal longline fishery, 2001- 2010. Endangered Species Research 19: 187-199.

Granadeiro JP, Phillips RA, Brickle P, Catry P. 2011. Albatrosses following fishing vessels. How badly hooked are they on an easy meal? PLoS One 6: e17467.

Granadeiro JP, Brickle P, Catry P. 2013. Do individual seabirds specialize in fisheries’ waste? The case of Black-browed Albatrosses foraging over the Patagonian Shelf. Animal Conservation doi:10.1111/acv.12050

Grémillet D, Wilson RP, Wanless S, Chater T. 2000. Black-browed Albatrosses, international fisheries and the Patagonian Shelf. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 195 : 269-280.

Harte M, Barton J. 2007a. Balancing local ownership with foreign investment in a small island fishery. Ocean & Coastal Management 50 : 523-537.

Harte M, Barton J. 2007b. Reforming management of commercial fisheries in a small island territory. Marine Policy 31 : 371-378.

Hedd A, Baylis A, Montevecchi WA, Phillips RA. 2012. Inter-annual consistency in wintering areas and habitat used by Black-browed Albatrosses from Steeple Jason Island, Falkland Islands. Poster presentation at the Fifth International Albatross and Petrel Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 12-17 August 2012.

Huin N. 2001. Census of the Black-browed Albatross population of the Falkland Islands 2000/2001. Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Huin N. 2002. Foraging distribution of the Black-browed Albatross, Thalassarche melanophris , breeding in the Falkland Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 12 : 89-99.

Huin N. 2007. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme. Annual Report 2006/2007 . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 71 pp.

Huin N, Reid T. 2007. Census of the Black-browed albatross population of the Falkland Islands: 2000 and 2005 . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 42 pp.

ICCAT Sub-Committee on Ecosystems. 2009. Report of the 2009 inter-sessional meeting of the sub-committee on ecosystems . 8-12 June, 2009. Recife, Brazil.

Janzen K, Wolfaardt A, Barton J, Pompert J, Brickle P. 2011. Falkland Islands National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. 2011-2015. An update. Falkland Islands Government Fisheries Department, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Jiménez S, Domingo A, Brazeiro A. 2009. Seabird bycatch in the Southwest Atlantic: interaction with the Uruguayan pelagic longline fishery. Polar Biology 32: 187-196.

Jiménez S, Domingo A, Abreu M, Brazeiro A. 2012. Risk assessment and relative impact of Uruguayan pelagic longliners on seabirds. Aquatic Living Resources 25: 281-295.

Matias R & Catry P 2008. The diet of feral cats on New Island, Falkland, Islands, and possible impact on breeding seabirds. Polar Biology 31: 609-616

McInnes J, Jarman S, Alderman J. 2013. Global black-browed albatross diet study using Next Generation Sequencing of faecal DNA. Report to Falklands Conservation.

Moreno CA, Costa R, Mújica L, Reyes P. 2008. Significant conservation benefits obtained from the use of a new fishing gear in the Chilean Patagonian toothfish fishery. CCAMLR Science 15 : 79-91.

Munro G. 2005. Waste discard management in the Falkland Islands trawl fishery: a discussion document . A report by Falklands Conservation and the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands, 66 pp.

Neves T & Olmos F 1998. Albatross mortality in fisheries off the coast of Brazil. In Robertson G & Gales R (eds). Albatross Biology and Conservation , Surrey Beatty & Sons, Australia, 214-219.

New Island Conservation Trust (2013). Development of a new strategy for scientific research at New Island. Report of a scientific workshop, 10-11 April, Cambridge, UK. NICT, UK

Otley HM, Reid TA, Pompert J. 2007. Trends in seabird and Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides longliner interactions in Falkland Island waters, 2002/03 and 2003/04. Marine Ornithology 35 : 47-55.

Otley H, Munro G, Clausen A, Ingham B. 2008. Falkland Islands State of the Environment Report 2008 . Falkland Islands Government and Falklands Conservation: Stanley, 288 pp.

Parker GC 2012. An assessment of seabird bycatch in Falkland Island trawl fisheries: July 2010 to June 2011. Unpublished Report. Falkland Islands Fisheries Department. Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Parker GC 2013. An assessment of seabird bycatch in Falkland Island trawl fisheries: July 2011 to June 2012. Unpublished Report. Falkland Islands Fisheries Department. Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Parker G, Brickle P, Wolfaardt A, Pompert J. 2013a. Early results from trials of Bird Scaring Lines (BSLs) attached to 14 m booms on a demersal trawler. SBWG5 Doc 8. Fifth meeting of the ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group, La Rochelle, France, 1-3 May 2013.

Parker G, Brickle P, Crofts S, Pompert J, Wolfaardt AC. 2013b.Research into undetected seabird mortality in a demersal trawl fishery. SBWG5 Doc 07. Fifth meeting of the ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group, La Rochelle, France, 1-3 May 2013.

Patterson DL, Woehler EJ, Croxall JP,Cooper J, Poncet S, Peter H-U, Hunter S, Fraser WR. 2008. Breeding distribution and population status of the Northern Giant Petrel Macronectes halli and the Southern Giant Petrel M. giganteus . Marine Ornithology 36 : 115-124.

Phillips RA, Silk JRD, Croxall JP, Afanasyev, V. 2006. Year-round distribution of white- chinned petrels from South Georgia: relationships with oceanography and fisheries. Biological Conservation 129 : 336-347.

Phillips RA, Small CJ. 2007. Results of the preliminary risk prioritization exercise for the ICCAT seabird assessment: updated. Technical paper presented to the ICCAT Sub- Committee on Ecosystems, 19-23 February, 2007. SCRS/2007/129. Madrid, Spain. 43

Pistorius P. 2009. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme. Annual Report 2008/2009. Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 48 pp.

Poncet S. and Passfield K. 2011. Assessment of the presence of rodents and environmental surveys of 15 islands in Choiseul Sound. Beaver Island LandCare, Stanley.

Poncet S, Passfield K, Rexer-Huber K. 2012. Burrowing Petrel Surveys: Top and Bottom Islands and Tussac Point in Port William and Sophie and Amy Islands in Port Pleasant. Beaver Island LandCare, Stanley.

Prince PA. 1982. The Black-browed Albatross Diomedea melanophris population at Beauchêne Island, Falkland Islands. Comit é National Fran çais des Recherches Antarctiques 51 : 111-117.

Quillfeldt P, Schenk I, McGill RAR, Strange IJ, Masello JF, Gladbach A, Roesch V, Furness RW. 2008. Introduced mammals coexist with seabirds at New Island, Falkland Islands: abundance, habitat preferences and stable isotope analysis of diet. Polar Biology 31 : 333-349.

Reid T, Edwards M. 2005. Consequences of the introduction of tori lines in relation to seabird mortality in the Falkland Islands trawl fishery, 2004/05 . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 41 pp.

Reid, TA, Huin N. 2008. Census of the Southern Giant Petrel population of the Falkland Islands 2004/2005. Bird Conservation International 18: 118-128.

Reid TA, Yates O, Crofts S. 2006. Jigging Initiative. Interactions between seabirds and jigging vessels in the Falkland Islands and on the high seas . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 17 pp.

Reid TA, Lecoq M, Catry P. 2007. The White-chinned Petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis population of the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 35 : 57-60.

Reid TA, Sullivan BJ. 2004. Longliners, Black-browed Albatross mortality and bait scavenging in Falkland Island waters: what is the relationship? Polar Biology 27 : 131-139.

Rexer-Huber K, Parker GC, Reeves M, Stanworth A, Cuthbert RJ. 2012. Baiting trials, winter biology and non-target species: house mice on Steeple Jason August–September 2012. RSPB Research Report No. 51. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK.

Robertson G, Moreno C, Lawton K, Arata J, Candy SG, Valencia J, Wienecke B, Kirkwood R, Taylor P, Suazo CG, Raymond B. In prep. Black-browed albatross numbers in Chile increase in response to reduced mortality in fisheries.

Sancho, E. 2009a. Seabird mortality associated with trawlers in the Falkland Islands waters during 2007 and 2008. Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Sancho E. 2009b. Falkland Islands National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Trawl Fisheries. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands

Shine, C, Stringer, C. 2009. South Atlantic invasive species strategy and action plan . Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, 37 pp.

Simpson B, Hellstrom J. 2004. Biosecurity for the Falkland Islands. Biosecurity Limited: New Zealand.

Snell KRS, Brickle P, Wolfaardt AC 2011. Refining Tori lines to further reduce seabird mortality associated with demersal trawlers in the South Atlantic. Polar Biology 35 : 677-687.

Stanworth A. 2013. Black-browed Albatross demographic study. Annual report 2012/13. Falklands Conservation, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Strange IJ. 2007. New Island, Falkland Islands. A South Atlantic Wildlife Sanctuary for Conservation Management . Design in Nature: Falkland Islands.

Strange IJ. 2008. Aerial surveys of Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris breeding colonies in the Falkland Islands: the methodology employed and comparisons with surveys carried out in 1986-2005-2006 and 2007 . Design in Nature & Falkland Islands Wildlife: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 60 pp.

Strange IJ, Strange G. 2011. Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris . Aerial photographic survey methodology: advantages over ground surveying in the Falkland Islands. Results and comparisons with surveys in 2005 and 2010. Design in Nature, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Sullivan B. 2004a. Falkland Islands FAO National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental catch of seabirds in Longline Fisheries . Falkland Islands Government and Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 8 pp.

Sullivan B. 2004b. Falkland Islands Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental catch of seabirds in Trawl Fisheries . Falkland Islands Government and Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands

Sullivan B. 2004c. Falkland Islands Illex Jigging Assessment Directive . Falkland Islands Government and Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands

Sullivan BJ, Brickle P, Reid TA, Bone DG, Middleton DAJ. 2006a. Mitigation of seabird mortality on factory trawlers: trials of three devices to reduce warp cable strikes. Polar Biology 29 : 745-753

Sullivan BJ, Huin N, Neves T, Warlich R. 2003. Dispersal of colour marked fledgling Black- browed Albatross from the Falkland Islands . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 19 pp.

Sullivan BJ, Reid TA, Bugoni L. 2006b. Seabird mortality on factory trawlers in the Falkland Islands and beyond. Biological Conservation 131 : 495-504

Taylor F, Small C. 2008. Spatial and temporal overlap between seabird distribution in the Atlantic Ocean and ICCAT longline fishing effort. Technical paper presented to the ICCAT Sub-Committee on Ecosystems, 10-14 March, 2008. SCRS/2008/029. Madrid, Spain.

Thompson KR. 1992. Quantitative analysis of the use of discards from squid trawlers by Black-browed Albatrosses Diomedea melanophris in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. Ibis 134 : 11-21.

Thompson KR, Rothery P. 1991. A census of the Black-browed Albatross ( Diomedea melanophrys ) population on Steeple Jason Island, Falkland Islands. Biological Conservation 56 : 39-48.

Thompson KR. and Riddy MD. 1995. Utilisation of offal discards from ‘finfish’ trawlers around the Falkland Islands by the Black-browed Albatross Diomedea melanophris . Ibis 137 : 198-206.

Torres LG, Sagar PM, Thompson DR, Phillips RA. 2013. Scaling down the analysis of seabird- fishery interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 473: 275–289.

Votier SC, Furness RW, Bearhop S, Crane JE, Caldow RWG, Catry P, Ensor K, Hamer KC, Hudson AV, Kalmbach E, Klomp N, Pfeiffer S, Phillips RA, Thompson DR. 2004. Changes in fisheries discard rates and seabird communities. Nature 427: 727–730.

Votier SC, Bearhop S, Fyfe R, Furness RW. 2008 Linking temporal and spatial variation in the diet of a marine top predator with commercial fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367 : 223–232.

Woods RW, Woods A. 1997. Atlas of breeding birds of the Falkland Islands . Anthony Nelson: Oswestry, England, 190 pp.

Wanless RM, Angel A, Cuthbert RJ, Hilton GM, Ryan PG. 2007. Can predation by invasive mice drive seabird extinctions? Biology Letters 3: 241-244.

Wanless RM, Ryan PG, Altwegg R, Angel A, J. C, Cuthbert R, Hilton GM. 2009. From both sides: dire demographic consequences of carnivorous mice and longlining for the critically endangered Tristan albatrosses on Gough Island. Biological Conservation 142 : 1710-1718.

White RW, Gillon KW, Black AD, Reid JB. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters . Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 106 pp.

Wolfaardt AC. 2012. An assessment of the population trends and conservation status of Black-browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Wolfaardt AC. 2013. Recommendations for archipelago-wide surveys of Black-browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Wolfaardt AC, Phillips RA. 2013. Guideline census methodologies for albatrosses and petrels. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Hobart, Tasmania.

Wolfaardt AC, Rendell N, Brickle P. 2010. Falkland Islands implementation plan for the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP): review of current work and a prioritised work programme for the future. Falkland Islands Government. Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Wolfaardt AC, Crofts S, Baylis AMM. 2012. Effects of a storm on colonies of seabirds breeding at the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 40: 129-133.

Yates O, Crofts, S. 2006. Albatross and petrel breeding sites in the Falkland Islands. Suggested guidelines for landowners . Falklands Conservation: Stanley, Falkland Islands, 8pp.

14. Glossary of acronyms used in the plan, and in Appendix 1

AC Advisory Committee of ACAP ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACo ACAP coordinator UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories, JNCC BAS British Antarctic Survey BILC Beaver Island LandCare Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK) DNR Directorate of Natural Resources, Falkland Islands Government DOA Department of Agriculture, Falkland Islands Government EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPD Environmental Planning Department, Falkland Islands Government FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FC Falklands Conservation FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) FICZ Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone FIDC Falkland Islands Development Corporation FIFCA Falkland Island Fishing Companies Association FIFD Falkland Islands Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government FIG Falkland Islands Government FIGAS Falkland Islands Government Air Service FIPASS Falkland Interim Port and Storage System FISBAC Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee FOCZ Falklands Outer Conservation Zone IAATO International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IBA Important Bird Area (BirdLife International) ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission ISPA Eco-Ethology Research Unit, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK NICT New Island Conservation Trust NNR National Nature Reserve (Falkland Islands) NPOA (FAO) National Plan of Action for reducing bycatch of seabirds in longline (NPOA-L) and trawl (NPOA-T) fisheries OTEP Overseas Territories Environment Programme PaCSWG Population and Conservation Status Working Group of ACAP’s Advisory Committee PVR Post Visit Report RBA Rural Business Association of the Falkland Islands RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK) SAERI South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute SAIS South Atlantic Invasive Species Programme SAOT South Atlantic Overseas Territories

14 (cont.) Glossary of acronyms used in the plan, and in Appendix 1

SBWG Seabird Bycatch Working Group of ACAP’s Advisory Committee SMSG Shallow Marine Survey Group UKOT United Kingdom Overseas Territory UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System (used to monitor the movements of fishing vessels) WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

Appendix 1: Summary of recommended actions, priority ratings, key organisations/departments, scheduling and funding arrangements for the Falkland Islands ACAP Implementation Plan. See Section 13 for a full list of acronyms

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS* TIMEFRAME DETAILS 4. Breeding Sites 4.2.1 Ensure that the project underway to develop a HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, 2013/14 and ongoing The Protected Areas Project is currently in the Protected Areas Framework and guidelines for site Protected Areas Project process of developing a framework for management plans in the Falkland Islands is Steering Group Protected Areas in the Falklands, together with informed by the principles outlined in this ACAP guidelines for the development of site plan. management plans. It would be useful to ensure that these guidelines incorporate the principles outlined in this document, at least for ACAP species and sites. 4.2.2 For sites at which ACAP species breed and for HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, NICT, 2013/14, then These sites include Steeple Jason, Grand which a formal Management Plan is under WCS ongoing Jason, Kidney Island, New Island. This ACAP development or review, ensure that these plans Implementation Plan should be used to inform include a full specification of appropriate ACAP related matters in the site Management management actions in relation to the ACAP Plans. Once the Management Plans have species (as outlined generally in this ACAP plan). been adopted, it is important that they are regularly reviewed to monitor performance against set objectives and targets. 4.2.3 For sites at which ACAP species breed and which HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, NICT 2013/14, then The guidelines provided in this ACAP plan are in ownership of FIG or Conservation ongoing should be used to help develop management Organisations and Trusts, develop formal recommendations appropriate for ACAP management recommendations for ACAP species species and sites. at these sites, with a view to including these in comprehensive formal Management Plans, or future revisions of Management Plans, in the future. Particular priorities are the remaining islands in the Jason Group and Beauchêne Island. 4.2.4 Once sufficient examples of agreed best-practice in HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, RBA, 2013/14, then It is important to develop consistent and, respect of ACAP species at the above-mentioned relevant landowners ongoing where feasible, coordinated, standards of sites (in 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) are available, the management approaches and implementation approaches therein should be discussed with (at least insofar as site-specific differences owners of other sites at which ACAP species breed, permit). This should be progressed through the with a view to developing appropriate site-specific Protected Areas framework that is currently management and species conservation practices for being developed for the Falkland Islands these sites.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 4.2.5 Develop/strengthen and implement a formal HIGH ACo, DOA, EPD 2013/14, then Much work has already been undertaken in biosecurity strategy and plan with strict quarantine ongoing this area. It is important that roles and measures to prevent the introduction and transfer of responsibilities are clearly defined, that the invasive animals, plants and diseases, especially in necessary biosecurity/quarantine actions are respect of rodents and avian diseases (for ACAP taken up in fit for purpose legislation and species). protocols and are strictly implemented, and that monitoring protocols are in place to check compliance with prescriptions. Make use of the ACAP biosecurity and quarantine guidelines to inform the development of site-specific protocols and plans in the Falkland Islands. 4.2.5a Ensure that islands which are currently free of HIGH EPD, relevant Ongoing Island Biosecurity Plans have been completed rodents remain that way by implementing and landowners for 3 sites (Sea Lion, Carcass and Kidney). It is expanding to other sites the Island Biosecurity important to ensure that these plans are Plans. implemented and audited, and that the plans for additional sites are developed in a progressive (prioritised) manner. Lively Island, currently rat free, remains a priority. 4.2.5b Strengthen quarantine and surveillance protocols for HIGH DOA, Customs, EPD, Ongoing Some work has already been undertaken, but vessels and aircraft arriving in the Falkland Islands. FIG there is a need for further strengthening and coordination of measures, with a strong lead from FIG. Part of ongoing and overall biosecurity/quarantine strategy. 4.2.5c Ensure that strict quarantine protocols are HIGH EPD, DOA, FIG, Ongoing Part of ongoing and overall implemented on all vessels and aircraft moving FIGAS, Workboat biosecurity/quarantine strategy between islands, which should be expected to Services demonstrate that they are rodent-free. 4.2.5d Revisit the suite of reports and recommendations HIGH EPD, DOA, FIG, 2013/14 As part of a process to review, update and dealing with biosecurity and quarantine measures in FIGAS, RSPB, BILC strengthen biosecurity and quarantine the Falkland Islands (Simpson and Hellstrom measures in the Falkland Islands. (2004), Christie (2007) and the draft South Atlantic Invasive Species strategy (2009)) to identify the priority actions that need to be taken forward and how these should be implemented. The outputs of the RSPB initiative to prioritise the management invasive species in OTs should also be used to prioritise biosecurity actions in the Falklands.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 4.2.6 Ensure robust management of biosecurity risks and MEDIUM EPD, FC, NICT, FITB, Ongoing These issues should be covered by the disturbance associated with tourist activities. SAIS, relevant relevant guidelines or management plans landowners/managers referred to in actions 4.2.1-4.2.3. 4.2.7 Maintain Post-Visit Report (PVR) system, and use MEDIUM EPD Ongoing This is considered to be a useful mechanism to information to compile an annual report for obtain information regarding visitor numbers to dissemination to key stakeholders. sites, and opportunistic observations, as well as making tourists aware of conservation issues. For the information to be of value, it should be formally included in an annual reports/statistics and disseminated to interested and affected parties. 4.2.8 Complete the investigation into the feasibility of MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, WCS 2013/14 Some further work may be needed, especially eradicating House Mice (and assessment of non- on the impact on non-target species, to inform target impacts) at Steeple Jason Island, and use the development of an Operational Plan. outcomes to inform management actions. 4.2.9 Complete the feasibility study for eradication of all HIGH NICT, EPD, New Island 2013/2014 Any plan to eradicate the suite of introduced introduced predators from New Island and use this researchers, local and predators at New Island needs to consider the to help develop the appropriate management invited experts, ACo ecological relationship between these and approach. native species, and should attempt to remove all four species in one programme of work. This recommendation is from a NICT hosted workshop held in April 2013. 4.2.10 Consider management options for local control of HIGH EPD, NICT 2013/14, then There is concern about the potential impacts of the Feral Cat population in the vicinity of the small ongoing Feral Cat predation on the small colony of White-chinned Petrel colony at New Island. White-chinned Petrels at New Island. Consequently, until a decision is made on how to manage all of the introduced predators (see 4.2.9), consideration should be given to interim measures aimed at reducing the predation impact by, for example, conducting regular trapping of cats in the vicinity of the White- chinned Petrel colony.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS 5. Status and Trends Black -browed Albatross 5.2.1 On the basis of the recent assessment of census HIGH ACo, EPD, NICT, FC, 2015, then at 10 year It is important that these archipelago-wide methodologies for Black-browed Albatrosses in the FI Environment intervals surveys are seen as part of a broader Falkland Islands (Wolfaardt 2012, 2013), conduct Committee framework of monitoring, which includes more archipelago-wide aerial surveys (together with detailed annual monitoring (see 5.2.2). The ground calibration techniques) of breeding birds most recent archipelago wide survey took once every 10 years according to the guidelines place in 2010. Based on a 10 year interval provided in Wolfaardt (2013). between surveys, the next census should take place in 2020. However, given the proposal to conduct the next Southern Giant Petrel census in 2015, it may be efficient to conduct surveys for both species in the same year. This needs further investigation, especially in relation to optimal timing of the surveys for each species and the availability of helicopters. If it is not optimal to conduct both surveys in the same year, the Southern Giant Petrel survey should proceed and the Black-browed Albatross survey can be conducted at a later stage. 5.2.2 Maintain annual monitoring of population size and HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, ISPA, Ongoing Long term work has been initiated at New demographic parameters at Steeple Jason Island NICT, WCS Island (since 2003 by ISPA and NICT) and and New Island study colonies (including banding Steeple Jason (since 2004 by FC on behalf of adults and chicks), ensuring sufficient sample sizes WCS). This work is currently funded by a to estimate accurately these demographic number of sources, including a core parameters. contribution from FIG. It is important that these monitoring activities are maintained, and ideally expanded, as long-term projects, and that FIG continue to support the work. 5.2.3 Consider initiating annual monitoring at a third site MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC 2013/14, then It would be useful to expand annual monitoring in the Falklands ongoing efforts to a further site to maximise the representivity of data collected. This need not involve a detailed demographic study, such as at New Island and Steeple Jason, but could include annual counts of incubating birds and chicks close to fledging to monitor population trends and breeding success. See ACAP census and population monitoring (Wolfaardt and Phillips, 2013) for further information.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * Southern Giant Petrel 5.2.4 Maintain annual monitoring of population trends and HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, WCS Ongoing Ensure continuation of long-term monitoring productivity at Steeple Jason Island. project. 5.2.5 Develop and implement protocols for archipelago- HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, relevant 2013/14, with census Archipelago-wide surveys should take place at wide censuses of Southern Giant Petrels. landowners, possible in 2015, and at 10 least once every 10 years. The next census providers of helicopter year intervals should therefore take place in around 2015. time thereafter Given their susceptibility to human disturbance, and following the methods used in the previous survey, it is recommended that archipelago wide surveys are conducted using aerial photography, possibly complemented by ground counts at sites where these are feasible or preferable. The timing of the survey is important and should take place as soon as possible after most birds have laid eggs. There is limited data on breeding phenology in the Falklands, and based on these, mid-November would seem to be an optimal period (but further investigation is required). Aerial photographs should be taken from a helicopter, rather than a fixed wing aircraft, maintaining an altitude of at least 300m (Reid and Huin 2008). If any disturbance is noted, the altitude should be increased. Further guidelines to inform the development of detailed protocols are provided in Appendix 6 5.2.6 Informed by the results of the census conducted in MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, relevant This monitoring may involve ground counts or 2015 (see 5.2.5), investigate the selection of landowners, possible include sites that are surveyed by means of additional sites for annual or regular monitoring of providers of helicopter aerial photography population trends. time White -chinned Petrel 5.2.7 Develop and implement long-term monitoring MEDIUM/LOW ACo, BILC, EPD, FC, 2013/14, then It is important to carry out survey work very programmes for White-chinned Petrels breeding at ISPA, NICT ongoing carefully as White-chinned Petrel burrows are Kidney, Top, Bottom and New Islands, based on prone to damage (nest collapse). Informed by previous surveys (Poncet et al. 2012, Reid et al. previous survey work (Poncet et al. 2012, Reid 2007, P. Catry, unpubl. data) that can be used to et al. 2007, P. Catry, unpubl. data), and assess breeding success, and changes in considering the potential use of acoustic abundance and distribution. Conduct work monitoring technology, determine most especially carefully to ensure minimal damage is appropriate site-specific methods, including caused to the nesting habitat. frequency of surveys.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 5.2.8 Identify islands with suitable nesting habitat, and MEDIUM/LOW ACo, BILC, EPD, FC, 2013/14, then It is possible that there are additional breeding survey for presence of White-chinned Petrels. ISPA, NICT, BILC ongoing sites for White-chinned Petrels in the Falkland Islands that have not yet been surveyed. Potential islands should be identified and surveys conducted at the appropriate time of the year. This could be combined with other survey work in the Falkland Islands (e.g. ongoing shorebird and Cobb’s Wren surveys), or specifically planned. 6 Foraging range and areas 6.2.1 Continue BBA remote-tracking work at New Island MEDIUM/HIGH FC, ISPA, NICT, WCS Ongoing Much of the detailed tracking data for Falkland and Steeple Jason Island, systematically updating Island birds comes from only a few years and and filling gaps in a prioritised manner. Investigate sites. Given the high inter-annual variability in tracking birds from additional/new sites. foraging movements, more data are needed to inform the designation of IBAs and potential Marine Protected Areas, and also to contribute to the assessment of the potential impacts of hydrocarbon exploration and development in the Falkland Islands. In order to address data gaps, it would be particularly useful to deploy devices on immature/pre-breeding birds, and also to track birds during the winter (non- breeding period). 6.2.2 Use GPS and other tracking data to progress further MEDIUM EPD, FC, FIFD, ISPA, Ongoing Work has been conducted at New Island and work fine-scale analyses of spatio-temporal overlap NICT, SAERI Steeple Jason, where the foraging distribution of fishing effort (from VMS data) with the foraging of adult Black-browed Albatrosses has been distribution of Black-browed Albatrosses in the compared with the distribution of fishing effort. waters of the Falkland Islands. It would be very useful to continue this work to include additional years, age-classes and sites to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between Black-browed Albatrosses and local fisheries. 6.2.3 Ensure all tracking data are submitted to the Global MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, ISPA, Ongoing Ensure that all researchers collecting tracking Procellariiform Tracking Database. SAERI, researchers data on Falkland Islands species routinely submit their tracking data to the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database, subject to intellectual property rights and user agreements.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 6.2.4 Ensure a coordinated approach to tracking work on MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, Ongoing There is potential for some overlap between ACAP (and other) species in the Falkland Islands. ISPA, NICT different parties implementing tracking work. Given limited resources, it is important that the tracking work undertaken on Falkland Islands species is coordinated and responds to priority gaps/needs. 6.2.5 Seek opportunities to collaborate with researchers MEDIUM ACo, FC, ISPA Ongoing Collaboration useful to monitor the status of and institutions involved with tracking work on regional and global populations (e.g. ACAP species at other sites and thus contribute to collaboration with colleagues from South regional and global assessments and/or reviews of Georgia and Chile for Black-browed albatross and petrel distribution and overlap with Albatross). fisheries. 6.2.6 Investigate further the oceanographic and biological MEDIUM SAERI, ACo, EPD, FC, Ongoing It would be valuable to build on the work of drivers of seabird distribution around the Falkland FIFD, ISPA, NICT Catry et al (2013). It is intended to develop a Islands, and identify foraging hotspots. Use results Darwin Plus proposal to Darwin Plus for funding in 2013 to to provide management recommendations, proposal (see investigate marine spatial planning methods including in relation to identification of potential details) is and protocols in the Falklands using selected Marine Protected Areas in Falkland Islands waters. considered a sites, including Steeple Jason and New Island HIGH priority as pilots. The process will incorporate seabirds (including albatrosses) as a component of an overall holistic approach. 6.2.7 Following the analysis and publication of the diet MEDIUM/LOW ACo, EPD, FC, ISPA, 2013/14 (investigate This approach is already being implemented data already collected, consider designing and NICT, WCS feasibility and design by ISPA/NICT on Black-browed Albatrosses at implementing an ongoing diet-sampling and programme), and New Island. FC plan to initiate a similar monitoring programme for Black-browed then ongoing (once monitoring programme on Black-browed Albatrosses, based on the protocols outlined in every three years) if Albatrosses at Steeple Jason Island Phillips (2006), complemented by tracking and feasible isotope analyses. 7 Fishery -related issues 7.2.1 Ensure the ongoing implementation of the NPOA- HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFCA, Ongoing NPOA-S (Longline) was formally revised in Seabirds (Longline), and conduct regular reviews of FIFD, FISBAC 2011. Annual revision of bycatch and the plan progress (see also 7.2.3). objectives is done via the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee (FISBAC) 7.2.2 Ensure the ongoing implementation of the NPOA- HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFCA, Ongoing The revised version of the NPOA-S (Trawl) Seabirds (Trawl), and conduct regular reviews of FIFD, FISBAC was formally adopted in 2010. Annual revision progress (see also 7.2.3). of bycatch and the plan objectives is done via the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee (FISBAC).

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 7.2.3 Annual reviews of the two NPOA-Seabirds by the HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFCA, Ongoing The purpose of this Committee is to review Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory FIFD, FISBAC progress of the two NPOAs (trawl and Committee, and provision of advice on all seabird longlining), and consider other seabird bycatch bycatch related matters to FIG, especially to the issues as they emerge, so as to ensure an Fisheries and Environment Committees. informed approach to the issue of minimising seabird bycatch. The Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee has been established relatively recently, and it is important that its work is formalised and progressed. 7.2.4 Ensure continued collection and annual reporting of HIGH ACo, FIFD Ongoing These data are currently reported in FIFD seabird bycatch data, both to the Falkland Islands annual reports, to the FI Seabird Bycatch Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee and to ACAP, Advisory Committee, and to ACAP. ensuring that all reporting requirements are met (see also 7.2.3 and 7.2.5). 7.2.5 Actively engage in the process being co-ordinated HIGH ACo, FIFD 2013/14 The ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group is by the ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group to currently in the process of reviewing bycatch develop further the ACAP bycatch data reporting data provided by Parties, and investigating the framework. optimal resolution of the data that Parties are expected to submit. It has been recommended that Parties submit data at a resolution no coarser than 5x5 degrees and per quarter. Further work will take place in 2013/14 to finalise recommendations at the next meeting of ACAP’s Advisory Committee (in August/September 2014). It is important that the Falkland Islands engage in this process. 7.2.6 Continue to test improvements to the current suite HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, 2013/14 and then The Falkland Islands (government, NGOs and of seabird bycatch mitigation measures. Support FIFCA ongoing industry) has been at the forefront of and participate in relevant bycatch mitigation developing and testing seabird bycatch research, both within the Falklands and more mitigation measures, and continues to be broadly. The priority area of research for the actively involved in this area of work. Ongoing Falkland Islands is in the trawl fisheries, including research and development will continue to measures to deter birds from the dangerous fishing improve the efficacy of practicable cost gear and offal management (see 7.2.7 and 7.2.8). effective measures to minimise seabird bycatch further. Current research, which should be progressed, includes assessing the efficacy of new designs for bird scaring systems and quantifying the level of undetected mortality (see 7.2.8).

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 7.2.7 Investigate the short, medium and long-term offal HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, 2013/14 then ongoing It is acknowledged that offal management is management options for use in the trawl fisheries of FIFCA ultimately the most effective means of dealing the Falkland Islands, and adopt best practice seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries, but that practicable measures. there are practical constraints to implementing structural changes to vessels in the short- medium term. It remains important to consider the various options, including shorter-term options such as strategic offal management (where discharge is prohibited during hauling and setting of nets), already required in some trawl fisheries. 7.2.8 Develop further the research initiated in 2012 HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, 2013/14 The research initiated in 2012 produced investigating the nature and extent of undetected FIFCA encouraging interim results, and further seabird mortality associated with trawl gear, and sampling is necessary to progress this work use to improve the accuracy of seabird mortality and improve the accuracy of seabird mortality estimates. estimates in the trawl fisheries of the Falklands. 7.2.9 Collate information on the incidence of deliberate MEDIUM ACo, FC, FIFD, FIFCA 2013/14 Some work has already been undertaken in take of ACAP species (and other seabirds) by the this area (by FC and FIFD), and whilst difficult jigging fleet, including possible reasons, solutions to quantify, information is required by ACAP on and management interventions. the incidence of deliberate take of ACAP species by fishing fleets, together with possible reasons and solutions. This information should be available for submission to the next meeting of the ACAP Seabird Bycatch Working Group in 2014. Although the deadline has not yet been established, it is likely to be around mid- 2014. 7.2.10 UK with other European Union (EU) ACAP Parties HIGH ACo, Defra, FCO, Ongoing Need a coordinated and joined up approach to (France, Spain) to seek to ensure better FIFD, JNCC ensure seabird bycatch issues are strongly engagement by European Commission in motivated and supported at RFMO meetings environmental issues relating to external fisheries, and in the international arena generally. Also especially to address the matter of seabird-fisheries need to engage with other ACAP parties as interactions and seabird bycatch mitigation in part of the ACAP-RFMO interaction plan. The RFMOs. formal adoption and implementation of the EU Action Plan for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Fisheries, which has already been developed, is considered especially important.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 7.2.11 UK to include seabird bycatch expertise at priority HIGH ACo, Defra, FCO, Ongoing At the priority RFMO meetings (such as RFMO meetings (or at least engage experts prior to FIFD, JNCC ICCAT), the UK and OT delegations should and following relevant meetings). ideally include seabird bycatch expertise, or at least ensure thorough interaction with experts prior to and following the meeting. 7.2.12 UK to participate actively in the ACAP RFMO HIGH ACo, Defra, FCO, Ongoing Engaging with RFMOs is considered a high engagement strategy. ICCAT is of particular FIFD, JNCC priority for ACAP, and the ACAP RFMO importance for birds from the Falkland Islands and engagement strategy aims to facilitate the rest of the South Atlantic, but the other tuna coordination between ACAP Parties to RFMOs are also important, as is the newly encourage and assist RFMOs in the established South Pacific Regional Fisheries development and implementation of observer Management Organisation. programmes and associated protocols. The strategy also aims to promote the effective implementation of seabird conservation measures, and refinement of mitigation measures, where these do not follow the current best practice advice. ICCAT is considered key for birds from the South Atlantic, but other RFMOs are also important. 7.2.13 UK to seek to work with other ACAP Parties (such HIGH ACo, Defra, FCO, Ongoing Need a coordinated and joined-up approach to as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil) to support FIFD, JNCC seabird bycatch at RFMO meetings. ACAP or initiate measures to reduce seabird bycatch provides an opportunity/mechanism to achieve within relevant RFMOs. this coordination and collaboration between countries that are Parties to the Agreement. 7.2.14 Work with fishing companies that operate in the MEDIUM FIFCA, FIFD Ongoing Encourage fishing companies whose vessels Falkland Islands to ensure that successful mitigation implement successful mitigation measures in of seabird bycatch mitigation by their vessels in Falklands’ waters to adopt the same approach these waters is complemented by the same when they are fishing in other areas where measures when these and other vessels operate in bycatch is a problem. other areas where there are risks of seabird bycatch. 7.2.15 Collaborate with other countries/organisations to MEDIUM ACo, FIFD Ongoing FIFD has considerable experience in the areas help reduce bycatch (sharing of expertise and of fisheries protection and bycatch mitigation, advice) and IUU fishing within and outside of the as does the Government of South Georgia and Falkland Islands EEZ. the South Sandwich Islands, which would be useful to share, including with other countries/authorities, and thus contribute towards an improved regional approach to these issues. 7.2.16 Encourage and support initiatives by industry, MEDIUM Defra, FCO, FIFCA, Ongoing governments and RFMOs to combat IUU fishing. FIFD 58

8 Data acquisition and management ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 8.2.1 Survey all relevant parties to identify outstanding HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, ISPA, Ongoing The ACAP database serves as a repository for data and ensure that all historical and recent data NICT, WCS data relating to the status and trends of ACAP on albatrosses and petrels are incorporated into the species at all breeding sites, as well as the ACAP database, and that future (updated) data are presence and extent of threats, and captured routinely, properly maintained and information about management actions. The submitted to ACAP. database needs to be regularly (annually) updated to allow regional analyses to be undertaken. The last update took place prior to the seventh meeting of ACAP’s Advisory Committee (April-May 2013). The last update did not include all data from the 2012/13 breeding season and fishing year. 8.2.2 Ensure that all researchers/data holders conducting HIGH ACo, EPD, SAERI Ongoing To ensure that albatross and petrel data research on albatrosses and petrels in the Falkland collected by researchers in the Falkland Islands provide their data to the Falkland Islands Islands is submitted to FIG and ACAP so that it Government, and the ACAP coordinator, for can be used for management purposes. inclusion in the ACAP database, subject to the ACAP rules for accessing and using such data and intellectual property rights. 8.2.3 Develop a mechanism for the coordinated MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, ISPA, 2013-2015 This will likely be taken up by SAERI through management of ACAP and biodiversity data NICT, SAERI the initiative to develop and implement a data (including spatial data) in the Falkland Islands. management and GIS mechanism for the South Atlantic. 8.2.4 Maintain a list of research and monitoring projects of LOW ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, Ongoing EPD maintains a list of approved research relevance to albatrosses and petrels in the Falkland ISPA, NICT, SAERI projects on their website. Research at specific Islands. sites, such as New Island and Steeple Jason, is also listed on the websites of the organisations involved. 8.2.5 Ensure that seabird bycatch reporting requirements HIGH ACo, FIFD Ongoing of ACAP are met (new protocols are currently being developed – this is the same action as in 7.2.4 & 7.2.5 ).

9 Education and awareness ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 9.2.1 Promote the objectives of ACAP through the fora MEDIUM-HIGH ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, Ongoing Specific education and public awareness and mechanisms available (e.g. school curriculum, ISPA, NICT, SAERI, initiatives will be presented in the annual website, meetings); identify additional mechanisms WCS ACAP Implementation report. The annual to disseminate information. Maintain the profile of review of the ACAP Implementation Plan could the Falkland Islands as critical sites for the serve as an opportunity to identify specific conservation of albatrosses and petrels, and of work opportunities. that is being undertaken to address the range of threats in the Falkland Islands and elsewhere. 9.2.2 Establish a more formal link with the Rural Business HIGH ACo, EPD, RBA Ongoing This would serve to make rural landowners, Association of the Falkland Islands, and make use especially those with ACAP breeding sites, of the annual Farmer’s Week activities to promote aware of ACAP, its objectives, and to identify ACAP and its objectives, especially to owners of opportunities for collaboration/engagement. ACAP breeding sites. 9.2.3 Make best use of opportunities that arise as a result MEDIUM EPD, FIFD, SAERI Ongoing There are a number of opportunities. For of outside researchers or individuals working in or example, requesting that researchers present visiting the Falkland Islands, by for example a public talk or presentation while in the requesting that they present a public talk or islands, and provide every opportunity for presentation while in Stanley, and provide every residents of the Falkland Islands to participate opportunity for local Falkland Islanders to participate in research and monitoring activities. in research and monitoring activities. 9.2.4 Investigate opportunities to engage broadly with MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FIFCA, Ongoing There has been discussion about organising fishing captains and crews on issues relating FIFD show-and-tell days when vessel skippers are seabird conservation and especially bycatch in Stanley. This would be a good opportunity to mitigation highlight some key bycatch mitigation issues and complement the awareness-raising work undertaken by observers. 9.2.5 Collaborate with other parties in the development MEDIUM ACo, EPD, FC, FIFD, Ongoing and implementation of regional and international ISPA, NICT, SAERI, education and awareness programmes. WCS 9.2.6 Share expertise and collaborate with other South MEDIUM ACo, EPD, Defra, Ongoing Due to their wide ranging movements, the Atlantic Overseas Territories and other countries FC,FCO, FIFD, ISPA, conservation of albatrosses and petrels from whose jurisdictional waters are important for South NICT, SAERI, WCS the Falkland Islands requires international Atlantic albatrosses and petrels (Chile, Argentina, collaboration to ensure that seabird bycatch is Uruguay, Brazil, South Africa and Namibia) to being eliminated/minimised on the high seas encourage conservation (principally bycatch (through interactions with RFMOs) and in the mitigation) of albatrosses and petrels in these areas. jurisdictional waters of other countries. The ACo has drafted a strategy to encourage and work with other countries on this issue, which provides more specific information.

ACTIONS PRIORITY ORGANISATIONS TIMEFRAME DETAILS * 9.2.7 Ensure this ACAP Action plan is used to inform the HIGH ACo, EPD, FIG, Ongoing The Environmental Mainstreaming Group has Environmental Mainstreaming initiative, and the Environmental been established to facilitate an integrated work of the Environmental Mainstreaming Group Mainstreaming Group approach to environmental management in the Falkland Islands. ACAP responsibilities represent an important component of environmental management, and this Action Plan should be used as an informant to the mainstreaming initiative, and the work of the Environmental Mainstreaming Group. 10 Monitoring and review 10.1.1 Use the table in Appendix 1 as a standardised HIGH ACo, EPD, FIFD Annually Appendix 1 provides a framework that can be template for the annual review of the Action Plan. used to conduct annual reviews of the plan. 10.1.2 Conduct annual review of plan, with inputs from all HIGH Coordinated by ACo Annually Required for organisations to provide feedback relevant organisations and individuals. with input and of their activities and to monitor progress of the participation by all plan. Review process to take place via email. organisations and individuals involved in ACAP work 10.1.3 Ensure that UK ACAP Implementation Reports are HIGH ACo, EPD, FIFD, and Prior to AC and MoP The deadlines, and guidance, for the provided to the ACAP Secretariat within timelines others involved in meetings submission of Implementation reports will be specified ACAP work provided by the ACAP Secretariat. 11.1.1 Secure funding to ensure the continuation of the HIGH ACo, Defra, FCO, FIG, 2013/14 Funding is committed to support the ACAP ACAP coordinator post for another three year period GSGSSI, JNCC coordinator post for another year, until about mid/late 2014. The Project Steering Group for the post has already expressed their wish to extend the coordinator position for another three years. A funding motivation will need to be developed to present to the project donors. . * Lists the key organisations that should be involved in driving forward each activity. In many cases, the target audience will be much wider, including the general public. See Section 14 for a list of acronyms

Appendix 2: ACAP listed species (2013)

Common name Scientific name IUCN status (2013)* Northern Royal Albatross Diomedea sanfordi EN Southern Royal Albatross Diomedea epomophora VU Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans VU Antipodean Albatross Diomedea antipodensis VU Amsterdam Albatross Diomedea amsterdamensis CR Tristan Albatross Diomedea dabbenena CR Sooty Albatross Phoebetria fusca EN Light-mantled Albatross Phoebetria palpebrata NT Waved Albatross Phoebastria irrorata CR Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus VU Black-footed Albatross Phoebastria nigripes NT Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis NT Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross Thalassarche chlororhynchos EN Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross Thalassarche carteri EN Grey-headed Albatross Thalassarche chrysostoma EN Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris NT Campbell Albatross Thalassarche impavida VU Buller's Albatross Thalassarche bulleri NT Shy Albatross Thalassarche cauta NT White-capped Albatross Thalassarche steadi NT Chatham Albatross Thalassarche eremita VU Salvin's Albatross Thalassarche salvini VU Southern Giant-Petrel Macronectes giganteus LC Northern Giant-Petrel Macronectes halli LC White-chinned Petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis VU Spectacled Petrel Procellaria conspicillata VU Black Petrel Procellaria parkinsoni VU Westland Petrel Procellaria westlandica VU Grey Petrel Procellaria cinerea NT Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus CR * The IUCN Red List is being updated between September and November 2013

Appendix 3: ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands. The species codes are as follows: BBA- Black-browed Albatross, SGP – Southern Giant Petrel, WCP – White-chinned Petrel. NNR (Protection Status) – National Nature Reserve. Island Size Protection ACAP Island/Breeding site (ha) 4 status species Ownership Remarks

Barren Island 1150 SGP Private Beauchêne Island 170 NNR BBA, SGP Government

Beaver Island Group: Governor Island 220 SGP Private Beaver Island Group: Penn Island 155 SGP Private

Bird Island 120 NNR BBA Government

Bleaker Island 2070 NNR SGP Private Bottom Island (Port William) 8 WCP Government

Burnt Islet 4 SGP Private

Carcass Island 1894 SGP Private Dyke Island 1500 SGP Private

East Falkland, Black Rincon < 1 SGP Private Berkeley Sound East Falkland, Cape Dolphin < 1 NNR SGP Private East Falkland, Driftwood Point < 1 SGP Quasi-government # North Arm East Falkland, False Bull Point < 1 SGP Quasi-government # North Arm East Falkland, Fanny Point < 1 SGP Quasi-government # North Arm East Falkland, Motley Point < 1 SGP Quasi-government # Walker Creek East Falkland, Rincon Grande < 1 SGP Private East Falkland, Mutiny Point < 1 SGP Quasi-government # North Arm Elephant Cays: Golden Knob Island 1.5 SGP Private Elephant Cays: Sandy Cay 80 SGP Private George Island 2400 SGP Private Jason Island Group: Elephant Jason 260 NNR BBA Government Jason Island Group: Grand Jason 1380 BBA, SGP Private Conservation Organisation Jason Island Group: Jason West Kay 22 NNR SGP Government Jason Island Group: South Jason 375 NNR BBA Government Jason Island Group: Steeple Jason 790 BBA, SGP Private Conservation Organisation Jason Island Group: The Fridays NNR SGP Government Keppel Island 3626 BBA Private

Kidney Island 15 NNR WCP Government Lively Island 5585 SGP Private Low Island (Byron Sound) 75 SGP Private New Island Group: New Island 2363 NNR BBA, WCP, SGP Conservation Trust New Island Group: North Island 75 BBA Private Conservation Organisation

4 Island size for whole island, except for the main islands of East and West Falklands, where the size provided is for the actual breeding site

Appendix 3 (cont.) : ACAP breeding sites in the Falkland Islands . The species codes are as follows: BBA- Black-browed Albatross, SGP – Southern Giant Petrel, WCP – White-chinned Petrel. NNR (Protection Status) – National Nature Reserve.

Island Size Protection ACAP Island/Breeding site (ha) 5 status species Ownership Remarks

New Island Group: Ship Island ++ 9 SGP Private Conservation Organisation

Pebble Island 10336 SGP Private Sand Bay Island ++ 19 SGP Government Saunders Island 8500 BBA Private

Sea Lion Island 905 NNR SGP Quasi-government # Sea Lion Island, Choiseul Sound ++ 123 SGP Quasi-government # Speedwell Island 5150 SGP Private

Swan Island 1375 SGP Private Third Passage Island 80 SGP Private King George Bay Top Island (Port William) ++ 11 WCP Government West Falkland, Hope Point < 1 SGP Private Dunbar farm West Falkland, Rookery Point < 1 SGP Private Albemarle West Falkland, Grave Cove < 1 BBA Private Dunbar farm West Island 110 SGP Private Cape Orford West Point Island 1255 BBA Private # - Sites managed by quasi-government organisations primarily for purposes other than conservation (mainly agriculture and tourism) are treated separately from FIG owned land that is managed for conservation ++ These sites have been added since the 2010 ACAP plan. Sea Lion, Choiseul Sound, Ship Island (New Island Group) and Top Island (Port William) represent new ACAP breeding sites, whereas Sand Bay Island was previously recognised as a breeding site, but had not been recorded in the ACAP database. The 2010 plan did not have Southern Giant Petrels recorded as a breeding species at New Island. The species has been recorded breeding, and continues to breed in small numbers, at New Island and on nearby Ship Island, and so the database has been updated to rectify this oversight.

5 Island size for whole island, except for the main islands of East and West Falklands, where the size provided is for the actual breeding site

Appendix 4: Assessment of threats by ACAP in relation to breeding sites of ACAP species in the Falkland Islands

Breeding site Key species Threat Threat Scope Severity Level Current subcategory species management action New Island White-chinned Petrel Predation by Feral Cat Very High Low Low Continue alien species monitoring

Appendix 5: Recommendations for landowners with breeding colonies of ACAP species (excerpt from Yates and Crofts 2006)

• Southern Giant Petrels in the Falkland Islands are much more sensitive to disturbance than in other breeding localities. For this reason we suggest that extra care is taken with this species.

• Where Giant Petrels are nesting a distance of 200m should be maintained and certainly no closer than 50m;

• The suggested distance of 6m is recommended for Black-browed Albatross *;

• Extra caution should be taken during the egg, hatching and small chick periods (October to January);

• If necessary, the best time to move close to colonies is during the large chick period, after February. At this stage the chicks are more capable of fending off predators;

• The pre-fledging period is also sensitive. Colonies should be completely avoided wherever possible during April;

• During sensitive periods or with larger visitor numbers, a larger distance is always preferable;

• Burrowing petrel nests are susceptible to trampling. Care should be taken to avoid burrows at all times of the year;

• Do not block seabird sea-access paths or take-off areas;

• Avoid making any sudden or loud noises in the vicinity of seabird colonies. This includes car doors, motorbike engine noise, shouting, whistling, etc;

• Camera flashes should be turned off – they are seldom of use outside anyway;

• Helicopter flights should be restricted to agreed flight paths, ensuring respectable distances from all seabird colonies;

• Dogs should be kept away from seabird colonies;

• Avoid close approach to nest sites during December, especially the first two weeks;

• Avoid Giant Petrel colonies wherever possible.

* In some cases, where thick tussac grass obscures the colony, a closer approach may be necessary. In such circumstances, it is still advisable to adopt a cautious approach, and only go as close as is necessary to view the nesting albatrosses.

Appendix 6: Standardised census methodology for Southern Giant Petrels. Adapted from guidelines provided by ACAP to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for use in Antarctica

The aim of these protocols is to obtain the best count of the number of Southern Giant Petrels that are breeding at a particular site. The protocols were specifically developed for use in Antarctica, but can be adapted for use in the Falkland Islands.

Requirements for censuses 1. The census should be conducted as soon as possible after all pairs at a site have laid eggs (see (3) below) or as close as possible to that date (keeping as close as possible to the same date each census) by counting active nests. 2. Active nests are either: (i) nests on which the adult appears to be incubating an egg or brooding a chick, or (ii) nests which contain a single chick. 3. Do not disturb any adult that is sitting on a nest to attempt to determine whether it is on an egg or small chick. 4. The required information for such a census is: a. Locality name and position to the nearest decimal minute, or second. b. Date (day, month, year) of census. c. Name and employing institution of observer(s). d. Weather conditions with wind speed, snow cover and visibility given as a minimum. e. A description of the census methodology and observation procedure used, including the approach distance to the breeding birds. f. As accurate a description as possible of the area covered by the census and where the breeding birds are located; photographs and maps are highly desirable. g. The number of active nests.

Important considerations 1. Giant petrels are extremely susceptible to human disturbance. No personnel should approach so closely that birds are disturbed or move from the nest. 2. Inexperienced personnel should obtain instruction and training on census methods, and behaviour around seabird colonies from experts before undertaking a census. Following the census, data should be submitted to an expert for consideration and the results discussed. 3. Ideally, censuses should be undertaken every year. Data on a less frequent basis may not enable assessment of inter-annual variability and could make trend assessments more difficult. 4. In the Antarctic Peninsula area, almost all pairs have laid by c. November 25th. However, it is possible that the optimal time for censusing will differ at other sites. 5. Thorough documentation of the censuses is essential and will greatly assist in interpretation of results as well as help personnel undertaking future counts to consistently repeat the count. Scaled maps (with co-ordinates and other units identified, preferably by using a GPS) and photographs and descriptive text (state the spatial units used) should be recorded wherever possible. 67

6. Additional data on breeding success can assist a better understanding of population trends. To estimate breeding success on an annual basis the following approach should be adopted only by observers experienced with this species: a. Undertake a census of active nests as above. b. Undertake a chick count when chicks are approaching adult size, are unattended, but have not yet fledged. c. Do not attempt to census the numbers of small chicks because of the high risks of nest desertion. 7. Even if nests are not counted it is useful to record whether birds are breeding at a particular site. Similarly, stating that no Southern Giant Petrels are breeding is important. Modern distribution and abundance modelling techniques are improved considerably if real absence (rather than presumed absence) data are available. 8. Data holders are requested to send census data to the Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ( www.acap.aq ).

Developing census protocols for use in the Falkland Islands 1. Archipelago-wide surveys should take place at least once every ten years, and these should be seen as part of a broader monitoring programme, which includes annual monitoring of some sites. Consequently, the next survey is due in about 2015. 2. Aerial photography from a helicopter is the recommended approach for most sites in the Falklands. The previous census conducted aerial photography from a fixed wing aircraft from an altitude of 300 m (Reid and Huin 2008), and did not report any impacts on nesting birds. It is possible that a helicopter may differ in its impact on nesting birds, so this should be further investigated. 3. From the information that is available, Southern Giant Petrels in the Falkland Islands commence breeding in September, with egg-laying occurring between mid October and early November; chicks fledge in late March (Otley et al. 2008). On the basis of this information (which should be investigated further), the optimal timing for a census in the Falkland Islands would be early to mid November. 4. Use the results and map in Reid and Huin (2008), together with additional information provided in this document (2013 ACAP plan) regarding the location of new breeding sites to develop the survey protocols. All sites should be counted during the archipelago-wide survey, but if it is necessary to prioritise, the sites with large populations, such as Sandy Cay are the most important to survey.

Appendix 7: Terms of Reference for the Falkland Islands Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee

1. The National Plans of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds (NPOA-S) recommended the establishment of a Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee. This recommendation was supported by the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy Workshop (2011).

2. The Seabird Bycatch Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from the Falkland Islands Government (Directorate of Natural Resources), the fishing industry, and relevant Non-Government Organisations with expertise in seabird bycatch and related work.

3. The Committee has no executive powers and does not represent an alternative to any legal authority. The role of the Committee is to advise and make recommendations to the Directorate of Natural Resources and the Environmental Planning Department for onward consideration within FIG.

4. The Committee will provide a means for structured, formal and informal consultation on monitoring and reporting of information about seabird bycatch to enable ongoing review and improved performance with respect to bycatch mitigation. As such the Committee will serve as a review body and mechanism for considering seabird bycatch and mitigation generally.

5. The Committee will conduct regular (annual) reviews of the NPOA-S (longline and trawl fisheries).

6. The Committee will strive to make all decisions, agreements and recommendations on a consensus basis. Where this is not possible a minute will be taken of individual views on the issue.

7. The Forum will meet 2 times per year or additionally as required. All meetings will be formally recorded and minutes circulated to all parties.

8. Meetings will be held in private. Members of the public will not be able to attend meetings. The public may submit questions for Forum discussion in advance of the meeting. A synopsis of the discussion of each meeting will be made publicly available.