DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Comment Draft Report SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Comment Draft Report SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Comment Draft Report SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery On behalf of SARPC Prepared by Control Union Pesca Ltd October 2018 Authors: Sophie des Clers Robin Cook Henry Ernst Control Union Pesca Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cupesca.com Contents CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 1 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 6 RESUME EXECUTIF ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ..................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Assessment Team ................................................................................................................. 12 1.2 Peer Reviewers...................................................................................................................... 13 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY .............................................................................................................. 14 2.1 Units of Assessment (UoAs) and Scope of Certification ....................................................... 14 2.1.1 Final Units of Certification (UoCs) ................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data .................................................................................. 15 2.2 Overview of the fishery ......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Fishing areas and seasons ............................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Vessels, fishing gear and operation of the fishery .......................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Other fisheries in Kerguelen and Crozet French EEZ and associated CCAMLR areas ..................... 20 2.3 Principle One: Target Species ............................................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Target species overview ................................................................................................................. 21 2.3.2 Information sources and data collection ........................................................................................ 21 2.3.3 Depredation .................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Stock assessment ............................................................................................................................ 24 2.3.5 Stock trends .................................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.6 Reference points ............................................................................................................................. 28 2.3.7 Harvest strategy .............................................................................................................................. 28 2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem...................................................................................................... 30 2.4.1 Principle 2 definitions ..................................................................................................................... 30 2.4.2 Information on non-target species ................................................................................................. 31 2.4.3 Catch of non-target species ............................................................................................................ 32 2.4.4 Bait .................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.4.5 Designation of species under Principle 2 ........................................................................................ 35 2.4.6 Primary species ............................................................................................................................... 37 2.4.7 Secondary species ........................................................................................................................... 38 2.4.8 ETP species ...................................................................................................................................... 41 2.4.9 Habitats ........................................................................................................................................... 44 2.4.10 Ecosystem impacts.......................................................................................................................... 46 2.5 Principle Three: Management System .................................................................................. 48 2.5.1 Jurisdictions .................................................................................................................................... 50 2.5.2 Legal basis and management system ............................................................................................. 50 2.5.3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 51 2.5.4 Management plans ......................................................................................................................... 53 2.5.5 Stakeholders and consultation processes ....................................................................................... 53 2.5.6 Disputes and resolution mechanisms ............................................................................................. 54 2.5.7 Fisheries surveillance and enforcement ......................................................................................... 55 2.5.8 Evaluation and review of the management system ....................................................................... 56 3191R05A Control Union Pesca Ltd 1 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 3 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 57 3.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment .......................................................................................... 57 3.2 Previous certification assessments ....................................................................................... 57 3.2.1 UoA1 - Kerguelen ............................................................................................................................ 57 3.2.2 UoA2 - Crozet .................................................................................................................................. 59 3.2.3 Previous scoring both UoAs ............................................................................................................ 62 3.3 Assessment Methodologies .................................................................................................. 63 3.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques .................................................................................. 63 3.4.1 Site Visits ......................................................................................................................................... 63 3.4.2 Evaluation Techniques .................................................................................................................... 65 4 TRACEABILITY .................................................................................................................................... 67 4.1 Eligibility Date ....................................................................................................................... 67 4.2 Traceability within the Fishery .............................................................................................. 67 4.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ....................................................................... 69 5 EVALUATION RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 71 5.1 Principle Level Scores ............................................................................................................ 71 5.2 Summary of PI Level Scores .................................................................................................. 71 5.3 Summary of Conditions ......................................................................................................... 72 5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 73 5.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ............................................................. 73 6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Porbeagle Oceanic Whitetip SCALLOPED Hammerhead VOTE YES Appendix II Endangered in Northwest Pacific
    PORBEAGLE OCEANIC WHITETIP SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD VOTE YES APPENDIX II Endangered in northwest Pacific. VOTE YES APPENDIX II VOTE YES APPENDIX II SPECIES FACTS n Hammerhead shark fins are some of the most Vulnerable globally. SPECIES NAME: Lamna nasus SPECIES NAME: SPECIES NAME: valuable on the market. FINS The warm-blooded porbeagle shark, caught Carcharhinus longimanus Sphyrna lewini SPECIES FACTS mostly for its fins for soup and its meat, is The oceanic whitetip is one of the The scalloped n Surveys in the northwest Atlantic document AT A GLANCE n The international demand for porbeagle fins distributed throughout the temperate North most widespread shark species, found hammerhead, with the hammerhead loss at up to 98 per cent, and meat has driven populations to very Atlantic Ocean throughout the world’s tropical and its distinctive head, is landings in the southwest Atlantic show low levels across their range. Studies show and Southern temperate seas. It is also one of the most one of the most recognizable sharks. It is also declines of up to 90 per cent, and declines declines of up to 90 per cent in places around Hemisphere. threatened. It is typically caught for its one of the most endangered shark species, of more than 99 per cent have occurred in the world, including the northwest Atlantic. valuable fins, which are used in soup. caught for its valuable fins to make soup. the Mediterranean. The three FIRST n Almost no international conservation or SPECIES FACTS hammerhead species DORSAL FIN FIRST DORSAL FIN FIRST DORSAL FIN management measures exist for n Studies have documented population (Sphyrna lewini, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamna Nasus) Inferred from a Data Mining in the Spanish Longline Fishery Targeting Swordfish (Xiphias Gladius) in the Atlantic for the 1987-2017 Period
    SCRS/2020/073 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 77(6): 89-117 (2020) SIZE AND AREA DISTRIBUTION OF PORBEAGLE (LAMNA NASUS) INFERRED FROM A DATA MINING IN THE SPANISH LONGLINE FISHERY TARGETING SWORDFISH (XIPHIAS GLADIUS) IN THE ATLANTIC FOR THE 1987-2017 PERIOD J. Mejuto1, A. Ramos-Cartelle1, B. García-Cortés1 and J. Fernández-Costa1 SUMMARY A total of 5,136 size observations of porbeagle were recovered for the period 1987-2017. The GLM results explained very moderately the variability of the sizes considering three main factors, suggesting minor but significant differences in some cases especially for the year factor and non-significant differences in other factors depending on the analysis. The greatest differences in the standardized mean length between some zones were caused by some large fish of unidentified sex. The standardized mean length data for the northern zones showed stability throughout the time series, very stable range of mean values and very few differences between sexes. The size distribution for northern areas indicated an FL-overall mean of 158 cm. The size showed a normal distribution confirming that a small fraction of individuals of this stock/s is available in the oceanic areas where the North Atlantic fleet is regularly fishing and the fishes are not fully recruited to those areas and / or this fishing gear up to 160 cm. The data suggests that some individuals could sporadically reach some intertropical areas of the eastern Atlantic. RÉSUMÉ Un total de 5.136 observations de taille de requins-taupes communs ont été récupérées pour la période 1987-2017. Les résultats du GLM expliquent très modérément la variabilité des tailles en tenant compte de trois facteurs principaux, ce qui suggère des différences mineures mais significatives dans certains cas, notamment pour le facteur année et des différences non significatives pour d'autres facteurs selon le type d’analyse.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Reports for Species & Habitats on the Initial Draft
    OSPAR Commission, 2008: Case reports for the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nomination Rarity Lamna nasus, Porbeagle shark This species is very seriously depleted and only rarely encountered over most of its former OSPAR Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) (Bonnaterre, range although, because of its aggregating nature, 1788) seasonal target fisheries are still possible. It is not possible to estimate its population size in the OSPAR Area, and there is no guidance for the application of this criterion to highly mobile species. Sensitivity Very Sensitive. Lamna nasus is relatively slow growing, late maturing, and long-lived, bears small litters of pups and has a generation period of 20–50 years and an intrinsic rate of population increase of Geographical extent 5–7% per annum. It is also of high commercial • OSPAR Regions: I, II, III, IV, V value at all age classes (mature and immature). These factors, combined with its aggregating habit, • Biogeographic zones: make it highly vulnerable to over-exploitation and 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,22,23 population depletion by target and incidental • Region & Biogeographic zones specified for fisheries. Its resilience is also very low. The decline and/or threat: as above Canadian Recovery Assessment Report for the Northwest Atlantic stock of Lamna nasus (DFO Lamna nasus is a wide-ranging, coastal and 2005) projected that a recovery to maximum oceanic shark, but with apparently little exchange sustainable yield would take some 25 to 55 years if between adjacent populations. It has an antitropical the fishery is closed, or over 100 years if fisheries distribution in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean mortality remained at 4%.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark
    A Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) as an Endangered, or Alternatively as a Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the Concurrent Designation of Critical Habitat Oceanic whitetip shark (used with permission from Andy Murch/Elasmodiver.com). Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service September 21, 2015 By: Defenders of Wildlife1 535 16th Street, Suite 310 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 943-0471 (720) 942-0457 [email protected] [email protected] 1 Defenders of Wildlife would like to thank Courtney McVean, a law student at the University of Denver, Sturm college of Law, for her substantial research and work preparing this Petition. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 II. GOVERNING PROVISIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ............................................. 5 A. Species and Distinct Population Segments ....................................................................... 5 B. Significant Portion of the Species’ Range ......................................................................... 6 C. Listing Factors ....................................................................................................................... 7 D. 90-Day and 12-Month Findings ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Porbeagle Shark Lamna Nasus
    Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus Lateral View (♀) Ventral View (♀) COMMON NAMES APPEARANCE Porbeagle Shark, Atlantic Mackerel Shark, Blue Dog, Bottle-nosed • Heavily built but streamlined mackerel shark. Shark, Beaumaris Shark, Requin-Taupe Commun (Fr), Marrajo • Moderately long conical snout with a relatively large eyes. Sardinero (Es), Tiburón Sardinero (Es), Tintorera (Es). • Large first dorsal fin with a conspicuous white free rear tip. SYNONYMS • Second dorsal fin and anal fin equal-sized and set together. Squalus glaucus (Gunnerus, 1758), Squalus cornubicus (Gmelin, 1789), • Lunate caudal fin with strong keel and small secondary keel. Squalus pennanti (Walbaum, 1792), Lamna pennanti (Desvaux, 1851), Squalus monensis (Shaw, 1804), Squalus cornubiensis (Pennant, 1812), • Dorsally dark blue to grey with no patterning. Squalus selanonus (Walker, 1818), Selanonius walkeri (Fleming, 1828), • Ventrally white. Lamna punctata (Storer, 1839), Oxyrhina daekyi (Gill, 1862), Lamna • Maximum length of 365cm, though rarely to this size. NE MED ATL philippi (Perez Canto, 1886), Lamna whitleyi (Phillipps, 1935). DISTRIBUTION The Porbeagle Shark is a large, streamlined mackerel shark with a In the northern conical snout and powerful body. The first dorsal fin is large and hemisphere, the originates above or slightly behind the pectoral fins. It has a free rear Porbeagle Shark tip which is white. The second dorsal fin is tiny and is set above the occurs only in the anal fin, to which it is comparable in size. The caudal fin is strong and North Atlantic and lunate with a small terminal notch. The caudal keel is strong and, Mediterranean, uniquely for the northeast Atlantic, a smaller secondary caudal keel is whilst in the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification Guide to the Deep-Sea Cartilaginous Fishes Of
    Identification guide to the deep–sea cartilaginous fishes of the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean FAO. 2015. Identification guide to the deep–sea cartilaginous fishes of the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean. FishFinder Programme, by Ebert, D.A. and Mostarda, E., Rome, Italy. Supervision: Merete Tandstad, Jessica Sanders (FAO, Rome) Technical editor: Edoardo Mostarda (FAO, Rome) Colour illustrations, cover and graphic design: Emanuela D’Antoni (FAO, Rome) This guide was prepared under the “FAO Deep–sea Fisheries Programme” thanks to a generous funding from the Government of Norway (Support to the implementation of the International Guidelines on the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas project) for the purpose of assisting states, institutions, the fishing industry and RFMO/As in the implementation of FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. It was developed in close collaboration with the FishFinder Programme of the Marine and Inland Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The present guide covers the deep–sea Southeastern Atlantic Ocean and that portion of Southwestern Indian Ocean from 18°42’E to 30°00’E (FAO Fishing Area 47). It includes a selection of cartilaginous fish species of major, moderate and minor importance to fisheries as well as those of doubtful or potential use to fisheries. It also covers those little known species that may be of research, educational, and ecological importance. In this region, the deep–sea chondrichthyan fauna is currently represented by 50 shark, 20 batoid and 8 chimaera species. This guide includes full species accounts for 37 shark, 9 batoid and 4 chimaera species selected as being the more difficult to identify and/or commonly caught.
    [Show full text]
  • Porbeagle TAC Fact Sheet 2008
    Fact Sheet: Porbeagle Sharks Porbeagle sharks are: • exceptionally slow-growing and vulnerable to overfishing • heavily exploited for their valuable meat and fins • classified by IUCN as Critically Endangered off Europe • highly migratory but unprotected in international waters • legally fished in Europe counter to scientific advice, and • in urgent need of conservation measures. Biology Porbeagle sharks are exceptionally vulnerable to overexploitation and long lasting depletion due to their slow growth, late maturity, and small litters. Females do not reproduce until their teen years and give birth to only about four pups after an 8-9 month pregnancy. Like most sharks, porbeagles are top predators in marine food webs and therefore critical to keeping the ocean in balance. Fisheries today Porbeagle meat is among the most prized of all shark meat, particularly in Europe. The large fins of porbeagles are valuable for use in “shark fin soup”, an Asian delicacy. Schools of porbeagle sharks are therefore sporadically targeted, but also often kept if taken incidentally, as “bycatch”, usually by pelagic longliners. Scientists note that most hooked porbeagle sharks make it to the boat alive; many could therefore survive capture if released. Currently, vessels from France and Spain take most of the EU catch of porbeagles, through targeted fisheries and as bycatch. Boats from the UK and Ireland also land porbeagle sharks taken incidentally. Population status Intense fishing has left the Northeast Atlantic porbeagle shark stock the most depleted porbeagle population in the world. Norwegian landings from this region declined by 99% between 1936 and 2005. The IUCN-World Conservation Union includes porbeagle on their Red List of Threatened Species, as Vulnerable globally; the Northeast Atlantic population is classified as Critically Endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • Porbeagle Shark Fact Sheetforthe16 Overview Regional Efforts Toward Recovery Andsustainableuse
    Fact sheet for the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Porbeagle shark PROPOSAL Lamna nasus # 44 Proposed action Listing on CITES Appendix II Lead proponent European Union Co-sponsors Brazil, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt Annotation Entry into effect delayed by 18 months to allow Parties to resolve technical and administrative issues ANDY MURCH Overview The porbeagle is a globally threatened, low-productivity shark that has been seriously overfished in major parts of its range primarily for international trade in meat and fins. Strong demand for these products continues to drive targeted and incidental take of porbeagles that is inadequately managed or completely unregulated. CITES Appendix II listing is warranted to facilitate compliance with relevant fishing restrictions and establishment of science-based export limits, thereby complementing national and regional efforts toward recovery and sustainable use. SHARK ADVOCATES INTERNATIONAL Protecting sharks from unsustainable trade Porbeagle shark Proposal #44 Porbeagle shark Proposal #44 Distribution countries. With North Atlantic porbeagle fisheries greatly management of the species, but have not yet led to spe- Lamna nasus is found in a circumglobal band of ~30–60oS reduced, persistent EU demand for meat is being met by cific, binding fisheries regulations. in the Southern Hemisphere and mostly between 30–70oN imports from countries without porbeagle catch limits, in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean. such as Japan and South Africa, and is likely putting The EU established a total allowable catch (TAC) for greater pressure on Southern Hemisphere populations. Northeast Atlantic porbeagle in 2008 and cut it to zero for 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Sharks at Risk
    RESEARCH SERIES JUNE 2008 Risk Assessment Prompts No-Take Recommendations for Shark Species ATLANTIC SHARKS AT RISK SummARY OF AN EXPERT WORKING GROup REPORT: Simpfendorfer, C., Heupel M., Babcock, E., Baum, J.K., Dudley, S.F.J., Stevens, J.D., Fordham, S., and A. Soldo. 2008. Management Recommendations Based on Integrated Risk Assessment of Data-Poor Pelagic Atlantic Sharks. POpuLATIONS OF MANY of the world’s pelagic, or open ocean, shark and ray species are declining. Like most sharks, these species are known to be susceptible to overfishing due to low reproductive rates. Pelagic longline fisheries for tuna and swordfish catch significant numbers of pelagic sharks and rays and shark fisheries are also growing due to declines in traditional target species and the rising value of shark fins and meat. Yet, a lack of data has prevented scientists from conducting reliable population assessments for most pelagic shark and ray species, hindering effective management actions. Dr. Colin Simpfendorfer and the Lenfest Ocean Program convened an international expert working group to estimate the risk of overfishing for twelve species caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries under the jurisdiction of the International Commission for the Conserva- tion of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The scientists conducted an integrated risk assessment designed for data-poor situations for these sharks and rays. Their analysis indicated that bigeye thresher, shortfin mako and longfin mako sharks had the highest risk of overfishing while many of the other species had at least moderately high levels of risk. Based on these results, the scientists developed recommendations for limiting or prohibiting catch for the main pelagic shark and ray species taken in ICCAT fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Porbeagle
    I CMS/Sharks/MOS3/Inf.15f Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks Porbeagle Fact Sheet Class: Chondrichthyes Porbeagle Order: Lamniformes Requin taupe Family: Lamnidae Marrajo Species: Lamna nasus Illustration: © Marc Dando 1. BIOLOGY The Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) attains a maximum total length of ca. 300 cm, possibly to 370 cm. Around New Zealand, males and females mature at 140–150 cm and ca. 170–180 cm fork length (FL), respectively (Francis and Duffy, 2005), but Porbeagle mature at a larger size in the NW Atlantic, with 50% maturity at 174 cm (males) and 218 cm FL (females) (Jensen et al., 2002). The reproductive cycle may last about one year, and the (usually) four pups born at 58–75 cm (Compagno, 1984; Francis and Stevens, 2000). The maximum observed age of Porbeagle is over 20 years, and longevity is estimated at 45–65 years (Natanson et al., 2002; Francis et al., 2007). 2. DISTRIBUTION In the northern hemisphere, the Porbeagle inhabits oceanic and coastal habitats in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea and in a circumglobal band in the southern hemisphere (Francis et al. 2008), and are absent from tropical waters. 1 CMS/Sharks/MOS3/Inf.15f e Figure 1: Distribution of Lamna nasus (map adjusted from IUCN Assessment). 3. CRITICAL SITES Critical sites are those habitats that may have a key role for the conservation status of a shark population, and may include feeding, mating, pupping, overwintering grounds and other aggregation sites, as well as corridors between these sites such as migration routes. Electronic tagging studies indicated a subtropical pupping ground for Porbeagle in the Sargasso Sea (Campana et al., 2010a).
    [Show full text]
  • WWF Positions CITES COP14
    WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: - conserving the world’s biological diversity - ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable - promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption For further information contact: WWF Global Species Programme WWF International Av. du Mont-Blanc 1196 Gland Switzerland email: [email protected] www.panda.org/species/cites PCITESO CoP14SI C2007IONES CONTENTS Title Page Introduction from Dr. Susan Lieberman, Director WWF’s Global Species Programme 5 Proposals to amend the Appendices 4 African elephant (Botswana & Namibia) 6 5 African elephant (Botswana) 7 6 African elephant (Kenya, Mali) 8 15 Porbeagle Lamna nasus 10 16 Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias 13 17 Sawfish Pristidae spp. 16 18 European eel Anguilla anguilla 19 21 Red and pink coral Corallium spp. 21 31 Dalbergia retusa and D. granadillo 24 32 D. stevensonii 24 33 Cedrela spp. 25 Agenda Items 13 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity 26 14 CITES and Livelihoods 27 20.1 Review of Resolutions: Resolutions relating to Appendix I species 29 50 Great Apes 30 51 Cetaceans 34 52 Asian big cats 37 53.1 Trade in elephant specimens 41 53.4 Illegal ivory trade and control of internal markets 43 54, 37.2 Rhinoceros 44 55 Tibetan antelope 47 56 Saiga antelope 48 Dear CITES Parties: We are pleased to provide you with WWF’s position statements for the upcoming 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to CITES, to be held in the Netherlands, 3–15 June 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean
    Census of Antarctic Marine Life SCAR-Marine Biodiversity Information Network BIOGEOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN CHAPTER 7. BIOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS OF FISH. Duhamel G., Hulley P.-A, Causse R., Koubbi P., Vacchi M., Pruvost P., Vigetta S., Irisson J.-O., Mormède S., Belchier M., Dettai A., Detrich H.W., Gutt J., Jones C.D., Kock K.-H., Lopez Abellan L.J., Van de Putte A.P., 2014. In: De Broyer C., Koubbi P., Griffiths H.J., Raymond B., Udekem d’Acoz C. d’, et al. (eds.). Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, pp. 328-362. EDITED BY: Claude DE BROYER & Philippe KOUBBI (chief editors) with Huw GRIFFITHS, Ben RAYMOND, Cédric d’UDEKEM d’ACOZ, Anton VAN DE PUTTE, Bruno DANIS, Bruno DAVID, Susie GRANT, Julian GUTT, Christoph HELD, Graham HOSIE, Falk HUETTMANN, Alexandra POST & Yan ROPERT-COUDERT SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN The “Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean” is a legacy of the International Polar Year 2007-2009 (www.ipy.org) and of the Census of Marine Life 2000-2010 (www.coml.org), contributed by the Census of Antarctic Marine Life (www.caml.aq) and the SCAR Marine Biodiversity Information Network (www.scarmarbin.be; www.biodiversity.aq). The “Biogeographic Atlas” is a contribution to the SCAR programmes Ant-ECO (State of the Antarctic Ecosystem) and AnT-ERA (Antarctic Thresholds- Ecosys- tem Resilience and Adaptation) (www.scar.org/science-themes/ecosystems). Edited by: Claude De Broyer (Royal Belgian Institute
    [Show full text]