Liberation Room, Secretariat

AGENDA

Meeting of the Environmental Committee

Thursday 20 th July 2017 at 9.00am

Distribution List:-

Hon. Mr Michael Poole, MLA Hon. Mrs Jan Cheek, MLA Representative, Falkland Islands Tourist Board Representative, Rural Business Association Representative, Department of Agriculture Representative, Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association Representative, Falklands Conservation Representative, South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute Mr Mike Evans, Community Representative Mr Sam Cockwell, Community Representative Miss Emily Hancox, Community Representative

Environmental Officer Head of Environmental Planning

HE The Governor Principal Crown Counsel

Environmental Committee

9.00am, July 20 th 2017

Liberation Room, Secretariat, Stanley

Part I (Open)

1.0 Apologies for Absence

2.0 Declarations of Interest

3.0 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 16th March 2017

4.0 Matters Arising:

4.1 Invasives Biosecurity Strategy Verbal Update

5.0 Marine Spatial Planning: AFCAS Consultation Report Report Attached

6.0 Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme: Annual Report 2016/2017 (SMP24) Report Attached

7.0 Island LandCare Report for weed control 2016/17 Report Attached

8.0 Landing Fees Increase Verbal Update

9.0 Stanley Common Ordinance Consultation Report Attached

10.0 Giant Petrels ACAP status Letter Attached

11.0 Research Licence Applications

11.1 Continued studies on the ecology of Thin-billed Prions Application Attached

11.2 Ecological segregation and monitoring of penguins at New Island Application Attached

11.3 Overwinter movements, habitat utilization, and carryover effects in Gentoo penguins. Application Attached Principle Researcher CV attached

11.4 Extension to inshore dolphins sampling research Application to Follow Biopsy Summary Report Attached

12.0 Papers of interest (available on request from EO):

Soil resource studies for a National Soil Map of the Falkland Islands; Preliminary Project Report by R.G.O. BURTON Shackleton Scholar 2016–17 1 June 2017

Polar zoobenthos blue carbon storage increases with sea ice losses, because across-shelf growth gains from longer algal blooms outweigh ice scour mortality in the shallows David K Barns The spiders of the Falkland Islands 1: Erigoninae (Arineae, Linyphiidae) Alistair H. Lavery and Rowley G. Snazell

Annotated checklist of the spiders, harvestmen, and pseudoscorpions of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, Alastair H. Lavery

How animals distribute themselves in space: variable energy landscapes, Juan F. Masello , Akiko Kato, Julia Sommerfeld, Thomas Mattern and Petra Quillfeldt

Albatrosses prospect before choosing a home: intrinsic and extrinsic sources of variability in visit rates, Letizia Campioni, Jose Pedro Granadeiro, Paulo Catry

Does genetic structure reflect differences in non-breeding movements? A case study in small, highly mobile seabirds, Petra Quillfeldt , Yoshan Moodley, Henri Weimerskirch, Yves Cherel, Karine Delord, Richard A. Phillips, Joan Navarro, Luciano Calderón and Juan F. Masello

13.0 Date of next meeting

August 2017 – Environmental Studies Budget Allocation

The Assessment of Fishing Closure Areas as Sites for wider marine management in the Falkland Islands AFCAS

Consultation Report

Report prepared by Neil Golding, SAERI

July 2017

Version Control Table

Version Date Author Comments 0.1 04/06/17 NG Draft for MSP Steering Committee review (Diane Simsovic, MLA Michael Poole, Paul Brickle, Nick Rendell, John Barton, Stephen Luxton, FIFCA (Stuart Wallace/Tom Blake)) 0.2 23/06/17 NG Includes comments from DS/NR/MP/TB/SL & JB and agreement of outstanding issues at 30/6/17 MSP Steering Committee 0.3 10/07/17 NG Updated following comments from TB (FIFCA) 0.4 14/07/17 NG Version approved for circulation by MSP Steering Committee

Citation: Golding. N., 2017. Consultation Report on the Assessment of Fishing Closure Areas as Sites for wider marine management in the Falkland Islands (AFCAS). South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI), 42pp.

Contents 1. Purpose of the consultation and how it was carried out ...... 4 1.1. Background and purpose of the consultation ...... 4 1.2. How the consultation was carried out ...... 5 1.2.1. Consultation document & supporting info ...... 5 1.2.2. How was it advertised? ...... 5 1.2.3. Consultation events ...... 6 2. Consultation responses ...... 7 2.1. The consultation response assessment process ...... 7 2.2. Summary of consultation responses ...... 7 2.3. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘General Comments’ ...... 12 2.4. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘Management’ ...... 24 2.5. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘Evidence’...... 33 3. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 37 Annex I: Consultation response form ...... 38 Annex II: Letter sent out to Camp settlements ...... 39 Annex III: List of Camp settlements where AFCAS consultation packs were posted...... 40 Annex IV: Penguin News article – 24th March 2017 ...... 41 Annex V: Poster advertising the AFCAS consultation and public consultation meeting...... 42

1. Purpose of the consultation and how it was carried out

1.1. Background and purpose of the consultation Following the successful completion of the Darwin-Plus funded Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) project in summer 2016, there was a desire to maintain the momentum this project generated, as well as utilise some of the tools and datasets developed. Falkland Islands Government (FIG) directed SAERI1 to undertake this second phase of the project (MSP Phase II) on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

While two of the work packages looked at reviewing current Falklands legislation with respect to future MSP implementation and developing a long-term strategy for MSP in the form of a paper to Executive Committee, the other work package (in the form of a case study) looked to create a tangible output that demonstrated the benefits of the MSP tools developed through the first MSP project to local government; assessing the current fishing closure areas as sites for wider marine management (AFCAS) was this case study. With the UK ratifying the Convention of Biological Diversity, and being extended to the Falklands in the summer of 2016, FIG recognised the need to protect at least 10% of the Falklands coastal and marine area, in order to meet its Aichi Targets. The AFCAS case study, which assessed these fishing closure areas against international protected area criteria, demonstrated that with some small changes, such as specifically stating nature conservation objectives, FIG could use pre-existing permanent and temporary closures as sites for wider marine management, whilst also meeting some of its international protected area Aichi Targets.

The findings from this assessment of fishing closure areas case study, known as AFCAS, were documented in a report. The report outlined potential Marine Management Areas (MMAs) that could be developed from existing fishing closures, as well as ideas on how these could be managed into the future. Some aspects contained within the AFCAS report had been discussed previously with stakeholders. For example, options around some form of protected area being overlaid onto the same area as the current inshore (3nm) fishing exclusion area were discussed at the third ‘Framing MSP’ stakeholder workshop2 of the Darwin Plus MSP project, hosted on HMS Clyde in April 2016, and was a “generally-accepted idea” by the workshop participants . However, the AFCAS report also contained many new ideas that hadn’t been discussed in depth with stakeholders.

1 SAERI was operating as an arm of FIG until it became an independent body on 30th June 2017 2 http://www.south-atlantic-research.org/media/files/MSP_Falkands_Framing-Workshop-report_5- 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf

Following report sign-off by the project Steering Committee, and discussion with the project Stakeholder Group, the AFCAS public consultation was launched on Wednesday 15th March 2017, and ran for nearly eight weeks, until Friday 5th May.

1.2. How the consultation was carried out

1.2.1. Consultation document & supporting info A consultation response form was developed which sought answers to a number of key questions such as “What do you think about the results from the assessment of current fishing closure areas…” and “What do you think about the criteria/evidence on which the proposed Marine Nature Reserve boundaries are based?”. This response form led consultees through the consultation process, as well as capturing information such as name, affiliation and contact details. The consultation response form can be found in Annex I.

Throughout the course of the survey, respondents were contacted via email for two reasons; either to remind them that they had started to complete an online SurveyMonkey questionnaire, but had not completed it, or to request further information when the ‘disagree’ box had been selected, but no comment had been provided. On this latter point, it was essential to be able to identify consultees concerns so they could be addressed adequately in the subsequent revision to the AFCAS proposals which are planned post-consultation.

During the consultation period, copies of the consultation documentation (AFCAS report, consultation form and covering letter) were posted to Camp settlements across East and West Falkland. A copy of the covering letter can be seen in Annex II. The list of settlements on East and West Falkland where consultation packs were mailed out to can be seen in Annex III.

1.2.2. How was it advertised? At the start of the consultation, a press release/information article was published in the Penguin News (see Annex V) promoting the opportunity for residents and stakeholders to have their say. Hard copies of the report and consultation forms were available to collect from the SAERI office, as well copies as being placed in the Stanley Branch of the Standard Chartered Bank and Post Office for the duration of the public consultation. Posters (see Annex VI) were also displayed in the Chandlery, West Store, Kelper K3 Store, Leisure Centre, Shorty’s Diner and FIGAS departure lounge. These posters had two uses, to promote the public consultation more widely but also to promote the public consultation meeting (see section 1.2.3)

1.2.3. Consultation events Two consultation events were used to promote the AFCAS public consultation. The first, hosted by the Falkland Islands Yacht Club and chaired by Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield, took place on the evening of Tuesday 18th April at Falkland Islands Community School.

Figure 1.1: Presenting the findings of the AFCAS case study, at the FIYC hosted evening event at the Falkland Islands Community School.

The second public consultation event was organised by SAERI, chaired by MLA Michael Poole, and took place on the evening of Wednesday 19th April at the Chamber of Commerce.

Figure 1.2: The SAERI organised public consultation evening event at the Chamber of Commerce.

2. Consultation responses

2.1. The consultation response assessment process Consultation responses were received through a bespoke SurveyMonkey online response form developed by SAERI, by email and by post; the majority of responses were submitted through SurveyMonkey; a total of 62 responses were submitted via the online platform and through ‘hard-copy’ consultation response forms. One response was received in the form of a letter. The views expressed were extracted, considered and responded to within the wider consultation responses.

The consultation returns were checked for duplicates, whilst those submitted on hard copy forms (email or post) were manually entered onto SurveyMonkey in order to simplify the post-consultation analysis process.

Responses were individually reviewed, and all issues, comments and queries (termed ‘responses’ in this report) were collated into a spreadsheet and grouped according to three themes; General Comments, Evidence and Management. Note that where responses in a theme were considered similar, they were grouped at this stage, for inclusion in the consultation report. Consequently, the exact wording of consultee responses will not necessarily be included within this report. The Marine Spatial Planning Steering Committee have considered each of the grouped consultation responses within each theme, and have commented below.

2.2. Summary of consultation responses A summary of the consultation responses received are shown below in this section. Consultees primary sector affiliation is shown in Figure 2.1, and a summary of the responses received from each of the eight key questions within the consultation are shown in Figure 2.2 through to Figure 2.9.

Overall, the number of respondents who agreed with the proposals was low. In light of the consultation responses, additional work will be undertaken to understand how proposals could be revised to make them more widely acceptable.

Total

Local community group Energy (non renewable) Ports and harbours Academic and Scientific Shipping Fishing Recreation and sport Total Government Non -governmental organisation Private individual Tourism Farming

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 2.1: Primary sector affiliation for each consultee. Note that many consultees recorded more than one affiliation

29% Agree 39% Agree/Disagree in part Disagree 27% Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.2: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the results from the assessment of current Fishing Closure Areas (FCAs) as a basis for Marine Management Areas (MMAs) in the Falkland Islands.”

13% 18% Agree Agree/Disagree in part 36% 33% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.3: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the criteria/evidence on which the proposed Marine Management Area (MMA) boundaries are based?”

3% 17% Agree Agree/Disagree in part 52% 28% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.4: Consultation response to the question “In general, what do you think about the proposed Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) outlined in the AFCAS report?”

6% 18% Agree Agree/Disagree in part 50% 26% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.5: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the criteria/evidence on which the proposed Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) boundaries are based?”

3% 12% Agree 31% Agree/Disagree in part 54% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.6: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the proposed Marine Management Area (MMA) zoning system (outlined on page 13 of the AFCAS report)?”

2% 15% Agree 24% Agree/Disagree in part 59% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.7: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the proposed Management Plan for the Falklands Inshore Marine Management Areas (MMA), which include Kidney Island Marine Nature Reserve (MNR), Jason Islands MNR and Bird Island MNR?”

8% 18% Agree Agree/Disagree in part 43% 31% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.8: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the proposed Management Plan for the Beauchêne Island Marine Management Area (MMA)?”

13% 28% Agree Agree/Disagree in part 38% 21% Disagree Undecided/don't know

Figure 2.9: Consultation response to the question “What do you think about the proposed Management Plan for the Southern Falklands Marine Management Area (MMA)?”

2.3. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘General Comments’

2.3.1. Consultation response: There was comment, both through the consultation response forms and also at some of the public meetings that there seemed to have been a breakdown in communication to some extent, with the results of the AFCAS work not reflecting the discussions and outcomes of the various workshops and steering group meetings from the previous two year (June 2014 – June 2016) Darwin-Plus funded MSP project. Other consultees questioned the extent (and apparent lack) of stakeholder consultation which happened ahead of the AFCAS report consultation, with respect to key industry stakeholders within the Falkland Islands (e.g. Fishing, Oil & Gas, Tourism).

MSP Steering Committee comment: There was a regrettable break in stakeholder outreach at the latter half of 2016 following the start of the Marine Spatial Planning Phase II project (MSP II), whilst recruitment for a new project manager was underway. However, much of the work on the first work package of MSP II (the AFCAS case study) was complete before this happened, so continuity was maintained. Options around some form of protected area being overlaid onto the same area as the current inshore (3nm) fishing exclusion area were discussed at the third ‘Framing MSP’ stakeholder workshop of

the Darwin Plus MSP project, hosted on HMS Clyde in April 2016, and was a “generally-accepted idea” by the workshop participants3. This proposal has been taken forward as part of this AFCAS case study.

Both the earlier two year Darwin-Plus funded MSP project and this project (MSP II) which includes the AFCAS case study, have engaged with stakeholders. The two year Darwin-Plus project had a large steering committee which included stakeholders. With the MSP II project, a smaller steering committee was drawn up, reflecting the different funding source for this new work. A separate Stakeholder Group was also established, composed of sixteen key stakeholders across the Falklands.

Ahead of the publication of the AFCAS report, a stakeholder group meeting was held where a high level overview of the work undertaken through the AFCAS case study was presented; it did not go into the full detail of the proposals. The subsequent consultation of the AFCAS work aimed to seek views on the initial set of ideas outlined in the AFCAS report; it wasn’t intended to represent a fait accompli. In hindsight, an alternative mechanism may have been to hold a series of workshops with stakeholders and to refine ideas ahead of a wider consultation. However, after consideration of the tight deadlines, this mechanism was not pursued.

2.3.2. Consultation response: Why did SAERI lead on this piece of work, and the subsequent consultation? Why wasn’t it Falkland Islands Government?

MSP Steering Committee comment: Following the completion of the Darwin-plus funded Marine Spatial Planning project, FIG directed SAERI1 to undertake this second phase of the project (MSP Phase II) on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). MSP Phase II is composed of four key work packages:

 Assessment of Fishing Closure Areas as sites for marine management (AFCAS)  Review to understand current legislative gaps to implement MSP  Draft a long-term strategy for the future of MSP in the Falkland Islands.  Stakeholder engagement and maintenance of MSP tools (GIS database, webGIS and webpage)

3 http://www.south-atlantic-research.org/media/files/MSP_Falkands_Framing-Workshop-report_5- 7_April_2016_FINAL.pdf

At the MSP Steering Committee (3rd March 2017), there was a discussion on whether DNR or SAERI should run the public consultation and DNR ultimately requested that SAERI should run the consultation of the AFCAS case study on behalf of FIG.

2.3.3. Consultation response: Comments about the AFCAS report being considered a ‘poor use of funds’ which could have been put to better use by FIG, and creating unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.

MSP Steering Committee comment: Members of the Legislative Assembly agreed in December 2015 (Executive Council paper number: 235/15) that “Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) should be considered for the Islands as it would benefit many sectors and enhance the international reputation of the Falklands with regard to care of the marine environment”. In addition, the Islands Plan references Marine Spatial Planning as a priority area in the Environment section4. With many other countries only starting to implement MSP once environmental damage has already occurred, there is also a strong case to be made for investing a moderate sum of money now to save in the long-term, by preventing issues and conflicts from occurring, and protecting important resources and sites. Consideration of protected areas is only a small part of wider MSP considerations. Of note is the fact that concept development for this MSP Phase II project, under which the AFCAS case study sits, was developed under the previous MSP Darwin-plus funded project, and was not funded by FIG.

2.3.4. Consultation response: Concern from many consultees over the impacts of the proposals within the AFCAS report on tourism, small business and communities in Camp.

MSP Steering Committee comment: The AFCAS case study looked at whether the designation of current fishing closure areas as “protected areas” would allow the Falklands Islands to meet their obligations under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). The AFCAS case study outlined a series of possible approaches to how these protected areas, if designated, could be managed. It was important for these ideas to be sense-checked by stakeholders, especially by community members in Camp; as part of the public consultation, an extensive mail-out was undertaken to canvass opinion across the various settlements in East and West Falkland. In light of the consultation responses,

4 https://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-sufficiency/the-islands-plan/

additional work will be undertaken to understand how proposals could be revised to make them more widely acceptable.

The Falklands economy is heavily reliant on its marine environment, from fisheries through to tourism for the wildlife its waters support, and there is no intention to jeopardise revenues or economic potential. In fact, for that very reason, existing fishing closure areas were evaluated first, to limit economic impact whilst meeting CBD targets. The intent is to ensure that our waters are sustainably managed for generations to come, something which will be critical to the economic future of the islands.

2.3.5. Consultation response: With the Falkland Islands running a well-managed fishery, consultees asked why further areas for marine management were needed. Other consultees stated that Fishing Closure Areas (FCAs) are unlikely to be suitable as Marine Management Areas (MMAs) as they have been selected for different reasons and using different criteria. Finally, consultees stated that FCAs were selected to exclude large scale commercial fishing, but not to exclude future activities.

MSP Steering Committee comment: The MSP Steering Committee concur that the Falklands has a world renowned, well- managed fishery, in part achieved through the application of fisheries management tools such as Fishing Closure Areas (FCAs) that protect essential fish habitat (such as spawning and nursery areas) both in area and temporally. However, by in large, these FCAs do not protect wider marine biodiversity; a requirement for these areas to meet international (IUCN) protected area criteria.

Protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation; they are the cornerstones of virtually all national and international conservation strategies. They provide the core of efforts to protect the world’s threatened species and are increasingly recognised as essential providers of ecosystem services and biological resources as well as key components in climate change mitigation strategies5

The existing Falkland Islands’ FCAs would not be recognised internationally as meeting the criteria for international protected areas. For example, the statement in the IUCN Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories4 reads “Spatial areas which may incidentally appear to deliver nature conservation but

5 Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp.

DO NOT HAVE STATED nature conservation objectives should NOT automatically be classified as MPAs, as defined by IUCN. These include.....fishery management areas with no wider stated conservation aims”. However, by making some changes to the objectives of these FCAs to ensure that conserving nature is a primary goal, and noting that in case of conflict, nature conservation will remain the priority, certain FCAs could meet IUCN protected area criteria.

In addition, in light of the extension of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) to the Falkland Islands in 2016, this case study could go some way in allowing Falkland Islands Government to realise one of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (Target 11) which includes a statement that 10% of the coastal and marine areas should be protected by 2020.

The last point raised, “consultees stated that FCAs were selected to exclude large scale commercial fishing, but not to exclude future activities”, suggests that future activities will be excluded within MMAs. This is not the case, especially within the sustainable multi-use zones which make up the vast proportion of the MMA proposals. Here, sustainable use of the marine area will be encouraged, and any significant new activities, whilst being subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny (such as an Environmental Impact Assessment), would certainly not be excluded automatically.

2.3.6. Consultation response: Consultees stated that they would prefer more stakeholder involvement before the AFCAS report is submitted to ExCo. In addition, more consideration needs to be given to resourcing, and how any final agreed outcomes for the AFCAS case study will be financed. Finally, little consideration has been given to projecting the future impacts of MMAs on marine industries including fishing, with the apparent absence of a cost/benefit analysis.

MSP Steering Committee comment: Stakeholder engagement and support are essential for the AFCAS and wider Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process within the Falklands to progress smoothly; feedback through the consultation of the AFCAS report has been particularly valuable, allowing the proposals to be rigorously challenged. To this end, a stakeholder workshop was held in early June to get stakeholder input into the next steps of the AFCAS case study, such as discussing the proposed sites and recommending revisions to the proposed management options within the parameters afforded by the IUCN protected area criteria.

FIG and the MSP Steering Committee have consistently stressed that both the process and outcomes of MSP need to be practical and pragmatic, whilst ensuring that additional costs are minimised. Therefore, a step which is yet to be examined with respect to the AFCAS case study, is a cost/benefit analysis for each of the areas being proposed as a Marine Management Area. The MSP SC propose that additional work looking at these costs associated with implementing proposed MMAs, including impacts on future activities that may take place, as well as the future costs associated with managing these sites, is undertaken. This work should be completed before a final set of proposals are considered for presenting to the Executive Committee. Stakeholder engagement and input into this process will be essential, and may take the form of a workshop, where future conditions can be defined and analysed. Part of this work could also consider projecting current trends in human and environmental conditions as well as estimating impacts of new demands on ocean space and looking at possible future scenarios.

2.3.7. Consultation response: Under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), ratified by the UK and now extended to the Falkland Islands in 2016, Aichi Target 11 requires 10% of coastal and marine areas to be protected. Why then is the AFCAS case study proposing to protect 24%.

MSP Steering Committee comment: The AFCAS case study reviewed all relevant fishing closure areas and identified a shortlist, which with some changes to the way these areas are managed, could meet IUCN protected area criteria and deliver wider conservation gains. When added together, the combined area of these came to 24% of the Falkland Islands marine area. It is important to note that the AFCAS case study wasn’t aiming to exceed the 10% required to meet part of the Aichi Target 11, and the AFCAS outcomes show there are options over which areas could be endorsed for carrying forward as future Marine Management Areas, whilst still meeting the 10% Aichi target. This latter point was recognised at the outset of the project.

2.3.8. Consultation response: What is the landward boundary of the proposed Marine Management Areas (MMAs), and do the proposed MMAs include any land, as they include many references to land-based wildlife? Other consultees proposed that the landward boundary if MMAs should be the low water mark.

MSP Steering Committee comment With regard to landward boundaries of MMAs, land owners have ownership down to the high-water mark. From the high-water mark seaward, ownership is by the Crown, under common law; therefore, MMAs extend up to the high water mark. If MMAs only extended up to low-water mark, there would be a strip of Crown-owned land which would effectively remain ‘unprotected’.

As MMAs do not extend above the high-water mark, it is important that where they adjoin existing terrestrial protected areas (National Nature Reserves), such as Beauchéne Island, Bird Island or Kidney Island, any management measures complement those already in place. MMAs do not include any land areas, but references to the habitats and species, where the MMA contributes to the protection of, highlights their importance. For example, references have been made to land- based species such as the Cobbs Wren; these are excellent indictors of vermin-free islands, an issue of critical importance to the way Marine Nature Reserves are managed, such as minimising risk from unnecessary vessel movement.

2.3.9. Consultation response: Nature reserves already exist; for those Marine Nature Reserves mentioned in the AFCAS case study, all but one are round existent terrestrial nature reserves anyway…so why do they need extra protection. Other consultees asked why, if the inshore (3nm) area is being proposed as a Marine Management Area, do we then need Marine Nature Reserves? Other consultees asked why not just designate the entire inshore area as a Category Ia/Ib Marine Nature Reserve.

MSP Steering Committee comment While terrestrial nature reserves are designated and afforded protection under the Conservation of Wildlife and Nature Ordinance (1999), there is currently no protection provided for near-shores areas adjacent to current terrestrial nature reserves, even though the above ordinance does include the ability for the Governor to declare national nature reserves on any marine area, as well as Crown Land. Nearshore areas adjacent to National Nature Reserves provide important habitats for a variety of seabirds and marine mammals, as well as containing a diverse array of seabed habitats. The presence of these ‘marine extensions’ to existing terrestrial national nature reserves also provide an important ‘buffer’ to nesting and breeding seabirds and mammals that use the islands.

Although the wider inshore coastal area (which lie within three nautical miles of the baseline from which the territorial sea of the Falkland Islands is measured – also known as ‘internal waters’) is effectively an area closed to large-scale commercial fishing and trawling, designating this entire area as a marine nature reserve

(Category 1a or 1b IUCN Protected Area) would be unnecessarily restrictive – it seemed more pragmatic to take forward this inshore area as a sustainable multi-use zone which permit small-scale fishing, aquaculture and other activities, and focus higher protection on specific areas, such as waters adjacent to existing National Nature Reserves.

2.3.10. Consultation response: Has there been any consideration as to what the cost of implementing these Marine Management Areas would be?

MSP Steering Committee comment As mentioned in 2.3.6 above, additional consideration needs to be given to what costs may arise through the designation of MMAs. These costs may come from the management and monitoring of these sites, as well as the impact on future conditions. Based on current information, we do not expect the costs to be significant, but this will require evaluation in more detail. Techniques such as cost- benefit analysis considering the concept of Total Economic Value (TEV) could be utilised here. Regardless, consideration of costs and future conditions is additional work which should be recommended to Executive Committee alongside the MMA proposals so a full understanding of the consequences of MMA designation can be appraised.

2.3.11. Consultation response: Some consultees asked why further areas had not been considered for protection outside current fishing closure areas (FCAs), for example an area to the north of East Falkland where large numbers of juvenile rock cod have been observed. For this reason, this area tends to be fished less. Even within the Inshore Falklands MMA, an area which is effectively a fishing closure area for large scale commercial fishing, consultees challenged as to why areas like New Island or the Tussac Islands, just north of Cape Pembroke were not proposed as Marine Nature Reserves.

MSP Steering Committee comment The AFCAS case study was tasked with examining the current suite of fishing closure areas (FCAs) in use by the Department of Natural Resources as part of its fisheries management strategy. For this reason, only FCAs were examined and the scope was not widened to include other areas. However, it would be a matter for FIG to consider whether further areas (outside FCAs) warrant protection and should be progressed. If this were the case, and the scope changed to wider than just FCAs, the MSP Steering Committee recommend that a set of internationally recognised

selection criteria be developed to consider new site proposals against, to ensure that appropriate sites are considered for protection.

Within MMAs, Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) were proposed on the basis of best available evidence. If new evidence comes to light, there should be a mechanism in place to allow further sites such as New Island or the Tussac Islands to be considered as Marine Nature Reserves. Such a mechanism would require the establishment of internationally recognised site selection criteria, as outlined above, to ensure that appropriate sites were considered. Once such criteria are in place, it may also be timely to review existing proposed MNRs such as Bird Island and Kidney Island against such criteria. This mechanism and associated criteria would need further discussion between FIG and relevant stakeholders before being finalised.

2.3.12. Consultation response: The criteria used to consider the boundaries of Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) should include an analysis of the potential of accidents involving shipping. Shouldn’t larger exclusion zones around Marine Nature Reserves (>3nm) be applied to large commercial vessels carrying hazardous cargo?

MSP Steering Committee comment The consideration of risk when delineating boundaries for MNRs and other areas is an interesting concept, and is currently not considered within the boundary guidance drafted for the AFCAS case study. There would be value in considering shipping traffic intensity but also the classes of vessels (e.g. Class VII (T); Class VIII (T) and Class VIII (A)(T) which are all classes of tanker) when deciding on the size of buffer around protected areas. For example, it may be appropriate in certain areas (for example around the Jason Islands) to implement a smaller (3nm) buffer around MNRS for restricting most activities and then a larger buffer (6-12nm) to exclude tankers transiting past the Falklands. However, any designation of ‘exclusion zones’ would need to follow and be consistent with relevant international processes, and would need consideration on a case by case basis.

2.3.13. Consultation response: More consideration of small craft, yachts, work craft in the proposals.

MSP Steering Committee comment While small craft were considered in the AFCAS proposals, the MSP Steering Committee acknowledges that more explicit mention of this sector in the consultation report would have helped avoid confusion and uncertainty which became clear

during dialogue with stakeholder and at the two public meetings held to present the AFCAS case study and its findings.

2.3.14. Consultation response: Inconsistent use of buffer distance used to draw boundaries around Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs). For example, 5.6km (3nm) is used for Bird Island, Jason Islands and Beauchêne Island whereas 1km was used for Kidney and Cochon Island MNR,

MSP Steering Committee comment Generally, 5.6km (3nm) has been used as the preferred buffer distance around Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs). Partly, this was to align Marine Nature Reserves with, and retain their boundaries within, the current inshore fisheries area (delineated 3nm for the baseline used to determine the 12nm territorial sea limit), and which is closed to large-scale commercial fishing. However, the buffer also takes account of new scientific research which documents the importance of this nearshore area, at a radius of between 1 and 5 km from their breeding colonies, for seabirds such as the Black-Browed Albatross. When considering Kidney & Cochon Island MNR, a trade-off was required on this ideal buffer zone, bearing in mind that the distance between the north shore of Cochon Island and northern shore of Berkeley Sound is only 6.4km (3.4nm). As Berkeley Sound is within a proposed port zone, and is used for transhipment of fish, and potentially the transhipment of oil in the future, a boundary of 1km would negate diverting large vessels dangerously close to the northern shore of Berkeley Sound.

2.3.15. Consultation response: How will these new Marine Management Areas be monitored? Traditionally, biodiversity monitoring in the Falklands has been limited to birds and mammals. Isn’t a five-yearly biodiversity monitoring proposal unrealistic, and who would fund it?

MSP Steering Committee comment Seabird monitoring has traditionally been carried out by Falklands Conservation (FC) on behalf of FIG. There is currently annual monitoring (funded 50:50 by FC and FIG) underway at key sites for King, Gentoo, Southern Rockhopper Penguins, Southern Giant Petrels and Black-Browed Albatrosses. There was also historically a five-year island wide census undertaken, which from 2012, has now been split into staggered, ten-yearly census; every five years, either Black-Browed Albatross/Giant Petrels or penguins species are counted.

The need for monitoring is clear; with the creation of new MMAs and Marine Nature Reserves, wider biodiversity monitoring would need consideration, in order to assess

whether these sites are meeting their conservation objectives. Monitoring of these proposed Marine Management Areas is a requirement in order for them to be internationally recognised as protected areas, and for incorporation in the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC). While five-yearly monitoring was an initial proposal outlined in the AFCAS report, some consideration of future costs associated with developing such a monitoring programme is required, so these can be captured in options being presented to the Executive Committee. The application of the risk-based approach to monitoring should also be considered as part of this wider monitoring programme discussion,

Discussions on exploring the development of a long-term marine monitoring programme for the Falklands waters are currently underway as part of the GAP II project, although it is worth noting that the GAP II project is currently focussing on hydrocarbons, but cross-over between this and a broader monitoring framework for the Falkland Islands will be critical. The Shallow Marine Surveys Group also undertake some focussed benthic monitoring at key locations, whilst a future coastal mapping project will explore the utility of remote sensing data in long-term monitoring programmes.

2.3.16. Consultation response: Why have only MSC certified fisheries been specified within the Southern Falklands MMA – there may be other equivalent certifications which could be equally valid. In addition, fisheries certification should not be a mandatory requirement.

MSP Steering Committee comment Consultees raised a valid point, as to why only MSC certification was specified in the AFCAS report for the Southern Falklands MMA. Fishery certification is used to demonstrate that a fishery is well-managed and sustainable. Often developed in consultation with scientists, the fishing industry and conservation groups, it reflects the use of best practice in fisheries science, management and labelling. However, other certification systems, apart from MSC, are available, and this needs to be better reflected in the AFCAS report.

It should also be stated that there was no intention in the AFCAS report to set a requirement for fisheries certification with the Falklands Islands, and this will be clarified in the post-consultation version of the AFCAS report. However, the Falkland Islands will need to demonstrate that sustainable fisheries are being operated within the proposed Marine Management Areas (for example the proposed Southern Falklands MMA) if they are to meet international protected area criteria; certification is one of many ways this can be achieved.

2.3.17. Consultation response: Consultees felt that the Assessment of Fishing Closure Areas as Sites for wider marine management (AFCAS case study) was inconsistent with the overarching goal of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) in the Falkland Islands.

MSP Steering Committee comment The Assessment of Fishing Closure Areas as Sites for wider marine management (AFCAS) should not be seen as the ‘development phase’ of Marine Spatial Planning. Instead it should be considered a separately commissioned case study. This work looking at fishing closure areas had a specific remit – to assess current fishing closure areas against international protected area criteria. The project stemmed from one of the local stakeholder-led workshops in the first Darwin-plus funded MSP project, where stakeholders agreed one of the priorities moving forward should be to design a robust process to define sites for marine conservation. Examining existing fishing closure areas was considered the first step in the process, whilst providing a tangible output that would utilise MSP tools developed in the first two-year project. The case study was never intended to replace wider MSP activities; any findings from the AFCAS study would need to feed into any future MSP development.

2.3.18. Consultation response: Consultees noted the overlap with the Southern Falklands MMA and existing Production Licences between oil and gas companies and FIG. In addition, there were questions relating to oil and gas related survey activities in waters adjacent to licence blocks, which may fall within a proposed MMA, and whether the inclusion of buffer zones around licence blocks may be beneficial.

MSP Steering Committee comment The MSP Steering Committee are aware of the overlap between the Southern Falklands MMA proposal and existing production licence blocks, and have reassured developers that FIG will be honouring their licensing commitment to all companies. The post consultation version of the AFCAS report will feature a revised boundary for the Southern Falklands MMA excluding the current licence blocks. Engagement from and with the Falkland Islands Petroleum Licensee’s Association (FIPLA), and other relevant stakeholders, with respect to this revised Southern Falklands MMA boundary and consideration of buffer zones will be essential, ahead of any finalised proposals for the Southern Falklands MMA.

2.4. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘Management’

2.4.1. Consultation response: The proposal that all new activities must ensure they do not impact MMA values seems overly broad and draconian. Terrestrial land uses (such as road building, transport, industrial development and military operations) impact the proposed inshore MMA and under the Aichi protected area goal would have to receive the same rigorous impact assessment as marine activities.

MSP Steering Committee comment The proposal to ensure that new activities or projects would require some form of assessment (if they impact the values of /reasons for the MMA in first place) before proceeding would seem a logical step. Obviously, the level of assessment would depend on the size/scale of project/activity. Consideration of any major project (such as a new port/harbour facility or a new location for aquaculture) may require some form of Environmental Impact Assessment whereas for other smaller new activities/development, a lighter touch assessment may be appropriate. This area will need to be explored further by FIG in dialogue with Stakeholders. Terrestrial land uses such as road building, transport, industrial development and military operations wouldn’t necessarily impact the proposed Inshore Falklands MMA.

2.4.2. Consultation response: There were many responses to the proposed restrictions to sheltering and anchoring within Marine Nature Reserves (around the Jason Islands, Beauchêne Island, Kidney & Cochon Islands). This included pros and cons associated with identifying anchoring zones. Additional points included whether vessels should dim their lights at night whilst at anchor to mitigate bird strikes.

MSP Steering Committee comment The most important point to make in relation to these comments is that above all else, safety of life at sea takes precedence, and this should be born in mind regardless of any other proposals being discussed. This management proposal was aimed at larger commercial vessels (tankers and fishing vessels) rather than smaller craft and yachts, and this could have been more clearly articulated in the AFCAS report.

With advances in marine weather forecasting in recent years, early detection of approaching poor weather should allow vessels to move towards the sheltered coastal waters around and within the Inshore Falklands MMA. It should be stressed that there were no proposals in the AFCAS report to restrict vessels

anchoring/sheltering within the wider Inshore Falklands MMA (the blue shaded area).

During discussions with stakeholders, anecdotal evidence in the form of views expressed from some (not all) masters, came to light with respect to areas considered unsuitable for sheltering during bad weather; one such area being Beauchêne Island. Some vessel masters have in the past highlighted the dangers associated with large numbers of vessels holding station and dodging in the lee of Beauchêne Island in poor weather and limited visibility.

There may be value in exploring options around use of a permitting system (perhaps allowing long-term – 5yr permits), authorising large (greater than 150GRT) commercial vessels to enter/anchor around Marine Nature Reserves. This would be applicable to cruise ships, which would be applying for permits anyway when landing visitors on the Jason Islands for example, so would be no greater administrative burden, but allow effective management of vessels within MNRs.

Regarding identifying anchoring areas, there are possible risks with respect to liability around identifying anchoring areas, and it is probably better to be explicit about where anchoring may not be permitted in various Marine Nature Reserves than where it is permitted.

There could be some consideration given with respect to existing research undertaken to investigate vessel bird strikes, and whether this is likely to be a significant issue. With the low density of shipping around the Falkland Islands, this may be a relatively minor issue.

2.4.3. Consultation response: The majority of consultees disagreed with the proposal for all vessels travelling through the Falklands Inshore MMA to use an Automatic Identification System (AIS). However, there did seem to be general agreement from a broad range of stakeholders that vessels over a particular size (length and GRT) should be required to use AIS; in particular, vessels 24m in length and longer, or of more than 150GRT. Some responders proposed that AIS should be required for all overseas (non- Falklands) vessels arriving in Falkland.

MSP Steering Committee comment Once again, this management proposal was aimed at larger commercial vessels (tankers and fishing vessels) rather than smaller craft and yachts, and this should

have been more clearly articulated in the AFCAS report – the vessel size >10m was aimed at smaller fishing vessels which may operate inshore.

There are existing requirements for AIS set out by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) which apply to Falkland Island waters. Chapter V, Regulation 19 of SOLAS requires all ships of 300GRT (and greater) engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500GRT not engaged on international voyages and all passenger ships irrespective of size to have AIS fitted, and to maintain operation at all times except where international agreements, rules or standards provide for the protection of navigational information.

Using a cut-off for vessels greater than 150GRT or a vessel length of 24m or more would exclude the majority of small local motor craft and yachts, and allow focus on the larger commercial vessels.

2.4.4. Consultation response: There was concern over the biosecurity proposals (annual inspection) within the AFCAS report. Partly as to whether it was achievable and realistic, especially for local vessels, but also with a limited financial resource, whether visiting vessels from overseas should be the priority.

MSP Steering Committee comment Biosecurity is considered one of the key threats to the Falklands, and FIG has been progressing work on its biosecurity strategy. This includes the spreading of non- native invasive species; both marine and terrestrial. The former from biofouling on vessel hulls and ballast water contamination through to the latter, where invasives (including mice and rats) can be spread through visitation (both accidental and intentional) to the various islands in the Falklands archipelago. Following continued dialogue with FIGs biosecurity security officials, a high level statement will be presented in the revised AFCAS report:

"Vessels arriving in the Falkland Islands may pose biosecurity risks through such means as hull fouling organisms, ballast water exchange and the accidental or deliberate import of pests and pathogens. FIG will implement appropriate policies and protocols to safeguard the marine and terrestrial environments of the Falkland Islands from the introduction of non-native species and pathogens."

Any management of biosecurity within the proposed MMAs/MNRs should take place through these appropriate policies and protocols mentioned above, as part of FIGs wider biosecurity strategy. As such, specific management proposals covering biosecurity will be removed from the AFCAS proposals.

2.4.5. Consultation response: Similarly with the proposed restriction on anchoring/sheltering within Marine Nature Reserves (Section 2.4.2), there were concerns over proposals to restrict passage of all vessels within MNRs through an annual permitting system. There were also similar concerns of the suggestion that vessels of greater than 20m in length being restricted to shipping lanes.

MSP Steering Committee comment It may be appropriate to apply the same principles as outlined in Section 2.4.2 and to implement a long-term permitting system for larger commercial vessels greater than 150GRT. Inter-island support vessels, such as the Concordia Bay, would require passage through Marine Nature Reserves, such as between Bird Island and the coast of West Falkland, in any case. While shipping lanes were proposed in the consultation draft of the AFCAS report, it is proposed that references to these are removed, post consultation. If they were considered in the future, it is likely these would be more appropriately identified in an ordinance such as the Maritime Bill and/or the Ports and Harbours Bill, both of which are currently being considered. Figures 2.10 and 2.11 highlight some of the concerns regarding passage of large vessels through ecologically sensitive areas. The root cause of the concerns lie with the risks around biosecurity and pollution incidents. The MSP SC expressed a desire for this activity to be subject to some degree of control.

Figure 2.10: AIS data from the West Falklands area on the evening of 4th May 2017 during a spell of inclement weather/gales. Fishing vessels are dark blue and orange, cargo vessels are green. © BigOceanData, 2017

Figure 2.11: AIS data from the West Falklands area on the morning of 5th May 2017 following a spell of inclement weather/gales. Fishing vessels are dark blue and orange, cargo vessels are green. A large number of ‘jiggers’ can be seen transiting through Hecate Passage within the Jason Islands chain. © BigOceanData, 2017

2.4.6. Consultation response: Concern was raised by consultees over proposals to restrict access to Beauchêne Island as a strict nature reserve, with access only under permit to allow scientific monitoring.

MSP Steering Committee comment Beauchêne Island is a pristine haven for wildlife, with globally significant breeding populations of Black-Browed Albatross and Southern Rockhopper Penguins. While it is accepted that these need protecting, it is important that Falkland Islanders can also enjoy this natural heritage. Current FIG policy is to only grant access to the terrestrial National Nature Reserve for scientific researchers only. With respect to entering the proposed Marine Nature Reserve (excluding landing on the island), a strictly controlled, limited number of permits are proposed.

2.4.7. Consultation response: There were comments regarding the proposed zoning system outlined in the AFCAS report on page 13. These included shipping lanes, already touched upon in Section 2.4.5. There was also a call to better link zones to relevant IUCN criteria. There were views that some zones were not relevant to the Falklands.

MSP Steering Committee comment The current proposals for MMAs within the AFCAS report were split across three zones; sustainable multi-use zones, port zones and marine nature reserves. These three zones allow for different activities/usage across Falklands waters. It is important that the links between each of these zones and the relevant IUCN protected area criteria are clear. Further zones may be appropriate, but these need further dialogue and exploration with stakeholders as wider Marine Spatial Planning discussions occur. Shipping lanes in particular are discussed in the response to 2.4.5. Any zoning being proposed for Marine Spatial Planning would need to incorporate existing, defined ‘zoned’ areas such as Stanley Harbour and East Cove/Mare Harbour.

2.4.8. Consultation response: Some consultees expressed a view that while they were asked to comment on proposed ‘management plans’ for several different areas, these were not really management plans, rather a series of points.

MSP Steering Committee comment The proposed ideas around management for each Marine Management Area/Marine Nature Reserve were just that, and it was important for the MSP Steering Committee that stakeholders be canvassed for their views regarding these. Ideas for management were suggested around the key proposed areas of change. For these sites to progress, more detailed management plans, fully integrated with existing management practices (such as permitting undertaken through EPD for terrestrial nature reserves) will be required. It is expected that the necessary management plans will be developed by FIG in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure they are fit for purpose.

2.4.9. Consultation response: There were questions asked as to why recreational fishing would need to be monitored, and why recreational fishing would be banned from Marine Nature Reserves?

MSP Steering Committee comment The compatibility of fishing/collecting activities varies across different IUCN protected area categories. Importantly, recreational fishing (visitors fishing/collecting) is differentiated from traditional fishing/collecting practises; traditional fishing/collecting is permissible in a category Ib protected area whereas recreational fishing/collecting is only permissible from a category IV protected area and below. Traditional fishing/collecting is defined as use/extraction by indigenous and local communities in ways compatible with the conservation objectives set out for the Marine Nature Reserve. Local Falkland residents fishing in nature reserves could be likened to this permitted use. Tourists/visitors to the Falklands however would not be permitted to fish within Marine Nature Reserves, if a Category Ib designation was the desired goal of the proposed Marine Nature Reserves.

2.4.10. Consultation response: The subject of bunkering, and its proposed regulation within the AFCAS proposals, polarised opinion both for and against.

MSP Steering Committee comment The proposals within the AFCAS report to try and restrict bunkering to within the Port Zones, was in recognition that unregulated bunkering currently occurs outside the 12nm territorial sea limit; a practice which, due to its non-regulation, is considered a significant risk to the sensitive habitats and species found within the proposed Marine Management Areas and Marine Nature Reserves. Bunkering is a clear area which needs further consideration and dialogue by FIG with stakeholders, and may more appropriately be considered under the new Maritime Bill.

2.4.11. Consultation response: Questions were posed as to why seafood collection would be restricted to under licence within the Category VI Inshore Falklands MMA – for example if someone wanted to collect mussels for dinner.

MSP Steering Committee comment The Steering Committee notes that the word ‘commercial’ should have been included in this statement within the AFCAS report. Currently, within the inshore fishing area (within 3nm from the baseline used to determine the 12nm territorial sea), any commercial fishing (including shellfish) or aquaculture requires a licence. The proposal within the AFCAS report would not seek to change this. However, a key change required for the Inshore Falklands Marine Management Area to be recognised internationally as a protected area, would be the primary stated aim to deliver nature conservation, and for appropriate management to reflect this.

2.4.12. Consultation response: Questions were asked in the consultation regarding whether scientific research (for example scientific research surveys and stock assessment surveys), which collect data of critical importance to effectively manage our Falkland Islands fisheries, could continue within the proposed MMAs and MNRs.

MSP Steering Committee comment With appropriate permits issued for scientific research, it should be permissible for scientific research surveys to continue within Marine Management Areas and Marine Nature Reserves. During the permitting process, details of the proposed sampling methodology, and likely effect on features of interest within the area, would need consideration.

2.4.13. Consultation response: Concerns were raised over proposals to limit cruise ship entry to Marine Nature Reserves to daylight hours.

MSP Steering Committee comment The MSP Steering Committee accepts that risks to wildlife around entering/manoeuvring within Marine Nature Reserves in the hours of darkness are small, and this proposal will be removed from the revised draft of the AFCAS report. However, some discussion with cruise vessel operators and IAATO may be useful as to whether bird interaction mitigation is required when operating in the hours of darkness around Marine Nature Reserves such as the Jason Islands.

2.4.14. Consultation response: Concern generally about the amount of rubbish (particularly plastics) washing up on shores around the Falklands and how this might be tackled within Marine Management Areas more broadly. In addition, concern over the term “land-based pollution managed”.

MSP Steering Committee comment This question really relates to FIGs waste management strategy, with rubbish disposal at sea also being covered under international agreements such as MARPOL. However, the MSP Steering Committee will flag this as an ongoing concern for FIGs consideration. Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that some rubbish washing up on the Falklands shoreline originates from out with Falkland Islands waters.

With respect to the comments on managing land-based pollution, this point was included within the AFCAS report in light of concerns around significant land-based pollution risks, such as fuel stores, and was not intended to cover rubbish disposal, which as highlighted earlier, is related to FIGs wider waste management strategy.

2.4.15. Consultation response: Questions as to why boat traffic is listed as a key threat.

MSP Steering Committee comment The MSP Steering Committee agree that this statement needs some qualifications. For example, large commercial shipping, such as Class VII (T) and Class VIII (T)/(A) tankers in particular pose a threat when passing close to areas such as the Jason Islands. There also needs to be some consideration of risk (and particularly the impact component of risk with respect to tankers); for example while there may be a low risk of an incident happening from a passing tanker, the consequences and impact if an incident did happen could be extremely significant. However, many vessels, small or large, pose a threat from a biosecurity perspective if appropriate measures have not been taken.

2.5. Analysis of consultation responses under the theme ‘Evidence’.

2.5.1. Consultation response: Why is Burdwood Bank being proposed as a nature reserve, as well as the wider Southern Falklands MMA. These areas are already managed by an MSC accredited long-line fishery, so why is further management needed. Other comments highlighted the paucity of data with which to recommend Burdwood Bank as a Marine Nature Reserve.

MSP Steering Committee comment Firstly, it is important to note that spatial areas which may incidentally appear to deliver nature conservation but DO NOT HAVE STATED nature conservation objective are NOT automatically be classified as protected areas, as defined by IUCN. This includes fisheries management areas with no wider stated conservation aims. However, the presence of a sustainable fishery (in the form of a long-line toothfish fishery) does allow this area to qualify as a Category VI protected area, if the above conditions are met.

Consultees are correct that there is a general paucity of data specifically from the Burdwood Bank within the FOCZ. This is a research/evidence gap that needs addressing with some urgency. However, there are a number of references which cite the importance of Burdwood Bank as an area of high biodiversity - for example:

 Schejter et al, 2016. Namuncura Marine Protected Area: an oceanic hotspot of benthic biodiversity at Burdwood Bank, Argentina

 De Broyer C., Koubbi P., Griffiths H.J., Raymond B., Udekem d’Acoz C. d’, Van de Putte A.P., Danis B., David B., Grant S., Gutt J., Held C., Hosie G., Huettmann F., Post A., Ropert-Coudert Y. (eds.), 2014. Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, XII + 498 pp.

Other evidence provided through the AFCAS consultation response suggests that the Burdwood Bank is an important area, from a productivity perspective, within the wider Patagonian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (PSLME). New evidence for the Burdwood Bank will considered, as and when appropriate.

In light of the overlap between the current seasonal Toothfish Fishing Closure Area (FCA) closure and existing oil exploration licence blocks, it is acknowledged that the Toothfish FCA over the Burdwood Bank cannot be considered further at this stage in

the AFCAS process. Further dialogue is required with the Falkland Islands Petroleum Licensees Association (FIPLA) and the Department of Mineral Resources. In the short term, a series of options with respect to protected areas aligned with the current Toothfish FCA will be outlined in the post-consultation version of the AFCAS report.

2.5.2. Consultation response: There were some consultees who considered the levels of evidence for recommending MMAs was insufficient; stating that the report needed to specify what fauna was there, why it needed protection and providing a rationale for the proposed boundary. Further questions were raised as to the criteria used to define boundaries, especially as they were not based on geospatial analysis or systematic conservation planning processes.

MSP Steering Committee comment The premise of the AFCAS case study was to assess fishing closure areas against international criteria for protected areas, specify which ones would (and would not) be appropriate, and state what changes would need to be made with respect to objectives of the areas. From this perspective, the selection of sites was guided by appropriate evidence in the form of megafauna distribution data from the April 2015 MSP workshop, which was interrogated and used to support any changes to current fishing closure boundaries (for example around the Jason Islands Marine Nature Reserve). Further interrogation of benthic data from the Shallow Marine Surveys Group database will supplement proposals in the revised (post-consultation) draft of the AFCAS report.

In order to provide a rationale going forward, international best practice (in the form of ICES and UK statutory nature conservation bodies) was used to develop boundary guidance; this was used particularly where evidence suggested a change from the existing closure areas being considered within the AFCAS process. This draft boundary guidance was included (for comment during the consultation) as an Annex to the AFCAS report.

Because the process was guided initially from existing areas (fishing closure areas), this negated the opportunity to use geospatial analysis or systematic conservation planning tools. Looking ahead, the MSP Steering Committee would welcome the opportunity to use these tools, such as MARXAN, alongside robust internationally agreed criteria for selecting protected sites as a wider research project understanding what gaps may be present in the proposed network of MMAs.

2.5.3. Consultation response: Consultees highlighted some of the knowledge gaps that currently exist within some of the proposed MMAs, which could focus future research. One example specified were the inshore kelp forests within the Inshore Falklands MMA which are of great value, driving productivity within the inshore waters, yet they are relatively poorly studied, and their ecological role is poorly quantified.

MSP Steering Committee comment Apart from seeking views on the proposals within the AFCAS report, the consultation also sought new evidence/information for the proposed MMAs, so suggestions such as the above are welcomed in order to focus future research into relevant areas.

2.5.4. Consultation response: Some consultees queried the placement of MMA/MNR boundaries adjacent to privately owned land, and whether the potential impacts had been discussed with landowners.

MSP Steering Committee comment With the majority of the Falklands Islands being owned by private landowners, almost any proposed creation of marine management areas within Falklands inshore waters would result in boundaries abutting with private land at the high-water mark. However, it is important for FIG to engage with landowners and discuss any concerns they may have; part of the reasoning for putting these ideas captured in the AFCAS report out to consultation was to canvass initial views from the potentially impacted communities and individuals, understand what the impacts may be, and to discuss what changes may be needed to make the proposals mutually acceptable.

2.5.5. Consultation response: There were concerns over inconsistent levels of evidence outlined within the AFCAS report across sites (e.g. Cobbs Wren) while consideration of rafting behaviour of albatross adjacent to colonies was considered a poor justification to restrict vessel movements within MNRs.

MSP Steering Committee comment The MSP Steering Committee concur that the listing of species indicative of rat/mice free islands, such as the Cobbs Wren, could be more consistent, and this will be rectified in the revised post-consultation AFCAS draft report. However, the Committee disagree with the view that rafting albatrosses are a poor justification for restricting activity within specific MNRs, such as Jason Islands and Beauchêne Island. In light of evidence provided Granadeiro et al, 20176, specific MMAs being proposed with the AFCAS report would contribute to FIG fulfilling its obligations under, for example, Article III of the ACAP Agreement (2015) which states under Article 3 (1a) "conserve…..those habitats which are of importance to albatrosses and petrels". While activity levels of marine traffic within proposed MNRs may currently be at low levels, proposals need to be strategic, considering future needs as well as current trends.

2.5.6. Consultation response: Consultees queried whether cultural and social values had been taken into consideration when proposing Marine Management Areas.

MSP Steering Committee comment The MSP Steering Committee can confirm that cultural and social values were considered when examining proposals for Marine Management Areas. As well as an inset map being shown on page 14, values were detailed for each MMA/MNR. The use of this data from the original MSP Darwin-Plus project will be made more explicit in the revised post-consultation draft of the AFCAS report.

6 GRANADEIRO, J., CAMPIONI, L., & CATRY, P. (2017). Albatrosses bathe before departing on a foraging trip: Implications for risk assessments and marine spatial planning. Bird Conservation International, 1-8. doi:10.1017/S0959270916000459

3. Conclusions and recommendations The public consultation of the AFCAS case study and proposals highlighted some key concerns from stakeholders over particular aspects of the proposals. We believe that many of these concerns can be addressed with modifications to the ideas around proposed management outlined in the AFCAS report.

While the next steps in the process will be determined by the MSP Steering Committee, it is envisaged that the AFCAS case study report will be revised, reflecting stakeholder concerns. Revisions to the proposals, in light of stakeholder representation, will be presented to the wider Falkland Islands community during Farmers Week (week commencing 3rd July 2017) ahead of a revised draft of the AFCAS report being produced.

The revised draft of the AFCAS report will contain a series of recommendations for Government consideration, as well as some recommendations for further work (such as considering costs in more detail). It is expected that Government Departments would then consult further on those recommendations they were minded to consider, ahead of any implementation.

Annex I: Consultation response form

Annex II: Letter sent out to Camp settlements

Annex III: List of Camp settlements where AFCAS consultation packs were posted.

Camp Settlement Pebble Island Pebble Island Saunders Island Carcass Island Carcass Island West Point Island Dunbar Farm New Island Shallow Harbour Spring Point Port Stephens Port Howard Farm Many Branch Speedwell Island North Arm Goose Green Darwin Walker Creek Bleaker Island Liverly Island Sea lion Isalnd Hill Cove Salvador West Lagoons Fox Bay East Albermarle Chartres Douglas Station Johnsons Harbour San Carlos Estancia Cape Dolpin Fox Bay West

Annex IV: Penguin News article – 24th March 2017

Annex V: Poster advertising the AFCAS consultation and public consultation meeting.

Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2016/2017 (SMP24)

Sarah Crofts & Andrew Stanworth

June 2017

Funded by the Falkland Islands Government

Recommended citation: Crofts, S. & Stanworth, A. 2017. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme ‐ Annual Report 2016/2017 (SMP24). Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

Falklands Conservation, 41 Ross Road, Stanley, Falkland Islands Corresponding author: S. Crofts: [email protected]

Falkland Islands Government Contact: N. Rendell: [email protected]

Patron: HRH The Duke of York KG KCVO ADC Falklands Conservation is a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 3661322 and Registered Charity No. 1073859 Registered Office: 1 Waterloo Close, Abbotsley, St Neots, Cambridgeshire PE19 6UX Telephone: +44 (0)1767 679039, [email protected] Registered as an Overseas Company in the Falkland Islands

Summary

The Falkland Islands support seabird populations that are of global importance; both numerically, and in terms of conservation status. Accordingly, fluctuations in local populations may substantially affect the global conservation status of these species.

Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme (FISMP) monitors Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua) at 11 sites (16 colonies), Magellanic Penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) at one site (one colony), and Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) at five sites (13 colonies). Imperial Shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps) is monitored at three sites. King Penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus) and Black‐browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) are monitored at single, but key, sites, in terms of population numbers. Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) is monitored at one site (three colonies) and Brown Skua (Catharacta antarctica) at one site (four colonies).

Overall the 2016/17 FISMP detected notable decreases in overall breeding pair numbers of Gentoo Penguin, Southern Rockhopper Penguin and Black‐browed Albatross at nearly all the monitoring sites. The only notable increase in breeding pair numbers during 2016 was at one Southern Giant Petrel site. Numbers of pre‐fledged King Penguin chicks at Volunteer Point decreased significantly compared with 2014. Mixed breeding success was reported across species and locations but on the whole was below yearly averages. A number of factors may have influenced the decreases in breeding numbers between 2015 and 2016, including deferred (abstained) breeding in adult birds and adult mortality (particularly in Southern Rockhopper Penguin). FISMP monitoring in and after 2017/18 will be critical to understanding better the nature and longevity of the recent decreases across the monitored species and sites.

Gentoo Penguin pair numbers at monitored sites decreased significantly in 2016 with a reduction of 35 % or 10,518 pairs overall from 2015. All sites, excluding Steeple Jason, showed a downward turn in breeding pair numbers, with the largest reduction in terms of numbers at Sea Lion Island accounting for 2,445 pairs. Overall breeding success remained well below the yearly average with the lowest value recorded in the last 14 years. The breeding success regional trends shows substantial temporal variations; however at Steeple Jason a continuing decreasing trend is apparent.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin pair numbers at monitored sites decreased significantly in 2016 with an overall decline of 31 % or 2,142 pairs from 2015. All sites showed decreases in breeding pair numbers with a range from 77 % at Fanning Head to 10 % at Steeple Jason North‐west colony. The largest reductions in terms of breeding pair numbers were at Stephen’s Peak and Fanning Head colonies, with an estimated reduction of 1,252 pairs and 1,184 pairs, respectively. At Fanning Head and Stephen’s Peak breeding pair numbers were the lowest recorded by FISMP (i.e. since 1997 and 2010 respectively). As expected, breeding success in 2016 was highly variable between locations. The overall breeding success in 2016 remained below the yearly average.

Macaroni Penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and Southern Rockhopper Penguin pairs were observed at Berkeley Sound and Sea Lion Island.

Magellanic Penguins at Gypsy Cove remained broadly in three groupings, which appear to be associated with the extent of tussac habitat at the monitoring site. In 2016 the occupancy rate of 43.9 % was above the yearly average and a similar value to 2015.

King Penguin numbers of pre‐fledged chicks at Volunteer Point was reduced by 47 % from 2014 (no count was obtained during 2015). The long‐term monitoring at the site shows periodic fluctuations with an overall upward trend.

Black‐browed Albatross reductions in breeding pair numbers were evident at all the monitored sites with an overall decrease of 31 % from 2015. Despite annual fluctuations, the overall trend since 2005 suggests a stable population. Breeding success at Steeple Jason fell from 2015 taking it to below the yearly average and the third lowest figure observed over the course of the monitoring period.

Southern Giant Petrel numbers at Steeple Jason increased by 31 % but still remained below the count for 2014. Breeding success at both the Neck and Northwest colonies was lower than 2015, and was close to near‐failure at the Northwest colony with only a 4 % success rate. Numbers of chicks counted at Bleaker Island fell by 10 %, the second year in succession of reductions at this location. Six nests were recorded at the Northwest Albatross colony, Steeple Jason, and four at Lagoon Sands Gentoo colony; none were successful.

Contents

Summary 2 Introduction 5 Materials and methods 7 Gentoo Penguin 8 Southern Rockhopper Penguin 8 Magellanic Penguin 8 King Penguin 9 Imperial Shag 9 Brown Skua 9 Black‐browed Albatross & Southern Giant Petrel 9 Count methods 10 Results 12 Gentoo Penguin 12 Southern Rockhopper Penguin 16 Magellanic Penguin 20 King Penguin 21 Imperial Shag 22 Brown Skua 22 Black‐browed Albatross 22 Southern Giant Petrel 26 Discussion 28 Acknowledgements 33 References 34 Appendix 1: Count Information 35 Appendix 2: Gentoo Penguin count data 36 Appendix 3: Southern Rockhopper Penguin count data 37 Appendix 4: Magellanic Penguin survey data 38 Appendix 5: Black‐browed Albatross and Southern Giant Petrel count data 39

Introduction

The Falkland Islands support seabird populations that are of global importance, both numerically, and in terms of conservation status. An estimated 72 % of the global population of Black‐browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) breeds in the Falkland Islands (ACAP 2010, BirdLife International 2016). This species is currently listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List. The Falklands are also home to approximately 36 % of the world’s population of Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) (Red Listed as ‘Vulnerable’) and approximately 34 % of the world's population of Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua). The Gentoo Penguin was recently down listed from ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List to Least Concern (IUCN 2017). Accordingly, fluctuations in local populations may substantially affect the global conservation status of these species.

Falklands Conservation initiated the Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme (FISMP) in 1989/90. Its initial purpose was to monitor the diet and population dynamics of Gentoo Penguin, Magellanic Penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus), Southern Rockhopper Penguin, and Black‐browed Albatross. Diet sampling was discontinued in 2003. Since then, population monitoring has continued on an annual basis with some changes taking place to the original format, such as the addition and loss of some monitoring sites and the addition of other species.

Currently the FISMP monitors Gentoo Penguin at 11 sites (16 colonies), Magellanic Penguin at one site (one colony), and Southern Rockhopper Penguin at five sites (13 colonies). King Penguin (Ap‐ tenodytes patagonicus) and Black‐browed Albatross are monitored at single, but key, sites in terms of population numbers. Since 2006, Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) has been mon‐ itored at one site (three colonies). Monitoring of Imperial Shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps) has three sites and more recently Brown Skua (Catharacta antarctica) at one site.

In 2010, monitored colonies made up approximately 18 % of the Falklands’ breeding population of Gentoo Penguin (estimated at 132,000 breeding pairs) (Baylis et al. 2013a), approximately 2.6 % of the Falklands’ breeding population of Southern Rockhopper Penguin (estimated to be 319,000 breeding pairs) (Baylis et al. 2013b) and approximately 0.5 % – 0.6 % of the total Falklands’ breeding population of Black‐browed Albatross (estimated to be between 475,500 and 535,000 breeding pairs) (Wolfaardt 2012). Based on 2015/16 figures (the last Island‐wide census for Southern Giant Petrel), the monitoring site for Southern Giant Petrel made up approximately 8.6 % 5

of the total Falklands’ breeding population (Stanworth & Crofts 2017). The only population estimate for Magellanic Penguin in the Falkland Islands is for 76,000 to 142,000 pairs (Woods & Woods 1997). As a very rough estimate, the current monitoring site is likely to represent less than one percent of this. There are no other significant King Penguin colonies within the Falkland Islands and the small numbers of individuals at other locations are not systematically monitored. The current monitoring site is likely to represent over 95 % of the breeding population.

The information gathered as a result of the FISMP has contributed to the identification of local, regional and global conservation priorities and provides information necessary for IUCN Red Listing assessments. The FISMP provides an important long‐term data set on population trends and breeding success, which further contributes to other areas of research.

This report details monitoring results from the 2016/2017 breeding season as well as contributed current and historic data collected by landowners at Dunbar and Bleaker Island settlements.

Materials and methods

Within this report, breeding seasons are referred to by the year in which they commenced, for example; 2016 describes the 2016/2017 austral summer breeding season. ‘Location’ or ‘site’ refers to a named geographical area, such as a settlement or ‘camp’, and this may support more than one colony. For example, Johnson’s Harbour has Gentoo Penguin colonies at Volunteer Green, Lagoon Sands and at Cow Bay; Race Point has Gentoo Penguin colonies at Rookery Sands and Fanning Harbour. ‘Colony’ refers to a group or groups (sub‐colonies) of birds in close proximity, typically within 50‐100 m of each other and/or with the same or proximate access from the sea. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1, exact grid references are provided in Appendices 2 to 5.

Figure 1: Map of FISMP monitoring locations.

In addition to those counts undertaken by Falklands Conservation (below), counts have also been undertaken at Dunbar (Black‐browed Albatross) and Bleaker Island (Southern Giant Petrel, Southern Rockhopper and Gentoo Penguin) by the landowners. Any variation from the standard methodology is reported in the text.

Gentoo Penguin Breeding pairs of Gentoo Penguins were counted during egg‐laying, over the period 3‐23 November 2016. The number of chicks was counted soon before fledging, during the period 5‐18 January 2017, and used to estimate breeding success. The monitoring locations (colonies in brackets if more than one) were:

 Johnson’s Harbour (Volunteer Green, Cow Bay and Lagoon Sands);  Race Point (Fanning Harbour and Rookery Sands);  Sea Lion Island;  New Haven;  Bull Point (Bull Point and Bull Roads);  Motley Point;  Low Bay;  Bertha's Beach;  Fox Point;  Pleasant Roads; and  Steeple Jason (House and Neck).

Southern Rockhopper Penguin Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding pair counts were performed from the commencement of egg‐laying during the period 3 to 27 November 2016. Chick counts were carried out between 5 and 20 January 2017. The locations (colonies in brackets if more than one) were:

 Steeple Jason (Northwest Flat, Northwest Ridge, S5Tip and Southeast);  Sea Lion Island (Rockhopper Point);  Race Point (Fanning Head North and Fanning Head South);  Berkeley Sound (Diamond Cove, Rugged Hill and Eagle Hill); and  Port Stephens (Stephen's Peak).

Magellanic Penguin Transects were carried out every 100 m (approximately) from Engineer Point to the Car Park at Gypsy Cove on 10 December 2016. Transects were 4 m wide, starting from the shore line, and running perpendicular to it, for a distance 40 m further than the last burrow found. Using a pole 8

with torch attached, burrows within the transect were categorised as either ‘occupied’, ‘unoccupied’ or ‘unknown’, if it was not possible to determine occupancy. Burrow density was derived from each transect as number of burrows in the transect area from the start of the transect to as far as the last recorded burrow.

King Penguin The only significant population of King Penguins within the Falkland Islands is found at Volunteer Point. This population has been monitored annually since the onset of the FISMP, with the first independent counts having been performed earlier, since 1980. A few individuals also breed at nearby Lagoon Sands. The breeding cycle of King Penguins extends over a year and consequently is not synchronised to summer breeding as with the other penguin species. The chosen unit of measure for King Penguin is pre‐fledged chicks that have survived the winter. This is not a measure of the total number of chicks produced (as some will have perished over the winter), nor is it an exact indicator of the number of breeding pairs. The counts were conducted on the 21 November 2016.

Imperial Shag Counts of Imperial Shag were conducted at Motley Point (16 November 2016 and 17 January 2017), Berkeley Sound (5 January 2017) and Steeple Jason (18 January 2017). Due to the variable breeding times of Imperial Shag, numbers derived represent potential, rather than actual, breeding pairs.

Brown Skua Counts of Apparently Occupied Territory (AOT) were conducted at Steeple Jason between 16 and 20 January 2017. Due to the restricted monitoring window at Steeple Jason AOTs were classified by a territory with egg/s and or chick/s observed or an adult sitting tightly on a nest and assumed to be incubating/brooding. All territories were recorded with a GPS position.

Black‐browed Albatross and Southern Giant Petrel Counts of Black‐browed Albatross and Southern Giant Petrel breeding pairs at Steeple Jason were performed between 3 and 8 November 2016, and in order to estimate breeding success, chicks from these colonies were counted between 13 and 15 March 2017. Three colonies of Southern Giant Petrel and five sub‐colonies (distinct nodes from the main colony, or groups of breeding birds that are discrete from the main colony) of Black‐browed Albatross are monitored. 9

Counts of Black‐browed Albatross breeding pairs were made at Penguin Point South in November 2016 and of chicks in February 2017 by the landowner. Counts were made at Bleaker Island by the landowner for Gentoo Penguin (13 November 2016), Southern Rockhopper Penguin (24 November 2016) and Southern Giant Petrel chicks on 13 and 26 March 2017.

Count methods Whenever possible the total counts were made of all breeding pairs/chicks at individual locations, whilst in the field, by paired observers (Appendix 1). The count units for estimated breeding pairs and estimated breeding success were ‘apparently occupied nest’ and ‘pre‐fledged chick’, respectively. The decision to utilise photo counting was made on an individual colony/sub‐colony basis, where it was felt that a paired tally count in the field would not provide a reliable estimate. This was generally due to the size of some colonies (e.g. Steeple Jason Neck). In some instances, for chick counting, large numbers of highly mobile chicks had merged sub‐colonies over large areas. Here again, it was felt, that reliable estimates could not be derived and the decision was made to count the other sub‐colonies that had remained distinct. These counts still related to individual breeding pair numbers from the counts earlier in the season, and from this breeding success could be derived; in essence a sub‐sampling technique. The various methods, or combination of methods, employed for each location/colony are presented in Appendices 2 to 5.

Grid references of individual colonies (due south of the approximate centres, 5m from the colony edge) were taken where possible and are provided in Appendices 2 to 5.

Field counts Whenever possible, the number of ‘apparently occupied nests’ and ‘pre‐fledged chicks’ were counted at least three times by two or more observers using tally counters in accordance with standard methods (Thompson & Riddy 1993). These counts (and those few of reduced replication) were subsequently averaged to give estimates of breeding pair and chick numbers. These counts are referred to as ‘Tally repeated’. Counts at Penguin Point South, Dunbar and Bleaker Island were single counts by a single observer. In some instances, groups or count unit numbers were so small that it was felt the number of count units could confidently be counted without error on a single occasion. These counts are referred to as ‘Tally agreed’. Breeding success is expressed on graphs as the number of chicks per breeding pair for species with two or more chicks and as a percentage for 10

those with one chick.

Photo counts The majority of photographs were taken using a GoPro HD Hero. The camera was pole mounted and held aloft from a vantage point to a height of approximately 5 m whilst a minimum of three photos were taken in 1920x1080 resolution in jpeg format giving a 127° field of view. Where colonies were too large to fit into a single photograph, markers or natural features were used to subdivide the colonies into sections that could be photographed. There was no evidence of disturbance in the colonies from using this technique. A number of other photos were taken using digital SLR cameras using the highest possible resolution images.

Photographs were down‐loaded and counted using ImageJ software. Counts were repeated a minimum of three times and the average taken. These are referred to in Tables as ‘Photo counts’.

Drone counts DJI Phantom 3 & 4 drones were trialled in 2016 to capture aerial images of colonies under FIG Research Licence No: R13/2016. All operations were conducted at a minimum launch distance of 15 m from a colony and reaching a minimum flying altitude of 15 m when directly over colonies. Greater caution was used when operating the drone at Southern Giant Petrel or around other flying seabird colonies. Drone use is prohibited by the landowner at Volunteer Point and therefore were not used at this site. The inbuilt camera produces 4000×3000 resolution jpeg format images giving a 94° field of view. There was evidence that birds were aware of the drone but no evidence to suggest disturbance of breeding birds in the colonies using this method (Crofts 2017).

Photographs were down‐loaded and counted using ImageJ software. Counts were repeated a minimum of three times and the average taken. These are referred to in Tables as ‘Drone counts’.

Comparativeness of differing counting methods Multiple count data for the same colony using two or more of the methods were stored for future comparative work. For the purpose of this report, where multiple counting methods exist for the same colony the data were used in order of 1) Tally counts, 2) Photo counts, 3) Drone counts. Where possible the same counting method was used to calculate breeding success for each colony.

Results

Gentoo Penguin Breeding pairs There is a complete data set for the current annually monitored locations (excluding Pleasant Roads) for the last 13 years. The combined total of estimated breeding pairs for all these locations is shown in Figure 2. At these monitored sites, the estimated total number of pairs decreased significantly from 30,139 in 2015 to 19,621 in 2016; a decline of 35 % or 10,518 pairs overall.

35000

30000

25000

20000

Breeding Pairs 15000

10000

5000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Season Figure 2: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs at FISMP locations, 2003–2016.

20 10 0 ‐10 ‐20

‐30 SJ Neck Fox Point Fox Bay Low Cow Bay SJ House Bull Point ‐40 Bull Roads Motley Point Motley New Haven Bleaker Island Lagoon Sands Lagoon

‐50 Berthas Beach Volunteer Point Volunteer Rookery Sands Sea Lion Island Pleasant Roads

‐60 Harbour Fanning ‐70

Percentage Difference (breeding pairs) (breeding Difference Percentage ‐80 ‐90 Figure 3: Percentage change of Gentoo Penguin breeding pair numbers between 2015 and 2016 at individual FISMP locations.

Number of Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs decreased at 15 of the 17 FISMP colonies between 2015 and 2016 (Figures 3). The only Gentoo Penguin colonies to show increases were at Steeple Jason 12

House and Neck colonies of 9 % and 6 % respectively.

4000 3000 Volunteer Green Bertha's Beach Lagoon Sands 2500 Fox Point 3000 Cow Bay Motley Point 2000 Low Bay Pleasant Roads

2000 1500

1000 Breeding Pairs Breeding Pairs 1000 500

0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Season Season

Figure 4: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for Figure 5: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for locations in Northeast Falkland. locations in Mideast Falkland.

1800 Bull Point and Bull Roads Rookery Sands 1600 6000 Sea Lion Island Fanning Harbour Bull Roads 1400 New Haven Bull Point 1200

4000 1000

800 Breeding Pairs Breeding

Breeding Pairs Breeding 600 2000 400

200

0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Season Season

Figure 6: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for Figure 7: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for locations in Southeast Falkland. locations on Falkland Sound.

7000 3500 Steeple Jason House 6000 Steeple Jason Neck 3000 5000

4000 2500

3000 2000 Breeding pairs 2000 Breeding Pairs

1500 1000

0 1000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Season Season Figure 8: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for Figure 9: Gentoo Penguin breeding pairs for Bleaker locations on Steeple. Island. 13

All Gentoo Penguin colonies in the Northeast region showed decreased numbers of breeding pairs from 2015, with the largest decrease at Cow Bay (71 %), followed by Volunteer Green (47 %) and Lagoon Sands (44 %) (Figure 4). The largest decreases at colonies in the Mideast region were seen at Fox Point (79 %), followed by Motley Point (66 %), Low Bay (41 %) and Pleasant Roads (23 %) (Figure 5). Colonies at the Southeast (Sea Lion Island, Bull Point, Bull Roads and Bleaker Island) also showed marked decreases ranging from 77 % at Bull Roads to 43 % at Sea Lion Island (Figure 6). Similarly, at colonies in the Falkland Sound region decreases were also evident from Rookery Sands (61 %) to New Haven (31 %) (Figure 7).

The largest reductions in terms of numbers of breeding pair were seen at Sea Lion Island (2,445 pairs), Motley Point (1,658 pairs), Bleaker Island (1,585 pairs) and Bull Point (1,413 pairs).

Breeding success Average estimated breeding success fell from 0.72 ± 0.23 chicks/pair in 2015 to 0.63 ± 0.22 chicks/pair in 2016. This year’s figure is well below the FISMP annual average for this species and the lowest value reached over the last 14 years (Figure 10).

1.8

1.39 1.6 n=3 1.44 n=15

1.4 1.13 n=5 1.15 1.21 1.18 1.09 n=9 1.12 n=16 1.16 n=14 1.05 n=11 n=9 n=15 1.05 1.2 n=4 1.00 n=12 0.95 n=14 1.18 n=8 0.87 n=14 1.0 n=15

0.72 0.95 n=11 0.8 n=14 0.90 n=9 0.84 n=14 Breeding Success (chicks/pair) 0.6 0.70 0.82 0.64 n=14 n=8 0.63 0.63 n=13 n=17 n=14 0.4 0.56 0.51 n=14 n=2

0.2 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Season Figure 10: Gentoo Penguin breeding success at FISMP locations, 1990‐2016. (Solid line – annual average). Standard Error bars show error about the overall mean by site means, and do not incorporate error about individual sites. 14

The range of breeding success between locations (n =14) varied from a minimum of 0.26 ± 0.03 chicks/pair at Rookery Sands to a maximum of 1.02 ± 0.02 chicks/pair at New Haven (Figures 11 to 15). Of the colonies with chick counts obtained for both the 2015 and 2016 (n=12) seven showed a decrease in breeding success (Volunteer Green, Rookery Sounds, Fanning Harbour, Sea Lion Island, Berthas Beach, Fox Point, Pleasant Roads). The largest decreases were at Rookery Sands (71 %) and Fanning Harbour (50 %). Colonies showing increased breeding success (n=5) ranged from 14 % at Cow Bay to 38 % at New Haven. Breeding success at Steeple Jason colonies remained similar to 2015 values.

2.0 Volunteer Green Lagoon Sands Cow Bay Bertha's Beach Motley Point 1.8 2.0 Fox Point Low Bay Pleasant Roads 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 Breeding Success (chicks/pair) Breeding Success (chicks/pair) 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Season Season

Figure 11: Gentoo Penguin breeding success for Figure 12: Gentoo Penguin breeding success for locations in Northeast Falkland. locations in Mideast Falkland.

Bull Point and Bull Roads Bull Roads Rookery Sands 2.0 2.0 Sea Lion Island Bull Point Fanning Harbour 1.8 New Haven 1.6

1.5 1.4

1.2

1.0

ss (chicks/pair) 1.0 0.8

0.6

0.4 0.5 Breeding SuccessBreeding (chicks/pair) 0.2 Breeding succe

0.0

0.0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Season Season

Figure 13: Gentoo Penguin breeding success for Figure 14: Gentoo Penguin breeding success for locations in Southeast Falkland. locations on Falkland Sound.

2.0

1.8 Steeple Jason House Steeple Jason Neck 1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6 Breeding success (chicks/pair)

0.4

0.2 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season

Figure 15: Gentoo Penguin breeding success for locations on Steeple Jason.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin

Breeding pairs Five locations have been monitored annually since 2005 (Race Point, Steeple Jason, Sea Lion Island and Berkeley Sound). At these sites, the combined total estimate of the number of breeding pairs decreased from 6,965 in 2015 to 4,823 in 2016, a decrease of 31 % or 2,142 pairs (Figure 16).

8000

7000

6000

5000 Breeding Pairs Breeding

4000

3000 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 16: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding pairs at FISMP locations 2005‐2016.

Decreases were recorded at all of the 9 FISMP sites in 2016 (Figure 17). The percentage decrease in breeding pair numbers ranged from 77 % at Fanning Head North to 10 % at Steeple Jason Northwest colonies. In terms of numbers of pairs, the largest declines were at Stephen’s Peak with an estimated reduction of 1,252 pairs, followed by Fanning Head colonies (1,184 pairs), Steeple Jason S5tip (579 pairs) and Berkeley Sound (538 pairs). At Fanning Head and Stephen’s Peak breeding pair numbers reached the lowest value recorded since 1997 and 2010 respectively (Figure 18).

10 0 ‐10 ‐20

‐30 SJ S5tip ‐40 SJ Southest SJ SJ Northwest Port Stephens Port Bleaker Island

‐50 Island Lion Sea Berkeley Sound ‐60 Fanning Head South Head Fanning ‐70 North Head Fanning

Percentage Difference (breeding pairs) ‐80 ‐90

Figure 17: Percentage change of Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding pair numbers between 2015 and 2016 at individual FISMP locations.

4000 1600 Fanning Head Steeple Jason North West 3500 Sea Lion Island 1400 Steeple Jason Neck Berkeley Sound Steeple Jason South East 3000 Port Stephens 1200 Steeple Jason S5Tip

2500 1000

800 2000 600 1500 Breeding Pairs Breeding Breeding pairs Breeding 400 1000 200 500 0

0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Season Figure 18: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding Figure 19: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding pairs for locations in mainland East and West Falkland. pairs for locations on Steeple Jason

1000

800

600

400 Breeding Pairs Breeding

200

0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Figure 20: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding pairs for Bleaker Island.

Breeding success Average breeding success in Southern Rockhopper Penguin increased by a small fraction from 0.52 ± 0.19 chicks/pair in 2015 to 0.55 ± 0.23 chicks/pair in 2016. The figure remains below the annual average (Figure 21).

1.2

0.97 0.8 n=1 1.0 0.90 n=2 0.85 0.87 0.83 n=2 0.82 n=1 n=1 n=4 n=6

0.8 0.69 n=1

0.6 0.60 0.60 0.65 n=1 n=3 n=2 0.61 0.55 0.66 0.55 0.60 n=6 0.54 0.52 0.4 0.49 0.57 n=7 n=2 n=6 n=6 n=7 0.48 n=7 n=2 n=6

Breeding Success (chicks/pair) Breeding n=7

0.2

0.25 n=6 0.0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Season Figure 21: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding success at FISMP locations, 1993‐2016. (Solid line ‐ annual average). Standard Error bars show error about the overall mean by site means, and do not incorporate error about individual sites.

The range of breeding success varied between locations from a minimum of 0.29 ± 0 chicks/pair at Steeple Jason Northwest colony to a maximum of 0.93 ± 0.01 chicks/pair at Sea Lion Island. The most pronounced changes in breeding success between 2015 and 2016 were at Stephen’s Peak with a 57.1 % decrease and at Sea Lion Island with a 96.1 % increase (Figure 22).

1.4 1.4 Fanning Head Berkeley Sound Steeple Jason North West Steeple Jason South East 1.2 Sea Lion Island Port Stephens 1.2 Steeple Jason Neck Steeple Jason S5Tip

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 Breeding success (chicks/pair) Breeding Breeding successBreeding (chicks/pair) 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Season

Figure 22: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding Figure 23: Southern Rockhopper Penguin breeding success for locations in mainland East and West success for locations on Steeple Jason. Falkland and Sea Lion Island.

Magellanic Penguin

The location and extents of transects and the estimated occupied burrow densities at Gypsy Cove are shown in Figure 24. Twenty‐seven transects were carried out between Engineer Point and the Car Park at Gypsy Cove, of which, just under half (n=12) contained occupied Magellanic Penguin burrows (yellow, orange, dark orange and red coloured bars on Figure 24).

Figure 24: Transect locations for the Magellanic Penguin survey at Gypsy Cove, 2016. Yellow (≥ 0 and ≤ 10,000 breeding pairs/km²), light orange (> 10,000 and ≤ 20,000 breeding pairs/km²), dark orange (> 20,000 and ≤ 30,000 breeding pairs/km²) and red (> 30,000 breeding pairs/km²) lines show burrow densities between the shore and the furthest burrow from the shore; grey lines show the extent of each transect where no burrows were present.

Where burrows occurred, estimated densities ranged from 8,000 to 38,461 occupied burrows /km², with an average density of 5,860 ± 11,502 /km². Mean occupancy rate derived from transects using the current methodology for Gypsy Cove was 41.9 ± 10.3 % (n=12). Taking all burrows where there was no uncertainty over occupancy status (n=41), as per surveys prior to 2012, gave an occupancy rate of 43.9 %, a similar value to the 2015 season and above the annual average for monitored sites (Figure 25). 20

Gypsy Cove 45 Seasonal mean Gypsy Cove Sea Lion Island

25 Burrow Occupancy Occupancy (%) Rate Burrow 20

15 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 25: Magellanic Penguin burrow occupancy rate at Gypsy Cove and Sea Lion Island, 1999‐ 2016.

King Penguin

The number of pre‐fledged chicks at Volunteer Point in the 2016 season was 397 ± 4.6. This figure is a 47 % decrease from 754 ± 32.1 chicks in the 2014 season (Figure 26). No count was conducted during 2015.

800

700

600

500

400

300 Pre-fledged chicks Pre-fledged 200

100

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Season Figure 26: King Penguin pre‐fledged chick numbers at Volunteer Point, 1980‐2016. 21

Imperial Shag

At Motley Point it was estimated that there were 451 ± 9 Apparently Occupied Nests in 2016, an increase from 175 ± 2 in 2015 and a breeding success of 1.2 ± 0.03 chicks/pair (Figure 27).

AON (Nov 2016) AON (Jan 2017) PFC (Jan 2017) Breeding success Motley Point 451 562 1.2 Rugged Hill 0 177 SJ Northwest Flat 0 35 SJ Northwest Ridge 0 45

Figure 27: Imperial shag counts of Apparently Occupied Nests (AON) and Pre‐Fledged Chicks (PFC), 2016.

Brown Skua

Brown Skua counts were conducted systematically for the first time in 2016 at Steeple Jason at four locations. A total of 215 Apparently Occupied Territories (AOT) were counted (Figure 28).

(Adult sitting‐ no nest contents seen) (Nest contents seen) AOT AOT Number of eggs Number of chicks SJ Neck 1 61 21 72 SJ House 3 43 12 48 SJ North 4 90 40 96 SJ Neck_South 0 13 4 15 8 207 77 231 Total AOT 215 Total nest contents 308

Figure 28: Brown Skua Apparently Occupied Territories (AOT) and nest content counts at Steeple Jason, 2016.

Black‐browed Albatross

Breeding pairs The total estimated number of breeding pairs of Black‐browed Albatross at Steeple Jason monitoring sites decreased from 3,227 pairs in 2015 to 2,535 pairs in 2016, taking the numbers below the annual average (Figure 29).

4000

3000

2000 Breeding pairs

1000

0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Figure 29: Black‐browed Albatross breeding pairs at FIMSP sites, Steeple Jason, 2005‐2016. (Solid line – annual average).

When compared to 2015, estimated breeding pair numbers decreased at all monitoring colonies at Steeple Jason (Figure 30), namely; Penthouse by 46 %, Study Area by 30 %, Northwest Flat by 18 %, S5Tip by 8 % and Northwest Ridge by 3 %.

2500 S5Tip NW Flat NW Ridge 2000 Study Area Penthouse

1500

1000 Breeding PairsBreeding

500

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 30: Black‐browed Albatross breeding pairs at individual FISMP sites on Steeple Jason, 2000‐ 2016. 23

Breeding success Overall, mean breeding success for the monitored colonies on Steeple Jason decreased from 52.0 ± 16.2 % in 2015 to 42.5 ± 30.5 % in 2016 (Figure 31). This is the third lowest figure observed over the course of the monitoring period (2004 to 2016) and below the annual average for the second consecutive year.

100

West Point and Saunders Islands Steeple Jason Seasonal mean Steeple Jason 80

Breeding Success (%) 42.5 n=5 20

0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Season Figure 31: Black‐browed Albatross breeding success at FISMP sites on Steeple Jason, 2004‐2016 and at West Point and Saunders Island, 1989‐2001. Standard Error bars show error about the overall mean by colony means and do not incorporate error about individual sites.

Breeding success varied highly between the individual colonies. When compared to the 2015 season, the largest decrease was at the Penthouse colony (95 %) and the largest increase at Northwest Ridge colony (132 %) (Figure 32).

NW Flat 100 NW Ridge S5Tip Penthouse Study 80

40 Breeding Success (%)

0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Figure 32: Black‐browed Albatross breeding success at FIMSP locations on Steeple Jason, 2004‐ 2016.

Penguin Point South, Dunbar The chick counts at Dunbar fell by 20 % from 98 in 2015 to 78 in 2016 (Figure 33), making it the second consecutive year with a decrease. Breeding success was 35 % which was lower than the average for other FIMSP sites at 42.5 %.

300 180

160 250 140

200 120

100 150

80 Chicks

Breeding Pairs 100 60

40 50 Breeding Pairs Chicks 20

0 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 33: Black‐browed Albatross breeding pair and chick numbers for Penguin Point South, Dunbar, 2009‐2016. 25

Southern Giant Petrel

Breeding pairs The number of breeding pairs of Southern Giant Petrel at monitored colonies on Steeple Jason increased by 31.0 % from an estimated 1,378 breeding pairs in 2015 to 1,803 pairs in 2016. A pronounced increase was observed at the Neck colony (45 %) compared with 2015, whilst the Northwest colony remained relatively stable (Figure 34). In 2016, six nests were observed near the Black‐browed Albatross Northwest Flat colony at Steeple Jason and four nests near the Gentoo Penguin colonies at Lagoon Sands. None of these nests were successful in raising chicks.

2500 Steeple Jason NW Steeple Jason NE Steeple Jason Neck 2000 Steeple Jason Total

1500

1000 Breeding Pairs Breeding

500

0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 34: Southern Giant Petrel breeding pair numbers at FISMP sites on Steeple Jason, 2000‐ 2016.

Breeding success When compared with 2015 breeding success was down, namely; at the Neck colony (31 %) and at the Northwest colony (84 %). Breeding success at the Northwest colony was near to failure with the lowest value reached (4 %) over the lifespan of the monitoring (Figure 35).

100 Steeple Jason NW Steeple Jason NE Steeple Jason Neck 80

40 Breeding Success(%)

0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Season Figure 35: Southern Giant Petrel breeding success at FISMP sites on Steeple Jason, 2004‐2016.

Bleaker Island chick count The number of Southern Giant Petrel chicks on Bleaker Island fell by 10 % from 310 in 2015 to 279 in 2016. This is the second year that numbers have fallen following an otherwise increasing trend despite several annual fluctuations (Figure 36).

350

300

250

200 Number of chicks Number

150

100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Season Figure 36: Southern Giant Petrel chick counts at Bleaker Island, 2001‐2016.

Discussion

Gentoo Penguin: IUCN status: Least Concern (2017) Falkland Islands breeding pair estimate: 132,321 ± 2,015 in 2010 (34 % of global population) FISMP 2016 annual change in breeding pair numbers: Decrease (35 %)

The estimated number of pairs decreased significantly in 2016 with a reduction of 35 % or 10,518 pairs overall from 2015. All sites, excluding Steeple Jason, showed downward turns in breeding pair numbers. Bull Roads colony exhibited the most pronounced change with a drop of 77 %; however in terms of breeding pair numbers the largest decrease was at Sea Lion Island, of 2,445 pairs. The overall population trend indicates that the period of growth in breeding pair numbers between 2009 and 2015 now appears to have ceased, and decreases in breeding pair numbers in 2016 puts numbers roughly similar to those recorded by FISMP in 2009 and 2010.

As with previous years’ breeding success, 2016 was highly variable between locations with overall breeding success the lowest value for the last 14 years, and well below the annual average. The overall trend in breeding success at FIMSP locations shows substantial temporal and regional variation; however, at Steeple Jason a continuing downward trend is apparent.

A number of factors may have affected temporal variability in breeding numbers between 2015 and 2016, including deferred (abstained, skipped) breeding in adult birds. Deferred breeding influenced, at least in part, by environmental variability that alters prey availability (Baylis et al. 2013a), could help explain site observations in 2016 of abandoned nests in the early incubation period and high proportions of loafing adult birds at some colonies. The proportion of deferred breeders or breeders that abandoned nests to known breeders in 2016 was unknown, making it difficult to assess the extent of birds deciding to defer breeding and its overall influence on the breeding population in 2016.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin: IUCN status: Vulnerable (2017) Falkland Islands breeding pair estimate: 319,163 ± 24,820 in 2010 (36 % of global population) FISMP 2016 annual change in breeding pair numbers: Decrease (31 %)

The estimated number of pairs decreased significantly in 2016 with an overall decrease of 31 % or 2,142 pairs from 2015. All sites showed downward turns in breeding pair numbers with a large variation of change. At two colonies (Fanning Head and Stephen’s Peak) breeding pair numbers reached the lowest values recorded by FISMP for these sites (i.e. since 1997 and 2010 respectively). As expected, breeding success in 2016 was highly variable between locations and the overall breeding success remained below the annual average.

The overall trend at the FISMP sites showed a steady increase in breeding pair numbers from 2003 reaching a peak in 2015 and followed by a significant decrease in 2016. The 2016 breeding pair numbers are now roughly similar to the numbers recorded by FISMP in 2010. During the previous moult period (March to May 2016) mortality due to starvation in adult Southern Rockhopper Penguins was recorded at the Falklands (Crofts & Stanworth 2016). The extent of mortality was unknown and at this stage the level of impact of this adult mortality on the 2016 breeding population is unclear. Decreases in breeding numbers were clearly evident at the FISMP sites in 2016, but it is difficult to attribute these entirely to the mortality event during the previous moult. As with Gentoo Penguins, breeding deferral, which could help explain a decrease in breeding numbers and the temporal variation between 2015 and 2016, is reported in Eudyptes penguins (Crawford et al. 2006), however very little is known about this at the Falkland Islands.

Magellanic Penguin: IUCN status: Near Threatened (2017) Falkland Islands breeding pair estimate: 76,000 – 142,000 (1997) (<10 % of globally population) FISMP 2016 annual change in burrow occupancy rate: Stable

At Gypsy Cove, breeding birds remain broadly in three groupings, which appear to be associated with the extent of tussac habitat at the monitoring site. The occupancy rate of 43.9 % is above the annual average for the monitored site and a similar value to 2015.

King Penguin: IUCN status: Least Concern (2017) Falkland Islands breeding pair estimate: 750 in 2012 (<1 % of global population)

In 2016 the number of pre‐fledged chicks at Volunteer Point significantly decreased (47 %) from 2014. No count was obtained during 2015. The long‐term monitoring at the site shows periodic fluctuations with an overall upward trend.

Black‐browed Albatross: IUCN status: Near Threatened (2017) Falkland Island breeding pair estimate: 475,000‐535,000 in 2010 (70 % of global population) FISMP 2016 annual change in breeding pair numbers: Decrease (31 %)

Black‐browed Albatross breeding pairs at the monitoring sites at Steeple Jason showed an overall decrease of 31 % from 2015. Decreases were evident at all the monitored sites. Despite annual fluctuations, the overall FISMP trend since monitoring began in 2005 suggests a stable population, even though the 2016 count represents the second lowest breeding pair count. Breeding success at Steeple Jason fell from 2015 taking it to below the yearly average and the third lowest figure observed over the course of FISMP monitoring. Chick numbers at Dunbar fell by 20 % in 2016 compared to 2015, and makes 2016 the second consecutive year of decreases.

Breeding deferral is reported in Black‐browed Albatross, and for females evidence suggests the decision to reproduce or defer breeding is associated with their relative fitness (i.e. body condition and hormonal traits) prior to arrival at breeding colonies (Crossin et al. 2012). Breeding deferral may help explain a decrease in breeding numbers in 2016 if feeding conditions were sub‐optimal across their winter migration ranges.

Southern Giant Petrel: IUCN status: Least Concern (2017) Falkland Island breeding pair estimate: 20,970 ± 180 pairs in 2015 (43 % of global population) FISMP 2016 annual change in breeding pair numbers: Increase (31 %)

Compared to 2015, breeding pair numbers of Southern Giant Petrels increased by 31 %; however numbers in 2016 still remained below those counted in 2014. A pronounced increase was observed at the Neck colony whilst the numbers remained similar at the Northwest colony. Overall, the population has demonstrated an upward trend since 2000 despite periodic fluctuations (excluding 30

the House colony that failed in 2012). Breeding success at both the Neck and Northwest colonies decreased from 2015, and was near to failure at the Northwest colony with a value of only 4 %. For Bleaker Island, 2016 is the second consecutive year that numbers of pre‐fledged chicks have fallen following an otherwise increasing trend. At new breeding locations, six nests were recorded at the Northwest Albatross colony, Steeple Jason, and four at Lagoon Sands Gentoo colony; none were successful.

Overall The FISMP in 2016 detected notable decreases in overall breeding pair numbers of Gentoo Penguin, Rockhopper Penguin and Black‐browed Albatross and decreases were reported at nearly all the monitoring sites. Numbers of pre‐fledged King Penguin chicks at Volunteer Point decreased significantly compared with 2014. The only notable increase in breeding pair numbers during 2016 was at one of the Southern Giant Petrel colonies. Variable breeding success across species and locations were recorded, however overall were below the annual averages. Productivity was near to complete failure at the Black‐browed Albatross Penthouse colony and the Southern Giant Petrel Northwest colony at Steeple Jason.

This comparatively poor year has seen clear decreases in breeding numbers and in productivity (chicks raised), and is likely to be closely linked to associated environmental conditions. During the tail‐end of the previous breeding season (February to April 2016) the temperature in the surrounding waters was much cooler than normal (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/) leading to low productivity and likely food shortages. Corresponding to this period an unknown number of mortalities, through starvation, in adult Southern Rockhopper Penguins, with lesser numbers of Gentoo Penguins, occurred during the moult at sites in the Falklands (Crofts & Stanworth 2016). The moult for penguins is a particularly sensitive period as birds must fast onshore for 3‐4 weeks until their new feathers have completely regrown. Hence, if birds have not gained sufficient body condition before going into the moult, in the worst‐cases are susceptible to starvation and death. Whilst food shortages were evident at the tail‐end of the breeding season in 2015/16, the cooler sea temperatures persisted through to August, and probable food shortages continued, to some extent, into the late winter period resulting in a carryover effect influencing reproductive effort of seabirds in the summer of 2016/17. There is evidence that suggests long‐ lived migratory species, such as albatrosses and penguins, exhibit breeding deferral as a trade‐off strategy between fitness and reproduction (Harrison et al. 2007; Crossin et al. 2012). It is highly 31

likely that an unknown proportion of breeding deferral occurred in 2016 across the FISMP species and sites and this mirrors on‐site observations at colonies, most notably for Gentoo Penguins. Ocean surface temperatures over the summer of 2016/17 returned to near average (i.e. no significant departure from the yearly average 1981‐ 2010) although began to warm from January to April 2017 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/).

The potential impacts of the 2016 decrease in breeding pair numbers on the populations will variably depend on the levels of mortality and breeding deferral that occurred, but could bring about an immediate response of decline (i.e. driven by significant adult mortality), a short‐lived response (i.e. decrease in pair numbers explained through breeding deferrals), a response with a time lag (i.e. reduced breeding success and reproductive rates and therefore reduced future recruitment) or a combination of all.

The long‐term FISMP data shows a high degree of inter‐annual variability in numbers of breeding pairs, for example between 2008 and 2009 the number of breeding pairs of Gentoo Penguins declined by 30 %, but then increased by 67 % in 2010, highlighting the importance of annual monitoring effort. FISMP monitoring in and after 2017/18 will be critical to understanding better the nature and longevity of the recent 2016 decreases across the species and sites.

IUCN re‐assessment A re‐assessment of the status of all bird species was undertaken by BirdLife International, on behalf of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) during 2016 (IUCN 2017). In relation to FISMP species, Southern Rockhopper and Macaroni Penguins remain listed as Vulnerable, Magellanic Penguin and Black‐browed Albatross remain listed as Near Threatened and King Penguin, Southern Giant Petrel, Imperial Shag and Brown Skua as Least Concern. Gentoo Penguin was moved from Near Threatened to Least Concern.

Acknowledgements

The continuation of the FISMP is dependent on access to seabird colonies. Falklands Conservation would like to thank the many landowners/managers who have allowed us to conduct fieldwork on their land, including the Wildlife Conservation Society, Falkland Islands Government, Port Stephens, Fitzroy, Race Point, Johnson’s Harbour, Goose Green, Walker Creek, and North Arm. We thank Mike Clarke, Derek Pettersson and Rob McGill for logistical support and the many volunteers who participated in data collection, particularly Mike Morrison for his long‐standing support. We would also like to thank the landowners at Dunbar (Hugues and Marie‐Paul Delignieres) and Bleaker Island (Mike Rendell) for providing their survey data and allowing it to be included within the report. We also thank Denise Herrera (Falkland Islands Fisheries Department) for helping to provide environmental data.

The FISMP is made possible with financial support of the Falkland Islands Government through the Environmental Studies Budget.

References

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels 2010. ACAP Species Assessment: Black‐ browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris. Downloaded from http://www.acap.aq on 20 May 2017.

Baylis, A. M.M., Crofts, S. & Wolfaardt, A. C. 2013a. Population trends of Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua) breeding at the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 41: 1‐5.

Baylis, A. M.M., Wolfaardt, A. C., Crofts, S., Pistorius, P. A. & Ratcliffe, N. 2013b. Increasing trend in the number of Southern Rockhopper Penguins (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) breeding at the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 36: 1007–1018.

BirdLife International (2016) Species factsheet: Thalassarche melanophris. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 01/07/2016.

Crawford, R.J.M., Dyer, B.M., Cooper, J. &Underhill, L.G. 2006. Breeding numbers and success of Eudyptes penguins at Marion Island correlated with breeding success. African Journal of Marine Science 30: 185‐188.

Crofts, S. 2017. Trial of drones at wildlife sites in the Falkland Islands. Unpublished report. Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

Crofts, S. & Stanworth, A. 2016. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme ‐ Annual Report 2015/2016 (SMP24). Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

Crossin, G.T., Philips, R.A., Trathan, P.N, Fox, D.S., Dawson, A., Wynne‐Edwards, K.E. & Williams, T.D. 2012. Migratory carryover effects and endocrinological correlates of reproductive decisions and reproductive success in female albatross. General and Comparative Endocrinology: 176: 151‐157.

Harrison, X.A., Blount, J.D., Inger, R., Norris, D.R. & Bearhop, S. 2011. Carry‐over effects as drivers of fitness differences in animals. Journal of Animal Ecology: 80, 4–18.

Stanworth, A. & Crofts, S. 2017. Population status and trends of Southern Giant Petrels (Macronectes giganteus) in the Falkland Islands. Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017‐1. .

Thompson, K.R. & Riddy, M.D. 1993. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme. Manual of Information and Methods. Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

Wolfaardt, A. 2012. An assessment of the population trends and conservation status of Black‐ browed Albatrosses in the Falkland Islands. JNCC, Peterborough, UK.

Woods, R.W. & Woods, A. 1997. Atlas of breeding birds of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson, Oswestry, UK.

Appendix 1: Count information

Location Date of breeding pair Counters Date of chick count Counters count Volunteer Green 21/11/16 S. Crofts 07/01/17 S. Crofts J. Fairclough M. Taylor Race Point 18/11/16 S. Crofts 09/01/17 S. Crofts J. Fairclough A. Howarth Sea Lion Island 13/11/16 M. Morrison 05/01/17 M. Morrison J. Peck C. Morrison New Haven 17/11/16 A. Stanworth 18/01/17 A. Stanworth J. Fairclough M. Taylor Bull Roads 15/11/16 A. Stanworth 15/01/17 A. Stanworth J. Fairclough M. Taylor Bull Point 16/11/16 A. Stanworth 15/01/17 A. Stanworth J. Fairclough M. Taylor Cow Bay 22/11/16 S. Crofts 06/01/17 S. Crofts J. Fairclough M. Taylor C. Weir Low Bay 15/11/16 A. Stanworth 16/01/17 A. Stanworth J. Fairclough M. Taylor Motley Point 16/11/16 A. Stanworth 17/01/17 A. Stanworth J. Fairclough M. Taylor Bertha's Beach 09/11/16 M. Morrison 15/01/17 M. Morrison J. Peck J. Peck Fox Point 09/11/16 M. Morrison 15/01/17 M. Morrison J. Peck J. Peck Pleasant Roads 06/11/16 M. Morrison 08/01/17 M. Morrison J. Peck J. Peck Steeple Jason Gentoo and Rockhopper S. Crofts Gentoo and S. Crofts 03‐18/11/16. Black‐ J. Fairclough Rockhopper 15‐ S. Sanvito browed and Giant Petrel R. James 18/01/17. Black‐browed E. Bertram 03‐08/11/16. and Giant Petrel 13‐ S. Cleminson 15/03/17 A. Stanworth D. Robertson Lagoon Sands 22/11/16 S. Crofts 06/01/17 S. Crofts J. Fairclough M. Taylor C. Weir Diamond Cove 27/11/16 S. Crofts 05/01/17 S. Crofts M. Taylor M. Taylor K. Lorimer C. Weir Rugged Hill/Eagle Hill 27/11/16 S. Crofts 05/01/17 S. Crofts M. Taylor M. Taylor K. Lorimer C. Weir Port Stephens 26/11/16 A. Milston 20/01/17 A. Milston D. Towsey D. Towsey Penguin Point South Nov 2016 M. Delignieres Feb 2017 M. Delignieres Bleaker Island Gentoo – Nov. 2016, M. Rendell Giant Petrel 13‐ M. Rendell Rockhopper ‐ 23/11/16 26/03/17

Appendix 2: Gentoo Penguin count data

Location Colony Grid Ref. Breeding Pairs Breeding Success (Mean±1SD) (Mean±1SD) Count Count Count Count Type* Type* Bertha’s Beach Bertha’s ‐58.358916 523 ± 5 TR 0.60 ± 0.01 TR Beach ‐51.882233 Bull Point Bull Roads ‐59.398188 259 ± 12 TR 0.39 ± 0.07 TR ‐52.309364 Bull Point Bull Point ‐59.321461 1192 ± 29 TR, Ph, D 0.88 ± 0.03 TR, Ph ‐52.342591 Fox Point Fox Point ‐51.92 430 ± 6 TR 0.73 ± 0.04 TR ‐58.45 Low Bay Low Bay ‐58.879630 390 ± 10 TR, TA 0.99 ± 0.04 TR ‐52.077608 Motley Point Motley ‐58.643177 855 ± 11 TR 0.56 ± 0.02 TR Point ‐52.108576 New Haven New ‐59.222044 670 ± 10 TR 1.02 ± 0.02 TR Haven ‐51.742073 Pleasant Roads Pleasant ‐51.83 148 ± 3 TR 0.82 ± 0.02 TR Roads ‐58.24 Race Point Fanning ‐59.087958 131 ± 1 Ph 0.30 ± 0.05 TR Harbour ‐51.464667 Race Point Rookery ‐59.106928 566 ± 12 TR 0.26 ± 0.03 TR Sands ‐51.434122 Sea Lion Island Sea Lion ‐59.072513 3218 ± 29 TR 0.71 ± 0.02 TR Island ‐52.426578 Steeple Jason House ‐61.233113 4436 ± 21 D 0.55 ± 0.03 TR, Ph ‐51.020186 Steeple Jason Neck ‐61.214888 4645 ± 73 TR, Ph, D 0.57 ± 0.02 TR, Ph ‐51.034787 Volunteer Cow Bay ‐57.879051 543 ± 5 TR, Ph 0.49 ± 0.02 TR ‐51.428572 Volunteer Lagoon ‐57.77581 553 ± 5 TR 0.72 ± 0.02 TR Sands ‐51.513702 Volunteer Volunteer ‐57.837858 1211 ± 26 TR 0.49 ± 0.02 TR Green ‐51.478494 * TR – Tally Repeated, TA – Tally Agreed, Ph – Photo count, D – Drone image count

Appendix 3: Southern Rockhopper Penguin count data

Location Colony/Sub‐ Grid Ref. Breeding Pairs Breeding Success colony (Mean ± 1 SD) (Mean ± 1 SD) Berkeley Diamond ‐57.923512 157 ± 0 0.84 ± 0.01 Sound Cove ‐51.538059 Eagle Hill ‐57.785118 Not done East ‐51.544064 Eagle Hill ‐57.802981 621 ± 24 0.70 ± 0.05 ‐51.544497 Eagle Hill ‐57.810499 671 ± 10 1.00 ± 0.02 West ‐51.545082 Rugged Hill ‐57.845031 412 ± 9 1.13 ± 0.03 East ‐51.543674 Rugged Hill ‐57.851570 826 ± 18 0.53 ± 0.02 West ‐51.543488 Port Stephens Stephen’s ‐60.859281 886 ± 9 0.34 ± 0.01 Peak ‐52.133803 Race Point Fanning ‐59.141540 175 ± 7 0.58 ± 0.04 Head North ‐51.460831 Fanning ‐59.137749 390 ± 17 Not done Head South ‐51.469284 Sea Lion Island Rockhopper ‐59.115501 444 ± 1 0.93 ± 0.06 Point ‐52.446667 Steeple Jason Northwest ‐61.252682 150 ± 0 0.25 ± 0.0 Flat ‐51.012810 Northwest ‐61.252884 115 ± 0 0.34 ± 0.0 Ridge ‐51.012939 S5Tip ‐61.220460 905 ± 0 0.40 ± 0.0 ‐51.037932 Study Area ‐61.206635 726 ± 2 0.51 ± 0.01 ‐51.046215

Appendix 4: Magellanic Penguin survey data

Transect Number Occupancy Distance Minimum of (%) to last Pair Burrows burrow Density per Km² 1 0 - 0 0 2 0 - 0 0 3 0 - 0 0 4 2 0 36 0 5 2 100 15 33333 6 1 0 20 0 7 0 ‐ 0 0 8 0 - 0 0 9 0 - 0 0 10 0 - 0 0 11 0 - 0 0 12 6 17 30 8333 13 1 100 25 10000 14 8 20 50 8000 15 0 ‐ 0 0 16 8 60 41 29268 17 0 ‐ 0 0 18 0 - 0 0 19 0 - 0 0 20 0 - 0 0 21 1 0 26 0 22 7 83 75 19444 23 10 40 26 38462 24 8 43 117 7326 25 2 100 15 33333 26 0 ‐ 0 0 27 0 - 0 0

Appendix 5: Black‐browed Albatross and Southern Giant Petrel count data

Black‐browed Albatross

Sub‐colony Breeding Pairs Breeding Success (chicks/pair) (Mean ± 1 SD) (Mean ± 1 SD) Study Colony 1197± 21 0.38 ± 0.02 S5Tip 458 ± 24 0.25 ± 0.05 Penthouse 57 ± 0 0.04 ± 0 Northwest Flat 295 ± 12 0.74 ± 0.04 Northwest Ridge 528 ± 8 0.72 ± 0.02

Southern Giant Petrel

Colony Breeding Pairs Breeding Success (chicks/pair) (Mean ± 1 SD) (Mean ± 1 SD) Neck 1343 ± 37 0.31 ± 0.03 Northwest 460 ± 6 0.04 ± 0.01 House 0 0 Northwest Flat 6 ± 0 0 Lagoon Sands 4 ± 0 0

Island LandCare Report for weed control 2016/17

Report authors: Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield, Island LandCare Report to: FIG Environmental Officer Date: 22 June 2017

Background

This report presents a summary of the weed control efforts and/or surveys carried out by Island LandCare (Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield) during the period March-June 2017. The work was done under contract to the FIG Environmental Planning Department, as agreed with Environmental Officer Nick Rendell in 2016. Two operators spent 12.5 fieldwork days on:

• Calafate control in the Stanley area (pages 2-3).

• Followup visits to calafate outlier sites that were controlled in 2015-16 at Sussex, Head of the Bay and Cantera (pages 3-5).

• Calafate site visit to Island Harbour (page 4).

• Calafate check at Hill Cove (page 5).

• Surveys of calafate (Berberis buxifolia) , spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare ) and gorse (Ulex europaeus ) on Keppel Island (pages 6-9).

Additionally, ILC worked another 7 days in November 2016 on spear thistle control on Saunders Island (Poncet and Passfield 2017).

Gpx data from the KEW Brahms database records 2007-2014 were used to locate sites and plants, with co-ordinates loaded to hand-held GPS units. ILC control and survey records (Excel) and spatial data (gpx) are available on request.

Future work in 2017/18 A list of potential weed control tasks that ILC is considering for 2017/18 is presented in Table1. The list does not include sites that may be taken on by FIG DoA and Falkland LandHoldings.

Table 1. Calafate and spear thistle sites

Weed Location Activity Calafate Stanley area Control - pending FIG EPD approval Calafate Keppel Island Control - subject to landowner permission and FIG EPD approval Calafate Single outlier plants Island-wide Eradication - ideally undertaken by landowner but ILC could assist if requested

Spear thistle Stanley area Control - pending FIG EPD approval Spear thistle Keppel Island Control - subject to landowner permission and FIG EPD approval Spear thistle Saunders Island Control - pending FIG EPD approval

Acknowledgements With thanks to Nick Rendell of FIG EDP for his continued support of invasive species and weed control projects. Landowner permission to access land was obtained from Nick Rendell for FIG land (Stanley Common, Hill Cove Forest), FIC Ltd. Manager for FIC land (Fairy Cove and the Camber), Richard and Toni Stevens for Port Sussex Farm, Ted and Sheila Jones for Head of the Bay Farm, Lionel Fell for Keppel Island, Jimmy and Angela Moffat for Cantera.

Thanks also to those people who assisted during fieldwork and offered hospitality: Jimmy and Angela Moffat, Yoann Gourdet of SV Saturnin , Shelley Nightingale, and Tony and Susan Hirtle.

STANLEY AREA

Project Calafate control Implemented by Island LandCare (ILC) Funding from FIG EPD Land/Farm Unit Stanley Land Unit co- -51.693S -57.881W ordinates Weed Unit/s a) Stanley racecourse; SURE satellite dish; Sapper Hill; Beaver hangar b) The Camber; Fairy Cove; Cortley Hill; Navy Point peninsula sod wall; Moody Brook c) Canopus Hill d) Memorial Wood; Stanley cemetery e) Eliza Cove Personnel 9-10 March: Sally Poncet and Nigel Parkinson 31 March: Ken Passfield 19 April: Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield Reason for visit Control of calafate bushes – concentrating on locations where calafate was previously recorded including plants recorded by Falklands Conservation’s Watchgroup 1 March 2017, by Brian Summers on 2 and 3 3 January 2017 and KEW database records 2007- 2014. Herbicide and Foliar spraying: Grazon, organosilicone and red dye. 1 Swisstex knapsack sprayer 15 equipment litre capacity. Manual removal: using secateurs, stems painted with Vigilant. Logistics Vehicle access from Stanley. Spatial data The co-ordinates (WGS84) of each plant and the track walked by the operators were recorded on a handheld GPS unit and saved as gpx files. Search and control information recorded in Excel. Search method All available gpx data (FC Watchgroup 2017), B. Summers (2017), S Poncet (2013) and the KEW Brahms database records (2007-2014) were used to locate known plants, with co-ordinates loaded to hand-held GPS unit. Adjacent areas were searched for additional unrecorded plants. Biosecurity All gear checked and cleaned prior to leaving Stanley. Stanley racecourse 9 March: area from S side of the Stanley racecourse fence north to Diamond Jubilee Road and from Dennis Middleton’s ‘forest paddock’ to an outcrop and tall bush 1km west was searched. Plants sprayed by B Summers in January 2017 and in earlier years were dead. In total, new plants sprayed included 1 tall large calafate bush (in fruit); 2 small bushes and 1 seedling (none in fruit). 12 May: plants sprayed in March were checked: all appeared dead with only a few leaves left on the large bush. 2 more live plants found but not controlled SURE satellite dish 9 March: area around the SURE satellite dish was searched: plants sprayed by B. Summers in January 2017 and earlier years were dead; 4 new seedlings were sprayed. 12 May 2017: seedlings sprayed are dead; 1 new plant found but not controlled. Reservoir Road 19 April: site searched and nothing found (KEW records indicate a bush on the east side of Reservoir Road opposite the Diamond Jubilee Road turnoff). Navy Point sod wall 31 March: area between Stanley Harbour and Port William was searched. 18 plants were found in total and sprayed: mostly small bushes, 4 of these had ripe fruits. Several new young plants found spreading E – W along cattle track immediately above the beach on south side of Port William. This area had not been controlled since 2008. The Camber 31 March: area around the fuel tanks and reservoir was searched. 10 small seedlings, The Camber (cont.) none in flower or fruit, were sprayed. Large plants previously sprayed by B. Summers in January 2017 all found to be 100% dead with no regrowth. Cortley Hill 31 March: area in the vicinity of 2 previously recorded plants (manually removed in 2008 by B. Summers) was searched; one seedling and one very large bush (neither in flower or fruit) were sprayed. Fairy Cove 10 March: area between the old quarry and the gun on the ridgeline was searched. Plants previously sprayed by B. Summers in 2008 and January 2017 were dead but some had regrowth and some new seedlings were also found. These were controlled by B. Summers on 23 March 2017 (B. Summers pers. comm). Moody Brook 19 April: the bush (in paddock next to (east side) Sam and Hay Miller’s house) controlled in 2008 was not found; dead plant material was visible for several years following treatment (Hay Miller pers. comm.), but no sign found in 2017. Site considered extant. Sapper Hill 19 April: Remains of the bush (first controlled in 2008) were visible as dead cut stumps. There were 18 leafy small plants (probably suckers) up to 10 cm tall all within a metre of the stumps; none in flower or fruit. All cut and pasted with Vigilant.

A small plant first seen by Nick Rendell (pers. comm.) February 2017 on the slopes between Sapper Hill summit and houses on Diamond Jubilee Road was searched for but not found. Canopus Hill 19 April: area where 4 bushes were first recorded in 2007/08 was searched; dead remains of 3 of the 4 bushes found; 4 th plant not found; no new growth. Beaver Hangar 19 April: Remains of dead bush (stems, branches) visible; no new growth. Eliza Cove 12 March: area (vicinity of old rugby field) was searched and no plants found Memorial Wood 19 April: area searched and no plants found Stanley cemetery 19 April: area searched and no plants found Priorities for next visit Recommend follow up visits in spring/summer 2017/18. Check all bushes are 100% dead with no regrowth. Spray new plants with Grazon or Tordon. Locate the Sapper Hill seedling. Check for new seedlings around sprayed plants and extend search areas. If time is limited, followup visits to sites where calafate appears to be no longer present (Moody Brook, Memorial Wood, Stanley cemetery) could be left for a couple of years. Control Records and Available on request GPX files

Figure 1. Map showing distribution of calafate infestations in the Stanley area. Green lines indicate sites where calafate was controlled in 2017, orange lines indicate sites where all calafate plants were either dead or no longer present in 2017.

PORT SUSSEX AND HEAD OF THE BAY

Project Calafate control Implemented by Island LandCare (ILC) Funding from FIG EPD Land/Farm Unit Stanley, Cantera, Port Sussex Farm, Head of the Bay Farm Land Unit co-ordinates -51.65S -59.01W Weed Unit visited a) Head of the Bay Farm b) Port Sussex Farm c) Cantera d) Island Harbour e) Motocross corral MPA Road f) Ajax Bay Personnel Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield Reason for visit Search and manual control of calafate bushes, concentrating on locations where calafate was previously recorded in 2016 (ILC records) and in the KEW database 2000- 2014. Due to landowner request, no spraying was carried out. Herbicide and Manual removal: using secateurs, stems painted with Vigilant. Due to time constraints, equipment not all bushes found were treated. Logistics Vehicle access from Stanley; 2 day visit to Sussex area, overnighting at Kingsford Valley self-catering. Spatial data The co-ordinates (WGS84) of each plant and the track walked by the operators were recorded on a handheld GPS unit and saved as gpx files. Search and control information recorded in Excel.

Search method All available gpx data (ILC 2016 and the KEW Brahms database records 2000-2014) were used to locate known plants, with co-ordinates loaded to hand-held GPS units. Adjacent areas were searched for additional unrecorded plants. Biosecurity All gear checked and cleaned prior to leaving Stanley. Port Sussex Farm 5 April 2017: Outlier bushes on Sussex land east of the Sussex Road removed by stump treated with Vigilant in 2015-16: not checked due to time constraints. The outcrops at the repeater site east of the Sussex Road were searched and no plants found, but previously unrecorded bushes were found among the rock outcrops1 km south and 500 m east of the Sussex Road at 170m asl (51.641968, 58.983478W). None were treated. Head of the Bay Farm 4 April 2017: Single bush (I metre high) and a smaller plant next to it on the San Carlos road on the north side of Sussex Mountains sprayed with Grazon 5ml/litre in December 2015: checked and both plants dead April 2017. The dead plant material on the bush was soft and easy to break off; that of the small plant was easily trampled underfoot, leaving virtually no sign of the plant. Several small plants near Drunken Rock (close to the boundary with Port Sussex Farm) sprayed with Grazon 5ml/litre in December 2015: checked April 2017 and plants were all dead; the dead plant material was easily trampled underfoot, leaving virtually no sign of the plants. We searched the uppermost boundary of the known extent of calafate distribution on the south-facing slopes of Sussex Mountains covering 6 km between the Sussex Road and an un-named bay to the southeast of Rookery Bay. Several very large bushes (previously unrecorded) were found amongst rock outcrops at 150m asl at several sites along the hillside and one along the fence line at 50 m asl (51.6239S, 59.07621W) but no bushes were found outside the known boundary of calafate distribution in this area. Ajax Bay 4 April 2017: information received from the farm owner Gerald Dickson indicated that the single bush treated by manual removal and stump treatment with Vigilant in December 2015 at the old freezer works site at Ajax Bay was dead and there was no sign of regrowth. Motocross corral on 6 April: This is a new calafate record, the bush being first reported by Jimmy Moffat in MPA Road 2016 (J. Moffat to S. Poncet pers. comm.). A single bush is in the old corral at the motocross site on the MPA road; it was over 2 metres tall, about 90% dead and had no fruit or flowers. The closest known bushes are those at Island Harbour House, 2.2 km to the south. The bush was not controlled. Island Harbour 27 March 2017: a half-day site visit was made to Island Harbour with Andy Pollard (Falkland Landholdings Director) to assess the extent of calafate distribution at this site and discuss the way forward for calafate control and followup on their land at sites which include Teal Creek, Darwin area, Egg Harbour, Fitzroy settlement and Cerritos. The ILC offer to initiate control at these sites was declined in favour of landowner initiative in taking responsibility for calafate on FLH land. Cantera 27 December 2016: a half-day visit was made to Cantera. The 0.5 hectare of mostly low-growing plants in whitegrass sprayed in December 2015: was checked; plants were mostly dead but there was some regrowth and plants missed. The area had been recently mown, and this appeared to be an effective method of keeping calafate under control in this type of habitat. Knapsack spraying (with herbicide obtained from the Department of Agriculture) on individual bushes was carried out by the landowners in January-February 2017. Overall, excellent progress is being made. Future Priorities Future control of calafate at Head of the Bay and Port Sussex Farms will depend on the outcome of the Department of Agriculture’s application for funding from FIG for a large- scale calafate control programme. FLH have indicated that they will deal with calafate on FLH land at Island Harbour and all other calafate on FLH land. Motocross corral on the MPA Road: this single bush is on FIC land leased to FLH and FLH have indicated they will deal with this site. Calafate control at Cantera is being efficiently and effectively carried out annually by the landowners who are making excellent and exemplary progress in clearing their land. Control Records and Available on request GPX files

Figure 2. Distribution of calafate in the Port Sussex area, 2017.

HILL COVE

On 2 June 2017, a single small calafate bush on The Peaks Farm at the entrance to the Hill Cove settlement first reported by Susan and Tony Hirtle in 2016 was confirmed dead with no sign of regrowth (Figure 3). The bush (which was non-flowering and about 40cm tall) was found by Tony in 2016 growing among stones a few metres inside the fence next to the Hill Cove Road cattle grid. The entire plant and its roots were removed using a digger. The fact that a single calafate bush had established at Hill Cove, probably within the last five years, indicates either a mature flowering bush in the area, dispersal of seed by birds from Keppel Island, ca. 20km to the northeast. Calafate was previously reported by Broughton on 24 November 2001 to be “within the Hill Cove Forest boundary” (KEW database). We searched the forest area for an hour and found no calafate. The KEW co-ordinates corresponded with the same longitude as the forest, but about 100m north of the high water mark i.e. in the sea. Residents at Hill Cove were not aware of calafate in the forest so either the record was of a bush now completely covered in gorse that has invaded the forest boundary and cemetery, or it is an error.

Figure 3. Site of a single calafate bush at Hill Cove 2 June 2017; the bush and all roots and suckers were removed in 2016 using a mechanical digger. The Peaks farmhouse in the background.

KEPPEL ISLAND

Figure 6.View from Mt Keppel of the settlement, ‘forest’ and former vegetable gardens on Keppel Island with SV Porvenir at anchor.

Project Calafate, spear thistle and gorse survey Implemented by Island LandCare (ILC) Funding from FIG EPD Land/Farm Unit Keppel Island Weed Unit/s Settlement (calafate) Robinson Point (spear thistle, 1 calafate bush) North Point (spear thistle outliers) East coast (spear thistle outliers) Gull Point (no weeds found) Personnel 5-9 June 2017: Sally Poncet and Ken Passfield Reason for visit Calafate survey Spear thistle survey Assessment of gorse in the settlement area Logistics Island access and on-site accommodation on board s/v Porvenir . Spatial data The co-ordinates (WGS84) of plants and tracks walked by the surveyors were recorded on a handheld GPS unit and saved as gpx files. Survey information recorded in Excel. Search method All available gpx data (KEW Brahms database records 2007-2014) were used to locate known plants, with co-ordinates loaded to hand-held GPS unit. Adjacent areas were searched for additional unrecorded plants. Biosecurity All gear checked and cleaned prior to landing on the island. Areas searched 5 June: pm surveying in the settlement area 6 June: all day surveying Robinson Point area 7 June: all day surveying east coast and North Point areas 8 June: all day surveying out to Gull Point and the settlement area. 9 June: am photographing and completing the settlement area survey. Priorities for next visit Recommend that a start be made on control of spear thistles and calafate in spring 2017. Survey records and GPX Available on request files

Keppel Island calafate

Apart from a single outlier calafate bush on the north coast of Keppel Island, all known calafate plants were located within 700 m of the settlement (Figure 7). The boundary of calafate recorded by Rebecca Upson in 2007 and Richard Lewis in 2010 (KEW records) indicated an infested area of 55.6 ha. By 2017, the total infested area around the settlement (shown in pink in Figure 4) was approximately 70 ha with isolated plants being found over 50 m beyond the furthest extent of plants in 2010. Plants had been mostly likely dispersed by birds as they perched on and flew over banks above the shoreline, fence lines and well-established gorse and wild currant bushes. Most outliers were small (less than 40 cm high and possibly less than 5 years old) and widely scattered. The largest, tallest and therefore oldest bushes were at the upper end of the old forest in the valley and stream that runs along the south side of the Sulivan House ruins. Four big bushes (over 3 m tall and each covering between 50 and 100 sq m), were growing next to or amongst conifers and gorse. This area and the adjacent paddock to the north appear to be the centre of infestation, which is less than 1 ha and consists mostly of sparsely scattered plants. All other bushes are less than 1m tall with an occasional larger bush (over 1m high). The most remote outliers around the settlement were recorded about 700m inland from the shoreline at 70 m asl at the upper end of small valleys running southwest-north-east to the coast.

Figure 7. Distribution of calafate on Keppel Island, June 2017. The extent of infestation (mostly sparsely scattered plants) in the settlement area is shown in pink. Red dots indicate outliers.

The most remote calafate outlier was found on the north coast sand dunes between Robinson Point and North Point (Figure 7), growing amongst marram and next to a small patch of spear thistle (‘North Point 1’) about 100 m inland from the sand beach. The bush was 1 m tall, covered about 1 sq m. and had several suckers growing out to about 1m from the main stem. The presence of calafate at this location over 4 km from the core area in the settlement indicates that calafate on Keppel is emerging from its ‘lag phase’ and has the potential to be dispersed by birds to other parts of the island and possibly nearby islands as well .

Keppel Island spear thistle Previous reports by Richard Lewis (2010), Louise Taylor (2011) and Sarah Browning (2013) provide information on the areas infested by spear thistle up until 2013. We surveyed these areas, starting at the settlement and following the large valley out to the north coast. The entire north coast between Gull Point at the northwest tip of Keppel Island east to North Point was surveyed, as was the east coast from North Point to a high saddle south of Cove Hill, and the inland summit areas between Gull Point and Mt Keppel.

Thistles were found at the 2010 site ‘Population 1’ recorded by Lewis (2010) next to the smaller of the two ponds (Figure 8). They covered ca. 1 ha which seemed to be more or less the same area as in 2010. Control by chisel hoeing was undertaken here in March 2010, February 2011 and February 2013.

Figure 8. Map of spear thistle populations on Keppel Island in 2010 as described in Lewis (2010). From a map by L.Taylor (2011). North Point was not surveyed in 2010 or 2011.

‘Population 2’ (which was chisel hoed in 2010; Figure 8) and ‘Main Population’ had merged into one infested area by 2017 (Figure 9) and covered approximately 27 ha and extending 1.5 km from west to east and ca. 300 m north to south; it included thistles scattered in little valleys along the southern inland boundary. Thistles ranged from mature plants 1.5 m tall, dead and brown to small new-growth green rosettes; in the core area of ‘Main Population’, there were a few large green plants with flower buds, some of them up to 50 cm high, indicating a long growing season and year-round recruitment.

Figure 9. Map of spear thistle distribution on Keppel Island 27 June 2017. Red indicates areas of spear thistle infestation. Green circles indicate previous thistle locations, not seen/searched in June 2017.

Previous control at ‘Main Population’ has been by chisel hoeing: the east and south edges of ‘Main Population’ were hoed in 2010 (Lewis 2010); in 2011 one entire valley between the dunes on the south edge of the area was hoed, as was the eastern edge and outliers back to a N-S line (S51.17.39

W59.58.32) at the eastern edge of the area (Taylor 2011); in 2013, one third of the ‘Main Population’ was hoed (Browning 2013).

‘Population 4’ on the east coast south of North Point (Figures 8 and 9) was marked by old dead plants and a few small rosettes but no tall live plants; this area had been chisel hoed in March 2010 but was not treated in 2011 or 2013. The area infested runs N-S 200m following the coast with plants in two discrete groups (less than 50 m inland from the beach), plus one outlier 100 m to the north, another 130m to the south and 2 close together about 180m inland (SW) of the two main groups. A single spear thistle outlier was found on the eastern slopes of Cove Hill nearly 800 m south of ‘Population 4’ and about 150 m inland from the coast (Figure 9).

The area at North Point (‘North Point 3’, Figure 9) which was not surveyed or controlled in 2010, 2011 or 2013 contained over 100 mostly dead plants scattered over an area 250 m long north-south and ca. 20 m wide, but with very few rosettes or new growth. Another two previously unrecorded infested areas (‘North Point 1’ and ‘North Point 2’) contained a few dozen plants each, mostly dead but some rosettes.

‘Population 3’ on Robinson Point and a small area of thistles on the hill above the large pond (Figure 9) were not found (the latter was chisel hoed in 2011).

The core area ‘Main Population’ of spear thistles on Keppel Island covers 27ha which is slightly smaller than the 35ha core area at Elephant Point on Saunders Island. After taking into account the various outlier populations, the overall the surface area of land with spear thistles on both islands is similar. As on Saunders Island, foliar spraying would be the most cost- effective and efficient means of controlling the infested areas on Keppel Island.

Keppel Island gorse Gorse bushes were confined to the settlement area and adjoining paddocks, and whilst slowly spreading within this area, it does not appear to be as vigorous a disperser as calafate and wild currant. Large mature bushes around the main house and generator shed need cutting back to prevent further encroachment. Seedlings have established within the past 10 years or so around some of the old stone buildings e.g. the stable and will require control to keep the buildings clear of vegetation. Several old ruins are now completely covered in gorse, and have been for many years (Philpott 2009), while wild currant and calafate to a lesser extent calafate are also beginning to encroach on some of the ruins.

REFERENCES

Browning S. 2013. Post-Visit Report for Keppel Island spear thistle trip February 2013. Unpublished report.

Lewis R. 2010. Spear Thistle ( Cirsium vulgare ) on Keppel Island . Unpublished report.

Taylor L. 2011. Invasive Spear Thistle ( Cirsium vulgare ) removal on Saunders Island 7-8 February 2011 and Keppel Island 9 February 2011. Unpublished report.

Poncet S. and K. Passfield. 2017. Saunders Island Site Visit Report December 2016. Island LandCare Report to landowners and FIG EPD.

Philpott R. A. 2009. Keppel A South American Missionary Society Settlement in the Falkland Islands, 1855-1911. An Archaeological and Historical Survey. Falkland Islands Museum and National Trust, Stanley and National Museums Liverpool, UK.

7 July 2017

Commons Ordinance legislative changes - Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Executive Council approved the revised Common Ordinance in June this year. Additionally they approved the drafting of a management plan for Stanley Common. This document summarises the changes that are proposed in the new Common Ordinance in relation to Stanley Common.

A public consultation on the management of Stanley Common was undertaken in October 2014. The results indicated strong support from those responding (34 responders) for improved management of the Stanley Common. One of the notable obstacles to improved management of Stanley Common is the current Stanley Common Ordinance and the related legislation controlling activities on the Stanley Common. This relates to both the control of activities and the control of development on Stanley Common. After a delay, this legislation has been drafted and considered within FIG and is now available for public consultation.

Stanley Common is designated as a National Nature Reserve and is available to the public as an amenity area for recreation. The Stanley Common covers a large area comprising a diverse range of habitats. The current Stanley Common legislation allows for some activity within the Common. This includes both development directly relating to the management of the Common (for example the provision of basic amenities) and also the provision of key infrastructure (such as roads, water, electricity and telecoms equipment).

The current Stanley Common Ordinance is convoluted and there are a number of other Ordinances which govern the management of activities on the Stanley Common.

It should be noted that this initiative does not attempt to address ongoing de-mining activities on Stanley Common. Management of former minefields on FIG-owned land will be covered in a further separate paper to ExCo in due course.

The proposed Commons Bill 2017 addresses a key objective of the 2014-2018 Islands Plan – Protecting the Environment: Bullet 8: “Proactively manage Stanley Common to ensure an appropriate balance between nature conservation and recreational activity.” This initiative is supported by the planned development of a management plan for the Stanley Common.

The headline changes to the designation of Stanley Common are:

• Separation of Common Land under 2 categories; Category A being strictly preserved with no development allowed for, Category B being available for potential development (where of national importance). • Considerable expansion of the Stanley Common boundary. • Proposed development of a management plan for Stanley Common.

7 July 2017

2. Commons Ordinance Revisions

A full explanatory notes is included in the draft Ordinance which explains the various sections and parts of the legislation. A summary of the most important section descriptions is provided here.

The revised Stanley Common Ordinance starts by clarifying what the Common is for and what it can be used for, and to sets out the uses that are acceptable within it. This is made clear in the revised draft Commons Bill (Appendix 1) which is described below.

The revised Bill repeals and re-enacts the Stanley Common Ordinance and makes consequential amendments to the Trespass Ordinance and the Stanley Common Rules, to provide for all matters dealing with Common land to be dealt with, and fall within, the Commons Ordinance. It also allows for the designation of other Commons areas, such as Hill Cove, which is being considered in a separate consultation with the residents of Hill Cove.

Part 2 of the revised Commons Bill provides for the designation of Commons within the Falkland Islands. Clause 3 gives the Governor the power to designate by order, Commons in any area of the Falkland Islands. Clause 4 provides for the making of regulations setting out restrictions relating to a designated Common.

Part 3 deals specifically with Stanley Common and provides as follows –– L Clause 5 restates the current designation of Stanley Common as an open space but goes further to provide for two areas within the Common; Stanley Common Land in Categories A and B to differentiate between land which will not be considered appropriate for development and land which can be designated for other use. Category B Common Land will allow for land to be taken out and therefore can have its boundary amended where it is necessary in the public interest to do so. Clause 5 goes on further to set out the rights the public have over the land;

Clause 6 prohibits ––

• the making of any freehold interest on land within the Common (on Category A or B Stanley Common Land); • the giving of any grants or interest on land within the Common in a period in excess of 3 years; and • any other interest that is inconsistent with the Ordinance or that’s given absolutely.

The prohibition is subject to exceptions in relation to title which was already given in relation to some Crown leases, grants and other interests which are described under Schedule 2 of the Ordinance.

Clause 7 prohibits acquisition of any title within the Common through prescription or adverse possession. This is to safeguard any use of the Common that takes away from the general purpose stated under section 3 of the current Ordinance to ensure that it remains an open space for all.

7 July 2017

Clause 8 provides a new section which deals with amendments to the Category B Stanley Common Land to make it easier for land to be taken out of the Category B Stanley Common Land, where it is necessary to do so for social, economic or any environmental reasons.

Clause 9 details allowable development and uses for Category A Stanley Common Land and makes it an offence to use Category B Stanley Common Land in a manner that is prohibited under the Ordinance or regulations made under it; alongside the offence of carrying out any developments within the Common that are not provided for by the Ordinance or regulations made under it, as is currently provided.

Clause 10 details allowable development and uses for Category B Stanley Common Land and makes it an offence to use Category B Stanley Common Land in a manner that is prohibited under the Ordinance or regulations made under it; alongside the offence of carrying out any developments that are not provided for by the Ordinance or regulations made under it.

Clause 11 provides for the Lands Committee to be able to make by-laws on the use of both the Category A Stanley Common Land and Category B Stanley Common Land. This is to take into account that there will be different users of the land and potentially competing uses, and therefore the by-laws may be necessary to address conflicts and apply limitations or restrictions where necessary.

Clause 12 is a new provision to allow the Governor to make regulations authorising any necessary infrastructure works to be carried out in Category B Stanley Common Land. This section provides for any construction or installation to be carried out on the Common where the requirements of the legislation are met.

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that land designated as Category A Stanley Common Land in the new Ordinance will remain free from any development and that such works will only be permitted on designated Category B Stanley Common Land. However, allowable work on Category B Stanley Common Land is also limited, so that if there is a requirement for major development, the required land would be taken out of this designation, as provided by Clause 8.

Clause 13 provides for fees to be paid for grazing animals within the Common. This provision was originally in the Trespass Ordinance.

Clause 14 is a general provision for penalties for any contravention of the Ordinance;

Clause 15 provides the Governor with the power to make regulations governing the uses of Category B Stanley Common Land and Category A Stanley Common Land and governing procedures for creating by-laws and policies to give force to the Ordinance.

Part 4 provides for general provisions which apply to all matters dealt with under the Ordinance as follows ––

Clause 16 restates the current position under section 12; that the Ordinance binds the Crown.

Clause 17 repeals the Stanley Common Ordinance (Title 34.6).

7 July 2017

Clause 18 provides for transitional provisions and a savings provision which saves any regulations made under the repealed Ordinance.

Clause 19 provides that some uses (set out in Schedule 3) which were previously authorised by Executive Council but for which regulations had not been made as required under current section 10, to be treated as if they have been authorised, in order to provide legal effect to their having been carried out without the necessary regulations being made.

Schedules to Part 4 i. The Schedules to the original Ordinance have also been amended. Schedule 1 provides a map that shows the new boundaries. This map amends the Stanley Common to account for land that has already been taken out of the Common for certain developments (a small area at the Sapper Hill development) and land that is proposed to be taken out to expand the airport, as well as other uses as indicated under the Schedule. This map also shows the proposed category A and B Stanley Common Land. ii. The Schedule 2 (Part I and II) has been replaced with an updated list of all the current crown grants, leases and grazing licences as well as other uses which have been previously authorised to be carried out on the Common. A map is included to show the location of the different leases and crown grants. iii. Schedule 3 contains a list of activities and uses that are permitted to be carried out on the Common for which no regulations were made previously as required by section 19(1). These activities and uses were agreed by Executive Council as far back as 2004. The list also includes new activities and uses which the Lands Committee has already approved. iv. Schedule 4 indicates grazing fees for the Common that are currently imposed by the Department of Agriculture.

Part 5 provides for consequential amendments to the Trespass Ordinance and the Stanley Common Rules.

Clause 20 amends the Trespass Ordinance to repeal sections 8 and 9. Section 8 has been incorporated within the Stanley Common Ordinance – grazing of animals, while section 9 - penalty for leaving the Common gate open, is no longer relevant. The Schedule to the Trespass Ordinance is also deleted, as it is now included within the proposed new Common Ordinance (Schedule 4).

Clause 21 provides for the amendment of section 4 of the Land Charges Ordinance to include the registration of a Common as a class II land charge.

Clause 22 amends the Board of Health By-Laws to remove reference to the Common. This allows for burial of animals in the Common to be dealt with in this Ordinance instead of through different laws.

Clause 23 revokes the Stanley Common Rules, as the matters covered there are already provided for in other legislation, as well as in the new Ordinance.

7 July 2017

3. Changes to the Stanley Common Boundary

It is proposed that the designation of land on Stanley Common be split into two definitions; Category A and Category B Common Land. These areas are shown on the map in Schedule 1 and Appendix 2.

To off-set the potential development (where nationally important) of areas within the newly designated Category B Common Lands (which total 1,486 hectares, or 3,672 acres), it is proposed that the Common be expanded to encompass the wider Two Sisters area, which will provide an additional 3,586 hectares (8,862 acres) of land for public access and enjoyment within the Stanley Common. This extension includes all FIG-owned land to the west of Stanley. It should be noted that the revision of the Stanley Common boundary and the revised legislation will still allow for grazing licences to be issued to cover large areas of the Common on a non-exclusive basis, for a period of up to 3 years. A grazing licence is currently in place over Mount Longdon and licences have been issued over Two Sisters Mountain area previously.

The addition of the Two Sisters area (including Mount Harriet, Goat Ridge and Wall Mountain) to the Mount Longdon and Moody Valley camps (including Two Sisters Mountain, Mount Longdon, and Tumbledown Mountain) will, for the first time, place all the important 1982 battlefield memorial areas together within the Stanley Common. This area could be further recognised under a separate designation in due course.

Cape Pembroke (excluding Stanley Airport) remains under the same designation as in the previous Ordinance – being afforded the higher level of protection as Category A Stanley Common Land. The same protection is afforded to the newly opened demined coastline (and extending inland some way) on the South Coast of the Common, stretching from Mullet Creek to Rookery Bay.

An additional minor change has been made to the Common boundary to allow for the removal of a small parcel of land south of the Sapper Hill housing development which was included in the development. This area is roughly 10 metres wide and so small it cannot be seen on the map at the scale provided.

The Category B Common Land areas surround Stanley town limits, where infrastructure development is already in place and more is likely to be required in future. This contains several key areas, including Sapper Hill where there are a number of communications masts and buildings, the eastern end of Moody Valley and Wireless Ridge, which is identified for potential port expansion if the development of a Deep Water Port in Port William moves forward. Additionally the area of the Common west of Pony Pass already hosts several large developments, and is identified as Public Lands for that reason.

The Eliza Cove municipal rubbish dump area is identified as Category B Common Land.

Murrell Stream Dam and the immediate vicinity is identified as Category B Common Land.

There are several additional FIG-owned parcels of land in the Stanley area, including Weir Creek and the Murrell Peninsula both lying on the Murrell area and Port Harriet Point to the south of the Common. It is not recommended that these additional areas be included in the

7 July 2017

Common as they are geographically separated for the existing Stanley Common and do not lend themselves to wider access.

4. Management Plan

The need for a management plan to manage conflicting activities on Stanley Common has been raised on various occasions in recent years. It is recommended that an independent organisation or individual be commissioned to produce a basic management plan to cover the main activities and management functions on Stanley Common. This activity will be funded from existing Environmental Planning budgets.

5. Public Consultation

A series of presentations and stakeholder session will be undertaken in July. Any comments or views on the proposed Stanley Common Ordinance review are welcomed and will be considered prior to a resubmission of the legislation to Executive Council for approval.

Contact Nick Rendell at the Environmental Planning Dept on tel 28480 or email [email protected] for further details or to provide comments.

DRAFT: 07. 07.2017

Commons Bill 2017

(No: of 2017)

ARRANGEMENT OF PROVISIONS

Clause

PART 1 – INTRODUCTION 1. Title 2. Commencement

PART 2 –– DESIGNATION OF COMMONS

3. Designation of Commons 4. Restrictions and other matters relating to Commons

PART 3 –– STANLEY COMMON

5. Dedication of Stanley Common 6. Restriction on grants of Stanley Common land 7. Restriction on acquisition of title etc. by adverse possession and prescription 8. Amendment of the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary 9. Development and uses ––Category A Stanley Common Land 10. Development and uses –– Category B Stanley Common Land 11. Lands Committee –– bye-laws 12. Governor –– necessary infrastructure 13. Fees for Common grazing 14. Penalties 15. Stanley Common Regulations

PART 4 –– GENERAL

16. Application to the Crown 17. Regulations 18. Repeal of Stanley Common Ordinance 19. Transitional and savings provisions

PART 5 – CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

20. Amendment of Trespass Ordinance 21. Amendment of Land Charges Ordinance 22. Amendments to Board of Health By-Laws 23. Revocation of Stanley Common Rules Schedules

STANLEY COMMON BILL 2017

(No: of 2017)

(assented to: 2017) (commencement: in accordance with section 2 ) (published: 2017)

A BILL

for

AN ORDINANCE

To repeal and re-enact the Stanley Common Ordinance 1999 as the Commons Ordinance so that it provides for the designation of Commons in the Falkland Islands, to amend the Trespass Ordinance, Land Charges Ordinance and to revoke various subsidiary legislation and make consequential amendments to some.

BE IT ENACTED by the Legislature of the Falkland Islands ––

PART 1 –– INTRODUCTION

1. Title (1) This Ordinance is the Commons Ordinance 2017.

(2) This Ordinance comes into force on a date appointed by the Governor by notice published in the Gazette .

2. Interpretation In this Ordinance, and unless the context otherwise requires ––

“common” means the Stanley Common Land or any piece of land designated as a common by the Governor under section 3;

“development” has the same meaning as it has under section 26 of the Planning Ordinance1991;

“land” includes land covered by water (including the sea) and the bed of any river or of the sea or other body of water;

“Lands Committee” means the Committee for the time being established by Executive Council under section 57(3) of the Constitution to advise Executive Council on land management and to perform such other functions as may be delegated to it;

“Museum and National Trust” means the trust established by section 3 of the Museum and National Trust Ordinance 1991;

“Planning Officer” means the officer appointed by the Governor under section 10 of the Planning Ordinance; and

“public purpose” in relation to land or the use of land means ––

(a) any purpose connected with –

(i) exclusive government use;

(ii) general public use;

(iii) ancillary to the public interest or utility;

(iv) town planning;

(v) the defence of the Falkland Islands;

(vi) ancillary to naval, military or air force requirements;

(vii) the promotion or creation of healthy and sanitary surroundings and the prevention or abatement of what the Governor in Council considers to be a nuisance, dangerous to health or limb;

(b) any purpose intended to result in a benefit or advantage to the community and without prejudice to its generality to include the development, utilization or disposal of property (in whole or in part) for the promotion of the physical, economic, social, or aesthetic well- being of the community;

(c) any other purpose specified as public by any Ordinance or which the Governor in Council may declare to be a public purpose;

“Stanley Common” means the area shown in Schedule 1

“Category A Stanley Common Land” means the land in the vicinity of Stanley, the boundaries of which are delineated on the map appearing in Schedule 1 to this Ordinance; and

“Category B Stanley Common Land” means the land in the vicinity of Stanley, the boundaries of which are delineated on the map appearing in Schedule 1 to this Ordinance.

PART 2 – DESIGNATION OF COMMONS

3. Designation of Commons (1) The Governor may by order, designate an area or areas within the Falkland Islands as common land for the benefit of ––

(a) all people in the Falkland Islands;

(b) residents of any settlement, village, town, city in the Falkland Islands; or

(2) An order made under sub-section (1) must specify the rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities of the people specified in the order in relation to the designated common land and different rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities may be specified for different classes of people.

(3) An order made under sub-section (1) must be registered with the office of the Registrar General as a Class II land charge in terms of the Land Charges Ordinance.

4. Restrictions and other matters relating to Commons (1) The Governor may include in a designation order under section 3 all or any of the following ––

(a) general restrictions on the whole or any part of the land designated as a common;

(b) conditions for removing or taking land out of the area designated as a common;

(d) restrictions on the development of the land designated as a common.

(2) An order under section 3 may further provide for ––

(a) the imposition of fees or any other penalty (by way of fine or imprisonment) for any contravention of the restrictions;

(b) the imposition of charges for different activities within the Common to be used for the maintenance of the land.

PART 3 – STANLEY COMMON

5. Dedication of Stanley Common (1) Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance Stanley Common continues to be dedicated as an open space for the benefit of all people in the Falkland Islands to which the public has access in perpetuity.

(2) For purposes of this Ordinance the area of land known as Stanley Common is divided into the following ––

(a) the area delineated on the map appearing in Part A of Schedule 1 to be referred to as “Category A Stanley Common Land”;

(b) the area delineated on the map appearing in Part B of Schedule 1 to be referred to as “Category B Stanley Common Land”.

(3) Notwithstanding the generality of subsection (1) and the historic public rights that the public has over Stanley Common the following public rights continue to be available to the public ––

(a) the right to graze livestock on the land subject to section 13;

(b) the right to cut or take away peat subject to a licence or authorisation from the Governor;

(d) the right to use the land for recreational purposes;

(e) the right of passage in and through the land (on foot, horseback, or vehicle or similar);

6. Restriction on grants of Stanley Common land (1) Subject to subsection (2), any grant of land by the Crown within Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land which purports to create ––

(a) a freehold interest;

(b) a term of years absolute;

(d) an interest for a period of three years or less of any kind inconsistent with this Ordinance, is void and of no effect whatever.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following ––

(a) the Crown Grants set out in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Ordinance;

(b) the Crown Leases and other matters set out in Part II of Schedule 2 to this Ordinance for the periods indicated or for the periods of any renewals or extensions of occupation that may be reached between the Crown and the occupier;

(c) a grant or lease in favour of the Museum and National Trust in accordance with section 13 of the Museum and National Trust Ordinance 1991; and

(d) any land removed from the Category B Stanley Common Land in terms of section 8.

7. Restrictions on acquisition of title etc. by adverse possession and prescription (1) No person may acquire any title or other right or interest to or in land comprised within Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land by virtue of any law which has the effect of conferring or creating such title or any other right or interest to or in land by the doctrines known as adverse possession and prescription or by application of the doctrine of lost modern grant and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the provisions of section 11A of the Land Ordinance do not apply to Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land.

(2) Sub-section (1) does not operate to remove any public or customary rights of way which may have arisen or be enjoyed by the public or class of the public prior to the introduction of this Ordinance nor to prevent public or customary rights arising or continuing

from Stanley or points within the Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land to ways points or tracks beyond the boundaries of Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land.

8. Amendment of the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary (1) Subject to this section, the boundaries of the Category B Stanley Common Land (“Category B Stanley Common Land boundary”) as delineated on the map appearing in Part B of Schedule 1 to this Ordinance may be amended.

(2) The Governor may by regulations make amendments to the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary where ––

(a) the Governor considers it necessary for public purposes;

(b) there are exceptional circumstances that require the amendment of the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary to facilitate the sustainable development of Stanley;

(c) the amendments made to the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary do not result in the material reduction of the overall area of the Category B Stanley Common Land; and

(d) the overall suitability of the land available for the different appropriate uses is maintained.

(3) Before any amendment is made to the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary, the Planning Officer must publish a draft proposal containing information detailing the proposed amendments and the reasons for the amendments.

(4) The Planning Officer must ––

(a) make the draft proposals available for public comment for a period of at least 8 weeks; and

(b) summarise all the written comments received and forward the summary to the Governor.

(5) The Governor must take the summary into account when making the decision to amend the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary.

(6) It is unlawful to remove any land from the Category B Stanley Common Land unless that land is removed in accordance with an amendment authorised under this section.

(7) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level six on the standard scale.

9. Development and uses –– Category A Stanley Common Land (1) It is an offence to use Stanley Common in a manner that is prohibited under this Ordinance or Regulations made under it.

(2) It is an offence to carry out any development within the Category A Stanley Common.

(3) The following are permitted within the Category A Stanley Common ––

(a) the cutting and taking away of peat under a licence or permission granted by or on behalf of the Governor;

(b) the use by the Falkland Islands Defence Force and the Royal Falkland Islands Police of firearms for training on approval by the Governor for that purpose;

(c) the use for training by the Falkland Islands Defence Force or the Fire and Rescue Service on a part of the Category A Stanley Common Land which has been approved by the Governor for that purpose;

(d) the grazing of animals ––

(i) where it is in accordance with a grazing permit issued by the Department of Agriculture as provided for under section 13; or

(ii) where the Department of Agriculture has authorised the grazing of animals on that part of the Category A Stanley Common Land for a specified period; and

(4) An activity or use which unduly restricts reasonable access to an area of Category A Stanley Common Land or unduly impacts on the amenity or safety of other users is only permissible to be carried out in Category A Stanley Common Land where that activity or use has been approved by the Lands Committee under section 11.

(5) A person who does any of the acts specified under subsection (3) without the necessary approval, authorisation, licence, permit or in the prescribed manner commits an offence.

(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level six on the standard scale.

10. Development and uses –– Category B Stanley Common Land (1) It is an offence to use Category B Stanley Common Land in a manner that is prohibited under this Ordinance or Regulations made under it.

(2) Subject to section 12 developments may be carried out within Category B Stanley Common Land.

(3) The following are permitted within the Category B Stanley Common Land ––

(a) the cutting and taking away of peat under a licence or permission granted by or on behalf of the Governor;

(b) the use by the Falkland Islands Defence Force and the Royal Falkland Islands Police of firearms for training on approval by the Governor for that purpose;

(c) the use for training by the Falkland Islands Defence Force or the Fire and Rescue Service on a part of the Category B Stanley Common Land which has been approved by the Governor for that purpose;

(d) the grazing of animals ––

(i) where it is in accordance with a grazing permit issued by the Department of Agriculture as provided for under section 13; or

(ii) where the Department of Agriculture has authorised the grazing of animals on that part of the Category B Stanley Common Land for a specified period;

(e) the burying of animals on Category B Stanley Common Land, where the following is provided to the Department of Agriculture––

(i) a notification prior to the burial; and

(ii) a report immediately after the burial;

(f) the throwing, depositing or causing to be thrown or deposited on Category B Stanley Common Land any waste or other noxious matter where it is done in a place and in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed for that purpose; and

(4) An activity or use which unduly restricts reasonable access to an area of Category B Stanley Common Land or unduly impacts on the amenity or safety of other users is only permissible to be carried out in Category B Stanley Common Land where that activity or use has been approved by the Lands Committee under section 11.

(5) A person who does any of the acts specified under subsection (3) without the necessary approval, authorisation, licence, and permit or in the prescribed manner commits an offence.

(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level six on the standard scale.

11. Lands Committee – by-laws (1) The Lands Committee may make by-laws authorising the carrying out of different uses and activities within Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land.

(2) Without derogating from the generality of subsection (1), the Lands Committee may make bye-laws on the use of Category A Stanley Common Land and Category B Stanley Common Land for the following ––

(a) sport and recreation;

(b) use of the Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land or any part of Category A Stanley Common Land or Category B Stanley Common Land as an amenity area;

(d) acts of remembrance; and

(e) any other uses as may be prescribed.

(3) In order to be considerate of the different users of Category A Stanley Common Land and Category B Stanley Common Land the bye-laws made under this section may contain restrictions or limitations on access and use of both lands for specific activities.

12. Governor –– necessary infrastructure (1) The Governor may make regulations authorising the construction or installation of necessary infrastructure on the Category B Stanley Common Land where the Governor considers that ––

(a) the infrastructure is necessary for public purposes;

(b) the Category B Stanley Common Land would be the most appropriate place for the infrastructure to be located; and

(c) the land on which the infrastructure is to be located cannot be removed from the Category B Stanley Common Land as provided for under section 8.

(2) For purposes of this section, the following is necessary infrastructure ––

(a) areas where refuse, waste water or sewerage may be deposited, treated or carried and within which associated development may be carried out (where that development is necessary or desirable for the better establishment and management of the area);

(b) road (where the primary purpose of the road is to facilitate uses within Category B Stanley Common Land);

(d) facilities necessary for the purpose of supplying electricity pursuant to the Electricity Supply Ordinance 1939 including the installation of electricity wind turbines and associated equipment;

(e) facilities necessary for the provision of telecommunications services;

(f) facilities for the conduct of scientific research on an area of land not exceeding one tenth of one acre;

(g) facilities for mining; and

(h) facilities for aircraft or maritime navigation.

(3) The Governor may by Order amend the list of infrastructure under subsection (2).

13. Fees for Common grazing (1) In order to be issued with a grazing permit by the Department of Agriculture referred to under sections 9(3)(d)(i) and 10(3)(d)(i), a person must pay the fees set out in Schedule 4.

(2) Any person whose animal is found grazing in the Category A Stanley Common Land or the Category B Stanley Common Land who does not have a grazing permit referred to in subsection (1) or where there is no authorisation from the Department of Agriculture commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

14. Penalties Any person who contravenes any of the provision of this Part for which a penalty is not specified commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 6 on the standard scale.

15. Stanley Common Regulations The Governor may make regulations ––

(a) restricting the public’s access to the Category A Stanley Common Land or any part of the Category B Stanley Common Land;

(b) prescribing the manner of making proposals to amend the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary under section 8;

(c) prescribing policy principles and procedural requirements to be followed by the Lands Committee in the making of bye-laws under section 11;

(d) prescribing the different uses to which the Category A Stanley Common Land and the Category B Stanley Common Land may be put, in addition to the uses specified under this Ordinance;

(e) designating specific areas of the Category B Stanley Common Land for carrying out necessary infrastructure; and

(f) prescribing anything reasonably necessary for the better carrying out of the provisions of this Ordinance.

PART 4 –– GENERAL

16. Application to the Crown This Ordinance binds the Crown.

17. Regulations Any regulations made under this Ordinance must, in order to have effect, first be approved by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly.

18. Repeal of Stanley Common Ordinance The Stanley Common Ordinance 1999 is repealed.

19. Transitional and savings (1) The activities set out under Schedule 3 are to be treated as authorised for purposes of this Ordinance.

(2) Any regulations made under the Ordinance repealed by section 18 which were in force immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance continue in force in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Ordinance, until they are revoked or amended.

PART 5 –– CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

20. Amendment of Trespass Ordinance (1) This section amends the Trespass Ordinance 1904.

(2) The Trespass Ordinance is amended as follows ––

(a) by repealing sections 8 and 9;

(b) by omitting the words “and commonage fees” from section 11; and

21. Amendment of Land Charges Ordinance (1) This section amends the Land Charges Ordinance 1996.

(2) The Land Charges Ordinance is amended in section 4(3) by inserting immediately after paragraph (c) the following new paragraph ––

“(d) a registered common”.

22. Amendments to Board of Health By-Laws (1) This section amends the Board of Health By-Laws 1937.

(2) The Board of Health By-Laws are amended in by-law 65 by omitting “of the Common or”

23. Revocation of Stanley Common Rules (1) This section revokes the Stanley Common Rules 1949.

(2) The Stanley Common Rules are revoked.

SCHEDULE 1 Map showing Stanley Common (section 5(1) )

See appendix 1

SCHEDULE 2

Part I List of Crown Grants (section 6(2)(a) )

Crown Grant Land Grantee

No 565 3.478 acres at Moody Valley James Stephenson

No 715 5 acres at Mullet Creek Hazel Alazia

No 884 1.25 acres known as Old Simon Peter Goss and Sandra Filtration Plant, Moody Kathleen Goss Brook

No 896 1,215 square metres at Barry Elsby and Bernadette Moody Valley Paver

No 900 506 acres at Moody Valley Douglas Graeme Fiddes and Julia Bertrand Fiddes

No 1004 18 acres at Moody Valley Barry Elsby and Bernadette Marguerite Paver

No 1021 2,550 square metres adjacent Douglas Graham Fiddes to The Brook, Moody Brook

Part II List of Crown Leases (section 4(2)(b) )

Nature of Land Occupier Term Agreement

CL 379 3950 acres known as Neil Watson 1 January 2006 to 31 Mount Longdon December 2015 Camp

CL 356: current (in 4.4 acres at Moody Douglas Graham 11 December 2001 to date) Deed of Brook Fiddes and Julia 10 December 2021

Variation 06/07/2006 Bertrand Fiddes

CL 357: continuing 4.4 acres at Moody Douglas Graham 2 years from 11 year to year Brook Fiddes and Julia December 2001

Bertrand Fiddes (continuing in occupation)

Right of Access Track from Moody Fortuna Ltd 999 years contained in Crown Brook east to Fairy Lease No 417 (Camber Cove Dockyard)

CL No 418 Abattoir holding Falkland Islands 1 January 2004 to Paddocks comprising Meat Company 131 December 2006 1,325 acres – renewed annually

OTHER MATTERS (section 6(2)(b) )

Disused quarry 24.5 The Crown acres at Mary Hill

Refuse Tip 8 acres at The Crown Eliza Cove

Ammunition Store The Crown (11/00) Approximately 320 square metres to the south of the new FIDF HQ

Part III Map showing location of Crown Grants and Leases

See Appendix 2

SCHEDULE 3 (section 19(1))

(a) Rookery Bay Rifle Range, Phillips Point Gun Range and the Kiel Canal Road Archery Range as areas for recreational target practice under the supervision of clubs formed for the purpose;

(b) The construction of the road to the FIDF ammunitions store by FIG;

(d) Development of Moody Valley and the Murrell River Catchment Area by FIG for the purpose of supplying and preserving the supply of water to the town of Stanley;

(e) Development of Mount William for telecommunications purposes by communications providers and FIG;

(f) Laying of power cables to the medium wave transmitter on Mount William by communications providers and FIG;

(g) Development of Sapper Hill for telecommunications purposes by communications providers and FIG;

(h) Development of Sapper Hill for the purpose of scientific research by communications providers and FIG;

(i) Development of Sapper Hill for the purpose of the supply of electricity by FIG;

(j) Development of Cape Pembroke Point and Engineers Point for the purpose of maritime navigation by FIG;

(k) Land south-east of the rugby pitch as an area for recreational operation of model aircrafts and other remote-controlled vehicles by the Model Aircraft Club;

(l) Several Solar System sculptures erected by Mr Rob Yssel as artwork; and

(m) Siting of the septic tank serving Marine Cottage, Moody Brook and the pipes running to it, by Douglas Graham Fiddes

SCHEDULE 4 Fees (section 13(1) )

Winter grazing is limited to the number of animals that can be maintained on the grass available.

Grazing seasons Fees

Summer: 1st October to 31 st May (£24.00)

Winter: 1st June to 30 th September (£12.00)

Annual Fee: (1 st June – 31 st May) £36.00 per horse

Horses may, by request, be grazed on the Common for a maximum of 10 days or less at the rate of £1.00 per day.

Horses grazing on the Common for more than 10 days will be charged the full rate.

______OBJECTS AND REASONS

This Bill repeals and re-enacts the Stanley Common Ordinance (Title 34.6) and makes consequential amendments to the Trespass Ordinance and the Stanley Common Rules to provide for all matters dealing with Common land to be dealt with and come within the Stanley Common Ordinance.

Part 1 provides for introductory matters and clauses 1 and 2 provide for the title and definitions;

Part 2 provides for the designation of Commons within the Falkland Islands and provides as follows ––

Clause 3 gives the Governor the power to designate by order, commons in any area of the Falkland Islands, the order will also specify the rights and obligations the public have towards that common;

Clause 4 provides for the making of regulations setting out restrictions relating to a designated common

Part 3 deals specifically with Stanley Common and provides as follows ––

Clause 5 restates the current position that provides for the dedication of Stanley Common as an open space but goes further to provide for 2 areas within the Common (Category A Stanley Common Land and Category B Stanley Common Land to mark out the land which will be a common in the strict sense i.e. Category A Stanley Common Land from Category B Stanley Common Land. Category B Stanley Common Land will allow for land to be taken out and therefore can have its boundary amended where it is necessary in the public interest to do so.) It goes on further to set out the public rights the public have over the land;

Clause 6 prohibits ––

• the making of any freehold interest on land within the Common;

• the giving of any grants or interest on land within the Common in a period in excess of 3 years; and

• any other interest that is inconsistent with the Ordinance or that’s given absolutely.

The prohibition is subject to exceptions in relation to title which was already given in relation to some Crown leases, grants and other interests which are described under Schedule 2.

This amends the current Ordinance by consolidating section 4 to bring all exceptions under one provision, that is taking out the current section 8(3) and (4) to be dealt with under one section as it deals with restrictions on Common land;

Clause 7 restates the current section 5 which prohibits acquisition of any title within the Common through prescription or adverse possession. This is to safeguard any use of the Common that takes away from the general purpose stated under section 3 of the current Ordinance to ensure that it remains an open space for all;

Clause 8 provides for a new section which deals with amendments to the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary which will make it easier for land to be taken out of the Category B Stanley Common Land where it is necessary to do so for social, economic or any environmental reasons so that whatever use it is put to is not restricted as it will no longer be part of the common;

Clause 9 provides for the development and uses which Category A Stanley Common Land can be used for and provides for an additional offence for the use of the Category A Stanley Common Land in a manner that is prohibited under the Ordinance or regulations made under it; alongside the offence of carrying out any developments within the Common that are not provided for by the Ordinance or regulations made under it as is currently provided;

Clause 10 provides for the development and uses which Category B Stanley Common Land can be used for and provides for an additional offence for the use of the Category B Stanley Common Land in a manner that is prohibited under the Ordinance or regulations made under it; alongside the offence of carrying out any developments that are not provided for by the Ordinance or regulations made under it;

Clause 11 provides for the Lands Committee to be able to make bye-laws on the use of both the Category A Stanley Common Land and the Category B Stanley Common Land. This is to take into account that there will be different users of the land who may want to use the land for competing uses and therefore the bye-laws will be able to address that and put limitations or restrictions where necessary.

Clause 12 provides a new provision to allow the Governor to make regulations authorising any necessary infrastructure to be carried out in Category B Stanley Common Land. The section provides for any construction or installation to be carried out on the Common where the requirements of that section are met. This is aimed towards keeping the Category A Stanley Common Land free from any developments and therefore uses this part of the ‘original Stanley Common’ for such purposes. The works to be carried out here are also limited as required by the section so that if there is a demand for major developments the required land will be taken out instead as provided by clause 8;

Clause 13 provides for fees to be paid for grazing animals within the Common. This provision was originally in the Trespass Ordinance.

Clause 14 provides for a general provision to provide for penalties for any contravention of the Ordinance;

Clause 15 amends the current section 10 which is the regulation making provision to provide for regulations to be made to give effect to the different issues covered within the Ordinance including the manner of making proposals to amend the Category B Stanley Common Land boundary under section 8, and the procedure to be followed by the Lands Committee when making bye-laws. The provision further provides for the making of regulations to provide for general policy principles and objectives in dealing with the land. It further provides for

18 regulations to be made setting out the different uses of the land to ensure it is used for the benefit and enjoyment of all.

Part 4 provides for general provisions which apply to all matters dealt with under the Ordinance as follows ––

Clause 16 restates the current position under section 12; that the Ordinance binds the Crown.

Clause 17 repeals the Stanley Common Ordinance (Title 34.6). Clause 18 provides for transitional and a savings provision which saves any regulations made under the repealed Ordinance. Clause 19 provides that some uses (set out in Schedule 3) which were already authorised to be carried out by Executive Council but for which regulations had not been made as was required by the current section 10, to be treated as if they have been authorised to provide legal effect to their having been carried out without the necessary regulations having been made.

The Schedules to the Ordinance have also been amended to provide for a map that shows the new boundaries which takes out land that has already been taken out of the Common for certain developments like the Sapper Hill development and land proposed to be taken out to expand the airport as well as other uses as indicated under the Schedule. [This map also shows Category A Stanley Common Land and Category B Stanley Common Land.]

The Second Schedule is also replaced with an up to date list of all the current Crown grants, leases, grazing licences as well as other things which have already been authorised to be carried out on the Common. A map is included to show the location of the different leases and crown grants.

Schedule 3 contains a list of activities and uses that are permitted to be carried out on the Common for which no regulations were made as provided by section 19(1). These activities and uses were identified and Executive Council agreed to their being carried out as far back as 2004. The list also includes new activities and uses which the Lands Committee has already approved. Schedule 4 indicates grazing fees for the Common that are currently imposed by the Department of Agriculture.

Part 5 provides for consequential amendments to the Trespass Ordinance and the Stanley Common Rules. Clause 20 amends the Trespass Ordinance to repeal sections 8 and 9. Section 8 has been incorporated within the Stanley Common Ordinance – grazing of animals while section 9 - penalty for leaving the Common gate open is no longer relevant. The Schedule to the Trespass Ordinance is also deleted as it is now provided for within this Common Ordinance (the new Schedule 4 on grazing fees).

Clause 21 provides for the amendment of section 4 of the Land Charges Ordinance to include the registration of a common as a class II land charge. Clause 22 amends the Board of Health By-Laws to remove reference to the Common. This allows for burial of animals in the Common to be dealt with in this Ordinance instead of by different laws.

Clause 23 revokes the Stanley Common Rules as the matters required there are already provided for in other legislation as well as in this Ordinance.

Dear Nick,

As we discussed before the ACAP Agreement clearly sets out prescriptions for the protection of all ACAP species. I hope this will be of good basis to demonstrate to concerned individuals that this species is protected and this cannot be instantly reversed on a whim.

The Falklands, as part of the UK, have signed up to this Agreement and we are bound by the Articles. Breaches would have to be reported, and would be discussed at the international meetings, where certain South American countries would leap on the opportunity to deride the UK’s position and ‘failure’ to protect an ACAP species.

Specifically,

ARTICLE III

General Conservation Measures

2. The Parties shall, subject to paragraphs 3 to 5 of this Article, prohibit the deliberate taking of, or harmful interference with, albatrosses and petrels, their eggs, or their breeding sites.

3. Parties may grant an exemption to the prohibitions in paragraph 2 of this Article, but only if there is no other satisfactory course of action and the exemption is made for one of the following purposes: a) to enhance the propagation, re-establishment or survival of albatrosses or petrels; b) on a selective basis and to a limited extent for scientific, educational or similar purposes; c) to accommodate the traditional needs and practices of indigenous peoples; or d) in other exceptional circumstances, in which case, unless an exceptional circumstance is of the nature of a short-term emergency, a prior environmental impact assessment shall be carried out and made publicly available in accordance with requirements in the Action Plan established by Article VI.

4. Any exemption under paragraph 3 of this Article, shall be precise, and limited in space and time, and shall not operate to the detriment of the conservation status of albatrosses or petrels. Any Parties granting such exemptions shall, as soon as possible, submit full details of them to the Secretariat.

The Secretariat is there to provide assistance and could give us guidance on this.

I am not sure if compensation payments have ever been raised or considered? These can work well, but of course have to be very carefully managed to make sure they benefit the farmers correctly as well as protecting the species in question.

Speak soon,

Anne

Anne Saunders

ACAP Co-ordinator & JNCC South Atlantic Overseas Territories Conservation Officer

c/o SAERI, PO Box 609, Stanley, Falkland Islands, FIQQ 1ZZ, South Atlantic

Tel: 00500 27374, Mobile: 00500 53171

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT

Environmental Planning Department, P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands

Telephone: (+500) 28480 Facsimile: (+500) 27391 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.falklands.gov.fk

RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT

APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Project title:

Continued studies on the ecology of Thin-billed Prions

SECTION 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS

Name of the person leading Prof. Dr. Petra Quillfeldt the research

Affiliation Behavioural Ecology & Ecophysiology group, Department of Animal Ecology & Systematics, Justus Liebig University Giessen,

Position Professor, Head of research group

Postal Address Heinrich-Buff-Ring 38, D-35392 Giessen Germany

Phone number +49 (0) 641 99 35 770

Email [email protected]

SECTION 2 – ASSISTANTS DETAILS

Name-Surname Affiliation Role Country

Dr. Juan Masello Justus Liebig University, Principal Germany Giessen, Germany researcher

Justine Thebault Justus Liebig University, PhD student Germany Giessen, Germany

Andreas Bange University Kiel, Germany student Germany

SECTION 3 – ORGANISATION PARTNER/POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

New Island Conservation Trust

SECTION 4 – PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

We aim to monitor breeding success, feeding ecology and condition of Thin-billed prions to continue a long-term database. We monitor adult movements using geolocation and GPS Tracking, as well as adult condition and diet. We would like to continue work on the behavioural ecology of the species, including studies of parent-offspring interactions and mate choice .

Background

In the Thin-billed prion project, we have formerly worked under licenses R09/2006, R15.2007, R04.2009, R21.2012 and with the present project, we propose continue the research using the same established methods. Thin-billed prions, preying mainly on amphipods, feed at the same trophic level as most commercially caught fish and squid in the Falkland Islands, and data of prion diet may therefore give insight in variations of resource availability to the fish and squid populations. The data collected during this research will be analysed in the context of global climatic cycles and climate change.

SECTION 5 – RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Proposal for fieldwork on Thin-billed Prions – Five field seasons 2017-18 to 2021-22

A. Monitor breeding success, feeding ecology and condition of Thin-billed prions to continue a long-term database:

We would like to continue to monitor reproductive success of Thin-billed prions in the so-called “Prion House” study plot, under study since 2003 (please see references below). This is a small area comprising ca. 300 nests within ca. 10 x 20 m. About 150 nests in this plot are capped with removable stone lids, and 10 nest boxes have been placed in the top section. This system facilitates rapid access to eggs, chicks and adults, reducing overall disturbance. The number of nests (ca. 150), while being a very small percentage of the total of 2 million nests on New Island, allows us to observe mortality rates from different causes (e.g. starvation, predation, displacement by rabbits). Due to logistic restrictions (length of field season etc.), not all below mentioned measurements will be carried out every season.

We would like to apply for a licence to: 1. Capture birds in these 150 nests to mark adults and chicks individually with leg rings and take morphometric measurements.

2. Follow the 150 nests and monitor their breeding success. This involves daily checking nests for eggs and chicks during daylight hours, daily measurement of chick mass and measurement of structural growth (tarsus, wing, tail) every 3 days. Handling of each chick takes about 1 min. Because the adults leave the chick unattended during the day, this procedure does not influence their provisioning:

handled 200 unhandled 150

150

100 100 Body mass (g) Wing length (mm) 50 50

0 0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Julian date Julian date Fig. Comparison of growth curves (mean ± SE), relative to Julian date, of regularly handled chicks (black dots) and chicks from nests not previously checked (white dots): From Quillfeldt, P., Poisbleau, M., Chastel, O. & Masello, J.F. (2009) Acute stress hyporesponsive period in nestling Thin-billed prions Pachyptila belcheri . Journal of Comparative Physiology A 195: 91-98.

3. For a sample of birds (max. 40 nests = 40 chicks+80 adults), take one blood sample used for gender determination, paternity analysis, and assessment of reproductive status and condition. Blood samples will be taken using established methods, by puncture of the wing vein with the tip of a 0.5mm needle. The blood will be taken up with a capillary and transferred to sample tubes and microscopic slides. In a single sample, not more than 0.5 ml and thus ca. 5% of the total blood volume will be taken from adults and large chicks, and proportionally less from small chicks (in accordance with guidelines of the Joint Working Group on Refinement, UK, which recommend samples of max. 10 % of total blood volume). All samples will be used for multiple analyses.

4. For a sample of birds (see below, max. 40 nests = 40 chicks+80 adults), additionally collect 4-5 body feathers and a small samples of the preen gland oil (1 small drop taken by gently massaging the preen gland) for the analysis of pollutants (heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and microplastic residues).

5. Diet sampling: (a) Collect any diet sample (regurgitate) from chicks or adults during handling. Regurgitates in this species are rare when handling is carried out carefully, and especially chicks get used to daily handling and very infrequently regurgitate. (b) To study diet specifically, it is therefore necessary to capture Thin-billed prions using a mistnet or capture landed birds outside of the study plot to obtain 30-40 samples per season additional diet samples (regurgitates), handling time ca. 3 min.

5. Equip up to 20 thin-billed prions per season with geolocation loggers (Global Location Sensing, GLS) to follow their year-round movements or Pin-point GPS loggers to follow shorter periods with higher resolution. The 1g geolocation loggers (ca. 1% of the body mass) are fixed to Darvic leg rings, and are recovered at nest check in the subsequent year. The 1g Pin-point GPS loggers are fixed to back feathers using tape and will be removed after one foraging trip (1-8 days).

7. Collect material such as abandoned eggs, birds found dead from starvation or predation, abandoned egg shells and egg membranes after hatching of the chicks, allantoic waste (i.e. embryonic faeces) from hatched eggs, nest parasites, abandoned eggs, loosely attached chick down feathers at the time of natural feather replacement

SECTION 6 – ETHICS STATEMENT Please include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your own institution or nation or permits issued by other nations for this project).

We are committed to the conservation and welfare of the birds, and will ensure the qualification and commitment of any field assistant involved in the future. CVs of Quillfeldt & Masello are attached to this application. Petra Quillfeldt and Juan Masello hold valid bird ringing licences, as well as animal experimental licences, and regularly attend meetings and courses of the bird ringing centres and the animal welfare team of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany. We have extensive experience with fieldwork on birds, and have worked on New Island since 2003, resulting in a number of publications on Thin-billed prions (see list below) as well as other seabirds on New Island .

SECTION 7 – PLEASE STATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM (please also attach relevant CVs of the research team)

Name – surname Qualifications

Petra Quillfeldt Experienced researchers, ringing licence, Juan Masello animal experimental licence (Germany and UK)

Andreas Bange Students who will receive training in the field Justine Thebault (before the field season in Germany and in the field on New Island)

SECTION 8 – DATE OF THE FIELD WORK

From To October 2017 March 2022

SECTION 9 – LOCATION OF THE FIELD WORKS

New Island

SECTION 10 – LANDOWNER PERMISSION OBTAINED (please cross)

YES

SECTION 11 – INSURANCES (please cross if you have any of the following types) All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.

Type All individuals Group

Medical x

Personal Accident x

Public liability x

Professional indemnity x

Travel x

SECTION 12 – PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESEARCH LICENCE REQUEST (Species protected under the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife Ordinance)

SECTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

See section 4 (above)

SECTION 1.2 PRINCIPAL FIELD WORKERS LIST

Petra Quillfeldt

SECTION 1.3 PRECAUTIONS AND MITIGATIONS

See section 6 (above)

SECTION 13 FEES (If your research is subject to a fee indicate if you agree to pay this by cheque)

I, the undersigned, am applying to the Falkland Islands Governm ent for a permit to carry out the research detailed within this application. By signing the application form I agree with the terms and conditions stated by the Research Licence Agreement guidelines. All the information provided is, to my knowledge, correct and is the planned course of research action. Should any changes be made to any of the information above I shall notify the Environmental Planning Officer accordingly.

Signed:

Date:

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT

Environmental Planning Department, P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands

Telephone: (+500) 28480 Facsimile: (+500) 27391 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.falklands.gov.fk

RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT

APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ON THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Project title:

Ecological segregation and monitoring of penguins at New Island

SECTION 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS

Name of the person leading Prof. Dr. Petra Quillfeldt the research

Affiliation Behavioural Ecology & Ecophysiology group, Department of Animal Ecology & Systematics, Justus Liebig University Giessen,

Position Professor, Head of research group

Postal Address Heinrich-Buff-Ring 38, D-35392 Giessen Germany

Phone number +49 (0) 641 99 35 770

Email [email protected]

SECTION 2 – ASSISTANTS DETAILS

Name-Surname Affiliation Role Country

Dr. Juan Masello Justus Liebig University, Principal Germany Giessen, Germany researcher

Justine Thebault Justus Liebig University, PhD student Germany Giessen, Germany

Andreas Bange University Kiel, Germany student Germany

SECTION 3 – ORGANISATION PARTNER/POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

New Island Conservation Trust

SECTION 4 – PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

We aim to monitor breeding success, feeding ecology and condition of Rockhopper, Magellanic and Gentoo penguins to continue a long-term database. We monitor adult and chick survival using RFID transponders, and diet using stable isotope and molecular diet determination techniques. We will monitor health parameters such as the prevalence of blood parasites and viral infections.

Background

In the penguin project, we have formerly worked under licenses R16/2007, R12.2008, R05.2009, R06.2011 and R20.2012 and with the present project, we propose continue the research using mainly the same established methods. The data collected during this research will be analysed in the context of oceanic conditions and climate change.

SECTION 5 – RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Proposal for fieldwork on penguins at New Island – Five field seasons 2017-18 to 2021-22

A. Monitor breeding success, feeding ecology and condition of Rockhopper, Gentoo and Magellanic penguins to continue a long-term database:

We will record demographic data of the rockhopper penguin population at the New Island Nature Reserve and select some pairs for an individual-based survey. These pairs are temporarily marked with a flexible flipper bands to allow the individual recognition during the active field season and with a transponder to allow a long-term monitoring of their site-fidelity, reproduction and survival. Nest attendance will be noted daily for key dates (laying, hatching and crèche), adults and chicks captured for studies of size and growth. We will study the mechanisms underlying the reproduction of this population in the context of global climatic cycles and climate change.

We would like to apply for a licence to:

1. Monitor up to 40 nests per species and colony We will follow a sample of 20 intensely studied nests per colony and species (hereafter called study nests), and a sample of 20 control nests with low investigator disturbance: - Rockhopper penguins in the Settlement Rookery and New Island North colony - Gentoo penguins in the New Island South and New Island North colony - Magellanic penguins This involves checking nests for eggs and measurement of chick mass and measurement of structural growth (tarsus, wing, tail) every 3 days until chicks reach crèche stage, and counts afterwards.

2. Mark adults and chicks (max. 200 individuals per species and colony) with RFID transponders (microchips) for the study of demography and survival, and using hand-held antenna or a gateway system to record these data.

3. For a sample of birds (max. 20 nests per species and colony), take one blood sample per adult and chick used for gender determination, paternity analysis, and assessment of reproductive status and condition. Adults and chicks will be captured by hand or with the help of a padded hook around a foot. Blood samples will be taken using established methods, by puncture of the wing or foot web vein with the tip of a 0.5mm needle. The blood will be taken up with a capillary and transferred to sample tubes and microscopic slides. In a single sample, not more than 0.5 ml will be taken. All samples will be used for multiple analyses.

4. For the same sample of birds, additionally collect 4-5 body feathers and a small samples of the preen gland oil (1 small drop taken by gently massaging the preen gland) for the analysis of pollutants (heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and microplastic residues).

5. Collect material such as abandoned eggs, birds found dead from starvation or predation, abandoned egg shells and egg membranes after hatching of the chicks, allantoic waste (i.e. embryonic faeces) from hatched eggs, nest parasites, abandoned eggs, loosely attached chick down feathers at the time of natural feather replacement

SECTION 6 – ETHICS STATEMENT Please include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your own institution or nation or permits issued by other nations for this project).

SECTION 7 – PLEASE STATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM (please also attach relevant CVs of the research team)

Name – surname Qualifications

Petra Quillfeldt Experienced researchers, ringing licence, Juan Masello animal experimental licence (Germany and UK)

Andreas Bange Students who will receive training in the field Justine Thebault (before the field season in Germany and in the field on New Island)

SECTION 8 – DATE OF THE FIELD WORK

From To October 2017 March 2022

SECTION 9 – LOCATION OF THE FIELD WORKS

New Island

SECTION 10 – LANDOWNER PERMISSION OBTAINED (please cross)

YES

SECTION 11 – INSURANCES (please cross if you have any of the following types) All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.

Type All individuals Group

Medical x

Personal Accident x

Public liability x

Professional indemnity x

Travel x

SECTION 12 – PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESEARCH LICENCE REQUEST (Species protected under the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife Ordinance)

SECTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

See section 4 (above)

SECTION 1.2 PRINCIPAL FIELD WORKERS LIST

Petra Quillfeldt

SECTION 1.3 PRECAUTIONS AND MITIGATIONS

See section 6 (above)

SECTION 13 FEES (If your research is subject to a fee indicate if you agree to pay this by cheque)

I, the undersigned, am applying to the Falkland Islands Government for a permit to carry out the research detailed within this application. By signing the application form I agree with the terms and conditions stated by the Research Licence Agreement guidelines. All the information provided is, to my knowledge, correct and is the planned course of research action. Should any changes be made to any of the information above I shall notify the Environmental Planning Officer accordingly.

Date: 29 /6 /2017

Signed:

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Environmental Planning Department, P.O. Box 611 Stanley Falkland Islands

Telephone: (+500) 28480 Facsimile: (+500) 27391 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.falklands.gov.fk!!!!

RESEARCH LICENCE AGREEMENT

APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Overwinter movements, habitat utilization, and carryover Project title: effects in Gentoo penguins.

SECTION 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS

Name of the person leading Glenn Crossin the research

Affiliation Dalhousie University

Position Associate Professor

Postal Address Department of Biology 1355 Oxford Street Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada B3H 4R2

Phone number +1 902-441-3544

Email [email protected]

SECTION 2 – ASSISTANTS DETAILS

Name-Surname Affiliation Role Country

Marie Auger-Méthé Univ. of British Columbia Co-PI Canada

Sarah Dier-McComb Univ. of British Columbia Graduate student Canada

Phil Trathan British Antarctic Survey Collaborator UK

Paul Brickle SAERI Collaborator Falkland Islands

Megan Tierney SAERI Collaborator Falkland Islands

Sarah Crofts Falklands Conservation Collaborator Falkland Islands

Andrew Stanworth Falklands Conservation Collaborator Falkland Islands

SECTION 3 – ORGANISATION PARTNER/POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS

Paul Brickle – SAERI Megan Tierney – SAERI Sarah Crofts – Falklands Conservation Andrew Stanworth – Falklands Conservation

SECTION 4 – PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

The aim of this project is to use high resolution satellite and time-depth telemetry and physiological sampling techniques to document the winter ecology of gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua), and explore how individual variation in activity and foraging effort affect pre-breeding condition and investment. In winter, gentoo penguins at the Falkland Islands can swim 100s to 1000s of kilometres offshore to forage. Understanding the environmental drivers of penguin movements, how they utilize near and off shore areas, and how this translates into pre-breeding condition in springtime is important knowledge for stewardship and conservation planning at the Falkland Islands, where the majority of the world’s gentoos live (Baylis et al. 2013)

SECTION 5 – RESEARCH PROCEDURE

The overarching goal of this project is to test hypotheses about the effects of habitat utilization, foraging behaviour, environmental conditions on physiological preparedness for breeding and levels of breeding investment. These goals are described three-fold: 1) to use satellite and time-depth telemetry to characterize the diving behaviour and marine movements of gentoo penguins during the 6-month non-breeding period in winter; 2) to examine how the environmental experiences of gentoo during winter affect their subsequent preparedness for breeding; and 3) to interpret penguin movement and diving behaviour from a stewardship and conservation perspective by determining the extent of spatio-temporal overlap between penguin foraging and areas slated for oil & gas development.

1) To address our first goal, we will pair Argos satellite transmitters with high-resolution time-depth recorders to re-create the geographic and depth profiles of individual gentoo penguins (N=60) during the 6-month non-breeding period. Thirty penguins will be tagged at each of two colony locations – Pebble Island and Rookery Sands (permission from landowners at both locations has been granted). Tagging will begin at the end of the breeding season in late March early April 2018, after the post-nuptial moult. Once moult is nearly complete, we will capture individuals, attach devices using standard protocols (e.g. Crossin et al. 2012, Crossin et al. 2015, both from my own experience attaching devices to penguins). Our colleagues at SAERI and Falklands Conservation have telemetered gentoo penguins previously, and so we will also benefit from their experiences capturing, handling, and attaching devices to them. Penguins will then be marked with an ID number on their breast feathers using a non-toxic black dye. Penguins will then be released. At the end of winter when penguins return to the colony for spring breeding, we will recapture them upon their first arrival at the study colony, sometime around mid-October 2018. Once a numbered/instrumented penguin is spotted, we will intercept it and immediately draw a 2ml blood sample from the brachial vein (e.g. Crossin et al. 2010; Details concerning the blood physiology are found in the next subsection). We will only capture penguins outside of the breeding colony, on the beaches en route to the colony grounds – we will not disturb penguins once they enter the colony. Finally, body mass and morphological measurements will be collected, before finally removing the telemetry devices. We will then monitor the breeding behaviour of the penguins to see whether they mate and lay. We will monitor laying dates. If possible, we would like to get egg measurements (mass, size), which would require a brief entry into the colony to get A- and B-egg measures. This would require minimal disturbance where penguins are not forced from the nest – eggs are simply removed one at a time to be measured. If penguins are too disturbed, e.g. wanted to leave the nest, we would cease these activities and leave the nest. G. Crossin has previously measured eggs of nesting macaroni and gentoo penguins at Bird Island, South Georgia, where penguins show strong fidelity to nests and fairly tolerant to egg measuring (e.g. Crossin et al. 2010). All procedures will be reviewed and approved by the Canadian Committee on Animal Care, through Dalhousie University.

The spatial and time-depth data provided by these devices will then be analyzed using state-space models. State-space models are becoming the favoured framework to model the movement of animals tracked with Argos satellite data, as they account for both process noise (i.e. biological stochasticity) and measurement error (Jonsen et al. 2013). This allows one to fit realistic models to error-prone movement data. Using these models, we will re-construct the 6-month movement and diving tracks of individuals. In addition, these models will allow us to divide movement tracks into sets of behavioural states (e.g. travelling, foraging, resting), and estimate the relative proportion of time spent in each of these behaviours. To investigate the environmental factors that promote behaviours such as foraging, we will explore the relationship between behavioural states and the many oceanographic covariates available through public repositories (e.g. sea- surface temperature, chlorophyll-A concentrations, and wind speed). To do so, we will use a combination of the new integrated step selection analysis (Avgar et al. 2016) and state-space modeling (Jonsen et al. 2013, Bestley et al. 2014). Overall, our analyses will allow us to understand the relationships between winter movements and dive-foraging activity with oceanographic conditions around the Falkland Islands.

2) Our second goal is then to explore how movement and diving activity, and oceanographic experiences prepare individual penguins for breeding at the end of winter. When the telemetered penguins return to their breeding colonies after 6 months at sea, we will re-capture them on land and recover the devices. We will then take biological samples (1.5ml blood, body mass, morphometric dimensions) so that we can characterize the pre-breeding condition of penguins. This will also be done by analysing blood plasma for reproductive condition (testosterone, 17ß-estradiol, yolk precursors) and stress hormones (corticosterone), as well as energetic measures (plasma triglycerides) and traditional measures of body condition. Claw and feather samples will also be collected, and together with blood, will be analyzed for stable isotope signatures (nitrogen, carbon) so that we can infer their nutritional state prior to device attachment (feathers) and winter foraging experience (claws, blood). Breeding phenology will then be monitored so that we can record breeding decision, lay dates, and clutch size (N=2 expected). If possible, we would like to measure eggs (mass, size), but this requires entering the colony. The ultimate aim is then to use linear models to link winter experiences (diving activity and foraging intensity; winter sea surface temperatures and ChlA concentrations) to the pre-breeding condition of penguins as defined above, and onwards to breeding investment and success.

3) To put our results into a conservation framework, we will extract from the telemetry data the hotspots of penguin foraging activity, and determine the areas around the Falkland Islands of high winter residency and foraging activity. Using a GIS approach, patterns of habitat utilization and residency will then be overlaid onto maps where oil & gas exploration is active or proposed. This is important for determining the relative spatio-temporal overlap between gentoo penguins and proposed infrastructure, and will be critical information the industry can use for risk-assessment protocols and development of best stewardship practices. Ultimately, we will work with industry biologists to link our gentoo movement models to their ongoing oil-spill prediction models, so that realistic oil-spill remediation protocols can be developed. This will contribute directly to the industry’s mandate for environmental monitoring and protection. This work will complement and directly support ongoing work within the GAP project being coordinated at SAERI. This would would also complement the Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme carried out by FC. There has been ongoing demographic monitoring at the Rookery Sands colony, and although there have been documented fluctuations in population trends little is known about the individual-linked mechanisms driving those trends (but see Baylis et al 2012, Masello et al. 2017). The study described herein would feed well into the monitoring program.

SECTION 6 – ETHICS STATEMENT (Please include copies of any ethics permits issued for the project by your own institution or nation or permits issued by other nations for this project).

Animal Care permits are pending approval by the Canadian Committee on Animal Care, via Dalhousie University. I can provide copies of these when they are approved. Nearly identical procedures were approved previously for work on penguins at South Georgia, so we do not anticipate any problems with approval.

SECTION 7 – PLEASE STATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF EACH MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM (please also attach relevant CVs of the research team)

Name – surname Qualifications Glenn Crossin Over 18 years experience studying wild animal behaviour and physiology. Ten years experience studying Antarctic wildlife. CV attached.

Expert of statistical analysis of animal Marie Auger-Méthé movement data. Extensive experience studying wild Arctic wildlife (polar bears). Expert in satellite telemetry device deployment. CV attached.

Phil Trathan Penguin expert. Expert of statistical analysis of movement data. Extensive field experience. CV attached.

Paul Brickle Extensive experience in animal ecology and Antarctic/sub-Antarctic systems.

Over 15-years of experience in scientific Megan Tierney research, and wildlife conservation and management. Experienced in capturing, handling, and attaching devices to seabirds, including Gentoo penguins.

Sarah Crofts Fifteen years seabird conservation and research within the Falkland Islands, including telemetry tracking, monitoring and extensive field experience.

Andrew Stanworth Extensive experience in marine wildlife, and with Gentoo penguins at the Falkland Islands

SECTION 8 – DATE OF THE FIELD WORK

From To Late March 2018 (Initial sampling and Mid April 2018 deployment of devices)

Mid October (Device recovery and penguin Late November 2018 sampling)

SECTION 9 – LOCATION OF THE FIELD WORK

We have received permission to conduct this research from the landowners at Pebble Island (Dot and Alex Gould), and at Race Point – Rookery Sands (John and Michelle Jones). We had initially considered the colonies at Cow Bay, but given some concerns about disturbance and the amount of previous tracking done there, it was suggested that we consider other less disturbed colonies.

SECTION 10 – LANDOWNER PERMISSION OBTAINED (please cross)

! YES ! NO

SECTION 11 – INSURANCES (please cross if you have any of the following types) All people entering the Falkland Islands must have medical insurance that covers medical evacuation.

Type All individuals Group

Medical Yes

Personal Accident Yes

Public liability Yes

Professional indemnity Yes

Travel Yes

SECTION 12 – PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESEARCH LICENCE REQUEST (Species protected under the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife Ordinance, see Appendix 1 of the researchers’ guideline)

SECTION 12.1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

One of the most poorly understood aspects of the biology of penguins concerns their overwinter biology. Although recent advances in electronic tracking have allowed researchers to peer into this important life history stage in terms of spatial movements and diving behaviour, we still know little about how winter experiences translate into breeding preparedness. Studies are increasingly noting the importance of winter experience in controlling fitness related events of birds occurring weeks to months later – like colony arrival times, breeding decisions, lay-date, clutch size and/or mass, and hatching success. My colleagues and I aim to study this in gentoo penguins, using high resolution satellite telemetry and time-depth telemetry, and physiological sampling. We will characterize the detailed spatial and foraging behaviour of gentoos during the 6 month non-breeding period in winter. Then, after collecting physiological samples (blood plasma, claw clips) from returning gentoo, we will link movement patterns, diving activity, and oceanographic exposures (sea temperature, chlorophyll concentrations) to pre- breeding physiological condition, and onwards to lay date and other important breeding metrics. The ultimate aim is to characterize the winter carryover effects onto breeding success. This work will be useful as it will inform our basic knowledge about the life- history of penguins, but will also be useful to the Falklands Islands as gentoos are an important part of the natural fauna, important to local residents and to visitors. There is also an applied element to this research, as detailed information about habitat utilization around the Falkland Islands during the 6-month long winter will aid stewardship and conservation planning ahead of oil and gas exploration.

SECTION 12.2 PRINCIPAL FIELD WORKERS LIST

Glenn Crossin Marie Auger-Méthé Sarah Dier-McComb Lina Crossin Megan Tierney

Other Field Assistant(s) – TBA. Additional field assistants may be required and recruited from SAERI or FC pool of interns/students/volunteers. TBAs will be trained in field techniques and supervised at all times by qualified field biologists.

SECTION 12.3 PRECAUTIONS AND MITIGATIONS

We will make every effort to minimise our impact on the environment and disturbance of the gentoo colonies. Our field operations will benefit from experience of SAERI and Falkland Conservation personnel, who have worked extensively with gentoos at the proposed sites. We will conform to their standards of operation. We do not anticipate any negative impacts of our work to the environment. G. Crossin has worked in Gentoo colonies at Bird Island, South Georgia, and extensively in macaroni penguin colonies.

Concerning the penguins, all of our protocols and sampling procedures will be approved by the Canadian Committee on Animal Care, through permits issued by Dalhousie University.

Additionally: • Signs of stress in the penguins (e.g. panting) will be monitored and kept to a minimum • Handling times will be kept to a maximum of 20 mins max, though we expect tagging to take no longer than 10 minutes and sampling in under 5 minutes. • Disturbance to colonies will be minimised – our selection of penguins for tagging will occur at the end of the breeding season at the end of moult, and so breeding disturbances will not occur. Recapture of tagged penguins in ~mid Oct 2018 will occur when birds are spotted making their way towards a colony – and so we will handle them outside of the breeding colony. • Tracking device mass will fall well within the 2% rule, i.e. the devices (~45 g) will weigh less than 2% of total body weight of individual gentoos (~5 kg minimally). • Egg measurements requires colony entry – we would do this cautiously so as to minimise disturbance to the colony, as done previously with gentoo and macaroni penguins at South Georgia (e.g. Crossin et al. 2010). If a nest is too deep into the colony and it is evident that we could not get to it without causing major disturbance (e.g. adjacent birds leaving their nests) then we would forgo measurements at that nest. Collecting egg measures would take < 5 minutes.

SECTION 13 RESEARCH TOPIC CATEGORY (indicate the main category your research falls in)

X Flora and fauna in natural environment ! Climatology-meteorology-atmosphere ! Economy ! Earth science ! Hydrography X Oceanography ! Society and culture X Environmental resources and conservation ! Other (specify the topic below)

SECTION 14 PROPOSED TIME REQUIRED BEFORE SENDING COPY OF THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE CURRENT RESEARCH TO THE FALKLAND ISLANDS GOVERNMENT (notice that researchers should send only quality checked data)

~1 year from end of field program, so ~December 2019.

SECTION 15 FEES (If your research is subject to a fee indicate if you agree to pay this by cheque)

Yes, I agree.

I, the undersigned, am applying to the Falkland Islands Government for a permit to carry out the research detailed within this application. By signing the application form I agree with the terms and conditions stated by the Research Licence Agreement guidelines which include: • returning to the IMS-GIS data centre data manager a complete metadata form and data submission agreement

• sending any subsequent scientific paper and/or report to the environmental planning department • sending, within the agreed time, a copy of the data collected in the field (data should have been quality checked by the researcher) to the IMS-GIS data centre data manager

All the information provided is, to my knowledge, correct and is the planned course of research action. Should any changes be made to any of the information above I shall notify the Environmental Planning Officer accordingly.

Signed:

Date: 12 July 2017 (Revised application) Literature cited

Avgar T, Potts JR, Lewis MA, Boyce MS (2016) Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 000:000-000.

Baylis AMM, Zuur AF, Brickle P, Pistorius PA (2012) Climate as a driver of population variability in breeding gentoo penguins Pygoscelis papua at the Falkland Islands. Ibis 154:30-41.

Baylis AMM, Crofts S, Wolfaardt AC (2013) Population trends of gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) breeding at the Falkland Islands. Marine Ornithology 41:1-5.

Bestley S, Jonsen ID, Hindell MA, Harcourt RG, Gales NJ (2015) Taking animal tracking to new depths: synthesizing horizontal–vertical movement relationships for four marine predators. Ecology 96:417-427.

Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Phillips RA, Dawson A, Le Bouard F, Williams TD (2010) A carry-over effect of migration underlies individual variation in reproductive readiness and extreme egg size dimorphism in macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus). American Naturalist 176:357-366.

Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Phillips RA, Gorman KB, Dawson A, Sakamoto KQ, Williams TD (2012) Corticosterone predicts foraging behaviour and parental care in macaroni penguins. American Naturalist 180:E31-41.

Crossin GT, Takahashi A, Sakamoto KQ, Trathan PN, Williams TD (2015) Habitat selection by foraging macaroni penguins correlates with hematocrit, an index of aerobic condition. Marine Ecology Progress Series 530:163-176.

Jonsen ID, Basson M, Bestley S, Bravington MV, Patterson TA, Pedersen MW, Thomson R, Thygesen UH, SJ Wotherspoon SJ (2013) State-space models for bio- loggers: a methodological road map. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 88:34-46.

Masello JF, Kato A, Sommerfeld J, Mattern T, Quillfeldt P (2017) How animals distribute themselves in space: variable energy landscapes. Frontiers in Zoology 14:33-46.

Glenn Terrence Crossin Department of Biology Dalhousie University 1355 Oxford Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada

CITIZENSHIP Dual – Canadian and American

MARITAL STATUS Happily married

CONTACT Office +001 (902) 494-4258 Cell +001 (902) 441-3544 Email [email protected] Web www.evophys.ca

EDUCATION Doctor of Philosophy University of British Columbia 2008 Master of Science University of British Columbia 2002 BSc. (Hons) University of New Hampshire 1995 BA (English Literature) University of Maine 1992

ACADEMIC & PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS

2017-present Associate Professor (tenured), Dalhousie University 2017-present Affiliate Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

2012-2017 Assistant Professor, Dalhousie University 2014-2017 Affiliate Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia 2012-2014 Honorary Research Associate, University of British Columbia 2011-2012 Network Manager, Ocean Tracking Network, Dalhousie University 2010-2011 NSERC Visiting Fellow, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, West Vancouver Laboratory 2008-2010 NSERC Post-doctoral Fellow, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UK) & Simon Fraser University (Canada) 2004-2008 NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholar CGS-D3, University of British Columbia 2002-2004 Research Assistant, University of British Columbia 1997-2002 Research Assistant, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 1995-1997 Research Assistant, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA. 1995 Research Analyst, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA. 1993-1995 Research Assistant, University of New Hampshire, Zoology Department. 1986-1987 Research Assistant, Jordanian Department of Antiquities & American Center for Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

2017-present Editorial Board Member, for the Royal Society journal “Biology Letters” 2016 Participating specialist, BirdLife International and IUCN RedList Assessment for Macaroni penguins 2015-16 Guest Editor, Ecological Applications special issue on Applied Fisheries Management 2015 Co-Symposium Organizer: Physiology in Changing Landscapes: an Integrative Perspective for Conservation Biology. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, Florida. In collaboration with Christine Madliger & Oliver Love, University of Windsor 2013-14 Guest Editor, Marine Ecology Progress Series special issue on Electronic Tracking 2008 Grant reviewer, Portuguese Science Foundation

RESEARCH FUNDING (LAST 5 YEARS)

1. National Geographic Society – Standard Research Grant In review $ 30,000 2. Shackleton Scholarship Fund, Falkland Islands Government 2017 $ 4,000 3. Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2016-17 $ 21,000 – with S. Denney, PI (Eskasoni First Nation) 4. Research Council of Norway – with Jan Davidsen, PI (Norway) 2016-19 $ 16,000 5. Environment Canada – to J.M. Hipfner, PI with allocations to me 2012-16 $ 279,000 6. Dalhousie-Israel Schulich Ocean Studies Research Grant 2015-16 $ 75,000 with M. Kiflawi, co-PI (Israel) 7. Dalhousie-Israel Schulich Ocean Studies Equipment Grant 2015-16 $ 15,000 with N. Shushar, co-PI (Israel) 8. NSERC Discovery Grant 2014-18 $ 130,000 9. NSERC Northern Supplement 2014-18 $ 50,000 10. NSERC - Ocean Tracking Network (project 4.14) 2014-17 $ 132,000 11. CFI – Ocean Tracking Network (project 4.14) 2014-16 $ 160,000 12. NSERC Ocean Tracking Network (project 4.4) 2014-17 $ 85,000 13. CFI – Ocean Tracking Network (project 4.4) 2014-16 $ 31,000 14. Canadian Foundation for Innovation 2014-17 $ 252,951 15. Dalhousie Faculty of Science Startup Funds 2012-14 $ 40,000 TOTAL $ 1,290,951

PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES & BOOK CHAPTERS (Students & HQP of mine are underlined)

1. Prystay TS, Eliason EJ, Lawrence MJ, Dick M, Patterson DA, Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ (2017) The influence of water temperature on sockeye salmon cardiac recovery following simulated fisheries interactions assessed with heart rate loggers. Conservation Physiology 000:000-000. 2. Crossin GT, Devlin RH (2017) Predation and early life-history rearing environment select for greater swimming capabilities in growth-hormone transgenic rainbow trout. Biology Letters 000:000-000. 3. Steenweg RJ, Crossin GT, Kyser TK, Merkel FR, Robertson GJ, Hennin HL, Gilchrist HG, Mills-

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 2 Flemming J, Love OP (2017) Stable isotope cluster analysis can be used to infer the overwintering locations of a marine bird in the Canadian Arctic. Ecology and Evolution 000:000-000. 4. Dehnhard N, Jaspers VLB, Demongin L, Van den Steen E, Covaci A, Pinxten R, Crossin GT, Quillfeldt P, Eens M, Poisbleau M (2017) Organohalogenated contaminants in rockhopper penguin female plasma and eggs – does vitellogenin affect maternal transfer? Environmental Pollution 000:000-000. 5. Auger-Méthé M, Albertsen CM, Jonsen ID, Derocher AE, Lidgard D, Studholme K, Crossin GT, Bowen W, Mills Flemming J (2017) Template Model Builder: a tool to model the movement of marine animals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 565:237-249. 6. Crossin GT, Heupel MR, Holbrook CM, Hussey NE, Lowerre-Barbieri SK, Nguyen VM, Raby GD, Cooke SJ (2017). Acoustic telemetry in fisheries management. Ecological Applications 000:000- 000. - This is the lead paper of a Special Edition of Ecological Applications for which I was a Guest Editor. 7. Crossin GT, Phillips RA, Lattin CR, Romero LM, Bordeleau X, Harris CM, Love OP, Williams TD (2017) Physiological costs of reproduction and carryover effects in annually versus biennially breeding albatrosses (Thalassarche spp.). Antarctic Science 000:000-000. 8. Crossin GT, Williams TD (2016) Migratory life-histories correlate with extreme egg size dimorphism in Eudyptes penguins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 283:1413- 1418. 9. McLean MF, Hanson KC, Litvak MK, Hinch SG, Patterson DA, Nettles TL, Cooke SJ, Crossin GT (2016) Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and delayed mortality of white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus exposed to simulated fisheries stressors. Conservation Physiology 000:000-000. 10. Crossin GT, Hatcher BC, Denney S, Whoriskey K, Orr M, Penny A, Whoriskey FG (2016) Condition dependent migration behaviour of endangered Atlantic salmon smolts moving through an inland sea. Conservation Physiology 4:1-12. 11. Crossin GT, Love OP, Cooke SJ, Williams TD (2016) Putting glucocorticoid manipulations into context: considerations of dose delivery, life-history context, and reproductive state. Functional Ecology 30:116-125. 12. Sopinka NM, Patterson LD, Redfern JC, Pleizer N, Belanger C, Midwood JD, Crossin GT, Cooke SJ (2015) Manipulating glucocorticoids in wild animals: basic and applied perspectives. Conservation Physiology 3: DOI: 10.1903/consphys/cov031 13. Crossin GT, Sundström LF, Vandersteen WE, Devlin RH (2015) Early life-history consequences of growth-hormone transgenesis in rainbow trout reared in stream ecosystem mesocosms. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0120173. 14. Steenweg RJ, Hennin HL, Bêty J, Gilchrist HG, Williams TD, Crossin GT, Love OP (2015) Sources of diel variation in energetic physiology in an Arctic-breeding, diving seaduck. General & Comparative Endocrinology 216:39-45.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 3 15. Crossin GT, Takahashi A, Sakamoto KQ, Trathan PN, Williams TD (2015) Habitat selection by foraging macaroni penguins is linked to aerobic capacity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 530:163-176. 16. Lennox RJ, Whoriskey K, Crossin GT, Cooke SJ (2015) Influence of angler hook-set behaviour relative to hook type on capture success and incidences of deep hooking in a teleost fish. Fisheries Research 164:201-205. - This paper was developed from my undergraduate student’s Honours thesis (MARI 4900) 17. Crossin GT, Cooke SJ, Goldbogen JA, Phillips RA (2014) Tracking fitness in marine vertebrates: a review of current knowledge and opportunities for future research. Marine Ecology Progress Series 496:1-17. - This is the lead paper of a Special Edition of MEPS for which I was a Guest Editor. 18. O’Connor CM, Norris NR, Crossin GT, Cooke SJ (2014) Biological carryover effects: linking common concepts and mechanisms in ecology and evolution. Ecosphere 5:1-11. 19. Cook KV, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, Hinch SG, Gilmour KMG and Cooke SJ (2014) Stress response predicts migratory failure, but not migratory behaviour, in a semelparous fish. General & Comparative Endocrinology 202:44-49. 20. Trathan PN, García-Borboroglu P, Boersma PD, Bost CA, Crawford RJM, Crossin GT, Cuthbert RJ, Dann P, Davis LS, De la Puente S, Lynch HJ, Mattern T, Pütz K, Seddon PJ, Trivelpiece W, Wienecke B (2014) In a changing climate, pollution, habitat loss and fishing remain the top threats to the world’s penguins. Conservation Biology 29:31-41. 21. Crossin GT, Phillips RA, Lattin CR, Romero LM, Williams TD (2013) Corticosterone mediated costs of reproduction link current to future breeding. General & Comparative Endocrinology 193:112-120. 22. Crossin GT, Phillips RA, Wynne-Edwards KA, Williams TD (2013) Post-migratory body condition and ovarian steroid production predict breeding decisions by female gray-headed albatrosses. Physiological & Biochemical Zoology 86:761-768. 23. Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Crawford RJM (2013) The Macaroni Penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and the Royal Penguin (E. schlegeli). In: Penguins: Natural History and Conservation (P Garcia- Borboroglu and PD Boersma, Eds.), pp. 185-208. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 24. Crossin GT, Poisbleau M, Demongin L, Chastel O, Williams TD, Eens M, Quillfeldt P (2012) Migratory constraints on yolk precursor production limit egg androgen deposition and underlies a brood reduction strategy in rockhopper penguins. Biology Letters 8:1055-1058. 25. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Donaldson MR, Clark TD, Eliason EJ, Crossin GT, Raby GD, Jeffries KM, Lapointe MJ, Miller K, Patterson DA, Farrell AP (2012) Conservation physiology in practice: How physiological knowledge has improved our ability to sustainably manage Pacific salmon during up-river migration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 367:1757-1769. 26. Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Phillips RA, Gorman KB, Dawson A, Sakamoto KQ, Williams TD (2012) Corticosterone predicts foraging behaviour and parental care in macaroni penguins. American Naturalist 180:E31-41.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 4 27. Crossin GT, Phillips RA, Trathan PN, Fox DS, Dawson A, Wynne-Edwards KE, Williams TD (2012) Migratory carryover effects and endocrinological correlates of reproductive decisions and reproductive success in female albatrosses. General & Comparative Endocrinology 176:151- 157. 28. Crossin GT, Dawson A, Phillips RA, Trathan PN, Gorman KB, Adlard S, Williams TD (2012) Seasonal patterns of prolactin and corticosterone secretion in an Antarctic seabird that moults during reproduction. General & Comparative Endocrinology 175:74-81. 29. Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Williams TD (2012) Potential mode of clutch size determination and follicle development in Eudyptes penguins. Polar Biology 35:313-317. 30. Cooke SJ, Crossin GT, Hinch SG (2011) Pacific Salmon Migration- Completing the Cycle. Invited contribution to: The Encyclopedia of Fish Physiology: From Genome to Environment (AP Farrell, Ed.), vol. 3, pp. 1945-1952, Academic Press, San Diego. 31. Crossin GT, Trathan PN, Phillips RA, Dawson A, Le Bouard F, Williams TD (2010) A carry-over effect of migration underlies individual variation in reproductive readiness and extreme egg size dimorphism in macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus). American Naturalist 176:357- 366. - This paper was profiled in the New York Times, 19 July 2010. 32. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Lotto AG, Van Der Kraak G, Zohar Y, Klenke U, Farrell AP (2010) Testing the synergistic effect of GnRHa and testosterone on the reproductive physiology of pre-adult pink salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 76:112-128. 33. Payne J, Andrews K, Chittenden C, Crossin G, Goetz F, Hinch S, Levin P, Lindley S, Melnychuk M, Nelson T, Rechisky E, Welch D (2010) Tracking fish movements and survival on the Northeast Pacific Shelf. In: Life in the World's Oceans: Diversity, Distribution and Abundance (AD McIntyre, Ed.), pp. 267-290. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. 34. Cooperman MS, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Olsson I, Lotto AG, Welch DW, Shrimpton JM, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2010) Effects of experimental manipulations of salinity and maturation status on the physiological condition and mortality of homing adult sockeye salmon held in a laboratory. Physiological & Biochemical Zoology 83:459-472. 35. Mathes MT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, Lotto AG, Farrell AP (2010) Effect of water temperature, timing, physiological condition, and lake thermal refugia on migrating, adult Weaver Creek sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 67:70-84. 36. Edwards EWJ, Forcada J, Crossin GT (2009) First documentation of leopard seal predation on South Georgia pintail duck. Polar Biology 33:403-405. 37. Cooke SJ, Donaldson MR, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, Hanson KC, English KK, Shrimpton JM, Farrell AP (2009) Is fishing selective for physiological and energetic characteristics in migratory adult sockeye salmon? Evolutionary Applications 2:299-311. 38. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Cooperman MS, Patterson DA, Welch DW, Hanson KC, Olsson I, English KK, Farrell AP (2009) Mechanisms influencing the timing and success of reproductive migration in a capital-breeding, semelparous fish species: the sockeye salmon. Physiological & Biochemical Zoology 82:635-652.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 5 39. Donaldson MR, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Hinch SG, Robichaud D, Hanson KC, Olsson I, Crossin GT, English KK, Farrell AP (2009) Limited behavioural thermoregulation by adult up-river migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:480-490. 40. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Welch DW, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Klenke U, Zohar Y, Jacobs MC, Pon LB, Winchell PM, Farrell AP (2009) Physiological profiles of sockeye salmon in the Northeast Pacific Ocean and the effects of exogenous GnRH and testosterone on rates of homeward migration. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 42:89-108. 41. Cooperman MS, Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Cooke SJ, Crossin GT, Patterson DA (2009) High mortality of migrating Fraser River salmon: physiological, oceanographic, & temperature causes of a conservation crisis. In: Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment (AJ Haro et al., Eds.). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69, Bethesda, Maryland Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment - 2nd International Symposium on Diadromous Fishes. Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 2007. 42. Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Lapointe MF, Welch DW, English KK, Crossin GT, Miller K, Thomson RE, Van Der Kraak G, Olssen I, Shrimpton JM, Cooperman MS (2009) Using physiological telemetry and intervention experiments to examine the maladaptive shift in Fraser River's Late-Run Sockeye Salmon spawning migration. American Fisheries Society Symposium 69:891-894. 43. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Patterson DA, Miller-Saunders K, Welch DW, Donaldson M, Hanson KC, Crossin GT, Olsson I, Cooperman MS, Hruska K, Wagner GN, Thomson R, English KK (2008) Interdisciplinary approaches to the study of the migration biology of telemetered fish. Fisheries 33:321-338. 44. Farrell AP, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Patterson DA, Crossin GT, Lapointe M, Mathes MT (2008) Pacific salmon in hot water: applying aerobic scope models and biotelemetry to predict the success of spawning migrations. Physiological & Biochemical Zoology 81:697-709. 45. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Welch DW, Lotto AG, Patterson DA, Jones SRM, Leggatt RA, Mathes MT, Shrimpton JM, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2008) Exposure to high temperature influences the behaviour, physiology, and survival of sockeye salmon during spawning migration. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:127-140. 46. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, English KK, Healey MC, MacDonald JS, Shrimpton JM, Young JL, Lister A, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2008) Physiological correlates of coastal arrival and river entry timing in Late summer Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Behavioural Ecology 19:747-758. 47. Hanson KC, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, English KK, Donaldson MR, Shrimpton JM, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2008) Individual variation in migration speed of upriver migrating sockeye salmon in the Fraser River in relation to their physiological and energetic status at marine approach. Physiological & Biochemical Zoology 81:255-268. 48. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Welch DW, Batten SD, Patterson DA, Van Der Kraak G, Shrimpton JM, Farrell AP (2007) Behaviour and physiology of sockeye salmon homing through coastal waters to a natal river. Marine Biology 152:905-918.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 6 49. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, English KK, Healey MC, Macdonald JS, Shrimpton JM, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2006) Mechanistic basis of individual mortality in Pacific salmon during spawning migrations. Ecology 87:1575-1586. 50. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, English KK, Shrimpton JM, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2006) Physiology of individual late-run Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) sampled in the ocean correlates with fate during spawning migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 63:1469-1480. 51. Young JL, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, Farrell AP, Van Der Kraak G, Lotto AG, Lister A, Healey MC, English KK (2006) Physiological and energetic correlates of en route mortality for abnormally early migrating adult sockeye salmon in the Thompson River, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 63:1067-1077. 52. Cooke SJ, Crossin GT, Patterson DA, English KK, Hinch SG, Young JL, Alexander RF, Healey MC, Van Der Kraak G, Farrell AP (2005) Coupling non-invasive physiological assessments with telemetry to understand inter-individual variation in behaviour and survivorship of sockeye salmon: development and validation of a technique. Journal of Fish Biology 67:1342-1358. 53. Crossin GT, Hinch SG (2005) A non-lethal method for assessing the somatic energy content of adult pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:184-191. 54. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Higgs DG, Lotto AG, Oakes JD, Healey MC (2004) Energetics and morphology of sockeye salmon: effects of upriver migratory distance and elevation. Journal of Fish Biology 65:788-810. 55. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Higgs DG, Healey MC (2004) Somatic energy of sockeye salmon at the onset of upriver migrations: a comparison among ocean climate regimes. Fisheries Oceanography 13:345-349. 56. Crossin GT, Hinch SG, Farrell AP, Whelley M, Healey MC (2003) Pink salmon migratory energetics: response to migratory difficulty and comparisons with sockeye salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1986-1995. 57. Benitez-Nelson CR, Buesseler KO, Rutgers van der Loeff MM, Andrews JE, Crossin GT, Ball L, Charette MA (2001) Testing a new small-volume technique for determining thorium-234 in seawater. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 248:795-799. 58. Buesseler KO, Benitez-Nelson CR, Rutgers van der Loeff MM, Andrews JE, Ball L, Crossin GT, Charette MA (2001) An intercomparison of small- and large-volume techniques for thorium- 234 in seawater. Marine Chemistry 74:15-28. 59. Cochran JK, Buesseler KO, Bacon MP, Wang HW, Hirschberg DJ, Ball L, Andrews JE, Crossin GT, Fleer AP (2000) Short-lived thorium isotopes (234Th,228Th) as indicators of POC export and particle cycling in the Ross Sea, Southern Ocean. Marine Chemistry 47:3451-3590. 60. Benitez-Nelson CR, Buesseler KO, Crossin GT (2000) Carbon export, eddy diffusivity and horizontal transport in the southwestern Gulf of Maine. Continental Shelf Research 20:707- 736. 61. Crossin GT, Al-Ayoub SA, Jury SH, Howell WH, Watson WH (1998) Behavioural thermoregulation in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Journal of Experimental Biology 201:365-374.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 7

MANUSCRIPTS IN REVIEW (Students & HQP of mine are underlined)

62. Jubinville I, Harvey-Clark C, Williams TD, Crossin GT (2017) Tradeoff between aerobic performance and egg production in migratory macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus). Biology Letters. 63. Studholme KR, Hipfner JM, Romero LM, Gormally BM, Iverson SJ, Crossin GT (2017) Egg size is independent of variation in pre-breeding feather corticosterone in Cassin’s auklets during favorable oceanographic conditions. General and Comparative Endocrinology. 64. Bordeleau X, Zhang R, Hutchings JA, Whoriskey FG, Fennel K, Crossin GT (2017) The importance of iteroparity to the population dynamics of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 65. Strople LC, Filgueira R, Hatcher BG, Denny S, Bordeleau X, Whoriskey FG, Crossin GT (2017) Modelling the effects of environmental conditions on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts migrating through an inland sea. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 66. McLean MF, et al., Crossin GT (2017) 67. Studholme KR, Hipfner JM, Iverson SJ, Crossin GT (2017)

MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION (Students & HQP of mine are underlined)

REFEREED TECHNICAL REPORTS

1. Hinch SG, Cooperman MS, Crossin GT, Olsson I (2009) Investigations to determine the cause of early migration behaviour and magnitude of in-river survival and losses above Mission for adult Late-run Fraser River sockeye. Final Report to the Pacific Salmon Commission Southern Boundary Restoration and Enhancement Fund. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, pp 123. 2. Crossin GT (2006) Ocean biopsy telemetry: physiological correlations with migration timing and marine fate. In: Conference on Early Migration and Premature Mortality in Fraser River Late-run Sockeye Salmon - Proceedings (Hinch SG, Gardner J, eds). Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Vancouver.

THESES

1. Crossin GT (2008) Factors affecting the timing and success of sockeye salmon spawning migrations. PhD Dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. - Winner of the Best PhD Thesis Award for the Faculty of Forestry, UBC 2. Crossin GT (2002) Effects of migratory constraints and ocean climate on the bioenergetics, fecundity, and morphology of wild, homing Fraser River salmon. MSc Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 3. Crossin GT (1995) Behavioural thermoregulation in the American lobster (Homarus

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 8 americanus). BSc Honours Thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham.

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS, HONOURS, & AWARDS

2017 Killam Prize (awarded via Dalhousie University) $ 2,000 2010 NSERC Visiting Fellowship, Fisheries and Oceans Canada $ 45,000 2008 NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship $ 80,000 2008 Best Ph.D. Dissertation Award, Faculty of Forestry, Univ. of British Columbia n/a 2004 NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS-D3) $ 140,000

ADMINISTRATIVE & COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES – DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

1. Admissions Committee: Introduction to the Ecosystem of the Gulf of 2015-present Eilat. Schulich Ocean Studies Course, Dalhousie course MARI/OCEA 3685 2. Biology Department Undergraduate Marine Block 2015 3. Biology Department Social Committee 2015-present 4. Participating Organizer – Dalhousie-Israel Schulich School for Marine Science 2014 5. Ocean Tracking Network HQP Travel Fund Committee 2013-present 6. Ocean Tracking Network Equipment Deployment Committee 2013-present 7. Chair, Biology & Marine Biology Undergraduate Honours Committee 2012-present 8. Coordinator – Annual Cameron Conference for Biology 2012-present & Marine Biology Undergraduate Honours Research 9. Member, Undergraduate Awards Committee 2012-present 10. Biology Honours Advisor 2012-present 11. Biology Department Space Committee 2012-present 12. Biology Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 2012-present 13. Lett Symposium judge 2014-present

PEER-REVIEWS FOR SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

· Proceedings of the Royal Society of London · Oecologia · Functional Ecology · Reviews in Fisheries Sciences · Hormones and Behaviour · Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sci. · Conservation Physiology · Journal of Fish Biology · Ecological Applications · Fisheries Management and Ecology · General & Comparative Endocrinology · Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria · Behavioural Ecology · Aquaculture · Behavioural Ecology & Sociobiology · Journal of Comparative Physiology A · Animal Behaviour · North American Journal of Fisheries Mgmt. · Marine Ecology Progress Series · Marine and Coastal Fisheries · PLoS ONE · Physiological & Biochemical Zoology · Canadian Journal of Zoology · Marine Biology · Physiology and Behaviour · Emu – Austral Ornithology

POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW SUPERVISION – DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY STUDENT FELLOWSHIP DATES PROJECT TITLE

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 9 Marie Auger-Méthé NSERC PDF 2016-18 Non-breeding distributions and foraging behaviour of Gentoo Penguins. Constance O’Connor Killam PDF 2013-15 n/a (declined)

GRADUATE STUDENT SUPERVISION – DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DEFENSE DATE STUDENT DEGREE (*ANTICIPATED) THESIS TITLE Montana McLean Ph.D. * April 2018 Understanding the consequences of recreational angling stress on the biology and movement of white sturgeon in the Fraser River, British Columbia. Rolanda Steenweg Ph.D. * April 2018 Winter ecology of Arctic breeding common eiders. Xavier Bordeleau Ph.D. * Dec 2018 Habitat utilization in Atlantic salmon – determining critical habitat and migration pathways. Katherine Studholme MSc. * April 2018 Carryover effects in Pacific auklets.

UNDERGRADUATE HONOURS STUDENT SUPERVISION – DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY COMPLETION DATE STUDENT DEGREE (*ANTICIPATED) THESIS TITLE († published) Robert Lennox BSc. Hons May 2013 † Influence of angler hook-set behaviour and hook type on incidences of deep hooking, injury, and mortality in bluegill sunfish. Kaitlyn Dionne BSc. Hons May 2014 Phenotypic divergence in a managed population of Chinook salmon. Wesley Kerr BSc. Hons May 2014 Fish personality and susceptibility to recreational angling capture. Dallas Jae Lafont BSc. Hons May 2015 Life-history variation among shark species. Emily Butler BSc. Hons May 2016 Spatial ecology of black-browed and grey-headed albatrosses. Tanya Prystay BSc. Hons May 2016 † Fisheries capture and stress ecology of sockeye salmon. Madison Philipp BSc. Hons May 2017 † Fisheries-related injuries and seasonal temperature effects homing sockeye salmon. Leah Strople BSc. Hons May 2017 † Environmental and physiological correlates of juvenile Atlantic salmon migrations. Isabelle Jubinville BSc. Hons May 2017 † Tradeoffs between aerobic condition and egg production in penguins.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 10

GRADUATE STUDENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP (NOT AS PRIMARY SUPERVISOR) DEFENSE DATE STUDENT (Supervisor and Institution) DEGREE (*ANTICIPATED) Mauricio Cantor (H. Whitehead, Ph.D. July 2016 Dalhousie) Sarah Gutowsky (M. Leonard, Dalhousie) Ph.D. March 2016 Ingrid Pollet (M. Leonard, Dalhousie) Ph.D. January 2017 Tara Imlay (M. Leonard, Dalhousie) Ph.D. December 2018* Renanel Pickholtz (J. Belmaker, Tel Aviv Ph.D. May 2018* University) Jessica Minett (C. Garcia de Leaniz, Ph.D. September 2020* Swansea University, UK) Garth Casbourn (S. MacDougall- Ph.D. September 2021* Shackleton, Western University) Sarah Saldahna (M. Leonard, Dalhousie) MSc. August 2016 Olivia Pisano (J. Hutchings, Dalhousie) MSc. June 2017 Bethany Nordstrom (B. Worm, MSc. January 2018* Dalhousie) Alice Domalik (D. Green, Simon Fraser MSc. September 2018* University) Sarah Dier-McComb (M. Auger-Méthé, MSc. September 2019* UBC)

ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY EXAMINATIONS (ACTING AS AN EXTERNAL EXAMINER) STUDENT (Supervisor and Institution) DEGREE DEFENSE DATE Nancy Roney (J. Hutchings, Dalhousie) MSc. Nov 2014

QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS (ACTING AS AN EXTERNAL EXAMINER) STUDENT (Supervisor and Institution) DEGREE DEFENSE DATE Hugues Benoît (J. Hutchings, Dalhousie) Ph.D. July 2017 Edmund Halfyard (D. Ruzzante, F. Ph.D. Sept 2013 Whoriskey, Dalhousie) Aurelie Godin (B. Worm, Dalhousie) Ph.D. Sept 2014

TEACHING RECORD – DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY SEMESTER COURSE NO. COURSE TITLE Fall 2017 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2018 4902 Fall 2017 BIOL 3078 / MARI 3074 Animal Physiology 1 Winter 2016 BIOL / MARI 3080 Guest Lectures (2) – Evolution & Ecology of Fishes (J. Hutchings) Winter 2016 BIOL / MARI 4323 Guest Lecture – Biologging in Ecology

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 11 (S. Gutowsky) Fall 2016 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2017 4902 Fall 2016 BIOL 3078 / MARI 3074 Animal Physiology 1 Fall 2015 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2016 4902 Fall 2015 BIOL 3078 / MARI 3074 Animal Physiology 1 Winter 2015 BIOL 5705 Biology Graduate Module – The Ecology of Stress (offered but undersubscribed) Winter 2015 BIOL / MARI 4323 Guest Lecture – Biologging in Ecology (S. Gutowsky) Winter 2015 BIOL / MARI 3067 Guest Lecture – Evolution & Ecology of Fishes (J. Hutchings) Fall 2014 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2015 4902 Fall 2014 BIOL 3078 / MARI 3074 Animal Physiology 1 Winter 2014 BIOL 5705 Biology Graduate Module - Endangered Species Status in Canada Winter 2014 BIOL / MARI 4323 Guest Lecture – Biologging in Ecology (S. Gutowsky) Winter 2014 BIOL / MARI 3067 Guest Lecture – Evolution & Ecology of Fishes (J. Hutchings) Fall 2013 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2014 4902 Fall 2013 BIOL 3078 / MARI 3074 Animal Physiology 1 Winter 2013 BIOL / MARI 3067 Guest Lecture – Evolution & Ecology of Fishes (J. Hutchings) Fall 2012 – Winter BIOL / MARI 4900, 4901, Biology & Marine Biology Honours 2013 4902

STUDENT AWARDS, HONOURS & SCHOLARSHIPS

Xavier Bordeleau, PhD student • 2017 – FRQNT Scholarship, Government of Quebec ($46,666) • 2016 – NSERC Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement ($6,000) • 2015 – NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship – CGS-M • 2015 – Clemens-Rigler travel award ($350) • 2015 – OTN Travel Grant ($1,500) • 2014 – Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies “A-“ scholarship ($12,000) Montana McLean, PhD student • 2015 – NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship – CGSD2 • 2015 – Dalhousie President’s Award (~$ 9,000/year concurrent with CGSD2) • 2015 – Dalhousie FGS Travel Award ($500) • 2015 – OTN Travel Award ($1,270)

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 12 • 2014 – OTN Travel Award ($1,312) Tanya Prystay, Honours student 2015-16 • Best Student Talk (Fisheries), Science Atlantic, St. Mary’s University Rolanda Steenweg, PhD student • 2017 – Best Student Talk, 6th International Seaduck Conference, San Francisco • 2017 – Best Poster, 6th International Seaduck Conference, San Francisco • 2017 – Student Travel Award, 6th International Seaduck Conference, San Francisco ($500) • 2016 – Northern Scientific Training Program ($2,400) • 2015 – NSERC PGS-D3 ($21,300) • 2015 – Dalhousie President's Award ($~6,018/year concurrent with PGSD3) • 2015 – Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies “A-“ scholarship ($14,160) • 2015 – Northern Scientific Training Program ($2,400) • 2015 – Best Poster, ArcticNet Annual Scientific Meeting, Vancouver BC ($1,000) • 2014 – Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies “A-“ scholarship ($12,000) • 2014 – Northern Scientific Training Program ($2,500) • 2013 – NSERC CGS-M ($17,500) Katie Studholme, PhD student • 2014 – North Pacific Research Board PhD Scholarship ($25,000) • 2014 – Dalhousie Faculty of Graduate Studies “A-“ scholarship ($12,000)

TALKS AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (* PRESENTED BY ME, † MY STUDENTS, OR ‡ A COLLEAGUE)

2017 Montana, Vienna † 6th International Seaduck Conference, San Francisco † 2016 6th International Albatross and Petrel Conference, Barcelona, Spain * Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research, St. John’s, NL * Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research, St. John’s, NL † 2015 2nd World Seabird Conference, Cape Town, South Africa ‡ Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, FL * 3rd International Conference for Fish Telemetry, Halifax, NS † 5th International Sea Duck Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland † 2014 5th International Bio-logging Science Symposium, Strasbourg, France † 2013 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA * 2012 Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Rogers City, Michigan, US * 2010 1st World Seabird Conference, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada * Pacific Ecology & Evolution Conference, Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre, Bamfield, BC * Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA * 2009 Antarctic Funding Initiative Conference, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK * Pacific Ocean Shelf Tracking Science Forum. Vancouver Aquarium, Vancouver, BC * 2008 British Antarctic Survey, Antarctic Briefing Conference, University of Cambridge, UK * American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Ottawa, ON ‡ Conference on Early Migration & Mortality of Fraser River Salmon. Vancouver, BC * International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Portland, OR ‡ 10th Salmon Ocean Ecology Meeting, Nanaimo, BC * 2007 American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA ‡

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 13 Salmon Ocean Ecology Conference, Newport, OR ‡ Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Research Conference, Vancouver, BC ‡ 2006 American Society of Limnology & Oceanography Summer Meeting, Victoria, BC * 2005 St’at’imc Hydro Fisheries Co-operative Meeting, Lillooet, BC * 6th Fish Telemetry Conference in Europe, Sesimbra, Portugal * 2004 World Fisheries Congress, Vancouver, BC * 2003 21st Northeast-Pacific Pink and Chum Salmon Workshop, Victoria, BC * 2002 International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Vancouver, BC * Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research, Vancouver, BC * American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA ‡ 2001 European Congress of Ichthyology, Prague, Czech Republic * Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research, Toronto, ON *

INVITED ACADEMIC OR PROFESSIONAL SEMINARS

1. 12th International Congress on the Biology of Fish, invitation to present at special session on sturgeon biology, San Marcos, Texas, June 2016 (declined due to field work) 2. 2nd World Seabird Conference, invitation to present at special session on Evolutionary Physiology, Cape Town, South Africa, October 2015 (declined due to teaching schedule) 3. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, Florida. Special Symposium on Conservation Physiology (2015) 4. University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario. Migration and maladaptive states in Eudyptes Penguins (2014) 5. Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. The curious case of extreme egg size dimorphism in crested (Eudyptes) penguins: an evolutionary mystery for over 60 years (2013) 6. Canadian Society for Zoology Annual Meeting, University of Guelph, Special Symposium on Season Effects. Physiological carryover effects between phases of the annual cycle (2013) 7. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Mother’s little helper: foraging behaviour, parental care, and the effects of exogenous corticosterone in mother penguins (2012) 8. Cape Breton University, NS. Linking telemetry, behaviour and physiology to identify mechanisms underlying migration, reproduction and fitness (2012) 9. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Linking telemetry with behaviour and physiology to identify mechanisms underlying migration, reproduction and fitness (2011) 10. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Factors affecting the timing and success of sockeye salmon spawning migrations (2009) 11. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Effects of changing migration schedules on the survival of wild sockeye salmon (2009)

INVITED GOVERNMENT SEMINARS

1. Fisheries & Oceans Canada, West Vancouver Laboratory Seminar Series, West Vancouver, BC. Carryover effects on egg production in seabirds (2011)

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 14 2. Environment Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. Migratory carry-over effects on egg production: insights from Macaroni penguins, Black- browed albatrosses, and Cassin’s auklets (2010) 3. Canadian Wildlife Service Seminar Series, Ladner, BC. Migratory carry-over effects underlie variation in reproductive readiness and egg size dimorphism in Macaroni penguins (2009)

INVITED PUBLIC LECTURES

1. Vancouver Natural History Society (Nature·Vancouver), Vancouver, BC. The declines of Late- summer runs of Fraser River sockeye salmon: causes and consequences of changing migration schedules (2009)

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology 2010-present Canadian Society for Zoology 2010-present World Seabird Union 2010-present

CERTIFICATIONS

· SCUBA, NAUI and PADI Advanced Open Water certifications (certified 1995, renewed 2008) · SCUBA, American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) certification (1995) · SCUBA, Drysuit diver certification (2010) · SCUBA, Have logged over 250 research dives · Radiation Safety, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1997), Simon Fraser University (2010) · First Aid, British Antarctic Survey Medical Unit (2008) · First Aid, St. John Ambulance, Vancouver (2007) · Marine Emergency Duties, A2. Transport Canada (2007) · Forensic and Nautical Consultants of Canada, small vessel certification (<25 ft) (2007) · Animal Care Certificate, Univ. of British Columbia & Canadian Council for Animal Care (2005)

MEDIA ATTENTION

2010 · New York Times, 19 July 2010.

2015 · CBC’s The National, 15 June (PhD student M. McLean). · CBC Radio – Cape Breton, November (PhD student X. Bordeleau). · CBC News – Nova Scotia, November (PhD student X. Bordeleau). · CBC Radio – Cape Breton, May. · Norwegian newspapers: Dagens Næringsliv, Forskning, May (PhD student X. Bordeleau). · Cape Breton Star, February (PhD student X. Bordeleau). · U.S. Fish and Wildlife Abernathy Fish Technology Center Newsletter, Vol 7 No 1, February (PhD student M. McLean).

2016 · CBC News – Nova Scotia, 1 August. · Book: The Shark and the Albatross, by Jon Aitchison. Greystone Books, Vancouver.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 15 · Science Borealis, 14 March (PhD student R. Steenweg). · National Geographic Magazine, October: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/why-penguins-lay-two-eggs-science/ · Science News (SN), December: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/why-crested- penguins-lay-mismatched-eggs · Spektrum Magazine (Germany), October: http://www.spektrum.de/news/warum-legen- schopfpinguine-ein-kleines-und-ein-grosses-ei/1425443

2017 · BBC Wildlife Magazine, January issue.

G.T. Crossin, Ph.D., July 2017 16 20 June, 2017 1

To: Nick Rendell Environmental Planning Officer Malvina House Garden, PO Box 611, Stanley, Falkland Islands

Report for Research Licence No: R04/ 2016 - Dolphins of the kelp - genetic diversity and population structure of Commerson's and Peale's dolphins around the Falkland Islands

Principal Investigator: C. Scott Baker Marine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University 2030 SE Marine Science Dr, Newport, Or 97365 USA Email: [email protected]

Associate Investigators: Marina Costa, Maria Isabel Garcia and Paul Brickle South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute PO Box 609, Stanley Cottage, Stanley, Falkland Islands FIQQ 1ZZ

Summary. The nearshore waters of the Falkland Islands host a unique inshore community of two small dolphins: Commerson’s (Cephalorhynchus commersonii) and Peale’s (Lagenorhynchus australis). To better understand the abundance, habitat use and genetic diversity of these two species, the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI) initiated a collaborative research programme referred to as Dolphins of the Kelp (DOKE), with funding from the Darwin Plus Initiative. As part of this larger collaborative framework, investigators from SAERI and the Oregon State University undertook collection of small skin samples for genetic analyses using a minimally intrusive biopsy dart under research licence issued to Dr. Scott Baker by the Falkland Islands Government (FIG). Full details of the first year of the project are available in the annual report to the funding agency, Darwin Plus Initiative.

As described in the application for the research licence, biopsy samples were collected with a lightweight dart using a modified veterinary capture rifle (PaxArms) or with a dart attached to a lightweight pole (see Fig 1 and 2). Samples were collected during small-vessel surveys from 3-12 January 2017, with logistic support of the Shallow Marine Surveys Group (S. Cartwright), and from 23-27 February 2017, aboard the M/V Condor (Fig 3). During the January surveys, the Principal Investigator (Baker) was aboard to collect the biopsy samples and to train Costa and Garcia. During the February surveys, Costa and Garcia were responsible for the sample collection using the biopsy pole system donated to the project by Baker. Where possible, photographs were collected for the purposes of individual identification. As required by the research licence, the FIG veterinarian, Dr. Steve Pointing, joined the field team on 7 January to observe the sample collection. In an email of 8 January, Dr Pointing confirmed that he was satisfied the sampling was being conducted under the conditions of the research licence.

In accordance with the conditions of the licence, a total of 60 samples were collected from Commerson’s dolphins and 60 samples were collected from Peale’s dolphins. The behavioural reaction of the dolphins was judged following a standard scale of behavioural responses from 0, for no observable response, to 5 for multiple leaps and high-speed avoidance of the sampling boat (Krützen et al. 2002; Tezanos-Pinto and Baker 2011). For the Commerson’s dolphins, 42% of the samples resulted in a ‘no or low’ reaction (scale 0-1) and 58% resulted in a mild reaction (scale 2), usually indicated by a tail flick or quick dive. For the Peale’s dolphins, 92% of the samples resulted in a ‘no or low’ reaction (scale 0-1) and only 8% resulted in a mild reaction (scale 2). There were no moderate or strenuous responses (a 3-5 in the standard scale) and no evidence of any injury, other than the small biopsy wound, or avoidance of the boat by the dolphins. These responses were comparable to, but somewhat milder, than observed for other species of dolphins (Tezanos-Pinto and Baker 2011) (Oremus et al. 2012).

20 June, 2017 2

Following the two vessel surveys, samples were consolidated by Costa and Garcia and exported to Baker under permit from the FIG officer (M. Floyd) for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Analyses are now underway at the Laboratory for Cetacean Conservation and Genomics, at OSU. Using standard genetic markers (i.e., DNA profiling), we will estimate diversity and divergence using previous published results from continental populations and, in the case of Commerson’s dolphins, to the subspecies described from the Kerguelen Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Literature Cited Krützen, M., L.M. Barré, L.M. Möller, M.R. Heithaus, C. Simmer and W.B. Sherwin. 2002. A biopsy system for small cetaceans: darting success and wound healing in Tursiops spp. Marine Mammal Science 18:863-878. Oremus, M., R.M. Hamner, M. Stanley, P. Brown, C.S. Baker and R. Constantine. 2012. Distribution, group characteristics and movements of the Critically Endangered Mauiís dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori maui. Endangered Species Research 19:1-10. Tezanos-Pinto, G. and C.S. Baker. 2011. Short-term reactions and long-term responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) to remote biopsy sampling. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research Available online: 21 Jun 2011:1-17.

Figure 1: The deployment of a biopsy dart for genetic sampling of a Commerson’s dolphin with the Paxarms rifle. The lightweight plastic dart has just struck and is bouncing off of the dolphin.

Figure 2: An example of the pole biopsy system for genetic sampling of a Commerson’s dolphins.

20 June, 2017 3

Figure 3: The location of number of genetic samples collected from Commerson’s and Peale’s dolphin during the 2017 austral summer season.