Summary of the work of the CEP on Marine Protected Areas 1998-2019 (Updated November 2019) 1 Summary of the work of the CEP on MPAs - 2019 Summary of the work of the CEP on Marine Protected Areas Updated November 2019 Introduction Article 2 of Annex V to the Protocol establishes that any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area. In particular, Article 3 expresses that: “Parties shall identify representative examples of major terrestrial, including glacial and aquatic, ecosystems and marine ecosystems to be designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.” Article 6. 2 of Annex V establishes that “ ... no marine area shall be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area without the prior approval of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.”Since its establishment in 1998, the CEP has devoted a significant part of its discussions to consider area protection and management in Antarctica, and two workshops on Protected Areas in Antarctica were organised prior to the first two CEP meetings. Although at the first CEP meetings there were some considerations and documents specifically addressing the need to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Antarctica, the most important discussions, including active cooperation on this matter with CCAMLR, started at CEP IX in 2006. During the last years, cooperation between the CEP and the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR (SC- CAMLR) has increased and in April 2009, prior to the CEP XII meeting, a joint workshop was organised aiming to identify areas of common interest and to develop a shared understanding of the conservation objectives and priorities. Spatial marine management and protected areas were one of the matters of discussion. At CEP XIII, following a suggestion by the United Kingdom, the Secretariat agreed to consider preparing a summary of the work that the Committee had done on MPAs as a contribution to SC-CAMLR’s efforts. This paper therefore reviews and summarises the CEP meeting reports and workshops as well as documents submitted to those meetings, in order to reflect the Committee’s discussions on MPAs, which receive the highest priority in the CEP five-year work plan. At CEP XIV the Committee requested the Secretariat to provide regular updates of this report online at the ATS website, so that Parties can be kept up to date with this issue. Recent developments Immediately prior to the CEP XXII meeting in Prague in 2019, a Joint SCAR/CEP Workshop on Further Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System was held. At the CEP XXII meeting, New Zealand reported (in WP 48 Harmonisation of Marine Protection Initiatives across the Antarctic Treaty System) on informal discussions held by interested Parties to develop a response to the ATCM’s request in Resolution 5 (2017) “to consider any appropriate actions within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting’s competence to contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives set forth in CCAMLR Conservation Measure 91-05”. New Zealand informed the Committee that intersessional work had focused on drafting a list of general complementary measures that could support connectivity between land and ocean and strengthen marine protection initiatives. It pointed out that participants had agreed that a staged approach to the work would be appropriate, starting with broad initiatives, and aiming to progress towards addressing appropriate complementary actions to contribute to the objectives of CCAMLR MPAs. It noted that participants had also agreed that many aspects of the CEP’s ongoing work supported marine protection, and that this work would not open or duplicate discussion regarding the identification, designation or management of CCAMLR MPAs. After New Zealand’s presentation, a number of general points were raised, including: the importance of ensuring that discussions in the CEP/ATCM did not duplicate CCAMLR’s important work or vice-versa; the need to work towards articulating different views and perspectives; the need to reflect the participants’ views in an objective and balanced way; the potential 3 Summary of the work of the CEP on MPAs - 2019 benefit of further discussing and refining terminology (considering terms such as synergy and integration replacing the term complementarity); the added value of drawing on outcomes of the Joint SCAR/CEP Workshop on Further Developing the Protected Area System; the importance of working with and considering the knowledge of other organisations, in particular CCAMLR and SCAR; that discussions about harmonisation of marine protection required careful and detailed consideration; and that the CEP played an important role in ensuring marine protection across Antarctica. A few Members suggested that intersessional discussions had lacked the necessary time to reach a satisfactory comprehensiveness and that their views had not been entirely reflected in WP 48. While most Members had expressed a desire to formalise further discussions through an ICG, a few Members felt that this was premature and indicated a need for further informal discussions to clarify the remit of the task. Most Members underlined the importance of responding to the request from the ATCM through Resolution 5 (2017) in a timely and responsive manner. The CEP welcomed New Zealand’s offer to continue to facilitate informal discussions during the coming intersessional period. In other developments, Argentina and Chile submitted IP 108 Developments in the process for adoption of a Marine Protected Area in the west Antarctic Peninsula and south Scotia Arc (D1MPA), and Australia, the Czech Republic, the United States and SCAR submitted WP 70 Recommendations arising from the Joint SCAR/CEP Workshop on Further Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System, Prague, Czech Republic, 27-28 June 2019. As an attachment, this paper includes a Draft Report on the State of the Antarctic Protected Area System, where the authors inform that “there are 6 wholly marine ASPAs1, which cover a total area of approximately 1631 km2. A further 14 ASPAs contain a marine component, bringing the total marine area within ASPAs to approximately 1970 km2.” (See table below.) 1 The management plans for these 6 ASPAs were considered and approved by CCAMLR in accordance with ATCM Decision 9 (2005). Five of the partly marine ASPAs have also been considered and approved by CCAMLR. Other ASPAs with small marine components have not triggered the requirements under Decision 9 (2005) for referral to CCAMLR. 4 Summary of the work of the CEP on MPAs - 2019 Amount and percentage of marine area covered by Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) with a marine component (Source: updated ASPA layer) % ASPA ASPA # Name Area (km2) marine 106 Cape Hallett 0.05 10.26 107 Emperor Island 4.59 96.18 117 Avian Island 0.61 48.50 120 Pointe-Geologie Archipelago 0.10 25.03 121 Cape Royds 0.48 74.01 124 Cape Crozier 8.25 12.20 127 Haswell Island 5.22 86.00 133 Harmony Point 19.57 42.21 144 Chile Bay (Discovery Bay) 0.72 100.00 145 Port Foster 2.33 100.00 146 South Bay 0.97 97.18 149 Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Island 5.66 50.40 151 Lions Rump 0.67 43.29 152 Western Bransfield Strait 960.63 100.00 153 Eastern Dallman Bay 636.57 100.00 161 Terra Nova Bay 29.41 100.00 165 Edmonson Point 2.54 46.01 166 Port-Martin 0.09 53.00 169 Amanda Bay 16.11 93.98 173 Cape Washington and Silverfish Bay 273.47 97.67 TOTAL 1968.04 Summary of Discussions at Previous CEP meetings In 1998, prior to the first CEP meeting, a Workshop on Protected Areas was held in Tromsø, following a decision taken at the ATCM XXI in 1997. Although the issue of MPAs was not discussed in the workshop, it was agreed to go on with the consideration of Area Protection and Management, and a second workshop was agreed upon for 1999 in order to discuss, among other issues, how to undertake a gap analysis to identify values for site protection, in order to propose new protected areas on zones inviolate by human activates, as well as representative examples of major Antarctic ecosystems, including marine ecosystems. At the CEP I meeting the IUCN presented IP 51 Marine Protection in the Southern Ocean, considering that it would be appropriate for Treaty Parties to look at developing a representative network of marine protected areas. The paper recommended an assessment of how marine areas might be protected to meet the objectives of Annex V to the Protocol, and the development of criteria that could be used to identify areas which might be appropriate to set aside as marine Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas. The Second Workshop on Protected Areas was held in Lima in 1999 prior to the CEP II meeting. Some of the presentations referred to, among several other matters, the lack of protected areas in the marine ecosystem and to the need of a debate with CCAMLR on this issue. In particular, the IUCN expressed that it 5 Summary of the work of the CEP on MPAs - 2019 would be desirable to assess how marine areas might be protected to meet the objectives of Annex V to the Protocol, to develop criteria that could be used to identify marine areas which might be appropriately set aside as marine ASPAs or ASMAs, and to develop mechanisms and procedures for even closer cooperation with CCAMLR on this matter. The workshop agreed five recommendations but none of them were related to MPAs. At the CEP II meeting (Lima, 1999), New Zealand presented WP 31 Proposed Balleny Island Specially Protected Area proposing to enlarge the SPA 4 (Sabrina Island, currently ASPA 104) to include other Balleny Islands, together with a marine area surrounding the islands with the aim to protect the unique and special ecological, scientific and aesthetic values of the area, and to establish an archipelagic specially protected area in the Ross Sea region, but asking in advance advice from SCAR and CCAMLR.