Priorities for Coastal and Marine Conservation in South ... - prof.usb.ve.

Priorities for Coastal and Marine Conservation in South America

Edited by Anthony Chatwin

Priorities for Coastal and Marine Conservation in South America Edited by Anthony Chatwin

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

©2007 The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA ISBN #1-886765-16-2 Designer: Urgent Message, LLC Printer: Mosaic Print

Acknowledgement This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Award No EDG-A-00-01-00023-00 for the Parks in Peril Program. The contents are the responsibility of The Nature Conservancy and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

I would also like to acknowledge the generous support from Ben and Ruth Hammett which catalyzed important components of the work described here, as well as the Walter C. Klein Foundation, Clifford Burnstein and Sabra C. Turnbull, without whom this publication would not have been possible. Furthermore, the quality of the written material has been greatly improved thanks to the diligent editorial efforts of Ms. Cara Goodman. Any mistakes that remain are my responsibility.

For more information on The Nature Conservancy's marine and coastal conservation work in South America, please visit nature.org/southamericamarine.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Editor’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter 1: South American Marine Conservation Priorities: an Ecoregional Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 3: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Chapter 4: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter 5: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Ecuador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chapter 6: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Chapter 7: Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendices Appendix A: The Nature Conservancy’s Marine Ecoregional Assessments Methodology in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Appendix B: South American Marine Threats Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Maps: Map 1: South America Marine Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Map 2: Urban Development Threat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Map 3: Fisheries Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Map 4: Hydrocarbon Industry Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Map 5: Aquaculture Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Map 6: Maritime Transportation Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Map 7: Combined Index Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Map 8: Current Levels of Coastal and Marine Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Map 9: Additional Levels of Coastal and Marine Protection of Proposed New Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Map 10: Brazil’s Coastal and Marine Priority Areas for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Map 11: Chile’s Coastal and Marine Proposed Priority Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Map 12: Colombia’s Coastal and Marine Priority Areas for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Map 13: Ecuador’s Coastal and Marine Priority Areas for Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Map 14: Peru’s Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Map 15: Venezuela’s Coastal and Marine Priority Areas for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iv

PRIORITIES

FOR

M A R I N E C O N S E R VAT I O N

IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Tables Table 1: Top Ten Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2: Level of Threat and Existing Coastal and Marine Protection Area (PA) per Marine Ecoregion in South America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3: Potential Protected Areas per Marine Ecoregions in South America . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 4: Conservation Targets and Goals for the Southeast/South Region of Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18 Table 5: Conservation Targets and Goals for Chile’s Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 6: Conservation Targets and Goals, per Subregion, for Colombia’s Caribbean Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-34 Table 7: Conservation Targets and Goals, per Subregion, for Colombia’s Pacific Ocean Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 8: Conservation Goal Setting Criteria and Associated Levels for Ecuador . . . . . . 43 Table 9: Coastal and Marine Conservation Targets for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 10: Coastal and Marine Conservation Targets for Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table 11: Coastal and Marine Conservation Goals for Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table 12: Example Goal Setting Table, With Conservation Targets Scores for Each of 3 Goal Setting Criteria: 1) Current Condition; 2) Vulnerability; and 3) Abundance; Along with Associated Goal Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 13: Example of Marine Current Status Assessment for Coral Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Table 14: Example of Marine Vulnerability Assessment for Coral Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figures Figure 1: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in North Brazilian Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 2: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in North Brazilian Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 3: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in Northeast Brazilian Waters . . . . . . . 20 Figure 4: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in Northeast Brazilian Waters . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 5: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in Southeastern Brazilian Waters . . . . . 21 Figure 6: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in Southeastern Brazilian Waters . . . . . . 22 Figure 7: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in South Brazilian Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 8: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in South Brazilian Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 9: Key Threats to Chile’s Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 10: Key Threats to Colombia’s Caribbean Coastal and Marine Environment . . 37 Figure 11: Key Threats to Colombia’s Pacific Ocean Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 12: Key Threats to Peru’s Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 13: Key Threats to Venezuela’s Coastal and Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 14: Map of the Main Threats to Marine Biodiversity in the Venezuelan Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 15: Conservation by Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 16: Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 17: Frequency Distribution of Goal Setting Scores for Conservation Targets . . 59

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS

v

vi

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Editor’s Note

Back in my research days, I had the privilege of participating in a research cruise aboard the Victor Hensen off the coast of eastern Brazil as part of a Joint Oceanographic Project of the Brazilian and German governments. We had boarded the vessel at the port in Vitoria, the capital city of the state of Espirito Santo. Towards the end of the cruise we found ourselves sailing by the Archipelago of Abrolhos—a large coral reef protected area hundreds of miles from the coast of southern Bahia that basks in the warm waters of the Brazil Current and is wisely chosen by humpback whales year after year as a favorite calving ground. Satisfied that we would not be affecting the research objectives, the captain and chief scientist allowed us a brief visit to this natural wonder. As we approached the main island we were greeted by a park guard in an aluminum skiff. He had a dog with him, and a rifle. I should mention that this was 1994, a couple of years after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro that has done so much to move humanity a step closer to sustainability. At the time, I didn’t realize that right then, way out there in the remote Archipelago of Abrolhos, I was experiencing the one factor essential to the conservation of marine protected areas: enforcement. The guard welcomed us, told us not to drop our anchor, and warned us not to touch anything while snorkeling. It was a timely intervention that reminded us all that the beautiful area we were about to explore had been set aside for conservation so that it would remain beautiful for many generations. Since then, I have visited many marine protected areas in South America and have seen the positive effects such protected areas can have on coastal communities. I have also come to realize that the sort of encounter I had with the guard in the Archipelago of Abrolhos almost never repeats itself in South American marine protected areas. As we put the finishing touches on this report many years later, it hit us that only 3.4% of the waters in the 6 countries and 14 marine ecoregions covered here are safeguarded by some type of legal protection. Only a fraction of the protected areas are being managed, and far fewer enjoy a level of enforcement comparable to the one I experienced in the Abrolhos Archipelago. Meanwhile, the pressures on coastal and marine resources continue to grow. If we are going to achieve environmental sustainability and ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy and learn from natural marine and coastal marvels, we need to change the all-too-common paradigm of high use and low-protection to sustainable-use and effective protection. Today, June 8th, 2007, World Ocean Day, I submit Priorities for Coastal and Marine Conservation in South America—on behalf of the many people that made it possible—as a small but important contribution toward making this paradigm shift a reality for the oceans and coasts of South America and all of the people, plants, and animals who inhabit them. Anthony Chatwin, Ph.D. June 8, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE

vii

viii

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

1

South American Marine Conservation Priorities: an Ecoregional Assessment Anthony Chatwin and Demian Rybock

1.1

Introduction

The coastal zone and marine environments of the South American continent are hosts to a tremendous diversity of life. The continent that stretches from the Northern Hemisphere south to the freezing waters around Antarctica is characterized by a wide range of coastal and marine environments which are represented by 27 ecoregions (see Map 1). Following a clockwise path along the coast of South America, we might start with the highly diverse coral reef environments of the tropical Caribbean coasts of Colombia and Venezuela. These give way to mangrove-dominated environments that result from the strong influence of riverine input into the ocean. Rich in rivers, South America’s coastline is dotted with estuaries which, besides having a strong influence on the coastal and marine plants and animals, are of global significance. The Amazon and Orinoco rivers together represent 25% of all fresh water input into the world’s oceans (Corredor and Morell 2001). These environments where freshwater and seawater mix are often sites of human settlements and are targets for expanding urban development, tourism and aquaculture activities. To the south of the influence of the Amazon River, coral reefs reappear off Brazil’s northeastern and central coasts. Because of their geographic isolation, a number of coral species in these waters are only found here. The idyllic white, sandy beaches lined with coconut trees mask the tremendous pressure that these coral reef species are under. The coastal areas are used for vast sugar cane plantations that sustain the national Brazilian alcohol fuel program, a key component of the Brazilian national energy strategy. An unfortunate side effect of these plantations is the increased erosion of the coastal lands which results in an unnaturally high amount sediments being carried off to sea, where they then smother the coral reefs. The central and southeastern Brazilian coastal region is characterized by the uniquely diverse and highly

threatened Atlantic Forest that covers Brazil’s coastal sierra like a green blanket stretching all the way to the white sandy beaches of the Atlantic. In this subtropical area, important sea turtle feeding grounds are under intense coastal development, expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, and fishing pressure. The coasts of Uruguay and Argentina are highly productive temperate marine environments that are home to important temperate marine biodiversity, including penguins, sea lions, and orcas. As one rounds the famous Cape Horn at the extreme southern end of South America, one crosses into Chile. The highly contoured coastline of southern Chile has been a navigation labyrinth for centuries. The thousands of small islands and inlets have kept secrets from humans about the marine life that thrives there. A case in point are the fjords of southern Chile, where cold water corals—previously known only to occur at great depths—are found in waters as shallow as 20 meters. These areas, as well as those further north like the shores of Colombia, are suffering intense aquaculture development, overfishing and pollution pressure. From the northern reaches of Peru, passing through Ecuador and Colombia and all the way to the northern tip of South America, the coastal areas are characterized by tropical ecosystems such as mangrove forests. The wind patterns in this region carry surface waters away from the coast, drawing in cold, nutrient-rich waters from the depths. This system produces a continuous fertilization of the surface waters, driving significant marine productivity only interrupted every few years by the atmospheric condition called El Niño. The South American continent is also home to approximately 380 million people (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base). The present study focuses on 6 countries—Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela—that represent approximately 84% of the total South American population. A

S O U T H A M E R I C A N M A R I N E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R I O R I T I E S :

AN

ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT

1

conservative estimate suggests that 45% of the population in those 6 countries, or 145 million people, lives within 200 km of the shore, with most living within 100 km from the shore. This already large concentration of human beings in the coastal zone is expected to continue growing, placing increasing pressure on the continent’s coastal and marine biodiversity. Although troubling, these trends are consistent with global trends identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). The 2005 MEA report points to a trend of the increasing (in most cases, rapidly increasing) impact of habitat change, climate change, overexploitation, and pollution on coastal and marine environments around the world. Given that coastal and marine ecosystems produce disproportionately more services relating to human well-being than most other systems (even those covering larger total areas) (MEA 2005), it is imperative that coastal nations commit to prioritizing and reversing the trend of serious impacts on their coastal and marine environments. Growing recognition of the challenge of maintaining biodiversity amidst growing human impacts culminated at the World Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, where the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was first opened for adoption by national governments. The convention came into effect in 1993 and currently has 188 parties. By ratifying the convention, parties committed to implement national and international measures to achieve three objectives: 1) the conservation of biological diversity, 2) the sustainable use of its components, and 3) sharing the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. Since then, signatories to the convention have collectively developed the obligations through the Conference of the Parties (Gross et al. 2005). Despite the advances generated by the CBD, it became apparent that specific action was necessary to overcome two major obstacles to progress on the conservation of biodiversity in the coastal and marine environments: the lack of 1) capacity, and 2) political will. Hinrichsen (1998) stated that “most of the developing world lacks the capacity to manage current coastal population growth in any equitable fashion. Nor do most developing countries have the political motivation, expertise, or money to introduce comprehensive coastal management plans.” Cognizant of these obstacles to the conservation of biodiversity, the world’s governments committed to the most ambitious and specific conservation goals ever considered by the international community in 2004, at the Seventh Convention of the Parties (COP-7) of the CBD.

2

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

By committing to a Global Program of Work on Protected Areas, over 180 countries adopted the goal of establishing comprehensive, ecologically representative and effectively managed national and regional systems of protected terrestrial areas by 2010 and of protected marine areas by 2012. All 6 nations discussed in this report are signatories of the Convention of Biological Diversity. It has become clear that the convention and the commitments made at the COP-7, specifically, those regarding the establishment of a national system of marine protected areas, have created the political will that, as Hinrichsen (1998) had documented, was lacking. What still remained as a challenge for coastal nations was the development of their capacity—specifically, with regard to financial resources and methodological approaches to planning for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity. With financial support from private donors and USAID, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has worked in collaboration with the governments and non-governmental institutions in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and with a private sector partner in Venezuela to help execute conservation planning in the coastal zones and the marine environments of these 6 South American coastal nations. Using consistent methods (See Appendix A) in all 6 countries, these planning processes have resulted in the identification of coastal and marine priorities for conservation in each nation. Furthermore, the consistency of the approach allowed the information collected to be rolled up into a continental analysis that shows not only the distribution of the threats to coastal and marine biodiversity, but also where the lack of adequate protection is most critical. With less than 8 years left to meet the marine commitments of the Program of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD, it is clear where efforts need to be directed, both in terms of where additional protected areas should be created, and what threats need to be abated at the continental and the national levels.

1.2 Ecoregional Analysis: Threats, Current Levels of Protection, and Opportunities Sullivan Sealy and Bustamante (1999) worked with 37 coastal and marine experts from around Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), to define marine ecoregions for the region. It was a remarkable achievement that has lasted to this date, with only minor modifications (Spalding et al. 2006), as a reference for marine

SOUTH AMERICA

biogeography in the LAC. Those marine ecoregions that are the geographic unit for the regional analysis described here. The state of knowledge about the marine environment has changed since the ecoregions were first drawn, as has the availability of information. This current regional assessment represents efforts to move toward data-driven priority-setting, and is focused on 2 main criteria: 1) the level of threat and 2) the existing level of protection. From the ecoregional assessments that were done in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, it has been possible to identify the key threats to marine biodiversity in each ecoregion. Here, in Table 1, this information is compiled and analyzed to give the reader a broad, regional scope of the threats to biodiversity in South America. For information on specific countries, please see the appropriate country chapters. Almost invariably, the top 3 threats to coastal and marine biodiversity are fisheries, urban development and pollution. Although these 3 threats are common to all ecoregions in South America, it has been surprisingly difficult to find spatial information to represent them (see Appendix B for methods). Urban development (Map 2) is the only one of the top 3 threats for which good coverage was available. Although locations of ports, fleet profiles at the ports, and measures of fisheries production exist, the information on the distribution of fishing activity in the marine environment is not available in most countries. Map 3 illustrates fisheries based on national production as a measure of the pressure fishing exerts on the corresponding ecoregions, but it is an inadequate spatial representation of this activity. Spatial information representing sources of pollution are equally difficult to find. When it exists, the most common form of sewage management in South America is to pipe it directly into the marine environment. Some countries do have maps of the locations of the outfalls, but rarely have information regarding the degree of treatment. In this regional analysis, only 1 of the top 3, and 5 of the top 10 threats were spatially represented: Urban Development (Map 2), Fisheries (Map 3), Hydrocarbon Industry (Map 4), Aquaculture (Map 5), and Maritime Transportation (Map 6). Despite the limitations of the data (as in the case of fisheries) and the fact that these maps represent only half of the top 10 threats for South America, it is possible to derive a combined threat index denoting the degree to which the marine ecoregions are exposed to the five mapped threats (Map 7). Of the 14 marine

ecoregions for which consistent data was available, 8 ranked as exposed to Very High (7) and High (1) threat levels. The remaining 6 ranked at lower levels of threat (Table 1). It is clear that there are highly threatened ecoregions in South America’s Pacific and Atlantic oceans and in the Caribbean Sea. Of these, the Atlantic ecoregions off Brazil are collectively the most threatened. This is consistent with that region having the most populous coastal zone in South America, a very active participation in the global market through maritime transportation, a well-developed offshore hydrocarbon industry, and a growing shrimp aquaculture industry.

Table 1: Top Ten Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in South America Threat Fisheries Pollution Urban Development Resource Extraction Hydrocarbon Industry Aquaculture Maritime Transport Tourism Invasive species Climate Change

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mapped Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No

While the threat maps suggest that the level of use of the majority (57%) of coastal and marine environments is high or very high, the data on current levels of protection in the same environments paint a troubling picture. 14 of the 16 ecoregions have levels of protection that represent less than 5% of the ecoregional area (Table 2, Map 8), and 8 of them have less than 1% protected. Only 2 ecoregions – the Amazonian and the Southwestern Caribbean—have protection levels above 10% of the area of the ecoregion. Currently, only 3.4% of the study area is represented within some type of protected area. While the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea are South America’s most threatened, the Pacific Ocean clearly houses the least protected coastal and marine environment in South America. All the ecoregions have less than 0.5% of their area within existing protected areas. The challenge is significant.


AN


3

Table 2: Level of Threat and Existing Coastal and Marine Protection Area (PA) per Marine Ecoregion in South America: Very High (VH), High (H), Moderate (M), Low (L)

Existing Ecoregion Central Peru Guayaquil Rio Grande Northeastern Brazil Southern Caribbean Southeastern Brazil Eastern Brazil Southwestern Caribbean Central Chile Araucanian Chiloense Fernando de Noronha and Atoll das Rocas Channels and Fjords of Southern Chile Humboldtian Amazonia Panama Bight

Threat

Existing PA

PA (ha)

VH VH VH VH VH VH VH

L L M M M M M

0 63,880 342,939 997,764 1,336,523 1,691,066 2,119,691

H M M M

VH L L L

20,224,759 4,811 4,981 6,565

M

L

44,817

M M M -

L L VH M

67,184 336,939 7,047,111 610,978

Table 3: Potential Protected Areas per Marine Ecoregions in South America Ecoregion

Potential Protected Areas (ha)

Northeastern Brazil Eastern Brazil Chiloense Amazonia Rio Grande Southeastern Brazil Channels and Fjords of Southern Chile Humboldtian Guayaquil Central Peru Araucanian Panama Bight Central Chile Southwestern Caribbean TOTAL

11,279,899 6,537,473 5,462,642 4,721,438 3,382,248 1,263,879 209,911 208,217 124,000 89,549 74,199 37,000 34,435 32,245 39,900,009

1.3 Findings and Recommendations

Efforts are being made to meet these challenges. The assessments described here have contributed to the identification of conservation priorities that, if their protection is implemented, will begin to change the coastal and marine conservation scenario for South America. A key step has been the identification of potential new areas to be created for coastal and marine protection. The proposed new areas total approximately 39 million hectares distributed among ecoregions (Table 3). If implemented, these new areas will bring an additional 4 ecoregions over the 10% protection level, 2 to over the 7% level, and in many cases, double the existing levels of protection in the remaining ecoregions.

The coastal and marine environment in South America is subject to many human uses that have detrimental impacts on the biodiversity that lives there. Coupled with the low level of protection (3.4% of the study area) and the questionable effectiveness of that existing protection, urgent investment is needed to abate the threats and significantly increase the level of protection. An important step towards better threat abatement is gaining a better understanding of the geographic distribution of the threats and of the impact of those threats. Fisheries, pollution, mineral extraction, tourism, invasive species, and climate change are key threats for which a severe lack of spatial information exists. Actions to reduce the levels of those threats should be taken immediately. Governments and non-governmental organizations, with collaborations from the private sector, have identified over 39 million hectares of potential new coastal and marine protected areas around South America. If created, these would more than double the coastal and marine protected areas in South America (to 8.7% of study area).

4

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

The potential additional levels of protection of the proposed new protected areas have been mapped for the 6 countries covered in this report (Map 9). Additional priority areas for coastal and marine conservation have also been mapped (see country-specific chapters). Marine environmental conservation in South America has received relatively little investment from the funding community. This must change. Although the challenges remain great, the combination of factors— such as the high current levels of uses along with the low levels of protection, the favorable political will created by the CBD, and the increasing technical capacity of governments—has prepared the South American region as a prime candidate for investment in coastal and marine conservation.

1.4 References Corredor, J. E. and Morell, J.M. 2001. “Seasonal Variation of Physical and Biogeochemical Features in Eastern Caribbean Surface Water.” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 106(C3):4517 – 4525. Hinrichsen, 1998. “Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies.” Gross, T.; Johnston, S.; and Barber, C.V. 2005. “A Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica: Entendendo e influenciando o Processo. Institute for Advanced Studies of the University of the United Nations.” Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING: WETLANDS AND WATER Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Spalding M, Fox H, Davidson N, Ferdana Z, Finlayson M, Halpern B, Jorge M, Lombana A, Lourie S, Martin K, McManus E, Molnar J, Newman K, Recchia C, Robertson J (2006). “Global Coastal and Marine Biogeographic Regionalization as a Support Tool for Implementation of CBD Programmes of Work”. COP8 Information Document 34. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. 21pp. Sullivan Sealy, K. and Bustmante, G 1999. “Setting Geographic Priorities for Marine Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean”. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

1.5 Author Affiliation Anthony Chatwin, Demian Rybock – The Nature Conservancy, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA, USA 22203. Email: [email protected]


AN


5

6

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA


AN


7

8

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA


AN


9

10

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA


AN


11

12

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA


AN


13

14

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

2

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Brazil Ana Paula Prates, Luis Henrique de Lima, and Anthony Chatwin

2.1 Introduction Almost 9000 kilometers long and influenced by a combination of oceanic currents – notably the warm Brazil Current and the cold Malvinas/Falklands Current – as well as significant estuarine input from myriad rivers and dynamic oceanography (upwellings), the Brazilian coastline is composed of cold waters to the south and southeast and warm waters to the north and northeast. In turn, these waters support a great variety of ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs, dunes, sandy beaches, rocky shores, lagoons, and estuaries that are home to myriad species of fauna and flora, many of which are endemic and some of which are threatened with extinction (MMA 2002 a and b). In relation to species biodiversity, the coastal and marine environments of Brazil are home to a great number of species of mammals, birds and cheolonids. Of the 43 registered cetacean species in the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the conservation status of four are of concern: the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis); the humpback whale (Megaptera navaeangliae); the La Plata river dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei); and the gray boto dolphin (Sotalia fluviatilis). Two of the four sireniad species that exist in the world are found in Brazilian waters, of which only one is marine: the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). It is the most threatened aquatic mammal in Brazil, with the remaining population totaling a mere few hundred individuals. There are seven known species of pinnipeds in Brazilian waters, of which only two are relatively common: the sea lion (Otaria flavescens) and the southern seal (Arctocephalus australis). There are approximately 100 registered resident and migratory bird species in the coastal and marine environment, including terns (Sterna spp.); shearwaters (Puffinus lherminieri); frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens); the brown booby (Sula leucogaste); the kelp gull (Larus dominicanus); and species of the Charadriiformes and Ciconiiformes orders. In addition, five of the seven species of sea turtles that exist in the world live in Brazilian waters:

C OAS TA L

the loggerhead (Caretta caretta); the green (Chelonia mydas); the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea); the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata); and the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). There have been significant advances in public policy focused on the conservation and integrated management of the rich diversity of ecosystems and species in Brazil. As a signatory to the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Brazilian government developed a National Plan of Protected Areas (PNAP) that includes special consideration of the coastal and marine environments. Legal recognition of the PNAP, along with its defining principles, directives, objectives and strategies for the establishment of a representative and effectively managed system of terrestrial areas by 2010 and marine areas by 2012, was established by Decree 5,758/2006. A key directive of the PNAP mandates that marine protected areas be created and managed for the conservation of biodiversity and the recovery of fishery resources. Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment (MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente), in partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Brazil’s Environmental and Natural Resources Institute (IBAMA – Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis), launched a project to identify priority areas for conservation, including candidates for the creation of new protected areas. Through a series of regional workshops, over 300 Brazilian coastal and marine experts provided input for a planning process that was completed in 2006. The process identified 506 priority areas (43,223,400 ha) in the coastal zone and an additional 102 priority areas (334,465,800 ha) in the marine environment. Of these priority areas, 145 (14,841,200 ha) in the coastal zone and 22 (196,33,200 ha) in the marine environment have been identified as candidates for new protected areas with varying degrees of protection. When implemented, the national system of coastal and marine protected areas,

AND

M A R I N E C O N S E R VAT I O N P R I O R I T I E S

IN

BRAZIL

15

comprised of the proposed new areas along with the already existing ones, will provide much-needed protection of the coastal and marine environments of Brazil.

2.2 Priority Areas for Conservation of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Brazil The large territorial extension and the biological and ecological heterogeneity of the Brazilian coastal zone and marine environment required a regionalized approach to the planning. The technical team of the NZCM (Nucleus of the Coastal and Marine Zone of the MMA)/SBF/MMA that coordinated the process to review and update the government’s priority areas and actions for conservation opted for conducting 4 information-gathering technical workshops and 3 regional workshops focused on the determination of priority areas and actions. The technical workshops used the Ecoregional Assessments methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC and WWF 2006) adapted from the methods for systematic conservation planning (SCP - Margules & Pressey 2006), where marine biodiversity experts work in groups to define the regional conservation targets, the threats to their condition, and their conservation goals. The information collected was organized into a database that was used to develop maps showing the biological importance of each of 4 regions (North, Northeast, Southeast, and South). These maps were generated from the irreplaceability maps from C-plan (a decision support tool developed to inform the identification of priority areas by, among other things, mapping options for achieving explicit conservation goals for each region) (Pressey et al. 2005). The maps of biological importance, along with other datasets, were used by 281 participants in three regional meetings to identify priority areas and actions for conservation. Meeting participants represented various entities, including federal, state and municipal governments; members of the private sector; non-governmental organizations; universities; and other research centers. The resulting map (Map 10) shows the priority areas for coastal and marine conservation in Brazil.

2.3 Coastal and Marine Conservation Targets and Goals After 4 technical meetings, 177 experts on biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources who were knowledgeable about coastal and marine ecosystems identified 239 conservation targets comprised of 85 coastal ecosystems, 55 marine ecosystems and 99 coastal and marine species or taxa. This highly participatory effort resulted in regionally specific lists of targets intended to represent the coastal and marine biodiversity in that geography.

2.4 Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Brazil An assessment of the priority threats to marine conservation in Brazil was completed during the 4 technical meetings in 2006. The regional results are shown divided into coastal and marine key threats (see Figures 1-8). As is the case with most coastal nations with colonial legacies, the territorial occupation of Brazil happened first at the coast, progressing inland thereafter. Currently, approximately half of the Brazilian population lives within 200 km of the coast. With 1/5 of the Brazilian population – about 30 million people – living on the coast, the demographic density in the coastal zone (87 inhabitants/km2) is 5 times greater than the national average (17 inhabitants/km2). Furthermore, the coastal population is highly concentrated in urban centers with an urbanization rate of 87%. This population density is a significant source of stress on coastal and marine biodiversity. Pollution and urban development ranked high in the threat analysis that was conducted in the 4 regions of Brazil. This ranking reflects the fact that 80% percent of the urban population in Brazil is not serviced by public sewage systems and that 43% of urban homes do not even have septic tanks, which suggests the degree to which Brazilian cities represent sources of environmental pollution. In the coastal zone, untreated urban residues are launched into the ocean at varying distances from the shoreline. Thus, coastal metropolises are not only the greatest source of coastal pollution, but also the main source of impact on the marine environment (MMA 2002a). Besides being affected by population density and the associated domestic pollution, the coastal zone is also impacted by industrial pollution. Given the strong

16

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Table 4: Conservation Targets and Goals for the Southeast/South Region of Brazil A) Coastal Ecosystems and B) Marine Ecosystems and C) Coastal and Marine Species

A) Coastal Ecosystem Conservation Targets

Conservation Goals (%)

Salt marshes Subtidal Calcareous Algal Bank (Combine with Subtidal Hard Bottoms) Macroalgal Banks “Butia” Palm Forest Restinga (Vegetated Beaches) Mangroves Rocky shores (Includes Coral Communities) Dunes Estuaries Cliffs Coastal Ponds Lagoons Coastal Rocky Islands Tidal Channels Seagrass Beds Tidal Flats Beaches Littoral Zone

50%

B) Marine Ecosystem Conservation Targets Conservation Goals (%) Abrolhos Bank (Archipelago) Seamounds Subtidal Soft Bottom (0 - 50 meters depth) Subtidal Soft Bottom (50 - 200 meters depth) Upwelling in the “Cabo Frio” Region Upwelling in the “Cabo de Santa Marta” Region Gyre of Victory Oceanic Islands Seamounds Deep Reefs Canyons and Old Alluvial Fans (River Beds on the Continental Slope) Kelp Beds (40-120 meters depth) Inner Continental Shelf (0-50 meters depth) Outer Continental Shelf (50 - 200 meters depth) Continental Slope (until 1000 meters of depth) EEZ (greater than 1000 meters)

50% 100% 70% 50% 100% 70% 50% 50% 30% 70% 70% 70% 50% 70% 70% 50% 30%

C) Coastal and Marine Species Level Conservation Targets (Scientific Name)

Popular Name

Asterina stellifera Astropecten brasiliensis Astropecten cingulatus Astropecten marginatus Atta robusta Balaenoptera borealis (Distribution) Balaenoptera borealis (Foraging Area) Balaenoptera musculus (Distribution) Balaenoptera physalus Caretta caretta (Feeding and Resting Areas) Caretta caretta (Nesting Beaches) Cetorhinus maximus Chelonia mydas (Sightings) Condylactis gigantea Coscinasterias tenuispina Ctenomys flamarioni Dermochelys coriacea (Feeding and Resting Areas) Dermochelys coriacea (Nesting Beaches) Dinoponera lucida Diomedea dabbenena Diomedea epomophora Diomedea exulans Diomedea sanfordi Diopatra cuprea Diplodon iheringi Echinaster (othilia) brasiliensis

Starfish Starfish Starfish Starfish Black ant Sei Whale Sei Whale Blue Whale Fin Whale Loggerhead Sea Turtle Loggerhead Sea Turtle Basking Shark Green Sea Turtle Giant Caribbean Anemone Starfish Flamarion’s Tuco-tuco (Rodent) Leatherback Turtle Leatherback Turtle Ant Wandering Albatross Royal Albatross Albatross Albatross Tube Worm (Polychaete) Mollusk Starfish

100% 70% 30% 70% 30% 30% 30% 50% 50% 70% 30% 50% 30% 100% 30% 30%

Conservation Goals (%) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% (continued)

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

BRAZIL

17

Table 4: Conservation Targets and Goals for the Southeast/South Region of Brazil A) Coastal Ecosystems and B) Marine Ecosystems and C) Coastal and Marine Species

(continued) C) Coastal and Marine Species Level Conservation Targets (Scientific Name)

Popular Name

Echinaster (othilia) echinophorus Echinaster (othilia) guyanensis Elacatinus figaro Eretmochelys imbricata (Feeding and Resting Areas) Eubalaena australis Eucidaris tribuloides Eunice sebastiani Eurythoe complanata Galeorhinus galeus Ginglymostoma cirratum Gonyostomus henseli Gramma brasiliensis Isostichopus badionotus Lepidochelys olivacea (Feeding and resting areas) Lepidochelys olivacea (ocasional nesting beaches) Linckia guildingii Luidia clathrata Luidia ludwigi Luidia senegalensis Mazama nana Mecistogaster pronoti Megaptera novaeangliae (Calving grounds) Megaptera novaeangliae (ocasional distribution) Megaptera novaeangliae (traditional distribution) Millepora alcicornis Mustelus schmitti Narcissia trigonaria Negaprion brevirostris Oreaster reticulatus Paracentrotus gaimardi Parides ascanius Phrynops hogei Pontoporia blainvillei Procellaria aequinoctialis (Distribution) Procellaria conspicillata Pterodroma incerta Rhincodon typus Rhinobatos horkelii Scarus guacamaia (Distribution) Speothos venaticus Squatina guggenheim Squatina occulta Thalassarche chlororhynchos Thalassarche melanophris Thalasseus maximus (Distribution) Thalasseus maximus (Nesting sites)

18

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

Starfish Starfish Fish Hawksbill Sea Turtle Southern Right Whale Pencil Urchin Polychaete Polychaete Tope Shark Nurse Shark Mollusk Brazilian Gramma fish Sea Cucumber Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Common Comet Star Lined Sea Star Starfish Nine-armed Sea Star Pygmy Brocket Dragonfly Humpback Whale Humpback Whale Humpback Whale Fire Coral Narrownose Smooth-hound Starfish Lemon Shark Cushion Sea Star Sea Urchin Butterfly Brazilian Sideneck Turtle Franciscana (La Plata Dolphin) White-chinned Petrel Petrel Atlantic Petrel Whale Shark Guitarfish Parrotfish Bush Dog Angel Shark Angel Shark Yellow-nosed Albatross Black-browed Albatross Tern Tern

SOUTH AMERICA

Conservation Goals (%) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

links between the national economy and external markets for both imports and exports, a significant portion of the national industrial infrastructure is located in the coastal zone. Because of the dependence on maritime transportation, some productive sectors of the chemical, petrochemical and petroleum industries are located near or even directly on the shore. The environmental risks posed by these sectors, added to the risks already posed by port activities, shipbuilders, and processing plants for cellulose and a number of minerals for the export market, support the conclusion that there is a high potential of environmental risk and impact in Brazil’s coastal zone. (MMA 2002a).

market, the industry is expanding in most Brazilian coastal states and now represents over half of the exports of all aquaculture products. The environmental characteristics considered optimum for shrimp farming – temperature, salinity and water availability – coincide with those for mangrove forests. As in other countries where shrimp farming development has occurred, the activity is often located adjacent to or even in mangrove areas. Although federal law places mangrove areas under permanent protection, the mangrove areas along the coast are highly prone to suffer impacts from shrimp farm development, such as deforestation and changes in water quality (Daldegan et al. 2006).

Even the areas of low population density in the coastal zone—historically, the homes of semi-isolated traditional communities—are experiencing growing threats from unfettered development driven by tourism. Resort development and a growing demand for second homes is further threatening the integrity of marine and coastal habitats. Along with this development, the lack of adequate licensing and enforcement results in inadequate land use, changes to the landscape, and harmful impacts to fragile and/or vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs (MMA 2002a).

In the marine environment, the threat assessment points to fishing activities and offshore oil and gas exploration as the main threats to biodiversity. Overfishing is known to generate a significant impact on coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves, further hindering the recovery of fish populations. The current measures for fishery management have been ineffective as they have not prevented overexploitation, nor have they resolved user conflicts. Furthermore, the many different governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the fisheries do not always coordinate their efforts, or present solutions that are compatible with the status of the stocks or the needs of the fishermen (Isaac et al. 2006).

Shrimp farming is a rapidly expanding economic activity in Brazil’s coastal zone. Focused on supplying the export

Figure 1: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in North Brazilian Waters Sedimentation 8.3% Maritime Transportation 4.4% Agriculture 4.3%

Resource Extraction 14.4%

Aquaculture 3.8% Cattle Ranching 3.1% Climate Change 2.1% Tourism 2.0%

Fishery Activity 16.2%

Governance 1.7%

Others 13.7%

Oil and Gas Activity 0.8% Pollution 17.1%

Coastal Development 21.7%

Noise 0.1% Invasive Species 0.1%

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

BRAZIL

19

Figure 2: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in North Brazilian Waters Oil and Gas Activity 9.8%



Sedimentation 2.6% Aquaculture 2.3%

Maritime Transportation 13.8%

Tourism 2.3%

Others 12.4%

Pollution 16.7%

Climate Change 2.0% Fishery Activity 29.4%

Agriculture 1.7% Governance 1.4%

Figure 3: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in Northeast Brazilian Waters Resource Extraction 8%

Aquaculture 6%

Governance 10% Agriculture 3%

Tourism 14%

Others 6%

Pollution 15% Fishery Activity 15%

20

PRIORITIES

FOR

Coastal Development 22%


Invasive Species 2.6% Climate Change 1.6% Maritime Transportation 1.2% Oil and Gas Activity 0.6%

IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Figure 5: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in Southeastern Brazilian Waters

Tourism 13.2%


Maritime Transportation 5.6%

Oil and Gas 6.0%

Governance 4.2%


Others 11.7%

Aquaculture 2.6% Agriculture 1.6% Invasive Species 1.3%

Pollution 17.4%

Climate Change 1.2%


Noise 0.8%

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

BRAZIL

21

Figure 6: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in Southeastern Brazilian Waters

Governance 7.5% Pollution 6.5% Tourism 4.6%

Oil and Gas Activity 21%

Coastal Development 3.7% Maritime Transportation 2.5% Climate change 2.2%

Others 11.8%

Resource Extraciton 2.1% Aquaculture 0.9%

Fishery Activity 49%

Invasive Species 0.3%

Figure 7: Key Threats to Coastal Biodiversity in South Brazilian Waters

Tourism 10.2%



Cattle Ranching 4.4% Invasive Species 3.8%

Agriculture 10.4% Others 14.7%

Pollution 16.5%

Sedimentation 2.6% Maritime Transportation 1.4%


Aquaculture 1.0% Governance 0.8% Climate Change 0.6%

22

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Figure 8: Key Threats to Marine Biodiversity in South Brazilian Waters

Governance 7.1% Pollution 36.4% Resource Extraction 2.0%

Oil and Gas Activity 1.0% Fishery Activity 52.5%


2.5. Information Needs and Monitoring

2.6 References

Since the World Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Brazilian government has invested in coastal and marine science. Over the past 10 years the project “Recursos vivos da Zona Economica Exclusiva” (REVIZEE) enabled researchers in all regions of Brazil’s coast to undertake integrated oceanographic research, covering physical, biological and geological aspects of the marine environment. The REVIZEE was completed last year and publications are still being produced. Although the state of knowledge about the coastal and marine environment has grown significantly over the past decade, there is still a recognized need for further information. This is evidenced by the fact that the experts involved in the planning efforts described here were unable to determine the biological importance of a vast swath of area in the coastal and marine environment due to a lack of information (see “no data” in Map 10). Furthermore, there is a significant lack of national information on the distribution of threats, including the location of point and non-point coastal sources of pollution, maps of fishing activities in the ocean, location of mineral resource extraction areas in the coastal zone, maps of marine invasive species, maps of areas slated for tourism development, and maps of potential impacts of climate change such as sea level rise and the related coastline alterations.

Isaac, V.J., Martins, A.S., Haimovici, M., Castello, J.P., Andriguetto Filho, J.M. 2006. Síntese do estado de conhecimento sobre a pesca marinha e estuarina do Brasil. In: Isaac, V.J., Martins, A.S., Haimovici, M., Castello, J.P., Andriguetto Filho, J.M. (Eds). A Pesca Mariha e Estuarina do Brasil no início do Século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais. Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará – UFPA, 188pp. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 405, 243–253. MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2002a. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação da biodiversidade das zonas costeira e marinha. Fundação Bio-RIO, SECTAM, IDEMA, SNE, Brasília. 72pp. CD-Rom. MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2002b. Biodiversidade Brasileira: Avaliação e Identificação de Áreas Prioritárias para Conservação, Utilização Sustentável e Repartição de Benefícios da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Série Biodiversidade, 5. 4040pp. MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2007. Programa Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro (GERCO). Disponível em: http://www.mma.gov.br. Rev. abril 2007. Pressey, R.L., M. Watts, M. Ridges & T. Barrett. 2005. C-Plan conservation planning software. User Manual. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund. 2006. Standards for Ecoregional Assessments and Biodiversity Visions. January 26, 2006. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

2.7 Author Affiliations Ana Paula L. Prates – Coordinator of the Nucleus of the Coastal and Marine Zone of the Ministry of Environment. Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco B, Sala 713 Brasília-DF, Brazil. Email: [email protected] Luis Henrique de Lima – Technical coordinator, Nucleus of the Coastal and Marine Zone of the Ministry of environment. Email:[email protected] Anthony Chatwin – The Nature Conservancy, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA, USA 22203. Email: [email protected]

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

BRAZIL

23

24

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

3

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Chile Sandra Miethke, Steffen Reichle, Eric Armijo, Zach Ferdaña, Leonardo Sotomayor, Anthony Chatwin, Beatriz Ramirez, and Roberto de Andrade

3.1 Introduction The Chilean temperate waters extend along 4500 kilometers of coast. The topography delineates two coastal regions. The first can be found between Arica (ca. 18°S) and Puerto Montt (ca.41°S) where the coast forms an almost-straight line exposed to winds and waves. There are few protected bays and the few sandy beaches are exposed to the prevailing southeast winds. The Humboldt Current runs north along this coast. The second coastal region can be found south of Puerto Montt, where the coast is jagged and has numerous islands that protect the coastline from storms. The heterogeneity in physical features and unique characteristics of the water circulation of the Chilean coast has resulted in high levels of endemism, with a number of relict taxa. Endemism is similar, or even higher, than in oceanic islands. Analyses of coastal benthic macro invertebrates belonging to 6 phyla (Annelida, Cnidaria, Crustacea, Echinodermata, Porifera, Urochordata), 835 genera, 336 families, and 76 orders, show that 38.2% of the species have restricted distributions and exhibit high levels of endemism. Due to the presence of upwelling systems along the Humboldt Current, the Chilean coast is among the world’s most productive. Indeed, Chile is one of the world’s 4 major fishing powers, with marine landings and aquaculture activities accounting for approximately 10% of global fisheries and contributing 12% to the export value of the national economy. Approximately 27% of the Chilean population lives permanently in coastal districts. However, population increases in coastal districts during summertime can reach 1000%. The market for second homes is rising at an accelerated pace in relation to Chile’s growing economy and has created increasing demand for urban development along coastal areas. Governance of the marine environment is shared among various national agencies (Subsecretaría de Pesca, Servicio Nacional de

C OAS TA L

Pesca, Subsecretaría de Marina, Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y Marina Mercante – DIRECTEMAR), the Ministry of Education, and the National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA). All of these organizations compose the National Commission of Coastal Borders that discusses matters relative to management of the coast. A National Technical Committee of Marine Protected Areas advises the National Commission of Coastal Borders regarding creation of new marine protected areas (MPAs). Subsecretaría de Marina is the owner of the seabottom and water column, Subsecretaría de Pesca manages the hydrobiological resources contained in the water, DIRECTEMAR enforces navigation regulations and pollution permits, and CONAMA determines water quality standards. From an administrative point of view, public, publicprivate and private systems coexist in the National Commission of Coastal Borders. There is a central administration, and a regional administration is in the process of being implemented. Currently, there is no administration at the municipal level. A National Integrated Marine-Terrestrial, PublicPrivate Protected Areas System is being designed. This would put into place an integrated managing and monitoring system for marine protected areas. CONAMA is also the lead agency on the Chile’s commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity. In this capacity, in 2001-2003, CONAMA carried out a process to develop a National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS). The NBS established a biodiversity conservation goal of 10% of “relevant ecosystems” under official protection, and determined a network of terrestrial and marine biodiversity priority sites. The process was carried out in each of Chile’s administrative regions, and included the participation of landowners, representatives from all research centers, all public agencies,

AND


IN

CHILE

25

and most private enterprises. A long list and a short list of priority sites were developed. Every administrative region has since declared at least one of those sites as “under official protection.”

3.2 Priority Areas for Conservation Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Chile To identify the priority areas for marine conservation, CONAMA carried out a one-year- long independent process in each of its 13 administrative regions. This consisted of a series of workshops with experts, public agencies and private owners to select sites that would represent the maximum amount of marine biodiversity. The main criteria for site selection were: biological importance (endemism, uniqueness, etc.), intensity of human activities, and feasibility. This process also included all previous prioritization efforts, such as the ones conducted by Subsecretaría de Pesca (FIP 1997-45 and FIP 1999-29), and Servicio Nacional de Pesca. At the same time, CONAMA conducted a series of national workshops and facilitated communication over the internet, where local communities and the general public could propose new priority conservation sites. Later, in 2006, Subsecretaría de Pesca produced an internal report proposing a short list of institutional priority sites. The result of all these processes is a list of 55 marine priority sites. CONAMA, jointly with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), is now leading an effort to define relevant ecosystems and to evaluate the contribution of each of these sites to the 10% NBS goal. The current set of priority areas represents a big step towards the commitment of strengthening a representative system of marine protected areas by 2012, but it is still being reviewed for gaps in representation of conservation targets (see below). It is expected that in the near future, a marine conservation portfolio for Chile will be defined by combining the priority areas for conservation with the additional areas necessary to fully represent the conservation targets.

coast. The mapping of the “relevant habitats” was carried out by TNC. On a finer iteration of this process, TNC conducted a workshop in Santiago (November 2005), during which 11 experts representing 8 institutions nationwide selected 28 conservation targets to represent the marine biodiversity of Chile (Table 5). Since then, TNC has carried out a modelling of benthic and coastal habitats to represent the spatial distribution of some of the conservation targets. The modelling resulted in 101 benthic habitats and 13 coastal types, but was not able to represent all targets identified by experts.

Table 5: Conservation Targets and Goals for Chile’s Coastal and Marine Environment: A) Ecosystem Targets and B) Species Level Targets A) Ecosystem Targets Cliffs Submerged Cliffs Deep Water Coral Reefs Hydrocoral Reefs Bays Coral Banks of Submerged Cliffs River Mouths Fjords Rocky Bottoms Sandy Bottoms Muddy Bottoms Kelp Beds (Lessonia, Macrosystis) Coastal Wetlands Islands and Peninsulas Seagrasses Rocky Shores Sandy Beaches Rocky Beaches - Exposed Rocky Beaches - Not Exposed Macroalgal Bed (Gracilaria, Ulva) Gorgonia Banks Coastal Lagoons Sea Mounts Upwellings Oceanic Islands

B) Species Target

3.3 Coastal and Marine Conservation Targets For the marine environments, the National Technical Committee of Marine Protected Areas defined coarse filter targets as the overlap of zoogeographic zones (FIP 2004-28) and TNC´s Major Habitat Types (nearshore and shelf ). The overlap results in 18 coarse scale “relevant habitats” along the continental

26

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

Semi-terrestrial Mammals Aquatic Mammals Coastal Birds Reptiles Fish Spawning Aggregations

SOUTH AMERICA

Mapped

Goal

Yes NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Yes Yes Yes Yes NO NO NO NO NO NO

30 30 30 30 30 -

Mapped NO NO NO NO NO NO

3.4 Coastal and Marine Conservation Goals

got higher representation goals than targets that were more viable, less vulnerable and rare. Goals vary from a minimum of 30% to a maximum of 100%. The results are listed in Table 5. Unfortunately, the lack of existing cartographic information for the targets in Chile has prevented the development of conservation goals for most of the targets.

The NBS established a goal of placing 10% of relevant ecosystems under official protection. This does not intend to be an ecologically based goal, but a programmatic goal, that in fact has helped move conservation activities forward. TNC has carried out expert workshops to define ecologically relevant conservation goals for each of the targets listed by experts. In order to do this, TNC conducted two workshops: one in Valdivia and one in Santiago, where 21 experts representing 13 institutions nationwide went through a process of defining goals.

3.5 Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Chile A threats rapid survey was done in order to identify the key human activities impacting coastal and marine biodiversity (Figure 9). The assessment was done by 11 experts representing 8 organizations nationwide during a workshop in Santiago.

The process consisted of listing key ecological attributes for each target, then evaluating each attribute for viability and vulnerability to key threats. The results were then entered into a table where the targets were ranked in relation to viability, vulnerability and rarity. Targets that were less viable, more vulnerable and rare

Figure 9 - Key Threats to Chile’s Coastal and Marine Environment

Aquaculture 7% Invasive spp. 5% Resource Exploitation 12%

Sedimentation 3%

Development 21%

Eutrofication 2% Others 5%

Habitat Alteration 2% Maritime Transportation 2% Climate Change 1%

Fisheries 22%

Pollution 23%

C OAS TA L

AND

Oil and Gas Activity 0%


IN

CHILE

27

According to the opinions of the experts in attendance, pollution, fisheries, development, resource exploitation and aquaculture account for 90% of the priority threats to coastal and marine biodiversity in Chile. Pollution All major urban centres in Chile are located less than 100 km from the coast. Not all have primary sewage treatment plants, and others have no treatment, resulting in varying degrees of domestic effluent reaching coastal waters either through pipelines or through rivers. Runoff from agricultural activities (fresh fruits make up 10% of exports) and soil erosion following deforestation are more prominent in the southern and central areas. To address this, the Government of Chile is taking measures to ensure the adoption of more sustainable practices and the application of existing norms that will reduce the negative impacts of this problem like water contamination. Runoff associated with mining is more common in northern areas (minerals form 62% of exports with copper alone contributing 42%). Copper mining facilities, for example, have disposed copper mine tailings in some sites along the coast, altering the geomorphology and chemistry of the area and affecting local communities (Castilla and Nealler 1978; Castilla 1983; Paskoff and Petiot 1990). Fish processing plants, thermo electrical plants, chemical industries, the paper and pulp industry, and the oil and gas industry also dispose of their effluents in rivers or directly into the sea at varying levels of treatment. (IFOP 1987). Fisheries Most benthic and pelagic fisheries in Chile are regulated. However, continued growth in the fisheries markets has led to quotas being set at their utmost limits. Whilst this is expected to maintain catches at a sustainable level in terms of overall biomass, under the baseline scenario, negative impacts on biodiversity in some areas can be expected. The reason for this is that the Chilean coast is reputed for the role of economically important keystone predators in structuring its communities (Castilla and Bustamante 1989).The high permitted fishing levels, coupled with the limited refuges for the natural repopulation of stock, have already caused the reduction of keystone predators to a level that affects biodiversity. This is particularly seen in intertidal and subtidal biological communities, increasing the pressures on threatened, vulnerable,

28

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

endangered and endemic species (Moreno et al. 1984; Castilla 1998). Development Urban development along the coastal zone has increased significantly during the last 10 years due to economic growth and a rise in national incomes that allows more and more families access to second homes (Pabellón de la Construcción 2005). Infrastructure projects have changed coastal geomorphology causing habitat disruption, fragmentation, and/or habitat loss. Development activity is concentrated in certain segments of the coast. Chile’s 15.1 million population is highly concentrated in the Mediterranean-type climate central zone (78% of population), with 40% living in the metropolitan region of Santiago (INE 2002). Resource Extraction In the past several years, sand and gravel extraction from the coastal zone has caught the attention of experts. This threat is related to the explosive coastal development and needs to be studied further. Aquaculture Aquaculture is a ubiquitous activity in the Magellanic province, where the fjords provide the necessary protection for salmon and mussel cultures to flourish. In some extensive areas of Administrative Regions X and XI, there is literally no coastal space in the fjords that has not been leased for aquaculture, although some of them remain inactive for the moment. The activity produces a great amount of bottom contamination and eutrophication, smothering and chemically altering the regime of unique cold water corals and other rare species of the fjords, most of them not yet described.

3.6 Information Needs and Monitoring Scientific data at the national level remain deficient for the Chilean marine environments. Most of the biological research has concentrated on the tidal and subtidal areas, and on limited areas of the coast— specifically, usually those linked to the location of research centers. Knowledge of the bottom of the sea and its biological riches beyond 50 meters is nonexistent, except for as it regards economically important species. A systematic and scientifically designed monitoring system is required.

SOUTH AMERICA

Oceanographic research also has important gaps. Scientific vessels are scarce and expensive to operate. Although levels of science funding from the government have increased in the past 10 years (www.conicyt.cl), they are still insufficient for acquiring the expensive equipment that is needed to do monitoring in the sea.

3.7 References Castilla J.C y R.H. Bustamante.1989. “Human exclusion from the intertidal zone of central Chile, the effects on Concholepas concholepas. (Gastropoda).” Oikos 45:391-399. Castilla, J.C. & E. Nealler. 1978. “Marine Environmental Impact due to Mining Activities of El Salvador Copper Mine, Chile.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 9(3): 67-70. Castilla, J.C. 1983. “Environmental impact in sandy beaches of copper mine tailings at Chañaral, Chile.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 14(12): 459-164 Castilla, J.C. 1998. “Marine biodiversity and community/Ecosystem functioning: Problems and challenges in coastal realms.” Frontiers in Biology: the challenge of biodiversity, biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. C.H. Chou & K.T.Shao (Eds). Academia Sinica, Taipei, pp.87-97. FIP 1997-45 “Estudio Piloto Ecológico y Socio-Económico en Áreas Potenciales de Reserva Marina en la II y IV Regiones.” Universidad Católica del Norte, Jorge González FIP 1999-29 “Estudio de Áreas Potenciales de Reservas y Parques Marinos entre la VII y X Regiones, Universidad Austral de Chile,” Carlos Moreno. FIP 2004-28 “Actualización y Valodación de la Clasificación de las Zonas Biogeográficas Litorales.” Universidad Austral de Chile, Eduardo Jaramillo. IFOP, 1987. “Diagnóstico de la contaminación marina en Chile, Tomos I y II.” Corporación de Fomento de la Producción, Santiago, 203 pp. INE, 2002. “Censo 2002. Síntesis de Resultados”. Informe INE. Moreno, C. A., K.M. Lunecke & H. F. Jara (1984). “Man as a predator in the intertidal zone of southern Chile.” Oikos, 42:155-160. Pabellón de la Construcción, 2005. Boletín Septiembre 2005. Paskoff and Petiot, 1990. Cited in “National Environmental Health Forum Monographs, Cooper , Metal Series No. 3,” 1997.

3.8 Author Affiliation Sandra Miethke, Steffen Reichle, Eric Armijo, Zach Ferdaña, Leonardo Sotomayor, Anthony Chatwin – The Nature Conservancy. Lota 2257 Oficina 204, Providencia, Santiago, Chile. Email: [email protected] Beatriz Ramirez – Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente, Teatinos 258, Santiago, Chile. [email protected] Roberto de Andrade – Coordinador Proyecto GEF #45831, “Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia mundial a lo largo de la costa Chilena.” Teatinos 258, Santiago, Chile. [email protected]

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

CHILE

29

30

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

4

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Colombia David A. Alonso, Luisa F. Ramírez, Juan Manuel Diaz, Carolina Segura, Paula Castillo, and Anthony Chatwin

4.1 Introduction

Environment were created. The SINA includes a National Parks Administration Unit and five scientific institutes devoted to environmental and biodiversity studies. Almost simultaneously, the mandates and decisions of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) were adopted and incorporated into the national legislation (Law 165 of 1994) and the National Biodiversity Policy that was launched in 1997 (MMA-IAvH, 1997).

With 988,000 square kilometers of territorial waters and approximately 3,000 kilometers of coastline, Colombia is close to being 50% maritime, and is the only South American country having coasts on both the Tropical Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. Because Colombia possesses oceanic islands located far offshore, wide sections of both the Tropical Eastern Pacific and the Southern-central Caribbean are included within the boundaries of its Economic Exclusive Zone. In contrast to most coastal countries however, Colombia´s population percentage inhabiting the coastal zones is relatively low at less than 15% (12.5% in the Caribbean, 2.0% in the Pacific).

The National System of Protected Areas is currently represented by 11 coastal-marine areas (7 in the Caribbean and 4 in the Pacific). These coastal-marine protected areas are supposed to ensure the conservation of representative samples of the most important ecosystems, including vital ecological processes and biodiversity. However, until the projects reported here, no comprehensive, wide-reaching regional studies such as gap analyses or ecorregional conservation assessments had been performed in Colombian marine-coastal areas.

There are remarkable differences between the two coasts in terms of climatic, geological, oceanographic, ecological, and biological features (see Botero and Alvarez León 2000, Marrugo et al. 2000, Díaz & Acero 2003). Coastal morphology, climate, and physical oceanographic processes vary greatly along spatial gradients as well as seasonally within both the Caribbean and the Pacific realms. In short, the great majority of tropical marine habitats are well represented in Colombia. Since most of these result from different and contrasting physical conditions and ecological processes, each habitat harbors its own particular biota. The total diversity of marine organisms in such a variety of environments is likely to be very high. Their study and effective conservation are huge challenges and a great responsibility for the country.

An agreement between the Ministry of Environment, research institutions and several NGOs was signed in 2005 in order to facilitate Colombia´s fulfillment of the compromises established in CBD COP-7. This agreement provides a unique opportunity to develop an effective agenda for the consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas, calling for the development of Marine Ecoregional Assessments to identify priority sites for biodiversity conservation in both the Caribbean and the Pacific coastal zones. Such priority sites will be the basis for an assessment of gaps in Colombia’s protected areas.

One of the first steps taken by Colombia towards the conservation of marine ecosystems and natural resources was the creation of the National Institute of Natural Renewable Resources (INDERENA) in 1968. However, it was only in 1994 that a more formal environmental policy was adopted in Colombia, when the National Environmental System (SINA) and the Ministry of the

C OAS TA L

4.2 Priority Areas for Conservation of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Colombia The priority areas for coastal and marine conservation in the Caribbean were identified using The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) methodology (Groves et al. 2002) and a decision system support tool (DSS

AND


IN

COLOMBIA

31

MARXAN – see Appendix A). The ecoregional planning process was developed together with national experts, independent consultants, NGOs, research institutions, universities and governmental agencies. Through 3 national workshops, targets representative of marine and coastal biodiversity were defined, as were their key ecological attributes. The conservation goals and biodiversity threats were established and the priority conservation sites evaluated. The priority areas have been endorsed by a number of recognized national experts as well as by the Minister of Environmental, Home and Land Development and by The Special Unit of the National Natural Systems Parks—entities who were involved in the process since the beginning. Experts selected 37 targets classified as either ecological subtidal systems, ecological intertidal systems, or relevant ecological communities (ecosystem level). During the second workshop the conservation goals for each system were defined as 30%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. The minimum viable biodiversity conservation goal was settled at 30%. The information was digitalized using the most up-to-date data available for the country. The threats were classified according with their grade of impact by assigning a value to express the threats as a cost per planning unit (PU). Areas with high cost were excluded from the analysis. Exclusion areas correspond to sites non-viable to conservation; they include infrastructure and productive extraction sites like cities, airports, ports, and shrimp aquaculture and salt extraction areas. Marine protected areas (MPAs) along the continental Caribbean were also included. The hexagonal planning units measured 260 ha each (refer to Appendix B for planning units). The parameters to run MARXAN were: BLM= 0.1, 1 million of iterations and 300 runs. The portfolio of priority areas obtained through MARXAN was analyzed with the experts during the last workshop. The last portfolio presents 100 new priority conservation sites equivalent to 12.2% of the Caribbean continental platform. The total area represented by the portfolio and the existing Caribbean MPAs is 22.4% (without the insular area of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina). The areas selected in the portfolio meet 97% of all the conservation target goals described in Table 6. The only targets for which goals were not

32

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

met are those located in sites adjacent to exclusion areas. In those cases, MARXAN cannot select the complete unit inside the portfolio. Another explanation could be the high cost of the PU that includes the target; in this case the penalization for selecting any of these units is too high. The priority areas for the Colombian Pacific are being developed in conjunction with those for Costa Rica and Panama through the Tropical Eastern Pacific Ecoregional Plan. This project encompasses three marine ecoregions: Panama Bight, Nicoya, and Cocos Island, and is being led by TNC with the cooperation of Conservation International (CI) and several research institutions, NGOs, and governmental agencies of Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia. As with the Caribbean assessment, the methodology employed follows the steps and procedures recommended by Groves et al. (2002) using MARXAN as a decision support system. This process involved experts from Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica in national workshops in each of the countries. The planning units to be used for the MARXAN runs will be hexagons, each with an area of 65 ha. Once the preliminary sites are identified, one last series of national workshops will provide the venue for final decisions regarding the final arrangement of priority sites for conservation.

4.3 Conservation Targets Over a 2-day workshop, 24 experts representing 15 institutions selected 37 ecosystem-level conservation targets to represent the coastal and marine biodiversity of the Colombian Caribbean. Those targets were classified by ecological systems (intertidal and subtidal) and relevant biological communities (Table 6).

SOUTH AMERICA

Table 6: Conservation Targets and Goals, per Subregion, for Colombia’s Caribbean Coastal and Marine Environment; A) Ecosystem Targets and B) Species Level Targets A) ECOSYSTEM LEVEL CONSERVATION TARGETS

Intertidal Ecological Systems High Energy Beaches Low Energy Beaches Coastal Tidal River Rocky Beaches Hard Rock Cliffs Soft Rock Cliffs Mixohaline Mangroves Marine Water Mangroves Saline Shores Estuaries Coastal Lagoons Arracachal (Monntrichardia arborescens) Corchal (Pterocarpus officinalis) Helechales (Fern Association) Panganales (Palm Tree Association) Subtidal Ecological Systems Coral Reefs Calcareous Algal Hard Bottoms Seagrass Beds Fleshy Algal Bottoms Submarine Diapir Deep Water Coral Reefs Upwelling Areas Not Carbonated Mobile Bottoms of Thick Grain – Subtidal Not Carbonated Mobile Bottoms of Fine Grain – Subtidal Carbonated Mobile Bottoms of Thick Grain – Subtidal Carbonated Mobile Bottoms of Fine Grain – Subtidal Relevant Biological Communities Fish Spawning and Nurse Areas Lobster Spawning and Nurse Areas Conch (Strombus gigas) Spawning and Nurse Areas Pearl Oysters Banks (Pinctada and Pteria) Marine Turtles Nesting Areas Marine Turtles Feeding Areas Relevant Biological Communities Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Congregation Areas Marine Mammals Congregation, Alimentation and Reproduction Areas (Whales, Manatees, Otters) Marine Birds Congregation Areas Shorebirds Congregation Areas

% GOALS

Guajira

Palomino

Tayrona

Magdalena

30 30

30

30 30

30 30

30

100 30 60

100 100 30 100

100 100

60

100

60

60

100

100 100 100

Archipelagos Coralinos

Morrosquillo

Darien

100 100 100

30 30 30 100 100 30 60 60

100 100

60 100

100 100

60

30 100 30 30 100 100 60 100

100 100 100 60

60

100 100 100

100 100 60 60

100 60 60 60 60 60

100 60 100 60

100 60

60

100 10

30

30

30

60

60

60

30

60

60

60

60

30

60

30

30

30

30

30

30

60

30

100

60 100

10

30 60 30

30 60 100

100 100 60

100 60 60

100 60

100

100

100 100 60

100 100 60

C OAS TA L

60

100 100

100 100

60

60 60 100

AND

100 100 100

60 100

100

60 100

100

100

60 100 100

100 60 100


IN

COLOMBIA

33

Table 6: Conservation Targets and Goals, per Subregion, for Colombia’s Caribbean Coastal and Marine Environment; A) Ecosystem Targets and B) Species Level Targets

B) SPECIES LEVEL CONSERVATION TARGETS (Endangered Species Classified on IUCN’s Red List)

GROUP Reptiles (Crocodiles and Turtles)

Marine and Shore Birds

Mollusks Aquatic Mammals

Scientific Name

Common Name

IUCN Category

Crocodylus acutus Caretta caretta Eretmochelys imbricata Dermochelys coriacea Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys olivacea Phoenicopterus ruber Chauna chavaria Lepidopyga lilliae Vireo caribaeus Molothrus armenti* Strombus gigas Cittarium picca Trichechus manatus Lontra longicaudis

Cayman Loggerhead Turtle Hawksbill Turtle Leatherback Turtle Green Sea Turtle Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Flamingo Black-necked Screamer Sapphire-bellied Hummingbird St. Andrew Vireo Bronze-brown Cowbird Conch West Indian Top shell Manatee Sea Otter

Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Vulnerable Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Data Deficient

The ecological systems classifications were made taking into account the European Natural Information Systems (EUNIS) methodology, adapted to tropical marine environmental conditions. Targets at the species level were not included in the ecoregional planning due to gaps in information about their distribution. However, some sites known to be critically important, such as known feeding and reproduction areas, to species classified in any threatened category, were included as conservation targets. An example of such a target is “Aggregation of Aquatic Mammals” that was based on information about the distribution of such species as: Trichechus manatus, Lontra longicaudis, Balaenoptera edeni, Tursiops truncatus, Stenella frontalis and Globicephala macrorhynchus. Other species like the mollusk Strombus gigas; marine turtles Dermochelys imbricada, Caretta caretta, Cheledonia mydas and Dermochelys coriacea; and reptile Crocodylus acutus, appear on the national Red List for threatened species (Table 6.B). The available information for digitalizing targets is concentrated in the Marine Environmental Information System of Colombia (SIAM) coordinated by INVEMAR. Other sources of information were provided by the experts working on the planning process. This information dealt mainly with sites for feeding and reproduction of relevant biological communities where primary information gaps were

34

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

identified. The scale used for this exercise was 1:250,000; however, much of the information was in a higher resolution. Targets were digitalized in ArcGIS 9.2. as lines, points and polygons, depending on the target. Conservation targets for the Pacific coast were first selected by 31 coastal and marine experts representing 11 institutions during an August 2006 workshop in the city of Cali. Species-level conservation targets were added by 22 experts representing 10 institutions who attended workshops held in Costa Rica and Panama during November of 2006. Then, 27 ecosystem-level conservation targets (Table 7) were selected on the basis of a hierarchical, multiscale classification of marine habitats adapted for American tropical seas from the European Natural Information Systems (EUNIS) classification (Davies et al. 2004) and the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia (Environment Australia 1998). These conservation targets were then discussed and defined in a second series of national experts workshops held in all three countries. A total of 33 species-level targets (Table 7) were selected from a preliminary list of 163 taxa, including endemic species within the Tropical Eastern Pacific;

SOUTH AMERICA

Table 7: Conservation Targets and Goals (by Subregion) for Colombia’s Pacific Ocean Coastal and Marine Environment CONSERVATION TARGETS

% CONSERVATION GOALS Pacifico Tumaco Sanquianga Gorgona Naya Buenaventura Baudo Choo Malpelo Oceanico

Ecosystem Level Coarse Sand Beaches Fine Sand Beaches Intertidal Mud Banks Rocky Beaches Hard Rock Cliffs Soft Rock Cliffs Mangroves Coral Communities Upwelling Areas Estuaries Non Carbonate Sublittoral Sand Bottoms Carbonated Sublittoral Sand Bottoms Non Carbonated Sublittoral Muddy Bottoms Carbonated Sublittoral Muddy Bottoms Bathyal Soft Bottoms Bathyal Hard Bottoms Abyssal Soft Bottoms Abyssal Hard Bottoms Sea Mounts (guyots) Nearshore Islets Infralitoral Hard Bottoms Circalitoral Hard Bottoms Species level Piangua (Anadara spp.) Banks Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting Places Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nesting Places Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Nesting Places Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidoochelys olivacea) Nesting Places Marine and Shorebirds Birds Congregation Areas (feeding, resting) Marine and Shorebirds Nesting Sites Cetaceans Concentration Areas Groupers and Snappers Concentration Areas Hammerhead Sharks Concentration Areas Whale Shark Concentration Areas Occurrences of Bullshark (Odontaspis ferox) Nesting Sites of the Boobie (Sula granti) Occurrences of Sporophila insulata Occurrences of the Nudibranch (Peltodoris lancei)

80 40 50

100 30 40

20 50

30 50

50

90 70

30 50 80

80 80 100 60

40

100 100

40

40

20

50

50

100

70

10

30

100

30

10

80

40 30 60 20 20

80

50

100

100 100 30 100

30

20

20

30

100

100 10

40

10

20 100 30 40

100 100 50

40

80

80

20 100 50

100

100

60

80 80

100

100

100

100

100

90

80

100

80

100

90

90

100

90

90

100

100

100

100

100 100

100 80

100 100 100 90 100

70 100

100

100 90

100

100

100 100

10 60 5 100 100 100

100

100 100 100

100 100 100 100

100

100 100

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

COLOMBIA

35

species with main distribution in other biogeographic regions but occurring in few or scattered localities in the Eastern Tropical Pacific; endangered species at global, regional or national scales; and emblematic taxa. Due to the lack of accurate information and data gaps, some targets, such as “Aggregation Areas of Cetaceans” and “Marine-coastal Bird Important Feeding Areas” encompass several taxa. Distribution and occurrences (site records) of each target in the planning region were mapped either as polygons, lines, or points using ArcGIS 9.2., based on published papers, unpublished documents, satellite imagery, and consultations with experts. In order to overcome the lack of information on the distribution of most benthic targets, a digital topographic model of the sea bottom in the planning region was generated from bathymetric information available from different sources. It was used to generate a bottom depth-steepness classification model which allowed the discrimination of soft-dominated and hard-dominated benthic substrate areas (areas with 20o steepness or more were assumed to be hard-bottom dominated, and this criterion coincided with the information available from several locations along the continental shelf and slope of Costa Rica and Colombia ).

4.4 Conservation Goals The goals established in the projects described here represent the first attempt to determine the minimum area that the country must designate for conservation in order to fulfill the commitments specified by the CBD. The methodology used to determine goals was developed by TNC and adapted for the planning process described here for Colombia’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts. The methodology assigns a relative qualification to each target based on 4 criteria: (1) if the target is an ecosystem or a community, (2) the abundance, (3) the target current condition, and (4) the target vulnerability. In order to obtain the final goals of each target, the total values corresponding to each 1 of the 4 evaluated criteria were added. The total value is in between 4 and 12. During the second workshop, the experts, using the total value assigned to each target, determined 3 ranks to define 3 goal values: 30%, 60%, and 100%. The minimum goal (30%) was established by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity recommendations and the opinions of other authors who mention 30% as the minimum percentage of ecosystem and habitat conservation necessary to guarantee future

36

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

viability. The goal for the target “upwelling area” was set at 10%, and was based on expert consensus. Conservation goals were first selected for Colombia at a workshop in the city of Santa Marta, Colombia, in October 2006, by 25 experts representing 13 institutions. However, due to difficulties in the time schedule and suggestions made by some experts, the methodology was somewhat simplified for the Pacific coasts of Costa Rica and Panama, and the goal setting for these countries took place at workshops in Heredia and Panama City, respectively, in March 2007, that were attended by 38 experts from 22 institutions. Conservation goals for the Colombian Pacific were set for each target taking into account the minimum effort needed to assure its successful permanence within each sub region or strata. The goal is expressed as percentage of the distribution area/number of occurrences of the conservation target in the corresponding sub region. Conservation goals by subregion of the Colombian Pacific are shown in Table 7.

4.5 Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Colombia The Colombian population settled in the Caribbean coast is concentrated in three primary coastal port cities: Cartagena, Barranquilla and Santa Marta, where the economic activities also converge. The major activities impacting the marine waters of the Caribbean Sea are navigation, tourism, fishing, and gas exploitation, which collectively represent approximately 17% of the internal product. Fishing and tourism represent the most important income-generating activities for coastal communities. The Caribbean region has undergone significant conversion due to deforestation, grazing of livestock, agriculture, mineral exploration, and tourism. A threat assessment was conducted in order to identify the key human activities and natural hazards impacting coastal and marine biodiversity. Experts identified industrial fishing (shrimp trawling), maritime transportation, pollution (microorganisms, suspended solids), heavy metals, and oil and gas activities as the key threats to Colombia’s Caribbean coastal and marine biodiversity conservation. Information about these types of hazards is available to the country and was included in GIS. Population density, tourism and productive extraction (shrimp culture and salt exploration) were also included as threats in areas

SOUTH AMERICA

where biodiversity conservation was non-viable. Finally, rising sea levels as a result of climate change were included as a natural hazard to marine and coastal ecosystems. Spatial information about how 100 years of rising sea levels would affect Colombia is available in INVEMAR (2003). In general, the information related to threats was included in the GIS by building a buffer around the threats center source. Threats were classified according to magnitude and a relative value was assigned to calculate the cost implicated by choosing planning units with any degree of threat.

marine living resources as the explanation for the severe reduction observed in the fisheries of shrimps, sharks, tuna and other pelagic fishes in the course of the last two decades (cf. INPA 2000). By-catch of turtles by near-shore long-line fishing has also been identified as a major threat. Key threats to marine biodiversity in the Tropical Eastern Pacific to be considered for producing a total costs layer were selected from a large series of human activities with potential impact on coastal-marine resources and ecological processes identified from the Unified Classification of Direct Threats recently published by UICN-CMP (2006). The selected threats obtained the highest summed scores of probability, coverage area, severity, and persistence assigned by the experts.

In contrast to the Caribbean coast, the Pacific coast of Colombia is still poorly developed and, with the exception of two major urban areas (Buenaventura and Tumaco), has a very low population density. However, shrimp aquaculture in mangrove areas, trawl and longline fishing on the continental shelf, and deforestation, agriculture, and mining along the western slopes of the Western Cordillera are causing some impacts. Strong evidence points to the overexploitation of

Figure 10: Key Threats for Colombia's Caribbean Coastal and Marine Environment Climatic Change 13%

Coastal Development 13%

Oil and Gas 15% Other 15% Pollution 15% Maritime Transportation 15%

Extreme Climatic Events 13% Invasive Species 2%

Fishing 14%

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

COLOMBIA

37

Figure 11 - Key Threats to Colombia's Pacific Ocean Coastal and Marine Environment Pollution 17% Coastal Development 32%

Maritime Transportation 16%

Fisheries Activity 35%

4.6 Information Needs and Monitoring Although the country has had a national coral reef monitoring system (SIMAC) since 1998, it must be extended to include the condition and degree of change of additional conservation targets and other studies sites which are completely unknown. The characterization and monitoring of ecosystems and species (endangered or introduced), as well as prospection studies, are needed for the improvement of conservation and management of coastal and marine biodiversity in the country. Some information gaps identified are related to the distribution of fine filter species (species in any endangered category) from which their distribution and abundance is unknown. Monitoring of the key ecological attributes of the targets will allow accurate evaluations of the current condition and vulnerability of conservation targets and would gauge the effectiveness of existing protected areas. The connectivity analysis between ecosystems and habitats is vital for the design of a marine protected areas network. In addition, the creation of a monitoring system that includes socioeconomic and management indicators is necessary to quantify the management effectiveness of protected areas.

38

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

As previously mentioned, SIMAC (a coral reef monitoring system), together with the national environmental quality network (RedCAM) and the fisheries information system (SIPEIN), provides information on measuring the benefits of increasing biodiversity protection. Colombia has designed a marine and coastal biodiversity research plan to pursue between 2001 and 2010. In this action plan are three strategies: (1) increasing and divulging scientific knowledge through the support and execution of marine and coastal biodiversity research, (2) promoting and coordinating the efforts to capacitate investigators in the characterization of marine and coastal biodiversity, and (3) developing and implementing a national system for monitoring marine and coastal biodiversity.

4.7 References Alonso, D. 2005. “Modelo de Planificación de un Sistema Representativo de Áreas Marinas Protegidas para el Caribe Continental Colombiano.” M.Sc. Tesis. Universidad de las Palmas de La Gran Canaria., 135 p Botero, L. & R. Alvarez León, 2000. “The Caribbean coast of Colombia. Chap. 42 in Ch. Sheppard (Ed.), Seas at the Millenium, an Environmental Evaluation”. Vol.1, Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp. 663-676 CCCP -Centro de Control de Contaminación del Pacífico. 2002. “Compilación oceanográfica de la Cuenca Pacífica de Colombia.” Panamerica Formas e Impresos S.A:, Bogotá, 109p.

SOUTH AMERICA

Davies, C.E. & D. Moss. “2002 EUNIS habitat classification.” Project C00389, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Huntington, U.K. Diaz, J.M. & A. Acero, 2003. “Marine biodiversity in Colombia: achievements, status of knowledge, and challenges.” Gayana, 67(2):261-274. Groves, C.B., L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J. Touval y B. Runnels. 2000. “Diseño de una geografía de la esperanza: Manual para la planificación de la conservación ecorregional.” The Nature Conservancy, Vol. I y II. 2a Edición. EE.UU., 215 p. INVEMAR. 2004. “Informe del estado de los ambientes marinos y costeros en Colombia: año 2003.” Serie de publicaciones periódicas. Junio, No. 8. Santa Marta, Colombia. INVEMAR-Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras “José Benito Vives De Andreis”. 2003. Programa holandés de asistencia para estudios en cambio climático: Colombia. Informe Técnico No. 2: Inventario y caracterización, in Definición de la vulnerabilidad de los sistemas bio-geofísicos y socioeconómicos debido a un cambio en el nivel del mar en la zona costera colombiana (Caribe continental, Caribe insular y Pacífico) y medidas para su adaptación., M.P. Vides, Editor. INVEMAR: Santa Marta. p. 530. INVEMAR. 2003a. Definición de la vulnerabilidad de los sistemas biogeofísicos y socioeconómicos debido a un cambio en el nivel del mar en la zona costera colombiana (Caribe continental, Caribe Insular y Pacífico) y medidas para su adaptación. Informe técnico final. VII tomos. Anexos + CD Atlas digital. Marrugo-González, A.J., R. Fernández-Maestre & A.A. Alm, 2000. “The Pacific coast of Colombia.” Chap. 43 in Ch. Sheppard (Ed.), Seas at the Millennium, an Environmental Evaluation. Vol.1, Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp.677686. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. “Technical advice on the establishment and Management of a national system of marine and coastal protected areas,” in CBD Technical Series, SCBD, Editor. Montreal. p. 40 The IUCN “Red List of Threatened Species.” Available on the web: www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlists/RLcategories2000.html

4.8 Author Affiliation David A. Alonso, Luisa F. Ramírez, Carolina Segura, Paula Castillo – Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras-INVEMAR, Cerro Punta Betin, Santa Marta, Colombia.Email: [email protected] Juan Manuel Diaz – TNC-Consultant. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos “Alexander von Humboldt”, Bogotá, Colombia. Email: [email protected] Anthony Chatwin – The Nature Conservancy, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA, USA 22203. Email: [email protected]

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

COLOMBIA

39

40

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

5

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Ecuador M.C. Terán, K. Clark, C. Suárez, S. Luna, F. Campos, J. Dekinger, D. Ruiz, and P. Jiménez

5.1 Introduction

analysis for the country. With funding from The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, a marine and a terrestrial gap analysis was completed. The analysis did not include the Galapagos, because 97% of the islands are already protected as a national park, while a marine reserve created in 1998 covers 14.1 million hectares around the islands.

Situated in the Eastern Tropical Pacific between two major marine ecoregions, Ecuador has an expansive coastline extending over 4000 kilometers from north to south, including islands and estuary borders. The marine life in this area is highly diverse and biologically significant due to the confluence of warm waters from the north and cold waters from the south, as well as geographic, oceanographic, and continental freshwater influences. Almost 60% of the country’s 13 million residents live within 100 km of the coast, bringing heavy anthropogenic threats to the system. The main economic activities along the coastal and marine systems are fisheries, tourism, oil production, and shrimp farms.

The marine component of the gap analysis was done by Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas Nazca, a national NGO that specializes in marine research and conservation. The process was closely followed and endorsed by the Ministry of the Environment. The information presented here is derived from the executive summary of the gap assessment technical report (Terán et al. 2006).

Ecuador has 35 areas as part of its National System of Protected Areas, which is managed by the Ministry of the Environment. Of these, only 8 protected areas include some coastal or marine ecosystems. The current system of protected areas does not adequately represent the existent coastal and marine biodiversity of Ecuador. With the exception of the Galapagos Marine Reserve that operates under a special law, the country does not yet have adequate institutional capacity to manage coastal and marine areas. The creation of a sub-system of marine protected areas (MPA) is proposed to strengthen marine protection.

The marine gap assessment was completed in approximately 6 months with most of the information coming from the Equatorial Pacific Marine Ecoregional Assessment led by TNC. The Equatorial Pacific Ecoregional Assessment covered 80% of the coast of Ecuador, so only 20% of the Ecuadorian continental coast remained to be assessed. The national gap analysis followed the same methodology as the ecoregional assessment but with an analysis at a national level. Nazca worked closely with the Ministry of the Environment and with several organizations and specialists in the country over the course of the ecoregional and the national gap assessments. Although funding and time constraints limited the participatory aspects of the gap assessment, the NISP members are committed to developing a strong communications strategy for the dissemination of results and the involvement of decision makers at various levels.

In 2005, a National Implementation Support Partnership (NISP) agreement was signed between the Ministry of the Environment and several international and national NGOs, including The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International (CI), BirdLife International, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Flora and Fauna International, EcoCiencia, and Fundación Natura, to support the Ecuadorian government in achieving the commitments under the Program of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention of Biological Diversity, of which Ecuador is a signatory. One of the issues that the NISP committed to address was the development of a gap

C OAS TA L

The main areas where conservation efforts should focus were identified as the following: 1) San Lorenzo (Manglares Cayapas Mataje Ecological Reserve). The reserve needs to be expanded to cover subtidal ecosystems that currently are not protected.

AND


IN

ECUADOR

41

2) Galera-Muisne. Creation of a new protected area that will include intertidal and subtidal ecosystems related with rocky bottoms. 3) Improve the protection of the Isla de la Plata (Machalilla National Park) to guarantee conservation of coral ecosystems. 4) Expand the marine area of Machalilla National Park to include or improve the representation of many ecosystems. 5) Santa Elena. Creation of a new protected area that will include intertidal and subtidal ecosystems related with rocky bottoms and deep waters. When completing the gap analysis, the organizations involved made substantial efforts to ensure the results would be incorporated into national policies and strategies. Soon after the gap assessment was completed, Ecuador started its strategic planning for its National System of Protected Areas, using the gap results as an important component. Though the protected areas plan has not yet been approved because a new government entered office in January of 2007, the NISP committee is hopeful this will happen soon.

IUCN’s categories. Ecuador’s current protected area system includes 8 marine or coastal areas, 2 of which include offshore areas and 6 of which cover mangrove and the associated estuarine habitats. The portfolio resulted in 933,450 hectares distributed in 25 blocks, which includes 30% of the study area and 35% of the coastal line. The blocks were identified by using geographical features so they can be easily recognized. In 15 of the blocks identified as priorities, conservation initiatives can be found, including proposals for new protected areas. The portfolio reinforces important work that several organizations have been developing towards protection of coastal and marine resources. There were 8 blocks identified as high priority. These blocks constitute 485,000 hectares, and represent 52% of the total portfolio and 15% of the study area. These 8 blocks represent 11 of the 12 intertidal systems, 26 of the 27 subtidal systems, 5 of the 6 communities, and 26 target species.

5.3 Conservation Targets With the technical study completed, and the marine priorities identified, various actions are being taken. The Ecuadorian NISP committee is interested in continuing this process by supporting the following: a) a communication strategy for decision makers, b) the creation and strengthening of a sub-system of marine protected areas, and c) the creation of specific new protected areas. One of the priority areas to be conserved was identified in the northern part of the country (Punta Galeras, in Esmeraldas province), where TNC and CI are supporting Nazca to create a new protected area.

5.2 Priority Areas for Conservation of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Ecuador SITES, a decision support system, was used to identify for the marine portfolio. The results of the gap analysis helped to identify priorities that need to be filled. Highest priority was given to areas with great suitability (i.e. lower threats), high biological value determined by size and diversity of communities, and presence of target species. Only 13% of the 8 highest priority areas are protected under the current system. Overall, only 8% of the conservation targets have some protection status. The gap assessment used the protected area boundaries defined by the Ministry of the Environment’s national classification system, which are similar to

42

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

A total of 6 Marine Ecological Units (MEU) were identified at the national level and used to stratify Ecuador’s marine zone. This process ensured that conservation targets were spatially distributed and represented throughout the country’s biogeographic regions. Conservation targets included 12 intertidal systems (such as mud beaches and mangroves), 27 subtidal systems (including coral reef bottoms and sand banks) and 59 target species belonging to 8 taxonomic groups (fishes, marine mammals, mollusks, echinoderms, crustaceans, reptiles, birds, and corals).The team delineated marine systems as coarse filter targets, classifying and mapping the intertidal and subtidal zones, to a depth of 200 meters. Species-specific conservation targets were selected using various criteria such as population status, endemism, and ecological role in the community. In addition to ecosystems and species, three species communities were identified as conservation targets: marine bird nesting communities, migratory bird communities, and nesting sites for turtles. All conservation targets were mapped, for systems their distribution was delineated, and for species and communities occurrence data (geo-referenced points) were used. For mapping marine ecosystems, data were compiled from coastal geomorphology maps, substrate

SOUTH AMERICA

maps, satellite images, videography and field work. Data gaps were significant for many subtidal habitats.

by infrastructure, and population. All threats were mapped and given a score from low to very high, and different weights were given among them. Weights given to threats were determined in an expert workshop. This information was useful in developing the portfolio for the marine protected area network since it determined the suitability of certain areas based on threat, which was then translated to cost.

5.4 Conservation Goals Conservation goals were established in order to secure adequate representation of conservation targets (ecosystems, communities and species). Conservation goals were stratified using the MEU, and were calculated as percentages of the distribution of the conservation targets. A minimum protection goal for conservation targets was set at 20%. Conservation targets were classified as Abundant, Common, Uncommon, Rare and Very Rare, and goals were differentiated among these categories:

5.6 Information Needs and Monitoring Development of marine research and generation of baseline data in Ecuador has been very scarce—most of the studies have been focused on the Galapagos Islands. In continental Ecuador, most of the studies have been of species with commercial value. The main data gaps and priorities for future research are:

Table 8: Conservation Goal Setting Criteria and Associated Levels for Ecuador Classification

Goal

Abundant Common Uncommon Rare

20% 30% 50% 60%

• • • • • • • •

The portfolio adequately represents all ecosystems, communities and species, and almost all conservation goals are achieved. Only 3 ecosystems did not accomplish the goal in the portfolio, and this was mainly due to high threat levels in these ecosystems. There were 4 species that were not adequately represented, but the habitat where they are found was well-represented. The existent National Protected Areas System is far from accomplishing its conservation goals and targets. At an ecosystem level, 66% of the conservation targets have very poor representation in the current protected areas (less than 5% of their conservation goal) and just 10% of the conservation targets are well-represented in the current protected areas.

Oceanographic studies (oceanic currents, upwellings, cartography) El Niño effects over different conservation targets (species, ecosystems) Long-term ecosystem studies to determine species distributions, population dynamics, etc. Ecological and life history research of key species Studies on connectivity between estuarine and marine ecosystems Research on the effects of urban pollution and different types of fisheries in fish populations Research on marine environments below 200 m in depth Creation of an information system that can be constantly updated for the purposes of establishing a biodiversity monitoring system

5.6 References Terán, M.C., Clark, K., Suárez, C., Campos, F., Denkinger, J., Ruiz, D. y Jiménez, P. 2006. “Análisis de Vacíos e Identificación de Áreas Prioritarias para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marino-Costera en el Ecuador Continental.” Resumen Ejecutivo. Ministerio del Ambiente. Quito, Ecuador.

5.7 Author Affiliation 5.5 Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Ecuador

Terán, M.C., K. Clark, C. Suárez, S. Luna, F. Campos, J. Dekinger, D. Ruiz & P. Jiménez – Instituto NAZCA de Investigaciones Marinas. La Rábida # 250 y La Niña. Email: nazca@instituto_nazca.org

The gap assessment team identified, collected information, and grouped 17 threat sources in to 5 categories: pollution, tourism, natural resources extraction (fisheries), physical changes to coastline

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

ECUADOR

43

44

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

6

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Peru Jaime Fernandez-Baca, Sandra Miethke, Steffen Reichle, Eric Armijo, Zach Ferdaña, Leonardo Sotomayor, and Anthony Chatwin

6.1 Introduction On the Pacific shores of South America, Peru has more than 3,000 kilometers of coastline and historical ties to the marine environment. The coastal zone represents about 10% of the Peruvian territory, but concentrates about 52% of the nation’s population. Fisheries are one of the biggest economic activities in the coastal area. The fisheries sector—the second biggest export activity after mining—contributes significantly to the Peruvian economy, generating about 6% of employment, 1% of the GDP, and representing between 11% and 16 % of the nation’s total income from exports (World Bank 2007). In fact, Peru’s fishing grounds, bathed by the cold northward flowing waters of the Humboldt Current, support the world’s largest fishery. These waters are part of the Humboldt Current Large Marine Ecosystem (HCLME) that extends from southern Chile (-40o S) to northern Peru (-5o S). The HCLME forms part of a group of the 4 principle upwelling areas existing on the planet that are characterized by their high productivity. These principle upwelling areas are driven by the upwelling of nutrientrich deep waters to the surface and they host a high productivity of phytoplankton and the food chain it, in turn, supports (IMARPE & INFOP 2003). The Ministry of Production (PRODUCE) is the public body responsible for developing and implementing policies for fishery activities, with several divisions and decentralized agencies within its structure that play different roles in the management of marine natural resources. Among these decentralized agencies is the Peruvian Marine Institute (IMARPE), which is in charge of providing the scientific information for decision making with respect to fisheries extraction. Another key actor in the governance of marine areas is the Ministry of Defense, through the Dirección General de Capitanía y Guardacostas (DICAPI), which is in charge of the control and protection of the hydrobiological resources in areas reserved for artisan fisheries and other restricted areas. It is also in charge of the registry and control of fishing vessels.

C OAS TA L

Peru is a signatory to the Convention of Biological Diversity. The National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA), a decentralized agency from the Ministry of Agriculture, is the lead agency on biodiversity protection in Peru’s national government. The National Strategy of Biological Diversity, approved in September 2001, considers that the National System of State Protected Areas (SINANPE) does not include an important proportion of coastal-marine species and ecosystems. Of the 6o areas protected by the system, only 4 are located in coastal areas and cover only 6 kilometers of coast and slightly over 338,000 hectares (less than 1% of the national territory protected by SINANPE). Therefore, one of the strategies is to promote the sustainable use of aquatic resources by establishing reserves to protect the aquatic biodiversity (including the guano islands and peninsulas) that will contribute to a national and international network of natural protected areas. This commitment has resulted in the imminent official declaration of a national reserve that includes 11 points and 16 islands along the Peruvian coast.

6.2 Priority Areas for Conservation of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Peru The Paracas National Reserve is the flagship marine protected area of Peru. Its large marine area represents (216,408,53 ha)—practically the totality of Peru’s marine environment under protection. As such, it continues to be a priority for coastal and marine conservation. The Peruvian government is in the last stages of the creation of the System of Guano Islands and Peninsulas National Reserve (Map 14). This new national reserve will result in the addition of 122,348,42 ha of marine environment into the country’s national system of protected areas. This will approximately represent a 45% increase over existing levels of protection. However, it is expected that gaps

AND


IN

PERU

45

in representation will exist, and that new areas will have to be identified to help meet the country’s commitment of creating a representative system of marine protected areas by 2015. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), in partnership with INRENA and with funding from USAID, has been coordinating a marine ecoregional assessment in Peru that will result in the identification of a final coastal and marine conservation portfolio that will also provide the information needed to identify representation gaps in the existing marine protected areas.

6.3 Conservation Targets TNC conducted a workshop in Lima (October, 2005), where 29 experts representing 18 nationwide organizations (government agencies, academic centers, NGOs, etc.) selected 16 targets to represent the marine biodiversity of Peru. Since then, TNC has carried out a modeling of benthic and coastal habitats to represent the spatial distribution of some of the conservation targets. The modeling resulted in 101 benthic habitats and 13 coastal types, but was not able to represent all targets identified by experts.

6.4 Conservation Goals TNC has carried out two expert workshops to define ecologically relevant conservation goals for each of the targets listed by experts. During the first workshop conducted on October 20, 2006, a group of 13 experts representing 7 nationwide organizations listed the key ecological attributes for each target identified in the previous workshop. On May 10, 2007, TNC conducted a second workshop to evaluate the current condition and vulnerability of the targets as inputs for the goal definition. This assessment was done by 27 experts representing 14 national organizations. (See figure 12) The process consisted of listing key ecological attributes for each target, then evaluating each attribute for viability and vulnerability to key threats (see Appendix A for methods). The results are entered into a table where the targets were ranked in relation to viability, vulnerability and rarity. The lack of availability of national maps of the distribuition of conservation targets in Peru has created a challenge to determining the rarity of those targets. At the time of publication the goal setting process for Peru was not completed.

6.4 Key Threats to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Peru Table 9: Coastal and Marine Conservation Targets for Peru: A) Ecosystem Level and B) Species Level A) Ecosystem Target List Bays Cliffs Islands and Peninsulas Kelp Beds Macro Algal Beds (Excling Kelp) Rocky Shores Sandy Beach Seagrass Beds Subtidal Mud Bottom Subtidal Rock Bottom Subtidal Sand Bottom Wetlands

Pollution, overfishing, coastal development, resource exploitation and the development of the oil and gas industry account for 94% of the expert opinions regarding key threats to Peru’s coastal and marine biodiversity. Pollution Pollution was identified by the experts as the top threat to coastal and marine biodiversity. The 2 main sources of point source pollution are industry and urban settlements. The main source of industrial pollution in the country is believed to be the fish mill industry (see fisheries), although important steps have been taken to reduce that pollution source. This activity is concentrated in the bays along the coast of Peru. The growing human population along the coastal zone—at a rate of 336% between 1950 and 2000—is

B) Species Target List Marine Mammal Areas Areas of Pinniped and Otter Occurences Marine Bird Nesting and Reproductive Sites Migratory Bird Areas

46

PRIORITIES

FOR


A threats assessment was done (see Appendix A for methods) in order to identify the key human activities impacting coastal and marine biodiversity. The assessment was done during a workshop in Lima by 29 experts representing 18 nationwide organizations.

IN

SOUTH AMERICA

Figure 12: Key Threats to the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity in Peru

Resource Extraction Resource Extraction 13% Oil and Gas13% Development Oil and Gas 6% Development Climate Change6% 6%

Coastal Development Coastal 16%Development

16%

Overfishing 20%

Climate Change 6%

Overfishing 20% Pollution 39%

Pollution 39%

another key source of pollution. Today, approximately 52% of the Peruvian population lives along the coast. The lack of adequate sewage treatment plants results in raw sewage being pumped directly into coastal waters. Non-point source pollution is an important contributor to pollution in the coastal waters of Peru. Fertilizers and pest control chemicals are used widely in the rich agricultural lands in the flood plains of rivers that cut the coastal zone. Furthermore, run-off associated with mineral mining activities is also present in some areas of the coast.? Fisheries The second most important threat to coastal and marine biodiversity in Peru is overfishing. Home to the world’s largest fishery, the Anchovetta Fishery, fishing has played a vital role in the development of the Peruvian economy. With its origins dating back to the mid 1950s when the other great anchovy and sardine fishery of the Pacific (the one in California) collapsed due to overfishing, the Peruvian fishery targets the fishmeal market. Besides the pollution impacts described above, the removals of anchovetta (a Peruvian species of anchovy) have grown to a point where most of the anchovetta are being harvested, leaving reduced amounts for the consumption of marine animals such as guano birds, marine mammals, and other fish. The coastal zone of Peru is being targeted for the development of the hydrocarbon industry, an economic development objective of the national government. Targeting the exploration of oil and gas in the coastal waters, concessions for large areas of the marine environment, especially in the Central Peru ecoregion (Map

C OAS TA L

14), have been auctioned off. In fact, Central Peru is the ecoregion with the second highest percentage of area slated for hydrocarbon industry development. This development is going to occur in what is currently South America’s least protected ecoregion.

6.5 Information Needs and Monitoring As is the case with most countries where the assessments have been made, there is a shortage of available information on the distribution of conservation targets and threats. Information exists on locations where fishing is occurring, but it is not publicly available. IMARPE does have a number of research and monitoring programs that could be expanded to include the full array of conservation targets.

6.6 References The World Bank. 2007. Environmental Sustainability: a Key to Poverty Reduction on Peru (Executive Summary). The World Bank, Office of Lima, Peru. 36p. IMARPE e INFOP. 2003. Análisis de Diagnóstico Transzonal: Gran Ecosistema Marino de la Corriente de Humboldt. Documento de compromiso regional para el manejo integrado del Gran Ecosistema Marino de la Corriente de Humboldt por Chile y Perú. Auspiciado por ONUDI y presentado al GEF. 40p.

6.7 Author Affiliation Jaime Fernandez-Baca, Sandra Miethke, Steffen Reichle, Eric Armijo, Zach Ferdaña, Leonardo Sotomayor, Anthony Chatwin The Nature Conservancy. Av Libertadores 744, San Isidro, Lima, Perú. Email: [email protected]

AND


IN

PERU

47

Ve

48

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

SOUTH AMERICA

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

7

Coastal and Marine Conservation Priorities in Venezuela E. Klein, D. Sánchez, L. Malavé, J. Posada, G. Papadakis, R. Lazo, A. Chatwin, M. Guevara, J.C. González, R. Martínez, C. Villalba, E. Yerena, H. Guada, J.J. Cruz, M. Rada, C. Bastidas, and A. Ramos

7.1 Introduction Venezuela is considered one of the top 10 most megadiverse countries in the world, and an important reservoir of Caribbean marine biodiversity. Caribbean marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangrove forests that provide a strategic source of food, medicinal goods and tourism, are all found within Venezuela’s extensive coastal zone, territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In addition, the Venezuelan coast is the site of one of the most important pelagic fish populations with an annual catch of approximately 200,000 tonnes. Those populations are also the base of the trophic system, which represents an important component of marine biodiversity (marine mammals, sea birds and other predators).

logical, or strategic importance) in the Venezuelan Caribbean Sea, with special emphasis on the sites of potential interest to the oil and gas industry. The second objective was to identify best practices for the hydrocarbon industry, and it focused on avoiding impacts on fragile ecosystems or minimizing the impact on biodiversity and priority sites identified under the first objective. Under the auspices of conservation and sustainable development of the offshore oil and gas industry, the third objective was to develop conservation guidelines and policies to be incorporated in the bidding documents and contracts awarded to companies, thereby compelling them to avoid or minimize the impact of their development activities and propose general conservation activities. As a result, the project not only identified the current conservation status, the sensitivity, and the vulnerability of marine ecosystems in Venezuela, but it also established a set of priority areas for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity along that country’s Caribbean coast.

With investments in all major oil and gas industry activities – from exploration and production to refining and shipping – Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) factors heavily in Venezuela’s standing as the fifth-largest oil exporter and seventh-largest oil producer in the world. PDVSA has identified the development of the offshore oil and gas reserves as an important component of its strategic plans. In anticipation of the planned development, and in recognition of the potential risks to Venezuela’s marine biodiversity, PDVSA has undertaken an ecologically and strategically important initiative to identify priority areas for the conservation of marine biodiversity.

This exercise is an effort to seek a territorial zoning scheme for offshore oil and gas exploitation activities. The implementation of the proposed strategies and the monitoring of conservation targets based on the provided ecological indicators could avoid irreversible damages to marine biodiversity and help mitigate unavoidable impacts.

The study (Selecting Priority Areas for the Conservation of Caribbean’s Marine Biodiversity: the face of near-term offshore gas exploitation), developed by Intecmar from the Universidad Simón Bolívar with the technical support of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and financed by PDVSA) had 3 main objectives which were all successfully met. The first, and most relevant to the current publication, was to identify priorities for the conservation of biological diversity (including fragile ecosystems, threatened or endangered plant and animal species, rare species, species of economic, eco-

The coastal domain of Venezuela hosts 61% of the country’s population—the largest population concentration in a coastal area in the Caribbean. It also has the greatest volume of shipping traffic, and one of the largest annual fish catches in the region. The economies of the coastal and marine areas are dominated by tourism, fisheries and hydrocarbon extraction. The value of fish exports was US $153 million in 2000 and the sector gave employment to 44,302 people. In 2001, Venezuela exported 114 million metric tonnes of oil (up from 69 million in

C OAS TA L

AND


IN

VENEZUELA

49

1990). Hydrocarbon extraction, processing, and transshipment, which already occurs at a large scale in a number of regions, is due to undergo significant expansion in the next few years with the opening up of new gas fields in the northeastern and northwestern areas of the country, including the Gulf of Paria, the Gulf of Venezuela, and areas offshore of the Orinoco Delta which combined are thought to hold 80% of the estimated natural gas reserves of Venezuela. There are four governmental institutions which have responsibility over the marine environment:

•

•

•

•

The Ministry of Environment (MINAMB), Venezuela’s highest environmental authority, is responsible for environmental regulation and policy, supervision of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes, and coordination of territorial land use planning. The National Parks Institute (INPARQUES) is an autonomous institute supervised by the Ministry of the Environment. Its mission is to manage Venezuela’s national parks and natural monuments and to foster their sustainable use for research activities, recreation, environmental education and ecotourism. The National Institute for Aquatic Spaces (INEA), a dependency of the Ministry of Infrastructure, is responsible for planning, organizing and controlling shipping, waterborne transport and recreation, fishing and tourist fleets, and for promoting scientific and technological research in the aquatic sector. The National Institute of Fisheries (INAPESCA) is responsible for fishery aquatic resources planning, sustainable use, and policy execution as dictated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Land.

Venezuela ratified the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) on September 12, 1994 through promulgation of a Special Law (Official Gazette No. 4.780 Ext.) by which the country commits to develop strategies, plans and programs that aim to incorporate the conservation and the promotion of biodiversity and sustainable use into the planning and decision making processes. Venezuela has an important set of protected areas of national and regional importance for biodiversity conservation, which together cover 55.6% of the national territory. However, the Venezuelan government is still in the process of developing a public policy framework

50

PRIORITIES

FOR


IN

and acquiring the technical instruments for the integral management of the National System of Protected Areas (NSPA). In marine environments, Venezuela has already declared 13 national parks and 4 natural monuments (UICN II and III) which together represent 4.3% of the national territory. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001) (NBSAP) recognizes the coastal-marine ecosystems as threatened due to the high population concentration in the central northern coast of the country. It also recognizes the importance of scientific and technological development as a critical component of the national strategy for conservation of ecosystems and species.

7.2 Priority Areas for Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Venezuela The identification of priority areas for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity followed the ecoregional assessment methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and implemented in this case by the Institute of Marine Science and Technology (INTECMAR) of Simón Bolivar University with the technical support of TNC. The methodology has been implemented in planning processes in 7 other nations in South America, as well as many other places around the world, but the direct interaction with regional offshore gas exploitation to generate specific products for the oil industry has not been attempted before in this region. Through a series of workshops over a period of 2 years, more than 50 coastal and marine experts representing 18 academic, governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in the country’s environmental issues, as well as environmental managers from oil and gas companies interested in the development of offshore oil and gas, contributed to the development of the coastal and marine conservation portfolio of priority sites for conservation (see Map 15). The expert-validated portfolio includes 20 individual sites that represent more than 37% of Venezuela’s Caribbean shallow maritime territory (