CCAMLR

The Secretariat was tasked with maintaining a register of the wide range of non-CEMP time series data that were of utility in support of the work of WG-EMM, including datasets derived from South African and French seabird and pinniped monitoring programs in the southern Indian Ocean (SC-CAMLR-XXII, Annex 4, paragraph 2.10). Non-CEMP data of interest are listed in Tables 1 -3.

A draft revised Management Plan for ASPA 149 is being considered through an intersessional contact group formed during the 2004 meeting of the CEP/ATCM. Since a marine area is included in the plan, approval is required by CCAMLR. It should be noted that this area is also a CEMP site (Conservation Measure 91-02 (2000)). The draft management plan for ASPA 149 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of Annex V to the Environmental Protocol and consistent with the Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. In preparing the draft plan, a detailed assessment of the values of the site and of the measures necessary to protect the site was undertaken. A field visit was made to the site in February 2001 to verify information and to ensure that the information in the draft plan is accurate and up-to-date. The boundaries of the site have been revised in this draft Management Plan to include a larger marine component and to incorporate the two new sites where plant fossils were discovered. The site (9.7 km2) now comprises the entire Cape Shirreff peninsula north of the permanent Livingston Island ice cap, the San Telmo Island group, and the surrounding and intervening marine area enclosed within 100 m of the coast of the Cape Shirreff peninsula and of the outer islets of the San Telmo Island group. The boundary extends from the San Telmo Island group to the south of Mercury Bluff, and includes the adjacent part of the Livingston Island permanent ice cap where the fossil discoveries were recently made. Wildlife population estimates were updated where possible. Original values to be protected were reaffirmed, although specific references to plant and invertebrate communities were removed because no data were available to substantiate the presence and extent of these communities. Waste disposal policies were updated. Specific air access guidelines were added to the plan, including preferred flight paths, designated landing areas, and a no-fly zone over wildlife concentrations. Maps were updated to reflect these changes, and improved with current mapping technology and additional labeling of important features.

This paper summarises the notifications received.

The seventh consecutive season of data collection at Cape Shirreff has enabled us to examine trends in penguin populations, as well as inter-annual variation in reproductive parameters, penguin diet, and foraging behaviour. The chinstrap breeding population at Cape Shirreff has continued to decline over the past five years, and is at its lowest size in the past seven years of study. While the gentoo breeding population increased slightly from last year, it is at its second lowest size in the past seven years. Chinstrap fledging success was higher during the 2003-04 breeding season than in the previous season, but lower than the average for the past seven years. Gentoo fledging success in 2003-04 was greater than in 2002-03, and was either similar to or greater than the seven-year mean, depending on methodology used. Fledging weights of both species increased from last year, but were below the eight-year mean for this parameter. Total chick meal mass was larger in both species compared to the past seven years study. Chinstrap penguin diet contained more fish than in other years on average, while gentoo diets contained less fish. The majority of the krill in chinstrap diets were in the 36-45 mm range; the majority of krill in gentoo diets were in the 41-55 mm range. This is the first season where the two penguin species have selected different sized krill during the chick-rearing period. Foraging trip durations during the chick phase were longer than during the 2002-03 breeding season. The interpretation of the foraging trip behaviour may be clarified when we finish our analyses of the PTT derived, at sea foraging locations used by chinstrap and gentoo penguins during this period.

The diet of non breeding male Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, was investigated at Stranger Point, King George Island, by scat analysis from February to April 1996. Overall, krill and fish were the most frequent prey, occurring in an average of 97% and 69% of samples (n=128), followed by Cephalopods (12%). Myctophids constituted almost 90% of the fish predated, being Electrona antarctica and Gymnoscopelus nicholsi the most abundant and frequent prey species. All fish taxa identified were krill feeding species suggesting that seals foraged primarily on krill and opportunistically on fish species associated with krill swarms. A seasonal change observed in the relative proportions of the different fish prey taxa would indicate that fur seals spent more time foraging over the shelf in summer and off shelf in autumn. During the study period commercial fishing in the area was not based upon any of the fish species identified in this study.

Many international conservation treaties, non-binding agreements and other instruments that have relevance to marine protected area (MPA) development provide for action to be taken globally, and thus include Antarctica within the scope of a worldwide system of marine protected areas. However, depending on their specific provisions, full application in Antarctic waters may be difficult, inappropriate or even impossible because of the area’s unique political situation and existing regimes. The provisions of many international conservation agreements are designed to be implemented through the national jurisdiction of adhering States within their territorial waters or exclusive economic zones, based on the principles of maritime jurisdiction embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, there are differing ‘positions of principle’ between claimant and non-claimant States with regard to the existence of territorial sovereignty and corresponding maritime zones in the area south of 60°S. In addition, the instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System already provide for resource management and environmental protection, thus raising questions about the necessity and feasibility of applying other agreements with overlapping provisions. It is concluded that although direct application of other international conservation agreements is in most cases unlikely to be feasible, efforts should be made to apply within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) certain principles and requirements agreed under instruments with global purview. These include the formulation of guidelines and criteria for MPA establishment, the consideration of marine protection as a separate, but linked, issue to protection of other environments, and the development of more specific guidelines on the timeframe in which these should take place. In addition, the consideration of Antarctic waters in parallel with global work to develop high seas protected areas should be undertaken to achieve the goal of a global, representative system of MPAs, of which Antarctic MPAs should be an important component.