A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries

C. S. Martin; M. J. Tolley; E. Farmer; C. J. Mcowen; J. L. Geffert; J. P.W. Scharlemann; H. L. Thomas; J. H. van Bochove; D. Stanwell-Smith; J. M. Hutton; B. Lascelles; J. D. Pilgrim; J. M.M. Ekstrom; D. P. Tittensor

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries

C. S. Martin, M. J. Tolley, E. Farmer, C. J. Mcowen, J. L. Geffert, J. P.W. Scharlemann, H. L. Thomas, J. H. van Bochove, D. Stanwell-Smith, J. M. Hutton, B. Lascelles, J. D. Pilgrim, J. M.M. Ekstrom, D. P. Tittensor

Medicine

Medicine

Résultat de recherche: Article › examen par les pairs

37 Citations (Scopus)

Résumé

Marine industries face a number of risks that necessitate careful analysis prior to making decisions on the siting of operations and facilities. An important emerging regulatory framework on environmental sustainability for business operations is the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6). Within PS6, identification of biodiversity significance is articulated through the concept of "Critical Habitat", a definition developed by the IFC and detailed through criteria aligned with those that support internationally accepted biodiversity designations. No publicly available tools have been developed in either the marine or terrestrial realm to assess the likelihood of sites or operations being located within PS6-defined Critical Habitat. This paper presents a starting point towards filling this gap in the form of a preliminary global map that classifies more than 13 million km² of marine and coastal areas of importance for biodiversity (protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas [KBA], sea turtle nesting sites, cold- and warm-water corals, seamounts, seagrass beds, mangroves, saltmarshes, hydrothermal vents and cold seeps) based on their overlap with Critical Habitat criteria, as defined by IFC. In total, 5798×10³km² (1.6%) of the analysis area (global ocean plus coastal land strip) were classed as Likely Critical Habitat, and 7526×10³km² (2.1%) as Potential Critical Habitat; the remainder (96.3%) were Unclassified. The latter was primarily due to the paucity of biodiversity data in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and/or in deep waters, and the comparatively fewer protected areas and KBAs in these regions. Globally, protected areas constituted 65.9% of the combined Likely and Potential Critical Habitat extent, and KBAs 29.3%, not accounting for the overlap between these two features. Relative Critical Habitat extent in Exclusive Economic Zones varied dramatically between countries. This work is likely to be of particular use for industries operating in the marine and coastal realms as an early screening aid prior to in situ Critical Habitat assessment; to financial institutions making investment decisions; and to those wishing to implement good practice policies relevant to biodiversity management. Supplementary material (available online) includes other global datasets considered, documentation and justification of biodiversity feature classification, detail of IFC PS6 criteria/scenarios, and coverage calculations.

Langue d'origine	English
Pages (de-à)	45-53
Nombre de pages	9
Journal	Marine Policy
Volume	53
Numéro de publication	1
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007
Statut de publication	Published - mars 1 2015

Note bibliographique

Funding Information:
The key emerging standard for business is the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6) on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources [17] , applicable to certain large-scale development projects financed by the IFC (a member of the World Bank Group) and to project finance ≥$10 million of the 80 financial institutions adopting the Equator Principles [18] . IFC, the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries, released revised versions of their eight performance standards in January 2012, following three years of consultation with international experts to improve the requirements. The revised PS6 has rapidly gained recognition within the extractives industry as a benchmark for biodiversity management and a baseline for assessing potential risks and impacts of activities and structuring mitigation responses [19] . In part or whole, it is beginning to be adopted voluntarily outside of compliance with financial lending requirements [20] . National governments and the conservation community are increasingly backing adoption and implementation of PS6 by industry, such as through the decisions adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 11th Conference of the Parties in 2012 that encourage business to consider IFC’s Performance Standards (Decision XI/7, paragraph 2) [21] and, in doing so, infer recognition of IFC PS6 as a credible biodiversity standard. PS6 is becoming established as the key international framework for private sector biodiversity management, currently championed by the extractives sector [20] .

Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge M. Bieri, S. Blyth, K. Brauneder, R. Fletcher, M. Jones, B. MacSharry, A. Milam, B. O’Connor, C. Montes, S. Brooks, M. Jones, N. Kingston, and T. Wilkinson from UNEP-WCMC and A. Cuttelod and A. Joolia from IUCN for assisting with this analysis. The authors gratefully acknowledge input from E. Pollard from The Biodiversity Consultancy, and G. Roseboom and R. Spierings from Shell for involvement in initial methodological development whilst working on similar approaches. The authors thank Birdlife International, A. Davies, J. Guinotte, C. Yesson, S. Beaulieu, the InterRidge vents database, M. Baker (ChEss project), and the other data providers (see references listed in Table 2 ) for making their datasets available to us for this analysis. The authors are grateful to the following for providing detailed comments on draft versions of this manuscript: L. Bennun, T. Brooks, S. Butchart, C. Savy. This work was partially supported by The Nippon Foundation–University of British Columbia Nereus programme (CMO, JLG) and UNEP-WCMC׳s Proteus Partnership .

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 The Authors.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Aquatic Science
General Environmental Science
Economics and Econometrics
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Law

ODD de l’ONU

Cette action contribue à la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable suivants

Accès au document

10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

Autres fichiers et liens

Citer

Martin, C. S., Tolley, M. J., Farmer, E., Mcowen, C. J., Geffert, J. L., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Thomas, H. L., van Bochove, J. H., Stanwell-Smith, D., Hutton, J. M., Lascelles, B., Pilgrim, J. D., Ekstrom, J. M. M., & Tittensor, D. P. (2015). A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries. Marine Policy, 53(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

Martin, CS, Tolley, MJ, Farmer, E, Mcowen, CJ, Geffert, JL, Scharlemann, JPW, Thomas, HL, van Bochove, JH, Stanwell-Smith, D, Hutton, JM, Lascelles, B, Pilgrim, JD, Ekstrom, JMM & Tittensor, DP 2015, 'A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries', Marine Policy, vol. 53, n° 1, pp. 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

@article{94b62301801c4a0eb1b5f9e98a7eb787,

title = "A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries",

abstract = "Marine industries face a number of risks that necessitate careful analysis prior to making decisions on the siting of operations and facilities. An important emerging regulatory framework on environmental sustainability for business operations is the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6). Within PS6, identification of biodiversity significance is articulated through the concept of {"}Critical Habitat{"}, a definition developed by the IFC and detailed through criteria aligned with those that support internationally accepted biodiversity designations. No publicly available tools have been developed in either the marine or terrestrial realm to assess the likelihood of sites or operations being located within PS6-defined Critical Habitat. This paper presents a starting point towards filling this gap in the form of a preliminary global map that classifies more than 13 million km2 of marine and coastal areas of importance for biodiversity (protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas [KBA], sea turtle nesting sites, cold- and warm-water corals, seamounts, seagrass beds, mangroves, saltmarshes, hydrothermal vents and cold seeps) based on their overlap with Critical Habitat criteria, as defined by IFC. In total, 5798×103km2 (1.6%) of the analysis area (global ocean plus coastal land strip) were classed as Likely Critical Habitat, and 7526×103km2 (2.1%) as Potential Critical Habitat; the remainder (96.3%) were Unclassified. The latter was primarily due to the paucity of biodiversity data in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and/or in deep waters, and the comparatively fewer protected areas and KBAs in these regions. Globally, protected areas constituted 65.9% of the combined Likely and Potential Critical Habitat extent, and KBAs 29.3%, not accounting for the overlap between these two features. Relative Critical Habitat extent in Exclusive Economic Zones varied dramatically between countries. This work is likely to be of particular use for industries operating in the marine and coastal realms as an early screening aid prior to in situ Critical Habitat assessment; to financial institutions making investment decisions; and to those wishing to implement good practice policies relevant to biodiversity management. Supplementary material (available online) includes other global datasets considered, documentation and justification of biodiversity feature classification, detail of IFC PS6 criteria/scenarios, and coverage calculations.",

author = "Martin, {C. S.} and Tolley, {M. J.} and E. Farmer and Mcowen, {C. J.} and Geffert, {J. L.} and Scharlemann, {J. P.W.} and Thomas, {H. L.} and {van Bochove}, {J. H.} and D. Stanwell-Smith and Hutton, {J. M.} and B. Lascelles and Pilgrim, {J. D.} and Ekstrom, {J. M.M.} and Tittensor, {D. P.}",

note = "Funding Information: The key emerging standard for business is the International Finance Corporation{\textquoteright}s Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6) on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources [17] , applicable to certain large-scale development projects financed by the IFC (a member of the World Bank Group) and to project finance ≥$10 million of the 80 financial institutions adopting the Equator Principles [18] . IFC, the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries, released revised versions of their eight performance standards in January 2012, following three years of consultation with international experts to improve the requirements. The revised PS6 has rapidly gained recognition within the extractives industry as a benchmark for biodiversity management and a baseline for assessing potential risks and impacts of activities and structuring mitigation responses [19] . In part or whole, it is beginning to be adopted voluntarily outside of compliance with financial lending requirements [20] . National governments and the conservation community are increasingly backing adoption and implementation of PS6 by industry, such as through the decisions adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity{\textquoteright}s 11th Conference of the Parties in 2012 that encourage business to consider IFC{\textquoteright}s Performance Standards (Decision XI/7, paragraph 2) [21] and, in doing so, infer recognition of IFC PS6 as a credible biodiversity standard. PS6 is becoming established as the key international framework for private sector biodiversity management, currently championed by the extractives sector [20] . Funding Information: The authors acknowledge M. Bieri, S. Blyth, K. Brauneder, R. Fletcher, M. Jones, B. MacSharry, A. Milam, B. O{\textquoteright}Connor, C. Montes, S. Brooks, M. Jones, N. Kingston, and T. Wilkinson from UNEP-WCMC and A. Cuttelod and A. Joolia from IUCN for assisting with this analysis. The authors gratefully acknowledge input from E. Pollard from The Biodiversity Consultancy, and G. Roseboom and R. Spierings from Shell for involvement in initial methodological development whilst working on similar approaches. The authors thank Birdlife International, A. Davies, J. Guinotte, C. Yesson, S. Beaulieu, the InterRidge vents database, M. Baker (ChEss project), and the other data providers (see references listed in Table 2 ) for making their datasets available to us for this analysis. The authors are grateful to the following for providing detailed comments on draft versions of this manuscript: L. Bennun, T. Brooks, S. Butchart, C. Savy. This work was partially supported by The Nippon Foundation–University of British Columbia Nereus programme (CMO, JLG) and UNEP-WCMC׳s Proteus Partnership . Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2014 The Authors.",

year = "2015",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007",

language = "English",

volume = "53",

pages = "45--53",

journal = "Marine Policy",

issn = "0308-597X",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries

AU - Martin, C. S.

AU - Tolley, M. J.

AU - Farmer, E.

AU - Mcowen, C. J.

AU - Geffert, J. L.

AU - Scharlemann, J. P.W.

AU - Thomas, H. L.

AU - van Bochove, J. H.

AU - Stanwell-Smith, D.

AU - Hutton, J. M.

AU - Lascelles, B.

AU - Pilgrim, J. D.

AU - Ekstrom, J. M.M.

AU - Tittensor, D. P.

N1 - Funding Information: The key emerging standard for business is the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6) on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources [17] , applicable to certain large-scale development projects financed by the IFC (a member of the World Bank Group) and to project finance ≥$10 million of the 80 financial institutions adopting the Equator Principles [18] . IFC, the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries, released revised versions of their eight performance standards in January 2012, following three years of consultation with international experts to improve the requirements. The revised PS6 has rapidly gained recognition within the extractives industry as a benchmark for biodiversity management and a baseline for assessing potential risks and impacts of activities and structuring mitigation responses [19] . In part or whole, it is beginning to be adopted voluntarily outside of compliance with financial lending requirements [20] . National governments and the conservation community are increasingly backing adoption and implementation of PS6 by industry, such as through the decisions adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 11th Conference of the Parties in 2012 that encourage business to consider IFC’s Performance Standards (Decision XI/7, paragraph 2) [21] and, in doing so, infer recognition of IFC PS6 as a credible biodiversity standard. PS6 is becoming established as the key international framework for private sector biodiversity management, currently championed by the extractives sector [20] . Funding Information: The authors acknowledge M. Bieri, S. Blyth, K. Brauneder, R. Fletcher, M. Jones, B. MacSharry, A. Milam, B. O’Connor, C. Montes, S. Brooks, M. Jones, N. Kingston, and T. Wilkinson from UNEP-WCMC and A. Cuttelod and A. Joolia from IUCN for assisting with this analysis. The authors gratefully acknowledge input from E. Pollard from The Biodiversity Consultancy, and G. Roseboom and R. Spierings from Shell for involvement in initial methodological development whilst working on similar approaches. The authors thank Birdlife International, A. Davies, J. Guinotte, C. Yesson, S. Beaulieu, the InterRidge vents database, M. Baker (ChEss project), and the other data providers (see references listed in Table 2 ) for making their datasets available to us for this analysis. The authors are grateful to the following for providing detailed comments on draft versions of this manuscript: L. Bennun, T. Brooks, S. Butchart, C. Savy. This work was partially supported by The Nippon Foundation–University of British Columbia Nereus programme (CMO, JLG) and UNEP-WCMC׳s Proteus Partnership . Publisher Copyright: © 2014 The Authors.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Marine industries face a number of risks that necessitate careful analysis prior to making decisions on the siting of operations and facilities. An important emerging regulatory framework on environmental sustainability for business operations is the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6). Within PS6, identification of biodiversity significance is articulated through the concept of "Critical Habitat", a definition developed by the IFC and detailed through criteria aligned with those that support internationally accepted biodiversity designations. No publicly available tools have been developed in either the marine or terrestrial realm to assess the likelihood of sites or operations being located within PS6-defined Critical Habitat. This paper presents a starting point towards filling this gap in the form of a preliminary global map that classifies more than 13 million km2 of marine and coastal areas of importance for biodiversity (protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas [KBA], sea turtle nesting sites, cold- and warm-water corals, seamounts, seagrass beds, mangroves, saltmarshes, hydrothermal vents and cold seeps) based on their overlap with Critical Habitat criteria, as defined by IFC. In total, 5798×103km2 (1.6%) of the analysis area (global ocean plus coastal land strip) were classed as Likely Critical Habitat, and 7526×103km2 (2.1%) as Potential Critical Habitat; the remainder (96.3%) were Unclassified. The latter was primarily due to the paucity of biodiversity data in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and/or in deep waters, and the comparatively fewer protected areas and KBAs in these regions. Globally, protected areas constituted 65.9% of the combined Likely and Potential Critical Habitat extent, and KBAs 29.3%, not accounting for the overlap between these two features. Relative Critical Habitat extent in Exclusive Economic Zones varied dramatically between countries. This work is likely to be of particular use for industries operating in the marine and coastal realms as an early screening aid prior to in situ Critical Habitat assessment; to financial institutions making investment decisions; and to those wishing to implement good practice policies relevant to biodiversity management. Supplementary material (available online) includes other global datasets considered, documentation and justification of biodiversity feature classification, detail of IFC PS6 criteria/scenarios, and coverage calculations.

AB - Marine industries face a number of risks that necessitate careful analysis prior to making decisions on the siting of operations and facilities. An important emerging regulatory framework on environmental sustainability for business operations is the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6). Within PS6, identification of biodiversity significance is articulated through the concept of "Critical Habitat", a definition developed by the IFC and detailed through criteria aligned with those that support internationally accepted biodiversity designations. No publicly available tools have been developed in either the marine or terrestrial realm to assess the likelihood of sites or operations being located within PS6-defined Critical Habitat. This paper presents a starting point towards filling this gap in the form of a preliminary global map that classifies more than 13 million km2 of marine and coastal areas of importance for biodiversity (protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas [KBA], sea turtle nesting sites, cold- and warm-water corals, seamounts, seagrass beds, mangroves, saltmarshes, hydrothermal vents and cold seeps) based on their overlap with Critical Habitat criteria, as defined by IFC. In total, 5798×103km2 (1.6%) of the analysis area (global ocean plus coastal land strip) were classed as Likely Critical Habitat, and 7526×103km2 (2.1%) as Potential Critical Habitat; the remainder (96.3%) were Unclassified. The latter was primarily due to the paucity of biodiversity data in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction and/or in deep waters, and the comparatively fewer protected areas and KBAs in these regions. Globally, protected areas constituted 65.9% of the combined Likely and Potential Critical Habitat extent, and KBAs 29.3%, not accounting for the overlap between these two features. Relative Critical Habitat extent in Exclusive Economic Zones varied dramatically between countries. This work is likely to be of particular use for industries operating in the marine and coastal realms as an early screening aid prior to in situ Critical Habitat assessment; to financial institutions making investment decisions; and to those wishing to implement good practice policies relevant to biodiversity management. Supplementary material (available online) includes other global datasets considered, documentation and justification of biodiversity feature classification, detail of IFC PS6 criteria/scenarios, and coverage calculations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949116828&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949116828&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

DO - 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.11.007

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84949116828

SN - 0308-597X

VL - 53

SP - 45

EP - 53

JO - Marine Policy

JF - Marine Policy

IS - 1

ER -

A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries

Résumé

Note bibliographique

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

ODD de l’ONU

Accès au document

Autres fichiers et liens

Empreinte numérique

Citer