jurisdiction. Some of the protective efforts, including fisheries closures, within EEZs
predate the UNGA resolutions, but the resolutions stimulated further action. Such
actions run in parallel with efforts to create networks of marine protected areas in areas
within national jurisdiction, partly motivated by the need to protect corals.
In response to the measures called for by the General Assembly, seamounts and
continental slope habitats with a documented or assumed coral presence have now
been set aside as marine reserves or fisheries closures by competent authorities. These
areas are protected partly through area-based management tools (for example, by
Australia, New Zealand and the United States within areas under their respective
national jurisdictions) and partly by regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements (RFMO/As) in the high seas of the North and South-eastern Atlantic. In
the north-eastern Atlantic, substantial areas have been protected within national
jurisdictions of European Union Member States, as well as of Iceland and Norway.
Beyond areas of national jurisdiction, RFMOs/As with competence to regulate bottom
fisheries (for example, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (www.nafo.int) and
the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (www.neafc.org)) have closed a range of
seamounts and seabed areas to bottom fishing. Within their regulatory areas, these
RFMOs have also restricted fishing to a limited agreed set of sub-areas outside the
“existing fishing areas”, and have created strict rules and impact assessment
requirements for these sub-areas. These measures are intended not only to protect
known areas with significant concentrations of cold-water coral, but also essentially to
reduce the incentive for exploratory bottom fishing outside existing fishing areas.
Similar rules apply in the southeast Atlantic high seas implemented by the South East
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO, www.seafo.org) which closed selected ridge
sections and seamounts to fishing, and restricted fisheries to certain subareas. In the
Mediterranean, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM,
www.gfcm.org) implemented fisheries restriction zones in specific coral sites.
The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR,
http://www.ccamlr.org/) banned bottom trawl fishing within the CCAMLR Convention
area. Bottom fishing regulations and area closures aim to facilitate responsible fisheries
and to prevent adverse impacts on bottom-associated vulnerable marine communities
as defined by FAO (2009). Marine protected areas in this area are being considered but
only one MPA has been established thus far.
Currently little information exists to assess the impacts on target or by-catch species by
deep-sea fishing on seamounts in the Indian Ocean. The Southern Indian Ocean
Deepsea Fishers Association declared a number of seamounts in the Southern Indian
Ocean as voluntary areas closed to fishing. The entry into force in 2012 of the Southern
Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement
3
(SIOFA), a new regional fisheries management
arrangement for the region, may lead to better documentation and
regulation of
seamount fisheries.
3
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2835, No. 49647.
© 2016 United Nations
11
In the North Pacific, the United States designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(HAPCs) that contain Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and closed subareas of the shelf and
upper slope from California to the Aleutian Islands to bottom trawling. Additional areas
of L. pertusa habitat have recently been designated as HAPCs off the southeast coast of
the United States. Canada also has a strategy to develop and implement further
measures. In areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North and South Pacific,
respectively, States which participated in the negotiations to establish the North Pacific
Fisheries Commission (NPFC) and the South Pacific Fisheries Management Organization
(SPRFMO) introduced measures similar to those adopted by the Atlantic RFMOs.
Within areas under national jurisdiction of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico,
mitigation areas are established around mapped seafloor seismic anomalies that often
coincide with hardgrounds that may support cold-water coral communities. Although
these measures may prevent most direct impacts from infrastructure, the persistent
threat of deep-water fishing, accidental loss of gear, and catastrophic oil spills remains a
concern.
A continued challenge is to assess the effectiveness of current and new protective
measures and to develop management in areas that need greater attention, such as
those for which no RFMOs exist. The fisheries sector is often perceived as representing
the major threat to cold-water corals, but a growing challenge is to avoid adverse
impacts from other industries moving into areas containing known coral habitats, e.g.
mining, oil and gas industries, and renewable energy industries operating under
different management regimes.
© 2016 United Nations
12
Figure 1. Examples of dense cold-water Lophelia pertusa reef frameworks, including provision of fish
habitat. (a) and (b) from 400-500 m depth in the Viosca Knolls region of the Gulf of Mexico. (c) and (d)
from 600 to 800 m depth on the Logachev coral carbonate mounds on the Rockall Bank in the Northeast
Atlantic.
All photos are property of the contributors to this chapter and should also be attributed to:
(a) and (b): Ecosystem Impacts of Oil and Gas Inputs to the Gulf (ECOGIG), a consortium funded by the
Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI), and the Ocean Exploration Trust; (c) and (d): Roberts, J.M.,
Changing Oceans Expedition 2012, funded by UK Ocean Acidification programme (NERC, DECC, Defra).
© 2016 United Nations
13