NOTE D'ENGAGEMENT PROJET - Contribuer à une gouvernance hybride pour protéger et gérer des aires remarquables en haute mer Océans Pacifique Est ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Comité de pilotage du FFEM
Date
Secrétariat du Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial
NOTE D’ENGAGEMENT PROJET
Contribuer à une gouvernance hybride pour
protéger et gérer des aires remarquables en
haute mer
Océans Pacifique Est tropical et
Atlantique Nord-Ouest
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 1/89
Contributing to hybrid governance to protect and manage remarkable areas on the high
TITRE DU PROJET
seas: Tropical East Pacific and Northwest Atlantic Oceans
LIBELLE COURT DU PROJET Conservation and Hybrid Governance of the Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea
PAYS / REGION Tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean; Northwest Atlantic Ocean
INSTITUTION MEMBRE Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire (MTES)
PORTEUSE DU PROJET Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères (MEAE)
DATE D’IDENTIFICATION 26/11/2019
DOMAINE D’APPLICATION International Waters / Co-benefit Biodiversity
THEMATIQUE DE Aquatic Ecosystem Resilience
CONCENTRATION Protection and enhancement of biodiversity
MONTANT DU PROJET 19,473 millions d
- For MarViva: VIVA Trust, Central American Institutions, communication
partners.
CO-FINANCIERS - For SSC: Global Environment Facility (GEF), Sargasso Sea Commission and its
signatory countries, NASA, BIOS, Duke University (MGEL), other partners.
- Global Fishing Watch
- Université de Bretagne Occidentale, ISblue, Ocean University Initiative.
- French Biodiversity Office (AFB)
CONTRIBUTION DU FFEM 3 millions d’€
- MarViva
BENEFICIAIRE - Sargasso Sea Project Inc. (NGO that carries the Secretariat of the Sargasso Sea
Commission (SSC).
- Université de Bretagne occidentale (UBO)
- The international community as a whole with respect to marine areas beyond
national jurisdiction and conservation actors.
- Populations of Central America and the Caribbean.
- Institutions related to the environment, fisheries management, tourism in
Central America, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
BENEFICIAIRE FINAL
Costa Rica, (countries with an Exclusive Economic Zone - EEZ - adjacent to the
site of the Thermal Dome) and the Caribbean (Bahamas, Dominican Republic
(among the signatories of the Hamilton Declaration); including France and the
Clipperton Biotope Protection Area.
- Actors related to the fishing industry (artisanal, industrial, recreational),
tourism, maritime transport, cruises.
DEMARRAGE DU PROJET February 2021
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
DUREE DU PROJET 5 years
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 2/89
Proposition de résolution
RESOLUTION CAAAAXXXX
FONDS FRANÇAIS POUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT MONDIAL
COMITE DE PILOTAGE DU FFEM
RESOLUTION N° XXXXX DU JJ MOIS AAAA
PAYS BENEFICIAIRE
The FFEM Steering Committee authorizes the Secretary General of the French Global Environment Facility (FFEM), acting
by delegation from the Director General of the Agence Française de Développement, to make a grant to [Recipient]
under the following conditions:
Bénéficiaires : MarViva Sargasso Sea Project Inc. (bearer of Université de
the Secretariat of the Sargasso Sea Bretagne Occidentale
Commission (SSC). (UBO)
Objet (intitulé du projet) : Conservation and Hybrid Governance of the Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea
Domaine d'application : International waters / co-benefit Biodiversity
Pays : Central American Caribbean countries signatories of France
countries: Panama, the Hamilton Declaration, including
Nicaragua, El Dominican Republic, Bahamas
Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Costa Rica
Montant de la subvention 1 403 000 € 961 000 € 636 000 €
FFEM (en €)
Co-financiers (Organisme + Viva Trust: 255 000 SSC : 708 000 € UBO : 130 000 €
Montant en €)
Global Fishing Watch: GEF: 2,989 millions € AFB : 205 000 €
578 000 €
Global Fishing watch (between
Private partners of 578 000 and 1,200 millions €)
MarViva: 320 000 €
NASA (COVERAGE project): 442 000 €
(estimates)
Duke University: 611 000 €
South American
Institutions: 178 000 BIOS: 7,3 millions €
€ (estimates)
Edimbourg University: 59 000 €
Other (subject to change): 1,5
millions €
Durée prévisionnelle du
5 years
projet :
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 3/89
Date prévisionnelle de February 2021
démarrage du projet :
Principales conditions Submission by each of the partners (MarViva/VivaTrust; SSC; UBO) of
suspensives à la signature the following corporate documents: a certified copy of the articles of
de la convention : association; an original or certified copy of the deed of incorporation
or registration of the structure concerned; a certified copy of the
decisions of the competent governing bodies of each partner approving
the terms of the Agreement with the FFEM, and authorizing one or
more of the designated persons to sign it in its name and on its behalf.
Principales conditions
suspensives de i) Submission by each of the partners (MarViva/VivaTrust; SSC; UBO)
décaissement to the FFEM of a certificate from a representative duly authorized
by each structure listing the person(s) responsible for signing, on
behalf of the partner concerned, the requests for payment and
attestations under the Convention, or for taking action or signing
the other documents authorized or required of each partner under
the Convention, as well as the authenticated specimen of the
signature of each of these persons.
ii) Prior notice of no objection from the FFEM on the standard model
financing agreements to be signed between each partner and its
major service providers (MGEL (Duke University), Global Fishing
Watch) for the implementation of grants awarded under the
project.
Principaux engagements DDDDD
particuliers :
PMA/PFR/PRITI/PRITS Subvention Déclarable en APD : OUI
Numéro du Concours : CXX NNNN NN X
Numéro du Bénéficiaire : CXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 4/89RÉSUME EXÉCUTIF
1. Contexte et enjeux
In 2017, after a process lasting more than a decade, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) established
an intergovernmental conference to negotiate an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) on the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). The existing system has
been described as an "unfinished agenda". At the end of the third round of negotiations in August 2019, ILBI
negotiators appear to accept that some form of global governance structure - through a Conference of the
Parties (CoP) - is needed.
The Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea are two sites representative of the diversity and importance of the
ecosystems of the high seas. They are a perfect illustration of the fact that the ecological limits
(interconnectivity of ecosystems) do not correspond to the legal delimitations established by the Montego Bay
Convention. They are dynamic formations, which move, shrink and expand with currents and winds. They are
located mainly beyond national jurisdiction, on the high seas, but may "encroach" permanently, regularly or
from time to time on EEZs that are under the sovereignty of States.
2. Objectifs
The objective of the project is to contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the high
seas on the Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea. It will incorporate and contribute to the elements of the UN
negotiations on BBNJ by informing on possible implementation models for regional and international/global
coordination, consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and its implementing agreements and
as part of a strategy based on an ecosystem approach.
3. Contenu du programme
The strategy proposed by the project is to develop a DPSIR (driving force-pressure-state-impact-response)
analysis in each site, followed by a synthesis, analysis of governance, and then a set of conclusions that will
lead to proposals to improve the governance of these sites. These results will help inform future agreements
on the BBNJ and other high seas areas wishing to designate ABMTs including MPAs. The knowledge gained will
also support the development of agreements and action plans for the Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea.
The project is structured in four components:
1. Coordination and management: The four partners (MarViva, SSC, UBO and AFB) will set up a permanent
internal coordination mechanism for the management of the project. A project coordinator will be mobilized
by MarViva and SSC and UBO will mobilize a "DPSIR methodological coordination" project officer for
component 2 and another in charge of training on component 4.
The structure of the project will include : i) A Steering Committee (project partners, co-founders and key allies),
which will oversee the overall strategic implementation of the initiative and the development of the
operational components; ii) An Advisory Board to serve as a specialized resource for consultation and validation
of project progress; iii) Implementation teams at the sites (project leaders, methodological coordinator,
capacity building project officer and technical experts from the main implementing partners and external
consultants), to advance the operational components, reporting to the Steering Committee.
2. Diagnostic analysis of the socio-ecosystem: The two sites - in collaboration and supported by the DPSIR
methodological coordination provided by the UBO - will develop a complete analysis and synthesis of the issues
using a DPSIR approach (driving forces-pressures-state-impacts-responses). This will include defining the socio-
ecosystem, identifying sustainability issues, characterizing pressures and their impacts, and proposing
strategies to improve the sustainability of the socio-ecosystem.
This component also includes an innovation component on the issue of data acquisition (new observation
technologies) and data management (big data, visualization).
3. Governance Models for Ecosystem-Based Management: Component 3 involves stakeholders in carrying out
the diagnosis to build a hybrid and participatory governance model. In light of the elements identified during
these participatory and multi-sectoral discussions, the need and recommendations for potential new
governance structures and mechanisms will be generated with the participation of public and private
stakeholders, based on the BBNJ instrument.
For the Thermal Dome, the expected outcome is a proposal for the governance and regulation of the area that
will be submitted to the concerned States and a candidature file for the UNESCO World Heritage Commission.
For the Sargasso Sea, it will be a Strategic Action Plan submitted to the signatories of the Hamilton Declaration.
4. Capacity building and communication: The lessons learned from the results achieved in both sites, both in
terms of knowledge and governance, will serve as a basis for the development of a program for capacity
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 5/89building and dissemination of know-how beyond the stakeholders directly involved in the proposed work plan,
through the development and implementation of an online training program (MOOC) on governance and
conservation on the high seas, targeted at the international scientific community, government officials and
private sector actors. Various communication actions are planned (see below).
4. Montage institutionnel
Due to the genesis of the project, which is the combination of three projects - one for the Thermal Dome and
one for the Sargasso Sea and a training scheme - and the resulting need for cohesion, this project is structured
with three project owners: MarViva, the SSC and the UBO (the three beneficiaries of the project) and a key
partner, the AFB. MarViva and SSC will be responsible for the implementation of the parts concerning each of
the two sites. UBO will ensure the DPSIR methodological coordination for Component 2, and the capacity
building part.
MarViva and SSC will delegate certain activities to partners, particularly with regard to data collection and
analysis for each of the sites. Project supervision will be provided for a small Steering Committee. An Advisory
Board will be created to provide scientific and legal support throughout the project.
5. Durée, cout
The project has a duration of five years. The estimated cost of the project is €19.473 million, including €3 million
from the FFEM, i.e. 15.4% of the total amount of the project. The main co-financing comes from the GEF project
on the Sargasso Sea and other co-financing from scientific partners such as Duke University, BIOS, Global
Fishing Watch and NASA while on the Thermal Dome the co-financing comes mainly from Global Fishing Watch,
Viva Trust and private or institutional support such as the CCAD members. The UBO contributes to co-financing
through its staff and the AFB also contributes to co-financing some key coordination activities (Advisory Board,
direct support to MarViva).
6. Suivi – évaluation et communication
The monitoring of the project will be centralized at the level of each project partner and according to the logical
framework indicators and aggregated results indicators validated at the beginning of the project between the
partners.
Taking into account the duration of the project, an external mid-term evaluation will be carried out using the
FFEM Secretariat's own funds. At the end of the project, a final external evaluation will be conducted by the
FFEM.
In addition to reports, brochures and websites, social networking tools, each partner will develop specific
communication tools adapted to their needs. Component 4 provides for communication support budgets. A
communication campaign will be developed at the regional level by MarViva. Events will be developed by the
partners during international meetings to valorize the results of the project.
7. Justification d’une intervention du FFEM
The project will make a significant contribution to strengthening high seas governance at both sites and to the
implementation of the new Agreement on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, in particular by proposing elements of hybrid governance. It is innovative in many aspects, both in
terms of the existing regional approaches at the level of the Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea, as well as
the DPSIR analysis approach that will be implemented by the project and will support the recommendations
for the creation of ABMTs including MPAs, but also in terms of capitalizing on the uses of Big data and new
monitoring and surveillance tools.
This project will have a demonstrative and replicable character for other remarkable high seas sites.
8. Risques, conditionnalités et mesures d’accompagnement.
The main risk identified remains that of a lack of coordination and capitalization. The setting up of several
systems, including an Advisory Board, and a DPSIR methodological coordination function carried by the UBO
guarantees joint work while respecting the dynamics of each site. No particular conditionality is envisaged
beyond the usual contractual clauses.
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 6/89EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Le résumé version anglaise ne doit pas dépasser 1.500 mots (environ 1 page recto/verso). Sur base de validation du rapport provisoire NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 7/89
ABRÉVIATIONS
AEE Agence européenne pour l'environnement EEA
AGNU Assemblée générale des Nations Unies / United Nations General Assembly UNGA
AIFM Autorité internationale des fonds marins / International Seabed Authority ISA
AMP Aires marines protégées / Marine Protected Areas MPA
ANUSP Accord des Nations Unies sur les stocks de poissons / UN Fish Stocks Agreement UNFSA
ASPIM Aire spécialement protégée d'importance méditerranéenne / Specially Protected SPAMI
Areas of Mediterranean Importance
ATBA Zone à éviter / Area to be avoided ATBA
ATD Analyse transfrontalière du diagnostic / Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis TDA
BADJN Biodiversité dans les zones situées au-delà des limites de la juridiction nationale / BBNJ
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction
BIOS Institut océanographique des Bermudes / Bermudes Oceanographic Sciences BIOS
Institute
CCAD Commission centraméricaine de l’environnement et du développement / Comisión CCAD
Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo / Central American Commission on
Environment and Development
CCAMLR Convention pour la conservation de la faune et de la flore marines de l’Antarctique / CCAMLR
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
CDB Convention sur la diversité biologique / Convention on Biological Diversity CBD
CITT Commission interaméricaine pour le thon tropical / Inter-American Tropical Tuna IATTC
Commission
CICTA Commission internationale pour la conservation des thonidés de l'Atlantique / ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
CITES Convention sur le commerce international des espèces de faune et de flore CITES
sauvages menacées d'extinction / Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CMS Convention sur la conservation des espèces migratrices appartenant à la faune CMS
sauvage / Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
CNUDM Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer / United Nations Convention on UNCLOS
the Law of the Sea
COFI Comité des pêches de la FAO / FAO Committee on Fisheries COFI
DPSIR Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response DPSIR
EDA Analyse du diagnostic de l'écosystème / Ecosystem Diagnostic Analysis EDA
EMV Écosystèmes marins vulnérables / Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VME
EN Espèce qualifiée "En danger" sur la liste Rouge UICN / Species qualified as EN
“Endangered” on the IUCN Red List
EPA Agence de la protection de l’environnement des Etats-Unis / Environmental EPA
Protection Agency (US)
FAO Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture / Food and FAO
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FEM Fonds pour l'environnement mondial / Global Environment Facility GEF
FFEM Fond français pour l’environnement mondial / French Facility for Global
Environment
GFW Global Fishing Watch GFW
GOBI Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative GOBI
HSA High Seas Alliance HSA
IIJC Instrument international juridiquement contraignant / International Legally Binding ILBI
Instrument
IKI Initiative internationale pour le climat (Allemagne) / International Climate Initiative IKI
(Germany)
IMPAC Congrès international des aires marines protégées / International Marine Protected IMPAC
Areas Congress
INN Pêche illicite non déclarée et non réglementée / Illegal Unreported and Unregulated IUU
fishing
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 8/89IUEM Institut universitaire européen de la mer / European Institute for Marine Studies
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL
LME Large Marine Ecosystem LME
MARPOL Convention internationale pour la prévention de la pollution par les navires (1973) MARPOL
complétée par le protocole de 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) / International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) as modified by the Protocol of 1978
(MARPOL 73/78)
MBI Monaco Blue Initiative MBI
MEAE Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires Etrangères français
MGEL Laboratoire d’écologie géospatiale de l’Université de Duke / Marine Geospatial MGEL
Ecology Lab, Duke University
MOOC Massive Open Online Course MOOC
MoP Reunion des Parties / Meeting of Parties MoP
MTE Ministère de la transition écologique français
NASA Agence de l’espace et de l’aéronautique des Etats-Unis / National Aeronautics and NASA
Space Administration (United States)
OCDE Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques / Organisation for OECD
Economic Co-operation and Development
ODD Objectifs de développement durable / Sustainable Development Goals SDG
OFB Office français de la biodiversité AFB
OGPZ Outils de gestion par zone / Area-Based Management Tools ABMT
OMI Organisation maritime internationale / International Maritime Organization IMO
ONG Organisation non gouvernementale / Non-Governmental Organization NGO
ONU Organisation des Nations Unies / United Nations UN
OPNA Organisation des pêcheries du Nord-Ouest Atlantique / Northwest Atlantic Fisheries NAFO
Organization
ORGP Organisation régionale de gestion des pêches / Regional Fisheries Management RFMO
Organization
OSPAR Convention pour la protection du milieu marin de l'Atlantique Nord-Est / OSPAR
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
OSPESCA Organisation du secteur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture de l’Isthme de l’Amérique OSPESCA
centrale / Organización del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano /
Central American Organization on Fisheries and Aquaculture
PAS Plan d’action stratégique / Strategic Action Plan SAP
PNUD Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement / United Nations UNDP
Development Programme
PNUE Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement / United Nations Environment UNEP
Programme
PSM Planification spatiale marine / Marine Spatial Planning MSP
PSMA Accord relatif aux mesures du ressort de l’État du Port / Agreement on Port State PSMA
Measures
PTE Pacifique tropical est / Eastern Tropical Pacific ETP
REMP Regional Environmental Management Plan REMP
SIA Système d'identification automatique / Automatic Identification System AIS
SICA Système d’intégration centraméricain / Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana / SICA
Central American Integration System
SSC Commission de la mer des Sargasses / Sargasso Sea Commission SSC
SSPI Sargasso Sea Project Inc. SSPI
UE Union européenne / European Union EU
UICN Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature / International Union for IUCN
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
UNESCO Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture / United UNESCO
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
UNU Université des Nations Unies / United Nations University UNU
VUE Valeur universelle exceptionnelle / Outstanding Universal Value OUV
WCC Congrès mondial de la nature de l’UICN / IUCN World Conservation Congress WCC
WHC Convention pour la protection du patrimoine mondial, culturel et naturel de WHC
l’Unesco / World Heritage Convention
WHS Patrimoine mondial de l'Unesco / World Heritage Site WHS
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 9/89ZADJN Zone au-delà de la juridiction nationale / Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction ABNJ
ZEE Zone économique exclusive / Exclusive Economic Zone EEZ
ZIEB Zone d’importance écologique et biologique / Ecologically or Biologically Significant EBSA
Marine Area
ZMPV Zone maritime particulièrement vulnérable / Particularly Sensitive Sea Area PSSA
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 10/89SOMMAIRE
I CONTEXTES ET ENJEUX ................................................................................................................................... 13
I.1 Contexte géographique et environnemental .................................................................................................... 13
I.2 Contexte socio-économique .............................................................................................................................. 14
I.3 Contexte institutionnel, conventions internationales et la place de la société civile ........................................ 16
I.4 Enseignements tirés des projets récents sur la haute mer et projets pertinents associés ............................... 21
I.4.1 Apports des quelques projets récents sur la haute mer .......................................................................... 21
I.4.2 Second Programme « Common Oceans » ABNJ du FEM co-financeur du projet..................................... 22
I.4.3 Autres projets pertinents ......................................................................................................................... 22
I.5 Les organisations régionales de gestion des pêches (ORGP) ............................................................................. 24
I.6 Présentation des partenaires maitres d’ouvrage du Projet............................................................................... 25
I.6.1 MarViva .................................................................................................................................................... 25
I.6.2 Commission de la Mer des Sargasses (SSC).............................................................................................. 25
I.6.3 Université de Bretagne occidentale (UBO) .............................................................................................. 25
I.6.4 Office français de la biodiversité (OFB) .................................................................................................... 25
I.7 Présentation des structures associées aux partenaires du projet ..................................................................... 26
II OBJECTIFS DU PROGRAMME .......................................................................................................................... 27
II.1 Finalité ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
II.2 Objectifs spécifiques .......................................................................................................................................... 27
III CONTENU DU PROGRAMME .......................................................................................................................... 29
III.1 Composante 1 : Coordination et pilotage pour une et mise en œuvre efficace du projet ........................... 29
III.1.1 Orientation stratégique et suivi du projet................................................................................................ 29
III.1.2 Coordination interne et mise en œuvre du programme .......................................................................... 30
III.1.3 Audit et évaluations du projet ................................................................................................................. 30
III.2 Composante 2 : Analyse-diagnostic intégrée du socio-écosystème et informations complémentaires pour
la désignation et la gestion des sites de haute mer .................................................................................................... 30
III.2.1 Développement d’un cadre d’analyse DPSIR commun pour les deux sites ............................................. 31
III.2.2 Production de synthèses des données physiques, biochimiques, écologiques et socio-économiques, et
analyses des lacunes pour les deux sites ................................................................................................................ 32
III.2.3 Production de données supplémentaires en soutien de la gestion écosystémique ................................ 33
III.2.4 Production d’outils innovants pour la mobilisation du big data .............................................................. 33
III.2.5 Production des diagnostics DPSIR en support au processus de désignation des OGPZ y compris les AMP
34
III.3 Composante 3 : Modèles de gouvernance au service d’une gestion écosystémique................................... 34
III.3.1 Analyse de la gouvernance dans les deux sites ........................................................................................ 35
III.3.2 Dialogue avec les secteurs économiques et les institutions sur la conservation et l’utilisation de haute
mer, et propositions pour la régulation et la gestion des activités humaines dans les deux sites......................... 35
III.3.3 Présentation pour adoption des modèles de gouvernance hybride pour les deux sites. ........................ 36
III.3.4 Recommandations pour la désignation d’OGPZ, y compris les AMP en haute mer, et du Dôme thermal au
Patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO........................................................................................................................... 36
III.4 Composante 4 : Renforcement des capacités et communication des résultats du projet ........................... 37
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 11/89III.4.1 Mise à disposition de ressources en soutien du renforcement des capacités pérenne .......................... 37
III.4.2 Information et formation des personnels des organismes internationaux, des gouvernements nationaux
et du secteur privé sur la gouvernance et la gestion des écosystèmes de la haute mer. ...................................... 38
III.4.3 Communication des résultats du projet et évènement final de capitalisation. ....................................... 38
IV MONTAGE INSTITUTIONNEL ET CIRCUIT FINANCIER DU FINANCEMENT FFEM ................................................ 38
IV.1 Montage institutionnel ................................................................................................................................. 38
IV.2 Circuits financiers .......................................................................................................................................... 41
V DUREE, COUT & PLAN DE FINANCEMENT ....................................................................................................... 41
V.1 Durée et calendrier de mise en œuvre ......................................................................................................... 41
V.2 Coût & financement FFEM envisagés ........................................................................................................... 42
V.3 Plan de financement prévisionnel ................................................................................................................ 42
VI DISPOSITIF DE SUIVI – EVALUATION ET DE COMMUNICATION ....................................................................... 43
VI.1 Evaluation des impacts attendus & indicateurs d'impact ............................................................................. 43
VI.2 Dispositif de suivi .......................................................................................................................................... 44
VI.3 Dispositif d'évaluation .................................................................................................................................. 44
VI.4 Dispositif de communication ........................................................................................................................ 45
VII JUSTIFICATION D’UNE INTERVENTION DU FFEM ............................................................................................. 45
VII.1 Contribution au développement local, économique et social des pays concernés ...................................... 45
VII.2 Contribution à la préservation de l’environnement mondial ....................................................................... 45
VII.3 Caractère exemplaire et innovant ................................................................................................................ 46
VII.4 Caractère démonstratif et reproductible ...................................................................................................... 46
VII.5 Pérennité économique et financière après projet ........................................................................................ 46
VII.6 Viabilité au plan écologique et environnemental ......................................................................................... 47
VII.7 Acceptabilité sociale et culturelle ................................................................................................................. 47
VII.8 Cadre organisationnel et institutionnel adéquat .......................................................................................... 47
VIII RISQUES, CONDITIONNALITES ET MESURES D’ACCOMPAGNEMENT........................................................... 47
VIII.1 Risques et mesures d’accompagnement ...................................................................................................... 47
VIII.2 Engagements particuliers.............................................................................................................................. 51
IX ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................................ 52
Avis du CST, avis du Secrétariat et commentaires du Comité de Pilotage sur la note d’identification du projet (NIP)
.................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Eléments de réponses ................................................................................................................................................. 57
Cadres logiques ........................................................................................................................................................... 63
Communication sur le Projet....................................................................................................................................... 74
Progrès de la dernière décade en matière de gouvernance du Dôme Thermal et de la Mer des Sargasses .............. 78
Présentation des autres projets .................................................................................................................................. 79
Détail du budget et des co-financements ................................................................................................................... 84
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx v01 12/89I CONTEXTES ET ENJEUX I.1 Contexte géographique et environnemental The world's oceans provide humanity with ecological goods and services essential to sustain life on Earth. It is estimated that 90% of the biosphere is contained in the oceans. Food chains and food webs are complex. Many species, including important commercial species, depend on both the coastal and open ocean environments. The open sea includes a wide variety of habitats such as oceanic fronts, upwellings, bathypelagic environments (the open water between 1000 and several thousand meters deep), abyssal plains, seamounts or hydrothermal vents. It is a four-dimensional dynamic system: currents, movements of water masses, horizontal, vertical and temporal temperature variations make it an extremely complex environment. The functioning of the oceans is still relatively unknown and it is estimated that only 5% of the oceans are explored. The main areas of uncertainty for the scientific community concern in particular, deep-sea ecosystems, physicochemical elements such as the movement of water masses or the ocean's reactions to excess CO2 for example, but also the interaction between biophysical compartments, migratory species and human activities. Modern observation technologies (satellites, drones, etc.) combined with digital technologies provide real-time information and long series of data useful for a better understanding of the effects of climate change on ecosystems and resources. These "big data" and their integrative processing can rapidly improve the understanding of certain phenomena and the links with human activities. The Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea are two sites that are representative of the diversity and importance of high seas ecosystems. They perfectly illustrate the fact that the ecological limits (interconnectivity of ecosystems) do not correspond to the legal delimitations established by the Montego Bay Convention. They are dynamic formations, which move, shrink and expand with currents and winds. They are located mainly beyond national jurisdiction, on the high seas, but may "encroach" permanently, regularly or from time to time on EEZs that are under the sovereignty of States. These two oceanic zones, because of their productivity, are home to an extremely rich and varied fauna ranging from emblematic species to others, less well known (plankton, deep-sea species, etc.). They are important areas for protected or threatened species whether commercial (tuna, swordfish, billfish, dolphinfish, sharks, squid, and eels) or not (whales, turtles, seabirds, invertebrates, etc.). They represent essential areas for these migratory and sedentary species, including a multitude of organisms still little known (plankton, deep sea species, etc.). For these two zones the synthesis of biophysical and ecological elements remains essential to be able to present their importance and demonstrate the necessity of their conservation as well as to present the future stakes in terms of management and development Le Dôme thermal The Thermal Dome is located in western Central America. It is a phenomenon formed by the conjunction of trade winds and marine currents that cause the upwelling of deep, cold and nutrient-rich waters (upwelling) at an average speed of 3.5 million m3/second (16 times the flow of the Amazon River). The thermocline is thus "lifted" up to about 15 meters from the surface, giving it its bell shape, its name of "dome". The size and location of the Thermal Dome is dynamic. Its average surface area is 530,000 km2. Its central zone is located around 9°N and 90°W, more than 65 km west of the borders of the EEZs of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, i.e. beyond their respective national jurisdictions (Figure 1). Temperatures, nutrient and oxygen concentrations along the water column result in the creation of diverse habitats and biological communities. Some publications have confirmed that the productivity of the Thermal Dome (more than 700 mg.C.m2 /d) is six times higher than that of the surrounding waters, thus maintaining a dynamic food web ranging from phytoplankton to cetaceans. For example, this site has the highest concentration of euphausiids (krill) in the eastern tropical Pacific and the concentration of zooplankton is two and a half times higher than in the surrounding waters of the region. The Thermal Dome is the most effective carbon sink in the eastern tropical Pacific, due to the high presence of cobalt (three times higher than in the surrounding waters) and the high concentration of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Scientific information about the Thermal Dome is rich but remains fragmented and on some points still incomplete (connectivity, El Niño impacts, interspecies dependencies, etc.). Completing it remains a challenge to better understand its functioning, cycles and relationships with the coastal ecosystems of the region. NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx 13/89
La Mer des Sargasses
Stretching over 5 million km2, the Sargasso Sea is a unique ecosystem in the Northwest Atlantic. It takes its name from
the two species of pelagic macroalgae (Sargassum natans and S. fluitans) that accumulate in the subtropical gyre of the
North Atlantic (Figure 1), where they form clusters or rafts. Only the Bermuda Archipelago has a direct coastal coastline
to the Sargasso Sea. The latter is bordered by the flow of the main ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream and the North
Atlantic Current (western and northern limits), the Canary Current (more diffuse eastern limit), and the Northern
Equatorial Current which, together with the Caribbean Current, form the southern limit.
A detailed scientific study, completed in 2011i, shows that the Sargasso Sea is a unique marine ecosystem, home to
many endemic species and represents an essential habitat for a very large number of others. The seamounts also host
a wide range of fragile communities with as yet undescribed endemic species. It is also a migration area and the only
known spawning ground for the endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) and the endangered American eel (A.
rostrata).
The ecosystem of the Sargasso Sea is relatively well studied, but current knowledge is still lacking, particularly
concerning its ocean dynamics over time or in the face of climate change, its relationship with neighboring pelagic and
coastal ecosystems in the region. The seabed under the Sargasso Sea, up to 4500 meters deep, remains largely
unexplored and the vertical trophic relationships of the area are still poorly understood. Finally, the question of eel
reproduction areas and their migration routes remains incompletely described.
Ligne noire : délimitation des ZEE ; Flèche jaune : direction des courants ; Flèche orange : direction des vents (Crédit : MGEL et MarViva)
Figure 1 : Situation géographique et délimitation du Dôme thermal (A) et de la mer des Sargasses (B)
I.2 Contexte socio-économique
The high seas were first of all a space of conquest for international fishing. It remains a major stake in the ecosystem
management of fisheries (tuna, cephalopods, toothfish, emperor, etc.). Sharks also represent an important high seas
fishing resource for some countries. Fishing on the high seas is regulated by Regional Fisheries Organizations (RFMOs),
when they exist, and by the 1995 United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks (Fish stock Agreement) in
application of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The high seas are also fundamental for intercontinental maritime traffic. The principle of freedom of navigation fully
applies there. Navigation on the high seas is governed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and is deployed
through a number of international agreements such as the London Convention ("Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter") of 1972 and the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (MARPOL 1973) and its amendment of 1978 which establishes the establishment of
special areas. The high seas are also the place where submarine cables pass through, which also falls under the principle
of freedom of the high seas.
The seabed and mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction constitute the Area, which benefits from a legal status
defined by UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), that of Common Heritage of Mankind. The Area
and its mineral resources are managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) established in 1994, which is in
charge of regulating the exploration and possible exploitation of these resources. The main threats to the high seas and
the two project areas, which impact biodiversity and ecosystems, are related to overfishing, illegal fishing,
intercontinental maritime traffic with the associated risks of pollution (accidental pollution or from discharges) and the
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx 14/89impact on cetaceans (collisions, noise pollution and impacts on migration routes, feeding habits) or the introduction of exotic species through ballast water. Terrestrial pollution such as plastics, especially micro-plastics, concerns the entire trophic chain with impacts on cetaceans, birds, turtles, fish and even zooplankton. Emissions of CO2 and other gases disrupt the physico-chemical functioning of the ocean (acidification, deoxygenation) and are the bearers of major upheavals to come with the disruption of food chains and economies that depend on marine resources. In the future, the exploitation of offshore resources, particularly mining resources, could represent new sources of impact on the ecosystems of the high seas. The prospect of developing floating wind turbines, wave energy or nuclear power plants is still hypothetical in the high seas but remains a long-term possibility. Le Dôme thermal Maritime traffic in the area of the Thermal Dome is estimated at more than 5% of world tradeii, however the current situation, details on the types of vessels and countries involved are lacking. The biodiversity and productivity of the Thermal Dome contribute directly to food security (marine proteins) by supporting one of the most important tuna fisheries in the East Pacific and crucial economic activities (sport fishing, whale watching, etc.) in Central America and beyond. Sport fishing has been successfully developed in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama, generating hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues for local economies. Studies have shown that a hammerhead shark in Costa Rica generates $82,000 per year in revenue associated with tourismiii. Coastal communities have prospered by taking advantage of ecotourism associated with cetacean watching or the protection of sea turtles on nesting beaches. Tourism activities related to the seasonal breeding migrations of blue whales (EN) between the southern United States and the Thermal Dome generate millions of dollars in Oregon and California. While swordfish, billfishes, turtles, sharks and rays are important for tourism, the stocks are heavily affected by fishing and by-catch. At least 250,000 jobs along the Pacific coast of Central America (54% related to marine and inland fishing, 46% related to processing and marketing) depend on the ecological dynamics and species associated with the Thermal Dome. Between 2000 and 2010, the consumption of fishery products in Central America was estimated at 9.1 kg per capita, out of a population of more than 33 million consumers (FAO 2014). Estimated at 10.46 Kg/inhabitant in 2017, the projections foresee a consumption of 11.36 Kg/inhabitant in 2028iv. Overfishing seems to be mainly due to non-regional vessels. According to IATTC, tuna fishing in the region is steadily decliningv. The silky shark population has declined by 70%. The number of longfin mako and hammerhead sharks has declined by 90%. The dynamic nature of the extension and location of the Thermal Dome, which varies according to seasons and climatic conditions, and its fragmented and weak institutional framework within the Central American region, present specific additional challenges. There is also a lack of regional awareness of the ecological and socio-economic linkages between the high seas of the Thermal Dome and the coastal areas. Knowledge of the socio-economic factors affecting the Thermal Dome is still too partial to serve as a basis for the creation of a governance framework. These gaps will have to be taken into account in order to better document the relationships of the various human activities between them, their range, weight, dependence and impacts on the environment and their relationships, positive or negative, with the Dome. Concerning the fishery, this includes data from the tuna fishery at a more precise scale, data on landings from the Dome, on the protein intake that this represents, as well as elements on the distribution of import-export activities for these species. These data should allow a better understanding of the economic dependence on the commercial species present in the Dome and the connectivity between the high seas and the EEZs. Concerning maritime transport, precise data are lacking to evaluate the frequency of passages and the sectors concerned. These data should be put in perspective with the issues of noise pollution in the Dome area and potential impacts such as collisions. The actual extent of tourism activities related to the Dome and the benefits they bring to Central American countries are also points that need to be explored to understand the dependency between the species present and tourism interests, and the impact this has on Central American countries. It is also necessary to continue studying the migration and spatial and temporal distribution of species to assess the impacts of these activities on the biodiversity of the Dome. NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx 15/89
La Mer des Sargasses
A 2014 report entitled "Assessing the Economic Contribution of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in the Sargasso
Sea"vi was able to address, in a timely manner, the socio-economic situation and ecosystem services.
The estimated value of the Sargasso Sea for commercial fishing is over $100 million per year; its contribution to whale
watching in the Atlantic and the ecotourism industry in the Caribbean is over $515 million per year. Revenues from eel
harvesting in North America and Europe amount to at least $66 million annually. The Sargasso Sea also benefits people
in other parts of the world. The growing eel trade brings considerable benefits to Asian, and to a lesser extent North
American, entrepreneurs. As with the Thermal Dome, communities in Bermuda and some neighboring countries derive
income from turtle and whale watching, as well as sport fishing for swordfish and marlin. The actual share of this value
attributable to the Sargasso Sea remains unquantified, even though Bermuda is one of the world's centers of
competitive fishing.
The 2011 scientific study identified a number of threats to this emblematic high seas ecosystem. They are related to the
following uses of this ecosystem:
• Maritime traffic: he Sargasso Sea, located between Europe and the American continent, is one of the busiest
international maritime areas in the world. Older data showed an increase in this traffic. Updating remains a
major challenge as well as a better understanding of the routes, the links with the impacts on species,
particularly migratory species.
• Fishing: There is some evidence of increased fishing activity in recent years by some countries, as shown by
Global Fishing Watch AIS (Automatic Identification System) datavii. Data on the owners of these vessels
(excluding AIS) are still missing. However, the seasonality and the true extent of this activity remains poorly
measured. In addition, it would appear that the main threat to the fishery is outside the Sargasso Sea but needs
to be confirmed. The global elver and eel fishery, which depends entirely on spawning and migration from the
Sargasso Sea area, is both highly lucrative and significantly threatenedviii. Both European and American eel
species are endangered according to the IUCN Red List, with the European species being critically endangered.
• Pollution: The slow rates of water renewal in the North Atlantic gyre cause plastics and other contaminants to
accumulate in the same manner as Sargassum, thus increasing their impacts. Plastics and debris concentrate
in the Sargassum mats and in the frontal areas where animals also concentrate for food (2014 estimates
indicated 56,000 tons of plastic floating in the gyre, a figure that has surely increasedix). This may even include
the ingestion of plastic by eel larvae (leptocephalus) in the "sea snow" on which they feed.
• Climate change and acidification: A time series of ocean measurements in the Sargasso Sea over 60 years
shows an increase in ocean surface temperature and an increase in salinity in the first 300 metersx. This
increase in temperature could lead to a change in the direction and intensity of currents, which could have a
significant impact on the success of eel spawning and the return migration of their larvae to rivers in Europe,
North Africa and America. In addition, the temporal carbon dioxide time series in the Sargasso Sea
unequivocally shows the reality of ocean acidification. Given the changes in the global climate, long time series
are of crucial importance for our understanding of these global processes and for demonstrating the key role
of the Sargasso Sea in these processes.
• Other commercial activities: Other potential commercial pressures and threats include continued interest in
Sargassum harvesting, possible impacts of submarine telecommunication cables, and future opportunities for
seabed exploration and exploitation. The ISA has awarded three seabed exploration contracts to Russia, France
and Poland on the northern part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge adjacent to the Sargasso Sea. Plume of re-suspended
material resulting from the extraction of minerals from the seabed at these sites could constitute a future risk
in the transition to commercial exploitation of mineral resources.
I.3 Contexte institutionnel, conventions internationales et la place de la société civile
General context on the high seas and the stakes of a global agreement
The high seas represent 64% of the World Ocean (Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction - ABNJ (Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction). It is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has an international
status based on two distinct legal regimes:
1) the seabed beyond the continental shelf, known as the Area, benefits from the common heritage of mankind
regime
2) the water column, located above the Area benefits from the principle of freedom of the high seas.
NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx 16/89The economic activities carried out there are regulated by States, under the responsibility of the flag State. However, at this stage there is no international legal basis for establishing protection zones that are respected by all users. The principle of non-appropriation of the high seas and the impossibility for a State to restrict access from one area to another State is often invoked. The sustainable management of the high seas thus poses a number of major problems. UNCLOS provides a comprehensive framework for the governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), however, the existing system has been described as an "unfinished agenda". To date, the existing international legal framework and existing regional and/or sectoral management regimes are incomplete and ineffective. The need to reflect on a global action for the governance and management of these areas allowing for conservation and management measures or limitation of human activities has arisen. In this context, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) decided (Resolution 72/249 of 24 December 2017) to launch formal negotiations through an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) whose mandate will be to negotiate a new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (ABNJ) within the framework of the UNCLOSxi. The mandate of the IGC is defined by the UNGA Resolution and the future treaty should focus on the following issues: area-based management tools for the marine environment including marine protected areas, access to marine genetic resources and benefit sharing, environmental impact assessments, capacity building and transfer of marine technology to developing countries. The question of the future instrument's relationship with already existing international, regional and/or sectoral organizations is being discussed in the negotiations. A cooperation clause will have to ensure that the future instrument does not undermine the competences already exercised by these organizations and at the same time encourage them to be more respectful of the marine environment. The governance of the high seas will be faced with the difficulty of implementing the new legal mechanism and the link with the rules established by RFMOs to achieve the objectives of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This agreement will not be able to "replace" existing agreements, but should allow for a more global and integrated approach to the management of biodiversity on the high seas, without it being possible to say at present what the modalities of this approach might be. On the question of marine protected areas, the main advance should be the definition of the concept of: "area-based management tools". At this stage, "area-based management tools" (ABMTs) are defined as "tools, including marine protected areas, that target a geographically defined area and through which one or more sectors or activities are managed with the intention of achieving specific conservation and sustainable use objectives". These ABMTs include sectoral and temporary tools, in addition to MPAs that are neither sectoral nor temporary. This concept should also take into account "other effective area-based conservation measuresxii", a concept created in 2010 at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defining Aichi Objective 11. In the "BBNJ" negotiation (negotiation on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the concept of ABMTs including MPAs will not cover sectoral spatial management measures, in particular fishing measures because they are implemented by Regional Fisheries Organizations (RFMOs), but the "BBNJ" treaty could encourage (through a clause of cooperation with these bodies) the taking into account of environmental impact assessments for example. The conclusion of the "BBNJ" treaty is expected in 2021 and should provide an ambitious global framework for the governance of maritime areas beyond national jurisdictions, the protection, conservation and sustainable use of their marine biodiversity. In parallel with these negotiations, several conventions are trying to make progress in defining protected areas on the high seas. Since 2011, the CBD has been developing a global process to identify and describe "special sites" as "ecologically or biologically significant areas" (EBSAs) based on criteria adopted in 2008. These sites, considered by scientists to be crucial for the proper functioning of the ocean, are not MPAs, but this information can contribute to the final definition of an MPA. The descriptions of EBSAs cover the entire ocean and seas, regardless of their legal status (territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or high seas). In terms of biodiversity conservation, it is essential to take into account the dynamic, constantly moving nature of the water masses and marine species. The notions of displacement, migration and connectivity are a reality and therefore cannot be ignored. This illustrates the material difficulty of enforcing legal management instruments designed for "static systems" and within fixed boundaries. The two sites, the Sargasso Sea and the high seas part of the Thermal Dome were listed as Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2012xiii and 2014xiv respectively. NEP-FFEM-Dome_thermal_et_Mer_des_SargassesV10_EN clean copy.docx 17/89
You can also read
