Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern

Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern (MSCCC) are species that have been identified as important migratory, transboundary and/or endemic species for trinational conservation actions.

North American Conservation Action Plans (NACAPs) were developed for four marine species—the vaquita porpoise, humpback whale, leatherback turtle and pink-footed shearwater.

Species experts developed a specific methodology to identify the species and designed the NACAPs as a tool to facilitate the conservation of species of common concern through cooperative action. The implementation of these actions, however, is incumbent on the different stakeholders. The humpback whale, the leatherback turtle, and the pink-footed shearwater were initially selected for these conservation action plans because of their ecological significance, their level of threat and the opportunities they presented for joint action. The vaquita was later added by recommendation of the CEC Council, given the critically endangered status of the species. Read more about each of these species.

Overview

This project was intended to support the conservation of a selected group of marine transboundary or migratory species and their habitats, through enhanced collaboration among the three North American countries, and the promotion of joint conservation initiatives. Species experts developed a particular methodology to identify the species and designed the North American Conservation Action Plans (NACAP) as a tool to facilitate the conservation of species of common concern through cooperative action.

The implementation of the Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity identified an initial set of North American regions and species for which the benefits of cooperation could be more effective and best illustrated. Two regions, one marine and one terrestrial, stood out that spanned the three countries: the Baja California to Bering Sea region and the central grasslands. Similarly, the countries, through the CEC, agreed upon an initial sub-set of marine and terrestrial species of common conservation concern for which North American Conservation Action Plans would be developed. The initial three marine species were selected for these conservation action plans because of their ecological significance, their level of threat and the opportunities they present for joint action. The Vaquita NACAP was later developed by recommendation of the CEC Council, given the critically endangered status of the specie.

The goal of a NACAP is to facilitate a long-term cooperative agenda for the conservation of these species of common concern throughout their ranges of distribution in North America. Through each NACAP, the CEC provides a valuable planning tool to help focus limited resources and ensure that cooperative actions taken for the conservation of species of common concern are based upon sound science, and are targeted at priority actions. The implementation of these actions, however, is incumbent on the diverse players of each country.

History and background of the initiative

In summary, the listing process involved the following steps:

• The CEC and the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management (Trilateral) define the scope and purpose of the list
• Selection of the trinational Advisory Group
• Identification and selection of criteria
• Development of country lists along with rationales for inclusion
• Trinational expert groups were formed based on the major Taxa
• Trinational negotiations took place to agree on final list
• Presentation of the list at the annual meeting of the Trilateral

The marine process built on the terrestrial process, delving into further detail in terms of approach and criteria to identify the list of Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern (see the "14 MSCCC" tab).

To select the initial list of MSCCC, conservation representatives from the academic, governmental, and NGO communities of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. developed a process that: a) identified and integrated each country’s socio-political priorities, b) developed tri-national coarse- and fine-scale biological and conservation criteria, as well as c) ran the species through an expert advisory review.

The following sections describe in further detail the steps taken to identify the species.

• In May of 2001, the CEC convened a workshop in Monterey, California to initiate the identification of North American Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern (MSCCC). So as to obtain a holistic approach to the initiative, workshop participants were invited from a diverse array of backgrounds, sectors and regions of North America.
• During the workshop participants were given the task of identifying coarse-scale criteria and a process by which the MSCCC would be identified.
• Although there was much debate at Monterey, participants agreed that the general realm for MSCCC should be wide, including all marine related species or populations that were imperiled regardless of legal protection afforded them.
• One of the most important recommendations of the workshop—one which was echoed throughout the process of identification of the species—was that the initiative be dynamic, not simply a one-time effort. In other words, the initiative would develop a living list, starting with a reasonably sized list of species that would be revisited and revised periodically.
• For this first pilot effort for the marine realm, two sets of coarse-scale criteria—compulsory and recommended—for evaluating the candidates of MSCCC were agreed upon in Monterey. The compulsory criteria focused the initiative towards species that were: 1) transboundary or migratory1, and 2) at high risk of extinction, given their current status or trends, their inherent natural vulnerability and their susceptibility to anthropogenic threats. Using secondary or recommended criteria, priority was then given to species: 1) deemed ecologically significant (e.g. umbrella, keystone, or indicator taxa); 2) officially listed as being of conservation concern by one of the three North American countries, by IUCN, or by CITES; 3) whose recovery or management was feasible, including re-establishment potential as well as the opportunity to strengthen management and learn from successes; and 4) which had a high potential for public engagement (flagship species).
• Taking these criteria and recommendations into consideration, the trinational advisory group, supported by taxonomic experts from the three nations, started to narrow down the realm from which to choose the first pilot set of MSCCC.
• Although the group recognized the great importance of various marine species, including those that are commercially valuable, concerns were voiced that a prudent first step for this initiative would be to deal with species for which: 1) information was readily available, 2) there was great support from all three countries, 3) recovery action was not greatly complicated by economic factors, and 4) conservation action was not duplicated by other existing initiatives. Thus, the lists developed by country teams focused on three taxonomic groups: marine mammals, sea birds and sea turtles.
• The trinational advisory group, supported and guided by taxonomic experts, then developed fine-scale criteria to numerically rank and filter the species using a taxa-blind approach.
• There was much debate in the identification of final fine-scale criteria. Country group leaders pondered over whether or not to include concepts such as keystone, umbrella and indicator species due to the lack of agreed upon definitions. Other difficulties concerning criteria (e.g., whether to use global and/or regional status; whether the IUCN listing or specific biological criteria such as small populations, biased sex-ratio etc should be used; whether priority should be given to flagship species), and processes (e.g., whether the ranking should be across taxa (taxa-blind) or within taxa groups; whether the criteria should be normalized per tier or simply summed regardless of tier; whether or not the score the species obtained increased according to the number of threats the species experiences) were also greatly debated.
• In the end, the twelve criteria used covered the likelihood of loss, the severity of loss (biological and socio-economic), and the ability to mitigate that loss:
• COSEWIC/NOM-059/ESA status: denotes the official country listing (e.g. endangered, threatened), capturing the status of the species regionally, and also denotes government support and potential for collaborative trilateral work to protect them.
• Historic trend: highlights species that have been decreasing in abundance over the last 10 to 20 years; also highlights species that have gone through a bottleneck and have not yet fully recovered.
• Projected threat: highlights species that are decreasing in abundance or likely to experience a decline in the next 10 years; also highlights species that are subject to great pressure (including human induced sources of direct or indirect mortality, habitat degradation and loss).
• Endemic to North America: flags species that are rarely found outside North American waters.
• Geographically vulnerable: highlights species that are vulnerable due to the location and/or amount/range of important habitat (i.e. coastal species; species with calving, nesting, feeding areas, migration corridors in close proximity to human activity; species with restricted/limited areas for breeding, migrating, foraging).
• Global status from IUCN Red List: captures the global biological context for the establishment of conservation priorities at the local level, acknowledging that extirpation from North America is more serious for a species that is already globally imperiled.
• Umbrella species: flags species whose conservation helps to conserve other species.
• Significance to indigenous groups: highlights species that are important components of cultural integrity of indigenous peoples.
• Economic value: captures the importance of the species in economic terms from several perspectives, including importance for consumptive (e.g., fishing) and non-consumptive (e.g. eco-tourism) activities, as well as economic implications (e.g., closures of fisheries due to bycatch of protected species)
• Socio-cultural value: captures the interest by all citizens, including local groups (and as distinct from significance to indigenous groups), in protecting the species for furture generations.
• CITES status: Appendix I, II or III, capturing species that have management action in terms of enforcement on trade of the species.
• Possibility for success: denotes species whose conservation is feasible.
• Criteria were grouped, and a non-normalized tiered, taxa-blind method2 was chosen; criteria were grouped under four categories or tiers: 1) probability of losing the species, 2) species’ biology, 3) socio-economic importance, and 4) opportunity for conservation. From this ranking, the top fifteen species were then selected as the first set of MSCCC.
• The list was then sent for review, and in a July 2002 meeting of CEC’s expert marine advisors, the list was called into question due to the absence of the vaquita (Phocoena sinus).
• The country leads then revisited the list, performed the ranking process once again, and in the end the vaquita was included as the sixteenth MSCCC. The vaquita is one of the most endangered marine mammals in North America. Although the species is a country endemic—originally omitted by using the Monterey criteria—the advisors proposed that endemics be included and the list be revisited. Hence, the country leads went through the listing process once again, this time including the vaquita within the candidate species. They proposed that if the vaquita ranked above the last species included in the original list, it would be kept. If not, it would be considered for the next round of MSCCC. In the end, the species ranked within the original fifteen and was included as the sixteenth MSCCC.

It should be noted that many of the species that did not make the list this time around are still of great concern to the countries, and are to be kept in mind for future discussions.

This initiative lead to the development of the North American Action Plans for four marine species of Common Conservation Concern: the humpback whale, the leatherback turtle, the pink-footed shearwater and the vaquita.

1. Later expanded to include species that were affected by actions of two or more countries, and were not necessarily migratory or transboundary, such as the endemic vaquita.

2. Individual criterion were weighted and given a maximum value. Where sufficient information existed, species were scored per criterion on a scale from 0 to the maximum value of the criterion. So as not to negatively influence species for which there was insufficient information for a given criterion, the criterion was omitted for that species and scores were adjusted to reflect the omission. Values were summarized per tier, and tier scores were added (but not normalized), and divided by the maximum possible score to obtain an overall risk index per country. For many of the criteria, scores would be different depending on the national lens used; therefore each national group ranked the list individually and national risk indices were then averaged to get an overall score for North America.

14 MSCCC

NACAP Species