13 Sites: Policy & Advocacy tools (summary)

Once you have done the work of identifying a site which requires action to conserve biodiversity at the site (Technical), and once you have determined what the likely actions required in the area of the site are (Conservation), then critical to the success of getting conservation actions implemented is getting decision-makers to act (Policy & Advocacy).

Decision-makers typically act for one of two reasons, or a combination of both. In the policy and advocacy section of the toolkit we describe these in further detail.

Decision makers are:

1. typically pulled into acting when there is an established legal or other policy related mechanism in place (Policy),

2. or they are pushed into acting through advocacy efforts (Advocacy).

Management measures that enable a site to be protected so species can achieve a favourable conservation status, do not explicitly need to be formal protected areas.

The concept of a site is the critical concept in the Toolkit.

In the toolkit, we recognise a spectrum of sites. However, we advocate for, and support the identification of, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). This is because by formally identifying a site as a KBA, the site will have added ability to bring about a change by a decision-maker that supports species maintaining or achieving a favourable conservation status.

Key message for conservationists: by formally identifying a site as a KBA, there are formal mechanisms that can help get the site protected through an appropriate management measure.

Beyond KBAs, the “best available science” describing key biodiversity at a unique site should also be used to support implementation of management measures at sites. This may be particularly relevant for key biodiversity at unique sites at local, national and regional scales.

Key message for conservationists: while the concept of a site for a KBA has a definition, the concept of what constitutes a specific site for supporting marine megafauna conservation is still the subject of debate. Toolkit users are encouraged to explore the tools in the Toolkit that can help identify a site, but should also consider the scale of the particular site and how it could be used to inform delivery of a conservation outcome for species. (e.g. the track2KBA tool can be applied to GLS animal tracking data. However, the resultant site may be extremely large compared to typical areas managed within the context of a single country; even larger than a countries EEZ. Nevertheless, this type of site could still inform where bycatch mitigation measures should be enforced in tuna RFMOs which operate at the ocean basin scale.)