Page 69 - ebsaws-2014-03

Page 63

5. Roadmap for the successful implementation of SPAMIs in
Mediterranean Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

As per the methodology elaborated in Notarbartolo di Sciara and Agardy (2008), we have
delineated the major subregions of the Mediterranean Basin (8), the outstanding Ecologically and
Biologically Significant Areas within those subregions (10), and several potential SPAMI sites
within those EBSAs (15). However, much remains to be done in providing guidance to the
Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention concerning additional research and analysis
needed, the optimal order for SPAMI planning and implementation, and how each protected area
should be designed.

Despite a dearth of data on the nature and status of biodiversity in Mediterranean ocean areas
beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), a survey of expert opinion has revealed both large scale areas
having ecological significance (herein referred to as EBSAs), and smaller areas within these
EBSAs that stand out as noteworthy for conservation. However, declaring protected areas
spanning each of these identified priority areas would not necessary assure that a representative
network would be created to maximize biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean. Nor is a
wholesale designation of this many large sites, in areas not controlled by any single nation,
necessarily feasible.

Given that the overall objective of establishing a network of representative marine protected areas
is to capture the full suite of Mediterranean biodiversity and utilise protected areas to conserve it,
the entire network of SPAMI sites must be evaluated in terms of its geographical representation
(i.e. giving equal weight to underrepresented areas like the eastern and southern portions of the
Basin), as well as its representation of all major habitat types and cultural regimes. Further
analysis, with more statistically rigorous methodologies (e.g., through a combination of Delphic
methods and decision support tools such as MARXAN, see Ardron et al. 2008), is needed to
ensure that the proposed network of SPAMIs is maximally effective and representative.

Additional research and analysis is also needed to help guide the design of each individual SPAMI
site. Considerations that influence design include assessing threats to biodiversity at each site, so
that management within the SPAMI addresses true threats, as well as feasibility considerations. It
must be emphasized that the potential SPAMI list contained herein provides centra for each priority
area and deliberately omits providing outer bounds for prospective SPAMI sites, since these
boundaries must be determined by both directed research on the area’s biodiversity and a robust
analysis of threats.

Finally, given that resources and time are limited, a strategic plan for phasing in SPAMI design and
implementation must be developed. Such a strategic plan will not only ensure that individual
SPAMIs are as effective as possible, but that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: i.e. that
the network of ABNJ SPAMIs captures biodiversity through adequate sizes of protected areas,
effective connectivity between sites, and appropriate management at each location.

We therefore propose a subsequent initiative with three essential components:

1. Development of a strategic plan to elaborate the priorities within the SPAMI list, including
considerations of the chronology with which a region-wide SPAMI network should be
planned and implemented;