Page 70 - ebsaws-2014-03

Page 64

2. Targeted research to determine with greater specificity the ecological characteristics of
each priority area, its boundaries, and direct threats to the biodiversity the area supports;
and

3. Analyses to determine the optimal spatial management scheme for each of the SPAMIs,
including whether protected areas should be zoned, what sort of regulations should be
instituted, how areas should be monitored and regulations enforced, and the appropriate
governance regime for these Mediterranean ABNJ.

At the same time, we suggest that continuing or periodic research should be organised in data-
poor Mediterranean subregions (e.g., Levantine Sea, Aegean Sea, S. Ionian Sea, Gulf of Sidra) to
ensure that the inventory of the region’s EBSAs is complete and that biodiversity-relevant areas
are not left out of the process.

Recommendations on how to approach these three components are provided in detail below.

5.1 Strategic plan for catalyzing SPAMI planning and designation

Our survey of the literature and our consultation with Mediterranean experts has allowed us to
quantify the extent to which particular criteria were most pivotal in leading to a site being identified
as a priority. We can now use this data to develop a strategic plan that could prioritize the sites,
indicating which of them should be the focus of immediate attention from RAC/SPA and the
Conference of Parties to the Barcelona Convention, and which sites could be considered at a later
date. The recommended chronology of site-specific planning, as well as the design of the final
Mediterranean ABNJ SPAMI network, could be derived through a number of different optimization
methodologies, including spatial criteria analysis and decision-support software such as MARXAN
(e.g., Ardron et al. 2008).

We recommend that in designing a final Mediterranean ABNJ network qualified as SPAMIs, due
consideration be given to the criteria of a) representativity, b) connectivity, and c) replication, as
detailed in Annex III of the CBD report of the 13th SBSSTA Meeting (Convention on Biological
Diversity 2008), and summarised in Table 5-1 (see also section 3.2 of this document for a more
detailed description of these criteria).

We also recommend that the next important step along our roadmap is the development of a
strategic plan using these tools, so as not to lose crucial time in implementing a SPAMI network
that most effectively conserves the representative biodiversity of the Mediterranean Basin.

5.2 Targeted research in potential SPAMI sites

Given the paucity of information about species distributions, abundances, and ecosystem
dynamics in areas beyond the nearshore coastal zones of the Mediterranean, and the
inconsistency of knowledge across the Basin (with large parts of the southern and eastern portions
of the sea largely unknown), it is clear that further information must be obtained to guide the
effective design of SPAMIs. We recognize that the Delphic process of consulting a large sampling
of experts in order to determine collective priorities has a fundamental weakness in that the extent
to which results are supported by data vary, as does the conceptual process that led each expert
to identify important sites. That said, there was a high degree of concordance across the opinions