Danielatalamo advancing governance of the open seas

1

We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean.

But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.

(Mother Teresa)

2

AGRADECIMIENTOS En primero, debo un especial reconocimiento a la Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez por concederme una beca con la cual fue posible aventurarme en este camino y un agradecimiento personal a Carlos Montes, ahora estoy lista a “provocar los cisnes negros con ratones troyanos”.

Quisiera hacer extensiva mi gratitud a Silvia Revenga Martínez de Pazos por la confianza que depositó en mí, su constante apoyo, sus consejos indispensables. Quisiera destacar la seriedad profesional y la pasión por su trabajo que le caracteriza y agradecerla también por la preciosa oportunidad de conocer las Reservas Marinas Pesqueras de España, particularmente la única y extraordinaria experiencia de estancia en la Isla de Tabarca.

Deseo reconocer mi agradecimiento a los compañeros de la Oficina por la Cooperación en el Mediterráneo de la UICN durante mi estancia en Málaga por el desarrollo de esta tesis, gracias a las análisis y discusiones siempre constructivas, Andrés Alcántara, Alain Jeudy, Lourdes Lázaro Marín y Antonio Troya. A Puri Canals agradezco las numerosas discusiones a lo largo de nuestro trabajo en equipo.

Quiero agradecer a Arturo López Ornat el trato cordial, comprensivo y en confianza que siempre me ha mostrado, Ricardo Aguilar por sus preciosas indicaciones y orientaciones y a Pep Amengual por su disponibilidad y atención.

Quisiera dejar escrito mi agradecimiento a todos mis compañeros italianos que me han suportado con sus conocimiento y amistad Leonardo Tunesi, Fabio Vallarola, Milena Tempesta y especialmente mi estimado compañero y amigo Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara.

Quiero expresar también mi más sincero agradecimiento a David Sheppard y Marc Hockings por ser mis referencias en tema marino y especialmente a Grazia Borrini-Fereyabend su extraordinario trabajo sobre el tema de la gobernanza y mi constante punto de referencia humano y profesional.

Y, por supuesto, a todos los compañeros y compañeras del Master quisiera darles las gracias por los buenos momentos que hemos compartido. Creo que todos hemos aprendido y aprendemos continuamente de todos y de nosotros mismos, tanto profesional como personalmente. Y eso es enriquecedor en ambos ámbitos. En especial un cariñoso reconocimiento a los que me han demostrado su apoyo y brindado sus ánimos y consejos durante este año.

En fin, el agradecimiento más profundo y sentido va para mi familia, sin su apoyo, colaboración e inspiración habría sido imposible llevar a cabo esta dura empresa. A mis padres, Fara y Nico, gracias por su ejemplo de coherencia y honestidad y por estar conmigo siempre dándome la fuerza para continuar persiguiendo mis sueños. Un agradecimiento especial a Sarah y su familia por su apoyo, a Marieli y Andrés por su ayuda en Málaga y Violetta, siempre a mi lado, para ayudarme a dar el toque gráfico y creativo a todos mis escritos.

3

CONTENTS RESUMEN / SUMMARY

…………………………………………………………………..

7

1. THE GLOBAL PROCESS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE AREAS (EBSAs) AS SET UP BY THE CBD …………………….

11 1.1. EBSAS CRITERIA AND AIMS

12

1.2. THE EBSA IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

14

1.3. REGIONAL WORKSHOPS TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF EBSAS

17

2. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

20

2.1. INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

21

2.2. REGIONAL FRAMEWORK

25

2.3. EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK

26

3. CONTENT, METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

29

3.1. GOVERNANCE AND TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION

30

3.2. GOVERNANCE AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

31

3.3. TRANSDISCIPLINARY COOPERATION SCIENCE/POLICY MAKERS/STAKEHOLDERS

31

3.5. ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

32

3.6. IDENTIFYING AND MAPPING

32

4. MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES CHARACTERIZING THE ADRIATIC-IONIAN REGION: ELEMENTS FOR A FUTURE EBSAS PROCESS IN ADRIATIC SEA, A CASE STUDY FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION POLICIES ……………………………………………………………………………………..

33 4.1. THE CBD FRAMEWORK: THE THREE ADRIATIC EBSAS AREAS

34

4.1.1. The North Adriatic EBSA

34

4.1.2. The Central Adriatic EBSA

35

4.1.3. The South Adriatic EBSA

37

4.2. THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK: THE NEW EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR ADRIATIC-IONIC REGION ………………………………………………………………………………………

40 4.3. THE ADRIATIC FRAMEWORK: AGREEMENTS AND STRATEGY

48

4.3.1. Trilateral Commission for the protection of the Adriatic

49

4.3.2. Adriatic Ionian Initiative

49

4.3.3. Adriatic Euroregion Initiative

50

4.3.4. Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme

51

4.3.5. Relevant research programs/projects in Adriatic EBSAs Areas

51

4

4.4. ADRIATIC MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES

52

4.4.1. The Adriatic vision

53

4.4.2. Adriatic Heterogeneity

55

4.4.3. Lack of effective coordination/cooperation between countries

56

4.4.4. Need for strengthening existing cooperation structures

56

4.4.5. Lack of habitat maps covering the Adriatic and Ionian Seas

58

4.4.6. Need to develop a Sustainable blue growth in Adriatic Region

60

4.4.7. Weak Connectivity in Adriatic Region

61

4.4.8. Threats to Adriatic Marine biodiversity

62

4.4.9. Need to promote a Sustainable tourism in Adriatic Region

63

4.5. ELEMENTS FOR A FUTURE EBSAS PROCESS IN ADRIATIC SEA

64

4.5.1. Pan-Adriatic view

64

4.5.2. Multi-scale approach

64

4.5.3. Scientifically-based approach

65

4.5.4. Stakeholder participation

65

4.5.5. Cross-border cooperation

65

4.5.6. Integration

66

4.5.7. Long-term perspective

66

4.5.8. Legally binding rules

67

4.5.9. Connectivity

67

5. MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES CHARACTERIZING THE ALBORAN SEA AND CONNECTED AREAS: A CASE STUDY FOR NORTH-SOUTH COOPERATION ……………………………

68 5.1. THE CBD FRAMEWORK: THE ALBORÁN SEA AND CONNECTED AREAS EBSAS

69

5.2. THE ALBORAN FRAMEWORK: A COUNTRIES OVERVIEW

72

5.2.1. Algeria

72

5.2.2. Morocco

77

5.2.3. Spain

81

5.3. ALBORÁN MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES

84

5.3.1. Jurisdictional Asymmetry

85

5.3.2 Fisheries activity and territorial disputes

85

5.4. ELEMENTS FOR A FUTURE EBSAS PROCESS IN ALBORÁN SEA

87

5.4.1. Stakeholderd participacion

87

5.4.2. Cross-border Cooperation

88

5.4.3. Environmental and economic benefits

89

5.4.4. Ecosystem Approach

90

5.2.5. European cooperation

90 5

5.2.6. Data collection, knowledge creation and evaluation

91

5.2.7. Coherence between terrestrial planning and MSP

92

5.2.8. Monitoring and control

92

6. CONCLUSION. NEXT STEPS: DEFINING A FUTURE FOR EBSAS

…………………….

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A HOLISTIC AND INTEGRATED MARINE VISION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PRACTICAL TOOLS

……………

95 100

…………………………………………………………………

104

…………………………………………………………………………..

107

LIST OF BOXES

107

LIST OF FIGURES

108

LIST OF MAPS

109

LIST OF TABLES

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

…………………………………………………………………………..

111

Annex 1

Main international agreements applicable to the Mediterranean EBSAs Countries 117

Annex 2

Jurisdictional concepts

120

Annex 3

Indicative surveys on Adriatic Sea

123

6

RESUMEN Este trabajo es el resultado de la colaboración con la Oficina de Cooperación del Mediterráneo de la UICN después del UNEP-CBD “Mediterranean Regional Workshop to facilitate the description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas”, que se celebró en Málaga en Abril del 2014 con el objetivo de identificar las áreas significativas de conservación marina en el Mediterráneo.El estudio examina la creación de las EBSAs que se encuentra en los documentos del CDB, define el contexto internacional, regional y europeo y luego pasa a un ejemplo de implementación en el Mar Adriático como valor añadido al proceso de integración europea y en el Mar de Alborán como valor añadido a las políticas de cooperación Norte-Sur y, por último, en su conclusiones demuestra la importancia estratégica de esta nueva figura de protección para la futura política mundial de la conservación marina. El trabajo se divide en 6 capítulos y Recomendaciones finales; 35 Boxes que ponen de relieve los pasos más importantes del análisis; 5 Figures; 17 Maps y 15 Tables. El primer capítulo explica el concepto de EBSA y describe el proceso para la identificación de estas nuevas áreas definidas por el CBD de importancia ecológica o biológica y se centra en los resultados del Taller Regional del Mediterráneo. Después de examinar su concepto, definición y proceso de identificación actualmente en marcha en todo el mundo, el segundo capítulo contextualiza las EBSAs con otros procesos y políticas dedicadas a la conservación y protección del medio marino, en particular, se analiza el contexto internacional (UNCLOS, OMI, FAO, PNUMA), regional (Convenio de Barcelona, PNUMA-MAP, CMDS) y europeo (MSFD, EU Horizonte 2020, MSP y GIZC), con el fin de poner de relieve el importante valor añadido que pueden tener las EBSAs respeto a los objetivos de conservación marina y, en particular, a la Meta 11 de Aichi

de proteger adecuadamente y

gestionar el 10% de las zonas costeras y marinas para el año 2020.

Después de definir el concepto y el contexto de referencia, el tercer capítulo entra en el mérito destacando los contenidos, la metodología y aproximación de la investigación, enfatizando la importancia estratégica de la implementación de las EBSAs sobre temas cruciales como la gobernanza, la cooperación transfronteriza, la creación de redes ecológicamente representativas de AMP, la cooperación transdisciplinaria entre la ciencia, política y grupos de interés, los aspectos socio-ecológicos y económicos vinculados al principio de desarrollo sostenible, la aproximación ecosistémica y la oportunidad de identificar y cartografiar los usos y las actividades humanas en relación con los impactos sobre el medio marino.

Una vez diseñado el marco teórico general se pasa a una aplicación en dos áreas específicas del Mediterráneo: el mar Adriático y el Mar de Alborán, que en sus diversidades ofrecen ejemplos de estudio muy interesantes. En particular, el cuarto capítulo, describe las tres EBSAs identificadas por el Mar Adriático (Norte, Centro y Sur), destacando sus características y valores; analiza la nueva política europea EUSAIR destinada a jugar un papel clave en la aplicación de las tres EBSA y con respecto a la cual el proceso de las EBSAs puede ser estratégico en la lógica de la integración europea a la base de la política macro-regional. Después el marco internacional y europeo se pasa a describir el marco institucional Adriático indispensable para la implementación de un modelo de 7

gobernanza inspirado para las EBSAs, se analizan las principales características y retos del Adriático con el fin posteriormente de poner de relieve los elementos necesarios para el futuro proceso de establecimiento de las EBSAs. Con respeto ad Alborán, una premisa es necesaria. Este estudio se desarrolla en consecuencia de los resultados del taller de Málaga, donde se acordó el establecimiento de esta área EBSA considerada de interés ecológico y biológico importante. Desafortunadamente, a pesar de los resultados positivos de este taller, en la última COP12 de la CBD los gobiernos no han alcanzado un acuerdo que va en la misma dirección, por lo tanto, a la fecha, no parece contemplarse la posibilidad de crear un área EBSA en Alborán. Sin embargo con este estudio, se pretende renovar y revivir la importancia y el valor añadido que la creación de una EBSA podría conducir al apoyo de una mayor y mejor cooperación en las políticas de conservación y desarrollo sostenible del Mar Mediterráneo. En este sentido, el quinto capítulo describe área EBSA de Alborán y Áreas conectadas resaltando las características y valores, analiza el marco general que se caracteriza por una gran heterogeneidad de los países de referencia (España, Marruecos, Argelia) y una fuerte asimetría jurisdiccional. Una vez definido el marco político y la referencia legal se analizan los elementos necesarios para el futuro proceso de establecimiento de la EBSA. Finalmente, en las conclusiones, se desea resaltar el objetivo general de este estudio, en particular, demostrar la importancia y la necesidad de las EBSAs para nuestros mares, en particular a luz del uso intenso y los crecientes conflictos potenciales entre las necesidades del usuario y las políticas de protección de los ecosistemas. Las EBSAs son un elemento clave para lograr el tipo de equilibrio en la toma de decisiones donde los intereses sectoriales compiten por los espacios marítimos, en particular en relación al uso económico del espacio marino y costero. El desarrollo futuro de las EBSAs será muy influenciado por la necesidad de un enfoque integral y ecosistémico que permitirá la gestión del medio marino con decisiones ecológicamente responsables. Para la aplicación de este proceso, es importante llegar progresivamente a través de una coordinación vertical y horizontal más eficaz entre las autoridades nacionales y regionales y entre países. De hecho, la interconexión de los espacios marinos, el impacto transfronterizo del uso del mar y las fuentes terrestres, el acuerdo necesario sobre la gestión sostenible de los recursos marítimos y más generalmente las áreas más amplias necesarias para ser ecológicamente significativo, requiere el desarrollo de una perspectiva y cooperación internacional en la realización de EBSAs. De hecho, este proyecto está diseñado para aprovechar de la designación de las EBSAs con el fin de promover la adopción de una metodología común y el desarrollo de procesos de gobernanza transfronterizos, proporcionando una política ambiental eficaz para la gestión del medio marino y permitiendo el logro de los resultados beneficiosos de un desarrollo sostenible. El objetivo es a través las EBSAs dar forma a modelos ambientales y sostenibles de gobernanza que aplican medidas de conservación, incluyendo las áreas marinas protegidas y las reservas de pesca como una herramienta para la conservación de la diversidad biológica y la utilización sostenible de los recursos marinos. Dicha metodología aplicada en este estudio al Adriatico y Alborán, podría repetirse en el futuro en otras subregiones del Mediterráneo, o incluso en otros mares y océanos.

8

SUMMARY This work is the result of the collaboration with the IUCN Office for Mediterranean Cooperation after the UNEP-CBD "Mediterranean Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas", held in Malaga in April 2014 in order to identify significant marine conservation areas in the Mediterranean.

This work examines the creation of EBSAs in the CBD documents; defines the international, regional and European framework; moves to two examples of implementation in the Adriatic Sea as a value added to the process of European integration and in the Alborรกn Sea as a value added to the policies of North-South cooperation; finally, in its conclusions demonstrates the strategic importance of this new figure of protection for the future global marine conservation policies. It is divided into 6 Chapters and final Recommendations; 35 Boxes that highlight the most important steps of the analysis; 5 Figures; 17 Maps, 15 Tables.

The first chapter explains the concept of EBSA and describes the process for identifying these new areas defined by the CBD as Ecologically or Biologically Significant and focuses on the results of the Mediterranean Regional Workshop.

After examining the concept, definition and identification process currently underway worldwide, the second chapter contextualizes the EBSAs with other processes and policies devoted to the marine environment conservation and protection, in particular the International (UNCLOS, IMO, FAO, UNEP), Regional (Barcelona Convention, UNEP-MAP, WSSD) and European (MSFD, EU Horizon 2020, MSP and ICZM) Framework, in order to highlight the added value that can have the EBSAs respect to the marine conservation objectives and, in particular, to the Aichi target 11 to protect and adequately manage 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 by means of identifying the most appropriate spaces in ABNJ. After defining the concept and context of reference, the third chapter highlights the content, methodology and research approach, emphasizing the strategic importance of the implementation of EBSAs on crucial issues such as governance, cross-border cooperation, the creation of ecologically representative networks of MPAs, the transdisciplinary cooperation between science, politics and stakeholders, the socio-ecological and economic aspects related to the principle of sustainable development, the ecosystem approach and the opportunity to identify and map the uses and human activities in relation to impacts on the marine environment.

Once designed the general theoretic framework the work focused on the application of EBSAs on two specific areas of the Mediterranean: the Adriatic and the Alborรกn Sea, that with their diversity provide examples of interesting case study. In particular, the fourth chapter describes the three EBSAs identified by the Adriatic Sea (North, Central and South), highlighting their characteristics and values; analyzes the new European policy EUSAIR which will play a key role in the implementation of the three EBSAs and with respect to which the process of EBSAs can be strategic in the logic of the European integration at the basis of macro-regional policy. After the International and European framework this chapter describes the institutional framework of Adriatic, essential for implementing a 9

governance model inspired to EBSAs, analyses the main characteristics and challenges of the Adriatic Sea in order subsequently to highlight the elements required for the future process of establishment of EBSAs. With respect to Alborán, a premise is necessary. This study is a result of the Mediterranean workshop outcomes, where it was agreed the establishment of this EBSA area considered of ecological and biological interest. Unfortunately, despite the positive results of this workshop, in the last COP 12 of CBD governments have not reached an agreement in the same direction, therefore, to date, it appears not feasible the creation of an EBSA area in the Alborán. Nevertheless, this study wants to renew and underline the importance and value added of creating an EBSA to support more and better cooperation in the policies of conservation and sustainable development of the Mediterranean Sea. In this sense, the fifth chapter describes the EBSA Alborán and Connected Areas highlighting the features and values, analyses the general framework characterized by great heterogeneity of the reference countries (Spain, Morocco, Algeria) and a strong jurisdictional asymmetry and subsequently highlights the elements required for the future process of establishing the EBSA. Finally, the conclusions want to highlight the overall objective of this study, in particular, demonstrate the importance and the need for EBSAS for our Seas, particularly strong considering the intense use and the potential growing conflicts among user’s needs and ecosystem protection policies. EBSAS are a key element to achieve the kind of decision-making that balances sectorial interests competing for maritime spaces, in particular in relation to the increased economic use of the marine and coastal space. The future development of EBSAS will be highly influenced by the need of a holistic and ecosystem-based approach that allows the contemporary management of an increasing demand for sea space and of an ecologically responsible decision-making. For the implementation of this process, it is important progressively reaching a more efficient vertical and horizontal coordination between national and regional authorities and among States.

The current work takes advantage of the EBSAs designation process in order to promote the adoption of a common methodology and the development of transboundary governance processes, providing a supportive environment-based policy for effective management and enabling the achievement of beneficial sustainable development outcomes. Its aim is to shape environmental and sustainable governance models that apply biodiversity and area-based conservation measures, including marine protected areas and fisheries reserves, as a tool for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of the marine resources. Such methodology could be replicated in the future in other Mediterranean sub regions, or even in other seas and oceans.

10

KEYWORLDS: CONFERENCES OF PARTIES ; CBD METHODOLOGY ; SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA; DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NETWORK OF MPA S; I DENTIFICATION AND I NFORMATION SHARING PROCESS; FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS;

MARINE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; HIGH-SEAS MARINE CONSERVATION ; REGIONAL WORKSHOP; MEDITERRANEAN WORKSHOP 11

1.1.

EBSAs criteria and aims

In 2006, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) called for the convening of an expert workshop “to refine and develop a consolidated set of scientific criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas in need of protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats, building upon existing sets of criteria used nationally, regionally and globally”1 and following the conclusions 2, adopted in 2008 seven scientific criteria for the identification of EBSAs in need of protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats3, together with scientific guidance for selecting areas to establish a representative network of MPAs, including in open-ocean waters and deepsea habitats4. In 2008, the ninth meeting of the CBD-COP9 adopted the following scientific criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas in need of protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats.

BOX 1 - EBSAS Scientific Criteria The seven scientific criteria adopted are: 1. Uniqueness or Rarity 2. Special importance for life history stages of species 3. Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats 4. Vulnerability, Fragility, Sensitivity or Slow recovery 5. Biological Productivity 6. Biological Diversity 7. Naturalness BOX 2 - EBSAs Properties and components The five key network properties and components 5: (i) Ecologically and biologically significant areas (ii) Representativity; (iii) Connectivity; (iv) Replicated ecological features (v) Adequate and viable sites.

CBD COP 8, Decision VIII/24 on Protected Areas, Annex II. According to the Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) Biogeographic Classification of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, “the deep seabed is a non-legal term commonly understood by scientists to refer to the seafloor below 200-300m. In other words, it is a non-shelf area” and “Open Ocean is a non-legal term commonly understood by scientists to refer to the water column beyond the continental shelf, in other words, non-coastal. Open ocean may occur in areas within national jurisdiction in States with a narrow continental shelf”.

2 UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/INF/14 for a full report of the Expert Workshop on Ecological Criteria and Biogeographic Classification Systems for marine areas in need of protection, 2 to 4 October 2007, Azores, Portugal.

3 CBD COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, Annex I. 4 CBD COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, Annex II 5 According to Annex II of CBD COP 9 Decision IX/20, “replication of ecological features means that more than one site shall contain examples of a given feature in the given biogeographic area. The term ‘features’ means ‘species, habitats and ecological processes’ that naturally occur in the given biogeographic area.”

12 1

BOX 3 - Steps building EBSAs-MPAs Representative Networks The four initial steps to be considered for the development of representative networks of MPAs6 are: 1. Scientific identification of an initial set of EBSAs (...); 2. Develop/choose a biogeographic, habitat, and/ or community classification system (...); 3. Drawing upon steps 1 and 2 above, iteratively use qualitative and/or quantitative techniques to identify sites to include in a network (...); 4. Assess the adequacy and viability of the selected sites (...).”

It was therefore clear from the outset that the identification of EBSAs would be a scientific exercise that could eventually support the designation of a network of MPAs, but which could also serve other purposes. In fact, the designation of an area as an EBSA would not automatically mean that the area would become an MPA. The process is rather intended to provide a scientific basis for determining which areas may be in need of a higher level of protection and such protection could come from a range of conservation and management measures (fisheries closures, MPAs, application of environmental impact assessments and other in-between measures...). The process thus aims at informing decisions makers when it comes to complying with their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other international instruments geared at protecting and preserving the marine environment7.

BOX 4 – State obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment In this regard, States existing legal duties include, inter alia: 

Taking measures necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life 8.



Protecting marine biodiversity9.



Conserving high-seas marine living resources10.



Identifying and monitoring processes and activities that have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity 11.



Conducting impact assessments12.

In 2010, COP10 noted that the application of the EBSA criteria is a scientific and technical exercise, that areas found to meet the criteria may require enhanced conservation and management measures, and that this can be achieved through a variety of means, including marine protected areas and impact assessments.

Annex II of Decision IX/20 According to Article 192 of UNCLOS: “States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment”.

8 Article 194.5 of UNCLOS 9 Article 5 of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement 10 Articles 117–120 of UNCLOS 11 Article 7 of the CBD 12 Article 14 of the CBD; Articles 204–206 of UNCLOS 6 7

13

1.2.

The EBSA identification process FIGURE 1- The evolution of the EBSA process

CBD Decision IX/20 does not provide for a precise process for identifying EBSAs. It simply “urges Parties and invites other Governments and relevant organisations to apply, as appropriate, the scientific criteria in Annex I to the present decision (...) to identify ecologically or biologically significant and/or vulnerable marine areas in need of protection.” 13 A process for identifying areas of ecological or biological significance was developed more precisely in Decision X/29 adopted in 2010 in Nagoya14.

This Decision further reiterates that the application of the EBSA criteria “is a matter for States and competent international organisations, in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”15. It is extremely clear from these paragraphs that the CBD is not tasked with the identification of EBSAs but has a facilitating role. In order to fulfil this role, the Executive Secretary of the CBD was requested to organise, in cooperation with the competent authorities, a series of regional workshops whose first aim would be to facilitate the description of EBSAs, using the seven scientific criteria already adopted and “other relevant compatible and complementary nationally and intergovernmentally agreed scientific criteria” 16. The results of these regional workshops would be made available to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) 17 which would prepare summary reports “for consideration and endorsement in a transparent manner by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, with a view to include the endorsed reports in the repository referred to in paragraph 39 and to submit them CBD COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §18. It is further stated in the paragraph “these criteria may require adaptation by Parties if they choose to apply them within their national jurisdiction, noting that they will do so with regard to national policies and criteria.”

14 CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. In 2010, Contracting Parties agreed to avoid references to open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats, therefore enlarging the process to the EEZ of the Coastal States and not only to ABNJ. 15 CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §26.

16 CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §36.

17 The SBSTTA, established by Article 25 of the CBD, is an open-ended intergovernmental scientific body in charge of providing the Conference of the Parties with advice relating to the implementation of the Convention.

14 13

to the United Nations General Assembly and particularly its Ad-Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group, as well as relevant international organisations, Parties and other Governments 18.

The creation of the above mentioned EBSA repository, as well as the creation of an information sharing mechanism were also decided in 2010 19. Summary reports of the regional workshops considered by the CBD COP can be included in the repository. Contracting Parties and other Governments were also invited to provide the repository and information-sharing mechanism with information regarding the application of the seven scientific criteria or other relevant compatible and complementary nationally and intergovernmentally agreed scientific criteria in the areas under their national jurisdiction before the 11th meeting of the COP, held in October 201220. Only summary reports of the regional workshops considered by the Conference of the Parties to the CBD will be transmitted to the UNGA and, in particular, to the Ad-Hoc Open ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Working Group) 21. The CBD-COP11 took place in India from 8 to 19 October 2012 and was a good opportunity to review the progress made so far in the implementation of the decisions adopted in 2008 and 2010 and to discuss future steps. With respect to progress before the COP, five regional workshops to facilitate the description of EBSAs have already taken place: for the North-East Atlantic, for the Western South Pacific, for the Wider Caribbean and Western Mid-Atlantic, for the Southern Indian Ocean and for the Eastern Tropical and Temperate Pacific. In addition, Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean sent information to the Secretariat of the CBD on the work they have carried out with respect to the description of sites of particular interest in the Mediterranean that could meet the criteria for EBSAs. A prototype EBSA repository has been developed and is available online22. Meanwhile, the study on integrating traditional, scientific, technical and technological knowledge of indigenous and local communities into the description of EBSAs has been completed23. The final decision adopted by the Contracting Parties to the CBD on the EBSA issue in 2012 takes into consideration this progress 24.

CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §42.

CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §39.

20 CBD COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, §43. Although this paragraph mentions only the repository, it seems that a distinction should be made between this instrument and the information-sharing mechanism. At the last SBSTTA meeting, the Parties noted “the need to have a clear distinction between the repository containing the information included on the basis of endorsements by the Conference of the Parties as called for in paragraph 42 of decision X/29 and other information entered in the information-sharing mechanism” – see document UNEP/CBD/COP/11/3, p.14.

21 The BBNJ Working Group was created by UNGA Resolution 59/24 of 17 November 2004 and met in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Since 2010, it has had the mandate to present to the UNGA recommendations on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. In 2011, it agreed to recommend that the UNGA initiate a process “with a view to ensuring that a legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction effectively addresses those issues by identifying gaps and ways forward, including through the implementation of existing instruments and the possible development of a multilateral agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” 22 The EBSA prototype repository is available online at: http://ebsa.cbd.int.

23 See document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/10.

24 See document UNEP/CBD/COP/11/L.29 of 18 October 2012, Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or biologically significant marine areas – Draft decision submitted by the Chair of Working Group 1.

15 18 19

BOX 5 – EBSAs CBD 2012 Final Decision 

It requests the Executive Secretary of the CBD to include the summary reports of the regional workshops prepared by SBSTTA (held in Montreal from 30 April to 5 May 2012) in the repository 25 and to submit them to the UNGA and in particular to the BBNJ Working Group, to Parties, other Governments, relevant international organisations, the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole on the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including socio-economic aspects.



It affirms that the scientific description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria is an open and evolving process that should be continued “to allow ongoing improvement and updating as improved scientific and technical information becomes available in each region”.



It notes “the need to have a clear distinction between the repository containing the information included on the basis of decisions by the Conference of the Parties (…) and other information entered in the information-sharing mechanism”;



It encourages the development of regional data inventories by Parties, other Governments and intergovernmental organisations.

In the SBSTTA recommendation, and in conformity with the 2008 and 2010 decisions of the CBD on EBSAs, Contracting Parties were "endorsing" the summary reports of the regional workshops prepared

by SBSTTA before the Conference of the Parties. Any reference to endorsement was removed from the final decision, as a consensus could not be reached on the subject between countries such as China, Japan or Peru which were opposed to this language and other countries such as Member States of the European Union, which supported it. The final consensus was that transmission of the summary reports prepared by SBSTTA 16 (for the Western South Pacific, the Wider Caribbean and Western Mid-Atlantic and Mediterranean) will still be made, notably to the UNGA and to the BBNJ Working Group, without any endorsement by the Conference of the Parties. Although reaching an agreement on the transmission has been considered as a success 26, the absence of consensus on the "endorsement" of the reports was rather deceiving, showing clearly that Contracting Parties did not take into account previous commitments made when they adopted, in 2010, a decision depicting the EBSA process. The process used to identify EBSAs within the CBD is therefore clear and illustrated in Figure 2.

Only the summary reports prepared by SBSTTA could be considered by the Conference of the Parties and included in the repository. The reports of the regional workshops themselves will be included in the information-sharing mechanism.

26 See: http://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2012/pr-2012-10-20-cop-11-en.pdf.

16 25

FIGURE 2 - CBD EBSAs identification and information -sharing process

1.3.

The Regional workshops to facilitate the description of EBSAs: the Mediterranean EBSAs identification process

Pursuant to the request by COP 10, the Executive Secretary has convened a series of regional workshops. One important point to note is that workshops are purely scientific and technical exercises, threats to the areas under consideration and possible management issues are therefore not discussed within these arenas. The regional workshop have been held in the following regions: 

Western South Pacific27



Wider Caribbean and Western Mid-Atlantic28



Southern Indian Ocean29



Eastern Tropical and Temperate Pacific30



Eastern Atlantic/West African region31



North Pacific region32



Mediterranean Region33

Next workshop on the international agenda are the CBD Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of EBSAs in the North-West Indian Ocean and Adjacent Gulf Areas34 and the CBD Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of EBSAs in the North-East Indian Ocean region35. Pursuant to the requests of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in decisions

Nadi, Fiji, 22-25 November 2011, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=RWEBSA-WSPAC-01 Recife, Brazil, 28 February, 2 March 2012, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=RWEBSA-WCAR-01 29 Flic en Flac, Mauritius, 30 July – 3 August 2012, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSA-SIO-01 30 Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, 27 – 31 August 2012, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSA-ETTP-01 31 Swakopmund, Namibia, 8 - 12 April 2013, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSA-SEA-01 32 Moscow, Russian Federation, 25 February - 1 March 2013, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSA-NP-01 33 Málaga, Spain, 7 - 11 April 2014, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSAWS-2014-03 34 Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 19 - 24 April 2015, http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSAWS-2015-02 35 Colombo, Sri Lanka, 23 to 27 March 2015, http://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2014/ntf-2014-128-ebsa-en.pdf 27 28

17

X/29 and XI/17, the Regional Workshop of the Mediterranean region to Facilitate the Description of EBSAs36 is being convened in Malaga (Spain) from 7 to 11 April 2014 by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Barcelona Convention/Mediterranean Action Plan and its center in charge of the Biodiversity conservation (RAC/SPA), with logistical and technical support provided by the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation (IUCN-Med, and with financial support from the Government of Spain, the Mediterranean Trust Fund (MTF) of the Barcelona Convention/Mediterranean Action Plan, and the European Commission. This EBSA process follows the CBD methodology, facilitating collaboration between scientists and governments, enhancing the current knowledge on marine biodiversity in coastal waters and open seas. It is also an important starting point for a future long-term continuous assessment as further scientific information becomes available. The participants in the Mediterranean Regional Workshop37 agreed on the description of 17 areas meeting EBSA criteria38. They also pointed out that scientific knowledge gaps existed and further elaboration was needed 39.

MAP 1 - Areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean40

CBD Secretariat/MAP-UNEP, Malaga 7-11 April 2014).

The meeting was attended by experts from Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, European Union, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, the Secretariat to the Barcelona Convention / Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP), the Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO, UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas, IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Network of Managers of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean (MedPAN), BirdLife International, Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, Oceana, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain), University of Creta (Greece), University of Corsica (France), State Institute for Nature Protection (Croatia), and Duke University.

38 UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA 18/4 and Add.1, and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/INF/25, 23-28 June 2014.

39 All details can be found in http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EBSAWS-2014-03 40 UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

18 36 37

The results of this workshop were presented at the SBSTTA of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD that just gathered for its 18th meeting in Montreal, Canada (June 2014). The description of the 17 EBSAs identified have been submitted to ballot at the 12th COP of the CBD on October 2014. In this final decision41 the COP, inter alia, welcomes the scientific and technical evaluation of information contained in the reports of the regional workshops for describing EBSAs held in the seven regions and encourages Parties and other governments to make use of the scientific information regarding the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria, including information in the EBSA repository and information-sharing mechanism, as well as information from indigenous and local communities (ILCs) when carrying out MSP and development of representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs).

41

UNEP/CBD/COP/12/L.20.

19

KEYWORLDS: LEGAL AND P OLICY FRAMEWORK; LEGISLATIVE TOOLS; MULTIPLE LEVELS; GLOBAL LEVEL; UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES PROGRAM; UNCLOS; IMO; FAO; PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION ; MARITIME S AFETY ; MARINE ENVIRONMENT P ROTECTION; VMES; PSSAS; OSPAR MPAS; SPAMI S; BARCELONA CONVENTION; MCSD; MAP RACS; MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN; EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT POLICY; INTEGRATED MARITIME POLICY; GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK; CROSS-SECTORAL EUROPEAN TOOLS; ICZM; MSP; MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK; GES; EU 2020 20

2.1. International framework The legal and policy framework has multiple levels. In Figure 3 is illustrated the International Conventions and European Policy framework with major links among policies and legislative tools at global, European, Mediterranean and Adriatic sea level.

FIGURE 3 – The Global Framework -

At the Global level, United Nation Agencies and Programmes 42 constitute the general reference framework for regional and local actions aiming at environmental protection and sustainable development worldwide. The reference international tool with an impact on Integrated Maritime Policy and Maritime Spatial Planning is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which balances the rights, and interests of, for instance, flag states, coastal states and port states. The division of seas and oceans into maritime zones, some of which must be claimed by coastal states in order to have legal effect, is particularly relevant. Also of importance is the principle of freedom of navigation guaranteed under UNCLOS, which is conditional upon rules and standards on maritime safety and protection of the marine environment being met. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) establishes internationally recognized rules and standards for shipping and maritime transport such as traffic separation schemes.

Such as International Maritime Organization, UN Environmental Programme, the Agenda 21, the Espoo Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea. 21 42

EBSAs are not an isolated process: there are other identification processes conducted today in the oceans and seas (See Figure 3 and Annex 1, pag. 118).

FIGURE 4 - International Organisations and other Marine Conservation Areas

Beyond the CBD, other organisations See (Figure 4) have developed their own sets of criteria in order to identify vulnerable areas or areas that may require enhanced protection with the final aim of ensuring a more effective implementation of existing legal duties towards marine biodiversity. This is true at the regional level, where regional seas conventions for example have developed their own sets of criteria for the development of networks of MPAs, including in ABNJ. At the international level, organisations such as the FAO and IMO have also established their own sets of criteria to identify areas that may require enhanced protection (see Table 1).

22

TABLE 1 - International Organisations Marine Conservation Areas and Criteria – TYPE OF AREAS









Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)

LEGAL BASIS



CBD COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, 2008, Annex I

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Uniqueness or rarity Special importance for life-history stages of species Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/ or habitats Vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery Biological productivity Biological diversity Naturalness

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Uniqueness, rarity Functional importance of habitat Fragility Life history attributes of species Structural complexity

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)



United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 61/105, 2006, §83;



FAO International Guidelines for the management of deepsea fisheries in the high seas, 2008

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs)



Resolution IMO A.982 (24), 2006;



Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) Circular MEPC.1/Circ. 510, 2006



Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, 1995, Annex I (b)

Special Areas of Mediterranean Interest (SPAMIs)

CRITERIA

3 cumulative conditions: 1. The area must meet at least one of the following criteria: uniqueness or rarity; critical habitat; dependency; representativeness; diversity; productivity; spawning or breeding grounds; naturalness; integrity; fragility; biogeographic importance; social or economic dependency; human dependency; cultural heritage; research; baseline for monitoring studies; education.

2. The area must be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities.

3. There must be measures that can be adopted by IMO to provide protection to the area from these specifically identified international shipping activities.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.



OSPAR MPAs

Uniqueness Natural representativeness Diversity Naturalness Presence of habitats that are critical to endangered, threatened or endemic species Cultural representativeness



Article 3 (1) (b) (ii) of Annex V of the OSPAR Convention on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area, 1998

Ecological criteria/considerations: 1. Threatened or declining species and habitats/biotopes; 2. Important species and habitats/biotopes; 3. Ecological significance; 4. High natural biological diversity; 5. Representativity; 6. Sensitivity; 7. Naturalness; 8. Practical criteria/considerations



Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area, 2003.

Size 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Potential for restoration Degree of acceptance Potential for success of management measures Potential damage to the area by human activities Scientific value

What appears clearly from this table is that the criteria used by all the organisations listed as examples are very similar to the EBSA criteria and include a large number of common elements. Therefore, the application of these criteria should not be seen as a competing but rather as a complementary exercise to the one already carried out under the auspices of the CBD. They do not contradict each 23

other, but can serve different purposes (for example, the identification of areas subject to a specific threat linked to human activities, such as fisheries for VMEs). In fact, the CBD SBSTTA noted in 2010 that “there are no inherent incompatibilities between the various sets of criteria that have been applied nationally and by various United Nations organisations (e.g. FAO, the International Maritime Organisation, the International Seabed Authority) and NGOs (e.g. BirdLife International and Conservation International). Consequently, most of the scientific and technical lessons learned about application of the various sets of criteria can be generalised. Moreover, some of the sets of criteria can act in complementary ways; because unlike the CBD EBSA criteria (Annex I to decision IX/20), some of the criteria applied by other United Nations agencies include consideration of vulnerability to specific activities. Correspondence between the CBD EBSA criteria and other international criteria used by IGOs and NGOs are indicated by either a check  where it exists, an X where it doesn’t, and a ? where there is uncertainty or the criteria suites under review (See Table 2) TABLE 2 – International Criteria and EBSAs Correspondence ORGANIZATION

CBD

FAO

IMO

UNESCO

RAMSAR

Birdlife

IUCN

SITE CRITERIA

EBSA

VME

PSSA

WHS

RAMSAR

IBA

KBA43

1.

Uniqueness or rarity















2.

Special importance for life history stages of species















3.

Importance to threatened or endangered species















4.

Vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity or slow recovery







X

?

X

?

5.

Productivity



X





X

X

?

6.

Biodiversity



X







X

?

7.

Naturalness



X







X

?

8.

Structure

X





X

X

X

?

9.

Historical geomorphological importance

X

X

X



X

X

X

It must be emphasised that the identification processes conducted under these other sets of criteria, whether regional or global, are separate processes from the CBD EBSA process. The reason is that these processes serve different aims. For example, the OSPAR MPA criteria or the IMO PSSA criteria

The KBA criteria are currently under review and is likely to be expanded to be more inclusive. See http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_biodiversity/gpap_wcpabiodiv/gpap_pabiodiv/key_bio diversity_areas/ 24 43

include some scientific criteria but also some more practical considerations which aim to determine if the extent of human impacts in a given area could justify the adoption of protective measures. But the scientific information gathered in the course of these various processes might also feed the identification process under the CBD (which, contrary to regional or sectoral experiences, will gain international recognition) and vice versa.

The sharing of the outcomes of the EBSA process does not prejudice the sovereign rights of coastal states, over their territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Traditional knowledge has been declared as a source of information for describing areas meeting the EBSA criteria; information-sharing mechanism in carrying out marine spatial planning, development of representative networks of marine protected areas, and application of other area-based management measures in marine and coastal areas44.

2.2 Regional Framework The 1976 Barcelona Convention for Protection against Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea is a regional convention to prevent and abate pollution from ships, aircraft and land based sources in the Mediterranean Sea. This includes, but is not limited to, dumping, run-off and discharges. Signers agreed to cooperate and assist in dealing with pollution emergencies, monitoring and scientific research. The convention was last amended in 1995. The Barcelona Convention and its protocols, together with the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) form part of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme.

The Contracting Parties decide on MAP strategies, budget and programme in pursuit of MAP’s goal at their Ministerial level meetings, they appoint Focal Points to review the progress of work and ensure the implementation of recommendations at the national level. The Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development (MCSD) is an advisory body to the Contracting Parties. It has a unique structure of representatives of the 22 Contracting Parties as well as 15 rotating representatives from local authorities, business community and NGOs, forming, on equal footing, a think-tank on policies for promoting sustainable development in the Mediterranean Basin. The MCSD coordinated the preparation of the Mediterranean Strategy on Sustainable Development (MSSD), which was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2005. Six MAP Regional Activity Centres (RACs) are based in Mediterranean countries45, each offering its own environmental and developmental expertise for the benefit of the Mediterranean community in the implementation of MAP activities. Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) are sites "of importance for conserving the components of biological diversity in the Mediterranean; contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean area or the habitats of endangered species; are of special interest at the scientific, aesthetic, cultural or

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/L.9.

France, Blue Plan Regional Activity Centre BP/RAC; Croatia, Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre PAP/RAC; Tunisia, Specially Protected Areas Regional Activity Centre SPA/RAC; Malta, Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean See – REMPEC; Italy, INFO/RAC; Spain, Sustainable Consumption and Production Regional Activity Centre CP/RAC).

25 44 45

educational levels"46. Regional Working Programme for Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean including the High Sea: identification of large scale ecological units; identification of priority conservation areas with each ecological unit; identification of sites to develop real ecological networks47. Identification and Conservation of sites of particular ecological interest in the Mediterranean48. The Barcelona Convention and its protocols, together with the Mediterranean Action Plan form part of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. The Contracting Parties decide on MAP strategies, budget and programme in pursuit of MAP’s goal at their Ministerial level meetings, they appoint Focal Points to review the progress of work and ensure the implementation of recommendations at the national level.

The Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable

Development (MCSD) is an advisory body to the Contracting Parties. It has a unique structure of representatives of the 22 Contracting Parties as well as 15 rotating representatives from local authorities, business community and NGOs, forming, on equal footing, a think-tank on policies for promoting sustainable development in the Mediterranean Basin. The MCSD coordinated the preparation of the Mediterranean Strategy on Sustainable Development (MSSD), which was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2005. Six MAP Regional Activity Centres (RACs) are based in Mediterranean countries49, each offering its own environmental and developmental expertise for the benefit of the Mediterranean community in the implementation of MAP activities.

2.3 European Framework Increasing competition for marine space and the cumulative impact of human activities on marine ecosystems render the current fragmented decision-making in maritime affairs inadequate, and demand a more collaborative and integrated approach. For too long European Commission policies on, for instance, maritime transport, fisheries, energy, surveillance and policing of the seas, tourism, the marine environment, and marine research have developed on separate tracks, at times leading to inefficiencies, incoherencies and conflicts of use. In this sense, European Environment policy has evolved significantly since the 1970s. From an initial focus on single topics, it has moved into an integration phase, with the emphasis on understanding and addressing the pressures on the environment and examining the effects of different policies and behaviour patterns. Based on this recognition, the Commission's vision is for an integrated maritime policy that covers all aspects of our relationship with the oceans and seas. The process started with the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, which identified marine environment protection as a priority area. This lead to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) which was part of the European Marine Strategy and which focused on protecting marine ecosystems. This innovative and holistic approach provide a

Article 8(2) of the 1995 Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, replaced the 1982 Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas.

47 Barcelona Convention, COP 16 decision IG.19/13, 2009.

48 Barcelona Convention, COP18/ decision IG.21/5, 2013.

49 France, Blue Plan Regional Activity Centre BP/RAC; Croatia, Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre PAP/RAC; Tunisia, Specially Protected Areas Regional Activity Centre SPA/RAC; Malta, Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean See – REMPEC; Italy, INFO/RAC; Spain, Sustainable Consumption and Production Regional Activity Centre CP/RAC. 26 46

coherent policy framework that allow for the optimal development of all sea-related activities in a sustainable manner.

Clear recognition that all matters relating to Europe's oceans and seas are interlinked, and that searelated policies must develop in a joined-up way if are to reap the desired results. The Blue Book lays the foundation for the governance framework and cross-sectoral tools necessary for an EU Integrated Maritime Policy. It also sets out the main actions that the Commission will pursue: Maximising the Sustainable Use of the Oceans and Seas; Building a knowledge and innovation base for the maritime policy; Delivering the Highest Quality of Life in Coastal Regions; Promoting Europe's Leadership in International Maritime Affairs; Raising the Visibility of Maritime. The Blue Book acknowledges that, following the EU Recommendation 2002/413/EC, Member States have begun to use ICZM to regulate the spatial deployment of economic activities and to set up spatial planning systems for Europe's coastal waters. Thus, the Blue Book proposes ICZM as a cross-sectoral tool -along with Maritime Spatial Planning supporting joined up policy making in the integrated governance framework for maritime affairs. As decision-making competence in this area lies with the Member States, the Blue Book states that what is needed, at the European level is a commitment to common principles and guidelines to facilitate the process in a flexible manner and to ensure that regional marine ecosystems that transcend national maritime boundaries are respected 50. Since 2007, Integrated Maritime Policy has adopted a number of tools to promote maritime governance. These include Maritime spatial planning and Integrated Coastal Management as complementary tools.

Their geographical scope overlaps in the coastal and territorial waters of Member States, where maritime spatial plans will map existing human activities and identify their most effective future spatial development, while integrated coastal management strategies ensure the integrated management of these human activities. Applied jointly, they both improve sea-land interface planning and management51. The strategy adopted by the European Commission for Mediterranean basin meets different maritime challenges (fisheries, aquaculture, environmental protection, climate change, etc.). It is based on improving governance of maritime affairs that should balance economic development with protection of the environment. The success of this strategy requires enhanced cooperation with the third countries concerned 52. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of the EU's marine waters by 2020 and to protect the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend. It is the first EU legislative instrument related to the protection of marine biodiversity, as it contains the explicit regulatory objective that "biodiversity is maintained by 2020", as the cornerstone for achieving GES. The Directive enshrines in a legislative framework the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment, integrating the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable use. In order to achieve its goal, the Directive establishes

COM(2007)575 final, Brussels, 10.10.2007 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management, COM (2013) 133 final 52 Communication from the Commission of 11 November 2009 - Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean COM (2009) 466 27 50 51

European marine regions and sub-regions on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria.

The Directive lists four European marine regions among which there is the Mediterranean Sea 53.

FIGURE 5 - European Framework -

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

28 53

KEYWORLDS: GOVERNANCE ; LEGITIMACY; TRANSPARENCY ; ACCOUNTABILITY ; INCLUSIVENESS ; FAIRNESS; INTEGRATION ; CAPABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY; COMPLIANCE REPORTING MECHANISMS TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION; COMMON METHODOLOGIES; INFORMATION-SHARING MECHANISMS ; MPAS; INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE AGENDA ; C UMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ; PRIORITIZE ; SCIENCE -BASED APPROACH ; TRANSDISCIPLINARY COOPERATION ; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH ; POLICY MAKERS ; LONGTERM EFFECTS ; STAKEHOLDERS ; SOCIAL STABILITY ; ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ; L EADERSHIP ; C ONSISTENCY ; CONTINUITY; TRANSFERRING SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ; SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES; SYNERGIES; COHERENCE OF ACTIONS; RAISING AWARENESS ; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ; T RANSDISCIPLINARY DIALOGUE ; DECISION MAKING ; MONITORING AND EVALUATION; C OMPETITION FOR OCEAN SPACE ; I DENTIFYING AND MAPPING CURRENT USES ; I DENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS; T RADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH ; DPSIR FRAMEWORK ; I NDICATORS ; MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES. 29

3.1. Governance and transboundary cooperation Governance is an umbrella term which refers to the institutions, structures and processes which determine how and whether management can function effectively to address societal or environmental issues thorough regional cooperation projects or regional initiatives to assist and mobilize governments and stakeholders towards a project’s success by enhancing cooperation, integration, peace and sustainable development in the Mediterranean region.

A large number of institutions and agreements are currently mandated to regulate sectoral issues, however, transparency, accountability, and compliance reporting mechanisms are often weak in sectoral agreements. Moreover, issues pertaining to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity are not systematically integrated in these arrangements. The agreements concerning conservation of biodiversity, on the other hand, have little regulatory authority and generally rely upon voluntary measures (e.g EBSAS). Effective governance requires the design of institutions that are instrumental in encouraging people to choose to behave in a manner that provides for certain strategic policy outcomes, particularly biodiversity conservation objectives, to be fulfilled.

The main goal is the adoption of a common methodology and the development of a transboundary governance process, providing a supportive policy environment for effective management and enable the achievement of beneficial development outcomes. The proposal for shaping models for governance will be based on study the successes and develop strategies, considering the intensification of threats as additional pressure climate change and ocean acidification issues that need to be addressed globally, and other ‘traditional threats’ (since more available information exist) as reducing CO2 emissions, pressure from fishing, reducing land-based pollution, and building ecosystem resilience through networks of MPAs. Many initiatives have been conducted within regional frameworks (as studies of the political and legal feasibility and the scientific and geographical relevance to the regional cooperation) to update and develop legal instruments of cooperation that can be reactivated with technical assistance and support for the implementation of the regional instruments.

The CBD through EBSAS play an active role in providing scientific and technical advice to States and competent authorities but is removed from direct management action. With hundreds of EBSAs in the process of description, this ambitious information-gathering exercise demonstrates how scientific expertise can catalyse management decisions for ecologically important areas in the oceans.

Without formal cooperation or information-sharing mechanisms in place, however, it is unclear how institutions will make use of this scientific advice to enact management measures.

Effective coordination and cooperation amongst the different competent management organisations is another key factor for the success of EBSAS. Cooperation may be improved through the development of informal as well as formal mechanisms. However, current experience indicates that such mechanisms may take a long time to establish.

30

3.2. Governance and Marine Protected Areas MPAs are seen as an efficient tool to protect biodiversity but a certain number of illegal issues are raised to the establishment and management in ABNJ. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the framework for the governance of the oceans legal regime of the high seas, defines its freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, fishing but not the establishment of MPAs. Regional seas conventions consider the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ only bind contracting parties to the convention, and not third States that can be active in the region.

Furthermore, regional seas conventions do not have the mandate to regulate some activities as navigation, fishing or deep sea mining in ABNJ. There is a need of collaboration and cooperation between the organizations and the related regional sea convention (Barcelona Convention) that are competent for these issues. A proposal for a draft collective arrangement between competent authorities on the management of MPAs in ABNJ could be included in the international sustainable agenda, to coordinate the adoption of sectoral management measures, to strength cooperation in an open, transparent, participative manner with different relevant organizations, both regional and international, and to develop societal network including public and private actors.

Governance can be evaluated based on whether it effectively supports the achievement of MPA outcomes and also whether it engages with the principles of “good� governance, including legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, integration, capability, and adaptability.

3.3. Transdisciplinary cooperation science/policy makers / stakeholders Existing institutions and treaty bodies rarely pool their expertise and resources to tackle issues involving more than one sector, region or activity; for example, regarding cumulative impact assessments or multi-purpose MPAs. There are further gaps between the external researcher communities producing ecologically-oriented scientific knowledge and the sectoral bodies’ internal information-collecting processes concerning human pressures on the marine environment. This disconnect makes it difficult to prioritise future scientific research that could inform emerging management needs. It also impedes a science-based approach to management, which systematically interferes with the realisation of a precautionary or ecosystem approach to the marine environment.

Different types of future-oriented decisions at the long-term effects of policy decisions (oriented at short-term objectives) can be taken, promoting more transdisciplinary science system that enable change, transition and transformation. This will conduct to contributing to social stability and environmental responsibility leading to transdisciplinary cooperation between policy-makers and scientist, as well as between policy-makers and stakeholders. A relatively long-period between the policy intervention and the intended effects requires firm leadership, consistency, and continuity.

Cooperation and collaboration with other regional/global Competent Authorities regarding the management of marine and coastal ecosystems mean an effective way for transferring scientific results to societal transformation processes. To strengthen synergies and increase coherence of 31

actions on environmental governance raising awareness, building information, marine science, scientific evaluations as environmental impact assessments, and strategic environmental assessments, will help to conduct political negotiations. Beyond developing new governance options for EBSAS, a transdisciplinary dialogue involving States, key stakeholders, the academic community and civil society, is necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment.

3.4. Ecosystem approach Ecosystem-based integrated management of the marine ecosystem is a complex challenge requiring input from many disciplines, and interpretation of that input from different fields. This approach should be shared across countries, and capacity development programs should be encouraged. In this regard, the DPSIR framework (Socio-Economic Drivers-Environmental Pressures– Environmental State Changes-Impacts on Human System–Policy Responses Options) could be used in scoping the range of considerations involved in marine management. Indicators will provide a transparent dialogue, and will be decided in societal dialogues, in parallel learning experiences would be collected continuously. Ecosystems Approach is crucial in the management of human activities with a view to conserve natural marine heritage and protecting vital ecosystem services.

For example, the main valued added of the Ecosystems Approach in the context of the Barcelona Convention54 is a renewed emphasis on implementation and integration that will strengthen the ability to understand and address cumulative risks and effects as well as to better focus actions on priority targets. To ensure the implementation of an integrated ecosystem approach there is a need to put in place a framework with the proper authority to coordinate all instruments and organizations with respect to conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in EBSAS. The Mediterranean Action Plan, with the Barcelona Convention as its legal instrument; its regional activity centres, the IUCN Centre of Mediterranean Cooperation (UICN-MED) are poignant examples of constructive cooperation.

3.5. Identifying and Mapping The compilation of scientific information and data, as well as the identification of key data requirements are crucial for decision making, monitoring and evaluation, and supports investment for new and emerging opportunities. Since the competition for ocean space and resources is increasing, it is also capital identifying and mapping current uses and adjust zoning and rules to prioritize and accommodate differing use. Additionally it is also important identifying stakeholders, with collectively setting objectives and priorities, and using available science and traditional knowledge.

Decisions IG 17/6 “Implementation of the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities that may affect the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment; IG 20/4“Implementing MAP ecosystem approach roadmap: Mediterranean Ecological and Operational Objectives, Indicators and Timetable for implementing the ecosystem approach roadmap adopted by the Contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention in COP 15 (2008) and COP17 (2012).

32 54

KEYWORLDS: ADRIATIC

GEOGRAPHIC ,

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ,

OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS;

HUMAN C OASTAL DEGRADATION ; L AND -BASED POLLUTION SOURCES ; FISHERIES ; T OURISM , E COLOGICALLY REPRESENTATIVE NETWORK OF MPAS; NATURE 2000 M ARINE ; NORTH ADRIATIC EBSA; C ENTRAL ADRIATIC EBSA; SOUTH ADRIATIC EBSA; EUSAIR POLICY; EUSAIR P ILLARS; EUSAIR ACTION PLAN; M ACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGY ; SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY ; B LUE GROWTH ; M ULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE ; C OOPERATION ; EBSA S M ETHODOLOGY ; TRANSBOUNDARY GOVERNANCE; GOVERNANCE OF MARITIME SPACE; INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ; D ATA AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING ; M ARITIME SKILLS ; C ITIZEN AND BUSINESS AWARENESS ; E NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; M ARINE ENVIRONMENT ; TRANSNATIONAL TERRESTRIAL HABITATS AND BIODIVERSITY ; E UROPE 2020 STRATEGY ; MSDF; W ATER FRAMEWORK ; C OMMON FISHERIES POLICY ; EU B IODIVERSITY STRATEGY ; C APACITY BUILDING AND COMMUNICATION ; C ULTURAL HERITAGE ; ICZM; MSP; FISHING ACTIVITY ; AQUACULTURE ; C OASTAL DEVELOPMENT ; INVASIVE MARINE ALIEN SPECIES; M ARINE KNOWLEDGE ; C ROSS - BORDER COOPERATION ; ADRIATIC VISION ; RESILIENT MARINE ECOSYSTEM ; E COSYSTEM SERVICES ; ADRIATIC HETEROGENEITY ; M APPING C APACITY ; C ONNECTIVITY ; PAN ADRIATIC VIEW ; M ULTI- SCALE APPROACH ; SCIENTIFICALLY BASED APPROACH ; STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ; I NTEGRATION ; L ONG TERM PERSPECTIVE ; LEGALLY BINDING RULES. PRESSURES ;

33

4.1. THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK: THE THREE ADRIATIC EBSAS AREAS The legal and policy framework in Adriatic Region has multiple levels, as already remarked in the international framework55. The Adriatic Sea is a very special portion of the Mediterranean region, which in spite of its limited water volume has distinctive geographic, geomorphological, oceanographic and ecological characteristics. One of the main tools to protect the Adriatic ecosystem biodiversity and functions from intense human pressures, such as coastal degradation, land-based pollution sources, fisheries and tourism, consists in the establishment of an ecologically representative network of MPAs. The case for Adriatic MPAs should be best framed within the context of the current efforts of establishing a network of MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea, including in the region’s open seas, under the aegis of the Barcelona Convention. Based on a process, which was recently applied to support the development of a representative network of MPAs throughout the Mediterranean, a strategic and hierarchical process is ongoing, whereby the existing data and expert knowledge are used to locate the Adriatic Sea areas of conservation importance, through the application of criteria developed within the framework of the CBD for the identification of EBSAs. 4.1.1. The North Adriatic EBSA Based on available data, the Northern Adriatic meets several criteria that qualify the area as ecologically and biologically significant area, the area is one of the most productive areas in the Mediterranean and is home to a number of rare and endangered habitat types and species. The area is located in the northern part of the North Adriatic Sea Basin, with an average depth of 35 m and is strongly influenced by the Po river plume. It includes mobile sandy bottoms, seagrass meadows, hard bottom associations and unique rocky outcrops called “trezze” and “tegnue”. The area is important for several threatened species. It hosts a population of the highest density of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Mediterranean, it is one of the most important feeding grounds in the Mediterranean of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and it is a nursery area for a number of vulnerable species blue shark (Prionace glauca), sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus), anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus), etc.. The area hosts a strong diversity of benthic and pelagic habitats due to an important gradient of environmental factors from its western portion to its eastern coasts. It is also one of the most productive areas in the Mediterranean Sea. Part of the Northern Adriatic Basin, off the coasts of Italy, Slovenia and Croatia. The area is roughly delimited by the 9 m isobaths, encompassing the area above the straight line linking Ancona (Conero) and the island of Ilovik. The area contains seagrass beds, including Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa, Zostera marina. Moreover, it is also a strategic area for the conservation of marine vertebrates, sheltering important seabird populations. The area also includes important populations of endangered marine mammals and is a feeding area for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta).

According to UNEP the Cres-Lošinj Archipelago (Kvarnerić area), which is part of this area, is the habitat of a resident population of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The Cres-Lošinj

55

Please, see previous chapters.

34

archipelago area was proclaimed as potential Natura 2000 site in Croatia. The northern Adriatic is the one of the most studied area in the Mediterranean. There is available scientific data on range of species and habitats, ranging from megafauna distribution to benthic communities characterization, including also fishery data. Anthropogenic pressures are very high in the region, although biodiversity still remains high. Particular vulnerabilities are linked to high human population density and intensive level of fisheries. Recently the most notable direct impact comes from seismic activities and oil and gas exploration and exploitation. The northern Adriatic Port Authority intends to increase marine traffic in this area by over 200% in the coming years with major expansion in the four member ports of Venice, Trieste, Koper and Rijeka. Changes to precipitation or to ice melt due to climate change could potentially alter the oceanographic condition over the entire Adriatic Sea. Changes in precipitation quantity over the catchment feeding rivers and the coastal aquifers would influence also the availability of fresh water resources and inputs of freshwater to the marine environment.

Increased air temperatures are expected to influence the process of stratification in enclosed areas such as Kastela Bay. In the case of water temperature changes it is expected that species currently found in warmer, more southern latitudes might shift northwards and by that influence the abundance of species and the composition of animal and plant communities 56.

MAP 2 / Box 6 - North Adriatic Area meeting the EBSA criteria.

The Northern Adriatic meet the following ranking of EBSAS criteria57: C1) Uniqueness or rarity (medium); C2) Special importance for life-history stages of species (high); C3) Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat (high); C4) Vulnerability, fragility sensitivity, or slow recovery (medium); C5) biological productivity (high); C6) biological diversity (medium); C7) Naturalness (low).

4.1.2. The Central Adriatic EBSA The area encompassing the adjacent depressions, the Jabuka (or Pomo) Pit is situated in the Middle Adriatic Sea and has a maximum depth of 200 - 260 m. It is a sensitive and critical spawning and nursery zone for important Adriatic demersal resources, especially European hake (Merluccius merluccius). This area hosts the largest population of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and is important especially for juveniles in the depths over 200 m. Based on an available scientific data it is a high density area for giant devil ray (Mobula mobular) which is an endemic species listed on Annex

56 57

UNEP, 1992.

UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

35

II SPA/BD protocol and listed as “Endangered (EN)� on the IUCN Red List. The Pit could function as a favorable environment for some key life history stages of the porbeagle shark, and Lamna nasus, which is critically endangered58, and both of which are listed on Annex II SPA/BD Protocol. Regarding benthic species, several types of corals can be found (Scleractinia and Actiniaria). The area encompassing the adjacent depressions, the Jabuka (or Pomo) Pit is situated in the Middle Adriatic Sea and has a maximum depth of 200 - 260 m. It is a sensitive and critical spawning and nursery zone for important Adriatic demersal resources, especially European hake (Merluccius merluccius). The Jabuka/Pomo Pit is one of the most important habitats for some shared demersal stocks of the Adriatic Sea. This area has complicated geographical features, including rocky bottoms, and has unique characteristics in terms of sediments, oceanography and biota. It is a region were cold nutrient-rich waters from the Northern Adriatic flow to the bottom of the Adriatic and become trapped by the Pit. It plays an important role in the overall oceanographic dynamic of the Adriatic sea. In general, the eastern side of the area is characterized by the presence of coralligenous communities, maerls beds and sand-muddy biocoenosis. Vertical mixing between water masses is an extremely powerful and dynamic process in the basin. There have been reports showing the presence of facies and associated Thenea muricata, Brissopsis lyrifera, Funiculina quadrangularis and Isidella elongate in the area. The Pit is an upwelling region, with the bottom water being cooler and more nutrient-rich than near surface waters. These conditions encourage a high abundance of fish and shellfish and the area has long been known as a productive fishing ground 59. Due to its geographic distribution and rare occurrence outside the Mediterranean, the giant devil ray is considered an endemic elasmobranch in the region and listed on Annex II of SPA/BD Protocol. The Jabuka/Pomo Pit is a sensitive and critical zone for spawning and nursery for important Adriatic demersal resources especially for European hake. The area hosts the largest population of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and is important especially for juveniles in the depths over 200 m 60. It is also the most important nursery area for black-bellied angler (Lophius budegassa) and horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa). The Jabuka/Pomo Pit has been the subject of numerous scientific investigations on both sides of the Adriatic. Scattered occurrences of sub-modern and fresh-looking corals are also reported at many sites in the Jabuka/Pomo Pit. The area is characterized by conspicuous numbers of benthic scavengers (e.g., Natatolana borealis) and other crustaceans as Munida intermedia, Munida rugosa and Nephorps norvegicus. Although it covers less than 10% of the total surface of the Adriatic Sea, it is one of the most important fishing grounds in the Adriatic, especially for bottom trawl fishing, which applies a high degree of fishing pressure on the resources of the area. Fish populations are vulnerable due to overfishing and high fishing pressure on juveniles

IUCN, 2007 FAO AdriaMed, 2011 60 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014 58 59

36

MAP 3 / Box 7 - Central Adriatic Area meeting the EBSA criteria The Jabuka/Pomo Pit (Central Adriatic) meet the following ranking of EBSAS criteria61: C1) uniqueness or rarity (high); C2) special importance for life-history stages of species (high); C3) Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat (medium); C4) vulnerability, fragility sensitivity, or slow recovery (medium); C5) biological productivity (high); C6) biological diversity (medium); C7) Naturalness (low).

4.1.3. The South Adriatic EBSA The South Adriatic EBSA area is located in the center of the southern part of the Southern Adriatic basin and the northern Ionian Sea. It is characterized by steep slopes, high salinity and a maximum depth ranging between 200 m to 1500 m. Water exchange with the Mediterranean Sea takes place through the Otranto Channel, which has a sill that is 800 m deep. This area contains important habitats for Cuvier’s bea ed whales (Ziphius cavirostris), an Annex II species of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD Protocol) in the framework of Barcelona Convention, and significant densities of other megafauna such as the giant devil ray (Mobula mobular), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), all of which are listed in Annex II of SPA/BD Protocol. Benthos includes deep-sea cold water coral communities and deepsea sponge aggregations, representing important biodiversity reservoirs and contributing to the trophic recycling of organic matter. Tuna, swordfish and sharks are also common in this area. The area described is where the Adriatic Sea meets the Ionian Sea. Water exchange with the Ionian Sea takes place through the Otranto Channel. This area contains important habitats for Mediterranean megafauna and for rare slow-growing deep water corals. The area is located in center of the southern part of the Southern Adriatic basin and in the northern part of the Ionian Sea. It includes the deepest part of the Adriatic Sea on the western side and it encompasses a coastal area in Albania (Sazani Island and Karaburuni peninsula). It also covers the slopes near Santa Maria di Leuca. This area can be considered a pelagic oceanic habitat. It is an area where southern Adriatic deep water (SAdDW) is locally formed. Water exchange with the Mediterranean Sea takes place through the Otranto Channel, whose sill is 800 m deep. One of the major components forcing the general circulation is the Otranto Channel forcing. The South Adriatic basin is intruded upon by Levantine Intermediate Water (LIW), a high salinity water mass formed through evaporation in the eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, this area encompasses the Bari Canyon, which plays an important role 61

UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

37

in the dynamics of the Adriatic Sea as it is the main channel facilitating the transport of sediments between the western Adriatic shelf and the southern basin 62. The South Adriatic Pit is also characterized by open sea zooplankton particularly euphausiids, also known as krill. There are also mesopelagic and deep zooplankton in the area. This area contains important habitats for Cuvier’s bea ed whales (Ziphius cavirostris), an Annex II species of the SPA/BD Protocol and significant densities of other megafauna such as the giant devil ray (Mobula mobular), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) all listed in Annex II of SPA/BD Protocol. Benthos includes species of deep sea cold water coral communities, deep-sea sponge aggregations representing important biodiversity reservoirs and contributing to the trophic recycling of organic matter63. Tuna (Thunnus thynnus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and sharks can also be found in the area64. The area hosts cnidarian-rich deep-sea habitats in the depth range of ca. 400-700 m. Recent research reveals the existence of megabenthic communities dominated by a variety of cnidarians, including frame-builders scleractinians (Madrepora oculata, Lophelia pertusa) (which are a backbone of this cold-water coral communities), stony corals as Desmophyllum dianthus and Stenocyathus vermiformis and the yellow coral Dendrophyllia cornigera), antipatharians (Leiopathes glaberrima) and gorgonians (Callogorgia verticillata) as major habitat forming taxa, often in association with sponges like Pachastrella monilifera and Poecillastra compressa and, subordinately, serpulids. Best known examples refer to the south-western margin of the basin where scleractinian–sponge communities (i.e. Madrepora oculata,

Lophelia

pertusa,

Dendrophyllia

cornigera,

Desmophyllum

dianthus,

Poecillastra

compressa, Pachastrella monilifera) have been documented in the Bari Canyon, Gondola Slide and Dauno Seamount. According to recent research, this area encompasses an almost continuous belt of patchy cold water coral sites along the entire south-western margin (Apulian), connecting the Adriatic populations with those inhabiting the Ionian margin - Santa Maria di Leuca coral province.

The communities of Santa Maria di Leuca have the most significant growth between 500-700 m depth, which is controlled by oceanographic factors, namely the influx of Adriatic Deep Water. This provides a regular supply of nutrients and particulate organic matter. In 2006, Santa Maria di Leuca was designated under the GFCM as a Fishery Restricted Area (FRA) banning the use of towed gears due to the relationship between the Lophelia reef and the occurrence of priority commercial species (e.g. Aristaeomorpha foliacea, Aristeus antennatus, Merluccius merluccius, Nephrops norvegicus, Pagellus bogaraveo). This area is a site of active coral growth since the latest Pleistocene. Deep-sea sponge aggregations represent important biodiversity reservoirs and contribute to the trophic recycling of organic matter. Close to the coral biocoenosis, some typical bathyal species also occur (e.g.

Chimaera

monstrosa,

Dalathias

licha,

Galeus

melastomus,

Aulopus

filamentosus,

Chlorophthalmus agassizi, Helicolenus dactylopterus, Caelorinchus caelorhincus). Due to this area’s

Scientific Information to Describe Areas Meeting Scientific Criteria for Mediterranean EBSAs. Information provided by OCEANA to CBD and UNEP/MAP for the Mediterranean EBSA Workshop March 2014.

63 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014a.

64 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014b.

62

38

strong oceanographic conditions it constitutes an important migratory corridor for megafauna like the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and marine turtles. The area is one of the most important fishing grounds for pelagic species and deep water bottom trawling. Slow growing deep water corals are sensitive to bottom trawling, and pelagic species are affected by high fishing pressure and by-catch.

MAP 4 / Box 8 - South Adriatic Area meeting the EBSA criteria The South Adriatic Ionian Strait meet the following ranking of EBSAS criteria65: C1) uniqueness or rarity (high); C2) special importance for life-history stages of species (high); C3) Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat (high); C4) vulnerability, fragility sensitivity, or slow recovery (high); C5) biological productivity (medium); C6) biological diversity (high); C7) Naturalness (medium).

65

UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

39

4.2. THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK: THE NEW EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR ADRIATIC-IONIC REGION The reference framework to contextualize the three EBSAs identified in the Adriatic Sea is the AdriaticIonian (EUSAIR) strategy66, closely linked to the intergovernmental initiative of the Adriatic and Ionian (AII)67. The EUSAIR objective is to create a common frame to discuss jointly issues affecting the Adriatic and Ionian basin. In European budgets for 2014-2020 there are different funds and mechanisms to finance joint projects in the area of the Adriatic and Ionian seas. Regarding the issue of subsidiarity and proportionality, in Adriatic-Ionian area is possible to determine a European strategy, building on the many existing networks of cooperation, valuing the plurality of initiatives, programs and projects that are already underway and adapting and coordinating the instruments available to the various actors, contribute to consolidating the integration process both within and between countries, through greater participation of civil society in decision-making and implementation of concrete measures. The macro-regional strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian region is an excellent example of multilevel governance put into practice, since it creates the opportunity to identify and optimize cooperation and interaction of all stakeholders in the great challenges that are emerging in this territory. In this sense EBSAs can be a valuable tool for cooperation at different levels of governance (European and regional international).

The EUSAIR covers eight countries: four EU countries (Croatia, Greece, Italy, Slovenia) and four nonEuropean countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). The strategy is the result of extensive consultation68. As part of this extensive consultation, the eight countries involved organized events and launched sectoral consultations of the different pillars.

BOX 9 – The 4 EUSAIR pillars 1)

"Blue growth"69 (maritime technology, fisheries and aquaculture governance and maritime and marine services) and whose coordination are responsible Greece and Montenegro;

2)

"Connect the region"70 where the priority has been placed on linking the region in the fields of transport and energy (shipping, intermodal hinterland connections, energy networks) whose coordination should work in Italy and Serbia;

3)

"Environmental quality" covers the issue of the quality of the environment (marine environment, marine pollution, transnational terrestrial habitats and biodiversity) which is coordinated Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina;

4)

"Increased regional appeal - tourism" (diversified tourism, management of sustainable and responsible tourism) would work as Croatia and Albania.

These four pillars are the structure of the action plan for further cooperation in areas such as the promotion of maritime economy, preservation of the marine environment, completing transport links Comunicación de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones relativo a la estrategia de la Unión Europea para la región del Adriático y del Jónico, COM(2014) 357 final. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/adriat_ionian/pdf/com_357_es.pdf 67 La Iniciativa se estableció en la Cumbre sobre Desarrollo y Seguridad en los mares Adriático y Jónico, celebrado en Ancona (Italia) el 19/20 mayo de 2000 con la participación de los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de Italia, Albania, Bosnia y Herzegovina, Croacia, Grecia y Eslovenia. Al final de la Conferencia, los ministros de Exteriores de los países participantes firmaron la "Declaración de Ancona", en presencia del Presidente de la Comisión Europea. En la Declaración se afirma el fortalecimiento de la cooperación regional con el fin de contribuir a promover la estabilidad política y económica, creando así una base sólida para el proceso de integración europeo. www.aii-ps.org 68 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/eusair/index_en.cfm 69 EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region: The regions get involved" (Corfu, 18-19 November 2013).

70 Conference "Connecting the Adriatic and Ionian Region - Challenges and Goals towards a successful EUSAIR Plan of Action", Ancona, 14 October 2013.

40 66

and energy and promoting sustainable tourism. The EUSAIR will be developed through an action plan71 structured around four interdependent pillars of strategic importance to provide indicative list of possible actions. A couple of countries (one member of the EU and one not) coordinate the development of the action plan for the pillar of their choice. The strategy is carried out through mobilizing existing national and EU funding relevant to the four pillars and themes. To support the strategy, the administrations of the participating countries agree to use this funding to implement the action plan (in particular the European Structural Funds and Investment and the Instrument for PreAccession Assistance for the period 2014-2020). Are available more funds and instruments for the pillars and Horizon 2020 (for four); the "Connecting Europe" Mechanism (for pillar 2); the LIFE program (for pillar 3) and COSME (for pillar 4).

TABLE 3 – EUSAIR Framework PILAR

1)

2)

3)

4)

BLU ECONOMY

CONECTING REGION

ENVIRONMENT QUALITY

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

COUNTRY COORDINATORS

TOPICS (with planned actions)

  

Maritime Technologies

  

Maritime Transport

  

Marine Environment

Croacia



Touristic diversified offer (products and services)

Albania



Sustainable and responsible tourism (innovation and quality)



Greece



Montenegro



Italy



Serbia



Slovenia



Bosnia Herzegovina

 

Fishery and aquaculture Governance and maritime services

Intermodality Connections Energy Networks

Marine Pollution Biodiversity and Terrestrial transnational Habitats

The countries in the Adriatic-Ionian Region are characterised by different administrative and political structures as well as government and governance systems. Cooperation on various services – notably those linked to the capacity building in the public sector and better coordination of planning activities – is needed for preparing the ground for better marine and maritime governance and services. In a wide range of fields, coordination of activities would improve use of existing resources.

Focus should be on bringing together national or regional activities under one roof, e.g. via joint planning efforts.

Action Plan Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the EUROPEAN Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, SWD(2014) 190 final. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/adriat_ionian/pdf/actionplan_190_en.pdf 41 71

BOX 10 – EBSAs Methodology and Transboundary Governance EBSAS can support the adoption of a common methodology and the development of a transboundary governance process in the Mediterranean region:



providing a general platform for governance in EBSAS in Adriatic Sea and the Ecosystem Approach to management of living marine resources in Mediterranean;



assisting in capacity building and institutional development for more effective management of maritime activities and marine resources and ecosystems in Adriatic Sea;



evolving and demonstrating working mechanisms for translating and transferring the results of scientific studies and research as well as from a regular system of monitoring and analysis into adaptive management guidelines and policy recommendations;



creating a process of Science/Knowledge-Based Governance that engages more effectively with non-governmental stakeholders including the private sector and marine industry as well as coastal communities;



evolving and demonstrating appropriate management and governance for various geopolitical scenarios e.g. within High Seas, Extended Continental Shelf; Transboundary Cooperation, others.



evolving and demonstrating new management strategies applicable to various thematic sectors (e.g. fisheries, aquaculture, marine transport, energy, tourism, etc.) that can integrate within an overall marine ecosystem approach;



demonstrating and developing participatory and collaborative governance model frameworks for an integrated management approach to high seas resources and vulnerable areas.



exploring mechanisms to support management of Marine Protected Areas in ABNJ.



encouraging and facilitating the development of alliances and partnerships for the adoption of effective governance mechanisms and for the translation of science and monitoring into management guidelines.

The Adriatic-Ionian Region displays considerable imbalances and currently undergoes significant political transformation. This makes bridging political divides particularly important, as well as improving institutional capacity and management mechanisms transcending national boundaries.

Mutual trust among neighbouring countries is crucial. Although accession and prospective accession to the EU has improved the situation, new systems take time to be put in place. They require change in mind sets, raised awareness, confidence building among public and private stakeholders and improvement of skills. There are also considerable imbalances both as regards the access to funding as well as administrative capacities and cooperation experience. These imbalances affect the capacity to respond jointly. Thus, existing networks and organisations active at the level of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas ought to be strongly involved in the future work. Cooperation experience has already been gained in the macro-region, notably thanks to networks involving major ports (like the North Adriatic Ports Association) or regional authorities (e.g. under the umbrella of the Bologna Charter) and/or research institutes (e.g. involved in SHAPe and ADRIPLAN), fora such as those encompassing Adriatic-Ionian Universities and Cities, and organisations such as the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative or the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

In this context, EBSAS can offer a paramount umbrella in supporting and developing the actions identified in the EUSAIR strategies (See table 4).

42

TABLE 4 – EBSAS UMBRELLA IN EUSAIR STRATEGIES AREA Governance of maritime space

Institutional capacity to harmonise standards and regulations

Data and knowledge sharing

EUSAIR ACTION 





ACTORS

Proper joint governance of the maritime space provides an important framework for a sustainable and transparent use of maritime and marine resources. This will include supporting the implementation of the new Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning (through coordinated planning) and may imply adopting clearer legal frameworks for exploiting deep-sea water and marine mineral resources.



National Authorities



Local Authorities



Research Institutes

This action aims at improving the quality of public services and improving governance mechanisms for international cooperation. In a wide range of sectors (e.g. fishery policy, maritime spatial planning, integrated coastal management), the development of common understandings and harmonised standards and regulations as well as sharing of best practices are needed.

This requires institutional capacity of the involved public bodies and stakeholders.



National Authorities



Local authorities



Business Sector



Associations

This action aims at improving the evidence base for policy and decision-making in the Region. Sharing data and knowledge among public bodies in the Region can increase the efficiency of the public administration (e.g. by avoiding duplication of monitoring or data collection efforts) and increase their capacity to seize opportunities or react to challenges which can be detected earlier if data and



National Authorities



Local authorities



Research institutes

ACTIVITY





Creating a maritime governance and services task force, ensuring the legal framework for exploiting deep-sea water and marine mineral resources in a sustainable manner, through governance mechanisms such as establishment of “maritime zones”.

Implementing coordinated Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), based on the experience of e.g. the Barcelona Convention which can provided many of the elements that could be drawn upon an MSP process apply in ABNJ (much of the ocean territory of the Mediterranean, where EEZs have not been established). The Regional Activity Centre for UNEPMAP, RACSPA, has done scientific work on describing areas meeting CBD’s scientific criteria for EBSAS. These spatially explicit data and analyses are part of the necessary foundation of information for MSP in Adriatic-Ionic Sea. This will promote a coherent transnational approach to the spatial planning of the two seas and support implementation of the MSP Directive. The ultimate aim would be good governance of economic activities in this sea region and implementation of common plans.



Training and networking activities with the aim of boosting capacity building and of twinning projects between EU and non-EU stakeholders on Common Fisheries Policy (data collection, controls, etc.).



MSP and ICM training and mutual support, focusing on the development of training activities and networks needed to support capacity building on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management.



“Adriatic-Ionian data cloud” supporting maritime governance and services, establishing knowledge innovative communities and IT platforms for sharing data and exchanging knowledge. Information from heterogeneous data sources (e.g. sensor data, operational or regulatory data, open source data, voluntary reporting, platforms of opportunity data etc.) would be made available for modelling, risk analysis and wider maritime domain awareness through data broker and "big data analytics" capabilities. Such 43

information is shared and analysed across countries.

Maritime skills

Citizen and business awareness and involvement





a project could benefit from a quadruple helix approach involving potential users and providers of relevant information in the academic, private and public sectors and civil society.

Working in the maritime sectors requires skills and increasingly specialised professional profiles and expertise. This actions aims at improving the levels of skills in the Region, e.g. by strengthening networks of academics, training organisations and professional organisations in the maritime sector.



Training institutes



Academies



Private Operators

This action aims at promoting citizen and business awareness regarding blue economy, new technologies, fisheries and aquaculture.

 

Media Private operators Civil society Local Authorities

 



“Maritime skills circulation”, developing networks of academies and training institutes on maritime profiles/professions (including shared module trainings) with the aim of developing new high-standard training curricula for experts in the maritime sectors. This could also include development of joint curricula taught at different places in the Region. Such a project could benefit from experience of the UNIADRION network.



Promoting awareness about the macro-region's potential in terms of blue economy, new technologies, aquaculture and fisheries.

All these actions would prepare the ground for improved cooperation structures, joint databases or monitoring systems and implementation of joint plans. Possible points of departure for quantifiable result indicators may thus be a common MSP and ICM plans along the Adriatic-Ionian Sea basin and coastlines, the number of joint databases or monitoring systems put in place .

BOX 11 - EBSAS GOVERNANCE IN EUSAIR Concerning governance, supporting an EBSAS approach in EUSAIR policy could help in achieving important target, such as: 

Creation of a shared system of major macro-regional data bases (i.e. Adriatic-Ionian Cloud)



100% of the water under national jurisdiction and 100% of coast lines covered by Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal.

Concerning the third pillar, the overall objective is to address the issue of environmental quality, with respect to marine, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems in the Region and the pillar will deal with the environmental issues that can only be adequately tackled through cooperation at the level and scale of the macro-region.

BOX 12 – Environmental Quality USAIR Pillar The specific objectives for this pillar are: 1)

To ensure a good environmental and ecological status of the marine and coastal environment by 2020 in line with the relevant EU acquis and the ecosystem approach of the Barcelona Convention;

2)

To contribute to the goal of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, by addressing threats to marine and terrestrial biodiversity;

3)

To improve waste management by reducing waste flows to the sea and, to reduce nutrient flows and other pollutants to the rivers and the sea.

Two topics are identified as pivotal in relation to environmental quality in the Adriatic-Ionian Region: 1) The marine environment; 2) Transnational terrestrial habitats and biodiversity.

44

Actions under both topics are expected to contribute to attaining a good ecological and environmental status for marine, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems by 2020. This pillar strongly supports the Europe 2020 Strategy. Taking appropriate actions to address environmental issues faced by the macro-region will contribute to implementing the EU Environmental acquis, particularly the Marine Strategy Framework, Maritime Spatial Planning, Water Framework, Urban Waste Water, Nitrates, Waste, Birds, Habitats Directives as well the Green Infrastructure Strategy. It will also contribute to achieving the goals set out in the Common Fisheries Policy, the EU Adaptation Strategy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

- BOX 13 - EBSAS Platform for Europe 2020 Strategy In this context, EBSAS can offer a valuable platform to develop:

ďƒ°

Valuable scientific collaboration, enhance knowledge of marine biodiversity, contribute to regional national conservation efforts, and provide starting point for future long term assessment research and monitoring. Many of the actions listed under both topics depend on research and innovation for reliable and up-to-date data for identifying baseline situations and hence for monitoring progress. There is a clear need for sharing existing knowledge and development of scientific cooperation, notably through innovative integrated observatory infrastructure and data exchange platforms across the Region and across sectors.

ďƒ°

Capacity building and communication. Macro-regional cooperation in the field of environment can only be successful if there are adequate legislative and institutional conditions at the national level. Moreover, after the necessary legislation has been put in place, environmental protection requires monitoring and enforcement. Capacity building and communication can contribute to raising awareness of the issues and ownership of efforts to address them as well as to aligning national environmental legislation to existing EU legislation in conformity with the international and regional conventions.

Two issues can be identified as particularly relevant for the Adriatic-Ionian marine environment, namely threats to coastal and marine biodiversity and pollution of the sea. While the marine subregion has rare or unique habitats, there is a lack of habitat maps covering the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, and the understanding of marine biodiversity is still not complete. The high biodiversity of the two seas is the basis for tourism, recreational and fishing activities and contributes to the cultural heritage of the macro-region. Overfishing, habitat degradation and incidental catches pose serious threats to marine biodiversity, including fish, sea turtle, cetacean, seabird and other species. In addition, uncontrolled and illegal coastal development often leads to destruction of habitats.

Invasive alien species from aquaculture and ballast water discharge also threaten ecosystem functions, and illegal collection of sponges, corals and bivalves are further cause for concern.

Increased human use of the marine and coastal space, in particular for fishing, maritime transport, tourism, and construction, has intensified pressures on coastal and marine ecosystems. Ecosystembased approach to coordination of activities is needed within the framework of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) in order to ensure sustainable use of resources. Both frameworks are important stimulants for trans-boundary collaboration and stakeholder cooperation across different coastal and maritime sector activities, and have potential for bringing together ecosystem services and Blue Growth opportunities in a sustainable way. They are key tools for achieving decision-making balancing sector-based interests competing for marine 45

and coastal space. In this context, EBSAS can demonstrate and develop Participatory and collaborative governance model frameworks for an integrated management approach.

The Adriatic and Ionian Seas are home to almost half of all the recorded marine species found in the Mediterranean Sea. High variation in hydro-geographic and other conditions gives rise to a large number of diverse ecosystems and habitats, in turn generating rich biodiversity. A complete inventory of this rich biodiversity and marine habitat maps is however still missing. The highly indented eastern coast of the Adriatic also acts as a breeding ground and nursery to a large number of species. At the same time, the Adriatic and Ionian Seas are subjected to intense fishing activity, aquaculture and coastal development that pose serious threat to this natural capital. There is a general lack of information on small-scale fisheries, illegal fishing gear is not uncommon, and monitoring and enforcement are insufficient. Aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry which is not regulated in all countries so as to ensure sustainability. Raising the awareness of fishermen regarding marine species and fishing nets minimising by-catch, is needed for improving compliance and for strengthening their involvement in identifying the best measures for meeting sustainable fishing targets. Illegal and uncontrolled construction is a widespread phenomenon across much of the macro-region, with the demand for additional construction stemming from tourism further exacerbating the problem.

Coverage in terms of offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) beyond 12 nautical miles is the lowest of all EU marine regions, while existing MPAs are often not adequately managed. Invasive marine alien species with possible detrimental effects to aquaculture and fisheries are introduced by shipping vectors.

- TABLE 5 - EBSAs Umbrella for EUSAIR Marine Strategies AREA Increasing marine knowledge

EUSAIR ACTION

 





Enhancing the network of Marine Protected Areas



ACTORS

Make an inventory of marine biodiversity and detailed habitat mapping in coastal and offshore areas.

Agree on a common approach to be applied across the Adriatic and Ionian sea basin for monitoring diversity descriptors on the status of the marine environment the two seas Establish a common infrastructure platform in terms of data collection, marine research, lab analysis through common survey programs, research vessels and laboratories.

Develop a Web-GIS Observatory Network to gather and process geographical and statistical data related to sustainable development and the marine environment.

• Research

By possible designation of new areas in coordination with the process of designation of EBSAS; by establishment of Fisheries Restricted Areas under the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), by completing marine NATURA 2000 network under Birds

• National Authorities

ACTIVITY



institutes

• National

Authorities

• Regional



authorities

• NGOs



• Regional Authorities • NGOs



Guidelines on ecosystem based fisheries management (building on CREAM 2011-2014 FP7 http://www.creamfp7.eu/) Assessment of the dual impact of human activity and natural pressures by merging natural and socioeconomic science approaches to predict the long-term effects of pressures on marine ecosystems (building on PERSEUS http://www.perseusnet.eu/site/content.php) National marine biodiversity inventories and habitat mapping projects Protection, improvement and integrated management of the sea environment and of crossborder natural resources (building on ECOSEA http://www.ecosea.eu) 46

and Habitats Directives; by designating further protected areas to form a coherent and representative network of MPAs according to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; and by ensuring their joint or coordinated management, also in relation to maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management;

Exchanging best practices among managing authorities of Marine Protected Areas



Aiming to achieve and/or to maintain the Good Ecological Status of marine waters and to preserve biodiversity also by integrating a fishing component in each MPA (e.g. Fishing Protected Areas);





 MPAs’ Managing Authorities



 National Authorities  Regional civil society  NGOs





Implementing Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management



By ensuring coordination of different projects/initiatives with the frameworks provided by the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive and the Priority Action Plan of UNEP/MAP (specifically the implementation of the ICZM Protocol of the Barcelona Convention and the facilitation of EBSAS).

 National Authorities



 Regional Authorities  Research institutes



 Private Sector,  NGOs





Identifying Mediterranean Sensitive Habitats and gathering and disseminating GIS data (building on MEDISEH http://mareaproject.net/c ontracts/5/overview/ Guidelines to design, manage and monitor network of MPAs creating a permanent network of excellent researchers (building on CoCoNET http://www.coconetfp7.eu/).

Using the experience of MEDPAN and building on the work of the AdriaPAN, a network of all managing authorities of Marine Protected Areas of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, to exchange best practice and work on measures to improve ecological status of the seas, including through fishing measures.

Exchanging best practices among Marine Protected Areas regarding actions, also outside PAs, and in coordination with relevant actors, preventing introduction of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), quickly eradicating newly emerging IAS, and controlling established ones.

Exchanging best practices for managing NATURA 2000 areas, including designating fishery measures under the new Common Fishery Policy Implementing common spatial information systems on ecosystem components and human uses and activities Implementing pilot projects for the Ecosystem Approach (ECAP) developed under the Barcelona Convention Promoting a coherent transnational approach to the spatial planning of the Adriatic and Ionian seas and implementing common Maritime Spatial Plans ((Building on the ADRIPLAN http://adriplan.eu, http://data.adriplan.eu/) Development of a multilevel and cross-sector governance system, based on holistic 47



approach and on an integrated management of the natural resources, risk prevention and conflict resolution among uses and users of the Adriatic coast and sea (building on SHAPE http://www.shapeipaproject.eu/).

Development of a shared ICM Governance Platform' to bridge the gap between scientists and decisionmakers (building on PEGASO http://www.pegasoproject .eu/).

BOX 14 - EBSAS Approach in EUSAIR Marine Policy Concerning Marine Environment, supporting an EBSAS approach in EUSAIR policy could help in achieving important target, such as:



Establishment of a common infrastructure platform with participation of all countries for data collection, research, and laboratory analysis



Increase the percentage of surface coverage of Adriatic and Ionian Seas by Marine Protected areas, in line with the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biodiversity and related commitments of the EU and the Barcelona Convention

 

Achieving of the Good Ecological Status of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas by 2020 Enhancement of a marine NATURA 2000 network and a coherent and representative network of MPAs under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive by 2020.

4.3. THE ADRIATIC FRAMEWORK: AGREEMENTS AND STRATEGIES Actually, four key initiatives on cross-border cooperation already exist in the Adriatic Sea that could help and facilitate the dissemination of the EBSAS concepts in this basin: the Joint Commission for the protection of the Adriatic, the Adriatic Ionian Initiative, the Adriatic Euro region and the IPA Adriatic Programme. International agreements are also in place among the Adriatic Sea countries and/or regions.

All

these

initiatives,

projects

and

international

agreements

show

that

cross-

border/international cooperation is well advanced in this area, providing a good basis for a cooperative effort aiming to implement EBSAS in an Adriatic basin perspective. A big boost to coordinated actions, also on MSP 72 and ICZM issues, will derive from the adoption and implementation of EBSAS approach.

MSP seeds have been planted and are starting to sprout in the Adriatic, including for example: the Croatian Coastal and Marine Strategy to be developed in the next future, the Italian Ritmare Flagship project on marine research including a subproject on MSP, the Slovenia Resolution on the National Maritime Development Programme (OG RS, No. 87/2010) taking into account IMP principles and goals, the Strategic Plan for Marine and Coastal Protected Areas under development in Albania, the Spatial Plan for the Coastal Zone of Montenegro including territorial waters and the connected CAMP project.

48 72

Table 6 – Adriatic Framework EBSAS

COUNTRY

TRILATERAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ADRIATIC

ADRIATIC IONIAN INITIATIVE

ADRIATIC EUROREGION INITIATIVE

ADRIATIC CROSSBORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMME

North Adriatic

Slovenia

X

X

X

X

Italy

X

X

X

X

Croatia

X

X

X

X

Montenegro

X

X

X

X

Albania

Expression of interest

X

X

X

Central Adriatic South Adriatic

4.3.1. Trilateral Commission for the protection of the Adriatic The Trilateral Commission for the protection of the Adriatic originates from the bilateral commission between Italy and Yugoslavia (1974), which was re-launched in 1992, including Italy, Croatia and Slovenia. Montenegro has recently become a member of the initiative. Even though the other Adriatic countries – Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina – do not form part of the Trilateral Commission, their interest in activities conducted by the Trilateral Commission was expressed. They were invited for – and attended – the last meetings of the Trilateral Commission. The main goal of the Trilateral Commission is the protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas against pollution.

Therefore, the Commission: (i) studies all problems related to the pollution of the Adriatic Sea waters and coastal areas; (ii) does propositions and recommendations to the government related to the research needed; (iii) is engaged in introducing measures required to eliminate the current pollution and prevent new causes of pollution.

BOX 15 - Trilateral Commission for the protection of the Adriatic and EBSAs The Trilateral Commission presents the adequate institutional framework for the cooperation of the Adriatic States in the field of marine environmental protection. Moreover, the work of the Trilateral Commission has proved to be an efficient model, housing different aspects of marine environmental issues and providing for appropriate response to new challenges.

Consequently, the Trilateral Commission is believed to be the instrument to come to a common vision – a long-term EBSAs strategy with regard to cross-border/international cooperation in Northern Adriatic.

Main topics approached by the Commission are: o o o o o

Ballast water management in the Adriatic Sea; Implementation of the Sub-Regional Intervention Plan for Cases of Sudden Adriatic Sea Pollution; EU Marine Strategy Directive; The integrated management of coastal areas and safe harbours.

The members emphasised the importance of coordination and synergy of all activities in the Adriatic for the purpose of its efficient protection and sustainable development.

4.3.2. Adriatic Ionian Initiative The Adriatic-Ionian Initiative was established at the Conference on the Development and Security in the Adriatic and the Ionian Sea in Ancona on 19-20 May 2000, at which the Ancona Declaration was adopted by which member countries committed to co-operate in order to strengthen peace and security in this part of Europe, good neighbourly relations, economic development, land transport 49

connections, eliminate all forms of crime, technical assistance, environmental protection, health and cultural co-operation, tourism development and maritime co-operation.

BOX 16 - The Adriatic-Ionian Initiative and EBSAs The Adriatic-Ionian Council was established at the ministerial level, and it decides on all basic and specific issues, including the areas and forms of co-operation between the Initiative member states, co-operation with other international organizations and initiatives, as well as political issues in the region. In this perspective can offer an important platform to support the process of EBSAs in Adriatic.

This platform for cross-border/international cooperation includes representatives of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. The Initiative's work is carried out through round tables which are divided in four thematic units: 1) Environment and Fire Protection; 2) Tourism, Culture and Interuniversity Co-operation; 3) Small and Middle-Sized Entrepreneurship; 4) Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The Adriatic-Ionian Initiative dealt and deals with among others: o o

o o

The Adriatic Action Plan, adopted in 2003; Contingency plan for the Adriatic, including a Sub-regional Contingency Plan for the Northern Adriatic (Slovenia, Italy and Croatia), to be coordinated by the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) issued in 2005; Proposal for the designation of the Adriatic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA); Strategic Environmental Assessment of Maritime Activities including Ballast Water Issue.

4.3.3. Adriatic Euroregion Initiative The Adriatic Euroregion (AE) was founded on June 30, 2006 in Pula, Region of Istria, Croatia for transnational and interregional cooperation between regions of the Adriatic coastline. The Adriatic Euroregion is the institutional framework for jointly defining and solving important issues in the Adriatic area. It consists of 26 members - regional and local governments from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro and Slovenia.

The aims of the AE are the following: o o o o o

Forming an area of peace, stability and co-operation; Protection of the cultural heritage; Protection of the environment; Sustainable economic development in particular of tourism, fishery and agriculture; Solution of transport and other infrastructure issues.

The Adriatic Euroregion is divided in 6 technical Commissions, namely for: o o o o o o

Tourism and culture; Fisheries; Transport and infrastructure; Environment; Economic affairs; Welfare.

BOX 17 - Adriatic Euroregion Initiative and EBSAs

The Adriatic Euroregion represents a model of co-operation that includes trans-national and inter-regional co-operation between regions of the Adriatic coastline and could be a valid tool to develop EBSAs model of governance.

50

4.3.4. Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme73 is the result of joint programming work carried out by Italia, Montenegro, Greece, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and is part of the cooperation process in the Adriatic area.

BOX 18 - Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and EBSAs This program support Cross-border cooperation, Regional development, Human resources, Rural development, Transitional assistance and Institution building in Adriatic Region. The overall objective is the strengthening of sustainable development capabilities of the Adriatic region through a concerted strategy of action between the partners of the eligible territories.

The programme is based on four priorities and relatives measures: 1) Economic, Social and Institutional Cooperation with measures on: 1.1) Research and innovation; 1.2) Financial support to innovative SMEs; 1.3) Social, Labour and Health Networks; 1.4) Institutional cooperation.

2) Natural and Cultural Resources and Risks Prevention with measures on: 2.1) Protection and Enhancement of the Marine and Coastal Environment; 2.2) Natural and Cultural Resource Management and Prevention of Natural and Technological Risks; 2.3) Energy Saving and Renewable Energy Resources; 2.4) Sustainable tourism.

3) Accessibility and networks with measures on: 3.1)Physical infrastructures; 3.2) Sustainable Mobility Systems; 3.3) Communication networks 4) Technical Assistance 4.3.5. Research programs/projects in Adriatic EBSAs Areas Actually several relevant research and projet are taking plce in the Adriatic EBSAs Areas, such as: 

ADRIAMED74: Scientific cooperation to support responsible fisheries in the Adriatic Sea (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Italy).



DEVOTES75: Development of strategic indicators and innovative tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing Good Environmental Status (GES) in terms of contribution to the MSFD.



PERSEUS76. Interactions (pressures and components) possible effect of these pressures in the different components in Adriatic Sea.



CIESM-Marine Peace Parks. The aim of this initiative was to identify new marine peace parks.



ADRIPLAN77: Funded by the EU, this initiative is aimed at refining and providing recommendations and guidelines on maritime spatial planning in North and South Adriatic Sea.

http://www.adriaticipacbc.org/index.asp?page=interna&level=programme This project has been ongoing since 1999 with funding from MIPAAF and EC- DGMARE (http://www.faoadriamed.org/).

75 DEVOTES may provide information for the biodiversity of the deep Adriatic sea (http://www.devotes-project.eu/).

76 http://www.perseusnet.eu/site/content.php?locale=1&sel=419&artid=364 77 The regions where selected on the scientific knowledge and the availability of authorities(www.adriplan.eu 73 74

51



CoCoNet78. The approach of this project is mostly science based and is focused on MPA network design. It aims to identify networks of potential or existing small-scale MPAs many, which could support wind-farms in the north-western Mediterranean and in the Black Sea.



VECTOR79. Aims to improve understanding of how environmental and manmade factors are currently impacting marine ecosystems how they will do so in the future. The project addresses invasives, outbreaks and changes in fisheries distribution and productivity.



NETCET project. Cofunded by the IPA Adriatic CBC Programme and more specifically within the Priority 2 “Natural and Cultural Resources and Ris Prevention”, the general aim of this Cross-border Cooperation Programme is strengthening sustainable development capabilities of the Adriatic region through a concerted strategy of action among the partners of the eligible territories. The main objective of the NETCET project is to develop common strategies for the conservation of cetaceans and sea turtles in the Adriatic through a pan-Adriatic cooperation. The NETCET project runs from October 2012 to September 2015.

4.4. ADRIATIC MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES80 The Adriatic Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with a surface area of about 138,600 km2 and a volume of 33,000 km3; its shape can be approximated to a rectangle extending north-northwest, about 800 km long and 200 km wide. Adriatic oceanographic properties are influenced by geographic, orographic and bathymetric characteristics of the basin as well as by interactions with the rest of the Mediterranean Sea. To this regard, with total annual average reaching about 5,700 m3/s river inputs play a significant role, in particular in the north-western part of the basin where Po river accounts for about the 28% (1,585 m3/s) of the total annual river contribution and where other relevant rivers flow (e.g. Adige and Brenta). The second most relevant freshwater inflow comes from the Albanian rivers, however having a weak influence on the circulation in the region. The Strait of Otranto (72 km wide and 780 m deep) ensures the connection with the rest of the Mediterranean, thus enabling water exchanges and influencing the circulation pattern between the Ionian and the Adriatic Seas. The Adriatic Sea bathymetry is also characterised by important transversal and longitudinal differences.

The North Adriatic sub-basin (extending between Venice- Trieste and Ancona-Zadar lines) rarely exceeds the depth of 100 metres and its north-western part is particularly shallow. The depth firstly increases slowly southward and then sharply reaches about 270 m of the Middle Adriatic Pit (also called Jabuka Pit or Pomo Depression). Further to the south, the seabed rises to the Palagruza Sill (about 170 m) that separates the Middle Adriatic Pit from the much deeper South Adriatic Pit (and the Middle Adriatic sub-basin from the South Adriatic sub-basin). This pit marks the deepest part of the Adriatic Sea with a maximum depth over 1200 m. Further south the seabed rises again to the Otranto Sill (about 780 m). The Adriatic Sea is bordered by six coastal states; three are EU countries

WP2. This is a science-based project focused on the distribution of deep and coastal habitats and gathering information to implement MPA networks(http://www.coconet-fp7.eu/index.php/aboutcoconet).

79 http://vector.conismamibi.it/ 80 See Annex 3, pag. 124.

52 78

(Italy, Slovenia and Croatia), one is EU candidate country (Montenegro) and the other two are EU potential candidates (Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina). The Italian coasts are relatively smooth and regular, in particular in the north-western part of the basin, while the eastern part of the coast (mainly in Croatia) is characterised by an irregular bottom that increases sharply in the offshore direction and a high number of islands and islets (in particular along the Istria and Dalmatia coasts).

The eastern side is also characterised by the close proximity of the Dinaric Alps, while in the western side the main orographic reliefs (the Apennine) are more distant from the coast. North-western coastal areas also includes large wetlands (as the Po delta and Venice lagoon) of high ecological relevance.

4.4.1. The Adriatic vision The Adriatic Sea, one of the most valuable inland seas of the world, is strategic for the wellbeing and prosperity of all the countries facing this basin, as also stressed by the EC Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas and the on-going initiative drafting the overarching EUSAIR. This marine region has a relevant ecologic, economic and social value, as route for maritime transport, food and energy source, site for residence and recreation, destination for coastal and marine tourism, relevant site for nature protection and biodiversity preservation, climate regulator, area for cross-border cooperation, site for innovative ad cross-border research, etc. However its coastal and marine areas are experiencing increasing pressures due to growing human activities; these often come into conflict with each other and with needs of habitats and landscapes protection. Human uses compete each other for vital space and natural resources, threatening some of the most sensitive and precious habitats of the Adriatic Sea. Global challenges as climate change and the related sea level rise could in future strongly affect Adriatic coastal and marine areas, exacerbating current problems with effects often going beyond national or regional boundaries. According to the environmental vision, the Adriatic Sea is a healthy and resilient marine ecosystem satisfying requirements and goals set by the MSFD, the UNEP-MAP Barcelona Convention and its protocols, as well as the objectives of the Joint Commission for the Protection of the Adriatic Sea and its Coastal Areas. The environmental vision also foresees an adequate protection of the Adriatic marine and coastal areas with high natural and ecological value and the preservation of Adriatic biodiversity.

This is in particular reached through the improvement of the ecological network of marine protected areas, according to Natura 2000 and Barcelona Convention objectives. A healthy and resilient marine environment can provide ecosystem services for the human well-being, thus supporting the sustainable economic development based on the Green and Blue economy.

BOX 19 – Adriatic Sea Vision and EBSAS The implementation of the environmental vision goals requires a joint effort towards an integrated environmental monitoring system at the Adriatic Sea scale, taking into account also marine areas that do not fall under national jurisdiction and in this perspective, EBSAS can offer a paramount umbrella.

According to the economic vision potentials of the Adriatic marine and coastal areas for jobs and sustainable economic growth are identified, explored and capitalised. The role of ecosystem services in supporting economic development is properly recognised and economically valorised.

53

The economic development occurs without compromising the environmental quality of the Adriatic ecosystem and habitats and respecting the principle of equity across the basin. The marine and maritime sectors are considered highly relevant for the future Blue Growth of the Adriatic Sea: shipping (including commercial, industrial and passenger maritime transportation), port activities, coastal and marine tourism (including cruising and boating), aquaculture and fishery. Other significant sectors related to the previous ones are: seafood processing, marine equipment and maritime services (e.g. to shipping and boating). Innovative Blue economic sectors are investigated and assessed in terms of feasibility and sustainability and possibly developed; these include: energy production from renewable sources (including innovative modalities as current and wavepower devices) and blue biotechnology, i.e. the production of metabolites and primary compounds from Adriatic biologic resources as inputs for food, feed and chemical industries. According to a social vision, the Adriatic culture and traditions are acknowledged and strengthened, and represent one of the basis for innovation and economic development. Improved connection reinforces the culture of cooperation across the basin. Stronger cooperation is implemented to address relevant social issues in a pan-Adriatic perspective, as for example in the case of irregular migration and peace keeping. Sustainable and safe land and seaborne connections (including intermodality) are fundamental to strengthen social and commercial links across and outside the Adriatic region.

According to a governance vision, the management of the Adriatic Sea is based on an integrated, ecosystem-based and adaptive approach. Adriatic countries elaborate and implement national Maritime Spatial Plans, integrated with ICZM Strategies. The reinforced culture of cooperation enables the common management of the Adriatic Sea also beyond national jurisdiction; the marine space and resources are shared fairly in a way that benefits and disadvantages are evenly distributed among countries. Governance of EBSAS at the Adriatic Sea scale could be ensured either through an existing structure or a new cooperative initiative specifically launched for this scope. Concerning a cross-cutting elements of the vision, Climate change adaptation in the coastal and marine sectors is strongly reinforced, requiring and generating actions (mainstreaming) in the environmental, economic, social and governance sectors. This implies that the Adriatic basin is more prepared to cope with climate change impacts and related risks for people and socio-economic activities.

Particular attention is given to climate change adaption in the marine and fisheries sectors, given the fact that at the moment this is poorly investigated. Adriatic countries cooperate on climate change mitigation as well, committing to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases derived from marine-based human activities. Improved research represents another key cross-cutting element of the Adriatic vision. The cooperative attitude can facilitate the creation of maritime clusters and research networks that aim to spur innovation. Research and innovation support the Blue Growth based on sustainability principles and the preservation of Adriatic habitats and biodiversity.

BOX 20 – Adriatic Governance and EBSAs The Adriatic-Ionian Region is heterogeneous in terms of economic and administrative capacity. This makes cooperation between countries challenging. Existing cooperation frameworks in the Region are primarily sector-based, in the absence of a joint strategic framework for cooperation facilitated by the EBSAS, challenges to joint action are likely to persist.

54

The Adriatic Sea is a complex ecosystem that cuts across administrative borders. It is subject to considerable pressures from sectors such as fishing, aquaculture, shipping and marinas, energy, harbours facilities, tourism. These uses compete each other for vital space, threatening some of the most sensitive and precious habitats. To face these conflicts and mitigate the environmental impacts, it is necessary to make a holistic analysis supporting the development of coherent pictures and the creation of spatial plans, examining the issue of the needed integration among different policy tools.

BOX 21 – EBSAs potentialities in Adriatic Sea Adriatic Sea is one of the Mediterranean area with the highest potential for the application of the EBSAS. These potentialities are related to: 

Enhance our knowledge of marine biodiversity in deep-sea habitat and ocean open, to date mainly concentrated on marine areas close to the coast;



Facilitate valuable scientific cooperation, supporting the availability of national and regional frameworks for marine policy or coastal planning to date mainly approached in a sectorial way;



Contribute to regional and national conservation efforts, to date face of the intense use of the sea and the foreseen increase in sea uses and conflicts between human activities;



Provide a starting point for future long term assessment, research and monitoring, coordinating the existence of crossborder cooperation initiatives among Adriatic countries and coastal regions.

EBSAS is a fairly new and emerging process in the Adriatic Sea. The process is therefore at an embryonic stage and its context is characterised by differences in the existing legal, policy and planning framework depending on various factors, including different needs within the basin and longer or shorter membership to the European Union. Strong and effective coordination on marine and maritime issues within countries (i.e. among national, regional and local authorities) still needs to be established. Adriatic countries did not develop by 2013 an Integrated Maritime Policy and the management of maritime space and resources is still fragmented. However, several sector laws, plans and operative instruments related to the management of the marine space and maritime activities are well developed in all the countries of the basin, with differences also depending on the EU membership; these all together represent a good and well developed starting point for the future development of EBSAS in the Adriatic region. Coastal and marine ecosystems provide a variety of ecological functions that directly or indirectly translate to economic services and values to humans.

The challenge is to regulate or indeed plan these activities, overcoming the sectoral approach, furthermore integrating horizontally and vertically different agencies competences with their own specific legislative approach to the allocation and use of maritime space. Finally cross border issues are to be taken into account since developments in one country may have implications for another country.

4.4.2. Adriatic Heterogeneity There are considerable disparities among the States facing the Adriatic-Ionic basic in terms of GDP per head and unemployment rate, institutional and administrative capacity. There are socioeconomic disparities both in terms of GDP per head and unemployment rates, there are stark contrasts between countries and clusters involving business, research and the public sector are 55

scarce. In the Adriatic-Ionian Region, governance is a key challenge. In addition to considerable imbalances with respect to administrative and institutional capacity and experience in cooperation, the countries in the Region harbour highly different political structures, institutions and governance systems. These imbalances and differences affect the capacity to respond jointly. Although accession and prospective accession to the EU are improving the situation, new systems take time to be put in place. First and foremost they require changes in mind-sets and raised awareness unlikely to happen overnight. Bridging political divides, building confidence among public and private stakeholders as well as trust among neighbouring countries, improving skills and developing effective institutional capacity and management mechanisms, are all tasks calling for medium-term support within a macro-regional framework.

4.4.3. Lack of effective coordination/cooperation between countries To date, Adriatic-Ionian countries have tended to define their policies and taken their investment decisions individually and in an uncoordinated way. There is a need to act in a more coherent way to allow policies and actions taken by the different participating countries to be mutually reinforcing, increasing their overall effectiveness and efficiency. In general terms, challenges requiring a cooperation approach relate to connectivity and environmental quality, while opportunities to be better exploited through joint action relate to blue growth and tourism. At this stage, cooperation among nations is still far to be reached, even due to relevant differences in government structures that make difficult to introduce uniform solutions for policy-making. In order to reduce the actual legislative gaps and delays among Countries of the Adriatic Region, EBSAS can help the Region to be more consistent with international, European and regional goals concerning marine protection.

4.4.4. Need for strengthening existing cooperation structures Owing to recent history and to weak institutional and administrative capacity in several countries, focus has often been put on establishing national governance arrangements rather than transnational ones. Although a number of inter-governmental frameworks are already in place to facilitate transnational cooperation, most of these arrangements have a strong focus on country-bycountry approaches. More often than not addressing one issue at the time, these arrangements also tend to overlook interdependencies between policies and actions taken in different sectors. The result is a fragmented approach to many of the challenges of the Region and under-performance in terms of its potential. A number of cooperation structures and arrangements already address, for instance, fisheries, transport or environmental issues. To date, progress has however been poor in e.g. halting dramatic decline of fish stocks in the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin. As for environmental quality, despite programmes undertaken notably by UNEP/MAP and its MED POL, the level of pollution, notably in the North Adriatic, remains high and coverage in terms of offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) beyond 12 nautical miles is the lowest of all EU marine regions. Cooperation activities in these fields, in any, are often of a bilateral nature (with a few exceptions, e.g. within European Territorial Cooperation Programmes) and between EU Member States. The Joint Commission for the protection 56

of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas81 does not cover the Ionian Sea. Other initiatives have a wider geographical scope, such as is the case for the Barcelona Convention for all the Mediterranean. Of all existing cooperation structures, the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative (AII) has a geographical scope congruent with Adriatic-Ionian region.

BOX 22 –Adriatic Cooperation Structures 1)

Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of Commerce82. The Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of Commerce is a transnational non-profit organisation, which links the Chambers of Commerce of Italy, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia, Greece and Albania. Its main objective is to strengthen the cooperation and opportunities for socio-economic development in the Adriatic and Ionian Region. Topics of common interest include agriculture, environment, women's entrepreneurship, transport, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture.

2)

Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities83. Born on the initiative of the Municipality of Ancona and ANCI (Italian National Association of the Municipalities) and with the approval of the “Charter of Ancona” on 30th of April 1999. This association brings together the coastal cities of the 7 countries of the Adriatic-Ionian Basin: Italy (28 cities), Slovenia (2 cities), Croatia (9 cities), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1 city), Montenegro (3 cities), Albania (5 cities) and Greece (5 cities). The Forum aims to build and develop the economic, social, environmental and cultural heritage of the Adriatic and Ionian coastal cities and to collaborate on European integration and enlargement. It pursues this goal by promoting innovative forms of decentralized cooperation and partnerships between local authorities of the member countries.

3)

UNIADRION84 is a university network across the Adriatic-Ionian Region, which aims at establishing permanent connections among universities and research centres in the area. This university network is engaged in protection, cataloguing and promotion of cultural heritage; sustainable environment, cultural tourism and development, economy, communication, ports and economic relations.

4)

SAFESEANET85, European platform covering all European sea basins concerning maritime safety.

5)

AdriaMED, a FAO Regional project supports responsible fisheries in the Adriatic through scientific cooperation and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) monitors fish stocks throughout the Mediterranean.

6)

AdriGov86 is a project will capitalise on the existing cooperation networks and on the different initiatives, programmes and projects already set in place in the area constituting an operational support to the political process encompassing the Adriatic Euroregion and the Adriatic Ionian Macroregion aiming at offering a valid contribution to the adoption and elaboration of the Adriatic Ionian strategy, with a view to promote an innovative model of governance by coordinating and integrating regional and local communities. By conferring to the cooperation activities a concrete regional dimension, the project also intend to consolidate the integration process, both between and within states, through greater involvement of local authorities and civil society in the decision-making process and in the implementation of the EU regional policy.

7)

Adriatic Sea Partnership (ASP)87 Originally a Slovenian initiative in cooperation with the Regional Environmental Center, ASP was launched at the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) sub-regional conference on the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Adriatic in Portoroz, Slovenia, June 5-6, 2006. Financial support for the first phase of ASP has been provided by the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea and the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning.

8)

AdriaPAN Adriatic Protected Areas Network88 is a bottom-up initiative, started by 2 Italian marine protected areas, Miramare and Torre del Cerrano. The aim of the network is to make contacts between Protected Areas in the Adriatic

Established in 1977 under the Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas from pollution concluded in 1974 between the former Yugoslavia and Italy, this Commission only covers the Adriatic Sea. 82 http://www.forumaic.org/index.php?strLang=en 83 http://www.faic.eu/index_it.asp 84 http://www.uniadrion.net/ 85 http://emsa.europa.eu/operations/safeseanet.html 86 http://www.adrigov.eu/it/ 87 http://asp.rec.org/ 88 http://www.adriapan.org/index.php/en/ 57 81

easier, to improve their partnership effectiveness, both in management and planning activities. AdriaPAN is a growing network with a great potential for joining efforts in environmental protection, sustainable development. 10 Italian Protected Areas, both marine and coastal, initially signed the Cerrano Charter, the founding act ofAdriaPAN. Now the number has increased. It counts about 40 members from all countries bordering the Adriatic Sea, and more than 30 associated organizations (institutions, NGOs, businesses, etc.) interested in collaborating on AdriaPAN initiatives.

Most transnational cooperation structures in the Adriatic-Ionian Region are either developed under the umbrella of international organisations or have been set up in the context of initiatives of stakeholders spontaneously joining forces across borders89. Since the cross sectoral nature, all these policies are closely linked; the land –sea interface, as well as cross border issues, are gaining much more attention than in the past driving a new effort toward a major coordination in integrated plans and measures.

Recognizing that the Adriatic Sea can only be protected with a coherent,

functioning region-wide system of environmental protection and recovery, EBSAS can offer an innovative approach.

4.4.5 Lack of habitat maps covering the Adriatic and Ionian Seas The Adriatic and Ionian Seas are home to almost half of all the recorded marine species found in the Mediterranean Sea. High variation in hydro-geographic and other conditions gives rise to a large number of diverse ecosystems and habitats, in turn generating rich biodiversity. A complete inventory of this rich biodiversity and marine habitat maps is however still missing.

BOX 23 - EBSAs Process and Adriatic Mapping Mapping is a core activity of the EBSAS process, supporting various methodological steps. The following marine and maritime elements could be relevant in terms of mapping of current conditions: 

Marine Protected Areas, including Natura 2000 sites;



Marine administrative zones;



Other ecologically and naturalistically important marine areas; i.e. non–protected marine areas that are however naturalistically or ecologically relevant, for example due to some specific ecosystems or habitats (e.g. sea-grasses or rocky outcrops), ecological functions (spawning ground, nursery areas, feeding sites, etc.), high biodiversity, presence of key species (e.g. sea turtles or Mediterranean monk seal), re-colonisation projects (e.g. artificial reefs);



underwater archaeological sites;



wrecks;



principal routes of maritime transport and regulated navigation areas (maritime traffic separation scheme, safety zones and anchorage areas);



areas of high risks of sinking, collision and grounding;



location of principal industrial, commercial, fishery and tourist ports and harbours;



offshore infrastructure for non-renewable energy production and distribution;



renewable energy infrastructure (if realised) and areas investigated for possible future uses for renewable energy production;



underwater pipelines and powerlines;



coastal defence structures and interventions;



fishing areas and areas were fishing is not permitted;



mariculture;

Interesting is the case of Clean Adriatic Sea Alliance an entirely volunteer group of concerned, global citizens, working to preserve the beauty, cleanliness and biodiversity of the Adriatic sea, recently determined and dedicated to stop offshore drilling in Croatian Sea. 58 89



sand and mineral mining, including areas actually used for mining activities and area under exploration;



restricted military areas;



areas used for dumping of waste and remnants of war;



distribution of main land and marine-based environmental pressures;



water quality for bathing uses and according to 2000/60/EC (and in the future to oceanographic monitoring stations.

This ideal list of marine and maritime elements should be considered in the EBSAS process at the Adriatic Sea. However, operatively mapping capacity is constrained by availability of spatial data at the Adriatic basin scale90. Spatial data available may be used to elaborate thematic maps.

BOX 24 - Adriatic Thematic Maps 

Marine administrative zones, showing delimitation of the Adriatic continental shelf according to various international agreements and territorial waters of Italy, Slovenia, Istria, Montenegro and Albania.



Natura 2000 protected areas, including land-based and marine Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Sites of Community Importance (SIC).



Nationally designed protected areas, classified according to IUCN Protected Areas Categories, i.e.: Ia Strict nature reserve, Ib Wilderness area, II National park, III Natural monument or feature, IV Habitat/species management area, V Protected landscape/ seascape, VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources, other areas.



Biological Protection Zone, where commercial, sport and recreation fishing activities are subject to specific regulation.



Artificial reefs, for the protection and restock of fishery resources.



Principal wrecks, classified according to the nautical chart categories in: dangerous wrecks, non-dangerous wrecks and distributed remains of wrecks.



Main maritime transport networks, representing the routes of the Adriatic Motorways of the Sea and the principal ferry routes.



Regulate navigation areas approved by IMO, categorised as: areas to be avoided, traffic lanes, separation zones and precautionary areas.



Safety zones, around underwater pipelines and offshore installations and structures where human activities are subject to specific regulation. The map also shows safety areas where regulation includes no-navigation.



Anchorage areas, according to nautical charts and main port captaincies ordinances.



Ports and harbours, that for the Italian border are classified in: commercial/industrial ports, passengers ports, not-defined general ports, yacht ports and harbours, canal ports, dockyards, quays-piers-moles, and marina.



Offshore platforms for hydrocarbons extraction, including: production platform, support platform, platform not in use, floating storage unit and subsea wellhead.



The Adriatic offshore LNG Terminal, located in front of Port Levante about 15 km off the Veneto coastline.



Main Italian pipelines and powerlines.



Fishing regulated areas according to Council Regulation 1976/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea. The map in particular identifies: (i) areas where fishing with trawl nets, dredges, purse seines, boat seines, shore seines or similar nets are prohibited due to the presence of 2000 sites, (ii) areas with depth beyond 1000 m where the use of towed dredges and trawl nets fisheries is prohibited.



Mariculture sites, classified according to the farmed species.



Mineral titles; classified in: prospection instance, exploration instance, exploration permit, gran instance, and mining lease.



Restricted military coastal and marine areas, including danger zones and military practice areas.



Fouls areas – remnants of war, identifying: (i) areas where remnants of war is known or likely to be present, (ii) point location of remnants of war.

Spatial data, by 10th of February 2014, are available in the Atlas of SHAPE Project, no data is public, you need a special password to access into the web-site, in the Annex 2 the data from Veneto Region Official Document. They have a partial geographic coverage, being limited to only a part of the Adriatic basin that in most of the cases coincides with the western part.

59 90



Underwater dumping and disposal sites.



Bathing water monitoring stations, classified according to Directive 76/179/EC, in: compliant with the mandatory and guide values, compliant with the mandatory value, not compliant with the mandatory values, insufficiently samples and information not available.



Classification of coastal segments (for the Italian coastline) in relation to bathing water regulation;



Monitoring stations of quality of coastal and marine waters;



Oceanographic monitoring stations, belonging to the: ARPA Emilia-Romagna, ARPA Veneto, Croatian Hydrographic Institute and Italian networks.

4.4.6. Need to develop a Sustainable blue growth in Adriatic Region Characterised by a lack of clusters of companies, research centres and public agencies from several participating countries, the Adriatic-Ionian Region fails to exploit fully the advantages to be derived from trans boundary cooperation. This concerns in particular blue technologies. Outdated technologies, lack of support schemes, planning and financial funds, still limit blue R&D, notably in non-EU countries, while some key sectors – such as shipbuilding, the boating industry and logistics – risk losing competitive leverage. Full development of the Region's potential in marine biotechnology could favour the sharing of knowledge and the creation of high-skilled jobs and growth. The private sector is increasingly calling for joint actions in the field of innovation, for example in collecting and using marine and seabed data, and in developing new materials and analysing products. Fisheries constitute an important sector throughout the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin, with important social, economic and ecological implications. The social, cultural and economic contribution of fisheries is crucial at the local and regional levels, especially on islands and in remote coastal regions. Depletion of marine resources is, however, a recognised problem across the sea basin, although to a different degree for the two seas91. From the approximately 450 species of fish life of the area, 120 are threatened by excessive commercial fishing. The culture of compliance and the monitoring, control and surveillance capacity are still weak in many participating countries. The fishery sector also faces various challenges linked to global competitiveness and market forces. Fishery activities are predominantly of small-scale character. About 80% of commercial fishing vessels are below 15 meters long. While integrated control of fisheries is critical for the entire Adriatic-Ionian sea basin, participating candidate and potential candidate countries (with the exception of landlocked Serbia) are particularly dependent on such measures. In this perspective EBSAS can offer a special platform for a better cooperation across the sea-basin and can also trigger a virtuous process of increasing the profitability and competitiveness of fishery activities for the benefit of the coastal communities depending on fisheries. For the Adriatic, the benefits of changing fishing access rights, combined with sustainable management, are estimated at EUR 721 million annually 92. Aquaculture provides potential for alleviating pressure on open seas fisheries in the Region. The development of

According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), more than 75% of stocks in the Adriatic are overfished. In the Ionian Sea this percentage is lower (50%) but remains alarming (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/figures/status-of-fish-stocks-in-the-international-council-for-theexploration-of-the-sea-ices-and-general-fisheriescommission-for-the-mediterranean-gfcm-fishing-regionsof-europe/map_5-2_proportion-of-stock-final.ep 92 Costs and benefits arising from the establishment of maritime zones in the Mediterranean Sea. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2013.

60 91

a strong, high-quality aquaculture sector that is economically sustainable and environmentallyfriendly can contribute to creating jobs and to supplying healthy food products. However, a number of barriers prevent the development of the full potential of aquaculture in the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin: limited access to space and licensing; industry fragmentation; limited access to seed capital or loans for innovation; time-consuming administrative procedures and red tape93. Italy and Greece are important producer countries for farmed fish, producing over 280,000 tons per year. There is a significant potential in the Region for increasing capacity and thereby strengthening the economic development in the sector as well as decreasing pressure on wild stocks. While in Italy (especially on the North-Adriatic shore) aquaculture is strictly linked to the conservation of habitats, ecosystem services and tourism, other countries such as e.g. Greece, Albania and Montenegro lack appropriate planning in most suitable zones for aquaculture.

4.4.7. Weak Connectivity in Adriatic Region Maritime transport is an economic sector that can play a significant role in Adriatic- Ionian countries.

During the past the ports of the macro-region were unable to develop their container traffic as the Region was considered peripheral. Recent trends of trade have increased the competitive position of the North Adriatic ports as natural gateways to Central and Eastern Europe94. Ports also play a key role in local traffic. Tourism is heavily dependent on ports. On the problematic side, ports are a possible gate for unlawful trades concerning drugs, weapons and counterfeited goods, giving rise to serious security concerns. Ports will also need to invest substantially in order to meet technological, industrial, safety, security, environmental and climate change challenges. Investments in innovation and modernisation of infrastructure, promotion of safe and secure maritime traffic should be priorities in the entire area. Traffic monitoring and management remain pressing issues in the Region. The current Adriatic Traffic Reporting (ADRIREP) system, a mandatory Ship Reporting System in the Adriatic Sea, is outdated and is not fully serving the objective of monitoring maritime traffic in the face of increasing congestion. Significant improvements are still needed for harmonising procedures and data exchanges, and for establishing mechanisms to enable maritime traffic information exchange between national Vessel Traffic Management Information Systems, also enrolling the nonEU maritime participating countries in SafeSeaNet 95. Following years of isolation and conflict, the Adriatic-Ionian Region is characterised by considerable infrastructure disparities between the countries.

Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in the Mediterranean, Adriatic/Ionian and Black Sea. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2013, Report 2.

94 There is evidence that these ports could secure 6 million TEU containers/year of traffic by 2030 (or 11.3% of the EU market).

This would represent traffic growth of almost 350% over 20 years, provided good railway access is granted to the hinterland.

95 SafeSeaNet is a European vessel traffic monitoring and information system, established in order to enhance maritime safety, port and maritime security, marine environment protection and efficiency of maritime traffic and maritime transport in EU waters.

61 93

4.4.8. Threats to Adriatic Marine biodiversity Given that the Adriatic and Ionian Seas represent the backbone of the Region and constitute its major asset, maintaining these seas in a healthy condition should be an overall concern for all maritime countries. Under this topic two issues were identified as particularly relevant for the AdriaticIonian marine environment, namely threats to coastal and marine biodiversity and pollution of the sea. The Adriatic and Ionian Seas harbour rare or unique coastal and marine ecosystems. They are home to almost half of all the recorded marine species found in the Mediterranean Sea. This rich biodiversity is brought about by high variation in hydro-geographic and other conditions, resulting in a large number of diverse ecosystems and habitats. The highly indented eastern coast of the Adriatic also acts as a breeding ground and nursery to a large number of species. This high biodiversity of these seas is the basis for tourism, recreational and fishing activities, and contributes greatly to the macro-region's cultural heritage. Increased human use of the coastal and marine space, however, in particular for fishing, maritime transport, tourism and construction, has intensified pressure on coastal and marine ecosystems, often resulting in destruction of breeding grounds and habitats.

Aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry which is not regulated in all countries so as to ensure environmentally-friendly practices. Illegal and uncontrolled construction, sealing soils, is a widespread phenomenon along most shorelines, with demand from tourism for additional construction further compounding the problem. Incidental catches poses a threat to coastal and marine biodiversity, including fish, sea turtle, cetacean, seabird and other species. Invasive alien species from aquaculture and ballast water discharge also threaten endemic species, and illegal collection of sponges and corals are further cause for concern. Owing to its semi-enclosed and relatively shallow nature, the Adriatic is highly vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures. Its waters are exchanged with those of the open seas of the Mediterranean only once every 3 or 4 years and the North Adriatic is the shallowest part of the entire Mediterranean Sea, with an average depth of around 50 metres. The Ionian Sea is less vulnerable to such impacts as it is part of the open Mediterranean waters. However, pollution from the Adriatic is exchanged with the Mediterranean through the Ionian Sea, and the latter is therefore also affected by human activities in the Adriatic.

Pollution of the two seas originates from a number of different sources: intensive maritime transport resulting in oil spills, including large scale pollution events and noise pollution, pollution from rivers as a result of excessive use of nitrates on agricultural land and insufficient waste water treatment in several participant countries. Poor solid waste management result from a combination of scant investments in solid waste treatment infrastructure, lack of awareness on the part of the general public, weak enforcement and increasing urbanisation of coastlines. This in turn results in a large number of illegal landfills including hazardous waste. Pollution is also caused by ecologicallyunsound aquaculture practices, entailing discharge of nutrient and chemicals into the sea. Marine litter, stemming from both land-based sources and lost and discarded fishing gear, poses a serious problem to the entire sea basin. In addition to entailing significant costs to shipping operators, marine litter affects the safety and health of humans and marine wildlife. Coastal and recreational activities 62

account for more than half of the litter found on beaches. The Adriatic Flyway is one of the main routes for millions of migratory birds crossing the Mediterranean, with birds making a resting stop along the eastern Adriatic. A number of bird species also spend winters in the area. Alongside lack of areas in which hunting is banned, hunting rules that are not in line with EU legislation (as well as low enforcement of existing rules) result in vulnerable, threatened or endangered migratory bird species being killed. Climate change is expected to affect severely the Region natural habitats and biodiversity. Climate change effects on biodiversity can however be reduced by bolstering the general resilience of ecosystems.

4.4.9. Need to promote a Sustainable tourism in Adriatic Region Combined with outstanding natural capital, a rich cultural, historic and archaeological heritage constitutes one of the Adriatic-Ionian Region's strongest assets. Few tourism actors in the Region adhere to sustainable tourism based on innovative, high-quality tourism products and services with light ecological footprint that would make the Region an even more attractive destination.

Diversified and high-quality products and services can thus be vehicles for attracting more and/or different types of tourists, prolonging tourist seasons. By reducing the industry's dependence on the seasonal model, and by taking into consideration impacts of a changing climate, this approach will reinforce the Region's comparative advantage. Moreover, diversified forms of tourism96 have not been sufficiently integrated into wider regional development strategies. Such strategies could link these forms of tourism to creative and/or cultural industries, as well as cultural entrepreneurship with a view to further reinforcing the strong comparative advantage the Region has already built. The current state of Adriatic-Ionian cooperation in sustainable tourism management is rather limited.

There are few attempts of resolving collectively common problems in terms of organisation, human resources and funding. The net gains of a joint approach would encompass better management of increased tourist flows, including joint analysis of tourism trends and their potential impact. In order to develop products and services and to increase their quality and value, the tourism industry thus needs to build innovation transfer networks. Exchange of best practices (mainly at transnational and/or interregional level) as well as common branding of Adriatic-Ionian tourist products and services can reinforce a commercially strong competitive tourism industry in the Region which has to be anchored to the sustainable tourism concept. In many instances, intensive tourism activities are not managed soundly. These activities have negative effects (production of waste, unregulated construction, pressure on water, land and biodiversity, etc.) on the coastal and marine environment, on whose good environmental status they depend. The shared responsibility of all stakeholders, i.e. of the public and private actors as well as of tourists/visitors is therefore a fundamental principle to be built into the sustainable tourism approach.

E.g. cultural tourism, cycling and sports tourism, eco-tourism, thermal, health and wellbeing tourism, nature tourism, historical, scholastic, pilgrim tourism, agro-tourism, rural tourism, business, or tourism capitalising on the maritime and sub-aquatic cultural heritage, industrial heritage or the economic fabric of a region, etc.

63 96

4.5. ELEMENTS FOR A FUTURE EBSAS PROCESS IN ADRIATIC SEA The definition of a common vision for the future of the Adriatic Sea is an essential step of the implementation of the EBSAs process.

BOX 25 - Adriatic Common vision and EBSAs 

Elements for a common and shared vision are:



make clear why forward-looking thinking (and long-term perspective) is essential;



provide an holistic cross-sectoral view on issues that are often regarded separately;



facilitate the stakeholder dialogue;



help to achieve transnationality and cooperation

Given its central and guiding role of governance in the whole EBSAs process, the elaboration of a common and shared vision at the Adriatic scale needs a full stakeholder involvement. It is therefore a key step of the initial phase of EBSAs and an initial input for the shared vision can be derived from the numerous existing policy documents.

4.5.1. Pan-Adriatic view A pan Adriatic view requires the adoption of an holistic perspective, according to which the complexity of the Adriatic system is greater than the sum of its component parts; this complexity cannot be understood by the isolated analysis of the single parts. Objectives and targets have therefore to be set for the whole Adriatic, putting the common and shared vision into practice.

BOX 26 - Pan-Adriatic view and EBSAs process 

The Adriatic Sea must be considered and approached as a whole in all the stages of the EBSAs process.

4.5.2. Multi-scale approach A multi-scale approach is therefore needed; the regional to local scale zooming in can allow to properly consider spatial differences and to detail the analysis and the identification of EBSAs responses in most critical Adriatic areas, where concentration of conflicts among uses is higher. The multi-scale approach is needed in the other direction as well; a zooming out perspective is useful to establish links with EBSAs actions and initiatives occurring at the Mediterranean scale or with framing European policies and documents. This implies taking advantages of spatial differences, i.e. defining different priorities for different places and areas, however within the overall objectives and targets responding to the Pan-Adriatic view.

BOX 27 – Multi-scale approach and EBSAs process EBSAs must be able to acknowledge specificities of the different Adriatic regions, such as: Northern, Central and Southern basins; Western and Eastern Adriatic; From coastal waters to open sea.

4.5.3. Scientifically-based approach With the three Adriatic EBSAs in the process, this ambitious information-gathering exercise demonstrates how scientific expertise can catalyse management decisions. CBD through EBSAS can play an active role in providing strong and high-quality data and knowledge base and technical 64

advice to States and competent authorities but is removed from direct management action. Without formal cooperation or information-sharing mechanisms in place, however, it is unclear how institutions will make use of this scientific advice to enact management measures.

BOX 28- Scientifically based approach and EBSAs process EBSAs represents a valid platform of “good” knowledge, including also that generated by people living and working at the sea. An important effort should be put in processing data in forms useful for the decision-making process, including among the other thematic maps of current and future uses and maps of main conflicts. Exchange of knowledge (including AMP best practices) among Adriatic countries, with other Mediterranean countries and with other international initiatives launched in similar contexts should be encouraged and supported.

4.5.4. Stakeholder participation Not only stakeholders involvement can provide sources of knowledge and help in shaping data, it is also essential in achieving broad acceptance of the marine protection and support to its implementation. It is really important that stakeholder participation is organised ensuring a fair balance among various stakeholder typologies (e.g. representatives of: international organisations, national authorities, regional to local administrations, technical agencies, economic sector, NGOs, environmental and social organisations, research institutions, etc.) and among the different geographic areas of the Adriatic Sea. It is also important that the process stimulate the participation of the Adriatic citizens in general, regardless of their partnership to any associations. The concept of transparency is strictly connected to participation: the mechanism that brings to decision should be easily understood by all participants to the process and any data and document should be freely accessible.

BOX 29 - Stakeholder participation and EBSAs Process Stakeholder participation is required in all stages of the EBSAs process.

4.5.5. Cross-border cooperation Cross-border cooperation in EBSAs is essential at all levels: methodological (e.g. common methods, data and information sharing, best practice exchange, etc.), strategic (elaboration of a joint vision; definition of shared principles, objectives and targets; cross-sectoral planning), implementation (including shared monitoring, evaluation and progressive adjustment). Such cooperation shall in particular take into account issues of a transnational nature, such as cross-border infrastructure.

BOX 30 – Cross-border cooperation and EBSAs process Cross-border cooperation in the Adriatic Sea is considered particularly necessary on the following related issues: 

Data gathering and exchange. Constituting a necessary initial step in any cooperation initiative dealing with planning and management of cross-border issues. Cross-border cooperation could be very useful in covering major existing gaps, as those related to offshore areas and the deep sea.



Nature conservation. Acknowledging that the Adriatic Sea is not only characterised by intense human uses but also by coastal and marine areas of high naturalistic relevance and stressing the relevant role played by the Adriatic Sea in providing essential ecosystem services. The issue of nature conservation is strictly related to the need to improve networking among marine and coastal protected areas.



Climate change adaptation, marine research and innovation. Climate change adaptation and marine research and innovation represent cross-cutting issues to be approached in a cooperative perspective. When implementing the EBSAs 65

process, each of the identified key issues for cross-border cooperation in the Adriatic Sea will require the definition of a shared specific vision and related objectives and actions. 

Fishing and conservation of fish stocks. Considering the relevance of this socio-economic activity, it has a great relevance for both shores of the Adriatic Sea considering the intense pressure on natural stocks, the need of basin scale assessment on the real consistency of fish stocks and shared rules for their sustainable management.



Environment. Recognising the existence of cross-border environmental problems (such as eutrophication of coastal waters, chemical pollution in hot-spot areas, marine litter, marine transport’s impacts, biodiversity loss, marine habitat degradation, etc.) and the opportunity provided by the implementation of MSFD at the basin scale.



Spatial planning and regional development. Calls directly for the implementation of an MSP approach at the Adriatic scale. Particularly relevant for this issue is the coherent and harmonised implementation of MSP and ICZM at the basin scale.



Maritime transport. Maritime transport and the related port services, due to the high and increasing relevance of these activities in the Adriatic basin, including industrial and commercial maritime transportation, passenger shipping, cruising, and coastal and marine tourism. Cross-border cooperation is essential to: develop an integrated and efficient maritime transport system with improved hinterland connections (intermodality), provide the needed connectivity among Adriatic countries and coastal regions, ensure safety and security conditions, develop joint monitoring and response systems to cope with environmental impacts (including major accidental events as oil spills), etc.

4.5.6. Integration Integration is an essential feature of EBSAs and can assume different meanings.

BOX 31 – Integration and EBSAs Process 

Integration among the environmental, social, economic and governance dimensions is required to elaborate solutions able to properly respond to real sustainability objectives



Integration among sectors enables to go beyond sector policies, plans and legal instruments and provide win-to-win solutions for more than a single use of the sea;



Vertical and horizontal cooperation among administrations and technical agencies is a required step to proceed towards coordination and integration of sector policies and plans;

 Integration between terrestrial and maritime planning is essential to harmonise and ensure coherence among parts of the same system that interact each other through a relevant number of socio-economic and ecological processes.

4.5.7. Long-term perspective To ensure implementation of the common and shared vision of the Adriatic Sea a long-term perspective must be considered and applied in all the phases of the EBSAs process. EBSAs must therefore ensure that short-terms goals do not compromise the long-term goals. The long-term perspective is also essential in dealing with the challenges set by climate change adaptation of the marine and maritime sectors.

BOX 32 – Long-term perspective and EBSAs Process 

Long-term objectives are essential in dealing with the strategic and anticipatory nature of EBSAs and allow to plan and implement actions in a period long enough to get concrete results.

66

4.5.8. Legally binding rules EBSAs process can reinforce commitment of Adriatic actors in ensuring their participation in the longterm. As recalled in the EC COM(2013) 133 premises (point 7) “planning of ocean space is the logical advancement and structuring of the use of rights granted under UNCLOS and a practical tool in assisting Member States to comply their obligations”. However, at the scale of the Adriatic Sea. BOX 33 - Legally binding rules and EBSAs process 

To be effective the model of governance of EBSAs should be legally binding. EBSAs must address the marine space not falling within national jurisdiction as well; this opens the ground to a relevant and wide discussion on international legal and governance issues.

4.5.9. Connectivity The connectivity concept implies connections beyond administrative limits, which can generate social, economic, environmental and governance benefits within the EBSAs perspective. EBSAs approach with its strong scientific base and cross-sector approach will highlight possible complementarities and synergies between policies and programmes currently carried out in the Region by various existing cooperating structures, yet largely overlooked so far. It can thereby be instrumental to translating interdependencies between sector-based policies into concrete actions and projects. In the same stride it will help minimise risks of overlaps and duplication of efforts. By tying together the different policy areas EBSAs model of governance can furthermore support territorially coherent implementation of policies and programmes with a spatial dimension and socio-economic convergence. While existing cooperation structures in the Adriatic-Ionian Region each pursue objectives in a range of activities pertaining to e.g. socio-economic and infrastructure development, protection of the environment, transport, etc., they would nonetheless benefit from a more integrated approach. By providing a framework within which converging objectives can be identified, EBSAs can play an important role in promoting greater coherence among these structures.

The macro-regional approach can also be expected to strengthen cooperation between authorities within each country, thereby bolstering a multi-level governance.

BOX 34 - Connectivity and EBSAS Process Connectivity can be related to: 

Patches, in terms of connection of areas with similar or interrelated uses or functions. Connection of patches is particularly important for biodiversity preservation, acknowledging within EBSAs the fundamental ecological role of links between different habitats supporting the life cycle of Adriatic species (e.g. spawning ground, nursery areas, feeding



sites, etc.). Together with the habitats (patches), connections should be preserved through blue corridors (linear elements) for living species (similarly to the land concept of ecological network); both are essential in preserving the needed space for ecological processes. Connection of patch elements is also related to networking of marine protected areas.



Knowledge sharing, including: data sharing, exchange of best practice, capacity building, monitoring networks evolving towards real integrated monitoring systems, standardisation of operational procedures, etc.

67

KEYWORLDS: COMPLEX HYDROLOGY; BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT; PATHWAY FOR MIGRATIONS; IMPORTANT FEEDING AREA; ENDANGERED/VULNERABLE HABITATS; THREATENED SPECIES; CIRCULATION PATTERN; HIGH OCEANOGRAPHIC HETEROGENEITY; UPWELLINGS; HIGH PRODUCTIVITY; ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE; COMPLEX SUBMARINE GEOMORPHOLOGY; ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES; WATER POLLUTION; COASTAL AND MARINE TOURISM; FISHING; ALGERIA; EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE; EXCLUSIVE FISHING ZONE; ICZM STRATEGY; MSP; MARITIME ACTIVITIES; MARICULTURE; CAMP; MOROCCO; ALBORÁN PLATFORM; OVERFISHING; MEDWET COAST; SPAIN; MARINE FISHING RESERVES; OFFSHORE WIND FARMS; MEDITERRANEAN LOGISTIC PLATFORM; STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; MARITIME TRAFFIC; COLLISIONS; JURISDICTIONAL ASYMMETRY; STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION; VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL COORDINATION; COOPERATION; INTEGRATED DECISION-MAKING; CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION; ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS; SUSTAINABLE FISHING; MPAS; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; EUROPEAN COOPERATION; DATA COLLECTION; KNOWLEDGE PLATFORM; UNIFORM RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES; NETWORKS; EBSAS UMBRELLA; T ERRESTRIAL PLANNING VERSUS M ARINE SPATIAL P LANNING ; M ONITORING AND CONTROL ; C ROSS - SECTORAL NATIONAL COOPERATION .

68

5.1. The CBD Framework: The Alborán Sea and connected areas EBSAs With respect to Alborán EBSA, a premise is necessary. This study is a result of the Mediterranean workshop outcomes, where it was agreed the establishment of this EBSA area considered of ecological and biological interest. Unfortunately, despite the positive results of this workshop, in the last COP 12 of CBD governments have not reached an agreement in the same direction, therefore, to date, it appears not feasible the creation of an EBSA area in the Alborán. Nevertheless, this study wants to renew and underline the importance and value added of creating an EBSA to support more and better cooperation in the policies of conservation and sustainable development of the Mediterranean Sea. The area designated includes the Strait of Gibraltar, Alborán Sea and connected Spanish, Moroccan and Algerian areas towards the east, where 6 SPAMIs have been declared and one has been proposed (Alborán seamounts). The area has a complex hydrology due to the confluence of Atlantic and Mediterranean waters and the diverse seafloor geomorphology, with a heterogeneous shelf, various islands and a slope with abundant seamounts, submarine canyons and mound structures caused by fluid venting. These features facilitate the presence of a wide diversity of habitats and species, including a large proportion of endangered/vulnerable habitats and threatened species. Due to its geographical location, this biodiversity hotspot (more than 70% of the threatened Mediterranean marine flora and fauna display important populations in the Alborán Sea) resulting from the confluence of typical Atlantic (European and north-western African) and Mediterranean species also contain several endemic species of invertebrates (Strait of Gibraltar and Alborán Sea) and marine-birds and a large number of species that they only occur in this part of the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, it represents the obligatory pathway for migrations of large pelagics (bluefin tuna), sea turtles97 and marine mammals and represent an important feeding area for some of these threatened cetaceans98 and marine birds99. The area is located in the westernmost part of the Mediterranean Sea, between Spain, Morocco and Algeria, covering an area of ca 250,000 km 2.

The depth range spans between 0 and ca. 3300 m, with an average of ca. 2500 m 100. The circulation pattern101 is very complex in the Alborán Sea where surface and recent Atlantic Waters (AW) that The loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta is another important migratory species considered as being extinction threatened under the Habitat Directive, Barcelona Convention, Convention of Migratory Species and included in the IUCN red list of threatened species. There are important populations of the loggerhead turtle in the Alborán Seas as well as migratory movements and important foraging within the IMS area.

98 E.g. for killer whales (Orcinus orca) and sperm whales (Physeter microcephalus) and for the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). The short-beaked common dolphin merits particular attention, because its population in the Alborán Sea is one of the healthiest in the Mediterranean, after a dramatic decline in most of its Mediterranean range and Tursiops truncatus - listed in Annex II Habitat Directive, open-sea areas for Ziphius cavirostris or in both shelf and open sea areas for pilot whales (Globicephala melas). There are some records of the presence of monk seal (Monachus monachus) in the southern Alborán Sea (e.g. Chafarinas Islands, Habibas Island, Rachoun Island), but no current detailed information on their populations is available.

99 More than 20 marine bird species, including 7 threatened species. Two of these threatened species, the Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii) and the Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), are endemic of the area and productive areas within the area, such as the Alboran Sea and that between Ebro Delta and Balearic Islands are of high importance for feeding (on small pelagic fishes) and breeding at different seasons of these two migratory species. Subspecies of other marine birds (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis, Calonectis diomedea diomedea, C.d. borealis and Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii) also display important populations in this area, which is also of importance for wintering of other sensitive marine birds.

100 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA 2010b.

101 The upper layer of the Alborán Sea is influenced by the swift Atlantic current that forming two anticyclonic gyres, namely Western Alborán Gyre (WAG) and the Eastern Alborán Gyre (EAG). The circulation exhibits considerable variability, characterized by the stability of the two–gyre system in the summer months, and by a coastal jet sometimes called the Algerian 69 97

form 2-3 anticyclonic gyres, and nearbottom Western Mediterranean Deep Waters (WMDW) promote a high oceanographic heterogeneity and the presence of upwellings102. The general information reported for this area is based on scientific documents 103 and recent projects and assessments104. Some model outputs indicate that there is high productivity, high biodiversity and high proportion of endangered and vulnerable species in this area, and that it represents an area of importance for marine mammals, sea turtles and marine birds within the Mediterranean. The limits of the area are defined to the west as proposed by the Barcelona Convention and RAC/SPA, and to the east with a line joining Cape of Aguilas (Spain) to (Algeria). The average depth is 445 m, with a maximum depth of ca. 1,500 m in its eastern part. An arc of mountains, known as the Gibraltar Arc, wraps around the northern, western, and southern sides of the Alborán Sea. The Gibraltar Arc is made up of the Baetic Cordillera of southern Spain and the Rif Mountains of Morocco. Within the Mediterranean basin, water evaporation increases the salinity of the water mass compared to the water from the Atlantic input through the Strait of Gibraltar. Different areas of the northern and southern Alborán Sea display high levels of primary production due to upwelling105. These areas also contribute to high productivity of zooplankton and ichtyoplancton, including spawning and nursery areas of important commercial species (e.g. small pelagics). The Alborán Sea also represents an area of high biological productivity at different levels, promoted by the presence of nearly permanent upwellings in the north-western part of the basin. Unlike the Mediterranean Sea, which is generally considered an oligotrophic (low primary productivity) basin, the Alborán Sea is considered one of the highest centres of productivity in the Mediterranean Basin. The submarine geomorphology of the area is very complex with the presence of 2 main basins (Alborán and Algerian) and a narrow shelf 106 (generally less than 20 kms from the coast) and a slope 107 that can be abrupt, intermediate or progressive depending on its inclination. This wide variety of submarine structures in both the shelf and the slope in such a representative area as it is the Alborán Sea and its connected areas (Strait of Gibraltar and Gulf of Vera towards Algeria) promotes a wide diversity of substrate types and therefore of habitats and associated biota, resulting in ecosystems that are rich in species and in ecological interactions. A high number of habitats that are rare or threatened within the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean occur in this area because some habitat forming species only occur in this area of the Mediterranean Sea. In the outer shelf, besides the occurrence of important

Current flowing close to the African shore in the winter. This water mass, which is known as the Atlantic Surface Water mass (ASW) and occurs down to 150-200 m depth with temperatures ranging 9-16°C and salinity values increasing towards the east between 36.2-36.6‰.

102 IEO-MAGRAMA 2012a; IUCN, 2012, UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

103 Publications, conference proceedings, reports from different Spanish and international institutions and organizations (MAGRAMA, IEO, Universities, CSIC, Oceana, MARUM, IUCN, WWF, Greenpeace, etc).

104 INDEMARES, DEEPER, IDEADOS, MEDITS, Marine Strategy Framework Directive initial evaluation, MATE-CNL/FFEM/CdL Project/2006-2013.

105 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA 2010b; IEO-MAGRAMA et al., 2012a.

106 The shelf is heterogeneous and includes prodeltaic structures (linked to rivers), rocky outcrops that can be in some cases of volcanic origin (e.g. in front of Cape of Gata) and different types of carbonate shelves composed of Maërl (e.g., Cape of Gata, Alborán Island).

107 The slope display a wide variety of submarine structures such as different submarine canyons of different sizes (including those of the Alborán Ridge), seamounts of different relieves (Djibouti Bank, Alidade Bank and Yusuf ridge) several carbonate mounds of different origin, submarine structures caused by fluid emissions such as pockmarks and mud volcanoes as well as contouritic systems resulted from the strong deep near bottom water currents. UNEPMAP- RAC/SPA 2010b.

70

seagrass beds of 4 seagrass species108 and macroalgal beds of a wide variety of species109, other threatened, sensitive, productive and biodiverse habitats 110 increment the seafloor diversity111. Some of these habitats are common components of the seamounts, submarine canyons and cold seeps that occur in the Alborán Sea and are very sensitive to anthropogenic activities.

The main

anthropogenic impacts in the area are water pollution driven by the intensity of tourism in some coastal areas, fishing (e.g. bottom trawling, fishing lines) that has produced some impacts in certain habitat types and has also impacted sea turtles, cetaceans and seabirds, longline fishing, and shipping. According to the initial evaluation of the MSFD on the Spanish sector areas, the impact on the deep-sea and offshore habitats is not as high as in the shelf, and a low amount of information on this topic is still available for some areas. Some deep-sea areas are in very good conditions due to the low trawling activity and structural complexity of their habitats. The presence of alien species is not significantly higher than in other parts of the Mediterranean Sea, but there is little information is available for deep-Sea alien species. A number of projects, research programs, expeditions and sample processing from past projects are planned for this area 112.

MAP 5 - The Alborán Sea and Connected Areas meeting EBSAs criteria 113 C1: uniqueness or rarity (high); C2: special importance for life-history stages of species (high); C3: Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat (high); C4: vulnerability, fragility sensitivity, or slow recovery (high); C5 biological productivity (medium); C6 biological diversity (high); C7: Naturalness (medium).

Including the westernmost populations of Posidonia oceanica.

From kelps of the threatened species Laminaria ochroleuca to small coralline turfs.

110 E.g. Corallium rubrum, Dendrophyllia ramea, D. cornigera); Alborán platform and rocky bottoms along the shelf, gorgonians of Atlantic; Leptogorgia lusitanica, Eunicella verrucosa; north-western Africa (Eunicella labiata, E.gazella, Elisella paraplexauroides) (only mediterranean populations in Alborán Sea locations) and Mediterranean affinity (Paramuricea clavata) (Strait of Gibraltar, Alborán shelf), sponges of different affinities (Asconema setubalense that does not occur in other Mediterranean areas) as well as a wide variety of sedimentary habitats such as sea-pen dominated communities, sponge communities with rare species, facies of crinoids (Leptometra phalangium) and maërl beds.

111 Such as coralligenous bottoms dominated by corals In the slopes of the Alborán Sea, a wide variety of threatened and rare habitats also occur such as (1) cold-water coral reefs (dominated by Madrepora oculata, Lophelia pertusa, Dendrophyllia cornigera) (e.g. Strait of Gibraltar, Djibouti Bank, Chella Bank, Cabliers Bank), (2) giant deep-sea oyster aggregations (Neopycnodonte cochlear) (e.g. El Idrissi Bank), (3) Deep-sea sponge aggregations (e.g. Alboran platform, Chella Bank, Djibouti Bank), (4) Gorgonian and black coral gardens (e.g. Chella Bank), (5) compact muds with seapens or with bamboo corals (Isidella elongata) (e.g. throughout the sedimentary bottoms of the area) and (6) cold seeps displaying chemosynthetic communities (e.g. mud volcanoes Alboran Sea).

112 Such as INDEMARES, monitoring programs of the MSFD, MEDITS surveys, and programs of the Andalusian and Spanish Governments. Demersal stocks and environmental quality evaluation surveys are conducted by the Algerian government.

Monitoring programs are conducted by the Algerian Observatory of Environment and Sustainable Development and implementing the national Action Plan for MPAs that concern the Alborán Sea by the Algerian National Conservatory of Coastal. There is cooperation between the Algerian government and the Spanish Institute of Oceanography for pelagic evaluation of stocks in Algerian waters.

113 UNEP/CBD/SBTTA18/4/Add.1 71 108 109

5.2. THE ALBORAN FRAMEWORK: A COUNTRIES OVERVIEW 5.2.1. Algeria114 Algeria is one of the North African countries having a coastline on the Mediterranean Sea. At the seaside, Algeria is bordered by Tunisia in the east and Morocco in the west. Bilateral agreements are pending with the other countries with which it shares maritime boundaries (Spain, Morocco and Italy).

Concerning Maritime Jurisdiction115, Algeria did not establish an Exclusive Economic Zone; however, the country did establish an Exclusive Fishing Zone. Several steps towards the implementation of ICZM have been taken and an operational ICZM strategy has been developed. Algeria has a welldeveloped planning system at all levels concerned. Algeria with Spain and Morocco have created a platform - The Alborán platform - to discuss the conservation and sustainable development of the Alborán Sea and create trust amongst potential stakeholders involved. In addition participate to the Mediterranean Small Islands Initiative and is part of several EU-funded projects116.

MAP 6 Algeria Maritime Jurisdiction

- TABLE 7 - Algeria. Boundaries pending delimitation COUNTRY

JURISDICTIONAL CONCEPT

Spain

CS

Morocco

TS Moroccan EEZ with Algerian FZ

In Algeria, fisheries is one of the traditional maritime sectors 117. The country decided to establish an Exclusive Fishing Zone. Nevertheless, efforts were needed to revive and further develop the fisheries sector and to further exploit Algeria’s potential with regard to fisheries given the fact that only 2.2

All the relevant information have been taken from Algeria Country Report to the European Commission, 2011.

See Annex 2, Jurisdictinal Comcepts,pag 121.

116 Such as MedPAN; PEGASO; SAFEMED. 117 Institut des Sciences de la Mer et de l’Aménagement du Littoral, January 8, 2010; Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques, Le secteur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture en Algérie, 2008.

72 114 115

million of the 9.5 million hectare of the maritime area under Algeria’s jurisdiction was exploited118. In the framework of the National Development Scheme for Fisheries and Aquaculture – Horizon 2025 (adopted in 2007), the Ministry of Fisheries and Fishery Resources endorsed the optimisation of the exploitation of resources by the modernisation of the fishing fleet. Since it was impossible to make justified decisions without considerable insight into fishing stocks and as up-to-date data was not available, the Ministry of Fisheries and Fishery Resources launched two campaigns concerning the assessment of fish stocks (February 2003 – February 2004: a Spanish – Algerian cooperation). This assessment allowed for the identification of new unexploited fishing zones and resulted in the development of fishing zone maps, insight into the geographical distribution of the different species and the density of species per area. An example of such a fishing zone map is presented in Map 7.

MAP 7 - Location of the fishing zones in El Kala – Jijel The following identified119: − −

− −

fishing

areas

were

Depth 0 – 200 m: zones often exploited by the national fleet; Depth 200 – 500 m: zones occasionally exploited by the national fleet; Depth > 500 m: unexploited area International waters: no intervention.

Although specific efforts are taken to upgrade the fishing activities, mariculture activities in Algeria remain limited. A high number of maritime transport routes pass by Algerian waters. Around 10% of global maritime transport passes near the Algerian coasts, which carry 400 million tonnes of petrol.

Moreover, almost 80 millions tonnes of hydrocarbons pass through Algerian petrol terminals. In addition, the bulk of the Algerian trade is transported by sea. More than 60% of this trade is handled by the Port of Alger.

BOX 35 - Emerging and future maritime activities in Algeria 120 1) Desalination of sea water (emerging): o

Development of stations for the desalination of sea water aiming to increase the availability of drink water, especially for coastal populations;

o

Activities take place on land parts that are in direct contact with the sea;

o

Expected to have implications for the marine and coastal ecosystem resulting from among others the salt deposits which affect the seabed and sensitive marine and coastal habitats (Posidonia sea grass beds, other underwater meadows, the coralline, remarkable species) but also from the choice of location of the installations (scattered along the entire Algerian coast), the design of these installations and the technology used.

2) Exploitation of marine aggregates (future): o

Seriously considered as a solution to meet the strong demand for sand for construction purposes; the latter mainly for beaches.

3) Offshore wind farms (future): o

Seriously considered by the government as an alternative energy source;

Due to limited use of advanced navigation techniques and limited positioning of sea fishing (resulting from limited training of the Algerian fishermen), a situation of overexploitation of fishing resources is experienced in the most “popular” fishing spots.

119 Fishermen by their professional competence can only act on the coastal strip.

120 Data from the Institut des Sciences de la Mer et de l’Aménagement du Littoral, 2010.

73 118

o

Currently, Algeria does not possess any wind energy installations, apart from some onshore pilot projects by the Ministry of Physical Planning, Environment and Tourism; offshore wind farms are not yet on the agenda.

4) Wave energy (future): o

Configuration of the Algerian coast and water circulation enable the generation of energy from waves;

o

Currently, there are no wave energy activities yet.

The willingness of the Algerian government to protect the most remarkable and vulnerable components of its coastal and marine ecosystem, was translated through the following institutions: 1. Ministry of Spatial Planning, the Environment and Tourism; 2. National Observatory for the Environment and Sustainable Development (ONEDD): o

Setting up (and managing of) networks for observation and measurement of pollution;

o

Monitoring the natural environment;

o

Undertaking the necessary studies to improve knowledge of the environment.

3. National Office for the Coast (CNL): o

Playing a central role with regard to the preservation of remarkable marine habitats.

In the framework of the establishment of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, the first concrete steps were taken by the establishment of the Marine Nature Reserve on the Habibas Islands, internationally recognised as a SPAMI and IBA121 and has a marine surface of 27 km² (total surface of 27.4 km²).

Map 8 shows the exact locations in the Algerian territorial sea of the Habibas Islands MPA and four of the five planned MPAs (excluding Tipaza).

Map 8 - Marine Protected Areas – Algeria

Planned MPAs – International recognition: − El Kala: biosphere reserve; − Gouraya: biosphere reserve; − Ile Rechgoun: Important Bird Area (IBA); − Taza: biosphere reserve and Important Bird Area (IBA); − Tipaza The most important law related to MSP is the coastal law122 on the protection and valorisation of the coastal zone. The coastal law defines the coastal zone and prescribes the fundamental principles of its use and its management. Thereby, the law establishes the framework for developing a national policy on coastal protection. The definition of the coastal zone comprises the natural shoreline, islands and islets, internal waters and the soil and subsoil of the territorial sea. In addition, the other

An IBA is an Important Bird Area designated by BirdLife International, a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity.

122 Loi N° 2002-02 du 22 Dhou El Kaâda 1422 74 121

relevant laws to MSP are the “Law laying down the general rules for the use and exploitation of tourist beaches”123 and the Maritime code124 and many Institutional actors125 have competences with regard to ICZM and MSP in Algeria. A Coastal Area Management Programme (CAMP) for the Algerian Coastal Zone was approved in 2001. It was developed at the request of the Algerian government who wanted to participate in the philosophy of Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Preliminary activities for the formulation of the CAMP began in 1995 with the preparation of a feasibility study. Table 8 details the area covered as well as the programme’s objectives and results. The implementation of the coastal law of 5 February 2002 led to the start-up of a register for the coastline126.

- TABLE 8 - Coastal Area Management Programme (CAMP) for the Algerian Coastal Zone 127 Area covered:

The area of the CAMP extends between the Bay of Bou-Ismaïl in the east and the bay of Chenoua in the west; this specific area covers a land area of 447 173 ha and 80 000 ha of the seabed

Problematics and Objectives:

The Algerian coastal zone encountered numerous environmental problems; the most important were: • High urbanisation • Overexploitation of resources • Urban, industrial and agricultural pollution • Coastal erosion • Degradation of natural and cultural sites The project formed a part of the plan for the integrated management of the Algerian coast; once completed it would be duplicated along the entire Algerian coast; the main objective was therefore to develop a shared vision and an operational strategy in order to reduce the negative impact of development in the coastal area, and to embark upon a prospective approach towards sustainable development, through defining an operational programme for the medium term The CAMP for the Algerian Coastal Zone was the first programme of its kind in Algeria and led to the creation of a CAMP in metropolitan areas of Annaba (PACAN) and Oran (PACO), promoting a truly integrated approach applied to a coastal territory

Results:

Project funding:

The start-up budget was broken down as follows: • Host country: 310 000 USD • UNEP-MAP: 350 000 USD

The Coastal Area Management Programme for the Algerian Coastal Zone, combined with the results of the register of the coastline, led to a CAMP for the metropolitan areas of Annaba and Oran, promoting an integrated approach applied to the coastal territory. The objectives of these CAMPs were to initiate a process of sustainable coastal development. Its basic elements were: Social development and well-being of the population; Further development of economic activities keeping in mind the rational use of the natural resources in that particular area; Haltering the degradation of natural ecosystems; Prevention of negative impacts on the environment.

Loi N° 03-02 du 17 février 2003 Loi N° 98-05 du Aouel Rabie El Aouel 1419 correspondant au 25 Juin 1998 modifiant et complémentant l’ordonnance N° 76-80 du 23 Octobre.

125 Ministry of Spatial Planning, the Environment and Tourism; Ministry of Transport; Ministry of Fisheries and Fishery Resources; Ministry of Energy and Mines; Ministry of Public Works; National Office of the Coastline (CNL); Observatory of the Environment and Sustainable Development (ONEDD); National Centre for the Development of Biological Resources (CNDRB); Academic institutions and research institutes under the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research are also involved as centres of expertise (ENSSMAL, ISM, USTHB, LRSE, CNDPA); Coastguard.

126 This register covers: The delineation of the coastal area; The ecological balance; The balance of occupations; Action plans identifying immediate actions to upgrade and establish a portfolio of projects.

127 Source: Policy Research Corporation based on PAP/RAC, the Coastal Management Centre.

75 123 124

Map 9 illustrates the area covered by the CAMP Annaba and Oran. Based on the results of these CAMP projects and the results of the coastal register, coastal management plans were established at Wilaya level.

- MAP 9 - Area covered by CAMP Annaba and CAMP Oran

Furthermore, it was indicated by the Institute of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management that an operational ICZM strategy was developed by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, the Environment and Tourism, supported by the World Bank and registered under the National Environmental Policy within the framework of the National Spatial Plan (Schéma National d’Aménagement du Territoire - SNAT).

The strategy provides the framework for ICZM applicable to diverse administrative levels keeping in mind all the changes that have affected the institutional and legislative frameworks over the last decade. It considers the institutional configuration and the existing legislation taking into account the gaps, inconsistencies and inadequacies of certain aspects of current laws to establish the foundations of an operational strategy ICZM in Algeria. The legislative landscape 128 makes it possible to envisage a serious process of ICZM. This process would be based on the National Report on the Status and Future of the Environment and the National Action Plan for the Environment and Sustainable Development (PNAEDD), with its primary objective to reduce the environmental degradation in its broadest sense. In this context, the promotion of the integrated management of coastal areas is a necessity; it is a guarantee of the sustainability of the process of socio-economic development. The eventual strategy will depend on the ability of governments to arrange various components in real strategic or long-term planning. Algeria has now reached the point that it needs to review the public policies conducted in the marine and coastal area and start towards a renewed way of thinking with regard to the development of the marine and coastal area in Algeria. Algeria signed the Barcelona Convention’s ICZM protocol in 2008. In addition, a number of important spatial planning instruments related to coastal zones / marine areas were identified:

Strengthened by Law No. 02-02 February 5, 2002 on the protection and enhancement of the coast that provides for the establishment of a series of entities including the National Coast Office, the Coastal Coordination Council and the Coastal Fund and plans such as the Emergency Response Plans and plans for Critical Areas or Protected Areas.

76 128

1) National Spatial Plan (SNAT)129: Translates the fundamental strategic requirements of the national planning and sustainable development policy to the entire national territory;  Fixes the conservation, protection and valorisation ‘terms’ of the coastal zones and the continental shelf, linked to: Compliance with the conditions of urbanisation and occupation of coastal areas and the development of fishing and other activities; Protection of coastal zones, continental shelf and marine waters against pollution hazards; Protection of wetlands and aquatic archaeological heritage.

2) Master Plan for Coastal Development (Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement du Littoral - SDAL): 

Translates specific conservation and valorisation requirements to the coastal zones, in compliance with SNAT. 3) Regional Spatial Plans (Schémas Régionaux d’Aménagement du Territoire - SRAT): 

Detail the specific conservation and valorisation requirements for each region; The Regional Spatial Plans for the coastal zones equally take into account the requirements of the Master Plan for Coastal Development.

4) Spatial Plans at Wilaya level (Plans d’Aménagement du Territoire de Wilaya - PAW):  



Detail the specific conservation and valorisation requirements at Wilaya level.

5) Spatial Plan for the Coastal zone (Plan d’Aménagement Côtier):   

Designed to lay down special provisions relating to the protection and enhancement of coastal areas; A tool for the management of the coastal zone, established to protect coastal areas (including the most sensitive areas in the municipalities adjacent to the sea); Aim is to protect and ensure the rational and sustainable use of coastal resources by identifying solutions to the most urgent environmental problems; this identification is necessary in order to define intervention strategies for the land and for Integrated Coastal Zone Management plans.

5.2.2. Morocco130 Morocco is located in North Africa. In the Mediterranean Sea basin, the country borders Algeria in the east and shares the Alboran Sea with Spain. As of 1997, Morocco is divided into 16 regions; three of them border the Mediterranean Sea basin, namely Tangier-Tétouan, Taza-Al Hociema-Taounate and Oriental. Morocco’s Mediterranean coastline measures about 512 km. The State established an Exclusive Economic Zone131, but the EEZ is not enforced in the Mediterranean Sea basin. Some of the Moroccan SBLs are either based on Spanish territory (Ceuta) or include the islets or territories under Spanish jurisdiction (Peñones de Alhucemas and Vélez-La Gomera and Perejil and Chafarinas islands, Melilla) within their internal waters. There is also no delimitation agreement with Algeria, either for jurisdictional waters or the continental shelf. Morocco has environmental legislation in place132 and several sub-national projects aiming to develop a coastal management plan at subnational level but a national ICZM strategy has not been developed yet. Morocco is a contracting party to the Barcelona Convention and is committed to the Action Plan for the Mediterranean. Together with Within the framework of the SNAT, master plans for major infrastructures and services of national interest were established; those including marine and coastal aspects are: Natural Protected Areas Master Plan; Water Master Plan; Transport Master Plan; Fisheries and Fishery Resources Development Master Plan; Energy Networks Master Plan; Tourism Development Master Plan; Industrial Areas and Activities Master Plan; Master Plan for Coastal Development. SNAT was approved by law for a period of 20 years; it is subject to periodic reviews and is updated every five years.

130 All the relevant information have been taken from Morocco Country Report to the European Commission, 2011 131 Law no. 1.81.179.

132 Law on the Protection and Volarisation of the Environment (no. 11-03) that provides for the established of coastal and marine protected areas, but ICZM or MSP legislation is missing 77 129

Spanish and Algerian representatives, Moroccan stakeholders are involved in the Alborán platform which was developed to discuss the conservation and sustainable development of the Alborán Sea. Morocco is part of several EU-funded projects133.

MAP 10 - Morocco. Maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean

−

Morocco established an EEZ of 200 nm (Law no.

1.81.179), but the EEZ is not enforced in the Mediterranean Sea basin;

−

Together with Spain and Algeria, Morocco borders the Alborán Sea which is characterised by a high marine biodiversity;

−

Human activities that currently put pressure on the Alborán Sea are shipping, land-based pollution, overfishing and sand extractions.

- TABLE 9 - Morocco. Boundaries pending delimitation COUNTRY

JURISDICTIONAL CONCEPT

Spain

CS, TS

Algeria

CS, TS Algerian FZ with Moroccan EEZ

Along the Mediterranean coastline, Morocco borders the Alborán Sea. Human activities that currently put pressure on the Alborán Sea are: maritime transport, land-based water discharges, tourism, overfishing and sand extractions. Along the Moroccan Mediterranean coastline, the ports of Al Hoceima and Nador134 serve many local fishing vessels and recreational boats, as well as daily ferries. The port of Tanger – originally mainly a tourist hub – can accommodate container ships in the Tangier-Mediterranée port; Tanger-Med is considered to be the largest Mediterranean port on the African continent and went into service in July 2007. With a capacity of 3 million containers, the port is designed to accommodate the latest generation of container vessels. Total capacity will be brought to 8 million containers by 2016. The fisheries sector is an important sector in the Moroccan economy, representing some 2.5% of GDP and accounting for around 15% of total exports; in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy, the EU signed a fishery agreement with Morocco 135. In Morocco, Le Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification, is charged with the management of protected areas for the entire country. In 1996, this department approved a Master Plan for protected areas that identified about forty coastal areas as sites of biological and Such as: The MedWetCoast and other EU projects for FP5, FP6 & FP7, such as MAMA, ENCORA, MedPAN, BeachMed-E, COLASU, MelMARINA, HERMES and PEGASO. 134 Other Moroccan fishing ports along the Mediterranean coastline include Tanger, Ras Kebdan, Jebha and M’Diq. 135 Signed for the period 2007-2011.This fisheries agreement allows EU vessels from 11 Member States to fish in Moroccan waters http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations/bilateral_agreements/morocco_en.htm 78 133

ecological interest. Twelve areas are located along the Mediterranean coastline of Morocco out of which: 

One site, Al Hociema, has received the status of SPAMI;



Two sites (the Nador Lagoon and the Estuary of the Moulouya river) have received the status of Ramsar site136;



Five sites have been selected for the project MedWetCoast137.

- MAP 11 - Morocco Marine Protected Areas -

There are different laws in the framework of environmental legislation most relevant laws are the Law on the Protection and Valorisation of the Environment 138; the Law on the Planning, Protection, Valorisation and Conservation of the Littoral139 and the Draft charter on Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Kingdom has recently strengthened its legal arsenal of laws by serving directly and indirectly in the management of coastal areas140. In Morocco, multiple actors 141 are involved in the management of the coastal zone, in 2009, l’Agence de l’Oriental and l’Institut National de la Recherche Halieutique have signed a convention on the conservation and the development of the eastern coastal area of Morocco. The Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Spatial Planning has decided to re-examine a study on the Aduit of the Moroccan Coast. This audit will develop a vision or a strategy of sustainable development and management of these areas. It aims to provide a coherent set of instruments adapted to the specificities of Moroccan coastal areas, creating new management arrangements resulting in effective and efficient sustainable management. The two most important projects in Morocco which are related to ICZM are CAMP Morocco and MedWetCoast142. In 2004, the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Water and Environment in cooperation with PAP/RAC conducted a feasibility study to launch a CAMP for the Moroccan Mediterranean coastal zones. The feasibility study resulted in a project proposal to develop a ‘Plan d’Aménagement Côtier’ for the area Rif Central (see Map 12). This CAMP project, which ended in June 2010, included the development of an ICZM strategy.

Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention.

See Annex II of the Morocco Final Report to EU, section I.4.

138 Law n. 11-03 139 Law n. 31-06 140 These include: The municipal charter and its provisions on ICZM; Laws Code forming marine fisheries and conservation of marine ecosystems; Legislation on national parks and protected areas; Law 12-03 on impact studies Law 10-95 on water; Law 28-00 on waste management and disposal.

141 Relevant institutions include: Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire, de l’Eau et de l’Environnement; Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche Maritime, Direction des Pêches Maritime; Le Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification; Ministère de l’Equipement et des Transports; L’Agence de l’Oriental; L’Agence pour la Promotion et le Développement du Nord; Institut National de la Recherche Halieutique.

142 Although MedWetCoast was an international initiative, the project is resulted in two sub-national projects aiming to create coastal management plans.

79 136 137

MAP 12 - Coastal Area Management Programme (CAMP) for the Morocco Coastal Zone

MedWetCoast is a project funded by the “Global Environmental Facilities” and “Le Fond Français pour l’Environnement Mondial” (FFEM) and covered the period 1999-2004. The overall objective was to contribute to the preservation and sustainable use of wetland biodiversity in the Mediterranean and achieve and demonstrate this in a set of fifteen important sites. The sites covered six Mediterranean countries143. Two sites which formed part of the MedWetCoast project, namely, the Estuary of the Moulouya River 144 and the Nador Lagoon145 were the subject of other ICZM related projects in the period 2006-2008 and were funded under the SMAP III programme (Short and Medium Term Priority Environmental Action Programme) of the European Union. Both sites are classified as protected areas. The project aimed to create a ‘Contract of Coastal Space’, a contractual act of economic planning committing local partners as well as the Ministry to conserve these sensitive coastal areas.

MAP 13: MedWetCoast – Moroccan sites Specific objectives for Moroccan sites: − Development and implementation of policies for the sustainable management of wetlandsand coastal areas − Protection and removal of root causes of the loss of biodiversity of global significance inkey demonstration sites − Networking and training to raise publicawareness and exchange know-how and experience within the regions

The Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in Morocco (ACCMA) project, initiated by the Center for Research and International Development, focuses on adaptation to rising sea levels and extreme weather events in the eastern Moroccan Mediterranean coast. Its aim is to improve knowledge and awareness on climate change and build capacity to assess vulnerability to climate change in different socio-economic sectors in Morocco (e.g. the coastal provinces Nador and Berkune). The

Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority and Tunisia.

The project Moulouya River was in partnership with El Kala National Park in Algeria and the Cellule Littoral of the Ministry of Housing, Urban development and Spatial Planning, la Tour du Valat, a research centre for the protection of Mediterranean wetlands, implemented an Integrated Coastal Zone Management project covering coastal areas which include sensitive wetland areas. The project, took place on a 60 km coastal stretch from Annaba city to the Tunisian border in Algeria, and on either side of the Moulouya estuary.

145 The project for Nador Lagoon wanted to create a Coastal Action Plan (CAP) for the Nador Lagoon to efficiently protect the environment as well as to promote the economic and social development in the coastal Zone. The main partners involved were EUCC (the European Coastal and Marine Union) and three Moroccan institutes: l’Ecole Nationale Forestrière d’Ingénieurs, the Commune Rurale de Boudinar and the Forum of Urbanism, Environment and Development. The Action Plan for the province of Nador was completed in May 2009.

80 143 144

policy of international cooperation for the benefit of Morocco’s coastal and marine environment constitutes a legal and moral obligation. This cooperation has resulted in the signing or ratification of a number of conventions and international agreements, including related, directly or indirectly, to the management of coastal areas. Several conventions are those related to risks of marine pollution (prevention of pollution and regulation of damage in case of accident), seven of which are specific to the Mediterranean Sea. 5.2.3. Spain146 Spain is a country located in the southwest of Europe, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Spain consists of 17 regions (“Comunidades Autónomas”), as well as the two Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla. Those cities and four regions (Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia and Andalucía), are located along the Mediterranean seashore. Also the Balearic Islands are located in the Mediterranean Sea 147, occupying an area of 4992 km². On the seaside, Spain is bordered by France and the UK (Gibraltar) and connects with Morocco and Algeria through the Alborán Sea. Spain has a coastline of 7 880 km, with approximately 3 200 km in the Mediterranean.

Spain has established an Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean and in the NorthWest Mediterránean148. Furthermore, Spain established a Fishery Protection Zone in the Western Mediterranean which runs from Cape Gata in the south up to the maritime boundary with France 149.

This means that the Fishery Protection Zone does not apply to the Alborán Sea. The continental shelf in the Alborán Sea is extremely narrow.

MAP 14 - Spain Maritime Jurisdiction in Mediterranean Some of the Moroccan SBLs are either based on Spanish territory (Ceuta) or include islets or territories under Spanish jurisdiction (Peñones de Alhucemas and Vélez-La Gomera and Perejil and Chafarinas islands, Melilla) within their internal waters.

All the relevant information have been taken from Spain Country Report to the European Commission, 2011.

Spain has two major island groups, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands; the Balearic Islands are situated in the Mediterranean, whereas the Canary Islands are located in the Atlantic Ocean. In the Mediterranean, Spain counts a number of additional islets such as the Columbrets Islands, Islas Chafarinas and Perejil Island with a land area of maximum 1 km².

148 Real Decreto 236/2013, de 5 de abril (BOE núm. 92, de 17 de abril de 2013).

149 The Fishery Protection Zone is defined by geographical coordinates based on the principle of the equidistant line with States with opposite coasts; in the zone, Spain exercises sovereign rights for the conservation, management and control of fishing activities, without prejudice to the measures adopted or to be adopted by the European Union as regards the protection and conservation of living marine resources.

81 146 147

TABLE 10 – Spain Boundaries pending delimitation COUNTRY Morocco

Algeria

JURISDICTIONAL CONCEPT CS, TS Moroccan EEZ with Spanish FZ CS

The Spanish Marine Biodiversity is one of the largest in the EU because of its oceanographic and biogeographic factors150. Except Marine Fishing Reserves151, other figures are of terrestrial origin, as there are currently no specific environmental protection figures apply to the marine environment.

However, fishing areas are not intended to protect and preserve, but to make sustainable use of fisheries, also under the figure "Marine Reserve" protected areas are managed from a more integrated perspective considering both habitat conservation and species such as the sustainable use of fisheries resources152. The most important maritime sectors in Spain are coastal and marine tourism, fisheries, maritime transport and mariculture. Plans for offshore wind farms in Spain, the world’s fourth largest producer of wind energy, have been set-up and will possibly be established in the future. The Spanish port system consist of 28 Port Authorities managing 46 ports of general interest, which handled 412.7 million tonnes in 2009, 13 of these Port Authorities are located in the Mediterranean. More that 115.000 vessels called at the Spanish ports, 72 500 in the Mediterranean ports. Spain has become an important logistic platform in the Mediterranean Sea area. Some 200 000 ships cross the Mediterranean annually and the maritime traffic becomes congested in narrow passages through which ships enter and exit the Mediterranean Sea basin, such as the Strait of Gibraltar which is just 14 km wide. The IMO has established a Traffic Separation Scheme in the Strait of Gibraltar to avoid collisions. Besides the risk of collisions, Spain also faces problems as regards oil spills and pollution. In 2013, the tourism sector directly generated 894,000 jobs (5.2% of total employment) and it is expected to rise, the coastal tourism industry accounted for more than 11% of the country’s GDP153. Along the Mediterranean coastline, the regions of Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia and the Balearic Islands attract most visitors154. Spain is an EU leader regarding fisheries 155.

The Spanish fishing fleet consists of close to 11 420 fishing vessels (2009), representing the EU’s largest fishing fleet in terms of tonnage. Half of the fleet, both in terms of vessels and tonnage is registered in Galician ports, along the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Spain is a major contributor to the EU’s mariculture production, both in terms of quantity and value 156. Within the shipping sector, cruise tourism is an important maritime activity along the Spanish Mediterranean coasts. In 2008, more than

Such reachiness can be explained by the coexistence of species of different origin: North Atlantic and warm, tropical Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. The areas that have detected greater diversity of species are the Strait of Gibraltar and the Alborán Sea with typically Mediterranean and Atlantic species as components of North African fauna and some endemic species.

151 At present there are 25 marine reserves for fisheries, the General Secretariat of Fisheries manages 10 (5 are shared with the Autonomous Communities).

152 In this regard, management is carried out by means of rules related to the types of gear, surveillance, etc.

153 Tourism industry sub-sectors Country Report, Spain, March 2014.

154 European Commission – DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, EU Maritime Policy – Facts and Figures: Spain.

155 According to the latest Eurostat figures, Spain caught close to 119094 tonnes (live weight) of fish in the Mediterranean in 2007.

156 In Spain, total mariculture production amounted to 294 982 tonnes live weight in 2007 (EUROSTAT figures).

82 150

1 million cruise passengers embarked in Spain and close to 3.6 million passengers had Spain as their destination. The most important Spanish home ports in this respect are Barcelona and Palma Majorca157. Finally, Spain is the world’s fourth largest producer of wind power158. In Andalucía for example, over 5000 wind turbines have been installed within 10 km of the coast. Currently, no offshore wind farms are installed, but the Spanish government has launched initiatives to speed up their installation159. The Environmental Strategic Study for the Spanish coast 160 analysed the environmentally suitable areas for offshore wind farms along the entire coastline of Spain.

As to the marine biodiversity hot-spots, a number of MPAs161 has been established along the Spanish Mediterranean coast, actually there are 22 marine reserves162, 10 of them are managed by the Government such as visualised in MAP 15.

MAP 15 – Spanish Marine Reserves

As regards Marine Reserves, the first protection measures were implemented more than twenty years ago in the framework of fishery regulations. Today, the policies related to marine protection aim to: Regenerate the resources that have an interest to fisheries; Guarantee the sustainability of artisanal fisheries; Protect fish habitats; Raise awareness on the problems associated to the environment in artisanal fisheries areas. Competences on maritime and coastal affairs are shared between central and regional governments. There is no single body that coordinates the actions of all different bodies and administrations with competences in maritime affairs. Institutional coordination is assured through sectoral formal and informal platforms such as cross-ministerial commissions, national commission and sectoral conferences163. In recent years, there have been legislative developments

G.P. Wild (International) Limited and Business Research & Economic Advisors, 2009, Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of Europe.

158 WWEA, 2010, World Wind Energy Report 2009.

159 Offshore development estimate: 1 000 – 1 500 MW installed by 2020 (~ 1% of total energy consumption in Spain) according to EWEA and 5 000 MW installed by 2020 according to the Spanish Wind Energy Association (~ National Renewable Energy Plan 2010-2020).

160 Ministerios de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, de Medio Ambiente, y de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 2009, Estudio estratégico ambiental del litoral español para la instalación de parques eólicos marinos.

161 Of the coastal and marine protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea basin in Spain: 9 are recognised as SPAMI; 87 are recognised as marine and coastal NATURA 2000 sites; 21 areas are recognised as marine Important Bird Areas (IBA) by BirdLife.

162 The Marine Reserves RRMM are not the only figures of marine protection but the only 100% marine. Other figures are those of national parks, reserves, landscapes and natural park, figures of the CCAA. 163 European Commission – DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2009, Fact sheet on integrated maritime policy in Spain.

83 157

in Spain legal basis to allow the protection of the marine environment, and there has been increased concern regarding the conservation and protection of habitats and species. The Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive are the main instrument of the EU for Conservation of habitats and species of Community interest and their implementation, through the Natura 2000 Network. Nowadays, Spain will propose to the EU of new marine protection areas in the Natura 2000 network, becoming thus one of the European countries with the largest marine protected area. The 49 new marine protected areas164 that unlike the existing (mostly marine-terrestrial coastal areas), are places far from the coast (almost all are over a hundred meters) and with a significant depth, which, in some cases, exceeds 1000 meters. These are the results of LIFE + INDEMARES165 project presented as a valuable tool for conservation policies of the marine environment and thus for all policies impacting on marine activities whose ultimate goal is to combine the protection of our seas with sustainable use of its resources, coordinating human activities for this purpose.

5.3. ALBORĂ N MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES For operational purposes, the AlborĂĄn Sea is usually divided into areas, sub-regions or sub-divisions based on either their geological, geomorphological, hydrological or biological formation or their legal-administrative structure. Areas defined by physical criteria (as opposed to politicaladministrative ones) rely on the logic of natural events and enable spaces for intervention, action and management measures to be defined and delimited. The scales of these areas and their average size vary greatly. In some cases, such as the hydrographic basins, management institutions have been created and, in the case of the EU, the Water Framework Directive has included the related coastal waters within these physical units. Given that they are defined along lines of strictly functional geographic criteria, these areas generally tend to be of a supranational (straddling various national maritime jurisdictions) or international (including high seas waters) nature. This makes it difficult for such divisions, with boundaries based on hydrographic, geological or biological events, to become operational as they lack a legal-administrative framework. This is the difficulty that the establishment of protected marine areas comes up against when they cover waters that lie outside the national jurisdiction. In addition, some uses of the maritime space, such as navigation, are regulated by international agreements. On top of this, however, their environmental impact or the fact that they are superimposed on other uses or are competing for the same space means that they need to be taken into consideration when planning the maritime space. Such is the case of ports and shipping routes, as well as particular strategic infrastructural works. Along with conventional uses, other phenomena such as unregulated migration have given rise to the establishment of control

10 LICs y 39 ZEPAs. The LIFE + INDEMARES project began in January 2009 with 15.4 million euros and coordinated Biodiversity Foundation with the aim of contributing to the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in Spanish seas by identifying value spaces Natura 2000 Network. After more than 100 oceanographic campaigns, socioeconomic studies, communication, participation and awareness activities, among other actions, the project enters the final stretch showing the great biodiversity of the sea and Spanish importance of conserving it. One of the main pillars of the project has been the great partnership created, formed by the government, research institutes, conservation organizations and users of the sea, highlighting the fisheries sector.

84 164 165

and monitoring systems for the maritime space. This phenomenon has a notable impact in Alborán and considerable resources are deployed in this regard.

5.3.1. Jurisdictional Asymmetry The delimitation of different jurisdictions in the Alborán Sea gives rise to what could be called a 'jurisdictional asymmetry', a consequence of the heterogeneity of the legal systems of adjacent jurisdictions: exclusive economic zone, fisheries zones, fisheries protection zones and ecological protection zones. An EEZ may thus border with another EEZ, with a FZ or a FPZ, and similarly a FZ can overlap with an EPZ. Jurisdictions similar to an EEZ involve exercising sovereign rights over specific issues that may not be the same amongst neighbouring states. Thus: 

Morocco has declared EEZs in which has sovereign rights over the marine resources, living and non-living, along with other kinds of jurisdictions (for marine environment protection and research).



Algeria and Spain have created fisheries zones (also known as fisheries protected zones) in which they have exclusive and jurisdictional rights over fisheries.



Algeria and Italy have created 12-mile archaeological contiguous zones adjacent to their territorial seas for the protection of submerged cultural heritage.

The establishment of maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean is an open and continuously changing process given that not all states have declared maritime spaces as recognised by UNCLOS and, also, because of the gradual creation of new jurisdictional concepts not envisaged in this treaty.

Consequently, the current geography of maritime jurisdictions is not a static picture and, as the states take further decisions in this regard, the jurisdictional panorama will change. In addition, this jurisdictional heterogeneity creates a complex territorial reality: while a considerable part of the waters lie outside of state jurisdiction (high seas), all the seabed and its subsoil falls under the sovereignty of the different coastal states. Within a relatively small basin, freely accessible areas are therefore superimposed on others that fall under national sovereignty or jurisdiction.

5.3.2 Fisheries activity and territorial disputes While jurisdiction over the continental shelf has a limited effect on fisheries – it only affects sedentary species that are in contact with the seabed – a jurisdictional declaration beyond the territorial sea significantly affects a broad spectrum of fishing methods. The declaration of fisheries protection zones has legal implications for jurisdiction over fisheries resources. The creation of such fisheries zones, albeit under different names, reduces the high seas fisheries and can also result in the need to sign agreements regarding access to these waters on the part of fleets that previously had no jurisdictional limitations. Seen from another perspective, when coastal states declare their jurisdictional rights by means of any of the above concepts, this implies a greater responsibility on their part for resource and environmental conservation. Hence the suggestion to extend all states’ jurisdictional rights beyond their territorial sea, as a management and conservation mechanism that would ensure effective governance of the Mediterranean basin. Meanwhile, in the high seas, each 85

state must apply international law to its nationals which, with regard to fisheries, means that the state is required to supervise and check that the vessels under its flag are complying with the regulations established in the different treaties.

TABLE 11 - Straits of Gibraltar dispute: Spain-Morocco-Gibraltar (UK) STRAITS OF GIBRALTAR DISPUTE: SPAIN-MOROCCO-GIBRALTAR (UK)

Boundaries

 

Background



According to Morocco, the boundary is determined by the equidistant line between its coast and the Iberian Peninsula, as if each side of the straits belonged to a single state.  According to Spain, the waters of the straits are separated by a number of equidistant lines between the Spanish and Moroccan coasts, giving rise to strips subject to Spanish sovereignty. Thus, in the Straits of Gibraltar, two corridors are formed opposite Perejil Island and the town of Ceuta which link to the territorial sea166 that projects out from the Spanish coasts in application of the median line criteria.

Interpretation of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht167:  The United Kingdom interprets it broadly and has been gradually occupying spaces which, according to Spain, were not ceded, such as the waters of Algeciras Bay and the waters around the Calpense isthmus. They have thus extended the waters to 3 nautical miles from the Rock, limited to two miles in Algeciras Bay, adjacent to Gibraltar.  Spain only recognises rights over the Rock and the waters of Gibraltar port.

Resolution

Importance for fisheries

Territorial sea between Spain and Morocco Territorial sea between Spain and Gibraltar

No delimitation agreement has been formalised.

  

Need to establish bilateral fishing agreements between the EU and Morocco.

Fishing disputes: problems of access to some fishing grounds on the part of Spanish fleets.

Seizure of Spanish fishing vessels by Morocco and of Moroccan vessels by Spain in the Alboran Sea.

TABLE 1. STRAITS OF GIBTAR DISPUTE: SPAIN-MOROCCO-GIBRALTAR (UNI MAP 16 – Maritime Jurisdiction of Gibraltar

According to UNCLOS, Spain’s territories in Africa (which are an integral part of Spain) could give rise to a TS, CZ, EEZ or CS. Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht by which Spain ceded “the full and entire ownership of the town and castle of Gibraltar, along with its port, defences and fortress, to the British Crown”.

86 166 167

TABLE 12 – Alborán Sea Dispute: Spain Morocco ALBORAN SEA DISPUTE: SPAIN-MOROCCO

Boundaries

 

Territorial sea, Spain and Morocco Territorial sea between Spain and Gibraltar

Background



According to Morocco, the boundary is determined by an equidistant line between its coast and the Iberian Peninsula, as if each side of the straits belonged to a single state (thus ignoring Spain’s so-called 'plazas de soberanía' ('places of sovereignty’ or territories) in North Africa).

According to Spain – and in line with UNCLOS - the Spanish territories in Africa (an integral part of the Spanish state) have their own jurisdictional waters. These territories are: Perejil island, Ceuta, Melilla, Vélez de la Gomera rock, San Antonio islet, Alhucemas rock and the islets of Mar and Tierra, the Chafarinas Archipelago, Alboran island and Las Nubes islet.



Resolution

Importance for fisheries

No delimitation agreement has been formalised.

  

Resource protection: Spain has created a marine reserve in the waters adjacent to Alborán island (in which fishing and diving are banned) and a fishery reserve (where fishing is restricted, along with the exploitation of all other existing resources)168.

Obstacles to the formalisation of fishing agreements.

Fishing disputes: seizure of fishing vessels.

5.4. ELEMENTS FOR A FUTURE EBSAS PROCESS IN ALBORÁN SEA 5.4.1. Stakeholder participation In order to achieve broad acceptance and support for the implementation of an EBSA area, it is important to involve all stakeholders at the earliest possible stage in the process. For the acceptance of and input for an EBSA in Alborán, stakeholder involvement is the key. It is important to convince all the stakeholders (e.g. government, industries, research institutes) in an early stage of the need for the sustainable development of the sea and the role an EBSA can play in this respect. This enables them to provide input to policy makers. Moreover, support may be created for the results and process of the EBSA. Maritime-related policies are currently being developed in Morocco and Algeria according to a sectoral approach. This leads to considerable coordination and cooperation challenges for the public authorities involved. The implementation of new laws that enable integrated decision-making and the use of a coordination body can prove to be useful to overcome these challenges. The role of such a body can be fulfilled by an existing authority occupied with spatial planning or through the establishment of a separate entity. In Spain, coordination and cooperation is challenging because of the different levels of authority responsible for decisionmaking. Efficient vertical and horizontal coordination between regional and national authorities is required in order to enable holistic, integrated MSP. In this respect, it is recommended to establish a coordinating body or an inter-ministerial committee both at the national level and at the regional level. The governmental and no governmental stakeholders listed in Table 13 are included based on their competences in the field of maritime policy and environmental protection. Moreover, research centres and other stakeholders providing information for the implementation of maritime policy are

168

Ministerial Order of 31 July 1997 (Spanish OJ No 204 of 26 August 1997 and Spanish OJ No 233 of 24 September 1998).

87

included. Stakeholders representing economic activities such as fisheries, maritime transport, ports and offshore wind are not included in this table, although they are important stakeholders.

TABLE 13 - Relevant stakeholders in the Alborán Sea basin Spain National Public Authorities

    

 Regional/Local Authorities

Other stakeholders



    

Morocco

MAGRAMA Ministry of Science and Innovation Ministry of Public Works and Transport Ministry of Industry Tourism and Commerce Other Ministries such as Defence, Interior, Economy, Finance, Culture, Employment and Immigration, Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Ministries in Andalucía: Environment and agricultural and fisheries Other regional ministries, provinces and municipalities



Spanish Institute of Oceanography (OIE) University of Seville CMIMA IMEDIA IUCN



 

  

Ministère de l’Habitat, de l’Urbanisme et de l’Aménagements de l’Espace Secrétariat d’Etat charge de l’eau et l’Environment Ministère de l’agriculture et de la Pêche Maritime

Commissariat au Eaux et forêts et à la lutte contre la désertification Agence de l’oriental Institute national de la Recherche Halieutique IUCN

Algeria 

   

Ministry of Spatial Planning, the Environment and Tourism Ministry of Fisheries and Fishery resources Ministry of transport Ministry of energy Ministry of public works



Directorate of Environment in Wilays (regions)



Observatory of the Environment and Sustainable Development National centre for development of biological resources IUCN

 

5.4.2. Cross-border Cooperation On the international level, Algeria, Spain and Morocco have started to cooperate, in collaboration with IUCN, to protect the Alborán Sea 169. In particular, the Oujda Declaration on the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Alborán Sea’170 shows that a first step has been taken into coordinating the activities in the Alborán Sea. The declaration and the communication between the parties increase the level of coordination of the sea and help to develop common standards. In general, cooperation between Spain and Morocco is more frequent than cooperation with Algeria, but cooperation on the political level is still a difficult issue. Besides challenges in political cooperation

In 2007, representatives from the three countries from research institutions, universities, governments and NGOs, gathered for the first “International Meeting for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Alborán Sea”. The meeting was organised jointly by IUCN and the National Institute of Fisheries Research (INRH), with support from the Department of Environment and Territorial Planning of the Provincial Council of Malaga and the Development Agency for East Morocco. In April 2009 the second meeting was held in Oujda (Morocco). At this meeting, with more than 100 experts and representatives from various institutions and NGOs from Spain, Morocco and Algeria attending, it was agreed that an action plan would be developed for the Alborán region based on the document: ‘Oujda Declaration on the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Alborán Sea’.

170 The recommendations in the declaration are: Better integration and visibility of Alborán governance processes of the Mediterranean, particularly those relating to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Mediterranean Coastal Region (Barcelona Convention); Implement a system for regular and reliable information exchange, including all relevant indicators for usage of the marine and coastal environment; Develop and harmonise appropriate methodologies for the integrated management of coastal areas on the basis of an ecosystem approach, taking into account the Alborán characteristics and previously developed experiences in this field in coastal areas; Strengthen the network of protected areas in the coastal and marine areas, identifying and creating new protected areas and restore habitats in order to protect the Alborán Sea region and to ensure the sustainability of human activities taking place in it; Encourage and strengthen cooperation at all levels for the conservation and sustainable development of the Alborán region; Create a centre for research and knowledge about marine biodiversity, including new research based projects, conservation, ecosystem management, information, education/awareness and based on the integration of the experiences of different countries; Create multi-disciplinary working groups on priority issues related to the conservation and sustainable development of the region and prepare an action plan for the Alborán; Create the ‘Sustainable Development Network Alborán’ to support a permanent monitoring system in the form of an ‘observatory of conservation and sustainable development’ in the Alborán region.

88 169

between Morocco and Spain, cooperation between Spain and the United Kingdom (Gibraltar) is also difficult, given their disagreement about Gibraltar. Political tensions, including the relation between Spain and UK (Gibraltar), are a challenge to the feasibility of cross-border/international cooperation. Especially in the Strait of Gibraltar, the establishment of an EBSA area will involve multiple level of governance, requiring coordination and cooperation.

5.4.3. Environmental and economic benefits.

The effective implementation of EBSA in the Alborรกn Sea will lead to enhanced coordination with benefits for governments and private organisations. Moreover, can contribute to the reduction of conflicts of interest. Quantification of the effects in the countries surrounding the Alborรกn Sea is not possible due to a lack of detailed area-specific data (e.g. the costs of procedures or the costs of conflicts of interest). Because of this, the benefits of EBSA will be discussed in a qualitative way. If the key principles of a good governance model would be effectively implemented, enhanced coordination mechanisms would be introduced, leading to e.g. less administrative costs for authorities (local, regional and national). Changes in the legal and institutional framework will first require investments in these countries, but the benefits are likely to be significant 171. In the longer term the benefits will only rise: competition between activities will increase, requiring an even stronger coordination between the authorities involved. The costs of changes will differ among countries, depending on the current state of the institutional and legal framework. Integrated management of the sea will also be beneficial for companies that are engaged in maritime activities. Currently, the process of developing an activity at sea may take considerable time in terms of licensing and permitting procedures. If the government improves this process through better coordination, overlapping procedures or other inefficiencies may disappear, leading to lower administrative costs.

In addition, as a result of a more efficient government, investments by companies may be accelerated. Accelerated investments result in economic effects. Another benefit is the reduction of research costs. One of the objectives of EBSA is to increase the scientific knowledge base of the sea.

This knowledge will, for example, provide the government the basis for the designation of specific maritime activities (e.g. mariculture, sand extraction) to certain zones, lowering the search costs for companies. Examples of (potential) competing activities in the Alborรกn Sea are competition between coastal and marine tourism and mariculture and competition between fisheries and offshore wind farms. An EBSA approach will apply the overarching principle of the ecosystem approach, expressing the need for sustainable development of maritime activities. The sustainability of certain activities in the Alborรกn Sea and the Strait of Gibraltar could be improved. For instance, the current level of fishing activity is likely to lead to a continuous decline in fish stocks. If the implementation of EBSA will lead to a sustainable way of performing these activities, the environmental value of the area will increase. For certain activities this may also lead to economic benefits in the long term. For example, sustainable fishing can eventually lead to healthy fish stocks, As mentioned before, quantification is not possible. However, uncoordinated decision-making is often mentioned as a disadvantage. Solving this problem will decrease costs (economic benefit).

89 171

leading to long-term viability of the fishing sector. Also coastal and marine tourism will benefit from clean water and healthy flora and fauna. EBSA can contribute to these benefits by, for example, providing the tools to select and establish MPAs. In the Strait of Gibraltar, EBSA can be useful by mitigating the effects of maritime traffic on the marine environment. The Alborán Sea is of importance to the whole Mediterranean; its connecting role with the Atlantic Ocean is of great economic and ecologic value. The Strait of Gibraltar is the second busiest sea route in the world and provides at the same time a passage for marine mammals, fish and other animals living in the sea. The characteristics of the Alborán Sea reinforce the ecological importance of the sea by providing food and shelter for animals. In some areas of the Alborán Sea, maritime activities are dense and compete with each other.

5.4.4. Ecosystem Approach The sustainability of maritime activities is key given the environmental importance of the Alborán Sea. The application of the ecosystem based approach and the key principles of the EBSA will increase the opportunities to enable the sustainable growth of maritime activities such as coastal and marine tourism; fishing; maritime transport (including ferries and cruise vessels), sand extraction; offshore wind farms, ect...

5.4.5. European cooperation In the EU context, there are also a number of cooperation initiatives between Member States and the coastal states of the Alborán Seas, some of them directly related to marine environment governance. The main initiative is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelona Process), which was formalised in 1995 at the Barcelona Conference. The 27 participating countries (the 15 EU Member States plus 12 non-EU Mediterranean states, among them Algeria, and Morocco) approved a Declaration and a programme of work. The Partnership thus establishes a multilateral framework that closely links economic and security aspects but also includes a social, human and cultural dimension.

TABLE 14 - EU Cooperation policies European Marine Management Policies

Management policies relating to the European marine coastal space



Common environmental policy



Common spatial development policy



Common European coastal strategy



EU integrated maritime policy



European strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment



European Marine Strategy Directive

90

European Marine Management Policies

Euro-Mediterranean management policies

    

MEDSPA Programme Scientific projects Support of the Environmental Programme for the Mediterranean172 Participation in the MAP and Barcelona Convention Proposed European environmental strategy for the Mediterranean

TABLE 15 - Transboundary Cooperation General euro-mediterranean cooperation policies

Promoted by the EU

    

Euro-Arab Dialogue EC Mediterranean Policy (provisional agreement) ‘5+5’ Group Euro-Mediterranean Association

Private initiatives

 

Mediterranean Forum Inter-parliamentary Conference on Security and Cooperation

Other political dialogues



Security dialogue between Western organisations (NATO, WEU) and the MPCs CSCM



5.2.6. Data collection, knowledge creation and evaluation Marine research institutes are present in all three countries. This provides a good basis for the data and knowledge aspect of the EBSA. The knowledge base in Spain is strong. However, according to the Institute of Oceanography, research in the Alborán Sea has been lagging behind compared to other parts of Spain. Therefore, more studies in the Alborán Sea need to be initiated. According to Moroccan stakeholders, the Moroccan research infrastructure is good, but an overall vision is required for the approach towards future research topics. In general, the collection of data and knowledge for areas further offshore needs to be improved. In addition, the data and research methods of the different research institutes need to be aligned in order to make data comparable, also internationally. For the collection of data and the creation of knowledge about the Alborán Sea, national and international cooperation between the organisations involved in marine research is important. Although (international) cooperation already takes place, significant improvements can be made. The development of more uniform research methodologies is required in order to make data comparable and coordination on the selection of research topics is important in order to avoid overlapping work. The creation of a network involving all marine research parties for the Alborán Sea may provide the framework for coordination and cooperation. This initiative may be formed under the EBSA umbrella of the collaboration between the three countries for the protection of the Alborán Sea. An assessment should be made of the most important research topics for the territorial seas and high seas. Since the basis of EBSA consists of a thorough understanding of the state of the sea,

Nicosia Charter (1990). Cairo Declaration (1992). Regulation No 16/94 on Mediterranean fishery resource conservation (1994). Heraklion Declaration (1994).

91 172

sufficient resources need to be available to carry out the necessary research; this does not necessarily imply that additional resources are required, since an important step could already be made through, for example, increased research efficiency as a result of an agreement on a common research agenda.

5.2.7. Coherence between terrestrial planning and MSP The relation between terrestrial planning and maritime planning is strong in the Alborán Sea, given the impact of land-based activities on the maritime activities taking place and the pressures on the marine environment. Despite this strong link, the lack of adoption of ICZM and MSP strategies in the Alborán Sea increases the likelihood of planning issues given the increasing activities taking place in the coastal areas, both onshore and offshore. In general, spatial planning of the coast is often perceived as being more challenging than maritime spatial planning, because of the concentration of activities on a relatively small area. Consequently, the development of an ICZM strategy often has a higher priority than the development of MSP. Although this may be the case, the development of an EBSA area is preferably developed simultaneously with MSP and ICZM to achieve coherence.

5.2.8. Monitoring and control Cross-sectoral national cooperation should be considered to integrate monitoring and control activities. For areas bordered by multiple states, cross-border and international cooperation can be applied for physical surveillance. The coast guards may cooperate near borders for the purpose of control. In this respect the Bluemassmed programme173 for the Mediterranean Sea is a promising development. Since the Strait of Gibraltar is an international strait, the adjacent countries have to provide ‘transit passage’ to merchant ships. As a result opportunities for surveillance of merchant ships are limited. The establishment of an independent monitoring and control body may provide a basis for surveillance on the high seas and in the Strait of Gibraltar. Specifically in the Bay of Algeciras, special zones for bunkering could be established in order to resolve the problem of collisions and oil spills. These zones could be monitored and controlled by an independent management body. For management and control of (part of) the high seas, countries have the option to cooperate internationally through international conventions/treaties or through establishing maritime zones. It is recommended to first look into the possibilities for cooperation within the framework of the Barcelona Convention or other regional initiatives. The establishment of an EBSA could be a good solution. If cooperation does not lead to the desired effects, an alternative is the establishment of maritime zones in the Mediterranean Sea, in particular Exclusive Economic Zones. If a country establishes such a zone it has the right and duty to manage and control the area to a certain extent, depending on the type of zone174. In the Mediterranean Sea, the establishment of zones is challenging due to the relative proximity of other countries; the zones’ borders may be disputed by the adjacent countries.

It is a project for the Integration of Maritime Surveillance on the Mediterranean Area and its Atlantic Approach, http://bluemassmed.net/.

174 An EEZ is the only type of zone that provides a basis for the cross-sectoral application of MSP on the high seas.

92 173

In the Alborรกn Sea the establishment of zones is a difficult issue, because of disagreement about the maritime border between Spain and UK, and Spain and Morocco. In this respect, some form of agreement about maritime borders is an important step to divert attention to the application of crossborder/ international cooperation on sea and should therefore be a priority in this area, in this perspective, once again, an EBSA area could offer the right solution.

93

KEYWORLDS: M ARITIME JURISDICTIONS; TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AND TENSIONS ; NORTH AND SOUTH ; EU M EMBER STATES; NORTH AFRICAN STATES; M OSAIC OF JURISDICTIONS ; BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS ; JURISDICTIONAL ASYMMETRY; M ULTI LEVEL GOVERNANCE ; M EDITERRANEAN S EA; S OCIO- ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL MODELS; INSTABILITY ; HOLISTIC AND ECOSYSTEM -BASED APPROACH ; V ERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL COORDINATION ; I NTERNATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE PERSPECTIVE ; C OMMON VISION ; STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION ; I NFORMATION SHARING MECHANISM ; K NOWLEDGE PLATFORM ; C ITIZENS PARTICIPATION ; T RANSPARENCY ; M ETHODOLOGICAL , STRATEGIC AND I MPLEMENTATION C ROSS-BORDER COOPERATION ; TRANSNATIONAL NATURE ; D ATA GATHERING AND EXCHANGE; N ATURE CONSERVATION ; C LIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ; M ARINE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION ; F ISHING AND CONSERVATION OF FISH STOCKS ; E NVIRONMENT ; S PATIAL PLANNING ; R EGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ; M ARITIME TRANSPORT ; I NTEGRATION ; L ONG - TERM PERSPECTIVE ; L EGALLY BINDING .

94

 CONCLUSION  The way in which States declare their maritime jurisdictions reveals not only the image and iconography of a new territorial and political reality but also the formal – geographical – factors on which it is constructed, and some of the reasons behind the territorial disputes and tensions. The political shape of the Mediterranean region is characterised by a clear division between the north and south coasts, the first comprised, to a large extent, of EU Member States, thus implying greater cohesion and the existence of common policies, and the latter (the North African coast) with a weak political structure. Nonetheless, in terms of the maritime map, national interests predominate both north and south with a resulting mosaic of jurisdictions that facilitates neither bilateral nor multilateral agreements. The limited size of the Mediterranean Sea is such that if the States were to claim full jurisdiction of their waters, the whole sea would be under national jurisdiction. Some States have not proclaimed their sovereign rights, however, and this means that a considerable proportion of the waters do in fact remain high seas. The delimitation between different jurisdictions in the Mediterranean gives rise to what could be termed a “jurisdictional asymmetry”, a consequence of the heterogeneous nature of the legal systems of adjacent jurisdictions. Seen from another perspective, when coastal States declare their jurisdictional rights by means of any of the above concepts, this implies a greater responsibility on their part for resource and environmental conservation. Hence, the suggestion to extend States’ jurisdictional rights beyond the territorial sea, as a management and conservation mechanism that would ensure effective governance.

- MAP 17 - Maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean

95

The Mediterranean Sea, which represents 1% of the world’s oceans, is where the European, African and Asian continents meet. The Mediterranean Sea is the source of a number of different disputes between coastal states. Some of these are historic in nature; in others, the process of extending sovereignty over their maritime space has given rise to new disputes between states, caused by overlapping jurisdictions and the creation of new boundaries. The States play a central role in the political configuration of these regions. Of the 9 Mediterranean coastal states considered in this study for EBSAS, 5 are in Europe, 1on the road to EU membership (Montenegro); 1 Potential candidates (Albania) and 2 in Africa. The EBSAs in Alborán Sea are surrounded by four countries, two in Europe and two in Africa. In addition to the States, various supranational entities have gained a growing importance as players with management roles over the maritime space, although there is a clear distinction between the Alborán and the Adriatic Seas. In the Mediterranean, there are obvious differences between the north and south coasts; the former comprises mostly EU Member States while the latter has weak political cohesion due to the existence of entities such as the Arab League and the Arab Maghreb Union. The subnational and local political levels are represented in the Adriatic and Alborán Seas by the coastal regions, provinces and local authorities. These bodies, by virtue of both their number and their tasks in relation to maritime coastal space management and administration, are ensuring a growing role for the sub-state level in the political structure of both basins and are consolidating the idea of multi-level governance in the region. The north-south asymmetry of the Mediterranean can also be seen in the existence of two distinct and greatly differing socio-economic and cultural models, the northern predominantly Christian arc and the southern almost exclusively Muslim one. The north comprises industrialised societies with democratic systems and the south, is made up of developing countries. The north has a demographic structure marked by an ageing population while a demographic explosion in the south is encouraging migration. On top of this, the north has high or very high human development indicators and a per capita GDP, meanwhile, south has average human development indicators, and the lowest per capita. All these factors are a source of instability and have a significant impact on the way in which political relationships interact in the Mediterranean. Despite the fact that its small size means that any widespread extension of jurisdiction on the part of the coastal states of the Mediterranean would result in all of its waters falling under national jurisdiction, the (continuing) failure of some states to proclaim such sovereign rights has resulted in a large proportion of its waters remaining high seas.

The relative positions of the States determines how their maritime jurisdictions develop. As has already been noted, opposite States are limited in terms of their possibilities of extending the different forms of jurisdiction, depending on the distance between them. In the Mediterranean basin, no State can declare the maximum 200 nautical mile breadth of exclusive economic zone or fishery zone because at no point is the Mediterranean more than 400 miles wide. It is a similar situation for adjacent countries. The high number of States bordering the Adriatic and Alborán Seas, along with the limited breadth of the seas, forms a limitation to a state’s extension of its maritime jurisdiction. There is moreover a north-south asymmetry in the Mediterranean in relation to the number of States located along its coastline. While there are 5 countries on the north coast (Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, 96

Montenegro, Albania), there are only two on the south (Morocco, Algeria). In addition, the fact that Italy is a peninsula situated in the centre of the Mediterranean, with its coastline close to the coasts of opposite countries, increases the need for delimitation agreements in this part of the Mediterranean. In the Alborán Sea, there is an asymmetry caused by the relative positions of the states. Governance in the Mediterranean Sea takes place at different levels, depending on the jurisdictional structure of the maritime space – with responsibilities on the part of coastal and third countries – and the different levels of political-administrative (supranational, regional, sub-regional) organisation. The Alborán Sea Region can be both described in terms of their position as a crossroads: both geographically, socio-culturally and politically. An underground barrier divides the Mediterranean between Tunisia and Sicily into two large basins: west and east. The western basin can be sub-divided into the Straits of Gibraltar, the Alborán Sea, the Balearics (Iberian Sea) and the Ligurian Sea. The eastern basin can be sub-divided into the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Straits of Sicily, the Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea and the Aegean Sea. An integrated governance framework as set out in EBSAS process requires appropriate horizontal tools that help policy makers and economic and environmental actors to join up their policies, interlink their activities and optimize the use of marine and coastal space in an environmentally sustainable manner. The need for EBSAS for our Seas is significant, in particular in Mediterranean for its intense use and for the potential growing conflicts among user’s needs and ecosystem protection policies. EBSAS are a key element to achieve the kind of decision-making that balances sectorial interests competing for maritime spaces, in particular in relation to the increased economic use of the marine and coastal space. The future development of EBSAS will be highly influenced by the need of a holistic and ecosystem-based approach that allows the contemporary management of an increasing demand for sea space and of an ecologically responsible decision-making. For the implementation of this process it is important to progressively reach a more efficient vertical and horizontal coordination between national and regional authorities and among countries. Indeed, the interconnection of sea spaces, the crossboundary impact of sea uses and land-based sources, the needed agreement on sustainable management of maritime resources and more generally the broader scale needed to be ecologically meaningful, require the development of an international and cooperative perspective in the implementation of EBSAS in this basin. EBSAS could represent comprehensive and accessible source of data and information, is such a horizontal tool and therefore a key instrument. EBSAS could help public authorities and stakeholders to coordinate their action and optimize the use of marine space to benefit economic development and the marine environment. EBSAS represent an integrated process with a strong scientific base building on the ecosystem-based approach. This approach requires the consideration of ecological and socio-economic aspects.

The Mediterranean is a good example about the need of the definition of a common vision for the future of our Seas as an essential step of the implementation of the EBSAs process, which make clear why forward-looking thinking (and long-term perspective) is essential. EBSAs can provide an holistic cross-sectoral view on issues that are often regarded separately, facilitate the stakeholder dialogue and help and achieve transnationality and cooperation. With the EBSAs in the process, this ambitious 97

information-gathering exercise demonstrates how scientific expertise can catalyse management decisions. CBD through EBSAS can play an active role in providing strong and high-quality data and knowledge base and technical advice to States and competent authorities but is removed from direct management action. Without formal cooperation or information-sharing mechanisms in place, however, it is unclear how institutions will make use of this scientific advice to enact management measures. EBSAs represents a valid platform of “good� knowledge, including also that generated by people living and working at the sea. An important effort should be put in processing data in forms really useful for the decision-making process, including among the other thematic maps of current and future uses and maps of main conflicts. Exchange of knowledge (including AMP best practices) among Mediterranean countries and with other international initiatives launched in similar contexts should be encouraged and supported. Stakeholder participation is required in all stages of the EBSAs process. Not only stakeholders involvement can provide sources of knowledge and help in shaping data, it is also essential in achieving broad acceptance of the marine protection and support to its implementation. It is really important that stakeholder participation is organised ensuring a fair balance among various stakeholder typologies (e.g. representatives of: international organisations, national authorities, regional to local administrations, technical agencies, economic sector, NGOs, environmental and social organisations, research institutions, etc.) and among the different geographic areas. It is also important that the process stimulate the participation of the citizens in general, regardless of their partnership to any associations. The concept of transparency is strictly connected to participation: the mechanism that brings to decision should be easily understood by all participants to the process and any data and document should be freely accessible.

Cross-border cooperation in EBSAs is essential at all levels: methodological (e.g. common methods, data and information sharing, best practice exchange, etc.), strategic (elaboration of a joint vision; definition of shared principles, objectives and targets; cross-sectoral planning), implementation (including shared monitoring, evaluation and progressive adjustment). Such cooperation shall in particular take into account issues of a transnational nature, such as cross-border infrastructure.

Cross-border cooperation is particularly necessary on the following related issues: Data gathering and exchange; Nature conservation; Climate change adaptation, marine research and innovation; Fishing and conservation of fish stocks; Environment; Spatial planning, Regional development; Maritime transport. To ensure implementation of the common and shared vision a long-term perspective must be considered and applied in all the phases of the EBSAs process. Long-term objectives are essential in dealing with the strategic and anticipatory nature of EBSAs and allow to plan and implement actions in a period long enough to get concrete results. EBSAs must therefore ensure that short-terms goals do not compromise the long-term goals. The long-term perspective is also essential in dealing with the challenges set by climate change adaptation of the marine and maritime sectors. To be effective the model of governance of EBSAs should be legally binding; this can reinforce commitment of all the actors in ensuring their participation in the long-term, however, 98

this opens the ground to a relevant and wide discussion on international legal and governance issues.

In conclusion, while our understanding of the utility of describing EBSAs is clear, there remain questions about the role that EBSAs play within a broader management framework. A number of States, regional, and international organizations have experienced criteria similar to that used in the EBSA process and have also used these to prioritize planning and management and monitoring. In this light, the development of the inclusive EBSA criteria, which incorporate many aspects of previous criteria systems, both within and beyond national jurisdiction, has allowed for an approach compatible with other biodiversity criteria suites. Therefore, the EBSA criteria represent a common currency across marine/maritime sectors that have stimulated a new multi-party dialog amongst the CBD and international conservation agreements, sectoral management bodies, and States.

However, to be useful to these bodies' future planning efforts, the EBSA Repository will have to be made fully functional, providing access to EBSA descriptions and their supporting data. As the CBD Secretariat wraps up the initial round of EBSA regional workshops, it is time to pause and consider next steps. At all regional workshops participants have agreed that this should not be a “one-off” process, and have requested future workshops, requiring further funding and planning by the CBD. Beyond the EBSA workshops, however, there remains the second adopted annex to Decision IX/20 on Marine and coastal biodiversity, regarding the “scientific guidance for designing networks of MPAs” in ABNJ that include EBSAs as one of the five criteria. To clarify or create an effective global mechanism whereby EBSAs and their descriptions could be used, the UNGA will need to move decisively on the calling paragraph 162 of Rio+20 to address, “…on an urgent basis, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, including by taking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

99

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A HOLISTIC AND INTEGRATED MARINE VISION

1 Overall objectives and starting point 1.1)

Address fragmentation in governance and management of present and future threats to marine biodiversity;

1.2)

Work within the framework and principles established by International Conventions;

1.3)

Establish a global network of representative Marine Protected Areas and global criteria;

1.4)

Assess environmental impacts on marine environment, including cumulative impacts;

1.5)

Develop a benefit-sharing regime for Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs);

1.6)

Take into account modern conservation principles such as ecosystem-based management and the precautionary principle. 2 Moving from understanding to action in Marine Governance

2.1)

Involve local community, through effective participation and mechanisms of Comanagement. Although difficult and time consuming, stakeholder involvement is a success key. All the stakeholders, especially local communities, should be involved from the planning to the implementation of a management plan. Their commitment provides valuable support to the process of decision-making, reinforces the sense of belonging and responsibility, creating strong partnerships and facilitates future compliance with agreed regulations.

2.2)

Promote a bottom-up approach, versus the actual top-down governance. Securing the support and commitment of decision makers is crucial for the development of a good model of governance. Equally important is to ensure the support and commitment of local actors, both in finding sustainable solutions for the long term benefit and that they agree with the new regulations. The combination of approaches becomes decisive when external constraints impede high-level commitments.

100

2.3)

Guarantee transparency mechanism of governance. Transparency in oceans governance is required. Some recent global initiatives related to oceans, including in relation to ABNJ, need to be more transparent and to take better account of the interests of, and the need for the involvement of, developing countries.

2.4)

Inform and educate stakeholders. Communication is a key tool for a good model of governance and for changing behavior. This commitment leads to greater awareness, confidence, and ownership of stakeholders and provides a connection to the decision makers.

2.5)

Exchange and share experiences. Challenges faced by government, agencies, managers and resource users tend to be generic across regions and countries. Networking and exchange of experience is an effective way to promote dialogue between equals tool. This is particularly effective for specific groups, such as fishermen and tourism operators who benefit from experience first hand the value that a MPA in operation can bring to their activities and interest income. ď‚˜3ď‚™ Defining a Marine Area-Based management tools

3.1)

Define a global framework for the identification, designation and establishment of marine protected areas in ABNJ;

3.2)

Define a global framework for regional cooperation similar to that in place for RFMO (Regional fisheries management organisation), as under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement for regional seas organizations;

3.3)

Define a legal framework with legally binding provisions;

3.4)

Apply systematic methods with a long-term vision. A key factor is a good strategic planning based on best practices adapted to each context. This systematic approach is particularly important when the human and financial resources are limited, providing care priorities and maximizing efficiency.

3.5)

Apply Integrated management planning. A good management plan should consider the ecological, social and economic objectives related to sea, coastal, marine and terrestrial resources. The human dimension must be integrated to recognize that people are key components of a Marine Area.

3.6)

Develop adaptive management strategies. To achieve the goals of successful conservation, establishment and management of MPAs should be based on sound scientific data 101

describing the site (e.g., biodiversity, socio-economic indicators). This requires an open dialogue between scientists and managers to ensure adaptive management of marine resources.

3.7)

Strengthen capacity building. Management planning requires a range of skills, including resource management and conservation, facilitation and conflict resolution and communication. Training programs on these topics should be developed for the team in charge of management planning, and stakeholders in the planning process. Training combined with field experience allows everyone involved in the handling and use of the marine area to build their skills and learn the skills of each. 4 Implementing Ecologically or Biologically Significant marine Areas (EBSAs)

4.1)

Incorporate EBSAs into sectoral and MPA planning, with an obligation to assess prior impacts and not authorize actions to go forward unless managed to prevent significant adverse impacts;

4.2)

Develop systematic assessments and the sharing of data and expertise across sectors;

4.3.)

Give effective responses by sectoral organizations to inform on areas of ecological or biological significance;

4.4)

Coordinate/Collaborate the process to identify EBSAs with other international processes to conserve Marine Biodiversity. 5

Improving Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) 5.1)

Respect the obligation under article 206 of UNCLOS to carry out impact assessments needs;

5.2)

Overarch a global framework to conduct EIA that would include criteria on the activities and thresholds that would require an EIA;

5.3)

Define standards or guidelines for how to conduct EIA and improve SEA to address programmes, plans and policies;

5.4)

Define procedures for reporting, assessment, and monitoring of activities;

5.5)

Improve cumulative impacts and cross-sectoral assessments to address conflicting existing uses or activities such as fishing, seabed mining and the laying of submarine cables;

5.6)

Provide follow-up actions on EIA; 102

5.7)

Regulate the implementation of potential and emerging activities in ABNJ, such as climate engineering, marine tourism, offshore mariculture (aquaculture carried out in seawater), offshore energy production, and underwater noise. 6 Developing Conservation and Management Tools in ABNJ

6.1)

Improve a better coordinated management approach in ABNJ;

6.2)

Promote the creation of organisations with a mandate for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ or with regulatory capacity for ocean uses not regulated elsewhere;

6.3)

Improve a cross-sectoral management approaches and better coordination and cooperation among sectoral authorities;

6.4)

Establish a mechanism of responsibility of States for activities in ABNJ. 7 Supporting a Marine Science Approach for ABNJ

7.1)

Support further scientific research in ABNJ to fill data gaps and enhance understanding;

7.2)

Develop a centralized data repository for research results;

7.3)

Icrease North-South cooperation. 8 Supporting Technology Transfer and Capacity Building

8.1)

Implement Part XIV of UNCLOS on the development and transfer of marine technology;

8.2)

Define global mechanisms for technology transfer and data sharing, as well as to protect commercially confidential data and address data access.

103

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABNJ

Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

ACCOBAMS

Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area

ASW

Atlantic Surface Water mass

AW

Atlantic Waters

BARCOM

Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean

BBNJ

Marine Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction

CAMP

Coastal Area Management Programme

CCAA

Autonomous Community (Comunidades Autónomas)

CBD

Convention of Biological Diversity

CAP

Coastal Action Plan

COP

Conference of the Parties

CR

Critically Endangered (IUCN)

CS

Continental shelf

DPSIR

Drivers-Pressures–State changes-Impacts–Responses options

EAG

Eastern Alborán Gyre

EBSAs

Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas

ECAP

Ecosystem Approach

EEZ

Exclusive economic zone

EFPZ

Ecological and Fishery Protection Zone

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

EPZ

Ecological Protection Zone

EU

European Union

EUSAIR

European Strategy for Adriatic Ionian Region

FAO

Fischery and Agriculture Organisation

FFEM

Fond Français pour l’Environnement Mondial

FPZ

Fisheries protection zone 104

FPZ-SPA

Fisheries/ecological protection zone

FRA

Fishery Restricted Area

GEF

Global Environmental Facilities

GES

Good Environmental Status

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GFCM

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

GOODS

Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed

IBA

Important Bird Area

ICZM

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

IMO

International Maritime Organisation

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

IW

Internal waters

JW

Jurisdictional waters

LIV

Levantine Intermediate Water

LOS

Law of the Sea

MAP

Mediterranean Action Plan

MCSD

Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development

MEDPAN

Mediterranean Protected Areas Network

MEDSPA

Current LIFE programme

MEOW

Marine Ecoregions of the World

MGRs

Marine Genetic Resources

MPA

Marine Protected Areas

MSFD

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

MSP

Maritime Spatial Planning

NBL

Normal baseline

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

ONEDD

National Observatory for the Environment and Sustainable Development

OSPAR

Oslo and Paris Conventions

PNAEDD

National Action Plan for the Environment and Sustainable Development 105

PSSAs

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

RACs

Regional Activity Centres

RFMO

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

RRMM

Spanish Marine Reserves (Reservas Marinas)

SAdDW

Southern Adriatic Deep Water

SBL

Straight Baseline

SBSTTA

Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice

SDAL

Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement du Littoral

SEA

Strategic Environmental Assessments

SMAP

Short and Medium Term Priority Environmental Action Programme

SNAT

Schéma National d’Aménagement du Territoire

SPA

Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean

SPAMIs

Special Areas of Mediterranean Interest

SRAT

Schémas Régionaux d’Aménagement du Territoire

TS

Territorial sea

UFM

Union for the Mediterranean

UJ

Undetermined jurisdiction

UCH

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

UNCLOS

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNEP

United Nation Environment Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

VMEs

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

WAG

Western Alborán Gyre

WFDE

Waterfront Directive Ecoregions

WMDW

Western Mediterranean Deep Waters

106

READING PRACTICAL TOOLS LIST OF BOXES BOX 1

EBSAS Scientific Criteria

Pag. 12

BOX 2

EBSAs Properties and components

Pag. 12

BOX 3

EBSAs-MPAs Representative Networks Steps

Pag. 13

BOX 4

State obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment

Pag. 13

BOX 5

EBSAs CBD 2012 Final Decision

Pag. 16

BOX 6

North Adriatic Area EBSAs criteria

Pag. 35

BOX 7

Central Adriatic Area EBSAs criteria

Pag. 37

BOX 8

South Adriatic Area EBSAs criteria

Pag. 39

BOX 9

The 4 EUSAIR pillars

Pag. 40

BOX 10

EBSAs Methodology and Transboundary Governance in Mediterranean Region Pag. 42

BOX 11

EBSAS Governance in EUSAIR

Pag. 44

BOX 12

Environmental Quality EUSAIR Pillar

Pag. 44

BOX 13

EBSAS Platform for Europe 2020 Strategy

Pag. 45

BOX 14

EBSAS Approach in EUSAIR Marine Policy

Pag. 48

BOX 15

Trilateral Commission for the protection of the Adriatic and EBSAs

Pag. 49

BOX 16

Adriatic-Ionian Initiative and EBSAs

Pag. 50

BOX 17

Adriatic Euroregion Initiative and EBSAs

Pag. 50

BOX 18

Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and EBSAs

Pag. 51

BOX 19

Adriatic Sea Vision and EBSAS

Pag. 53

BOX 20

Adriatic Governance and EBSAs

Pag. 54

BOX 21

EBSAs potentialities in Adriatic Sea

Pag. 55

BOX 22

Adriatic Cooperation Structures

Pag. 57

BOX 23

EBSAs Process and Adriatic Mapping

Pag. 58

BOX 24

Adriatic Thematic Maps

Pag. 59

BOX 25

Adriatic Common vision and EBSAs

Pag. 64

BOX 26

Pan-Adriatic view and EBSAs process

Pag. 64 107

BOX 27

Multi-scale approach and EBSAs process

Pag. 64

BOX 28

Scientifically based approach and EBSAs process

Pag. 65

BOX 29

Stakeholder participation and EBSAs Process

Pag. 65

BOX 30

Cross-border cooperation and EBSAs process

Pag. 65

BOX 31

Integration and EBSAs Process

Pag. 66

BOX 32

Long-term perspective and EBSAs Process

Pag. 66

BOX 33

Legally binding rules and EBSAs process

Pag. 67

BOX 34

Connectivity and EBSAS Process

Pag. 67

BOX 35

Emerging and future maritime activities in Algeria

Pag. 73

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1

The evolution of the EBSA process

Pag. 14

FIGURE 2

CBD EBSAs identification and information-sharing process

Pag. 17

FIGURE 3

The Global Framework

Pag. 21

FIGURE 4

International Organisations and other Marine Conservation Areas

Pag. 22

FIGURE 5

European Framework

Pag. 28

108

LIST OF MAPS MAP 1

Areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean

Pag. 18

MAP 2

North Adriatic Area meeting the EBSAs criteria

Pag. 35

MAP 3

Central Adriatic Area meeting the EBSAs criteria

Pag. 37

MAP 4

South Adriatic Area meeting the EBSAs criteria

Pag. 39

MAP 5

The Alborán Sea and Connected Areas meeting EBSAs criteria

Pag. 71

MAP 6

Algeria Maritime Jurisdiction

Pag. 72

MAP 7

Location of the fishing zones in El Kala – Jijel

Pag. 73

MAP 8

Marine Protected Areas – Algeria

Pag. 74

MAP 9

Area covered by CAMP Annaba and CAMP Oran

Pag. 76

MAP 10

Morocco Maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean

Pag. 78

MAP 11

Morocco Marine Protected Areas

Pag. 79

MAP 12

Coastal Area Management Programme (CAMP) for the Morocco Coastal Zone Pag. 80

MAP 13

MedWetCoast – Moroccan sites

Pag. 80

MAP 14

Spain Maritime Jurisdiction in Mediterranean

Pag. 81

MAP 15

Spanish Marine Reserves

Pag. 83

MAP 16

Maritime Jurisdiction of Gibraltar

Pag. 86

MAP 17

Maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean

Pag. 95

109

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1

International Organisations Marine Conservation Areas and Criteria

Pag. 23

TABLE 2

International Criteria and EBSAs Correspondence

Pag. 24

TABLE 3

EUSAIR Framework

Pag. 41

TABLE 4

EBSAs umbrella in EUSAIR Macro-Region Strategies

Pag. 43

TABLE 5

EBSAs Umbrella for EUSAIR Marine Strategies

Pag. 46

TABLE 6

Adriatic Framework

Pag. 49

TABLE 7

Algeria Boundaries pending delimitation

Pag. 72

TABLE 8

Coastal Area Management Programme (CAMP) for the Algerian Coastal Zone Pag. 75

TABLE 9

Morocco Boundaries pending delimitation

Pag. 78

TABLE 10

Spain Boundaries pending delimitation

Pag. 82

TABLE 11

Straits of Gibraltar dispute: Spain-Morocco-Gibraltar (UK)

Pag. 86

TABLE 12

Alborรกn Sea Dispute: Spain-Morocco

Pag. 87

TABLE 13

Relevant stakeholders in the Alborรกn Sea basin

Pag. 88

TABLE 14

EU Cooperation policies

Pag. 90

TABLE 15

Transboundary Cooperation

Pag. 91

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alder J and others, A Method for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management, Coastal Management, 30:121–131, 2002.

Algeria Country Report to European Commission, 2011 Barcelona Convention, COP 15 Decision IG 17/6, 2008.

Barcelona Convention, COP 16 Decision IG.19/13, 2009.

Barcelona Convention, COP 17 Decision IG 20/4, 2012 Barcelona Convention, COP18 Decision IG.21/5, 2013.

Barcelona Convention, SPA and Biodiversity, Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, 1995.

CBD, Convention, Article 7. Article 14.

CBD, COP 8, Decision VIII/24 on Protected Areas, Annex II. CBD, COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity CBD, COP 10, Decision X/29 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity CBD, Marine spatial planning in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, A study carried out in response to CBD COP 10 decision X/29, CBD technical Series 68, 2012.

CBD, Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, February 2013 CBD, Report of the Mediterranean Regional Workshop to facilitate the description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas, Málaga, 7 to 11 April 2014”, UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4, 22 May 2014.

Cachón de Mesa J., Presentation on Marin Wind Farms in Spain – Environmental Assessment Strategic Study, 2009.

Chafi A., Historique de la GIZC au Maroc. Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire, de l’Eau et de l’Environnement, 2007.

CIA, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.

Croatia Country Report to European Commission 2011 Dakki M., Programme d’Aménagement Côtier en Méditerranée marocaine, 2004.

Diedrich et al., Marine Policy, 34 pp 772–781, 2010.

Druel E., Working paper, Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs): the identification process under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and possible ways forward, IDDRI N°17/12 July 2012 | biodiversity.

Duncan E.J. Currie LL.B. (Hons.) LL.M., Overview of Legal and Regulatory and Implementation Gaps in the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, une 9, 2014.

111

Dunn DC,et al. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas: Origins, development, and current status. Mar. Policy (2014).

EarthTrends, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems – Algeria.

EarthTrends, Coastal and marine ecosystems – Morocco.

Eunetmar, Analysis to support the elaboration of the Adriatic and Ionian maritime Action Plan, March 2014.

Eunetmar, Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in the Mediterranean, Adriatic and Ionian, and Black Sea, Analysis to support the elaboration of the Adriatic and Ionian maritime Action Plan, March 2014.

European Commission, Action Plan Accompanying the document Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, COM(2014) 357 final, Brussels, 17.6.2014 SWD(2014) 190 final.

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, Brussels, 17.6.2014 SWD(2014) 191 final, COM(2014) 357 final.

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions “An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union”, COM(2007)575 final, Brussels, 10.10.2007 European Commission, Communication from the Commission of 11 November 2009 - Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean COM (2009)466.

European Commission, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), 25.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 164/19.

European Commission, Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Proposal for a establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management, COM(2013) 133 final 2013/0074 (COD), SWD(2013) 64 final.

European Commission, Directorate-General (DG) for Internal Policies, Policy department structural and cohesion policies, jurisdictional waters in the Mediterranean and Black seas, 2010.

European Commission, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in the Mediterranean, Adriatic/Ionian and Black Sea., Report 2, 2013.

European Commission, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Costs and benefits arising from the establishment of maritime zones in the Mediterranean Sea, 2013.

European Commission, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, The potential of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Mediterranean Sea, Case study report: The Alborán Sea, 2011.

European Commission, Discussion-Paper on EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR), August 2013.

European Commission, European neighbourhood and partnership instrument, Algeria strategy paper 2007–2013 & National Indicative Programme 2007 – 2010.

European Commission, Fact sheet on integrated maritime policy in Spain, 2009.

112

European Commission, Interact Paper, background: What is the EUSAIR and where do we find its origins, 2013.

European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the governance of macro-regional strategies, Brussels, 20.5.2014, COM(2014) 284 final.

European Commission, Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, 2012.

European Commission, Supportive Analytical Document Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, Brussels, 17.6.2014, COM(2014)357 final. SWD(2014)190 final European Commission, Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in the Mediterranean, Adriatic and Ionian, and Black Sea, MARE/2012/07 - Ref. n. 2.

European Commission, EU Marine Strategy, the story behind the strategy, 2006.

European Commission, EU Maritime Policy – Facts and Figures: Spain, 2009.

European Council, Conclusions, 13/14 December 2012, Brussels, EUCO 205/12, CO EUR 19, CO_CL 5.

FAO, Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management, best practices in governance and enforcement of marine protected areas: an overview, Review of Issues and Considerations (12–14 June, 2006).

FAO, Yearbook of fishery statistics, 2011.

Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, Methods for the identification of EBSAs in the Adriatic Sea, 3 rd international workshop on biodiversity in Adriatic: towards a representative network of MPA in Adriatic, Piran 28.29 October 2010.

G.P. Wild (International) Limited and Business Research & Economic Advisors, 2009, Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of Europe.

Greenpeace, Marine reserves for the Mediterranean Sea. IASS (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies), Advancing Governance of the High Seas, IASS Policy brief 1/2013.

IISD Reporting Service, Earth Negotiation Bulletin, SBSTTA 18 Highlights, Vol. 9, n. 625, 24.06.2014.

IISD Reporting Service, Earth Negotiation Bulletin, Summary of the 5 th meeting of the working group on review of implementation and 18th meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice of the convention on biological diversity. Vol. 9, n. 629, 01.07.2014 IPA Adriatic Cross-border Programme, Joint Technical Secretariat IPA Adriatic CBC Programme, 2013.

Italy Country Report to European Commission 2011 IUCN, Alborán, une vision pour le futur, 2007.

IUCN, An agreement regarding the future of the Alborán Sea, 2009.

113

IUCN, Conservation et développement durable de la Mer d’Alborán: Eléments stratégiques pour sa gestion future, 2007.

IUCN, Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action, IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n.20 in collaboration with the ICCA Consortium, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (via GIZ) and the CBD Secretariat, IUCN, Position paper on Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention (WGRI5) Eighteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA18), 16-20 June and 23-28 June, 2014, Montreal, Canada IUCN, Propuesta de una red representativa de áreas marinas protegidas en el mar de Alborán, 2012.

MAGRAMA, Estrategias marinas documento marco evaluación inicial, buen estado ambiental y objetivos ambientales, Madrid, 2012.

MEDPAN, The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea, 2012.

Melhaoui M. and El Hafid L., De l’approche GICZ à la mise en place du contrat d’espace littoral : cas de la zone littorale Moulouya-Saîda, 2008.

Ministère de la pêche et des ressources halieutiques, Le secteur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture en Algérie, 2008.

Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire, de l’Environnement et du Tourisme, le cadastre du littoral.

Ministère de L’Aménagement du Territoire, de l’Eau et de l’environnement, Programme d’Aménagement Côtier en Méditerranée marocaine, Etude de faisabilité, 2004.

Ministerios de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, de Medio Ambiente, y de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Estudio estratégico ambiental del litoral español para la instalación de parques eólicos marinos, 2009.

Ministry for the Environment and Rural and Maritime Affairs, Estrategia para la Sostenibilidad de la Costa, 2007.

Ministry for the Environment and Rural and Maritime Affairs, 2005, Hacia una gestión sostenible del litoral español (ICZM strategy).

Montenegro Country Report to European Commission 2011.

Morocco Country Report to European Commission 2011.

OCEANA, Scientific Information to Describe Areas Meeting Scientific Criteria for Mediterranean EBSAs, March 2014.

Offshore, Global Offshore Wind Farms Database, www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind, 2009.

OSPAR Commission, Annual Report, 2012-2013.

PAP/RAC, Project SMAP III : Sensibilisation et création d’un cadre politique favorisant l’intégration de l’environnement et du développement avec l’accent sur la gestion intégrée des zones côtières.

PAP/RAC, the Coastal Management Centre, www.pap-the coastcentre.org.

PAP/RAC, the Mediterranean ICAM Clearing House, www.papmedclearinghouse.org/eng PAP/RAC, 2007, La Planification Marine en Algérie.

114

PAP/RAC, CAMP Rif Central, Morocco.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management, COM (2013) 133 final Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, Article 8(2).

Pigliacelli P., “Fishing governance in MPAs: potentialities for Blue Economy” (FishMPABlue), Torre Cerrano 04/06/2014.

Policy Research Corporation, The potential of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Mediterranean Sea, Case study report: The Adriatic Sea, 2011.

Shape Project, Methodological handbook on Maritime Spatial Planning in the Adriatic Sea, Veneto Region, Thetis, 2014.

Shape Project, MSP in the Adriatic: problem and opportunity analysis, thematic mapping and inputs for a future vision, Veneto Region, Thetis, Action 4.3 Final Report 10 February 2014.

Shape Project, Holistic management of the Adriatic Sea, Approaching to a common and legally binding MSP in Adriatic area: an integrated analysis of the legal framework, policies and planning instruments, Veneto Region, Thetis, Action 4.1 Final Report 15 May 2013.

Slovenia Country Report to European Commission 2011.

Spain Country Report to European Commission 2011.

Spanish Wind Energy Association, Wind power, 2009.

Suarez de Vivero J.L., European Maritime Policy and Spatial Planning, Methodological application to the Atlantic-Mediterranean Arc. Timo Koivurova, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law Arctic Centre University of Lapland Rovaniemi, Finland, A Note on the European Union’s Integrated, Maritime Policy, Ocean Development & International Law, 40:171–183, 2009.

Tonino M., Soriani S., The relationship between Marine Protected Areas management and ICZM Implementation: the North Adriatic case, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice – Italy, Silvi, June 2014.

Tonino M., Transboundary governance of marine protected areas: A comparison of the North Adriatic and Wadden Sea case studies, Doctoral Thesis, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, 2014.

UNCLOS, Articles 117–120, Article 192. Article 194.5. Articles 204–206.

UNITED NATIONS FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT, Article 5.

UNEP, Governing Marine Protected Areas Getting the Balance Right, Technical Report, 2004.

UNEP, Plan de acción del Mediterráneo, UNEP (DEPI)/MED IG.21/9, 16 de diciembre de 2013.

UNEP, Regarding a regional working programme for the coastal and marine protected areas in the Mediterranean including the High Sea" (DEPI)/MED IG.19/8. Annex II, Page 99, Decision IG.19/13.

UNEP/CBD, Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs). Scientific collaboration among dedicated experts to better understand marine biodiversity and support country efforts to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, 2012 115

UNEP/CBD/EBSAWS, Internal report, “Status of the open sea fisheries in the Alborán Sea”, Malaga, Spain, 7-11 April 2014.

UNEP/CBD/EBSAWS, Submission, RAC-SPA-SR, Toward the identification of EBSAS in the Adriatic sea: hotspots of megafauna, Working document prepared by Caterina Fortuna, Peter Mackelworth, Draško Holcer.

UNEP/CBD/EBSAWS, Submission Spain, Iberian Mediterranean Seas, Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Universidad de Málaga.

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/INF/14 UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/10.

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA 18/4 and Add.1 UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/INF/25, 23-28 June 2014.

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/L.9.

UNEP/CBD/EBSA/WS/2014/3/4.

UNEP/CBD/COP/11/3 UNEP/CBD/COP/12/L.20.

UNEP/CBD/COP/11/L.29 UNEP, MAP, Blue plan – Regional Activity Centre, The Blue Plan’s sustainable development outlook for the Mediterranean, 2008 UNEP/MAP, Note on the ecosystems approach process in 2012-2013 biennium, Athens, 2012.

UNEP/MAP, Regional Working Programme for the Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea including the High Sea, 2009.

UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014 UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014a.

UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2014b.

UNGA Resolution 59/24, 17 November 2004.

World Bank, Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Morocco.

World Database on protected areas, http://www.protectedplanet.net/ WWEA, World Wind Energy Report, 2010.

116

ANNEX 1 MAIN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE MEDITERRAEAN EBSAS COUNTRIES AGREEMENT

ADRIATIC EBSAS COUNTRIES

UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 12 .12.1982).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

SFS Agreement - United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 4.12.1995).

Albania Croatia Italy, Montenegro Slovenia

ALBORAN EBSAS COUNTRIES

EU

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

1. Italy 2. Slovenia

1. Spain

X

UCH Convention - Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 2.11.2001).

1. Croatia 2. Montenegr 3. Slovenia

1. Spain

CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5.06.1992).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

CMS – Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn, 23.06.1979).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

Bern Convention - Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 19.09.1979).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Morocco 2. Spain

X

SOLAS - International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1.11. 1974).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (2.11. 1973)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

117

Salvage - International Convention on Salvage (28.04. 1989).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Spain

SUA. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (10 March 1988), in force from 1 March 1992.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

Smuggling Prot. Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (New York, 15.11.2000).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Spain

X

Barcelona Conv. Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona, 16.02.1976).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

Barcelona Amend. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona, 16.02.1976 amended 10.06.1995).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

Dumping Prot. Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Barcelona, 16.02.1976).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain,

X

Dumping Prot. Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea (Barcelona, 16.02.1976 amended 10.06.1995), not yet in force.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Morocco 2. Spain

X

Emergency Prot. Protocol concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency (Barcelona, 16.02.1976).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

Emergency Prot. Protocol concerning Cooperation in Preventing Pollution from Ships and, in Cases of Emergency, Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea (Malta, 25.01.2002).

1. Croatia 2. Montenegro 3. Slovenia

LBS Prot.Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Landbased Sources (Athens, 17.05.1980).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

X

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

118

LBS Prot. Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Landbased Sources and Activities (Syracuse, 7.03.1996).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Morocco 2. Spain

X

SPA Prot. Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas (Geneva, 3.04.1982).

1.

2.

3.

4.

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

SPA Prot. - Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona, 10.06.1995).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Spain

X

Offshore Prot. - Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the Seabed and its Subsoil (Madrid, 14.10.1994), not yet in force.

1. Albania

1. Morocco

HW Prot. - Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Izmir, 1.10.1996).

1. Albania 2. Montenegro

1. Morocco

ICZM Prot. - Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Madrid, 21.01.2008), not yet in force.

/

Albania Croatia Italy Slovenia

/

/

ACCOBAMS - Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area (Monaco, 24.11.1996)

1.

2.

3.

4.

Paris MOU - Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port state Control (Paris, 26.01.1982)

1. Croatia 2. Italy 3. Slovenia

1. Spain

Mediterranean MOU Memorandum of Understanding on Port state Control in the Mediterranean Region (Malta, 11.07.1997).

1. Italy

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

Status of observers

GFCM - Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (Rome, 24.09.1949)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

ICCAT - International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (Rio de Janeiro, 14.05.1966)

1. Albania 2. Croatia 3. Italy

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain

X

Albania Croatia Italy Montenegro Slovenia

1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. Spain,

119

ANNEX 2 JURISDICTIONAL CONCEPTES The legal framework of the UNCLOS (1982) provides jurisdictional structure to the maritime space.

UNCLOS defines a number of territorial spaces that may wholly or partly be proclaimed by coastal states.

The main territorial forms that national jurisdiction of the maritime space may take are:  IW - Internal Water  TS - Territorial Sea  CZ - Contiguous Zone  CS- Continental Shelf  EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone The waters located outside the jurisdiction of states are:  High Seas;  Seabed and subsoil not subject to State jurisdiction is known as the “area”.

Alongside the jurisdictional spaces defined in UNCLOS, the coastal states of the Mediterranean have also established:  FPZ - Fisheries Protection Zones  EPZ - Ecological Protection Zones.

Normal baseline (NBL): the line from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Its course corresponds to the low-water line along the coast. (UNCLOS, Art. 5) Straight baseline (SBL): line obtained by linking points furthest from the coast and must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast (UNCLOS, Art. 7).

Internal waters (IW): waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the state’ (UNCLOS, Art. 8). States exercise full territorial sovereignty over such waters, the seabed and subsoil and superjacent airspace.

Historic bay: when a state claims the waters of a bay as internal waters on the basis of historic rights, and can demonstrate effective and continuing authority over those waters (UNCLOS, Art. 10).

Territorial sea: a strip of sea adjacent to the territory and internal waters of the coastal state over which the state exercises full sovereignty both over the groundwater and over the superjacent airspace, seabed and subsoil of that sea. The maximum breadth of territorial sea is 12 nautical miles (UNCLOS, Arts. 2, 3 and 4),

120

Contiguous zone: waters located beyond the territorial sea and adjacent to it and in which the coastal state may take customs, fiscal, immigration or health measures. Its breadth may not exceed 24 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. (UNCLOS, Art.33).

Exclusive economic zone: maritime area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea in which the coastal state exercises sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, the seabed and its subsoil and the superjacent waters. Its breadth is 200 nautical miles from the straight baselines from which the territorial sea is measured. (UNCLOS, Arts. 55, 56 and 57).

Continental shelf: natural prolongation of a coastal state’s submarine territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles if the continental margin does not extend this far. The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal state and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise (UNCLOS, Art. 76).

High seas: parts of the sea not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea, in the internal waters or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state. The high seas are free for all states and reserved for peaceful purposes (UNCLOS, Art. 88).

Area: the sea and ocean bed and its subsoil outside the limits of national jurisdiction. The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind; no state or natural or juridical person can acquire it. The natural resources of the Area are the minerals within it (UNCLOS, Art. 136, 137).

Islands and rocks: natural area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. The territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention that are applicable to other land territory. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf (UNCLOS, Art. 121).

Archipelagic state: a state constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and which may include other islands (UNCLOS, Art. 46). In the Mediterranean, there is only one archipelagic state, Malta.

Archipelago: a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such (UNCLOS, Art. 46).

Enclosed or semi-enclosed sea: a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more states and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal states’ (UNCLOS, Art. 122). The states bordering

121

an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea should cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties under this Convention (UNCLOS, Art. 123).

JURISDICTIONAL SPACES NOT DEFINED IN UNCLOS Archaeological contiguous zone: 12 nautical miles adjacent to the territorial sea, proclaimed by some countries (Algeria, Cyprus, France, Italy and Tunisia) to protect submerged cultural heritage (European Commission, 2009).

Ecological protection zone. There is no official definition of an ecological protection zone but it can be described as an area aimed at preserving the biodiversity and fishery resources and at protecting the environment.

Fishery zone/fishery protection zone is an area of variable breadth (up to 200 nautical miles) declared by a coastal state around its coastline, and within which it exercises control over access to fishery resources. It has no jurisdictional effect over other resources.

122

ANNEX 3 INDICATIVE SURVEYS ON ADRIATIC SEA*

1. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY COUNTRIES 2. SECTORS REPRESENTED 3. AREAS OF INTEREST 4. MARINE SECTORS OF INTEREST 5. FAMILIARITY WITH MSP PRINCIPLES 6. ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT IN MSP 7. RELEVANCE OF MSP IN THE ADRIATIC SEA 8. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE BENEFITS OF MSP IMPLEMENTATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA? 9. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY PRINCIPLES FOR A SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP IN THE ADRIATIC SEA? 10. FEASIBILITY OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA 11. IN WHICH SECTOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA IS PARTICULARLY NECESSARY? 12. RELEVANCE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE MARITIME USES OF THE ADRIATIC SEA 13. MATRIX OF COMPATIBILITY/INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN MARITIME USES IN THE ADRIATIC SEA

* Results of the Shape project, Final Report, 10 February 2014 123

- FIGURE 1 – DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY COUNTRIES

- FIGURE 2SECTORS REPRESENTED

124

- FIGURE 3 – AREAS OF INTEREST OF RESPONDENTS

- FIGURE 4 – MARINE SECTORS OF INTEREST

125

- FIGURE 5 – FAMILIARITY WITH MSP PRINCIPLES

- FIGURE 6 – ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT IN MSP

126

- FIGURE 7 – RELEVANCE OF MSP IN THE ADRIATIC SEA

- FIGURE 8 – WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE BENEFITS OF MSP IMPLEMENTATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA?

127

- FIGURE 9 – WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY PRINCIPLES FOR A SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP IN THE ADRIATIC SEA?

- FIGURE 10 – FEASIBILITY OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA

128

- FIGURE 11 – IN WHICH SECTOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN THE ADRIATIC SEA IS PARTICULARLY NECESSARY?

- FIGURE 12 – RELEVANCE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE MARITIME USES OF THE ADRIATIC SEA

129

- FIGURE 13 – MATRIX OF COMPATIBILITY/INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN MARITIME USES IN THE ADRIATIC SEA (GREEN: COMPATIBLE USES, YELLOW: CONDITIONALLY COMPATIBLE USES, ORANGE: INCOMPATIBLE USES).

130