1. An Ambitious Objective
In 2010, the 10th Conference of the Parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity1, held in Nagoya (Aichi prefecture), adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the twenty Biodiversity Targets (Decision X/2). According to Target 11, by 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, should be conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.
In December 2022, taking into account the varying levels of progress towards the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Conference of the Parties adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Decision 15/4) that should be used as a strategic plan for the implementation of the CBD. Building on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, its achievements, gaps, and lessons learned, and on the experience and achievements of other relevant multilateral environmental agreements, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in societies’ relationship with biodiversity by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its sustainable development goals, and to ensure that, by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled2. The Framework sets forth four long-term goals for 2050 related to the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity and 23 action-oriented global targets for urgent action over the decade to 2030 that should be implemented consistently and in harmony with the CBD, its Protocols and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national circumstances, priorities and socio-economic conditions. Some of the targets are particularly important for the purposes of marine spatial planning and marine protected areas:
“Target 1. Ensure that all areas are under participatory integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land and sea use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. (…)
Target 3. Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories”.
As it can be noticed, the area conservation objective is upgraded to 30 per cent, but postponed to 2030 (so-called 30 x 30 objective). Will the area conservation objective in 2030 be upgraded and postponed again? Time will tell.
2. Concepts Requiring Consistent Definitions (MPA, OECM, ABMT)3
Marine protected areas do not appear in the text of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea4. However, they are implicitly referred to in Art. 194, para. 5, which includes among the measures for the protection and preservation of the marine environment “those 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”. It goes without saying that the typical, even if not the only, measure to protect such ecosystems and species is the establishment of a marine protected area.
The concept of “protected area” is defined generally by the CBD as follows:
“(…) a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives”5.
In line, mutatis mutandis, with the above-mentioned definition, the concept of “marine protected area” is defined in the 2023 Agreement under the UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity beyond National Jurisdiction6 as follows:
“(…) a geographically defined marine area that is designated and managed to achieve specific long-term biological diversity conservation objectives and may allow, where appropriate, sustainable use provided it is consistent with the conservation objectives”7.
It appears that two conditions are required to qualify an area of marine waters or seabed as a marine protected area: first, being delimited within geographical boundaries, including, if appropriate, buffer zones; second, being intended to achieve specific biological conservation objectives and, consequently, enjoying a higher level of protection than other areas of marine waters or seabed.
It can be inferred from the definition, that marine protected areas may include waters that are completely offshore, entirely coastal or a combination of the two, as well as areas that include or do not include portions of seabed. A corollary of the definition is that the exploitation of natural resources and other economic activities are not necessarily prohibited within a marine protected area, provided that they are carried out in a sustainable way8.
Additional elements that should preferably concur, also in order to avoid that a marine protected area is established only on the paper of official journals, are a suitable size, location and design, the drawing of a management plan or equivalent that addresses the need for conservation and promotes social and economic goals, as well as the provision of financial resources and staff capacity to effectively implement the protection measures9.
As already recalled, for achieving the 30 x 30 objective also “other effective area-based conservation measures” are relevant besides marine protected areas. In 2018, the parties to the CBD agreed on the definition, guiding principles, common characteristics and criteria for identification of other effective area-based conservation measures (Decision XIV/8). The definition is the following:
“‘Other effective area-based conservation measure’ means a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and, where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values”.
Annex III to Decision XIV/8 provides technical advice on other effective area-based conservation measures, as well as criteria for their identification. It explains, inter alia, that this concept applies to areas that are not currently recognized or reported as a protected area or parts of a protected area and may be adopted also for protecting cultural, spiritual, socio-economic and other relevant values.
Annex IV to Decision XIV/8 puts forward considerations in achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in marine and coastal areas and generally categorizes other effective area-based conservation measures different from marine protected areas as “territories and areas governed and managed by indigenous peoples and local communities”10, “area-based fisheries management measures”11 and “other sectoral area-based management approaches”12.
It is evident that other effective area-based conservation measures open new opportunities for States to assess the potential of different measures for achieving nature conservation objectives and to report them also for the purposes of achieving the 30 x 30 objective.
A further element in the global picture is the new concept of “area-based management tool” that has been introduced by the BBNJ Agreement. It is defined as follows:
“‘Area-based management tool’ means a tool, including a marine protected area, for a geographically defined area through which one or several sectors or activities are managed with the aim of achieving particular conservation and sustainable use objectives in accordance with this Agreement”13.
It appears that a marine protected area is a kind of area-based management tool, as both assume a spatial delimitation. However, the latter notion refers to a wide-ranging and multi-purpose category. While marine protected areas are established exclusively for conservation objectives, area-based management tools, while indirectly contributing to such objectives, can be adopted also for other purposes, such as fishing, safety of navigation or preservation of the cultural heritage.
It seems premature, lacking an adequate practice, to seize the difference between the concept of other effective area-based conservation measure and that of area-based management tool. However, in order to avoid growing confusion the difference, if any14, should be clarified sooner or later (sooner is better).
3. Prospects for the Mediterranean Sea
A number of marine protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures and area-based management tools have already been put in place in the Mediterranean Sea according to the domestic legislation of a coastal States (in most cases) or an international treaty (the Pelagos Sanctuary for marine mammals established in 1999 by an agreement between France, Italy and Monaco). However, there is a widespread feeling that much has still to be done to meet the 30 x 30 objective in this complex semi-enclosed sea, which is bordered by 23 coastal States and where important economic activities, including shipping, mining and fishing, are carried out.
In 2021, by Decision IG.25/12, the Meeting of the Parties to the 1976-1995 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean adopted the Post-2020 Regional Strategy for marine and coastal protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures in the Mediterranean. It identified two post-2020 targets as follows:
“i) By 2030, at least 30 per cent of the Mediterranean Sea is protected and conserved through well connected, ecologically representative and effective systems of marine and coastal protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, ensuring adequate geographical balance, with the focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity.
ii) By 2030, the number and coverage of marine and coastal protected areas with enhanced protection levels is increased, contributing to the recovery of marine ecosystems”.
According to the Post-2020 Regional Strategy, there is a clear need to expand the marine and coastal protected areas network and to establish a greater balance across countries, sub-regions and habitats coverage to achieve a greater ecological representation.
In the Final Declaration adopted at the 2025 Meeting, the parties reaffirmed their commitment, among other things, to:
“strengthen and expand Marine and Coastal Protected Areas and Other Effective Area Based Conservation Measures with the aim of protecting 30% of the Mediterranean by 2030”15.
An interesting exercise for the near future is to determine if certain areas qualify for calculating the achievement of the 30 x 30 objective. In the Mediterranean Sea some general and specific questions may be envisaged in this regard.
For instance, it would seem implied that marine protected areas included in the List of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance, as established under the 1995 Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, are relevant for the 30 x 30 objective. Such areas must meet the conservation objectives specified in Art. 8, para. 2, of the Protocol and in Sec. B.2 of Annex I to it, have a legal status (Sec. C of Annex I) and be regulated under clearly defined protection planning and management measures (Sec. D of Annex I). However, some doubts may be raised as regard vast marine areas (about 90,000 km2 in the case of the above-mentioned Pelagos Sanctuary16), having a broad conservation objective (to ensure a favourable conservation status) and limited to certain species (marine mammals).
The questions can be multiplied if other effective area-based conservation measures are taken in consideration.
For instance, there can be little doubt that Fisheries Restricted Areas, created on the basis of the 1949 Agreement for the Establishment of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean17, are relevant for the 30 x 30 objective. In principle, they contribute to the maintenance or recovery of marine living resources to a healthy state and to the sustainable exploitation of marine biodiversity within an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Such could be the case for “Lophelia reef off Capo Santa Maria di Leuca” (977 km2), “Nile Delta Area Cold Hydrocarbon Seeps” (4,374 km2) and “Eratosthenes Seamount” (10,298 km2), where fishing with towed dredges and bottom trawl nets is prohibited18, for the “Gulf of Lion” (2,016 km2), established in order to protect spawning aggregations and deep-sea sensitive habitats19, for “Jabuka / Pomo Pit in the Adriatic Sea” (3,140 km2)20, “Bari Canyon” (627 km2)21, “Otranto Channel” (2,702 km2)22 and, in the northern Strait of Sicily, “East of Adventure Bank” (614 km2), “West of Gela Basin” (618 km2) and “East of Malta Bank” (468 km2)23. But what about the first Fisheries Restricted Area, established by the Commission in 200524 by a recommendation prohibiting the use of towed dredges and trawl nets at depths beyond 1,000 m, that is in an area covering about half of the Mediterranean Sea25?
Furthermore, would Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, established according to the Revised guidelines for their identification adopted by the International Maritime Organization Assembly26, be relevant for the 30 x 30 objective? These are areas that need special protection through action by IMO because of their significance for recognized ecological, socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities. For instance, should account be taken of the “North-Western Mediterranean Sea” particularly sensitive sea area, established under Resolution MEPC.380(80) of 7 July 202327, where the measure envisaged – reduction of the speed of ships to reduce the risk of collisions with marine mammals – is only recommended?
So far, the Conference of the Parties of the CBD has not elaborated precise answers to such kind of questions nor has it put in place a specific procedure for addressing them. Again, in order to avoid growing confusion, the matter should be clarified sooner or later (sooner is better).
ENDNOTES
1 Hereinafter: CBD.
2 Doc. CBD/COP/15/L.25 of 18 December 2022, p. 4.
3 As the author suffers of an advanced level of horror siglorum, the three acronyms are used only in the title of this paragraph and not in the rest of the text.
4 Hereinafter: UNCLOS.
5 Art. 2.
6 Hereinafter: BBNJ Agreement.
7 Art. 1, para. 9.
8 According to Art. 1, para. 13, of the BBNJ Agreement, “‘sustainable use’ means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to a long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”.
9 See IUCN-WCPA, Applying IUCN’s Global Conservation Standards to Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Gland, 2018, p. 2.
10 “In these types of approaches, some or all of the governance and/or management authority is often ceded to the indigenous peoples and local communities, and conservation objectives are often tied to food security, and access to resources for indigenous peoples and local communities”.
11 “These are formally established, spatially defined fishery management and/or conservation measures, implemented to achieve one or more intended fishery outcomes. The outcomes of these measures are commonly related to sustainable use of the fishery. However, they can also often include protection of, or reduction of impact on, biodiversity, habitats, or ecosystem structure and function”.
12 “There are a range of area-based measures applied in other sectors at different scales and for different purposes. These include, for example, Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (areas designated by the International Maritime Organization for protection from damage by international maritime activities because of ecological, socioeconomic or scientific significance), Areas of Particular Environmental Interest (areas of the seafloor designated by the International Seabed Authority for protection from damage by deep-seabed mining because of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function), approaches within national work on marine spatial planning, as well as conservation measures in other sectors”.
13 Art. 1, para. 1.
14 The author has the impression that there is no substantive difference. Perhaps the present trend is to use area-based management tools for the areas established beyond national jurisdiction and other effective area-based conservation measures for those established within it.
15 Doc. UNEP/MED IG.27/CRP.2.
16 Inside the Sanctuary smaller specially proteced areas of Mediterranean interest have been established, such as the natural reserve of Bouches de Bonifacio (France) or the marine protected area of Portofino (Italy).
17 Art. 8, lett. b, iv.
18 Recommendation 30/2006/3. Recommendations referred to in Art. 8 of the GFCM Agreement have a binding character (see Art. 13).
19 Recommendation 46/2023/1.
20 Recommendation 41/2017/3, amended by Recommendation 44/2021/2. This fisheries restricted area has greatly contributed to the recovery of depleted fish stocks to the benefit of sustainable fishing activities carried out in the waters surrounding the area. See the documentary The Good Story, produced by the non-governmental organization MedReAct.
21 Recommendation 44/2021/3.
22 Recommendation 47/2024/6.
23 Recommendation 45/2022/4.
24 Recommendation 29/2005/1.
25 It covers 1,731,094 km2 (1,462,045 km2 in the Mediterranean Sea, the others in the Black Sea).
26 Hereinafter: IMO. See Resolution A.982(24) of 2005, as amended in 2015 by Resolution MEPC.267(68).
27 The area includes the waters of two Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance, namely the already mentioned Pelagos Sanctuary and the “Cetacean migration corridor” (Spain), as well as a vast extent of interconnecting waters.
About the author
Tullio Scovazzi
Professor of International Law, University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy
- Tullio Scovazzi
- Tullio Scovazzi
- Tullio Scovazzi
- Tullio Scovazzi
- Tullio Scovazzi
