Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: A Framework for Sustainable Ocean Economy Development

tify and take action on influences that are critical to the health of ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity” (Loger- well and Skjoldal 2019). The report by UNEP (2011) provides a comprehensive, marine-focused dis- cussion of the ecosystem approach, with clear text and graphics that guide non-technical audiences through the topic. 3.3. Related ocean management concepts 3.3.1. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Ma - rine Areas (EBSAs) Central to EBM is an understanding of the eco- system within which human activities are to be managed. For EB-IOM, this includes understand- ing which areas in a given planning region are of particular importance to the wider marine eco- system. There is an established approach for this (CBD 2008, Clarke & Jamieson 2007, DFO 2004, Dunn et al. 2014): Ecologically or Biologically Sig- nificant Marine Areas (EBSAs). These are defined as discrete geographic or oceanographic areas that provide important services to one or more spe- cies, populations, or ecosystems, as defined by the EBSA criteria of the CBD (box 4, CBD 2008). While these criteria should be differentiated from MPA site selection criteria (see section 3.3.2), identifying EBSAs ensures that an understanding of the most ecologically important areas can be built into MPA planning processes from the outset (CBD 2008, Dunn et al. 2014, Lieberknecht et al. 2014). With growing competition for the use of maritime space, MPAs safeguard space for nature to thrive in, protecting biodiversity within their boundaries and supporting ecosystem services beyond (Arbo & Th ủ y 2016, Gell & Roberts 2003). Several interna- tional targets have been set to increase the global coverage of marine protection. Aichi Target 11 of the CBD calls for 10% coverage by 2020, a figure set to be achieved for jurisdictional waters globally, but not for ABNJ (CBD 2018, Dinmore 2016). In 2016, a major International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) conference called for 30% cov- erage of highly protected areas by 2030 (Dinmore 2016). MPAs are best planned as networks that span the ocean and coastal areas. The idea of reserve net- works originated in the SLOSS 8 debate of the 1970s and 1980s (Kingsland 2002, Neigel 2003), which later gave way to the more integrated concept 3.3.2. Marine protected area networks

Box 4. CBD Criteria for Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas

of systematic conservation planning (Margules & Pressey 2000) and a series of systematic reserve network design principles that aim to achieve max- imum conservation benefits at minimum societal cost (safeguarding space for nature and for use by people). These principles have been widely applied in MPA research, planning, and assessment (Alli- son et al. 2003, Ardron 2008, Ballantine & Langlois 2008, Ban et al. 2009, Ban et al. 2014, Ban & Klein 2009, Fernandes et al. 2005, Jantke et al. 2018, Klein et al. 2008, Lieberknecht et al. 2014, Natu- ral England and JNCC 2010, Pressey et al. 1993, Pressey et al. 1994, Shafer 2001, Stewart et al. 2003, Stewart et al. 2006, Vane-Wright et al. 1991). They include: Uniqueness or rarity: Area contains either (i) unique (“the only one of its kind”), rare (occurs only in a few locations) or endemic species, populations or communities; and/or (ii) unique, rare or distinct habitats or ecosystems; and/or (iii) unique or unusual geomorphological or oceanographic features. Special importance for life-history stages of species: Areas that are required for a population to survive and thrive. Importance for threatened, endangered or declining spe- cies and/or habitats: Area containing habitats for the survival and recovery of endangered, threatened, declining species or area with significant assemblages of such species. Vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity or slow recovery: Areas that contain a relatively high proportion of sensitive habitats, biotopes or species that are functionally fragile (highly sus- ceptible to degradation or depletion by human activity or by natural events) or with slow recovery. Biological productivity: Area containing species, popula- tions or communities with comparatively higher natural bi- ological productivity. Biological diversity: Area contains comparatively higher diversity of ecosystems, habitats, communities or species, or has higher genetic diversity. Naturalness: Area with a comparatively higher degree of naturalness as a result of the lack of or low level of human-in- duced disturbance or degradation.

8 “Single Large or Several Small”, a debate about whether single large reserves deliver more conservation benefits than several small reserves of the same combined size

14