UNEP(DEC)MED WG

Conclusion
UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/12
Annex III
Page 9
Out of all the countries concerned, 20 responded to RAC/SPA’s request, providing
reports that described the progress made in their respective countries for implementing
the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean
over the inter-Meeting period 2003-2005. Except for some reports where the structure
recommended by RAC/SPA was not respected, most of the other reports bore it in
mind. The reports provided important information on the progress made, particularly as
regards the legal and administrative steps taken and the technical implementation of the
Protocol.
Here it should be remembered that during the Meeting of Contracting Parties in Catania
in 2003, many recommendations were adopted regarding biological diversity and
Specially Protected Areas (Part II.B of Annex III). These recommendations concern data
collection and periodical evaluation of the situation, planning and management, the
implementing of Action Plans and the adoption of new Action Plans (cartilaginous
fishes, bird species in Annex II to the ‘SPA and Biodiversity Protocol’, and introductions
of species and invasive species).
In the light of the reports, it seems that the Action Plans that attracted more attention
than the others were those that concerned marine turtles and marine vegetation
(especially Posidonia). The interest felt in other Action Plans differed from one country
to the next; protection of cetaceans was further developed by the European countries,
that had erected a sanctuary (called Pelagos) jointly between France, Italy and Monaco.
For the cartilaginous fishes, interest in these species can be termed ‘growing’, whereas
introduced and invasive species hold the attention of most countries, but some of these
suffer from a lack of the human and financial means that would allow them to monitor
and assess the risks and impacts of these species on native species and their habitats
(not enough taxonomists, especially in developing countries).
As to the SPAMIs, the number of declared and/or proposed areas seems limited but it is
obvious at the same time that much is being done by some countries to prepare the
pertinent data and documents that would give in the medium term better performances
as regards declaring and conserving SPAMIs.
Lastly, the national reports show several measures taken to protect the SPAMIs against
any kind and source of pollution (oil dumping, dumping, passage of boats, etc.), but
most of these measures are not recent.