MPAs, OECMs and Other Sites of Conservation Interest: what synergies for the 30×30?

Article prepared by SPA/RAC and MedPAN

In the Mediterranean, several types of area-based measures and designations are associated with biodiversity conservation, but they do not all carry the same weight in relation to the 30×30 target. This article, the second in the series prepared in the framework of the Mediterranean MPA Forum, draws on the definitions used in MAPAMED, the database of Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas of SPA/RAC and MedPAN, and on the 2025 Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean report to clarify and explain the conditions under which MPAs and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) can fully contribute to the target of conserving and effectively managing at least 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030. For a quantitative overview of MPAs in the Mediterranean, readers can refer to the first article in the series, which focuses on MPA status.

The regional dashboard: MAPAMED’s three categories

Jointly developed by MedPAN and SPA/RAC, and validated by the Focal Points for Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity (SPA/BD) of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, the MAPAMED database is not limited to MPAs. It distinguishes three categories of sites, each with its own specific definition.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): the historical foundation

In MAPAMED, an MPA is a clearly defined marine geographical space (including coastal lakes and lagoons connected to the sea, together with the waters overlying them) that is recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.

This definition draws on that of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which specifies that a marine area where extractive activities are permitted without long-term conservation goals does not qualify as an MPA.

The 1,152 MPAs currently recorded in the Mediterranean fall under three types of designation:

• Nationally designated MPAs: all MPAs legally designated by a State. The 2025 Status of MPAs report records 84 different national designations.
• Marine Natura 2000 sites, designated under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, in the eight Mediterranean EU Member States only. They do not all provide the same level of protection: Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are treated as MPAs, whereas sites proposed as Sites of Community Importance (pSCIs) are classified as sites of conservation interest.
• The Pelagos Sanctuary, established by the 1999 agreement between France, Italy and Monaco, is the only internationally designated MPA. Managed by these three countries, it covers both coastal waters and the high seas.

Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs): A Focus on Outcomes

The concept of OECMs was introduced in 2010 through Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. In 2018, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the following definition: 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.

The key distinction lies in whether a conservation objective is mandatory: a protected area must have biodiversity conservation as its primary and explicit objective. An OECM, by contrast, may have a primary, secondary or ancillary conservation objective, or no conservation objective at all, but must deliver positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity.

To date, no marine OECM located in the Mediterranean has been officially reported, and none is therefore included in the MAPAMED database.

Other sites of conservation interest: Opportunities to Explore

This category includes areas that fall outside MPAs and OECMs, are at least partly marine, are clearly delineated and have an identified interest for marine biodiversity conservation. These sites can help identify opportunities for the establishment or expansion of MPAs and the recognition of OECMs. MAPAMED includes, in particular:

Area-based conservation measures:

• Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs), established by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), in which certain fishing activities are temporarily or permanently prohibited or restricted to protect stocks, habitats and deep-sea ecosystems. They cover three categories: vulnerable marine ecosystems, essential fish habitats, and deep-sea habitats and resources. In the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ten FRAs cover 1,760,000 km² of marine habitats. This includes a large FRA of 1,730,000 km² in which the use of towed dredges and trawl nets is prohibited in all waters deeper than 1,000 metres, to protect benthic habitats (GFCM website).
• Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) designated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), where specific measures can be adopted to regulate maritime activities. Two sites have been designated in the Mediterranean: the Strait of Bonifacio (France and Italy, 2011) and the north-western Mediterranean Sea (France, Italy, Monaco and Spain, 2023). The latter encompasses two SPAMIs: the Pelagos Sanctuary and the Cetacean Migration Corridor (IMO website).

International site designations:

• Ramsar Sites, designated under the Convention on Wetlands, which promotes their conservation and wise use, as well as the development of management and monitoring plans.
• World Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserves designated under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which promote the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity.

Areas of ecological interest:

• Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs), special ocean areas that play an important role in the healthy functioning of the oceans and the many services they provide. These areas are formally considered and endorsed by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD.
• Critical Cetacean Habitats (CCHs), identified in the context of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS), to propose appropriate threat-management or spatial-management measures. New areas are identified based on the overlap between Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs) and the mapping of anthropogenic threats.
• Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). The BirdLife Partnership works collectively to identify, document and safeguard the world’s most important sites for bird conservation, known as Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). Building on IBA criteria and similar site designations, BirdLife supported the development by IUCN of the KBA Standard to identify sites that make significant contributions to the global persistence of biodiversity. Almost all existing IBAs are considered KBAs.
• Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRAs), distinct three-dimensional habitat areas that are important to one or more shark species, are delineated and may be managed for conservation. The ISRA list is maintained by an international team of scientists and experts under the auspices and responsibility of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group.

Quality versus quantity: key dimensions of 30×30

Among the different area-based measures and designations recorded, only officially designated MPAs currently contribute to the regional calculation of spatial coverage towards the 30×30 target. To date, no OECM has been officially reported in the Mediterranean. Other sites of conservation interest cannot be counted as MPAs or OECMs unless they meet the relevant criteria.

A site’s contribution to the 30×30 target depends not only on its designation or size. It must qualify as a protected area or an OECM and be recognised and reported accordingly. Its contribution to the target also depends on effective management and how well conservation measures deliver lasting biodiversity benefits. This contribution should therefore be assessed across several complementary dimensions: management effectiveness, level of protection, ecological representativeness, connectivity and equitable governance.

Management effectiveness

To contribute fully to 30×30, an MPA or OECM should have, among other things, clearly defined conservation objectives, an operational management plan, adequate human and financial resources, actions that are actually implemented, an equitable governance, and a monitoring system that makes it possible to assess results and adapt management.

The presence of areas within an MPA that benefit from enhanced protection is also an important component of MPA effectiveness. Depending on the activities prohibited, several levels can be distinguished:

• No-fishing zones, where commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture are prohibited.
• No-take zones, where all extractive activities are prohibited.
• No-entry zones, where all activities are prohibited except surveillance, scientific activities and emergency interventions.

These different levels of enhanced protection can directly reduce pressures on species and habitats. When they are suited to the site’s ecological features, effectively enforced and accompanied by monitoring, they can strengthen the resilience of marine ecosystems and improve conservation outcomes across the MPA.

Ecological representativeness

Contribution to 30×30 also depends on where MPAs and OECMs are located. An ecologically representative network should cover the diversity of Mediterranean ecosystems, habitats and species, including offshore ecosystems.

Sites of conservation interest such as EBSAs, CCHs, IMMAs, IBAs, KBAs and ISRAs can help guide the establishment or expansion of MPAs and the identification of OECMs by highlighting priority areas and gaps in the existing network.

Looking ahead to Alexandria: building tomorrow’s solutions

A credible pathway to 2030 must therefore combine an expansion of spatial coverage with improvements in its quality. It depends on MPAs and OECMs that are effectively managed, with measures that are genuinely implemented and, where justified by conservation needs, areas of enhanced protection. It also requires an ecologically representative and connected network, located with due consideration for areas important for conservation, as well as equitable governance and sufficient resources to secure lasting biodiversity outcomes. Given the urgent need to connect the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, regional cooperation is essential, particularly as 97.5% of designated areas are concentrated along the northern shore.

These issues will be central to discussions at the 4_^th Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas Forum, to be held in Alexandria, Egypt, from 15 to 17 December 2026. The findings of the 2025 Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean report, scheduled for publication at the end of 2026, will inform exchanges among site managers, public decision-makers, scientists and funding organisations, with a view to sharing solutions and setting common priorities.

Sources

MedPAN and SPA/RAC (2026), MAPAMED, the Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas database, user manual, July 2026 version; MAPAMED, 2024 edition, © 2026 by SPA/RAC and MedPAN, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence, https://www.mapamed.org/; MedPAN & UNEP/MAP-SPA/RAC (2026), The 2025 Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean; CBD (2022), Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Target 3.