, 2011) to develop an objective method to identify “candidate” EBSAs using seamounts as a test habitat. Seamounts are prominent features of the seafloor throughout the oceans (Costello et al., 2010 and Yesson et al., 2011). Seamounts may support a large number and wide diversity of fish and invertebrates, and can be an important habitat for commercially valuable species, targeted by large-scale fisheries in the deep-sea (reviewed by Clark et al., 2010). However, seamount communities are also vulnerable to impacts Ku-0059436 mw from fishing, effects associated with climate change, and future seabed mining (e.g., Clark et al., 2012 and Schlacher et al., 2010). The large number

of seamount features (>100,000 seamounts and knolls) (Yesson et al., 2011) could result in a very large number of them fulfilling EBSA criteria: this calls for a method to select a subset of candidate seamounts to define as EBSAs that are realistic and practicable. In this paper we introduce a new method for

the selection of candidate EBSAs. It builds on an earlier method reported by Dunstan et al. (2011), refines the approach, and updates some of the datasets. In particular, we provide a worked example that illustrates in detail the method for using the CBD criteria to derive a set of candidate EBSAs. We extend the conceptual framework for the application of selection criteria leading to EBSAs (CBD, 2009a) by introducing selleck inhibitor descriptions of the mechanics that underlie this selection approach, using seamounts in the South Pacific as a model/test system. The work presented here is the output from two workshops, held in late 2010 and early 2013, involving the authors. Three fundamental questions were considered before more detailed methodological aspects were addressed: 1) What is the appropriate spatial ambit to select EBSAs? 2) Are data of sufficient coverage and quality available for each criterion? and 3) Are the criteria equally important? A key decision to make at the outset is the spatial scale at which candidate EBSAs are to be identified. The spatial scale will determine the availability and resolution

of data sources, and may influence how criteria are interpreted. Detailed global scale assessments are probably intractable Miconazole at present. Conversely, systematic efforts at the scale of national EEZs are unlikely until the EBSA concept has become well established for the High Seas – although some countries have advanced similar concepts, such as the Australian Key Ecological Features (e.g., Falkner et al., 2009), and the Canadian Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2004). Large regional scales are more tractable provided that data coverage is adequate and nations collaborate. In some High Seas areas, collaboration may be through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) which typically have governance over large ocean areas.