Skip the menu

MOE home > Nature and Parks > EBSA home > Revision of analytical result of EBSAs by experts

Revision of analytical result of EBSAs by experts

Since the analytical results of EBSAs through analysis of data on distribution of habitat and other data resulted mainly from the use of available data, it was thought that there might be some distortions or incompleteness in the information for certain marine areas or habitat types. It also was presumed that it would be difficult to comprehensively identify ecological or biologically significant areas based solely on the data available in this analysis. Accordingly, opinions were collected from experts, and the results of analysis were revised based on these opinions*1.

In order to collect opinions as much as possible from a broader area of experts, we requested the relevant academic society or committees such as marine environment, biology, or ecology, to call for their members to submit opinions on the results of analysis. Direct interviews with experts in each academic area were also conducted.

As a result, a total of 682*2 opinions (consisting of 657 responses on coastal area, four on offshore surfaces, 14 on the offshore seafloor, and seven on the study as a whole) were submitted.

The collected expert opinions were then handled in accordance with the Detailed Rules on Handling of Opinions, which was decided by the committee.

In addition, opinions were collected from relevant government ministries and agencies or prefectures concerning the content of these revisions based on the opinions of experts.

Following the process of revision based on the opinions from relevant government ministries and agencies or individual prefectures, in a February 2014 meeting, EBSAs of Japan were decided in each of coastal areas, offshore surface, and offshore seafloors.


*1 Showing the “the Area Boundary Rules” decided on by「the scientific committee for identifying EBSAs」, experts are asked to revise the results.

*2 When a single response concerned multiple areas, it was counted as one response for each applicable area.