BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Box 7.1. Natura 2000 network of protected areas in the European Union Natura 2000 is a network of protected areas legislated by the European Union. This network is based on requirements according to the Birds Directive 1 and the Habitats Directive 2 adopted in 1979 and 1992, respectively. The overall objective of the Natura 2000 network is to achieve or maintain favourable conservation status of European biodiversity features. In order to do so, each EU Member State must establish a suite of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for non-bird species and habitats listed in the annexes to the directives and manage these protected areas appropriately. The mere designation of an SPA and/or a SAC is not enough to ensure favourable conservation status but must be followed by specific species and/or habitat protection measures, in particular, management measures. In relation to this, it is important to note that BSPAs may protect a wider range of marine species, habitats, biotopes and natural processes than those listed in the nature directives if the corresponding HELCOM lists are taken into account (HELCOM 2007b). The Habitats Directive stipulates specific criteria for the identification and assessment of sites proposed by EU Member States in accordance with the Directive. 1 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora States and other sites by the Russian Federation as BSPAs is accepted by HELCOM as the adequate implementation measure with regard to HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 and a contribution to the Joint Work Programme on MPAs. In such cases, Contracting Parties are under no obligations to take any further action in respect of these areas than those which arise from the Birds and Habitats Directives of the European Union ...” However, where Natura 2000 sites are reported as BSPAs, Contracting Parties may manage them according to the legally binding requirements of the EU Habitats and/or Birds Directives. This means that with regard to Natura 2000 sites, it may be sufficient to define and implement management measures without necessarily producing comprehensive management plans (although such plans are identified in the Habitats Directive as a valuable instrument). 138 In contrast to the network of marine protected areas of HELCOM, which is based only on a recommendation, the establishment and management of the Natura 2000 network are legally binding and the European Commission can therefore take legal action against EU Member States in case of noncompliance with the Birds and Habitats Directives. Guidelines for the Management of BSPAs Based on the work conducted jointly by HELCOM and Germany, HELCOM and OSPAR have commonly developed practical guidance for establishing management plans for BSPAs and OSPAR MPAs (HELCOM 2006c). This guidance is based on an IUCN model (Salm et al. 2000) and contains detailed instructions and stipulations on the management of BSPAs. It also includes guidance on international regulatory options for conflicting maritime activities for which coastal states have only limited legal competence, in particular for shipping and fisheries (for EU Member States). Reaffirmation by the Baltic Sea Action Plan In the Baltic Sea Action Plan, signed in November 2007 in Krakow, Poland, the governments of the Contracting Parties recalled their former commitments to establish a coherent network of BSPAs. They decided to “designate by 2009 already established marine Natura 2000 sites, where appropriate, as HELCOM BSPAs and to designate by 2010 additional BSPAs especially in the offshore areas beyond territorial waters”. Furthermore, they agreed to improve the protection efficiency of the BSPA network by 2010, by assessing the ecological coherence of the BSPA network together with the marine Natura 2000 sites and, where possible, to finalize and implement management plans or management measures.
The importance of marine protected areas according to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive As the BSAP will serve as a regional approach to implement the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Baltic Sea, it is also of utmost importance for the protection of the Baltic Sea under the coming European Maritime Policy. EU Member States are to report by 2012 on the ecological status of their marine waters, which includes assessments of the conservation status of marine species, habitats and landscapes as well as of human impacts on the marine environment. In this context, information on the marine environment, collected in the BSPA database and other HELCOM databases, should also be considered in the regional implementation process of the MSFD, e.g., when identifying indicators under the MSFD. The MSFD additionally requires Member States to make information on MPAs publicly available by 2013 and to identify by 2015 and to undertake by 2016 chosen actions to reach and/or maintain good ecological status of the marine environment. 7.2 Assessment of the ecological coherence of the BSPA network The Joint Work Programme (JWP) obliges Contracting Parties to “consider how Baltic Sea Protected Areas … in the waters under the jurisdiction of EU Member States, together with the Natura 2000 network, can constitute a coherent network of marine protected areas”. Therefore, HELCOM agreed on objectives and criteria for the assessment of the status and the ecological coherence of the network, as listed in Box 7.2, which are based on the work of Day & Roff (2000) and Laffoley et al. (2006). The HELCOM definition of ecological coherence includes four criteria: adequacy, representativeness, replication, and connectivity. In practice, these criteria take into account MPA size and shape, coverage of species, habitats and landscapes, location of the MPAs across biogeographic scales, replication and connectivity at different scales. The EU Interreg III B project BALANCE (Piekäinen & Korpinen 2008) and OSPAR (2007) have provided further advice Box 7.2. HELCOM objectives and criteria for the assessment of the status and the coherence of the BSPA network 1) 1. A BSPA should give particular protection to the species, natural habitats and nature types to conserve biological and genetic diversity. 2. It should protect ecological processes and ensure ecological function. 3. It should enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained at or, where appropriate, restored to a favourable conservation status in their natural range. 4. The network should protect areas with: • threatened and/or declining species and habitats • important species and habitats • ecological significance − a high proportion of habitats of migratory species − important feeding, breeding, moulting, wintering or resting sites − important nursery, juvenile or spawning areas − a high natural biological productivity of the species or features being represented • high natural biodiversity • rare, unique, or representative geological or geomorphological structures or processes • high sensitivity. 5. The minimum marine size of a BSPA should preferably be 3000 ha for marine/lagoon parts. 6. The system should be enlarged stepwise by additional areas, preferably purely marine areas. 7. Criteria for the assessment of the ecological coherence 2 : Adequacy, representativeness, replication of features, connectivity. 1) The objectives and criteria are based on the Joint HELCOM/ OSPAR Work Programme on Marine Protected Areas (Bremen 2003, available at: http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/BremenDocs/ Joint_MPA_Work_Programme.pdf), HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 on the System of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA, available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec15_5/), and to the Minutes of the Eight Meeting of Nature Protection and Biodiversity Group (HELCOM HABITAT 8/2006, available at: http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=16352&folderId=73533&name=DL FE-29471.pdf). 2) According to the EC Habitats Directive, a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation (Natura 2000) is composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, and enables the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. 139
Page 1:
Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
Page 4 and 5:
Published by: Helsinki Commission K
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
6.6 Hazardous substances . . . . .
Page 10 and 11:
1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 An integrated
Page 12 and 13:
Box 1.1. Biodiversity The term biod
Page 14 and 15:
of saline water from the North Sea
Page 16 and 17:
14 On a global scale, marine ecosys
Page 18 and 19:
Box 1.2. Regime shifts in the Balti
Page 20 and 21:
2 MARINE LANDSCAPES AND HABITATS 18
Page 22 and 23:
From an ecological point of view, a
Page 24 and 25:
Box 2.1.2. The Baltic marine landsc
Page 26 and 27:
• A coherent data set on benthic
Page 28 and 29:
Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Lat
Page 30 and 31:
Mud-sandflat, Greifswald Lagoon, Ge
Page 32 and 33:
3 COMMUNITIES Communities are assem
Page 34 and 35:
32 Spring bloom index 1200 1000 800
Page 36 and 37:
34 Unusual events and new species i
Page 38 and 39:
36 Depth limit (m) the Gulf of Both
Page 40 and 41:
Number of species 16 14 12 10 8 6 4
Page 42 and 43:
Figure 3.2.7. Left panel shows pred
Page 44 and 45:
Implications for the Baltic Sea Act
Page 46 and 47:
Biomass (wet weight, mg per m 2 ) B
Page 48 and 49:
the other hand, is not selected by
Page 50 and 51:
iomass can be used to assess enviro
Page 52 and 53:
Average number of species 20 15 10
Page 54 and 55:
52 Macoma baltica where the influen
Page 56 and 57:
the total BT identified for each ma
Page 58 and 59:
Recruitment (thousands) 8000000 700
Page 60 and 61:
Alien species Several alien fish sp
Page 62 and 63:
4 SPECIES The number of species in
Page 64 and 65:
Table 4.1.1. Results of dedicated a
Page 66 and 67:
Number of stranded porpoises 180 16
Page 68 and 69:
is recommended to survey harbour po
Page 70 and 71:
Number of individuals 12000 10000 8
Page 72 and 73:
Mean blubber thickness (mm) 40 35 3
Page 74 and 75:
Breeding pairs 60000 50000 40000 30
Page 76 and 77:
predation on nests and nesting adul
Page 78 and 79:
sites outside the Baltic, decreased
Page 80 and 81:
Table 4.3.1. Development of the pop
Page 82 and 83:
80 Number of breeding pairs 3000 25
Page 84 and 85:
The strategic goal of the BSAP to h
Page 86 and 87:
for a given site or area. The secon
Page 88 and 89:
Mussel bed reef community, Jasmund,
Page 90 and 91: Table 5.3. Assessment results of th
Page 92 and 93: Aerial photo of harbours seals (Pho
Page 94 and 95: 6 HUMAN PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY A
Page 96 and 97: Table 6.1.1. Catch range during the
Page 98 and 99: Baltic herring trawling, Bothnian B
Page 100 and 101: 6.1.3 Major international framework
Page 102 and 103: 100 Oil turnover (millions of tonne
Page 104 and 105: NOx emissions and sewage Macrophyte
Page 106 and 107: Communication links There are a num
Page 108 and 109: Figure 6.3.3. Left: concrete-stone
Page 110 and 111: ecommendations would contribute to
Page 112 and 113: Tourist fishing 110 cial fishery fo
Page 114 and 115: 112 Figure 6.5.1. Integrated classi
Page 116 and 117: can be considered as having been a
Page 118 and 119: Although no direct, dramatic mass m
Page 120 and 121: Bearing in mind the complex hydrogr
Page 122 and 123: Box 6.7.1. Invasion status of the B
Page 124 and 125: Table 6.7.1. Examples of ecological
Page 126 and 127: munities that formerly consisted of
Page 128 and 129: 6.8.2 Activities generating noise i
Page 130 and 131: 128 and fish in the Baltic Sea area
Page 132 and 133: 800 700 600 bag of the two German B
Page 134 and 135: Fish swarm on kelp (Laminaria sp.)
Page 136 and 137: tion of ice cover, either through r
Page 138 and 139: 7 STATUS OF THE NETWORK OF MARINE A
Page 142 and 143: 25 20 on how the criteria on ecolog
Page 144 and 145: estrial, nearshore marine, and offs
Page 146 and 147: 144 >30 psu 18-30 psu 11-18 psu 7.5
Page 148 and 149: Permission needed Restricted Forbid
Page 150 and 151: Figure 7.8.a. MARXAN ’best portfo
Page 152 and 153: The BSPA network is relatively well
Page 154 and 155: Mammals. Among the mammals, the pop
Page 156 and 157: 154 taxonomic groups and communitie
Page 158 and 159: 156 provided by an ecosystem. Use o
Page 160 and 161: 158 Reduction of human pressures Wh
Page 162 and 163: 160 fishing on fish population dyna
Page 164 and 165: 162 Baden, S., Boström, C. (2001).
Page 166 and 167: 164 Season 2001-2002. Acta Zoologic
Page 168 and 169: 166 Gasiūnaitė, Z.R., Cardoso, A.
Page 170 and 171: 168 HELCOM & OSPAR (2003): Joint HE
Page 172 and 173: 170 ICES (2008c). Report of the Bal
Page 174 and 175: 172 area: density-dependent effects
Page 176 and 177: 174 Noer, H., Clausager, I., Asferg
Page 178 and 179: 176 Scheffer M., Carpenter S.R., Fo
Page 180 and 181: 178 by passive acoustic monitoring.
Page 182 and 183: 180 Warzaw, Poland Vilhunen, Jarmo,
Page 184 and 185: 182 6.7 Alien speices Authors: Lepp
Page 186 and 187: ANNEX III: CONSERVATION STATUS OF T
Page 188 and 189: ANNEX IV: HABITAT OR SPECIES DISTRI
Page 190:
ANNEX V: STATUS OF BREEDING AND WIN
show all

BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?