BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• A coherent data set on benthic fauna and flora should be collated using the same sampling methodology, not just the same guidelines, covering the entire HELCOM area. • The environmental parameters, e.g., the salinity categories, should be harmonized using a coherent set of benthic species data spanning the HELCOM area through a multivariate analysis. • The benthic biological communities present within individual marine landscapes should be described in more detail. • A thorough validation of the map should be conducted for each HELCOM sub-region. A step-wise approach using national territories or HELCOM sub-regions could be considered. The following recommendations are made regarding the application of the marine landscape maps for management of the marine environment: • Thresholds should be established for individual landscapes, such as determining the proportion of a marine landscape that can be affected by a single pressure (e.g., oxygen depletion) or a sum of pressures and still retain the provision of ecological services. • Targets based on the marine landscapes should be developed and tested at the regional scale. For example, is the area influenced by oxygen depletion decreasing over a period of time? • The marine landscape maps should be used in systematic regional assessments to enable an objective comparison and status evaluation between periodic assessments. • The use of ecologically relevant maps should be further developed for maritime spatial planning as a tool for securing long-term sustainable development. • Pelagic landscape maps should be developed following the same ecologically relevant principles as for the benthic marine landscape maps. • The continued development of the marine landscapes should be kept within an international context covering the entire HELCOM area in order to enable the development of a coherent harmonized map. National approaches will not provide the tool needed. 2.2 Habitats The term habitat is defined by ICES (2006c) as “a particular environment which can be distinguished by its abiotic characteristics and associated biological assemblage, operating at particular but dynamic spatial and temporal scales in a recognizable geographic area”. Within HELCOM, the term biotope is commonly used as a synonym to this description of habitat. 24 Coastal lagoon, Salzhaff, Germany
The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) includes the following target related to habitats and biotopes: “By 2010 to halt the degradation of threatened and/ or declining marine biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea, and by 2021 to ensure that threatened and/ or declining marine biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea have largely recovered”. At this time, there are no long-term data available allowing an analysis of trends in the status of the habitats of the Baltic Sea. This section provides an overview of the threat and conservation status of Baltic Sea marine habitats as reported to HELCOM and by EU Member States to the European Commission. tion 16/3 can be seen as a code of conduct for coastal defence measures. In most Baltic Sea regions, construction activities for recreational purposes such as large camping grounds, marinas, summer houses or hotel complexes at or near the beach, but also the construction of harbours and ship yards, have caused problems and regularly result in permanent direct destruction or fragmentation of biotopes (see also HELCOM 1998, Figure 18). To mitigate these destructive activites, HELCOM Contracting Parties have committed themselves to legally protect the most threatened biotopes on the Red List (Recommendation 21/4 1 ). 2.2.1 Conservation and threat status of habitats/biotopes In 1998, HELCOM published the Red List of Marine and Coastal Biotopes of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 1998) as the result of a HELCOM project with experts from all Contracting Parties. Based on a comprehensive classification of marine and coastal biotopes, it was the first threat assessment of all marine and coastal biotopes for an entire regional sea area in the world. Every biotope was classified into one of five fixed threat categories and the human impacts that caused the threat or decline were also assessed. The reported threat status gave cause for concern: 83% of the biotopes were assessed either as ’heavily endangered‘ (15%) or as ’endangered‘ (68%). With respect to adverse human impacts, all coastal and marine biotopes in the Baltic Sea region were assessed as threatened by different kinds of pollution and, in particular, most biotopes were affected by eutrophication. Among other factors, agriculture, industry and transport were identified as important sources of eutrophication and pollution. In addition, various marine construction activities, dredging and dumping of dredged material, and some fishery practices and mariculture were reported to have heavy, but primarily local, negative impacts on pelagic and especially benthic biotopes. Furthermore, it was assessed that coastal defence measures often hinder or even interrupt the complex interactions of coastal dynamics by, for example, preventing beaches as well as cliffs from being abraded, which results in an obstruction of sand supply for necessary natural beach nourishment elsewhere. HELCOM Recommenda- In addition to the HELCOM Red List, this chapter uses as background material the HELCOM Lists of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Biotopes/ Habitats in the Baltic Sea Area (hereafter the HELCOM List, HELCOM 2007b), and the 2001– 2007 reports on the conservation status of the habitats listed in the Habitats Directive from Baltic Sea EU Member States to the European Commission according to Article 17 of the Directive. For the HELCOM List, the species and biotopes/habitats were selected by international Baltic Sea experts for national Red Lists. Their selections were examined by the HELCOM Contracting Parties. In the HELCOM List the word biotope and habitat are used as synonyms. Only species and biotopes/habitats which have a clear relation to the Baltic Sea marine area or depend on it are included on the lists. In contrast the main aim of the EU Habitat Directive is to protect biodiversity at a pan European scale. In the frame of this Directive, Member States shall therefore maintain or restore natural habitat types and species of Community Interest (as of Annexes 1 and 2 of the Habitats Directive) to a Favourable Conservation Status. Marine Natural habitats of Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive are included in the HELCOM List. Baltic Sea EU Member States report on the biotopes/ habitats to both EC and HELCOM and sometimes there is a discrepancy in the information. Habitat-by-habitat assessment The HELCOM List (HELCOM 2007b) forms the core of this assessment. It includes, inter alia, all marine Natura 2000 natural habitat types as listed 1 Protection of Heavily Endangered or Immediately Threatened Marine and Coastal Biotopes in the Baltic Sea Area (Adopted 20 March 2000). 25
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 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 140 and 141:
Box 7.1. Natura 2000 network of pro
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?