BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

Many of the parameters reported in the 22 case
studies (Table 5.1), e.g., zoobenthos community
structure and distribution of submerged aquatic
vegetation, originate from EU WFD-related
research, which has been an intensive field during
the past decade. As many of these parameters
are also relevant indicators of marine biodiversity,
this in itself is reasonable. However, information
on other topics is also needed. Specifically, areabased
and species-specific indicators are lacking
(Table 5.3). The species and indicators used in the
national cases and in Chapters 2–4 of this assessment
provide a starting point for widening the
spectrum of available Baltic marine biodiversity
indicators for HELCOM and other fora.
versity (e.g., hard-bottom community structure,
porpoises, coastal fish) have not been covered by
operational monitoring systems until recently, if
at all. The lack of a coordinated monitoring effort
is also evident; for example, it is difficult to find
data on macroalgae and fish from the same area.
Interestingly, this applies to the protected areas as
well. Not a single Baltic Marine Protected Area was
among the test sites reported for this assessment.
This is somewhat surprising as it would be reasonable
to assume that they would be monitored over
a relatively wide range of biodiversity topics.
It is evident that the selection, or limitation, of indicator
topics as well as the way indicator groupings/
categories are constructed have an impact on the
outcome of an assessment approach such as the
one tested here. For this reason, it would be pref-
Table 5.4. Baltic Proper sub-basin scale test of the indicator approach to biodiversity assessments. Note that similar
calculations were done for all the case studies 1–22, although Table 5.3 shows only the results of the category and overall
assessments, N=number, R= indicator response to degradation, i.e. if increasing (+) or decreasing (-), SSB=Spawning Stock
Biomass, BSAP=HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, ZB= Zoobenthos, EQR=Ecological Quality Ratio, RefCon= Reference condition.
Category RefCon Unit R Acceptable
deviation
I.Landscapes
Present
Status
In most parts of the Baltic Sea, many of the components
commonly associated with marine biodi-
EQR-
Indicator
Indicator
or Assessment
Weight
Category
Status
(EQR)
Moderate
(0.41)
Anoxic seabed area 8 18.50 10 000 km3 + 50% 44.40 0.417 Poor 50%
Wild salmon rivers 9 22.00 N rivers - 50% 9.00 0.409 Moderate 50%
II.Communities Bad (0.22)
Threatened biotopes 10 0.00 N biotopes + 15% 12.00 0.000 Bad 16.6%
ZB (SE Baltic Proper) 11 8.00 ave. N species - 40% 1.83 0.229 Bad 16.6%
ZB (E. Gotland basin) 11 5.30 ave. N species - 39% 0.62 0.117 Bad 16.6%
ZB (Bornholm Sea) 11 12.40 ave. N species - 40% 2.96 0.239 Bad 16.6%
ZB (N. Baltic Proper) 11 4.70 ave. N species - 33% 0.00 0.000 Bad 16.6%
ZB (Arkona Sea) 11 18.33 ave. N species - 27% 14.00 0.764 Good 16.6%
III.Species Bad (0.50)
White-tailed eagle 200.00 N - 50% 2 250.00 1.000 Good 20%
(Baltic)
Established Alien 6.00 Established + 15% 14.00 0.429 Bad 20%
Species 1950- 12 species
E. Baltic Cod SSB 13 270.00 1 000 t - 15% 160.00 0.593 Bad 20%
Threatened and
declining species 14
0.00 N species + 15% 53.00 0.000 Bad 20%
Common Seal
(Kalmarsund)
IV.Supporting Features
0.12 Rate of
increase
- 25% 0.80 1.000 Good 20%
Secchi depth (Baltic 9.3 m - 25% 6.3 0.68 Moderate 100%
Proper, BSAP)
Overall status of Biodiversity using worst performing category of I, II and III = Bad
Moderate
(0.68)
8
Savchuk et al. 2008
9
Ranke et al. 1999 Baltic Salmon Rivers
10
HELCOM 2008a
11
Basin average from HELCOM 2009a, see also chapter 3.4
12
Baltic Sea Alien Database
13
RefCon=ICES long termn average, acceptable deviation=ICES Bpa (ICES 2006 b)
14
HELCOM 2008a
89