FINMARINET results in the Baltic context. Maria Laamanen, HELCOM Professional Secretary FINMARINET final conference 10 April 2013, Helsinki, Finland

Transcription

1 FINMARINET results in the Baltic context Maria Laamanen, HELCOM Professional Secretary FINMARINET final conference 10 April 2013, Helsinki, Finland

2 FINMARINET Has increased the data and information as well as our understanding of the underwater marine nature in the Finnish waters: 22,000 sampling sites Mapping of sea bed Distribution of important habitat types and species Contributes nationally to, e.g.: Planning the use of marine space Management of human activities Identifying and assessing marine protected areas

3 The Baltic context: Helsinki Commission (HELCOM ) Governing body of Helsinki Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea 10 Contracting Parties: Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden Observers: Belarus, Ukraine, various sector, NGO and other organisations HELCOM Secretariat in Helsinki assists and facilitates

4 HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan Adopted at a ministerial level in 2007 Objective: to reach Good Environmental Status of the Baltic Sea by 2021 Four segments: Eutrophication Hazardous substances Biodiversity and nature protection Maritime Activities In addition, HELCOM works though Ministerial Declarations and HELCOM Recommendations

5 Assessment of the risk of extinction of Baltic Sea species and biotopes (RED LIST ) Total number of Baltic Sea species per group. Total number is 2730 species.

6 Draft Red List assessment for 1744 species Proportions of threatened and red-listed species low: 3,8% and 7,9% respectively

7 Draft results Red List species assessment Species group Number of threatened taxa (proportion of assessed %) Macrophytes 7 (2.2) Benthic invertebrates 17 (1.4) Fish and lamprey species 13 (11.6) Breeding and wintering birds 25 (24) Marine mammals 4 (57.1) All taxa 66 (3.8) Regionally Extinct: two fish, American Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) and the common skate (Dipturus batis), and one bird, gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica)

8 Objective: Establishment of an effectively managed network of MPAs in the Baltic Sea by 2010 which, together with Natura 2000 sites, is ecologically coherent. In 2010, We had reached the 10 % target for the regional network of marine protected areas set by the UN CBD (Aichi target 11) Source: HELCOM (2010) The network of protected areas was not ecologically coherent when adequacy, representativity, replication and connectivity were the criteria assessed.

9 Eutrophication status in the protected areas

10 Do the protected areas provide good protection? Are human pressures in the MPAs managed? Restriction of human activities in the MPAs Existing, potential or past threats in MPAs

11 TOP THREE: Nutrients Fisheries Pollution Which human activities cause pressures?

12 Maximum allowable nutrient inputs: - 21,060 t of P - 601,720 t of N -> Country-wise nutrient reduction targets 2007 provisional nutrient reduction targets Danish Danish Straits Straits P 0 N (33%) P 242 (45%) N 5621 (27%) Bothnian Sea P 0 N 0 P 0 N 0 Bothnian Bay Bothnian Bay P 146 (25%) N 1199 (8%) P 2000 P 2500 (29%) (37%) N 6000 N 6967 (5%) (8%) Gulf of Finland P 291 (34%) Gulf of Finland N (29%) P (42%) P 222 (18%) N (18%) P 750 N (34%) 896 (5%) Gulf of Riga N 0 Gulf of Riga P (65%) P 300 (19%) Kattegat N (29%) N 2561 (25%) P 0 Kattegat Baltic Sea P 16 N 20 (31%) 000 (31%) Baltic Proper N (30%) P 881 (66%) N (26%) P 8755 (64%) N (29%)

13 Ongoing HELCOM work towards 2013 Ministerial Meeting and beyond Check-up of the efficiency of the Baltic Sea Action Plan Further decrease loads, improve water quality and reduce eutrophication Revision of the BSAP nutrient load reduction scheme and include atmospheric N deposition What is not monitored and assessed connot be managed Joint coordinated monitoring by countries Common Baltic Sea data pool and a core set of indicators for eutrophication, biodiversity and hazardous substances Operational system of regularly updated thematic assessments and holistic assessments Additional measures, e.g. for management of human activities in the protected areas?

14 Some concluding remarks It is important to improve our knowledge of Baltic Sea biodiversity - both species and biotopes Only sufficient data and knowledge allow reliable assessment of the state Our understanding of human pressures and impacts is not yet at a level that allows knowledge-based and cost-efficient management Keep on mapping and measuring pressures and studying impact mechanisms Current management in the marine protected areas is poor MPAs are protective only if human activities are restricted Maritime Spatial Planning is data intensive Data needs to be collected but also made available to the relevant users, e.g. the transboundary setting At the Baltic Sea level, only a common understanding of the state of the sea and of the pressures allows common measures and management It is important to continue coordinated data collection, harmonising methods and carrying out joint assessments

15