maritime spatial plan for territorial sea and exclusive economic … · 2016-01-19 · maritime...

MARITIME SPATIAL PLAN FOR TERRITORIAL SEA AND EXCLUSIVE

ECONOMIC ZONE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

1st DRAFT DECEMBER 2015

BALTIC ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM LATVIA

Co-financed by the European Economic Area financial instrument 2009-2014 programme

„National Climate Policy”

Environmental Report 1st draft, December 2015

2

CONTENT

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Procedure of Environmental Report and involved institutions, public participation and results ........ 5

1.1. SEIA development methodology in MSP ....................................................................................... 5

1.1.1. Common base of environmental information for performance of MSP and SEIA ................ 5

1.1.2. Common public participation process in the development of MSP and SEIA ...................... 6

1.2. SEIA development process ............................................................................................................ 6

1.3. Participating institutions ............................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Public participation........................................................................................................................ 8

2. Main objectives and brief content outline of MSP and relationship with other planning documents

12

2.1. Main objectives and an outline of the contents ......................................................................... 12

2.2. Relationship with other planning documents ............................................................................. 13

3. International and national environmental objectives, particularly those relating to sustainable

development and the content of planning document ................................................................................ 15

4. Description of the current state of environment and potential changes if the planning document

would not be implemented ......................................................................................................................... 17

4.1. Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.1. Marine protected areas ....................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2. Protection status of specially protected habitats ............................................................... 22

4.1.3. Protection status of specially protected species ................................................................. 23

4.1.4. Biodiversity status indicators .............................................................................................. 26

4.2. Commercial fish and shellfish populations.................................................................................. 27

4.3. Eutrophication ............................................................................................................................. 28

4.4. The integrity of the seabed ......................................................................................................... 30

5. Environment problems related to the planning document, especially those relating to any territories

essential for environment protection. ........................................................................................................ 31

5.1. Eutrophication ............................................................................................................................. 33

5.2. Hazardous substances ................................................................................................................. 36

5.3. Biodiversity and conservation ..................................................................................................... 37

5.4. Maritime activities ....................................................................................................................... 38


3

6. Environmental impact assessment of implementation of planning document and its possible

alternatives .................................................................................................................................................. 39

6.1. Marine spatial development scenarios (alternatives) ................................................................. 39

A scenario: Economic growth .............................................................................................................. 40

B scenario: Social well-being ............................................................................................................... 41

C scenario: Resilient marine ecosystem .............................................................................................. 41

D scenario: Development within a common space of the Baltic Sea Region ...................................... 41

6.2. Environmental impact assessment of scenarios included in MSP .............................................. 44

6.2.1. Environmental impact assessment of scenarios based on criteria and indicators ................... 44

6.2.2. Spatial assessment of the scenario's environmental impact .................................................... 49

7. A brief outline of substantiation of possible alternatives, description of strategic evaluation .......... 61

8. Areas where the implementation of planning documents may significantly affect condition of the

environment ................................................................................................................................................ 66

9. Solutions to prevent or reduce significant environmental impacts of the planning document

implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 74

10. Assessment of possible significant cross-border impact of planning document implementation . 76

11. Measures provided for ensuring of the planning document implementation monitoring ............ 79

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 81


4

Introduction

Maritime Spatial Plan for Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Latvia

(hereinafter - MSP) - is a national level long-term (up to 12 years) territory development planning

document which defines in written and graphical form the permitted marine use and conditions. MSP is

established in accordance with the Spatial Development Planning Law (effective from 01.01.2012) which

defines that MSP shall define the use of the sea, considering a terrestrial part that is functionally

interlinked with the sea and co-ordinating interests of various sectors and local governments in use of

the sea. The MSP is developed in accordance with the Cabinet regulations No 740 "Procedures for the

Development, Implementation and Monitoring of the Maritime Spatial Plan" from October 30, 2012.

MSP consists of four parts: explanatory note, strategic sections, justification and description of permitted

use of the sea and the graphical section.

The task of Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter - SEIA) is to promote a high level of

environmental protection and ensure the integration of environmental considerations in the preparation

of plans and programmes, with the aim to promote sustainable development. SEIA legal requirements

are laid down in the EC Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and

programmes on the environment. These requirements are transposed into the Latvian law, i.e. the law

on "Environmental Impact Assessment" and Cabinet regulations No 157 "Procedures for Carrying Out a

Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment" (effective from 01.05.2004).

According to the above mentioned law, the Environmental Report is a document which establishes,

describes and evaluates the respective planning document as well as the environmental impact of

possible alternatives, taking into consideration intended place of realisation and scope. It can be

developed as a separate section of the planning document or as a separate document. Although MSP

SEIA is prepared as a separate document, it is most closely related to the information included in the

"Explanatory Note" of MSP, its analysis and carried out assessments.

The content of the Environmental Report is established by Cabinet regulations No 157 "Procedures for

Carrying Out a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment". Thus the MSP Environmental Report draft

contains the information required by the legislation. It should be emphasised that the report has been

prepared on the basis of the available policy documents, statistics, information and the available

knowledge of environmental assessment methods. During the initial stage of MSP, SEIA consultations

with the State Environmental Bureau of the Republic of Latvia were held. Conditions were also received

from the Nature Conservation Agency.

MSP and Environmental Report public consultation process will take place simultaneously in December

2015 and January 2016. MSP SEIA will be sent and consultations will be also organised with the

responsible authorities and the target groups of neighbouring countries (Lithuania, Estonia and Sweden).

MSP and SEIA will be updated and clarified according to the results of the public consultation.

MSP project development began on January 1, 2015 when Ministry of Environmental Protection and

Regional Development (hereinafter - VARAM) outsourced the consortium led by the foundation "Baltic

Environmental Forum Latvia" (hereinafter-BEF).


5

1. Procedure of Environmental Report and involved institutions,

public participation and results

The Environmental Report is prepared in accordance with the Law "Environmental Impact Assessment"

and Cabinet regulations No 157 "Procedures for Carrying Out a Strategic Environmental Impact

Assessment" from March 23, 2004.

In accordance with the third part of article 4 of the Law on "Environmental Impact Assessment", the

strategic assessment is necessary for National level planning documents. The Law also establishes

preparation, consultation on the Environmental Report, public participation in discussions on

Environmental Report and conducting of consultations, taking into consideration the results of

Environmental Report and the results of public consultation for decision making as well as provision of

information on the taken decision in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Results of SEIA are provided in the Environmental Report which is a separate document.

1.1. SEIA development methodology in MSP

SEIA development methodology is based on the conditions that during MSP development process the

environmental protection and territorial development planning principles as well as maritime spatial

planning principles should be followed, int. al. an ecosystem approach should be applied. The ecosystem

approach is defined as a comprehensive, scientifically based and integrated approach to the

management of human activities in order to identify adverse impacts on marine ecosystem and make

effective measures to reduce such impacts, maintaining ecosystem integrity and sustainability. This

condition of the ecosystem approach directly reflects the approach used during the SEIA.

The ecosystem approach is one of the two MSP principles developed by VASAB- HELCOM joint working

group. This principle must be taken into account in the planning process to ensure good environmental

status of the Baltic Sea, thus ensuring the necessary and desirable ecosystem services for humans. The

new MSP directive 2014/89/EU also emphasises that the ecosystem approach will help to promote

sustainable development and growth of maritime and coastal industry as well as sustainable use of sea

and coastal resources.

Thus, the SEIA methodology is based on the ecosystem approach, assessing the possible MSP impacts.

Several generally accepted methods are used during development of SEIA: analysis of literature, analysis

of environmental information (monitoring and statistical data), results of focus group discussions as well

as results of public consultations.

1.1.1. Common base of environmental information for performance of MSP and SEIA

Environmental information plays an important role in the contents of MSP – both the characteristics of

the existing situation and trend analysis as well as developing strategic sections and justification and

description of permitted use of the sea. The information gathered for development of MSP is used

during development of SEIA, ensuring coherence between data sources. Since BEF work on both MSP

and SEIA, this approach was possible.


6

Development of SEIA was launched simultaneously with the development of draft MSP, taking into

consideration that the environmental impact assessment shall be carried out as early as possible during

preparation of the plan.

1.1.2. Common public participation process in the development of MSP and SEIA

For more efficient implementation of the public participation process both in the development of plan

and in preparation of environmental assessment, public participation activities have taken place in

cooperation with MSP planners and SEIA experts. The specific public participation activities are described

in detail in section 2.3.

1.2. SEIA development process

Taking into account the legislation of Latvia, the SEIA process is realised in accordance with the phases

described below, as well as graphically described in the Figure 1.2.

Phase 1: Consultations with the responsible authorities

While preparing the draft MSP Environmental Report, consultations with the State Environmental

Bureau (hereinafter - VPVB) on information to be included in the Environmental Report and its degree of

detail took place in January 2015. At the same time, a letter was sent to the Nature Conservation Agency

(hereinafter - DAP) and an answer with recommendations and conditions with regard to the contents of

the Environmental Report and nature conservation issues was received.

During consultations with the VPVB, discussions on the possible ways to organise cross-border

cooperation and consultation under the ESPOO Convention and the EC Directive 2001/42/EC took place.

Phase 2: Preparation of the Environmental impact assessment

The Environmental Report identifies, describes and evaluates the possible significant environmental

impact of the planning document and possible alternatives, taking into consideration the objectives and

territory of the planning document, which could be affected. The Environmental Report shall contain

information, indicated in the Article 8 of Cabinet regulations No 157, detailed in accordance with VPVB

and DAP.

Development of the Environmental impact assessment was divided into the following phases:

Assessment of the current situation, identification of the main environmental problems and the

initial impact assessment. These issues were included in the first regional meetings and Maritime day

event, as they were essential for the development of MSP.

Environmental impact assessment, including alternative scenarios of maritime use for the

implementation of the relevant environmental impact assessment in accordance with the criteria

and indicators that describe the state of the environment and substantial loads.

Evaluation of the permitted use solution included in the MSP, int. al. solutions in order to prevent or

reduce significant environmental impact of the planning document.


7

Phase 3: Draft Environmental Report improvement

In accordance with the paragraph 23.5 of the law on "Environmental Impact Assessment", Environmental

Report is specified in accordance with the comments and proposals received during public consultations.

Figure 1.1. SEIA process of Latvian MSP

1.3. Participating institutions

VPVB according to the provisions of paragraph 9.1 of the Cabinet regulations has established (letter No

7-01/223, 10.02.2015) that the MSP and the draft Environmental Report are to be sent to the following

institutions:

Ministry of Health of the Republic of Latvia;

http://likumi.lv/ta/id/51522-par-ietekmes-uz-vidi-novertejumu


8

Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia;

Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Latvia;

Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia;

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia;

Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Latvia;

State Fire and Rescue Service;

Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments;

Kurzeme planning region;

Riga planning region;

Vidzeme planning region;

State Environmental Service;

Nature Conservation Agency;

Environmental Advisory Council.

However, the aforementioned institutions have already been involved in the legislative process (Cabinet

regulations No 740 Procedures for the Development, Implementation and Monitoring of the Maritime

Spatial Plan from October 30, 2012) as well as in the formed Maritime spatial planning work group (MSP

WG) which developed the work task for MSP during 2014.

1.4. Public participation

Active public participation throughout the process of development of MSP is one of the principles that

have been implemented. The aim of public participation is to promote effective, open, inclusive, timely

and responsible development of public participation in the development planning process, thereby

increasing the quality of the planning process and providing compliance of the planning results with

society's needs and interests.

In accordance with the laws of Latvia, public participation is implemented by formal (such as

associations, foundations, trade unions, employer organisations, religious institutions) and informal

(unregistered initiative groups, interest associations) community groups, as well as individual persons

(hereinafter referred to as society). For successful planning and management of the public participation

process, requirements established in the Latvian legislation can be structured after the public

participation forms and key methods can be identified. This structural model of public participation is

widely used in the development of planning documents in Europe. This approach was implemented by

BEF while developing MSP and SEIA.


9

Figure 1.2. Public participation forms and methods, taking into account the legislation of Latvia

Target groups play a vital role in the development of MSP. The target group can be defined as one that

includes any person, group or organization:

1) which is interested in the development of maritime spatial planning and decision making or

2) which will be affected or may be affected by maritime spatial planning, or

3) which can affect the development of maritime spatial planning and its implementation.

Using this definition, the target groups that were involved in the various stages of the development of

MSP were identified already in the early stage of MSP development, taking into account the need for

their contribution in development of the plan. However, there were two main engagement stages – the

initial phase of the project when data and information on the current use of the sea were collected and

industry development interests in the sea were clarified, and the second phase during the autumn

period, when the work on optimum sea use solution was carried out, as well as work on maritime space

permitted uses category and type description development.

More than 400 persons that participated in the various events have been registered in the data base.


10

Figure 1.3. Scheme of Latvian MSP development and public participation

Broader public participation also is organised in two stages: Stage 1 in the summer when the strategic

scenarios were developed and draft explanatory note was prepared, also including a wide range of

information about the state of the marine environment and trends in the use of resources of the sea;

Stage 2 in the winter when the 1st draft of MSP and draft Environmental Reports will be discussed.

BEF in cooperation with VARAM, LHEI and other institutions also organised the Latvian Maritime Day,

which took place on May 21 when the European Union organises the European Maritime Day. The

Maritime Day is organised at the premises of VARAM and shaped in accordance with the most topical

issues related to the maritime management of the particular year. During the Maritime Day a

presentation was made on the background of existing uses of the sea, on alternative development

scenarios as well as on cross-border aspects to be taken into account in designing MSP.

Public consultation of draft Environmental Report is organised simultaneously with Public consultation

on MSP 1st draft. During the time period from December 18, 2015 until January 31, 2016, everyone can

get acquainted with the draft Environmental Report and MSP materials at the internet site

www.jurasplanojums.net.

Notification on opportunities for the society to get acquainted with the draft Environmental Report and

MSP will be published in VARAM and BEF home pages. The notice will also be published in the

newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”, as well as sent to Kurzeme, Riga and Vidzeme Planning regions and

coastal municipalities.

http://www.jurasplanojums.net/


11

Public consultation meetings will be organised:

January 14, 2016 at 14:00, Ventspils Culture Centre (Ventspils, Kuldīgas Street 18) January 15, 2016, on 11:00, Liepāja City Council (Liepāja, Rožu Street 6) January 21, 2016, on 11:00, Saulkrasti municipality Council (Saulkrasti, Raina Street 8) January 22, 2016, at 14:00, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development

(Peldu Street 25, Riga).


12

2. Main objectives and brief content outline of MSP and relationship

with other planning documents

2.1. Main objectives and an outline of the contents

MSP is a national level long-term (12 years) territory development planning document, which defines in

written and graphical form the permitted marine use and conditions.

Objectives of MSP are established in the Strategic sections, which include long-term development vision,

strategic objectives and tasks, as well as development guidelines and principles.

The long-term development vision of sea use describes the desired situation by 2030. It is based on

recognising the sea as a joint space where all (structures, processes and activities) are interconnected.

The marine ecosystem, its food web and nature processes ensure resources required and conditions for

development of maritime sectors, economic growth and welfare of people. At the same time, pressures

from the economic activity affects the state of the marine ecosystem and thereby its ability to ensure

resources important for society, including the opportunities for recreation. Likewise, the maritime

sectors and their development potential are interconnected – these can be united by a common

infrastructure, e.g., ports and electricity transmission networks, as well as the space where various

business interests can coexist.

The overarching goal of the maritime spatial planning is the balanced and integrated use of the space

of the sea that at the same time promotes economic growth of the maritime sectors, welfare of

coastal inhabitants, as well as a viable marine ecosystem.

Figure 2.1. Nominated priorities within the framework of long-term vision

Healthy marine environment and resilient ecosystem

Prosperous and safe shipping

Sustainable fishery

Sustainable tourism

and recreation

Security

Offshore renewable

energy

Balanced and integrated use of the

space of the sea that promotes

economic growth of maritime sectors,

welfare of coastal inhabitants as well as

viable marine ecosystem


13

The following priorities are set out within the framework of long-term development: healthy marine

environment and resilient ecosystem; security (cross cutting priorities to be taken into account when

planning the use of maritime space); prosperous and safe shipping; sustainable tourism and recreation

which ensures prosperity of coastal population; production of offshore renewable energy which would

promote energy independence of the State; sustainable fishery.

Three objectives have been established in the MSP, to which the tasks are subordinated:

Objective 1: Rational and balanced use the sea space by eliminating cross-sectoral conflicts and

preserving free space of the future needs and opportunities;

Objective 2: Preserved marine ecosystem and its resilience by ensuring protection of biodiversity and

averting excessive pressure from economic activity;

Objective 3: Integrated use of marine and terrestrial areas by promoting development of maritime

entrepreneurship and the related infrastructure.

The MSP section “Justification and description of permitted use of the sea” defines the categories and

types of permitted use as well as the conditions of use in each permitted category and type. Maritime

use is divided into the three main categories:

Areas of national interest – the category includes the essential uses of the sea to ensure the

achievement of the priorities as defined in the Strategic Part (healthy marine environment and

stable ecosystem; state security; developed maritime affairs and safe navigation; sustainable

fishery). The areas are reserved for these types of uses of the sea by excluding or setting

restrictions to activities which can cause disturbances or damage to their existence or

development.

Areas of potential development – the category includes the potential uses of the sea (renewable

energy; maritime tourism and aquaculture) for which the suitable areas are identified without

setting limitations for development of other uses of the sea.

Other types of the uses of the sea and marine features that have an informative character or its

location and uses are defined by the existing regulation.

In order to determine the strategic objectives and categories of permitted use, extensive data collection

and analysis has been carried out. All information is included in the "Explanatory note" and consequently

used in preparation of SEIA.

2.2. Relationship with other planning documents

The "Explanatory note" of MSP provides detailed analysis of MSP relationship with international,

national and regional planning documents.

The following international (European Union and Baltic Sea) strategic planning documents have been

evaluated during the development of MSP, which have a direct or indirect impact on the maritime

planning and its use:

EUROPE 2020 a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth


14

"Resource efficient Europe" (COM(2011) 21)

"Strategic guidelines for the sustainable development of aquaculture in the EU" (COM (2013)

229 final)

Common fisheries policy (CTM), (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013)

European Fund for Maritime Affairs and fisheries (EJZF) ( Regulation (EU) No 508/2014)

"Our life guarantee, our natural capital — biodiversity strategy by 2020"

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and Action programme

VASAB Long-Term Perspective for the Territorial Development of the Baltic Sea Region till 2030.

HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan

National planning document impact on MSP assessment has been carried out in sectoral cut, analysing

documents, objectives and visions, priorities, lines of action or sub-objectives, tasks and main measures.

National planning documents – Sustainable Development Strategy of Latvia until 2030 (LIAS) and the

National Development Plan of Latvia for 2014-2020 (NAP) – are assessed in relation to the economic and

political sectors that are maritime use related. The analysis includes the following sectors: fisheries and

aquaculture, transport, energy, tourism and recreation, underwater cultural heritage, environment,

climate change (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 2.2. National policy planning documents

New Riga and Kurzeme region planning documents include long-term objectives, priorities and lines of

action, which have a direct or indirect relationship with the MSP.


15

3. International and national environmental objectives, particularly

those relating to sustainable development and the content of

planning document

In the Latvian Environmental Policy guidelines (EPG) for 2014-2020 1 international and European Union

objectives are incorporated, as well as are projected national priorities. Therefore this MSP

Environmental Report compare objectives, established in the Latvian Environmental guidelines, which

apply to the MSP document content.

Main goal of MSP, included in the Strategic part (see the section 1.1 of Environmental Report),

corresponds to the main goal of Latvian Environment policy defined in the EPG - provide the residents

with possibility to live in clean and organised environment, through implementation of sustainable

development, ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources, as well as public participation in

decision-making and awareness of the environment state.

EPG 2014-2020 puts forward eight thematic priorities, four of which are directly related to MSP. Their

relation to MSP is described in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. MSP and environmental policy goals or considerations relating to the environment, are taken

into account in drawing up the planning documents

Priorities Policy objective Main measures and action policies for

the achievement of the objective

The way objectives are taken into account in MSP

Nature

protection

To ensure the quality of ecosystems, conservation and socio-economic interests, promoting formation of image of Latvia as a "green" state

Current information on specially

protected species and habitats, the

objectives of protection and protection

status, spread maps of EU protected

species and habitats and the

development of guidelines for the

management of habitats

Improved network of EU protected

natural areas Natura 2000, based on

the distribution of species and habitat

mapping, as well as taking into account

the latest scientific research and regular

monitoring data

MSP is developed according to the

ecosystem approach, moreover, MSP aim

2 is directly related to the objectives of

EPG.

In addition, the MSP intends to carry out

research on establishment of potential

EEZ protected sea territories.

MSP also provides the need to assess the

distribution and coverage of marine

ecosystem services according to

internationally accepted methodology.

Climate change Promote Latvia's readiness to adapt to climate change and effects it causes.

Effective implementation of adaptation measures and their integration in the territory development planning and sectoral policies with the aim of reducing the impact of climate change and adapt to them.

During development of MSP the impacts

of climate change on natural resources

and ecosystems has been analysed.

However, taking into account the term of

MSP, separate tasks that focus on

adaptation to climate change are not

planned, since it more directly addresses

the State's long-term thematic

programming for Baltic Sea coast.

1 http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=265262

http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=265262


16

Water resources

and the Baltic

Sea

To ensure good state of waters and their sustainable use

Develop marine strategies (measures) under the Marine Environment Protection and Management Law (hereinafter - the marine strategy) int.al. developing and implementing a programme of measures to achieve good state of the sea environment.

MSP is developed according to the

ecosystem approach. Moreover, MSP aim

2 is directly related to the objectives of

EPG.

The same indicators and information that

describe good state of the sea

environment are used in the development

of MSP as well as different assessments

on the impact of MSP to the environment

state are carried out.

One of the tasks of the MSP also includes

promotion of the bathing area

development in accordance with the

requirements of the "Blue flag".

During the development of MSP,

environmental issues mentioned in EPG,

related to the ship-source marine

pollution were examined. It was

concluded, however, that the

corresponding measures are to be

included in the Marine strategy.

Environmental monitoring

Provide timely and

comprehensive

environmental and climate

change data and information

collection and

comprehensive analysis in

order to establish the policy

objectives and appropriate

measures for improving the

environmental situation and

timely respond to climate

change as well as evaluate

existing measures and the

efficiency and effectiveness

of funding

Provide valuable information and

analysis on water quality and quantity

Provide implementation of land

monitoring

During MSP all available information

related to the maritime environment and

its use was gathered.

However, concluding that the information

is not sufficient, one of the tasks of MSP is

to create maritime data information

system, to ensure effective and timely

exchange of data on the maritime

ecosystem between all parties involved.


17

4. Description of the current state of environment and potential

changes if the planning document would not be implemented

The MSP part "Explanatory note" provides a comprehensive characteristic of environment state and load

as well as the natural value of the marine ecosystem, landscape and cultural heritage. Environmental

information is gathered by Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology (LHEI), based on the initial assessment of

marine environment, as well as supplementing it with the latest available data. Fish resource assessment

is given by experts of Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment "BIOR", by gathering

information on the main commercial species in the Latvian part of the Baltic Sea.

The EU has adopted a Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)2 which Latvia has transposed

in the national legislative acts and which characterise the status of the marine environment with 11

Descriptors used for assessing the significance of human pressure. In 2010, the European Commission

issued the Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine

waters (2010/477/EU)3 which defines more precise criteria and indicators, according to which the

assessment of the marine environment is carried out. Descriptors, criteria and indicators established in

the EC decision 2010/477 related to the marine space and development of MSP were examined during

development of MSP and those on which the necessary information is available were selected (see table

4.1)

Table 4.1. Indicators representing the state of marine environment

Descriptors Indicators 2004 2008 The present

value

(year, source)

Trend Target value

(year, source)

Biodiversity

(D1)

Share of marine protected

areas from all marine waters

(%)

0 0 15%

(2015, VARAM) No

Conservation status of

protected habitat types

No data

Bad

(2013, DAP) No data

Good

(EU BS2020)

Benthic Quality Index BQI: Gulf

of Riga (GoR) and Baltic Proper

(BP)

3,31 (GoR)

3,72 (BP)

(source: LHEI)

3,24 (GoR)

4,12 (BP)

(source: LHEI)

3,55 (GoR)

3,80 (BP)

(source: LHEI,

2014)

Reference value

5,4 (GoR)

7,0 (BP)

(2020, LHEI)

Population of

commercial fish

and shellfish

(D3)

Spawning stock biomass (Bpa)

– Gulf of Riga, herring

(thousand tonnes per year)

90,4 85,9

103,4

(2014, ICES

WGBFAS)

Stock is in good

status since the

late 1980s

Good status

60.0

(2020, LHEI)

Elements of

marine food

webs (D4) Zooplankton mean size vs.

total stock (GoR)

Size=0.0029

(mg/ind)

Stock=143187

(ind/m3)

(source LHEI)

Size=0.0048

(mg/ind)

Stock.=62529

(ind/m3)

(source LHEI)

Size=0.0038

(mg/ind)

Stock=54930

(ind/m3)

(source LHEI,

2014)

No trend

Good status

Size=>0.0027

(mg/ind)

Stock=>91722

(ind/m3)

(MARMONI, 2014)

2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF

3 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF


18

Eutrophication

(D5) Nutrient (N, P) loads in surface

waters from point sources

(tonnes per year)

334(P)

3608(N) 241 (P)

1818 (N)

(2013, LVGMC) No

Summer chlorophyll a

concentration in GoR and BP

6.1 (GoR)

3.89 (BP.)

(source LHEI)

5.8 (GoR)

3.67 (BP)

(source LHEI)

3.90 (GoR)

2.46 (BP) (source

LHEI, 2014)

Reference value

1.8 mg m-3 (GoR)

1.2 mg m-3 (BP)

(2020, LHEI)

Depth distribution of Fucus

vesiculosus (GoR) and

Furcellaria lumbricalis (BP)

No data

14.8 m (BP, 2006)

5 m (GoR, 2007)

(source LHEI)

14.8 m (BP, 2013)

4.7 m (GoR,

2013)

(source LHEI)

Reference value

7 m (GoR)

20 m (BP)

Sea floor

integrity (D6) Population structure of

Macoma balthica (GoR) No data No data

Good status

11.44 mm (GoR)

(MARMONI, 2014)

A number of different indicators have been developed for the characterisation of the environmental

status in the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea, which might be contradictory to each other, therefore

appropriate interpretation of each indicator is essential. The indicators characterising the status of

Latvian marine waters that have been assessed in relation to the MSP are provided in table 1.1.

However, it should be stressed that environmental trends are best evaluated by developing special

methodology for aggregation and interpretation of data related to the set of the Baltic Sea

environmental indicators.

4.1. Biodiversity

One of the descriptors of good state of marine environment quality is biodiversity. Since different

definitions of biological diversity exist, the Rio de Janeiro 1992 convention "On biological diversity"

defines biodiversity as diversity of forms of living organisms in all environments existing in the nature

and ecological complexes. Biodiversity comprises three levels: 1) genetic diversity, that is, the diversity

within species, subspecies, populations, etc. units; 2) species diversity; 3) diversity of ecosystems. The

diversity of ecosystems determines different habitat types in a specific territory. Currently information

on the genetic diversity in Latvian marine waters is not available and therefore diversity of species and

ecosystems is reviewed.

4.1.1. Marine protected areas

Marine protected areas (MPA) have been identified as the sites in the territorial sea of the Republic of

Latvia or exclusive economic zone, where specially protected biotopes, habitats of specially protected

species and important feeding and wintering grounds for migrating birds are protected. On January 5,

2010, Cabinet Regulations No 17 was adopted by which seven MPAs are created (see. Table 3.2).

Individual protection measures and terms of use have been adopted for three territories. MPAs currently

take up 15% of Latvian sea waters4. They are mainly located in territorial waters.

Cabinet regulations No 17 establishes, that fishing in the marine protected area takes place in

accordance with the laws regulating fishing. In order to ensure port operation and infrastructure

necessary for ports, as well as economic activities and tourism infrastructure development of coastal

4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm


19

municipalities, neutral zones are established in the protected marine areas. Neutral zones include water

areas of ports as well as external raids, ground depositories at the sea, shipping routes and continuous

strip along the beach.

Table 3.2. Marine protected areas

MPA name and Cabinet

regulations

Occupied area

(ha)

Zoning Terms of use

1. Nida–Pērkone (CR No.652, 23.08.2011) [Southernmost, West coast of LV ]

36 703 Nature reserve area

The following activities are prohibited in the Nature reserve areas:

actions that cause mechanical damage to a particular protected habitat, rocky soil in the sea, including setting up wind farms and obtaining mineral resources;

installation of new ground depositories;

industrial production of algae and mussels.

Neutral area The area is created in order to provide sustainable economic activities of coastal settlements and development of tourism infrastructure.

Throughout the territory

Use of ammunition containing lead is prohibited for waterfowl hunting.

2. The west coast of the Gulf of Riga (CR No.653, 23.08.2011)

132 173 Nature reserve area The following activities are prohibited in the Nature reserve areas:

actions that cause mechanical damage to a particular protected habitat, rocky soil in the sea, including setting up wind farms and obtain mineral resources;

installation of new ground depositories;

industrial production of algae and mussels.

Neutral area The area is created in order to provide sustainable development of the territory - port operations and necessary infrastructure, as well as in order to provide economic activities of coastal settlements and development of


20

tourism infrastructure

Important waterfowl bird, rest, feeding and gathering place during the summer period

from June 1 to 15 august the following activities are prohibited: travel by water motorcycles; kiteboarding, wakeboarding and water skiing.

3. Irbe Strait (CR No.807, 19.10.2011) [Northernmost, West coast of LV]

172 412 Neutral area in order to ensure shipping, as well as sustainable economic development of the coastal area and development of tourism infrastructure

Throughout the territory

setting up of wind farms is prohibited; use of ammunition containing lead is prohibited for waterfowl hunting.

4. Akmeņrags [Middle, West coast of LV]

25 878 Not specified

5. Offing to the west of Tūja [Southernmost, East coast of Riga Bay]

58 600 Not specified

6. Vitrupe – Tūja [Middle, East coast of Riga Bay]

3 577 Not specified

7. Ainaži-Salacgrīva [Northernmost, East coast of Riga Bay]

7 239 Not specified

Possible changes if MSP is not implemented

During the development of MSP all available information and sector policy documents that may affect

the future development of MPAs were identified and gathered. MSP takes into account the conditions of

use and other regulations for the existing MPAs which mainly are located in the Latvian territorial

waters. MSP prescribes research in the Latvian EEZ in order to establish occurrence of specially protected

habitats and thus justify the establishment of new MPAs. MSP has already identified four potential areas

of research (see figure 4.1.1.) thus providing for the possible establishment of such areas if protected

habitats and species for which MPA have to be created are identified. If the MSP is not implemented the

possible future research areas could be defined as areas of other priorities.


21

Figure 4.1.1. Existing MPAs and the potentially protected areas


22

4.1.2. Protection status of specially protected habitats

Every six years all EU Member States prepare a report to European Commission on endangered and

specially protected habitats (hereinafter - Habitats) and situation of species in each country as

established by the article 17 of the European Council directive 92/43/EEK from May 21, 1992 on the

conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The essence of the report is to assess the

progress towards a national commitment to halt biodiversity decline.

One habitat is defined and evaluated in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga - rocky shoals in the sea

(1170). Its state of protection has been assessed as unfavourable - bad. Trends of habitat protection

status are not known.5

Changes in environmental conditions caused by eutrophication are the main hazard for the habitat present at the Latvian shore - rocky shoals in the sea. Increase in the amount of nutrients in the water causes changes of the habitat species. Increase of organic matter in the water reduces light transmission, reducing available depth area for reef habitats.

Invasive species is one of the most serious threats. Its impact has not been sufficiently explored yet. Round spinefoot is rapidly spreading in the Baltic Sea. The origin of this fish is Black and Caspian Sea region. Round spinefoot degrades the quality and functionality of reefs by intensively feeding on bivalve molluscs, as well as by eating the eggs of fish spawning in the reefs. In the EC report on the state of habitat, it is stated that one of the reasons for the bad situation rating is associated with the spread of round spinefoot and its effects on the shellfish population. There are no research data on adverse effects of other species.

Oil and oil products pollution is one of the main potential threats to this habitat. Pollution may occur in the water in case of ship accidents, as well as from oil and its product handling jobs in the ports. Klaipeda port operates in the territory of Lithuania, but at the border is located Būtiņģe oil terminal. In the event of accident in Lithuania, the pollution may come in the territory of Latvia with the dominant marine currents.

Direct physical influence on rocky shoals in the sea is not observed at the Latvian shore. Construction works takes place only in the water areas of port. Bottom trawl fishing does not take place near the Latvian coast. Theoretically, the habitat can be influenced by soil redistribution excavated at the water areas of ports and placed in special depositories, but currently it does not have a significant impact. Habitat heaping is a possible threat, which could be urgent if necessity for beach nourishment will arise.


The main risk for rocky shoals in the Sea is the physical destruction of habitats during construction

works. Construction of wind parks is a possible main threat and therefore has been prohibited in the

MPAs natural protection zones. MSP has determined the potential development areas, such as the

construction of wind parks, but these areas are planned not to be within the existing MPAs, nor in places

where research of natural values for creation of possible new protected areas is planned.

Since MPAs are created, the habitat is protected from such mechanical influences. In addition, the MSP

does not plan new actions with irreversible effect on the habitat. MSP takes into account all the laws and

5 Nature protection authority. Report to the European Commission on Habitat (Habitat) and species protection

status in Latvia for the 2007-2012 period. http://www.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/dati1/zinojumi_eiropas_komisijai/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:LV:HTML

http://www.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/dati1/zinojumi_eiropas_komisijai/


23

regulations governing the use and protection of MPAs. If the MSP is not implemented, new construction,

creation of large infrastructure objects, or any other activity that could significantly affect the areas and

conservation of natural values can be planned near the existing or planned MPAs.

4.1.3. Protection status of specially protected species

4.1.3.1. Marine mammal incidence and prevalence

In accordance with the Cabinet regulations No 369 "Regulations on specially protected species and list of

limited use specially protected species" from November 14, 2000, two seal species are included in the

list of specially protected species - Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and Saimaa ringed seal (Phoca hispida

bottnica).

Since the regular monitoring of seal population isn’t carried out nationally, the information collected and

published by HELCOM is used for characterisation of the status.6 Information on seal gathering, breeding

and feeding places during the time period from 2009 - 2013 is used for status assessment of seal species

population. Ringed seal population is not in good condition because it has significantly declined in

comparison to the times when human activity was less intrusive (100 years ago). Thanks to the

favourable feeding conditions, the grey seal population is in good condition.

Figure 4.1.3. Seal prevalence: image left – ringed seal; right – grey seal (red colour indicates that the

species is not in good condition, green, that the species is in good condition). Source: HELCOM (2015)

6 http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/distribution-of-baltic-seals/

http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/distribution-of-baltic-seals/


24

Distribution of Baltic seals. HELCOM core indicator report. Online. [30.11.2015], http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-

trends/indicators/distribution-of-baltic-seals/)


MSP has no direct impact on the seal population. The seals stay in the Latvian waters during migration

and feeding time, they have no permanent population here because suitable breeding sites are not

available. Seal reproduction is significantly influenced by the climate conditions that are not directly

affected by MSP. MSP could improve the situation by protecting the seal breeding sites, but, since there

are no such places in the territory of Latvia, then this does not apply to Latvia's MSP.

The number of seals is affected by fishing, competing for food resources and creating the risk of by-

catch. By-catch endangers mostly young seals which due to small size and lack of experience are caught

into traps and nets much easier. A significant number of seals are killed because of entangled in fishing

nets and equipment. While fishermen are frustrated because of less catch and damaged fishing gear. The

solution for this problem should be not tolerating the seal hunting but use of advanced fishing gear

which would eliminate by-catches and could not be damaged in seal attacks. However these activities

are not governed by the MSP.

4.1.3.2. Bird protection

The studies undertaken so far provide information on bird distribution in Riga Bay, Irbe Strait and the

open part of the Baltic Sea territorial waters. Data on the Latvian EEZ are not currently available.

Combining the projects MARMONI (Gulf of Riga and Irbe Strait, 2011-2013, aviation records), GORWIND

(the Gulf of Riga and part of Irbe Strait 2010-2011, aviation records), LIFE Eastern Baltic MPAs (the entire

coast 0-30m depth zone, 2006-2008, counting from the ship), Durinck et al 1994 (counting from the ship

1992-1993) and coast counting data (winter perennial all coastline, MARMONI in spring and summer), it

is possible to obtain species distribution maps of the following bird species (Little gull Larus minutus;

Black guillemot Cepphus grille; White-winged and Velvet scoter Melanitta spp.; Long-tailed duck

Clangula hyemalis; Pacific loon Gavia spp; Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula; Big merganser

Mergus merganser).




25

Figure 4.1.3.2. Prevalence of bird species (Little gull Larus minutus; Black guillemot Cepphus grille; White-

winged and Velvet scoter Melanitta spp.; Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis; Pacific loon Gavia spp;

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula; Big merganser Mergus merganser) in the Latvian waters.

In accordance with the EU directive on European Parliament and Council directive 79/409/EEK from April

2, 1979 on conservation of wild birds, Cabinet Regulations from March 27, 2007 "Regulations on bird

species to which the provisions of specific habitat protection measures to ensure the survival and

reproduction of distribution applies" were adopted.

Despite the great mobility and seasonal variation, bird concentration sites are stable from year to year.

As the total size of populations changes the number of birds observed may vary but the significance of

the territory remains. Therefore five protected areas, which provide adequate protection regime, have

been created in the Latvian marine waters (see Figure 4.1.1).

Table 4.1.3.a. A list of the bird species for which special habitat protection measures are assigned and

the assessment of the situation in accordance with article 12 of the Birds directive (the time period 2000-

2012)7:

Species Latin name Description of situation

Pacific loon Gavia spp. Winter population status is inconsistent

Velvet scoter Melanitta fusca (L.) Winter population status is consistent

White-winged scoter Melanitta spp. Winter population status is consistent

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis Trends unknown

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula (L.) Number of winter population increases, feather change

population decreases

Big merganser Mergus merganser (L.) Winter population status is inconsistent

Little gull Larus minutus Winter population status is inconsistent

Razorbill Alca torda (L.) Winter population status is consistent

Black guillemot Cepphus grylle Winter population status is consistent


MSP does not change the conditions of use and other regulations for bird species protection. MSP

prescribes research in the Latvian EEZ in order to establish occurrence of specially protected habitats and

thus justify the establishment of new MPAs. MSP has already identified four potential areas of research

(see figure 4.1.1.) thus providing for the possible establishment of such areas if protected habitats and

species for which MPA have to be created are identified

7 http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article12/summary?period=1&subject=A067

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1979/409?locale=LV

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article12/summary?period=1&subject=A067


26

4.1.3.3. Fish species protection

A report on species established by the article 17 of the European Council directive 92/43/EEK from May

21, 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora shall be prepared every six

years, like on the specially protected habitats. Reporting applies to salmon (Salmo salar), whitefish

(Coregonus lavaretus), Brook lamprey (Lampetra planieri), and River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis). 8

These are the species that live and feed mainly in the sea but also migrate to freshwater bodies (rivers

and lakes) for spawning.

The EC report prepared by Latvia on the assessment of whitefish and salmon is that the situation is

unfavourable - bad and such situation is unchanged. River lamprey status is assessed as unfavourable-

insufficient, however, with a tendency to improve. Favourable conservation status is given for the

populations of Brook lamprey.


Threats and impacts on the protected species are associated with obstacles on the migration routes,

such as hydroelectric dams, as well as lock construction. In addition, eutrophication also affects the

quality of the spawning grounds (eggs can survive in places with sandy bottom and a large amount of

oxygen). These hazards have not been addressed in MSP, therefore impacts on protected species will not

be observed.

Salmon and whitefish species population also affects fisheries, therefore it is being regulated by quotas

in the Baltic Sea as a whole. Determining the catch levels is not a task of MSP, therefore MSP has no

impact on these species.

4.1.4. Biodiversity status indicators

Macrozoobenthos index

Biodiversity which in addition also is a representative indicator of eutrophication - soft ground

macrozoobenthos index BQI indicates occurrence of particular species of invertebrates that live in the

pollution sensitive soft ground (worms, molluscs, crustaceans, etc.) in the specific subregion of the Baltic

Sea. Current information indicates a stable proportion of sensitive/tolerant species of macrozoobenthos.

However, the current value does not correspond to good environmental status.


Macrozoobenthos index describes the pollution effects of eutrophication. The main impact of this

pollution is not addressed by the MSP. However, if in the future fish aquaculture would be developed,

additional nutrient leakage will be generated and in this case the indicator values would be adversely

impacted. MSP provides for the possible development of aquaculture in the Gulf of Riga, where mussels

and algae could be grown. They could have a positive effect on eutrophication. In turn in the Baltic Sea,

MSP envisages possibilities of aquaculture and fish farming. However, the development of this sector

8 http://www.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/DOC/REP_EK-LV-2013-2_ES_sugu_stavoklis.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:LV:HTML

http://www.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/DOC/REP_EK-LV-2013-2_ES_sugu_stavoklis.pdf


27

would be possible with the condition to prevent leakage of additional nutrients into the Baltic Sea,

ensuring appropriate measures such as creating integrated marine aquaculture areas.

4.2. Commercial fish and shellfish populations

The definition of good environmental status determines that all commercially exploited fish and shellfish

populations are within safe biological limits, presenting population distribution, depending on the age

and size, which witnesse good condition of fish stocks. Herring spawning stock biomass of the Gulf of

Riga is an environmental status indicator for a commercial fish. Whereas the target size for good

environmental status is defined only for the herring populations in the Gulf of Riga, this parameter is

used in the MSP and SEIA. However, Article 8.3 of MSP "Explanatory note" 8.3. provides more detailed

information on the distribution of resources and resource development. The indicator calculations take

into account the number of specimens in various herring age groups and the spawning biomass. For

example, herring which is only 1 year old do not spawn and are excluded from the calculation.

Approximately 85% of herring, which has reached 2 years age start to spawn. Similar calculations are

made for all age groups of the entire population. Information on the age groups is obtained from the fish

tracking program. The developed target size of herring spawning for Latvia is 60 thousand tonnes of fish

per year. A lower figure of the calculated biomass will indicate a deterioration of the environment.

The Riga Gulf herring stock status in recent years is in stable condition. Significant changes were

observed after 1989, when the changes in hydrological conditions were detected in the Gulf. Warm

winters were favourable for successful reproduction of herring stock. As the herring stock increased,

fishing activity grew as well, increasing mortality rate caused by fishing. In 2005-2006 the herring

spawning stock decreased to 70 thousand tonnes, which was below the long-term average. In

subsequent years herring spawning stock of the Gulf increased and in 2014 it was evaluated in the

amount of 103 thousand tonnes. Mortality caused by fishing has declined in recent years.

Figure 4.2.1. The Gulf of Riga herring stock status. (source: ICES WGBFAS report, 2015)


MSP effect on fish stock is linked to possible development of new uses of the sea that would affect the

fish spawning grounds. For example, installation of wind and wave energy equipment may significantly

affect the herring and flounder fish spawning and nursery areas.

Spawning stock biomass

Precautionary approach spawning

stock biomass


28

Coast (up to 10 m isobath) aquaculture activities can also cause significant adverse effects on fish

spawning and nursery sites as well as the areas where some less common species and migratory species

stay. During MSP development such impacts are evaluated and recommended potential development

areas are chosen so as to avoid sites significant for fish spawning.

During development of MSP, various requirements of policies and normative documents are assessed.

Participation of all stakeholders in the planning process is a benefit that guarantees sustainable fish

resource management.

4.3. Eutrophication

Biogenic elements (N, P) emissions in surface water from point sources (tonnes/year)

From point sources, the main source of these substances is sewage from the largest cities and urban

settlements which after purification in the sewage treatment plant are discharged to surface water

objects. Utility services and companies channel 60-80% of the total point sources of biogenic loads to the

environment. The remaining load is caused primarily by industrial companies.

The data show that in the last six years (2008-2013) load from point sources has significantly decreased:

phosphorus emissions by 50%, and N for almost 30%. This change has been possible due to investments

that municipalities have invested in sewage treatment plants to improve their operation, including Riga.

Figure 4.4.1. Biogenic elements (N, P) emissions surface water from a point source of pollution (source:

LVĢMC, 2015)

3608

2371 2217

2788

2321

1818 1927

1249 1387

3218

2206 1956

334 206 177

295 246 241

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Permanent biogenic pollution discharged by sewage waters from point pollution sources (N-tot, P-tot and BSP loads, tonnes per year)

Nkop. BSP5 Pkop


29

During development of MSP, information on location of sewage treatment plants in the coastal areas

was gathered. Threated waters from the largest cities (Riga, Ventspils, Liepāja) are discharged directly in

to the sea. The second largest part of the sewage waters are discharged to the coastal rivers and river

estuaries.

Figure 4.4.1. Location of sewage treatment plants in the Baltic Sea and in the coastal zone of the Gulf of

Riga.

Summer chlorophyll a concentrations in the Gulf of Riga and the Baltic Sea

Summer chlorophyll a is one of the main indicators of the state of the environment, used by all the

Baltic Sea countries, describing the increase or reduction of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea sub-regions.

In general, lower chlorophyll a concentrations may indicate a reduction of eutrophication and a better

environment. Currently separate Latvian marine water environment indicators show decrease of

biogenic elements - nitrogen and phosphorus into the surface waters from the point sources, and

decrease of eutrophication characteristic indicator - summer chlorophyll a concentration decrease

tendency in the Gulf of Riga and the open Baltic Sea coast.

Macroalgae Fucus vesiculosus maximum depth distribution in the Gulf of Riga and Furcellaria

umbricalis maximum depth distribution in the Baltic Sea


30

Also for another environmental indicator - macroalgae maximum depth distribution, where one of the

main negative impacts of eutrophication to macrophyte community is decrease of distribution depth of

perennial sensitive species, available information shows that depth distribution is stable and its decline is

not observed. In general, deeper spread of macrovegetation points to better environmental state.


MSP does not directly affect the characteristic eutrophication indicators. However, if algae and shellfish

aquaculture projects are implemented, local positive impacts on parameters characterising

eutrophication such as chlorophyll a concentration in the summer in the Gulf of Riga could be observed.

4.4. The integrity of the seabed

Macoma balthica is long-lived mollusc common in the Baltic Sea. Its lifespan can exceed 10 years or

more. Older molluscs are larger in size and indicator Macoma balthica population structure characterises

optimum size of the mollusc, which can be eaten by various sea birds and fish. Although currently there

is no data to assess the amount of reduction of certain bivalve molluscs size and age groups, in the future

it will be an important indicator for Latvian sea waters. If the bottom of the sea is mechanically damaged,

most of oldest molluscs are destroyed. The younger is mollusc population, the smaller their size, the less

food is available for birds and fish.


Activities provided in MSP may influence the population structure of Macoma balthica on the local scale

because the activities impact the ground structure (for example, wind park development, continued

fishing with bottom trawls, etc.)


31

5. Environment problems related to the planning document,

especially those relating to any territories essential for

environment protection.

Different sectors create different loads on the marine environment. Negative effects of these loads may

result in significant environmental problems. Despite regional and local physically-geographical

differences, the Baltic Sea is a single ecosystem and the problems of the Baltic Sea are identified,

assessed and addressed through cooperation of all the sea countries within the framework of HELCOM

as well as for each country separately. Latvian Environmental Policy Guidelines for 2014-2020 also has

indicated the most current environmental problems affecting the Baltic Sea.

HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan in 2007 9 put forward the ambitious objective to restore the good

ecological status of the Baltic Sea until 2021. The Baltic Sea action plan defines four lines of action that

describes the main environmental problems in the Baltic Sea: eutrophication, hazardous substances,

state of biodiversity, maritime activities.

Detailed analysis across sectors/activities, loads generated by them and loads created by activities

according to significance of the impact is carried out in the final report of the "Feasibility study for the

development of program of measures to achieve good marine environmental status" (Riga, 2014).

According to the created document, loads created in Latvia and summary of their significance are given

in table 6.1. a. In accordance with the methodology set out in the final report, in evaluation of loads for

the loads created by the agricultural industry "influx of biogens" has "very high influence" on the most

part of Latvian sea waters and to the success of achievement of good environmental status of the sea.

"Very high impact" has the load created by fishing on "selective removal of specimens from the

environment" and "introducing of alien species". These loads from both sectors affect most of Latvian

sea waters and create the risk of not achieving good marine environmental status. The fishery sector

creates "medium impact" load on "physical effect on benthic substrate and benthic community" while

many activities and loads created by these activities have "low impact" on marine waters of Latvia and

successful achievement of good marine environment status.

9 http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan

http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan


32

Table 5.1.a Loads and their significance in Latvian waters summary (final report "Feasibility study for the

development of a program of measures to achieve good marine environmental status" (Riga, 2014))

Loads according to Annex III of

MSP

Infl

ux

of

bio

gen

s

Infl

ux

of

haz

ard

ou

s

sub

stan

ces

Sele

ctiv

e r

em

ova

l of

spe

cim

en

s

Intr

od

uct

ion

of

alie

n s

pe

cie

s

Ph

ysic

al i

mp

act

By-

catc

h

Ph

ysic

al e

ffe

cts

on

be

nth

ic

sub

stra

te a

nd

be

nth

ic

com

mu

nit

y

Infl

ux

of

solid

was

te in

to t

he

mar

ine

an

d c

oas

tal

en

viro

nm

en

t In

pu

t o

f n

ois

e a

nd

oth

er

typ

e

of

en

erg

y

Eco

no

mic

act

ivit

ies

cre

atin

g lo

ads

Agriculture

Forestry

Water and communal

facilities

Transport

Shipping

Fisheries

Aquaculture

Production of energy

Heating (Central and

individual)

Industrial production

Hydro constructions

Tourism and recreation

Different domestic

sources

Military activities

very high impact

average impact

low impact


33

5.1. Eutrophication

Eutrophication is a state of aquatic ecosystems when high nutrient concentrations promote algal growth

which upsets the balance of the functioning of the system, i.e. intense algal growth, i.e., reinforced the

littoral filamentous algae and phytoplankton blooming, excessive organic matter formation, increased

oxygen consumption, oxygen reduction, by periodic increase of nutrient quantity in water, death of

benthic organisms, int.al. fish. Increased nitrogen and phosphorus loads caused by terrestrial sources

located in the catchment area of the Member States basin and outside it is the main cause of

eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Approximately 75% of the nitrogen load and at least 95% of the

phosphorus load in the Baltic Sea comes into the rivers by the direct discharge into the water.

Approximately 25% of the nitrogen load produces atmospheric precipitation.

Chapter 4.4 already provided characteristic indicators related with eutrophication. This chapter as well

as MSP provides a description on nitrogen and phosphorus loads causing eutrophication problem.

4 large rivers flows into the Gulf of Riga - Daugava, Lielupe, Gauja and Salaca, which introduces most

part of biogen substances into the gulf. The average annual water flow is sorted in the following order:

Daugava> Lielupe> Gauja> Salaca. During the period from 1977 to 1995 biogen substance loads in the

Gulf of Riga was very high, but after 1995 reduction of loads was observed.

Currently, in the Gulf of Riga, unstable reduction of nitrogen loads is observed (Figure 5 .1a). N-tot

average annual loads of rivers flowing into the Gulf of Riga during the period from 1993 to 2013 as a

whole have decreased from 94500 to 74965 tons annually, compared with the period from 1977 to 1995.

The most significant reduction is observed in the river Daugava where N-tot load decreased from 67300

to 48736 tonnes per year (figure 5.1 b). The most significant reduction is observed in the river Daugava

where N-tot load decreased from 67300 to 48736 tonnes per year (figure 5.1 b). In turn in Lielupe and

Salaca a slight increase of N-tot load is observed, respectively from 16400 to 17922 tons per year and

from 3300 to 3575 tonnes per year. But in the case of phosphorus a load increase trend is observed.

Phosphorus loads in the Gulf of Riga increased from 1700 to 2009 tonnes per year. P-tot loads of

Daugava increased from 1290 to 1512 tonnes per year, Gauja - from 80 to 146 tons per year, Salaca -

from 40 to 71 tonnes per year, but P-tot load of Lielupe on the Gulf of Riga has slightly decreased - from

290 to 279 tonnes per year (figure 5.1.c).

Figure 5.1.a. Nitrogen and phosphorus load dynamic in the Gulf of Riga for 1994-2010.

(according to BSEP 141 materials)


34

Currently in the central part of the Baltic Sea a steady trend of decreasing of biogenic load can be

observed (figure 5.1.d) The central basin of the Baltic Sea is quite broad and can affect nutrient intake

from all over Europe. Of the largest Latvian rivers, which flow into the Baltic Sea (Venta, Bārta, Saka,

Irbe), it is Venta which form a significantly largest part of the N-tot and P-tot loads that reach the open

Baltic Sea from the territory of Latvia.

Figure 5.1.b. Multi-annual nitrogen dynamics in the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Riga (data by LVĢMC)

Figure 5.1.c. Multi-annual phosphorus dynamics in the rivers flowing into the Gulf of

Riga (data by LVĢMC).


35

When the average N-tot and P-tot concentrations of mentioned rivers are distinguished, it can be seen

that the maximum annual average N-tot concentration in these rivers is similar, varying in the range

from 2.5 – 3 mg N l-1. For Venta the data row is available starting from 1998 to 2012, but for Bārta, Irbe

and Saka - starting from 1993. The dynamics of the annual average N-tot concentration change in Venta

during the period from 1998-2012 can be characterised as steady. They decline from 1998 to 2006, while

starting from 2006 they are slowly rising (figure 6.1.e). Changes in the concentration dynamics of other

three Baltic Sea (Eastern Gotland) basin rivers is very similar - annual average dynamic decreases from

1993 until 1996 but from 1997 until 2012 they are relatively stable, without showing a strong increase or

decrease tendency.

Figure 5.1.d. Nitrogen and phosphorus load dynamics in the central part of the Baltic

Sea from 1994 to 2010. (according to BSEP 141 materials)

Figure 5.1.e. Multi-annual nitrogen dynamics in the rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea

(data by LVĢMC).


36

Annual average concentrations of P-tot in rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea (the Eastern Gotland basin) is

in similar range, except for Irbe where P- tot concentration are lower (figure 6.1 f). In all the rivers except

Venta, decrease of P-tot concentrations is clearly visible until 1995 and gradual increase until 2012.

While in Venta relatively stable annual average P-tot concentrations can be observed with the exception

of 2000, when it is significantly lower and in 2003 and 2011, when they are increased.

5.2. Hazardous substances

Pollution caused by hazardous substances points to significant use of chemical substances in the

anthropogenic activities, due to which substances that are normally not present, enter the marine

environment and the concentration of the substances exceed natural level. Although monitoring

indicates that the load of certain hazardous substances has been greatly reduced over the past 20-30

years, problems still exist and concentrations of some new substances (e.g., Perfluorinated substances)

in the marine environment is increased.

When hazardous substances enter the Baltic Sea, they can be present in the marine environment for a

very long time and accumulate in the marine food chain up to a level that is toxic to marine organisms.

Amount of some hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea exceeds the concentration of substances

present, e.g. in the North - East part of the Atlantic Ocean more than 20 times. Hazardous substances

cause adverse effects on the ecosystem, for example, impairs general state of animal health, debilitate

the breeding system of animals, especially big predators, increase contamination of fish that can be

used for consumption. Some of the fish species caught in individual parts of the Baltic Sea cannot be

used for consumption because they contain hazardous substances that exceed the established

Figure 5.1.f. Multi-annual phosphorus dynamics in the rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea (data by

LVĢMC).


37

concentration levels. Some pollutants can be dangerous due to their toxicity, persistence and

bioaccumulation characteristics because they adversely affect the hormonal and immune system.

MSP does not directly affect the management of hazardous substances but their harmful effect has an

impact on the types of marine (for example, fishing resources) which have a spatial significance and the

development of which is taken into consideration while drafting MSP.

Table 5.3 Situation characterising the concentration of dangerous substances in biota, Latvian coastal

waters (source: HELCOM core indicators, 2015); green colour indicates good state; yellow – average; red-

bad.

Substance/substance group

The situation in the Baltic sea biota (fish and shellfish)

TBT

HBCDD

PFOS

PBDE

PCB/PCDD/PCDF

Pb

Hg

Cd

137Cs

5.3. Biodiversity and conservation

The Baltic Sea has a unique diversity of species, habitats and landscapes. About 100 fish species, 450

species of Macroalgae, 1000 zoobenthos species, 3000 species of plankton and many unknown bacteria

and viruses that make up biodiversity of the Baltic Sea have been identified. Although various marine

observations have been made and data on changes in biodiversity have been collected, the available

data are still fragmented and effects of natural diversity on biodiversity interfere with drawing

conclusions and specification of the role of human activity in the observed changes. The Baltic Sea is a

very dynamic system with observed large climatic fluctuations, and thus also has a variable biodiversity.

This affects salinity and oxygen concentration in deeper layers of the sea as well as the temperature of

the top layers, which in turn affects the distribution of species and ecosystem structure. Climate

variability makes it difficult to understand and distinguish natural changes from man-made changes in

bio-diversity of the Baltic Sea. Despite this, there is no doubt that various loads created by people have

contributed to the observed changes in biological diversity.

Chapter 4.1 already provided characteristic indicators related with the poor state of biodiversity and

main threats that have caused this problem.

Reduced eutrophication will decrease algal blooms, significant increase in littoral filamentous algae and

anoxic slacks, as well as promote distribution and existence of natural sea landscapes, habitats, plant and

animal species. Reduced concentrations of hazardous substances in living organisms are a precondition

of healthy wildlife, i.e. viable marine populations in the Baltic Sea. Improved maritime safety will reduce


38

the potential of environmental stress caused by small or large oil spills. In order to achieve a favourable

conservation status, steps must be taken to prevent ship-source pollution and introduction of alien

species.

5.4. Maritime activities

The strategic objective of HELCOM is to achieve a situation when maritime-related activities in the Baltic

Sea are carried out in an environmentally friendly manner. Since shipping has an international role, it is

regulated by global scale laws adopted by the specialised institutions, particularly the International

Maritime Organization-IMO.

The Baltic Sea is one of the world's busiest areas. In recent years both the number and size of vessels, in

particular oil tankers, have increased and it is expected that this trend will increase in the future.

Intensive traffic occurs in narrow straits and shallow sea covered with ice for a long period of time

making the Baltic Sea a complex shipping area, causing the vessel routes to cross and increases the risk

of maritime accidents.

The main negative impact of shipping and other activities that takes place in the sea on the environment

is air pollution, illegal or accidental oil spillage, hazardous substance pollution and other waste as well as

entry of alien organisms in the sea from the ship ballast waters and hulls.

In order to achieve the strategic objective, the following eight management objectives, concerning the

most important problems have been approved: implementation of international regulations; no illegal

leakages; safe ship traffic without accidental spills; effective responsiveness in emergency situations;

minimum pollution from the ship sewage; prevention of entry of alien species with the ship ballast

waters; minimum air pollution from the ships; zero leakages from the platforms at the sea; minimal

threat from offshore facilities. These management objectives do not provide direct characteristics of

good environmental/ecological state of the Baltic Sea but identify the main problems related to human

activities at sea and its possible negative effect.

MSP planning partially takes the above mentioned problem into consideration. This applies to safe

planning of ship traffic, reserving the navigable area with security zones to prevent potential crash risks.


39

6. Environmental impact assessment of implementation of planning

document and its possible alternatives

6.1. Marine spatial development scenarios (alternatives)

Four alternative scenarios for the development and respective spatial use of the sea were elaborated in

the framework of the MSP, in order to identify the possible maritime spatial development options

(alternatives), to perform their strategic assessment and as a result to arrive at an optimal solution for

permitted uses of the sea that would be acceptable to different groups of stakeholders.

Scenario-building was based on identification of possible development directions (axes) according to the

determining factors (driving forces) that affect the marine resources and spatial use and the situation in

maritime sectors. Different policy and societal priorities are the possible confronting choices for the

development. On the vertical axis, the development is confronted by accounting for local interests and

the Baltic and/or EU interests. While the economic (free trade market, profit, competition) and

environmental (state of environment, climate change) interests are confronted on the horizontal axis.

Depending on the evolution of the determining factors in connection with the policy and societal

choices, four distinct development scenarios by priorities are identified (see figure 6.1.a):

Figure 6.1.a. Possible strategic scenarios in the development of Latvian MSP


40

Scenarios show different alternative development options if one or another development conditions are

fulfilled. However, in order to ensure that the maritime use strategic scenarios are realistic and

technically possible, the conceptual development (description and representative indicators) and spatial

solutions (map schemes) are designed in accordance with the following steps for creating the scenario:

1) analysis of the possible factors determining development (momentum):

socio-economic driving forces determining the development of marine space and associated

development tendencies (see Chapter 8 of the Explanatory note);

sectoral policy objectives and development opportunities (see Chapter 1 of the explanatory

note).

2) consultations with representatives of industry and various interest groups:

individual meetings with representatives industry, February – June 2015;

regional meetings on the development of MSP, March 2015, Mērsrags, Pāvilosta and Salacgrīva;

Conference devoted to European maritime day, May 21, 2015, Riga;

3) Assessement on criteria causing constraints for the maritime spatial use:

compliance with the national regulations relating to the use of the marine space (see Chapter 2

of the Explanatory note), int.al. limits economic activities in the protected marine areas and in

the water areas of ports, limitations established in normative acts regulating other industries;

restrictive factors of economic activities:

o natural conditions (depth suitable for shipping, depth and bottom appropriate for wind

turbine installation, places suitable for bottom trawl fishing, etc.);

o availability of resources (fish resources, wind/wave energy, hydrocarbons, etc.);

o ecosystem capacity/ability to adapt to the generated loads and environmental changes

(preservation of especially sensitive or ecologically valuable areas);

o technological capabilities (for example, wind park location and expected capacity

depending on the possibilities of connection of power networks on land);

spatial separation of incompatible economic activities: stationary structures (wind parks, oil rigs,

etc.) are not acceptable on intensively used shipping routes and military training sites and places

where they interfere with the National coast monitoring and protection systems.

A scenario: Economic growth

Scenario A is directed towards economic breakthrough driven by competitiveness and profit generation

in economic sectors. Port development, freight and passenger transport, cruise and coastal tourism,

development of resorts, as well as maritime technologies and innovations are promoted as priority

maritime economic areas. Potentially perspective energy sources (hydrocarbons, wind and wave energy)

are supported with an aim to secure the energy independence of the country, as well as to export the

electricity produced to other countries in the region and within Europe. Development of fisheries is

limited by the availability of resources and quotas set internationally and therefore the development of

this sector is stable within the limits of available resources. The development policy is mainly led by the

interests of powerful national and international companies. The spatial solution in Scenario A is adapted

to enhancing the international importance of large ports and intensive shipping traffic between ports

within the Baltic region, by ensuring adequate shipping corridors. The maximum available area is

reserved for production of renewable energy, both by allocating space for construction of wind parks

and by delineating areas for research on the potential of wave energy. The scenario foresees


41

development of fish aquaculture as economically the most viable branch of aquaculture at the coast of

the Baltic Sea between Pāvilosta and Ventspils. Provision of tourism services is mainly clustered at the

largest cities and is oriented at mass tourism and resort development.

B scenario: Social well-being

Scenario B is directed towards a social cohesion policy – balanced development of all regions in Latvia

and diversified growth of economic sectors that secure jobs, both in the existing fields and offering new

ones – with higher added value and wages. Promoted priority maritime activities are those securing a

high employment rate and income for the local economy – coastal tourism and recreation (incl.,

development of yacht clubs), fishery, operation of ports, passenger transport and short- sea shipping, as

well as potentially – aquaculture development. Interests of the local community are a determining factor

secured by support to the local and regional infrastructure, services and entrepreneurship, the desire of

people to live on the coast, maintaining of traditions. Spatial solution in Scenario B highlights the

development of small ports and short-sea shipping, incl., between Latvian small ports. In this scenario,

none of the territory is reserved for production from renewable energy sources because the

development of fisheries is brought forward by non-restricted use of sea space. However, development

of all types of aquaculture is foreseen at places with suitable natural conditions in order to promote

employment. In addition, the scenario foresees diversification and provision of tourism services along

the whole coastal area, while the most intensive tourism development is foreseen in the Gulf of Riga.

C scenario: Resilient marine ecosystem

Scenario C is directed towards maintenance of a clean environment and resilient marine ecosystem as a

basis for human well-being and sustainable development. While developing maritime activities, the

unique and fragile ecosystem of the Baltic Sea is respected, as well as global objectives to decrease the

GHG emissions and increase the share of renewable energy sources in the total consumption. Promoted

maritime activities are those securing safe and clean maritime transport, sustainable fisheries and

tourism, wind and potentially also wave energy production that are adjusted to the carrying capacity of

the marine ecosystem. Spatial solution in Scenario C focuses on development within large cities of ports

by optimising the shipping transport in order to reduce the pressure on marine ecosystem. There are

territories foreseen for promotion of algae and shellfish aquacultures that improves the marine

environmental quality by consumption of nutrients; fish aquaculture is not foreseen because of higher

pollution risks and pressure to the marine ecosystem. Tourism development is mainly related to

recreation in nature, and services of tourism and recreation of high environmental quality (“Blue flag”

beaches and marinas). Territories for offshore wind energy production are foreseen outside territorial

waters, where less impact to ecologic value areas (bird migration routes, reefs) is expected. In order to

preserve the integrity, resilience and biodiversity of the marine ecosystem, several territories have been

proposed to be potentially included in the network of marine protected areas, in case the surveys raise

evidence on the presence of nature values that requires designation of protected area.

D scenario: Development within a common space of the Baltic Sea Region

In Scenario D, the Baltic Sea is perceived not only as the common ecosystem but also a common space

for the development. Development of maritime activities and the uses of the sea is dominated by the

Baltic regional interests. Cooperation, as well as competition within the Baltic Sea region is becoming the


42

key driving force for regional development. Due to this, the international attainability is particularly

promoted. Priority is given to the maritime sectors that are important in the context of the Baltic Sea

region – coastal tourism, fisheries, shipping transport between the Baltic Sea ports (short distance sea

shipping), shipbuilding and repair, passenger ferryboat services, as well as the offshore renewable

energy production and building of a common power grid. Spatial solution in Scenario D focuses on the

development of the ports that are competitive within the Baltic Sea region, therefore the shipping

corridors are ensured to the large Latvian ports. Transit-corridors for shipping are foreseen, thus

respecting the international connectivity and shipping interests of other countries. The development of

aquaculture is not foreseen because the conditions for that are more suitable in other parts of the Baltic

Sea. Tourism and recreation services of high quality that are competitive within the Baltic Sea region are

expected to develop and therefore the offer is mostly concentrated at larger centres. Territories for

offshore wind energy production are foreseen outside territorial waters, where less impact to ecologic

value areas is expected. Power grid interconnections with neighbouring countries are foreseen in order

to join the common Baltic power grid. Territories to be potentially included within the network of marine

protected areas are offered to secure compliance with international objectives.

Expanded description of scenarios and their evaluation is given in the annexes to "Justification and

description of permitted use of the sea;": C.1.2 Description of scenarios; C_1.3.1. Results of SWOT

analysis; C_1.3.2 Evaluation of scenarios by criteria.

4.1.b. Spatial solutions of scenarios


43


44

6.2. Environmental impact assessment of scenarios included in MSP

Three approaches are used in assessment of maritime usage scenarios:

Strategic evaluation of scenarios, applying SWOT method (strengths and weaknesses,

opportunities and threats);

Assessment of economic, social, environment and cross-border impact according to the chosen

criteria and parameters; impacts are assed qualitative, using multi-criteria analysis method;

In depth assessment of spatial implications of the scenarios in respect of the marine ecosystem

components (benthic habitats, birds and territories significant for main commercially used fish

species), as well as provisions of ecosystem services.

Strategic evaluation of scenarios applying SWOT analysis was carried out during three regional meetings

in Liepāja, Ventspils and Saulkrasti in July 2015, with participation of the representatives of all parties

interested in the maritime space. During the workgroup discussions using “world café” method, meeting

participants commented on each of the scenarios, indicating their strengths and weaknesses,

possibilities and threats. Results of SWOT analysis of all three meetings are enclosed to "Substantiation

and description of the permitted use" C_1.3.1. - Results of SWOT analysis. During the discussion special

attention was drawn to spatial solutions of each scenario, identifying their shortcomings, potential cross-

sectoral conflicts and possible ways to reduce them.

This chapter of Environmental Report contains an expanded environmental assessment of scenarios

according to chosen criterions and indicators, as well as in-depth spatial impact assessment regarding

the components of the marine ecosystem.

6.2.1. Environmental impact assessment of scenarios based on criteria and indicators

As with economic, social, environment and cross-border impacts, environmental impact assessment of

scenarios was carried out in qualitative way, using multi-criteria analysis method. Impacts of the

scenarios were evaluated and mutually compared within the context of long-term marine use

development vision and marine spatial use priority areas, which was developed in accordance with the

suggestions of the interested parties during the regional MSP development meetings in March 2015. To

assess how the specific scenarios would ensure implementation of long-term vision, 3-5 criteria for each

of the groups of effects were defined. To assess the impact on the environment, the following essential

criteria were selected:

Load reduction on the marine ecosystem and provision of good marine environmental status;

Provision of biodiversity and ecosystem stability;

Proportion of renewable energy in the total energy consumption.

Whereas the environmental aspects are also important for cross-border context, the environmental

effects of alternatives in the evaluation report also contains one of the cross-border criteria: “Ecological

balance".

Degree of influence of scenarios was assessed in a comparative scale (-2: significant adverse effects; -1:

slight negative effect; 0: no effect; 1: slight positive effect; 2: substantial positive effect), based on expert

evaluation and development trend indicators used for characterisation of scenarios. Assessment of


45

cross-border context was prepared in cooperation with Lithuanian and Estonian maritime spatial

planning experts. See assessment in the Table 6.2.1.

Environmental impacts were equally positively assessed in case of C and D scenarios with regard to all

criteria of assessment – improvement of the situation of the marine environment is expected thanks to

the reduction of the emissions of nutrients on land, observing the requirements of international

agreements and EU directives; the stability of the ecosystem and the protection of biodiversity is

promoted thanks to the creation of new protected areas. The share of renewable energy in total energy

consumption is increased thanks to the wind farms installed at the sea, whose position does not pose a

major threat to the underwater habitats and migration routes and concentration sites of birds. In case of

A and B scenarios a moderate negative impact on the environment, associated with increasing intensity

of traffic which may increase emissions can be predicted, as well as accident and pollution leak risks, and

no new conservation areas are created, thereby protection of biodiversity is not strengthened. In the

case of A scenario load on the marine environment and bird populations caused by the wind park

construction and extraction of hydrocarbons is also expected. However, the wind park construction

provides a positive contribution to increasing the proportion of renewable energy.

In a cross-border context as a whole scenario A is estimated slightly lower, which may cause negative

effects on the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea. C and D scenarios will promote ecological balance of

the sea, improving the network of protected areas and ensuring continuation of created ecological (blue)

corridors in northern part of Lithuanian sea water on the Latvian side.


46

Table 6.2.1. The scenario of the environmental impact assessment based on criteria and indicators

A - Economic growth B - Social well-being

C - Resilient marine ecosystem

D - Development within common space of the Baltic

Sea Region

Criterion Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation

Reduction of load to the

marine ecosystem and

provision of good marine

environmental status

-1

As a result of increasing ship traffic, ship wrecking and oil spill risks rises. Indicators of eutrophication (nutrient elements, summer chlorophyll a concentration) remain in the current level, thus providing a good marine environmental status.

-1

As a result of increasing ship traffic, ship wrecking and oil spill risks rises. Indicators of eutrophication (nutrient elements, summer chlorophyll a concentration) remain in the current level, thus providing a good marine environmental status. However, algae and shellfish aquaculture, may positively affect the environment, consuming nutrients and thus reducing the eutrophication process.

1

Thanks to strict environmental requirements and optimal shipping organisation the risk of shipwrecks and oil spills decreases (however, if the traffic is restricted to certain corridors, the risk of collision may increase, as well as the length of the route of ships is increased, thus increasing emissions). The state of sea environment is improving, thanks to the reduction of emissions of biogens on land, as well as algae and mollusc aquaculture plants, which consume nutrients.

1

Thanks to the stringent optimal traffic organisation at the international level, maritime accident and oil spill risks are reduced. The State of the marine environment is improving, thanks to the reduction of the emissions of nutrients on land, observing the requirements of international agreements and EU directives.

Provision of biodiversity and

ecosystem stability

-1

Conditions of protected habitats and the biodiversity of the sea worsen because no new marine protected areas are created and strict environmental requirements are not applied. In addition, the load

0

New marine protected areas are not created but habitat condition and biodiversity is not deteriorating, because there is no significant increase of load on underwater habitats and bird concentration areas and

1

Conditions of protected habitats and the biodiversity of the sea improve because new marine protected areas are created and strict environmental requirements are

1

Condition of protected habitats and the biodiversity of the sea improve because new marine protected areas are created and strict environmental requirements are


47




Sea Region

Criterion Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation on the marine environment and bird populations caused by the wind park construction, extraction of hydrocarbons, ship traffic pollution (e.g. oil spills) increases, as well as nutrient leaking from fish aquaculture.

migration routes (wind parks are not built).

applied as well. Location of wind parks do not interfere with the bird migration and do not endanger the protected underwater habitats.

applied as well. Location of wind parks do not interfere with the bird migration and do not endanger the protected underwater habitats.

Proportion of renewable

energy (AER) in the total energy

consumption.

1

Wind power stations are built in the sea, as well as wave energy possibilities are explored, as a result, proportion of renewable energy in the total gross final energy consumption increases

0

Wind parks in the sea are not built because coastal fishing is put forward as a priority. Consequently, the share of renewable energy will not significantly increase or remain at the same level.

1

Wind power stations are built in the sea, as a result, proportion of renewable energy in the total gross final energy consumption increases

1

Wind power stations are built in the sea, as a result, proportion of renewable energy in the total gross final energy consumption increases

Total value -0.3 -0.3 1 1

Cross-border

effect

Ecological balance

-1

The existing network of protected marine territories is maintained, but creation of new territories which would promote the integrity of ecosystem of the Baltic is not provided. Continuity of ecological (blue) channels is blocked by creating of the wind park on the Latvian - Lithuanian border. Fishing intensity remains unchanged, within the limits of available resources.

0

The existing network of protected marine territories is maintained, but creation of new territories which would promote the integrity of ecosystem of the Baltic, is not provided. Continuation of created ecological (blue) corridors in northern part of Lithuanian sea water on the Latvian side is not ensured. Fishing intensity remains unchanged, within the limits of available resources. Different types of aquaculture

2

Network of existing protected marine territories is maintained as well as creation of new protected territories in EEZ is planned. Continuation of created ecological (blue) corridors in northern part of Lithuanian sea water on the Latvian side is ensured. Fishing intensity remains unchanged, within the limits of available

2

Network of existing protected marine territories is maintained, as well as creation of new protected territories in EEZ is planned. Continuation of created ecological (blue) corridors in northern part of Lithuanian sea water on the Latvian side is ensured. Fishing intensity remains unchanged, within the


48




Sea Region

Criterion Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation Value Explanation development can positively affect fish stocks, as well as the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.

resources. Algae and mollusc aquaculture development can positively affect fish stocks, as well as the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.

limits of available resources.


49

6.2.2. Spatial assessment of the scenario's environmental impact

The functioning of marine ecosystems, including environment status depends on its structure, diversity

and integrity. The marine ecosystem structure, function and their state in the interaction with human

economic activity and loads it generates, determines the potential for ecosystem services and provision,

which in turn serves as the foundation for the public welfare.

The marine ecosystem is composed of two main subsystems, pelagic and benthic which mutually

interact. Key factors/elements that make up the structure of marine ecosystems is abiotic environment –

the sea bottom substrate, depth, intensity of light at different layers of depth, and biotic environment or

wildlife-plankton, benthos, fish, bird and marine mammal populations.

Maritime spatial planning (MSP) applies to all Latvian Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, thus it

applies to waters of all Baltic Sea ecosystem, its structure and diversity. For assessment of MSP on

marine nature values and provided ecosystem services a marine ecosystem map is developed in

accordance with HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat (HELCOM HUB) classification system

(HELCOM, 201310). Depending on the biological survey of the station spatial disposition density in

different marine areas, habitats were defined to a different degree of detail. As a result, during

development of MSP was prepared a map for the habitats of distribution, which also allowed carrying

out marine ecosystem services mapping and evaluation, as well as marine use planning spatial impact

assessment. Available data on commercially important fish species were also used in the spatial

assessment of scenarios and most important bird concentration areas from the point of view of

protection.

To ensure the implementation of the ecosystem approach in MSP development, impact of each usage

type on natural values used in the scenarios and marine ecosystem services coverage was evaluated also

spatially, including the following steps:

Possible degree of impact of each type of use on the natural values, for whose distribution

characterisation spatial data are available (benthic habitats, areas important for commercially

important fish species and important bird species concentration areas), comparative scale was

used;

Using ArcGIS software, data layers of natural value distribution are overlaid with usage type

layers planned in the scenarios and established territories, where planned activities could cause

significant adverse effects on marine ecosystem natural values;

The map summarising the ecosystem services is overlaid with usage type layers planned in the

scenarios and established territories, where planned activities could cause risks for provision of

previously identified ecosystem service provision;

While carrying out spatial data analysis, possible impacts of spatial solutions proposed in

scenarios on marine ecosystems and their services are evaluated. That allows planning the

optimum solution for use of marine space, taking into account the sensitivity of certain areas.

10

HELCOM (2013): HELCOM HUB – Technical Report on the HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat classification. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 139.


50

Degree of influence on the natural values of types of use was assessed in a comparative scale (0-no

negative impact; 1-perhaps a little negative impact; 2-significant negative effects), based on assessment

performed by hydrobiology, ornithology and ichthyology experts. The results of assessment are

presented in the effect matrix (see Table 6.2.2.).

Impact assessment reflected in the table 6.2.2 is used to display possible natural value (benthic habitat,

bird and fish species distribution) threats in each of the scenarios on the map. In case of bird and fish

species, the degree of threat is assessed also depending on how important the given area is for species

used in the assessment (number of specimens of bird species in the results of scientific accounting, as

well as fish species catch data, which characterises the distribution of these species).


51

Table 6.2.2. Effects of planned spatial activities on the marine ecosystem natural values (0-no negative impact; 1-possible slight negative impact; 2-

significant negative impact)

Activities the spatial arrangement of which is planned in MSP/scenarios

The natural and cultural values that are affected

Ship

pin

g

An

cho

rage

Ship

pin

g ro

ute

s m

ain

ten

ance

Gro

un

d d

ep

osi

tori

es

Win

d p

arks

Wav

e p

ow

er

pla

nts

Cab

les

Extr

acti

on

of

hyd

roca

rbo

ns

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-fis

h

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-alg

ae

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-sh

ellf

ish

Bat

hin

g ar

eas

Kit

ebo

ard

Sea

fish

ing

Scu

ba

div

ing

Mo

tori

sed

bo

ats

Co

asta

l fis

hin

g

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h p

elag

ic t

raw

l

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

tra

wl

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

net

s

Mili

tary

exe

rcis

es

Co

ast

pro

tect

ion

, co

mp

lem

enta

ry

feed

ing

AA.A: Baltic Sea photic zone rocks and boulders 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 0 2 2 1

2

AA.A1: Baltic Sea photic zone rocks and boulders with macroscopic epi benthos

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 2 2 1 2

AA.A2: Baltic Sea photic zone rocks and boulders with rare macroscopic epi benthos

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 2 2 1 2

AA.H3N: Baltic Sea photic zone mud sediment with crustaceans infauna

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 2 1

1 1

AA.I: Baltic Sea photic zone coarse-grained sediments 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

1 0

2 1 1

1

AA.J: Baltic Sea photic zone sand 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

1 0

2 1 1

1

AA.J1: Baltic Sea photic zone sand with macroscopic epi benthos 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1

1 0

2 1 1

1

AA.J3: Baltic Sea photic zone sand with macroscopic infauna 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

1 0

2 1 1

1

AA.J3L: Baltic Sea photic zone sand with mollusc infauna 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

1 0

2 1 1

1

AA.M1: Baltic Sea photic zone mixed substrate with macroscopic epi benthos

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 2 1

1 2

AA.A2: Baltic Sea photic zone mixed substrate with rare macroscopic epi benthos

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 2 1

1 2

AA.M4: Baltic Sea photic zone mixed substrate without macroscopic epi benthos

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 2 1

1 2

AB.A: Baltic Sea aphotic zone rocks and boulders 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 0

2 1 1

2

AB.A1: Baltic Sea aphotic zone rocks and boulders with macroscopic epi benthos

0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 2 1

1 2

AB.B: Baltic Sea aphotic zone moraine 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

2


52



Ship

pin

g

An

cho

rage

Ship

pin

g ro

ute

s m

ain

ten

ance

Gro

un

d d

ep

osi

tori

es

Win

d p

arks

Wav

e p

ow

er

pla

nts

Cab

les

Extr

acti

on

of

hyd

roca

rbo

ns

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-fis

h

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-alg

ae

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-sh

ellf

ish

Bat

hin

g ar

eas

Kit

ebo

ard

Sea

fish

ing

Scu

ba

div

ing

Mo

tori

sed

bo

ats

Co

asta

l fis

hin

g

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h p

elag

ic t

raw

l

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

tra

wl

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

net

s

Mili

tary

exe

rcis

es

Co

ast

pro

tect

ion

, co

mp

lem

enta

ry

feed

ing

AB.H: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sludge deposits 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.H3: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sludge deposits with macroscopic infauna

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 1

1 1

AB.H3N: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sludge deposits with crustaceans infauna

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 1

1 1

AB.I: Baltic Sea aphotic zone coarse-grained sediments 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.J: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sand 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.J3: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sand with macroscopic infauna 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.J3L: Baltic Sea aphotic zone sand with mollusc infauna 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.M: Baltic Sea aphotic zone mixed substrate 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

2 1 1

1

AB.M1: Baltic Sea aphotic zone mixed substrate with macroscopic epi benthos

0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 2 1

1 1

AA.A2: Baltic Sea aphotic zone mixed substrate with rare macroscopic epi benthos

0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 2 1

1 1

AB.M4: Baltic Sea aphotic zone mixed substrate without macrobenthos

0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 1

1 1

Spawning and nursery grounds - sprat 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0

Spawning and nursery grounds - herring 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0

Spawning and nursery grounds - flounder 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 1

Spawning and nursery grounds - cod 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 0

The distribution of pelagic fish-herring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0

The distribution of pelagic fish-sprat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0

The distribution of pelagic fish-flounder 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0


53



Ship

pin

g

An

cho

rage

Ship

pin

g ro

ute

s m

ain

ten

ance

Gro

un

d d

ep

osi

tori

es

Win

d p

arks

Wav

e p

ow

er

pla

nts

Cab

les

Extr

acti

on

of

hyd

roca

rbo

ns

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-fis

h

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-alg

ae

Aq

uac

ult

ure

-sh

ellf

ish

Bat

hin

g ar

eas

Kit

ebo

ard

Sea

fish

ing

Scu

ba

div

ing

Mo

tori

sed

bo

ats

Co

asta

l fis

hin

g

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h p

elag

ic t

raw

l

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

tra

wl

Off

sho

re f

ish

ing

wit

h b

ott

om

net

s

Mili

tary

exe

rcis

es

Co

ast

pro

tect

ion

, co

mp

lem

enta

ry

feed

ing

The distribution of pelagic fish-cod 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0

Coast (up to 10 m isobath)-fish spawning and nursery sites, habitat of individual rarer species and place of stay of migratory species.

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1

0 0 0

1 2

0 0 0

1

0

Bird migration paths 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pacific loon wintering sites 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0

Long-tailed ducks wintering sites 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0

White-winged and Velvet scoter wintering sites 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0

Black Guillemot wintering area 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0

Little gull wintering sites 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Big merganser wintering sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Common Goldeneye moulting site 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Underwater cultural heritage 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2

Coastal landscape 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


54

The following impacts on marine ecosystem natural values are established as a result of spatial

assessment (see figures 6.2.2. a-d):

In case of A scenario, the significant negative impact on benthic habitats could be caused by fish

aquaculture area between Pāvilosta and Ventspils, as well as a small part of the areas provided for wind

parks, in particular, the area in the territorial waters at the port of Liepāja. The rest of the wind park

territories could possibly cause minor adverse impacts on benthic habitats and commercially important

fish species. In most part of the proposed wind park areas outside territorial waters, data on the

distribution of bird species are not available. Possible slight impact on the bird species concentrations is

identified only at the northernmost place of possible wind energy generation field opposite Jūrkalne.

Possible slight to moderate negative impacts on birds and fish species could also be caused by the

intended shipping corridors but areas where shipping is likely to generate significant negative impacts to

the natural values are not identified.

The negative impacts of B scenario are primarily related to the areas of aquaculture, significant negative

effects on benthic habitats of fish and algae aquaculture is expected in the areas between Pāvilosta and

Ventspils, as well as South of Liepāja while the bird concentration sites could be significantly endangered

in algae and mollusc aquaculture area between Roja and Mērsrags. The remaining algae and mollusc

aquaculture areas could cause possible negative impacts on benthic habitats across the whole coast as

well as on the bird concentration areas in the Gulf of Riga. Like in case of scenario A, corridors intended

for shipping may cause slight to moderate adverse impacts on bird and fish species.

In case of the C scenario, significant negative impacts are hardly detected except for very small areas of

aquaculture and in one of the wind energy fields on the West coast of Kurzeme. However, an

insignificant negative impact on benthic habitats is present in all aquaculture and wind energy areas. Bird

concentration sites could be compromised in the aquaculture areas of the Gulf of Riga on the East Coast,

as well as on the shipping routes in the Irbe strait (as already indicated above, the study lacks data on

bird distribution in possible wind park areas outside territorial waters). Slight endangerment for the

populations of fish may be present at both wind energy areas and on the shipping routes.

D scenario does not include aquaculture development opportunities. Other types of use envisaged in the

scenario do not pose significant hazards for identified natural values. However, an insignificant negative

impact on benthic habitats, as well as at some locations on bird and fish species is expected to occur in

all areas of wind energy farms. As in other scenarios, shipping could cause minor or moderate impact on

fish species as well as on birds in the Irbe strait.

Types of use envisaged in the scenarios, except shipping, mainly do not overlay with the territories in

which the most amount of ecosystem services related to benthic habitats are provided (see figure 6.2.2

d). While the shipping is not causing endangerment for benthic habitats and hence the ecosystem

services they provide. However, the aquaculture areas in the Gulf of Riga provided in scenarios A, B and

C may cause possible negative impacts on ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats.


55

Figure 6.2.2.a. Impact assessment of economic activities provided in the scenarios on benthic habitats [Legend on p.58]


56

Figure 6.2.2.b. Impact assessment of economic activities provided in the scenarios on fish resources [Legend on p.58]


57

Figure 6.2.2.c. Impact assessment of economic activities provided in the scenarios on birds [Legend on p.58]


58


59

Figure 6.2.2.d. Impact assessment of economic activities provided in the scenarios on ecosystem services


60


61

7. A brief outline of substantiation of possible alternatives,

description of strategic evaluation

Strategic approach of solutions for allowed use of the sea is intended to ensure existence of MSP long-

term vision and promoted priorities (See Chapter 2 of Environmental Report). One of the six priorities is

"healthy marine environment and stable ecosystem", as well as one of the objectives is to "Save the

marine ecosystem and its ability to renew itself, ensuring the protection of biodiversity and preventing

excessive load generated by economic activity". Therefore, when choosing spatial solutions, the

possibility of conflict with strategic settings was assessed.

The strategic part also provides maritime space development guidelines including the key conditions of

the marine planning internationally, as well as guidelines for integration of priorities, goals and

objectives during the maritime spatial planning process. One of the main conditions is that the marine

space should be organised according to natural conditions, providing preservation of ecosystem and

ecological parameter adaptability to change as well as creating favourable conditions for the improving

quality of environmental state and marine resources. This condition has been complied with, taking into

account the existing knowledge on the marine environment, ecosystems and their performance.

In preparation of solutions for permitted use of the sea, criteria were developed. There criterions are

included in the MSP part "Justification and description of permitted use of the sea": Since MSP is created

on the basis of ecosystem approach, nearly all the criteria directly or indirectly affect the environmental

interests. The criteria are divided into two categories:

1) Exclusion criteria for use of the sea – obligatory conditions that shall be respected when defining space for the particular sea use:

Compliance of planed types of use with the regulatory framework: assessment whether the

particular type of marine use is not in contrary with the environment or nature protection

legislation. For example, the activities are not prohibited or restricted in marine protected

areas as defined by the relevant Cabinet regulations.

Factors restricting economic activity:

o resource availability (fish resources, wind/wave energy, hydrocarbons, etc.) – this

criterion most likely determines at which locations the particular activities cannot be

carried out because the necessary resources are not available in sufficient quality or

quantity.

o preservation of particularly sensitive or ecologically valuable areas - this criterion is

especially respected in respect of preservation of valuable habitat, spawning

grounds, preventing mechanical destruction or substantial disturbance.

2) Compliance/coordination criteria for use of the sea – conditions that shall be taken into account

to ensure the application of the ecosystem based approach in the MSP process as well as

sustainable use of the marine space and resources:

Maintaining the ecosystem integrity – the connectivity of functionally related areas, and respecting the Baltic Sea as one, functionally interrelated ecosystem: o to avoid fragmentation of benthic habitats as much as possible;


62

o to ensure maintenance of areas important for preservation of species diversity and their distribution respecting their lifecycle and areas important in different development stages;

o to maintain „blue corridors” for ensuring species migration possibilities.

Rational use of marine space and cross-sectoral conflict minimisation is essential so that we

leave the space that might be necessary for future development needs untouched.


63

Figure 7.1.a Map of permitted use for part of the Baltic Sea [Legend on p.65]


64

Figure 7.1.b Map of permitted use for part of the Gulf of Riga


65


66

8. Areas where the implementation of planning documents may

significantly affect condition of the environment

For spatial evaluation of solutions for permitted use of the sea, similar approach as for assessment of the

four alternative scenarios was used (see Chapter 6 of Environmental Report).

Impact evaluation approach was used in the spatial impact assessment. The matrix developed in the

process was used in the assessment of scenarios, assessing the impact of types of use on marine

ecosystem components (areas significant for underwater habitats, birds and the main commercially used

fish species), as well as the provision of ecosystem services. Degree of influence on the natural values of

types of use was assessed using a comparative scale (0-no negative impact; 1-perhaps a little negative

impact; 2-significant negative effects), based on assessment by hydrobiology, ornithology and

ichthyology experts. The results of assessment are presented in the effect matrix (see Table 6.2.2.).

Based on estimated impacts and using ArcGIS software, data layers of allowed use of the sea are covered

with the relevant layers of natural value prevalence and assessed those areas, where planned activities

could lead to possible significant adverse effects on marine ecosystem natural values.

Impacts on benthic habitats

Any type of marine use associated with mechanical disturbance or destruction of ground or sediments

leaves an impact on benthic habitats (see figure 8.1 a). This may be caused by dredging works, creating

new shipping routes, or by dumping the excavated sand in the sea. Also any construction works in the

sea, for example, installation of wind parks, mining of natural mineral resources, can directly destroy

habitats. Hydrotechnical structures at the shore (for example, breakwaters, piers or boat or vessel dock)

can also affect the flow of alluvial material, which in its turn can cause accumulation of sand and reef

burial. However, the most significant effects are associated with the use of bottom-trawls in fishing, as a

result of which the underwater ecosystem is heavily damaged or destroyed. MSP provides reservation of

locations for bottom trawling already used intensively for this type of fishing, providing most of catches

of code and flounder.

On the one hand, the growing of macroalgal at aquaculture farms may positively influence the aquatic

food chain of ecosystems and biodiversity in the neighbourhood of farms. Increasing primary producers

of biomass, increases the amount of primary nutrient consuments as well as substrate for epiphytic

organisms. Artificial macrophytealgae growths form a micro-environment for various aquatic

invertebrates and fish, encouraging the growth of biodiversity. With the increase of aquatic

invertebrates and fish quantity, coastal populations of birds that feed on them will be positively affected.

However, along with the positive aspects, negative aspects are also observed. When creating a

macroalgal farm, the most significant environmental impact can be observed directly beneath these

farms. During the strong storms and waves, algae fragments can be torn off and accumulate on the

bottom below the farm. Oxygen deficit can be observed at the intensive cultivation sites under the farm.

Nitrogen and phosphorus may be released during the recovery processes, which negatively affect

benthic societies.


67

Algae and mollusc farm locations in the Gulf of Riga and the Baltic Sea envisaged in MSP are planned in

areas characterised by aphotic zone benthic habitats, therefore potential impacts on benthic habitats

has been considered as slight.

MSP provides creation of integrated fish, mollusc and algae aquaculture farms because in the open part

of the Baltic Sea the salinity and temperature regime is more appropriate for fish aquaculture. However,

the traditional breeding may significantly affect the environment, increasing the load of eutrophication

of the sea. Eutrophication has a very negative impact on the marine habitat. Littoral filamentous algae

proliferates which create thick sheet around perennial seaweed as well as biomass of microscopic algae

multiplies, thus suspending the sunlight. This process results in a reduction of area suitable for ordinary

seaweed Fucus vesiculosus and red algae spread. For example, once the bladderwrack could be found up

to 8 m deep, but now its distribution is bordering with 5 m mark.

Impact on sea birds

Unfortunately, in order to assess the impact of permitted sea use solutions, full information about

important bird areas is not available, especially in the Baltic Sea Latvian EEZ. Therefore, the impact

assessment cannot be performed on all Latvian EEZ and territorial waters (see fig. 8.1. b).

The presence of birds and wintering area and sustainability of places is possible thanks to sufficient

nutrient base. All protection measures which provide preservation of underwater habitat and fisheries

resources also contribute to diversity of bird species and stability of the count. It is also necessary to

ensure the availability of these resources and mitigating circumstances that cause physiological

deterioration, or even death of specimens.

Wind park construction and functioning within their favourite feeding area or migration would lead to

habitat loss and in long-term to the deterioration population situation. Waterfowl during migrations

usually avoid the wind parks, therefore their effects occur primarily as habitat loss. Small passerine birds

and birds of prey, unable to change the direction rapidly (a kinglet flies where the wind carries him) can

die in a direct collision with the windmills. MSP provides establishment of a single offshore wind park

area outside territorial waters, but due to the lack of data on these areas, therefore it is not possible to

carry out environmental impact assessment.

Direct death of waterfowl can be caused by oil spills from ship routes (insignificant as well) and the

mining area of hydrocarbons research sites. The more time any of the species spend flying and diving

(pacific loon, ducks, guillemots), the more dangerous these spills are (Williams et al 199411, Oil

Vulnerability Index).

Bird death in fishing devices is recognised as a serious problem throughout the world. In the Baltic Sea

the most serious problem is created by use of the gill nets (Žydelis et al 200912, Žydelis et al 201313). The

11

Williams, J.M., Tasker, M.L., Carter, I.C. & Webb, A. (1994) A method of assessing seabird vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis, 137, S147–S152. 12

Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Osterblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., Dagys, M., van Eerden,

M., Garthe, S., 2009. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – an overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological

Conservation. 142, 1269–1281


68

main places of residence of piscivorous species (loons, grebes, black guillemot) and part of benthos

eating species (long-tailed duck, black duck) overlap with the fish spawning and coastal fishing areas.

Death of birds in the fishing equipment is observed, especially in March when the number of birds

increases and particularly in gill nets with medium and large size openings. Death of loons and long-

tailed ducks is most common. It is necessary to consider improving the selectivity of fishing gear (Martin,

Crawford 201514) to avoid high mortality at time when ice conditions and migration contribute to higher

bird stocking level in fishing areas.

Even the best food resources may remain unused, if human activities cause interference. Each time the

bird is forced to leave the feeding site, energy loss occurs. Birds react differently to the size, speed and

frequency of appearance of the ships, depending on the species and energy demand. Human activities

can also vary in terms of intensity of impact, such as leisure activities:

associated with rapid movement and big noise (motor boat, water ski),

still, moving objects (sailing, windsurfing, rowing boats, canoes)

little movement and noise (divers, swimmers)

activities ashore (anglers, hunters, bird watchers and tourists) (Mathews 198215).

It is observed that regular moderate intensity boat movement upsets the birds less than rare trips or

very intensive movement and birds suffer more from small fast boats than regular movement larger

ships (int. al. fishing) in the common routes. Different species of birds are showing different levels of

tolerance. Black scoters leave their feeding sites even in 2 km distance from a vessel or aircraft (Kaiser

200616). Loons are the next most nervous species. Guillemots are rated as moderately timid but different

gulls endure the presence of human best (Garth, Hűppop 200417). Pacific loons are very shy and sensitive

to the different vertical elements.

Impact on areas important for commercially important fish species

Fishing in the open part of the Baltic Sea is based on catches of four fish species - sprat, herring, cod and

flounder. Coastal fishing is dominated by herring catches that make up most of the total catch from the

coast. Most of the herring catch takes place in the Gulf of Riga.

Spatial distribution of each of commercially significant fish catch in relation to significant impacts of

marine use types is considered while assessing the possible significant impact of permitted use of the sea

on fish species (see figure 8.1 c)

13

Zydelis, R., Small, C., French, G., 2013. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: a global review.

Biological Conservation 162, 76–88 14

Martin R.G, Crawford R. 2015. Reducing bycatch in gillnets: a sensory ecology perspective. Global Ecology and

Conservation 3: 28-50 15

Mathews M.V.T. 1982. The control of recreational disturbance. In: D.A.Scott (ed.) Managing wetlands and their birds, a manual of wetland and waterfowl management. Proc.3

rd techn. meeting on Western Palearctic Migratory

Bird Management, pp.325-330. 16

Kaiser M., Galanidi M., Showler D. A., Elliott A. J., Caldow R. W. G., Rees E.I.S.,Stillman R. A., Sutherland W.J.

2006. Distribution and behaviour of Common Scoter Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental

parameters. Ibis 148: 110-128. 17

Garthe S., Hűppop O. 2004 Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and

applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 724-734.


69

Trawling, which is one of the methods of fishing, not only gives the opportunity to fish benthic fish (cod

and flounder), but there is also evidence that bottom trawls have significant impact on the structure of

the sea bed and its residents-crustaceans, molluscs and other organisms which are an important food

source of these species. Other uses have possible negative impact on fish resources.


70

Figure 8.1.a Impact assessment of permitted use solutions on benthic habitats

Impact assessment of permitted

use solutions on benthic habitats


71

Figure 8.1.b Impact assessment of permitted use solutions on birds


use solutions on birds


72

Figure 8.1.c Impact assessment of permitted use solutions on areas significant for fish species


use solutions on areas significant

for fish species


73

Figure 8.1.d Impact assessment of permitted use solutions on ecosystem services


use solutions on ecosystem

services


74

9. Solutions to prevent or reduce significant environmental impacts

of the planning document implementation

During MSP planning process, while developing solutions for permitted use of the sea, guidelines for

spatial development was prepared (see Strategic part of MSP). These guidelines were already followed in

preparing the proposed draft of permitted use of the sea. They must also be followed in the further

process of planning permitted use of the sea.

However, the main solutions to prevent or reduce the significant environmental impacts of MSP are

integrated in the description of MSP permitted use which defines the permitted use categories and types

as well as include the conditions of use in each category and type.

Conditions provided partly arise from the existing laws. However, conditions of MSP permitted use also

include proposals which still need regulation.

MSP also include type of use - Potential protected marine areas (see Figure 9.1) These are the five areas

in the Latvian EEZ, where study to determine the compliance with the criteria for protected areas, is

necessary. Therefore, MSP includes a proposal prior the research of the territory, activities that could

potentially endanger the protected underwater habitats and species (int.al. wind parks, wave energy

stations, hydrocarbon extraction platforms, aquaculture areas, fishing with bottom trawls) are not

allowed.

9.1.d. Nature research areas, to determine the compliance with the creation of protected areas criteria


75

MSP also includes characteristics and conditions of the use types that have to be respected also with

regard to environmental impact when planning activities in the permitted use territories. The procedure

of one of the essential laws and regulations, the implementation of which may also affect the State of

the environment, is established in the Cabinet regulations No 631 "Construction Regulations for

Structures in the Internal Waters, Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of

Latvia" from 2014. This procedure governs the order for establishing license areas in the sea; tender

procedure on the rights to use the license area in the sea, as well as procedure for construction at the

sea. The responsible Ministry which has received a submission with a suggestion to establish the area in

the sea assesses the application, information and documents annexed thereto satisfy the environmental

protection and marine use legislative requirements.

Cabinet Regulations No 631 also includes general environmental conditions:

Construction work shall be organised and performed so that there is as little environmental

damage as possible. Construction work in restricted sanitary and safety zones for the protection

of environmental and natural resources, shall be organised and performed in compliance with

the restrictions and requirements laid down in the laws and regulations. The consumption of

natural resources must be economically and socially justified.

When performing renovation, reconstruction or demolition of the structure, where possible,

recycling and recovery of waste caused during construction shall be performed. All waste

caused during construction shall be managed in conformity with the laws and regulations in the

field of waste management.

The second of MSP strategic objectives are the conservation of marine ecosystems and its ability to

renew itself, ensuring the protection of biodiversity and preventing excessive load generated by the

economic activity. The objective includes multiple tasks. One of them is associated with the

environmental impact assessment of the projects. Given the relatively complete information and

knowledge of marine ecosystems, the MSP recommends to develop methodologies of various maritime

space uses for cumulative impact assessment and to ensure compliance with the EIA process

methodology. It will encourage a more versatile evaluation of various impact factors, to accurately

analyse both the load and the environment state. Also the remaining tasks of the second target are

related to information on marine environment resources, state and exchange of information. The

information will provide new and additional knowledge to be able to perform adaptive MSP which is one

of the internationally recognised marine planning principles.


76

10. Assessment of possible significant cross-border impact of planning

document implementation

Maritime cross-border context is evaluated in relation with the existing and planned maritime use in

neighbouring countries, as well as the prospects of development in the Baltic Sea region. Assessment has

been prepared in cooperation with Lithuanian and Estonian maritime spatial planning experts.

Cross-border context in connection with the maritime use in neighbouring countries is more accurately

assessed in respect of Lithuania and Estonia, where spatial plans adjacent to Latvian border are already

prepared:

Marine Spatial plan of the Republic of Lithuania, which is developed from 2012 to 2013

(developed by Klaipėda University Marine Research and Planning Institute). The plan approved

by the Lithuanian Parliament, on June 11, 2015.

The Republic of Estonia Pärnu district maritime spatial planning, the development of which

started in October 2012 (developer Hendrickson & KO). Cross-border consultation with Latvian

side is carried out.

The Swedish Water and Marine management agency (SwAM) has launched the Baltic Sea spatial plan

development for the territory of Sweden. During 2014 SwAM has compiled information on uses of the

sea. In 2015 a report is prepared on how SEIA will be carried out during development of Maritime Spatial

Planning. However, Swedish Baltic Sea MSP proposals will be available in 2017.

Solutions of allowed use in the context of the Baltic Sea region are assessed using criteria based on

priority industries mentioned in the EU strategy for the Baltics, for implementation of economic

potential of products and services provided by the marine ecosystem. The proposed criteria focus on

creation of common approach between the Baltic Sea countries, promoting cross-border cooperation as

a precondition for increase of resident wellbeing which is dependent on sustainable use of

environmental resources, as well as highlighting the economic factors relevant for the region's growth,

safety and ecological status of the Baltic Sea.

The criteria proposed for the joint development of the Baltic Sea region include:

Ecological balance provided by the network of protected territories, preservation of "blue

corridors" to ensure migration of species, possibilities of development of fishery policies and

aquaculture;

Continuity of types of use in respect of ship routes and infrastructure corridors;

Attractiveness of the region provided by the yacht and recreational boat berths and port

network as well as opportunities for sailing along the coast, attractive tourism services and

opportunities for observation of underwater cultural heritage;

Safety based on appropriate training of the national military forces and operation possibilities as

well as development of renewable energy sector;

Economic potential based on the development of the port and maritime-related

entrepreneurship.

With regard to cross-border environmental impacts, the allowed sea uses are assessed by criteria

whether the dedicated space for planned activities ensure ecological balance. Using criterion, solutions


77

proposed by MSP are assessed in a comparative scale (-2: significant adverse effects; -1: slight negative

effect; 0: no effect; 1: slight positive effect; 2: substantial positive effect).

The conclusion is that the proposed solutions of permitted use will be essential to the provision of

overall positive impact on the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea. MSP provides that the existing

network of protected territories is maintained, as well as survey of potentially significant nature

territories is provided in order to determine their compliance with the criteria for protected areas.

Creation of new protection territories within EEZ would allow possible continuation of ecological (blue)

corridor created in the northern part of Lithuania in the Latvian side. MSP provides that the fishing

intensity remains unchanged, i.e. within the limits of the available resources. Development of algae and

mollusc aquaculture may reduce the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.

In the cross-border context the coherence of proposed permitted use of the sea by Latvian, Lithuanian

and Estonian MSP with respect to the possible impact on the environment is assessed separately.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) and ecosystem integrity

Solutions proposed by Latvian MSP

Solutions of permitted use include existing MPAs as well as research territories for creation of new protected areas in the Latvian EEZ which also include cross-border territories on the borders with Estonia and Latvia.

Coherence with the spatial solutions offered by Estonia

At Irbe Strait MPAs are created both in the territory of Latvia and Estonia. Both countries have established similar management solutions for these areas that include environmental protection and shipping and do not conflict with solutions of permitted use of the sea. Next to MPA "Ainaži – Salacgrīva" (not further than 6 km) on the Estonian side a wind park is planned, during installation of which the possible impact on the protected area's natural values have to be taken into consideration.

Coherence with the spatial solutions offered by Lithuania

Lithuanian MSP provides for creation of protected territories at the Latvian border, thereby continuing creation of "blue corridor" based on the environmental parameters, which connect the protected territories in the coastal zone of Lithuania and adjacent waters. Research territory planned on the Latvian side for creation of new MPA on the border with Lithuania conform with "blue corridor" concept and promotes continuity of mutually interconnected natural values and protection in the Latvian coastal waters as well.

Wind energy and underwater cables


Solution of permitted use provides two territories suitable for installation of wind parks, as well as underwater cable lines for connection with land electric power transmission network on the Latvian coast. Power transmission interconnections with neighbouring countries are provided from Ventspils to Sweden, as well as from Kolka to Saarema island in Estonia. Territories chosen for wind energy generation are located outside


78

MPAs, as well as outside areas important for bird and fish resources.


Since the planned wind park territories are located at a significant distance from Estonia, they do not pose threat to Estonian interests and negative impact on environment. The proposed power transmission interconnections from Kolka and Ventspils can be interconnected with Estonian power transmission network and planned wind parks in the Estonian sea waters, thus positively affecting interconnection of Latvian - Estonian power network (energy security and market) as well as development of wind energy production.


Planned wind energy acquisition possibilities in the southern part of Latvian EEZ conform to similar planning concept in the Lithuanian side, thus creating favourable conditions for the implementation of joint projects in this maritime economy field. The available wind resources and a relatively low level of occupancy of the border areas also create good preconditions. Infrastructure corridors are intended on the Lithuanian side which would include underwater cables and would ensure their connection with the power transmission on land, as well as promote creation of power transmission network for wind power stations in the South-Eastern part of the Baltic Sea. The lack of interconnections between Latvian and Lithuanian wind parks offshore makes this Baltic Sea wind energy network segment concept not feasible. The wind park territories in Latvia are planned at a significant distance from Lithuania, they do not pose any threat to Lithuania's marine ecosystems.

Aquaculture


The permitted use of the solutions include three marine areas suitable for aquaculture, of which two (algae and mollusc farming) is located in the Gulf of Riga, near Estonian marine waters.


Estonia's MSP solutions for Pärnu area allows the development of aquaculture in the Riga Bay only in cases where it does not cause adverse effects or risks for marine ecosystems, populations of fish and fisheries (e.g., increase of eutrophication loads or spread of invasive species). Aquaculture should be "nutrient negative or neutral" (this means that aquaculture must consume nutrients from the sea; nutrients discharged into the environment must be less than taken up). Recommendation: Since water quality of the Gulf of Riga is assessed as relatively poor, the additional risk of eutrophication must be eliminated. Therefore here only "nutrient negative or neutral" aquaculture production plants are allowed.


No comments.


79

Mining of mineral resources


Permitted use of the sea includes the existing license area for exploration and production of hydrocarbons.


Since the possible locations of hydrocarbons are located at a significant distance from the Estonian waters, no direct impact on the interests of Estonia and the environment is expected. However, Estonia is interested in careful management and prevention of the potential risks (oil pollution, accidents) and impact on the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea during the production of hydrocarbons.


The license areas are deployed along the borders of Latvia and Lithuania, where also are found major oil reserves of both countries. Extraction of hydrocarbons and related industrial development can be beneficial to both parties. The use of the energy resources at suitable locations also supports the EU security policy. Although the use of oil resources can cause competition between countries, however, there is also good cooperation possibilities (research, labour market and industrial development), which can also contribute to political decision-making on establishing of sea border between Latvia and Lithuania.

11. Measures provided for ensuring of the planning document

implementation monitoring

Necessity of MSP implementation monitoring is established by Cabinet regulations No 157 "Procedures

for Carrying Out a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment", Section VIII. Monitoring shall be carried

out with the purpose to establish direct or indirect impacts on the environment of MSP implementation

and to determine the design amendment necessity.

In accordance with Cabinet of Regulations No 740 "Procedures for the Development, Implementation

and Monitoring of the Maritime Spatial Plan ", Article 30, the responsible ministry shall, at least once

every six years, in co-operation with the Institute of Aquatic Ecology and the Maritime Administration

prepare an informative report on the implementation of the maritime spatial plan and submit it to the

Cabinet for examination. Cabinet regulations also established that the informative report shall be

prepared (if possible, concurrently with revision of the programme of measures in accordance with the

laws and regulations regarding protection and management of the maritime environment):

taking into account the maritime spatial plan;

on the basis of the current information provided by the State and local government institutions;

if necessary, by including proposals for amendments to the maritime spatial plan.

The programme of measures arising from the law on the protection of the marine environment is

developed and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers no later than by December 15, 2015. It is prepared

every six years, so the next time the program will be developed until 2021. However, information on the

State of the environment assessments should be updated already in 2018.

Same as developing MSP, MSP implementation monitoring should be based on the environmental

indicator approach, which is used extensively in the evaluation of the state of the marine environment in


80

the European Union, the Baltic Sea and is developed in Latvia, while developing a marine strategy. The

indicator approach is also used in the preparation of the Environmental Report (see Chapter 4). For

monitoring of implementation must be used mainly marine environment monitoring data,

representative data of distribution of fish and fishing resources as well as other information that will be

available to VARAM and the other State institutions involved in the use of marine resources.


81

Summary

Maritime spatial plan of territorial waters of the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of the

Republic of Latvia (hereinafter - MSP) Environmental Report is prepared in accordance with the EC

Directive 2001/42/EC on Strategic Environmental Assessment of certain plans and programs and Cabinet

regulations No 157 of the Republic of Latvia "Procedures for Carrying Out a Strategic Environmental

Impact Assessment".

MSP is a national level long-term (up to 12 years) territory development planning document which

defines in written and graphical form the permitted marine use and conditions. The 1st draft of MSP

Environmental Report has been developed simultaneously with preparation of MSP, starting from

January 1, 2015. Environmental Report development methodology is based on the conditions that during

MSP development process should be observed principles of environmental protection and territory

development planning, as well as marine spatial planning principles. One of the basic principles of

maritime spatial planning is the ecosystem approach defined as a science-based management of human

activities in the marine ecosystem, identifying the adverse effects and taking effective measures to

reduce such impacts, to preserve the integrity and sustainability of ecosystems. In development of MSP

and Environmental Report is used available scientific information and statistical data on the state of the

marine environment, its trends and threatening factors, thus providing a scientific basis for the

implementation of the ecosystem approach to management of marine use.

MSP Environment report development included the following steps:

Consultations with the responsible institutions (the State Environmental Bureau and Nature

Protection Agency) on conditions for development of the Environmental Report and organisation of

cross-border consultations;

Assessment of the current situation, the main environmental problem identification and initial

assessment of impacts.

Environmental impact assessment, including alternative scenarios for maritime use for the

implementation of the relevant environmental impact assessment in accordance with the criteria

and indicators that describe the state of the environment and substantial loads.

Evaluation of permitted use solution included in the MSP, int. al. solutions, in order to prevent or

reduce significant environmental impact of the planning document

Environmental Report draft improvement, taking into account the comments and proposals received

during the public consultation (to be carried out in March 2016).

Throughout the MSP and Environmental Report development process active public participation is

ensured. Interested parties have been informed about the current situation assessment and identified

environmental problems during regional meetings in March and July 2015. Industry representatives and

other stakeholders are also involved in evaluation of alternative sea use scenarios and in defining the

conditions of marine space use.

Public consultation of draft Environmental Report is organised simultaneously with Public consultation

on MSP, 1st draft. During the time period from December 18, 2015 until January 31, 2016, everyone can

get acquainted with the Environmental Report and MSP materials at the internet site

www.jurasplanojums.net. MSP Environmental Report will be sent for consultation with the responsible

authorities and the target groups of neighbouring countries (Lithuania, Estonia and Sweden) as well. MSP

http://www.jurasplanojums.net/


82

and Environmental Report will be updated and clarified according to the results of the public

consultation.

Draft Environmental Report discussed the priorities, objectives and tasks defined in the strategic part of

MSP as well as international and national environment protection objectives are taken into

consideration while developing MSP. Main goal of the Marine Spatial planning is balanced and integrated

maritime use, which contributes to the economic development of maritime related industries, prosperity

of coastal population, as well as viable marine ecosystem. A healthy marine environment and stable

ecosystem next to the State safety are nominated as cross-cutting priorities, which have to be taken into

consideration while planning the maritime use. It is concluded that the ecosystem approach, applied in

MSP, as well as objectives and tasks contributes to the implementation of nature protection policy goals,

such as providing research for establishment of the potential EEZ marine protected areas, as well as the

need to assess distribution and provision of marine ecosystem services. To promote Latvia's willingness

to adapt to climate change, impacts of climate change on natural resources and ecosystems is analysed

during development of MSP, although MSP does not provide separate tasks focused on adaptation to

climate change. MSP summary information and tasks is closely linked with environmental policy

objectives to provide good water status and sustainable exploitation of resources, as well as timely and

comprehensive gathering and thorough analysis of environmental and climate data and information.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) requirements and descriptor values, criteria and

indices established by the EC decision 2010/477, which are related to the marine space use and on which

the necessary information is available - biodiversity (D1), commercial fish and shellfish populations (D3),

eutrophication (D5) and sea floor integrity (D6)) are used for characterisation of marine environment

state and trends. Insight of biodiversity protection measures in marine waters of Latvia, as well as the

protected habitats and species protection status is provided. Currently the protection status of the only

European significance protected habitat "rocky shoals in the sea" in the Latvian sea waters is assessed as

unfavourable - bad. Status of wintering birds is assessed as stable or fluctuating. Protection status of the

protected fish species has been defined as a negative - bad for salmon and whitefish, negative-low for

river lamprey but brook lamprey populations protection status is assessed as favourable. MSP research

areas provided for potential marine protected areas may improve the determination of protected

habitats and species protection status. MSP has no direct impact on indicators representing the level of

eutrophication, however, the introduction of algae and mollusc aquaculture projects in the Gulf of Riga

may have possible local, positive impact on the level of eutrophication. According to the solutions

offered by MSP fish aquaculture is allowed only in the open part of the Baltic Sea, on the condition that

leakage of extra nutrients to the sea is eliminated. MSP impact on commercial fish populations, as well

as the integrity of the sea bed is associated with possible development of new uses of the sea (such as

wind and wave energy production) which could affect fish spawning beds, as well as continuing fishing

with bottom trawl.

The impact of agricultural produce, introduction of alien species by vessel traffic as well as selective

removal of fish species by fishing are identified as major loads on the marine ecosystem. However,

permitted marine use solutions provided in MSP do not affect these loads directly.

To identify the potential for maritime development options (alternatives) and arrive at the optimum

permitted maritime use solution acceptable for various stakeholders, MSP developed four alternative

maritime usage scenarios and evaluated their effects by different criteria: scenario A - Economic growth;


83

B - Social well-being; C - Resilient marine ecosystems; D - Development within a common space of the

Baltic Sea Region. The Environmental Report provides an scenario environment impact analysis in

respect of criterions - 1) Load reduction on the marine ecosystem and provision of good marine

environmental status; 2)Provision of biodiversity and ecosystem stability; 3) Proportion of renewable

energy in the total energy consumption, as well as cross border effect impact on provision of ecological

balance. Spatial impacts assessment provided in the scenarios for benthic habitat, bird and fish species

distribution as well as the potential provision of ecosystem services was carried out. It was concluded

that marine use spatial solutions proposed in the scenarios have relatively little impact on the stability of

ecosystems and nature values, because it was taken into consideration in the development of scenarios

as one of the criteria. Significant negative impacts were found only in small areas and are mainly

associated with the potential uses of the sea, aquaculture development and generation of wind energy.

The least negative impact on natural values was found in the case of D scenario.

According to similar approach is evaluated also permitted marine use spatial impact on marine

ecosystem components and it’s provided services, as well as the main risk factors are explained. It is

specified that any type of marine use associated with ground or sediment mechanical disturbance (i.e.

dredging work and spoil dumping at sea, offshore construction, for example, wind park installation or

mineral extraction), leaves impact on benthic habitats. However, the most significant effects are

associated with the use of bottom-trawls in fishing, as a result of which the underwater ecosystem is

heavily damaged or destroyed. MSP provides reservation of locations for bottom trawling already used

intensively for this type of fishing, providing most of catches of code and flounder. Aquaculture farms

may cause significant negative impacts on benthic habitats. The areas for algae and mollusc farm

deployments in the Gulf of Riga and the Baltic Sea proposed by MSP are characterised by aphotic zone

benthic habitats, where the negative impact would be relatively small. MSP provides creation of

integrated fish, mollusc and algae aquaculture farms, because in the open part of the Baltic Sea salinity

and temperature regime is more appropriate for fish aquaculture. However, fish aquaculture can be

permitted only if leakage of nutrients in the marine environment is prevented, which can be ensured by

integration with algae and mussels farming. The permitted use solution has not significant negative

impact on bird species. However, it is stated that complete information on important bird areas,

especially in the Baltic Sea, Latvia, in the EEZ territory currently is not available. Possible adverse effects

are associated with the construction and functioning of wind parks, oil spills from ship routes, as well as

fishing devices, especially use of gill nets. Impacts on fish populations are mainly associated with bottom

trawling sites - it affects the structure of the seabed and its residents, which in turn serves for fish

species as a food source.

The main solutions to prevent or reduce significant environmental impacts of implementation of

planning document have been integrated in the description of MSP permitted use, which defines the

permitted use categories and types as well as includes the conditions of use in each category and type.

An important role is also for MSP proposed type of use "potential marine protected areas" which states

that before these areas are surveyed no activities that could potentially endanger protected underwater

habitats and species can be allowed.

In the conclusion the possible significant cross-border impacts of planning document implementation are

discussed, assessing the impact of permitted use within the context of the Baltic Sea region, as well as


84

direct impacts on the border with Lithuania and Estonia. As the possible risk are specified areas of

aquaculture in the Gulf of Riga, highlighting the need to monitor the potential nutrient leaking.

Implementation of measures provided in MSP shall be based on the environmental indicator approach.

Marine environment data, distribution of fish and representative data of fishing resources as well as

other available information shall be used.

maritime spatial plan for territorial sea and exclusive economic … · 2016-01-19 · maritime...

Documents