progress in marine conservation in europe 2009

Henning von Nordheim, Jochen C. Krause and Katharina Maschner (Eds.)

Progress in Marine Conservation

in Europe 2009

BfN-Skripten 287

2011

Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009

Proceedings of the Symposium

Stralsund, Germany, 2nd - 6th November 2009

Compiled by Henning von Nordheim

Jochen C. Krause Katharina Maschner

Cover picture: Conference poster (© Ruffani, Käning, Maschner, Krause, Hübner) Coordination: Dr. Henning von Nordheim Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Dr. Jochen Krause Unit II 5.2 – Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm 18581 Lauterbach, Germany Conference preparation: MSc. Katharina Maschner German Oceanographic Museum (GOM) Katharinenberg 14-20 18439 Stralsund, Germany Further information on the actual status and background of marine protected areas under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive of the EU in the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) can be found on the BfN web page www.habitatmare.de. This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de) and available as PDF at: www.habitatmare.de. The BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. Copies may be requested from the publisher. Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de All rights reserved by BfN The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties. Views expressed in the papers published in this issue of BfN-Skripten are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publisher. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the copyright owner.

Printed by the printing office of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Printed on 100% recycled paper. ISBN 978-3-89624-022-4 Bonn, Germany 2011

IndexPreface ................................................................................................................................ V

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. VI

Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

Opening

BEATE JESSEL: Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009: The BfN: Active for Marine Nature Conservation .................................................................................... 5

RUDOLF LEY: Welcome address by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) ................................................... 15

I Status of European and other MPA Networks

HANNA PAULOMÄKI et al.: Status of the marine and coastal Baltic Sea Protected Area network of HELCOM with regard to the 2010 targets (Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Meeting)................................................................................................ 21

HENNING VON NORDHEIM et al.: Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic with regard to the 2010 targets ........................... 29

DOUG EVANS et al.: Current status of the Habitats Directive marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) network................................................................................ 41

DANIEL CEBRIAN: Developing a network of Marine Protected Areas embracing the Mediterranean High Seas ...................................................................................... 49

GIUSEPPE NOTARBARTOLO DI SCIARA: The Pelagos Sanctuary for the conservation of Mediterranean marine mammals: an iconic High Seas MPA in dire straits .................. 55

VIOLETA VELIKOVA & AHMET KIDEYS: Status of the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol in 2009.................................................................................................................... 59

DANICA STENT: New Zealand’s Marine Protected Areas Policy and Current Implementation ...................................................................................................... 69

KRISTINA M. GJERDE et al.: Progress towards the development of a global network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) ............................................................................ 81

II Management of Human Impacts on the Marine Environment

BENJAMIN S. HALPERN: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts: mapping cumulative impacts of human activities on marine ecosystems............................. 93

MICK BISHOP: Compliance strategy to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) ............................................................................................................... 97

RUTH H. THURSTAN et al.: Historical decline of demersal fisheries and future management implications in UK waters............................................................... 103

CHRISTIAN PUSCH: Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea ......................... 107

HANS NIEUWNHUIS & TON IJLSTRA: Fisheries measures in Dutch MPAs .......................... 121

2 Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009

AAD C. SMAAL et al.: Flat oyster restoration with special reference to the western Wadden Sea.........................................................................................................125

III New Marine Management Measuers and Tools

JÖRN GESSNER et al.: Remediation of the European Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) .................................................................................................137

ALF R. KLEIVEN: Lobster protection: A demonstration of the potential for marine reserves in temperate coastal areas ....................................................................149

EDWIN VAN DE BRUG: Drilled Concrete Monopile - Riegers Flak R & D project executive summary...............................................................................................151

SVEN KOSCHINSKI: New methods for military ammunition clearance in the marine environment..........................................................................................................159

KARSTEN BRENSING: Marine Noise pollution in the light of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.............................................................................................171

PEDRO AFONSO et al.: From seabed mapping to fish movements: design of MPA networks using multiple conservation features.....................................................175

KRISTIN KASCHNER et al.: Impacts of climate change on biodiversity patterns of fish and other marine species in European waters .....................................................181

Short notes

ROBIN CHURCHILL & DANIEL OWEN: New book: The EC Common Fisheries Policy..........189

JEN ASHWORTH & DAN LAFFOLEY: New webportal: Opening the ocean to the World Wide Web audience..............................................................................................191

SARAH ZIERUL: New film: Who Owns The Sea? The Scramble for the last Resources....195

IV First Steps towards Meeting the Biodiversity targets of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

FRITZ HOLZWARTH et al.: Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in Germany - Moving towards an assessment framework for “good environmental status” ...........................................................................................199

STEPHAN LUTTER & SASKIA RICHARTZ: The bottom line on Good Environmental Status: Requirements to achieve a good environmental status in European Seas from the NGOs’ point of view................................................................................211

ÁNGEL BORJA: Good Environmental Status Indicators for benthos within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: taking advantage from the Water Framework Directive................................................................................................................219

THOMAS DELLINGER: Good Environmental Status indicator for sea turtles: How to protect sea turtles under the Habitats Directive and MSFD .....................225

Annex I: List of speakers ..................................................................................................235Annex II: Conference Programme....................................................................................241

Preface In November 2009 in Stralsund, Germany, the international conference on “Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009” provided a forum for in depth discussions on continuously important and emerging marine nature conservation issues in Europe. Participants and speakers took part during the conference week represent-ing a wide range of international conventions and agreements, policy makers, con-servation managers, renewed scientists and inter- and nongovernmental organiza-tions. In continuation of the first international conference on Marine Nature Conser-vation in Europe 2006 in Stralsund, Germany, the symposium again proved to be an encouraging and successful event due to its participants, who facilitated valuable and prudent discussions on new marine management measures and tools, imple-mentation status of the European Marine Protected Area networks and meeting first steps towards the biodiversity aims of the new European Marine Strategy Frame-work Directive (MSFD).

The roots of the BfN conference series on marine nature conservation date back to the year 2004, which played an important role in marine nature conservation in Germany. A comprehensive set of ten marine protected areas under the EU Habi-tats Directive and the EU Birds Directive were designated in offshore waters of the German North Sea and Baltic Sea. This success was celebrated and discussed with scientists, conservationists and stakeholders at the first national marine nature con-servation conference in 2004.

Further progress in marine conservation is still necessary as human activities which impact the marine environment are still increasing from year to year and the dead line for Europe to hold the loss of biodiversity on land and in seas by 2010 has passed unsatisfactory as most of the targets here will not be fulfilled. However, ef-forts were not lost and progress is made on some marine issues and roadmaps to reach the targets are identified for others. The following proceedings summarise as many of the high quality speeches held at the conference which paid tribute to pro-gress already made in marine nature conservation and identify emerging promising approaches to proceed in marine nature conservation in Europe and beyond.

Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel

President of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

AcknowledgementsThe 2nd International conference on “Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009” and the corresponding proceedings are the result of the joint effort and help of many people and speakers. Most chapters greatly benefited from the valuable comments of the peer reviewers, whom we would like to thank for all their efforts.

The organisers of the conference would like to sincerely acknowledge the support of all persons on and behind the scence named below and from those who we may have unintentionally forgotten.

The German Oceanographic Museum (DMM) and Ozeaneum and its team, Director Dr. Harald Benke, Dr. Götz-Bodo Reinicke, Christine Wulf, Gerd Bühring, Heiko Haack (technical staff team), provided the perfect environment and infrastructure for the conference.

The Steigenberger Hotel Baltic, Stralsund and HanseDom & Radisson Blu Hotel Stralsund served an excellent catering during the conference week.

The conference was funded and supported for the 2nd time by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).

Finally, we are grateful for the support of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), branch office Isle of Vilm, Unit “Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation” for their constant help during the conference preparation and realisa-tion and review process. Special thanks are due to Ulrike Ruffani, Sandra Käning, Ute Herrmann and Peter Hübner who helped to make the conference a success.

Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009 1

Introduction The 2nd international conference on „Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009“ held form the 2nd - 6th November 2009 was hosted by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in cooperation with the German Oceano-graphic Museum (DMM). The conference took place in Stralsund, Germany at the Ozeaneum which is a recently opened outstanding enlargement of the German Oceanographic Museum (GOM) with modern aquaria and exhibitions providing se-cure insights in marine ecology, thus representing the perfect environment for an in-ternational marine conference. A wide range of international experts covered new and emerging issues on progress made in marine nature conservation in Europe and beyond. The conference was financed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and proved to be an encouraging event with attendance of more than 200 experts from 20 countries.

Two excellent opening addresses warmly welcomed the participants and gave an overview of the German regional, national and international marine conservation ob-ligations, policies and progresses. During the first session speeches focussed in de-tail on the current status of the implementation of the European and other Marine Protected Area networks with regard to the European 2010 marine conservation aims. Mrs. Hanna Paulomäki, for the representative of the General Secretary of HELCOM and Dr. Henning von Nordheim, the representative of the OSPAR-MPA Group explained the current implementation status of the MPA networks in the Baltic Sea and Northeast Atlantic. With examples given for Italy, Turkey, Tunisia, France, New Zealand and from the Global Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (GOBI) further ap-proaches and strategies towards meeting the challenge of developing MPA net-works on regional and global level were presented and discussed.

The second session focussed on the management of anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment. One presentation looked into the past and current fishing prac-tices and future management measures to achieve sustainable fisheries and other addressed the restoration of reefs, build by the European oyster (Ostrea edulis). The compliance strategies of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA) which is still one of the best managed MPAs in the world and based on long time experi-ences were explained in some details and with illustrative examples by Dr. Mick Bishop of GBRMPA.

The third session called for new marine management measures and tools, particu-larly within European waters. Progress reached by the impact reduction due to ma-rine sand and gravel extraction, the protection of lobster in Norway and the restora-tion of the two critical endangered sturgeon species were explained. New human developments such as offshore installations or increasing noise levels are severe


challenges for the protection of our seas. Fortunately, also technical improvements can also help to reduce anthropogenic impacts. Therefore, new methods associated with pile driving such as drilling of concrete piles to reduce noise pollution by bubble curtains were presented by the experts in this field. Additionally, new techniques help to improve our understanding of marine ecology such as tracking of fish move-ment for MPA designing and measurements of changes of fish distribution ranges according to climate change scenarios. The third session ended with some short notes on a new book on fishery management in the EU, Google Earth as new tool for global marine conservation and a film so called “Who owns the sea” by Mrs. Sarah Zierul.

The latest European legal development towards meeting the marine biodiversity tar-gets and reaching clear and healthy seas is based on the environmental pillar of the European Maritime Strategy, the new European Marine Strategy Framework Direc-tive (MFSD). Dr. Fritz Holzwarth, of the German Federal Ministry for the Environ-ment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) explained the national aims in the process of implementing the Directive, while Mrs. Saskia Richartz from Green-peace and Mr. Stefan Lutter from WWF illustrated the NGO`s viewpoint on how to achieve a “Good Environmental Status” in European Seas.

These proceedings reflect the high quality presentations which were extensively dis-cussed during the conference week. We would like to thank all speakers, for their ef-fort to meet the publication deadline and enable the editors to compile this proceed-ing. Furthermore, the editors would like to clarify that the responsibility, and that these contributions do not necessarily express the opinion of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). However, all articles underwent an extensive review process by experts of the Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation Unit and were in most cases adjusted with consent of the authors accordingly. That said, we are confident that these proceedings will offer a valuable contribution to the discus-sion on the protection of marine biodiversity in Europe and beyond and to the devel-opment of a global marine protected areas network.


Opening


Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009 The BfN: Active for Marine Nature Conservation BEATE JESSEL

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany

Ladies and Gentlemen, marine conservationists, marine scientists and marine man-agers from all European Seas and beyond, welcome to Stralsund, welcome to our second Conference on marine conservation in Europe entitled "Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009". Progress in marine conservation is still very neces-sary as we all know that human activities which impact our seas are still increasing from year to year.

This conference on “progress” in marine conservation is timely as the dead line for Europe to hold the loss of biodiversity on land and in our seas by 2010 is approach-ing rapidly. We have to accept sadly that we will not be able to fulfill this target by next year. However, we have made progress on some issues and for others at least we have identified roadmaps to reach the targets. Therefore, the aim of this confer-ence is to present progress, to identify new promising approaches to reach progress and to discuss how to proceed in marine nature conservation in Europe from here.

1 BfN – Active for marine nature conservation

The German Federal Nature Conservation Agency (BfN), as responsible authority for national and international nature conservation, has risen to this challenge and has been active for many decades now in marine nature conservation. These re-sponsibilities include giving scientific advice for the Federal Ministry for the Envi-ronment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and other authorities; the development, realisation and supervision of research projects, and the preparation of scientific, technical and legal statements; the participation in international bodies, the support for concrete protection measures; the identification and administration of large marine protected areas in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and many others.

Today, I would like to inform you with satisfaction that we have just in time for this conference published an extensive brochure that explains and illustrates all marine activities of BfN in some detail. The experience over decades and the scientific ex-pertise of BfN have contributed to the fact that Germany now contributes in a promi-nent role to the conservation of marine ecosystems in Europe.


2 MPA networks in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea

Let me start with a short introduction to the Natura 2000 initiative of the European Union. This conservation programme is legally based on the so called EU Habitats Directive from 1992 and the EU Birds Directive from 1979. These two Directives call for the establishment of an EU wide ecologically coherent network of protected ar-eas in order to efficiently protect rare, endemic, threatened and/or declining species and biotopes. They also oblige Member States to establish Marine Protected Areas even in offshore sites within their Exclusive Economic Zones (in the following EEZs). In contrast to most national protected areas programmes, the nature protection Di-rectives are legally enforceable, because the European Court of Justice may fine non-compliance of Member States. It is now 5 years since the German Government nominated to the European Commission a comprehensive set of ten marine NATURA 2000 sites in the German Exclusive Economic Zone of the North and Bal-tic Seas.

These ten sites comprise as much as 31 % of the total area of the German EEZ. In addition to the designation of the Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ, the German federal coastal states have nominated large parts of the German territorial waters as Natura 2000 sites. All these German marine Natura 2000 sites together make up as much as the extraordinary figure of 41,7 % of the German maritime area (23 160 km²). The European Commission has already accepted the German nominations for the North Sea as being a “sufficient” contribution to the Natura 2000 network, while some other Member States still have to do further work on this. At the upcoming so-called Baltic biogeographic seminar in the next days the EU Commission will assess the nominations of all riparian Member States of the Baltic Sea. We assume that our contribution to Natura 2000 in the Baltic Sea will also be considered as “sufficient” by the Commission.

Let me now come to another international activity on MPA networks. In 2003, the Commissions of the two regional seas conventions, the OSPAR and Helsinki con-ventions agreed at their high level meeting, to establish a coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas by 2010 and adopted a joint MPA-Work Pro-gramme for the North East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. This means that the contract-ing parties to these conventions committed themselves to establish sufficient sites and to install an effective management regime in their MPAs. In order to harmonize such activities, HELCOM and OSPAR have commonly developed practical guidance with detailed site selection and management instructions for MPAs. As a matter of fact, most EU Member States sought to combine these efforts with the Natura 2000 activities to implement the HELCOM/OSPAR Joint Work Programme on MPAs. So did Germany, we contributed almost all marine Natura 2000 sites to the joint HELCOM/OSPAR network.


Figure 1: Recently published BfN brochure: “Active for marine nature conservation” shows all marine activities of BfN.

As in Germany, within the framework of OSPAR and HELCOM most MPAs of other EU Member States are Natura 2000 sites. This implies in most cases that they are only under legal protection according to the Habitats- and Birds Directives. From a biological as well as a conservation point of view this is not satisfactory, because the selection criteria and process of the joint HELCOM/OSPAR network is much more open to also include sites for features that are not covered by the EU Directives. As Germany holds the lead party function in both conventions for compiling the MPA network efforts of the contracting parties, we feel that we need to make very clear, that the first network evaluations of OSPAR and HELCOM indicated that the current status neither fulfils the criteria for ecological coherence nor can it be expected to be complete in the reporting year 2010.

However, in Germany several activities were started in order to install an efficient protection and management regime inside MPAs. Especially, many of the near shore sites are national parks or biosphere reserves with respective management plans under state law. Two large offshore sites in the EEZ are nature reserves based on Federal legal acts. As some of you probably also experienced know, in offshore areas it is much more difficult to install a proper protection regime than in the territorial waters since a coasta l state has in many cases only limited rights to regulate human activities in its EEZ.


This is in particular the case for shipping and for EU Member States also for fisher-ies. The only way out is to address the appropriate international competent authori-ties like the IMO for shipping regulations or the European Commission in order to agree on the regulation of harmful fishing practices. My agency has already put a lot of effort into identifying areas where specific fishing methods are jeopardizing the conservation goals inside MPAs in a joint research project carried out with ICES. More activities will follow. We still hope to see that these scientific findings become accepted and respective regulatory measures implemented by the competent au-thorities in our offshore Marine Protected Areas.

National Park Biosphere ReserveNature Protection Area National ParkNational Park Biosphere ReserveBiosphere ReserveNature Protection AreaNature Protection Area

Figure 2: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the German North Sea and Baltic Sea.

3 Human Activities

For hundreds of years and for more generations than we can think of, humans have used our oceans and seas. Due to our fascinating progress in technology we are now using more regions of our seas than we have ever done in history. Let me briefly name some of the various human activities in the German EEZs. The most prominent example for a technical development claiming more and more space of our seas is the use of wind energy. In Germany, the erection of offshore wind farms came into discussion about 13 years ago. Only this year the very first offshore wind farm is under construction north of the Isle of Borkum in the North Sea and will be operational soon. But in the meantime 22 further wind farms with together more than 1.600 turbines have been approved already in the German EEZ and another 60 pro-jects have been applied for – each covering up to a hundred square kilometres.


The generally applied method to fix the foundation of the turbines, driving piles into the sea bottom, emits underwater sounds intensive enough to injure marine animals and to stretch out to tens of kilometres forcing for example harbour porpoises to leave their habitat. Aerial surveys during such pile driving at the first German off-shore wind farm revealed that not a single Harbour Porpoise could be detected dur-ing that activity within a radius of 18 km from the construction site, this was a habitat loss of 1.000 square kilometres. The results provided first evidence that the avoid-ance reaction of these animals is much stronger than expected. They further ur-gently demand due consideration of the need for effective noise mitigation meas-ures. When in operation, wind farms and their surrounding environments are avoided by certain sea bird species resulting in a permanent habitat loss. Significant impacts also on migrating birds due to the risk of collisions and avoidance reactions cannot be excluded.

Most recently, the Ordinance on Marine Spatial Planning in the German North Sea EEZ came into force excluding any future wind farm projects from the Natura 2000 sites. Secondly, in the EEZ large areas are currently licensed under German mining law for the exploration of hydrocarbons or for sediment extraction. For example in the German EEZ of the North Sea, three licensed areas for sediment extraction with an area of 1,300 km² are fully or largely in Natura 2000 sites. In contrast to coastal waters were sediments are also used for coastal defence, sand and gravel from off-shore areas are extracted only for use as construction materials and aggregates. Especially near or inside reef areas the long-term effects of aggregate extraction could be a major threat and obstacle in achieving favourable conservation status.

Additionally, production platforms, pipelines and cables were built in the EEZ. The laying procedure of both cables and pipelines leads to mainly temporary disturbance of the seabed habitats and the related species. Particularly operational submarine power cables emit electromagnetic fields and release heat. Electromagnetic fields are detected and responded to by a number of marine species, some use them for orientation during migration. Concerning thermal radiation, there is evidence that various marine organisms react sensitively even to minor increases of the ambient temperature. However, there will be more cables entering service as the number of offshore wind farms increases.

Further activities include military exercises of our navy or shipping and even with a mayor recent decrease due to the global economy crises shipping is increasing from year to year, introducing more and more noise into our seas and leave less and less open undisturbed sea surfaces for resting sea birds. These are some examples and still do not illustrate fishing – probably the spatial activity with the most severe im-pacts on marine ecosystems.


4 Fisheries in the North and Baltic Seas

According to the EU Birds and Habitats Directives after the designation of Natura 2000 sites member states are obliged to set up management plans as soon as pos-sible and at the latest in 2014. It is obvious that according to fishing vessel position data in 2006 in German waters based on “Vessel monitoring system” there are al-most no areas without fishing activities. Although there is a consensus between ma-rine ecologists that fishery is one of the human activities, with the highest impact on habitats and species in marine ecosystems, the extent of this impact and its conflict with conservation objectives in the German EEZ was almost unknown. To fulfil the legal conservation requirements with regard to fisheries activities in marine Natura 2000 sites the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) has initiated the EMPAS project in cooperation with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). One of the main objectives of this three year project was the conflict analysis between fishing activities and conservation objectives in Natura 2000 sites. Based on data about protected habitats and species as well as on date of fishing ac-tivities the following main conflicts have been defined:

In the North Sea one of the major conflicts is the impact of trawl fishery with mobile bottom contacting gears on benthic habitats and associated species. Some areas in the Southern North Sea are trawled up to 20 times per year with heavy beam or ot-ter trawls. Most vulnerable to this fishery are large, slow growing and late maturing species and reef habitats.

The major problem in the Baltic Sea is the by-catch of seabirds in static fishing gears. The southern Baltic Sea is an important wintering area for various kinds of seabirds (divers, grebes etc.). One of the most important feeding habitats for winter-ing seabirds is the SPA Pomeranian Bay. Highest by-catch occurs in areas where temporal and spatial distribution of seabirds and gillnets overlap. Seabirds get en-tangled in nets especially when diving for food and drown.

Gillnets fisheries represent also a major threat to the harbour porpoise populations in the Baltic and the North Seas. Harbour porpoises are not able to detect the thin monofilament nets, get entangled and drown. Most threatened by by-catch mortality is the small population of harbour porpoises in the Central Baltic, which according to recent scientific surveys consists of less than 600 individuals.

In 2008, based on the results of three expert workshops ICES advised management options to solve the conflicts in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ. These management options reach from spatial and temporal fishery regulations to the im-plementation of ecologically sound fishing gear. Although the main conflicts have been identified and management options are now available, fishing activities in ma-rine Natura 2000 sites are still not regulated. From the viewpoint of BfN it is impor-


tant that the European Commission will increase the pressure on member states to implement efficient management measures in Natura 2000 sites. In the context of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) new chal-lenges will arise to harmonize fishing activities with the targets of “Good Environ-mental Status” until 2020. For example, the directive is asking to safeguard that “Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biologi-cal”.

From our viewpoint, also the new EU Commission`s Green Book on the new Com-mon Fisheries Policy (CFP) offers a good basis for the urgently needed fundamental reform of the current Common Fisheries Policy. It is now important that the points of criticism by the EU Council of Ministers will be taken into consideration and imple-mented. BfN has just published a strategic paper describing the most important task to reach ecologically sound fisheries management – it is already published on our website (www.habitatmare.de).

5 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

In June 2008, a new and central piece of legislation for the conservation of marine nature came into force, the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). From a European perspective it is thought to be the environmental pillar of Europe’s future marine policy as it was initiated in the EU Commission’s Blue Paper for an integrated maritime policy. The directive’s ambitious overall goal is to reach a Good Environmental Status (GES) for all European marine waters – i.e. the North and Baltic Seas, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea – until the year 2020. Though there is not yet a final and detailed definition, Good Environmental Status (GES) is primarily described in Article 3 of the directive. Thereby,

� ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas shall be provided;

� the structure, functions and processes of the marine ecosystems allow those eco-systems to function fully; and

� marine species and habitats are protected, human-induced decline of biodiversity is prevented and diverse biological components function in balance.

Reading this core definition of GES, the central objective of the directive becomes obvious: it is the protection of marine biodiversity. As the Federal Agency for Na-ture Conservation (BfN) we therefore feel the responsibility to take a very active role in supporting its further elaboration on European level and in accomplishing an ef-fective implementation on national level. On the way to reach the overall goal, the


MSFD prescribes five major tasks to be fulfilled by the EU member states. A first and very important task is the so called:

1) ‘Initial Assessment’. To get a starting point that Good Environmental Status will be opposed to and from where specific measures are intended to be taken the cur-rent status of biodiversity will be assessed on the basis of a comprehensive analy-sis. The criteria to be assessed are listed in the directive and include all major ele-ments of marine biodiversity such as marine mammals. sea birds, fish, benthos and biotopes;

2) by reference to this ‘Initial Assessment’, Good Environmental Status shall be de-termined on the basis of eleven so called “qualitative descriptors”, also listed in the directive;

3) to guide progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status member states shall establish Targets and Indicators;

4) on the basis of the ‘Initial Assessment’ member states establish monitoring pro-grammes to reflect any changes in status and the effectiveness of measures;

5) and most importantly, to make sure that the directive has clear effects on the ground, a programme of measures has to be developed and implemented, including spatial protection measures.

These five tasks are to be fulfilled within a very short timeline, starting with the first three tasks with a deadline by 2012, the begin of a comprehensive monitoring by 2014 and the implementation of measures by 2016. This circle is to be repeated every six years. It has here to be recalled that the implementation of the MSFD re-quires an integrative approach crossing various disciplines. Particularly the devel-opment and application of measures can never be tackled in a singular manner.

Only if implemented finely tuned and with an overarching perspective future meas-ures will be successful. Altogether I believe that the MSFD has a great potential for improvement of the status of the European seas and their ecosystems. It is, how-ever, a matter of cooperation between member states on a regional basis to gain a common understanding on the status of the seas Europeans want to reach and/or preserve.


6 Challenges for marine Conservation in Europe - The scope of the conference

This conference has three mayor goals:

First to review the current status of the implementation of European marine pro-tected area networks with regard to the 2010 marine conservation aims. Represen-tatives of all relevant European regional sea conventions, the Black Sea Conven-tion, the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean, the OSPAR convention for the Northeast-Atlantic including the North Sea and the Helsinki Convention for the Baltic Sea will report on progress made - as well as the European Commission, European Member States and even from New Zealand. Scientists and managers from Europe and Over Seas will present how to assess progress; they will highlight success stories and problems to encounter management of anthropogenic impacts including climate change.

My team and I are happy and very satisfied to announce that we were lucky to gain more than twenty experts from Europe and all over the world to inform and to dis-cuss intensively within the next days the latest results on these issues. We will dis-cuss the necessary first steps towards meeting the biodiversity components aims of the new European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

Before I come to an end I want to briefly come to an initiative that I personally con-sider important, the European Nature Conservation Agencies Network also called “ENCA network”. This network was recently established by the heads of several na-tional nature conservation agencies to strengthen nature conservation in Europe, not least in the marine environment, by enhancing cooperation between its mem-bers. The network particularly aims at finding strategic views on relevant issues, in-fluencing policy and sharing best practice and information. The BfN as associate of the network explicitly invited members of the ENCA network to the conference.

7 Acknowledgements

Lastly I would like to express my gratitude to our marine conservation department, the team around Henning von Nordheim. Not only would this conference not be possible without their enduring commitment and restless activity – but also would marine nature conservation in Germany be far from where it is today. Only thanks to this highly motivated and dedicated group of scientists, planners, GIS and IT experts and technical assistants, we can look back on the many successes – on the pro-gress in marine conservation we made so far. Thank you very much.


Welcome address by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)RUDOLF LEY

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you here in the German Oceanographic Mu-seum in Stralsund on behalf of the Federal Environment Ministry. With about a month to go until the negotiations for a post-Kyoto regime, the media seem to have forgotten that there are other environmental and nature conservation issues besides climate protection. Which is all the more reason to provide a forum here for the mounting importance of marine conservation. The German Oceanographic Museum is a very appropriate place to have expert discussions on the protection of the ma-rine environment. This is the first time I have visited this museum and I would like to congratulate our host to this impressive place. It certainly is what the website prom-ises: A declaration of love to the oceans!

The increasing significance of marine conservation, however, is also due to the ac-celerating exploitation of marine ecosystem services. The different uses range from fishing and resource exploration in the form of sand and gravel extraction, gas and crude oil production to the rapidly developing energetic use of marine environments, in particular offshore wind energy. The use of offshore wind energy presents a par-ticular challenge to reconcile the justified concerns of climate and nature conservation.

Marine ecosystems also play a growing role in climate protection considerations and corresponding mitigation strategies. I would like to mention the discussion concern-ing the marine fertilisation experiment by an Indo-German group of researchers that was carried out this spring in the Southern Ocean. The idea behind this experiment was to prove that targeted fertilisation of the Southern Ocean with deficient nutrients such as iron sulphate would lead to more growth of algae and thus to enhanced CO2 capture. Not only did the experiment fail to produce the desired results, it was also inconsistent the decisions of the 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity.


A recently published study by the University of British Columbia examining the im-pacts of climate change on the availability of fish in the various regions of the oceans clearly shows that marine ecosystems will be changing in the future, and it describes what these changes will be. They will pose a grave threat to the food sup-ply especially for people of coastal countries in warmer regions. Under the assump-tion that only healthy ecosystems provide a basis for sustainable use, marine con-servation has to deal with climate-related changes and develop concepts to ensure the conservation of marine ecosystems and their resilience. This is our only option if we are to ensure that the oceans continue making a considerable contribution to the world's food supply in the future.

Besides climate change, fishing is the human activity with the greatest adverse im-pacts on marine ecosystems. In its Green Paper Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy submitted in April 2009, the European Commission, too, comes to the conclu-sion that the aims of the reform adopted in 2002 have not been met overall: fish stocks, marine ecosystems and fishermen are worse off than before. Marine con-servation now has to be implemented in an adequate and competent way. One good example is the research project Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS) that Ms. Jessel just presented. The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) commissioned the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) with this project. The aim was to find out, in an in-tegrative and comprehensive process, what action would be necessary to set up a sustainable and ecosystem-friendly form of fishery in German marine protected ar-eas of the Natura 2000 network. The results have been available for some time. The Commission has already given us positive feedback. Together with other riparian countries, we now have to formulate concrete proposals based on the results and implement them at national and European level.

The conference topic for today, Status of European and other MPA networks, touches on one of the central instruments for addressing the loss of biodiversity. During the last decade some deadlines and targets were adopted which will have to be dealt with in the near future:

At the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg more than seven years ago, the decision was made to establish a worldwide network of pro-tected areas in the high seas by 2012. At the Joint Ministerial Conference of HELCOM and OSPAR in Bremen in 2003, it was agreed that an ecologically coher-ent network of well-managed marine protected areas should be established by 2010. For European seas, the Natura 2000 protected areas network pursuant to the Habitats and Birds Directives is a fundamental basis for this. The network includes territorial waters and the exclusive economic zones of the EU Member States up to the 200 nautical miles limit.


So far, Germany has designated more than 30% of its exclusive economic zone in the North and Baltic Seas as Natura 2000 protected areas. The Commission con-firmed the areas in the North Sea in spring 2009. The areas proposed in the Baltic Sea are currently being analysed in the European Union, and possibilities for com-pleting the network of marine protected areas are being discussed.

The number of marine protected areas, including large-scale areas, is growing worldwide. In early 2009 the US designated the largest marine protected area worldwide with a surface of 500,000 square kilometres in the Pacific Ocean. And as recently as September 2009 Palau announced that it wants to set up a protected area of 600,000 square kilometres for sharks. Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor, the six countries of the Coral Triangle Ini-tiative in the South East Pacific, joined forces to designate a coral habitat of 5.4 mil-lion square kilometres as protected area and to develop a sustainable management system. In spite of these examples, globally speaking, marine protected areas are still well below 1% of the total marine surface.

For the concept of marine protected areas to work out and to ensure an adequate resilience of marine ecosystems against expected environmental changes, the pro-tected areas have to be sufficiently large and managed efficiently. Only if these re-quirements are met, we will see if these areas really contribute to the protection or at least to a sustainable management of the seas. The results will be the yardstick for measuring the success of protected areas. So far they are often merely paper parks.

In Germany as well, we are still at the very beginning of this process. It is obvious that sustainable and effective management can only succeed if stakeholders and ri-parian countries cooperate and efforts are coordinated. We have taken the first steps in Germany. Conferences such as this contribute to improving knowledge and to promoting our joint interest. To achieve a high acceptance among stakeholders and a successful implementation, it is important that we follow an integrative and participative approach, like the one that was chosen for the European Marine Strat-egy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

The aim of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is to adequately bal-ance the use and the necessary protection of complex marine ecosystems. Coordi-nating legal instruments more efficiently across borders and sectors enables an economically promising and ecologically sound development of coastal areas. A comprehensive exchange of experience and the participation of all stakeholders will help us to jointly initiate new developments for coastal areas at an early stage and to resolve conflicts in the run-up to planning procedures.


Awareness for the protection of marine species and habitats is on the rise interna-tionally. This becomes evident as international protection regimes adjust their focus, for example the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CITES), where the pro-tection of marine biodiversity was a central topic discussed at COP9 in May 2008 under the German Presidency. The implementation of the European Marine Strat-egy Framework Directive (MSFD), which owing to its content could be also referred to as a marine conservation directive, will play a more important role for Germany and other European Member States over the next years.

In their campaign platforms, the parties of the new German government expressly mentioned marine conservation and the implementation of the National Strategy for Sustainable Use and Protection of the Sea of September 2008. The Marine Strategy emphasises the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach. The coalition agreement also underlines the importance of marine conservation with a special fo-cus on establishing marine protected areas worldwide as well as in our exclusive economic zone. It also wants to ban destructive fishing practices. We must take ad-vantage of the current political dynamics, further develop marine issues and strin-gently implement proposed measures.

By exploring the seas we have gained significantly more knowledge about ecologi-cal interrelationships. However, we still invest more resources in the exploration of the moon and space than in researching and protecting the oceans. We are only beginning to understand the value and sensitivity of marine biodiversity. Confer-ences such as this make a crucial contribution to enhancing our knowledge.

I would like to thank you for coming, and I wish you informative and inspiring discus-sions at the conference Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009. I also wish you a pleasant stay in the historic Old Town of Stralsund, which is a UNESCO world heritage site and thus recognised as meriting special protection.


I Status of European and other MPA Networks


Status of the marine and coastal Baltic Sea Protected Area network of HELCOM with regard to the 2010 targets (Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Meeting) HANNA PAULOMÄKI1, ANNE CHRISTINE BRUSENDORFF1, SUSANNE RANFT², ROLAND PESCH², WINFRIED SCHRÖDER² & DIETER BOEDEKER³ 1Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), ²University of Vechta, Germany, ³Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany

1 Introduction

The first joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Meeting (2003) decided on a Joint Work Programme (JWP) to complete by 2010 networks of coherent and well managed Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs) and OSPAR marine protected areas. Coherent networks of marine and coastal protected areas (MCPA) contribute to halt the loss of biodiversity. They aim to protect threatened, declining or rare biotope types, habi-tats and species, and to make the ecosystem more resilient against external threats like eutrophication, invasive species or climate change. The joint HELCOM/OSPAR network shall also ensure the sustainable use of natural resources in the marine Convention areas.

The network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA) is a regional initiative by the HELCOM Contracting Parties to protect the Baltic Sea marine environment. The network was founded in 1994 (HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 on a system of coastal and marine Baltic Sea protected areas). At that time it was the only interna-tional network of marine protected areas (MPA) in the Baltic Sea consisting of an ini-tial suite of 62 sites proposed by the Contracting Parties (HELCOM, 1994). The pur-pose of the BSPA network is primarily to protect marine biodiversity and the main emphasis is given to marine areas, while the network also covers coastal areas that are an inseparable part of the marine ecosystem.

The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, adopted in November 2007, reaffirmed these commitments and even took a step forward. All the major environmental problems affecting the Baltic marine environment were addressed in order to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021 (HELCOM, 2007a). For marine biodiversity and nature conservation, the Action Plan has the goal of achiev-ing “favourable conservation status of marine biodiversity”. This is in line with corre-sponding goals and objectives of already existing regulations at EU and global lev-els. The fulfilment of the HELCOM commitments contribute among others the 2012 target of the UN WSSD (United Nations World Summit of Sustainable Development) Johannesburg Declaration (UN 2002), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)


and for the EU Member States to the requirements of the Birds (EC 1979) and Habi-tats (EC 1992) Directives as well as the implementation of the European Maritime Policy and Legislation (EC 2007). Bound to the Marine Strategy Framework Direc-tive (MSFD) (EU 2008), EU Member States are to report by 2012 on the ecological status of their marine waters, which includes assessments of the conservation status of marine species, habitats and landscapes as well as of human impacts on the marine environment. In order to monitor and assess progress towards favour-able conservation status of biodiversity, HELCOM has adopted Ecological Objec-tives together with a set of targets and initial indicators. According to the Baltic Sea Action Plan, all appropriate Natura 2000 sites in the Baltic Sea should also be nomi-nated as BSPAs with the obligations arising from the Birds and Habitats Directives being accepted by HELCOM as adequate implementation measures of HELCOM Recommendation 15/5.

2 HELCOM criteria for ecological coherence

The concept of “ecological coherence” has been adopted under various fora, e.g. the EC Habitats Directive (1992), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and several regional seas organisations such as HELCOM and OSPAR. However, the term ecological coherence is not officially defined yet and there are very few practi-cal and theoretical examples on the assessment and analyses of the ecological co-herence of a network of marine protected areas. The HELCOM definition for eco-logical coherence, which can also be derived from IUCN and OSPAR, includes four criteria: adequacy, representativeness, replication, and connectivity. In practice, these criteria take into account, size and shape, coverage of species, habitats and landscapes, location of the marine protected areas across biogeographic scales, and between-site connections at different scales.

3 Evaluating the ecological coherence

The evaluation of the ecological coherence of a regional MPA network is a laborious task. The lack of information, especially on the distribution of underwater species and habitats as well as on ecological processes, makes such an evaluation particu-larly difficult. Practically, the assessment can only give an indication of how well the criteria are met, and allows specifying to what extend the scope of ecological coher-ence has not been achieved. It is much easier to prove a network not to be ecologi-cally coherent than to provide evidence for it being ecologically coherent. In order to fulfil the 2003 work programme, HELCOM collected a comprehensive database on the BSPA network which was finalised in 2004. The database is accessible via the Internet (http://bspa.helcom.fi).


It contains information on the quantity, size and geographical position of BSPAs as well as therein protected species, habitats, biotopes and biotope complexes. Fur-thermore specific information is provided on protection status and the management of sites. A first assessment on establishment of an effectively and well-managed network of protected areas in the Baltic Sea Region was done in 2006. Furthermore, a complementary assessment on BSPAs and Natura 2000 sites was conducted within the BSR INTERREG IIIB Project BALANCE in 2007. Here, the test for eco-logical coherence of the network was based on benthic marine landscape maps, which were used as a proxy for the broad-scale distribution and extent of ecologi-cally relevant entities of the seafloor (Al-Hamid & Reker, 2007; Andersson et al., 2007; Piekäinen & Korpinen, 2007). Both, the HELCOM and BALANCE evaluation found that the BSPA network at the time being did not fulfil the required criteria for ecological coherence and the 2010 target. The latest assessment of the BSPA net-work was conducted in 2008 (HELCOM, 2009).

To have a full study of the status of the network for 2010, HELCOM decided to run a project. The project is commissioned by German Federal Agency for Nature Conser-vation (BfN) with financial support of the German Federal Ministry for the Environ-ment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). The contractor is the Univer-sity of Vechta. The aim of the ongoing project is to conduct a re-assessment on the implementation of the 2010 target in all HELCOM Contracting States based on an up-dated and revised database of current BSPAs. For that purpose an intense survey was carried out inquiring the Contracting States to provide the most up-to-date infor-mation on BSPAs within their marine area, including geographical data. This paper in-troduces some of the results of the update and provides preliminary information on the current status of the BSPA network. As the project is still ongoing no final results can be given at this point. The results will be published in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Envi-ronment Proceedings (http://www.helcom.fi./publications/bsep/en_GB/bseplist/).

4 Preliminary results

In November 2009, 89 designated BSPAs covered about 6 percent of the Baltic Sea marine area with considerable variations between the Contracting States (Table 1). In February 2010, the number of designated BSPAs was 159. Thus, in the year of biodiversity, it is noted that the Baltic Sea is according to the authors' knowledge the first marine region that has reached the target of the CBD WSSD, and CBD decision (VII/30) which called for the effective conservation of at least 10% of each of the world's ecological regions by 2010 and for MPAs by 2012.

The BSPAs are mostly covering nearshore marine areas in territorial waters includ-ing some terrestrial coastal parts with some exceptions such as one large BSPAs


south of the Swedish island of Gotland, two German BSPAs situated at its marine EEZ borders with Denmark and Poland, respectively, as well as some smaller Dan-ish BSPAs in the waters around the Island of Bornholm, and the HELCOM sub-basins Kattegatt and The Sound. There has, however, been a considerable increase from 59 % to 83 % in the marine fraction of the BSPA network since 2004 when the first intensive survey on the status of the network was carried-out sifting the focus of the network more towards to the protection of marine nature. The size of 78 percent of the sites exceeds the requirements of HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 and its specific guidelines for the minimum size of BSPAs.

It is stated that a terrestrial site should be 1000 ha and the marine/lagoon part 3000 ha. Efficient management and design of the MPA network should be coordinated with the management of human activities affecting these areas, such as maritime transport, fisheries, dredging, construction and inputs of pollutants in order to meet the long-term conservation goals of the protected areas network, but also to secure the protection of single sites. Management plans have been implemented for 26 BSPAs and draft plans exist for 10 sites. In addition management plans are under preparation for 34 sites.

Table 1: Number and size of managed or designated BSPAs. The HELCOM marine area of each state and the Baltic Sea is given and the proportion protected (Status: July 2009). Data for the Baltic Sea from assessments in 2008 and 2004 is provided (HELCOM, 2007b; HELCOM, 2009).

max. min.

Denmark 16 3,022 2,659 (88.0) 675 8.42 45,378 * 5.9Estonia 4 3,888 2,777 (71.4) 2,239 76.8 7.6Finland 22 6,100 5,512 (90.3) 1,163 1.48 6.8Germany 12 4,866 4,561 (93.7) 2,089 6.35 29.7Latvia 4 949 863 (91.0) 486 93.4 3.0Lithuania 4 761 363 (47.7) 166 25.0 5.6Poland 4 2,045 1,299 (63.5) 758 75.6 4.4Russia 2 343 246 (71.7) 153 92.7 23,901 ** 1.0Sweden 21 6,781 5,687 (83.9) 1,226 14.2 3.9

Baltic Sea2009 89 28,755 23,967 (83.3) 2,239 1.48 5.82008 89 27,405 22,569 (82.4) / / 5.52004 78 27,020 16,022 (59.3) / / 3.9

* Denmark 33906 km² + Bornholm 11470 km²** Russia 11996 km² + Kaliningrad 11904 km²

36,32080,77115,335

No. of BSPAs

size of sitesSum (%)

Protected Marine

Area [%]

Marine fraction of BSPAs [km²]

413,947413,948

413,946

Total Area of BSPAs

[km²]

29,570

147,407

28,7516,512

HELCOM Marine Area

[km²]


Nine sites did not have any management measures at the time of reporting and for a further 10 BSPAs no respective information was provided. Nearly all BSPAs (98%) are also designated as EU Natura 2000 sites thus at least giving protection to spe-cies and habitats listed in the Annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives. As sev-eral of the features important for the Baltic Sea, such as the important habitat build-ing species (like bladder wrack) are not covered by the annexes of these Directives, it is additionally important to designate BSPAs to protect these species.

Figure 1: Map of the networks of BSPAs and Natura 2000 as of November 2009.


Furthermore, there also remains a large area in the Baltic Sea which is protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives that have not been assigned to the HELCOM network of BSPAs despite the decision taken in 2007 to designate by 2009 (as appropriate) existing Natura 2000 sites as HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Areas (HELCOM, 2007a).

In some cases the lack of designation of Natura 2000 sites seems to be merely a matter of administrative procedure and demands for additional notifications and hearings. Only 45% of the total area appointed as Natura 2000 is also nominated as BSPA. Combining both types of marine protected areas 11.6% of the Baltic Sea ma-rine area is covered (Figure 1). Despite the lack of formal nomination of several Natura 2000 sites it has been decided that in order to get the best possible assess-ment results all Natura 2000 sites are included in the ecological coherence analy-ses.

5 Conclusions

An ecologically coherent network of well-managed BSPAs is one means of reaching the HELCOM BSAP ecological objective “natural marine and coastal landscapes”. Targets and preliminary indicators related to this ecological objective largely focus-sed on the establishment of an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of marine protected areas. However, indirectly also support the achievement of the two other ecological objectives: “thriving and balanced communities” and “viable popula-tions of species”. One specific example of this is the preliminary indicator for migra-tion and wintering areas for birds. This objective aims at maintaining and restoring natural marine, coastal and adjacent terrestrial landscapes in the whole Baltic Sea area. It addresses the overall functioning and resilience of marine ecosystems and their services, the regenerative capacity of natural resources and their availability for sustainable human use as well as the characteristic features and aesthetic values of coastal and marine landscapes.

The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan recognises that the BSPA network is a major instrument for reaching the overall targets for “natural marine and coastal land-scapes”. The preliminary results of the still ongoing assessment on the ecological coherence of the BSPA network indicates that regardless of the good developments during the past years, the network can not yet be considered as ecologically coher-ent. The final results and considerations on how far we are from a truly efficient, well-managed and coherent network of marine protected areas will be considered at the HELCOM 2010 Moscow Ministerial Meeting in May 2010.


In the future, detailed spatial planning of the marine areas is likely to increase as a consequence of the work carried out to develop a common approach to EU maritime spatial planning and the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Di-rective (MSFD). Zoning of marine areas will probably be more widely used than now. It may not be restricted to the close vicinity of the BSPA and adjacent marine and coastal areas, as is often the case with the current marine protected areas. One could foresee such zoning to cover part of larger spatial units, e.g. a sub-region of the Baltic Sea or the entire Baltic Sea. In these developments one of HELCOM’s goals is to better address different pressures affecting the Baltic Sea and to improve the connectivity and representativeness of the BSPAs in order to create a genuine network of well managed marine protected areas.

6 References

Al-Hamdani, Z. & Reker, J. (eds.) (2007): Towards marine landscapes in the Baltic Sea. BALANCE Interim Report No. 10.

Andersson, Å., Korpinen, S., Liman, A-S., Nilsson, Pr. & Piekäinen, H. (2007): Ecological coherence and principles for MPA assessment, selection and design. BALANCE Technical Summary Report No. 3/4.

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992): (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml.

EC Birds Directive (1979): Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/birds_directive/index_en.htm.

EC Habitats Directive (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/habitats_directive/index_en.htm Last accessed September 2006.

EC (2007): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An Inte-grated Maritime Policy for the European Union. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy_documents_en.html.

EU (2008): Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental pol-icy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm.

HELCOM (1994): Recommendation 15/5 on a system of coastal and marine Baltic Sea pro-tected areas. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec15_5/.

HELCOM (2007a): Baltic sea Action Plan. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at (http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP/en_GB/intro/.)


HELCOM (2007b): Assessment on the ecological coherence of the network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas. HELCOM 28/2007 Doc. 3/13 (Last accessed November 2009). Available at (http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=72398&name=DLFE-28891.pdf.)

HELCOM (2009): Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on bio-diversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Enviorn. Proc. No. 116B.

Piekäinen, H. & Korpinen, S. (2007): Towards an Assessment of ecological coherence of the marine protected areas network in the Baltic Sea region. BALANCE Interim Report no. 25.

UN (2002): United Nations World Summit of Sustainable Development, Johannesburg South Africa. Johannesburg Declaration. (Last accessed November 2009). Available at (http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit_docs.html.)


Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic with regard to the 2010 targets HENNING VON NORDHEIM¹, TIM PACKEISER² & MIRKO HAUSWIRTH¹

¹ German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany ² Secretary of the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (ICG-MPA)

1 Background

In 1998, the Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention, 1992) was enhanced by the addition of Annex V on the protection and conservation of ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area. With this amendment, the Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention agreed to take, individually or jointly, the necessary concerted measures to protect the species, habitats and ecosystems in the North-East Atlantic against the adverse effects of human activities. Five years later, at the Joint Ministerial Meeting 2003 in Bremen/Germany, the ministers for the environment of the Con-tracting Parties to the OSPAR and Helsinki Conventions agreed to develop and evaluate by 2010 an ecologically coherent network of well-managed Marine Pro-tected Areas (MPAs) in the North-East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea (OSPAR 2003). This commitment has been a significant and coordinated regional contribution to the agreement of the World Summit of Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, 2002, to establish a worldwide network of protected areas by 2012, including in the marine realm (WSSD, 2002).

The general aims of the OSPAR network of MPAs have been set out as (i) to pro-tect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes that have been adversely affected by human activities, (ii) to prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle, and (iii) to protect and conserve areas, that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area. According to the commitment made by the Ministerial Meeting in 2003, the specific targets for the OSPAR network of MPAs set out for 2010 are two-fold: first, the design of the over-all network should be ecologically coherent, while secondly the individual sites of the network should be well-managed by the relevant authorities of Contracting Parties. Since then, the work of Contracting Parties in the framework of the OSPAR Conven-tion to establish a network of MPAs has become an essential element under the OSPAR Strategy to protect the biological diversity and ecosystems in the maritime area. From 1998 onwards, a number of tools have been developed to facilitate and guide the efforts of Contracting Parties in establishing a network of MPAs through-


out the North-East Atlantic. An Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (ICG-MPA) chaired by Germany has been established to bring to-gether experts representing the Contracting Parties to review progress on establish-ing the network and providing advice to the OSPAR Commission on scientific and technical matters related to MPAs. A range of guiding documents has been adopted by the OSPAR Commission, including guidelines and criteria on the identification and selection of MPAs, and guidance providing principles to be taken into account in designing an ecologically-coherent network of sites (Table 1).

As chair of the ICG-MPA since 2003, the BfN has compiled annual status reports on the network of MPAs providing relevant information on the sites that have been se-lected and nominated by Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Commission for inclu-sion in the network and analysing shortcomings of the network with regards to the 2010 targets.

Figure 1: OSPAR Maritime Area and Contracting Parties.


2 Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic in 20091

In the course of recent years, 10 out of the 12 Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention bordering the North-East Atlantic2 have selected and nominated Marine Protected Areas to the OSPAR Commission. Until November 2009, a total of 130 MPAs have been designated from the Arctic waters off the coast of Norway to the Azores at the southern boundary of the OSPAR maritime area, together covering more than 60 000 km² (Figure 2). Despite these efforts, collectively these MPAs rep-resent only 0.44 % of the OSPAR maritime area. The distribution of MPAs across the five OSPAR regions (Figure 1), however, continues to be imbalanced, with 105 out of the 130 existing MPAs situated in only two regions, namely the Greater North Sea (Region II) and the Celtic Seas (Region III).

The MPAs in the Greater North Sea are a reflection of the nominations of a range of Contracting Parties, namely Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and UK.

Table 1: OSPAR guidance on the development and management of the network of MPAs.

OSPAR Publication Reference Nr.

Guidelines for the identification and selection of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area

2003-17

Guidelines for the management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area

2003-18

Guidance on developing an ecologically coherent Network of OSPAMarine Protected Areas

2006-3

Guidance for the design of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas: a self-assessment checklist

2007-6

Background document to support the assessment whether the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas is ecologically coherent

2007-320

Guidance to assess the effectiveness of management of OSPAR MPAs: a self-assessment scorecard

2007-5

Guidance for good practice for communicating with stakeholders on the establishment & management of Marine Protected Areas

2008-2

1 Status as of November 2009; an updated 2010 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Pro- tected Areas is being prepared at BfN Germany as convenor of the ICG-MPA and will be available for the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting, September 2010 in Bergen/Norway. 2 As the OSPAR Contracting Parties Finland, Luxembourg and Switzerland are not bordering the North-East Atlantic, these are not contributing to the Network of MPAs.


In the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast (Region IV), three sites have been reported as MPAs by France and two by Spain, but there have been no MPAs reported so far close to mainland Portugal. Of the nine MPAs reported in the Wider Atlantic (Region V), eight are from Portugal Azores and one from the UK. The protected area in the Celtic Seas is almost entirely due to the UK nominated MPAs, only supported by part of the La Mer d'Iroise MPA3 nominated by France. In the Arctic Waters (Region I), four MPAs have been nominated by Norway and seven by Iceland.

It has to be noted that regions I and V are by far the largest regions, including also extensive Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), partly explaining the low per-centage of these regions’ areas being protected.

Figure 2: Overview of MPAs selected by OSPAR Contracting Parties (as of November 2009).

3 The La Mer d’Iroise MPA is crossing the borders of OSPAR Regions III and IV.


As the vast majority of sites have been established along the coasts, consequently a higher proportion (4.62 %) of the territorial waters (up to 12 nm from the shoreline) of OSPAR Contracting Parties is subject to protection by OSPAR MPAs. Further off-shore, i.e. in the Exclusive Economic Zones (up to 200 nm from the shoreline) or on the Extended Continental Shelves, only a limited number of sites have been desig-nated to date resulting in 0.47 % of these areas being protected. Until end of 2009, no MPA has been established entirely in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ).

Ecological Coherence

While the OSPAR Commission has adopted Guidance on developing an ecologi-cally coherent network of OSPAR Marine Protected Areas setting out principles that should be considered by Contracting Parties in the process of selecting sites for in-clusion in the network of MPAs, the Commission has not yet finally agreed on meth-ods and approaches for a comprehensive analysis of the ecological coherence of the network4. Such an analysis currently is still hampered by the limited availability of information and data on the distribution and abundance of species and habitats in the OSPAR maritime area. This information, however, would be a prerequisite to assessing the extent to which representative features (i.e. species and habitats) are incorporated within the network.

As an interim approach to analyse the ecological coherence of the OSPAR network of MPAs, OSPAR 2008 agreed to apply three initial tests which evaluate whether the network is: i) spatially well distributed, without more than a few gaps, ii) covers at least 3 % of most (seven of the ten) relevant Dinter biogeographic provinces (Dinter, 2001), and iii) represents most (70 %) of the OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species (with limited home ranges) (OSPAR, 2008a), such that at least 5 % [or at least three sites] of all areas in which they occur within each OSPAR re-gion is protected (Ardron, 2008). Given that MPAs are spatial management tools, an assessment of the spatial configuration of sites within the network is both important and a practical approach. These tests, however, were intended as a first basic step in a multi-staged procedure to assess the ecological coherence of the OSPAR net-work and that additional and more sophisticated tests have to be developed, agreed upon and subsequently applied as the MPA network and corresponding information grew. An initial application of the three initial tests outlined above has been con-

4 The OSPAR Guidance on developing an ecologically coherent network of OSPAR marine protected areas (Reference number 2006-3) sets out the following elements of an ecologically coherent Net work of MPAs: i) Features ii) Representativity, iii) Replication, iv) Connectivity, v) Resilience and vi) Adequacy/Viability.


ducted as part of the 2008 Report on the progress made in developing the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas (OSPAR, 2008b) with the following results5.

i) An overview map of the OSPAR network of MPAs (Figure 2) clearly illustrates that the components of the network were not spatially well-distributed across the OSPAR maritime area and its regions. The vast majority of sites was situated in coastal wa-ters and clustered around the central latitudes. Offshore sites were still limited in number and sizes, while no MPA has been established exclusively in the High Seas. Considering the significant gaps of the network, particularly in the Arctic waters, the Wider Atlantic and the Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast, the test was not met.

ii) Only three of the relevant Dinter biogeographic provinces surpassed the 3 % threshold: Boreal-Lusitanean (6.69 %), Boreal (4.60 %) and Macaronesian Azores (3.60 %). Even though a substantial part of the Boreal-Lusitanean Province has in 2008 been assigned as protected area resulting in a third Province passing the threshold value, still this test has not been passed.

iii) The third initial test could not be considered as neither adequate spatial data on the distribution and abundance of species and habitats across the OSPAR maritime area were available, nor was the reporting by Contracting Parties on the occurrence and abundance of these features in OSPAR MPAs complete. Considering the spa-tial imbalances and the fact that the OSPAR network of MPAs also by end of 2009 does not adequately cover all the diverse biogeographic regions in the North-East Atlantic, it therefore can not yet judged to be ecologically coherent. Further sites have to be identified and designated, particularly in offshore waters and in ABNJ. In this process, more data is needed on the distribution and abundance of species and habitats in the OSPAR maritime area to select and protect adequate proportions of those areas that are critical for the conservation of species and habitats.

Management

Any Marine Protected Area will only serve its function and provide the benefits it has been established for if the site is subject to a management framework regulating human activities in the area so that these do not adversely affect the species, habi-tats and ecological processes within the MPA. To assist Contracting Parties in en-suring that their MPAs are well-managed by 2010, OSPAR has developed and agreed upon Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area (OSPAR, 2003b). However, most of the OSPAR MPAs are at the same time designated as Natura 2000 sites and therefore subject to manage-

5 By the time of conducting the three initial tests on the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of MPAs, the five sites nominated by The Netherlands in 2009 (shown in Figure 2) have not yet been taken into account. However, even with the addition of these sites the conclusions of these initial tests have not changed.


ment obligations as set out in the Birds and Habitats Directives of the European Commission. Where management plans for Natura 2000 sites exist and are imple-mented, Contracting Parties are under no obligations to take any further action. In-formation provided by Contracting Parties reveals that there is still a continuum with respect to the extent that management frameworks have been established for OSPAR MPAs. While some of these sites are subject to comprehensive manage-ment plans that have been thoroughly prepared in participatory stakeholder proc-esses, others remain without any regulatory framework. For the majority of OSPAR MPAs that are Natura 2000 sites as well, processes are still underway to identify adequate management measures according to the obligations set out by the Birds and Habitats Directive. A comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which the OSPAR network of MPAs is well-managed is currently not feasible due to the limited detailed information supplied by OSPAR Contracting Parties on the extent and ef-fectiveness of measures applied in the various sites.

3 Proposed OSPAR MPAs in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction

With the aim to extend the network of MPAs to the Wider Atlantic, the OSPAR Commission has assumed a pioneering role in the global process to establish MPAs in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). With substantial support of the scien-tific community, a range of ecologically significant areas that are representative for the diverse open ocean and deep sea ecosystems in the North-East Atlantic have been identified. As a result, a first set of seven proposals for extensive MPAs in ABNJ have been submitted to the OSPAR Commission (Figure 3; Table 2). These sites are envisaged to encompass representative sections of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR), including the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone and the sub-polar frontal system and areas both to the north and south of it, as well as representative complexes of seamounts to the east and west of the MAR. These proposals have originally been elaborated by WWF Germany (for the CGFZ) and the University of York mainly based upon data and information generated by the international research pro-grammes MAR-ECO6 and ECOMAR7.

6 MAR-ECO “Patterns and Processes of the ecosystems of the northern mid-Atlantic”; http://www.mar-eco.no/ 7 ECOMAR “Ecosystems of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the sub-polar front and Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone”; http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/ecomar


Figure 3: Proposed MPAs in ABNJ (as of November 2009).

Table 2: Proposed OSPAR MPAs in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction

Proposed MPA Size (km²)

Reykjanes Ridge 50 876

Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone (CGFZ) 320 000

Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores 93 568

Altair Seamount 4 408

Antialtair Seamount 2 207

Josephine Seamount Complex 19 370

Milne Seamount Complex 20 913


Following a scientific revision by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) these have been further refined, including the development of general and specific conservation objectives for the different sites, by the OSPAR Interses-sional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (ICG-MPA). In conse-quence, the OSPAR Commission has agreed in principle to work towards the pro-tection of the unique ecosystems of the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone (in 2008) and the other six proposed areas (in 2009) as part of the OSPAR network of MPAs.

While these proposals have originally been designed to be entirely in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, the legal situation in most of the envisaged MPAs has substan-tially changed since then. In 2009, a number of Contracting Parties have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) under Article 76, Paragraph 8, of the Unites Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) for an extension of their continental shelf.

Figure 4: Legal Complexities in the Wider Atlantic Region.


Some of these submissions are now crossing or encompassing MPAs proposed by OSPAR. In particular, the (first part of the) Icelandic submission (April 2009) is crossing the proposed CGFZ-MPA, while the submission by Portugal (May 2009), including the Azores, encompassing the proposed MPAs at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores and the Josephine, Altair and Antialtair seamounts (Figure 4)8. As a consequence and until further recommendations by the CLCS are available on these submissions, the seabed in these areas has to be considered to be under na-tional jurisdiction, by Iceland and Portugal respectively, while the water column above remains an ABNJ. This new legal situation entails that both the designation and the management of these areas as MPAs requires a common understanding and agreement between the Contracting Party concerned, the OSPAR Commission and the competent international management authorities. It will remain a challenge for OSPAR Contracting Parties to settle and agree upon all the complex political and legal issues in conjunction with these submissions for an extended continental shelf with a view to formally designate any of the proposed Marine Protected Areas in the Wider Atlantic at the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in September 2010.

Providing protection for any of these ecologically significant areas in a coherent ef-fort of OSPAR Contracting Parties and international competent authorities would, however, largely enhance the OSPAR network of MPAs and set a substantial precedence for the global community how to move forward in conserving the vast biodiversity in the open ocean and deep sea environment.

4 References

Ardron, J. A. (2008): Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a data-limited situation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65.

Dinter, W. (†) (2001): Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area. A synopsis and Synthesis of Biogeographical Distribution Patterns described for the North-East Atlantic. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn, Germany.

OSPAR (1992): OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. Text as amended on 24 July 1998, updated 9 May 2002, 7 February 2005, and 18 May 2006. Amendments to Annexes II and III adopted at OSPAR 2007.

OSPAR (2003a): OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. OSPAR 2003 SR Annex 9 (Ref. § A-4.44a)

OSPAR (2003b): Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area. OSPAR Reference Number 2003-18.

8 Considering the submissions made to the CLCS in 2009, only the proposed Milne Seamount MPA and the southern part of the proposed CGFZ MPA are now situated entirely beyond national jurisdiction.


OSPAR (2008a): OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. OSPAR Reference Number 2008-6.

OSPAR (2008b): 2008 Report on the progress made in developing t6he OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. OSPAR Biodiversity Series. Publication Number 389/2009

UNCLOS (1982): United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 10 December 1982. Montego Bay.

WSSD (2002): Plan of Implenmentation of the World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD). WSSD Johannesburg 2002


Current status of the Habitats Directive marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) networkDOUG EVANS, BRIAN MACSHARRY & OTARS OPERMANIS

European Topic Centre/Biological Diversity, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, France

1 Introduction

There are now approximately 2 500 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) pro-posed which are marine or partly marine from a total of almost 22 000 sites. It is clear that progress in identifying and proposing sites varies greatly, both, between Member States and different regions of Europe and that building the Natura 2000 network at sea is taking much longer than on land. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, usually known as the Habitats Directive requires Member States of the European Union to propose and later designate sites for habitats and species of Community Interest listed in Annexes I and II of the directive. These sites are known as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) until formally designated at which point they become Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). These sites, together with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, often known as the Birds Directive, form the Natura 2000 network.

At first many Member States argued, that the directive only applied to their territorial water, i.e. to 12 nautical miles. Although the Commission always argued this was not the case and that the directives applied to all waters over which Member States exercised rights. In 1999 a court case brought by Greenpeace against the British government confirmed that, under British law, the two nature directives did apply beyond 12 nautical miles. The European Council meeting in Luxembourg in 2001 recognised the need for the nature directives to be implemented in the Economic Exclusion Zones (EEZ) of Member States. This opinion was confirmed by the Euro-pean Court of Justice on the 20 October 2005 in a judgement against the United Kingdom. Although there had been marine sites beyond 12 nautical miles since 1995 (see below), Member States requested that the European Commission give further guidance on Natura 2000 in the marine environment. This led to the estab-lishment of a Marine Working group in March 2003 to “develop a common under-standing of the provisions of Natura 2000 relating to the marine environment in order to facilitate the designation and future management of these areas”. This group pub-lished guidelines in May 2007 (European Commission, 2007).


2 Defining a marine site

Although the difference between terrestrial and marine areas is usually obvious, there are problems in identifying marine sites and/or marine areas of sites which are both terrestrial and marine in the Natura 2000 database. There are 4 possible ap-proaches; NUTS code = ‘0’ (method used for Natura Barometer), Site centre in the sea, General Site Character = ‘N01’ (Marine areas, Sea inlets), Presence of marine features (e.g. reefs, harbour porpoise). All have problems, largely related to incom-plete data and lead to different results. An alternative approach is the use of spatial data to identify marine areas and this is the method adopted in this paper.

To identify marine areas of SCI we clipped a layer showing the SCI (based on data from the Member States and transmitted to the European Commission) with a layer representing the coastline of Europe. To distinguish ‘inshore’ sites in territorial wa-ters (less than 12 nautical miles from the coast) from ‘offshore’ sites we created a buffer based on the coastline. The shoreline used in the maps was derived from the Global Shoreline Data project (organised by the US National Geospatial-intelligence Agency) which consisted of satellite derived high water line data. This data was re-placed by data supplied by Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, France and Ireland as part of their reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (European Commis-sion, 2009a; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 ).

The Habitats Directive lists 9 biogeographical regions but these are based on poten-tial natural vegetation and do not form natural regions at sea. For reporting under Article 17 marine regions were used, based on the areas covered by the Marine Conventions (Barcelona, Bucharest, HELCOM and OSPAR) and these have been adopted for assessing the site network (see below) and are used in this paper. The marine regions are shown in Figure 1 and are: Atlantic, Baltic, Black Sea, Macaronesia, and Mediterranean. The exact legal extent of the marine areas of Member states are defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and for a number of Member States these extents are still under discus-sion. The marine boundaries used here are indicative only. The boundaries that are used here correspond to the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the Member States with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire-land who have supplied the limits of the UK Continental Shelf as defined under Sec-tion 1 (7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 of UK law. Although it is now agreed that the Habitats Directive applies in the Atlantic, Baltic, Black Sea and Macaronesia there is still some uncertainty for the Mediterranean. However a paper prepared for a meeting of EU Nature Directors in 2007 noted that all EU Member States with a Mediterranean coastline exercise sovereignty or juristrictional rights over their conti-nental shelf. Additionally, France Italy and Greece reported distributions in the Medi-terranean for an area equivalent to an EEZ for Article 17 and there are offshore sites


under consideration by both France and Spain (Service du Patrimoine Naturel pers comm.). It should be noted our division into marine and terrestrial areas may differ from that by the Member States due to the use of a different coastline for some countries.

Figure 1: The marine regions of the European Union.

3 The marine Sites of Community Importance

By July 2009 there were 2 449 sites which were marine or partly marine proposed as SCI. The majority of these sites have been formally adopted and appear on the lists of SCI published by the European Commission (e.g. European Commission, 2009b) but relatively few have been formally designated as SAC. The earliest ma-rine site was the Spanish site Parque Nacional de Timanfaya (site code ES0000141) proposed in 1994, but this large site is only 4% marine. The earliest sites which are completely marine date from 1995 including 3 offshore sites from Denmark. However the proposal of marine sites has been much slower than for ter-restrial sites, especially for offshore sites as shown by Figure 2. It is clear that pro-gress in identifying and proposing sites has varied greatly, both between regions


and between Member States as shown by Figure 3 and Table 1. The proportion of the offshore area of each region proposed to date varies between 5% (Atlantic) and 0% (Black Sea and Mediterranean) and compares poorly with 13% for terrestrial sites across the EU27. Although the inshore network appears more complete, many of the sites are coastal, often with only a small area of sea adjacent to the coast.

Figure 2: Progress in the proposal of marine (upper) and offshore (lower) SCI, note that the scale used for the y-axis is different for each figure (ETC/BD, July 2009).

Marine SCI

0

1000

2000

3000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

N° o

f site

s

Offshore SCI

0

25

50

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

N° o

f site

s


4 Assessing the network of SCI

Terrestrial sites have been assessed and the need for additional sites identified dur-ing a series of Biogeographical seminars (Sundeth & Creed, 2008) and this method-ology is now being applied to the marine sites. The first meeting, for the Atlantic, was held in Galway, Ireland, in March 2009. At this meeting it was clear that some countries had made considerable progress (e.g. Germany) whereas others had pro-posed relatively few sites, especially offshore where some countries such as Spain have not proposed any sites so far. A meeting for the Baltic Sea will be held in No-vember 2009 in Poland and the European Commission has indicated they wish to hold meetings for the other regions in 2010. However, it is clear that much work re-mains to be done in identifying and proposing sites and additional survey work is underway in many parts of Europe. Although no data is presented here, it is clear that progress in proposing marine Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the 1979 Birds Directive is also very slow with few offshore sites proposed so far, although some countries in North West Europe have made considerable progress.

In 2006 the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) agreed that “At least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions [should be] effectively conserved.” (http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11029). However with the low number of ma-rine habitats and species listed on annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive it is unlikely that Natura 2000 alone could reach this target for Europe’s seas. For exam-ple, if all the area of reefs and sandbanks reported for the Atlantic via Article 17 was proposed, this would only cover less than 5% of the region. Sites for species may increase this but there are difficulties in identifying sites for the wide ranging species found offshore.

Table 1: Number and surface area of Sites of Community Importance (included proposed) in July 2009. These areas shown as ‘offshore’ in the GIS are small slivers at the edge of sites and are a result of the 12 nautical mile buffer used here not corresponding to that used by the Member States. The largest areas are in France and the French authorities have confirmed that they presently have no off-shore sites.

Number of sites Area (km2) % Off-shoreRegion

Marine Offshore Marine Inshore Offshore

Atlantic 618 24 66641 49907 16734 5

Baltic 906 16 29094 25043 4052 3

Black Sea 26 0 1919 1919 0 0

Macaronesia 31 4 612 275 337 0.5

Mediterranean 871 5 (1) 23575 23478 97(1) 0

EU27 2 452 49 121840

100622 21219 2


Unless additional habitats and species are added to the annexes, reaching the CBD target in the European Union will rely heavily on site networks established under the marine conventions or under national legislation. The marine conventions all have longer lists of habitats and species for site selection than the Habitats Directive while there have been many proposals for additional habitats (e.g. Aguilar, Pastor & de Pablo, 2006).

Figure 3: Marine Sites of Community Importance in the European Union (July 2009). Inshore and off-shore sites are shown in orange and red respectively.


5 References

Aguilar R, Pastor X. & de Pablo MJ. (2006): Habitats in Danger: Oceana's proposal for protection. Oceana (http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/europe/reports/OCEANA_habitats_in_danger.pdf)

European Commission (2007): Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm)

European Commission (2009a): Report from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-pean Parliament Composite - Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Spe-cies as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive COM/2009/0358 final (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0358:FIN:EN:PDF)

European Commission (2009b): Commission Decision of 12 December 2008 adopting, pur-suant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community impor-tance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document number C(2008) 8049 ) Official Journal of the European Union L 43/393

Sundeth, K. & Creed, P. (2008): Natura 2000: protecting Europe's biodiversity. Office for Of-ficial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.


Developing a network of Marine Protected Areas embracing the Mediterranean High Seas1

DANIEL CEBRIAN

UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan, Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA), Tunisia

1 Background

In 1975, the Mediterranean countries and the European Community adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), the first-ever Regional Seas Programme under UNEP's umbrella. In 1976 these Parties adopted the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona Convention (BC). Although the MAP was initially aimed at marine pollution control, over the years, its focus gradually widened towards an overall marine conservation and sustainable devel-opment goal. In 1995, the Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Sustainable Development of the Coastal Areas of the Mediterranean was adopted by the Contracting Parties to replace the Mediterranean Action Plan of 1975. At the same time, the Contracting Parties adopted an amended version of the Barcelona Convention of 1976, renamed Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean.

Seven Protocols addressing specific aspects of Mediterranean environmental con-servation complete the MAP legal framework and constitute legally binding instru-ments. Among them, “the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Bio-logical Diversity in the Mediterranean” (ASP/BD Protocol). Today, 35 years later, the Barcelona Convention and MAP have 22 Contracting Parties, which are determined to undertake sound further steps to protect the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment. Creating an ecological network of representative MPAs under the ae-gis of the Barcelona Convention could do much to preserve the integrity of this glob-ally important region, including to contribute to the sustainability of living resources exploitation. Such network must be characterised by allowing connectivity amongst its constituent MPAs so as to warrant ecological processes to keep taking place, and for embracing as higher diversity of Mediterranean species, habitats and ge-netic resources as possible. To that end it is fundamental to include within it Spe-cially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) embracing open seas, including the deep seas.

1 Article 86 of the Convention of Montego Bay (Jamaica, 1982) defines the High Seas, which is a legal term to define the marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ): http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventionagreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm


2 Action outlining

A Joint Management Action of the European Community with the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP MAP) aims to promote the establishment of a representative network of protected areas in the Mediterra-nean and envisages a process developed in two phases. The first phase, entitled ‘Identification of possible SPAMIs in the Mediterranean areas beyond national juris-diction’ is being implemented by the UNEP MAP Regional Activity Centre for Spe-cially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) since 2008.

First phase (2008-09)

The first phase of the initiative will conclude on December 2009, and includes an assessment to assist the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention to identify a possible network of SPAMIs in the Mediterranean open seas, including deep seas, on the basis of available scientific knowledge (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2009a). The assessment has been aided among others by the elaboration of a tailored GIS (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2009b), and by a document entitled “Fisheries manage-ment/conservation and step-relief areas in the Mediterranean open seas, including deep seas” (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2009c). It includes a chapter on sensitive habi-tats existing in those marine areas. Based on the assessment, a list of potential SPAMIs is being elaborated to be revised at a meeting of the project Steering Committee (Genoa, 18-19 November 2009), which comprises International and Re-gional institutions (Annex 1).

The list of SPAMIs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) may include sites which: are of importance for conserving the components of biological diversity in the Mediterranean; contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean areas or [impor-tant] habitats of endangered species; and sites of special interest at the scientific, aesthetic, cultural or educational levels. The list will be further revised by the BC Parties to the SPA/BD Protocol. For the elaboration of the list, a strategic and hier-archical process of using existing databases and analyses to designate areas of conservation importance using the above SPAMI criteria, is being implemented in the current first phase, which is planned to be finished end 2009. SPAMI selection criteria have been enriched and complemented with criteria from other site selection methodologies adapted to suit Mediterranean conditions. The resulting “Operational Criteria for the Identification of Potential SPAMIs in ABNJ” (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2009d) are organised in four main categories following the SPA/BD Protocol: fun-damental criteria set by Article 8 paragraph 2 of the SPA/BD Protocol; criteria con-cerning the regional ecological value of the area; criteria concerning sci-ence/education/aesthetic interest; and other favouring characteristics and factors, which include both sustainable use criteria and feasibility criteria. The sustainable


use criteria, which further merge the ecosystem approach into the process, are in-tended to assess (i) the threats generated to the marine environment by human ac-tivities and the uses of the marine environment and its living resources in the area, and (ii) the importance of the area to the sustainable use of the marine living re-sources. Several of the potential SPAMIs were considered having also regard of the concurrent known existence of valuable marine resources deserving protection from damages related to unsustainable fishing activities. They include within their perime-ters all the presently existing Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) of the GFCM.

Second phase (2010-2011)

The first phase will lead to a second one along 2010-11, in which the list of prospec-tive SPAMIs will enter the process at the Contracting Parties level to be proposed for declaration, based on the above referred criteria. The delivery of spatial data, planning tools, science-guidelines, and socioeconomic and ecological evaluations in a decision support framework are essential tools to inform decision-makers in the process to designate SPAMIs in ABNJ. Key elements in the project methodology in-clude overviews and specific case studies to communicate the proposed aims and project methods to interested and concerned Contracting Parties. That would stimu-late debate and encourage participation and ownership feeling in the development of a short-list of possible SPAMIs in ABNJ through a consultative process. Final aim is to tackle from the very beginning eventual controversies with stakeholders.

Hence, the second phase will include more tailored field information collecting on those domains for two to four of the most promising candidate areas in collaboration with Parties´ oceanographic, fisheries and other scientific institutions, aimed to sup-port the preparation of a first set of SPAMI proposal dossiers. The dossiers should include relevant information on deep seas benthic habitat from the reference list adopted for the Mediterranean region by the Parties to the SPA/BD Protocol to serve for the identification of sites of conservation interest (Annex 2; UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2002, http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/telechargement/SDF/LCHM ENG.pdf) and consider also deep sea habitats described after the reference list was adopted (UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2009c). The final goal of the project is to submit some of those proposals to the next meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, planned to be held in autumn 2011. A timely and appropriate coordina-tion between this action and related ones by other international institutions, including UNEP Regional Seas Programmes and associated regional marine commissions will ensure the desirable and necessary synergy between regional conservation bodies to preserve marine resources.


3 References

UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA (2002): Handbook for interpreting types of marine habitat for the se-lection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation inter-est. By Bellan-Santini, D. Bellan, G. Bitar, G. Harmelin, J.G. et G. Pergent. Ed. RAC/SPA Tunis. 217pp.

UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA (2009a): Final overview of scientific findings and criteria relevant to identifying SPAMIs in the Mediterranean areas beyond national jurisdiction. By Notarbartolo Di Sciara & T. Agardi. UNEP (DEPI)/MED WG. 344/Inf. 3 . Ed. RAC/SPA Tunis. 71pp.

UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA (2009b): Geographical Information System developed for Mediterra-nean open seas. By Requena, S. UNEP (DEPI)/MED WG. 344/Inf. 7. Ed. RAC/SPA Tunis. 10pp.

UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA (2009c): Fisheries management/conservation and step-relief areas in the Mediterranean open seas, including deep seas. By De Juan. S & J. Lleonart. UNEP (DEPI)/MED WG. 344/Inf. 4. Ed. RAC/SPA Tunis. 121pp.

UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA (2009d): Draft Operational Criteria for the identification of potential Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) in areas beyond national jurisdiction. By Rais, Ch. and D. Cebrian. UNEP (DEPI)/MED WG. 344/3. Ed. RAC/SPA Tu-nis. 15pp.

Annex 1: “Identification of possible SPAMIs in the Mediterranean ar-eas beyond national jurisdiction”: project Steering Committee mem-bers.

1. Coordinating Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan (MedU, UNEP/MAP)

2. Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) - Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme

3. European Commission (EC)

4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN FAO)

5. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

6. International Maritime Organization (IMO)

7. Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC)

8. Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS)

9. Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Commission

10. Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals

11. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation

12. Mediterranean Programme Office of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF MedPO)

13. The RAC/SPA acts as Secretariat of the Committee.


Annex 2: Extract of the Barcelona Convention Reference List of Benthic Habitat.

The Reference List of Benthic Habitat types was adopted within the framework of the Barce-lona Convention and its SPA/BD Protocol to serve as reference list for the identification of sites of conservation interest. The habitats types that are of relevance for the Mediterranean areas located in the open seas, including deep seas, are presented in this extract of the List.

IV. 3. HARD BEDS AND ROCKS

IV. 3. 1. Coralligenous biocenosis

IV.3. 2. Semi-dark caves (also in enclave in upper stages)

IV. 3. 2. 1. Facies with Parazoanthus axinellae

IV. 3. 2. 2. Facies with Corallium rubrum

IV. 3. 2. 3. Facies with Leptosammia pruvoti

IV. 3. 3. Biocenosis of shelf-edge rock

V. BATHYAL

V. 1. MUDS

V. 1. 1. Biocenosis of bathyal muds

V. 1. 1. 1. Facies of sandy muds with Thenea muricata

V. 1. 1. 2. Facies of fluid muds with Brissopsis lyrifera

V. 1. 1. 3. Facies soft muds with Funiculina quadrangularis and Apporhais seressianus

V. 1. 1. 4. Facies of compact muds with Isidella elongata

V. 1. 1. 5. Facies with Pheronema grayi

V. 2. SANDS

V. 2. 1. Biocenosis of bathyal detritic sands with Grypheus vitreus

V. 3. HARD BEDS AND ROCKS

V. 3. 1. Biocenosis of deep sea corals

V. 3. 2. Caves and ducts in total darkness (in enclave in the upper stages)

VI. ABYSSAL

VI. 1. MUDS

VI. 1. 1. Biocenosis of abyssal muds


The Pelagos Sanctuary for the conservation of Mediterranean marine mammals: an iconic High Seas MPA in dire straits GIUSEPPE NOTARBARTOLO DI SCIARA

Tethys Research Institute, Italy

1 Introduction

The Pelagos Sanctuary, a large protected area trilaterally declared in 1999 by France, Italy and Monaco for the conservation of Mediterranean marine mammals, extends over 87,500 km2 of the region’s waters – in large part in areas beyond na-tional jurisdiction - between south-eastern France, Monaco, north-western Italy and northern Sardinia (Figure 1). The Sanctuary was designated because it (a) contains important foraging and breeding habitats for the entire complement of cetacean species regularly occurring in the Mediterranean, (b) supports significant resident, genetically distinct cetacean populations (e.g., fin whales, striped dolphins and Cu-vier’s beaked whales), and (c) provides umbrella protection to other marine preda-tors in this area. In addition, the Sanctuary contains suitable habitat for the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal, which has, however, been extirpated from the area in recent decades. This landmark agreement illustrates how MPA design can be reconciled with the dynamic nature of oceanic systems, because its spatial scale was defined by the location of the Ligurian permanent frontal system (Notar-bartolo di Sciara et al., 2008). Creation of the Sanctuary resulted in the world’s first High Seas (= ABNJ) MPA, and was thus met with much acclaim in the marine conser-vation community.

Having been adopted as a Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) by the Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, also known as the Barcelona Convention in 2001 (Gjerde, 2009), the Sanctuary’s tenets apply to most Mediterra-nean riparian countries beyond the three original signatories of the Agreement, thereby extending de facto protection to the Mediterranean High Seas. However, in the 10 years since its creation, Pelagos has failed to fulfil its main goal of signifi-cantly improving the conservation status of the area’s marine mammal populations, which are threatened by intense human pressures. Threats to cetaceans in the area mainly derive from fisheries, maritime traffic, military exercises, climate change, coastal construction, downstream effects of land use, and whale watching. Effec-tively mitigating those threats would require an Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) approach, which takes into account regulation of marine resource use and other human activities, control of land-based and maritime sources of pollution, inte-grated coastal zone/ocean management, and an adaptive management approach


that would deal with rapidly changing patterns of use as well as with technological, socio-economic, political and natural change.

Management should include creating a zoning scheme to optimize conservation, channelling the area’s intense maritime traffic along established corridors, system-atically addressing fishery impacts on cetaceans, ensuring that no high-intensity noise is produced, ensuring the orderly and respectful development of the whale watching industry, and, in general terms, establishing precise regulations to address and mitigate impacts exerted on the local cetacean populations by pressures deriv-ing from human activities. Other relevant management actions should include using national coast guard and navies to ensure compliance, increasing public awareness and education, and implementing a systematic programme of monitoring.

All these actions would require an adequately empowered management body, which is also an obligate requisite for SPAMIs, as clearly stated in the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity to the Barcelona Convention (Annex I, D.6). Un-fortunately, actual management and conservation actions within Pelagos’ waters are severely limited by the Sanctuary’s current rather unusual governance regime.

Figure 1: Location of the Pelagos Sanctuary, in the north-western Mediterranean Sea. The area off-shore of the tan line lies beyond national jurisdiction.


The Agreement’s contracting parties adopt political commitment resolutions during their meetings, approximately every three years. Amongst such resolutions there was, in 2004, the adoption of a management plan which was commissioned to a consultant, and is now becoming obsolete because it was never adapted to socio-economic and ecosystem changes that have occurred since it was drafted. How-ever, there is no proper management body of the Pelagos Sanctuary. The parties’ assumption that the Agreement Secretariat – which is devoid of sufficient powers as well as means and human resources to prevent or control activities that contrast with the aims of the protected area – should act as a surrogate management body of the Pelagos SPAMI has been a crippling misunderstanding, resulting in severely de-ficient management action in the area.

The continuing existence of management shortcomings concerning the Pelagos Sanctuary is difficult to understand when considering the effort currently undertaken by UNEP’s Mediterranean Action Plan, under mandate from the parties to the Bar-celona Convention and with funding from the European Commission, which includes the creation of a network of SPAMIs in Mediterranean areas beyond national juris-diction (ABNJ). Such effort, which will hopefully result in the establishment of several more SPAMIs in the Mediterranean High Seas within the next decade (thus creating a first hardcore of the future pan-Mediterranean MPA network), begs the question of how do the parties to the Barcelona Convention envisage managing such High Seas protected areas, or whether it is conceivable to establish MPAs without providing for a solid and effective management mechanism. This, in turn, raises the further ques-tion of whether a management mechanism appropriate for MPAs in the Mediterra-nean ABNJ can be envisaged within the existing legislative framework, or whether there is a need for more advanced juridical creativity which will account for the likely multi-national nature of such protected areas. Considering the scenario described above, the lack of interest by Mediterranean countries in the opportunities for man-agement experimenting and development, presented by the only SPAMI in the ABNJ currently existing – the Pelagos Sanctuary - is baffling.

The Pelagos Sanctuary could still represent an extraordinary opportunity for innova-tive marine conservation in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. However, without a strong political impulse to make the Agreement work, the risk of failure is ever-increasing. To avoid this, an ad hoc body should be created through an amendment to the Agreement or the addition of a specific protocol, having a clear management mandate and the necessary human and financial resources to get the job done. In this respect, the recent effort by the European Union to launch an Integrated Mari-time Policy (IMP: Commission of the European Communities, 2007) could serve to break such a deadlock. Maritime spatial planning (MSP), as envisaged in the IMP, could serve to subsume the “spirit” of the Pelagos Agreement aimed at the protec-tion of a highly valuable pelagic ecosystem, while allowing the orderly coexistence of


such protection policies with the indefeasible human activities in the area. An MSP scheme implemented within the framework of the European IMP is likely to more ef-fectively address the issue of MPA management. Such a possibility might bring back to life the political will to protect the pelagic environment and biodiversity in the north-western Mediterranean that existed in France, Italy and Monaco at the time of the adoption of the Pelagos Agreement (1999), which now looks rather moribund.

2 References

Commission of the European Communities (2007): An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels, 10.10.2007. COM(2007) 575 final. 16 p.

Gjerde, K. (2009): Framing the debate on marine biodiversity conservation beyond national jurisdiction: processes underway and main deadlines. Océanis 35(1-2):19-37.

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach, D., Scovazzi, T. & Van Klaveren, P. (2008): The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 367-391. DOI:10.1002/aqc.855


Status of the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol in 2009VIOLETA VELIKOVA & AHMET KIDEYS

Black Sea Commission Permanent Secretariat, Turkey

1 Introduction

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the Black Sea countries have co-operated at the regional level in promoting sustainable use of transboundary water and living re-sources. The 1992 Bucharest Convention (Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution) and its Protocols, the 1993 Odessa Declaration and the 1996 Black Sea Strategic Action Plan for the Protection of the Black Sea have pro-vided the impetus and framework for this regional co-operation. Established in im-plementation of the Bucharest Convention, the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (the Black Sea Commission, sometimes also referred to as the Istanbul Commission) is presently the regional Focal Point in environmental protection, dealing with monitoring activities, policy and legislation development, state of the environment assessments, recommendations for decision-making, har-monization in different aspects (standards, methodologies, policies), emergency situations, etc. The Commission data base is nourished annually with environmental data and information on Black Sea states national policy and legislation develop-ment. The progress in management of environment protection and sustainable use of marine resources is monitored and evaluated on a regular basis. The Commis-sion produces different reports reflecting transboundary environmental problems, state of the Black Sea, implementation of the Strategic Action Plan, and others. For the period 2000-2006/7 the reports were published in 2008 (see www.blacksea-commission.org). The Black Sea states share a common desire for the sustainable management of the natural resources and biodiversity of the Black Sea region rec-ognize their role and responsibility in conserving the global value of these resources. They consider and take into account, or foresee where appropriate, the following principles: ecosystem based management, polluter-pays and precautionary princi-ples, preventive measures, use of clean technologies, sustainable agriculture, and others.Presently, there is a regional acknowledgement that the Black Sea marine and coastal ecosystems, while offering a certain amount of natural resilience, are still fragile and require robust national and international protection. Based on the pri-ority concerns in the Black Sea region 4 Ecosystem Quality Objectives were identi-fied to focus and facilitate further the environmental recovery:


EcoQO 1: To preserve commercial marine living resources (fish and invertebrates) to ensure sustainable reproduction levels of their stocks.

EcoQO 2: Conservation of Black Sea Biodiversity and Habitats (incl., reduce the risk of extinction to threatened specie, recover the quality of degraded habitats, re-duce man-induced species introductions, etc.).

EcoQO 3: Reduce eutrophication in order to restore the ecological balance within the Black Sea.

EcoQO 4: Improved Environmental Condition to Ensure Good Water Quality for Human Health, Recreational Use and Aquatic Biota.

These priority objectives became the basis for the revised Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea (BSSAP2009, http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_bssap2009.asp), which was adopted by the Black Sea States in April 2009 in Sofia, Bulgaria during a Ministerial Meeting/Diplomatic Conference. Other important legal documents of the BSC are the 4 Protocols to the Convention dealing with Land Based Sources of Pollution, Dumping, Biodiversity Conservation and Emergency Situations (www.blacksea-commission.org, Table of Legal Docu-ments). The Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol has so far only been ratified by Bulgaria, Turkey and Ukraine, and is therefore not yet in force1. The regional Strategic Action Plan for the Black Sea Biodiversity and Land-scape Conservation Protocol (BSBLCP-SAP) is not officially adopted, however, all objectives and actions listed in this document were transferred to the new BSSAP2009. The biodiversity quality objectives in the BSSAP are associated with corresponding targets and indicators of achievements. In line with the provisions of the Biodiversity Protocol and draft BSBLCP-SAP (no matter of their legal status mentioned above) since 2003 many activities were undertaken at the national and regional levels to improve the Black Sea ecosystem status. In detail the status of Black Sea biodiversity, different measures undertaken (protected areas designation, better control in fishery, ballast waters issues addressed, marine mammals conser-vation, reduction of pollution, public awareness development, etc.) and recommen-dations for further activities are presented in three recent Black Sea Commission reports: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis 2007 (http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_tda2008.asp), State of the Environment of the Black Sea in 2001-2006/7 (http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2009.asp) and Implementation of the Black Sea Strate-gic Action Plan in 2002-2007 (http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-

1 Ratification by four countries is needed for the enforcement of a legal document in the Black Sea. Georgia ratified the Biodiversity Protocol on 23rd of March 2010, therefore the Protocol came into force.

�


BSSAPIMPL2009.asp). Main achievements and gaps in marine living resources management, biodiversity conservation, protection of habitats and landscapes, pre-sent state of Black Sea biodiversity and trends are as follow.

2 Recent Activities of the BSC in Conservation of Biodiversity and management of marine living resources

The draft Action Plan in Biodiversity Conservation includes six basic objectives, some of them are discussed further.

Objective 1: to prevent appearance of new threatened species and to halt losses of currently known threatened species and destruction of their habitats by 2010.

The activities at the regional level focused on:

• Inventory of biological species

• Inventory, classification and mapping of habitats

• Species status according to IUCN red list criteria and/or species protected under national legislation

• List of Habitats of Black Sea Importance, criteria for classification (Annex I)

• Biological species of Black Sea importance (Annex II)

• List of Species whose exploitation should be regulated (Annex IV)

• Red Data Book of Species

• Plan for Protection and Recovery of the Black Sea Cetaceans

• Stranding network for cetaceans

In May 2007 together with the EEA-Topic Center for Biodiversity, the BSC organized a workshop on Habitats Classification and Mapping. List of Black Sea habitats was elaborated (based on the principles of the EU Habitats Directive and EUNIS criteria), which became the basis for the List of Habitats of Black Sea Importance (Annex I to the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol). The Lists of Species of Black Sea Importance and the Species which Exploitation shall be regulated were developed and regularly updated. Mapping of habitats was undertaken (fish nursery grounds, spawning ar-eas, etc.; sensitivity areas mapping) as a step towards designation of Marine Pro-tected Areas (MPAs) in the Black Sea. The Mollusca species Mytilus galloprovin-cialis, Rapana venosa were added to the List of species whose exploitation should be regulated in 2009 (Annex 4), having also 5 Crustacea, 29 Pisces, 2 Aves (includ-ing the Cormorant Ph. Carbo) and 1 Insecta species in it, total 37 for the whole Black Sea. The Black Sea Commission has standardized regional methodologies for


the collection and analysis of plankton and zoobenthos samples. Guidelines were developed and widely used in the region. Inter-calibration exercises for phytoplank-ton and zooplankton were undertaken and results analysed.

Objective 2: to increase, where appropriate, territories and improve management of protected areas (PAs), with particular attention to marine protected area, and man-age them in a sustainable and environmentally sound way. Transboundary PAs.

The designation of PAs in the Black Sea region is an action in process and coastal and marine protected areas were designated or areas were nominated as eligible in all bordering states. 132 coastal PAs are reported, only in Bulgaria the number re-cently increased from 18 to 42. The Danube reserve is 576 216 ha, an area in be-tween Bulgaria and Romania (from 2 Vama Veche to Cape Kaliakra, Figure 1) is proposed for a transboundary MPA. The Phyllophora field of Zernov (North-Western part of the Black Sea, Ukrainian waters) was designated as marine PA in 2009 - 402 500 ha (biomass in average= 40 g.m-2). The BSC provided support to the MATRA (EUCC the Coastal Union) and EuropeAid projects dealing with MPAs and specifi-cally with development of guidelines for profiling areas eligible for designation and building relevant management plans.

Figure 1: Map of the Black Sea, 2-Vama Veche reserve and Cape Kaliakra.

The ultimate aim of the BSC is to promote the development of MPAs network in the Black Sea region.


1. Guidelines for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Black Sea.

2. Designation Dossier for the Establishment of MPAs in the Black Sea.

3. Preliminary Management Plan for the Small Phylophora Field Marine Protected Area Karkinitsky Bay, Black Sea, Ukraine.

Presently, the Romanian MPA network consists of 6 sites and has a total area of 116286 ha (3,88% of the Romanian shelf, Figure 2). In Bulgaria2 recently 14 sites, including marine areas, were proposed for designation, with a total surface of 61100 ha (9,4% Bulgarian waters). The First Black Sea Red Data Book (BSRDB) was pub-lished in 1999 with 160 species3 (http://www.grid.unep.ch/bsein/redbook/index.htm). Update is in process and 259 species are enlisted so far with identified status based on IUCN criteria. The revised Red Data Book will be published in 2010. The List of Black Sea non-native species is in process of development identifying their donor area, vector of introduction and status of establishment in the Black Sea (casual, cryptogenic, established, invasive, introduced).

Figure 2: Romanian MPAs (A) and the sites proposed for designation as MPAs in Bulgaria (B).

So far 244 species are included. The recent findings are as follow. Obviously, the number of non-native species increases in the Black Sea, and not always the intro-duction is related to mismanagement of ballast waters. Some species increase their

2��Bulgarian and Romanian waters are in the Western part of the Black Sea, which is the most vulner able part of the Sea to anthropogenic influence.�3 The geographical scope of the BSRDB covers the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and all of their coasts as well, including wetlands connected to the seas.

BA


areals, moving from Mediterranean to the Black Sea, such as those recently re-corded species Chrysaora hysoscella and Bolinopsis vitrea (pers. Comm. Prof. Bay-ram Ozturk and Dr. Tamara Shiganova). However, the Ballast Water Convention 2004 is not ratified by any of the Black Sea coastal states and the management of ballast waters in the region needs significant improvement.

Figure 3: Recent findings of new exotic species in the Black Sea (photos provided by Prof. Bayram Ozturk, Istanbul University, Turkey and Dr. T. Shigaonova, Shiroshov Institute, Moscow, Russia.

The state of the regional Cetacean Stranding Network is regularly monitored and re-ported to ACCOBAMS, as well as the implementation of the Regional Conservation Plan for Black Sea Cetaceans. Comprehensive overview of studies on Black Sea

2006 - Syngnathus acus

2009 - ��. Sagartidae

2009 - Saduria (=Mesidotea) entomon

2006 - Alexandrium ostenfeldii 2006 - Tridentiger trigonocephalus

2009 – Bolinopsis vitrea 2005 - Penaeus semi-sulcatus

2009 – Chrysaora hysoscella


cetacean taxonomy and population structure, range and primary habitats, population estimates, threats and IUCN status were reflected in the Black Sea State of the En-vironment Report (SoE, 2008). Recommendations on the development of relevant conservation measures are included in the report as a special part of the chapter. Further harmonization of methodologies for fish stock assessments, projects devel-opment and the status of the draft Legally Binding Document in Fishery are impor-tant issues in the Agenda of the BSC in the frames of the marine living resources management at the regional level. Unfortunately, there is no legally binding docu-ment in the region and the quotas for commercial species are not identified at the regional level (EU quotas for Bulgaria and Romania; National - for other states). Na-tional Strategic Plan for Fishing and Aquaculture is available in Bulgaria and Roma-nia for 2007-2013 and they implement the European Common Fisheries Policy.


Table 1: Existing ballast water management requirements in Black Sea countries

Country BWM in place BWRF BWS Other Bulgaria Varna, mandatory BWE in

Mediterranean for ballast which originates outside the Mediterranean. Similar re-quirement planned for the Port of Burgas.

BWE in Black Sea not ac-ceptable

Required [A.868(20)] and checked during vessel inspections

regional co-operation concerning designation of ballast water exchange areas in Black sea required

Georgia ballast water management guidelines A.868(20)4 im-plemented. Ballast water reception facilities available in Batumi and Poti

Required [A.868(20)]

Russian Fede-ration

fully developed and opera-tional ballast water man-agement system imple-mented, i.e. ballast water exchange and biological pollution control. Ballast water to be exchanged in the open Black Sea (> 12 nm from shore). Novoros-siysk, non-compliance may cause delay and/or penal-ties.

Novorossi-ysk, random biological monitoring of ballast water

Turkey no any legisla-tion/regulations governing ballast water management in force. A ballast water management system in development.

Required [A.868(20)] and checked

Ukraine ballast water management guidelines A.868(20) im-plemented. Ships with un-exchanged ballast water are prohibited to enter terri-torial sea

Required [A.868(20)] and checked

Sampling for chemical contamina-tion only.

3 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

The BSC conducted Feasibility Study for ICZM instrument to the Bucharest Conven-tion, which revealed that in the next 2-5 years the Black Sea region would need de-velopment of ICZM Declaration, Code of Practice (ICZM Guidelines) and Action Plan. Long-term (5-10 years) - depending on the immediate achievements, overall performance and expected results of the proposed set of ‘soft law’ ICZM instruments

4�IMO�Assembly�Resolution�868(20)�which�contains�a�ballast�water�reporting�form.�


the BSC might consider to elaborate, if necessary, a legally binding document – ad-ditional protocol to the Bucharest Convention.

• Spatial Planning Methodology

• Black Sea ICZM Strategy

• ICZM Pilot projects in Russian Federation, Turkey and Georgia

• Development of legislation/policy in place

ICZM Pilot Projects “Testing of Methodology on Spatial Planning for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)” were successfully implemented in Russian Federation, Georgia and Turkey, and they significantly contributed to enhancing and strengthening the capabilities of the regional authorities for coastal planning and management.Recent developments:

� Draft Law of Ukraine on Coastal Zone

� Guidelines on Territory Planning in Coastal Zone

� Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Georgia

4 Progress at the national level

Romania and Bulgaria are in process of drafting of National Action Plans for the im-plementation of the MSFD and outlining programmes of measures to achieve good environmental status of the Black Sea. Biodiversity conservation legislation/policy are in place. In Russian Federation, the Federal Law “On Fishery and Conservation of Water Biological Resources” (2004) and the Federal Law “On Environmental Pro-tection” (2002) ensure the conservation of living resources and its sustainable use and protection of the Black Sea as a whole. There are no special management plans for the Black Sea in Russia, however, there are no major polluting land-based sources along the Russian Black Sea coast, the designation of protected areas is advanced and environmental safety aspects of shipping are well recognized and paid attention. The “EU Integrated Environmental Approximation Strategy” for the years 2007 - 2023 of Turkey will be a key tool to develop program of measures and accelerate the sustainable use of environmental resources where the biological di-versity will be protected, natural resources will be managed in a rational manner with an approach of sustainable development, and finally the rights to live in a healthy and balanced environment will be ensured. Ukraine has a program for the protection and rehabilitation of the environment of the Black and Azov Seas acting in the pe-riod 2001-2010 (needs revision and further development).


5 State of the Black Sea Biodiversity

Our recent assessments (see http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2009.asp) indicate a tendency of improvement and rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems of the Black Sea after 1995. The trends of improvement are visible both for water quality parameters and structural and functional properties of biota, when compared with conditions observed from the mid 1970s to the early 1990s. The pelagic ecosystem of western Black Sea coastal waters (most impacted in the past) improved noticea-bly due to weakening of anthropogenic pressures. It is inferred by reduced nutrient inputs and fewer algal blooms, lower algal biomass, recovery of some algal popula-tions, increasing plankton biodiversity, decreasing opportunistic and gelatinous pressures, and re-appearance of some native fodder zooplankton and fish species and increasing edible zooplankton biomass. Prominent changes were encountered in the structure of benthic communities of the Romanian and Ukrainian coastal wa-ters. However, recovery of the benthic ecosystem appears to be less certain al-though an improvement on regeneration of macrophytobenthos and macrozooben-thos is suggested by the available data. In the western Black Sea, large areas of the seabed that had been suffering from anaerobic conditions – a clear symptom of eu-trophication – started now returning to conditions prior to the 1970s. The available data also show some unavoidable indications that the present status of benthic eco-system is highly fragile and susceptible to further anthropogenic and environmental impacts. The regions shallower than 30-40 m depths still show symptoms of some undesirable disturbances, the most important of which is exerted by the alien oppor-tunistic species such as bivalve species Mya arenaria, soft-clam species Anadara inequivalvis, gastropod species Rapana. Fish stocks over the basin are still out of balance, mainly as a result of overfishing but also due to secondary eutrophication. Anchovy remains to be the top predator species of the Black Sea ecosystem to-gether with sprat along the western coast. More than 80 fish species are enlisted in the revised Black Sea Red Data Book. The present Black Sea ecosystem structure is still different from that documented during the 1960s, and most likely it will never revert back to the pristine state due to the changes in the food web triggered by dif-ferent pressures, including introduction of new species. A more likely scenario is ad-aptation of the system to new conditions where it will eventually be stabilized.


New Zealand’s Marine Protected Areas Policy and Current ImplementationDANICA STENT

Department of Conservation, New Zealand

1 New Zealand’s marine environment

New Zealand is a maritime nation isolated from other countries by vast expanses of ocean. New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is one of the largest in the world and around 15 times the size of its land area. Recently New Zealand’s mari-time domain was extended even further by the United Nations Commission for the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) which recommended the confirmation of New Zealand’s sovereign rights over approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of sea-bed outside the existing EEZ. New Zealand was the fifth country to present its claim to the CLCS. New Zealand has a particularly rich and complex seascape. This is a consequence of its extension over 30 degrees of latitude from the subantarctics to the subtropics, its position on an active plate boundary with all the consequent fold-ing, faulting and volcanism, and its positioning in relation to major subtropical and subantarctic water masses, and surface and deep water current systems (Figure 1). More than 16,000 marine species have been described from our waters but less than 1% of the marine environment has been surveyed. The final figure has been estimated to be around 60,000 species. In addition to this richness and complexity, New Zealand’s isolation in the south-west Pacific has contributed to particularly high levels of endemism; 40% overall in the marine environment (Gordon et al., 201).

2 Pressures and former approaches to marine protection

New Zealand is one of the most recently settled major landmasses. Polynesians first arrived between 700 and 2000 years ago. Though first discovered by Europeans in 1642, it was not until around 1770 that whaling and sealing began in New Zealand. European colonisation did not start until the early 19th Century, the growing popula-tion resulted in an increase in the use of New Zealand’s marine resources. Early on there was minimal impact with the use of small scale methods. As the population grew, technologies progressed with the introduction of bulk fishing methods such as trawling, seining, dredging, netting (Figure 2). Coastal development and other land-use patterns rapidly increased during a period of sustained colonisation further es-calating the pressure on the marine environment. Growing concern at impacts on the marine environment lead to the Government taking greater control and regulat-ing for the use of New Zealand’s resources in the mid-1950s. Around this time, sig-


nificant interest in marine biodiversity protection and sustainable use was also be-ginning to build (Johnson and Haworth, 2004). In 1965 the concept of no-take ma-rine reserves was first suggested in New Zealand by the science community so that experiments could be carried out without interference from human activities. Scien-tists worked hard to build a groundswell of support for the no-take concept eventu-ally leading to the passing of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 (Ballantine, 1991) to “provide for the setting up and management of areas of the sea and foreshore as marine reserves for the purpose of preserving them in their natural state as the habi-tat of marine life for scientific study”.

Figure 1: Map of New Zealand EEZ, extended continental shelf boundaries (as recommended by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) and major oceanic currents.


The first marine reserve was established at Goat Island, Leigh in 1975 (Cape Rod-ney - Okakari Point Marine Reserve). In the three decades since, another 32 no-take marine reserves have been established around New Zealand’s coasts (Figure 3). Approximately half of these reserves were proposed by the Government while the other half were proposed by non-governmental organisations and local commu-nity groups, including iwi and hapu. These 33 marine reserves cover approximately 7% of New Zealand’s territorial sea (12 nm). While this is a significant achievement, 99% of this area is in two large offshore no-take marine reserves around the sub-tropical Kermadec and subantarctic Auckland Island groups. Around the mainland, less than 0.1% is protected in marine reserves. In addition to no-take marine re-serves there are a range of other area-based management tools, including fisheries closures and method restrictions, cable protection zones, marine parks and marine mammal sanctuaries. In the EEZ there are also fishing management areas including seamount closures and benthic protection areas, the latter prohibiting bottom trawl-ing and dredging on 32% of the deeper offshore seabed (mostly below 1,500m). Under the current Marine Reserves Act 1971, no-take marine reserves cannot be established in the EEZ.

Figure 2: Modern trawl vessel. ©NZ Government.

3 Challenges

The majority of past marine reserve applications were individual applications for a specific marine area driven by local interest, while some came from more regional approaches. The final boundaries of these applications were often considerably al-tered from those originally proposed following consultation with other interest groups. As a result, existing marine reserves are not fully representative of a wide range of marine environments and were not develop using sound planning prin-ceples. Regardless of applicant or approach, marine reserve applications have his-torically encountered significant challenges along the way, it has not been uncom-


mon for an application to take 15 years from the pre-statutory phases until a final decision is made on whether to approve or decline the application.

Figure 3: NEW ZEALAND’s 33 no-take marine reserves (November 2009).

© DOC


The purpose and possible benefits of marine reserves are not often understood and seen as competing with economic development such as commercial fishing (a major contributor to the economy and employment), the “Kiwi way of life” where anyone can stroll down to the coast and catch a fish, and indigenous customary fishing (Fig-ure 4). In addition to these, common issues which arise include the blame game (it’s not us it’s them), “not in my back yard” (NIMBY), shifting baselines, “out of sight, out of mind”, the vocal minority dominating media, and increasingly, the “race for space”, as impacts on our coasts accumulate and competition for differing uses of the coastal space intensifies. The range of different tools and agencies that are in-volved in managing the marine environment add another layer of complexity. For example, the Department of Conservation administers biodiversity protection tools such as marine reserves1 and marine mammal sanctuaries; the Ministry of Fisheries administers the Fisheries Act 1996 enforcing sustainable management tools, such as the Quota Management System and customary management tools; and regional councils administer activities in the coastal zone under the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition, there are a wide variety of other interests in marine space, in-cluding coastal development, mining, aquaculture, tourism, marine energy, recrea-tion and many more. All these different uses require a fine balancing act to ensure each is adequately provided for in a fair and equitable manner.

4 International commitments and a new approach to marine protect- tion

New Zealand as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diver-sity is committed to maintaining and preserving the natural heritage of our lands and seas. This commitment is reflected in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000 (Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, 2000). New Zealand is also signed up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development goal of repre-sentative Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks by 2012. In order to assist in achieving the aims of New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, the New Zealand Gov-ernment considered a more cohesive planning approach was required. As a result, in 2006 the Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan (the MPA pol-icy) was released setting out a new approach to marine protection planning. The key objective of this policy is to: “protect marine biodiversity by establishing a network of marine protected areas that is comprehensive and representative of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems” (Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fish-eries, 2005).

1 Note that the purpose of marine reserves is to preserve areas in their natural state for scientific study, in effect this results in biodiversity protection for the reserve area.


This approach is a joint initiative between the Department of Conservation and Min-istry of Fisheries which sees the establishment of regional stakeholder forums that are tasked with developing recommendations for marine protected areas. Recom-mendations must be based on the best available information to protect the full range of habitats and ecosystems while minimising adverse impacts on existing users of the marine environment and meeting treaty settlement obligations2.

The policy contains network design and planning principles to guide forums as well as key tasks that must be carried out to ensure good process. Principles include those specific to New Zealand, such as providing for the relationship between the Crown and Maori (New Zealand’s indigenous peoples), and internationally recog-nised principles, such as following a transparent process and the precautionary ap-proach. As a basis for this planning, Government officials are developing an inven-tory and gaps analysis of existing MPAs (Figure 5). In 2008 the, Marine Protected Areas Protection Standard, Classification and Implementation Guidelines were re-leased to support these forums by providing consistent, science-based, hierarchical classifications on which planning is to be based, and setting a protection standard that tools are evaluated against and must meet to form part of the MPA network (Ministry of Fisheries and Department of Conservation, 2008). A key concept for biodiversity protection in New Zealand that is maintained in the MPA Policy is the importance of no-take marine reserves. This is provided for with the requirement that at least one example of each habitat type identified through application of the classifications is to be protected in a marine reserve, while replicates may use other types of tools to establish MPAs.

Figure 4: Customary shellfish gathering. ©DOC.

2 The Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty) was signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Maori chiefs establishing a British Governor in New Zealand, recognising Maori ownership of their re sources and giving them the rights of British subjects. For more detailed information on the Treaty go to www.nzhistory.net.nz/category/tid/133 �


It should be noted that in New Zealand fisheries sustainability is managed separately to marine biodiversity protection. Fisheries are managed under the Quota Manage-ment System (QMS) (Fisheries Act 1996). Introduced in 1986, the QMS sets limits on the total allowable commercial catch of fish stocks and to avoid, remedy or miti-gate the adverse impacts of fishing of the marine environment.

Figure 5: Inventory of area-based management in the northern North Island for evaluation against the protection standard. Those areas that meet the protection standard will automatically feed into the MPA network and gaps analysis to determine which habitats and ecosytems require further protection in the region.

5 MPA Policy implementation case study: Subantarctic biogeographic region

Implementation of the MPA Policy in the nearshore marine environment is carried out at the biogeographic region level, the first level of the coastal classification. In February 2008, the marine protection planning process for the subantarctic bio-geographic region was initiated, one of the first two regions for which planning fo-rums have been convened. At the outset of the process, stakeholders in the subantarctic marine environment were identified by officials. Fourteen representa-tives of the key groups, including commercial fishing, conservation, science and

12 nautical mile, Territorial Sea

N

Existing tools to be considered as part of a potential network of Marine Protected Areas.

Restrictions on commercial trawl, danish seine & dredgingRestrictions on trawl OR danish seine OR dredging

"Terrestrial " Reserves below high tide markSubmarine cable closureTraditionally managed Mataitai and Taipure

Marine ReserveMarine Park

50 0 50KM

Northern North Island New Zealand


Maori, were then provided with a Terms of Reference (TOR) and formally appointed as the Subantarctic Marine Protection Planning Forum (Forum) by the Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries. The Forum’s task was to develop recommendations for MPAs in the subantarctic nearshore marine environment for the Government to con-sider. Government officials provided support to the Forum through policy and tech-nical advice and administrative support. The Forum first worked to ensure all the best available information had been gathered and applied the classification to each of the four island groups in the region. Key information was displayed spatially on maps. The forum then worked to develop MPA recommendations for three subantarctic island groups (Antipodes, Bounty and Campbell); the remaining island group in the region was excluded from this stage as it is already fully protected by a no-take marine reserve and marine mammal sanctuary (Figure 6). The Forum took particular note of the World Heritage status of the island groups and their surround-ing seas reflecting their international importance. The Forum next considered the in-terests and uses of the marine environment in the subantarctic region alongside what existing management tools were in place.

Bounty Islands Antipodes Island Campbell Island

Figure 6: A pictorial illustration of the difference in species, habitats and ecosystems at each of the three island groups for which protection options are being considered. Recent research expeditions have found high levels of diversity and endemism associated with each of these island groups.


It was found that only the marine reserve around the Auckland Islands met the pro-tection standard required to be defined an MPA and that there were a number of habitats and ecosystems present at the other island groups not represented in that marine reserve. Using this information, the Forum set out to develop recommenda-tions for MPAs. Forum members were unable to reach consensus and so developed two options for each island group that they considered protected the range of habi-tats and ecosystems while having consideration of impacts on existing users and Treaty Settlement (Figure 7). Initial proposals were released for public consultation before finalisation. Recommended options are now being considered by the Minis-ters of Conservation and Fisheries. It is up to Ministers to consider the information and options provided by the Forum and decide what MPA proposals to progress through statutory processes.

Figure 7: Maps showing recommended options for MPAs around the Subantarctic Islands.


6 Remaining Challenges

This new stakeholder-based, regional approach to MPA planning is an improvement on previous approaches with a high degree of collaboration, a sound scientific basis and use of good planning and design principles. However there is still room for fur-ther improvement and the two regional processes that have now been run have helped to identify areas in which such improvements may be made. At this stage it is expected that the process for MPA proposals over the entire subantarctic bio-geographic region will take three years through to completion. This is considerably more efficient than previous approaches where it was taking up to 15 years for a single small coastal reserve. Areas identified where further efficiencies can be gained include through clear guidance and enforcement of process, and strong leadership and direction-setting by officials and Forum chairs. Future processes will focus on addressing these areas. While many improvements have been made in the approach to marine protection, some challenges remain, such as legislation that re-quires some modernisation and limited availability of consistent and cohesive data sets on which to base planning. These are areas in which Government officials are now focussing their attentions with a strong emphasis on facilitating the use of GIS spatial planning decision support tools.

7 Summary

New Zealand is a global marine hotspot for biodiversity with a relatively recent his-tory of human occupation, but one in which environmental pressures are compound-ing as our population grows and competition for space in the marine and coastal en-vironment increases. In light of this, and along with international commitments, it is important that that marine protected areas are addressed within the context of the planning principles of the Marine Protected Areas Policy, bringing a more coordi-nated, efficient and participatory approach to marine biodiversity protection. Some challenges still remain and Government officials are now focussing on addressing these to further refine future marine protection planning processes.

8 References

Ballantine, WJ (1991): Marine Reserves for New Zealand. University of Auckland, Leigh Ma-rine Laboratory. 196 p.

Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment (2000): New Zealand Biodi-versity Strategy. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment. 146 p. (www.biodiversity.govt.New Zealand)


Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries (2005): Marine Protected Areas Policy: Policy and Implementation Plan. Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries, Wel-lington, New Zealand. 25 p. (www.biodiversity.govt.New Zealand/seas/biodiversity/protected/mpa_policy.html)

Gordon, DP, Beaumont, J., MacDiarmid, A., Robertson, DA., Ahyong, ST. (2010): Marine Biodiversity of Aotearoa New Zealand. PLoS ONE 5(8): e10905.

Johnson, D. & Haworth, J. (2004): Hooked: the story of the New Zealand fishing industry. Hazard Press for the Fishing Industry Association. Christchurch, New Zealand.

Ministry of Fisheries and Department of Conservation (2008): Marine Protected Areas: Clas-sification, Protection Standard and Implementation Guidelines. Ministry of Fisheries and De-partment of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 54 p. (www.biodiversity.govt.New Zealand/pdfs/seas/MPA-classification-protection-standard.pdf)

Subantarctic Marine Protection Planning Forum (2009): Implementation of the Marine Pro-tected Areas Policy in the Territorial Seas of the Subantarctic Biogeographic Region of New Zealand: consultation document. 43 p. (www.biodiversity.govt.New Zealand)


Progress towards the development of a global network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) KRISTINA M. GJERDE1, HENNING VON NORDHEIM² & CAROLE DURUSSEL³ 1IUCN and Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, Switzerland, ²Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany, ³IUCN and Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, Germany

1 Background

The open oceans3 and deep seas4 represent ninety-five percent of the global bio-sphere in volume. They play an important regulating role in the Earth’s climate and are home to a major part of the world’s biodiversity, containing some of the most productive ecosystems, vast natural resources, unique habitats, and globally rare species yet to be discovered. Hindered by technical and logistical difficulties linked to their remoteness and deepness, scientists have explored only five percent of the open oceans and deep seas, of which less than 0.01% in detail. Yet, the open oceans and deep seas are undergoing increasing environmental pressures, stem-ming from intensified human uses, climate change and ocean acidification, as well as pollution from land. These pressures threaten to undermine their biodiversity, balance and resilience. As a result, the open oceans and deep seas are the least known and least protected areas on the planet. The high seas5 and seabed6 beyond national jurisdictions7 are particularly vulnerable as they are the global commons, open to all but the primary responsibility of none. As envisaged in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), the framework treaty for oceans, in-ternational cooperation and coordination is fundamental to high seas conservation. In recent years, the need to improve cooperation and action has been recognized by the international community. In 2001, the German Federal Agency for Nature Con-servation (BfN), in cooperation with the Australian government, convened the first expert workshop on Vilm, Germany, to discuss high seas marine protected areas (MPAs) and the need to better manage risks to the marine environment beyond na-tional jurisdiction (Thiel & Koslow, 2001).

3 Ocean waters above and beyond the physical continental shelf, generally beyond 12 miles or more, but can start closer to shore on volcanic islands or at heads of submarine canyons. 4 Ocean waters and seafloor beyond the depth where photosynthesis can occur, generally below 200 m. 5 Legal term for waters beyond the zones of national jurisdiction including the 12 nm territorial sea and 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone. 6 The Area is a legal term for the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil beyond the “legal” continental shelf, as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Generally starts at 200 nm, but may extend to 350 nm or beyond in certain circumstances. 7 Areas beyond national jurisdiction include the High Seas and the Area.


In 2004, the 7th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) asked the UN General Assembly, States as well as other competent authori-ties to take urgent measures to eliminate and avoid destructive practices on vulner-able ecosystems, such as seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold-water corals (CBD, VII/5 §61 and §60).

In 2006, the United Nations initiated two important processes in response to these concerns: 1) it called on States and relevant organizations to take prompt action to protect deep sea biodiversity from the impacts of high seas bottom fishing and agreed to review progress in three years time, and 2) it convened an informal, ad hoc open-ended working group to study issues related to the conservation and sus-tainable use of biological diversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (Gjerde, 2009). The third meeting of this UN Working Group took place in early 2010, where it considered further options for improving cooperation including with respect to MPAs and other area-based management measures. The importance of representative networks of MPAs for conservation and sustainable use has been recognized since at least the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 (Laffoley et al, 2008). At the WSSD, world leaders agreed, among other things, to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity and to encourage the applica-tion of ecosystem approaches to marine management by 2010, to establish repre-sentative marine protected areas networks by 2012, consistent with international law and based on scientific information, and to integrate marine areas management into key sectors. More recently, the Manado Ocean Declaration, adopted in May 2009 at the high level ministerial session of the World Oceans Conference, underscored the importance of representative resilient networks in the context of climate change, and resolved to further establish and effectively manage marine protected areas, includ-ing representative resilient networks, based on international law and best available science (http://oceanmondial.worldoceannetwork.org/cop15/images/stories/manado.pdf).

Figure 1: Paragorgia (bubblegum coral) with brisingid sea star (Novodinia antillensis) ©Deep Atlantic Stepping Stones Science Team/IFE/URI/NOAA.


2 Recent progress

Though it plays no direct role in regulating human activities or in managing specific areas beyond national jurisdiction, the CBD plays an important scientific and techni-cal advisory role to States and the UN General Assembly (CBD 2006, VIII/24 §42). Building on existing legal agreements and targets, the Ninth Conference of the Par-ties (COP9) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted in May 2008 criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant areas in the open ocean and deep sea in need of protection (CBD EBSA criteria), as well as guidance for de-signing representative networks of marine protected areas. The COP9 further urged Parties and invited other Governments and relevant organizations to apply the crite-ria and guidance as well as to implement conservation and management measures (CBD Decision IX/20). The seven CBD EBSA criteria include uniqueness or rarity; special importance for life history of species; importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats; vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, slow recovery; biological productivity; biological diversity; and naturalness (CBD Decision IX/20, Annex I). Criteria similar to these have already been successfully applied to coastal areas as well as in areas of the open ocean and deep sea both within and beyond national jurisdiction.

Figure 2: Legal divisions of the marine environment. ©IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature.


The scientific guidance refers to four required network properties and components for selecting areas to establish a representative network of MPAs (CBD Decision IX/20, Annex II). These are: ecologically and biologically significant areas, represen-tativity; connectivity, and replicated ecological features. These components also are based on decades of experience at the national and regional levels. Work with re-spect to high seas MPAs and representative networks is already underway in four ocean regions where agreements already exist to enhance cooperation beyond na-tional jurisdiction: the Antarctic, the Mediterranean, the Northeast Atlantic and the Western and Central Pacific.

� In Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources (CCAMLR) agreed in November 2009 to es-tablish a large protected area just south of the South Orkney Islands where fish-ing will be prohibited. CCAMLR is working in cooperation with the Antarctic Treaty’s Committee for Environmental Protection towards the establishment of a network of protected areas based on criteria in Annex V of the Antarctic Treaty’s Protocol for Environmental Protection (www.ccamlr.org).

� In the Mediterranean, work is underway to create an ecological network of repre-sentative MPAs under the aegis of the Barcelona Convention and its Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity. A joint Management Ac-tion between the European Community and the UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan has been established to promote the establishment of such a network, with a specific focus on areas beyond national jurisdiction. The first phase of identifi-cation of potential areas based on ecological criteria is now underway. The Medi-terranean is already host to the first MPA that straddles territorial seas and the high seas, the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals, desig-nated by an agreement between Monaco, Italy and France in 1999 and listed as a Special Area of Mediterranean Interest under the Barcelona Convention in 2001.

� In the Northeast Atlantic, work is underway to develop an “ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs”, under the auspices of the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic and a Min-isterial Declaration in 2003. The OSPAR Maritime Area extends from the North Pole to the Straits of Gibraltar and to the west of the Mid Atlantic Ridge, of which approximately 40% of the open ocean is beyond national jurisdiction. Six sites beyond national jurisdiction were approved as MPAs in 2010, together with con-servation objectives and management plans. Most of the areas, including Charlie Gibbs, have also been closed (on a temporary basis until 2015) by the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Management Commission to high seas bottom fishing. Re-cently submitted claims to the outer continental shelf overlap with the seabed in four of the six approved MPAs, including the northern part of the Charlie Gibbs


Fracture Zone MPA proposal that consequently was not included in the 2010 tranche of MPAs. These seabed issues will hopefully stimulate new forms of coastal State/regional cooperation.

� In the Western and Central Pacific, two of four donut holes (areas of the high seas surrounded by national EEZs) have been closed to high seas tuna fisher-ies, and the other two plus a large area of adjacent high seas are under consid-eration by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Pacific lead-ers have adopted a Pacific Oceanscape Initiative through the South Pacific Re-gional Environmental Program which envisages the creation of a network of MPAs throughout the region within and beyond national jurisdiction.

Specific sectoral organizations, including regional fisheries management organiza-tions, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Maritime Or-ganization and the International Seabed Authority are also developing experience with respect to the protection of environmentally significant and vulnerable areas beyond national jurisdiction (Laffoley et al., 2008). Of particular relevance is the work by regional fisheries management organizations to identify “vulnerable marine ecosystems” and to protect them from significant adverse impacts due to high seas bottom fishing. As noted above, in 2006 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for States and RFMOs to adopt measures to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from significant adverse impacts or not to authorize bottom contact fishing activities to proceed. To assist States and RFMOs to imple-ment the UNGA resolution, the FAO has adopted Guidelines for the Management of Deep Sea Bottom Fisheries on the High Seas (FAO, 2009). The criteria for identify-ing “vulnerable marine ecosystems” set forth in the FAO Guidelines are very similar to the CBD EBSA criteria, as they were developed around the same time and by overlapping experts.

3 Scientific developments

With the aim to help implement the CBD decision and criteria in the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, the German government, in its role as CBD President, con-tracted IUCN to facilitate an international collaborative initiative to help apply the CBD criteria and guidance for the open ocean and deep sea. The “Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative” (GOBI) is now a global partnership supported by the BfN with core funding from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser-vation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). GOBI seeks to provide illustrations and scientific guidance that will help States and relevant regional and global organizations meet the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development goals (www.GOBI.org). The objectives of this initiative are:


1. To establish and support an international scientific collaboration to assist States and relevant regional and global organisations to identify ecologically significant areas using the best available scientific data, tools, and methods.

2. To provide guidance on how the CBD’s scientific criteria can be interpreted and applied towards management, including representative networks of marine pro-tected areas.

3. To assist in developing regional analyses with relevant organisations and stake-holders.

The first report of this initiative, Defining ecologically or biologically significant areas in the open oceans and deep seas: Analysis, tools, resources and illustrations, pro-vides a general overview of scientific issues and techniques that could be used in application of the CBD EBSA criteria as well as illustrations of approaches, tools and methodologies to assist in the identification of potential EBSAs based on individual criterion (Ardron et al., 2009). This report was presented at the CBD expert work-shop held in Ottawa, Canada, from 29 September to 2 October 2009 and served as a key support for workshop discussions and products. Future work of GOBI includes the involvement of a larger number of experts from science, governments, interna-tional and non-governmental organizations, as well as traditional communities and industry to improve the capacity to evaluate and identify EBSAs. From this broad set of areas, multiple criteria analyses will need to be applied in order to arrive at op-tions for coherent representative networks of protected areas on the high seas.

Figure 5: Pacific Donut Holes: Four patches of high seas surrounded by countries’ EEZ. Number one and two are fisheries closure areas. ©Greenpeace.


4 CBD Expert Workshop, 29 September - 2 October 2009, Ottawa, Canada

The Ottawa expert workshop held with financial support from the Canadian and German governments, aimed to provide further scientific and technical guidance on: 1) the use and further development of biogeographic classification systems, and 2) the identification of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction in need of protection. The resulting scientific and technical guidance was submitted to the UN Working Group in February 2010, and to the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice in May 2010, and will hopefully be adopted by CBD COP10 in October 2010. The report of the CBD Ottawa Workshop (CBD, 2010) de-scribes work underway within governments, regional seas conventions, regional fisheries management organizations and non-governmental organizations in apply-ing the CBD EBSA criteria or similar criteria to areas beyond national jurisdiction. Key observations from the workshop include:

1) Lessons learned: There has been substantial experience at the national and re-gional level with the application of some or all of the criteria for identification of ecol-ogically or biologically significant areas for multiple uses, including protection, which can be drawn upon in developing guidance on the application of the CBD EBSA cri-teria;

2) Identification vs. management responses: The process of identification of CBD EBSAs is understood to be separate from the processes which decide on the policy and management responses that are appropriate for providing the desired level of protection to those areas;

3) Relevant Information: Application of the criteria should use all the information that is available, including traditional knowledge, knowledge gained by life experience of ocean users as well as modelling approaches that can extrapolate data from one area to another less-studied area. All information should be subject to quality assur-ance methods, and the application of the criteria needs to be reviewed periodically, as new information becomes available.

4) Data limitations: While there is likely to be less information on marine areas be-yond national jurisdiction than closer to shore, challenges due to data limitations may be addressed through a range of scientific information, tools and resources. A lack of information should not be used as a reason to defer actions to apply the cri-teria to the best information that is available.

5) Ecological connectivities: Application of the criteria should consider both the ben-thic and pelagic systems separately and as an interacting system. Ecological con-nections within and beyond national jurisdiction should also be considered.


Regional efforts: There is a need to promote focused regional efforts, including regional workshops, in order to enhance and harmonise the application of CBD EBSA criteria.

5 Summary

Significant progress towards developing networks of MPAs has already been made in three regions where competent organizations with a conservation mandate and scientific expertise already exist: the Southern Ocean, the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean. In the Pacific, important work is also underway but is not yet geared towards network design. Identifying ecologically and biological significant areas in the open oceans and deep seas outside these regions presents additional chal-lenges.

The Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative has put in place a scientific collaboration process that can assist the CBD and others with best available scientific information, tools and analyses. What is needed, however, is global political will to improve im-plementation of existing conservation duties and mechanisms to enhance coopera-tion for the establishment, management and enforcement of high seas protected ar-eas.

6 References

Ardron, J., Dunn, D., Corrigan, C., Gjerde, K., Halpin, P., Rice, J., Vanden Berghe, E. & Vierros, M. (2009): “Defining ecologically or biologically significant areas in the open oceans and deep seas: Analysis, tools, resources and illustrations”. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, available at: (http://openoceansdeepseas.org/bibliography/EBSA%20background.pdf/view)

CBD (2010): Report Of The Expert Workshop On Scientific And Technical Guidance On The Use Of Biogeographic Classification Systems And Identification Of Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction In Need Of Protection, Ottaqwa, Canada, 29 September to 2 October 2009. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/4 (http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/information/sbstta-14-inf-04-en.pdf)

Corrigan, C. & Kershaw, F. (2008): Working Toward High Seas Marine Protected Areas: An Assessment of Progress Made and Recommendations for Collaboration. UNEP WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

FAO (2009): International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome, 2009.

Gjerde, K., M. (2009): Framing the debate on marine biodiversity conservation beyond na-tional, jurisdiction: processes underway and main deadlines. Oceanis, vol. 35, no. 1-2, 19-40. (http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Publications-scientifiques-et-autres/0908_oceanis_25.pdf)


Laffoley, D., Gjerde, K. & Wood, L. (2008): Progress with Marine Protected Areas since Dur-ban, and future directions; Parks Magazine vol. 17, No. 2, pp.13-22 (http://www.protectplanetocean.org/resources/docs/Progress_with_MPAs_paper_Parks_17_1.pdf)

Thiel, H. & Koslow, J. (2001): Managing Risks to Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Seas, Including Tools such as Marine Protected Areas –Scientific Requirements and Legal Aspects, proceedings of the Expert Workshop held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation, Isle of Vilm, Germany, 27 February to 4 Marc, 2001. BfN-Skripten 43, Bonn, Germany.


II Management of Human Impacts on the Marine Environment


The whole is greater than the sum of the parts: mapping cumulative impacts of human activities on marine ecosystemsBENJAMIN S. HALPERN

National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis, USA

1 Introduction

The impact of human activities on the oceans has been studied and documented for many individual activities, such as fishing and climate change, but our understand-ing of how human activities cumulatively affect the oceans is only recently emerging. Such information, especially when presented as maps of the distribution and inten-sity of the cumulative impacts of human activities, is critical for any kind of marine resource management and conservation. This is particularly the case in ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning, and ocean zoning. Multiple and over-lapping human use of the oceans is the norm, not the exception (Halpern et al., 2008a), and so any kind of management efforts will be inefficient, and potentially in-effective, without consideration of the cumulative impact of these overlapping activi-ties. In this talk, results from recently published and ongoing research were pre-sented, showing global and regional-scale maps of the cumulative impact of human activities on marine ecosystems. These analyses provide a number of types of re-sults that can inform marine management decisions, including identifying top threats to a region, most and least impacted locations, the percent contribution of a given stressor or suite of stressors to the overall ocean condition, and the relative impact of any given stressor compared to other stressors (e.g., stressor X is four times as bad as stressor Y). If or how such results can be used to inform and influence man-agement decisions depends on the goals or mandates of a given organization or agency. For example, conservation groups may want guidance on where to protect the last pristine areas, while government agencies may be required to focus on how and where to mitigate threats to key locations. One of the key strengths of this ap-proach to assess cumulative impacts is that it does not dictate what should be done, but provides a platform of information that can be used to guide any kind of man-agement decisions. Our model for calculating cumulative impacts is based on the in-tensity (i.e. footprint) of each stressor and the calculated relative vulnerability of each marine ecosystem. Stressors were identified through expert workshops and included in our analyses if data existed for the entire study region, and ecosystem vulnerability was determined through a structured expert judgment elicitation proce-dure (Halpern et al., 2007; Teck et al., 2010). Global maps of the cumulative impact of 17 different stressors confirm that multiple overlapping stressors are the norm (Halpern et al., 2008b; Crain et al., 2009) no fewer than 2 stressors overlap in Euro-


pean waters, and coastal areas have 10-14 overlapping stressors (Figure 1). This overlap in stressors suggests that efforts to assess human impacts on marine eco-systems cannot capture reality unless all types of stressors are assessed and their synergistic impact is considered. This is particularly the case in coastal areas where nearly all stressors co-occur. This overlap is not surprising, but still only few man-agement efforts currently consider all co-occurring stressors when developing man-agement plans. The approach presented here allows for combining different stress-ors and to assess them in a combined manner within a single framework.

Figure 1: The number of co-occurring stressors in each 1 km2 pixel. Occurrence is measured as the presence or absence of each stressor. European waters have a minimum of 2 overlapping stressors and up to 14 in many nearshore areas.

2 Results

We found remarkably consistent spatial patterns of cumulative impact between re-gional and global scale analyses (Halpern et al., 2009), suggesting that global re-sults provide robust approximations of the pressures affecting and influencing ocean health. These results can be used for management and conservation purposes in the absence of higher-quality regional-scale analyses. This was a surprising and im-portant result as many places around the world do not have the resources to repeat a regional-scale analysis; in the absence of such resources our global model results can be used as basic guidance on where and how much different human stressors are affecting ocean condition and what the expected outcome is likely to be for any given management action. For example, where land-based stressors are primarily driving ocean condition, establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) are not likely to greatly improve ocean health, whereas land-use regulation such as limita-tions of fertilizer use in agriculture provide a more significant benefit for the regional


and therefore global marine ecosystem. A key advantage of the presented approach to assess cumulative human impacts is that the results can be used to answer a host of management questions. These include how and where to prioritize resources and money to improve efficiency and success of actions, and how to design ocean zones within a comprehensive marine spatial planning framework. One can isolate the cumulative impact of subsets of stressors (i.e. the cumulative impact of all land-based stressors relative to the full suite of stressors) and help prioritize management action by assessing the relative impact of any given stressor. This flexibility in what the tool can provide makes the analyses useful to a broad community of resource managers and conservationists. The presented approach to assess cumulative hu-man impacts is already being used to guide spatial management decisions in the state of Massachusetts, USA, and is informing state and national level marine re-source planning efforts in the United States through input into state and federal agency plans, non-governmental organization priority settings, and President Obama’s Ocean Policy Task Force. In no case are our results dictating what plans are being set, nor should they. As described above, our results provide a key piece of information that is currently missing from nearly all management plans.

3 References

Crain, C. M., Halpern, B.S, Beck, M.W. & Kappel, C.V. (2009): Understanding and Managing Human Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. Pages 39-62 Year in Ecology and Con-servation Biology 2009. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Halpern, B. S.; Kappel, C.V., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Ebert, C., Kontgis, C; Crain, C.M., Martone, R., Shearer, C. & Teck, S.J. (2009): Mapping cumulative human impacts to Califor-nia Current marine ecosystems Conservation Letters 2:138-148. Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F. & Kappel, C.V. (2007): Evaluating and ranking global and regional threats to marine ecosystems. Conservation Biology 12: 1301-1315. Halpern, B. S., McLeod, K.L., Rosenberg, A.A. & Crowder, L.B. (2008a): Managing for cumu-lative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean & Coastal Management 51:203-211. Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V, Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Myers, R., Perry, M., Selig, E., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. & Watson, R. (2008b): A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948-952. Teck, S.J., Halpern, B.S., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., Selkoe, K.A., Crain, C.M., Martone, R., Shearer, C., Arvai, J., Fischhoff, B., Murray, G., Neslo, R. & Cooke, R. (2010): Using expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnerability in the California Current. Ecological Applications doi: 10.1890/09-1173


Compliance strategy to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) MICK BISHOP

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia

1 Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is the world’s largest coral reef ma-rine protected area and encompasses a complex array of diverse ecosystems as well as social, economic and cultural activities. It covers an area of some 346,000 square kilometres stretching more than 2,000 kilometres along the Queensland east coast. The GBRMP is a multiple-use area with strategies and plans in place for managing the effects of commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, habitat dam-age and pollution. The GBRMP is managed and protected through zoning plans and regulations (Figure 1). A network of 164 highly protected, no-take areas together cover 115,240 square kilometres. In addition, fishing is also regulated in zones that comprise twice that area. A high level of compliance with zoning provisions is crucial for them to achieve their goal of protecting the biodiversity and ecological functions of the Marine Park and strengthening its resilience to climate change impacts. Regu-lation of waste discharge, shipping activities, tourism and recreation use, and other activities further helps manage impacts on fragile environments. High use and re-mote areas each present unique challenges for compliance management. There are those who seek to exploit the significant gains available from illegal activity, particu-larly in taking some of the high value species, in protected areas. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has developed a successful strategic ap-proach to compliance. Consideration of compliance issues began very early in the design and development of new zoning plans and regulations.

Well-developed risk assessments target surveillance and enforcement resources in the areas and at the times of greatest ecological threat. Increasing use of intelli-gence, strategic planning, and multi-agency cooperation has improved surveillance and helped implement successful enforcement operations. Quality control of investi-gation processes, effective prosecution, and significantly higher penalties have fur-ther increased deterrence of illegal activity. The GBRMP is established and man-aged under its own Federal legislation: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. In 1981, the Great Barrier Reef was declared a World Heritage Area. The ju-risdictional arrangements governing management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area are complex, reflecting the two-tier structure of Federal and State laws that exist in Australia. A Queensland State Marine Park, often extending sea-wards only as far as the low water mark, lies between the Federal Great Barrier


Reef Marine Park and the Queensland coast. Queensland island national parks are intermingled with Commonwealth-owned islands forming part of the GBRMP, adding to the jurisdictional complexities. Following negotiation of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement between the Federal and State Governments, both governments man-age the islands, reefs and waters of the Great Barrier Reef in a co-operative and complementary way.

The first element essential to good compliance is education. The aim is to make everyone aware of what the rules are and why they are there. For most users of the Marine Park, this is enough. A strong communication program was a key element in the 2004 re-zoning and expansion of protected areas. One of its primary aims was to substantially improve community understanding, acceptance and support for the new zoning plan. The communications strategy was highly research driven, making regular use of phone polling to evaluate community attitudes while also using focus groups to test maps and messages and it also utilised ongoing testing and stake-holder feedback to ensure community understanding. An innovative component of the program saw the identification and development of “Community Access Points” to access target markets directly at their points of interaction. These were predomi-nantly bait & tackle shops where fishers congregate. There was extensive use of re-gional TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, using targeted messages, particularly for recreational fishers. Working with the developers and distributors of electronic navi-gation products, the GBRMPA was able to ensure that new electronic mapping products were available in up-to-date forms.

Practical communication activities has included the distribution of more than 1.7 mil-lion free maps across the Great Barrier Reef coast and the placement of boat ramp signs all along the GBR coast to ensure fishers can easily understand the zoning plan. While the majority of fishers respect and comply with the Marine Park zoning plans and regulations, significant numbers of offenders choose consciously not to comply. In recent years, some elements of the Queensland fishing industry and In-donesian fishing incursions have emerged as major compliance issues. The prob-lem has been tackled strategically with considerable success. Some useful lessons learned were taken into account in planning the re-zoning of the Marine Park. The most important step was to ensure that the design and legislative drafting of the zon-ing plan considered compliance issues from the outset. The new zoning plan had to meet biodiversity objectives, supporting biophysical principles, and accommodate, as far as possible, the concerns of stakeholders expressed in over 30,000 public submissions. In doing so, care was taken to ensure that the choice of location, size and shapes of zones recognised surveillance capabilities and methods.

Definition of boundaries was a particularly crucial aspect. Coordinate-based zoning was used throughout, while acknowledging that many recreational users without


GPS equipment would need visible features to guide them. Another important as-pect was decisions on how activities in each zone should, and realistically could, be regulated. Careful selection of the wording of zoning plans and regulations recog-nised the consequent implications for establishing offences and enabling effective prosecution. Another important element in compliance is community ownership and support. While some were unhappy with the outcome, strong community participa-tion in the selection of zones increased public acceptance. This assists compliance in a way that would not be possible without genuine public consultation. For exam-ple, the GBRMPA endeavoured to avoid unnecessarily closing the most important fishing spot for a community or industry. This prevents an ongoing enforcement bat-tle that can be avoided through selection of alternate sites that meet the biological objectives. Support for zoning also encourages the public to provide information about illegal activity. This community information has become an increasingly valu-able asset to the GBRMPA in recent years. Approaches to surveillance have contin-ued to improve. Resources are carefully targeted at high-risk issues, locations, sea-sons and times. Vessels from several agencies and unmarked chartered boats work together, with multi-agency crews improving versatility of patrols and information ex-change. The vast size of the Marine Park and remote location of many important sites has seen increasing use of aircraft and satellite vessel tracking systems.To better target and glean the greatest benefit from surveillance, the GBRMPA has ex-panded its intelligence collection and analysis capabilities. Cooperative operations between agencies have proven fruitful in addressing common interests and targets. While the driving force for such relationships was once largely financial or based on legislative responsibility, increasingly cooperative activities are on a basis of mutual benefit.

Symbiotic relationships are of course traditional in coral reef systems. Investigation and prosecution procedures have been improved in line with the development of Australian Government standards. Enhanced training, case management policies, and documented operating procedures are some of the products now developed specifically for GBRMP enforcement. Excellent surveillance, detection, evidence col-lection and successful prosecution would all be worth nothing if the penalties handed down by magistrates are inadequate. In July 2001, the Australian Govern-ment increased penalties ten fold for fishing, shipping and pollution offences against the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. This was backed up by a concerted effort by the GBRMPA to assist the Public Prosecutors to provide magistrates with clear and comprehensive penalty submissions. These clearly explain issues such as the environmental, economic and social cost of the offence, the scale of the problem, incentives of offenders and the need for deterrence.


Figure 1: Zoning maps of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park before (top) and after (below) the 1 July 2004 rezoning. The green zones are Marine National Park (no-take) zones. Habitat Protection (no trawling) zones are dark blue (trawling can occur in the Light Blue "General Use" zone) and Conserva-tion Park Zones (no trawling or netting) are yellow.


Prior to 2002, the highest penalty handed down for fishing no-take "green" zones was $A 3,000. Fines of $A 25,000 or more are now common. Environmental crime is now seen as a high priority issue in Australia. Thanks to media coverage and broad education the community, including magistrates, are much more aware of the seri-ousness of this issue. Illegal fishing and pollution from vessels are no longer seen as harmless acts committed by larrikins. They are now recognised as organized, lu-crative crimes with serious environmental consequences. Enforcement capabilities in the GBRMP have advanced, particularly in the last eight years. Without this, the expansion of protected areas would not realistically have been possible. However, the GBRMPA is not complacent about the future. Adaptability is crucial. As en-forcement techniques improve, some offenders will stop. Others will try to find new modes of operation. The future will bring new challenges. The abundance of fish in the new marine protected areas will gradually increase. Expanding markets will cre-ate new demands and prices for marine species or products. Similarly, other marine industries or pollution threats may emerge in areas that were once safe from such concerns. In recent years, the Great Barrier Reef has experienced significant cli-mate change impacts including coral bleaching, cyclones and heavy freshwater run-off. The reef's resilience to these impacts depends on addressing other pressures, such as illegal activity. The challenge for the GBRMPA will be to maintain a strong blend of education, community ownership, and cost effective enforcement.


Historical decline of demersal fisheries and future management implications in UK waters RUTH H. THURSTAN, SIMON BROCKINGTON & CALLUM M. ROBERTS

University of York, United Kingdom

1 Introduction

The invention of the steam trawler in the 1880s marked the beginning of a rapid in-crease in the power of fishing fleets that has continued until today. Dramatic de-clines in species abundance and degradation of habitats followed, but despite the lasting nature of these impacts, historical losses have rarely been taken into account in marine fisheries management (Roberts, 2007). To fully comprehend the changes industrial fishing has caused, we must reach further back in time and build up a more complete picture of change.

2 Results

We compiled UK Government data on demersal (bottom-living) fish landings into England and Wales and the UK from 1889 to 2006 (excluding shellfish). The data in Figure 1 show strong growth in landings from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century corresponding to growth of the fleet, advances in fishing technology and ex-pansion to new fishing grounds. After the mid-20th century, demersal landings began a long-term decline. There have clearly been vast changes to landings within UK fisheries, but how much are declines due to overexploitation? Declines in landings may be due to factors other than overexploitation, for example fishing effort may de-cline, fish may be landed elsewhere, or consumer preferences may alter. To gain a better understanding of the relationship to underlying stocks, we created an index of landings per unit of fishing power. Comparative vessel datasets went back to 1889 for England and Wales, therefore long-term coverage focuses upon these countries. Fishing power was calculated using numbers of registered large1 British trawlers in England and Wales for any given year and correcting for advances in fishing tech-nology since the advent of steam power (Figure 2) (Garstang, 1900; Engelhard, 2008). Comparison of figures 1 and 2 show that fishing power peaked during the 1970s, well after landings had begun to fall. We divided landings into England and Wales by fishing power to provide a measure of the commercial productivity of the fisheries. Whilst this is not as direct a measure of stock size as ‘catch per unit of

1 Large vessels are those considered first class vessels in the statistical tables. First class vessels were originally described as vessels of at least 15 tons gross. This was altered to 40 feet (12.19m) and over in length in 1955. After 1990, large vessels are those over 10 metres in length (32.81ft).


fishing effort’, our index of ‘landings per unit of fishing power’ (Figure 3) provides a good insight into the availability of commercially valuable fish. Figure 3 reveals four phases in the nature and fortunes of fisheries from England and Wales.

The first phase, from 1889 to the onset of World War I corresponds to the rapid in-dustrialisation and intensification of fishing around the UK. The second phase from 1919 to 1939 saw a second wave of expansion as fishing vessels sought new grounds in the Arctic and West Africa. The third phase covers the precipitous col-lapse in fisheries productivity between 1956 and 1982 as distant water stocks be-came fully exploited (Roberts, 2007). Toward the end of this period, there was a sharp contraction in distant water fishing opportunities as Iceland and other nations declared first 50, then 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones. However, the timing of these moves (late 1960s to late 1970s) indicate that they were a response to declines in fish stocks (Robinson, 1996), rather than a cause of the collapse in fish landings experienced by the English and Welsh fleets. The fourth phase began in 1983 with the introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy. Comparison of Fig-ures 1 to 3 shows that landings into England and Wales were only maintained throughout the 1960s because of an increase in fishing power.

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Land

ings

of d

emer

sal f

ish

('000

tonn

es)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Figure 1: Total landings of demersal fish species. Landings into England and Wales (closed circles) and UK (open circles) by British vessels from 1889 to 2007 (source: MAFF sea fisheries statistical ta-bles).


To further validate these results, we compared changes in landings per unit of fish-ing power to changes in landings per unit of fishing effort (hours spent fishing by British trawlers) for part of the time series. Close similarities between the datasets supports the view that the fall in landings are not merely due to declines in fishing ef-fort (Figure 3).

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Fish

ing

pow

er ('

000

smac

k un

its)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 2: Estimated total fishing power of large British trawlers registered to England and Wales from 1889 to 2007. Closed circles indicate sail trawlers, open circles steam trawlers and closed triangles motor trawlers (source: MAFF sea fisheries statistical tables, Engelhard, 2008, Garstang, 1900).

After the introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983, restrictions upon fish-ing make it difficult to judge from landings per unit of fishing power data what the trends are in underlying fish stocks. From the 1980s, landings have tracked changes to the UK quota allocation of the total allowable catch. However, if this is corrected for using spawning stock biomass of principal demersal species caught, then the overall percentage decline in landings per unit of fishing power increases. Due to lack of quantitative information on long-term technological changes to fishing ves-sels, we restricted our calculations to data obtained from trawling alone. However, throughout the time-period, and during the years of greatest change, trawlers have dominated demersal catches. Since 1989, data has been available to allow us to correct for landings into other countries by UK vessels. This index reveals that long-term declines in demersal landings are largely due to historical overexploitation and a corresponding decrease in the availability of fish to the British fleet. Landings per unit of fishing power declined by 94% from 1889-2007, implying a similar decline in the availability (biomass) of demersal fish. Historical data such as these are vital for


effective management of the marine environment. Without such data we lack base-line measures by which to judge the recovery of ecosystems. It is clear that many bottom-living species, an important component of the marine environment, collapsed long ago, and urgent action must take place to rebuild fish stocks to past levels of abundance. Since the conference on Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009, this research has been published in Nature Communications: (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n2/full/ncomms1013.html#/).

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Land

ings

per

uni

t of f

ishi

ng p

ower

(to

nnes

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Landings per unit of effort (tonnes per 100 hours)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Phase 4

Figure 3: Landings of demersal fish per unit of fishing power of large British trawler vessels. Closed circles show landings per unit of fishing power into England and Wales, open circles show landings per unit of fishing effort of large British trawlers (corrected for changes in fishing power) into England and Wales. The four phases of the fishery are shown.

3 References

Roberts, C.M. (2007): The unnatural history of the sea. Island Press, Washington D.C.

MAFF: United Kingdom sea fisheries statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.

Garstang, W. (1900): The impoverishment of the sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Asso-ciation of the United Kingdom 6: 1-69.

Engelhard, G.H. (2008): One hundred and twenty years of change in fishing power of Eng-lish North Sea trawlers. In: Payne, A., Cotter, J. and Potter, T (eds). Advances in Fisheries Science 50 years on from Beverton and Holt. Blackwell Publishing, pp 1-25.

Robinson, R. (1996): Trawling: the rise and fall of the British trawl fishery. University of Exe-ter Press, Exeter.


Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea CHRISTIAN PUSCH

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany

1 Introduction

In May 2004, Germany nominated ten Natura 2000 sites in its Exclusive Economical Zones (EEZ) of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea to the EU Commission (Figure 1). Germany is the first EU Member State with a comprehensive set of marine Natura 2000 sites, accounting for approx. 31% of the area of its EEZ (Krause et al., 2006). Two SPAs, one in the North Sea and one in the Baltic Sea achieved in September 2005 the national legal status of a nature reserve, IUCN category IV (von Nordheim et al., 2006). The habitat types of community interest, listed on Annex I of the Habi-tat Directive occurring in the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea are sandbanks, permanently covered with seawater (code 1110) and reefs (code 1170). Three marine mammals, Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), Harbour seal (Phoca vi-tulina vitulina) and Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and six anadromous fish species listed on Annex II of the Habitat Directive, are regularly occurring in the German EEZ (Krause et al., 2006).

According to §38 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) the BfN and the BMU are responsible for the selection, designation and the management of Natura 2000 sites. Referring to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive, management plans should be developed, which safeguard the conservation and restoration of the favourable conservation status of the habitats and species of community interest. The conservation targets of each Natura 2000 site in the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea are published on the BfN webpage (http://www.bfn.de/habitatmare/).

After the approval of the ten marine Natura 2000 sites by the publication in the offi-cial EU-Journal there is a legal obligation to set up management plans as soon as possible, but at latest in 2013. To fulfil the legal obligations of the Birds- and Habitat Directive in February 2006 the BfN has initiated the research and development pro-ject, "Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Marine Protected Areas [EMPAS]", which was coordinated by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES).

The EMPAS project was designed to provide guidance on developing the necessary management plans for international fishing activities for all Natura 2000 sites within


the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea designated under the Birds and Habitat Directive in the German EEZ.

The main tasks of the EMPAS project were:

1. Documentation of the fine-scale spatial and temporal distribution of current and recent past fishing activities in and around Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ;

2. Study the impacts of fishing activities on habitats and species;

3. Identification of possible conflicts between fisheries and nature conservation tar-gets;

4. Development of fisheries management plans for each Natura 2000 site in the German EEZ to solve these conflicts.

To fulfil these tasks three expert workshops, Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (WKFMMPA) 2006-08, have been organized by the ICES. Participants of these workshops have been fishery scientist, marine ecologists and experts on protected habitats and species. Additional representatives from the fish-ing industry and nature conservation were invited. The results of the workshops are published as workshop reports (ICES, 2006; 2007a; 2008b).

Figure 1: The ten Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ, Site of Community Interest (SCI), Special Protection Area (SPA): North Sea: 1. SCI Dogger Bank; 2. SCI Sylt Outer Reef; 3. SCI Borkum Reef Ground; 4. SPA Eastern German Bight. Baltic Sea: 1. SCI Fehmarn Belt; 2. SCI Kadet Trench; 3. SCI Western Rönne Bank; 4. SCI Adler Ground; 5. SCI Pomeranian Bay with Odra Bank; 6. SPA Pomera-nian Bay.


2 Results

2.1 Distribution of fishing effort

In the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea fishing effort is exerted by a number of European Member states. While fishing effort in coastal waters (12 nauti-cal miles) is dominated by German vessels, in the German EEZ of the North Sea vessels from six different nations are operating. The most important nations regard-ing fishing effort in the German EEZ are the Netherlands, Denmark and United Kingdom (ICES, 2007b; Pedersen et al., 2009a). Based on logbook data and data from the satellite surveillance system (Vessel Monitoring System, VMS) the fine-scale distribution of fishing effort was analysed for the year 2006.

In the German EEZ and coastal waters of the North Sea results showed that an in-tensive fishery with bottom contacting gear (e.g. beam trawl, otter trawl and seine) is taking place. Within the coastal area (12 nautical miles) fishing activities are domi-nated by small beam trawlers (vessels with < 300 hp) (Figure 2A), while in the southern part of the German EEZ and in the Doggerbank area large beam trawlers (> 300 hp) are the most important fleet segment (Figure 2B). In 2006 otter trawls have been operated mainly in offshore areas of the German EEZ of the North Sea (Figure 2C). Some areas in the southern North Sea, mainly in coastal areas, are trawled up to 20 times per year mainly by shrimp trawlers. (Figure 2D, Schröder et al., 2008).

2.2 Conflict analysis between fishing activities and conservation targets in marine Natura 2000 sites

Within the EMPAS project the main conflicts between fishing activities and conser-vation targets in the Natura 2000 sites had been identified (Pedersen et al., 2009b; ICES, 2008a, b):

1) Impacts of bottom contacting fishing gear on benthic habitats (sandbanks and reefs) and on typical species in the North Sea.

2) Bycatch of seabirds in static gears, especially in gill-nets, mainly in the Baltic Sea.

3) Bycatch of Harbour porpoise in static gears, mainly gill-nets in the North Sea and Baltic Sea.


2.2.1 Impacts of bottom contacting fishing gear on benthic habitats

In general fisheries with bottom-contacting gear have significant negative impact on the communities of the protected habitat types sandbanks and reefs. The intensity of the impact on the benthic community depends on the type of fishing gear, its weight and the towing speed as well as the habitat type, the benthic community and the sediment type (Bergman & Hup 1992; Kaiser et al., 2006; Kaiser, 1998). Based on modelled impact scenarios it was shown that the benthic community in large areas of the German EEZ of the North Sea is heavily impacted by bottom-contacting fish-ing activities (Schröder et al., 2008). The epifauna seems more sensitive to ground fishery than the infauna. Accordingly, for a generalisation of results, benthic species were assigned to four defined ecotypes, that classify the benthic communities into r- and k-selected species of in- and epifauna.The first and the second passes of a mo-bile, bottom-contacting fishing gear exert the most severe effect on an undisturbed benthic structures, communities, and species (Schröder et al., 2008). With increas-ing fishing intensity there is a shift in the composition of the benthic community from slow growing k-selected species to fast growing opportunistic r- selected species (Schröder et al., 2008). The benthic communities within Natura 2000 sites are sig-nificant negatively impacted by bottom contacting fishing gear.

Figure. 2 A-D: Spatial distribution of fishing effort in the German EEZ and coastal waters of the North Sea with bottom-contacting gear in 2006 (A) Small Beam trawl < 300 hp, (B) Large Beam Trawl > 300 hp, (C) Ottertrawl, (D) Sum of all bottom trawls. Natura 2000 sites according to the Habitat Directive (blue hatching) and Birds Directive (green hatching) (Schröder et al., 2008).

9°0'E8°0'E7°0'E6°0'E5°0'E4°0'E

56°0'N

55°0'N

54°0'N

0 25 50 75 10012,5Kilometers

Habitat typeReefSandbankFFH-Areas NS EEZSPA-Area NS-EEZArea D-EEZ

Water depth102030405060LandIntertidal

Beam Trawls < 300HP TBBfishing frequency

0 - 0,010,01 - 11 - 22 - 33 - 55 - 77 - 1010 - 1515 - 21

FishPact

9°0'E8°0'E7°0'E6°0'E5°0'E4°0'E

56°0'N

55°0'N

54°0'N

0 20 40 60 8010Kilometers

Habitat typeReefSandbankplaice boxFFH-Areas NS EEZSPA-Area NS-EEZArea D-EEZ


Beam Trawls > 300HP TBBLfishing frequency

0 - 0,010,01 - 11 - 22 - 33 - 55 - 77 - 10

FishPact

9°0'E8°0'E7°0'E6°0'E5°0'E4°0'E

56°0'N

55°0'N

54°0'N

0 25 50 75 10012,5Kilometers



Otter Tralwsfishing frequency

0 - 0,010,01 - 11 - 22 - 33 - 55 - 77 - 10

FishPact

9°0'E8°0'E7°0'E6°0'E5°0'E4°0'E

56°0'N

55°0'N

54°0'N

0 25 50 75 10012,5Kilometers



all trawlsfishing frequency

0 - 0,010,01 - 11 - 22 - 33 - 55 - 77 - 1010 - 1515 - 21

FishPact

A

C

B

D


In the SCI Doggerbank there is an intensive fishing activity by beam trawls and otter trawls (Figure 2A-D). There are almost no undisturbed areas within the SCI Dogger-bank and the reduction of epibenthic k-selected species is reduced by 80-90% com-pared to an undisturbed community (Figure 3A). In the SCI Sylt Outer Reef the cur-rent intensity of fishing with mobile, bottom-contacting gears on reef habitats within this site makes it unlikely that favourable site conditions could be achieved. Never-theless, some reef habitats in the central and western part of the SCI Sylt Outer Reef are not frequently trawled, and may be in or near favourable condition (Figure 3B) (ICES, 2008). Due to the relatively low fishing intensity with bottom contacting gear in the SCI Borkum Reef Ground (Figure 2A-D) the fisheries induced ecological impact is comparatively small. The maximum fishing intensity of one trawl event per year in the SCI Borkum Reef Ground is locally reducing the populations of k-selected epifauna down to 50 % (Figure 3C).

In general benthic communities associated with reefs are more heavily impacted by bottom contacting gear as benthic communities of sandbanks. Overall the modelling approach for the German coastal waters and the EEZ is indicating a reduction of the ecotype „epifauna, k-selected“ of 70 to 90 % of an undisturbed community (Figure 3D).

Figure 3 A-D: Reduction of benthic communities (epifauna, k-selected species) the German waters of the North Sea (A) Doggerbank, (B) Sylt Outer Reef, (C) Borkum Reef Ground (D) German EEZ and coastal waters (Schröder et al., 2008).

9°0'E8°0'E7°0'E6°0'E5°0'E4°0'E

56°0'N

55°0'N

54°0'N

0 30 60 90 12015km



Ecotype e/K - all trawls% pop. reduction

> 9070 - 9050 - 7030 - 5020 - 3010 - 205 - 10< 5

FishPact

5°0'E4°0'E

55°3

0'N

8°0'E7°0'E

55°0'N

6°30'E6°0'E

54°0

'N

0 20 40 6010km

0 20 40 6010km

0 10 20 305km

DGB SAR

BRG

C

A B

D


2.2.2 Bycatch of protected seabirds in static gears

One of the major threats to diving seabirds in the Baltic Sea is the bycatch mortality in passive fishing gear (mainly gillnets). According to a recent study by Žydelis et al. (2009) the number of bycaught seabirds in selected areas of the Baltic and North Sea is assessed equal to 90.000 seabirds and 100.000 to 200.000 sea birds in the total area. The highest bycatch rates occur in areas where fishing activities with gill-net overlap with the distribution of seabirds. In the context of the EMPAS project the spatial and temporal conflict intensity was analyzed based on the distribution of fish-ing effort with static fishing gear (mainly gillnet) and the distribution of seabirds in the German EEZ and neighbouring coastal areas (ICES, 2008a, b). The highest con-flicts occur in the SPA Pomeranian Bay, especially in the area of the Adlerground in winter (November to April, see Figure 4). In the area of the Odrabank conflicts be-tween the distribution of seabirds and passive gear occur all around the year and especially in the time periode between May and June (Figure 4). Due to the high abundance of seabirds in the SPA Pomeranian Bay the fishing activity with gillnets represents a high conflict potential all around the year.

Figure 4: Conflict intensity based on the spatial and temporal distribution of setnet fisheries and sea-birds in the SPA Pomeranian Bay: classified into areas of no (green), moderate (yellow) and high (red) conflict intensity.


In the context of the EMPAS project the spatial and temporal conflict intensity was analyzed based on the distribution of fishing effort with static fishing gear (mainly gillnet) and the distribution of seabirds in the German EEZ and neighbouring coastal areas (ICES, 2008a, b). The highest conflicts occur in the SPA Pomeranian Bay, especially in the area of the Adlerground in winter (November to April, see Figure 4). In the area of the Odrabank conflicts between the distribution of seabirds and pas-sive gear occur all around the year and especially in the time periode between May and June (Figure 4). Due to the high abundance of seabirds in the SPA Pomeranian Bay the fishing activity with gillnets represents a high conflict potential all around the year. Seabirds which are most threatened are species with low reproductive rates, those with more than 1% of their biogeographic population present within the SPA and those with small or declining populations. In the SPA Pomeranian Bay these species are Black-throated diver, Black Guillemot, Common scoter, Guillemot, Long-tailed duck, Razorbill, Red-necked Grebe, Red-throated diver, Slavonian Grebe and Velvet scoter (Mendel et al., 2008).

2.2.3 Bycatch of Harbour porpoise in static gears

Bottom set gill nets are known as the major source for anthropogenic mortality of Harbour porpoises and feature by far the highest bycatch rates among fishing gear types. Recent studies show that based on molecular genetical characteristics differ-ent populations of Harbour porpoise can be distinguished within the North Sea and Baltic Sea (Wiemann et al., 2010). Of special concern is the bycatch mortality affect-ing the Baltic Proper population, occurring east of the Darss and Limhamn ridge, which has been severely reduced and is estimated at less than 600 remaining ani-mals (Hammond et al., 2002). Bycatch of Harbour porpoises in gillnets along the German coast occurs regularly (Kock & Benke, 1996; Benke et al., 1998; Siebert et al., 2007). However, netmarks and mutilations found on stranded carcasses indicate that only a fraction of all actually bycaught animals is reported by fishermen (Siebert et al., 2007; Herr, 2009). Since 2000 a rise of stranded carcass numbers from aver-agely 30-40 dead animals collected per year to more than 150 in 2007 was ob-served (ICES, 2008b). Based on scientific studies it is estimated that at least 50% of the dead stranded Harbour porpoises have been bycaught in setnet fisheries (Herr, 2009).

More than 90 % of set net fishery in Germany is carried out by small vessels (<15m). Due to the current legislation it is especially difficult to assess the impact of set net fisheries on Harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea, as these vessels are not equipped with VMS and hence neither movement nor effort is monitored. The spatial and temporal effort of set net fishing activities was assessed on the base of aerial surveys by the line-transect methodology (setnet flags/km) as a proxy for set net density in different seasons of the year (Figure 5A-C). To analyse the conflict poten-


tial the local density of set nets and Harbour porpoise, where calculated for each cell of a grid scheme (Figure 5D-F). Results revealed that set net fisheries are carried out year round, with highest effort in winter and spring (Figure 5A and B). Harbour porpoises occur in the Baltic Sea all-season. In winter, highest densities are found in the Western Baltic (Figure 5A). From here Harbour porpoises move into the Meck-lenburg Bight during spring to late summer, where high densities can be found until September (Figure 5B and C). In the eastern part of the German Baltic Harbour por-poises are thought to belong to the small Baltic Proper population. Densities here are generally low, but sometimes peak in spring and summer (Figure 5 B, C).Conflict in winter (November-February) was mainly predicted for the Kiel Bight, as elsewhere Harbour porpoise densities in winter are low (Figure 5D). In spring (March-June), potential conflict extended largely into the area around Fehmarn, in-cluding the SCI Fehmarnbelt (Figure 5E). Similarly, conflict was also predicted for the Mecklenburg and Pomeranian Bight, including the SCI Western Rönne Bank; SCI Adler Ground and SCI Pomeranian Bay with Odra Bank. In summer and au-tumn (July-October) conflict potential remained strong around Fehmarn and along the western Mecklenburg coast, as well as in the Kiel and Pomeranian Bight (Figure 5F). An analysis of Harbour porpoise and set net fisheries distribution in the German EEZ of the North Sea showed seasonal association and high spatial overlap in summer (May-July), partly in the SCI Sylt Outer Reef (Herr et al., 2009). So far no proofed bycatch of Harbour porpoise has been reported in this area. However, as the SCI Sylt Outer Reef has been found an especially important feeding and breed-ing ground for Harbour porpoises and features highest densities of this species in European waters during late spring and summer, set net fisheries are associated with especially high bycatch risk in that area and should be considered with concern (ICES 2008b; Herr, 2009).

2.3 ICES Advice

Based on the results of the EMPAS project the scientific advisory committee (ACOM) of ICES has given advice on management options to reach the conserva-tion targets in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ according to the Bird and Habitat Directives (ICES, 2008a). The ICES advice is focused on the three main conflicts that have been identified within the EMPAS project a) impact of mobile bot-tom contacting gear b) bycatch of seabirds c) bycatch of marine mammals. The management options have been given by ICES for each of the ten Natura 2000 sites and are summarized in the next chapter. Additionally the ICES advice is describing the EMPAs process, the conflicts that have been identified between fishing activities and conservation targets as well as an assessment of the ecological consequences and socio-economic aspects of the management measures that have been advised.


Figure 5A-F: Average density of Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and setnet flags in the Baltic Sea, (A) winter, (B) spring and (C) summer, based on aerial surveys from 2002-2006. Densities were calculated for a 10x10 km grid scheme. Symbol size is positively correlated with the density of species. Conflict potential in winter (D), spring (E) and summer (F) was calculated as the product of Harbour porpoise density and mean setnet density of the surrounding cells.

A

B

C

D

E

F

Winter Nov.-Feb.

Winter Nov.-Feb.

Spring Mar.-Jun.

Spring Mar.-Jun.

Sommer Jul.-Oct.

Sommer Jul.-Oct.


2.3.1 Impacts of bottom contacting fishing gear on sandbanks and reefs in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ of the North Sea

SCI Sylt Outer Reef

Reefs

a) The first management option to help achieve favourable condition in this site would be to exclude all types of mobile, bottom-contacting fishing gears in the less trawled reef subareas. This would include closure of reef areas in the southwest and in the north of the site. These subareas are of especially high ecological importance and the current fishing intensity with mobile bottom contacting gears is relatively low.

b) A second management option would be to exclude mobile, bottom-contacting fishing gears from some or all of the additional reef subareas that are presently heavily trawled.

Sandbanks

In relation to the shrimp trawl fishery, ICES recommends that experimental closures of sufficient size and duration should be implemented to assess the impact of brown shrimp fisheries on long-lived, late maturing and otherwise low productivity benthic species (e.g. Spisula sp., Macoma baltica).

SCI Borkum Reef Ground

a) One management option would be to exclude all types of mobile, bottom-contacting fishing gears in the subareas of the site which are comprised of reefs. This option would allow favourable condition to be achieved in those biotope com-plexes in biologically reasonable timeframes.

b) A second management option would be to exclude mobile, bottom-contacting fishing gears from all sandbank and reef habitat in the site.

SCI Doggerbank

ICES recommends experimental closures of some subareas, with careful monitoring of both the closed experimental areas and appropriate control areas. This would provide at least some of the information needed to make knowledge-based deci-sions about managing fisheries in this Natura 2000 site to achieve favourable condi-tion for sandbank habitats and communities.


2.3.2 Bycatch of seabirds

In the Baltic German EEZ, a major conflict between conservation targets and fishing activities is the bycatch of seabirds in set nets (mainly bottom-set gillnets). Highest bycatch rates occur in areas where are a spatially and temporally overlap of fishing and feeding grounds of seabirds. Conflicts are most likely within the SPA Pomera-nian Bay because it has the greatest concentration of protected seabirds. ICES has advised three different management options to solve the problem of the bycatch mortality of seabirds in static gears (ICES, 2008a):

a) Full spatial year-round exclusion of static gear from the SPA Pomeranian Bay.

b) Closures for static gear in subareas of the SPA Pomeranian Bay at seasons with the highest overlap between set-net fisheries and seabirds.

c) Use of alternative fishing gears, for example fish traps.

2.3.3 Bycatch of marine mammals

There are three distinct populations of Harbour porpoise in German waters: 1) Cen-tral Baltic (German waters to the east of the Darss Ridge); 2) western Baltic (con-nected with the Belt Sea); and 3) North Sea. Options for fisheries management measures are described for the Natura 2000 sites in these marine areas, taking into account different levels of overlap between Harbour porpoises and current fishing activities (ICES, 2008a). These include:

Central Baltic (SCI Western Rønne Bank, SCI Adler Ground, SCI Pomeranian Bay with Odra Bank

a) Closing of set-net fisheries in all sites.

b) Mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices on all set nets and all vessel sizes (combined with an effective observer scheme).

c) Gear modifications, alternative gears (e.g. barium sulphate nets, fish traps)

Western Baltic: SCI Fehmarn Belt, SCI Kadet Trench

Closing of set-net fisheries in SCI Fehmarn Belt during the abundance peak (March–October) of Harbour porpoises.

North Sea, SCI Sylt Outer Reef

Closing of set-net fisheries.


3 Summary and conclusion

The EMPAS project has raised a high level of scientific and political interest in Ger-many and other EU member states. In 2008 the EU Commission has released a guid-ance document “FISHERIES MEASURES FOR MARINE NATURA 2000 SITES” (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The requests to member states, which have been formulated in this document have been largely fulfilled within the EMPAS process. EMPAS is seen by ICES as an in-novative project that can give guidance to other member states for the development of management measures for marine Natura 2000 sites in their territorial and sover-eign waters (ICES, 2008a). Beside others the Netherlands have started a similar project to EMPAS (Fishery Measures in Protected Areas, FIMPAS), which started in autumn 2009 and is also coordinated by ICES. The result of the EMPAS project and the ICES advice, are representing the scientific basis for the development of fisher-ies management measures for the marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. As member states have delegated their competence to manage fisheries in Community waters to the European Commission, measures to regulate fisheries in the German EEZ can only be taken by the EU Commission or the Council. In Germany the responsible Ministry for Nature Conservation (BMU) and fisheries (BMELV) will develop in cooperation fisheries measures in marine Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ. This process will performed under consultation of neighbouring member states and Federal countries, to apply for fishery manage-ment measures in due time (not later than 2012).

4 Literature

Benke, H., Siebert, U., Lick, R., Bandomir, B. & Weiss, R. (1998): The current status of Har-bour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters. Arch. FischWiss. 46: 97-123.

Bergman, M.J.N & Hup, M. (1992): Direct effects of beamtrawling on macrofauna in a sandy sediment in the southern North Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 49: 5-11.

Hammond, P.S., Berggren, P., Benke, H., Borchers, D. L., Collet, A., Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., Heimlich, S., Hiby, A. R., Leopold, M. F. & Oien, N. (2002): Abundance of Harbour por-poise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. J. App. Ecol. 39 : 361-376.

Herr, H. (2009): Vorkommen von Schweinswalen (Phocoena phocoena) in Nord- und Ostsee - im Konflikt mit Schifffahrt und Fischerei? Dissertation, Universität Hamburg. 118pp.

Herr, H., Fock, H. & Siebert, U. (2009): Spatio-temporal associations between Harbour por-poise Phocoena phocoena and specific fisheries in the German Bight. - Biological Conserva-tion 142: 2962–2972.

ICES (2006): Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (WKFMMPA), 3–5 April 2006. ICES CM 2006/MHC:10. 98pp.


ICES (2007a): Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (WKFMMPA), 10–12 April 2007, ICES Headquarters. ICES CM 2007/MHC:06. 72pp.

ICES (2007b): Interim Report 2006 for the ICES/BfN project: "Environmentally Sound Fisher-ies Management in Protected Areas" [EMPAS]. 107pp.

ICES (2008a): ICES Advisory Committee, 2008. ICES Advice 2008. Book 1: 303-317. http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp

ICES (2008b): Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (WKFMMPA), 2-4 June 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/MHC: 11. 160pp.

Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J. & Karakassis, I. (2006): Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 311: 1-14.

Kaiser, M.J. (1998): Significance of bottom-fishing disturbance. Conserv. Biol. 12: 1230-1235

Kock, K.-H. & Benke, H. (1996): On the bycatch of Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in German fisheries in the Baltic and the North Sea. Arch. Fish. Mar. Res. 44: 95-114.

Krause, J. C., Boedeker, D., Backhausen, I., Heinicke, K., Groß, A. & von Nordheim, H. (2006): Rationale behind site selection for the Natura 2000 network in the German EEZ. In: von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D. and Krause, J. C. (Eds.). Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe. Chapter 4. Springer Verlag: 65–95.

Mendel, B., Sonntag N., Wahl J., Schwemmer P., Dries H., Guse N., Müller S. & Garthe S. (2008): Profiles of seabirds and waterbirds of the German North and Baltic Seas. Distribu-tion, ecology and sensitivities to human activities within the marine enviroment. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 61. BfN, Bonn - Bad Godesberg.

Pedersen, S.A., Fock, H., Krause,J., Pusch, C., Sell, A., Böttcher, U., Rogers, S., Skov, H., Sköld, M., Podolska, M., Piet, G. & Rice, J. (2009a): Natura 2000 sites and Fisheries in Ger-man Offshore Waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66(1): 155-169.

Pedersen, S.A., Fock, H.O. & Sell, A.S. (2009b): Mapping Fisheries in the German Exclusive Economic Zone with special reference to offshore Natura 2000 sites. Marine Policy 33(4): 571-590

Schröder, A., Gutow, L. & Gusky, M. (2008): FishPact - Auswirkungen von Grundschlepp-netzfischereien sowie von Sand- und Kiesabbauvorhaben auf die Meeresbodenstruktur und das Benthos in den Schutzgebieten der deutschen AWZ der Nordsee. BfN Projekt Report (MAR 36032/15), Alfred Wegener Institute für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven: 124pp.

Siebert, U., Lehnert, K., Seibel, H., Hasselmeier, I., Müller, S., Schmidt, K., Rademaker, M. & Herr, H. (2007): Totfundmonitoring von Kleinwalen in Schleswig-Holstein 2007. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel.

von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D. & Krause, J. C. (2006): International conventions for marine nature conservation and marine protected areas relevant to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. In: von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D., and Krause, J. C. (Eds). Progress in Marine Con-


servation in Europe. Part I: MPAs in the German EEZ conventions and legal aspects, Chap-ter 1, Springer Verlag: 5 24.

Wiemann, A., Andersen, W.L., Berggren P., Siebert, U., Benke H., Teilmann J., Lockyer, C., Pawliczka, I., Skora, K., Roos, A., Lyrholm, T., Paulus, K.B., Ketmaier, V. & Tiedemann, R. (2010): Mitochondrial Control Region and microsatellite analyses on Harbour porpoise (Pho-coena phocoena) unravel population differentiation in the Baltic Sea and adjacent waters. Conserv. Genet. 11: 195–211.

Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A. & Garthe, S. (2009): Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – an overlooked threat to waterbird popula-tions. Biol. Conserv. 142: 1269-1281.


Fisheries measures in Dutch MPAs (FIMPAS Project) HANS NIEUWENHUIS & TON IJLSTRA

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The Netherlands

1 People – Nature – Fish

The project Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIMPAS) started early 2009. It aims at the introduction of fisheries measures in marine protected areas in the Ex-clusive Economic Zone of the Dutch North Sea by the end of 2011. These marine protected areas will be implemented following the European Birds and Habitat Direc-tives and established by the Dutch government. Fisheries measures will be estab-lished in the context of the European Common Fisheries Policy.

To enhance mutual cooperation the Dutch minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality signed a private agreement with Dutch environmental NGO’s and the Dutch fishing industry in 2008. Together they decided to work towards the goal of achiev-ing a sustainable and socially acceptable North Sea fishery industry. In their agree-ment parties expressed the wish to start a joint project for achieving common con-servation objectives. The environmental NGO’s and the fishing industry cooperate within the FIMPAS project to develop the necessary fisheries measures and thus achieve the conservation objectives in the Dutch marine protected areas of the North Sea. Given the international dimension of fisheries and environmental protec-tion in the North Sea the FIMPAS project has a strong emphasis on international cooperation. That is why in November 2009 the Dutch minister for Agriculture, Na-ture and Food Quality concluded an agreement with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) requesting ICES to organize the necessary scientific processes and give advice on the desired fisheries measures involving the relevant stakeholders in this process.

2 Science

The most important element of the FIMPAS project is the process of acquiring knowledge from all participants and to make it instrumental for the development of management options. For that reason much energy will be spent on finding a bal-ance between nature conservation and fisheries so that conservation objectives will be met. Furthermore, a scientific assessment of marine ecosystem values, their presence and location, and their threats in space and time, is crucial to identify and decide upon user conflicts. The active participation of ICES guarantees an impartial process of acquiring scientifically reliable knowledge.


3 An open process

The process that underlies project FIMPAS is based upon mutual trust, openness and accessibility of information and participation in order to ensure sustainable rela-tionships between all parties. This provides the opportunity to all parties to contrib-ute and discuss the subjects tabled during the workshops. Intensive communication and a wide circulation of scientific reports ensure the openness of the process.

4 International cooperation

In an international area such as the North Sea – one of the most intensively used seas of the world – cooperation between states and organizations is vital. Project FIMPAS is based upon such an international cooperation, guided by the ICES-led scientific process. Nature conservation in the North Sea is a shared responsibility of all North Sea states, so The Netherlands seek permanent cooperation between them. Close relationships will also be maintained with the North Sea Regional Advi-sory Council (RAC), the European Commission and other interested organisations. Support of these bodies is required to achieve the goals of the project.

5 Stakeholders

Project FIMPAS involves a stakeholder process in which all parties – environmental NGO’s, fisheries representatives and scientific institutions – are encouraged to par-ticipate and contribute. Participation in FIMPAS provides the opportunity to take part in discussions, to have access to documentation and to express and explain views. In doing so, participants share their knowledge and expertise for the benefit of a balanced end result.

6 Involvement

Collaboration between stakeholders and scientists is greatly appreciated and will be explored in three workshops:

Workshop 1: Establishing the body of data that will be input to the discussions in the next two workshops.

Workshop 2: Assessing the fisheries impact on the conservation objectives of the designated sites. In this workshop the user conflicts between fisheries and nature protection will be analyzed.


Workshop 3: Consideration of management actions to meet conservation objectives. The aims of this workshop is to develop proposals for a set of management meas-ures and to understand their socio-economic consequences.

The workshops will be chaired by Dr. Paul Connolly, director at the Irish Marine Re-search Institute. In order to inform anyone interested in project FIMPAS a mid-term event will be organized in the Netherlands in October 2010. A three-day concluding event will be organized in June 2011. The ICES end-advice will be used by the Dutch government as the basis for a proposal to the European Commission.


Flat oyster restoration with special reference to the western Wadden SeaAAD C. SMAAL, JACOB CAPELLE & HAN LINDEBOOM

Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES), The Netherlands

Abstract

The flat oyster Ostrea edulis is a famous and important indigenous species that oc-curs predominantly in Europe. The species has been exploited for human consump-tion since historic times. In almost all traditional areas the species is under threat or has been lost. Although dramatic mortalities have occurred due to diseases and un-favorable conditions, overexploitation is considered as the main cause for the de-cline. Restoration programs in combination with improved management schemes may provide opportunities for successful reintroductions. According to historic re-cords extensive oyster beds have occurred in the Wadden Sea that are now extinct. Under the assumption that environmental conditions are still valid for flat oysters a restoration program should be considered as improvement of the Wadden Sea eco-system is a priority policy issue.

1 Introduction

The flat oyster Ostrea edulis is a well-known indigenous species in Europe with a number of particular characteristics. As filter feeders they play a role in filtration of particles from the water column and regeneration of inorganic nutrients that is rele-vant in nutrient cycling. As eco-engineers they build structures that form habitats for other species. They are also an important feed source for higher trophic levels. It is evident that the most striking feature of flat oysters is their high appreciation for hu-man consumption since ancient times. As a consequence enduring and large scale exploitation has been manifest since the Romans, and transplantations and trade occurred all over Europe and further. The species has remarkable adaptive capaci-ties for low winter temperatures for example, but is also relatively vulnerable to dis-eases, contamination (TBT) and habitat loss. The latter is particularly relevant as there is a feedback between the oyster bed structure and their population develop-ment: settlement requires substrate that is provided by the adult oysters, and fisher-ies may easily imply overexploitation. Overexploitation, transplantations, diseases, invaders and various other factors have led to a dramatic decline in many areas in Europe. The species is now extinct in previously important areas such as the Wad-den Sea, Firth of Forth, Galician rias, a number of coastal lagoons in the Mediterra-nean and parts of the Black Sea. Only recently the species is acknowledged as a


conservation feature in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and it is also included in the OSPAR list of threatened/declining species and habitats (Ref. No. 2008-6), and in areas such as the Wadden Sea area (Petersen et al., 1996) and the Black Sea, (Zaitsev, 2010) the species is included in the red list of protected species. The potential for restoration of the flat oyster population in the U.K. has been addressed by Kennedy & Roberts, 1999 and Laing et al., 2006, and was also considered useful for the Wadden Sea (Anonymous, 2005). In this paper possible oyster reef restora-tion is described for the western Wadden Sea.

Figure 1: Distribution of flat oyster populations in Europe (Lapege et al., 2006).

2 Status of the flat oyster production, distribution and restora tion in Europe

Flat oysters are distributed along all coasts in Europe (Figure 1). The total produc-tion has shown a decline since decades (Figure 2). The main factor in this decline is most probably the successive occurrence of the protozoan diseases Marteiliosis and Bonamiasis in the sixties and the seventies. Present day main production areas are Spain, France, Denmark and Ireland (Figure 3). Historic production areas have suf-fered not only from diseases but also from overfishing (Korringa, 1980; Laing et al., 2006). An inventory by The Nature Conservancy has shown that in many places the flat oyster population is under threat or extinct (Figure 4) (Airoldi & Beck, 2007). Various initiatives have been taken to restore flat oyster populations. A long-term


program (1947-1972) has been carried out in England for improvement of commer-cial exploitation (Laing et al., 2006). In Northern Ireland a program was carried out for restoration in Strangford Loch (Kennedy & Roberts, 1999). A new program is in preparation in Scotland (Ashton & Brown in prep.). After Bonamia infestation, the oyster population in the Danish Limfjord has been removed and successfully re-stored; strict regulation of fishery has resulted in high yields since.

Figure 2: Capture fisheries and aquaculture production of O. edulis in Europe (FAO, 2009).

Figure 3: Production in tons of O. edulis in 2006 (FAO, 2009).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

197819

82198

619

9019

9419

982002

2006

met

ric

tons

wet

wei

ght

culture

capture


Table 4: Status of flat oyster populations in Europe with 0 = lost >99%, 1 = 90-99% lost, 2 = 50-89% lost, 1 = <50% lost (Airoldi and Beck, 2007).

ECOREGION BAY CONDITION

3 2 1 0

Adriatic Sea

Grado Lagoon

Gulf of Trieste

Po Delta Lagoon

Venezia Lagoon

Limski Canal

Mali Ston Bay

Aegean Sea

Thessaloniki Bay

Baltic Sea

Black Sea

Celtic Sea

Belfast Lough

Bertraghboy Bay

Cardigan Bay

Carlingford Lough

Galway Bay

Kilkieran Bay

Lough Foyle

Menai Strait

Milford Haven

Strangford Lough

Swansea

North Sea

Dogger Bank

Firth of Forth

Rivers Crough and Roach

The Wash

Wadden Sea


3 Flat oysters in the Wadden Sea

Historic records of oyster occurrence are all related to human exploitation. The flat oyster as a viable population became extinct from the western Wadden Sea in the first half of the 20th century. Prior to that large amounts of oysters were harvested from natural beds in the Wadden Sea (Havinga, 1932). An inventory in the period 1908-1910 showed quite a number of wild oyster beds in the Western Wadden Sea and the Zuiderzee, a former marine bay, now closed off from the sea (Figure 5). At the onset of the 17th century approximately 50 vessels were solely fishing on oysters from the island of Texel (Van Ginkel, 1996). Already in 1856 Allan wrote: “previously several million oysters were caught by the Texelian fishermen, but nowadays the catch only amounts to a few hundred thousand”. This observation is supported by the increase in the number of oyster vessels towards the 1850s, while the catch per unit effort (boat) declined (Van Ginkel, 1996). Also Hoek (1878) reported about heavy fishery pressure due to scarcity and competition between fishermen. In the 19th century attempts were made to culture oysters in the western Wadden Sea. Baert (1860) recorded that the French oyster pioneer Coste willingly gave advice on how to start artificial oysterbeds. And with a fund from the government, experiments were started, at the coast of Texel, Wieringen and along the coast of the North Hol-land mainland. Another artificial oyster bed was created between Schiermonnikoog and Zoutkamp above the coast of the Groningen district.

Another attempt was mentioned in 1871, when Bont et al. (1871) executed experi-ments to restore a depleted oyster bed in the western Wadden Sea at Wieringen. Complementary to culture trials, depleted beds were restocked with oysters that were brought in from Zeeland (SW Netherlands), these oysters with their higher susceptibility for low temperature all died in the severe winter of 1890-1891. Two decades later, this culture was restored again with oysters from Zeeland. In 1913 2.1 million oysters were harvested, in 1914 the 1st World War broke out, and the export of oysters came to an end. The oyster beds were abandoned and a final blew came when a deadly oyster disease killed almost all oysters on the European oysterbeds in 1921. This mortality was described in detail by Orton (1924), but the cause was never cleared, besides the indication “infectious disease”. In 1932 close to the island Texel culture plots were established and 6 million oysters were trans-ported from Zeeland to these plots for ongrowing and fattening. According to Hav-inga,(1932) the conditions for fattening the oysters in the Wadden Sea made it prof-itable to transport them from Zeeland. In Hoek (1902) the typical shape of the Zuiderzee oyster is described as: “broad, with two wing shaped extensions at the place of the ligament, quite flat and large shell-shoots, because of the large growth rate of this oyster”. The oyster, that according to Korringa (1980) was related to the oysters of the Firth of Forth (Scotland), was better adapted to harsh conditions than the oyster from Zeeland. Winters in the open Wadden Sea were harsher indeed and


this was probably the reason that the efforts for ongrowing Zeeland oysters failed. Eventually the oyster stocks disappeared. Together with the oysters an estimated 20 other invertebrate species associated with this biotope that disappeared or became rare (Wolff, 2000b). According to the “Report Sea Fisheries” dated from 1893, the decline of the abundant oyster population, may have been accelerated by environ-mental conditions (winter 1890-1891), but “there can be no doubt that the unlimited fishing on the oyster banks in the Zuyder Sea by itself would have led to the destruc-tion of these banks” (Van Ginkel, 1996). Also in the German and Danish part of the Wadden Sea, large oyster reefs could be found, which were also depleted by the 1940s (Hagmeier, 1943; Korringa, 1951). Still in 1992 living O. edulis specimen were found in the German part of the Wadden Sea, some were dredged from the shallow subtidal, others were found at the edges of littoral musselbeds (Reise, 1998). It is not known whether these specimens are reproducing or expanding.

In the past the largest amount of oysters could be found at the nearby oysterbank in the North Sea, between the Wadden Sea and the Doggerbank. Based on conserva-tive assumptions Berghahn and Ruth (2005) estimated the amount of oysters at the end of the 19th century in this North sea area to be at least 2.650 billion specimens. The Wadden Sea was estimated to harbour about 10 million oysters. In their paper the authors address several causes that might have contributed to the disappear-ance of the oyster beds in the Wadden Sea. The dependency of the Wadden Sea oyster population on the larvae from the North Sea beds, in combination with over-fishing and an increase in current velocity by coastal engineering of the Wadden Sea area are the primary factors. They do not consider overexploitation as such as the major cause. Other authors however ascribe the disappearance of O. edulis from the western Wadden Sea in particular to overexploitation, that included the removal of adults shells, hence substrate for larval settlement (Korringa, 1951; Wolff, 2000a). The closure of the Zuiderzee in 1932 can also be considered as a contributor, by the increasing turbidity or by the increase in maximum current veloci-ties (Wolff, 2000b; Riesen & Reise, 1982). As the oyster beds were already largely depleted in this area in 1932, other factors like overexploitation can be considered as the main cause of the collapse of the stock.

4 Restoration

The flat oyster has been an important species in the Wadden Sea and the likely cause of extinction is overexploitation. As a consequence, improved stock manage-ment may provide opportunities for re-introduction of the species in the area. This is presently a relevant issue as a new program has been launched for improvement of the Wadden Sea ecosystem (Programmateam, 2010). Yet, habitat changes have occurred as well, and the question is if boundary conditions are still valid for flat oys-


ter restoration. Given data on salinity, turbidity and food quantity and quality, and observations regarding population growth of other benthic filter feeders the Wadden Sea, conditions might be suitable for the accommodation of flat oysters.

Figure 5: Oyster (red) and mussel (black) grounds in the western Wadden Sea and Zuiderzee around 1910 (Havinga, 1932).

Particularly the recent expansion of the invasive Crassostrea gigas population may indicate suitable conditions for oysters (Smaal et al., 2005, 2009). However, the same observation can be considered as a threat for the restoration of flat oysters as they may suffer from colonization by Crassostrea spat. An important question there-fore regards the selection of suitable sites. This could best be approached in an ex-perimental way by conducting field tests of growth, survival and recruitment. Such


an approach is now planned for some Scottish areas, based on detailed protocol (Ashton and Brown, in prep).

Another issue considers the selection of parent populations with regard to genotype and disease status. The western Wadden Sea can be considered free of disease as there are no records of oyster occurrence since decades. A restoration plan should be based on Bonamia-free oysters in order to avoid risk of disease introduction. Given the prevailing winter temperature there is a need to use strains that can resist low temperatures. Special attention needs to be given to the introduction and estab-lishment of beds as substrate for recruitment. The issue is to develop a critical mass for sustaining a natural population in a relatively open system. Maintenance of the population can be supported by commercial exploitation. The development of oyster reefs is a stepwise process. In the initial phase restocking will be needed. A combi-nation of restoration and exploitation should provide the opportunity for oyster bed development that has an economic basis. Finally attention should be give to legisla-tion and stakeholder involvement. Oyster reef development in the Wadden Sea should fit within the requirements of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). For a sustainable approach involvement is needed of various stakeholders of Wadden Sea use and management.

5 Conclusions

1. The flat oyster species has been abundant and has disappeared from the Wadden Sea.

2. The causes are not fully clear, but historic overexploitation has played an important role.

3. Restoration programs and better management schemes provide opportunities for the species.

4. Given historic data on the extensive oyster populations of the Wadden Sea oyster res toration could be promising in this area.

6 References

Airoldi, L. & Beck, M.W. (2007): Loss, Status and Trends for Coastal Marine Habitats of Europe Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45: 345-405.

Allan, F. (1856): Het eiland Texel en zijne bewoners. Amsterdam: Weijtingh and Van der Haart

Anonymous (2005): Het tij gekeerd. In: Van der Eijk A (ed) Het tij gekeert, Herstelplan voor het Waddengebied


Ashton, EC. & Brown, J. (in prep.): Review of technical requirements, approaches and regu-latory framework for the restoration of native oysters in Scotland. Stirling University.

Baert, JFB. (1860): De Vrije Zeevisscherij, 's Gravenhage.

Berghahn, R. & Ruth, M. (2005): The disappearance of oysters from the Wadden Sea: A cautionary tale for no-take zones. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 91-104.

Bont de, Cordes & Smidt van Gelder (1871): Aanmoediging ter kunstmatige oesterteelt door de Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering van de Nijverheid

FAO (2009): Yearbooks of Fishery Statistics, Summary tables. (www.fao.org)

Hagmeier, A. (1943): Die intensive Nutzung des nordfrieschen Wattenmeeres durch Aus-tern- und Muschelkultur. Z. Fisch 39: 105-165.

Havinga, B. (1932): Austern- und Muschelkultur. Handbuch der Seefischerei Nordeuropas Vol 7: 64.

Hoek, PPC. (1878): "Oestercultuur in den vreemde en bij ons." Eigen Haard, 3: 41, 389-92.

Hoek, PPC. (1902): Rapport over de oorzaken van den achteruitgang in hoedanigheid van de Zeeuwsche oester, Ministerie van Waterstaat, Handel en Nijverheid, 's Gravenhage

Kennedy, RJ. & Roberts, D. (1999): A survey of the current status of the flat oyster Ostrea edulis in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, with a view to the restoration of its oyster beds. Biology and Environment 99: 79-88.

Korringa, P. (1951): The shell of Ostrea edulis as a habitat. Arch Neerl Zool 10: 32-152.

Korringa, P. (1980): Management of marine species. HelgolaÌˆnder Meeresuntersuchungen 33: 641-661.

Laing I, Walker, P. & Areal, F. (2006): Return of the native - Is European oyster (Ostrea edulis) stock restoration in the UK feasible? Aquatic Living Resources 19: 283-287.

Orton, JH. (1924): An account of investigations into the cause or causes of the unusual mor-tality among oysters in English oyster beds during 1920 and 1921. Fishery Investigations 11: 1-198.

Petersen, GH., Madsen, PB., Jensen, KT., van Bernem, KH., Harms, J., Heiber, W., Droncke, I., Michaelis, H., Rachor, E., Reise, K., Dekker, R., Visser, GJM. & Wolff, WJ. (1996): V. Red List of macrofaunal benthic invertebrates of the Wadden Sea. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 50: 69-76.

Programmateam (2010): Naar een rijke Waddenzee, programma voor natuurherstel in de Waddenzee.

Reise, K. (1998): Pacific oysters invade mussel beds in the European Wadden Sea. Senck-enbergiana Maritima 28: 167-175.

Riesen, W. & K. Reise (1982): Macrobenthos of the subtidal Wadden Sea: revisited after 55 years. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 35: 409-423.


Smaal, A., Van Stralen, M. & Craeymeersch, J. (2005): Does the introduction of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas lead to species shifts in the Wadden Sea? NATO Science Series IV- Earth and Environmental Sciences 47: 277-290.

Smaal, AC., Kater, BJ. & Wijsman, JWM. (2009): Introduction, establishment and expansion of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas in the Oosterschelde. Hegoländer Marine Research 63: 75-83.

Van Ginkel, R. (1996): The abundant sea and her fates: Texelian oystermen and the marine commons, 1700 to 1932. Comparative Studies in Society and History 38: 218-242.

Wolff, WJ. (2000a): Causes of extirpations in the Wadden Sea, an estuarine area in the Netherlands. Conservation Biology 14: 876-885.

Wolff, WJ. (2000b): The south-eastern North Sea: Losses of vertebrate fauna during the past 2000 years. Biological Conservation 95: 209-217.

Zaitsev YPe (2010): Black Sea Red Data Book. Online. Available HTTP: (http://www.grid.unep.ch/bsein/redbook/index.htm)


III New Marine Management Measures and Tools


Remediation of the European Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser sturio)JÖRN GESSNER¹, PATRICK CHÈVRE² & ERIC ROCHARD³

¹Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany; ²Centre national du Machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des Eaux et Forêts (Cemagref), St. Seurin, France, ³Centre national du Machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des Eaux et Forêts (Cemagref), Cestas, France

Summary

The European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) was a dominant part of the fish communi-ties of the major rivers and coastal waters of Western Europe. Since the 19th cen-tury the populations revealed a drastic decline in response to fisheries, pollution and hydro-construction. Today, they are extirpated from almost all rivers of its range. The only remaining population is documented from the Gironde system in south-west France. Today, its status is characterized by sporadic natural reproduction. Therefore, remediation efforts focus on ex situ measures in France and Germany. Since 2007 annual reproductions from the captive broodstock have resulted in stocking efforts in the Garonne-Dordogne exceeding 130,000 juveniles by 2009. Ex-periments to determine habitat and feed preferences as well as telemetry studies on migration patterns and dispersal in the rivers are carried out jointly. In the Elbe River experimental releases were started in 2008 with fish originating from France. Cam-paigns to raise public awareness for the conservation value of sturgeons are carried out throughout Europe by the French Fisheries Committee (CNPMEM). As a support measure, in 2007 the standing committee of the Bern Convention adopted an Action Plan (AP) for the Conservation and Restoration of the species, which has been transferred into national APs in France and Germany.

1 Introduction

Migratory fish species comprise the largest proportion of the most endangered aquatic fauna relative to the numbers of species encountered in Europe (Tockner et al., 2008). The reasons for their decline are mainly associated with the freshwater phase of their life cycle. During the critical life stages in freshwater, their perform-ance is considered an ideal indicator for the quality of riverine habitats due to the sensitivity towards river regulation and the temporal integration through the vastly extended life cycle. As a consequence of the attempts to improve riverine habitats the remediation of these migratory fish populations has become a priority objective in conservation of endangered aquatic species. In addition, the emblematic charac-


teristics of some migratory species, such as salmon and sturgeon, render them ideal flagship species for river restoration (Kirschbaum et al., 2004; Gessner et al., 2006). Major scientific and economic challenges are associated with the remediation of the migratory species since they inhabit an aquatic habitat which has been most drasti-cally altered by anthropogenic activities. Restoration attempts for critical functions of these habitats commonly involve potential conflicts with other stakeholders utilizing the river. Therefore, for the success of any such remediation trial, ecological and economic objectives are of equal importance and must both be included in the re-spective concepts targeting sustainable compromises.

2 Distribution and Status

Historically, A. sturio the European Atlantic or Common sturgeon has ranged from the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea via the Eastern North Atlantic, and the North Sea, to the Baltic Sea (Hol�ik et al., 1989). The range of the species is given in Fig-ure 1. Today only one population is proven to still persist in the Gironde, France. The species is listed as critically endangered according to the IUCN Red List (CR-A2d) and is protected under a number of International and European legislations (e.g. CITES, Bern Convention, European Habitat Directive) as well as under national legislation in most countries of its historic range. Strikingly, historical evidence for the reproduction and even the presence of the fish is lacking from a variety of river systems. Modelling approaches to identify driving factors for presence and absence of the species from systems have been developed only recently (Béguer et al., 2008).

Figure 1: Historic range and spawning rivers and relict distribution of Acipenser sturio at 1000 AD (A) and 2000 AD (B) (modified after Rosenthal et al., 2007).

1000 2000

A B


3 Population decline

Large maximum size, extremely long life-cycle, low absolute fecundity, long sea-sonal migrations and specific reproductive constraints render sturgeon populations highly vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts such as fisheries, hydro-construction, and habitat degradation (Rochard et al., 1990; Beamesderfer & Farr, 1997; Bore-man, 1997; Gessner, 2000). In the North Sea tributaries the fishery data indicate the collapse of the populations in the German tributaries between 1870 and 1910 (Blankenburg, 1910; Mohr, 1952). Only the Eider River population reproduced regu-larly until 1935 when the construction of the dam at Nordfeld rendered the spawning sites inaccessible (Kirschbaum & Gessner, 2000). Similar declines were observed in all rivers of the historic range. Today, A. sturio is restricted to only one relict popula-tion in the Gironde-Garonne-Dordogne basin in France where the population decline had its onset in the 1950s with the final phase of recruitment failure taking place only after the 1980s (Rochard et al., 1990; Lepage & Rochard ,1995; Williot et al., 1997).

The effects of the intensive harvest -particularly, mesh size-reduction and intensifi-cation of the coastal fishery- have repeatedly been documented (Blankenburg, 1910; Mohr, 1952; Trouvery et al., 1984; Debus, 1996). The quality of the habitat is largely influenced by several anthropogenic impacts. Impacts resulting from hydro-constructions upon river topology and bed structures impose multiple stressors upon the most specialized life cycle phase determining the success of entire year-classes and subsequently of the population, reducing the available habitat for early feeding stages and juveniles.

Climate change has been postulated to have played a significant role in the decline of A. sturio in the Baltic during the Little Ice Age (Ludwig et al., 2002; Tiedemann et al., 2007; Ludwig et al., 2008). The decreasing precipitation and increasing tempera-tures as well as the increase in extreme weather events forecasted as a conse-quence of the future climate alterations might contribute to a drastic alteration of the environmental conditions for migration and reproduction (Caissie, 2006), thus im-pacting the remediation measures. So far, the short- and long-term effects of climate change on fish populations are hardly understood (Ficke et al., 2008) although changes in precipitation and increased temperature are forecasted to increase water stress in a variety of areas. Although Béguer et al. (2007) stated that temperature only had a minor impact on the presence of A. sturio in watersheds. Continuous re-duction of river flow along with increased anthropogenic impact (water abstraction) might be detrimental for the performance of the species in changing environments.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

Year

Indi

vidu

als

(N)

MaleFemale

4 Conservation strategies

Historic attempts in protection were mainly focusing on the stability of economic in-come derived from the resource rather than environmental sustainability (Blankenburg, 1910; Ehrenbaum, 1913). The strategies to remediate the sturgeon stocks vary depending upon the aims to be achieved. To increase or to maintain the harvest of sturgeons while the populations are under pressure from environmental threats, stocking measures have been utilized as well as mesh size limitations, closed seasons and closed areas, increased legal size limits and prohibition of catching techniques (Quantz, 1903; Ehrenbaum, 1913).

An alternative approach for sturgeon conservation includes protection of the remain-ing individuals from the impacts identified as main threats, aiming at a natural re-covery of the stocks or populations (Beamesderfer & Farr, 1997). A sound man-agement of the fishery to avoid critical losses of potential spawners - also as by-catch - is inevitable to provide the opportunity for natural reproduction and utilization of the fecundity in latter stages of the life cycle of the species (Boreman, 1997).

Figure 2: Catch of male and female Acipenser sturio in the Gironde River system between 1991 and 1995 indicating events of controlled and natural reproductions.

controlled reproduction

successful rearing natural reproduction


5 Conservation Practice

In France, A. sturio has revealed a dramatic decline in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1980s catches of three to five ripe males and females annually totalled in 41 acci-dentally captured fish from the Gironde estuary which were sufficient for both natural and controlled reproduction trials. The numbers of spawners decreased dramatically after 1988 to only single individuals per year (Lepage & Rochard, 1997) as indicated in Figure 2. Although large numbers of juveniles have been observed in the estuary since 1988 (Rochard et al., 1997), only very few adult fish have been recorded in the Gironde during the last years (single males in 2005 and 2007). The data indicate a dramatic decline of the population throughout the last 15 years. Due to the fact that the French population ranged from the Gulf of Biscay to Norway and to Spain (Rochard et al., 1997) the impact of by-catch must be addressed in an international framework (Lepage et al., 2000; Michelet, 2006). Therefore, the enhancement of in-ternational cooperation was considered essential. The development of an ex-situ stock to secure the species survival was the only feasible option. Therefore, a broodstock was developed, from wild and captive bred F1 fish of 1995 to provide the basis for subsequent reproductions and releases to enhance or establish self-sustaining population(s) of the species (Williot et al., 1997). The first transfer of 40 yearling A. sturio took place in 1996 to the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB). With these fish an ex-situ measure was initiated com-prising joint research and exchange of material (Kirschbaum et al. 2004, 2006).

Figure 3: Forecast of Acipenser sturio broodstock available for reproduction annually from ex-situ stocks in France and Germany, based upon a mean age at maturity of 12 and 14 years and a matura-tion cycle of 2 and 4 years for 50% of the population.

02468

1012141618

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year

Indi

vidu

als

(N)

�/a

�/a


The ex-situ stocks of A. sturio in France and Germany comprise 8 fish hatched be-tween 1970-1989 originating from accidental captures, 21 juveniles resulting from the cohort 1994 and one group of 50 individuals from the controlled reproduction of 1995. The genetic relatedness of the fish has been investigated as a basis to de-velop a breeding plan (Ludwig et al., 2004, Tiedemann, in prep.). From the French ex-situ stock, a regular maturation of two or more fish has been noted in the years 2006 to date. Currently, the broodstocks are expanded by 300 fish per year to in-crease availability of mature fish in the future. A forecast on the future performance of the French ex-situ stock indicates the potential for reproduction of 4-7 females annually in the next 10 years (Figure 3). In Germany, 11 fish originating from the 1995 reproduction are currently reared (Williot et al., 2007) along with 150 fish of the 2007, 2008 and 2009 year classes respectively.

6 Releases

Beginning with controlled reproductions and releases in the Hudson River 1875 and in the Elbe River in 1877 and after, supplemental stocking has played a major role in sturgeon management. In 1995 the first successful release from controlled repro-duction took place in France. The releases into the rivers Dordogne and Garonne comprised 9000 individuals of several days to 4 month age (Elie, 1997). Since 2007 the reproductions from the ex-situ stocks resulted in a stocking effort in the Ga-ronne-Dordogne that exceeds 130,000 juvenile fish of 5g each by 2009. In the Elbe River catchment small scale experimental releases were started in 2008 to deter-mine habitat utilization and migration patterns under altered river conditions utilizing fish provided by Cemagref.

7 Accompanying research

Determination of fish migration and habitat utilization

Sturgeon spawning grounds in the past have been identified either by determining the presence of reproductively active fish or by collecting fertilized eggs but only rarely by direct observations (Bain et al., 2000). In order to verify habitat parameters for spawning and for early life stages experimental determination of substrate pref-erences were carried out. Experimental approaches have been carried out in Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus revealing initial insights into behavioural and physiological responses to availability and quality of different substrates e.g. habitat choice during the first 15 days upon hatch (Gessner et al., 2009). Comparable be-havioural experiments with A. sturio are on their way at the Cemagref facilities. In-situ migration patterns and habitat choice were determined in A. sturio yearlings


both in France as well as in Germany using ultrasonic telemetry comprising fish of 100-250g body weight (Fredrich et al., 2008). Habitat choice and migration were monitored by direct observation or through hydrophone arrays. Migration patterns revealed large individual differences. Also tidal waters revealed a strong impact upon migration behaviour. Residence seems to be associated with the suitability of the habitat for the respective life cycle stages.

Fisheries induced mortality/bycatch

The genetically precarious situation of the last population thriving in the wild is mainly deteriorated by continuously decreasing population size due to natural and especially fisheries mortality. A transformation of the commercial fisheries towards ecological sustainability has been requested frequently during the recent years es-pecially to minimize bycatch rates (Döring et al., 2005; Broeg, 2007). Although eco-logical sustainability should be one of the pillars of Common Fisheries Policy, the by catch mortality of protected marine species including sturgeons remains an un-solved problem in European waters, Fisheries induced mortality levels of M>0.05 have been shown to be detrimental for Atlantic sturgeons in modelling approaches (Gross et al., 2002; Lepage & Rochard, 1997; Boreman, 1997). Small scale in-creases in fishing mortality produce similar effects as large scale decreases in age-0 survival due to the long generation cycle (Boreman, 1994). Adaptation of detrimental fisheries techniques were carried out on the Baltic Sea coast. Gill net modifications have proven to be effective in reducing bycatch of sturgeons by 98% in experimental trials (Gessner & Arndt, 2006). As a first step the increased awareness and compli-ance of fishermen with regard to conservation of sturgeons is carried out by the French CNPMEM (National Marine Fisheries Committee) in a joint initiative with partners of OSPAR range states (Michelet, 2006).

8 Rearing conditions

Reproduction is a major topic for the success of the ex-situ measures. Therefore, the improvements of the assessment of reproductive status as well as the precision of the maturation assessment are among the most important short- to mid-term aims. Juveniles are reared for two purposes: a) for release and b) for the expansion of the broodstock. Rearing techniques in both cases reveal some similarities. Never-theless the fish designated to be stocked in the wild would have to be exposed to rearing conditions reflecting as closely as possible the variability and prepare the fish for the survival in the wild. Whereas future brood stock should be adapted to confined rearing conditions, accepting dry diets for improved growth and ease of rearing practice without loosing valuable behavioural traits.


9 Perspective

In the Action Plan of the Bern Convention (Rosenthal et al., 2007) attempts to sup-port a coordinated and concerted activity between stakeholders within the range are requested Remediation of the European sturgeon today is soley based upon the French population. The national Action Plan for Germany (Gessner et al., 2010) provides a clear framework for the future priorities in remediation of the endemic sturgeon species. A strict and intensive ex-situ conservation programme to take ad-vantage of the specimens already secured is the centrepiece of this work. This at-tempt is accompanied with the enforcement of an in-situ conservation programme to prevent further loss of the remaining specimens in open waters. The remediation must be accompanied by developing and applying a strategic (long-term) pro-gramme on habitat rehabilitation to assure that spawning and nursing sites meet the needs of the species and are freely accessible for the respective life cycle stages. In the future fisheries management has to assure the reduction of high mortality rates through unintended by-catch in the commercial and recreational fisheries, thus pro-viding the prerequisites for a programme to re-establish self-sustaining populations in selected key areas within the historic range.

Understanding the species specific requirements is essential to develop a set of sound criteria for effective remediation of the sturgeons in the North and Baltic Seas. As outlined in Gessner et al. (2006), the diversity of questions related to essential habitat characteristics and plasticity makes the efficient cooperation and harmoniza-tion of the research a necessity to increase the availability of critical information in reasonable time spans (Patrick & Damon-Randall, 2008). The development of a management plan to identify the specific requirements for remediation in certain preselected river systems is anticipated. These will have to adopt results of the cur-rent experimental release and to provide a guideline for future actions. A key factor for success will be the effective communication to and involvement of the public to create awareness and political pressure for urgently required support measures.

10 References

Beamersderfer, R. C. P. & Farr, R. A. (1997): Alternatives for the protection and restoration of sturgeons and their habitat. Env. Biol. Fish. 48 (1-4): 407-417.

Béguer, M., Beaulaton, L. & Rochard, E. (2007): Distribution and richness of diadromous fish assemblages in Western Europe: large-scale eyplanatory factors. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16, 221-237.

Blankenburg, A. (1910): Von der Störfischerei in der Elbe. Der Fischerbote II , 7-11.

Boreman, J. (1997): Sensitivity of North American sturgeons and paddlefish to fishing mortal-


ity. Env. Biol. Fish. 48 (1-49: 399-405.

Boreman, J. (1994): Impacts of changes in fishing- and habitat-induced mortality on repro-ductive potential of three estuarine fish species. In: Dyer, K.R.;Orth, R.J. Eds. Changes in Fluxes in Estuaries: Implications from Science to Management. Fredensborg, Denmark, Ol-sen and Olsen 373-378.

Broeg, K. (2007): Marine Fishery – Towards Low Impact Fishery Techniques Draft WWF Tech Rept., WWF International Centre for Marine Conservation, Hamburg, 83pp.

Caissie, D. (2006): The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology 51, 1389-1406.

Debus, L. (1996): The decline of the European sturgeon Acipenser sturio in the Baltic and North Sea. In: Advances in Life Sciences: Conservation of endangered freshwater fish in Europe; Symposium, Bern Switzerland, July 1994. Kirchhofer, A. u. Hefti, D. (Hrsg.). Birk-haeuser Verlag. Basel - New York: 147-156.

Döring, R., Laforet, I., Bender, S., Sordyl, H., Kube, J., Brosda, K., Schulz, N., Meier, T., Schaber, M. & Kraus, G. (2005): Wege zu einer natur- und Ökosystemverträglichen Fische-rei am Beispiel ausgewählter Gebiete der Ostsee. Bericht des F&E Vorhabens FKZ 80225010, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn Bad Godesberg, 300pp.

Ehrenbaum, E. (1913): Uber den Stör. Der Fischerbote V, 142-149.

Elie, P. (Eds.) (1997): Restauration de l'Ésturgeon Européen Acipenser sturio - Rapport Fi-nal du Programme d'Execution. CEMAGREF 24, 1-336.

Ficke, A.D., Myrick, C. A. & Hansen, L. A. (2007): Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Rev.Fish.Biol.Fisheries 17, 581-613.

Fredrich, F., Kapusta, A., Ebert, M., Duda, A. & Gessner, J. (2008): Migratory behaviour of young sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus in the Oder (Odra)River catchment - Preliminary re-sults of a radio telemetric study in the Drage (Drawa) River, Poland. Arch. Pol. Fish. 16 (2): 105-117.

Gessner, J. (2000): Reasons for the decline of Acipenser sturio L., 1758 in central Europe, and attempts at its restoration. Symposium on Conservation of the Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 in Europe, Madrid, Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanograph. 16 (1-4): 117-126.

Gessner, J., Arndt, G.-M.; Tiedemann, R.; Bartel, R. u. Kirschbaum, F. (2006): Remediation measures for the Baltic sturgeon: status review and perspectives. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 22 (Suppl. 1): 23-31.

Gessner, J., Kamerichs, C. M., Kloas, W. & Wuertz, S. (2009): Behavioural and physiological responses in early life phases of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill 1815) to-wards different substrates. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 25 (Suppl. 2), 83–90

Gessner, J., Tautenhahn, M., Borchers, T. & von Nordheim, H. (2010): Nationaler Aktions-plan zum Schutz und zur Erhaltung des Europäischen Störs (Acipenser sturio). BMU/BfN (Hrg.), Berlin, Bonn. 88 S.

Gross, M.R., J. Repka, C.T. Robertson, D.H. Secor & Van Winkle, W. (2002): Sturgeon con-servation: insights from elasticity analysis. Pp: 13-29. In Van Winkle, W., Anders, P. J., Se-cor, D.H. & Dixon, D.A. (ed). Biology, Management, and Protection of North American Stur-


geon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28.

Hol�ik, J., R. Kinzelbach, L.I. Sokolov & Vasil'ev, V.P. (1989): Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758. In: The freshwater fishes of Europe, 2, Acipenseriformes. Holcik, J. (Hrsg.), AULA Ver-lag, Wiesbaden: 367-394.

Jatteau, P. (1998): Étude bibliographique des principales caractéristiques de l’écologie des larves d’Acipenserides. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic.: 445-464.

Kinzelbach, R. (1987): Das ehemalige Vorkommen des Störs, Acipenser sturio (Linnaeus, 1758), im Einzugsgebiet des Rheins (Chrondrostei: Acipenseridae). Zeitschrift für Ange-wandte Zoologie 74, 167-200.

Kirschbaum, F. & Gessner, J. (2000): Re-establishment programme for Acipenser sturio: the German approach. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 16(4): 149-156.

Kirschbaum, F., Ludwig, A., Hensel, E., Würtz, S., Kloas, W., Williot, P., Tiedemann, R., Arndt, G.-M., Anders, E., Nordheim, H. von & Gessner, J. (2004): Status of the Project on Protection and Restoration of Atlantic sturgeon in Germany: Background, Current Situation, and Perspectives. In: Species differentiation and population identification in the Common sturgeon Acipenser sturio L. Proceedings of the International Expert Workshop, Blossin, Germany, June 27 - 28th, 2002. In Gessner, J. u. Ritterhoff, J. (Hrsg.). BfN Skripten 101: 36-53.

Kirschbaum, F., Hensel, E.C.K. & Williot, P. (2006): Feeding experiments with the European Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser sturio L., 1758 to accustom large juveniles to a new feed item and the influence of tank size and stocking density on growth. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 22 (Suppl. 1): 307-315.

Lepage, M., Taverny, C., Piefort, S., Dumont, P., Rochard, E. & Brosse, L. (2005): Juvenile sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) habitat utilization in the Gironde estuary as determined by acous-tic telemetry. Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications. FAO - COISPA., 169-177.

Lepage, M., Rochard, E. & Castlenaud, G. (2000): Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 restoration and gravel extraction in the Gironde estuary. Boletín Instituto Espanol de Oceanografía 16, 175-179.

Lepage, M. & Rochard, E. (1997) Estimation des captures accidentelles d'Acipenser sturio réalisées en mer [Assessment of accidental marine captures of A. sturio]. Cemagref étude 24, 377-381.

Ludwig, A., Debus, L., Lieckfeldt, D., Wirgin, I., Benecke, N., Jenneckens, I., Williot, P., Waldman, J. R. & Pitra, C. (2002): When the American sea sturgeon swam east. Nature 419: 447-448.

Ludwig, A., Williot, P., Kirschbaum, F. & Liekfeld, D. (2004): Genetic variability of the Gi-ronde sturgeon population. In: Proceedings of the International workshop on species differ-entiation and population identification in the common sturgeon Acipenser sturio L. Blossin. Gessner, J. u. Ritterhoff, J. (Hrsg.) BfN Skripten 101: 54-72.

Michelet, N. (2006): Campagne d'information et de sensibilisation du secteur des pêches maritimes relative aux captures accidentelles d'esturgeon européen en mer. Contribution à la mise en oeuvre d'un plan international de restauration de l'esturgeon européen. CNPMEM, Paris, 1-23.


Mohr, E. (1952): Der Stör. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest & Portig K.-G., Leipzig in Verbindung mit dem A.Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg / Lutherstadt 1-86.

Patrick, W.S. & Damon-Randall, K. (2008): Using a five-factored structured decision analysis to evaluate the extinction risk of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) Biologi-cal Conservation 141, 2906 – 2911.

Quantz, H. (1903): Störfischerei und Störzucht im Gebiete der deutschen Nordseeküste. Mit-teilungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins XIX , 176-204.

Rochard, E., Castelnaud, G. & Lepage, M. (1990): Sturgeons (Pisces: Acipenseridae); threats and prospects. J. Fish Biol. 37: 123-132.

Rochard, E., Lepage, M. & Meauze, L. (1997): Identification and characterisation of the ma-rine distribution of the European sturgeon Acipenser sturio. Aquatic Living Resources 10, 101-109.

Rosenthal, H., Bronzi, P., Gessner, J., Moreau, D., Rochard, E. & Lasén, C. (2007): Draft Action Plan for the conservation and restoration of the European Sturgeon (Acipenser stu-rio). CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS, 27th Standing Committee meeting, Strasbourg, 26-29 November 2007 T-PVS/Inf (2007) 4 rev, 1-47 +19pp Annex.

Tiedemann, R., Moll, K., Paulus, K. B., Scheer, M., Williot, P., Bartel, R., Gessner, J. & Kir-schbaum, F. (2007): Atlantic sturgeons (Acipenser sturio, A. oxyrinchus): American females successful in Europe. Naturwissenschaften 94: 213-217.

Tockner, K., Robinson, C. T., Uehlinger, U. & (eds.) (2008): Rivers of Europe. Elsevier, San Diego.

Trouvery, M., Williot, P. & Castelnaud, G. (1984): Biologie et Ecologie d'Acipenser sturio Etude de la Pecherie. Publications Cemagref 17, 1-80.

Williot, P., Rochard, E., Castelnaud, G., Rouault, T., Brun, R., Lepage, M. & Elie, P. (1997): Biological characteristics of European Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser sturio, as the basis for a restoration program in France. Environmental Biology of Fish 48, 359-372.

Williot, P., Rouault, T., Pelard, M., Mercier, D., Lepage, M., Davail-Cuisset, B., Kirschbaum, F. & Ludwig, A. (2007): Building a broodstock of the critically endangered sturgeon Acipenser sturio: Problems and observations associated with the adaptation of wild-caught fish to hatchery conditions. Cybium 31, 3-11.


Lobster protection: A demonstration of the potential for marine reserves in temperate coastal areasALF RING KLEIVEN, EVEN MOLAND, JAN ATLE KNUTSEN, ESBEN M. OLSEN & HALVOR KNUTSEN

University of Tromsø, Institute of Marine Research, Norway

Abstract

In Norway, the fishery for European lobster (Homarus gammarus) has gradually de-clined over the last 50 years, and in 2006 this species entered the IUCN red list as ‘near threatened’. The potential of marine reserves to conserve and rebuild fish stocks have received considerable attention worldwide during recent decades, and lobster species have generally shown a quick positive response to protection. How-ever, so far there has been a lack of information regarding the effects of protection for European lobster in the North-East Atlantic. In 2006, four experimental lobster reserves (size 0.5-1 km²) were implemented along the Norwegian Skagerrak coast-line in order to provide knowledge of the effects of small-scale closures on local lob-ster populations. Areas were nominated by local fishers following a series of consul-tations with public officials. The reserve areas have been monitored annually since 2004 (two years prior to protection) by the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research. In 2006, three control areas (where harvesting is allowed) were added to the survey. Parallel to reserve establishment and monitoring, a multidisciplinary research project was launched aiming to gain knowledge regarding a suite of issues related to re-serve establishment and design. Within the socioeconomic component of the project we conducted an integrated analysis of the implementation process in order to see 1) how the reserves met a set of selection criteria; 2) whether the scientific monitor-ing program was adequately designed; and 3) how different stakeholder groups were included in the implementation process. Within the biological component of the project we monitored change inside and outside reserves and studied lobster behav-iour in reserves in order to generate knowledge regarding the spatiotemporal distri-bution of individuals in relation to reserve design. Preliminary results from the moni-toring work show that reserve establishment led to a rapid increase in catch per unit effort, whereas change in controls was modest. Mean size of lobsters caught in the reserves increased, whereas mean size of lobsters caught in the control areas re-mained unchanged. These encouraging results suggest that marine reserves can be a helpful management tool in rebuilding the depleted European lobster population in Norwegian waters. Through communication with stakeholders and wide media cov-erage, this project has introduced marine reserve theory and terminology to the pub-lic. Currently, several regional marine reserve projects are underway.


Drilled Concrete Monopile - Riegers Flak R & D project executive summary EDWIN VAN DE BRUG

Ballast Nedam Offshore, The Netherlands

1 Introduction

For the Vattenfall study project “Foundation Concepts for the Kriegers Flak Wind farm”, located in the western Baltic Sea, Ballast Nedam Offshore and MT Piling have studied a new foundation concept for Offshore Wind Turbines: the Drilled Con-crete Monopile. The general principle consists of the installation of a prefab concrete monopile using a vertical drilling method. Ballast Nedam and MT Piling (a 50% sub-sidiary of Ballast Nedam) have currently developed this new offshore drilling method. This method is based on the horizontal tunnel drilling methods used on-shore. At the central railway station project in Amsterdam piles have been success-fully installed by the use of this new vertical drilling method.

Main reasons to initiate this development were:

- Prefab concrete monopiles are expected to be less expensive than steel monopiles

- Using concrete as base material has three main advantages:

� Less vulnerable to market related price fluctuations;

� Concrete fabrication capacity considerably higher than steel production capacity;

� Supply is not dependent on two or three main suppliers as it is for steel.

- At sites with very high soil resistance and at sites with likely occurrence of boulders there is no need for having two work methods in place (driving and drilling), which could result in:

� Lower risk profile for installation;

� Lower mobilization cost;

� No intermediate cost for changing from driving to drilling equipment.


2 Design

Concrete monopiles have been designed for a 3,6 MW and for a 5 MW Wind Tur-bine on a water depth of 30 meter (Figure 1). The calculations are based on two for the Kriegers Flak site representative soil profiles. A sand profile and a clay profile. The Monopile foundations have an interface level at +3.5 m Mean Sea Level (MSL). The top of the Monopile is fitted with a concrete ice cone.

The following is the result of the calculations.

� Monopile for 3.6 MW turbine:

- Outer diameter 6500 mm; wall thickness 500 mm; pile toe at -58.0 m MSL (1450 ton);

- Post-tensioning 27 anchors Cona BBR 22.06 (22 x �15.7 wires);

- Reinforcement � 85 kg/m3.

� Monopile for 5.0 MW turbine:

- Outer diameter 6900 mm; wall thickness 700 mm; pile toe at -61.0 m MSL (2200 ton);

- Post-tensioning 37 anchors Cona BBR 22.06 (22 x �15.7 wires);

- Reinforcement � 65 kg/m3.

Figure 1: Monopile dimension for 3.6 and 5.0 MW turbines.


3 Fabrication

The monopiles consist of pre-cast reinforced concrete ring elements. These ring elements will be assembled and post tensioned to form a complete monopile. At the bottom of the monopile a steel pile toe is mounted to enable the monopile to ‘cut’ through the soil and create an overcut. Injection lines are cast in the concrete lining to fill the overcut with a self hardening drill fluid. The fabrication of the ring elements and ice cones and the assembly of the monopiles will take place in a nearby har-bour. For the fabrication and assembly a yard of approximately 48.000 m² is re-quired. This is based on a continuous fabrication and installation process for a total amount of 128 foundations. The fabrication of the ice cone platforms and the ring elements could even be performed on a more distant location. The monopiles are transported from the fabrication yard to the installation location self-floating. The ice cone platforms will be supplied on barges.

4 Brief work method

The foundations will be installed by Heavy Lifting Vessel SVANEN. The work method consists of the following steps:

� The ice cone platform is delivered on a barge to SVANEN;

� The monopile is self-floating and transported to SVANEN. The monopile is up-ended by SVANEN;

� The monopile is positioned in a guiding frame. The monopile is lowered on the seabed, while in the guiding frame. The monopile will settle for several meters in the seabed (Figure 2);

� The drilling machine is lowered into the monopile and hydraulically clamped (Figure 2);

� Drilling starts inside the monopile and after settling stops drilling will continue un-derneath the monopile until final depth is reached (Figure 2). During settling a self hardening lubrication fluid will be injected in the overcut;

� After completion of the drilling process, the drilling machine is lifted out of the monopile;

� The ice cone platform in placed and grouted to the monopile;

� After placing the ice cone platform, SVANEN moves to the next foundation loca-tion;

� The cable installation and finishing works are performed by a separate installa-tion spread.


5 Drilling equipment

The functional design for the drilling machine has been made. The cutter head is designed such that it is possible to drill through the various soil layers present on the Kriegers Flak site without exchanging the cutter head. The diameter of the cutter head is variable Figure 3 a, b). This enables the machine to drill inside the monopile as well as under the monopile lining. The cutter head is designed to excavate in two directions and is able to deal with boulders, by crushing them in front of the cutter head. By creating a higher water level inside the monopile a slight overpressure to-wards the surrounding soil is maintained, this prevents uncontrolled excavation. A general flow from the outside to the centre of the cutter head will be generated by the discharge pump which is located in the centre of the cutter head. Soil and water are mixed to a slurry, which is further transported by the discharge pump into the slurry system. Only sea water is used as drilling fluid (without additives like ben-tonite).

The drilling machine is fixated in the monopile by the integrated clamping frame. This frame enables the drilling machine to move up- and down in the monopile. This frame also transfers jacking force and torque to the monopile. A guiding frame on SVANEN provides horizontal fixation for the monopile. This guiding frame also pre-vents the pile from rotating. The horizontal relaxation of mainly the clay layer is ex-pected to be relatively large. To minimize the risk of the monopile being fixated by this soil pressure, an overcut of 10 cm around the monopile is created (Figure 3 a). This overcut is filled with a special drilling fluid (‘Drill-mix’). This fluid provides lubri-cation and stabilization during drilling and hardens after completion of the drilling process.

Figure 2: Positioning of monopole, Lowering of drill in the monopole, Drilling and lowering of monopole.


6 Time schedule

Taking into account the weather and wave conditions for the Kriegers Flak site and the stability of SVANEN it might be beneficial for the exploitation of the project to in-stall all foundations in one phase. Therefore, this study has been based on a one phase fabrication and installation scheme. The total fabrication time for 128 founda-tions is 365 days. After an initial 100 day start-up time of the production yard every two days a pile will be completed. This equals the net offshore installation time.

Figure 3a: Drill located in the monopole. Figure 3b: Drill located (extended) underneath the monopole.

7 Risks

A risk assessment has been performed. Some initially rated high risks are listed be-low. These risks are already eliminated or reduced during the design study:

- Drilling machine stops due to large boulders > 50 cm, or any other unforeseen physical obstacles; possibly large boulders can be crushed to small pieces which can be handled by the drilling machine or the boulder will be pushed down in front

3a 3b


of the cutting wheel. Back-up procedure in place for pulling the drilling machine and removing the boulder.

- Total drilling process time is more than the setting time of the Drill-mix; Net drilling time estimated at 20 hours. Drill mix characteristics chosen such that hardening starts after 72 hrs.

- Drilling machine stuck in monopile due to malfunctioning retracting extendable cut-ting teeth; Design of the shape of extendable teeth is such that when pulling the machine up they are forced inside by steel pile toe. In case of hydraulics failure the pressure is automatically released.

- Monopile does not reach final depth due to high friction by relaxation of the over consolidated clay layers; Soil properties of clay studied and expected relaxation 30 to 85 mm. Overcut is chosen at 100 mm to eliminate this risk. Perform additional laboratory testing on clay layers to determine exact properties of these soil layers. And if required adjust overcut dimensions in detailed design stage.

- Monopile does not reach final depth due to wall and tip resistance bigger than un-der water weight of monopile; Soil properties and pile tip soil failure mechanism are studied. Work method allows for overcut and drilling under monopile lining by the drilling machine to eliminate this risk.

- Weather conditions exceed safe operation limits during installation. Three day weather forecast is obtained and drilling operations will only start at safe weather windows.

8 Environmental aspects

Comparing the application of a drilled concrete monopile to the traditional steel hammered monopile the following may be concluded. The concrete drilled version will cause less negative impact to the environment.

- No under water noise or vibrations that may cause damage to sea-life;

- The CO2 emission during fabrication of a concrete monopile is much lower than for a steel monopile;

- The durability of concrete in an offshore environment is much better compared to steel. There is no need for cathodic protection or coatings causing emissions of metals like aluminium or zinc.

The environmental aspects of the drilling process are similar to regular offshore drill-ing operations. Different concepts are studied for addressing of the excavated soil, varying from local disposal of the excavated soil to shipping the soil to shore. For the


Kriegers Flak at this stage it is assumed and expected that a permit will be issued for local disposal.

9 Cost

A cost estimate is made based on a continuous fabrication and installation process for all 128 foundations. This estimate includes the following aspects.

A. Investments:

- Fabrication yard for the monopiles and ice-cones including formwork, gantry-cranes, post tension facilities, load-out facilities;

- Drilling machines and hydraulic power units (2 of each);

- Supporting equipment;

- Project specific adjustments to Svanen.

B. Production:

- Monopile and ice-cone fabrication.

C. Installation:

- Mob/demob equipment;

- Transport of monopiles and ice-cones to Svanen;

- Drilling of the monopiles;

- Installation of the ice-cones.

The presented graph is based on production and installation of the complete project (128 foundations) in one phase. This results in the following cost per MW for the dif-ferent turbine types: 3.6 MW; approx. € 500.000, - / MW, 5.0 MW; approx. € 400.000, - / MW.


€ 300.000�

€ 550.000�

€ 800.000�

€ 1.050.000�

€ 1.300.000�

€ 1.550.000�

€ 1.800.000�

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Cost�/�M

W

No.�of��foundations

Cost�/�MW

3.6�MW�Turbine� foundation 5.0�MW�Turbine� foundation

Figure 4: Total investment costs per MW (engineering, fabrication, transport and installation included).

10 Conclusions

1. The concrete monopile is a technical sound solution for an offshore wind turbine foundation;

2. The installation of the concrete monopile by vertical micro tunneling from HLV Svanen, is a technical feasible concept.

3. The drilled concrete monopile is economically very competitive, especially for pro-jects consisting of 40 or more foundations.

4. The negative environmental impact is comparable or even smaller than for other types of offshore wind turbine foundations.


New methods for military ammunition clearance in the marine environmentSVEN KOSCHINSKI

Germany

Abstract

Old sea-dumped ammunition poses a threat to marine mammals and the environ-ment. For cetaceans and seals, the conventional ammunition removal by blasting is a particular hazard. High sound pressure and explosion-related shock waves can lead to severe injury and hearing impairment in marine mammals at considerable distance from detonation sites. Alternative techniques to render old ammunition harmless are available and in order to minimize harm to marine mammals detona-tions in the marine environment can be avoided in most cases. Advanced tech-niques for treatment of ammunition are presented comprising freezing, the use of robotic equipment, Water Abrasive Suspension cutting, treatment in a salvage pres-sure container, disposal in a Static Detonation Chamber and photolytic destruction of explosive substances. If underwater detonations cannot be avoided, suitable miti-gation measures need to be introduced. Test detonations demonstrated that it was possible to reduce the danger area by over 98% when using a double bubble cur-tain.

1 Introduction

Marine mammals face serious threats from anthropogenic activities in many parts of the world. While some interaction with humans is well understood, the threat posed by blasting and the decay of underwater unexploded ordnance (UWUXO) has yet to be quantified. Conventional ammunition has been discarded in waters all over the world. Dumping in coastal waters and on the High Seas represented a “quick and dirty” method to get rid of surplus material and problematic waste. In years following World War (WW) II almost no alternative to sea dumping and burying appear to have existed to demilitarise existing arsenals. Often, ammunition was dumped in transit to dumping sites. Sometimes, ammunition was relocated during fishing activi-ties, thus making it difficult to locate and salvage dumped ammunition. Often, the history of UWUXO has been hidden to the extent that even the military possesses little information on the exact location of disposal sites, their contents and the risks they pose to the environment. UWUXO is considered a hazard to humans when found during fishing activities, construction work or other marine activities. Ammuni-tion shells start to decay in sea water releasing toxic explosive substances into the


surrounding ocean, posing a threat to the marine environment. Underwater explo-sions, the conventional way to treat UWUXO, pose a serious threat to biota such as marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Detonations are the strongest point source of anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. High sound pressure and explosion-related shock waves can lead to severe injuries and hearing impairment in marine mammals at considerable distance from the detonation site.

According to estimates, at least 500,000 tons of ammunition from WW I and II plus an unknown amount of modern ammunition from the Federal German Navy, the former National People’s Army of the German Democratic Republic, NATO and So-viet Navy activities still lie in German waters of the North and Baltic Seas (Nehring, 2008). As a rule, located large ammunition items (mines, torpedoes, aircraft bombs etc.) are immediately labelled "danger in delay" by authorities and blown up as quickly as possible. Recently, innovative ways of recovering and disposing of am-munition have been considered which would pose less of a threat to wildlife in the oceans. Many of these methods are already used while the development of others is advanced enough putting them to practical tests. These new methods have the po-tential of substantially reducing harm to the marine environment.

2 The German Baltic as an example for a marine area with large amounts of ammunition deposited

The former treatment of WW II ammunition located in the Baltic by way of explosion was questioned by German NGOs in 2006 after the discovery of a total of 130 large ammunition items (torpedo heads, ground mines, moored contact mines) and a number of small mines at two locations in the former ammunition dumping site “Kol-berger Heide” (Kiel Bight). By that time 33 of the large items had already been blown up by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein (SH) due to plans for re-routing a shipping lane.

According to old documentation, 8000 torpedo heads and 10000 mines among other things, were initially dumped at “Kolberger Heide” (Nehring, 2007). Their where-abouts are unknown. Some of the ammunition was probably removed after the war by scrap metal seekers (Hofmann, 1956) and on the occasion of the Olympic Sailing Competitions held in nearby Kiel in 1972. It appears to be essential to thoroughly in-vestigate post-war records on the deposition of ammunition in order to obtain more accurate information. The same applies to the remainder of the Baltic region where only small scale project specific but no systematic search for the amount, location and condition of UWUXO has been conducted so far. Removal of UWUXO generally takes place by way of explosion: if old ammunition is located and considered to form an immediate threat, the ammunition is blasted by attaching an explosive charge (usually contact donor-charges of 4 kg PETN, a military explosive) to the ammuni-


tion shell. Sometimes, the ammunition is pulled elsewhere before blasting in order to keep a safe distance to underwater structures or other ordnance items. Safety zones of several kilometres for swimmers, divers and boaters are installed and monitored by authorities.

3 Danger of blasting to marine mammals

Blasting creates several risks to marine mammals and the environment. The quick expansion of a gas bubble as a result of a marine explosion creates an immediate positive shock pulse followed by a series of positive and negative pressure changes in amplitude originating from the collapse of the bubble (Urick, 1983). Such rapid pressure changes can cause injury in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995; re-view in: Minerals Management Service 2004). Most sensitive to pressure, ears of marine mammals are the organs most susceptible to injury (Ketten, 1995). Different sound velocities impacting on tissues of different densities can lead to severe physi-cal damage such as laceration and rupture (Landsberg, 2000). Blast effects are greatest in organs containing gas (nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, lungs and gastrointestinal tract, or the middle-ear cavity in pinnipeds). Injury of these tissues can create air embolisms. Destruction of cetacean acoustic jaw fats can result in fat embolisms. Blast over-pressure can result in haemorrhages in the brain and ears, and injuries in the middle and inner ear. A rapid increase in venous pressure caused by compression of the thorax and abdomen by the shock wave can lead to rupture of small blood vessels such as in the brain.

Another effect of explosions and other loud noise is acoustic trauma, i.e. damage to the cochlear structures. This effect can either be temporary (temporary threshold shift, TTS) due to physiological exhaustion of sensory cells or permanent (perma-nent threshold shift, PTS) due to loss of hair cell bodies and subsequent neuronal degeneration. The extremely short signal rise time in an explosion may immediately lead to PTS (Ketten, 1995). The pressure from a shock wave, and thus the potential for injury depends largely on the charge weight and specific detonation velocity1 (Urick, 1983). It is difficult to determine the distance at which physical injury, hearing impairment or disturbance occurs (Richardson et al., 1995). The range over which marine mammals can be impacted is dependent on the pressure level at the source, sound/energy radiation in the water, type of sea floor and specific thresholds for noise exposure which are still lacking. Southall et al. (2007) suggested dual2 noise-exposure criteria for marine mammals. However, their recommendation for pulsed

1 Modern explosives and old ammunition in a good condition detonate “high-order”, i.e. with a high detonation velocity (5,000 to 10,000 m*s-1 resulting in an extremely short rise time of the pulse) whereas aged explosives in some cases may “burn” with an unpredicted velocity which may be much lower (“low-order”). 2 for peak-values and sound exposure level (SEL).


sounds cannot be transferred to explosions in which the maximum energy is reached almost instantaneously. Pulsed sounds deriving from seismic airguns, so-nar or pile driving for which dual noise exposure criteria were developed have longer rise times. Using an equation by Thiele & Stepputat (1998) based on experimental measurements and injury patterns of marine organisms during underwater explo-sions, safety distances for humans and cetaceans can be calculated. Based on a high probability of lethal or severe injury these radii are 1.7 km for swimmers, 4.3 km for divers and 2.8 km for harbour porpoises for a 350 kg explosive charge similar to those found in Kiel Bight. The PTS zone extends much further than this zone of physical injury. TTS can be assumed at an even greater distance (Koschinski, 2007).

Underwater explosions are not always under the control of humans. Some explosive charges become very sensitive and volatile with age (cf. Bohn, 2007). From seismo-graph data it was concluded that self detonations of deposited old ammunition has occurred in a trench off the Scottish coast (Ford et al., 2005). The matter of self-detonation is still being discussed in a controversial manner among experts.

4 Toxicology

A detailed assessment of risks to marine mammals and to the environment associ-ated with dumping of ammunition is lacking. The long-term behaviour of chemical substances in ammunition is extremely variable and largely dependent on a number of different factors3 (Hart & Stock, 2008). This makes it extremely difficult to predict chemical reactions in water, sediment and biota at various stages of decomposition. With ageing of the dumped ammunition, the risk of leakage of chemicals from UWUXO increases and becomes a matter of serious concern. Conventional explo-sives such as TNT, RDX and Hexanitrodiphenylamine spread into the marine envi-ronment.

All of them and many of their degradation products are highly toxic and mutagenic to marine organisms (Won et al., 1976; LfULG, 1998; Ek, 2005). Heavy metals known to be contained in UWUXO (e.g., in fuses) are being dispersed. Some of these sub-stances such as mercury have a high bioaccumulation potential. They are sus-pected of inducing adverse effects on the immune and endocrine systems in ceta-ceans (Strand et al., 2005). MLUR4 (2007) analysed water and sediment samples from “Kolberger Heide” for explosive substances and their typical degradation prod-ucts. The highest concentration of TNT in a sediment sample was 7.1 mg*kg-1 sedi-ment. Strange enough this was compared to a limit considered to be safe for chil-

3 temperature, pH-value, salinity, pressure, currents, chemical composition, corrosive activity, solubil- ity, purity, stability and reactivity. 4 Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein.


dren’s playgrounds of 20 mg*kg-1 soil. This comparison shows the perplexity of some authorities when dealing with the effect of explosives on the ecosystem.

To date, no legal threshold levels exist for the marine environment. Barton & Porter (2004) measured a 2700-fold higher TNT concentration (19.3 g*kg-1) next to a bomb and documented a declining trend with distance in concentration of explosive sub-stances in the water, sediment and biota. A proper design of the sampling scheme appears thus crucial for the outcome of such studies. Francken et al. (2009) pre-dicted an exponential decrease in TNT concentration in marine sediments with dis-tance to ammunition items. Sedimentation, currents and redox equilibrium are other factors determining contamination with explosives and their derivates (Pfeiffer 2007a; DeCarlo et al., 2009).

Content of biota near UWUXO depend on the degree of mobility of the biota – with highest concentrations measured in sessile organisms (Barton & Porter, 2004). Ac-cumulation in biota, especially filter feeding sessile organisms, may be explained by dispersal of granular particles which are easily ingested. Toxicity originating from point sources may not be as relevant for highly mobile organisms such as marine mammals as it is for benthic invertebrates (cf. Ek, 2005). Although the bioaccumula-tion potential of TNT and other explosives has not been sufficiently studied to date, there is no reason to believe that there is no effect on marine mammals. There is an indication that some of the biotransformation products of TNT (of which the toxicity is unknown) rather than TNT itself will be accumulated (cf. Beddington et al., 2005).

5 Possible alternatives to blasting

Salvage operation using freezing techniques

Old ammunition is known to become unstable during recovery and transport and may leak when disturbed (Heaton & Frankovic, 2009). One option for salvaging such ammunition is iced using liquid nitrogen or supercooling equipment (Mayer, 2007). The ice encases the filling, provides a high resistance and thus stabilises and seals ammunition objects during treatment or transport. Using this technique, chemical re-actions are decelerated and the risk of an unwanted detonation is lowered. Trans-porting iced ammunition to a locality where it can be safely deposited or removed, is conceivable. To further increase the stability and to retain the low temperatures us-ing less energy it is possible to conduct this process in a detonation safe steel con-tainment (Pfeiffer, 2007b). Although insulation can provide some protection against thermal conduction, the high energy demand may restrict this technology to use in temperate and cold water environments.

Remotely operated salvage operation using robotics


The main objective of the use of robotics and remotely operated equipment is to minimize hazard to the people involved in the salvage. Several different salvage and transportation systems are commercially available, including remotely operated ve-hicles, lift bags or task specific robots (Schwartz, 2009). Available systems have a flexible design and allow safe and precise handling of ammunition objects. They only need a small support team and can work around the clock. Due to their unlim-ited time of operation on the seafloor and applicability to great operation depth these methods are extremely cost effective (Coughlin, 2009).

Apportioning and deactivating ammunition using jet cutting

Water Abrasive Suspension Jet cutting is a versatile method applicable to apportion-ing large ammunition, or to deactivate fused ammunition. Using remotely controlled jet cutting renders the explosion of old ammunition unnecessary. These advanced systems can cut precisely with a thin cut through rust, coral, concrete or steel in wa-ters down to 600 m depth. Such treatment will not initiate explosion (Miller, 2009). Robotic equipment (manipulators) is available for this technology (Eder, 2007; Heaton & Frankovic, 2009). Also for mines exhibiting dismantling barriers or bombs having degraded but still active fuses water jet cutting represents a secure alterna-tive to blasting. Springs in mechanical fuses are simply severed and cables discon-nected during cutting (Eder, 2007). However, jet cutting may require the develop-ment of custom designed manipulators to cope with difficulties occurring in ammuni-tion buried, piled up or covered in thick crusts.

Treatment in salvage pressure container

Salvage pressure containers are suitable for recovery, deactivation and treatment of ammunition. This explosion and chemical resistant closed system keeps all contents inside in case of an unwanted explosion. Special receptacles can be used to neu-tralise chemical ammunition. Also cutting and defusing can be done inside the con-tainer to prepare ammunition for incineration in treatment plants.

In-situ ammunition destruction with Static Detonation Chambers

Some land-based technologies for treatment of old ammunition can also be applied to sea-dumped ammunition (Stock, 2007). Static Detonation Chambers which allow a safe destruction and cleaned off-gas release are available as stationary and mo-bile units for 1 kg to 3 kg of explosives per feeding. All types of ammunition are safely destroyed in a Static Detonation Chamber at approximately 500-550°C. The feeding system can operate without personnel involved close to the plant.

Photolytic ammunition removal


Photolysis is a common method to remove warfare-related organic substances from contaminated water. This method provides for the explosives contained in old am-munition on the seafloor to be flushed out with hot water and to be collected in a reservoir on a barge. The organic explosive substances are then removed from the water using photolysis allowing a quick and complete mineralization. In the labora-tory, it was possible to remove almost all of the main components contained in old ammunition using UV light (Haas & Pfeiffer, 2007). The addition of an activated car-bon filter allows for residue-free destruction of explosives. Customary UV facilities have a capacity of up to 100m3 of an aqueous solution per hour.

Combination of suggested methods

In many cases, one method alone is not capable of removing UWUXO. Therefore, the some of the above-mentioned methods have to be combined. It will always re-quire a case-specific decision to determine which methods can be used safely, are technically feasible, economical and effective. For example, composite explosives such as shooting wool no. 395 are particularly dangerous when in contact with oxy-gen. Such ammunition requires recovery and disposal when still wet. As a conse-quence, the combination of robotics, water jet cutting and a Static Detonation Chamber offers a safe and environmentally sound disposal technique (Heaton & Frankovic, 2009). Alternatively, for photolytic treatment jet cutting can provide for holes to be cut into the shells in order to flush out the explosives.

Mitigation during blasting using a bubble curtain

The first priority when treating ammunition should be its recovery and safe disposal. If underwater detonations cannot be avoided, suitable mitigation measures for ma-rine mammals must be taken. Sound and shock waves resulting from underwater blasting propagate almost undisturbed through water. Unlike air, water is incom-pressible and waves radiate much faster. In air, attenuation is much higher. Thus, sound attenuation within bubbly water is much higher than in water without bubbles due to the large differences in acoustic impedance of water and air and resonance effects in the bubbles (Nützel, 2008).

Bubble curtains are walls of bubbles rising from a bottom-resting nozzle pipe con-nected to a compressor. A bubble curtain cushions the detonation by absorbing much of the energy of the blast and sound wave. They can effectively reduce the sound pressure and the shock wave and thus substantially reduce the danger zone for marine mammals and other marine organisms (Nützel, 2008). Bubble curtains and physical barriers have been successfully utilized to protect rare or commercially

5 45% TNT, 30% Ammonium nitrate, 20% Aluminium, 5% Hexanitrodiphenylamine.


valuable fish species from underwater detonations and thus are recommended by some nature conservation agencies in the US in cases when blasting activities are being conducted (Keevin et al., 1997; Keevin, 1998). In order to build up an effective bubble curtain, knowledge of the development and behaviour of underwater bubble formation is essential (Wreth, 2007). Important parameters when creating an effi-cient bubble curtain are:

� Air pressure of the supplying compressor

� Volume flow rate of compressed air

� Shape, arrangement and number of nozzles per metre of nozzle pipe

� Nozzle/bubble diameter

However, one must keep in mind that bubble curtains do not prevent harmful sub-stances from entering the environment when an incomplete combustion of explo-sives occurs. Bubble curtains have a number of disadvantages and limitations (Keevin et al., 1997). They require optimisation to be used more widely in the future. It often proves to be difficult to deploy the pipes when the supporting vessel drifts due to wind or currents. Also, moving the bubble curtain system to a new location af-ter each blasting operation may be complicated. For large explosive charges the air flow needed requires big compressors and an adequate power supply. When am-munition is blown up close to the coast, a fixed pressure pipe from land may be con-sidered. Present designs of bubble curtains are quite costly which deters authorities from making them mandatory.

6 Research and development needs

Specialized salvage methods and equipment need to be developed or existing tech-nologies adapted for use in coastal waters and on the High Seas. The technological basis is available. Photolytic destruction of organic explosives needs further devel-opment and tests before it can be considered operational for removal of large am-munition. Optimised manipulators for water jet cutting systems as well as flexible encasement methods during cutting must be developed to avoid dispersion of ex-plosive filling when apportioning large UWUXO items.


7 References

Barton, J. V. & Porter, J. W. (2004): Radiological, chemical and environmental health as-sessment of the marine resources of Isla del Vieques bombing range, Bahia Salina del Sur, Puerto Rico. Underwater Ordnance Recovery, Inc. Norfolk VA. 44 pp.

Beddington, J., Kinloch, F. R. S., Kinloch, A. J. & Eng, F. R. (2005): Munitions Dumped at Sea: A Literature Review. Imperial College Consultants Ltd. London, UK. 90 pp.

Bohn, M. A. (2007): Wenn Explosivstoff älter wird - wird er auch gefährlicher? Kampfmittel-beseitigung und der Faktor Zeit - Untersuchungen zu Veränderungen in der Empfindlichkeit. Fachtagung Kampfmittelbeseitigung, 12.- 13. Feb. 2007 Bad Kissingen. Bund Deutscher Feuerwerker und Wehrtechniker e.V. Schortens, Germany. 31 pp.

Coughlin, J. (2009): Remotely Operated Underwater Munitions Recovery System to Recover Discarded Military Munitions. presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, held in Honululu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009

DeCarlo, E. H., McDonald, K., Garcia, S. & Payne, Z. (2009): Selecting an Appropriate Ana-lytical Suite for DMM Disposal Sites. presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Un-derwater Munitions, held in Honululu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009

Eder, F. (2007): Handhabung und Entschärfung bezünderter Munition mittels Wasser-strahltechnik. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Ek, H. (2005): Hazard assessment of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) from dumped ammunition in the sea. PhD. Göteborg University (Department of Environmental Science and Conserva-tion). Göteborg , Sweden

Ford, G., Ottemöller, L. & Baptie, B. (2005): Analysis of Explosions in the BGS Seismic Da-tabase in the Area of Beaufort's Dyke, 1992-2004. CR/05/064. British Geological Survey. Ed-inburgh, UK. 11 pp.

Francken, F., Ruddick, K. Roose, P. & Martens, R. (2009): Modeling Dispersion of Toxic Chemicals Leaking from Ammunition Dumped at the Bottom of the Sea: Paardenmarkt Site (Belgium). presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, held in Honululu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009

Haas, R. & Pfeiffer, G. (2007): Hochgespült und weggestrahlt - Munitionsbeseitigung mit UV-Licht. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Hart, J. & Stock, T. (2008): Recent Scientific and Political Developments Regarding Sea-Dumped Chemical Weapons in the Baltic Sea. ASA Newsletter 8-5. Presented at:'International Seminar on Sea-Dumped Chemical Weapons: Perspectives of International Cooperation', Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Republic of Lithuania, 30 Sep.-1 Oct. 2008, Vilnius, Lithuania. 16 pp.

Heaton, H. & Frankovic, J. (2009): New Developments in Disposal of Underwater Munitions. presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, held in Honu-lulu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009


Hofmann, F. (1956): Kampfmittelbeseitigung in Schleswig Holstein . Explosivstoffe 4: 584-589.

Keevin, T. M. (1998): A review of natural resource agency recommendations for mitigating the impacts of blasting. Reviews in Fisheries Science 6: 281-313.

Keevin, T. M., Hempen, G. L. & Schaeffer, D. J. (1997): Use of a bubble curtain to reduce fish mortality during explosive demolition of Locks and Dam 26, Mississippi River. Proceed-ings of the 23rd annual conference on explosives and blasting technique, Las Vegas, Ne-vada. International Society of Explosives Engineers. Cleveland, Ohio / USA. 206 pp.

Ketten, D. R. (1995): Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mam-mals from underwater explosions. In [eds.], R. A. Kastelein, J. A. Thomas, and P. E. Nachti-gall. Sensory systems of aquatic mammals. De Spil. Woerden, The Netherlands. p. 391-407

Koschinski, S. (2007): Auswirkungen von Lärm auf Meeressäugetiere - Eine unterschätzte Gefahr. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Landsberg, P. G. (2000): Underwater blast injuries. Trauma & Energy Medicine 17.

LfULG. (1998): Toxikologische Bewertung von mit sprengstofftypischen Verbindungen (STV) kontaminiertem Grundwasser. Forschungsbericht 1998. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie. Dresden, Germany. 38 pp.

Mayer, C. (2007): Bergung durch Vereisung - Kampfmittelbeseitigung in der Ostsee. presen-tation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Miller, P. L. (2009): Preliminary Safety Analysis on the Use of High-Pressure Abrasive Water Jets for the Demilitarization of Recovered Ordnance. presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, held in Honululu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009

Minerals Management Service. (2004): Explosive removal of offshore structures - informa-tion synthesis report. OCSStudy MMS 2003-070 . U.S.Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. New Orleans, USA . 181 pp.

MLUR. (2007): Kampfmittelaltlasten - kein Nachweis von Gefahren für die Meeresumwelt (media release 07.07.2007). MLUR - Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume. Kiel, Germany

Nehring, S. (2007): Altmunition in Nord- und Ostsee – Eine Bestandsaufnahme. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Nehring, S. (2008): Kriegsaltlasten im Meer - Aus den Augen aus dem Sinn? WirtschaftBild Spezial 2008: 40-44.

Nützel, B. (2008): Untersuchungen zum Schutz von Schweinswalen vor Schockwellen. Technischer Bericht TB 2008-7. Forschungsanstalt der Bundeswehr für Wasserschall und Geophysik (FWG). Kiel. 18 pp.

Pfeiffer, F. (2007a): Unterwassersprengung als unvollständiger Verbrennungsprozess – Welche bedenklichen Stoffe gelangen bei Sprengungen ins Meer? presentation at the Sym-posium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007


Pfeiffer, G. (2007b): Ab in den Gefriersarg - Munitionsbergung unterkühlt. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Malme, C. I. & Thomson, D. H. (1995): Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press. San Diego. 576 pp.

Schwartz, A. (2009): Underwater Technologies for Military Munitions Response - Capabilities Overview. presentation at the 2nd International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions, held in Honululu/Hawaii, 25 - 27 Feb 2009

Southall, B. L., Bowles, A. E., Ellison, W. T. , Finneran, J. J., Gentry, R. L., Greene, C. R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D. R., Miller, J. H., Nachtigall, P. E., Richardson, W. J., Thomas, J. A. & Tyack, P. L. (2007): Marine mammal noise-exposure criteria: initial scientific recommenda-tions. Aquat. Mammals 33: 411-521.

Stock, T. (2007): Beseitigung von Giftgasmunition – Rechtliche Probleme und Lösungsmög-lichkeiten. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Germany, 19 Okt 2007

Strand, J., Larsen, M. M. & Lockyer, C. (2005): Accumulation of organotin compounds and mercury in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the Danish waters and West Greenland. Sci. Total Environ. 350: 59-71.

Thiele, R. & Stepputat, K. (1998): Der Einfluss von Wasserschall auf Taucher und Meerestie-re. Forschungsbericht 1998-2. Forschungsanstalt der Bundeswehr für Wasserschall und Geophysik (FWG). Kiel. 74 pp.

Urick, R. J. (1983): Principles of underwater sound. McGraw Hill. New York, USA. 423 pp.

Won, W. D., DiSalvo, L. H. & Ng., J. (1976): Toxicity and mutagenicity of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and its microbial metabolites. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 31: 576-580.

Wreth, K. (2007): Sanfte Sprengung - Blasenvorhänge zur Lärm- und Druckminderung. presentation at the Symposium "New Methods of Ammunition Removal" held in Kiel, Ger-many, 19 Oktober 2007


Marine Noise pollution in the light of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive KARSTEN BRENSING

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

1 Results

Anthropogenic noise can have an adverse effect on the marine environment. Marine animals which use their acoustic sense for orientation, communication, foraging and/or for predator avoidance are most likely to be primarily affected from increasing underwater sound, depending on the intensity and other characteristics of the sound. In the light of the new EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC - descriptor 11: “Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.”) the impact of noise needs to be carefully and fully evaluated with the aim to achieve or maintain a good environ-mental status in the marine environment by 2020. The member states are obliged to conduct assessments to define status and describe a good environmental status by 15 July 2012, by:

� conducting an initial assessment

� making a determination of good environmental status

� establishment of environmental targets

The European Community has already carried out a similar process on land and the experience gained from this process can be used to develop the marine equivalent. Directive 2002/49/EC - more commonly known as the Environmental Noise Directive (END) – concerns terrestrial noise from road, rail and air traffic and from industry. It focuses on the impact of such noise on individuals in large urban areas. The END requires the following:

� determination of levels of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping;

� provision of information on environmental noise and its effects on the public;

� adoption of action plans, based upon noise mapping results, which should be de-signed to manage noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary.

EU Member States were required to produce noise maps in their main cities, near the main transport infrastructures and near industrial sites. A noise map is a graphic representation of the sound level distribution existing in a given region, for a defined period. The main goal of noise maps on land is to make a diagnosis of noise pollution which should lead to action plans and acoustical planning. Figure 1 shows


the accumulation of different sound sources as an example of a terrestrial noise map. However, even though there are many similarities between land-based noise and marine noise (for example, evaluation of impact and management), there are also important differences. Land-based noise is focusing on one species, the human; the marine noise issue has to deal with many species with different hearing capabilities. Furthermore, water carries sound energy with a much higher efficiency than air and the possible impact range is much greater. In contrary to land-based noise where physical injury is limited to tens or, at maximum, hundreds of meters, physical injury in water can occur in distance of several kilometers. Let’s consider pile driving as an example: To date most suggested thresholds have been based on exposure experiments using a single impulse. Therefore the accumulated effects of repeated impulses are unknown. In reality the animals may be exposed to hundreds or even thousands of impulses. A common way to calculate a possible physical in-jury is the calculation of the Sound Exposure Levels (SEL). SEL can be calculated over the time (over hundreds or thousands of pile driving hits). Considering injury criteria of 198 dB SEL; (Southall et al., 2007) a safety zone that considers the amount of hits can be established. Figure 2 shows the distance of a possible physical injury in relation to cumulated pile driving hits. Therefore, and in addition to an overall annual noise budget (recommended on land), single acoustic events need to be implemented in marine noise mapping, the considered timeframe needs to be adapted to the marine environment and to the species of interest.

Figure 1: Cumulative noise map, based on road, air traffic, parking, rail and industry (modified after www.datakustik.com).


Richardson et al. (1995) defines several theoretical overlapping zones of noise influence, depending on the distance between a single sound source and a receiver. This model is easy to understand and applicable but it is just an approach to estimate a potential effect of an acoustic event. If we take into consideration that there are many sound sources including shipping, seismic, military and industrial activities, there is a need for a cumulative interpretation in real time. This is also very important for the existing and planned construction work for renewables. Simultaneous construction work on different sites in the same area may subject animals on to additional risks, including trapping and disorientation. Most assess-ments of the potential effect of noise in the past have only provided very rough esti-mations of the zones of influence as sound in the seas is always three-dimensional and potential impacts on the animals are not well understood. Therefore future noise mapping needs to calculate the interference, reflection and refraction patterns as well as cumulative effect. Figure 3 shows an image based on this consideration. It is important that all stakeholders like universities, industry and governmental agencies have access to a user-friendly tool to make such calculations. It is therefore strongly recommended that a noise mapping plug-in be created for common GIS software. All results should be verified in the field and establishment of a monitoring network should be considered.

Figure 2: Increasing safety zone based on repeated pile driving hits. All numbers based on biola-report 2 20081 / UBA1 = required safety zone of the German Federal Environment Agency (SEL 160 dB/ SPL 190 dB in a distance of 750m).

1 Hydroschallemissionen und -immissionen von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen. Prognose des Schalleintrags, der Reichweite und der potenziellen Auswirkungen auf Meeressäugetiere und Fische 2008c Biola Report zur Antragstellung der WKA im Projektgebiet Borkum Riffgrund II.


To estimate the potential effects of this visualized noise it would be necessary to combine such noise maps with additional layers for each species of concern as well as behavioral reaction, habitat lost of important areas and displacement. Therefore the GIS software plug-in should be able to calculate the impact on different species based on criteria like physical injury (PTS / TTS), masking, behavior response and perception. This kind of “noise related impact map” will create a more comprehen-sive overview allowing calculations of the general impact of noise. However the effi-cient use of such a tool depends on data. On one hand there is a need to know the impact of noise in relation to the different sounds and on the other hand for an acoustic database which contains all information about noisy human activities in the marine environment.

Figure 3: Hypothetical noise map (based on acoustic modelation) with a Kridging “like“ - Interpolation. Point A and B are different sound sources. Area C shows a hypothetical increase of noise as result of certain hydrographical conditions and cumulative effects.

2 References

Richardson, W. J., Greene C. R. Jr., Malme C. I. & Thomson D. H. (1995): Marine Mammals and Noise.

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, T.E., Gentry, R.L., Greene JR., C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. & Tyack, P.L. (2007): Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. - Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411-521.


From seabed mapping to fish movements: design of MPA networks using multiple conservation featuresPEDRO AFONSO, FERNANDO TEMPERA, MARA SCHMIING & RICARDO S. SANTOS

University of the Azores, Portugal

Abstract

Networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are nowadays the most established tool for the emerging ecosystem-based approach to the management of the oceans. MPAs should ideally provide robust protection to core biological populations while acting as subsidiary sources to fishing grounds and the other MPAs within the net-work. However, designing such combination is challenging, especially when the ob-jective involves multi-species management, and implemented cases of MPA net-works based on such goal are still scarce. Integrated studies are being conducted around the Azores (central north Atlantic) and in particular at Faial and Pico islands to support the design of a regional MPA coastal network that will include all the Natura 2000 marine sites. This integrated effort included mapping the seafloor using multibeam technology and extracting relevant geomorphologic information. Concur-rently, sublittoral benthic (macroalgae) and fish assemblages were surveyed by vis-ual census and remote video, and spatially-explicit statistical models developed to obtain the abundance and distribution of assemblages based on major environ-mental variables. Additionally, an acoustic underwater telemetry program was con-ducted to study the different temporal scales of spatial behavior for key coastal fishes. The integration of these data allows the mapping of essential fish habitats at the island scale, and also the establishment of sound benchmarks relative to the characteristics of the MPAs to be included in the optimal design (number, habitats included, size, shape, and spacing). A similar approach can arguably be adopted for other environments, such as offshore banks and seamounts, and some efforts to-wards this application are being conducted in the region. The ultimate goal is that the use of such tools will provide ecologically alternative solutions that can be put forward to the stakeholders and decision makers for discussion, acceptance and implementation.

1 Introduction

Role and challenges of MPAs within Natura 2000

Networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) became the most established tool in support of the emerging ecosystem-based approach to marine management, re-


gardless they are aimed at biodiversity conservation or fisheries management. Throughout the last 30 years, they evolved from being championed by sectors of the scientific community to becoming an integral part of the official political speech. The European Union policies for conservation now explicitly integrate and promote MPAs, especially as a result of the national applications of the Natura 2000 network. Its use in fisheries policies across Europe, including their promotion under the new Common Fisheries Policy and Action Plans, is also becoming a reality. In spite of all progress, there is still a gap between this political momentum and the technical framework behind the design of MPA networks, especially when those have multiple management objectives including fisheries management.

MPAs should ideally provide robust protection to core biological populations while acting as subsidiary sources to fishing grounds and the other MPAs within the net-work (Figure 1). However, in spite of the burgeoning effort in both theoretical and empirical research, forecasting such combination still remains a challenging task and practical efforts to design MPA networks based on such goal are still scarce. This is especially true when the objective involves multi-species management, be-cause of the resulting complexity in the ecological links and relevant benchmarks to achieve (identification of essential habitat to protect, ensuring connectivity and pro-ductivity of different reserve units, etc). More recent efforts in meeting this challenge include the integration of multiple data sources in spatially-explicit software that can produce protection scenarios using different criteria, a much useful tool in support of decision making processes (Ball et al., 2009). These pieces of software are usually GIS-based optimization tools to which one can feed a selection of information layers such as distribution of habitats of conservation importance, resource abundance or biodiversity indices. At present, gathering all relevant information to feed such tools is a major opportunity, but also a major challenge, in view of achieving optimal de-signs of MPA networks.

Progress of Azorean MPAs

The nine volcanic islands that comprise the archipelago of the Azores span 615 km across the north mid-Atlantic ridge and have an associated EEZ sub-area of nearly 1 million km2. The diversity of open and deep ocean habitats and the degree of iso-lation of the island shelves endow the marine environment of the Azores with a con-siderable significance for marine conservation and biological studies (Santos et al., 1995). The marine resources of the region have experienced increasing impacts from human activities, but a precautionary approach to exploitation has permitted most fishery resources to be harvested at sustainable levels inside Azorean waters (Menezes, 2003). Preventive measures included (i) preservation of the artisanal character in many fisheries, (ii) phasing out of netting, (iii) zoning of fishing vessel operation by size and gear and (iv) limit in the capacity in the semi-industrial fishery


(long-lining). MPAs have also been utilized for a longtime. Throughout the 1980’s and 90’s 9 MPAs were designated around 4 islands and an offshore bank. However, the results achieved haven’t done much in crediting this instrument due to poor defi-nition and implementation of dedicated management and insufficient enforcement. With the application of the EC “Birds” and “Habitats” Directives in the archipelago, conservation benefited from a new strategic perspective and driving force. At pre-sent, the declaration of the Natura 2000 sites resulted in 17 marine Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) along the islands’ shores, two offshore banks and two hydrothermal vent sites to protect marine features, including reefs, marine caves, shallow inlets and bays, bottlenose dolphins and loggerhead turtles (Commission Decision 3998/C2001). Seven sites of substantially larger size, some of them includ-ing more than one SAC, have also been designated under the OSPAR convention aiming the protection of deep-sea sensitive habitats and species, namely hydro-thermal fields and seamounts.

In an effort to tackle the variety of designations resulting from the different scopes used to declare MPAs in the Azores, the Regional Government implemented in 2007 the so-called Azores Network of Protected Areas, which reviewed and aggre-gated under the same management structure all the designations affecting the Azores, establishing Island Natural Parks and the Azores Marine Park (DLRn.º 15/2007/A, 25 June 2007). These structures shall integrate the classification and management of the protected areas under harmonized IUCN categories established by the Guidelines for protected area management, maximizing goal synergies and technical resources. Management plans based on a characterization of both eco-logical and socio-economical factors were completed for all sites, but their specific regulation and zoning schemes are yet to be publically discussed.

Recommendations included the establishment of wider zoned MPAs encompassing the undersized SACs, where a set of limitations to extractive and intrusive activities would provide a more robust protection to the natural features calling for protection. Although several of these enlarged protected areas have been declared in the scope of a re-organization of the Regional Protected Area Network, funding limitations and a yet developping board of personnel fully dedicated to protected area management has limited the effort put over almost a decade into regulating the areas and implementing consequential management decisions. A closer and sys-tematic articulation with stakeholders and the fisheries management policy is also to be undertaken yet. However, the good examples of stakeholder involvement while discussing the Corvo island MPA, designation of the hydrothermal vent fields, the Sedlo seamount and more recently the establishment of a temporary MPA for scien-tific purposes at the Condor seamount could serve as a trust basis for the further development of public consultation and establishment of MPS management commit-tees. Concurrently with the administrative progress, a team at IMAR-DOP/UAz have


been developing a program to produce a multi-specific, multi-criteria framework that facilitates the decision-making processes while zoning marine environments of the Azores for conservation. Such program has involved the data acquisition of habitat, biotope and fish population characteristics and is now at the integration phase. Be-low we present a preliminary assessment of current progress.

Case study: coastal MPA networks

The model considered in this study is the coastal (< 200 m depth) insular platform of the Faial and Pico islands. The platform is composed of very heterogeneous habi-tats down to 200 m depth (Tempera, 2008) including the Faial channel, an insular platform 8 km wide between the two islands (Figure 1). It harbors essential habitats for a variety of ecologically and commercially valuable fish species (Afonso, 2007) such as a suite of the different artisanal coastal fisheries of moderate intensity. One regional MPA (also classified under the OSPAR Convention MPA network), five Ma-rine SACs (EU) (three of them contained in the regional MPA), and five harvest refugia for limpets (two of them partially contained in the regional MPA) are located within the Faial-Pico platform (Figure 1). Data from the IMAR-DOP/UAc underwater visual census monitoring program (1997-2004) were used to model the spatial dis-tribution, abundance, biomass and fecundity of selected species down to 40 m depth. Transects were georeferenced in ArcGIS 9.3 and intersected with the avail-able environmental information (Tempera, 2008) to obtain a mean value for each lo-cation. After an initial data exploration and if necessary transformation/reduction of parameters (Zuur et al., 2010), generalized additive models (GAMs) were applied.

Figure 1: The island shelves of Faial and western Pico, showing different protection areas (white and green boxes) and the 5 small Natura 2000 SACs (yellow extruded boxes).


The final models for our species show that depth and distance to a different bottom type (distinguished only between hard-and soft-bottom) are the most important ex-planatory variables whereas parameters like current and slope only play a minor role for explaining the distribution of i.e. fish abundances. Concurrently, an acoustic te-lemetry program has been in place since 2002 aiming at the characterization of the habitat use and movement patterns of selected fish species in the Faial-Pico chan-nel (see details in Afonso et al., 2008, 2009a, 2009b). It comprised a combination of active and passive acoustic telemetry, and provided short- and long-term data that allowed a comparative analysis of the habitat requirements and, hence, deriving op-timal MPA design characteristics for each fish species (Table 1). Figure 2 sketches how the above mentioned different aspects work together to design a network of MPAs.

Figure 2: A multicriteria framework to forecast optimal design of networks of coastal MPAs.

Current status and applicability of the framework

The integration of this varied suite of datasets allows the mapping of essential fish habitats at the island scale, a major concern in current MPA design. It also results from such studies that habitat requirements for individual species and resulting re-serve characteristics (number, habitats included, size, shape, and spacing) are quite variable and will heavily affect the combined optimal design of the networks. The re-sult is a necessary compromise in individual goals in order to achieve overall benchmarks relative to the characteristics of the MPAs to be included in the optimal


design. A similar approach can arguably be adopted for other environments, such as offshore banks and seamounts, and some steps towards this application are being put in place in the Formigas offshore Marine Reserve and the Princess Alice sea-mount complex. It is foreseen that the use of such tools will provide ecologically sound solutions that can be accepted by the stakeholders and decision makers.

Table 1: Optimal reserve characteristics inferred from from acoustic telemetry studies on movements of selected species (Afonso, 2007).

species reserveeffect

spillover effect

important habitats

size, type of reserve units

Nº, spacing of reserve units

Parrotfish

Sparisoma cretense

++ + sheltered &

exposed reef

(contiguous)

1-5 km2

permanent

numerous

close (5-10km)

Red porgy

Pagrus pagrus

+ ++ nursery areas & patchy deeper habitat

(contiguous)

10-20 km2

permanent

fewer

medium

(10-20km)

White trevally

Pseudocaranx dentex

- - offshore reefs & visiting in-shore sites (spawning)

small,

permanent or temporary

as much as possible

2 References

Afonso, P. (2007): Habitat use and movement patterns of three sympatric fishes with differ-ent life history strategies: implications for design of marine reserves. PhD. dissertation, Uni-versity of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA. 202 pp.

Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P. & Watts, M. (2009): Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation in: Moilanen, A., K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham (Eds), pp.185-195, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Santos, R.S., Hawkins, S., Monteiro, L.R., Alves, M., Isidro, E.J. (1995): Marine research, resources and conservation in the Azores. Aq Cons Mar Fresh Ecos 5 (4): 311-354

Tempera, F. (2008): Benthic habitats of the extended Faial Island shelf and their relationship to geologic, oceanographic and infralittoral biologic features. PhD Dissertation, University of St Andrews, UK

Zuur, A.F., Leno, EN. & Elphick, C.S. (2010): A protocol for data exploration to avoiding com-mon statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 3 – 14


Impacts of climate change on biodiversity patterns of fish and other marine species in European waters KRISTIN KASCHNER1, KATHLEEN KESNER-REYES3, JOSEPHINE BARILE3, TONY REES5, JONATHAN READY6, CRISTINA GARILAO2, SVEN KULLANDER4 & RAINER FROESE2 1Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany, 2Christian-Albrechts-University, Ger-many, 3World Fish Centre, Philippines, 4Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Sweden, 5CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australia, 6Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil

1 Introduction

Quantifying the long-term importance of key areas to a wide range of species is critical for the preservation of marine biodiversity. Areas of high biological diversity, depending on their size and accessibility, may be identified through intensive sam-pling or survey efforts. However, the vastness of the marine environment and the paucity of data for the offshore waters will likely preclude the identification of most areas of high biological diversity in the high seas in the foreseeable future through direct survey efforts alone. Alternatively, patterns of species richness may be in-ferred using habitat prediction models by overlaying a large number of predicted species occurrence data layers in a Geographic Information System (GIS) which will highlight areas of high co-occurrence of species. AquaMaps (www.aquamaps.org) is a such a large-scale species distribution model that – currently – covers >9000 ma-rine species (including fish, marine mammals and invertebrate species), but aims to produce standardized range maps for eventually all marine species using available data about species habitat usage. AquaMaps is based on the relative environmental suitability model (RES) originally developed by Kaschner et al. (2006) to model global distributions of marine mammals, which was later modified and expanded to cover all marine species (Kaschner et al, 2008). The model was specifically devel-oped to deal with the sampling biases affecting most large-scale data sets currently available for species distribution modeling in the marine realm through on-line data repositories such as OBIS (www.iobis.org) and GBIF (www.gbif.org). To address is-sues of heterogeneous sampling effort and misidentifications, AquaMaps supple-ments point occurrence data with other types of habitat use information obtained di-rectly from online species databases such as FishBase and SeaLifeBase. In addi-tion, an expert-review function in the AquaMaps algorithm explicitly allows for the in-corporation of expert knowledge about species occurrence to further counteract or compensate known sampling biases. Using all available information, the model de-termines the environmental tolerance of a given species with respect to depth, salin-ity, temperature, primary production and sea ice concentration. It then predicts the maximum range extents for a given species including the relative probability of spe-cies occurrence (PSO) within that range by relating these environmental tolerances


to the physical and oceanographic attributes of each cell in a global grid with 0.5 lati-tude/longitude cell dimensions (Kaschner et al, 2008, Ready et al, in press). Avail-able tools include options to produce range predictions and PSOs of a given species based on either real contemporary environmental data sets using long-term aver-ages for the 1990s or on modeled future climate scenarios produced by an interme-diate climate model scenario averaged for the 2040s. AquaMaps outputs have been successfully validated using independent, effort-corrected survey data and, in the face of the existing sub-optimal input data sets, AquaMaps model performance compares well with that of other presence-only habitat prediction models, such as GARP, Maxent or GAMs (Ready et al, in press). Here, we present and investigate current and future patterns of European marine biodiversity based on AquaMaps predictions of individual species occurrence for more than a thousand Northeast At-lantic species.

2 Methods

We produced maps of present and future marine species biodiversity in European waters by overlaying the individual AquaMaps predictions and counting all species predicted to be present for the respective time period in the area corresponding to the FAO statistical reporting area 27. Subsequently, we calculated the changes in species richness predicted to occur over the next 50 years; assuming that species maintain the same environmental preferences with respect to temperature and sea-ice concentrations in a changing environment. Changes in species richness were calculated as proportional losses and gains in biodiversity (i.e. species turnover rates) relative to a modelled 1990s control scenario. Areas with a positive species turnover rate are predicted to experience an increase in species richness due to species invasions, while areas with a negative turnover rate are expected to experi-ence a net loss in species richness corresponding to local extinctions of species. We also calculated the predicted change in total distributional area for individual species to further investigate which species might be particularly affected by climate change.

3 Results & Discussion

Currently available AquaMaps predictions of species in FAO area 27 included more than a 1000 species from 42 different taxa (Table 1). Ray-finned fishes and elasmo-branchs represented the majority of the species covered, but the analysis also in-cluded a large number of invertebrate species and marine mammals. On average a relatively small proportion of predictions in each taxa have been reviewed by experts to date, indicating that the quality of our predictions could be improved in the future (Table 1). Predicted patterns of current biodiversity of all species indicate a strong


south-north gradient with species richness being up to two orders of magnitude lower in polar waters than in the more temperate central Atlantic waters. Hotspots of species richness for the 1990s were predicted around Madeira as well as near mainland Portugal and in slope waters of the Bay of Biscay (Figure 1 A). Forward projections of biodiversity resulted in an overall pole-ward shift with expected in-creases in absolute species richness that are most noticeable along the coasts of the northern UK and in Norwegian waters (Figure 1 B). However, proportionally, in-creases will be most substantial in the top latitudes where the net increase in spe-cies richness can be up to several orders of magnitude due to the invasion of tem-perate or sub-polar species in these areas (Figure 1 C).

Figure 1: Impacts of climate change on European marine species biodiversity patterns. A.) current predicted species richness per 0.5 degree latitude by 0.5 degree longitude cell, B.) future predicted species richness, C) predicted species turnover expressed as proportional positive (species invasion). or negative (local extinction) change. Areas in light blue are not covered by this analysis.

% 1 - 49

% 50 - 99

% 100 - 149

% 150 - 199

% 200 - 249

% 250 - 299

% 300 - 399

% 400 - 499

% 500 - 749

% 750 - 1200

# of species

% 1 - 49

% 50 - 99

% 100 - 149

% 150 - 199

% 200 - 249

% 250 - 299

% 300 - 399

% 400 - 499

% 500 - 749

% 750 - 1200

# of species

1.80 - 2.80

1.20 - 1.80

0.90 - 1.20

0.60 - 0.90

0.40 - 0.60

0.30 - 0.45

0.15 - 0.30

0.001- 0.15

0.00

-0.10 - 0.00

% change in species richness

%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2.80 - 4.00

4.00 - 10.00

> 10.00

1.80 - 2.80

1.20 - 1.80

0.90 - 1.20

0.60 - 0.90

0.40 - 0.60

0.30 - 0.45

0.15 - 0.30

0.001- 0.15

0.00

-0.10 - 0.00

% change in species richness

%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2.80 - 4.00

4.00 - 10.00

> 10.00

A

B

C

A


This finding is similar to the results presented by Cheung et al (2009), although a di-rect comparison of both studies beyond general patterns is hampered by the differ-ent subset of taxa used as the basis for the respective analyses. With respect to lo-cal extinctions, our results contrast with those results presented by Cheung et al. (2009), since our model predicted local extinction of species to be restricted to very small areas around the Kattegat in southern Portugal, northeast White Sea and southern Nova Zemlya in the Barents Sea, where extinction rates did not exceed 10% of the current predicted species richness (Figure 1 C). Despite these overall results, according to our model, impacts of climate change might nevertheless be substan-tial at the level of individual species. Our results suggest that there will be species, including some of special conservation concern, which might experience a net loss in suitable habitat of up to 20% of their current distribution (Figure 2). Although we expect the general patterns presented here to be quite robust, please note that these results should be regarded as preliminary. In general, the concentration of sampling effort in more accessible habitats, such as the continental shelf regions of the northern hemisphere represents a great challenge for the application of any species distribution modeling technique and results of all models therefore need to be viewed with some caution. AquaMaps, in its current version cannot account for seasonal movements of animals and may thus potentially overlook critical habitat needed during certain life stages. Moreover, by simply adding up the number of species, we ignored other important aspects such as the abundance, genetic uniqueness, endemism, and endangered status of individual species.

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00Acti

nopte

rygii_

LC (4)

Actino

pteryg

ii_NL (

49)

Aplaco

phora_

NL (4)

Bivalvi

a_NL (3

)

Elasmob

ranch

ii_VU (1

)

Gastro

poda

_NL (

1)

Gymnola

emata

_NL (5)

Malaco

straca

_NL (11

)

Mammali

a_DD (2

)

Mammali

a_LR

/cc (5

)

Mammali

a_VU (1

)

Maxillo

poda_

NL (1)

Not ass

igned

_NL (

2)

Ophiur

oidea_

NL (1)

Pycno

gonid

a_NL (

1)

Scapho

poda

_NL (

3)

Mea

n lo

ss in

dis

tribu

tion

size

[%]

Figure 2: Mean predicted loss in distributional area in the Northeastern Atlantic for different taxonomic groups further distinguishing between different IUCN conservation status. Only species predicted to experience a net loss in distributional area are included. Note that some vulnerable marine mammal and elasmobranch species might lose up to 15% of their current distributional area by the 2040s.


Table 1: Number of Northeast Atlantic species in each different taxonomic class included in the analy-sis including the percentage having been covered by expert-review to date.

.Class Number of species

included in analysis% of expert-reviewed

species

Actinopterygii 1018 0,10Elasmobranchii 123 0,24Malacostraca 70 0,03Bivalvia 69 0,03Ascid iacea 55 0,00Mammalia 51 0,39Cephalopoda 28 0,11Gastropoda 22 0,05Polychaeta 20 0,00Not assigned 18 0,00Gymnolaemata 13 0,00Scaphopoda 13 0,00Pycnogonida 11 0,00Holocephali 8 0,13Polyplacophora 8 0,00Maxillopoda 6 0,00Aplacophora 5 0,00Reptilia 5 1,00Holothuroidea 4 0,00Hydrozoa 4 0,00Anthozoa 3 0,00Articu lata 3 0,00Cephalaspidomorphi 3 0,00Echinoidea 2 0,00Myxini 2 0,00Ophiuroidea 2 0,00Scyphozoa 2 0,00Appendicularia 1 0,00Asteroidea 1 0,00Calcarea 1 0,00Cephalochordata 1 0,00Crustacea 1 0,00Inarticulata 1 0,00Merostomata 1 0,00Ostracoda 1 0,00Phaeophyceae 1 0,00Pogonophora 1 0,00Priapulida 1 0,00Stenolaemata 1 0,00Tentaculata 1 0,00Thaliacea 1 0,00Total 1582 0,10

In addition, due the lack of point data for many species currently available in OBIS or GBIF, available AquaMaps do not represent a complete inventory of species known to occur in Northeastern Atlantic. Nevertheless, the visualization of potential


impacts of climate change on the distributional ranges across a wide range of differ-ent species represents a useful starting point to quantify the long-term importance of key biodiversity areas with respect to conservation.

4 References Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. (2009): Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries.

Kaschner, K., Watson, R., Trites, A.W. & Pauly, D. (2006): Mapping worldwide distributions of marine mammals using a Relative Environmental Suitability (RES) model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316: 285-310

Kaschner, K., Ready, J.S., Agbayani, E., Rius, J., Kesner-Reyes, K., Eastwood, P.D., South, A.B., Kullander, S.O., Rees, T., Close, C.H., Watson, R., Pauly, D. & Froese, R. (2008): AquaMaps: Predicted range maps for aquatic species. World Wide Web electronic publica-tion, www.aquamaps.org, Version 10/2008.

Ready, J., Kaschner, K., South, A.B., Eastwood, P.D., Rees, T., Rius, J., Agbayani, E., Kul-lander and, S. & Froese, R. (in press): Predicting the distributions of marine organisms at the global scale, Ecological Modelling

Wood, L., Fuller, T., Cheung, W.W., Fox, H., Kaschner, K., Kitchingman, A., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. (in review): Identification of global marine priority areas using systematic conserva-tion planning: developing a framework to meet global marine protection targets. Conserva-tion Letters


Short notes


New book: The EC Common Fisheries Policy ROBIN CHURCHILL1 & DANIEL OWEN² 1University of Dundee, United Kingdom, ²Fenners Chambers, United Kingdom

1 Introduction

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is one of the longest established and more controversial of the common policies of the EC. It deals principally with the man-agement of fishery resources, relations between the EC and third States in fisheries matters, the marketing of and trade in fishery products, financial assistance to the fisheries sector, and aquaculture. However, the CFP is not just a matter for those with an economic interest in fisheries. It also raises many issues of more general concern, such as the capacity of the EC and its Member States to manage important natural resources sustainably, the impact of fishing on the wider marine environ-ment, and relations between developed and developing States.

This book addresses the CFP from a legal perspective. It provides a detailed ac-count of the very large body of EC law comprising the CFP, and draws on the Euro-pean Commission’s associated documents to aid interpretation and add context. As a result, the book will be of value to anyone wanting knowledge of the law of the CFP. Although not addressing the Commission’s 2009 Green Paper on reform of the CFP, the book should provide a useful reference point against which to view the re-form of parts of the CFP that is anticipated to take place over the next few years.

2 Readership

Practising lawyers and policy specialists advising the fisheries sector, environmental NGOs, and governments; scholars and advanced students of EU agricul-tural/fisheries law and policy.

3 The Authors

Robin Churchill is Professor of International Law at the University of Dundee.

Daniel Owen is a barrister at Fenners Chambers, Cambridge, and specializes in ma-rine and fisheries law.


4 Contents - Summary

List of abbreviations xxi

Table of cases xxiii

Table of EC legislation xxix

Table of treaties xxxv

Part I—Introductory issues 1

1. The origins and development of the Common Fisheries Policy 3

2. The scope of the Common Fisheries Policy 29

Part II—Fisheries management 73

3. The international framework of fisheries management 75

4. Fisheries management in Community waters 129

5. External aspects of fisheries management 300

Part III—Other issues 399

6. The common organization of the markets in fishery products 401

7. Trade in fishery products 461

8. Public expenditure in the fisheries sector 505

9. Aquaculture 555

Index 575

Figure 1: Book: “The EC Common Fisheries Policy”. 640 pages | 234 x 156 mm, 978-0-19-927584-7 | Hardback, 04 March 2010 | Oxford University Press, Price: GBP 110.00, For more information, please see: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199275847.do


New webportal: Opening the ocean to the World Wide Web audience JEN ASHWORTH1,² & DAN LAFFOLEY1,² 1IUCN WCPA-Marine, ²Natural England, United Kingdom

1 Summary

In 2009, marine conservation was revolutionised. Not through science or exploration but through the internet. Google Earth became blue. For the first time hundreds of millions of people could see what was under the surface of our blue planet. Working with partners including IUCN, Google used new technologies to allow people to ex-plore the oceans from their homes. Users can virtually swim over the seabed, around seamounts and wrecks, follow the migrations of whales and turtles, add pho-tos and videos and learn about the oceans. The conservation message is seen strongly in the new ocean layers. IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas and partners uploaded information on all known (approximately 4500) Marine Pro-tected Areas onto Google Earth and created a companion web portal; www.ProtectPlanetOcean.org. This portal is a global hub of information and news on MPA.

2 Background to IUCN

IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find prag-matic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. It supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world and brings governments, non-government organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities together to develop and implement policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network - a democratic membership union with approximately 1,100 member organizations, these include 82 states, 111 government agencies, and in excess of 800 NGOs, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. IUCN’s work is sup-ported by over 1,000 professional staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. The Union’s headquarters are lo-cated in Gland, near Geneva, in Switzerland. IUCN has six Commissions. These unite 11,000 volunteer experts from a range of disciplines. They assess the state of the world’s natural resources and provide the Union with sound know-how and pol-icy advice on conservation issues. The World Commission on Protected Areas is one such Commission with 1300 members. WCPA promotes the establishment and effective management of a worldwide representative network of terrestrial and ma-


rine protected areas. WCPA – Marine is the world's premier network of Marine Pro-tected Area (MPA) expertise. Our mission is ‘to promote the establishment of a global, representative system of effectively managed and lasting networks of MPAs’. We work in partnership with IUCN's Global Programme on Protected Areas and IUCN’s Global Marine programme, and have members in many of the countries of the world that border an ocean or sea. The structure of IUCN and wide membership means that it uses local knowledge with global influence even being known as ‘na-ture’s voice at the UN’. It is widely recognized as a credible source of conservation information and solutions.

3 Developing Google Earth 5.0

The global marine conservation community recognizes that globally we are strug-gling to meet MPA commitments. By mid 2008 only 0.65% of oceans were protected (Wood et al., 2008). However one of our biggest challenges in scaling up protection is getting the messages across to the general public and from them to the policy makers. Research in England has shown that much of the public don’t realize the amount of life in the oceans with 44% thinking the undersea is barren (Rose et al, 2008). People also generally believe that more of our seas are protected than they actually are (Wildlife Trusts, 2007). In 2006 Google began working with partners in-cluding IUCN to turn Google Earth from being a purely terrestrial tool to covering the whole of planet earth. Initially codenamed Google Ocean, this project sourced bathymetry data and used new techniques to create a sea surface and model undersea features (Figure 1). Google Earth 5.0 Discover the Ocean was released in February 2008. Project partners and others created a variety of other layers including videos and images from National Geographic and the BBC, migration routes of pelagic predators (Tagging Of Pacific Predators programme) and changes in sea surface temperatures.

4 Google Earth 5.0 and Protect Planet Ocean working together

IUCN WCPA-Marine established a partnership to create a global web portal about Marine Protected Areas. The partners are Conservation International, MPA News, the National Marine Protected Areas Centre, the National Marine Sanctuaries Sys-tem, Natural England, The Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO), The Nature Conservancy, WWF and IUCN WCPA. These found-ing partners came together to develop this web site, protectplanetocean.org as a way of bringing the best information on Marine Protected Areas to a global audi-ence. Using data from MPA Global and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) information for every known MPA in the world was geo-referenced and can be seen on Google Earth 5.0. These pop-ups contain information on the MPA’s fea-


tures and protection. Stories, videos and images were originally uploaded by part-ners and now the public can add these too (Figure 2). ProtectPlanetOcean.org can be seen as a global hub of information and news on MPAs, from global scale initia-tives to local information about a single site. It contains a resource library, MPA facts, videos, images, field expeditions and highlights ways for visitors to get in-volved. It’s open source so MPA managers around the world can upload their MPA data (and have it checked via an internal minimum data standards). Protectplaneto-cean.org is currently being revamped to version 3.0 that will include better commit-ment tracker and interface. Through joining with the WDPA we will provide an open source depository for all government MPA data.

5 Regional opportunities

Protectplanetocean.org contains regional pages based along WCPA-Marine’s 18 marine regions. These pages describe the characteristics of the region’s seas and provide an opportunity to highlight regional initiatives. The North East Atlantic re-gional page currently contains information on the OSPAR Convention, Natura 2000 network, MarBEF and MESH. WCPA-Marine are interested to learn about new initia-tives and promote them through these regional pages. In addition WCPA-Marine is building a regional network of MPA practioners. This network serves as a conduit to share regional information and highlight and publicise projects. They will also work to ensure that MPA data is current and accurate. If you are interested in joining the network or being a national co-ordinator please contact: [email protected]

Figure 1: Screen grab of a Google Earth 5.0 seabed and sea surface.


6 Conclusion

Through bringing the oceans and marine conservation into people's homes though Google Earth 5.0 and Protectplanetocean.org we hope to increase support and in-terest in the world beneath the waves.

Figure 2: The Galapagos Marine Reserve pop-up seen in Google Earth.

7 References

Rose, C., Dade, P., Scott, J. (2008): Qualitative and quantitative research into public engagement with the undersea landscape in England. Natural England Research Report NERR019.

Wildlife Trusts (2007): Marine Opinion Poll. (http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=marinebill:opinionpoll)


New film: Who Owns The Sea? The Scramble for the last ResourcesSARAH ZIERUL

Science Journalist, Germany

The film „Who owns the sea? The Scramble for the last Resources” was shown dur-ing the international conference and written and directed by Mrs. Sarah Zierul who was introducing the film to the audience. The film was produced by LÄNGENGRAD Filmproduction for WDR/ARTE in 2009 (Length 52 minutes).

The search for the last natural resources has reached a new frontier: the deep-sea – the largest and least explored habitat on earth. For a long time, the deep-sea plain was considered a dead wasteland. Nowadays, however, researchers are discover-ing landscapes of breathtaking beauty thousands of metres below the surface, along with countless new life forms and huge deposits of raw materials – gold, copper, oil and gas. This elaborately produced documentary highlights, for the first time, the most important projects in the world; projects which aim to exploit the treasures of the deep. Such as, for example, an international research group searching for min-erals on the seabed off New Zealand. The French company Total, on the other hand, is banking on the oil reserves of Angola, which are being pumped by floating factories from depths of more than 1500 metres. The film reveals that while the op-portunities for these hugely ambitious projects are immense, the risks posed by them are equally great. Often it is unclear who actually owns the natural resources being brought up from the deep. There are no borderlines on the high seas and even near coasts the borders are often disputed. The threat of political conflict, in-ternational power shifts and environmental damage is real and imminent. Yet in the face of ever dwindling resources on land, precedents are already being set far from our coasts. The underwater gold rush has begun - it is an adventure with an uncer-tain outcome.

Figure 1: Species of the rare genus "Dumbo Octopus" or Grimpoteuthis live in depths of up to 5.000 meters. They hover over the ground in search for prey – in areas where deep sea mining could soon take place. ©Ifremer


IV First Steps towards Meeting the Biodiversity targets of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)


Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in Germany - Moving towards an assessment framework for “good environmental status” FRITZ HOLZWARTH1, WERA LEUJAK², JENS ARLE² & ULRICH CLAUSSEN2 1Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2Federal Environment Agency, Germany

Abstract

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which came into force on 15 July 2008, is the environmental pillar of the integrated European Maritime Policy. The MSFD outlines a transparent, legislative framework for an ecosystem-based ap-proach to the management of human activities which supports the sustainable use of marine goods and services. The overarching goal of the Directive is to achieve or maintain ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) by 2020 across Europe’s marine envi-ronment. The MSFD can be regarded as a tool for biodiversity protection in Euro-pean waters but goes well beyond biodiversity by emphasising ecosystem integrity, structure and function. The framework provided by the Directive is highly complex and not very explicit when it comes to the assessment philosophy. Hence defining GES is one of the most important next steps. The German Federal Environment Agency suggests to group the 11 descriptors that characterise GES into descriptors of environmental quality and descriptors that relate to anthropogenic pressures. In such a grouping the former would be used to assess whether GES is achieved or not while the latter would be the “setscrews” to obtain GES by targeting measures. The implementation of the MSFD will require the integration of a number of EC Di-rectives and Regional Conventions to benefit from synergies and avoid a duplication of work. In this context much can be learned from the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is one of the first EC Directives that has successfully tackled the eco-system approach in its assessment philosophy.

1 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) - context, time frame and requirements

The MSFD constitutes the environmental pillar of the integrated European Maritime Policy and came into force on the 15th of July 2008. The overarching goal of the Di-rective is to achieve or maintain “Good Environmental Status” (GES) of the Euro-pean Seas by 2020. GES is defined in Article 3 of the Directive as: “the environ-mental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dy-namic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic


conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future genera-tions”. The MSFD follows the assessment philosophy of the Water Framework Di-rective (WFD) in demanding an ecosystem-based integrative approach for the as-sessment of human pressures and impacts on the marine environment. It therefore extends the WFD to the marine realm. One of the ultimate aims of the Directive is the restoration or maintenance of marine ecosystem functioning including biodiver-sity. Hence, the MSFD constitutes a powerful tool for the protection of marine biodi-versity but at the same time goes well beyond biodiversity protection by e.g. consid-ering the integrity, structure and functioning of marine ecosystems. Figure 1 below outlines the timeframe for implementing the MSFD.

The process is depicted as a spiral but is essentially a cycle repeating the steps of assessment based on monitoring of the marine environment, development and im-plementation of programmes of measures to achieve GES and a monitoring based assessment of the effectiveness and results of these measures. Member States are required to determine what constitutes GES at a regional level. Therefore, each Member State must make its determination of GES in consultation with those other Member States (or third party countries) it shares regional seas with.

July 2012Initial assessmentDetermination of GES& Establishment of environmentaltargets and indicators

2020 GES has to be achieved

July 2008 Directive cameinto force

July 2015: Development of programmes of measures

July 2016: Implementationof programmesof measures

Time

July 2010: Translationinto national law

July 2014: Start of monitoringprogrammes

July 2018: Follow-upassessment

2023: Revision of Directive

Figure 1: Milestones for implementing the MSFD.


GES is the central concept in the MSFD. It is characterised by a hierarchy of as-sessment levels (Figure 2). On the top level GES should be determined by refer-ence to a series of eleven descriptors (Table 1). These descriptors should be com-bined to reach a final evaluation that decides whether GES has been achieved or not. Each descriptor is measured by a number of environmental targets. These tar-gets are not specified by the MSFD, but Annex III in the Directive provides an indica-tive list of 17 characteristics (physical and chemical features, habitat types, biologi-cal features and hydro-morphology) and 18 pressures and impacts that should be taken into account when formulating these targets. Figure 2 exemplarily highlights the complexity of the assessment framework demanded by the MSFD for descriptor 3 “commercially exploited fish stocks”.

The procedure of the overall aggregation of the 11 descriptors to constitute GES is not further elaborated in the Directive and is therefore left to the member states. Hence, in the following a proposal is made how such an assessment philosophy could look like. It is suggested that the philosophy should be based on the DPSIR-model, which is outlined in the following chapter.

Descriptors (Annex I)

Environmental targets

Pressures, Impacts, Characteristics(Annex III)

• Abundance, distribution, age size of fish populations

• Impact on the seabed

• Selective extraction of species and by-catch

D 3 Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a

population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock

Assessment of the marine environment

GES achieved GES not achieved

OSPAR-EcoQO

Halt the decline in the proportion of large fish

OSPAR-EcoQO

Spawning stock biomass aboveprecautionaryreference points

Target? Target?

Descriptors (Annex I)

Environmental targets

Pressures, Impacts, Characteristics(Annex III)

• Abundance, distribution, age size of fish populations

• Impact on the seabed

• Selective extraction of species and by-catch

D 3 Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a

population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock

Assessment of the marine environment

GES achieved GES not achieved

OSPAR-EcoQO

Halt the decline in the proportion of large fish

OSPAR-EcoQO

Spawning stock biomass aboveprecautionaryreference points

Target? Target?

Figure 2: Hierarchy of assessment levels for the MSFD illustrated for descriptor 3 “commercially ex-ploited fish stocks”. Since environmental targets are not explicitly defined by the MSFD and must still be developed, the targets shown have been taken from the OSPAR Commission’s suggested ecologi-cal quality objectives (EcoQOs).


Figure 3 shows the structures established at EU-level that will advance the MSFD in the next years. As was the case for the WFD, the MSFD will be implemented through a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) that seeks to harmonise regional approaches of the EU Member States. The EU-Commission established 10 task groups, one for each descriptor (except D7), that consisted of experts and provided scientific guidance on the respective descriptors. The task groups fed their results into a working group on GES. Another working group is responsible for establishing the monitoring and reporting structure and the data management structure. Later in the MSFD implementation process, a group for monitoring and assessment might be established. In September 2010, the European Commission has published a Deci-sion that determines the criteria and indicators for GES (Commission Decision 2010). This Decision is based on the task group reports, but provides no guidance on how to combine indicators within a descriptors and descriptors for an overall evaluation of GES.

Table 1: Qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status (Annex 1 MSFD).

1) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distri-bution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

2) Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not ad-versely alter the ecosystems.

3) Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

4) All elements of the marine food webs, to the extend that the are known, occur at nor-mal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.

5) Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen de-ficiency in bottom waters.

6) Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the eco-systems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely af-fected.

7) Permanent alteration of hydrographic condition does not adversely affect marine eco-systems.

8) Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

9) Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.

10) Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

11) Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.


Marine Directors

Marine Strategy Coordination Group

Working group on

good environmental

status

later: group

on monitoring

and

assessment

Regional sea conventions and

competent international bodies

Working group on

marine data,

information and

knowledge exchange

Task groups on descriptors

12 independent experts + observers

NGOMSKOM

Regulatory Committee

(Art. 25)

2-3 subgroupsWISE-Marine,

reporting sheets

indicators

Marine Directors

Marine Strategy Coordination Group

Working group on

good environmental

status

later: group

on monitoring

and

assessment

Regional sea conventions and

competent international bodies

Working group on

marine data,

information and

knowledge exchange

Task groups on descriptors

12 independent experts + observers

NGOMSKOM

Regulatory Committee

(Art. 25)

2-3 subgroupsWISE-Marine,

reporting sheets

indicators

Figure 3: Structures of the EC-implementation process of the MSFD.

2 Towards an integrative approach - the DPSIR- Model

The DPSIR-model (driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses) is an ex-tension of the pressure-state-response model developed by OECD in 1993, describ-ing the interactions between society and environment. Through the use of the DPSIR modelling framework, it is possible to gauge the effectiveness of responses or measures put into place to reduce the impacts of human pressures on the marine environment. The causal framework is also useful to develop and structure indica-tors and is therefore discussed here as a possible basis for GES as demanded in the MSFD. The DPSIR-Model in Figure 4 depicts two of the most serious anthropo-genic pressures in European marine waters – fisheries and eutrophication. The two selected pressures influence the state of the marine ecosystem. This state can be measured using biotic and abiotic variables and a separation is possible between parameters that relate to fisheries and parameters that relate to eutrophication. However, and this is crucial, this separation is impossible when considering the im-pacts of the two selected pressures (highlighted by the two overlapping colours in Figure 3). For example, an increase in phytoplankton might have been observed as an impact but it cannot be determined whether this increase is due to increased nu-trient inputs or a decrease in the zooplankton population triggered by the selective removal of top predators by fisheries. To reduce the observed impact and achieve or maintain GES effective programmes of measures are needed.


GES as demanded by the MSFD could, according to the DPSIR-model, essentially be assessed by considering either impacts or pressures on the marine environment or by considering both. Assessing the impacts, as done in the WFD, provides two advantages. First, the ‘actual’ health of the ecosystem is determined and second, the influence of cumulative impacts can be considered. A disadvantage, however, is that there exists often no clear-cut cause-effect relationship between anthropogenic pressures and impacts, so that it becomes difficult to determine what measures are most effective. By contrast, assessing only pressures implies taking action without accurate knowledge on ecosystem state and impacts. Furthermore, to achieve GES it is of paramount importance to move away from a sectoral towards an integrated approach of assessing and managing the marine environment, which essentially means considering both pressures and impacts. The WFD has paved the way to-wards such an approach and the MSFD should follow suit.

Figure 4: The DPSIR-model for the anthropogenic pressures fisheries and eutrophication. The driving forces are not depicted.

3 Towards GES – Proposal for an assessment philosophy

Table 1 lists the 11 descriptors as formulated in the MSFD. When looking further into the different descriptors it is apparent that there are differences between them. For instance, descriptor 1 (biodiversity) describes essentially one aspect of envi-ronmental quality and is characterised by a huge number of characteristics and in-fluenced by a large number of pressures. In comparison, descriptor 11 (underwater noise) is essentially already a pressure and can possibly only be further character-ised by measuring and assessing its impact on marine mammals. Hence, for moving

Pressures

Fisheries

Nutrient in-puts

Responses

Point sources Diffuse sources

Quotas Fishing techni-ques

• Phytoplankton

• Fish

• Food web

ImpactState

Abiotic Biotic • Nutrients

• Seafloor integrity

Phytoplankton

Fish GES ?


towards an assessment philosophy it seems useful to group the descriptors. The German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) has developed a concept in which the three descriptors that relate to the quality of the ecosystem (1,4,6) are used to de-termine whether GES is achieved or not (Figure 5). These three descriptors should essentially mirror the impacts of human pressures on the marine environment. The remaining eight descriptors relate to anthropogenic pressures and are the ‚screws‘ to obtain GES by targeting measures. Grouping the descriptors in such a way fol-lows the DPSIR-model by distinguishing between cause and effect. Changing the in-tensity of the human pressures should lead to changes in the three descriptors of environmental quality. This approach also follows the philosophy of the WFD where biological variables are used to describe and evaluate the ecological status of a wa-ter body (for more details on this approach see chapter 4 below). The descriptors of anthropogenic pressures should be assessed descriptor by descriptor (i.e. pressure by pressure) considering only pressures that are relevant for the marine region con-cerned. While UBA has included descriptor 6 (seafloor) in the descriptors of envi-ronmental quality descriptor 7 (hydrographic conditions) is grouped under anthropo-genic pressures. This grouping is based on the notion that ‘natural’ hydrographic conditions in the marine environment are difficult to evaluate and such conditions are of more fundamental importance when they are altered (this also follows the logic of the WFD where altered hydrographic conditions might lead to classification as heavily modified water bodies).

17 characteristics• Nutrients• Oxygen• Contaminants• Phytoplankton• Zooplankton• Marine mammals• Birds• FishEtc.

&

18 Pressures / Impacts• Fisheries• Nutrient input• Noise• Litter• Physical damageEtc.

8 descriptors of anthropogenic

pressures -‚screws‘ to obtain

GES

3 descriptors of environmental

quality

GES

D 2 Non-indigenous species

D 3 Fisheries

D 5 Eutrophication

D 7 Hydrographic conditions

D 8 Contaminants

D 9 Contaminants in seafood

D 10 Litter

D 11 Noise

D1 Biodiversity

D 4 Food webs

D 6 Seafloor integrity

17 characteristics• Nutrients• Oxygen• Contaminants• Phytoplankton• Zooplankton• Marine mammals• Birds• FishEtc.

&

18 Pressures / Impacts• Fisheries• Nutrient input• Noise• Litter• Physical damageEtc.

8 descriptors of anthropogenic

pressures -‚screws‘ to obtain

GES

3 descriptors of environmental

quality

GES

D 2 Non-indigenous species

D 3 Fisheries

D 5 Eutrophication

D 7 Hydrographic conditions

D 8 Contaminants

D 9 Contaminants in seafood

D 10 Litter

D 11 Noise

D1 Biodiversity

D 4 Food webs

D 6 Seafloor integrity

Figure 5: A proposal by the German Federal Environment Agency for grouping the 11 descriptors in descriptors that describe environmental quality and descriptors that characterise anthropogenic pres-sures on the marine environment.


4 What can be learned from relevant EC Directives and Con-ventions?

When developing environmental targets and indicators for the MSFD we do not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ but can rely on a number of Regional Seas Conventions such as OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic) and HELCOM (Convention on the Protection of the Marine Envi-ronment of the Baltic Sea Area) and EC Directives such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directive (HD / BD). Figure 6 shows that there is considerable spatial overlap between these Conventions and EC Directives. The MSFD also states that where it overlaps with other Directives it only applies if aspects of the environmental status are not already covered by other Directives, in particular the WFD in coastal waters. The strictest regime in a respective area is set-ting the standards.

Tide

Level

(MHTL)1 nm3 nm12 nm

MSFD, if not already covered by otherDirectives

200 nmBaseline

OSPAR (Northeast Atlantic)

HELCOM (Baltic Sea)

HD & BD

Freshwater

Boundary

Chemical status Water Framework DirectiveEcological status

Tide

Level

(MHTL)1 nm3 nm12 nm

MSFD, if not already covered by otherDirectives

200 nmBaseline

OSPAR (Northeast Atlantic)

HELCOM (Baltic Sea)HELCOM (Baltic Sea)

HD & BDHD & BD

Freshwater

Boundary

Chemical status Water Framework DirectiveEcological status

Figure 6: Relevant EC Directives and Regional Conventions that overlap with the area of validity of the MSFD.

4.1. Scales of evaluation

The MSFD requires a decision on what scales we want to evaluate GES. The WFD uses a five-step-scale for the assessment of ecological status and a two-step scale for the assessment of chemical status (Figure 7). The HD / BD uses a three-step-scale (with an additional category for unknown) (Figure 7). The MSFD only demands a distinction between good and bad environmental status (GES achieved or not) but it could be of advantage to use a finer scale for better depicting successes in moving towards GES (Figure 7). This could generate incentives for putting measures in place


for stakeholders, policy makers and the general public. UBA proposes a red/green ap-proach for the pressures and a finer scale for the descriptors of environmental quality.

favourable

WFD

MSFD

HD

Good EnvironmentalStatus (GES)

very good good moderate poor bad

Goal not reached

unfavourable/inadequate bad unknown

ORDescriptors of environmental qualityAlternative

approachDescriptors of pressures

Descriptors of environmental quality

Badgood

Ecologicalstatus

Chemical status

favourable

WFD

MSFD

HD

Good EnvironmentalStatus (GES)

very good good moderate poor badvery good good moderate poor bad

Goal not reached

unfavourable/inadequate bad unknown

ORDescriptors of environmental qualityAlternative

approachDescriptors of pressures

Descriptors of environmental quality

Badgood

Ecologicalstatus

Chemical status

Figure 7: Comparison of assessment scales for environmental / conservation status of different EC-Directives.

4.2. Reference conditions and GES

The ultimate goal of the MSRL and the WFD is similar. Both demand achieving a good status (“good environmental status’ according to the MSRL, “good ecological and chemical status” according to the WFD). The ultimate goal of the MSRL is that GES is achieved or maintained in EU marine waters. Determining whether this is the case requires knowledge on reference conditions and / or the determination of a threshold value (or boundary value as it is termed in the WFD). Setting the first is difficult because we lack pristine marine areas and changes to marine ecosystems are often measured against previous baselines which in themselves may represent significant changes from the original state of the ecosystem (shifting or sliding base-line syndrome).

In case where this information is lacking, we could try to describe a biocoenosis and the respective habitats according to a potential ecosystem ignoring unchangeable anthropogenic influences. Setting threshold values is equally difficult because we of-ten do not know the exact cause-effect relationship and can therefore not determine how much use is too much. The WFD defines “good status” as a “slight” deviation from reference conditions, while the MSFD leaves it to the Member States to define GES.


4.3. Taking on board the WFD and the HD / BD

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an overview of the assessment philosophy of the WFD and HD / BD it should be highlighted that their approaches are different. HD / BD assess selected mainly rare species and habitat types. They assess a number of bird species and all species of marine mammals, but no purely marine fish species (only anadromous species) (Figure 8). In addition, HD / BD only list important pressures and impacts without explicitly assessing them. For the habi-tats a checklist of characteristic species is assessed and there lies the potential of the HD / BD to lead the way for a more comprehensive assessment under the MSFD. Hence one important step would be to develop further lists of characteristic species and functional groups independent of whether they are included under HD / BD or not.

The WFD distinguishes between ecological and chemical status of the aquatic envi-ronment. The ecological status is evaluated by comparing the actual biocoenosis with a reference. Therefore, the WFD takes ecosystem structure into account. It also takes pressures and impacts into account as factors that change the biocoenosis (e.g. fishing). Compared to HD / BD the WFD assesses additional species groups (Figure 8). In addition, chemical status is assessed by monitoring whether so-called priority substances are below or above defined environmental standards. The WFD applies the one-out-all-out principle in which the biological component with the worst classification determines the overall ecological or chemical status classification. This means for instance both ecological and chemical status need to be good in order for a water body to be classified as good. For the MSFD UBA suggests avoiding an ag-gregation of the descriptors of anthropogenic pressures and assessing them sepa-rately. However, when aggregating indicators within a descriptor the one-out-all-out principle might be relevant.

In conclusion, the MSFD is more comprehensive than each of the two other Direc-tives alone. Simply putting together WFD and HD / BD will not satisfy the require-ments of the MSFD. The Directives came into force in eight-year- intervals (HD / BD 1992, WFD 2000, MSFD 2008) and their contents mirror a progressive convergence towards the ecosystem approach that focuses on ecosystem structure, function and processes (Figure 9). The MSFD includes all species groups that can be found in an ecosystem (except bacteria). Ecosystem functionality is explicitly considered in the descriptors (e.g. descriptor 4 food web). Hence the MSFD provides a powerful tool to describe our marine ecosystems in a holistic way considering ecosystem compo-nents, functions, processes and the pressures and impacts that affect them. How-ever, even the MSFD is not perfect when it comes to considering the ecosystem ap-proach and there is still room for future advances in legislation. Most importantly, it


should be considered that the question whether we get a ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ Directive rests in the hands of the EU and its member states.

Reptiles

BirdsFishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

MSFD

Aliens

Phytoplankton

Zooplankton

Reptiles

Birds

Fishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

WFD (coastal waters)

PhytoplanktonMakroalgae

Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

Aliens

HD / BD

Assessment of eco-system functionality� Comparison with a reference-biocoenosis

Assessment of rare species and habitats� Defines species characteristic for selected habitat types

Reptiles

BirdsFishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

Reptiles

BirdsFishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

MSFD

Aliens

Phytoplankton

Zooplankton

Reptiles

Birds

Fishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

Aliens

Phytoplankton

Zooplankton

Reptiles

Birds

Fishes

Mam

mals

Makroalgae

Zoobenthos

Angiosperms



Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

Aliens



Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

Aliens


Zoobenthos

Angiosperms

Aliens

HD / BDHD / BD

Assessment of eco-system functionality� Comparison with a reference-biocoenosis

Assessment of rare species and habitats� Defines species characteristic for selected habitat types

Figure 8: Comparison of the components of biological quality assessed by the WFD, HD / BD and MSFD.

HD1992• Protection of selected habitats and species• List pressures and impacts

WFD2000• EU-wide harmonisation and intercalibration (CIS-process)• Considers the ecosystem effects of pressures and impacts• Focus on ecosystem structure

MSFD 2008• EU-wide harmonisationand intercalibration?• Uses pressures and impacts as descriptors for GES• Ecosystem structure, function and processes

Consideration of ecosystem functions and processes

Rare species

Rare habitats

Actualbiocoenosiswater body 1


?HD1992• Protection of selected habitats and species• List pressures and impacts

WFD2000• EU-wide harmonisation and intercalibration (CIS-process)• Considers the ecosystem effects of pressures and impacts• Focus on ecosystem structure

MSFD 2008• EU-wide harmonisationand intercalibration?• Uses pressures and impacts as descriptors for GES• Ecosystem structure, function and processes

Consideration of ecosystem functions and processes

Rare species

Rare habitats

Rare species

Rare habitats





?

Figure 9: Progressing towards the ecosystem approach.


5 References

Commissions Decision (2010): Commissions Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. L 232/14.

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2000): DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2008): DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2009): DIRECTIVE 2009/147/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version, 26.1.2010)


The bottom line on Good Environmental Status: requirements to achieve a good environmental status in European Seas from the NGOs’ point of view STEPHAN LUTTER¹ & SASKIA RICHARTZ²

¹World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Germany, ²Greenpeace, Brussels

1 Introduction

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) obliges Member States to take ‘the necessary measures’ to achieve or maintain a good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest. The environmental NGOs consider the adoption and entry into force of the Directive a positive and important step in strengthening EU environmental law in the European Union. However, key objectives, targets and timelines were weakened during the legislative process. At the time, the NGOs expressed concern about the deferment of important decisions, such as the definition of GES in particular. The achievement of GES is central to the Directive and, if defined rigorously, can provide an important and basic contribution to the protection and restoration of European marine ecosystems. The effectiveness of the Directive thus ultimately depends on the level of ambition applied in the proc-ess of defining methodological standards and indicators linked to the 11 GES de-scriptors of the Directive, and the ecological efficiency of these. Moreover, it is nec-essary to achieve a consistent and comparable level of implementation among all (coastal) Member States of the European Union. In order to inform the process of setting appropriate standards for the different GES descriptors, NGO experts com-piled a set of guidelines, focussing on those descriptors related to biological diversity (1), commercial fish stocks (3), marine food webs (4) and seafloor integrity (6).

The present document is a summary of these guidelines with additional comments on the descriptors related to eutrophication (5), contaminants (8) and noise and en-ergy (11). Descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6 are intimately linked in so far as they describe the biological status of the ecosystem in question. Moreover, achieving GES in rela-tion to descriptors 1 and 4, implies meeting the requirements of descriptors 3 and 6, with similar other interlinkages existing. Thus, the NGOs are of the view that in as-sessing GES, all four descriptors have to be evaluated in conjunction and applied with the same level of rigour. NGOs further recommend that the methodology for de-fining regional GES characteristics should consider a range of methodological ap-proaches, such as food web modelling, the keystone species concept and the use of ecological reference points. Moreover, it is important that, in relation to fish popula-tions, reference points are be based on biological and ecological characteristics and


not only on exploitation models that rely on targets such as Maximum Sustainable Yield, Safe Biological Limits etc. In this context, the interface between the MSFD, GES and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is particularly important, especially because the latter will be undergoing a process of reform. The new CFP should therefore contribute to the achievement of GES and provides opportunities to review the failures of previous fisheries management concepts and support the use of ma-rine protected areas (MPAs).

Furthermore, the NGOs wish to highlight a number of principles that should be kept at the forefront of efforts to develop methodological standards and measures to achieve GES. These are:

- it is possible and necessary to regulate human activities, because we cannot regulate the environment itself;

- conservation and sustainability are not merely a societal goal, but the premise for our survival and prosperity;

- the right to access and use marine resources is conditional upon meeting the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment;

- the precautionary principle implies that conservation measures must be carried out even in the absence of full knowledge of the impacts and ecological responses to these impacts;

- the application of the reversal of burden of proof should bring about a shift from the existing permissive regulatory approach, where an activity is permitted until evidence of environmental damage emerges via monitoring activity or casual observation, to a precautionary approach;

- fish are animals and not simply a commodity. As an integral part of marine biodiversity, they should be treated as such; the fact that they are used commercially should not bias efforts to define a good environmental status;

- under good environmental conditions there should be no trophic decline as a result of human use;

- ecosystem recovery must be pursued with a view to achieving resilient ecosystems that can resist cumulative impacts of human uses and broader environmental change;

- an ecologically significant proportion of the sea should be legally and permanently protected to safeguard unique features and representative examples of features that are typical of the ecosystem in question, to allow the restoration of degraded ecosystems and to contribute to an ecologically coherent regional and global network of well managed marine protected areas. Protected areas can also serve


as undisturbed reference areas that provide a comparison with those areas that are disturbed or destroyed by human interference;

- the polluter should pay.

Above all, we must keep in mind that if we are to protect life at sea, we must change our lives on land.

Descriptor 1: Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habi-tats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physi-ographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

Descriptor 1 basically means that in order to achieve GES, human activities must be managed in such a way that the highest possible structural and functional biodiver-sity, as a function of the local natural environmental conditions, can be achieved. Consequently, it is not sufficient to (merely) maintain the current biological diversity, in terms of the occurrence (distribution and abundance) and quality of landscapes, habitats, species and within-species diversity. The target state of a given marine ecosystem should be mostly unaffected by anthropogenic influences and primarily driven by natural forces. Human uses should not compromise the long-term thriving of the ecosystem and its components.

In line with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), biological diversity in all of its aspects, including species and intra-species diversity and diversity of landscapes and habitats, should be:

� at least maintained;

� restored, if possible, i.e. regionally or locally extinct components, species or variants should be able to spread and populate new areas, and should occur in densities that were present before anthropogenic influences led to their decline;

� protected and actively supported to maintain or reach a level of diversity that is high enough to allow adaptation to possible future influences. This may be achieved by promoting enhanced habitat connectivity, thus allowing gene flow and shifts of the distributional range and pattern of populations.

The complex dependencies between the biodiversity status and the functioning of the food web require an integrated development of descriptors 1 and 4, ideally in one combined descriptor.


Descriptor 4: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive ca-pacity.

Genetic diversity, being the raw material for evolutionary adaptation (‘long-term abundance of species’), and the structure of and dynamics within populations (‘re-tention of their full reproductive capacity’) are preconditions for genetically and ecol-ogically diverse, complex and stable food webs and ecosystems, as is a balanced trophic structure, in which neither prey nor predator populations increase out of check. All these elements will have to be considered in defining methodological standards and indicators under Descriptor 4. The assessment of food web quality requires a systemic approach, i.e. an analysis and evaluation of the role of func-tional groups/elements and their interrelationships, in addition to an evaluation of the abundance and quality of individual elements. The Mean Trophic Index (MTI, based on trophic levels) is, in our view, a useful methodology to assess the state of marine food webs, and should be applied in the GES context. Nonetheless, it is not suffi-cient to capture the whole extent of elements of the food web and their interlinkages, in particular regarding the impact of fishing on the structure and function of the eco-system. NGOs are of the view that the tool of modelling should be designed and used to analyse and quantify these functional groups and their linkages. Descriptor 4 refers to all elements of the marine food web ‘to the extent that they are known’, which includes elements that have not yet been assessed or researched, or which have been assessed, but are no longer present. In order to estimate the ‘normal’ level of abundance and diversity of all elements of the particular food web, it is nec-essary to define a baseline or ecological reference point that can reflect the natural condition under current hydrological drivers. Within marine food webs, a high hori-zontal (within functional groups) and vertical diversity (number of trophic levels, length of trophic chains) of species provides diverse functional relationships be-tween individual elements, optimizing the resilience of the ecosystem to external forcing and its internal stability. It will be necessary to select and assess representa-tive food webs with their key functions and species at a regional level to assess the ecological status of the relevant marine region. Their quality can be evaluated based on progress:

� towards the target reference points for an optimised resilience (maximal horizontal and vertical diversity);

� away from the limit reference points to avoid conditions which have the potential to lead to probably non-reversible changes and developments (regime shifts) in the system.


Food web quality should be assessed by means of experimental investigations on key functions and processes amongst other, supplementing status parameters. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dynamics between ecosystem components should also be analysed.

Descriptor 3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indica-tive of a healthy stock.

The NGOs have raised concerns in relation to the apparent lack of ambition in defining GES in relation to Descriptor 3. The preparatory work for the draft Commission decision has been solely based on the controversial principle of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). MSY is, theoretically, the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species' stock over an indefinite period. The common assumption is that this occurs when the fish stock has been reduced to less than half of the un-fished level. The concept has been subject to harsh criticism from the scientific community since the early 1970’s, due to its failure to adequately deal with the existing operational complexities and ecosystem interactions. It is based on single-species rather than ecosystem-based considerations, does not account for spatial variability in productivity, considers only the benefits and not the costs of fishing, and is sensitive to political pressures. The stock’s ability to reproduce and its resilience are reduced when fished at MSY, because individual fish are caught before they reach maturity or before they grow large enough to produce sufficient, viable spawn (larger adults are more fecund and their eggs have a higher survival rate).

While achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) would, at present, constitute an improvement for many or most European stocks, MSY should not be established as the ultimate goal in achieving Descriptor 3. Setting criteria for the fisheries descriptor at such high levels of fish mortality and low stock levels puts the survival/maintenance of populations at an unacceptable risk. Moreover, a mere endorsement of the current fisheries management in the context of the MSFD signals a discouraging lack of ambition and does not bode well for the status of the marine environment in 2020 nor the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Fishing above MSY also has important negative economic and social impacts. Fishing at a lower level than MSY will result in almost equivalent catch levels as fishing at MSY, but fishermen will invest less fishing effort and to catch the same amount. Fishing below MSY is therefore economically more viable in the medium to long-term.

MSY should, if used at all, only ever be considered as an intermediate target on the way to achieving healthy stocks. The end goal must be more conservative and precautionary in nature than MSY and can usefully build on the ecological quality


objectives that have been developed in the context of regional seas conventions, such as standards relating to the distribution of length in fish populations (see OSPAR). We further consider it essential that information on historical baselines of fish populations and biomass are used to assess the status of these stock and, in particular, to detect instances of chronic overfishing. This should prevent us from defining GES in the context of a shifting baselines, in which today’s stock levels may be unnaturally low and inconsistent with achieving GES. Historic baseline data is particularly important where regular stock assessments are missing, such as for Mediterranean fisheries.

Descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

The most widespread impacts on sea-floor integrity are caused by fishing gear, such as bottom trawls, and eutrophication. More localised, in terms of the affected area, are damages or disturbances caused by activities of (other) extraction industries, such as the oil and gas or sand and gravel industry, and the construction of installa-tions at sea or in coastal habitats. To date, EU policies have primarily tried to limit these impacts on a case-by-case or area-by-area basis, often after damage has oc-curred, e.g. by restricting bottom trawling in particular areas to protect certain ben-thic communities. In future, we consider it essential that the EU’s regulatory frame-work creates conditions under which marine protection can move beyond such a case-by-case approach. Sea-floor damage that is inconsistent with achieving a GES should be prevented before it occurs, rather than prohibited and repaired retrospec-tively. Maritime industries, including fishing operators, should be asked to demon-strate that their activities will not impact on the integrity of the sea-floor in ways that leads to a deterioration of the ecological status, prior to being granted permission to undertake their activities. This shift in the burden of proof requires the introduction of systematic impact assessments for all relevant maritime activities, as well as a more systematic and widespread assessment of sea-floor quality. Therefore, Descriptor 6 should lead to the establishment of appropriate criteria and indicators for all types of substrates and benthic communities, including for those substrates, which – under existing conservation laws – are not yet covered by protection efforts. In this context, it will be particularly important to consider cumulative effects of human impacts and to define appropriate reference levels, including by considering historic baselines. Descriptor 6 demonstrates most clearly that the mere choice between “good” or “bad” status has disadvantages as compared to the five-pronged judgement system (very poor - poor - moderate - good - very good) available under the Water Frame-work Directive. As pristine sea-floor in “very good” status has become quite rare in European waters, Member States might be tempted to assess degraded areas as “good” and thus maintain the status quo. Choosing appropriate undisturbed refer-


ence areas will therefore be vital and should be mandatory. Furthermore, the NGOs are of the view that the argumentation put forward by some Member States to argue that descriptor 6 is not applicable to them, lack validity. Descriptor 6 on sea-floor in-tegrity applies to all marine regions and country waters, only the level of impact dif-fers in different regions.

Short notes on other descriptors, related to marine pollution

Descriptor 5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse ef-fects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

The NGOs urge the Commission and the Member States to avoid a narrow focus on eutrophication in coastal areas, because serious eutrophication problems do also occur in offshore waters of the Baltic and Black Seas. It will be important to link the impact of eutrophication to nutrient sources and ways of inputs. Furthermore, indica-tors should be regionally adapted and related to nutrient ratios (N/P) and nutrient limitation, in particular by making use of standards developed by the regional seas conventions. In this context, the up-coming reform of the Common Agriculture Pol-icy, amongst others, will be important.

Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollu-tion effects.

The NGOs point out that the wording of this descriptor as such undermines the commitment adopted by OSPAR and HELCOM to cease discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances with the ultimate objective of close-to-zero concen-trations in the marine environment. It will consequently be a challenge to build on existing and set up new ecological status indicators, which are consistent with exist-ing commitments and the precautionary principle.

Descriptor 11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.

The NGOs highlight that the threshold levels for ambient underwater noise currently considered under this descriptor are questionable from a precautionary point of view and therefore are a cause for concern. Moreover, there is a strong need for as-sessments of cumulative impacts arising from various noise sources, including sys-tematic noise monitoring and mapping. The NGOs support the idea of certain Mem-ber States to introduce a biological relevance indicator. Critical levels of noise pollu-tion and other degradation or loss of marine mammal habitat (descriptor 1) should be considered jointly.


2 Conclusions

All ecological descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6 have to be evaluated in conjunction, as inter-linkages between these descriptors are plentiful: e.g. reaching a GES in descriptors 1and 4 implies a GES in descriptors 3 and 6.

- It is important to establish a series of strategic goals (targets), which can be used to assess the direction of change towards or away from GES. However, they should be supplemented by a single, more illustrative vision, of what it means to achieve a healthy sea (per marine region or sub-region).

- Many marine ecosystems are already heavily impacted upon by human activities. Consequently, the scope of regeneration of degraded marine ecosystems and communities should be one consideration in determining the level of progress towards achieving GES. It would therefore be useful to agree on a set of indicators for ‘distance’ to GES.

- A representative system of fully-protected marine areas should be established ASAP to support the achievement of GES and serve as reference areas, in which ecosystem components can develop in the absence of human pressures and intervention. These reference areas may overlap with areas protected as part of the ecologically coherent MPA networks established under Natura 2000 and regional conventions, but could also be created in addition.

�


Good Environmental Status Indicators for benthos within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: taking advantage from the Water Framework DirectiveÁNGEL BORJA

AZTI-Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Spain

1 Introduction

The marine environment includes high levels of complexity, diverse habitats and supports a high level of biodiversity. Besides, it provides different uses which should be undertaken in a sustainable way. However, the marine environment is facing in-creasing and significant pressures, which include pollution (hazardous substances, litter, oil-spills, etc.), tourism, commercial fishing, introduction of alien species, eu-trophication, aquaculture, sediment discharges, sand extraction, maritime transport, and climate change (Halpern et al., 2008). In response to these problems, policy-makers world-wide tend to develop strategies to protect, conserve and recover the marine environment (Borja et al., 2008). Hence, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the international basic legal framework that governs the uses of the oceans and seas. UNCLOS outlines provisions for the protection and preservation of marine ecosystems, together with the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At a national level, several marine conservation and protection ini-tiatives have been developed recently (Australia, Canada, USA, etc.). In Europe, several policies refer full or partly to the marine environment, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives (HD & BD), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) or the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Together with several international regional con-ventions (OSPAR, in the Atlantic Ocean; HELCOM, in the Baltic Sea; Bucharest, in the Black Sea; Barcelona, in the Mediterranean Sea; MEDPOL, globally) and or-ganisations (ICES, IMO, etc.), only in 2008 the European Parliament approved the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), for the protection of all seas of the European Union (see Borja et al., 2008, for an overview of all this legislation world-wide).

The main objectives of the MSFD are to protect and/or restore the European Seas, ensuring that human activities are carried out in a sustainable manner and to pro-vide safe, clean, healthy and productive marine waters; in summary, ‘to promote the sustainable use of the seas and conserve marine ecosystems’ (see Borja, 2006). Similar objectives were established for the WFD in estuarine and coastal waters (Borja, 2005), and much scientific expertise have been gained from the implementa-tion of this directive, since its approval in 2000 (Noges et al., 2009). In this contribu-tion an analysis on how the MSFD can benefit from synergies with he implementa-


tion of the WFD, in assessing the good environmental status of the sea-floor integ-rity (i.e. benthic habitats), is provided.

2 Benthic invertebrates versus sea-floor integrity

The WFD determines the good ecological status on the basis of several quality ele-ments (physico-chemical, phytoplankton, macroalgae, angiosperms, benthic inver-tebrates and fishes). This directive follows the principle ‘one out, all out’, which is based upon de assumption that the worst status of those elements, used in the as-sessment, determines the final status of a water body (Heiskanen et al., 2004; Borja, 2005). In the case of benthic invertebrates, many different methodologies in assess-ing its ecological status have been proposed across European eco-regions (see a synthesis in Borja et al., 2009). These methods are multimetric or multivariate, and include several metrics in the assessment, such as richness, diversity, abundance of opportunistic/sensitive species ratio, etc. One of the advantages of them is that they have been intercalibrated between EU Member States (Borja et al., 2007, 2009). Assessments are based on networks of monitoring status covering the whole coastal water bodies until 1 nm off the coastal baseline (Ferreira et al., 2007). Diver-gent to the later one, the MSFD determines the good environmental status on the basis of 11 quality descriptors, including aspects such as biodiversity, alien species, fishing, food-webs, eutrophication, sea-floor integrity, hydrography, pollutants, litter, energy and noise. Only, one of the descriptors, sea-floor integrity can be correlated to the parameter “benthos” which must be assessed according to the WFD. The MSFD defines “sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected”. Hence, analysing this definition, it can be stated that,

(i) The term ‘sea-floor’ includes abiotic and biotic attributes;

(ii) ‘Integrity’ is related to the spatial connectedness (habitats are not unnaturally fragmented), and granting the natural ecosystem processes and functioning. Ar-eas of high integrity are resilient to perturbations, so human activities can cause some degree of perturbation without serious and lasting harm to the ecosystems, its parts and functions;

(iii) ‘Structure and functions of ecosystems’ require an assessment of the benthic habitats and benthic communities;

(iv) ‘Not adversely affected’ relates to the human uses of the sea-floor, and the pres-sures and impacts they produce, indicating that these uses must be sustainable. Uses are sustainable; if (a) the perturbations do not degrade or cause serious


harm to ecosystem structure and function, as well as goods and services; and, (b) recovery from the perturbations should be rapid and secure, when the pres-sure is removed.

EU Member States are obliged by the MSFD to conduct more integrative assess-ments than the WFD, taking into account the whole ecosystem and the human ac-tivities therein. The final assessment in the MSFD has to follow an ecosystem-based approach (see Browman et al., 2004). This approach can be defined as: a compre-hensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available sci-entific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of the marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and mainte-nance of ecosystem integrity (see Borja et al., 2008).

3 A proposal for monitoring within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

It should be noted that, although marine waters are supporting increasing human pressures in recent times (Halpern et al., 2008), most of them are based on land or are coastal human activities. Therefore, a clear gradient of pressure can be detected in most marine regions from land, coastal waters, continental shelf waters to open waters. Probably, one of the most important pressures in the continental shelf and open waters is fishing, together with maritime transport and some specific activities in distinct areas (i.e. oil and gas extraction).

Presumably, most of these pressure gradients can be detected by benthic assessing methods existing in WFD monitoring networks. However, most of the sea surface of Europe covered by the MSFD is deeper than 3000 m water depth. Hence, in marine regions of these depths, high costs for technical equipment prevent routine monitor-ing of the sea-floor. A proposal for monitoring within the MSFD should add to the ex-isting coastal WFD monitoring networks, an additional MSFD monitoring network on the continental shelf, to catch offshore pressure gradients. This added network, pro-longing coastal monitoring transects could operate with lower number of sampling stations. Presumably, in areas with significant pressures in offshore areas, addi-tional sampling stations should be added. In most of these cases, the methods used in assessing the ecological status, for WFD, can be also be used for the MSFD. Where existing methods are not suitable, new methods should be developed for as-sessing the impacts produced by those particular pressures. However, as WFD as-sessment tools analyse benthic communities only, additional approaches should be used and combined to ensure that sea-floor integrity is maintained. Hence, taking into account the 6 year reporting period, habitat mapping surveys (i.e. every 6-12


years) (Kostylev et al., 2001), habitat suitability approaches (every 6-12 years) (Gui-san & Zimmermann, 2000; Degraer et al., 2008) and goods and services valuation (every 12 years) (de Groot et al., 2002; Beaumont et al., 2007; Derous, 2007), over large marine regions, can be used for a final assessment and marine spatial plan-ning (Douvere & Ehler, 2009), allowing an integrated management of the European sea-floor (Galparsoro et al., 2010).

4 References

Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P., Derous, S., Holm, P., Horton, T. & van Ierland, E. (2007): Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem ap-proach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 253-265.

Borja, A. (2005): The European water framework directive: A challenge for nearshore, coastal and continental shelf research. Continental Shelf Research, 25: 1768-1783.

Borja, A. (2006): The new European Marine Strategy Directive: Difficulties, opportunities, and challenges. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 239-242.

Borja, A., Josefson, A.B., Miles, A., Muxika, I., Olsgard, F., Phillips, G., Rodríguez, J.G. & Rygg, B. (2007): An approach to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European Water Framework Directive. Ma-rine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 42-52.

Borja, A., Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T., Hutchings, P., Jia, X., Kenchington, R., Marques, J.C. & Zhu, C. (2008): Overview of inte-grative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1519-1537.

Borja, A., Miles, A., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. & Berg, T. (2009): Current status of macroinver-tebrate methods used for assessing the quality of European marine waters: implementing the Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia, 633: 181-196.

Browman, H.I., Stergiou, K.I., Cury, P.M., Hilborn, R., Jennings, S., Lotze, H.K., Mace, P.M., Murawski, S., Pauly, D., Sissenwine, M. & Zeller, D. (2004): Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 274: 269-303.

Degraer, S., Verfaillie, E., Willems, W., Adriaens, E., Vincx, M. & Van Lancker, V. (2008): Habitat suitability modelling as a mapping tool for macrobenthic communities: An example from the Belgian part of the North Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 28: 369-379.

de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002): A typology for the classification, de-scription and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41: 393-408.


Derous, S. (2007): Marine biological valuation as a decision support tool for marine man-agement. Ph.D Thesis, University of Ghent, 298 pp.

Douvere, F. & Ehler, C.N. (2009): New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 90: 77-88.

Ferreira, J., Vale, C., Soares, C., Salas, F., Stacey, P., Bricker, S., Silva, M. & Marques, J.C. (2007): Monitoring of coastal and transitional waters under the E.U. Water Framework Direc-tive. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135: 195-216.

Galparsoro, I., Borja, Á., Legorburu, I., Hernández, C., Chust, G., Liria, P. & Uriarte, A. (2010): Morphological characteristics of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay, north-ern Spain); their implications for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Geomorphology, 118: 314-329.

Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N.E. (2000): Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 135: 147-186.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. & Watson, R. (2008): A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319: 948-952.

Heiskanen, A.S., van de Bund, W., Cardoso, A.C., Nöges, P. (2004): Towards good ecologi-cal status of surface waters in Europe -interpretation and harmonisation of the concept. Wa-ter Science and Technology, 49: 169-177.

Kostylev, V.E., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.B.J., Courtney, R.C., Cameron, G.D.M. & Pickrill, R.A. (2001): Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surfi-cial geology and sea floor photographs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 219: 121-137.

Nöges, P., van de Bund, W., Cardoso, A., Solimini, A. & Heiskanen, A.-S. (2009): Assess-ment of the ecological status of European surface waters: a work in progress. Hydrobiologia, 633: 197-211.


Good Environmental Status indicator for sea turtles: How to protect sea turtles under the Habitats Directive and MSFD THOMAS DELLINGER

University of Madeira, Portugal

1 Introduction

Sea turtles are highly migratory and endangered species that roam the oceans widely. As they attract easily public attention as flag-species of international conser-vation and as long-lived marine predators high positioned in the marine food web, they are often seen as indicators for good marine environments, which can integrate negative impacts over long periods of time. Because their life cycle encompasses various developmental stages spent in very different habitats, they are also a good indicator species for an ecosystem assessment. The present paper addresses the biology of sea turtles with particular reference to the loggerheads (Caretta caretta) within European waters, questions of their provenance, migratory routes, population composition and abundance. It will briefly review the present state of knowledge for the species, emphasize knowledge gaps that need to be bridged, and methodologi-cal difficulties to assess a widely roaming marine vertebrate. With reference to the MSFD annexes, the paper discusses the information needed to effectively monitor the species and use it as an environmental indicator for the ecosystem.

2 European Turtle Biology and Biogeography

Which turtles occur in Europe

In European waters, 5 of the 7 species of turtles known worldwide occur. Of these, only 2 species, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelonia my-das) reproduced in the Mediterranean (Margaritoulis, 2001). However, the species that are most abundant in European Atlantic waters are the loggerhead and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (Dellinger, 2008).

Life cycle

Turtle life cycles are relatively complex (Bolten, 2003). Every 2-3 years adult fe-males come to nest at a beach and deposit various clutches of over 100 eggs. Incu-bation time is around 60 days. Sea turtles have environmental sex determination through incubation temperature, with warmer temperatures producing more females and colder ones more males. Once hatched and emerged from the nest hatchlings run for the sea and engage in the so-called “swimming frenzy”, swimming in offshore


direction using their stored yolk supply and distancing themselves from the shore’s abundance of predators. Loggerheads thrive for the high seas were they spend some 7-9 years far away from any shore. This phase is called the pelagic/oceanic stage or the “lost year”. For other species this life-stage may be greatly shortened, or, in the case of the leatherback, it is their usual way of life. After this time logger-heads return to a neritic or benthic life-stage more or less close to their native shores. This stage also lasts almost a decade (Bjorndal et al., 2003) and only after this time do they attain sexual maturity at around 20 or even more years of age. From then onward adults migrate between neritic feeding areas to reproductive ar-eas that can be hundreds of km away. Both sexes migrate, but only the fertilized female comes ashore to lay its nest and close the cycle.

The problems this life cycle produces

There are three major consequences that such a life cycle produces. (1) The lon-gevity of these species and their late reproductive maturity mean that only long-term comparisons and monitoring schemes are in fact useful. (2) The second striking fea-ture of this life cycle is that the various life-stages are spent in different habitats, eat-ing different foods. Thus each habitat and life stage has to be monitored separately using different indicators that are not necessarily directly comparable. (3) Last, tur-tles roam the oceans widely, and are not constrained by geopolitical borders. Thus conservation and monitoring must encompass international cooperative efforts to be successful.

Where then, in Europe do turtles occur and in which life stages?

Mediterranean Within the Mediterranean both loggerheads and green sea turtles nest mainly in the Eastern Mediterranean, with a few single scattered occasional loggerhead sea tur-tles (Margaritoulis, 2001)�nests in its Western part. These are the only areas of the EU were turtles reproduce, though a recent translocation experiment is taking place on the island of Fuerteventura, Canary Islands, which belongs to the EU, though be-ing geologically African. Benthic feeding areas exist along much of the neritic area, with important areas being the Adriatic Sea and around the Gulf of Gabès (Margari-toulis et al., 2003). Developmental areas for juvenile pelagic or oceanic stage turtles exist only in the Central Mediterranean and the area around the Balearic Islands and Sea of Alborán (Margaritoulis et al., 2003).


Figure 1: Mediterranean turtle habitats (adapted from Hutchinson & Hutchinson 2006-07; Kasparek & al. 2001; Margaritoulis 2001; Margaritoulis & al. 2003) showing main green and loggerhead nesting beaches, as well as main neritic and pelagic habitats. Atlantic For the Atlantic no benthic feeding areas exist on European shores, but the area around Mauritania as well as Cape Verde certainly includes some benthic feeding. Probably the most important area for turtles is the high seas area which includes the EEZs of Spain and mainly Portugal (Dellinger, 2008). The area is furthermore an important passage/living area for leatherbacks on their migrations between northern feeding areas and tropical reproductive areas (Witt et al., 2007; Eckert, 2006).

Figure 2: North Atlantic turtle habitats showing locations of satellite tracked turtles (Obis Seamap http://seamap.env.duke.edu/) and outlining aproximate pelagic distribution for loggerhead sea turtles.


Sea turtles as indicator species

All sea turtles are long-lived marine predators and thus integrate environmental and anthropogenic influences over long time periods. Arguments as to their use as bio-monitors and indicator species are analogous to those forwarded for birds (Becker, 2003), with the main difference that sea turtles have a higher reproductive output but also a higher juvenile mortality. Turtles can be used both as sensitive indicators as well as accumulative indicators. This is true for all three species regularly seen in Europe: loggerheads, leatherbacks and green turtles. Underlying this is the assump-tion that turtles react to negative environmental conditions and that this can be measured through their populational- as well as individual well being.

Though the existence of life-stages in differing habitats could speak against the us-age of turtles as indicator species for each specific habitat, the long duration of each life-stage makes it possible to analyse each stage separately. Furthermore, the spanning of various habitats can be an advantage, since ecosystems are not consti-tuted by closed habitats, but in fact are open systems. Thus turtles may prove to be good indicators for ecosystem-wide monitoring, spanning large parts of ocean ba-sins. Changes have to be measured against an appropriate baseline. This can be challenging for sea turtles since they have been exploited probably since humans lived close to the sea. There can be also a long delay between the onset of adverse conditions and the collapse of a population (Jackson et al. 2001; Na-tional Research Council, (ed.) 1990). Thus, the shifting baseline syndrome has also to be taken into account, since the gradual change over time of measurable indica-tors in a long-lived species with long generation times may be overseen or ignored.

Turtles in European waters are probably only a fraction of their pre-human impact population densities. For Caribbean populations of green sea turtles it is estimated that their present densities are only 3-7% of their historic values (Jackson et al., 2001). No such estimate exists for turtles in European waters. Turtle exploitation, use, and trade are definitely known since the antique (Broderip, 1852.; Goldsmith, 1852) though loggerheads and leatherbacks were probably those sea turtle species that were least attractive to directed exploitation. Turtle exploitation has been quanti-tatively recorded in more recent times, such as the fishery off Israel after the 1st World War (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). Without an appropriate baseline, the best in-dicators of environmental impact are trend data, calculated over appropriate time-periods. These should be positive were abundance is concerned, under the as-sumption that present population levels are much lower than pre human impact ones.


Table 1: Examples of general qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status of sea turtles.

In-water habitats (pelagic / neritic) Annual/seasonal relative in-water density Sex-ratio Age/size structure Behaviour (reaction distance, maximal basking density) Migratory routes (corridors, areas and seasonality) Mortality Accidental fishing capture and mortality (effort vs. capture) Stranding statistics (composition, dates, causes) Nesting Beaches Number of nests per beach or beach-length No. of nests/female Age/size structure of nesting females Other variables such as remigration intervals, probability of return, etc.... Hatching rate/mortality, sex ratio Life-stage independent Ecology Trophic status Condition index Epibiont prevalence & intensity Health parasite/infection prevalence & intensity threat quantification (entanglement, plastic in stomach) Pollution PCB’s Heavy metals

3 The legal framework

MSFD has strictly timed framework. Important in the present context is the initial as-sessment with its demands for indicators of “good environmental status” by the year 2012.

4 Status indicators

Given the Qualitative Descriptors in Annex I to the MSFD, I will now concentrate on those relevant to sea turtles as indicators of environmental health. Ecosystem or human consumption specific indicators (such as indicators #2, 3 and 9 MSFD Annex I) are of course not very relevant to sea turtles. The main argument to use sea tur-tles would come from descriptor #1 that includes the statement “Quality of abun-dance & distribution within their habitat and geographic range”, implying a popula-


tional approach that ensures a healthy population size and structure, sufficient ge-netic diversity and availability of appropriate turtle habitats. The main cause of the decline of turtle populations are of anthropogenic causation (Na-tional Research Council, (ed.) 1990). Turtles have suffered and still do from a num-ber of human induced impacts (Lutcavage et al. 1997) though most of these have only been accessed qualitatively and are at least difficult to measure (Witherington 2003). Given the complex life cycle of turtles with life stages spent if very differing habitats a habitat-specific approach should be used for quality indicators as well. A selection of general indicators is given in table 1. Methodologies for sea turtle re-search and monitoring have been published variously (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2002; Eckert et al., 1999; Bjorndal et al., 2000; Ben-tivegna, 2004; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2007; FAO Fish-eries Department, 2009; Bjorndal, 1995).

Turtle populational abundance is best accessed at their nesting beaches because turtles are phylopatric, because of the accessibility of these beaches to monitoring, and because recruitment statistics can be produced. Long-term annual monitoring must be ensured for the decades to come. Good examples are the beaches in Cy-prus, Greece, and Turkey (Margaritoulis, 2001). However, since the Atlantic popula-tion of loggerheads originates mainly from US nesting beaches, data from all coun-tries that share the same population are needed. The Florida index nesting beach surveys are a good example (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish Wild-life Service, 2008; Witherington et al., 2009).

Population structure can be measured by a variety of indicators, the most important being age structure and sex ratio. Of course nesting beaches are visited only by adult females, thus population structure must be assessed at in-water locations, usually the foraging areas. However, spatial as well as seasonal segregation by age and sex is a complicating factor and migratory movements must be well understood. At Madeira we have recently implemented a simple in-water monitoring system us-ing the whale-watching industry, that is showing seasonal and inter-annual abun-dance variations and that may prove useful on a long-term (Dellinger unpublished.). Our knowledge on migratory movements has increased tremendously in the last decade due to satellite telemetry, and results stress the interconnectivity of the ocean basins, the importance of previously ignored oceanographic features like sa-linity gradients (Eckert et al., 2008; Revelles et al., 2008) the seasonality of move-ments, and the importance of central oceanic areas outside national jurisdiction.

Survival probabilities and the understanding of the causes of mortality, both natural as well as anthropogenic, are another important way to access population health. Here, accidental capture by fisheries is a major European problem and a recent workshop (published in the journal Endang. Species Res. 2008, 5(2-3)) has started


to address the problem as well as an FAO guide (FAO Fisheries Department, 2009). Bycatch statistics furthermore provide a good in-water abundance estimate if appro-priately corrected for effort and methodology. However, most other causes of mortal-ity are difficult to quantify and research is needed to obtain better indicators. Hence, there are currently no indicators for turtles that clearly link mortality to specific pres-sures. Persistent debris and the subsequent entanglement of marine fauna including sea turtles are a wide spread marine fact, but it is very difficult to access the relative importance of this cause of mortality. One possible source of such information can be provided by stranding data, which quantifies event frequency by location, and, through a proper interpretation of the carcass may also provide valuable insight into the quantitative causes of mortality. Clearly a centralised standing network would be a desirable goal.

5 Final words

The diversity of institutions at a European level that are concerned with marine envi-ronmental issues may be intimidating for scientists that wish to contribute to envi-ronmental monitoring and the definition of good environmental status. Beginning with regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), regional and global conventions, national and European government agencies, NGO’s, all of them with their specific programmes, make a coordinated action without effort duplication and a good flow of information difficult. This is however what is needed to be able to use long-lived wide-ranging animals such as sea turtles as environmental indicators. Sea turtles are certainly well worth the effort and may indeed provide a good inte-grative monitoring instrument for the marine environment.

6 References

Becker, P.H. (2003): Biomonitoring with birds. In: Bioindicators & Biomonitors: principles, concepts and applications. Trace Metals and other Contaminants in the Environment, 6 (Markert, B.A., Breure, A.M. & Zechmeister, H.G. eds). Elsevier Science, Oxford. pp. 677-736.

Bentivegna, F. (2004): Guidelines to Improve the Involvement of Marine Rescue Centres for Marine Turtles. (Plan, U.N.E.P.M.A. (ed.). Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (UNEP/MAP RAC/SPA), Tunis.

Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.) (1995): Biology and conservation of sea turtles (Revised Edition) (3nd edition edition). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Bjorndal, K.A. & Bolten, A.B. (eds.) (2000): Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing Abun-dance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle Populations.


Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B., Dellinger, T., Delgado, C. & Martins, H.R. (2003): Compensatory growth in oceanic loggerhead sea turtles: response to a stochastic environment. Ecology 84(5), 1237–1249.

Bolten, A.B. (2003): Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: neritic vs. oceanic develop-mental stages (Chpt. 9). In: The Biology of Sea Turtles II, Vol. II (Lutz, P.L., Musick, J.A. & Wyneken, J. eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. pp. 243-257.

Broderip, W.J. (1852): Leaves from the note book of a naturalist. J.W. Parker and Son, London.

Commission of the European Communities (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Directive Habitats). Amended by the Accession Act of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p.135). Official Journal of the European Communities L-206(22.07.1992), 7-50.

Commission of the European Communities (1997): Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997 adapting to technical and scientific progress Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Directive Habitats). Official Journal of the Eu-ropean Communities L-305, 42-66.

Dellinger, T. (2008): Tartarugas marinhas. In: Atlas dos Anfíbios e Répteis de Portugal (Lou-reiro, A., Ferrand de Almeida, N., Carretero, M.A. & Paulo, O.S. eds). Instituto da Conser-vação da Natureza e Biodiversidade, Lisboa. pp. 193-209.

Eckert, K.L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A. & Donnelly, M., (eds.) (1999): Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No.4.

Eckert, S. (2006): High-use oceanic areas for Atlantic leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) as identified using satellite telemetered location and dive information. Marine Bio-logy DOI 10.1007/s00227-006-0262-z, 1-11.

Eckert, S.A., Moore, J.E., Dunn, D.C., van Buiten, R.S., Eckert, K.L. & Halpin, P.N. (2008): Modeling loggerhead turtle movement in the Mediterranean: Importance of body size and oceanography. Ecological Applications 18(2), 290-308.

European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2008): Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environ-mental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union EN L 164(25.6.2008), 19-40.

FAO Fisheries Department (2009): Guidelines to reduce sea turtle mortality in fishing opera-tions. FAO, Rome.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2002): Sea Turtle Conservation Guide-lines. Revised 4th edition, pp. 109, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2007): Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines, pp. 111, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.

Goldsmith, O. (1852): A History of the earth and animated nature. Volume II. A. Fullarton.

Hutchinson, B.J. & Hutchinson, A. (2006-2007): A global snapshot of loggerheads and leath-erbacks. SWOT Report II, 20-25.


Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. & Warner, R.R. (2001): Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629-638.

Kasparek, M., Godley, B.J. & Broderick, A.C. (2001): Nesting of the Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean: a review of status and conservation needs. Zoology in the Middle East 24, 45-74.

Lutcavage, M.E., Plotkin, P., Witherington, B. & Lutz, P.L. (1997): Human impacts on sea turtle survival (Chpt.15). In: The Biology of Sea Turtles I, Vol. I (Lutz, P.L. & Musick, J.A. eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. pp. 387-409.

National Research Council, (ed.) (1990): Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (2008): Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) (Second Re-vision). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

Margaritoulis, D. (2001): The status of marine turtles in the Mediterranean. Paper pres. Pro-ceedings of the first Mediterranean conference on marine turtles, Rome, 24-28 October 2001, Rome, Italy, October 24-28th, 2001. (Margaritoulis, D. & Demetropoulos, A. eds), 51-61.

Margaritoulis, D., Argano, R., Baran, I., Bentivegna, F., Bradai, M.N., Caminas, J.A., Casale, P., De Metrio, G., Demetropoulos, A., Gerosa, G., Godley, B.J., Haddoud, D.A., Houghton, J., Laurent, L. & Lazar, B. (2003): Loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean sea: present knowledge and conservation perspectives (chapter 11). In: Loggerhead sea turtles (Bolten, A.B. & Witherington, B.E. eds). Smithsonian Books, Washington DC. pp. 175-198.

Revelles, M., Camiñas, J.A., Cardona, L., Parga, M., Tomás, J., Aguilar, A., Alegre, F., Raga, A., Bertolero, A. & Oliver, G. (2008): Tagging reveals limited exchange of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) between regions in the western Mediterranean. Scientia Marina 72(3), 511-518.

Witherington, B.E. (2003): Biological conservation of loggerheads: challenges and opportuni-ties (chapter 18). In: Loggerhead sea turtles (Bolten, A.B. & Witherington, B.E. eds). Smith-sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. pp. 295-311.

Witherington, B., Kubilis, P., Brost, B. & Meylan, A. (2009): Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19(1), 30-54.

Witt, M.J., Broderick, A.C., Johns, D.J., Martin, C., Penrose, R., Hoogmoed, M.S. & Godley, B.J. (2007): Prey landscapes help identify potential foraging habitats for leatherback turtles in the NE Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337, 231-243.


Annex I: List of speakers


Pedro Afonso Dr. Jen Ashworth Marine Biologist Senior Specialist Marine Evidence Institute of Marine Research IUCN WCPA Marine Department of Oceanography and c/o Natural England Fisheries at the University of the Azores 3rd Floor Touthill Close 9901-862 Horta City Road Portugal Peterborough, PE1 1XN [email protected] United Kingdom [email protected] Dr. Harald Benke Dr. Mick Bishop Director Director German Oceanographic Museum (DMM) Field Management Coordination Unit Katharinenberg 14-20 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 18439 Stralsund & Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service Germany PO Box 1379 [email protected] Townsville, Qld 4810 Australia [email protected] Dr. Angel Borja Dr. Karsten Brensing AZTI-Tecnalia Conservation Manager Germany Marine Research Division The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Herrera kaia portualdea z/g Society (WDCS) 20110 Pasaia Altostr.43 Spain 81245 München [email protected] Germany E-Mail. [email protected] Dr. Anne-Christine Brusendorff Dr. Daniel Cebrian Executive Secretary SAP BIO Programme Officer Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan Katajanokanlaituri 6B Regional Activity Centre for Specially FI-00160 Helsinki Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) Finland B.P. 337 [email protected] 1080 Tunis Cedex Tunisia [email protected]


Prof. Dr. Thomas Dellinger Douglas Evans University of Madeira European Topic Centre on Biological Diversit Department of Biology Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle Marine Biology and Oceanography 57, Rue Cuvier Estação de Biologia Marinha do Funchal 75231 Paris cedex 05 Cais de Carvão France Promenade da Orla Marítima [email protected] P-9000-107 Funchal / Madeira Portugal [email protected] François Gauthiez Dr. Jörn Geßner Agence des aires marines protégées Institute for Freshwater Ecology 42 bis quai de la douane and Inland Fisheries 29229 Brest Cedex 2 Müggelseedamm 310 France 12587 Berlin [email protected] Germany [email protected] Kristina Gjerde Tanja Grießmann High Seas Policy Advisor Leibniz University of Hanover International Union for Conservation of Institute for Structural Analysis Nature (IUCN) Appelstr. 9A ul. Piasowa 12C Konstancin-Chylice 05510 30167 Hannover Poland Germany [email protected] [email protected] Dr. Benjamin S. Halpern Dr. Fritz Holzwarth Associate Research Biologist Federal Ministry for the Environment, National Centre for Ecological Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Analysis and Synthesis (BMU) 735 State St. Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 53175 Bonn USA Germany [email protected] [email protected] Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel Dr. Kristin Kaschner President Evolutionary Biology & Ecology Lab Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Institute of Biology I (Zoology) Konstantinstrasse 10 Albert-Ludwigs-University 53179 Bonn 79089 Freiburg Germany Germany [email protected]


Alf Ring Kleiven Dr. Sven Koschinski University of Tromsø Kühlandweg 12 Institute of Marine Research, Flødevigen 24326 Nehmten Norway Germany [email protected] [email protected]. Rudolf Ley Stephan Lutter Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) International Marine Policy & Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 Marine Protected Areas 53175 Bonn Hongkongstr. 7 Germany 20457 Hamburg [email protected] Germany [email protected] Hans Nieuwenhuis Dr. Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara Projectmanager Natura2000 North Sea Tethys Research Institute Ministry of Agriculture, Nature via Benedetto Marcello 43 and Food Quality 20124 Milano Prins Clauslaan 8 Italy 2500 EK 'S-GRAVENHAGE [email protected] The Netherlands [email protected] Daniel Owen Dr. Christian Pusch Fenners Chambers Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 3 Madingley Road (BfN) Cambridge Isle of Vilm CB3 0EE 18581 Putbus/Rügen United Kingdom Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Saskia Richartz Prof. Dr. Aad Smaal EU Oceans Policy Adviser Wageningen IMARES Greenpeace European Unit Institute for Marine Resources 199 rue Belliard and Ecosystem Studies 1040 Brussels Location Korringaweg 5 Yerseke [email protected] 4400 AB Yerseke The Netherlands [email protected]


Danica Stent Gerry Suttion Senior Technical Support Officer Deputy Director Department of Conservation (DOC) University of Cork PO Box 10420 Coastal & Marine Resources Centre Wellington 6143 Glucksman Marine Facility, Naval Base New Zealand Haulbowline, Cobh [email protected] County Cork Ireland [email protected] Ruth Thurstan Edwin van de Brug Environment Department Commercial Manager University of York Ballast Nedam Offshore York Ringwade 71 YO10 5DD 3439 LM Nieuwegein United Kingdom The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] Dr. Violeta Velikova Dr. Henning von Nordheim Pollution Monitoring and Assessment Officer Scientific Director Commission on the Protection of Federal Agency for Nature Conservation the Black Sea Against Pollution (BfN) Büyükdere Caddesi, No 265 Isle of Vilm 34398 Maslak �i�li 18581 Putbus/Rügen Istanbul Germany Turkey [email protected] [email protected] Sarah Zierul Science Journalist Längengrad Filmproduktion GmbH Händelstr. 25-29 50674 Köln Germany [email protected]


Annex II: Conference Programme


Arrival & Registration: 17:30 – 20.00

Get-together Party: 18:30 – 22:00 (courtesy of BfN)

Programme

2nd International Conference on

“Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009”

ScopeThe conference covers current marine nature conservation issues in Europe aimed at a wide range of participants such as policy makers, conservation managers, scientists and inter- and non-governmental organizations. This conference is the continuation of the successful initial conference in 2006 and offers a regular international forum for in-depth discussion of new and emerging issues in this field. Invited presentations of scientists, conservation managers, policy makers, IGOs and NGOs will focus on: � Reviewing the current status of the implementation of European Marine Protected Area networks with regard to the 2010 marine conservation aims;

� Assessing progress, success and problems encountered in the management of human impacts and climate change;

� Discussing the necessary first steps towards meeting the biodiversity aims of the new European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

Monday, 02 November 2009

Venue: German Oceanographic Museum (Deutsches Meeresmuseum, DMM)

Main entrance of museum: Mönchstraße/Bielkenhagen, Stralsund

Tuesday, 03 November 2009

Status of European and other MPA Networks

09:00 Opening 09:10 Opening speech by the President of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

Beate Jessel, BfN, Germany


Coffee / Tea (10:00 – 11:00)

Lunch (12:20 – 14:00)

Optional: Guided tour through the OZEANEUM

Conference buffet: 19:30 (courtesy of BfN)

Coffee / Tea (15:30 – 16:00)

09:30 Welcome address by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conserva-tion and Nuclear Safety (BMU) Rudolf Ley, BMU, Germany

09:50 Welcome by the director of the German Oceanographic Museum (DMM)

Harald Benke, DMM, Germany

11:00 “Status of the Marine Protected Area networks of HELCOM and OSPAR with regard to the

2010 targets (Bremen Conference)” Anne-Christine Brusendorff, Helsinki Commission, Finland & Henning von Nordheim, OSPAR-MPA-Group

11:40 “Current status of the Habitats Directive marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

network” Otars Opermanis & Douglas Evans, European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Paris

14:00 “Developing a network of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean High Seas”

Daniel Cebrian, Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas, Tunisia 14:20 “Pelagos Sanctuary: A High Seas MPA for the conservation of Marine Mammals in the

Mediterranean“ Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, Tethys Research Institute, Italy

15:00 “The Strategic Action Plan for the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation

Protocol” Violeta Velikova, Black Sea Commission, Turkey

16:00 “New Zealand’s Marine Protected Areas policy and its current implementation”

Danica Devery-Smith, Department of Conservation, New Zealand 16:40 “The French MPA network in Europe and the new Agency for Marine Protected Areas”

François Gauthiez, French MPA Agency, France 17:20 “Progress towards the development of a global network of MPAs”

Kristina Gjerde, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Switzerland & Henning von Nordheim, BfN, Germany

Venue: German Oceanographic Museum

(Deutsches Meeresmuseum, DMM)

Main entrance of museum: Mönchstraße/Bielkenhagen, Stralsund


Coffee / Tea (10:20 – 10:50)

Lunch (13:20 – 14:00)

Wednesday, 04 November 2009

Management of Human Impacts on the Marine Environment

09:00 “The global human impact on marine ecosystems” Benjamin S. Halpern, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, USA

09:40 “Compliance strategy to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park”

Mick Bishop, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia

10:50 “Historical decline of demersal fisheries and future management implications in UK waters” Ruth Thurstan, University of York, United Kingdom 11:30 “Marine Protected Areas to safeguard fisheries in European temperate waters”

Callum Roberts, University of York, United Kingdom 12:10 “Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS):

Management proposals” Christian Pusch, BfN, Germany

12:50 “Potential and threats of restoration of oyster reefs (Ostrea edulis) in European Seas” Aad Small, Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies, The Netherlands

Excursions: (14:00 – ca. 20:00)

� Guided sight-seeing tour through the old Hanseatic City of Stralsund

� Guided tour to the Isle of Vilm

� Guided tour to the Jasmund National Park, Rügen


Coffee / Tea (10:20 – 10:50)

Lunch (12:50 – 14:00)

Coffee / Tea (16:40 – 17:00)

Thursday, 05 November 2009

New Marine Management Measures and Tools 09.00 “Restoration of the sturgeon Acipenser sturio in Europe”

Patrick Chèvre, Cemagref, France & Jörn Geßner, Institute for Freshwater Ecology and In-land Fisheries, Germany

09:40 “Mitigation measures for marine sand & gravel extraction”

Gerry Sutton, University College Cork, Ireland

10:50 “Lobster protection in marine reserves in temperate coastal areas” Alf Ring Kleiven, Institute of Marine Research, Norway 11:30 “Identification of Areas To Be Avoided by shipping in Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

(PSSA)” Matthew Gianni, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, The Netherlands

12:10 “Methods to reduce noise from pile driving for off-shore installations“

Tanja Grießmann, Leibniz University of Hanover, Germany 12:30 “Noise reduction through drilling concrete monopiles”

Edwin van de Brug, Ballast Nedam Offshore, The Netherlands

14:00 “New methods for military munitions clearance in the marine environment”

Sven Koschinski, Consultant, Germany 14:40 “Marine noise pollution: How to evaluate?”

Karsten Brensing, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Germany 15:20 “From seabed mapping to fish movement tracking: MPA designing by using multiple con-

servation features in the Azores“ Pedro Afonso, University of the Azores, Portugal

16:00 “Changes of the distribution range of European fish species according to the current cli-

mate change scenarios” Kristin Kaschner, University of Freiburg, Germany

17:00 “European and national legislation frameworks for the establishment of management plans in Marine Protected Areas" Ronan Long, National University of Ireland, Ireland

Short notes: 17:40 New Book: “Fishery management in the EU“

Daniel Owen, Fenners Chambers, United Kingdom

18:00 “Google Earth - a new tool to illustrate global marine conservation“ Jen Ashworth, International Union for Conservation of Nature, United Kingdom

18:20 Film “Who owns the sea?” Sarah Zierul, Science Journalist, Germany


Coffee / Tea 10:20 – 10:40

Closing of conference 12:00

Friday, 06 November 2009

First Steps towards Meeting the Biodiversity targets of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

09:00 “Implementing the MSFD in Germany - Status quo - Musts - Tools - Outlook!”

Fritz Holzwarth, BMU, Germany 09:40 “Requirements from the NGO’s viewpoint regarding achievement of a „Good Environ-

mental Status” in European Seas” Saskia Richartz, Greenpeace, Brussels & Stephan Lutter, World Wide Fund for Nature, Germany

10:40 “Good Environmental Status indicators for benthos within the MSFD: taking advantage

from the Water Framework Directive” Ángel Borja, AZTI-Tecnalia, Spain

11:20 “Good Environmental Status indicators for sea turtles: How to protect sea turtles under the

Habitats Directive and MSFD” Thomas Dellinger, University of Madeira, Portugal

progress in marine conservation in europe 2009

Documents