Baltic Conservation Plan 040308 - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/balticconservationplan2004.pdf · Coastal and Marine Species 13 Threats and Solutions 16 Main Threats to Baltic

WWF BALTICECOREGIONCONSERVATION PLAN

Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem-Based Management in the Baltic Sea

Baltic Team, 2003Layout and Design: Annika Stenmark

WWF Baltic Ecoregion Action Programme - Conservation Plan 2

WWF´s Indicators for Success in the Baltic Eco-region

The indicators for the Baltic Eco-region was developed on the basis ofthe Biodiversity Assessment andattempts to express where WWF wouldlike to see the Baltic region within 15years.

The coastal and marine ecosystemsof the Baltic Sea should be in a state tosupport healthy populations of itscharacteristic plant and animalspecies, protecting the uniqueness andthe biological dynamics of thisevolutionary young area. Humanactivity must not be allowed to harmthe natural and ecological processes,hydrological regimes or water qualityof the Baltic Sea and its catchmentsarea.

The high biological productivity ofthe Baltic Sea needs to be maintained.Its resources must only be used in anecologically sustainable, sociallyresponsible and economically viable

manner that follows the principles ofecosystem-based management. Inthese circumstances the Baltic Sea willsupport all life cycles of itscharacteristic biodiversity andmaintain the integrity and functions ofits ecosystems.

Governments, communities, civilsociety and the private sector aroundthe Baltic Sea will need to co-operateto ensure that all uses of the Baltic Sea-- whether for marine production,consumption or recreation -- maintainand increase the natural capital andresilience of the Baltic’s coastal andmarine ecosystems. Unsustainablelifestyles, consumption, water, landand resource use, according to thisvision, will have been halted through adeepened understanding of humandependence on the life-supportingfunctions and services of the Baltic’secosystems.


Table of Contents

WWF´s Indicators for Success in the Baltic Eco-region 2Table of Contents 3Executive Summary 5Introduction 6

Why Eco-Region Based Conservation 7Implementing Eco-Region Conservation 7Key Elements of Eco-Region Conservation 7Root Cause (and Socio-Economic) Analysis 7Eco-Region Action Plan for the Baltic Sea 8

Present Situation 9Current Structure of the Baltic Eco-region Programme 9Policy Context 9Biodiversity of the Baltic Sea 11A Young and Unique Ecosystem 11A Vulnerable Area Under Threat 11A Wide Variety of Ecosystems and Habitats 12Coastal and Marine Habitats 12Coastal and Marine Species 13

Threats and Solutions 16Main Threats to Baltic Biodiversity 16Integrated Spatial Planning 16Ecosystem-Based Management 17Habitat Degradation 17Biotope Classification and Assessment 17Natura 2000/ Emerald Network in the Baltic Sea Area 18Other Policy Tools 19Coastal Wetlands and Lagoons 21Semi-Natural Coastal Habitats 21Important Bird Areas and Wintering Areas of Seabirds 21Bladder Wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) Communities 22Coastal and Offshore Areas 22Non-Indigenous Species 24Root Causes 24The Way Forward 26

Shipping 27A Major Threat to Marine Biodiversity and Human Settlements 27Environmental Impacts of Shipping and Oil Spills 28Socio-Economic Impacts of Shipping and Oil Spills 28Statistics on Shipping, Oil Transport and Accidents 28


What is a PSSA? 29The Way Forward 32

Fisheries 35Biological and Geographical Characteristics 35Fishing Activities 36Status of Stocks 36Socio-economic Factors 39Fisheries and Sustainability 39The Way Forward 41

Eutrophication 42Ecological Effects of Eutrophication 42Socio-Economic Factors 43Limiting the Negative Impacts of Eutrophication 45The Way Forward 45

Fresh Water - the Link Between Land and Sea 46A Catchment Area Perspective 46The Importance of Freshwaters for the Baltic Sea –An Overview 47Human Impact on Freshwaters 48Changes of the Landscape and Water Bodies 48Pollution 49The Way Forward 49

Toxics 50The Toxics Issue 50Overall Goal 51Sources of Toxics 53Existing Trends Related to Environmental Impacts 54Root Causes and Selection of Socio-Economic Factors 54Inadequate Standards Around the Baltic Sea 55Poor Data Availability 55Management/ Decision-Making Traditions 56Development of the Agricultural Sector 56Activities within WWF Baltic Eco-region Programme 56The Way Forward 58

Priority Species 59Introduction 59List of Priority Species 59Coastal Plants 59Lichens 59Mammals 59Fish 59Birds 59Invertebrates 60Amphibians 60Reptiles 60Marine plants 60

Abbrevations and Acronymes 61


Executive Summary

Although the Baltic Sea appears on aworld map as a small sea, it is theplanet’s second largest body ofbrackish water, characterised by adelicate mixture of salt water comingin from the North East Atlantic sea andfresh water coming in from rivers,rainfall and infiltration.

Due to its specific geographical,climatic and oceanographic features,the Baltic Sea is highly sensitive tohuman activities which are takingplace both at sea and in its catchmentarea, which is home to some 85million people.

Today the Baltic Sea is one of themost threatened marine ecosystemson the planet. More than 50% of thecommercial fish stocks are overfished.Eutrophication affects 70% of all listedbiotopes. Moreover, the health anddiversity of all marine species areaffected by industrial, municipal andagricultural pollution, as well asincreased sea and land-based transport,and continued clearing of forests anddrainage of wetlands.

WWF has identified the BalticSea as one of the priority Eco-regions in Europe. The action planagreed by WWF and partnerorganisations in nine differentcountries includes integrated land,coastal and marine activities tostrengthen the local and regional

capacity to achieve sustainableecosystem-based management of theBaltic Sea’s resources.

Ecosystem Management is a broadscale approach to biodiversityconservation. It seeks to integrateconservation and development bytaking a strategic approach with allstakeholders to develop common goalsand mutually supportive activities forthe conservation and restoration ofnatural habitats.

Sustainable management willimprove ecosystem health andbiodiversity while providing social andeconomic benefits to farming, coastaland fishing communities and sectorssuch as eco-tourism.

Global biodiversity loss and theincreasing contamination of waterworldwide represent one of the keyproblems for sustainable developmentin the 21st century. Successfullyaddressing the water challenge in thecoming century will require extraefforts.

WWF is ready to take on thechallenge and work together withindividuals, communities,governments and the private sector torevive the biological diversity of theBaltic Sea.


Introduction

Historically WWF first focused itsefforts on conserving species, but soonrecognized that conservation was notmerely a matter of preservingindividual populations. Animal andplant species cannot be saved inisolation from their surroundings andthe resources they depend on for theirsurvival.

WWF’s conservation efforts havetherefore evolved to focus on thepreservation and restoration of naturalhabitats and large ecosystems, whilealso addressing the needs of peopleand local communities.

WWF has also recognised the needfor cross-border co-operation inprotecting species and their habitats.The global crisis of species extinctionand habitat degradation demands anew kind of strategic planning. Wemust conduct conservation planningover larger spatial scales and longertime frames than ever before.

In order to successfully meetWWF's goals the organisation isundergoing a strategic alignmentprocess and has launched the conceptof eco-region conservation (ERC)based on priorities areas set throughthe Global 200 network.

The mission of the World WideFund For Nature (WWF) is to stop thedegradation of the planet’s naturalenvironment and to build a future inwhich human beings live in harmonywith nature by conserving the world’sbiological of renewable naturalresources is sustainable, and bydiversity, by ensuring that the use

promoting the reduction of pollutionand wasteful consumption.

The WWF Global 200 network is anumber of designated areas, known as“eco-regions”, warranting action.These areas have been chosen on thebasis of multiple criteria, not onlyreflecting the value of theirbiodiversity but also the level ofthreats.

An Eco-region has been defined as"a relatively large unit of land andwater that contains a distinctassemblage of natural communitiessharing a large majority of species,dynamics and environmentalconditions".

One such unit is the NortheastAtlantic Shelf Marine Eco-region –The Baltic Sea is part of this eco-region, which includes the North Sea,the Wadden Sea and the Celtic Shelf.However because of its particularities,WWF also speaks of the Baltic Sea asa separate unit, that is, as the BalticEco-region.

The Baltic Sea is unique and highlysensitive, due to significant riverrunoff, a relatively small sea basin anda limited exchange of the water withthe North Sea. The watershed alsoserves cities, agricultural and forestryareas in nine countries.

Virtually, all Baltic terrestrialactivities significantly affect themarine environment. Due to thesemi-enclosed nature of the Baltic Seait is particularly important to alsotackle these influences.


Why Eco-Region BasedConservationEco-region conservation provides astrategic basis for a new kind ofconservation methodology. It is basedon thorough biodiversity and socio-economic assessments of thedesignated areas. Eco-regionconservation adopts an ambitious,broad-scale, integrated approach that

aims to conserve and, wherenecessary, restore the biologicaldiversity of an entire eco-region –species, communities, and ecosystemprocesses – while ensuring that theneeds of local and indigenous peoplesare met.

WWF strategies and actions aim at achieving the broad goals of:

Representation all native ecosystem types and several stages acrosstheir natural range of variation

Resilience design and manage the system to be responsive toshort-term and long-term environmental changes andto maintain the evolutionary potential of lineage's

Viable Populations maintain viable populations of all native species innatural patterns of abundance and distribution

Healthy Processes maintain ecological and evolutionary processes suchas disturbance regimes, hydrological processes,nutrient cycles, and biotic interactions

Implementing Eco-RegionConservationIn order to implement eco-regionconservation, background research isneeded to explore and betterunderstand the complex linkagesbetween social, economic, political,cultural and biological factorsaffecting biodiversity. Acknowledgingthe multiple factors leading tobiodiversity loss provides a basis forestablishing conservation strategieswith broader visions, larger scales,longer time frames, and greaterimpact.

Working at an eco-regional levelrequires a continuous reshaping ofactions and strategies based onemerging information and new toolsfor conservation management and a

commitment to flexibility and thesharing of lessons learned.

Emphasis must be put oncollaboration, the development ofpartnerships, and work withmultidisciplinary teams on a widerange of cross-cutting issue

Key Elements of Eco-RegionConservation

Root Cause (and Socio-Economic) AnalysisThere is a need to understand andconnect micro-level factors to broadersocio-economic aspects that influencepeople to make decisions that run


counter to long-term interests anddegrade the natural environment.

Thus, a new approach that offers acomprehensive methodology toprovide in-depth, multilevel andmultidisciplinary analysis of thevarious socio-economic factorsaffecting biodiversity was developedby WWF – Root Cause Analysis.

The purpose of a Root CauseAnalysis is to better understandunderlying factors that drive suchbiodiversity loss in order to developappropriate conservation targets,actions and resources.

The Baltic Team identified the fivemost urgent threats to the biodiversityof the Baltic Sea and Root CauseAnalysis was then carried out for eachcomponent, resulting in the elaborationof targets and milestones spanning a10-15 year period.

In order to develop the activitiesneeded to successfully reach thedifferent targets, a stakeholder-andsocio-economic analysis wasconducted for each of the identifiedthreats.

Eco-Region Action Plan for theBaltic SeaThe Baltic Eco-region Action Planoutlines a set of specific andmeasurable targets, milestones andactivities for the coming 15 years,which are in line with WWF’s missionand the Global Target DrivenProgrammes on marine, fresh watersand toxics issues.

The Action Plan will be revisedannually to reflect the changes in thepolitical and socio-economicenvironment, build upon conservationsuccesses and fill potential gaps in theprogramme.


Present Situation

Current Structure of the BalticEco-region ProgrammeThe WWF Baltic Programme waslaunched as part of the Europe andMediterranean Programme in 1992.Today the Baltic Team consists ofNational WWF offices (NOs) inDenmark, Finland, Germany andSweden. Poland and Latvia arerepresented by the WWF ProgrammeOffices in those countries.

Estonia, Lithuania and Russia arerepresented by long-term partnerorganisations (Estonian Fund forNature, Lithuanian Fund for Natureand Baltic Fund for Nature in Saint-Petersburg). The WWF RussianProgramme Office is also representedat Baltic Team meetings.

A Baltic Eco-region Programmeoffice was established in September2003 to lead the delivery of theprogramme, to facilitate cooperationamong NOs and partner organisationsin the nine countries surrounding theBaltic Sea and to increase publicawareness and support.

Most WWF activities carried out inthe Baltic region to date have emergedwithin national programmes or sub-regional co-operation schemes. Theseactivities have generally been on-the-ground conservation projects with aclearly defined aim and limited in timeto one to three years.

The projects have generally beencarried out bilaterally within the BalticTeam, with NOs and/or externalfunding that the collaboratingorganisations have applied fortogether. From 2003 on, the Balticteam will focus on developing crossboundary and transnational projects ona regional scale.

Policy ContextThere are a large number of regionalpolicy initiatives in the region and theopportunity to participate in the policyfield is frequently determined byresource availability and capacity. Theprogramme office will ensure thatWWF is represented in relevantpolitical forums at a regional andinternational level. The responsibilityto represent WWF’s interests on thenational level still lies with theNOs/POs.

Denmark, Finland, Germany andSweden are currently members of theEuropean Union. Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania and Poland will become EUmembers on 1 May 2004. This willdramatically affect the politicaldynamics in the region.

The accession countries areadjusting their economies andadministrative and legislativestructures to meet the EU criteria by 1May 2004. All countries around theBaltic Sea, with the exception ofRussia, will share the same legalframework.

In light of these developments,continuing co-operation with theRussian government, local authoritiesand NGOs is vital for environmentalmanagement in the Baltic region.

The exclusive competence of theEuropean Union in the agricultural andfisheries sectors influences naturalresources management and justifiesprompt action from WWF. The WaterFramework Directive and the Birdsand Habitats Directive are importantpolicy tools for conservation. The


Common Agricultural Policy andthe Common Fisheries Policy will playan increasing role for the BalticProgramme as will the REACHdirective once it is in place. The BalticTeam is actively working to ensurethat these directives are properlyimplemented at the national level.

Other policy mechanisms and otherprojects relevant to the Baltic regionand which represent priorities for theBaltic Team include:

• to designate the Baltic Sea as aParticularly Sensitive Sea Area(PSSA) under the InternationalMaritime Organization

• to implement an ecologicallyrepresentative network ofmarine protected areas (Baltic

Sea Protected Areas/BSPAsunder Helcom and Natura 2000under EU legislation)

• to obtain national and regionalenvironmental benefits fromthe EU accession of theaccession countries

• to reduce pollution originatingin illegal oil spills and cleaningof ships tanks

• to develop methods forenvironmental education

• to build capacity for NGOs inRussia, Poland and the BalticCountries

• to develop and implement theFinnish National Baltic SeaProtection Programme


Biodiversity of the Baltic Sea

A Young and Unique EcosystemThe Baltic Sea is the world’s secondlargest brackish water basin, with amixture of sea water from the Atlanticand the North Sea and fresh waterfrom rivers and rainfall. It is semi-enclosed, almost entirely cut off fromthe Northeast Atlantic. This limits thedynamic exchange of water, which isestimated to take 25 to 30 years.

The same water thus remains in theBaltic for decades, along with all theorganic and inorganic matter itcontains. Its catchments area is fourtimes larger than the sea itself,involving 14 countries and the homeof some 85 million people.

The coastline of the Baltic SeaRegion, including the Danish belts andKattegat between Sweden and theJutland peninsula of Denmark, is longand diverse. The shaping of thecoastline by hydrodynamic processesbegan about 5,700 years ago with theending of the Littorina Transgression.

Both the marine and offshorehabitats of the Baltic Sea are veryyoung compared to its geologicalstructures. Their evolution wasinitiated by the melting of the ice sheetof the last glacial period and theassociated sea-level rise. This processstarted 15,000 years ago in thesouthernmost Baltic Sea and 6,000years later in the Bothnian Baybetween Finland and Sweden.

Several changes in the waterbeds ofthe Baltic Sea, from fresh to salt waterconditions, have occurred since then.Due to the Ice Age land upheaval isstill an ongoing process along coastalareas, especially in the northern partsof the region. The slow but ongoingland up-lift process (5- 7 mm/y) leads

to the formation of particularstructures specific to the Baltic region:shallow fladas and glo lakes, whichare inland depressions retaining Balticsea water as the land rises up.

A Vulnerable Area UnderThreatSince the present natural conditions ofthe Baltic Sea have existed for a fewthousand years only, well-adapted andcohesive biological communities havehad little time to develop, whichmakes them highly vulnerable tochanges in the ecosystem.

The species composition of theBaltic Sea (both marine and freshwater species) is poor compared toother aquatic ecosystems. But theproductivity of organisms as well asthe number of individuals is extremelyhigh, due to shallowness and richnutrient supplies. The semi-enclosedand shallow form of the basin,combined with its naturally stressedand scarce ecological communities,makes the Baltic Sea a highly sensitiveecosystem.

The health, productivity andbiodiversity of the marine environmentare mainly threatened by humanactivities on land. Land-basedactivities create municipal, industrialand agricultural wastes as well aspollutants transported by rivers andatmospheric deposition.

Eutrophication and highconcentrations of toxic substances aremajor environmental problemsaffecting the Baltic Sea. Because ofthe low water-exchange, contaminants- in particular, persistent chemicals -remain in the Baltic Sea for a longtime and its ecosystem tends to trap


and accumulate hazardous substances.These are then either absorbed into thesediments or accumulated in the foodchain right up to fish, marinemammals, and sea birds.

This bio-accumulation causesserious health and reproductionproblems to top predators and also tohuman beings. The imbalance causedby nutrients and their abundance hasled to numerous changes in theecological composition and state of theBaltic Sea.

A Wide Variety of Ecosystemsand HabitatsToday the Baltic Sea has a greatnumber of different ecosystems andhabitats. These are classified accordingto salinity, hard or soft seabeds,shallow or deep bottoms, coastal areasor open waters. The Kattegat to thewest and the Bothnian Bay to the northrepresent extremely different aquaticworlds, yet they are both part of theBaltic Sea.

In Kattegat, where glacial depositshave shaped the coast, eroding cliffsand accumulative coasts exist side byside. In the northern parts of the BalticSea Area, where bedrock is exposed,land upheaval rates of up to 9 mmannually can be observed and coastalerosion is much weaker. In theseconditions large accumulative coastalforms such as spits are not present.

The special conditions in the manyand extensive archipelagos of thecentral and northern Baltic Sea arevery different compared to those of thesandy beaches, lagoons and shallowsea grass meadows along the easternand southern coasts.

Coastal and Marine HabitatsThe diverse conditions of the sea havealso caused the development of manydifferent inland coastal ecosystems and

habitats in the Baltic Sea region. Thearchipelagos are a typical feature ofthe Baltic Sea. They represent tens ofthousands of islands, skerries (reefsand rocky islands covered by the sea instormy weather), and rocks, therebycreating seas within seas.

However, the shallow sandybeaches of the Kattegat and thesouthern Baltic Proper, as well as thesoft bays, sand dunes, coastalmeadows and lagoon landscapes of thesouthern and south-eastern Baltic, arealso characteristic features of theBaltic geography and biodiversity.

In order to make nature protectioneasier in the Baltic Marine and CoastalAreas, an all-encompassing biotopeclassification has been carried out,identifying 133 biotopes (66 marineand 67 coastal) and 13 biotopecomplexes (containing differentbiotopes of a similar overall type).

A HELCOM Red List of Marineand Coastal Biotope and BiotopeComplexes of the Baltic Sea, Belt Seaand Kattegat (Baltic Sea EnvironmentProceedings No.75, 1998) based onthis classification provides the firstBaltic-wide assessment of the degreeof threat posed to biotopes and biotopecomplexes by loss of area or bychange. This assessment revealed that88% of the biotopes are “heavilyendangered”, “endangered” or“potentially endangered”, but thatnone of the biotopes are “immediatelythreatened”.

Fishing and construction threatenmost of the marine biotope. Thecoastal habitats are threatened byrecreational activities and by pollution.Coastal meadows and other semi-natural grasslands are threatened bychanges in agriculture, especiallydecreasing grazing.

As a first step towards theestablishment of a system of marineand coastal Baltic Sea Protected Areas(BSPAs), the Baltic Sea States


provisionally notified 62 such areasunder HELCOM Recommendation15/5 in 1995 (Baltic Sea EnvironmentProceedings No.63, 1996). It is evidentthat the provisional list should beextended to include inter alia a greaternumber of purely marine areas, andespecially more areas that are offshore.Inventories of marine habitats have notbeen performed in all Baltic SeaStates.

The Natura 2000 network could bean additional valuable framework toperform this task. To date, nine yearsafter the proposal of the 62 Baltic Seaprotected Areas (BSPAs), only 5 havebeen fully implemented (includinglegal protection and management plan)and reported to HELCOM. Only onecountry, Lithuania, has implementedall designated areas.

Although a lot of other BSPAs existin terms of legal protection, in manycases only the terrestrial parts of theareas are protected, while the marineparts are not, and most BSPAs stilllack efficient management plans forthe marine environment.

Coastal and Marine SpeciesDue to exceptional salinity conditions,the Baltic Sea is characterised by lowspecies diversity of freshwater andmarine origin, and a simplified foodweb.

The number of macroscopic marinealgae in the Baltic marine areadecreases from more than 350 speciesin the Kattegat (with salinity of 23parts per mille1) to less than 90 speciesin the low-salinity waters of theStockholm archipelago, where salinityis approximately 5-6 parts per mille.

Further north in the Bothnian Bayall but one of the 32 algal species arefreshwater species. The same pattern isseen in fish species. Marine species

1 Parts per thousands

dominate in Kattegat, while freshwaterones occur in coastal areas.

With a few exceptions, thepopulations of most marine and coastalbirds have increased and species haveexpanded their areas of distributionduring the past 100 years, even ifmany populations have remainedstable from 1980 onwards. Severalspecies, especially cormorants(Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis), havedramatically increased their numbersand distribution area.

As a result, increasing conflictsbetween cormorants and fisheries needto be addressed. Among the factorsleading to this situation are lastcentury's mild winters and longernesting periods, decreases in huntingand egg collecting, eutrophication(creating more food especially forspecies that eat fish, shells andmussels) and human-created foodsources.

Good news in the Baltic is that theconcentrations of some environmentaltoxins, which affected birds during themid-1900s, such as DDT and PCB,have also decreased in the Baltic Seain later years. The Baltic white-tailedeagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) populationhas increased. Although the meanbrood size of the eagle has stabilised ata lower level than that in the 1950s, itsreproductive capacity is now almost asgood as then. Eggshell thickness hasreturned to the pre-1950 levels also inthe fish-feeding guillemot (Uriaaalge).

Among species that have becomeless common during recent decades intheir nesting areas are Baltic Dunlin(Calidris alpina), black-tailed godwit(Limosa limosa), greater scaup (Aythyamarila) and lesser black-backed gull(Larus fuscus). The recent decreases innumbers of several bird species arecaused by shrinking of suitablebiotopes (especially coastal meadows)due to human activities, increaseddisturbance due to boating and other


recreation, decrease in the extent ofmacroscopic shallow-water vegetationdue to eutrophication, and increasedpredation by fox, mink, raccoon dogand some gull species.

The Baltic is an importantmigratory route, especially forwaterfowl, geese and waders nestingin the Arctic tundra. These birds,which rest in the coastal areas of thesouthern Baltic proper, North Sea andwestern Europe, move every springnorthwards en masse along Balticcoasts to their nesting grounds. Themigration of several species isconcentrated in a relatively narrowchannel in the Gulf of Finland area.

Many of the birds rest in Balticcoasts during the migration. Barnaclegeese, for example, stop in northernGermany, Gotland (Sweden) andwestern Estonia.. A number of keywintering sites for waterfowl andseabirds of North Western Europe arelocated in brackish waters of the BalticSea.

There are two reasons for concernabout these wintering birds thataggregate in big numbers in the opensea. Transportation of large volumesof crude oil in the Baltic clearly posesa threat to the bird life from spills anddischarges. The quantities of oilreleased to the sea deliberately arelarger every year. Second,development of gill net fishing hascreated a new threat to the winteringwaterfowl.

Baltic seal populations – harbourseals in the southern parts and greyseals in the central and northern mostparts, and ringed seals in thenorthernmost parts – are generallyincreasing. Lesions of reproductiveorgans found previously in Baltic sealsseem generally to be declining andtheir health appears to be improving.

However, approximately half thegrey seals under 10 years old sufferfrom chronic intestinal ulcers, with

moderate to severe ulcers stillcommon, probably as a result ofsuppression of the immune systemcaused by environmental pollutants.

In the Gulf of Finland and in theArchipelago Sea, the status of theringed seal population is stillalarming. It has not recovered itsformer size and distribution, andhealth conditions and fecundity havenot yet returned to normal. Theconflict between seals and fisheriesremains serious and needs to berecognised and properly addressed.

The harbour porpoise, the onlycetacean breeding in the Baltic Sea, isnumerous only in the southern parts ofthe Baltic Sea, but very scarce in theBaltic Proper. The species is seenoccasionally in the Bothnian Bay andin the Gulf of Finland.

An abundance estimate generatedin 1995 was of 599 animals(confidence intervals: 200-3300) in thewhole Baltic Sea. A new abundanceestimate carried out in 2002 suggeststhat there may be as few as 93(confidence intervals: 10 – 406)animals remaining in the whole sea.

The most significant threat facingthe harbour porpoise is theincidental capture in fishing gear(“by-catches”) especially in thesouthern Baltic, in Denmark,Germany, Sweden and Poland.

Invasion by non-indigenous speciesin the Baltic marine area has clearlyincreased in past decades and givesrise for concern, since their long-termimpact on the Baltic ecosystems isunpredictable and in many cases hasbeen proven harmful.

The problem is increasing as thetankers shipping oil from Russia enterthe Baltic Sea with huge amounts ofballast water. In 1998, 95 species ofanimals and plants were identified asintroduced non-indigenous species inthe Baltic marine area and adjacentcoastal lagoons, lakes, coastal


meadows and other seminaturalgrasslands. These species includezoobenthos (42), fish (23),phytoplankton (9), phytobenthos (9),nektobenthos (4), parasitic

invertebrates (3), zooplankton (3) andmammal (2) and bird (1) species.Approximately 66 of these wereinvasive.


Threats and Solutions

Main Threats to Baltic BiodiversityThe Baltic Team has identified fivemajor threats to biodiversity in theBaltic Sea Region:

• habitat degradation

• unsustainable fisheries

• eutrophication

• toxics

• climate change

The Team carried out Root CauseAnalyses and socio-economic analysesfor these five threats and decided toomit climate change from the actionplan. For the moment: changes in theBaltic region’s climate will ultimatelylead to changes in the productivity ofthe marine and coastal ecosystem butthe first and very preliminaryassessment revealed a complexity anduncertainties beyond the resources ofthe Baltic Team to tackle.

For each one of the threats a briefbackground description has beendeveloped, providing a basis for thetargets, milestones and activities thatthe Baltic Eco-region Programme willcommit to.

Beyond the specific action pointsand solutions presented below, twocross-cutting approaches need to beseriously considered by allstakeholders in order to deliver longterm, holistic conservation successesin the region:

Integrated Spatial PlanningThe Baltic Sea is an enclosed spacewhere, more than in many other seasof the world, there is an obvious needfor co-operation across nationalborders. These state borders are soclose together that a country may be

affected by harmful uses of territorywithin the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) of a neighbour.

During the past decades, pressureon the marine space has increasedrapidly, so that the sea has become apatchwork of claimed and reservedareas for different and sometimes verymuch conflicting interests. For thethreats and activities that the actionplan identifies as most important, thereexists no legal obligation to balanceand co-ordinate different demands onthe area. Nor does co-ordination takeplace across the territorial waters orEEZs of neighbouring states.

WWF regards it as essential thatdifferent uses and demands made ofthe Baltic area should be well co-ordinated and managed in atransparent and balanced way in orderto achieve sustainable developmentand safeguard its natural values at thesame time.

The concept of integrated spatialplanning, covering both the open seaand the coastal zone, is a valuable toolfor finding that balance. By thisprocess it is possible to visualise thevarious interests and demands forspace through a multiple-layermapping system.

On this basis it is easier to discusspotential uses and nature conservationin a transparent way and decide on themost sustainable zoning, e.g. fortransportation routes or for core areasof a PSSA or for areas for wind powerinstallations that will not conflict withfishery use, no-take zones and MPAs.

This comprehensive approachthrough spatial planning can be auseful tool to implement the vision of


how to manage the Baltic area in thefuture and to make this visionunderstood to stakeholders and thepublic.

The Baltic Sea States should beencouraged to adopt the overarchingprinciple of spatial planning in theirnational and Baltic-wide decisions onthe use of the sea area.

Ecosystem-Based ManagementAlthough there is no commonlyaccepted definition of ecosystem-based management, the principles arewidely recognised as providing a newmanagement approach, fullyapplicable to fisheries.

Ecosystem-based management offisheries makes ecologicalsustainability its primary goal, as wellas recognising the criticalinterdependence between human well-being and ecological health. It is acrucial concept to apply in the Balticcontext in order to developeconomically viable and ecologicallysustainable fisheries.

Habitat DegradationThe variations in environmentalconditions (salinity, sea depth, hard orsoft substrates and various coastaltypes) in the Baltic Sea Area havecreated a variety of habitats, some ofthem rare or unique. The use of thewatershed by nine densely populatedand highly industrialised countrieswith their large urban areas, industries,agriculture, shipping, ferry traffic andfisheries, has had and still has aprofound impact on Baltic coastal andmarine ecosystems and habitats.

The WWF Baltic Team hasidentified the most vulnerable habitatsand also the most urgent threats tocoastal and marine habitats in theregion. To halt the biotope loss, actionneeds to be taken at various levels insociety, i.e. in economic, political andsocial arenas and forums.

Biotope Classification andAssessmentCompared to terrestrial habitats,marine habitats are relatively poorlystudied and classified. In order tofacilitate nature protection in the Balticmarine and coastal areas, an all-encompassing biotope classificationhas been carried out by HELCOM,identifying 133 biotopes (66 marineand 67 coastal) and 13 biotopecomplexes (Red List of Marine andCoastal Biotopes and BiotopeComplexes of the Baltic Sea, Belt Seaand Kattegat (Baltic Sea EnvironmentProceedings No.75, 1998)).

The marine and coastal biotopes inthe HELCOM Red list are divided intothe following main categories:

• pelagic marine biotopes

• benthic marine biotopes

• terrestrial biotopes

• coastal lakes, pools and glolakes(see “A Young and UniqueEcosystem” for a description ofglo lakes)

• selected biotopes of riverine andriver mouth areas

The HELCOM Red List based onthis classification provides the firstState-by-State and Baltic-wideassessment of the degree of threatposed to biotopes and biotopecomplexes by habitat loss or change,i.e. threats to biodiversity, speciesinteractions, ecological processes andenvironmental conditions. The Baltic-wide assessment revealed that 88%of the biotopes are “heavilyendangered”, “endangered” or“potentially endangered”, but thatnone of the biotopes are “immediatelythreatened”.

An indication of which humanactivities who are most harmful tobiotopes is provided by the number ofadverse impact entries for each activity


in relation to specific biotopes on theHELCOM Red List. The mostcommon threat factors are pollution,eutrophication, construction (mainlylocal) and fishing, affectingrespectively 75% (pollution), 70%(euthrophication), 57% (construction)and 47% (fishing) of all listedbiotopes.

All marine biotopes are threatenedby change due to eutrophication orpollution in at least one Baltic SeaState. Each of these threats accountsfor 24% of the scores in the marinebiotope/threat matrix. Fishing andconstruction threaten 74% and 70% ofthe marine biotopes, respectively. Ofthe coastal biotopes, 61% arethreatened by recreational activitiesand 51% by pollution.

The WWF Baltic Team focuses onthe following biotope complexes as themost vulnerable:

• rocky shores

• sandy shores

• moraine shores

• flat coasts subjectto intensive land upheaval

• fjords/fjord-like bays

• lagoons, including Bodden,barrier lagoons and fladas(see “A Young and UniqueEcosystem” for adescription of fladas)

• large spits of sand and/orgravel separating a lagoonfrom the sea

• riverine areas underbrackish water influence bythe sea

• estuaries and river mouthareas

• archipelagos

• solitary islands

• esker islands

• deep-sea bottoms

• shallow offshore banks(including sandbanks andreefs)

Special attention needs to bedevoted to the last category (deep-seabottoms). In aquatic habitats, hypoxiaor anoxia (lack of oxygen) constitutesthe most extreme environmentalcatastrophe. All higher organisms thatcannot escape such conditionseventually die.

In ecosystems affected byeutrophication, increased oxygenconsumption rates would make deepwater and deep bottoms the mostthreatened habitats. This is particularlytrue for deep coastal basins, which areisolated from each other by extensiveshallow areas.

Although oxygen depletion in near-bottom waters has always been anatural part of the ecological processesin the Baltic Sea, its present extent isunprecedented, and recovery ofbottoms is now remarkably slower.This has caused large-scale,detrimental impact to the bottomdynamics of the Baltic Sea basin.

Natura 2000/ Emerald Networkin the Baltic Sea AreaIn May 2004 all Baltic Sea Countries,except Russia, will be members of theEuropean Union and thus need tofollow the EU Directives. Animportant international instrument forhabitat conservation is the EU HabitatsDirective.

The Directive includes a far-reaching and ambitious programmeknown as Natura 2000 for theestablishment and conservation of anetwork of protected sites throughoutthe EU Member States. Annex 1 of theDirective describes eight open seahabitat types (1110 –1180) as worthyof protection in the EU.

Seven out of these eight threatenedhabitats have been identified in theBaltic Sea. The description of another


habitat type (1140 Mudflats andsandflats not covered by seawater atlow tide) has been much debated bymarine biologists, since there are noreal tides in the Baltic Sea.

This habitat type, with high water-level variance, has been identified insome Baltic Sea States and omitted inothers. Habitat type 1180 (submarinestructures made by leaking gases) isquite rare in the Baltic Sea but is foundin the southern part (Denmark).Submersed sandbanks (1110) and reefs(1170) should be given specialattention, as they often constitutehighly productive and valuableoffshore habitats.

Compared to terrestrial habitatsthe inventories of marine habitatsfor establishing the Natura 2000network have so far been carriedout far less intensively. Although theclassification of marine habitats seemsto be too simple to fit to the Baltic Seawith its 66 marine habitat types, thepossibilities for implementing the EUHabitats Directive are currently notbeing used to their full extent. TheBaltic biotope classification is stilltaking place and the EuropeanEnvironmental Agency is working onmodifying the EU’s EUNIS (Europeanbiotope classification) system to theBaltic.

A Marine Expert Group has beenestablished under the EU HabitatCommittee to develop a commonunderstanding of the provisions ofNatura 2000 relating to the marineenvironment in order to facilitate the

designation and future management ofthese areas by the Member States.

The marine habitat types such assandbanks, reefs and submarinestructures made by leaking gases willget a new definition to better fit in allEuropean sea areas: The Baltic, TheMediterranean and The Atlantic.WWF has a representative in thisGroup.

In addition, Natura 2000 consists ofSPA (Specially Protected Areas)according to the EU Birds Directive(1979). Although a large number ofSPAs have already been designated inEU Member States and selected byaccession countries, many ImportantBird Areas of the Baltic Sea, asdescribed in Inventory of Coastal andMarine Important Bird Areas in theBaltic Sea (Birdlife International,2000) remain without legal status.

Further opportunities for habitatpreservation through the network ofprotected areas in the region comefrom the Emerald network, specificallyoriented towards involving non-EUStates in the Natura 2000 process.Expansion of the Emerald network hasa special significance for the BalticSea Region where areas large enoughto maintain wilderness andundisturbed ecological processes stillremain adjacent to the RussianFederation. Through this process,habitat preservation and restorationefforts can be harmonised throughoutthe whole Baltic region and unifiedand comparable registering andmonitoring of habitats will beachieved.


Figure 2. Regional distribution of designated BSPAs, proposed BSPAs and IBAs.


Other Policy ToolsThe Ramsar Convention also offers alegally binding instrument forprotection of coastal areas shallowerthan six metres. All Baltic Sea stateshave ratified the Ramsar Convention,and several wetland areas have beendesignated. The African-EuropeanWaterbird Agreement under the BonnConvention is another instrument usedto protect coastal and marine areasavailable for migrating waterfowl.

Coastal Wetlands and LagoonsThe fate of Baltic coastal wetlands andcoastal lagoons, particularly those inthe western parts of the region,provides a striking example ofnegative human impacts on the Balticecosystem. The Baltic Sea regioncontains a number of large andcomplex coastal lagoons and wetlandecosystems.

However, as in most parts of theworld, wetlands and coastal lagoonsdecreased drastically during the20th century. Wetlands have beenditched and drained to meet thedemand from expanding modernagriculture and forestry. Wetlands andlagoons have been filled to make roomfor urban and industrial development,including harbours and marinas.Coastal wetlands, including estuaries,coastal lagoons, coastal wetlandmeadows, marshlands, wet forests,bogs and swamps, have sufferedparticularly from human activities.

However, in the eastern and south-eastern parts of the Baltic region due,inter alia, to less intensive agricultureand forestry over large areas, and theclosing of extensive coastal regions formilitary and other reasons, countrieshave maintained a greater wealth ofundisturbed or less affected lagoonsand wetland areas of various types.

Semi-Natural Coastal Habitats

Notwithstanding the many negativeimpacts in the Baltic Sea region, aconsiderable number of terrestrial andmarine habitats and ecosystems haveremained in a relatively undisturbedstate. In the northern and eastern parts,pristine and non-exploited coastalstretches can still be found.

Also, there are still very rich,valuable semi-natural coastal habitatsin some sub-regions. Semi-naturalgrasslands in the archipelagos ofSweden, Finland and Estonia areextremely valuable from a widerbiodiversity point of view with highlyendangered species.

The low-lying parts of the Balticcoastline, often covered by grassland(various types of coastal meadows,coastal wetlands etc.), are of greatimportance for the annual migration ofmillions of geese, swans, cranes, ducksand waders along the so-called NorthEast Atlantic flyway.

Coastal meadows have existed inthe Baltic Sea Area for thousands ofyears and comprise distinct plant andbird communities which are nowthreatened by abandonment and lackof management. Several vertebrates asblack-tailed godwit, Baltic Stint, Ruffand natterjack toad have become rare.

New economic incentives have tobe developed to ensure continuous andsustainable management of semi-natural areas.

Important Bird Areas andWintering Areas of Seabirds

A 1994 survey of offshorewintering birds in the Baltic regionshows that 39 areas meet the criteria ofholding at least one percent of the totalNorth Western European population ofa single bird species (Durinck etal.1994. Important marine areas forwintering birds in the Baltic Sea). Tenof these areas are of significant, andfour of outstanding international,importance for the subsistence of the


fauna of wintering birds in NorthernEurope2.

Furthermore, the need for specialmanagement of these areas wasestablished. Their importance must beconsidered when deciding about theBaltic network of protected coastal andmarine areas. Any degradation of thesehabitats, including pollution throughoil spills, will have disastrousconsequences for bird populations.

A study published by BirdlifeInternational in 2000 identifiedImportant Bird Areas (IBAs) for theBaltic Sea. It identified 170 IBAs inthe Baltic Sea Area, 5 of them onoffshore banks, 1 in the sub-littoralzone, 118 in the littoral zone, 35 incombined littoral – sub littoral zonesand 11 in lagoons.

Bladder Wrack (Fucusvesiculosus) CommunitiesBladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) is aflagship species of macroalgae in theBaltic Sea. This perennial, belt-forming distinct large brown algae canbe found in the coastal zone from theKattegat up to the Bothnian Sea.Bladder wrack belts form the basis foran ecosystem rich in species and are ofgreat importance for the structure andfunction of the coastal zone and theBaltic Sea system as a whole. Theyprovide habitat for a variety of marinespecies – epiphytes, filter feeders,grazers, browsers, mobile invertebratesand fish.

Bladder wrack in the Baltic Seaoccurs in the upper sub littoral zone.Between the 1940s and the 1980s thedepth limit of its dispersal decreasedfrom 11m to 7–8m along the Swedishcoast. Since then, it has increasedagain by 1m.

2 Szczecin and Vorpommern Lagoons (Germany/Poland),Pomeranian Bay (Germany/Poland), Gulf of Riga (Latvia/Estonia) and Northern Kattegat (Danmark/Sweden)

Along many parts of the Finnishand Estonian coasts bladder wrackdisappeared at the end of the 1970sand the depth distribution decreasedalong most open shores. Partialrecovery has taken place, but thebladder wrack does not reach the samedepths as it did previously.

Coastal and Offshore AreasOther valuable and productivehabitats/ecosystems, such as shallowmarine hard-bottom areas, are of greatimportance in several respects. Theyare important for their rich marinebiodiversity, and as spawning andnursing grounds for many fish species,including species of commercialimportance to both local and regionalfish productivity and fisheries.

Some of the areas are also ofinternational importance as winteringareas for diving ducks.

As early as 1993 a joint BalticMarine Biologists (BMB) and WWFworking group identified a network ofcoastal and offshore areas in need ofprotection. It also underlined thenecessity to include identifiedterrestrial areas to develop larger,more comprehensive protected areas.

The group classified two principaltypes of marine areas that should beconsidered for protection are:

Non-threatened areas in their naturalstate

Habitats of high ecological valueas well as high biodiversity wouldhave represented the ideal, but inreality no such areas can be foundanymore in the region.

Therefore areas which are"sustainable" used and notdirectly threatened by pollutionsources in the vicinity should beincluded.

Areas that still hold their naturalplant and animal communities, butwhere the variability of the


ecosystem has increased, shouldalso be part of the protectedmarine areas.

Areas requiring efforts to restore them

They include heavily pollutedareas and/or areas, in the vicinityof major pollution sources (suchas discharges of municipal orindustrial wastewater) or mouthsof large rivers.

Areas exploited by humans in away that affects the habitat andthreatens its organisms come intothis category.

Similarly, where biodiversity hasdecreased and plant and animalcommunities are dominated byopportunistic species, protectionis required.

For all such areas, which used tobe of high ecological value and ofimportance to society, all possibleefforts should be made to restorethem.

A system of initially 62 Baltic SeaProtected Areas (BSPAs) wasproposed in the 1994 HELCOMRecommendation 15/5, but theproposed selection includes only veryfew purely marine areas.To berepresentative of the whole Baltic Seait is evident that the provisional listshould be extended to include interalia a greater number of purely marineareas, and especially more areas thatare offshore.

In an expert report (Hägerhäll &Skov), in 1998, 24 additional/offshoreareas were proposed to be included inthe BSPA-network (but they have stillnot been officially included). To date,none of them have been fullyimplemented and reported toHELCOM.

In Sweden, three offshore BSPAsin the EEZ (beyond 12 nm) have beendesignated as NATURA 2000 sites,but there are still no managementplans in place and these areas are not

officially reported to HELCOM. Alsoin Denmark, some offshore areas(beyond 12 nm) have been designatedas NATURA 2000 sites, but so farthere are no management plans inplace and they are not reported toHELCOM.

Through its working group onnature conservation and coastal zonemanagement (HELCOM Habitat), theCommission aims at conservingnatural biotopes and species. And alsoprotecting the biological diversity andecological processes; managing andusing coastal and marine resourcessustainable; and promoting thedevelopment of Integrated CoastalZone Management, e.g. for coastallagoons and wetlands.

An ecosystem-based approach ispromoted in developing strategies forthe management of marine resourcesof coastal and offshore waters,favouring broader, long-termmanagement practices instead of ashort-term, sectoral approach.Common concepts and visions forintegrated coastal zone managementare being developed.

In 1994, the Baltic Sea Statesadopted HELCOM Recommendation15/1 for protection of the coastal stripoutside urban areas and existingsettlements. The strip is taken toextend at least 100–300 metres fromthe mean water line, both landwardand seaward. Within this strip,permission for actions thatpermanently change the nature andlandscape should only be granted inexceptional cases.

Intensive forestry and farming areto be restricted. A zone of at least threekm from the mean water line should beestablished as a coastal planning zone.In this zone major constructionprojects must be preceded by a land-use plan, including an environmentalimpact assessment.


So far, this Recommendation haslargely been implemented for theterrestrial parts of the strip, and mostcountries have established a coastalplanning zone (or regard the wholecountry as a planning zone). Also,most countries in the region implementrestrictions on intensive forestry in thecoastal strip, whereas variousincentives are used to hamperintensive farming in these areas.

Non-Indigenous SpeciesNon-native species to the Baltic Seahave in several cases caused drasticchanges in the aquatic communitiesand food webs. Until now, however,these changes have so far not occurredamong the determinant species of plantcommunities.

Nevertheless, remarkable changeshave been observed in food-webs,where Zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha), Fishhook waterflea(Cercopagis pengoi) and red gilledmud worm (Marenzelleria viridis), forexample, have taken over ecologicalniches until recently filled with nativespecies. Therefore the invasion ofalien species is a matter of growingconcern and stricter control should betaken over ballast water dischargesfrom ships.

Root CausesRoughly 85 million people livewithin the drainage area of theBaltic Sea, and in one or the otherway they all have an impact on thesea. The Baltic is an industrialised anddynamic region. Large urban areas,industries, agriculture, shipping, ferrytraffic and fisheries significantly affectBaltic coastal and marine ecosystemsand habitats.

Major cities, as well as ports,airports, loading areas, etc. are locatedin the coastal zone. The vast majorityof the population lives in coastalzones, and pressures on coastal andmarine ecosystems are increasing.

Tourism in coastal zones is expandingas well, and new infrastructure(marinas, holiday parks, hotels, etc.) isbeing built to meet these demands.

Activities from the past still affectthe environment today. Many rivermouth areas along the Swedish coaststill suffer the negative impacts ofmercury and pentachlorophenol fromearly industrialisation. Many shallowoffshore areas are still suffering fromthe effects of habitat degradationcaused by extraction of stones andboulders to build harbour quays.

Although discharges of nutrientshave decreased, even the residualconcentrations of nitrogen andphosphorus are high enough to resultin eutrophication and algal blooms fordecades to come because of theinternal loading process under anoxiccircumstances.

Several salmon populations havebeen brought to extinction from lossof habitats, physical obstructions insalmon rivers that hinder adult fishfrom reaching their spawning grounds,and the impact of fishing.

The majority of activities that arevalued in economic and social termscause biotope change or loss. Mostimportant of these activities are:

• large-scale, industrialagriculture;(meaning land reclamation,intensive use of fertilisers andtoxins, changes in land use,decreases in traditionalfarming)

• construction of newcommercial harbours andhydro construction;(involving dredging, dumpingof dredged material, increasedship traffic and pollution)

• development of coastal areasfor recreational activities;(causing habitat degradation


and loss, increased litteringand pollution)

• urban and industrialdevelopments;(with manifold effects)

• unsustainable fisheries andaquaculture;(over fishing, bottom trawling,eutrophication)

• large-scale shipping;(including intense ferry traffic)

• road traffic;(increased pollution andnutrient load, wear on andfragmentation of habitats)

• mineral, oil and gas extractionand transport;(prospecting, mining, dredgingand ship accidents)

• industry;(pollution from heavy metals,POPs, dioxin, oil)

• unsustainable forestrypractices;(large-scale clear cutting,leakage of nutrients, plantationforestry, impact onwatersheds)

• water regulation;(drainage, re-routing,extraction, land reclamation)

• military activities;(wear on and disturbance ofhabitats)

• coastal defence;(dyking, stabilisation of sand)

• nuclear industry(caesium discharges, heatpollution, transportation ofradioactive wastes)

Baltic habitats are threatened byincreased mobility and transport

infrastructure both on land and onwater. Growing traffic increases therisk of accidents, as well as thenegative effects of oil spills, pollutionand airborne emissions. In addition,motorways in the coastal zone andislands, such as Baltic Bridges and theincreasing passenger ferry traffic havenegative effects on bird migration(Rügen, Fehmarnbelt).

Growing and uncontrolled tourismin valuable habitats and protectedareas is another important threat. Agrowing issue is the establishment ofinfrastructure to promote tourism andthe resulting disturbance to wildlifeand habitats. In densely populatedareas a variety of leisure activities arenot sustainable channelled. Thesekinds of issues demand participatorymanagement approaches incombination with awareness-buildingand lead to precaution and respectfulbehaviour.

The offshore wind industry is onthe threshold of establishing itself as anew major coastal industry. Offshorewind parks contribute to curb globalclimate change and are thereforewelcomed by WWF. However, theuncoordinated establishment ofoffshore installations can negativelyimpact marine ecosystems. There istherefore a need for broad andintegrated consultations at an earlystage of the spatial developmentprocess to ensure careful decision-making based on the precautionaryprinciple. For this purpose acomprehensive and integrated spatialplanning and decision-making schemeencompassing the territorial watersand the exclusive economic zones ofthe Baltic Sea States and neighbouringcountries is a high priority for WWF.


The Way ForwardThe most important conservation activities that we have identified as priorities for futurework in the Baltic region are linked to eutrophication, fisheries and toxins. These threatswill be considered separately below. Other important actions are:

establishment and implementation of a network of representative and well managedcoastal and marine protected areas (e.g. BSPAs and Natura 2000) in the Baltic Sea

establishment of the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) under theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO); influence on the EU Common AgriculturalPolicy negotiations to include identified priorities for the Baltic Sea Eco-region;influence on the development of EU’s marine strategy

halt infrastructure plans/development and other harmful activities that might lead tosevere habitat degradation

to monitor the development of recreation and tourism


Shipping

The spectre of a severe oil accident inthe Baltic Sea is omnipresent. In thecase of a serious oil tanker accident,all coasts of the Baltic Sea would bethreatened, economic activities couldbe spoiled for years and the unique andprecious nature of the Baltic regionirreversibly damaged.

A large number of islands,shipping routes difficult to navigate,slow water exchange and long annualperiods of ice cover all make the BalticSea particularly sensitive to the effectsof international shipping. At the sametime the Baltic Sea has some of thebusiest maritime traffic in theworld.

Over the last few decades themaritime traffic in the Baltic has notonly increased, but also the nature ofthe traffic has changed rapidly. Oneimportant development is the increaseof oil transportation due to new oilterminals in Russia and more andlarger tankers.

WWF’s goal in the Baltic is topromote sustainable shippingrespectful of the sensitive environmentof the Baltic Sea. Internationalcollaboration is as crucial forenvironmentally sound shipping as ithas been for nature conservation.Establishing the Baltic Sea as aParticularly Sensitive Sea Area(PSSA) under the IMO could be animportant step to achieve bothenvironmentally friendly shipping andnature conservation across the region.

A Major Threat to MarineBiodiversity and HumanSettlements

The Baltic Sea has always been animportant sea transport route. Today itrepresents a strategic route to transportoil from the large terminals in Estonia,Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia.

Oil transportation has doubledin the past six years and it isexpected to increase to up to 160million tonnes by 2010 as a result ofthe building of new oil harbours inPrimorsk and in Vysotsk (Russia).Apart from oil tankers, chemicaltankers, containers and bulk carriers ofoften more than 100,000 tons sailthrough the narrow straits of the BalticSea, and their lanes are also oftencrossed by fast passenger ferries andpleasure boats.

The increase in oil and chemicaltransportation is creating higher risksof an oil accident, especially in thoseareas with narrow and shallow straitsand banks (such as the Sound, theGreat Belt, the Kadet Trench betweenGermany and the Danish Falster, theBaltic Proper and the Gulf of Finland).

In the northern Baltic Sea anannual ice cover makes shippingextremely difficult. Statistics onshipping accidents indicate that winteris the most dangerous time for oilshipping. The most serious danger iscaused by ships in poor technicalcondition, without standardised iceclassification or with inadequatelytrained crews.

The latest serious oil spill in theBaltic Sea was in 2001 when the BulkCarrier Tern and the tanker BalticCarrier collided in the Kadet Fairway.Approximately 20,000 seabirds werecontaminated.


Further, the case of the Chinesefreighter Fu Shan Hai that founderedoff Bornholm in Denmark in thebeginning of June 2003 illustrates theneed for increased control and tougherrules for shipping in the Baltic Sea.More than 1,000 tons of crude oil and65,000 tons of potassium chloridewere spilled when the freighter FuiShan Hai sank. She was loaded with1,700 tons of heavy fuel oil andfertiliser from Latvia to China whenshe was rammed by the container shipGdynia.This accident demonstrated therisks involved in shipping andtransporting dangerous chemicals,even though in this case the cargo wasa relatively non-toxic fertiliser.

Environmental Impacts ofShipping and Oil SpillsAn oil or chemical accident could havedisastrous effects on the vulnerableBaltic Sea, especially on fish spawningareas and breeding and resting areasfor birds and marine mammals, such asseals and the endangered harbourporpoise. Thousands of breeding andwintering water birds would be thefirst victims of an oil spill.

The shallow offshore banks inthe southern Baltic Sea are ofinternational significance for severalspecies of wintering sea birds. Forexample, more than 25% of theEuropean population of long-tailedducks spend the winter on HoburgsBank. Studies have shown that asmany as 100,000 long-tailed ducks areaffected by oil every year in this areaalone due to illegal discharges of oilby vessels that traverse theinternational shipping lane through theBaltic Sea.

Oil smothering of birds is thegreatest threat to bird populations asoil-smothered birds lose theirinsulation and die of hypothermia ordrowning. An oil slick hitting the haul-out areas of seals would be especially

catastrophic during the breedingseason.

Other harmful environmentalimpacts caused by internationalshipping in the Baltic Sea includehigher levels of noise, waves, currentsand pressure effects. Introduction ofexotic species via ballast water is anadditional environmental effect ofincreased oil shipping.

Socio-Economic Impacts ofShipping and Oil SpillsFisheries, aquaculture, tourism andrecreational activities are sectors thatrely on a clean and unspoiled BalticSea. An oil slick hitting the beachescontaining summerhouses or hotelswould be a blow to the tourismindustry. An extensive oil pollution offishing grounds could irreversiblydestroy the basis for the Baltic fishingindustry.

Statistics on Shipping, OilTransport and Accidents

According to HELCOMRESPONSE (October 2002) thevolume of goods transported on theBaltic sea will roughly double between1995 and 2017. The general cargo andcontainer traffic will even be three-fold.

Doubling of oil transported on theBaltic sea before 2005 – doubling ofrisks

In the Gulf of Finland the totalnumber of tanker passages was 34,000in 2000. The Gulf of Finland is animportant route for oil transportation(6,360 oil tankers in 2000) as there areseveral important oil terminals aroundthe Gulf of Finland in Russia, Estoniaand Finland and new ones are underconstruction or planning.

During the past six years oiltransported in the Baltic Sea hasdoubled to about 40 million tonnes peryear. It is expected to double again to80 million tonnes before 2005.


Without additional measures the riskwill increase accordingly. Oil andchemical transportation is expected toincrease further to 160 million tonnesby 2010. The risk of a major accidentin the Gulf of Finland especially isincreased by the passenger trafficcrossing between Helsinki and Tallinn.

Increased Number of Oil Accidents inthe Baltic

According to HELCOM the totalnumber of ship accidents in the BalticSea in 2000 and 2001 reached 119, ofwhich 73 were ship groundings,fortunately only one causing oilpollution. During the same time periodthere were 19 tanker accidents, 12 ofthem were single hull tankers and 7double-hull tankers. One of thedouble-hull tanker accidents caused oilpollution and three of single-hullvessels, respectively. Altogether nine

ship accidents resulted in oil pollutionin 2000-2001 (HELCOM).

The HELCOM statistics on shipaccidents quite clearly indicate that thehighest risk for accidents is in theentrances to ports, the Gulf of Finlandand the southwestern Baltic, includingthe Danish straits. Figure 1 illustratesthe sites of ship accidents in the wholeBaltic Sea in the years 1989-1999.

WWF and its partners welcomethe tougher regulations on shippingrecently proposed by the EUCommission in the wake of thePrestige disaster. However, they arenot enough to save the Baltic Sea. Forthis reason WWF with its partnersthink that the whole Baltic Sea, BeltSea and Kattegat need the status of aParticularly Sensitive Sea Area(PSSA) with proper additional safetymeasures to put in practice.


What is a PSSA?

A Particularly Sensitive Sea Area(PSSA) is an area with specialprotection status developed by theInternational Maritime Organization(IMO) to recognize an area’sconservation value and socio-economic significance that may bevulnerable to damage by internationalmaritime activities. IMO decides, onthe basis of a proposal from theMember Government/Governments,what protective measures should beadopted and put in place in eachPSSA.

Guidelines on designating a PSSA arecontained in resolution A.927(22)Guidelines for the Designation ofSpecial Areas under MARPOL73/78and Guidelines for the Identificationand Designation of ParticularlySensitive Sea Areas. The latterincludes criteria for areas qualifyingfor PSSA status. The whole Baltic Seafulfils all the criteria.

The PSSA concept overlaps withexisting networks of different marineprotected areas, e.g. BSPAs, Natura2000 areas, etc. PSSA designationshould, however, make a significantdifference and provide additional value

to the protection of Baltic marinenature. The primary distinction is thata marine protected area is an area ofsea identified because of itssignificance for marine natureconservation, whereas a PSSA isidentified both for its ecological,socio-economic and scientificimportance and for its vulnerabilityto shipping.

The PSSA status is meant to helpavoid accidents, intentional pollutionand damage to habitats. As noted,upon request of the countriesconcerned, the IMO can also decideadditional protective measures.

There are a variety of shippingmanagement tools which could beused in PSSAs including ship routingsystems (traffic separation schemes,areas to be avoided, no-anchoringareas, inshore traffic zones, deep waterroutes, precautionary areas,recommended routes), ship reportingsystems, Vessel Traffic ServiceSystems (VTS, and Vessel TrafficMonitoring and Information Systems,VTMIS), discharge and emissionrestrictions.

Figure 1. The sites of ship accidents in the Baltic Sea in the years 1989-1999.(Source: Marine Safety in the Baltic Sea, Report from the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern(Germany), 2001,Volume 1, page 107 from:HELCOM SEA 2/2001 3.1; 3.01.2001


Further possible measures for PSSAsin territorial seas have to be consideredon a case-by-case basis to match theparticular circumstances of the area.

Not only does a PSSA regulateshipping activity, it also informs theshipping community – i.e. the mariners– of the sensitivity of certain areas ofsea. PSSA status would also increaseinternational recognition for theecological significance of the area.

The Way ForwardThe whole Baltic Sea, Belt Sea and Kattegatt should be designated as a PSSA. WWFencourages all the Baltic governments to make a decision to apply for a PSSA designationfrom IMO for the whole Baltic Sea.

Further, in the Baltic Sea the most sensitive areas should be identified as core areas needingadditional protective measures.

Additional Protective Measures Needed for the Core Areas in the Baltic PSSA- SelectedSpecifically and Individually

Our common goal should be to enable a lasting, sustainable coexistence of shipping andnature in the Baltic Sea. For this reason a Baltic PSSA is one of the WWF Baltic Eco-Region targets, since PSSAs do not simply recognize areas of high ecological importancebut also protect places of high socio-economic significance and educational value againstharmful effects caused by international shipping.


The map of WWF-prioritized core areas needing additional protective measures in theBaltic Sea is given in Figure 2 and the list of additional protective measures in Table 2. Thecore areas are described in detail in the WWF report “More Maritime Safety for the BalticSea”.

AREAMEASURE

1Kattegat/Beltsea

2Polishcoast

3Lithuanian/Kaliningrad

4LatvianWaters

5Got-land

6Swedishcoast

7GulfofFinland

8ArchipelagoSea

9Quark(be-tweenVasaandUmeå)

10KemiArea

CompulsoryPilotage

X X X X X X X X

Escorttowing

X X X X X X

Trafficseparationscheme

X X X X X

CompulsoryRouting

X X X X X

Areas to beavoided

X X X X X X X

Iceclassification

X X X X

Speedreduction

X X X X

Additional protective measures for the whole Baltic SeaVTMIS X X X X X X X X X XCommoncoast guard

X X X X X X X X X X

Ports ofrefuge

X X X X X X X X X X

Table for Figure 2WWF´s proposed list of additional protective measures needed (marked with X) in various parts of the BalticSea. The numbered areas are illustrated in Fig 2.

WWF has stressed the urgent need to ban all single-hull tankers from entering the BalticSea within a few years, i.e. before 2010, as decided by IMO in 2003. In addition, illegal oildischarges should be monitored and all national measures (in territorial waters and in theEEZ) and international measures (international waters) should be extended in the Baltic totackle this problem which today is worse than reported oil accidents.


Figure 2. WWF`s proposal concerning the core areas which need additional safety measures in theBaltic Sea PSSA. See also Table for Fig. 2.


Fisheries

Unsustainable fisheries are identifiedas a root-cause leading to biodiversityloss in the Baltic Sea. Since the BalticSea is a semi-enclosed and isolatedsea, it is particularly sensitive tohuman activities. Both the fish stocksand the fishing industry are in crisisand new approaches to subsidies,management and control andenforcement are needed. Fisheries area complex area both with regard tobiology, fishing practices andlegislation. Consequently, action hasto be taken at various levels.

Natural variations in theenvironmental conditions and humanimpacts on the environment havesignificant effects on fish stocks in theBaltic.

Biological and GeographicalCharacteristicsThe Baltic Sea is a shallow, semi-enclosed sea with several deep basinsconnected to the North Sea through theDanish Belts and the Sound, Kattegatand Skagerrak. The brackish water ofthe Baltic flows out at the surfacethrough the Danish Belts and theSound. Heavy saline water flows as acountercurrent into the deeps, with theresult that the Baltic Sea ispermanently stratified in its deeperparts, with a saline bottom layer and aless saline surface layer.

The exchange process throughthe Sound and the Belts is dependenton wind conditions and several yearsmay pass without major inflows ofsaline and oxygen rich water to thedeeper parts of the Baltic. The result isthat the saline bottom water in the

deeps is stagnant with little renewalfor extended periods.

Oxygen is consumed bybiological processes in the bottomwaters and this process is acceleratedby the mineralisation of large amountsof dead organic material e.g.phytoplankton, due to the large inflowof nutrients from the watershedssurrounding the Baltic Sea. Thebottom waters are thus depleted inoxygen and, with a longer periodwithout new inflow of saline water, theentire body of saline bottom watermay become anoxic. This has occurredfor two of the deeps (the Gdansk andthe Gotland deeps) and the volume ofoxygenated saline bottom water in thethird deep, the Bornholm Deep, hasbeen severely reduced.

These conditions severelyimpact the reproductive success offlatfish, cod, and pelagic stocks in thearea, as the volume of the oxygenatedwater – the spawning volume – oftenhas been the limiting factor for thesurvival of fish eggs and larvae.Salinity in the Baltic Sea ranges fromabout two-thirds of oceanic water (inthe western Baltic) to nearly freshwater in the Gulf of Bothnia.

This has a major influence onfish stocks. Marine species, such ascod, herring and sprat are mostcommonly found in the south-western and central waters. In thenorth freshwater species such aspike and perch are prevalent(although salmon and Baltic herringare also economically important).Salmon is an important stock ineconomic terms for the whole Balticarea and a number of flatfish stocks,i.e. flounder and plaice, are also found


in southern Baltic waters. In thenorthern part of the Baltic, speciessuch as vendice, sea- and river-spawning powan and sea-spawninggrayling are found.

Fishing ActivitiesCommercially, the most importantstocks in the Baltic Sea are cod,herring, sprat and salmon. There arealso catches in commercial quantitiesof various flatfishes (flounder, plaice,turbot, dab and brill) and sea trout.Freshwater species (pike and perch)are important in coastal fisheries in thecentral and northern Baltic. There arecommercial eel fisheries in theSouthern Baltic (Sweden, Denmarkand Poland).

The main fishing for cod in theBaltic is carried out with demersaltrawls; high-opening trawls (operatingboth pelagically and demersally) andgillnets. There has been an increase ingillnet fishing in the 1990s. The shareof the cod catch taken by gillnets, forexample, has been more than 40% inrecent years. Cod in the Baltic belongto two separate populations, theWestern and the Eastern, and aremanaged separately with totalallowable catches (TAC) set for eachstock. Baltic herring are exploitedmainly by pelagic trawls, demersaltrawls and, during the spawningseason, by trap nets/pound-nets incoastal areas. The main sprat catch istaken by pelagic pair trawling.

Both herring and sprat are usedmainly for human consumption whenlanded in the countries on the easternBaltic coasts, but for production offishmeal, oil and mink feed in thecountries on the western coasts. Thelandings of sprat for industrialpurposes have increased markedlyduring the past few years.

Salmon are caught both forrecreational and commercial purposes.While feeding in the sea salmon arecaught by drift nets and long lines.

During the spawning run they arecaught along the coast, mainly in trapnets and fixed gillnets.

Even though driftnet fishinghas been banned in all EU waters, arule of exception allows thistechnique to be used for salmonfishing in the Baltic Sea. Because thistechnique has a significant level ofbycatch, it is highly questionable thatthis technique can be regarded assustainable. WWF wants driftnetfishing to be phased out in the BalticSea as soon as possible.

Fishing for industrial purposes,i.e. for non-human consumption, is asubject of controversy. From the pointof view of biology and multispeciesbalance, the International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea (ICES)argues that it is important to harvestherring and sprat in order to allow thecod stock to develop.

The explanation is to be found inan understanding of the interplaybetween the various species. The twopelagic species feed on cod eggs butform prey for grown cod. When thestock herring and sprat stock are toohigh, there is no room for the codstock to develop. On the other hand,the natural mortality of the two speciesis low due to the low level of the codstock. For the time being, ICESregards fishing for herring and sprat asa means to help the cod stock toflourish.

Status of StocksAfter an increase in the cod stock inthe Eastern Baltic Sea due to hugesaline water inflow and an expansionin the fisheries in the 1970s and early1980s, the stock declined dramaticallyfrom 1985 to 1992. The fleet capacityand fishing efforts have now beenreduced to some extent, but fishingmortality has increased because thestocks declined more than the declinein the fleet capacity. In the early 1990sthere was a temporary increase in the


spawning stock biomass of theWestern Baltic cod stock. This waspartly due to improved recruitment butwas primarily a result of intensifiedregulation of fishing effort. After aslight increase in 1994-95, due to the1993 saline water inflow, thespawning stock of the Eastern Balticcod decreased again in 1996-1998 toan almost historically low level. Thelast ten-year’s stock has been belowthe long-term average. So a recoveryof the stock can hardly be expectedunder the present exploitation patternand tendency for fishing mortality toincrease. In the Western Baltic, the

most recent assessments have shownthat the spawning stock biomass isdeclining and the fishing mortality isincreasing to previous high levels.

ICES therefore recommend theadoption of a precautionary approach,including reductions in fishing effort,if the Eastern stock is to recover on amore permanent basis. This hasresulted in a recommended TAC of 0for Eastern cod in both 2002 and 2003.It is the second time within recentyears that a fishing moratorium onBaltic Sea cod has been suggested.

Figure 3: Cod catches in the Baltic since 1977 (ICES 2002a)Note: The figure given for 2002 is the fishing quota set for this species.

According to ICES the fishingpressure for sprat is stable and isharvested inside the safe biologicallimits. Due to the decreasing spawningstock bio-mass and increase in fishingmortality on herring in the centralBaltic, herring in this area isconsidered to be outside the safebiological limits.

Because the dioxin content ofBaltic herring is above the levelconsidered by EU standards to be safefor human consumption, Finland andSweden have pleaded for national

exemptions under which they areallowed to sell Baltic herring catchesto each other and to non-EU countriesuntil the end of 2006 when the dioxincontents in fish will be re-assessed.

Recent research indicates thatthe Baltic Sea herring is smaller in sizetoday and that the reason is decreasingsalinity due to increase in rainfall inthe drainage basin. Decreased salinityaffects the productivity in the foodchain (e.g. altered zoo-planktoncommunities) and there seems to be ashortage of food for the herring.

050

100150200250300350400450500

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Land

ings

in 1

000

t


The overall complex of wildsalmon stock is considered to beoutside safe biological limits. Thereare only 30-40 rivers in the Balticareas that produce wild salmon smolt.It is estimated that only 10 to 15percent of smolt production is fromwild stock. Since these rivers are thefoundations for the long-term recoveryof the wild salmon stock, it is of vitalimportance that their productivity issecured and protected.

Salmon fisheries are supposed totarget only reared and released stock.But, because it is impossible toseparate wild and reared salmon inoffshore fisheries, it should only bepermitted to exploit reared fish during

the homing migration when salmonapproach their release sites near riversthat do not support wild salmonpopulations.

To save the wild salmon, fishingshould only be allowed close toreleasing sites (river mouths andrivers) where reared fish migrate andleave wild salmon stocks untouched.

The Baltic salmon action plan,as adopted by IBSFC (InternationalBaltic Sea Fisheries Commission) in1997, seems to have had some success,as ICES has measured an increase insmolt production in many rivers.


Socio-economic FactorsFish are a naturally renewable resourcethat feeds us, provides employmentopportunities and the locus for culturalpatterns and habitations in the BalticSea Region. As such it is part of ourcommon heritage.

For many communities aroundthe Baltic Sea, the fishing industryhas the potential to continue to be asignificant ingredient in the local andregional economy, both as livelihoodfor inhabitants and also as the basisfor general socio-economicdevelopment. Additionally, fisheriesprovide inhabitants and communitieswith identity and provide remoteareas with scenic value.

The severe decline in fishabundance has multipleconsequences for local communities.Vessels and industries tend toconcentrate in a few large portsoutside the Baltic Sea region, wherecatch options are more diverse andstable. Therefore, a large proportionof the Baltic Sea fish is caught byvessels registered in ports in theNorth Sea and Kattegat region,resulting in the industries’ growingdetachment from local economies.

The fish stock is the immediateresource base of fisheries. Theproductivity of the stock isdependent on the surrounding marineecosystem and the ecosystem can,therefore, be considered the resourcebase in a wider sense. Fisheriespursue the resource and arecharacterised by two features:• Fisheries rely on natural processes

in aquatic ecosystems thatdevelop without any inducementor control by humans. Theresource base is thus limited bynatural production processes and

subject to the natural variability ofthe resource system.

• The resource basis for fisheries isa common property. Extractionrights for the Baltic Sea resourcesare divided between the nineStates. Since the catch capacity inthe region’s fisheries carries therisk of over fishing, a greatresponsibility rests on themanagement authorities. Thus, inorder to secure long-termsustainability in fisheries, it isimportant to use the precautionaryprinciple, i.e. only resourcesurplus is harvested.

Fisheries and SustainabilityIt is a major challenge to secure bothan ecologically and socio-economically sustainable futures forfisheries. Management is a complexfield, where many interests andprocesses are at stake. Thus, a numberof interdependent aspects need to beconsidered:

The resource perspective

where the reproductive capacity of thefish stock is the core issue

The ecosystem perspective

where the continued functioning of theecosystem as a productive and healthyenvironment is at stake

The production chain perspective

including impacts due to thegeneration of pollution and waste inthe production process

The socio-economic perspective

where the consequences of overcapacity in fisheries are the focus.


There is widespread agreementthat international co-operation andenforcement is needed to ensure thesustainable use of the fish resource.Regretfully the existing regulatoryframework has contributed with theopposite effect, becoming the rootcause of the degradation. Fish stocksare at a historically low level, somestocks even on the verge of collapse.Consequently the employment rate inthe fisheries sector is declining.

Fishing activities play asignificant role in influencing thebalance of the marine ecosystem. Witha low abundance of cod, the stocks ofherring and sprat will naturallyincrease. Fisheries also have anunintended impact on the ecosystem.By catch of non-target species – seals,harbour porpoise and birds – is aproblem of somewhat unknownproportions.

Fisheries also have an impact onthe wider marine environment. Heavyfishing gear is a threat to the seabedenvironment, in particular areas ofseagrass, sandbanks and stone settings.Sustainable fishing is possible but thestocks also need an environment thatsupports and sustains regeneration.

Fisheries management in theBaltic Sea is the responsibility of theInternational Baltic Sea FisheriesCommission (IBSFC). On the basis ofthe recommendations of ICES, totalallowable catches (TAC) are adoptedand quotas are agreed upon. Theaccuracy of the various ICESassessments can be questioned, due toa lack of data, and improved scientificadvice is required.

Fisheries advice would benefitfrom a more interdisciplinary andfocused approach from both the EUand ICES itself. It is expected that EUin the future will demand advice fromother scientific disciplines than marinebiology, i.e. economic and socio-economic experts. The European

Commission’s recommendation for theintroduction of Regional AdvisoryCommittees (RAC) is an expression ofan interest in enhanced co-operationwith stakeholders of different kinds.

It is presumed that Illegal,Unregulated and Unreported fishing(IUU) is a significant problemthroughout the region. Especially inRussia and the EU accession countriesthe level of fisheries control andenforcement is uncertain. It istherefore not clear whethermanagement measures adopted byIBSFC are followed equally by allBaltic Sea states.

National governments and thefishing industries are reluctant toestablish adequate infrastructures forcontrol, data collection and fisheriesscience. Insufficient data is fed intoscientific models and reduce the valueof the analyses. Accordingly, defectivescientific advice is provided tomanagers, reflecting the quality of thedata. In a situation of flawed, false andmissing data, the precautionaryprinciple becomes even moreimportant. Thus, the scientific modelsprompt managers to apply restrictiveTAC recommendations in order toprotect the stocks.

Regarding the protection ofmarine habitat, the Natura 2000process and Emerald network, the EUHabitats Directive and HELCOMdesignation of Baltic Sea ProtectedAreas (BSPA) provide an interestingpath for future protection of marinehabitat. The value of seasonal closures,as means of protecting spawningspecies, has to some extent beenrecognised by management authorities.

The three Baltic Sea deeps arerecognised as spawning and nurseryareas for cod. However, only one isprotected by seasonal closure. Areasrich in pelagic species, which provideimportant feeding areas for cod, havenot yet been subject to protection. Anetwork of protected areas based on an


understanding of breeding and feedinghabits of certain species wouldincrease the likelihood of stockrecovery. Furthermore, the errors inscientific prediction and ‘spill-over’effect on protected areas are argumentsfor establishing no-take zones.

Applying the frameworkadopted at the Intermediate MinisterialMeeting of the North Sea Conferencein Esbjerg 1997 (Bergen 2002), themain objectives for fisheries andenvironmental protection, conservationand management measures for theBaltic Sea would be:

• to ensure sustainable, soundand healthy ecosystems in theBaltic Sea, thereby restoringand/or maintaining theircharacteristic structure andfunctioning, productivity andbiological diversity

• to achieve sustainableexploitation of the livingmarine resources, therebysecuring a high yield of qualityfood

• to ensure long termeconomically viable fisheries

• to establish no take zones.

In order to reduce theunintended consequences of fishing,the International Baltic Sea FisheriesCommission (IBSFC) has over the last

years introduced several managementmeasures.

First, multi-annual managementplans have been adopted for fourcommercially important species. Themanagement plans are based on therecommendations of ICES anddeveloped with strong regard to theprecautionary principle. The plans runfor 10 years to allow stocks to recoverand fishermen to anticipate minimumcatches for the future.

Second, all IBSFC contractingparties have committed themselves toadopt the bacoma window – a sortinggrid that improves selectivity – indemersal trawl fisheries during 2003.

The protection of the Balticharbour porpoise has been addressedboth by HELCOM and byASCOBANS (Agreement on theConservation of Small Cetaceans ofthe Baltic and North Seas), a regionalagreement under the Convention onMigratory Species (CMS). After manyyears of negotiations, ASCOBANSfinalised what is know as the Jarstaniaplan, which was endorsed in 2003. TheJarstania plan is a recovery programfor the Baltic harbour porpoisebuilding on mitigation measures andscience. The European Commissionhas also tabled a proposal to minimisethe unsustainable impact fisheries haveon small cetaceans through incidentalcatches.

The Way ForwardTo achieve sustainability in Baltic Sea fisheries a range of activities are needed. Subsidiesleading to over-fishing are a primary threat and must be reoriented in order to promotesustainable fishing. Secondly, consumer awareness must be aroused. New partnerships areneeded to promote certification schemes attesting to the sustainability of catches. Thirdly, itis necessary to establish no-take zones and marine protected areas, both to conserve marinehabitats and to protect juvenile fish, birds and sea mammals. Finally, all these activities willbe in vain if they are vitiated by illegal activities. Therefore, new and strengthenedlegislation and enforcement are very important.


Eutrophication

Total nutrient input to the Baltic hasdoubled during past decades.Eutrophication is therefore one ofthe most serious problems of theBaltic Sea. It has increased theprimary production of algae. Fromtime to time it leads to large-scaletoxic algae blooms and oxygendeficiency over large areas, not onlydeep bottoms but also in shallow areas.

Agriculture is by far the largestsource of nitrogen, and also asignificant source of phosphorus.Other main sources are airbornepollutants (transport, heating, industry)and untreated wastewater/inadequatetreatment from point sources (e.g.industry and towns) as well asdispersed settlements and singlehouseholds in rural regions.

At the beginning of the lastcentury and into the 1950s, the Balticwas an oligotrophic sea, with lownutrient levels and high water-transparency. Thereafter the change toa eutrophied sea has been rapid. Thereason for this change is the increaseof nutrients being deposited to the seaboth from aquatic runoff anddischarges from the atmosphere.

There are two main nutrientscausing eutrophication, nitrogen (N)and phosphorus (P). They aredeposited to the sea in several differentways. In 2000, about 660,000 tonnesof nitrogen and 28,000 tonnes ofphosphorus entered the Baltic Sea viarivers (an increase of four and eighttimes respectively). Four large rivers– the Neva, Nemunas, Vistula, andOder – together accounted for themajority of the nutrient loadsentering the Baltic Sea. More than

half of the total waterbornephosphorus load and nearly one-thirdof the total waterborne nitrogen loadoriginated from Poland. Although adecline in the nutrient loading hasbeen observed in recent years, littlechange in eutrophic effects has beenrecorded in the Baltic Sea.

Since the 1970s the problem ofeutrophication in the Baltic Sea hasreceived extensive attention fromscientists and the mass media. Signs ofincreasing algae biomass and anoxicbottoms were detected. It wasconcluded that these changes in themarine environment were mostlyanthropogenic, i.e. caused by humanactivities. Major investments havebeen made in modern WasteWaterTreatment Plants (WWTPs) all aroundthe Baltic Sea. The major problemnow is to address the non-pointsources such as agriculture, trafficand single sewage systems, whichare some of the most importantsources causing eutrophication.

Ecological Effects ofEutrophicationThe imbalance caused by nutrients andtheir abundance has led to numerouschanges in the ecological compositionand state of the Baltic Sea. Certainplants and animals thrive, enablingthem to increase in number andgeographic spread, frequently at theexpense of other species. Some of thenegative effects of the nutrientoverload of the past century include:

• excessive growth of plants andalgae – there has been anincrease in primary productionby 30-70%. Annuals such asgreen and brown filamentous


algae have grown at theexpense of the perennialbladder wrack, which in turnhas had severe impacts on thelittoral ecosystem

• algal blooms, some of themeven toxic, are a frequentphenomenon in the Balticevery summer

• a decrease in watertransparency by 2.5-3 metresas a result of the increase inbiomass of phytoplankton andzooplankton

• an increase in zooplankton by25%

• an increase of particle flow tothe bottom from dead organicmaterial ranging from 70 to190%

• anoxic bottoms accounting forone-third because the level ofdecomposition that consumesoxygen and the long intervalsbetween inflows of salinewater from the North Sea.Anoxis leads to leakage ofnutrients from sediments(“internal loading”), enhancingeutrophication

• changes in composition of fishspecies in coastal waters andlagoons. Economically lessvaluable freshwater fishspecies are thriving

• a decrease in numbers andspread of predatory fish, suchas pike, in coastal waters.

Socio-Economic FactorsFive reasons can be identified as theprimary causes:

• runoff from agriculture

• untreated wastewater /inadequate treatment frompoint sources (e.g. industry andtowns) as well dispersed

settlements and singlehouseholds in rural regions

• runoff from forests (notanalysed here)

• airborne pollutants(transport (traffic andshipping), heating, industry)

• loss of ecological functions.

Agriculture increases nutrientsin the environment directly by runoffand drainage from fields, indirectly byemissions to the air of ammonia fromfertilisers, manure and farm animalsand nitrogen oxides from farmmachinery. Agriculture is by far thelargest source of nitrogen and asignificant source of phosphorus.

Root causes for the excessiveuse of nutrients are subsidies and thepricing system for agriculturalproducts that include in thecalculations the environmental impactsof agricultural practices. In addition,farmers lack knowledge of thecomplexities of environmental impactsand of how modern agriculturalpractices directly influence theenvironment. The motivation forfarmers to keep track of nutrients, aswell as to minimise their use is notstrong enough and too often theapplication of best agriculturalpractices is not considered.

Municipal sewage is both aconsiderable source of nitrogen andthe single largest source ofphosphorus. Large cities such asKaliningrad, St. Petersburg andWarsaw still have insufficientwastewater treatment due to lack ofprioritisation and investments.

Airborne pollution fromtransport and industry is the secondlargest source of nitrogen in the formof oxides. Nitrogen oxides areproduced during combustion. Morethan half of the emissions in Europeis produced by traffic. Most of therest comes from combustion plants.


Oxides of nitrogen can be carriedlong distances – thousands ofkilometres – by the air.

The distance between sourceand impact contributes to thecomplexity of the problem andinternational co-operation to reducepollutants is needed. Countries in EUhave decided to reduce the levels ofnitrogen oxides according todifferent targets set up in the EUdirective on national emissionceilings. This will lead to a 40percent reduction of nitrogen oxidesin Europe by the year 2010 comparedwith 1990 levels if all countries fulfiltheir commitments.

Combustion plants and mosttypes of vehicles can be equippedwith technology that can removeemissions. To reduce emissionsquickly calls for investments in thistype of technology. But to be able toreduce emissions to levels that natureand people can tolerate withoutmaking major financial or material

sacrifices, the use of structuralmeasures to use energy moreefficiently and substitute fornitrogen-emitting fossil fuels is alsonecessary.

The loss of ecological functions– the nutrient retention capacity ofwetlands, floodplains, coastal lagoonsand free-flowing rivers – has addedsubstantially to the euthrophicationproblem. Up to 90% of wetlands in thesouthern part of the Baltic Sea Regionhave been drained over the pastcentury. State support for drainage andpolderisation, regulation of rivers andconstruction, for example of dams,have been the key reasons for loss ofthese natural features. The changeshave been driven by demands foradditional land for farming, protectionfrom flooding and a growing demandfor electricity. The lack of market orregulatory mechanisms for assigningvalue to wetland functions is a majorroot cause for the loss of ecologicalfunctions.


Limiting the Negative Impacts ofEutrophication

Efforts have been made to limit theproduction of algae and reverse thedevelopment of a eutrophied Baltic.The countries surrounding theBaltic agreed in 1987 to reduce thenutrient flow by 50%. However,only a 30% reduction has beenachieved. There is also a debate onwhich nutrient it is most important tolimit in the marine environments.Therefore there is no clear consensuson which measures should beundertaken.

If only nitrogen is reduced, therewill be a high level of phosphorus,which under the appropriate weatherconditions can lead to massive bloomsof blue-greens i.e. cyanobacteria, dueto ability of blue-greens to bindatmospheric nitrogen. If onlyphosphorus is reduced, algal bloomswill still remain a problem.

However most scientists seem toagree that both nutrients have to belimited to achieve a balance in theBaltic. Also, since the sea is of such adiverse composition in different parts

of the basin with variations in salinity,oxygen levels, levels of nutrients,species etc., it is suggested thatdifferent measures might have to betaken in different parts of the BalticSea.

Even though there has been areduction of the nutrient load to theBaltic by 30%, no change in the levelsof nutrient in the sea has beenrecorded. The Baltic still experiencessummers with massive algae growthand turbid water. One explanation isthat the system reacts slowly due to thelarge internal stores of nutrients.

The Baltic is feeding itself withphosphorus coming from thesediments under anoxicconditions/circumstances and nitrogenthrough (from) cyanobacteria. Forexample, in the Gulf of Finlandresearchers have discovered hundredsof km2 of sea bottom to be anoxicevery summer. Also, the residencetime for nitrogen and phosphorus is 13and 6 years respectively, and it will bemany years until a change will benoticeable.

The Way ForwardThe target we aim for is that eutrophication should not threaten biodiversity and ecologicalfunctions in the Baltic Sea. To reach the target we need to act to reduce diffuse nutrientloading from agriculture and airborne nutrients and also from point sources such as sewagewater. In many areas a commitment from countries to reduce nutrient loading already existsbut there is lack of enforcement and supervision that the rules are obeyed. Developing aclear position and lobbying during the upcoming CAP reform can provide a goodopportunity to apply the necessary changes.


Fresh Water - the Link Between Land and Sea

The Baltic Sea is more affected by thefresh water inflow than other, openseas. In fact, the whole catchment areais of importance in understanding theecological processes andenvironmental problems in the seaitself. All human activities in thecatchment area will to some extentaffect the fresh water, which will inturn have an impact on the Baltic Sea.There are several land-freshwater-seainteractions. Fresh water may beregarded as the link between land andsea.

A Catchment Area PerspectiveThere are two main reasons why theBaltic Sea is very influenced by freshwater:

• the terrestrial part of thecatchment area is relativelylarge compared to the BalticSea itself(approximately 4.5 timeslarger than the sea withalmost 90 million inhabitants)

• the water retention time of thesea is very long(approximately 30 years)

Topography determinesstructure and the distribution ofwater. In areas with greattopographic variation there are manylakes. In the Baltic Sea catchmentarea, especially in Finland, Swedenand northern Poland, we find themajority of European lakes andstreams. The distribution of wetlandsis also governed by topography,although precipitation is anotherimportant factor.

Topography also governs theflow of water – slopes speed it upand flatter areas make it move moreslowly. The flow of water affects

species composition and ecologicalprocesses. Salmon (Salmo salar) andbrown trout (Salmo trutta) bothrequire fast-flowing water, whilepike (Esox lucius) and roach (Rutilusrutilus) prefer slow-flowing water.

Vegetation types are importantfor the ecological dynamics of thecatchment area. Forest covers about50% of the whole catchment area. Inthe Gulf of Bothnia sub catchmentarea, forests are totally dominant.The proportion of agricultural landincreases southwards. It is theprimary land use in Germany,Poland, Kaliningrad and Lithuania.

The dynamics of hydrology(for example recurrent flooding)create characteristic biotopes with ahigh biodiversity with vegetationtypes varying from grassland toswamp forest. The riparian area, i.e.zone along the water’s edge, is morespecies-rich than the surroundinglandscape, just like any transitionzone between different biotopes.

From a European perspective,its boreal running waters, the miresand the large proportion of relativelyunaffected freshwater ecosystems areof special interest.

Freshwaters connect differentbiotopes and function as naturalcorridors in the landscape,facilitating the movements of plantsand animals. Insects fly upstream tolay their eggs or float downstream, asdo seeds. Above water, bats hunt forinsects and birds use the waterwaysfor guidance during migration. Manyorganisms spend one part of theirlives in freshwater and another in thesea. Salmon (Salmo salar) and browntrout (Salmo trutta), for example,


spend most of their life in the sea butmigrate up river to reproduce.

The catchment area of theBaltic Sea comprises severalbiogeographical zones and thereforeincludes a wide range of biotopesand species. Fresh water contributesto a high number of species. Lakesand rivers in the region are home toaround 70 species of fish. Many Red-Listed species are also found,including ringed seal (Phoca hispidasaimensis, P. h. ladogensis), sterlet(Acipenser ruthenus), and noblecrayfish (Astacus astacus). Theboreal streams host a large part of theEuropean population of freshwaterpearl mussel (Margaritiferamargaritifera), which means that theBaltic catchment is a core area of theworld for this vulnerable species.This mussel depends on salmon orbrown trout as host for its larvae.

Streams and rivers supply theBaltic Sea with several essentialsubstances. Water is an excellentsolvent. Bedrock, soil type and landuse will change its characteristics –and in that way the water will mirrorthe ground it is travelling through.Water also transports dissolvednutrients, organic and inorganicmaterial. But not everything is broughtto sea. On its way through thelandscape, in lakes and wetlandssedimentation takes place, nutrientsare taken up by plants and nitrate isconverted into nitrogen gas(denitrification) that results in clearerwater with lower nutrient levels. Thepurification capacity of the differentsub catchments is related theoccurrence of lakes, wetlands andslow-floating streams.

The Importance of Freshwatersfor the Baltic Sea –An OverviewBaltic freshwaters affect the Sea inmany ways, including by:

• bringing to the sea nutrientssuch as nitrogen,phosphorus, and silica,determining primaryproduction in the seawater

• supporting the sea withparticles, especiallyimportant for the dynamicsof the estuaries

• creating estuaries, i.e. thetransition zone betweenfreshwater and salt water,which are important birdfeeding and nesting areas

• producing salmon andbrown trout smolt, therebydetermining the populationof these species in the sea

• trapping excessive amountsof nutrients and particles.

However, during the lastcenturies, human activities haveaffected freshwaters and consequentlythe Baltic Sea itself.


Human Impact on FreshwatersThe water systems have been modifiedto suit our use of soil and waterresources. Many of these changes havehad a negative impact on freshwatersas well as terrestrial ecosystems, andultimately on the state of the Baltic

Sea. Today, few pristine water bodiesare left, most of them in forested areas.Human impact can be divided intophysical impact, chemical impact andbiological impact:

Physical impact Chemical impact Biological impactLake drainage Point sources Introduction of non-nature speciesDrainage of agricultureand forest land

Sewage treatment plants Fishing

Water regulation Single households PestsDam construction FarmsChannelisation Urban storm waterLand fill Non-point sources

Leakage from agriculture andforest landAtmospheric deposition

For the Baltic Sea the physical and chemical impacts are most important.

Changes of the Landscapeand Water BodiesThe physical changes of greatestimportance for the Baltic Sea are:

• elimination of wetlands andlakes

• altered morphology of streams(e.g.. creation of canals)

• fragmentation of rivers andstreams

The elimination of wetlandsdecreases the retention capacity of thehydrological system. In areas withintense agriculture, more than 90% ofthe wetlands have been drained. Thishas led to changes in patterns oftransportation of nutrients and organicand inorganic matter. There is also anincreasing risk of flooding. RecentSwedish studies have indicated that theloss of nutrients from agricultural land

to the water in the past was as high astoday but the discharge to the sea isnow greater. The possible explanationis that the natural retention hasdecreased due to the elimination oralteration of freshwater and otherlandscapes.

Further, the changedmorphology not only affects retentioncapacity but also leads to impairedbiotopes for organisms like fish. Somealterations have been carried out tofacilitate log-driving and shipping.

The fragmentation of rivers hasled to decreased connectivity. Damsfor hydropower stations, old mills androad culverts create obstacles thatprevent migration to spawning parts ofthe streams. Salmon, brown trout andEuropean eel (Anguilla anguilla) have


suffered badly. The negative effectsare reinforced by regulation of thewater. At one time almost 100 riversaround the Baltic Sea held wildsalmon populations but today only 38wild populations exist. Thehydropower sector has radicallychanged river ecosystems and affectedthe biology of the sea.

PollutionThe chemical pollution includeseutrophication and toxics, which affectthe freshwater ecosystems andeventually the Baltic Sea itself. Pointsources such as industries, farms, andsingle households contain toxicsubstances, nutrients and organicmatter. The most important non-pointsource in large parts of the catchmentis agriculture. The agricultural sector isalso a great source of nutrients(fertilisers) and pesticides. However,in the northern part of the catchment

area many nutrients also originatefrom forestland and forestry.

High nutrient levels causeeutrophication (see previous section4.4), which results in high primaryproduction. When organic matter isbroken down, the oxygen in the wateris consumed. This may lead to oxygendepletion and the death of fish andother organisms. An even more seriousproblem is the discharge of toxicsubstances (see section 4.7). Heavymetals, for example, cannot be brokendown and are taken up by animalsthrough their food.

Air pollution has causedacidification – another large-scaleproblem. In Sweden, for exampleapprox. 20,000 lakes and thousands ofkilometres of streams are affected byacidification to a degree wherebiological damage occurs.

The Way ForwardIn order to decrease/minimise human impacts on freshwater ecosystems and the Baltic Sea,we need to act now. The measures required can be incorporated into a strategy with fivecomponents:

Holistic planning, taking the whole landscape (catchment area) into consideration. TheEU Water Framework Directive will be an important tool when it is implemented

Protection of freshwater ecosystem. The Ramsar Convention and Natura 2000 networkare examples of tools available for freshwater conservation

Restoration of ecological processes, by restoring biotopes such as wetlands, naturalwater dynamics (hydrology), elimination of obstacles to migration

Measures to protect freshwaters in agricultural practices as well as in forestry, forexample buffer zones along streams

Utilisation of environmentally friendly techniques in industrial processing andproduction and decreased use of pesticides in the agricultural sector

Improved treatment of sewage water from communities, industries and singlehouseholds


Toxics

Toxics reduction is one of thefundamental parameters of a healthyBaltic ecosystem. Due to thespecifically high sensitivity of theBaltic Sea, with respect to the low ageof the ecosystem with its limitednumber of species, the low waterexchange (30 years) and temperaturesas well as the low degradation ratecompared to the high size of thehuman population in the catchmentarea, there are serious concerns aboutthe level of contamination of keyspecies (seals, white-tailed eagle) andevidence of toxic effects in biota.

Inadequate safety standards,poor data availability with regard tothe actual toxics situation, lack ofpublic awareness and of access toinformation as well as old fashionedmanagement and decision-makingtraditions in the private sector(industry and agriculture) demand thatthe toxics issue in the Baltic is dealtwith as a priority area.

The Toxics Issue“There are approximately 100,000chemical substances registered in theEU and on a daily basis citizens areexposed to hundreds or thousands ofthem. We inhale them, eat them anddrink them all the time, like a cocktail.Except we do not know what is in it.Concerning effects on human health, astudy from the OECD of the 1500most common substances shows thatonly a minor part had been adequatelyexamined and ten percent had not beenexamined at all. When it came toeffects on the environment, virtuallynone of them had been thoroughly

examined.” – The InternationalChemical Secretariat.3

Because of the permanent andserious impact of toxics in the BalticSea, WWF’s work on toxics targetschemical substances that are persistentin the environment, liable tobioaccumulate (stay in the fat in ourbodies), and substances which are verytoxic and/or can interfere with theendocrine system of organisms. Suchsubstances are of very high concernsince effects may occur with a longdelay in time (including futuregenerations).

Once such effects becomevisible they are practically irreversibleand eliminating releases will notprevent further effects. Persistentchemicals can travel a long distancevia the atmosphere or water currentsand accumulate in biota, includinghumans, far away from the source ofpollution. Substances that interferewith the endocrine system can causeeffects at very low concentrations anda safe dose is often unpredictable.

Chemicals with endocrineproperties have been shown to causemany adverse effects in animals,ranging from effects on reproductionand brain development, to structuraldeformities, immune system deficitsand cancer. Numerous wildlifespecies, including mammals, birds,fish, reptiles, and mollusc have beenalready affected4

.

Due to slight differences indefinition and criteria to determine thesubstances of concern, the number of

3 http://www.chemsec.org/cocktail.htm4 CSTEE 1999


current (potential5) target substancesvaries between 12 (StockholmConvention), 125 (EU PBT screening)and close to 400 (OSPAR andHELCOM)6

Overall GoalThe concentration of hazardoussubstance in the marine environmentneeds to be close to zero for syntheticsubstances and near-backgroundconcentration for naturally occurringsubstances. Meeting this goal in thelong term is one of the prerequisites toprevent (further) losses in biodiversity,since an acceptable dose of thesesubstances above natural backgroundcannot be established with a sufficientlevel of certainty. WWF shares theseobjectives with the governments thatare contracting parties under theStockholm Convention (the POPstreaty), HELCOM and the EU.

The release of persistent andbioaccumulative substances (includingPOPs7) and endocrine-disrupting

5 The EU and the OSPAR lists are set upbased on screening level information, hencethe substances on these lists are candidatesubstances.6 In the terminology of the conventions forthe protection of the marine environments(OSPAR, BARCOM, HELCOM) substancesowing such properties as described aboveare called “hazardous”. In the terminologyof the UN Environment Programme they are“Persistent Organic Pollutants” (StockholmConvention 2001).See also the next note.Under the EU Water Framework Directivethis type of substance is called a “priorityhazardous substance”. In the context of thedebate on a future chemicals policy inEurope and the EU risk assessment,persistent, bioaacumulative and toxicsubstances (PBTs) and very persistent andvery bioaccumulative (vPvB) substancesareregarded as being of very high concern.7 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) aretoxic substances composed of organic(carbon-based) chemical compounds andmixtures. They include industrial chemicalssuch as PCBs and pesticides such as DDT.They are primarily products and by-productsfrom industrial processes, chemical

substances8 into the naturalenvironment of the Baltic Eco-regionmust come to an end within onegeneration (2020 by the latest).Informed decision-making onproduction and use of chemicals in allgroups of stakeholders is a keyrequisite for this to take place

manufacturing and resulting wastes. Theexistence of POPs is relatively recent, datingto the boom in industrial production afterWorld War II. POPs pose a particular hazardbecause of four characteristics: they aretoxic; they are persistent, resisting normalprocesses that break down contaminants;they accumulate in the body fat of people,marine mammals, and other animals and arepassed from mother to fetus; and they cantravel great distances on wind and watercurrents.8 Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)are synthetic chemicals that interfere withnaturally produced hormones, the body'schemical messengers, that control how anorganism develops and functions. Manymanufactured chemicals mimic naturalhormones and send false messages. Othersynthetic compounds block the messagesand prevent true messages from gettingthrough. Some cause disruption bypreventing the synthesis of the body's ownhormones or by accelerating theirbreakdown and excretion. Some EDCs arepersistent in the environment andbioaccumulate; they accumulate in the fattytissue of organisms and increase inconcentration as they move up through thefood web.


The following principles need to beapplied9

The precautionary principle:

In 1992, the United Nations adoptedthe following definition of theprinciple: “where there are threats ofserious or irreversible damage to theenvironment, lack of full scientificcertainty should not be used as areason for postponing cost-effectivemeasures to prevent environmentaldegradation”.

The substitution principle:

A chemical substance must besubstituted when a safer alternative isavailable.

The polluter pays principle:

An important part of a chemicalspolicy aiming at the elimination ofhazardous substances is the polluterpays principle. The bottom line of thisapproach is that the company orpersons that cause an environmentaldamage should pay for theconsequences. This creates anincentive to substitute hazardoussubstances and to use the safestchemicals possible.

The right to know principle:

This principle intends to makegovernment or corporate data andrecords available to the public or tothose individuals with a particularinterest in the information. Theinformation needs to be readilyaccessible on products and throughdatabases.

Compared to other marine areas theBaltic Sea is more sensitive topersistent and bio accumulative ortoxic substances:

The Baltic ecosystems is arelatively young ecosystem and only 9 Principles are adopted in differentMultinational Environmental Agreements,but the exact wording from the TheInternational Chemical Secretariat,http://www.chemsec.org

a few species are truly adapted to thebrackish water conditions, includingthe large changes of salinity triggeredby freshwater or marine-water inflows.Several species may still live near thephysiological tolerance range. Thisrestricts the number of species livingin the Baltic Sea. A few species have akey role for ecosystem functioning andwhen these populations decline thereare no other species that can take overthe functions of key-species10.

The size of the human populationin the Baltic catchments area (about 85million) and the Sea’s relatively lowvolume (25,000 km3) results inintensive burdens per unit of BalticSea water per person in the catchmentsarea). The burden is about 5 timehigher as for example in the North Sea.

Due to low water exchange (about30 years for a complete exchange) aswell as minimal tides and sedimentcirculation the Baltic Sea tends to trapand accumulate persistent chemicals.These are then either absorbed into thesediments or into marine organismsincluding fish, mammals and sea birds.

The lower water-temperaturewith large areas covered by ice duringthe winter retard the water’sdegradation capacity for organicsubstances.

The shallowness of the water inthe coastal regions cannot contribute tophoto-degradation due to intensivealgae blooming triggered byeutrophication.

Hence the carrying capacity of theBaltic Sea is more intensely usedcompared to other marineenvironments (about 30 times more ascompared to North Sea)11. As aconsequence, the criteria to determinePBT substances should be possibly 10 See alsohttp://www.helcom.fi/a/hazardous/Specific_conditions1.PDF11 Quantification based on TemaNord2000:550


different from those used in theOSPAR area.

Sources of ToxicsIn the Baltic region, hazardoussubstances are emitted from all stagesof the industrial product chain – fromthe raw material handling, transportand the production processes, to theuse of products and the handling ofthese as waste.

The major pathway into the marineenvironment is wastewater (industrialand urban), air, agricultural run-offand direct emissions from shiptransport, harbour operations andoffshore installations. A list of generalsources is elaborated within the WWF-Toxics Target Driven Programme.

However, there are some regionalparticularities, which should be takeninto account when setting priorities foraction:

In the Nordic countries andGermany many large production sites– point sources mostly, covered by theEU Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control (IPPC) Directive – areoperated under Best AvailableTechnology (BAT) conditions. Hencereleases of toxics are low. Due to theEU accession process, this will be alsothe case in Poland and the Baltic Stateswithin 10 years. In Russia andByelorussia, however, there is nostrong incentive as yet for stateauthorities and managers to implementBAT in production facilities. Thuspoint sources may remain a toxicsissue for a longer time.

The density of ship transport andoffshore installations in the BalticSea is steadily increasing. Oil andchemical spills, ship paintingprocesses, use of off-shore chemicalsand emissions from ship engines maytherefore need particular attention, inparticular because of the differinghealth-safety-environment (HSE)

standards and supervision strategies inthe harbours and coastal zones.

Pulp and paper production, oilshale chemistry in Estonia andchlorine industry in Poland are amongthe industrial processes of particularinterest in the Baltic Sea Area.However, these sites mostly attractlarge investment programmes andhence BAT standards may have beenimplemented when the Baltic Statesand Poland join the EU.

There are a considerable numberof textile, furniture and paintmanufacturers in the area, many ofthem producing for the EU market,and many with shareholders in theNordic countries and Germany.Nevertheless most of these companiesnot yet have made efforts to identifyand substitute hazardous substances intheir production processes.

There is still an intensive trade inchemicals between Russia, Ukraineand Byelorussia on the one hand andthe Baltic States and Poland on theother hand. Again, due to differentstandards in chemical control suchimports may include substances ofparticular concern.

The amount of pesticides used inthe Baltic Sea Area is comparably lowdue to successful pesticide reductionprogrammes in the Nordic countriesand lower agricultural productivity12 inPoland and the Baltic States. However,there are large obsolete stocks. Theseseem to be under control in Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania, but possibly notin Russia and Byelorussia. Informationabout Poland is lacking.

There are a considerable numberof dumps near the coastline in someregions and in the river basinsdischarging into the Baltic Sea.

Only very few data on use andoccurrence of hazardous organic

12 in terms of tonnes per hectare or perworking hour


substances are available in the EUaccession countries. Until nowmonitoring has been focused on heavymetals and on point sources. Also, themonitoring programmes underHELCOM cover only a small range ofwell-known organic contaminants suchas PCB, DDT, PAH and lindane.Information systems covering the typeand amount of chemicals placed on thenational markets exist only in theNordic countries, not in Germany,Poland, the Baltic States and Russia.

Existing Trends Related toEnvironmental Impacts13

Due to international endeavours inenvironmental protection, theconcentration of well-knowncontaminants such as mercury, lead,PCBs, dioxins, DDT, lindane andother organochlorine components insea-water and biota has decreasedduring the last 20 to 30 years. Theimprovement of the breeding successof marine birds (white-tailed sea eagleand guillemot) and the recovery ofpopulations of the three seal speciesare thought to be related to thediminishing levels of organiccontaminants.

However, there are still seriousconcerns with regard to the level ofcontamination and evidence of toxiceffects in biota:

Many female seals are still unableto produce pups due to uterineocclusion related to PCBs and dioxinsin the environment. The concentrationof these contaminants seems to haveremained stable during the 1990s,indicating that some relevant, possiblyregional, inputs still exist. As aconsequence the Swedish FoodAdministration recommended in 1995that women of childbearing age should

13 data taken from the HELCOM Internetsite www.helcom.fi, Environment of theBaltic Sea area 1994 to 1998).

limit their consumption of BalticHerring and Salmon.

Another emerging problem ischronic intestinal ulcers, which areaffecting an increasing number ofyoung grey seals. These are probablycaused by contaminants disrupting theseals immune system. The precisemechanisms, however, remainunknown.

Antifouling agents releasedcontinuously from the hulls of the shipend up in marine sediments and livingorganisms. One of the agents,tributyltin, causes hormonaldisturbance in a number ofinvertebrates, e.g. some snail species.Tributyltin blocks the production offemale hormone, causing females togrow male sex organs.

Though the level of measuredcontaminants in the Baltic Sea waslower in the 1990s compared toprevious decades, the production ofdetoxifying enzymes in Baltic fishremained at two to three times higherthan in earlier years. The HelsinkiCommission interprets this as anindicator for exposure to not yetidentified contaminants.

Monitoring of concentrations ofhazardous substances in theenvironment, monitoring of effects,and establishing cause-effect relationare only affordable for a small numberof potentially relevant chemicals and asmall number of potential effects. Inaddition, using available methodologyand data it will be mostly impossibleto prove cause-effect links. Hence, thecontribution of ecosystem-based trendanalysis to targeting measures will bevery limited.

Root Causes and Selection ofSocio-Economic FactorsThe “Toxics Issue” is a multi-causeproblem. Hence root causes can beidentified in various sectors of policymaking, legislation, production,


consumption and market forces.Beside the specific regional factors,listed below, that determine the director indirect release of hazardoussubstances into the marine BalticEnvironment, the general Europeanpolicy framework is also considered tobe an obstacle to risk preventionrelated to chemicals.

Due to the inadequacies ofchemical legislation in Europe14, themajority of substances on the marketare not sufficiently assessed and thuscomparing alternatives mostly ends inidentification of serious gaps inknowledge. This “incomparability” ofoptions also slows down elimination ofhazardous substances. Hence,currently it is not possible to makeinformed choices among chemicalproducts.

Inadequate Standards Aroundthe Baltic SeaUsually wastewater standards,emissions standards and productstandards cover only a small numberof chemical substances. Only a fewcountries, e.g. Finland, haveintroduced obligations for companiesto screen a list of potentially hazardoussubstances when applying for awastewater permit. A generalobligation for industry to considerpossible alternatives before using ahazardous substance exists only inSweden and Germany.

In certain sectors, safety normsand technical product standards havetriggered an increasing use ofhazardous chemicals (e.g. brominatedflame retardant, corrosion

14 More than 90% of the currently producedand imported chemical substances wereplaced on the EU market before 1981. Forall these substances the pre-marketingtesting requirements laid down in the EUchemicals legislation do not apply. Chemicalsubstances that have been on the market fordecades therefore have a competitiveadvantage.

preservatives, antifouling). In othersectors, certain types of machineryrequire the use of hazardoussubstances (e.g. metal-cutting fluids,textile-finishing chemicals). In suchcases, substitution of hazardoussubstances is only possible if thetechnical requirements arereconsidered and adapted as well. Thisusually takes time and leads to slowprogress in eliminating hazardoussubstances.

Urban and industrial wastewatertreatment in the EU accessioncountries, Russia and Byelorussia isfar from having reached the EUStandard. However, in the accessioncountries large investment programsare being implemented at present.Even though hazardous substancescannot be sufficiently degraded bystandard biological wastewatertreatment, the load of bioaccumulatingsubstances to the water environment issignificantly reduced due to adsorptionto sludge. A lack of urban or industrialwastewater treatment or the sprayingof contaminated wastewater sludgeonto agricultural soil could contributeconsiderably to the release ofbioaccumulating substances into theenvironment.

Poor Data Availability• Only scanty data on use and

occurrence of hazardousorganic substances isavailable in the EUaccession countries, asnoted above.

• For certain effects ofconcern, e.g. via theendocrine system, standardtests are not yet available.Hence systematic andwidely acceptedidentification of substancesfor which action is neededremains difficult.

• Lack of public awarenessand access to information


• Due to the economicsituation and administrativecapacities in the EUaccession countries the keyfactors for triggering publicand business awareness ontoxics are lacking in theBaltic Sea area. Highunemployment, lowhousehold incomes andinefficient stateinspectorates do notencourage a public debateon toxics.

Management/ Decision-MakingTraditions

• Industrial companies in EUaccession countries; Russiaand Byelorussia still have a“Soviet-style” managementthat is often not capable todeal with “softrequirements” and decision-making in the absence ofofficial norms.

• Many companies have notintroduced managementsystems that are capable ofsystematically assessing theproperties of the chemicalsused in their processes andproducts with regard torisks to the environment andthe consumers. Hence, pro-active substitution ofhazardous substances byless hazardous alternativesusually does not take place,unless the consumersdemand “clean products”via the market.

• Information flow withregard to hazardouscomponents in chemicalproducts has only startedrecently to develop in theEU accession countries.Thus the information baseto set priorities for action ispoor.

Development of theAgricultural SectorThe development of the agriculturalsector in the accession countries stilltends to follow the same route whichhas failed in the EU during recentdecades:

Crop production and livestock farmingaim at high volumes and uniformquality at low prices. This logicallyimplies the use of pesticides in highamounts.

Access to EU subsidies is likely tolead to increased use of pesticides andfertilisers in the agricultural sector inthe accession countries.

Activities within WWF BalticEco-region ProgrammeIt is obvious that more awareness ofthe toxics issue is needed around theBaltic Sea, among consumers, trade,industry and policy makers. Theoverarching goal is the elimination ofall releases of hazardous substances bythe year 2020 at the latest. Howevercertain priority substances ofinternational concern should be phasedout much earlier.

The major role for the WWF is to putpressure on chemical users bymobilising public opinion in order toshift markets and to lobbygovernments and parliaments toestablish and implement the laws andlegal framewoks necessary for a phaseout of all hazardous substances.

WWF’s Baltic ActionProgramme will specifically contributeto i) eliminating the production anduse of hazardous substances in theBaltic Sea Area by targeting 15substances15 of most concern (seeAnnex 2) and ii) developing

15 12 POPs plus TBT, plus two other substances of very highconcern in the EU [including HELCOM and OSPAR] (to beselected from current priority lists) plus two substances ofspecific concern in the Baltic Region (to be determined byresearch)


frameworks to enable informedchoices on chemicals in the relevantgroups of stakeholders.

However, in the light of thedifferent levels of awareness and theconditions of policy making, specificapproaches may be needed in each ofthe three areas – the Nordic countriesand Germany, the accession countriesand Russia.

For example:

• Publication of independent andscientifically sound data on theoccurrence of hazardoussubstances in food, humanbreast-milk and baby toys is amost successful strategy forrising public awareness.

Networking with relevantscientists and possiblyorganising our own targetedresearch would be needed topush toxics onto the agenda.

Contaminants in Baltic Salmon(e.g. compared to Norwegian) orcontaminants in human breastmilk or other body tissue couldillustrate the problem in a clearand understandable way.

• For all target substancesalternatives are available. Itshould be possible to illustratethis by success stories from theNordic countries or Germany.Such examples could includecertain technical solutions,management tools or policyinstruments.

• REACH: The proposed EUchemicals legislation, if furtherimproved by the EuropeanParliament, could make animportant contribution toreducing the risk to wildlife andhumans from chemicals byidentifying and phasing outsome of the most harmful ones.

REACH also offers anopportunity to promote asustainable, innovative andforward-looking chemicalindustry.

We have a once-in-a-generationopportunity to have saferchemicals and a healthier futurefor wildlife and people. Newmarkets for safer products, andincreased trust, should make itgood news for the chemicalindustry too.

While no one would deny that somechemicals bring significant benefits tosociety unfortunately certain chemicalspose a threat to wildlife and people,and the chemical industry isinadequately regulated.

The cost to the chemicalindustry is estimated by the EuropeanCommission to be 0.04 per cent of thechemical industry’s annual turnover.The benefits for the chemical industryof new markets for safer products,increased trust in chemicals, andreduced threat of liability lawsuitsshould be considerable.

The main benefits that WWF isseeking through REACH are:

• All chemicals on the market atover 1 tonne per year will bechecked for safety

• Safety information on chemicalswill be publicly available

• Chemicals of high concern willbe better controlled or phasedout

• Rural development is a criticalissue in all Baltic accessioncountries. Setting a specifictarget here to maintain a lowlevel of pesticide use andpreserve traditional agriculturalpractices could contribute to adecrease in toxic pressure onthe marine environment.


• Nature conservation and waterprotection are high profilepolicy areas in the EUaccession countries. Bycomparison, chemicals controlhas a much lower profile.Therefore, the toxics issueshould be indirectly promotedby the setting up of river basinmanagement plans under theWater Framework Directiveand the protection of marineand coastal habitats. Close co-operation among the relevantWWF programmes at the EUlevel and at regional level isneeded here.

• In order to improve knowledgeon the use of hazardouschemicals and their occurrencein the environment, efficientdata collection systems are

needed. This is an issue for allcountries bordering the BalticSea, since targeting the datacollection in a more effectiveway needs considerableconceptual work. WWF couldact here in a facilitating role andbring together experts fromdifferent countries and areas ofexpertiseThe specific Baltictargets, milestones and activitieson toxics are laid down in theBaltic action plan. Activitiesbeing covered in overarchingWWF activities such as theToxics TDP, e.g. the activitiesaround the revision of EUchemicals policy, are regardedas urgent and important for theBaltic as well though not beingspecifically named as Balticactivities.

The Way ForwardMaking the toxic threat to the Eco-region visible to the public and communicating thebenefits of a Baltic Sea free from hazardous substances (“A Non-Toxic Environment”) willbe one of WWF’s main area activities.

There are three key benefits that can be communicated to the wider public:

uncontaminated fish is the basis for income in the relevant industries

safe food would contribute to health of consumers (especially children)in one or twogenerations the Baltic’s children will be able to enjoy a richer biodiversity (in particularof national flagship species)

Raising awareness should also include information on how consumers can takedecisions on safer alternatives in daily life (choices among products and activities).


Priority Species

IntroductionWhen the major threats to the regionhave been identified and the rootcauses analysed the next step in theEco-region conservation work is toidentify our priorities in the Baltic Sea.This is important to be able to focusour activities and put our efforts wherethey are needed most. The Baltic Teamhas, together with expertise within thenational offices, gathered substantialinformation on priority species andareas in the region. It was decided touse the following criteria for assessingspecies and habitats:

• threatened species andhabitats

• endangered species andhabitats

• flagship species

• regional importance

• economic importance

• ecosystem function

The list of priority sites is described inanother report.

List of Priority SpeciesThe list of priority species alsocontains flagship species, marked inbold. By flagship species we meanspecies that are seen as symbols for thebiodiversity in our region, notnecessarily endangered, but species ofpublic interest that is easy tocommunicate.

Coastal Plants• Baltic marsh orchid – Dactylorhiza

baltica

• Purple milk vetch – Astragalusdanicus

• Salt marsh rush – Juncus gerardii

• Cotoneaster scandinavicus

• Field wormwood – Artemisiacampestris ssp. bottnica

• Slender.naiad – Naja flexali

• Seaside centaury – Centariumlittorale and C. pulchellum

• Flower spike- Herminiummonorchis

Lichens• Ramalina baltica

Mammals• Otter – Lutra lutra

• Ringed seal – Phoca hispidabotnica

• Harbour porpoise – Phocoenaphocoena

• Grey seal – Haliceoerus grypus

• Common seal – Phoca vitulina

• Flying squirrel – Pteromys volans

• Pond bat – Myotis dasycneme

• Nathusius' pipistrelle – Pipistrellusnathusii

Fish• Wild salmon – Salmo salar

• Cod- Gadus morhua

• Herring – Clupea harengus andClupea harengus membras

• Hornfish – Belone belone

• Sprat – Sprattus sprattus

• Asp – Aspius aspius

Birds• White-tailed eagle – Haliaeetus

albicilla


• Common eider – Somateriamollissima

• Bean Goose – Anser fabalis fabalis

• White stork – Ciconia ciconia

• Black stork – Ciconia nigra

• Caspian tern – Sterna caspia

• Baltic Dunlin – Calidris alpinaschinzii

• Long-tailed duck – Clangulahyemalis

• Kingfisher – Alcedo atthis

• Crane – Grus grus

• White-backed woodpecker –Dendrocopos leucotos

• Osprey – Pandion haliaetus

• Great snipe – Gallinago media

• Ruff – Philomachus pugnax

• Corncrake – Crex crex

• Aquatic warbler – Acrocephaluspaludicola

• Little tern – Sterna albifrons

• Black-tailed godwit – Limosalimosa

• Lesser black-backed gull – Larusfuscus

• Stellers eider – Polysticta stelleri

Invertebrates• Apollo butterfly – Parnasius apollo

• Freshwater pearl-mussel –Margaritifera margaritifera

• Blue mussel – Mytilus edulis

Amphibians• Green toad – Bufu viridis

• Crested newt – Triturus cristatus

• Marsh frog – Rana ridibunda

• Natterjack toad – Bufo calamita

• Fire bellied toad – Bombinabombina

• European tree frog – Hyla arborea

• Spadefoot toad – Pelobates fuscus

• Agile frog – Rana dalmatina

• Edible frog – Rana esculenta

• Pool frog – Rana lessonae

• Common toad – Bufo bufo

• Moor frog – Rana arvalis

• Common frog -Rana temporaria

Reptiles• Smooth snake -Coronella austrica

• Gotland’s grass snake – Natrixnatrix gotlandica

Marine plants• Eelgrass – Zostera marina

• Bladder wrack- Fucus vesiculosus

• Charophytes – Charophyta

• Thin leaved pondweed –Potamogeton sp


Abbrevations and Acronymes

ASCOBANS

The Agreement on the Conservation ofSmall Cetaceans of the Baltic andNorth Seas

BSPA

Baltic Sea Protected Area

CMS

Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals(also known as the Bonn Convention)

EBM

Ecosystem-Based Management

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

EU

European Union

GIS

Geographical Information System

HELCOM

Helsinki Commission – Baltic MarineEnvironment Protection Commission

Helsinki Convention

Convention on the Protection of theMarine Environment of the Baltic Sea(1974 and 1992)

IBSF

International Baltic Sea FisheriesCommission

ICES

International Council for theExploration of the Sea

ICZM

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IUU

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated(fishing)

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

NO

National WWF Office

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OSPAR

Commission for the Protection of theMarine Environment of the North EastAtlantic

PO

WWF Programme Office

PSSA

Particularly Sensitive Sea Area

RAC

Regional Advisory Council

TAC

Total Allowable CatchTDPTarget Driven Programme (the delivery mechanismfor focused work on one of the global WWF priorityissues, aimed at policy change)

Documents

Baltic Conservation Plan 040308 - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/balticconservationplan2004.pdf · Coastal and Marine Species 13 Threats and Solutions 16 Main Threats to Baltic