BaltSeaPlan Report 14

Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Plan for the and Islands Authors: Georg Martin1, Robert Aps1, Madli Kopti 1, Jonne Kotta, Laura Remmelgas2 and Merle Kuris2

1 Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, 2 Baltic Environmental Forum, Estonia

Project part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) IMPRINT Authors

Georg Martin, Robert Aps, Madli Kopti and Jonne Kotta Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Estonia

Laura Remmelgas and Merle Kuris Baltic Environmental Forum, Estonia

Lead Partner Dr. Nico Nolte Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH) Bernhard-Nocht-Str. 78, 20359 Hamburg, Germany Tel. +49 (40) 3190-3520 Fax.+49 (40) 3190-5000 [email protected] www.bsh.de

External Project Coordination Office Angela Schultz-Zehden s.Pro – sustainable projects GmbH Rheinstraße 34, 12161 Berlin, Germany Tel. +49 (30) 8321417-43 Fax.+49 (30) 8321417-50 [email protected] www.sustainable-projects.eu

Tallinn – January, 2012 www.baltseaplan.eu This report has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of the Authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Cover photos: Joanna Przedrzymirska, The Maritime Institute in Gdansk; Karsten Dahl, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University (formerly National Environmental Research Institute – NERI); Siemens press photo CONTENT

Executive summary ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 The Pilot Project ...... 3 1.2 Project objectives ...... 3 1.3 Working Environment ...... 5 2. Planning organisation & process ...... 7 2.1. Working group ...... 7 2.2. Planning steps ...... 7 2.3. Planning methodology ...... 7 2.4. Stakeholder involvement ...... 7 3. Planning Context ...... 9 3.1. Environmental context ...... 9 3.1.1. Sea and coastline character ...... 9 3.1.2. Valuable environmental areas ...... 9 3.2. Socio-economic context ...... 13 3.3. Spatial planning documents and relevant strategies ...... 14 3.3.1. National and regional documents and strategies ...... 14 3.3.2. International documents and strategies ...... 15 4. Stocktake ...... 17 4.1. Overview of relevant issues ...... 17 4.2. Relevant issues in detail ...... 20 4.2.1. Environmental protection ...... 20 4.2.2. Sea uses ...... 31 4.2.3. Additional issues (trends, strategies) ...... 37 5. Conflict Analysis ...... 38 5.1. General overview ...... 38 5.2. Main conflicts in the pilot area ...... 40 6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions ...... 41 7. Spatial Plan ...... 43 8. Recommendations and future steps to implement MSP ...... 44 9. Lessons learnt ...... 45

www.baltseaplan.eu 1 Executive Summary

Executive summary The Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area - located in the open part of the - has the most "sea-like conditions" of the Estonian coastal waters, with higher salinity & waves, lower nutrient concentration and less human activities than other areas. Also nature protection is only in place in coastal areas. Due to favourable wind conditions and shallow water the area is showing good prerequisites for development of offshore wind farms and development of sailing & surfing sports. The BaltSeaPlan Report N° 14 "Towards a Pilot MSP for Hiiumaa & Saaremaa Islands" shows the stocktake of the area including methods for how to generate information in case of missing data sources. It also describes the stakeholder involvement and conflict analysis undertaken. In view of missing legislation for MSP in Estonia at the current stage it does not go the full cycle by actually proposing an MSP for the area.

2 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

1. Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1 The Pilot Project The Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area covered in the BaltSeaPlan project encompasses the marine area north-west of Saaremaa and west of Hiiumaa with the land boundary extending from Cape to Rannaküla on Hiiumaa and from Pammana Cape to the edge of Kiipsaare on Saaremaa (Figure 1). The area is administratively located in , Kõrgessaare and Rural Municipalities, and , Leisi, Mustjala and Kihelkonna Rural Municipalities. The area of the pilot area is 3,618 km².

Figure 1. Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area 1.2 Project objectives The objective of MSP is to determine the general principles for use of the planning area in cooperation with interest groups, having regard to the existing and possible future sea and coast usage, environmental conditions and requirements of nature conservation. The objective of the BaltSeaPlan pilot project was to try it out in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area, to find out difficulties, gaps in information and contribute to development of MSP methodology for Estonia. In the course of the BaltSeaPlan project, it was not possible to officially initiate a plan for the marine area of the West Coast of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa islands or conduct strategic environmental assessment, but the description of the current situation, analysis of controversies and recommendations for spatial planning of the area contained in the draft shall serve as input for a future official plan. The necessity of preparing the MSP for the West Coast of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa islands is caused by the continuously intensifying use of the sea. The intensity of maritime transport is increasing and new activities have been initiated or are being planned (e.g. various water sports, construction of offshore wind farms) that

www.baltseaplan.eu 3 1. Introduction are at times in contradiction with other activities or the objectives of environmental protection. Planning is related to the need to minimise the impacts arising from the use of the sea to the marine environment and ensure sustainable development. A plan of the marine area should help make decisions when planning new activities for the respective marine area and grant a certain degree of assurance for the current users of the sea; their activities have been “put on the map” and shall be taken into account in the future when new activities are initiated. The precise objectives for the spatial plan of the marine area were determined in cooperation with stakeholders. It was only possible to meet the said objectives partially within the framework of preparing this draft, but they should certainly be taken into account when the official plan of the respective area is initiated. The precise objectives are: 1. In the course of the plan, the following need to be mapped: 1) existing activities; and 2) potential activities (activities with local prerequisites). The geographic location of the activities (impacts), seasons and the socio- economic impact for coastal people have to be taken into account. 2. Navigation, shipping lanes, traffic schemes: 2.1. estimating the potential future traffic schemes (fishing, water tourism and recreation) through Soela shallows and between the ports of Saaremaa and Kõpu Peninsula; 2.2. precise surveys of the seabed and Soela shallows, mapping thereof for planning waterways; 2.3. determining possible anchorages and dumping areas for ships; and 2.4. providing a vision for a permanent shipping lane from Saaremaa to Hiiumaa (Sõru) over Soela shallows. 3. Fishing: 3.1. handling the opportunities and interests of trawling and coastal fishing separately in order to find solutions for intensive trawling not to impair the sustainability of coastal fishing; 3.2. determining the spawning grounds and fishing areas of fish important for coastal fishing; 3.3. determining the opportunities and conditions for open sea fish farming; 3.4. determining the opportunities and conditions for recreational fishing; 3.5. determining the opportunities and conditions for hunting (wild game birds, seals); and 3.6. determining the opportunities and conditions for catching algae. 4. Recreation in coastal waters: 4.1. determining the possibilities to access the sea for public interests (beaches, recreational coastal areas, minor ports, sailing, navigation close to the shore, rowing, personal watercraft areas, surfing areas, diving, underwater archaeology); and 4.2. determining areas of cultural and environmental value and sites with a view from both land and sea (the clear horizon principle). 5. Extraction: 5.1. determining the possible extraction locations for gravel and sand; and 5.2. determining the currents and the possible impact thereof on coastal processes and littering and polluting the coast. 6. Military areas: 6.1. determining areas at sea and at shore that convey a military interest and the terms for use thereof. 7. Energy: 7.1. determining the opportunities and conditions for constructing wind turbines in the sea; 7.2. determining the opportunities and conditions for using heat pumps in the sea; 7.3. determining the opportunities and conditions for using wave energy; and 4 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

1. Introduction

7.4. determining the opportunities and conditions for the spread of extensive reed thickets in the sea; 8. Protection of nature and the environment: 8.1. determining the environmental principles and objectives of the marine area (diversity, sustainability, etc.), including as a Biosphere Reserve and arising from international agreements; 8.2. determining the necessary directions for monitoring the marine environment; 8.3. determining the areas where, taking into account the currents and fish spawning grounds, tanking of ships is prohibited; and 8.4. determining the locations of agricultural and domestic pollution and the requirements to reduce the pollution. 9. Legislative drafting and problems related to the use of “sea/land”: 9.1. issues related to waterline changing with a view to the Law of Property Act (increase of land or decrease of land). 1.3 Working Environment Systematic spatial planning in Estonia has so far mostly been limited to land, yet the need to plan the use of marine areas has become more actual along with an increasing pressure to use the marine area for various purposes. The existing plans therefore do not include marine areas. The currently (2011) existing Planning Act in principle can be applied also in marine areas but there are still various unclear aspects related to competence, planning level, the extent of the rights of county governments in planning of marine areas (there are no county/administrative borders defined in the sea), spatial planning in the exclusive economic zone, etc. MSP is a new thing for Estonia. In 2009-2010 an analysis of the current situation and initial proposal of methodology for MSP was developed by the consultant company Hendrikson & Ko in cooperation with Estonian Ministry of the Interior and Estonian Marine Institute (“Methodology for Maritime Spatial Planning”) but the pilot projects carried out in the frame of the BaltSeaPlan project were the first attempts to try it out in practice. Spatial planning in Estonia, including maritime spatial planning, is regulated by the Planning Act (adopted 13.11.2002, RT I 2002, 99, 579, entered into force on 01.01.2003). Pursuant to the Planning Act, a county plan may be prepared for public bodies of water, but it is not mandatory (clause 7 (2) 3) of the Planning Act). The objectives of a county plan are to, inter alia (clauses 7 (3) 8)-13) of the Planning Act): > define general provisions for the use of land and water areas; > define the land use provisions for areas influenced by mining of mineral resources or earth material; > determine the location of waterways and ports; > take into account protected areas and the provisions for their use in planning and make proposals for the amendment of such provisions if necessary or the establishment of new protected areas or termination of the protection regime; > designate recreation areas and the provisions for the use thereof; > designate national defence areas of national importance. According to the analysis composed by the Estonian Environmental Law Centre (EELC) in 20101, maritime planning with a county plan is not possible according to the valid legislation as the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act and other legislation do not provide a basis for extending the boundaries of a county to the territorial sea; thus counties have no territory at sea and the competence of county governors regarding the territorial sea is undefined. In the opinion of the EELC, organising planning activities in marine areas is possible by local governments, but only in the case of a public body of water bordering the administrative territory of the local government and a

1 E. Saunanen and K. Vaarmari. 2010. Maritime spatial planning. Analysis of valid legislation and solutions for amendment thereof. Estonian Environmental Law Centre.

www.baltseaplan.eu 5 1. Introduction structure permanently connected to the shore is being planned (subsection 4 (3) of the Planning Act). The county, comprehensive or detailed plan that contains plans for such a structure shall be approved by the Technical Surveillance Authority before the adoption thereof (subsection 171 (3) of the Planning Act). According to the recommendations of the EELC, it would be most reasonable to plan marine areas on the national level with a respective thematic plan, dividing the marine area into parts by criteria arising from natural conditions or regions of use of the marine area if necessary. In the event that planning still takes place on the county level, the respective proceedings shall be coordinated on the national level to ensure cohesion (and provide for the respective mechanisms in legislation). Maritime planning on the county level implies amending the legislation. For that purpose, the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act should be amended to establish a basis for designating the boundaries of a county at sea, determine the boundaries of counties at sea and prepare a map of the marine area along with county boundaries. In the opinion of Hendrikson & Ko2, maritime planning should above all take place via county plans as using the marine area conveys the interests of the state. As the county borders are not defined in the marine area, the MSP for a certain marine area should be initiated by the Estonian Government (Planning Act §10 (3) allows initiation of a county plan by the Government) and development of the MSP should be delegated to the relevant county government. In addition to the Planning Act, the activities related to sea are regulated in Estonia by the Law of Property Act3, Water Act4, Building Act5, Ports Act6, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act7, Exclusive Economic Zone Act8, Nature Conservation Act9, Sustainable Development Act10, Maritime Boundaries Act11, Electricity Market Act12, Fishing Act13, Earth’s Crust Act14, Maritime Safety Act15, State Borders Act16.

2 Hendrikson & Ko, 2010. Methodology of maritime spatial planning. http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/Merealade_planeerimise_metoodika.pdf. 3 Adopted 09.06.1993, RT I 1993, 39, 590, entered into force on 01.12.1993. Last amended wording published RT I, 29.06.2011, 6, entered into force on 30.06.2011. 4 Adopted 11.05.1994, RT I 1994, 40, 655, entered into force on 16.06.1994. Last amended wording published RT I, 08.07.2011, 18, entered into force on 21.08.2011. 5 Adopted 15.05.2002, RT I 2002, 47, 297, date of entry into force pursuant to § 102. Last amended wording published RT I, 10.03.2011, 5, entered into force on 20.03.2011. 6 Adopted 15.06.2009, RT I 2009, 37, 251, entered into force on 10.07.2009. Last amended wording published RT I, 04.07.2011, 10, entered into force on 14.07.2011. 7 Adopted 22.02.2005, RT I 2005, 15, 87, entered into force on 03.04.2005, partially pursuant to § 71. Last amended wording published RT I, 16.11.2010, 13, entered into force on 01.01.2011. 8 Adopted 28.01.1993, RT 1993, 7, 105, entered into force on 19.02.1993. Last amended wording published RT I, 21.03.2011, 19, entered into force on 01.06.2011. 9 Adopted 21.04.2004, RT I 2004, 38, 258, entered into force on 10.05.2004. Last amended wording published RT I, 10.06.2011, 5, entered into force on 31.05.2011. 10 Adopted 22.02.1995, RT I 1995, 31, 384, entered into force on 01.04.1995. Last amended wording published RT I 2009, 12, 73, entered into force on 27.02.2009. 11 Adopted 10.03.1993, RT 1993, 14, 217. Last amended wording entered into force on 01.06.2002. 12 Adopted 11.02.2003, RT I 2003, 25, 153, entry into force pursuant to § 119. Last amendments entered into force on 03.03.2011. 13 Adopted 27.09.1995, RT I 1995, 80, 1384, entered into force on 01.01.1996. Last amended wording published RT I, 22.12.2010, 34, entered into force on 01.07.2011. 14 Adopted 23.11.2004, RT I 2004, 84, 572, entered into force on 01.04.2005. Last amended wording entered into force on 01.01.2011. 15 Adopted 12.12.2001, RT I 2002, 1, 1, entered into force on 01.01.2003. Last amended wording entered into force on 14.07.2011. 16 Adopted 30.06.1994, RT I 1994, 54, 902, entered into force on 31.07.1994. Last amended wording published RT I, 09.12.2010, 3, entered into force on 01.01.2011.

6 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

2. Planning organisation & process

2. Planning organisation & process 2.1. Working group The draft plan for the West coast of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa islands was created in the framework of the BaltSeaPlan project in 2010-2011. The project team included experts from Estonian Marine Institute of the University of Tartu (Georg Martin, Jonne Kotta, Madli Kopti, Robert Aps) and Baltic Environmental Forum- Estonia (Laura Remmelgas, Merle Kuris). Estonian marine Institute was responsible for data collection, modelling, production of maps, writing parts of the draft pilot plan and participation in the stakeholder events. The Baltic Environmental Forum was responsible for communication with stakeholders, organisation of stakeholder meetings and conferences, compilation and writing parts of the draft pilot plan. The Development and Planning Departments of Hiiu and Saare County Governments actively participated in the process by hosting the local stakeholder meetings and contributing to the information collection and development of this document. Contribution to the draft pilot plan was received also from other stakeholder groups like fishermen organisations, Maritime Administration, surfing clubs, wind farm developers, environmental authorities etc. 2.2. Planning steps In the course of the BaltSeaPlan project, it was not possible to officially initiate a plan for the West coast of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa islands or conduct strategic environmental assessment, but the following steps were carried out: 1. Collection of existing information about the environment, existing uses and interests; 2. Identification of data gaps; 3. Modelling of valuable marine habitats; 4. Preparation of maps of current uses and interests as well as nature values; 5. Identification of stakeholders related to the area; 6. Communication/information exchange with stakeholders; 7. Analysis of existing/potential conflicts between different uses/interests; 8. Compilation of the draft planning material including description of the current situation, conflict analysis and recommendations for spatial planning of the area; 9. Discussion of the compiled document with the stakeholders. 2.3. Planning methodology Existing international guidelines e.g. UNESCO “Step-by-Step Approach for marine Spatial Planning toward Ecosystem-based Management” http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_guide, The PlanCoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning http://www.plancoast.eu/, Balance project report „Towards marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea“ http://balance-eu.org/publications/index.html, HELCOM recommendations http://www.helcom.fi/ as well as experience gained in the BaltSeaPlan project and the Vision 2030 – Towards the sustainable planning of the Baltic Sea Space developed in the project were taken as basis for the used methodology. Also an Estonian guidance document on „Methodology for Maritime Spatial Planning“ (Hendrikson & Ko, 2010; http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/Merealade_planeerimise_metoodika.pdf) was used. 2.4. Stakeholder involvement The preparations already started in 2009 when the initial information regarding the project area and the related interest groups was gathered. On 27 November 2009, the conference “Maritime Spatial Planning – How to Implement it in Estonia?” was held in Tallinn, introducing the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa project area and discussing implementation of maritime spatial planning in Estonia. The following events were held to inform and involve the interest groups: In the frame of stakeholder involvement the following events were held to inform and involve the interest groups: > Stakeholder Conference on Maritime Spatial Planning in Estonia (30.03.2010 Tallinn) > Stakeholder meeting – Planning the use of the BaltSeaPlan project Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area (16.02.2011 Saare County Government)

www.baltseaplan.eu 7 2. Planning organisation & process

> Meeting of interest groups – Planning the use of the BaltSeaPlan project Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area (17.02.2011 Hiiu County Government) Between the meetings also e-mail and telephone were used for communication with the stakeholders. The draft documents and maps were sent to the stakeholders by e-mail and later also the Boundary GIS Map Application based BaltSeaPlan Web developed by the Estonian Marine Institute of the University of Tartu was used for information exchange with the stakeholders. BaltSeaPlan Web was also helpful in the meetings for presenting the maps and making notes directly on the map based on comments of stakeholders. Also a short questionnaire was sent to stakeholders by e-mail but only a few responses were received. The questionnaire included the following questions: 1. What currently existing activities/interests should be added to the map of the uses of the pilot area? Please specify spatially and temporally. 2. What activities/interests are planned or will probably come up in the next 5 years in the pilot area? Please specify spatially and temporally if possible. 3. Where and what kind of problems or conflicts can, in your opinion, appear (or may be there are already existing problems that need to be solved?) concerning the use of the pilot area? Efforts were made to involve all the interest groups related to the project area in preparing the draft plan (Table 1). Table 1. Stakeholder groups involved in development of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa draft plan Local and county governments Hiiu County Government, Saare County Government situated in the project area Kõrgessaare and Emmaste municipalities Leisi, Mustjala and Kihelkonna municipalities Ports and marine transport Estonian Maritime Administration, Eesti Väikesadamate Liit, Estonian Ports Association, Saaremaa Shipping Company Ltd., Port of Tallinn, Saarte Liinid Ltd. Fishing Estonian Fishermen’s Association, Kaluritalude ühistu "KAKRI", MTÜ Hiiukala, Hiiu Kalur, NGO Saarte Kalandus (NGO West-Estonian Islands Fisheries Partnership), Saaremaa Fishermen’s Association Wind energy Estonian Wind Power Association, Nelja Energia OÜ Tourism and recreation Hiiumaa Turismiliit NGO, Foundation Saaremaa Tourism, Panga Diving Resort, Saaremaa Pank OÜ, NGO West-Estonia Tourism, Estonian Windsurfing Association Local development NGO West-Estonian Islands Partnership, NGO Hiiumaa Cooperation Network, Foundation Tuuru Ministries/state authorities Ministry of the Interior, Planning Department, Migration- and Border Policy Dep. Ministry of Defence Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Environmental Board Ministry of the Environment, Marine Environment Dep., Nature Conservation Dep., Fish Resources Dep. Environment Information Centre Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery Department National Heritage Board Environmental organisations Estonian Ornithological Society, Estonian Fund for Nature, Estonian Green Movement

8 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

3. Planning Context

3. Planning Context 3.1. Environmental context 3.1.1. Sea and coastline character The respective marine area is located in the open part of the Baltic Sea that has the most sea-like conditions of the Estonian coastal waters. It is a marine area exposed to waves where the depth of the sea extends to 107.5 meters (average depth 32 m). Compared to other marine areas of Estonia (e.g. the , Väinameri), the salinity is higher (5-7.2 PSU), the water is more transparent and the concentration of nutrients is lower. Many areas can be found on the western coast of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa where the seabed is stony or rocky. This favours the development of attached seabed communities and plants may grow at a depth of down to 30-35 m in the respective marine area. Arising from the higher salinity, the composition of biota with regard to species is also somewhat different: species of marine origin are more prevalent whereas the common freshwater species found in abundance in the Gulf of Riga, Gulf of and Väinameri are absent. The marine area chosen as the pilot area is not much affected by human activities. Only indirect impacts of human activities reach the area, such as the general level of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea and the diffuse concentrations of hazardous substances. 3.1.2. Valuable environmental areas BENTHIC HABITATS AND BIOTA Our knowledge of the valuable marine habitats of Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area is very limited. Only a small part of the area has been mapped and there is no methodology to assess the conservation status of the habitats. Modelled data regarding the spatial location of marine habitats and expert assessments were therefore used for writing this chapter. Figure 2 indicates the modelled location of the marine habitat types of EU importance (listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive) found in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area – reefs, sandbanks that are slightly covered by the seawater all the time, and mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tides (foreshores). According to the modelled data, valuable habitats are mainly located in the shallow regions of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa sea area. Reefs are located close to the coast as well as on some of the open sea shallows. The bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus), furcellaria (Furcellaria lumbricalis), bay barnacle (Balanus improvisus) and the bay mussel (Mytilus trossulus) are the characteristic species of reefs. Regardless of the relatively high level of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, the conservation status of the reefs in the region is quite good. The most important risk factor affecting the status of reefs is shipping and the related oil pollution. The status of reefs may irreversibly deteriorate as a result of oil pollution. The proportion of sandbanks is lower than that of reefs and they are only located in the shallower parts of the coastal waters. The characteristic species of sandbanks are mostly the common eelgrass, several species of pondweed and the Charophyta. Similarly to reefs, the conservation status of sandbanks is good in the Hiiumaa- Saaremaa marine area. The most important risk factor affecting the status of sandbanks is likewise shipping and the related oil pollution. The status of sandbanks may irreversibly deteriorate as a result of oil pollution. There are practically no foreshores in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa marine area and the few that exist are located in bays. The conservation status of foreshores is also relatively good. The most important risk factor affecting the status of foreshores is likewise shipping and the related oil pollution. The status of foreshores may irreversibly deteriorate as a result of oil pollution. As foreshores are located in bays, it is possible to prevent pollution of the respective habitats.

www.baltseaplan.eu 9 3. Planning Context

Figure 2. Modelled location of the marine habitat types of EU importance (listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive) found in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area Main issues The marine habitats and benthic biota of Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are endangered by the following factors: eutrophication in the sea, shipping and related oil pollution risk, extraction of mineral resources, dredging and dumping and matters related to construction of wind farms. Eutrophication is a situation in the marine ecosystem where the high content of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) causes rapid growth of algae and causes overproduction of organic substances, thereby knocking the system out of balance. The consequences of eutrophication are oxygen depletion at deeper sea and decrease in the transparency of water in addition to rapid growth of drifting and attached algae. The hazardous substances contained in the marine environment accumulate into the organisms of the top levels of the food chain, causing deterioration in their health and generative power. The main sources of pollution are agriculture, industry and wastewater of settlements. In order to stop the eutrophication process and reduce pollution, cooperation of all the Baltic Sea countries is required as the sea is not affected by national borders and pollution dumped into the sea at one location may spread everywhere in the end. There is heavy shipping traffic in the vicinity of Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area. An increased risk of oil pollution is a direct consequence of shipping. Oil pollution affects the benthic biota by decreasing the existence of macroalgae and thereby increasing the fragmentation of habitats. Oil products also cause immediate death of numerous Crustacea. Sand and gravel that is used for construction of ports or roads is extracted from shallow marine areas with a sandy seabed. Extraction of mineral resources may result in destruction of the seabed habitats, release of pollutants from the substratum and low water transparency. All these processes have a negative impact on the entire ecosystem. Dredging and dumping work is performed to keep the shipping lanes operating and the impact of such work on the marine biota is similar to extraction of mineral resources. Shallows are attractive locations for developers of wind farms as the sea has better wind conditions than inland and fewer people are disturbed by the wind turbines. The seabed biota is damaged in the course of construction of wind farms, but the impact is not irreversible thanks to the rapid recovery capacity of open sea 10 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

3. Planning Context biota. The firm substrate caused in the course of construction of wind farms may cause massive migration of non-native species from the southern part of the Baltic Sea towards the north if the distance of the planned wind farms from the next is too small. In the working phase of the wind farms, the impact thereof on the seabed biota is relatively weak. FISH FAUNA AND FISH RESOURCES The most important fish resources of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa marine area are the internationally regulated resources of the Baltic herring, European sprat, cod and salmon. The Baltic herring resources form a part of the big Baltic herring resources of the middle part of the Baltic Sea (located in fishing regions 25-32, except the Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga). The total biomass of the respective Baltic herring resources was estimated at 535,120 tons in 2010. The European sprat resources form a part of the big Baltic Sea European sprat resource unit (located in fishing regions 25-32). The total biomass of the respective European sprat resources was estimated at 891,000 tons in 2010. The cod resources form a part of the Eastern Baltic Sea cod resource unit (located in fishing regions 25-32). The total biomass of the respective cod resources was estimated at 333,153 tons in 2010. The salmon resources form a part of the Baltic Sea salmon resource unit (located in fishing regions 22-31). The total number of the respective salmon resources was estimated at 120,000 fish in 2011. The European flounder, sea trout and the common whitefish form fish resources of local importance for the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area and the size and differences in time thereof are assessed on the basis of fishing for monitoring purposes performed on fish fauna. There are also numerous fish of the species European eelpout, turbot and Scorpaenidae (e.g. the shorthorn sculpin, longspined sea-scorpion and also the bullhead in coastal areas). The open sea shallows located north of Hiiumaa are important spawning grounds for the European flounder and the turbot17. MARINE MAMMALS Of marine mammals, the area is important for the grey seal but occasionally also the ringed seal can be met here. Theoretically the area may also be visited by the harbour porpoise, the only Cetacean in the Baltic Sea who has become very rare. The grey seal is a species of seal with an open sea lifestyle that travels around the entire Baltic Sea according to telemetry research data. The population of the grey seal has constantly increased in the Baltic Sea since the 1980s and has currently stabilised at 23,000–24,000. The population of the grey seal in Estonia is estimated to be 3,000–4,000. The grey seal is protected in the European Union as a species of Annexes II and V to the Habitats Directive, as a species of protection category III in Estonia and has been entered in Annex III to the Bern Convention and Annex II to the Bonn Convention and in the IUCN Red List (category – least concern). Three important gathering grounds for fur shedding of the grey seal are located on the west coast of Hiiumaa and on the north-west coast of Saaremaa: Klaasirahu in Bay on the west coast of Hiiumaa, Raudrahu in Soela Strait and Laevarahu to the west of Harilaiu Peninsula, Saaremaa. The seals use drift ice as breeding grounds for the entire extent of the region. In the event of absence of ice, seals use Innarahu (west coast of Saaremaa) and Laevarahu as breeding grounds. Klaasirahu, Raudrahu and Laevarahu are directly located on the project area. Laevarahu (7) is located 1.5 km to the north-west of Harilaiu Peninsula on the north-west coast of Saaremaa. The stony reef without plant cover that is sandy in the middle may be flooded in case of a high water level. Laevarahu is an important regular recreation ground for the grey seal and grey seal pups have been found there in warm winters. The reef is located within the borders of the National Park as a nature reserve. Raudrahu (8) is located in the open sea at the mouth of Soela Strait, 5 km to the west of the Pammana (Saaremaa) – Sõru (Hiiumaa) line; it is a stony shallow with an area of half a hectare with its middle part extending over the water level as a gravelly ridge. The shape and size thereof depends on the water level. Raudrahu is a regular recreation ground for the grey seal and protected as a species protection site of the grey seal. Klaasirahu (9) is located approximately 2 km to the west of Haldi Cape in Western Hiiumaa. The reef is formed of stones that extend above the surface only at average and low water levels. The shallow is up to 1 km long. Grey seals mainly use the location as gathering grounds for the fur shedding period. The number of animals

17 Vetemaa, M. et al Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, 2011. Report on the ichthyologic part of the surveys of the project "Implementation of Natura 2000 in Estonian marine areas – choice of areas and protective measures" (ESTMAR) (EE 0011).

www.baltseaplan.eu 11 3. Planning Context depends on the number of suitable stones while the latter depends on the water level. Klaasirahu is protected as a species protection site of the grey seal. Pursuant to the protection rules18, the presence of people in the special management zones of the Raudrahu and Klaasirahu species protection sites is prohibited from 1 April to 15 November. Fishing with a fish trap and fishing with a fishing net with a mesh size of over 200 mm is also prohibited around the year in the species protection site. Issues The main hazards for seals caused by human activities are dying in fishing gear (above all in fishing traps), disturbance caused by marine and air traffic, environmental toxins and oil pollution, changes in the foodbase arising from intensive fishing as well as poaching. Combined with natural hazards (unfavourable breeding conditions during warm winters, illnesses, death of pups caused by fights, blue-green algae toxins, changes in the foodbase caused by eutrophication), the aforesaid hazards may have a significant negative impact on seal populations. Drowning in fishing gear is the main factor that causes mortalities for seals. Up to 80% of the seals that die in such manner are pups aged from less than a year to 3-4 years. Drowning in fishing gear is most common in the waters of the Western Estonian archipelago and Pärnu Bay. The number of seals who die every year in fishing gear is estimated to be at least 200 in Estonia. Drowning in fishing traps may have decreased during the last years in relation to the decrease in fishing intensity. Disturbance that poses a hazard to seals means any kind of human activity that disturbs the normal activities of the seals. The consequences of disturbance are most dangerous during the birthing period when the connection between mother and pup may be lost as a result of driving the mother away from the pup, as well as during the fur shedding period when the seals have to spend a lot of time out of water in order for the fur shedding to take place normally. The energy supplies of the seals are low during fur shedding as they have not yet managed to recover the resources lost during the winter and the reproduction period. Disturbance caused by military exercises has been a considerable disturbance factors for seals in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere. When planning military exercises, it should be taken into account that they do not take place closer than 10 nautical miles to seal breeding grounds even though no military exercises hazardous for seals have taken place in Estonian waters. Protection of seals and controversies of coastal fishing People active in the fishing industry see seals as their direct competitors in using the marine resources and believe that this competition substantially decreases their income. Seals cause additional economic damage for fishermen by breaking fishing nets. The entire Estonian coastal waters are involved in the conflict to some extent. Damage to catch and fishing gear in coastal entangling net fishing and fishing using fish traps are prevalent in Estonia. The main issue when fishing with pound nets is that seals scare the fish out of the nets. Compensating the fishing industry for the damage has so far failed to resolve the conflict situation in fishing as the compensation does not compensate for the actual damage (damaged catch, fish escaped from nets due to attacks by seals, working time spent on restoring damaged nets, etc.). Only damage caused to nets and traps is to be compensated pursuant to the current valid procedure. Improving fishing gear in order to avoid damage and also damaging seals has been tried to a limited extent in the Baltic Sea countries, including Estonia. It is very convenient at times as a protective measure and a manner to mitigate the conflict. It is possible to apply for benefits from the EU Fisheries Fund to acquire/manufacture seal proof fishing gear. Seal hunting Reinitiating hunting of grey seals has been considered in Estonia in the last years in order to preserve the hunting traditions in the traditional seal hunting regions and the related cultural heritage. Determining the hunting quotas upon managing the population has to take place pursuant to the precautionary principle and be scientifically reasoned, taking into account the size of the population and the speed of growth.

18 Regulation “Placing Species Protection Sites of Grey Seal and Ringed Seal Under Protection and Protection Rules”, RTL 2005, 124, 1969. 12 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

3. Planning Context

As the current legislation does not allow for intentional killing of grey seals for hunting purposes, the valid legislation has to be amended before the hunting commences. The prerequisite for re-establishing traditional seal hunting is a plan that sets out the allowed hunting methods, hunting regions, the hunting season, number of animals to be hunted, the sex-specific and age-specific relationship and reporting. The chapter is based on the Action plan for management of grey seals in Estonia 2007–201119. BIRDS The open sea shallows of the northern and western coast of Hiiumaa and the north-western coast of Saaremaa are important migration and feeding grounds for numerous water birds. Hundreds of thousands (up to 800,000) water birds pass through the region during the spring and autumn migration. The long-tailed duck is the dominant species while the common scoter, velvet scoter, brant goose, common eider, common goldeneye, dabbling ducks, the barnacle goose and gulls (e.g. the common gull, European herring gull, little gull and the black-headed gull) are also numerous. The number of birds passing through the area during the summer migration is smaller (up to 200,000 water birds). The common scoter is the dominant species while the velvet scoter and the Charadriiformes, above all the dunlin and gulls are also numerous. There are no permanent moulting grounds in the region; up to 1,000 birds may temporarily stay in the region for the said purposes, mainly the common eider. Special attention must be paid to the globally endangered bird species Steller’s eider (IUCN category “vulnerable”, species of Annex I to the Birds Directive) whose wintering grounds in Estonia are mainly on the north-western coast of Saaremaa (northern coast of Vilsandi, Uudepanga Bay, Undva Cape, Ninase and around the Panga Bank) and on the western and northern coast of Hiiumaa. The winter (mainly from January to April) population of the Steller’s eider in Estonia has been estimated at 1,500-2,500 birds in 2003-2008. About 200 Steller’s eiders use the western coast of Kõpu as wintering grounds. Main issues The wild birds in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are mainly endangered by the following factors: eutrophication in the sea, shipping traffic and related oil pollution risk, matters related to construction of wind farms as well as disturbance caused by recreation and increasing sea tourism. Eutrophication of the sea impacts the wild birds indirectly by means of the foodbase. As the water becomes more nutritious, the composition with regard to the seabed flora and fauna species and the domination relations change; therefore, the foodbase of birds that feed on higher plants deteriorates and the foodbase of birds that feed in clams improves. Oil pollution may cause death of birds by eating the toxic compounds or due to loss of insulating ability of feathering that has become spoiled with oil. Shipping traffic brings about disturbing noise that substantially affects the behaviour of wild birds. Wild birds may be disturbed by wind turbines and the noise accompanied with the construction, operation and maintenance thereof, causing a decrease in numbers on former good stopover grounds or even abandonment of the former. Birds are driven off to areas that may not be as suitable for them or where excessive competition may arise. Wind turbines may additionally cause death of birds upon collision (especially in bad weather and during night migration when the lighting of the wind farms may attract the birds), lengthen migration routes and cause use of more energy for flying around wind turbines. Upon assessing the impacts of wind farms for wild birds, it is important to take into account the cumulative impact of all the wind farms located in the region (or further in the path of migration of the birds). 3.2. Socio-economic context The area is sparsely populated (Table 2). The mean population density in the municipalities bordering with the project area is 4,4 inhabitants per km². Table 2. Population number and density in the municipalities bordering with the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa project area in 2011. (the database of the Statistics Estonia www.stat.ee)

19 Jüssi, I., Jüssi, M. 2007. Tegevuskava hallhüljeste kaitse korraldamiseks Eestis aastatel 2007 – 2011

www.baltseaplan.eu 13 3. Planning Context

Population Population density, Municipality number Area, km² inhabitants per km² Emmaste 1270 197,49 6,431 Kõrgessaare 1280 379,5 3,373 Kihelkonna 836 245,94 3,399 Leisi 2067 348,4 5,933 Mustjala 733 235,47 3,113

The most important human uses of the respective marine area are shipping and open sea fishing that have a relatively minor impact on the benthic biota. Trawling impacts pelagic fish communities, but the impact of human activities is generally modest in the marine area. The Kõpu sand deposit and two survey areas for extraction are also located in the area. Extensive production of wind energy is additionally planned for the project area. On the other hand, the untouched nature of the project area serves as a good prerequisite for the developing nature tourism, recreation and surfing. Nature conservation activities may be viewed as a separate type of human use; this currently covers a relatively reserved part of the project area, but addition of protected areas is possible as there are valuable marine habitats and bird stopovers in the region in areas that are not protected pursuant to recent studies. 3.3. Spatial planning documents and relevant strategies 3.3.1. National and regional documents and strategies Hiiu county: Hiiumaa Energy Development Plan(2002) Hiiumaa Tourism Development Plan (version 30.04.06) Tourism Development Plan for the Western Estonia Hiiu County Plan Hiiu County Thematic Plan “Environmental Conditions Guiding Settlement and Use of Land” Emmaste municipality: Emmaste Municipality Plan (30.09.2005) Kõrgessaare municipality: Kõrgessaare Municipality Comprehensive Plan (17.01.2003) Thematic Plan of Kõrgessaare Municipality Comprehensive Plan "Identifying the rules of land use and construction terms" (12.11.2010) Saare county: Saare County Plan Thematic Plan “Environmental Conditions Guiding Settlement and Use of Land” Saare County Development Strategy Saare County Tourism Development Plan Saaremaa Geopark Strategy Kihelkonna municipality: Kihelkonna Municipality Development Plan 2007-2013 (2017) Kihelkonna Municipality Comprehensive Plan Mustjala municipality: 14 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

3. Planning Context

Mustjala Municipality Development Plan 2009-2015 Mustjala Municipality Development Plan 2009-2020 project Mustjala Municipality Comprehensive Plan, Ninase peninsula comprehensive plan and Külade comprehensive plan Leisi municipality: Leisi Municipality Development Plan 2011 – 2020 Leisi municipality comprehensive plan Thematic plan National level: • Estonian Fisheries Strategy 2007–2013 • National Development Plan “Estonian Maritime Policy” 2011-2020, approved by the Government of the Republic and sent to the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) for discussion on 14.07.2011. The draft development plan provides for planning the entire Estonian marine area by 2020. For this purpose, mapping strategic regions has been planned for 2012 (Ministry of the Environment), conducting a maritime spatial planning pilot project for 2013 (Ministry of the Interior), mapping marine areas and planning sustainable use for 2014 (Ministry of the Environment), elaboration of methodology for maritime spatial planning on the basis of the pilot project, 2015 (Ministry of the Interior) and preparing maritime spatial plans for all counties, 2020 (county governments). • National Plan Estonia 2030+ should be ready by the end of 2011. 3.3.2. International documents and strategies Spatial planning of marine areas is not compulsory for the Member States of the European Union (EU), but it is a method recommended by the European Union in order to implement sustainable development principles in coastal regions and marine areas. The European Commission has emphasised the need for spatial planning of marine areas in several political 20 documents such as the Blue Book and Action Plan of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU (2007) and Communications “Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU” (2008)21 and “Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU – Achievements and Future Development” (2010)22. Several EU Directives have to be taken into account upon maritime spatial planning, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive23, Habitats Directive24, Birds Directive25, Water Framework Directive26, 27 28 Environmental Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives.

20 Communication from the Commission “An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union”, COM(2007) 757, final, 10.10.2007 and SEC(2007) 1278, 10.10.2007. 21 COM(2008) 791 (final), 25.11.2008. 22 COM(2010) 771, 17.12.2010. 23 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. 24 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 25 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30.11.2009 on the conservation of wild birds (amended version of Directive 79/409/EEC). 26 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. 27 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of June 27 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

www.baltseaplan.eu 15 3. Planning Context

International conventions must also be taken into account, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea29 and the Rules of the International Maritime Organisation; Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea30 and the HELCOM recommendations; Convention on Biological Diversity31. The obligation of transboundary environmental impact assessment arises from the Convention on Environmental 32 Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention) and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Protocol33.

28 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 29 Estonian accession in 2005, RT II 2005, 16, 48. 30 Estonian ratification in 1995, RT II 1995, 11, 57. 31 Estonian ratification in 1994, RT II 1994, 13, 41. 32 Estonian ratification in 2000, RT II 2000, 28, 169. 33 Estonian ratification in 2010 RT II 2010, 3, 6, entered into force in July 2010, unofficial Estonian translation http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1093708/KSH+protokoll.pdf. 16 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

4. Stocktake 4.1. Overview of relevant issues The existing interests of various interest groups for using the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area may be divided into larger groups: national nature conservation and sustainable use of natural resources (including scientific research and monitoring), non-governmental environmental organisations, ports, shipping and shipping lanes, sea tourism, fishing, recreation, national defence, wind farm developers. The activities of the natural and legal persons belonging to the said interest groups are regulated by relevant Acts and legislation established on the basis thereof, of which the most important are the following: the Planning Act, Building Act, Ports Act, Maritime Safety Act, Water Act, Fishing Act, Earth’s Crust Act, Exclusive Economic Zone Act, Nature Conservation Act, Environmental Monitoring Act, Environmental Supervision Act, Public Information Act. The interests are expressed pursuant to the procedure and terms and conditions provided in valid legislation and the right to use the natural resources is realised on the basis of actually receivable permits, licences, etc. For example, a fisherman’s fishing permit grants the right to fish, except fishing for flounder, with commercial fishing gear at sea up to the 20 m isobath. A fisherman’s fishing permit for the fishing of flounder grants the right to fish flounder at sea regardless of the depth of the sea. The fishing permit shall designate the permitted fishing gear, quota allocations, fishing seasons and/or the number of fishing days and the fishing area. Fishing rights are subject to a fee and the fee for fishing rights shall be paid pursuant to the Environmental Charges Act and the legislation established on the basis thereof. Granting/receiving the right to use the natural resources of the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area often takes place on the basis of several different Acts. For example, upon encumbering the marine area with construction works, the Law of Property Act (everyone may use a public body of water pursuant to the procedure provided by Acts or established on the basis thereof), Planning Act (county plan for public body of water) and Water Act (the Water Act provides public bodies of water owned by the state (including the territorial sea and inland sea); in order to encumber a body of water with construction works, the superficies licence provided in the Water Act shall conform to the requirements of the respective county plan) shall be relied on. The Water Act and related Acts regulate the construction of construction works that are permanently connected to the shore such as wharfs and jetties, installation of navigational marking (permit for special use of water) and underwater cables (permit by the Government of the Republic, permit for special use of water) and construction of construction works that are not permanently connected to the shore, e.g. wind farms (superficies licence by the Government of the Republic, permit for special use of water). Another example – the Earth’s Crust Act: 1) mineral deposits located in a transboundary body of water, in the territorial sea or in inland maritime waters or in the exclusive economic zone are of national importance; 2) the process related to extraction starting from conducting research up to issuing an extraction permit (permit for special use of water, extraction permit); the Commission of Estonian Mineral Resources shall deliver an opinion regarding every stage. Applying for a right to use the natural resources for a marine area and granting thereof pursuant to the cases, procedure and terms and conditions provided in the relevant Acts generally eliminates the possibility of a conflict of interests between valid permits and licences. In the event that such a conflict arises for any reason, a mechanism exists to resolve the legal conflict. When characterising the existing situation, it may be said that, based on the valid legislation and the issued permits and licences (with different periods of validity), the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area is already “planned”, i.e. divided between the current users in both spatial and time aspects. Further planning/re-planning of the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area is therefore subject to proposals for creating new rights by restricting or amending the existing rights. A necessity may also arise to amend existing legislation or even establish new legislation. The situation can be illustrated by the creation of a new interest group – wind farm developer – on the basis of legislation that determines the procedure and terms and conditions for such creation. Planning a wind farm on the basis of the Fishing Act and the Fishing Rules on a marine area in the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area prescribed for fishing may serve as an example. In the course of disclosure (Public Information Act) accompanying the spatial planning of the wind farm area and the later environmental impact assessment of the plan, the interested parties can reach a solution that satisfies both parties. Upon reaching a compromise (between the wind farm developer and representatives of the fishing industry in this case), further planning of the marine area or amending the existing plan would mean complete or partial limitation of the fishing right in

www.baltseaplan.eu 17 4. Stocktake the marine area to be allocated for the wind farm along with making the respective amendments in the Fishing Act and/or the Fishing Rules. The legally ensured human uses of the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area along with the planned human uses (wind farms, military training area, surfing area) are indicated in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Legally ensured human use of the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area

18 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Figure 4. Legally ensured human use of the marine area of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area along with the new interests (wind farms and the related underwater cables, military training area and surfing area)

www.baltseaplan.eu 19 4. Stocktake

4.2. Relevant issues in detail 4.2.1. Environmental protection INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS ON PILOT AREA Important bird areas (IBA) Internationally important bird areas located in the pilot area are indicated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Important Bird Areas (IBA)

Hiiu County: Kõrgessaare- coast (001) – stopover grounds of international importance for the bird species barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) endangered in the European Union and important stopover grounds for other water bird species such as the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), common eider (Somateria mollissima), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula); it is also an important nesting ground for species of Annex I to the Birds Directive horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) and the common tern (Sterna hirundo) as well as other bird species: the mallard, common eider, Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the common gull (Larus canus). Vanamõisa Bay (002) – stopover grounds of international importance for the bird species barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) endangered in the European Union and for the greylag goose (Anser anser). Important stopover grounds for the Eurasian teal (Anas crecca) and important nesting grounds for the common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres).

20 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Saare County: Küdema Bay (011) – the main ornithological value of the area lies in stopover grounds for water birds as well as the nesting wild birds of the islets (especially Island). The tundra swan (numbers of this species have rapidly decreased in the last few years), Steller's eider, common goldeneye and the smew have been sighted in Küdema Bay in numbers that exceed the criteria required for an Important Bird Area. Of the aforesaid, the Steller’s eider that belongs among the globally threatened species (IUCN category "vulnerable") must be pointed out; Küdema Bay Special Conservation Area is one of the four considerable stopover grounds in Estonia for the species referred to above. The mute swan, common shelduck, Eurasian wigeon, gadwall, Eurasian teal, mallard, northern pintail, common eider, red-breasted merganser, common merganser, red-necked grebe and the horned grebe have been sighted in Küdema Bay in numbers that exceed the criteria for stopover grounds of national importance (as composed by A. Kuresoo and L. Luigujõe). Taking into account the maximum numbers in proportion of all the bird species wintering in the Western Palaearctic population, the value of Küdema Bay as wintering grounds for water birds ranks fourth in Estonia (Pehlak et al 2001). At the end of the 1990s and at the beginning of the 2000s, Laidu Island belonged among the five most important nesting grounds in Estonia for the barnacle goose (IBA criteria C6 – the area belongs among the five most important areas in a region that has been established to protect a species endangered in the European Union). Having regard to the scope of Estonia, the common eider used the island as nesting grounds in great numbers. Koorunõmme (066) – stopover grounds of international importance for the globally endangered Steller’s eider and important stopover grounds for the common scoter as well as nesting grounds for the white-tailed eagle.

Tagamõisa Peninsula (012) – wintering grounds of international importance for the Steller’s eider and the common goldeneye and stopover grounds for the tundra swan and the greylag goose.

Of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Area Network (HELCOM BSPA), the Hiiu Shallows (code 90) and a part of the Vilsandi (91) BSPA areas are located on the project area. Vilsandi National Park also belongs among wetlands of international importance, i.e. the Ramsari Areas (code 3EE010).

The project area is a part of the West-Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (RAH0000611).

www.baltseaplan.eu 21 4. Stocktake

Natura 2000 network areas Natura 2000 areas34 – Sites of Community Importance (SCI) designated according to the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated according to the Birds Directive – located in the pilot area are indicated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Natura 2000 network areas

Hiiu County: Hiiu Shallows SCI (EE0040129) – protecting the habitat specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora): reefs (1170); Klaasrahu SCI (EE0040141) – protecting the habitat specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: reefs (1170); protecting the species specified in Annex II: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus); Kõrgessaare-Mudaste SCI (EE0040122), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), alkaline fens (7230) and Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) as well as the habitats of the species Cypripedium calceolus and the European otter (Lutra lutra) specified in Annex II; Kõrgessaare-Mudaste SPA (EE0040130), protecting the habitats of the following species: the northern pintail (Anas acuta), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), Eurasian

34 Amendment of Order no. 615-k "List of Natura 2000 network areas to be submitted to the European Commission" of the Government of the Republic of 5 August 2004. Adopted 23.04.2009 no. 148 [RTL 2009, 39, 516].

22 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake coot (Fulica atra), common gull (Larus canus), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), common eider (Somateria mollissima), common tern (Sterna hirundo), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus); SCI (EE0040112), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites – 6210), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510), petrifying springs with tufa formation (*7220), alkaline fens (7230) and Western Taiga (*9010) as well as the habitats of the species European mink (Mustela lutreola*) specified in Annex II; Vanamõisa SPA (EE0040113), protecting the habitats of the species Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), greylag goose (Anser anser), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and the common redshank (Tringa totanus); Vanamõisa SCI (EE0040113), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130) and Western Taiga (*9010);

Saare County: Raudrahu SCI (EE0040499) – protecting the habitat specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: reefs (1170); protecting the species specified in Annex II: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus); Koorunõmme SPA (EE0040428) – protecting the habitats of the species white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), common scoter (Melanitta nigra) and the Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri); Koorunõmme SCI (EE0040428), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. (3140) Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites – 6210), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens (7160), Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests rich in epiphytes (*9020), coniferous forests on or connected to glaciofluvial eskers (9060) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080) as well as the habitats of the species Cypripedium calceolus and the Liparis loeselii specified in Annex II; Tagamõisa SPA (EE0040476), protecting the habitats of the following species: the razorbill (Alca torda), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), greylag goose (Anser anser), tawny pipit (Anthus campestris), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), purple sandpiper (Calidris maritime), black guillemot (Cepphus gryille), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), mute swan (Cygnus olor), common crane (Grus grus), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), smew (Mergus albellus), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) and the common eider (Somateria mollissima); Tagamõisa SCI (EE0040476), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (*1150), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), embryonic shifting dunes (2110), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes – 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes – *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), humid dune slacks

www.baltseaplan.eu 23 4. Stocktake

(2190), hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp (3140) Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites – 6210), Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270) Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), transition mires and quaking bogs (7140), calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests rich in epiphytes (*9020), coniferous forests on or connected to glaciofluvial eskers (9060), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080) as well as the habitats of the species grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) Cypripedium calceolus, Liparis loeselii and the Sisymbrium supinum specified in Annex II; Küdema Bay SCI (EE0040432), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), water courses of plain to montane levels (3260), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (6410), Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens (7160), Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080) as well as the habitats of the species river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), Encalypta mutica, Liparis loeselii and the Rhinanthus osiliensis specified in Annex II; Küdema Bay SPA (EE0040432), protecting the habitats of the following species: the northern pintail (Anas acuta), greylag goose (Anser anser), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), mute swan (Cygnus olor), common crane (Grus grus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) and the common eider (Somateria mollissima); Pammana SCI (EE0040452), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (*1150), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (1310), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes – *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites – 6210), Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (6410) and Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070);

Hiiu and Saare County: Väinamere SCI (EE0040002), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110), estuaries (1130), mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (1310), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), water courses of plain to montane levels (3260), European dry heaths (4030), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites – 6210), Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270) Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (6410), hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), northern Boreal alluvial meadows (6450), lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), active raised bogs (*7110), Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens (7160), calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), petrifying springs with tufa formation (*7220), alkaline fens (7230), calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation (8210), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests rich in epiphytes (*9020), Fennoscandian herb-rich forests with Picea abies (9050), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070),

24 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080), Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (*9180), bog woodland (*91D0) and alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (*91E0) as well as the habitats of the species grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), European otter (Lutra lutra), pond bat (Myotis dasycneme), ringed seal (Phoca hispida bottnica), spined loach (Cobitis taenia), European bullhead (Cottus gobio), river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), European weatherfish (Misgurnus fossilis), Angelica palustris, Cypripedium calceolus, Dianthus arenarius subsp. arenarius, Dicranum viride, Encalypta mutica, Liparis loeselii, Sisymbrium supinum, Thesium ebracteatum, Tortella rigens, marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), scarce fritillary (Hypodryas maturna), thick shelled river mussel (Unio crassus), narrow-mouthed whorl snail (Vertigo angustior), round-mouthed whorl snail (Vertigo genesii) and the Vertigo geyeri specified in Annex II; Väinamere SPA (EE0040001), protecting the habitats of the following species: the northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), garganey (Anas querquedula), gadwall (Anas strepera), greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), graylag goose (Anser anser), lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus), bean goose (Anser fabalis), grey heron (Ardea cinerea), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), common pochard (Aythya ferina), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), greater scaup (Aythya marila), Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris), brant goose (Branta bernicla), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), red knot (Calidris canutus), little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), black tern (Chlidonias niger), white stork (Ciconia ciconia), western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), corn crake (Crex crex), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), great snipe (Gallinago media), Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), common crane (Grus grus), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio), common gull (Larus canus), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), broad-billed sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus), bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), smew (Mergus albellus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), ruff (Philomachus pugnax), grey-headed woodpecker (Picus canus), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), little crake (Porzana parva), spotted crake (Porzana porzana), pied avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), common eider (Somateria mollissima), little tern (Sterna albifrons), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus).

www.baltseaplan.eu 25 4. Stocktake

National protected areas Figure 7 indicates the areas under national protection located in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area.

Figure 7. National protected areas

Hiiu County: Special conservation areas35: Hiiu madala Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the type of habitat specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: reefs (1170); Kõrgessaare-Mudaste Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), petrifying springs with tufa formation (*7220) and alkaline fens (7230) as well as the habitats of bird species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and migrating bird species that require protection but are not specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive. The species whose habitats are protected are: the northern pintail (Anas acuta), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), common gull (Larus canus), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), common eider (Somateria mollissima), common tern (Sterna hirundo), common redshank (Tringa totanus), northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris), gadwall (Anas strepera) and the velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca);

35 Regulation no. 233 “Placing Special Conservation Areas Under Protection in Hiiu County” of the Government of the Republic of 08.09.2005. RT I 2005, 51, 401. Single text.

26 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Vanamõisa Bay Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130) and Western Taiga (*9010) as well as the habitats of bird species specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive and migrating bird species that require protection but are not specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive. The species whose habitats are protected are: the Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), greylag goose (Anser anser), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and the common redshank (Tringa totanus);

Paope Nature Conservation Area36, established to: 1) protect coastal and sea ecosystems and the diversity of the biota of meadow, forest and freshwater communities; 2) protect the habitats of the bird species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the habitats of migrating bird species not listed in Annex I of which two are protected species of category II and the following species that are protected species of category III: the barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), common tern (Sterna hirundo) and the common redshank (Tringa totanus); 3) protect the types of habitats specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110), mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), water courses of plain to montane levels (3260), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), petrifying springs with tufa formation (*7220), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010) and Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (91E0*); and 4) protect the habitat of a species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC that is also a protected species of category I. The Klaasirahu Grey Seal Species Protection Site has been created for the protection of the resting grounds of the grey seal pursuant to Regulation no. 78 of the Minister of the Environment of 20.12.200537. The presence of people in the special management zone of the species protection site is prohibited from 1 April to 15 November. Fishing with a fish trap and fishing with a fishing net with a mesh size of over 200 mm is prohibited around the year in the species protection site.

Saare County: Special conservation areas38: Koorunõmme Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. (3140), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland

36 Regulation no. 224 "Placing Paope Nature Conservation Area Under Protection and Protection Rules" of the Government of the Republic of 26.10.2006 RT I 2006, 48, 363. Single text. 37 Regulation “Placing Species Protection Sites of Grey Seal and Ringed Seal Under Protection and Protection Rules”, RTL 2005, 124, 1969. 38 Placing Special Conservation Areas Under Protection in Saare County. Adopted 27.07.2006 no. 176, RT I 2006, 37, 277. Single text.

www.baltseaplan.eu 27 4. Stocktake facies on calcareous substrates (*6210), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens (7160), Western Taiga (*9010) and sub-Atlantic and medio- European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli (9060) as well as the habitats of species specified in Annex II: the Cypripedium calceolus and the Liparis loeselii and the habitats of bird species specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive and migrating bird species that require protection but are not specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive. The bird species whose habitats are protected are: the black-throated loon (Gavia arctica), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), common crane (Grus grus), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) and the black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius);

Küdema Bay Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (1150*), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), water courses of plain to montane levels (3260), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (6410), calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (9080*) as well as the habitats of species specified in Annex II: the Rhinanthus oesiliensis and the Liparis loeselii and the habitats of bird species specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive and migrating bird species that require protection but are not specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive. The bird species whose habitats are protected are: the black-throated loon (Gavia arctica), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (Anas strepera), common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), smew (Mergus albellus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), greater scaup (Aythya marila), common crane (Grus grus), common eider (Somateria mollissima), western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), common redshank (Tringa totanus), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), common gull (Larus canus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), water rail (Rallus aquaticus), spotted crake (Porzana porzana) and the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica);

Pammana Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC: coastal lagoons (*1150), Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand (1310), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), grey dunes (2130*), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210*, important orchid sites), Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (6270*), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt- laden soils (6410) and Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) as well as the habitats of a species specified in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – the pied avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta);

Tagamõisa Special Conservation Area, with the conservation objective of protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (1150*), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), embryonic shifting dunes (2110), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes, 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes, 2130*), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp (3140), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (*6210), Fennoscandian

28 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (6270*), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (6530*), transition mires and quaking bogs (7140), calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (*7210), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests (9020*), coniferous forests on or connected to glaciofluvial eskers (9060), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (9080*) as well as the habitats of species specified in Annex II: the Liparis loeselii, Cypripedium calceolus and the Sisymbrium supinum and the habitats of bird species specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive and migrating bird species that require protection but are not specified in Annex I to the Birds Directive. The bird species whose habitats are protected are: the red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena), mute swan (Cygnus olor), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), greylag goose (Anser anser), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), common eider (Somateria mollissima), Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), long- tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), smew (Mergus albellus), red- breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), common buzzard (Buteo buteo), corn crake (Crex crex), common crane (Grus grus), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), razorbill (Alca torda), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), woodlark (Lullula arborea), barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria) and the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio);

The Raudrahu Grey Seal Species Protection Site has been created for the protection of the resting grounds of the grey seal pursuant to Regulation no. 78 of the Minister of the Environment of 20.12.200539. The presence of people in the special management zone of the species protection site is prohibited from 1 April to 15 November. Fishing with a fish trap and fishing with a fishing net with a mesh size of over 200 mm is prohibited around the year in the species protection site. The main objective of the Laidu Island Nature Conservation Area is to protect the nesting and migrating water birds on Laidu Island and to protect the geological values and plant communities of the island. The main objective of the Vilsandi National Park is to protect the Western Estonian coastal landscape and waters and the small islands with numerous birds. About 2/3 of the national park is formed by the sea with numerous islets and ~160 islands. The nature of the national park is characterised by a marine climate, plentiful wild seabirds, one of the largest breeding grounds for the grey seal in Estonia and interesting seabed fauna. 247 bird species are registered in the national park and 114 species of the aforesaid use the park as nesting grounds (one of the rarest being the Steller's eider). 520 species of vascular plants grow on the protected area of which a third are rare in Estonia (the Danish sea lettuce, black bogrush, common ivy, sea wormwood, rock whitebeam, etc.). Vilsandi National Park has also been a part of the Ramsari areas since 1997. The crust of the protected area is mostly formed by Ordovician Jaagarahu deposit stones. On the , in the northern part of Vilsandi and on the banks in the vicinity of , the Vilsandi layers of the deposit are exposed. Windrow habitats are in great majority on Vilsandi Island.

A small part of the Hiiu County and Saare County parts of the Väinamere Special Conservation Area covers the project area. The conservation objective of the special conservation area is the protection of bird species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC and migrating bird species not listed in Annex I: the northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), garganey (Anas querquedula), gadwall (Anas strepera), greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser anser), lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus), bean goose (Anser fabalis), grey heron (Ardea cinerea)**, ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), common pochard (Aythya ferina), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), greater scaup (Aythya marila), Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris), brant goose (Branta bernicla), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), red knot (Calidris canutus), little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), black tern (Chlidonias niger)**, white stork (Ciconia ciconia)**, western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), northern

39 Regulation “Placing Species Protection Sites of Grey Seal and Ringed Seal Under Protection and Protection Rules”, RTL 2005, 124, 1969.

www.baltseaplan.eu 29 4. Stocktake harrier (Circus cyaneus), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), corn crake (Crex crex), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana)**, Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), great snipe (Gallinago media)**, common crane (Grus grus), white- tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio), common gull (Larus canus), lesser black- backed gull (Larus fuscus), black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), broad-billed sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus)***, bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), smew (Mergus albellus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)***, ruff (Philomachus pugnax), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), little crake (Porzana parva)**, spotted crake (Porzana porzana)**, pied avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), common eider (Somateria mollissima), little tern (Sterna albifrons), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) as well as protection of the types of habitats specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC: sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110), mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140)***, coastal lagoons (1150*), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230)***, Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (1310)**, Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (1630*), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640)***, water courses of plain to montane levels (3260)***, European dry heaths (4030)**, Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130)**, Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (6270*), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (6280*), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (6410), lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (6530*), Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens (7160)***, alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (9010*), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests (9020*)**, Fennoscandian herb-rich forests with Picea abies (9050)**, Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070), Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (9080*)** and protection of the habitats of the species specified in Annex II: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), European otter (Lutra lutra)**, ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica), European bullhead (Cottus gobio)**, river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)**, marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia)***, scarce fritillary (Euphydryas maturna)***, Cypripedium calceolus, Sisymbrium supinum and the Encalypta mutica**. * primary types of habitats (pursuant to the EU Habitats Directive) ** conservation objective only in the Hiiu County part of the Väinamere Special Conservation Area *** conservation objective only in the Saare County part of the Väinamere Special Conservation Area

Limits and issues The protection rules of protected areas must be adhered to. The protection of a special conservation area has been regulated under Chapter 5 of the Nature Conservation Act. Destruction or harming of the habitats for the protection of which a special conservation area was formed, significantly disturbing the protected species, and all activities that are likely to endanger the favourable conservation status of the habitats and protected species are prohibited within a special conservation area. The impact of activities planned within a special conservation area on the status of habitats and species shall be evaluated in the course of environmental impact assessment or upon proceedings regarding the respective notice. Pursuant to the Nature Conservation Act, the possessor of an immovable located within the boundaries of a special conservation area shall submit a notification to the administrative authority of the special conservation area if the following activities are planned: 1) construction of a road; 2) removal of a natural rock or soil; 3) altering the water levels and shorelines of bodies of water; 4) use of biocides and pesticides; 5) cultivation and fertilising of natural and semi-natural grasslands and polders; 6) cutting trees located within areas that have the characteristics of a wooded meadow; 7) construction and reconstruction of land improvement systems. General restrictions arising from § 14 of the Nature Conservation Act are also applicable on a special conservation area.

30 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Upon planning activities on protected areas or in the immediate vicinity thereof, the possible impact of the activity on the protection objectives of the protected areas, special conservation areas and the Natura 2000 network areas. As the project area is essential for stopping water birds, the wind farms planned in the sea off the northern coast of Hiiumaa (and possibly in the sea off the western coast of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa in the future) may cause conflicts between different uses of the sea. Due to the proximity of major shipping lanes, possible oil pollution that affects the entire biota is a considerable hazard. An inventory of valuable habitats and species is currently going on around Kõpu Peninsula (Figure 8) that might result in establishment of a new marine protected area.

Figure 8. Area of inventory of nature values around Kõpu Peninsula

4.2.2. Sea uses MARITIME TRANSPORT Situation and main issues The following types of maritime transport are essential for the use of the marine area of the north-west coast of Saaremaa and the west coast of Hiiumaa: 1) intensive shipping traffic at the mouth of the and in the northern part of the Baltic Sea between the ports of the Gulf of Finland and between Europe, including large-scale transport of oil and oil products as well as trawling for fish with trawling vessels; 2) local shipping traffic (passenger ferry traffic between Triigi Port located on Saaremaa and Sõru Port located on Hiiumaa); and 3) recreational craft traffic (smaller fishing vessels, yachts, fishing boats) with varying intensity depending on the season, as well as seasonal sea tourism (kayak, surfing, etc.). The rural municipalities bordering the marine area of the pilot area have pointed out the risk of a marine casualty that might happen due to the intensive shipping traffic and oil transport in the Baltic Sea and the

www.baltseaplan.eu 31 4. Stocktake resulting possible oil pollution of the coastal waters in their development plans. Construction of wind farms on the Apollo, Vinkov and Neupokojev shallows is seen as a major issue that creates an extensive sector in the Neupokojev marine area in the vicinity of the yacht harbour meant for tourists where any traffic of watercraft will be prohibited pursuant to the demands of the Police and Border Guard Board. The notable seasonality (bad ice conditions during winters harsher than average) of using the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area also serves as a natural restriction. Dredging and dumping are sea uses related to maritime transportation and ports. In the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa project area there is 1 dumping ground. A revision of dumping grounds in the Estonian marine area in cooperation of the Maritime Administration and Ministry of the Environment is planned for 2012. Main factors beneficial for development The following factors may be deemed favourable for development of maritime transport in the pilot area: 1) the continuing development of the Saaremaa Port, fishing ports, minor ports and mooring places promotes the increase in the relative importance of maritime transport in the marine area being observed; 2) the increase in the relative importance of maritime transport in turn contributes to the continuing cooperation of the residents, companies and local governments of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa for development of the economy of the islands as a whole; and 3) the increase in the relative importance of maritime transport contributes the most to developing the tourism industry as a whole and creates better prerequisites for more extensive regional cooperation (e.g. a cohesive Western Estonian tourism development plan) and thereby creates more opportunities to further develop recreational craft traffic and form flexible maritime traffic networks. Vision and trends The vision for the development of maritime transport in the pilot area is based on the objectives set out in the development plans of the rural municipalities bordering the marine area and includes the following: 1) acknowledging the risks arising from open sea maritime traffic (e.g. possible risk of oil pollution) and creating the capacity to manage possible oil pollution; 2) continuous maintenance and development of minor ports and mooring places required for local maritime traffic; 3) continuing the local shipping traffic between Sõru and Triigi and developing the ports of the islands and the related maritime traffic; 4) comprehensively supporting and developing fishing and fish processing as a traditional economy sector; 5) developing cruise tourism related to the Saaremaa Deep-sea Port and improving the infrastructure to support it; 6) developing tourism based on recreational craft (yachts, launches, boats) traffic; and 7) designating surfing and personal watercraft usage areas (e.g. Kihelkonna Rural Municipality Development Plan 2007–2017) and developing tourism based on the aforesaid activities.

PORTS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO SHORE Situation and main issues Numerous ports belong to the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area, such as Kõrgessaare, Kalana, Haldi, Sõru, Varese and Saaremaa (Figure 3). However, the development potential of the ports mainly depends on the development of the infrastructure related to the ports and servicing the ports. The following are the main issues of the ports of the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area: 1) Saaremaa Port is operating at a high rate of underutilisation that may be explained by the insufficient capability of the infrastructure supporting the work of the port to service the thousands of passengers of big cruise ships quickly, efficiently and in a manner that is comfortable for the passengers. However, opening the

32 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

Saaremaa Port for higher goods flow is questionable for two reasons: opposition by the environmental protection authorities and the logistic “bottleneck” of passenger ferry connections with the mainland; 2) the legal status of numerous minor ports and mooring places is unorganised (e.g. there have been no applications for transfer from state ownership to municipal ownership), the ownership issue of Varese fishing port is unresolved and the port is not operating; and 3) numerous minor ports do not meet the technically required levels or their capacity of offering port services does not meet the needs. Main factors beneficial for development The factors beneficial for the development of the ports in the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are related to the existence of natural resources in the region of the islands (e.g. fish resources and natural opportunities that interest tourists, vacationers and persons engaged in water sports), historical/cultural places of interest and clean nature as a destination for ecotourism. Development of the ports is also supported by the continuing development of the local industry that needs the ports for both importing raw materials and exporting finished products. Vision and trends The development of the port economy mostly depends on the development and export capacity of the tourism and recreation sector, fishing and local industry of the region of the islands as well as the development level of the infrastructure that services all of the above. The number of ports and the volume of offering port services have to be balanced and correspond to the demand. For example, the volume of the services offered by Saaremaa Port is heavily underutilised as the relatively low capacity of the respective infrastructure of Saaremaa to offer first-rate services to cruise passengers arriving and departing within a short period of time was not taken into account when it was planned. One of the trends should therefore be balancing the supply for and demand of port services and thereby increasing the economic efficiency of port services. Maintaining the local minor ports and the numerous mooring places in good working order is economically feasible only in exceptional cases. The desire of the rural municipalities to obtain these objects as municipal property in order to improve the quality of the offered services by means of public benefits is therefore obvious. The priority lies in improving the access to the ports as the accessibility of a port determines whether port services are used or not in many cases.

FISHERIES Situation and main issues The Estonian Baltic herring quota of the joint Baltic herring resources of the middle part of the Baltic Sea was 12,124 tons in 2011 (including 10,998 tons for trawling in the open part of the Baltic Sea and 1,126 tons for coastal fishing, with 50 tons for Saaremaa and 50 tons for Hiiumaa as coastal fishing). According to the data of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the situation concerning the Baltic herring in the middle part of the Baltic Sea shows signs of overfishing and using the Baltic herring resources at the current intensity is not sustainable. The Estonian European sprat quota of the joint European sprat resources of the Baltic Sea was 36,735 tons in 2011. According to the data of the ICES, the situation concerning the joint European sprat resources shows signs of overfishing and using the European sprat resources at the current intensity is not sustainable. The Estonian cod quota of the cod resources of the eastern part of the Baltic Sea was 1,205.2 tons in 2011. According to the data of the ICES, using the cod resources of the eastern part of the Baltic Sea at the current intensity is sustainable. The Estonian salmon quota of the joint salmon resources of the open part of the Baltic Sea was 5,267 fish in 2011. According to the data of the ICES, the quotas allocated for the joint salmon resources of the Baltic Sea have been too big in the previous years and the total salmon quota will be reduced in the next few years. The economic development of the Estonian fishing sector has been slow and substantially so compared to the development of other economic sectors whereas the rate of investments is the lowest and the proportion of depreciation in the total expenses of companies is one of the highest in the fishing sector. Fishing is divided into trawling and coastal fishing in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area. Coastal fishing is performed up to 12

www.baltseaplan.eu 33 4. Stocktake nautical miles from the coast or up to 20 m isobath. The working season of coastal fishermen is up to 4 months per year as estimated by fishermen and most of the professional coastal fishermen perform fishing as an additional source of income that is secondary to other work. The Baltic herring, European sprat, cod and the European flounder are the most economically important of the caught fish, and also salmon to a lesser extent. 20,361 tons of fish were unloaded in the ports of Saaremaa in 2010 (23.3% of all the fish unloaded in Estonian ports) and 1,858 tons of fish in the ports of Hiiumaa (2.1% of all the fish unloaded in Estonian ports).

FISH FARMING There is no development of fish farming in net pens in the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area. There are currently no known intentions to develop fish farming in net pens in Hiiumaa and Saaremaa.

CABLE LINES The underwater cable lines located in the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area are indicated on the navigation map of the marine area under Estonian jurisdiction as published by the Maritime Administration (Figures 2, 3). The buffer zone for the cables is 0,5 nautical miles. There are plans to construct wind farms in the marine area of the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area and construct new cable lines to connect the wind farms to the mainland grid. Fishing and environmental organisations have expressed the opinion that the electromagnetic field created around the new cable lines may hinder migration of fish in the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area. In the course of environmental impact assessment and disclosure for the planned wind farms, it must be ensured that this issue is addressed upon constructing new cable lines in the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area and that alleviating measures are used to reduce the electromagnetic field (e.g. shielding, sinking, preferably use of triple core alternating current cables). (Öhman, M.C., P. Sigray, and H. Westerberg. 2007. Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio 36:630–633; Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, 2011. Environmental impact assessment regarding construction of offshore wind farms in South-West Estonian coastal waters (Opinion of M. Vetemaa regarding possible effects of wind farms on fish fauna and fishing).

NATIONAL DEFENCE Use of marine areas is also required to organise training for the Defence Forces of Estonia and other authorities. The Ministry of Defence has prepared the “Development Programme of Defence Forces for Training Areas at Sea” for this purpose; strategic environmental impact assessment has been performed for the said programme pursuant to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act. The said programme designates the training areas for the Navy and the locations for anti-aircraft and artillery shooting exercises directed from the land to sea. According to the current practice, “reservation” of marine areas for military exercises is performed by passing the Planning Act and using the Defence Forces Organisation Act that prescribes the possibility to create a temporary military zone.40 Monitoring corridors where the spread of light and radio waves would not be hindered must be additionally ensured upon planning marine areas. The main conflicting use of the sea lies in offshore wind farms where the interests of the Ministry of Defence have to be taken into account for planning thereof. Main issues Kõpu Training Area has been designated on the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area; the training grounds may pose a threat to ships that pass the western edge of Kõpu Peninsula (Ristna) at a very close range. However, the planned area is generally located in a region with relatively little traffic. The most important factors that limit the use of training grounds are marine mammals, wild birds and use of the region by people for recreation

40 Practice and legal bases of spatial planning of Estonian marine areas. Tartu 2010, OÜ Hendrikson & Ko, pages 12-13.

34 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake purposes. The region is a valued recreation area and it is also a valuable bird area that is used by the Steller’s eider (a species of Annex I to the Birds Directive)41 for wintering among other water birds. Vision and trends The current practice where the use of the sea for national defence is not regulated through the Planning Act and the situation where the information is partially classified has brought about a situation where both developers and the state have insufficient information regarding the values in terms of nature conservation in a certain marine area, of areas important for national defence and closed for development, or of areas important for the local community for other values. It is therefore, important to involve the Ministry of Defence in the initial stages of the planning process in order to determine the areas that are important for military purposes and thereby avoid and resolve any possible conflicts at the first stages of the plan. This approach would help reduce any possible fears or misconceptions that manifest in a situation with no clarity as to what and to what extent the planned use of the sea will affect.

SOURCES OF POLLUTION The Baltic Sea, located between developed industrial and agricultural countries, is a sea with one of the heaviest pollution burdens. Various toxic substances are dumped into the sea from many local sources in addition to diffuse sources of pollution. The limited water exchange with the ocean causes accumulation of toxic substances in the Baltic Sea. While the content of some toxic substances such as lead, mercury and DDT in nature has decreased as of the 1970s thanks to limits on usage, eutrophication is an increasing problem nowadays. Eutrophication means inflow of nutrients that limit plant growth (N, P) to the body of water either in organic or inorganic form. The primary production of the body of water increases due to the nutrients, causing deposition of more organic matter in turn. The composition of flora also usually changes. Regardless of origin, the direct consequences of organic pollution to our marine biota are similar. Due to low salinity, the impact of pollution for biota is often stronger in the Baltic Sea than in other seas. The biota is also not numerous in species and it is therefore, easier to spin the ecosystem out of balance. The concentrations of nutrients are generally uniformly distributed in the seawater of the open part of the Baltic Sea and the concentration has been increasing in the surface layer in the last few years. The diffused loading of the entire Baltic Sea impacts the concentrations of nutrients of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa marine area the most; the impact of Estonian sources of pollution on the quality of water is trivial. In addition to direct human impact, the concentrations of nutrients may be modulated by the hydrophysical conditions of the sea. When the salinity of water close to the seabed increases, a condition of deficit of oxygen is created below the halocline, causing the discharge of large amounts of nutrients from seafloor sediment, whereas such pollution load may exceed the pollution loads currently originating from the coastal sea by tens or even a hundred times. Close cooperation of all the Baltic Sea countries with the aim of decreasing the sources of pollution will help decrease the pollution load.

MINING MINERAL RESOURCES FROM SEA The main mineral resources in the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are sand deposits (Figures 2, 3), with the Port of Tallinn having the right to survey and use (permit for special use of water) them. According to our data, the said sand deposits have not been utilised yet, although all the prerequisites for utilisation are met. The sand of the Kõpu sand deposit is of very good quality and using it for filling for water engineering does not seem rational. It would be much more practical to use the sand for manufacturing construction materials.

OFFSHORE WIND FARMS Main issues

41 Strategic environmental impact report for Development Programme of Defence Forces for Training Grounds for Sea. Tallinn University of Technology, Marine Systems Institute. Tallinn 2009.

www.baltseaplan.eu 35 4. Stocktake

The main problem with construction of offshore wind farms in the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area is the lack of reliable knowledge with regard to the impact of the wind farms on the important natural values of the region and the socio-economic situation. Constructing the wind farms will most likely change the views of the sea to a great extent and thus reduce the reputation of untouched nature that is characteristic of the region of the islands and valued and thereby reduce the ability of the region to attract tourists and tourism developers. Constructing the wind farms may also affect the wave conditions that are important for local marine traffic and water sports (surfing). In terms of nature conservation, the main problem is that the planned areas of the Hiiumaa wind farm overlap with stopover and feeding grounds of water birds (above all the long- tailed duck, but also divers and the little gull as important species of the Birds Directive, as well as the common eider, common scoter and the globally threatened Steller’s eider). The risk factor is the greatest on the Neupokojev (substantial stopover on the migration path of birds) and Apollo (stopover grounds for the long-tailed duck of international importance) shallows. The impact on wild birds is obvious both in the construction stage of the wind farm (disturbance and change of foodbase and conditions) as well as in the operating phase (changes in flight path caused by migration obstacle and hazard of collision)42. Main factors beneficial for development The factors that are beneficial for constructing wind farms in the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are the sufficient potential of wind energy characteristic for the respective marine area and the existence of sufficient shallows on which it is technically easier and economically more feasible to construct the wind farms. The fact that the Republic of Estonia has undertaken international obligations to increase the proportion of renewable energy also advances the construction of wind farms. Vision and trends OÜ Nelja Energia started the development of the Hiiumaa offshore wind farm in 2006; in the same year, the company Hiiumaa Offshore Tuulepark OÜ was specially established for the project. Construction of the Hiiumaa offshore wind farm is planned to take place in stages, starting in 2017. It will take at least 3 years to construct the offshore wind farm with the planned capacity along with power grid connection and development work.

The plan is to construct approximately 200 wind turbines. The unit capacity of the wind turbines is 3-5 MW. The planned total output of the wind farm is roughly 700 MW and the respective annual output at approximately 2.6 TWh. The final total capacity and annual output will depend on the choice and placement of the wind turbines. The designed lifetime of the wind turbines is 20 years.

The wind farm will be constructed in three groups or sections of wind turbines on Neupokojev, Vinkov and Apollo shallows to the north, north-west and west of Hiiumaa whereas the first two of the aforesaid are located in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area (Figure 3). The wind farm will be connected to the Estonian power grid. The final location of the connection point and the connection scheme will largely depend on the further development of the entire energy system of the Baltic States.

TOURISM AND RECREATION Main issues The issues related to tourism in the marine area of the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area are generally the same as those for islands and the tourism of the Western Estonian region as a whole: 1) the possibilities for active recreation related to the sea are not well developed; 2) seasonality of the tourism and recreation period – the three summer months serve as the peak season while the utility rate is satisfactory only in accommodations that offer sanatorium services for the rest of the year; and

42 Järvik, A. et al Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, 2011. Assessment of environmental impacts related to construction of offshore wind farms in the coastal waters of North-Western Estonia. (Assessment of wild birds – A. Leito).

36 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

4. Stocktake

3) the infrastructure servicing recreation and tourism is insufficiently developed (highways, modern communication services, access to ports of various sizes, etc.). Main factors beneficial for development The beautiful and clean nature of the region of the islands creates good prerequisites for development of ecotourism and recreation. The constantly developing infrastructure creates better conditions for servicing a higher number of tourists and vacationers during the relatively short summer peak season. The last is expressly related to increasing the volume of port services in Saaremaa Port that is currently substantially hindered by the insufficient development and capacity with regard to infrastructure for servicing cruise tourists. The potential for developing surfing as a sport arising from the unique wind conditions on Hiiumaa is an important factor.

Vision and trends Pursuant to the Western Estonian Tourism Development Plan 2013, the development vision for the Hiiumaa and Saaremaa tourism and recreation sector is as follows: “By 2013, Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Lääne County will be a tourism, recreation and social and economic environment that is well-known in Europe, recognised in the Baltic Sea region and the market leader in the national market; the aforesaid environment will develop and offer in close cooperation well preserved and diverse natural communities, distinctive cultural heritage and high-quality sea and health tourism around the year.” One of the important objectives of tourism development of Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Lääne County is developing Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Lääne County as a region based on sea tourism along with Pärnu County to become the development centre of Estonian sea tourism along with similar sea tourism regions in Sweden and Finland. Developing sea tourism is one of the priorities in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa marine area; as far as product innovation goes, sea tourism based on minor ports will be focused on, elaborating yacht and launch lanes connecting the minor ports of Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Lääne County and the respective service packages. Coastal hiking routes are prepared as additional services for coastal accommodation where the hiking will take place on a boat, canoe or kayak and focus on observation of the landscape, flora and wild birds as well as recreational fishing. For example, the Development Plan 2007–2013 of Kihelkonna Rural Municipality located on Saaremaa sets out the vision to be a well-known and valued tourism and recreation region by 2013 with the good reputation thereof based on the local clean natural environment, preserved heritage landscapes, rich cultural heritage and national traditions that support a way of life based on the sea and sustainability.

4.2.3. Additional issues (trends, strategies) Saaremaa and Hiiumaa are well known as regions boasting beautiful nature and historical cultural heritage. The development plans of the rural municipalities bordering the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area (Kihelkonna, Mustjala and Leisi in Saare County, Emmaste and Kõrgessaare in Hiiu County) set out the main natural values of the region that may directly or indirectly affect the use of the marine area: 1) clear sea horizon; 2) relatively untouched nature; and 3) abundance of scenic points of interest. The natural values and strong cultural traditions referred to above create favourable conditions to develop the following fields related to the marine area: 1) coastal sea and nature tourism; 2) network of recreational craft traffic and minor ports; 3) recreational craft tourism; 4) servicing cruise and cargo ships in Saaremaa Deep-sea Port; and 5) development of the fishing industry and fishing. The Hiiumaa-Saaremaa marine area is an area with favourable wind conditions and shallows that create good prerequisites for development of offshore wind farms and development of sailing and surfing sports in the respective region.

www.baltseaplan.eu 37 5. Conflict Analysis

5. Conflict Analysis 5.1. General overview For the project area in total 12 different uses and 23 combinations of different uses were identified (Table 3, Figure 9). Most of the project area is attributed to single use by one of the identified uses (Figure 10). Largest portion of sea area is devoted to „fishing“. Large sea uses are also in this project area such uses as the planned military training area (large sea area south from Kõpu peninsula), mining areas located in three different slots north from Kõpu peninsula, and also different nature protection areas both close to Saaremaa island in the southern part of the project area as well as some coastal areas of Hiiumaa island and one large offshore area. Most cases of possible conflicts in the current planning area are caused by overlapping of the areas devoted to other possible seauses and „fishing“. These conflicts are usually not severe and are solved by establishing the rules for restrictions of fishing in favour of other particular uses. In some single cases of multiuse the need for legal or regulatory solution is needed as mapped interests are excluding each other. This is the case of overlapping of the planned military and wind farm areas and overlap of the planned wind farm area and mining area west of Kõpu peninsula. Same applies for areas northwards were planned area for cables is overlapping with mining areas and here simple adjustments and careful reconsidering of the cable routes will allow to avoid direct conflict. The planned wind farm area north-west of Hiiumaa island is partly overlapping with the existing cables – in this case the location of the windfarm should be adjusted. Most complicated situation in current case is area of Soela straight were the limited area of 5 potential uses can be identified but all those uses are non-conflicting and so there is no need of any conflict solving procedure. Table 3. Coding of different seause combinations in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa area Dumping Nature Cultural Shipping Code Shiproute Beach Cables area protection Fishing heritage area Mining Military Windfarm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 38 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

5. Conflict Analysis

Figure 9. Combinations of different uses in Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area

Figure 10. Number of uses in Hiiumaa and Saaremaa pilot area

www.baltseaplan.eu 39 5. Conflict Analysis

5.2. Main conflicts in the pilot area The main (potential) conflicts in the area are related to the planned wind farms and their potential impacts on fisheries, nature conservation objectives (mainly impacts on birds), recreation (water sports) and tourism (clean horizon). The currently planned wind farm locations are also partly overlapping with other uses (cables, sand extraction areas, military training areas) but those conflicts can be easily avoided through adjusting the locations of the planned activities. The planned Kõpu military training area can have negative impact on marine mammals, wild birds and use of the region by people for recreation purposes. An inventory of valuable habitats and species is currently going on around Kõpu Peninsula (Figure 10) that might result in establishment of a new marine protected area. Results of the inventory must be considered when planning new activities that might be in conflict with nature conservation objectives. Due to the vicinity of big shipping routes there is also a danger of oil pollution, which is a threat for nature values. A conflict pointed out by stakeholders is the conflict between coastal and trawling fisheries – the assumption is that lack of fish in coastal waters could be caused by intensive trawling in areas deeper than 20 m. But this still needs further investigation.

40 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions

6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions There are obviously conflicts between the need to utilize the marine resources and the need to manage and protect these resources. However, all existing legal human activities in the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa sea areas are regulated by different relevant legal acts in force. In this sense the sea areas concerned are already „planned“ which means that sea space is allocated to different kind of sea use (not to confuse with sea space allocation to different legal entities) according to legal acts in force. For example, the purpose of Estonian Fishing Act is to ensure the sustainable use of fishery and aquatic plant resources arising from the principles of responsible fisheries. Fishing is performed pursuant to fishing rights that are either free of charge or subject to a fee. The Fishing Rules, a secondary legislation, specify and put in force all the necessary details of the fishery management. The Fishing Rules list and describe 1) the fishing gear, 2) close seasons and forbidden areas for fishing, 3) minimum standard size of fish and the by-catch conditions, 4) restrictions and requirements for fishing gear and fishing methods, 5) documents certifying the fishing rights etc. This means that fishing rights are allocated and enforced both spatially and temporally, and the associated technical conservation measures are prescribed in necessary details. There are many different complex and often overlapping existing human use rights (public access rights, riparian rights, fishing rights, navigation rights, seabed use rights etc.) that are affected by the emerging maritime spatial planning. However, the planning itself needs also to be performed according to Estonian Planning Act that regulates relations between the state, local governments and other persons in the preparation of plans with aim to ensure conditions which take into account the needs and interests of the widest possible range of members of society for balanced and sustainable spatial development. The strategic environmental assessment resulting from implementation of the planning policy is organised in the cases and pursuant to the procedure provided for in the Estonian Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act. All existing human use rights, including the overlapping ones, are allocated and enforced according to the harmonized system of legal acts in force. Therefore, the existing human use activities performed according to issued permits and licenses usually are not in conflict, and if there is any, then there are the legal procedures in force to resolve these conflicts as appropriate. Introduction of the new kind of human activity (e.g. development of the wind farm area) presumes the democratic process of stakeholder participation which takes into account the long-term strategies and needs for the development of the economic, social, cultural and natural environment. Method for dealing with the identified conflicts is the consensus building stakeholder meetings as an obligatory element of the maritime planning process facilitated by the BSP project representatives. More specifically, the Mutual Learning methodology is used. Proposed solutions and recommendations are conflict specific. 1. The spatial overlapping of the fishing area (existing human use) and the wind farm area (planned human use) will develop into the conflict if decision on development of the wind farms will be done. Technically speaking it means the spatial restriction of existing fishing rights with or no compensation and amendment of the Fishing Rules accordingly. Strong opposition of environmentalists (important bird migration routes), fishery (shallow sea productive fishing grounds) and the tourist industry (visual pollution vs. the clean horizon what the industry sells) is expected. It is proposed to resolve this potential spatial conflict either technically based on the provisions of existing legislation or in a course of negotiations of parties concerned. In any case the dispute will involve strong political and legal argumentation. 2. The spatial overlapping of military training area (planned human use) and of wind farm area (planned human use) is causing the potential spatial conflict that will be resolved either based on the provisions of existing legislation or in a course of negotiations of a parties concerned. It is proposed to base the solution basically on the political priority scale – political defence interests vs. political obligations to develop the renewable energy generation. It is expected that dispute will mainly involve strong political argumentation. 3. The spatial overlapping of the sea sand mining areas (existing permit by Port of Tallinn, mining not started yet) and of planned area for cables (planned human use in connection with the planned wind farm development) is causing the potential spatial conflict of mutually excluding human uses. Based on understanding that the Port of Tallinn (research and mining permit’s holder) has already made considerable investments into research and preparations for sea sand mining it is quite natural to propose that wind farm developers should re-route the planned cable areas in a way that they will not be in conflict with the rightful

www.baltseaplan.eu 41 6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions expectations of the Port of Tallinn with regard of made investment. It is expected that the dispute, if it would arise, will mainly involve strong legal and economic argumentation. 4. The spatial overlapping of the multiple but not exclusive human uses in the Soela Strait sea area is seen as an example of the complex management of multiple rights, restrictions and responsibilities that is done by harmonizing the terms and conditions of the corresponding permits and licences. However, it is proposed to make it explicitly clear who has rights of use and stewardship and who has rights to make and enforce decisions regarding marine area concerned.

42 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

7. Spatial Plan

7. Spatial Plan As mentioned before it was not possible to compile a spatial plan for the Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area in the course of the BaltSeaPlan project due to the fact that the official planning procedure could not be initiated and the Strategic Environmental Assessment could not be carried out. However, the aspects highlighted below should be considered while compiling the plan. The existing uses in Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area include fishing, submarine cables, shipping/boating, dumping grounds, sand extraction study areas (extraction not started yet), small ports and beaches (Figure 3) as well as nature protection (Figures 5, 6, 7). Also surfing is actually an on-going use but no official surfing areas have been officially established yet. The proposal for surfing areas (Figure 4) has been received from the Estonian Windsurfing Association. All the current uses do not have major conflicts. The only conflict pointed out by stakeholders was the conflict between coastal and trawling fisheries – the assumption is that lack of fish in coastal waters could be caused by intensive trawling in areas deeper than 20 m. In case of introduction of new activities some new spatial or temporal restrictions might be needed to apply for the existing activities. Concerning future activities, there are currently identified only interests to establish offshore wind farms and a military training area (Figure 4). An inventory of valuable habitats and species is currently going on around Kõpu Peninsula (Figure 10) that might result in establishment of a new marine protected area. The EIA report for Hiiumaa wind farm has been prepared and a public hearing has taken place but no decision has been made yet. There are still some conflicting issues that should be solved before giving a permit for the wind farm (conflicts with surfing, bird protection as well as tourism/recreation interests). The conditions for establishing the planned military training area are the following: > A thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) has to be carried out, considering amongst others the impacts on marine ecosystem and biodiversity (especially migrating and nesting birds, the ringed seal, valuable habitats and other conservation objectives of protected areas) as well as socio-economic impacts (e.g. impacts on tourism & recreation). > An appropriate assessment according to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the EU Habitats Directive has to be carried out because there are several Natura 2000 sites that might be affected by the planned military practice area. > The military practice area can be established only if the results of EIA and appropriate assessment will prove that it will not have any significant impacts on marine ecosystem and on the conservation objectives of protected areas/Natura 2000 sites. In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected. (Article 6.4)

www.baltseaplan.eu 43 8. Recommendations

8. Recommendations and future steps to implement MSP According to the Estonian law (Planning Act) MSP is possible but there are still some legal deficits and unclear aspects. Also the human resources and information basis for MSP are weak especially at the municipalities. Such problems were also emphasized in the stakeholders meetings carried out in the frames of the BaltSeaPlan project. However the new national spatial plan (Estonia 2030+) that is under development will cover also MSP to some extent. Currently the borders in the sea between the municipalities are not set and this should be done in the frames of national spatial plan. National maritime policy should facilitate development of maritime spatial planning. The draft National Development Plan “Estonian Maritime Policy” foresees development of an official pilot MSP in 2013 (planned to be developed for Pärnu Bay) and preparation of MSPs for all counties by 2020. The latter deadline might be too late, considering all wind farm and other plans for use of the Estonian marine area. In the Estonian circumstances the following is important in order to realize the MSP: > Establishment of proper legal basis for MSP in Estonia (including land-sea planning harmonization, hierarchical planning system, zoning principles in MSP); o Maritime spatial plans should be developed for the Estonian marine area. It is recommended to apply similar principles for spatial planning in marine as well as terrestrial areas, considering thereby the differences arising from different character of sea and land. o It is advisable to take the existing categories of spatial plans as basis also for planning of marine areas. That means that the general principles of MSP should be set in the national spatial plan (in addition to the territorial sea, the directions can be given also for the EEZ in co-operation with other countries). County level spatial plans should be elaborated for the whole Estonian marine area and in case of need also general or detailed spatial plans for certain areas. o MSP documents should be in line with and basis for the permits/licences issued through specific regulations. For example, if the spatial plan foresees sand mining in a certain area then no permits for conflicting uses are given (before the relevant spatial plan must be changed). > Establishment of clear priorities or at least general principles for solving conflicts between different interests/uses in MSP process in Estonian marine areas. > Sea use development should be sustainable and based on eco-system approach. It should follow the goals of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. MSP should be used as an instrument to avoid cumulative effects of the sea use activities on marine biodiversity; > Development of information basis for MSP, e.g. through development of the cross-use system of the existing data bases (Land Board, Maritime Administration, Environmental Register etc.). The database(s) should follow EU standards (Inspire directive), be regularly updated and be available for MSP development and permitting process on sea use activities; Development of research agenda for MSP e.g. o Filling data gaps on marine biodiversity in the whole Estonian marine area; o Research on impacts of different scenarios of different sea uses and climate change; o Development of decision support models for MSP (e.g. from basic models on oils spills diffusion up to complex models for assessment of policy options for the sustainable management of maritime space); > Development of MSP methodology, including methodology for new type of approaches in planning process e.g. blue corridors, intelligent corridors etc.; > Development of human capacity for the MSP; > Application of Pan-Baltic thinking perspective in the national MSP process, to regard the Baltic Sea as one planning space and ecosystem to be shared.

44 BaltSeaPlan – Report 14 – Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands

9. Lessons learnt

9. Lessons learnt The strategic environmental impact assessment should be the basis of planning the use of marine space. In the frame of the BaltSeaPlan project this activity was not foreseen which means that although stakeholders were active to represent and defend their interests the analyses worked out in the frame of the project could only be suggestive and rely on previous sectorial based analyses or available background information. Estonian marine space in present is already organised by different legal acts but new sea uses such as wind farms cannot be planned using the sectorial based approach. Organizing the sea space needs clear priorities or at least general principles for solving conflicts between different interests/uses in MSP process. Another important aspect witnessed during the BaltSeaPlan project was the unclarity of national legislation and distribution of responsibilities at the state level. It is not set yet who should initiate the MSP and how can local or county governments find resources to cover their responsibilities. Although municipalities/counties recognise MSP as a positive tool for the future they see a strong need for additional human and financial resources. Currently there is no common understanding at the state level how it would be best to divide responsibilities and also how to draw the administrative borders in the sea. Also lack of data was a challenge for the BaltSeaPlan project team. This concerns mainly data on marine species and habitats as well as data on impacts of different activities on marine environment. The conclusion of the project team and involved stakeholders was that a lot of research is still needed to make the right decisions for planning the sustainable use of marine space. Considering the high costs of marine research it should be the responsibility of the state to initiate the relevant research programme and plan its financing.

www.baltseaplan.eu 45 The BaltSeaPlan project in general Activities Partners BaltSeaPlan activities were designed to support all major Germany aspectsf o maritime spatial planning within the Baltic Sea • Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH), region: Lead Partner > Improving the joint information base / stocktaking for • Ministry of Energy, Infrastructure and Regional maritime spatial planning: Development of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern • WWF Germany, Baltic Sea Unit A r forum fo dialogue bringing together spatial planners and scientists and identify sources of data / information. Poland Compiling current uses, conflicts and natural values of • Maritime Office in Szczecin the Baltic Sea. Filling data gaps, exchange of data, im- • Maritime Office in Gdynia prove integration of ecological and socio-economic data • Maritime Institute in Gdańsk sets, identify relevant modelling methods, clarify MSP data needs. Denmark > Including Spatial Planning in • Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University (formerly National Maritime Strategies National Environmental Research Institute – NERI) Assessment of national frameworks, methodologies and Sweden sectoral strategies that influence the use of sea space • Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) (e.g. energy, fishery, transport, tourism, as well as na- • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency ture conservation) Estonia Developing recommendations on spatial issues within National Maritime Strategies. • Estonian Marine Institute of University of Tartu • Baltic Environmental Forum Estonia Exploiting the visions to foster a national cross-sectoral debate, discussing goals & targets for dealing with space Lithuania and filling gaps in national sectoral policies & strategies • Klaipėda University Coastal Research and > Develop a Vision for Maritime Spatial Planning Planning Institute (CORPI) in the Baltic Sea 2030 • Baltic Environmental Forum Lithuania taking into account transnational interdependencies Latvia and cumulative impacts • Baltic Environmental Forum Latvia initiate a Baltic Sea region wide campaign as to discuss the BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030 > Demonstrate MSP in 8 pilot areas • Danish Straights / T-Route (DK) • Pomeranian Bight (DE/DK/SE/PL) • Western Gulf of Gdansk (PL) • Middle Bank (SE/PL) • Lithuanian Sea (LT) • Latvian Sea (LV) • Pärnu Bay (EE) • Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands (EE) > Lobbying and capacity building for MSP • stakeholder involvement & participative planning methods • BaltSeaPlan series of guidelines & policy recommen- dations • workshops & conferences for decision-makers

BaltSeaPlan Publications • BaltSeaPlan Findings • BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030 – Towards the sustainable planning of Baltic Sea space • Become a Maritime Spatialist within 10 Minutes (EN, DE, LV, LT, PL, EE) • BaltSeaPlan Bulletin #1 • BaltSeaPlan Bulletin #2 • BaltSeaPlan Project Flyer (EN, DE, LV, LT, PL, EE, SE)

BaltSeaPlan Reports Impact Assessments 1 - Strategies with relevance for Estonian maritime space 2 - Strategies with relevance for German maritime space 3 - Strategies with relevance for Latvian maritime space 4 - Strategies with relevance for Lithuanian maritime space 5 - Strategies with relevance for Polish maritime space 6 - Strategies with relevance for Russian maritime space 7 - Strategies with relevance for Swedish maritime space 8 - Implications of the international and national policy context for Baltic Sea space and MSP Pilot MSP reports 9 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Pomeranian Bight and Arkona Basin 10 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Middle Bank 11 - Developing a Pilot SEA for the Western Gulf of Gdansk 12 - Preparing for a MSP at the Danish Straits 13 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Pärnu Bay 14 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands 15 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Lithuanian Sea 16 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Western Coast of Latvia MSPs and SEA 17 - Pilot MSP for the Western Coast of Latvia (LV) 18 - SEA for the Western Gulf of Gdansk (PL) Technical reports 19 - Modelling for MSP – Tools, concepts, applications 20 - Data exchange structure for MSP 21 - Effects of underwater noise on harbour porpoises around major shipping lanes 22 - Remote sensing methods for detecting small fishing vessels and fishing gear 23 - Legal and planning options for integrating fisheries into Maritime Spatial Planning 24 - Stakeholder Involvement in MSP 25 - SEA in MSP: Recommendations from the German and Polish experience 26 - Fisheries in the MSP context 27 - Seabed and habitat mapping in the Hatter Barn area 28 - BaltSeaPlan Web-advanced tool in support of MSP 29 - Case Study: Systematic site selection for offshore windpower with Marxan in the pilot area Pomeranian Bight 30 - Case Study: Site selection of fisheries areas for MSP 31 - Recommendations for legislative action regarding the MSP in Europe Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has become a widely acknowledged and necessary tool for co-ordinating spatial use and balancing of interests in the sea. In view of expanding activities such as offshore wind energy parks and growing shipping traffic and at the same time increasing needs to protect the marine environment a systematic, integrative and forward- looking planning is required in order to safeguard the sustainable development of the seas. Currently, however, this tool is far from being established practice.

The 3.7 million € INTERREG IVB project “BaltSeaPlan” (2009–2012) has been the largest project in recent years dealing with maritime spatial planning throughout the Baltic Sea Region. Under the lead of the German Federal Maritime and Hydro- graphic Agency (BSH) and covering partners from all Baltic Sea countries (except Finland) the project has not only developed pilots in 8 demonstration areas, but also advanced methods, instruments & tools as well as data exchange necessary for an effective maritime spatial planning.

The results of BaltSeaPlan are published in a series of reports all available for free download under www.baltseaplan.eu.

The Hiiumaa-Saaremaa pilot area – located in the open part of the Baltic Sea – has the most “sea-like conditions” of the Esto- nian coastal waters, with higher salinity & waves, lower nutrient concentration and less human activities than other areas. Also nature protection is only in place in coastal areas. Due to favourable wind conditions and shallow water the area is showing good prerequisites for development of offshore wind farms and development of sailing and surfing sports. The BaltSeaPlan Report � 14“Towards a Pilot MSP for Saaremaa & Hiiumaa Islands” shows the stocktake of the area including methods for how to gen- erate information in case of missing data sources. It also describes the stakeholder involvement and conflict analysis undertaken. In view of missing legislation for MSP in Estonia at the current stage it does not go the full cycle by actually proposing a MSP for the area.

Project part-financed by the European Union Project part-financed by the (EuropeanEuropean Union Regional ISBN Development 978-3-86987-410-4 Fund) (European Regional Development Fund)