The Representation of Wetland Types and Species in RAMSAR Sites in The

Home , Allu (island), Arctophila fulva, Narewka (river), Wetland classification

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 1 2 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area White waterlily, Nymphaea alba

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

In order to get a better reference the future and long-term planning of activities aimed for the protection of wetlands and their ecological functions, WWF Sweden initiated an evaluation of the representation of wetland types and species in the RAMSAR network of protected sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. The study was contracted to Dr Mats Eriksson (MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Sweden), who has been assisted by Mrs Alda Nikodemusa, based in Riga, for the compilation of information from the countries in Eastern Europe.

Mats O.G. Eriksson MK Natur- och Miljökonsult HB, Tommered 6483, S-437 92 Lindome, Sweden With assistance by Alda Nikodemusa, Kirsu iela 6, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 3 Contents

Foreword 5

Summary 6

Sammanfattning på svenska 8

Purpose of the study 10

Background and introduction 10

Study area 12

Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the representation of wetland types in the catchment area 16 Analyses of the representation of species 18

Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types 20 The inclusion of wetland and inland waters in the RAMSAR network, in relation to total surface area 20 Analysis and comments for the various wetland types 21 Priorities with reference to the various wetland types 26

Representation of species 28

Country-wise analyses and comments 32 Guidelines for the proposal of additional sites 37

Protection and management of the sites 38

Notes, tables and figures 40

Acknowledgements & production 56

References etc 58

4 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Foreword 5

Summary 6

Sammanfattning på svenska 8

Purpose of the study 10

Background and introduction 10

Study area 12

Methods 14 Land-use in the catchment area 14 Definitions and classification of wetland types 14 Kuhmo, Finland Country-wise analyses of the representation of wetland types 15 Accuracy of the analysis 16 Overall analysis of the representation Foreword of wetland types in the catchment area 16 Analyses of the representation of species 18 The Convention of Wetlands was signed network of wetlands which are impor- and sustainable way. These ecosystem Wetland surface areas and in the city of Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Over tant for the conservation of global bio- services are of course of great impor- 150 countries have signed the conven- diversity and for sustaining human life tance for the Baltic Sea. Even more im- representation of wetland types 20 tion covering 1743 wetland sites and diversity trough the ecological and hy- portant, though, are wetlands services The inclusion of wetland and inland waters some 161 million hectares of Wetlands drological functions they perform”. as carbon sinks, reducing greenhouse in the RAMSAR network, in relation to total surface area 20 of International importance. Since the The Baltic Sea catchment is the area emissions and as stores against floods, Analysis and comments for the various wetland types 21 very beginning, WWF has actively par- in Europe with most remaining and which we will see more of due to climate ticipated in the Convention work at all most varied types of wetlands - from change. Priorities with reference to the various wetland types 26 levels - national, regional and interna- unique aapa mires and large rivers in To highlight the importance and Representation of species 28 tional. the northern taiga areas to gypsum beauty of wetlands, WWF presents this We fully support the vision “to de- karst lakes in Lithuanian and large report covering ten countries in the Bal- Country-wise analyses and comments 32 velop and maintain an international floodplains in Bierbza, Poland. The re- tic Sea catchment. This will in fact be gion also has unique coastal and ma- the first time that wetlands in the Baltic Guidelines for the proposal of additional sites 37 rine areas, wide coastal meadows, spits, Sea catchment are assessed and present- and large archipelagos. However, there ed over country borders. Protection and management of the sites 38 are huge differences in wetland cover- WWF thinks that it is time to change age between different parts of the Baltic attitudes and practices – we need to stop Notes, tables and figures 40 Sea catchment, from 25% coverage in seeing wetlands as problematic useless the north to only 2% in the south. areas filled with mosquitoes and not Acknowledgements & production 56 Wetlands have been drained for ag- suitable for anything but exploitation. ricultural or forest production, used for Instead, we need to start appreciating References etc 58 peat extraction, sand landfills or differ- wetlands for their many functions that ent kinds of exploitation, and construc- we will be needing more and more in tion works. The price of this destruction the future. has been a massive loss of biodiversity as well as other ecosystem services. To- day we know that wetlands can be important natural sinks reducing nutri- Lasse Gustavsson ents and others substances in a natural Secretary General, WWF Sweden

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 5 Summary

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the representation of different wetland types in the RAMSAR network in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, in order to get a reference for the future work by WWF for protection of wetlands and their ecological functions.

There are 171 RAMSAR sites in total in The need of complements has the catchment area, i.e. 10.6% of the to- been identified with reference tal number of 1609 sites in the world (as to three priority levels: by June 2006). However the total area of 24 336 km² corresponds to only 1.7% Very high priority: High priority: of the world-wide area of 1 458 000 km² Mires: Further sites with mire habi- Long stretches of large rivers with (in (and 1.4% of the Baltic Sea Catchment tats is top priority, considering the key all essentials) ecologically and hydro- Area). Thus, the mean size of the RAM- role of the countries in the Baltic Sea logically intact sections are almost com- SAR sites inside the Baltic Sea Catch- Catchment Area for the protection of pletely missing; at least one of the large ment Area is much smaller, 142 km², mires on a global scale, and taking into non-regulated rivers in Northern Sweden than the average of 906 km² for the account that peatlands in general are (Rivers Vindelälven, Piteälven, Kalixäl- whole world. under-represented on the world-wide ven, Torne Älv) should be included in the Taking the catchment area as a whole, RAMSAR list. Priority should be giv- RAMSAR list (transboundary site with 3% of the total of around 357 400 km² en to additional sites with raised bogs Finland for River Torne Älv). The upper/ of wetlands and inland waters is locat- in Denmark and Germany, aapa mires northern part of River Gauja in Latvia is ed inside the RAMSAR sites. For most in Sweden and Russian part of Karelia, another obvious candidate site. countries, the corresponding percentage and an overall better representation of Freshwater lakes are in general poorly is on the same level, with exceptions for calcareous/alkaline fens and bog wood- represented: Considering the richness of Latvia, Estonia and Denmark (8%, 9% lands. oligotrophic lakes in Finland and Swe- and 21%, respectively). For Estonia and Freshwater lakes: Inclusion of some of den, while not elsewhere in the catch- Latvia this reflects a general representa- the unique gypsum karst lakes in north- ment area (or Europe as a whole), under- tion above the level for most countries, ern Lithuania. representation in these two countries is and for Denmark the high percentage is not acceptable. For Denmark, some eu- primarily related to large areas of shal- trophic lakes on Sjælland and Jutland low marine habitats in the RAMSAR should be considered. network. Additional sites with marine and The work is based on country-wise coastal habitats in Latvia, Lithuania and analysis of the representation of various the Kaliningrad Region of Russia, in- wetland types inside the RAMSAR sites cluding relevant parts of the Kuronian in relation to the total coverage in the Lagoon. part of each country that falls in- Swamp woods / alluvial forests: Con- side the catchment areas. The sidering the constant threat and decline goals is to evaluate whether of this habitat, additional sites should be any biases and under-repre- considered for all parts of Sweden and sentation of wetland types (especially) Finland. have to be compensated with Also to be considered with priority are additional sites and exten- additional sites with marine and coast- sions to existing sites, al habitats along the coasts of Poland taking the objective of and Germany, watercourses for several a full representation of countries (e.g. Belarus, Denmark, Fin- the diversity of wetlands land) and better representation of fresh- on the national levels into water lakes in Estonia, Germany and account. Lithuania.

6 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area If the objective of a full representation of the diversity of wetland and their key ecological and hydrological functions is to be achieved, there is an overall need for additional sites. The shortage is primarily related to inadequate coverage of sites with reference to representative, rare and unique wetland types (i.e. RAMSAR criterion 1 for identifying wetlands of international importance) and threatened ecological communities (i.e. criterion 2). For the addition of new sites, mires of a good conservation sta- Northern seashore, Estonia tus with reference to hydrology and representation of species should be given a ver y high priority, taking Representation of species: Legal protection status: into account that peatlands are in Among 57 investigated taxa (56 of them For the EU member status, the RAM- general under-represented in the listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Di- SAR sites are in general adequately rep- international RAMSAR network. rective), as many as 23 (40%) were judged resented in the NATURA 2000 network. not be represented in an acceptable level Some minor adjustments might be need- There is also an under- in the RAMSAR network. This includes ed for Latvia and Estonia, while adjust- representation of sites that meet three of four taxa considered as priority, ments of the demarcations are needed the criteria based on species (e.g. and nine of 15 taxa which are endemic or for more than 20% of the sites in Swe- criteria 2, 3 and 4), including sites with substantial parts of their European den. For the non-member states, the le- for taxa that are considered prior- populations inside the Baltic Sea Catch- gal protection status is adequate for Nor- ity, endemic, or with substantial ment Area. Birds were not included in way and presumably also for the sites in parts of the European population the analyses of species. Russia and Belarus (although this needs inside the catchment area. to be further analysed).

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 7 Sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish)

Studiens syfte är att undersöka hur olika våtmarkstyper är representerade det s.k. RAMSAR-nätverket av skyddade områden i Östersjöns tillrinningsområde; för att få ett underlag för WWFs framtida arbete för att skydda våtmarker och dess ekologiska funktioner.

Det finns totalt 171 RAMSAR-områ- Behovet av kompletteringar den i tillrinningsområdet, vilket sva- har identifierad med hänsyn rar mot 10,6 % av totalt 1609 områden i till prioriteringar på tre nivåer: världen (i juni 2006) men den samman- Mycket hög prioritet Hög prioritet lagda arealen på 24 336 km² svarar bara Myrar: Fler områden med olika myr- Längre älvsträckor med (i allt väsent- mot 1,7 % av totalarealen globalt på typer har högsta prioritet, mot bak- ligt) intakt hydrologi och ekologi sak- 1 458 000 km² (och 1,4 % av Östersjöns grund av att länderna kring Östersjön nas nästan helt i RAMSAR-nätverket; tillrinningsområde). Den genomsnittli- spelar en nyckelroll för skyddet av my- åtminstone en av de stora oreglerade ga storleken på RAMSAR-områdena i rar på global nivå och att torvmarker norrlandsälvarna (Vindelälven, Piteäl- Östersjöns tillrinningsområde är sålun- generellt är underrepresenterade i det ven, Kalixälven, Torne älv) bör finnas da mycket mindre, 142 km², än genom- globala RAMSAR-nätverket. Prioritet med (gemensamt område med Finland snittet på 906 km² för hela världen. ska ges för fler områden med högmossar för Torne Älv). De övre delarna av Gau- Sett till hela tillrinningsområdet i Danmark och Tyskland, aapamyrar i ja i Lettland är ett annat lämpligt kan- finns 3 % av den totala våtmarksa- Sverige och den ryska delen av Karelen didatområde. realen på omkring 357 400 km² inom och en generellt bättre representation av Insjöar är överlag dåligt represen- RAMSAR-områdena. För flertalet av kalk-/rikkärr och skogbevuxna myrar. terade. Med tanke på det stora antalet de enskilda länderna ligger motsvaran- Insjöar: Några av de unika gipskarst- näringsfattiga klarvattenssjöar (oligo- de procenttal på ungefär samma nivå, sjöarna i Litauen bör inga i RAMSAR- mesotrofa sjöar) i Sverige och Finland med undantag för Lettland, Estland nätverket. men inte på övriga håll inom tillrin- och Danmark (8 %, 9 % resp. 21 %). För ningsområdet (eller Europa i sin hel- Estland och Lettland bedöms återspeg- het) är denna underrepresentation inte lar detta en representation över den ge- acceptabel. För Danmark bör ett antal nomsnittliga nivån för flertalet länder, naturligt eutrofa sjöar på Sjælland och och för Danmark kan det höga procent- Jylland övervägas. talet förklaras genom att stora marina Fler områden med marina miljöer grundbottenområden ingår i RAM- och kustmiljöer i Lettland, Litauen SAR-nätverket. och Kaliningradregionen i Ryssland, Arbetet bygger på separata analy- inklusive lämpliga delar av Kurland- ser för de olika länderna av represen- bukten etc. tationen av olika våtmarkstyper inom Lövsumpskogar: Med tanke på ett RAMSAR-områdena i relation till den konstant hot och ständigt minskande totala täckningen inom den del som lig- arealer av denna våtmarkstyp bör fler ger inom tillrinningsområdet; för att områden övervägas i Sverige och (spe- utvärdera om det finns skevheter eller ciellt) i Finland. en underrepresentation av våtmarks- typer som måste korrigeras genom att Därutöver bör man prioritera fler områ- fler områden tillförs nätverket och att den med marina miljöer och kustmiljöer befintliga områden utvidgas för att syf- utefter den polska och tyska kusten, vat- tet med en fullständig representation av tendrag i flera länder (t.ex. Vitryssland, mångfalden av våtmarker ska vara re- Four-spotted chaser Danmark, Finland) och en bättre repre- presenterad på de nationella nivåerna (Libellula quadrimaculata) sentation av insjöar i Estland, Tyskland ska uppnås. och Litauen.

8 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Om syftet med en fullständig representation av mångfalden av våtmarker och deras ekologiska och hydrologiska nyckelfunktioner skall uppnås finns det allmänt be- hov av fler områden. Bristerna är i första hand kopplade till otillräcklig representation av områden med representativa, sällsynta och unika våtmarkstyper (dvs. RAMSAR- kriterium 1 för identifieringen av våtmarker av internationell betydelse) och hotade ekologiska samhällen (dvs. kriterium 2).

Rock pool in the SW Archipelago För tillskottet av nya områden skall myrar med gynnsam bevaran- destatus med hänsyn till hydrologi och artrepresentation ges mycket hög prioritet, mot bakgrund av att torvmarker generellt är underre- Representationen av arter: Lagligt skydd: presenterade i det internationella Bland 57 undersökta taxa (56 av dem lis- För de länder som ingår i EU bedöm- RAMSAR-nätverket. tade i bilaga 2 i EUs s.k. habitatdirektiv) des att RAMSAR-områdena genomgå- bedömdes så många som 23 (40 %) att ende är tillfredsställande representera- Vidare är områden som inte vara representerade på en accep- de i NATURA 2000-nätverket. Mindre uppfyller kriterierna avseende tabel nivå. Bland underrepresenterade justeringar kan behövas i Lettland och arter (dvs. kriterierna 2, 3 och 4) taxa ingår tre av fyra prioriterade taxa, Estland, medan avgränsningarna bör ses underrepresenterade, inklusive och nio av 15 taxa som är endemiska över för mer än 20 % av områdena i Sve områden med prioriterade arter eller med avsevärda delar av den euro- rige. För länderna utanför EU bedöm- och arter som är endemiska el- peiska populationen inom Östersjöns des att det lagliga skyddet är tillräckligt ler med avsevärda delar av den tillrinningsområde. Fåglar ingick inte för områden i Norge och antagligen ock- europeiska populationen inom i analysen av arter. så i Ryssland och Vitryssland (men detta tillrinningsområdet. behöver analyseras bättre).

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 9 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the representation of different wetland types in the RAMSAR in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area in order to get a reference for the future work by WWF for protection of wetlands and their ecological functions

Background and introduction

The Convention of Wetlands (RAMSAR Convention) was launched in 1971 and went into force in 1975. It is a global environmental treaty aimed at “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”.

A main task of the RAMSAR conven- Contracting Parties (in San José, Costa The present study is primarily relevant tion is to list wetlands of international Rica, 1999) the Parties have agreed on with reference to the first objective importance, as an incitement to assure three main objectives: above i.e. to investigate to what extent their wise use, i.e. that “each Contracting 1) Establish national networks of RAM- the existing network of RAMSAR sites Party shall designate suitable wetlands SAR Sites which fully represent the di- meets the objective of representation of within their territory for inclusion in a versity of wetlands and their key ecolog- the diversity of wetlands, and to indicate List of Wetlands of International Impor- ical and hydrological functions, wetland types and sites to be considered tance” (ref. Article 2). Other important for any addition of new sites. elements are the national commitments 2) Contribute to maintaining global bi- At the 8th meeting of the Confer- to ensure the wise use of wetlands and to odiversity through the designation and ence of Contracting Parties (in Valen- cooperate on the international level. management of appropriate wetland cia, Spain, 2002) a resolution providing In order to realise the vision “to de- sites, guidelines for the designation of wetland velop and maintain an international types that are under-represented in the network of wetlands which are impor- 3) Foster co-operation among Contract- “List of Wetland of International Impor- tant for the conservation of global bio- ing Parties, the Convention's Interna- tance” was agreed. The wetland types in- diversity and for sustaining human life tional Organisation Partners, and local cluded in the resolution were coral reefs, through the ecological and hydrologi- stakeholders in the selection, designa- mangroves, wet grasslands and peatlands cal functions they perform”, adopted at tion, and management of RAMSAR (Resolution VIII.11, 2002); among which by the 7th meeting of the Conference of sites. the peatlands require special attention

Ingermanlandskie Islets, Russian part of the Gulf of Finland

10 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Peatland with ridges Lavkasoo National Park Estonia

with reference to the Baltic Sea Catch- in Europe, within the implementation The present study also includes an as- ment Area. Peatlands are assessed to of the two EU nature conservation di- sessment of the coverage of species list- cover around 4 100 000 km² in the world rectives on bird and habitat protection ed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive as a whole, of which almost 200 000 km² (“Birds Directive” from 1979 and “Hab- and confined to wetlands. Thus, crite- or 5% is located in the catchment area of itats Directive” from 1992), as well as ria 3 and 4 which are related to sites the Baltic Sea1. Even if these figures may for the implementation of the EU Water with populations of plant and/or ani- suffer from some degree of uncertainty, Framework Directive. mal species important for maintaining they clearly demonstrate that the coun- The present study is based on coun- the biological diversity of a particular tries around the Baltic Sea have a key try-wise analyses, with comparisons geographic region, or species at a criti- role to play for the fulfilment of the sec- of the total land-use and representa- cal stage in their life cycles are also rel- ond objective above with reference to the tion of various wetland types inside the evant for this study. The same applies protection, management and wise use of catchment area as a whole and for the to the “specific criteria based on fish” peatlands on a global scale. Wet grass- RAMSAR sites. This information was (i.e. criteria 7 and 8). lands, which are identified as being un- compiled for a common analysis for the Aspects to the “specific criteria der-represented on the global scale are whole catchment area. The main text is based on waterbirds” (i.e. criteria 5 and also found in the Baltic Sea Catchment complemented with primary data, sum- 6) have been satisfactorily tackled with Area. marised in country-wise annexes. the BirdLife study on “Important Bird Areas and potential Ramsar sites in Eu- In addition to the RAMSAR The relevance of the present study rope” (Callaghan et al. 2001), so they Convention, the present work is with reference to the criteria for are not tackled in the present study. relevant for the implementation of identifying wetlands of international at least two European treaties aimed importance. at the management of wetland and Our study primarily covers the fol- aquatic environments: lowing criteria for the classification of The Convention on the Protection RAMSAR sites: of the Marine Environment of the Bal- Criterion 1: A wetland should be con- tic Sea Area (HELSINKI Convention, sidered internationally important if it HELCOM) was initially launched in contains a representative, rare or unique 1974, but revised in 1992 and went into example of a natural or near-natural forced after ratification by 17 countries wetland type found within the appro- in 2000. The convention covers the priate biogeographic region. whole of the Baltic Sea area, including Criterion 2: A wetland should be con- inland waters and the whole catchment sidered internationally important if it area. supports vulnerable, endangered, or The establishment of the NATURA critically endangered species or threat- Männika river, Western Estonia 2000 network of protected nature sites ened ecological communities.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 11 Marshland, willow trees (Salix) and dried reeds. Middle of Biebrza Marshes, Poland

Study area

The target area for the study is the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, as defined by the HELSINKI Convention (map, Figure 1). The whole sea drainage basin covers an area of the magnitude of 1 700 000 km² (range 1 650 000–1 750 000 km², ref. different sources). Almost 50% is forest, one quarter agri-cultural land and another quarter wetlands and lakes (Table 1). Small proportions are located above the tree-line (in the Nordic countries, and in the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains

along the border between Poland and Czech Republic / Slovakia). White waterlily (Nymphaea alba)

There are 171 RAMSAR sites in total Inside the catchment area, 235 700 km² as, together 86%, and the same coun- in the catchment area (Table 2. page 2), is estimated to be wetlands and 121 700 tries are also on the top with reference i.e. 10.6% of the total number of 1609 km² to be inland waters (i.e. freshwater to coverage; 9% or more of the surface sites in the world (as by June 2006). The lakes and watercourses), corresponding being inland waters (Table 1. page 12). sites comprise a total area of 24 336 km² to 14% and 7% of the area. But there are This study includes analyses that (Table 2) and corresponds to 1.4% of large variations between countries; Rus- wholly or partly cover ten countries: Be- the catchment area and 1.7% of the to- sia, Sweden and Finland hold around larus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ger- tal area of 1 458 000 km² of RAMSAR 73% of the total wetland area, and with many, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia sites in the world. Thus, the mean size reference to coverage in individual and Sweden. Countries encompassing of the RAMSAR sites inside the Baltic countries Estonia and Sweden come up less than 1% of the Baltic Sea Catchment Sea Catchment Area is much smaller, to 20% of the surface area or more. Also Areas (i.e. Norway, Czech Republic, 142 km², than the average of 906 km² for the inland waters, Sweden, Russia Slovakia and Ukraine, see Table 1) were for the whole world. and Finland harbour the largest are- not or only very superficially analysed.

12 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Figure 1. Delimitation of the Baltic Sea Catchment Area.

Finland

Norway

Sweden Estonia Russia

Latvia

Denmark Lithuania Russia (Kaliningrad) Belarus

Germany Poland

Ukraine

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 13 Methods

The study is based on country-wise analyses. For each country two sets of data were compiled: (1) the representation of different wetland types as a whole in the part falling inside the catchment area, and (2) representation inside the RAMSAR sites. On the basis of this information, common analyses for the whole catchment area were done. The main text is complemented with primary data, summarised in country-wise annexes.

Land-use in reference for the NATURA 2000 net- the catchment area Altja river, Estonia, is essential work of protected nature sites and thus For a broad overview of the distribution as spawning place for trout widely used in the EU countries (i.e. all and salmon of different kinds of land in the catch- countries targeted by the present study ment area, country-wise information except Norway, Russia, Belarus and about the surface area of forests, agri- Ukraine). Further, the RAMSAR sites cultural land, inland waters (e.g. water- should in principle also be proposed courses and freshwater lakes), wetlands, for the NATURA 2000 network, so in mountains above the tree-line and oth- the ideal case information about habi- er kinds of land (incl. urban areas) was tat classification should be available for compiled. To the extent possible, infor- most of the sites. mation available from official sources With the hierarchical arrangement, such as encyclopaedia were used (see the Nemunas river folling overall judgements for the whole catch- country-wise annex for details). Mostly, in CuronianGermany lagoon ment area could be done with reference it was quite easy to get reliable estimates to quite broad and general wetland for most kinds of land except wetlands, types, with possibilities to more detailed for which a very large range of estimates For the purpose of the present study, analyses for those countries for which exist for several countries (see the coun- wetland types were classified in a 2-level such information was available. For try-wise annexes for details)2. hierarchic system. The classification is the purpose of the present study habi- primarily based on the habitat types of tats were judged to be of “priority” with Definitions and classification Annex I of the Habitats Directive (here- reference to the classification of priority of wetland types after called FFH habitats) although habitats in the Habitats Directive. The RAMSAR convention (ref. Arti- some of them have been merged into For information, our interpreta- cle 1) defines a wetland as “an area of broader types. This system is not neces- tion of how the wetland types match to marsh, fen, peatland or water, wheth- sarily the most appropriate one for the the RAMSAR classification system is er natural of artificial, permanent or classification of wetlands but it is the shown in Table 3. temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of For the purpose of the present study, wetland types were classified in a 2-level which at low tide does not exceed 6 m.” hierarchic system, as follows (Table 3, “priorities” are indicated with italics) Further (ref. Article 2.1), boundary areas may be included when relevant and Marine habitats Wet meadows “especially when these have importance Shallow marine areas Mires as waterfowl habitats”3. Coastal habitats Raised bogs An additional and frequently used Blanket bogs term is “peatland”, which for the pur- Rocky marine shores and islets pose of the RAMSAR Convention is Stony / sandy / shingle beaches Transition mires, intermediate/nutrient- poor fens etc defined as “an area of landscape with Estuaries Springs and spring fens a naturally accumulated peat layer on Intertidal sandflats and mudflats its surface”. An “active peatland” or Salt/coastal meadows and marshes Calcareous and alkaline fens “mire” is a peatland where “peat is cur- Coastal lagoons Aapa mires rently forming and accumulating”. As Freshwater habitats Palsa mires Bog woodland mentioned in the introduction, peat- Watercourses (rivers, streams, brooks) Swamp woods and alluvial forests lands (under this definition) have been Oligo-/mesotrophic lakes identified as one of four broad wetland Eutrophic lakes types that are under-represented in the Dystrophic lakes global network of RAMSAR sites.

14 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area For the various countries, analysis data was compiled as follows:

1. Site-wise checks of the representa- 4. The final evaluation of the representation of wetland types with reference to tion of various wetland types: the system used in this study (Table 3): a) A comparison between the percent- The primary reference was the classifi- age distribution of wetland types in the cation of FFH habitats, as presented on RAMSAR network and in the whole the websites prepared by the responsible catchment area, under the assumption national authorities and in the EUNIS that these distributions should be ap- database. This was complemented with proximately equal for any ideal case. additional information from other b) An assessment of the percentage sources when information about FFH coverage of each wetland type in the habitats was missing or incomplete i.e. RAMSAR network in relation to its for sites not benefiting from pSCI sta- total area inside the catchment area, tus, for countries where the final clas- using the average percentage for all ex- sification of FFH habitats is still in amined wetland types as the reference. progress (e.g. Estonia, Lithuania), and For any acceptable representation of a for countries outside the European Un- single type, the percentage should be ion (i.e. Belarus and Russia). For many approximately the same or higher than sites, alternative information related to the percentage based on totals. the CORINE or EMERALD network Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) systems was extracted from the EUNIS database and in single cases information On the basis of the results, the in the IBA report (Heath & Evans 2000), representation of each habitat was site specfic websites etc proved to be use- assessed as “good”, “acceptable”, Country-wise analyses ful. How the information was extracted “acceptable?” or “not acceptable”. of the representation of and interpreted for individual sites is ex- wetland types plained in the country-wise annexes There is no strict and formal baseline Information and overview tables for reference for the minimum or satisfacto- 2. An assessment of the overall coverage the various countries are given in the ry designation of wetland sites and their of the various wetland types (as defined in country-wise annexes. For information, representation of habitats in the RAM- Table 3) inside the catchment area in the these annexes also include an overview SAR network, only that each member various countries, to have as a reference table of the representation of wetland country (or contracting party) should for the representation inside the RAM- types with reference to the RAMSAR list at least one site that meets the cri- SAR sites: When available, the “status classification system5. An overview of teria of international importance with lists” of the total coverage of FFH hab- the results of the country-wise analyses reference to Article 2.2 of the Wetlands itats in the various countries was the is given in Table 4. >> Convention (and further developed primary source4. For countries with the 7th meeting of the Conference of no “status lists” available, information Contracting Parties in 1999, see www. about overall coverage was compiled ramsar.org/about/about_infopack_5e. from various sources with reference to htm). “the best available information”, and in some cases it was not possible to find complete or fully accurate information For the purpose of the present (see below, details given in the country- study, we postulate that each wet- wise annexes). land type (ref. Table 3) should be represented in approximate proportion to its overall distribution inside the 3. Preparation of country-wise overview part of each country that falls inside tables of the representation of wetland the catchment area, if the demand of types inside the RAMSAR sites and the “acceptable representation” on the whole catchment area: e.g. to summa- Coastal flora, national level is to be achived. rise the outcome of steps 1 and 2. These tables are included in the country-wise Ingermanlandskieislets, Russia annexes.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 15 Methods

Overall, and primarily with reference to the difficulties to get information of the total coverage of various wetland types for several countries, our own judgement of the accuracy of the country-wise analyses is as follows: • Good: Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Swe- den (47.6% of the catchment area) • Acceptable: Belarus, Estonia, Lithua- nia (11.6% of the catchment area) • Poor: Germany, Poland, Russia (38.5% of the catchment area) • Not analysed (less than 1% of the catchment area inside their territories): Norway, Ukraine, Czech Re- public, Slovakia (2.2% of the catch- White fronted geese on migration in Nemunas delta ment area) For Russia, it was not possible to com- pile any detailed information about the representation of wetland types, nei- Accuracy of the analyses Sweden), these were used as a reference. ther site-wise nor for the whole catch- We judge that the site-wise assessments Thus, our reference figures for the vari- ment area. Only some conclusions re- are in general reasonably accurate. ous wetlands types may be different (and lated to broader categories of wetlands However, the level of details varies be- mostly smaller) than the land use statis- could be made (see the country-wise an- tween countries and even between sites tics figures(Table 1) for similar types of nex for details). in the same country. This is primarily land6. with reference to lack of consistency in For the remaining countries, the as- the terminology used for different wet- sessments of country-wise coverage Overall analyses of the land types (especially for information had to be done with slightly different representation of wetland not based on or related to the classifi- approaches between countries. Most- types in the catchment area cation of FFH-habitats) and imprecise ly, general estimates of areas of quite On the basis of the country-wise analy- information about surface area of the broad categories, such as “inland wa- ses, overall analyies of the representa- various wetland types at some sites. ters”, “mires” etc had to be used. This tion of the various wetland types were However, it turned out to be more approach involved some difficulties, e.g. done. This was based on the country- difficult to get figures of acceptable ac- that the reference areas are mostly larg- wise assessments (summarised in Table curacy on the country-wise coverage er than those that presumably qualify 4) and a comprehensive analysis using of various wetlands types, and these as any FFH habitat and thus not fully on data for the countries with good or assessments had to be done “country comparable with the figures used for the acceptable accuracy of the country- by country” with reference to the best above mentioned countries for which wise analyses, i.e. Belarus, Denmark, available information. The necessity the “status lists” could be used. Further, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Sweden, to adjust the information to represent the use of this kind of broad categories together covering 59% of the Baltic Sea the part of the country inside the catch- suffers from lack of consistency with Catchment Area (Table 5). ment area added an additional source reference to definitions and what kinds The result of the analyses is also of uncertainty. of land that are included (or excluded). been demonstrated in a series of dia- This is reflected by the very wide ranges grams (Figure 2 for the main groups These difficulties were of estimates also for the same country of wetland types, Figure 3 for freshwa- tackled as follows: for some wetland types. Finally, for ter habitats and Figure 4 for mires). In For those countries for which the some countries and wetland types it was these diagrams, under-representation “status lists” about the total coverage not possible to find any information at is indicated in cases where the red bars of the various FFH habitats were made all to be used for reliable assessments (whole catchment areas) arae substan- available by the responsible national au- (or even qualified guess-work; details in tially longer than the blue bars (RAM- thorities (i.e. Denmark, Finland, Latvia, the country-wise annexes). SAR sites). The distribution of the var-

16 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Altja river, Estonia, is essential as spawning place for trout and salmon

ious wetland types with reference to For the purpose of the present isting sites in order to meet the objective number of sites is shown in Table 6. study, the analyses were done of full representation of the diversity of As already mentioned, there is no under the following presumptions: wetlands and their key ecological and strict or formal reference for the ac- The arbitrary assumption that there hydrological functions on the national ceptable level of representation of dif- is no general need of any substantial in- level. ferent wetland types in the RAMSAR crease of the overall coverage above the In the consideration of additional network, above the minimum level of current level of approximately 3% of the sites, all sites designated as pSCIs or at least one site for each country and wetlands and inland waters in the catch- SPAs for the NATURA 2000 network that the national lists shall reflect the ment area (ref. Table 2). have been assumed to meet the criteria full diversity of wetlands. It is obvious The various wetland types should be of international importance for inclu- that the ambition of completeness of represented in approximate proportion to sion in the RAMSAR list. Additional the RAMSAR list is much lower than the general distribution inside the Baltic sites might also meet these criteria. >> for the establishment of the NATURA Sea Catchment Area as a whole and in 2000 network of protected sites, where each country, and there might still be a the “20/60-guidelines” are applied for need to adjust for bias and under-repre- the judgement of whether a habitat is sentation by the inclusion of additional satisfactorily covered7. RAMSAR sites and/or extensions of ex-

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 17 Methods

European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis)

Menyanthes trifoliata European beaver (Castor fiber)

Analyses of the representation of species Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive For each species, information about The representation in the RAMSAR was the main reference for the selection the country-wise occurrence in terms network was judged to be “acceptable” of species to be analysed with reference of number of sites inside the catchment if a species was reported at ten RAM- to their occurrence in the RAMSAR area as a whole and at the RAMSAR SAR sites or more and in 10% or more sites, primarily because this is an offi- sites was taken from the EUNIS data- of the sites, and “not acceptable” if none cially approved list of species for which base. Primarily, information linked to of these conditions were met. Species the protection and management of a fa- the NATURA 2000 network was used, for which one of these conditions was vourable conservation status is of Euro- complemented with data based on the fulfilled were analysed case by case and pean concern. It is thus a main guide- CORINE and EMERALD systems for many of them the representation was line also for national priorities in all EU when information about NATURA judged to be “acceptable?”. The result member states (i.e. all countries except 2000 sites was missing (which was the of the species-wise analyses is summa- Belarus, Norway, Russia and Ukraine case for all countries that entered EU rised in Table 7. The countries with less in this study). From the list, species in May 2004). The percentage of sites than 1% of the catchment area inside confined to wetlands (ref. the definition on the RAMSAR list in relation to the their territories (e.g. Czech Republic, that applies for the RAMSAR Conven- total number was used as an indication Norway, Slovakia, Ukraine) were not tion) were selected. Species indicated as the representation in the RAMSAR net- included. priority species in Annex II were con- work in relation to the total occurrence sidered “priority” also for the purpose at sites considered to meet the criteria of of this study. being of international importance.

18 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Tipuloidea

White-legged damselfly (Platycnemis pennipes) trapped in Oblong-leaved sundew plant (Drosera intermedia)

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 19 Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types

For the Baltic Sea Catchment Area as a whole, 3% of the wetlands and inland waters are included in the RAMSAR network (Table 2). The level of representation is on the same level for most countries; except for Latvia, Estonia and Denmark for which 8%, 9% and 21%, respectively, are included in the RAMSAR system (Table 2). For Estonia and Latvia, these percentages reflect a representation much above the average level for most countries, and for Denmark primarily a good representation of coastal habitats.

The inclusion of wetland and tion value in most cases). The estimated Lithuania and Sweden (76, 94, 97, 101 inland waters in the RAMSAR wetland area does not include artificial and 102 km², respectively) and highest in network, in relation to total wetlands although they might qualify Belarus, Latvia and Russia (188, 249 and surface area for inclusion on the RAMSAR list, and 521 km², respectively). Highest number There are 171 RAMSAR sites in total this explains a smaller proportion (32%) of sites are designated in Sweden (50 in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, com- for Poland, with reference to the inclu- sites, 29%) and Finland (46 sites, 26%) prising a total surface area of 24 366 sion primarily of fish ponds of high or- which is at least partly explained with km² (Table 2). Of this, 10 770 km² is nithological value etc in the RAMSAR reference to the total coverage of 42% assessed to be wetlands or inland wa- network. For Germany and Denmark, of the whole catchment area by these ters (Table 2), but with a large range the proportions of only 17% and 12% countries. Again, Denmark makes an between countries, 12–95%. For most are partly related to large shallow ma- exception; although this country only countries, the proportion is above 40% rine areas on the RAMSAR list. covers 1.9% of the catchment area, the and for most sites the inclusion of land The average surface area of the number of sites high (22 sites) and pri- that is not wetlands or similar is justifi- RAMSAR sites is 142 km². Excluding marily related to large areas of coastal able with reference to the assurance of the countries with less than 1% of the habitats. For Russia, a low number of a reasonably intact hydrology and/or catchment area inside their territories sites (only six) is partly compensated by the protection of a larger habitat com- (and hence with no or only a few RAM- the large average area of the sites. plex also including natural forests etc SAR sites), mean site surface areas are (i.e. still land of high nature conserva- smallest in Germany, Finland, Poland,

The coastal habitats are in general well represented in the RAMSAR network, and included in a bit more than one third of all sites.

3% of the wetlands and inland Mean site surface area (excl. waters in the Baltic Sea Catchment marine habitats) is 142 km², with Area are included in the RAMSAR large variations between countries, network, with a similar level of and is much lower than the average representation for most countries for the whole world. (but higher for Latvia, Estonia and Denmark).

20 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Sand ridge after ice age Vilsandis National Park, Saaremaa Estonia

Analysis and comments of Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida, see text for the various wetland types about the representation of species). On the basis of information for the Finally, it should be noted that with the countries with a good or acceptable current 6 metres limit set for marine wet- accuracy of the country-wise analysis, lands to be listed for the RAMSAR net- i.e. 59% of the whole catchment area, it work “open sea areas” important both can be concluded that there is a strik- for a rich marine biodiversity and commer- ing unbalance in the proportions of dif- cial fishery do not qualify due to formal ferent wetland types inside the RAM- reasons. This includes sub-marine reefs SAR sites compared to the catchment and sand-banks, such as areas N Læsø areas as a whole (Figure 2). Marine and Island in Kattegat (Denmark) and shal- coastal habitats are covered to a much low areas N Gotland Island (Sweden). higher extent than e.g. freshwater habitats and mires. Coastal habitats The coastal habitats are also in general Marine habitats well represented in the RAMSAR net- The definition of wetland used by the work, and included in a bit more than RAMSAR Convention sets a limit of 6 one third of all sites (Table 6). This also meters for marine areas. Thus, all kinds applies for priority types such as salt/ of marine areas permanently covered coastal meadows and coastal lagoons by sea-water were put into one wetland that are found in 30% and 26% of the type, “shallow marine areas”, for the sites. But the overall good represen- purpose of the present study. tation is primarily related to a large number of sites in Denmark, Sweden Marine habitats are included in rough- and Finland while some additional sites ly one quarter of the RAMSAR sites should be considered along the eastern (ref. Table 6) and with reference to and southern coast-lines of the Baltic surface areas they are in general well Sea. Rocky island, Ingermanland- represented, with the following excep- skieislets, Russia tions: Additional sites that should be The lack of inclusion of relevant considered along the eastern and There might also be a need for addi- parts of the Kuronian Lagoon (Lithua- southern coastlines of the Baltic Sea: tional coastal sites with reference to nia and Kaliningrad Region of Russia) Coastal meadows in Latvia. the under-representation of some plant is an obvious shortage. Additional sites with coastal habitats species (see text about the representation There are only two sites with marine in Lithuania and the Kaliningrad Re- of species). habitats along the coats of Poland and gion of Russia, including relevant parts Some of the additional sites proposed Germany (one for each country). at the Kuronian Lagoon and (for Kalin- in the recent analyses of Important Bird ingrad) the Nemunas Delta. Areas (IBAs) and potential RAMSAR Additional marine sites might also be There are only two sites with coastal sites in Europe (Callaghan et al. 2001) considered for Finland and Sweden with habitats along the coast of Poland and presumably also qualify with reference reference to the under-representation Germany (one for each country). to coastal wetland types. >>

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 21 Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types

Sora traditional meadow in northern Sweden

Freshwater habitats that are judged to be under-represent- For Denmark, some eutrophic lakes Although freshwater habitats are re- ed in the RAMSAR network (e.g. Unio on Sjælland and Jutland should be con- ported for more than 70% of the RAM- crassus and some plant species) should sidered (e.g. Lake Furesøen, N Copen- SAR sites (Table 6), they are in general be taken into account (see text about the hagen). poorly represented in terms of surface representation of species). For Russia, the relevance of includ- areas (Table 5, Figure 1). There is also ing additional lakes (e.g. lake and shore an inbalance between different lake Freshwater lakes areas at Lake Ilmen) needs to be con- types; with under-representation of ol- Lakes are a striking element of the land- sidered. igo-mesotrophic lakes and dystrophic scape in large areas of the Baltic Sea Representation of lakes is also gener- lakes (Figure 3). Catchment Area, and roughly around ally low also for Estonia and Germany. three quarters of the natural lakes in For the selection of additional lake sites, Watercourses Europe are located here. In Sweden and occurrence of species found to be repre- These include all kinds of streaming wa- Finland, with Precambrian bedrock sented on a low level in the RAMSAR ter flows, e.g. rivers, streams and brooks. with dominance of granites and gneiss- network should be taken into account Although watercourses are in general es, oligo-mesotrophic clear-water lakes (e.g. Najas spp. for Finland; see text adequately represented in the RAM- are common. In the south-eastern parts about the representation of species). SAR network, long stretches of (in all of the catchment area, eutrophic lakes The under-representation of dys- essentials) ecologically and hydrologi- dominate. “Brown-coloured” dystroph- trophic lakes for some countries could cally intact sections of large rivers are ic lakes with high contents of humic sub- be covered within additional mire sites almost completely missing: stances are found in peatland areas in (see below). At least one of the large non-regulated the whole catchment area. Lakes are re- rivers in Northern Sweden (Rivers Vin- ported within two thirds of all RAM- delälven, Piteälven, Kalixälven, Torne SAR sites (Table 6), but the representa- Älv) should be included in the RAM- tion with reference to lake types is biased Wet meadows SAR list, e.g. a transboundary site with (Figure 3). Country-wise, the representa- “Wet meadows” belong to the kind of Finland for River Torne Älv. tion of lakes was found to be acceptable “wet grasslands” that have been identi- For Finland, River Simojoki might only in the following countries: Belarus, fied as being under-represented on the be considered. Germany, Latvia and Poland. global scale. Although good country- For Latvia, the upper/northern Considering the richness of oligo- wise estimates are scanty, wet mead- parts of River Gauja is an obvious trophic lakes in Finland and Sweden, ows obviously constitute an important candidate site. while not elsewhere in the catchment component in the wetlands in the Baltic Representation of watercourses is in area (or Europe as a whole), under-rep- Countries, Russia, Belarus and Poland, general low for several countries (e.g. resentation in these two countries is not to a higher extent than in e.g. Sweden Belarus, Denmark, Finland); for Den- acceptable. and Finland. The representation in the mark, River Odense Å is a potential For Lithuania, the lack of represen- RAMSAR network inside the catch- candidate site. tation of the unique gypsum karst lakes ment area is judged to be generally ac- For the selection of additional sites with (habitat 3190 in Annex I of the EU Hab- ceptable (although not analysed for watercourses, the occurrence of species itats Directive) is an obvious deficit. Russia and Germany).

22 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Nevertheless, and considering the global shortage of wet grasslands in the area RAMSAR network, inclusion of some additional sites inside the Baltic Sea Catchment Area might be an important contribution to the RAMSAR list. For this purpose, some of the IBAs proposed as additions to the RAMSAR network in e.g. in Lithuania and Poland with reference to bird species of global concern (i.e. Aquatic Warbler Acro- cephalus paludicola) should also qualify with reference to wet meadows.

Mires The Baltic Sea Catchment Area is a key area for peatlands and mires on a world-wide scale. Almost 5% of the world's peatlands are located here, and around two thirds of these are assessed to be “active peatlands” or mires with intact peat accumulating processes8. Looking at the wetlands inside the catchment area, around 60% can be classified as mires9. Finally, and taking into account that peatlands belong to the four kinds of wetland types for which a substantial under-representation has been identified on the global RAMSAR list, the protection and management of mire areas in all countries in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area is of vital importance in an international A large peatland area in the perspective. northwest in autumn, Finland Mires of any kind are reported from around 70% of the RAMSAR sites (Ta- ble 6), but with reference to surface area the overall representation is below the Country-wise, mires are represented to the catchment area. The representation acceptable level (Table 5, Figure 2). Al- an acceptable level in the countries in the is acceptable in all countries except for though almost two thirds of the wet- south-eastern part of the catchment area Denmark and Germany (but with reser- lands in the catchment area are mires, i.e. Estonia. Latvia, Lithuania, Poland vation for Russia where the representa- they constitute only a bit more than and (with question-marks) also Belarus tion has not been estimated, Table 4): 40% of the wetlands inside the RAM- and Russia (Table 4), while there are no- For Denmark, there are no RAM- SAR network (ref. Table 5 and based on table deficiencies in Sweden, Finland, SAR sites at all with raised bogs, al- data for the countries with good or ac- Denmark and Germany. But even for though candidate sites exist, including ceptable country-wise analyses). There countries with an generally acceptable sites now targeted for restoration within is also a bias in the representation of level of representation, additional sites a LIFE Nature project. different mire types (Figure 4). Raised with specific mire types are needed. bogs are generally represented to an ac- Also for Germany, there are no ceptable level (with exceptions for some Raised bogs RAMSAR sites with raised bogs al- countries, see below), while most of the Raised bogs (priority habitat) are re- though there are quite large areas in- other mire types are under-represented ported from one quarter of the sites (Ta- side the catchment area, e.g. in Meck- with reference to surface area. ble 6) and they occur in all countries in lenburg-Vorpommern. >>

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 23 Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types

gle sites. To the extent it has been possible to evaluate the representation; it is judged to be under-represented in all the Nordic countries and acceptably represented only in Latvia. The need for better representation might primarily be tackled by taking this deficit into account in the search for additional sites with other wetland types, and small areas might also be found in existing RAMSAR sites in a closer check of their habitats.

Aapa mires Aapa mires (priority habitat) is a specific northern mire type, with its Eu- Aapa mire, an unique wetland type with almost all of its European distribution within the Baltic catchment ropean distribution restricted to the in Northern Sweden, Finland and Russia northern parts of Sweden and Fin- land, parts of Russia and minor areas in Norway. In addition, there are similar mire types in Northern Amer- Blanket bogs Calcareous and alkaline fens ica. Substantial parts of the European Blanket bogs is a mire type restricted This complex of mire types is often distribution fall within the Baltic Sea to areas under oceanic influence with highlightened in nature conservation Catchment Area, i.e. this is a key area high rainfall, which occurs only in the because of species-rich plant commu- for the protection and management of mountain areas of Sweden and Norway nities and many rare species, and they this mire type from a global perspec- inside the catchment area. 99% of the are reported from 28% of the sites (Ta- tive. Aapa mires are reported from 25 blanket bog area in Sweden is located ble 6, Figure 5). But with reference to sites (16 in Finland, 9 in Sweden; Fig- inside two RAMSAR sites, i.e. good surface areas, the representation in the ure 6), and are in general under-repre- representation (any occurrence in the RAMSAR network is generally not ac- sented with reference to surface areas. Norwegian part inside the catchment ceptable, and a need of additional sites Primarily, additional sites are needed area has not been analysed but is pre- has been identified for most of the coun- for Sweden and Russia: sumably negligible). tries with sufficient information for the For Sweden, the network should be evaluation of the representation of this complemented with additional aapa Transition mires, intermediate/ wetland type (i.e. all countries except mires, e.g. in the northernmost parts of nutrient-poor fens etc: Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Rus- Norrbotten County (some aapa mires This type includes a large variety of sia): have been protected with the support mires which are not or only slightly For Sweden, a substantial input of from LIFE Nature in this part of the wooded, and with plant communities additional sites is needed, with priority country). on the surface of oligo-mesotrophic wa- for the northern part including Jämt- For Russia, there are no sites in the ters. They are reported from 42% of all land County and the “fjeld” region. “aapa mire” region in Karelia. sites and the representation is accept- The representation is also low also for able in all countries except for Sweden, Finland and additional sites could also be Latvia and Germany (but again with considered for Belarus and Estonia. Palsa mires reservations for Russia as the represen- Although the overall representation Palsa mires (priority habitat) are re- tation has not been evaluated and with is acceptable for Denmark, further in- stricted to land with permanent frost question-marks for Belarus and Lithua- land sites should be considered. and with annual mean temperature be- nia, Table 4): low 0°C. In the catchment area they are Overall low representation for Swe- Springs and spring fens restricted to the northernmost parts of den is regrettable, as this is one of coun- These ecologically important mire Sweden and Finland. Although there tries harbouring many and large areas types mostly constitute small areas and are only a few sites in the RAMSAR of this complex mire type. are presumably often overlooked, even list, six in total, their representation is Low representation also for Germany. in the classification of habitats for sin- judged to be acceptable.

24 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Bog woodlands Bog woodlands (priority habitat) occur in all countries around the Baltic Sea and are reported from 39% of the sites (Table 6) and under-represented with reference to surface area (Table 5, Figure 4). Additional input of sites is needed, primarily from the Nordic countries: For Sweden, Finland and Estonia, additional sites should be considered in all parts of the countries. For Denmark, bog woodland is reported from only one RAMSAR site; candidate sites exist, including sites currently targeted for restoration within a LIFE Nature project.

Some of the plant and bryophyte species judged to be represented below the acceptable level (see text about the representation of species) in the RAMSAR network occur in mire habitats that also have been found to be under-represented.

Swamp woods and alluvial forests All kinds of swamp woods and alluvial forests are under constant threat and decline, and they are thus considered as a priority wetland type. They are reported from 44% of the sites, and looking at the catchment area as a whole the representation is still generally acceptable (Ta- Peatland with ridges, Lavkasoo National Park, Estonia ble 5, Figure 2). But the representation is biased between countries, with a high level of representation in the RAMSAR lists for e.g. Estonia, Latvia and Belarus, while an additional and substantial input is needed for the Nordic countries: For Sweden and especially for Fin- land, additional sites should be considered in all parts of the countries. For Denmark, the representation is generally acceptable but there are no inland sites in the RAMSAR list. The occurrence of bryophytes judged to be represented on a low level in the RAMSAR network (see text about the representation of species) should be considered in the selection of additional sites with swamp woods and alluvial Flooded forest, Estonia forests. >>

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 25 Wetland surface areas and representation of wetland types

Priorities with reference to the various wetland types Very high priority

The analysis indicates that if the objec- Mires: Additional sites with mire al sites in Sweden (with priority for tive of a full representation of the diver- habitats is the top priority, consid- sites in the northern part including sity of wetland and their key ecologi- ering the key role of the countries Jämtland County and the “fjeld” cal and hydrological functions is to be in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area region). The representation is aso achieved, there is an overall need for ad- for the protection of mires even on low for Finland and additional sites ditional sites. The shortage is primarily a global scale, and taking into ac- might also be considered for Belarus related to inadequate coverage of sites count that peatlands in general are and Estonia. For Denmark, inland with representative, rare and unique under-represented on the worldwide sites should be considered. wetland types (i.e. criterion 1 for iden- RAMSAR list: • For aapa mires, for which the Bal- tifying wetlands of international impor- • The RAMSAR lists for Denmark tic Sea Catchment Area plays a key tance) and threatened ecological com- and Germany needs to be comple- role from an international perspec- munities (i.e. criterion 2). The need of mented with raised bogs. Currently, tive, additional sites are needed for complements to the RAMSAR list has raised bogs are not reported for any Sweden and Russia. been prioritised on three levels, as fol- RAMSAR site in these countries. lows (no ranking order within the three • Bog woodlands are generally under- levels). • For transition mires etc, under-rep- represented, with additional sites resentation in the Swedish RAM- needed for all parts of Sweden and SAR list is regrettable with refer- Finland, as well as in inland parts ence to many and large potential of Denmark. candidate sites.

• The representation of calcareous/ Freshwater lakes: Inclusion of some alkaline fens needs to be substan- of the unique gypsum karst lakes in tially improved, including addition- northern Lithuania. Asköviken, Sweden

High priority

Additional marine habitats along RAMSAR list, e.g. a transboundary • For Russia, the possibility to include the coast of Lithuania and Kalinin- site with Finland for River Torne Älv. additional freshwater lakes (e.g. lake grad Region of Russia (Kuronian La- and shore areas at Lake Ilmen) needs • For Finland, River Simojoki might goon etc). to be considered. also be considered. Additional site(s) with coastal meadows in Latvia. • For Latvia, the upper/northern part For mires, some additional comple- Additional sites with coastal habitats of River Gauja is an obvious candi- ments should be considered: in Lithuania and in the Kaliningrad date site. • Additional sites with transition mires Region of Russia, including relevant Freshwater lakes are generally poor- etc in Germany. parts of the Kuronian Lagoon and (for ly represented: • The general under-representation of Kaliningrad) the Nemunas Delta. • Considering the richness of oligo- springs and spring fens should be con- Considering that long stretches of (in trophic lakes in Finland and Sweden, sidered in the search for additional sites all essentials) ecologically and hydro- while not elsewhere in the catchment with other wetland types. logically intact sections of large rivers area (or Europe as a whole), under- are almost completely missing, the fol- representation in these two countries Swamp woods / alluvial forests: Con- lowing additions should be considered: is not acceptable. sidering the constant threat and decline • At least one of the large non-regulat- • For Denmark, some eutrophic lakes of the habitat, additional sites for all ed rivers in Northern Sweden (Rivers on Sjælland and Jutland should be parts of Sweden and (especially) Fin- Vindelälven, Piteälven, Kalixälven, considered (e.g. Lake Furesøen, N land is another high priority issue. Torne Älv) should be included in the Copenhagen).

26 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area At least one of the large non-regulated rivers in Northern Sweden should be included in the RAMSAR list

If the objective of a full representation of the diversity of wetland and their key ecological and hydrological functions is to be achieved, there is an overall need for additional sites. The shortage is primarily related to inadequate coverage of sites with reference to representative, rare and unique wetland types (i.e. criterion 1 for identifying wetlands of international importance) and threatened ecological communities (i.e. criterion 2). For the addition of new sites, mires of a good conservation status with reference to hydrology and representation of species should be given a very high priority, taking into account that peatlands are generally under-represented in the international RAMSAR network.

Also to be considered with priority Additional sites with marine and Better representation of freshwa- For Denmark, the representation coastal habitats along the coasts of ter lakes in Estonia, Germany and of swamp woods / alluvial forests is Poland and Germany. Lithuania. generally acceptable but there are no Considering the overall low repre- The under-representation of dys- inland sites in the RAMSAR list. sentation of watercourses, additional trophic lakes in e.g. Finland and Swe- sites should be considered for sever- den should be considered in the search al countries (e.g. Belarus, Denmark, for additional mire sites for the RAM- Finland). SAR network.

In addition, inclusion of some of the sites identified as important for Aquatic Warbler (a bird species of global concern) in e.g. Lithuania and Poland within the recent analysis of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and RAMSAR sites in Europe (Callaghan et al. 2001) should also make a valuable contribution of further wet grasslands on the global RAMSAR list.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 27 Representation of species

The analysis included 55 species, among which the analysis for Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) was split up into the three subspecies occurring in the Baltic Sea (P. h. botnica), in Lake Saima in Finland (P. h. saimensis) and in Lake Ladoga in Russia (P. h. ladogensis); so in total the study included 57 taxa. All of them except P. h. ladogensis are listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. Four taxa (7%) are considered as “priority”: Saima Ringed Seal, European Mink (Mustela lutreola), and two plant species, Alisma wahlenbergi and Cochleria polonica. The country-wise analyses are summarised in Table 7 and an overview of Spined loach (Cobites taenia) the judgements is given in Table 8.

Seven taxa (12%) are endemic for the endemic or with substantial parts of the (i.e. all except Allisma wahlenbergi). The Baltic Sea Catchment Area and for an- European populations inside the Baltic under-representation is primarily relat- other eight taxa (14%) substantial parts Sea Catchment Area. ed to inadequate coverage of sites that of their European populations are found A substantial proportion, 23 taxa meets the criteria based on species and in the catchment area. Except for the (40%) were judged not to be represent- ecological communities (e.g. criteria 2, subspecies of Ringed Seal, all of them ed on an acceptable level in the RAM- 3 and 4) for the identification of sites in- are vascular plants or bryophytes (see SAR network including nine taxa (39%) ternational importance. Table 7 for details). which are endemic or with substantial For four taxa (7%), the representation The representation was judged to be parts of the European population in- was not analysed (details given in Table acceptable (or “acceptable?”) for 30 side the catchment area, and three of 7 and below). taxa (52%), including six (20%) that are the four taxa considered as “priority”

Species-wise comments With reference to groups of species, the representation can be summarised as follows:

Molluscs: Insects: For the Freshwater Pearl Mussel For the other freshwater mussel, i.e. All the insect species investigat- (Margaritifera margaritifera) the in- Unio crassus the number of sites is ed, i.e. two beetle species (Dytiscus formation about number of sites is in- judged to be too few for an acceptable latissimus and Graphoderes bilinea- complete with reference to lack of data level of representation, considering the tus) and two dragonflies (Leucor- for Finland (where the species is wide- threat and rapid decline of this species rhinia pectoralis and Ophiogophus spread) but the representation is judged into account. cecilia) are judged to be represented to acceptable (with a question-mark). The whorl-snails (Vertigo spp.) are to an acceptable level; with a ques- generally represented on a low level, tion-mark for O. cecilia which is and judged to be “not acceptable” for more rare while the three other spe- three of the four listed species. cies are widespread in at least parts of the catchment area.

For the Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) the information about number of sites in incomplete with reference to lack of data.

28 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Fish: Some species, such Fish are judged to be covered on as European Otter an acceptable level, but with a res- (Lutra lutra), ervation for incomplete site-wise Grey Seal (Halicho- erus grypus) and data for some countries with excep- Harbour Seal (Phoca tions for the application of the EU vitulina) were found Habitats Directive for one or sev- to be overall adequa- eral species (see Table 7 for details). tely covered in the For the two species of shad (Alosa RAMSAR network alosa and A. fallax) we recommend that the meaningfulness of any additional sites in the catchment area should be considered. – With these reservation, the overall conclusion is that the RAMSAR network is adequate with reference to specific criteria based on fish (i.e. criteria 7 and 8) for identifying wetlands of international importance. (Cobites teania was not analysed as no sites listed in the EUNIS database.)

Mammals: Some species, such as European Ot- “key sites” for P. h. saimensis and P. ter (Lutra lutra), Grey Seal (Halichoerus h. ladogensis should be considered for grypus) and Harbour Seal (Phoca vituli- the RAMSAR lists for Finland (at Lake na) were found to be generally adequate- Saima) and Russia (at Lake Ladoga). ly covered in the RAMSAR network. For European Mink (Mustela lutre- The same applies for Harbour Porpoise ola) it is doubtful if the species is still (Phocaena phocaena) although there is a present at the sites listed for Estonia bias of good representation in Denmark and Latvia. Additional RAMSAR sites compared to other countries where the with reference to this species should be Black stork (ciconia nigra) species exist (i.e. Sweden, Germany). considered only when re-introduced Considering the endemic status of all and free-living populations in Estonia countries and the listing of sites is in- three subspecies of Ringed Seal (Phoca have proved to be viable. complete. The species is generally wide- hispida, priority), additional marine sites European Beaver (Castor fiber) was spread overall and judged not to be of should be considered for P. h. botnica in not analysed. Exceptions to apply the any priority for additional RAMSAR at least Finland and Sweden. Further, EU Habitats Directive exist for several sites.

Reptiles and amphibians: European Pond Turtle (Emys orbicularis) is reported for several sites in Poland, Lithuania and Germany, but only one of them (in Lithuania) is included in the RAMSAR network. Additional sites (with still viable populations) are needed for this species under threat and decline. Yellow-bellied Toad (Bombina variegata) is reported only from Poland, and none of the sites are included on the RAMSAR list; i.e. additional sites should be considered. Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and Fire-bellied Toad (Bombina bombina) are generally widespread (even if under threat) and reported for several countries; the species are judged to be represented on European Pond Turtle an acceptable level in the RAMSAR network. (Emys orbicularis)

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 29 Representation of species

Liparis loeselii, Narthecium ossifragum rare in alkaline fens Matteuccia struthiopteris

Vascular plants: 19 of the analysed taxa are vascular in Russia (incl. Leningrad Region) and Cochlearia polonica: Priority but not plats. Ten of them are endemic or with Kazakhstan. represented in the RAMSAR network; substantial parts of the European popu- Persicaria foliosa: Confined to mud- endemic for Poland and restricted to lations in the catchment area and only dy shore-line habitats and restricted to special types of spring habitats on cal- two of them, Fen Orchid (Liparis loesil- Finland and Sweden inside the catch- careous ground. ii) and Marsh Saxifrage (Saxifraga hir- ment area. Additional sites might be Liparis loeselii: Reported from alka- culus) are reported from the majority of considered for Sweden (there are sev- line fens and similar habitats in several the investigated countries. The taxa can eral sites but none of them listed in the countries but in general rare and in de- be grouped as follows with reference to EUNIS database). cline (inadequate management etc); too representation in the RAMSAR net- few sites included in the RAMSAR list work (several countries). Not acceptable: Luronium natans: Widespread but Acceptable: Angelica palustris: Overall too few in general rare plant; only one site in Alisma wahlenbergi: Priority, endem- sites (Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Germa- the RAMSAR network is not enough, ic to the Baltic Region. ny). additions to be considered for several Primula nutans: Restricted to coastal Apium repens: Not represented at countries. sites in Sweden and Finland inside the all in the RAMSAR network; sites in Saussurea alpina ssp. esthonica: En- catchment area. Poland and Germany to be considered demic to Estonia, Latvia and Russia; Saxifraga hirculus: Primarily in al- (currently targeted for a LIFE Nature lack of representation in the RAMSAR kaline fens and spring fens, and wide- project in Germany) network is not acceptable. spread in parts of the catchment area. Arctophila fulva: Additional shore- Trisetum subalpestre: Confined to line sites along rivers and the coast in unregulated water-courses in North- Acceptable?: Northern Sweden and Finland should ern Sweden and Finland; just one site Carex holostoma: Few sites in north- be considered. (in Finland) inside the RAMSAR net- ernmost Finland and Sweden. Artemisa campestris ssp. bottnica: work is not acceptable Hippurus tetraphylla: A few coastal Additional coastal sites are needed, es- sites in Finland and Sweden. pecially in Sweden. Najas flexilis: Widespread freshwater Botrychium simplex: Overall too few lake plant but nowhere common and in sites (Sweden, Finland etc). decline; Finland plays a key role for the Caldesia parnassifolia: Only found in long-term survival of the species. Poland inside the catchment area (ex- Najas teniussima: Less widespread tinct from Germany and Lithuania) and than N. flexilis with half the world pop- not represented at all in the RAMSAR ulation in Finland and remaining sites network.

30 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Epipactis palustris Among 57 investigated taxa (56 of them listed in Annex II of the Bryophytes: EU Habitats Directive), as many as 23 (40%) were judged not be Not acceptable: Acceptable?: represented on an acceptable Meesia longissima: Reported from Bryhnia novae-angliae, Dichelyma level in the RAMSAR network. several countries but in decline (extinct capillaceum and Hygrohypnum mon- This includes three of the four taxa in Denmark); the occurrence of this spe- tanum are all represented below any considered as priority and nine of cies should be taken into account in the acceptable level and it is primarily a the ta xa which are endemic or with selection of additional mire sites etc. Swedish responsibility to establish ad- substantial parts of their European Hamatocaulis lapponicus: Reported ditional sites (small watercourses, allu- populations inside the Baltic Sea from mire sites in Finland (several sites vial forests etc). Catchment Area. but none in the EUNIS database) and Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) ver- Sweden (few sites); the occurrence of nicosus The under-representation is this species should be considered in the Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) verni- primarily related to inadequate selection of additional sites. cosus was not analysed, as no sites were coverage of sites that meet the listed in the EUNIS database. However, criteria based on species and eco- the species is quite widespread in the logical communities (e.g. RAMSAR Baltic Region and not considered prior- criteria 2. 3 and 4). ity for additional RAMSAR sites.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 31 Country-wise analyses and comments

In this text section, the country-wise comments are summarised on the basis of the more detailed information given in the country-wise annexes regarding the representation of various wetland types and the analyses of species representation. With reference to the different wetland types, the information is repetitive but presented country- wise to allow for overviews on the national level.

The countries are presented in rank or- The overall quality of data is good. der with reference to the proportion of 2.2% of the wetlands and inland waters the catchment area that is located in the in the catchment area is located inside territory. Among the 14 countries with the RAMSAR network: any part inside the Baltic Sea Catch- The representation of mires is gener- ment Area, Sweden, Russia, Poland ally not acceptable: There is a general and Finland together harbour more under-representation of transition mires then three quarters of it inside their and bog woodland, and a significant territories. under-representation of calcareous/al- We have not attempted to prepare kaline fens (especially with reference a “shadow list” of additional sites, but northern Sweden including Jämtland Freshwater habitats: some proposals of sites that might fit county and the “fjeld” region). Further, • For watercourses, it is remarkable that into an extended RAMSAR list are in- the network should be complemented none of the large non-regulated rivers dicated, both below and in the country- with some additional aapa mires, e.g. in Northern Sweden are included in wise annexes. in the northernmost parts of Norrbot- the RAMSAR list; i.e. to consider the ten County (some aapa mires have been Sweden inclusion of at least one of Rivers Vin- protected with the support from LIFE Almost one quarter (24.3%, Table 1) delälven, Piteälven Kalixälven and/or Nature in this part of the country). of the Baltic Sea Catchment Area falls Torne Älv (the latter transboundary within the Swedish territory. There are The representation of swamp woods with Finland). 50 RAMSAR sites inside the catchment /alluvial forests is not acceptable: An • Additional oligotrophic lakes should area (and 51 in total), but the mean sur- addition of a representative selection be considered, taking into account the face area is below the average level (102 of sites in various parts of the country richness of this lake type in Sweden km² including marine habitats). should be considered. (and Finland) while it is rare elsewhere in the catchment area as well as in the rest of Europe. There are several potential candidate sites. Species: • Additional sites for Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida spp. botnica) in the Gulf of Bothnia (endemic subspecies) are a main issue for Sweden and Finland. • Sweden (together with Finland) has a key role for several plant species that are endemic to the Baltic Region or with substantial parts of their Euro- pean populations in these countries. Additional sites should be considered for e.g. Arctophila fulva and Artemisa campestris spp. bottnica (coastal sites), Trisetum subalpestre (un-regulated riv- Fräkenkärret nature reserve, Sweden ers) and some bryophytes (see Table 7 for details).

32 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Russia: 18.8% of the Baltic Sea Catchment Area falls within Russian territory, with reference to the catchment areas of Rivers Daugava, Narva and Neva. There are only six RAMSAR sites. Three of them are located along the Gulf of Finland, with primarily marine and coastal habitats. The small number of sites is partly compensated by an generally large mean area, 521 km² (Table 2). Thus, 2.5% of the wetlands and inland waters in the catchment area is assessed to fall inside the RAMSAR network, i.e. on the same level as for Sweden and Belarus. It was not possible to find any detailed information about the representation of various wetland types, neither for individual sites nor for the whole catchment areas. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions: Inclusion of sites in the Kaliningrad Region should be considered, e.g. with reference to the Nemunas Delta and Kuronian Lagoon. The representation of freshwater Vistula river, flood plain Poland lakes should be reviewed and some additional sites to be considered (e.g. relevant part of Lake Ilmen and adjacent wetlands). Poland Some sites with aapa mires (in Kare- Almost the total area of Poland falls There is only one marine/coastal site lia) should be added to the RAMSAR inside the Baltic Sea Catchment Area in the national RAMSAR network. network, considering that this habitat (except for minor parts in the south- It is regrettable that it was not pos- occurs only in Russia, Finland and Swe- east, drained to River Dnestr), and the sible to make any evaluation of the rep- den inside the catchment area and it is country takes up 18.1% of the catchment resentation of swamp woods / alluvial judged to be generally under-represent- area (Table 1). There are 13 RAMSAR forests. ed on the RAMSAR list. sites, after a recent addition of five sites Species: • Species: “Key sites” for the endemic in 2002. Mean surface area of the sites • Poland has a key role for a better rep- Ladoga Ringed Seal (P. h. ladogensis) is comparatively small, 97 km², and the resentation of European Pond Terra- should be considered for the national RAMSAR network covers only 1.7% of pin (Emys orbicularis) and Yellow-bel- RAMSAR list. the wetlands and inland waters in the lied Toad (Bombina variegata) in the catchment area. RAMSAR network. The quality of the site-wise data is generally acceptable, but the efforts to • Cochleria polonica is a priority spe- get any references for the total cover- cies endemic to Poland and restricted age were not successful, except for fresh- to special types of spring habitats on water lakes, raised bogs and transition calcareous ground, but not represent- mires: ed at all in the RAMSAR list. Overall low coverage of wetlands and • For Caldesia parnassifolia, Apium re- inland waters in the national RAMSAR pens and Luronium natans additional network; additional sites should be con- sites in Poland would also be a valu- >> sidered. able input.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 33 Country-wise analyses and comments

Wetland in Beech and Fur trees forest. Autumn A habitat of natural distrophic lakes (type 3160) more boreal landscape in the Finnish Lappland common in western part of Lithuania found in raised bog

Finland: Belarus: 17.6% the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Species: 5,2% of the Baltic Sea Catchment Area falls within the Finnish territory (Table • Additional sites for Ringed Seal in the falls within Belarus, primarily with ref- 1). There are 46 RAMSAR sites inside Gulf of Bothnia is one of the main is- erence to the catchment areas of Rivers the catchment area, after a substantial sues for Finland and Sweden. Key sites Daugava, Nemunas and Wisla. There addition of 35 sites in 2005, but (in com- for the endemic Saima Ringed Seal (P. are eight RAMSAR sites in total, but mon with Sweden) the mean surface area h. saimensis, priority) should be con- five of them are located in the very large is below the average level (94 km² includ- sidered for the national RAMSAR and important wetland complex along ing marine habitats). The overall quality list. River Pripyat. The mean size of the re- of data is good. 3.1% of the wetlands and maining three sites is 188 km² (Table 2), inland waters in the catchment area are • Finland (together with Sweden) has a i.e. above the average level for most of located inside the RAMSAR network: key role for several plant species that the countries. 2.5% of the wetlands and The representation of swamp woods are endemic to the Baltic Region or inland waters in the catchment area are / alluvial forests is not acceptable: This with substantial parts of their Euro- assessed to be located inside the RAM- is the most apparent deficiency in the pean populations in these countries. SAR network. Site-wise information Finnish RAMSAR list and an addition Additional sites should be considered about the representation of wetland of a representative selection of sites in for e.g. Arctophila fulva and Artemisa types is generally acceptable, while the various parts of the country should be campestris spp. bottnica (coastal sites), assessments of generally coverage in- considered. Trisetum subalpestre (unregulated riv- clude some guesswork: With reference to mire types, the ers) and some bryophytes (see Table 7 for details). The representation of various wet- RAMSAR network should be further land types is assessed to be overall ac- complemented with alkaline/calcare- • For additional lake sites (see above), ceptable, but with question-marks for ous fens and bog woodland. lakes with viable populations of Najas various lake types, transition mires, Further, the Finnish network should flexilis and Najas teniussima should be calcareous/alkaline fens and bog wood- be reviewed with reference to the repre- taken into account. lands with reference to uncertainty sentation all types of watercourses and whether available information has been lakes. For large watercourses with an es- correctly interpreted by us. sentially intact hydrology, River Simo- joki and a transboundary RAMSAR site with Sweden for River Torne Älv might be considered.

34 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Lake Pape'e bird-watching tower, Latvia, built by WWF

Rare marshland/peatland area in the Centre of Estonia

Latvia: Lithuania: Swamp woods / alluvial forests: The whole territory of Latvia falls in- The whole territory of Lithuania is lo- The assessments are based on uncertain side the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, cated inside the Baltic Sea Catchment figures, there is a risk of under-repre- corresponding to 3.8%, the same as for Area, corresponding to 3.8%, the same sentation. Lithuania (Table 1). There are six RAM- as for Latvia (Table 1). There are five SAR sites with a mean surface area of RAMSAR sites, with a mean surface Estonia: 249 km², i.e. much above the average and area of 101 km², i.e. below the average The whole territory of Estonia falls in- the second largest figure after Russia. level for whole catchment area. The side the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, The overall quality of data is good. 7.9% overall quality of data is acceptable corresponding to 2.6% (Table 1). There of the wetlands and inland waters are es- but is not complete so it was not pos- are 11 RAMSAR sites. Mean surface timated to be located inside the RAM- sible to make any detailed analyses for area is above average for the whole SAR network, i.e. much above the aver- all wetland types. 3.9% of the wetlands catchment area (194 km² including ma- age level for the whole catchment area. and inland waters in the catchment area rine habitats). The overall quality of Despite the overall good coverage, some are assessed to fall inside the RAMSAR data is acceptable, although it is not remarks are still necessary: network, e.g. very close to the average possible to make any detailed analyses The representation of coastal mead- for the whole catchment area for all wetland types. As much as 9.0% ows/marshes should be improved. Marine and coastal habitats: of the wetlands and inland waters in the For inland waters, additional sites It is obvious that the national RAM- catchment area are assessed to fall in- with watercourses and olio-mesotrophic SAR network should be complemented side the RAMSAR network: lakes might be considered. Considering with shallow marine areas and coastal The representation of wetland types that large watercourses with essentially habitats, including relevant parts of the is generally acceptable, with some res- intact hydrology are almost complete- Kuronian Lagoon. ervations for freshwater lakes, calcare- ly lacking among the RAMSAR site in Freshwater lakes: ous/alkaline fens and bog woodland. catchment area as a whole, the north- The representation should be reviewed In contrast to Sweden and Finland, ern/upper parts of River Gauja would and some additional sites should be wooded forests are also represented on make a valuable contribution. considered. The lack of representation an acceptable level in Estonia. For mires, complementary repre- of the unique gypsum karst lakes (habi- Species: Possibilities to include sites sentation of transition mires and bog tat 3190 in Annex I of the EU Habitats with the endemic Saussurea alpina spp. woodland might be considered. Directive) is an obvious deficit. esthonica in any extended RAMSAR list should be considered. >>

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 35 Country-wise analyses and comments

Northern seashore village in Baltic Loksa, Estonia Greylag goose (Anser anser), Biebrza, Poland

Denmark: (244 km²), and this is related to large ar- Germany: Even if only 1.9% of the Baltic Sea eas of marine and coastal habitats. The 1.6% of the catchment area is located Catchment Area falls within Denmark overall quality of data is good. As much in Germany, including parts of Sch- (Table 1), the composition of sites and as 20.5% of the wetlands and inland wa- leswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vor- their representation of habitats differ ters in the catchment area are assessed pommern, Brandenburg and a minor from the other countries, i.e. the sites in to be located inside the RAMSAR net- part of Sachsen. There areas hold five Denmark represent an additional quali- work. The RAMSAR network in Den- RAMSAR sites (out of 32 sites in to- tative aspect. There are 22 RAMSAR mark was established in 1977, i.e. when tal in the country), with a mean surface sites inside the catchment area (and 27 the RAMSAR convention was still pri- area of only 76 km² (including marine in total). Mean surface area is above marily targeted for the designation of habitats), i.e. the lowest figure among average for the whole catchment area sites with ornithological values, and no all countries with more than 1% of the complementary sites have been added catchment area inside their territories. thereafter. So although there is no need 2.8% of the wetlands and inland waters to add further marine or coastal sites are located inside the RAMSAR sites to the RAMSAR network, additional (Table 2). The efforts to get accurate in- inland sites should be considered: formation about the total coverage of Freshwater lakes and watercours- various habitats inside the catchment es: Except for Maribo Lakes, the net- area largely failed except for some in- work does not include any inland sites formation about mires. Nevertheless, and hence watercourses and freshwa- and considering that no sites have been ter lakes are under-represented. Obvi- added to the RAMSAR network since Kingfisher ous “candidates” for the RAMSAR net- 1978, it is obvious that complements are (Alcedo atthis) work are some lakes on Sjælland and needed: widespread, Jutland, including Lake Furesøen (N Marine and coastal habitats: There although not Copenhagen); a eutrophic lake target- is only one marine/coastal site, i.e. ad- common, in streams ed restoration co-financed by LIFE Na- ditional sites should be considered. and rivers in the ture. For watercourses, River Odense Mires: Despite the existence of quite Baltic catchment Å which is also targeted for restoration large areas of raised bogs, e.g. in Meck- under the LIFE Nature program should lenburg-Vorpommern, this wetland type be considered. is not represented in the RAMSAR net- Mires and swamp woods / alluvial work. The representation of transition forests: The RAMSAR network should mires and similar types also needs to be complemented with inland sites e.g. be reviewed. some of the raised bogs/bog woodland It is regrettable that it was not pos- sites now targeted for restoration within sible to evaluate the representation of a LIFE Nature project. Further, some swamp woods / alluvial forests. calcareous/alkaline fens and swamp Species: Possibilities to include sites woods/alluvial forests at inland sites with Apium repens (currently targeted should be considered for any extension for a LIFE Nature project) in any extend- of the RAMSAR network. ed RAMSAR list should be considered.

36 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Lower Oder Valley National Park, Brandenburg, Germany

Countries with less than 1% of the Bal- The sites should be of “interna- Priority should also be given to sites tic Sea Catchment Area inside their tional importance” (ref. article 2.2 of with other wetland types that has been territories: These countries (Norway, the RAMSAR Convention). Sites pro- found to be under-represented in the Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia) posed for the NATURA 2000 network present study and classified as priority have not been analysed in any detail. are assumed to meet this criterion but types (ref. Table 4 and with reference to additional sites of international impor- Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive). tance may not be included in NATURA With reference to species under-rep- Guidelines for the proposal 2000. resented in the RAMSAR network, of additional sites Mire sites of a good conservation sta- sites with priority species (ref. Table 7 The present study has identified a need tus with reference to reasonably intact and with reference to Annex II of the of complementary sites on the RAM- hydrology and representation of species EU Habitats Directive) and with spe- SAR list, if the objective of a represen- should be given top priority, consider- cies that are endemic or with substan- tation of the full diversity of wetlands is ing that peatlands are generally under- tial parts of their European populations to be achieved. For the selection of sites, represented in the global RAMSAR inside the catchment area should be pri- some guidelines might be applied: network. oritised.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 37 Protection status and management of the sites

For the purpose of the present study we restricted the analysis of protection status to a check of whether the sites are proposed for the NATURA 2000 network or (for Belarus, Norway and Russia) if the sites have appropriate and sufficient legal protection status.

To the extent the sites are proposed for • Sweden: Revisions of the demarca- NATURA 2000, there is a legal obliga- tions of the NATURA 2000 sites in tion for the EU member states to en- order to fit better with the RAMSAR sure the relevant legal protection, that sites are needed at 11 sites (22% of all the management is appropriately ar- Swedish sites). ranged (with a management plan, if needed) and that the necessary finan- There are no RAMSAR sites inside cial resources are in place. The result those parts of Slovakia that fall inside of the country-wise checks can be sum- the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. marised as follows (site-wise details are found in the country-wise annexes): For non-EU states: Legal protection status of the RAM- For EU member states: SAR sites is adequate: Norway (2 sites). The representation of the RAMSAR Legal protection status of the RAM- sites in the national NATURA 2000 SAR sites is presumably adequate but

network is generally acceptable: Czech needs to be further analysed: Belarus, For the EU member status, Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germa- Russia. the RAMSAR sites are gener- ny, Lithuania, Poland ally adequately represented in the The representation of the RAMSAR There are no RAMSAR sites inside NATUR A 2000 network. Some mi- sites in the national NATURA 2000 net- those parts of Ukraine that fall inside nor adjustments might be needed work is generally acceptable, although the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. for Latvia and Estonia, while some adjustments and improvements With the current analyses, we have adjustments of the demarcations are recommended: only checked that the formal and legal are needed for more than 20% of protection status is appropriate while • Estonia: For one site (3EE010, Vilsan- the RAMSAR sites in Sweden. For any judgements as to whether the obliga- di National Park), the proposed SPA/ the non-member states, the legal tions about a relevant legal protection, pSCI is smaller than the RAMSAR protection status is adequate for the arrangement of the management site; we recommend the demarcation Norway and presumably also for and necessary financial resources were to be checked and adjusted, if need- the sites in Russia and Belarus met in practise fell outside the scope of ed. (although this needs to be further this study. A more detailed investigation analysed). • Latvia: For the Lubana wetland of these aspects would require more de- (3LV004), the NATURA 2000 desig- tailed analysis based on a selection of nation is still in progress. individual sites.

Flooded marshland in the middle of the Biebrza Marshes, Poland

38 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Oligotrophic mountain lake, Abisko national park, Sweden

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 39 Notes, tables and figures

Eutrophic lake, Sweden

1 This assessment is based on the network, but are still in prepara- “status list”. The same kinds of differ- country-wise information given by tion for some of the new member ences exist also for other habitats and Joosten (2002) and adjusted for the states entered into EU in 2004. for other countries; e.g. the areas of proportions of each country that are freshwater habitats classified as FFH located inside the Baltic Sea Catch- 5 The wetland classification according habitats in comparison to total areas ment Area (ref. Table 1). For single to the RAMSAR system has not been of “inland waters” for some countries. countries, the figures in Joosten's entirely consistent between countries. overview might differ from the es- The classification of mires in Sweden 7 For evaluations of the coverage of timates of representation of vari- and Finland may serve as an exam- habitats (listed in Annex I of the EU ous wetland types in the present ple: Finnish compilers have used the Habitats Directive) in the NATU- study but these deviations are not U-classification for a wider range of RA 2000 network, the “20/60 guide- of the magnitude that the qualita- wetlands than the Swedish ones e.g. lines” implies that habitats with more tive conclusion about the role of the aapa mires are mostly classified as than 60% representation (e.g. with peatlands in the Baltic Sea Catch- “alpine wetlands” (=Va) in Sweden reference to surface area) are con- ment Area should be questioned. but included in the U-classification sidered to be satisfactorily covered, for Finland. Further, calcareous and habitats with less than 20% cover- 2 For wetlands, very different figures alkaline fens are mostly classified as age to be non-satisfactorily covered, can be found for the same country. To S-habitats in Sweden while not report- and habitats in the range of 20-60% give Sweden as an example; estimates ed at all for any Finnish sites although are to be analysed case by case. from different sources vary between they obviously exist also in Finnish 66 000 km², if restricted to wetlands RAMSAR sites. – Nor is the classifi- 8 The estimate that two thirds of the with peat formation (Joosten 2002), cation consistent for sites designated peatlands (ref. Joosten 2002) are “ac- to more than 93 000 km² (Löfroth in different years for some countries tive peatlands” is based on data for 1991) if a wider definition is applied. e.g. for Sweden the classification ac- all countries in the catchment area cording to the RAMSAR system is for which any estimates of total mire 3 With a wide definition of the wetland in acceptable agreement with refer- areas have been made (i.e. all coun- concept in consistency with the ap- ence to FFH habitats (ref. Annex I of tries except Czech Republic, Nor- plication of the RAMSAR Conven- the Habitats Directive) for the most way, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine) tion, our estimate of 235 700 km² of recently designated sites (designated and under the assumption that most wetland area in total in the catchment in 2001) but less consistent for the the land with active accumulation area (14%, Table 1, page 2) is not nec- sites designated in 1974 and 1989. of peat can be classified as mires. essarily in disagreement with sub- stantially lower figures (e.g. 138 000 6 For example, the total figure of wet- 9 This estimate is based on data km² of bogs and fens, 8% of the catch- lands for Sweden (82 900 km², Table 1) for all countries in the catchment area) reported elsewhere. includes “peatlands” in the magnitude ment areas except Czech Repub- of around 65 000 km² although the fig- lic, Norway, Russia, Slovakia and 4 Such “status lists” were prepared ure for mires classified as FFH habi- Ukraine. Total wetland area exclud- by all EU member states during tats and thus used as a reference for ing these countries is estimated to the initial phase of the NATURA this study is 38 946 km². This differ- 187 700 km² (ref. Table 1) of which 2000 process; to have as a reference reflects the fact that not all peat- 112 853 km² are mires (ref. Table 5). ence for the selection of sites pro- lands have been classified with refer- posed for the NATURA 2000 ence to FFH habitat in the national

40 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Table 1. Land use in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area. Country Surface Thereof % % of Forests Agricultural Wetlands Inland Mountains Other kinds areas, inside the of catch- land waters above of land total, catch- coun- ment tree-line (incl. urban km² ment try area areas) area, km² km² % km² % km² % km² % km² % km² % Belarus 207 600 87 900 42 5.2 30 300 35 39 300 45 14 600 17 1 700 2 - - 2 200 2 Czech 78 900 7 700 10 0.5 2 500 33 4 200 55 700 9 100 1 100 1 100 1 Republic Denmark 43 100 32 500 75 1.9 3 900 12 23 100 71 1 400 4 1 600 5 - - 2 500 8 Estonia 45 100 45 100 100 2.6 18 000 40 14 400 32 9 900 22 2 400 5 - - 400 1 Finland 338 100 300 100 89 17.6 209 700 70 20 100 7 41 600 14 27 000 9 1 000 0 700 0 Germany 356 700 27 500 8 1.6 6 300 23 17 000 62 1 400 5 900 3 - - 1 900 7 Latvia 64 600 64 600 100 3.8 29 000 45 25 200 39 8 400 13 1 100 2 - - 900 1 Lithuania 65 300 65 300 100 3.8 19 600 30 35 300 54 5 100 8 2 600 4 - - 2 700 4 Norway 323 900 13 200 4 0.8 6 700 51 400 3 2 000 15 800 6 3 300 25 0 0 Poland 312 700 307 900 99 18.1 89 300 29 187 800 61 17 200 6 6 200 2 3 100 1 4 300 1 Slovakia 49 000 2 400 5 0.1 1 500 63 700 29 100 4 0 0 100 4 0 0 Russia 4 193 100 319 900 8 18.8 191 940 60 34 460 11 48 000 15 37 200 12 - - 8 300 3 (European part) Sweden 450 000 414 500 92 24.3 223 200 54 24 300 6 82 900 20 40 000 10 40 000 10 4 100 1 Ukraine 603 700 13 700 2 0.8 3 300 24 7 800 57 2 400 18 100 1 - - 100 1 TOTAL 1.702.300 835 240 49 434 060 26 235 700 14 121 700 7 47 600 3 28 000 2

NOTE: The table is primarily based on information from various sources including official information, the BDBP database (www.grida.no/baltic/), the IBA report (Heath & Evans 2000) and unpublished information (Löfroth & Moen 1994, manuscript).

Table 2. Number and surface area of RAMSAR sites and their representation of wetland and inland water habitats. Country Surface area of Number of RAM- Total surface Mean sur- Surface area of % of total % of wetlands wetlands and SAR sites area of the face area wetlands and RAMSAR site and inland inland waters (inside the RAMSAR sites, per site, km² inland waters area waters in the inside the catch- catchment area) km² in the RAMSAR catchment area ment area, km² sites, km² Belarus 16 300 3 564 188 407 72.2 2.5 Czech 800 2 57 29 24 42.1 3.0 Republic Denmark 3 000 22 5 362 244 616 11.5 20.5 Estonia 12 300 11 2 134 194 1 109 52.0 9.0 Finland 68 600 46 4 324 94 2 152 49.6 3.1 Germany 2 300 5 379 76 64 16.9 2.8 Norway 2 800 2 42 21 40 95.2 1.4 Latvia 9 500 6 1 492 249 778 52.1 8.2 Lithuania 7 700 5 505 101 302 59.8 3.9 Poland 23 400 13 1 258 97 400 31.8 1.7 Slovakia 100 0 - - - - - Russia 85 200 6 3 126 521 2 168 69.4 2.5 (European part) Sweden 122 900 50 5 075 102 2 710 53.4 2.2 Ukraine 2 500 0 - - - - - TOTAL 357 400 171 24 336 142 10 770 44.4 3.0

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 41 Table 3. Overview of habitat classification systems used in the present study, by the RAMSAR Convention, and the EU Habitats Directive (FFH habitats, Annex I).

Terminology in this study Annex I of Habitats Directive RAMSAR classification system (priorities are indicated in italics) (FFH habitats; priority habitats are indicated in italics) (letter notifications explained below) MARINE HABITATS A, B.

• Shallow marine waters 1110. Sandbanks, slightly covered by sea-water all the time 1160. Large shallow inlets and bays. 1650. Boreal Baltic narrow inlets

COASTAL HABITATS D, E, F, G, H, J, K, Q (partly), R • Rocky marine shores and islets 1230. Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts 1620. Boreal Baltic islets and small islands • Stony, sandy and 1210. Annual vegetation of drift lines. shingle beaches 1220. Perennial vegetation on stony beaches 1610. Baltic esker islands with sandy, rocky or shingle beach vegetation. 1640. Boreal Baltic sand beaches with perennial vegetation • Estuaries 1130. Estuaries • Intertidal sandflats and mudflats 1140. Mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea-water at low tide • Salt/coastal meadows and 1310. Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand. marshes (priority) 1330. Atlantic salt meadows 1630. Boreal Baltic coastal meadows •Coastal lagoons (priority) 1150. Coastal lagoons FRESHWATER HABITATS M, N, O, P, Q (partly) • Watercourses 3210. Fennoscandian natural rivers M, N (rivers, streams, brooks) 3220, 3230. Alpine rivers 3260. Watercourses of plain to mountain levels 3270. Rivers with muddy banks • Oligo-mesotrophic lakes 3110. Oligotrophic waters 3130. Oligo-mesotrophic waters • Eutrophic lakes 3140. “Chara” lakes 3150. Natural eutrophic lakes • Dystrophic lakes 3160. Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds WET MEADOWS 1340. Inland salt meadows Tp, Ts (partly) 6410. Molinia meadows on peaty and clayey-silt-laden soils 6430. Hydrophilous tall herbifridge communities 6440. Alluvial meadows of river valleys 6450. Northern boreal alluvial meadows MIRES L, Sp, Ss, Tp, Ts, U, Va, Vt, W, Xp, Y • Raised bogs (priority) 7110. Active raised bogs 7120. Degraded raised bogs • Blanket bogs 7130. Blanket bogs (active blanket bogs = priority) • Transitions mires, nutrient-poor/ 7140. Transition mires and quaking bogs intermediate fens etc 7150. Depressions on peat substrates • Calcareous and alkaline fens 7210. Calcareous fens 7230. Alkaline fens • Springs and spring fens 7160. Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and spring fens Y 7220. Petrifying springs with tufa formation • Aapa mires (priority) 7310. Aapa mires • Palsa mires (priority) 7240. Alpine pioneer formations 7320. Palsa mires • Bog woodland (priority) 91D0. Bog woodland Xp SWAMP WOODS / 9080. Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods I, W, Xf ALLUVIAL FORESTS (priority) 91E0. Residual alluvial forests 91F0. Mixed oak-elm-ash forests of great rivers.

42 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Oligotrophic lake, Sweden

In the RAMSAR classification system wetland types are notified, as follows:

Marine/coastal wetlands: Inland wetlands: A = Permanent shallow marine waters, in most L = Permanent inland deltas. Ts = Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools (below 8 ha) on inorganic soils; cases less than 6 metres deep; includes sea M = Permanent rivers/streams/creeks, inclu- bays and straits includes seasonally flooded meadows, sedge des waterfalls. marshes B = Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes N = Seasonal/intermittent rivers/streams/ sea-grass beds. U = Non-forested peatland; includes shrub or creeks. open bogs, swamps, fens D = Rocky marine shores; includes rocky O = Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha). offshore islands, sea cliffs. Va = Alpine wetlands; includes alpine mea- P = Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes dows, temporary waters from snow melt E = Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes (over 8 ha). sand bars, spits and sandy islets; includes Vt = Tundra wetlands; includes tundra pools, = Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes. dune systems and humid dune slacks. Q temporary waters from snow melt R = Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/ F = Estuarine waters; permanent water of W = Shrub-dominated wetlands; shrub alkaline lakes. estuaries and estuarine system of deltas. swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater mars- Sp = Permanent saline/brackish water/alkaline hes, shrub carr, alder thicket on inorganic G = Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats marshes/pools. soils. H = Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, = Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish Xf = Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands; salt meadows, tidal brackish and freshwater Ss water/alkaline marshes/pools. includes freshwater swamp forests, seaso- marshes nally flooded forests, wooded swamps on Tp = Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; I = Intertidal forested wetlands inorganic soils ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps J = Coastal brackish/saline lagoons. on inorganic soils; with emergent vegeta- Xp = Forested peatlands, peatswamp forests. K = Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes tion water-logged for at least of the growing Y = Freshwater springs freshwater delta lagoons season.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 43 Table 4. Overview of the country-wise evaluation of - = not existing representation of different wetland types. n.a. = not analysed Wetland type Representation in the national RAMSAR network

Belarus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden MARINE - Good Acceptable Good Acceptable? Acceptable Not Acceptable? Acceptable Good HABITATS acceptable • Shallow - Good Acceptable Good n.a. Acceptable Not n.a. Acceptable Good marine areas acceptable COASTAL - Good Acceptable Good Acceptable? Not Not Acceptable? Acceptable? Acceptable HABITATS acceptable acceptable • Rocky marine - Acceptable n.a. Good n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Acceptable shores • Sandy / stony / - Good n.a. Good n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Acceptable shingle beaches • Estuaries - Acceptable n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Good • Intertidal mud- - Acceptable n.a. Good n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Good flats / sandflats • Salt / Coastal - Good Acceptable Good n.a. Not n.a. n.a. n.a. Good meadows and acceptable marshes (priority) • Coastal lagoons - Good Acceptable Good n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Acceptable (priority) FRESHWATER Acceptable Not Not Not Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Acceptable? Acceptable HABITATS acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable • Watercourses Acceptable? Not n.a. Not n.a. Not n.a. n.a. n.a. Not (rivers, streams, acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable brooks) • Oligo-mes- n.a. Acceptable n.a. Acceptable n.a. Not n.a. n.a. n.a. Acceptable otrophic lakes acceptable • Eutrophic lakes n.a. Not n.a. Not n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Good acceptable acceptable • Dystrophic lakes n.a. Acceptable n.a. Not n.a. Good n.a. n.a. n.a. Not acceptable acceptable WET MEADOWS Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Good n.a. Good Acceptable Acceptable n.a. Good

MIRES Acceptable? Not Acceptable Not Not Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable? Not acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable • Raised bogs Good Not Acceptable Acceptable Not Acceptable Good Acceptable n.a. Acceptable (priority) acceptable acceptable • Blanket bogs ------Good • Transitions mires, Acceptable? Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not Not Acceptable? Acceptable n.a. Not nutrient-poor/ acceptable acceptable acceptable intermediate fens etc • Calcareous and Not Not Not Not n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Not alkaline fens acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable • Springs and n.a. Not n.a. Not n.a. Acceptable n.a. n.a. n.a. Not spring fens acceptable acceptable acceptable • Aapa mires - - - Acceptable - - - n.a. Not Not (priority) acceptable acceptable • Palsa mires - - - Acceptable - - - - - Good (priority) • Bog woodland Acceptable? Not Not Not n.a. Not Acceptable n.a. n.a. Not (priority) acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable SWAMP WOODS / Good Not Acceptable Not n.a. Good Acceptable? n.a. n.a. Not ALLUVIAL acceptable acceptable acceptable FORESTS (priority)

44 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Table 5. Comparison of the distribution of wetland types in the catchment area and in the RAMSAR sites, - = not existing and the proportions of various wetland types inside the RAMSAR sites, based on data for the n.a. = not analysed countries with good or acceptable accuracy in the country-wise analyses.

Wetland type Whole RAMSAR sites Comments catchment area

Surface % distri- Number % of Surface % distri- % in area, km² bution of sites all area, bution RAMSAR sites km² sites MARINE HABITATS 7 362.2 4.3 9 18.0 2 747.9 26.0 37.5 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

• Shallow marine areas 7 362.2 4.3 9 18.0 2 747.9 26.0 37.5 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

COASTAL HABITATS 4 368.8 2.6 15 30.0 1 224.7 11.6 28.1 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

• Rocky marine shores 514.3 0.3 4 8.0 259.0 2.4 50.4 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

• Sandy / stony / 330.3 0.2 11 22.0 18.5 0.2 5.6 No data for Estonia and Lithuania shingle beaches

• Estuaries 618.3 0.4 5 10.0 191.2 1.8 30.9 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

• Intertidal mudflats / sandflats 2 154.5 1.3 11 22.0 350.9 3.3 16.3 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

• Salt / Coastal meadows 375.5 0.2 12 24.0 192.7 1.8 51.3 No data for Estonia and Lithuania and marshes

• Coastal lagoons 370.9 0.6 8 16.0 212.4 2.0 57.3 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

FRESHWATER HABITATS 54 390.4 32.0 37 74.0 1 503.6 14.2 2.8

• Water courses 4 952.2 2.9 19 38.0 296.0 2.8 6.0

• Lakes 49 438.2 29.1 12 24.0 1 207.6 11.4 2.4

WET MEADOWS 1 624.1 1.0 32 64.0 144.4 1.4 8.9 No data for Estonia and Lithuania

MIRES 99 211.5 58.4 29 58.0 4 590.4 43.4 4.6

• Raised bogs 15 699.6 9.2 8 16.0 1 407.7 13.3 8.9

• Blanket bogs 47.6 0 . 0 2 4.0 47.3 0.4 99.4 Occurs only in Sweden

• Transition mires etc. 18 362. 10.8 18 36.0 719.4 6.8 3.9

• Calcareous and alkaline fens 2 246.8 1.3 10 20.0 75.4 0.7 3.4 No data for Belarus and Lithuania

• Springs and spring fens 153.6 0.1 3 6.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 No data for Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania

• Aapa mires 43 215.5 25.4 9 18.0 1 695.8 16.0 3.9 Occurs only in Sweden and Finland

• Palsa mires 664.1 0.4 5 10.0 164.3 1.6 24.7 Occurs only in Sweden and Finland

• Bog woodland 18 821.9 11.1 17 34.0 483.0 4.6 2.6

SWAMP WOODS AND 3 104.1 1.8 21 42.0 368.9 3.5 11.9 ALLUVIAL FORESTS

TOTAL 180 020.1 10 579.9 6.2

The table is based on information from the country-wise annexes for Denmark, Finland, Latvia and Sweden (good accuracy), and for Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania (acceptable accuracy).

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 45 Table 6. Number of RAMSAR sites, with reference to countries and wetland types. Wetland type Number of RAMSAR sites % of all Bela- Czech Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lithua- Nor- Po- Rus- Slo- Swe- Uk- Whole sites rus Re- mark tonia land many via nia way land sia vakia den raine catch- public ment area MARINE - - 20 5 7 1 2 0 - 0 2 - 9 - 46 26.9 HABITATS • Shallow - - 20 5 7 1 2 0 - 0 2 - 9 - 46 26.9 marine areas COASTAL - - 21 5 16 1 1 1 - 1 2 - 15 - 63 36.8 HABITATS • Rocky marine - - 7 0 8 0 0 0 - 0 na - 4 - 19 11.5 shores • Sandy / stony / - - 19 0 10 1 0 0 - 1 na - 11 - 42 25.5 shingle beaches • Estuaries - - 1 0 6 0 0 1 - 0 na - 5 - 13 7.9 • Intertidal mud- - - 15 0 5 1 0 0 - 0 na - 11 - 32 19.4 flats / sandflats • Salt / Coastal - - 20 5 10 1 1 0 - 0 na - 12 - 49 29.7 meadows and marshes • Coastal la- - - 17 5 9 1 1 1 - 1 na - 8 - 43 26.1 goons FRESHWATER 3 1 15 8 28 4 6 3 2 11 4 0 37 0 122 71.3 HABITATS • Water courses 1 0 7 7 12 1 0 0 1 5 na 0 19 0 53 32.1 • Oligo-mes- 1 1 3 0 4 1 0 0 na 0 na 0 12 0 22 13.5 otrophic lakes • Eutrophic lakes 1 1 14 4 7 4 4 3 na 11 na 0 18 0 67 41.1 • Dystrophic 2 0 0 3 20 1 3 0 na 2 na 0 9 0 40 24.5 lakes • Total for lakes 3 1 15 5 26 4 6 3 2 11 4 0 35 0 115 67.3 WET MEADOWS 2 1 6 8 10 3 4 3 na 10 na 0 32 0 79 48.5 MIRES 3 2 14 9 33 2 6 5 2 9 4 0 29 0 118 69.0 • Raised bogs 2 1 0 5 12 0 4 5 na 5 na 0 8 0 42 25.8 • Blanket bogs ------na - na - 2 - 2 1.2 • Transition mires 2 1 2 6 24 1 5 4 na 6 na 0 18 0 69 42.3 etc. • Calcareous 0 0 13 6 8 1 3 2 na 3 na 0 10 0 45 27.6 and alkaline fens • Springs and 0 0 4 2 9 0 0 1 na 1 na 0 3 0 20 1 2 . 3 spring fens • Aapa mires - - - - 16 - - - na - na - 9 - 25 14.6 • Palsa mires - - - - 1 - - - na - na - 5 - 6 3.5 • Bog woodland 2 0 0 6 20 2 5 4 na 6 na 0 17 0 63 38.7 SWAMP WOODS 3 1 12 7 11 2 5 2 na 8 na 0 21 0 72 44.2 AND ALLUVIAL FORESTS Total number 3 2 22 11 46 5 6 5 2 13 6 0 50 0 171 of sites

- = not existing n.a. = not analysed.

46 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area - = not existing n.a. = not analysed. Rocky seashore, Baltic Sea, Finland

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 47 Table 7. Number of sites for species related to wetlands and listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Priority species are indicated in bold. Species: Number of sites % of Comments MOLLUSCS all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Margaritifera Acceptable? margaritifera – incomplete data (Freshwater Pearl Mussel) as no sites listed - Number of sites - X 1 X 0 6 X ? X 20 27 for Finland in the - Thereof in RAMSAR - ? 0 ? 0 0 ? ? ? 3 3 11.1 EUNIS database. Unio crassus Not acceptable - Number of sites - 2 X 2 11 26 X 12 X 3 56 – too few sites for - Thereof in RAMSAR - 0 ? 0 1 0 ? 1 ? 1 3 5.4 this freshwater mussel under rapid decline. Vertigo angustior (Narrow- Not acceptable mouthed Whorl-snail) – too few sites. - Number of sites X 9 X 1 34 1 X 6 - 25 76 - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 1 ? 0 2 0 ? 0 - 2 5 6.6 Vertigo genesii Not acceptable - Number of sites X - 1 0 0 X X X - 13 14 – too few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR ? - 0 0 0 ? ? ? - 2 2 14.3 Vertigo geyeri Acceptable? - Number of sites X 1 X 0 0 X - X - 30 31 – few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 ? 0 0 ? - ? - 4 4 22.1

Vertigo moulinisiana Not acceptable (Desmoulin's Whorl-snail) – too few sites. - Number of sites X 12 - - 33 - X 2 - 1 46 - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 1 - - 2 - ? 0 - 0 3 6.5

Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments INSECTS all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Dytiscus latissimus Acceptable - Number of sites X 2 X 3 4 5 1 ? X 10 25 – quite widespread - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 ? 1 0 1 0 ? ? 2 4 16.0 in parts of the catchment area. Graphoderes bilineatus Acceptable (Water Beetle) – quite widespread - Number of sites X 3 X 2 3 X X ? X 3 11 in parts of the - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 ? 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 2 18.2 catchment area. Leucorrhinia pectoralis Acceptable - Number of sites – quite widespread - Thereof in RAMSAR X 6 3 3 42 X 1 7 X 13 75 in parts of the ? 0 1 1 1 ? 0 0 ? 4 8 6.6 catchment area. Ophiogomphus cecilia Acceptable? - Number of sites X 2 X 1 6 4 X 2 X 1 16 – few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 ? 1 1 0 ? 0 ? 0 2 12.5

48 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments FISH all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Lampetra fluviatilis Acceptable? (River Lamprey) – incomplete data as - Number of sites X 5 3 e 22 X 11 7 X e 48 exceptions to apply the - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 1 0 e 1 ? 1 0 ? e 3 6.3 EU Habitats Directive in Finland and Sweden. Lampetra planeri Acceptable? (Brook Lamprey) – incomplete data as - Number of sites X 16 e e 41 X 1 8 X e 66 exceptions to apply the - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 e e 2 ? 1 0 ? e 3 4.5 EU Habitats Directive for in Estonia. Finland and Sweden. Petromyzon marinus Acceptable (Sea Lamprey) – incomplete data as - Number of sites - 5 X X 10 X 1 X X e 16 exceptions to apply the - Thereof in RAMSAR - 3 ? ? 1 ? 0 ? ? e 4 25.0 EU Habitats Directive in Sweden. Alosa alosa Acceptable? (Shad) – few sites and general- - Number of sites - 1 - ? 1 - - ? - ? 2 ly rare; the meaningful- - Thereof in RAMSAR - 1 - ? 0 - - ? - ? 1 50.0 ness of any additional sites in the catchment area should be considered Alosa fallax Acceptable? (Allis Shad) – few sites and general- - Number of sites - 4 ? ext 5 ext ext ? ext ? 9 ly rare; the meaningful- - Thereof in RAMSAR - 2 ? - 0 - - ? - ? 2 22.1 ness of any additional sites in the catchment area should be considered Salmo salar Acceptable (Salmon) – incomplete data due - Number of sites X 0 6 e 0 16 12 5 X 16 55 to exception to apply - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 0 1 e 0 0 0 1 ? 4 6 10.9 the EU Habitats Direc- tive in Finland. Aspius aspius Acceptable (Asp) – incomplete data due

- Number of sites to exception to apply X - 2 e 28 X 8 16 X 11 65 - Thereof in RAMSAR the EU Habitats Direc- ? - 2 e 1 ? 1 1 ? 6 16 16.9 tive in Finland. Cobites taenia Not analysed; (Spined Loach) no site-related infor- - Number of sites X X X e X X X X X X - mation in the EUNIS - Thereof in RAMSAR ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? ? - - database. Cottus gobio Acceptable? (Bullhead) – Widespread over - Number of sites X X X e 6 X 1 17 X 22 46 parts of the catchment - Thereof in RAMSAR ? ? ? e 0 ? 1 0 ? 6 3 6.5 area but few incomplete data due to exception to apply the EU Habitats Directive in Finland.

NOTES (Table 7, all species): Numbers refer to NATURA 2000 sites (ref. the EUNIS database) except for e = exception from the application of the EU Habitats Directive, so those in italics which refer to the Corine or Emerald systems. no sites are listed in the EUNIS database. X = reported from the country but no information about the number of sites ext = extinct or probably extinct. - = not existing

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 49 Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments MAMMALS all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Castor fiber Not analysed but (European Beaver) widespread; excep- - Number of sites X - e e X e e X X e - tions to apply the EU - Thereof in RAMSAR ? - e e X e e X ? e - - Habitats Directive for several countries. Lutra lutra Acceptable (European Otter) – many sites - Number of sites X 42 39 86 121 69 79 113 X 43 592 - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 6 7 13 5 1 5 4 ? 4 45 7.6 Mustela lutreola Doubts if still present (European Mink) at the CORINE sites - Number of site X - 6 ext ext 2 ext ext X - 8 listed for Estonia and - Thereof in RAMSAR ? - 4 - - 0 - - ? - 4 50.0 Latvia. Priority for additional RAMSAR sites to be considered only when re-introduced populations in Esto- nia have proved to be viable. Halichoerus grypus Acceptable (Grey Seal) – good coverage and - Number of sites - 7 8 19 2 5 1 0 X 18 60 many sites - Thereof in RAMSAR - 5 1 7 0 1 0 0 ? 4 18 30.0

Phoca vitulina Acceptable (Harbour Seal, – good coverage and Common Seal) many sites - Number of sites - 19 - - 6 - - X - 8 33 - Thereof in RAMSAR - 14 - - 0 - - ? - 2 16 48.5 Phoca hispida Not acceptable (Ringed Seal) – too few sites, con- - Number of sites - - 1 5 - 4 - - 3 2 15 sidering endemic sta- - Thereof in RAMSAR - - 0 1 - 1 - - 1 0 3 20.0 tus of P. h. botnica in the Baltic Sea. Phoca hispida Not acceptable ssp saimensis – endemic to Lake (Saima Ringed Seal) Saima, “key sites” - Number of sites - - - 1 ------1 should be considered - Thereof in RAMSAR for the RAMSAR list. - - - 0 ------0 0.0 Phoca hispida ssp Not acceptable ladogensis – endemic to Lake (Ladoga Ringed Seal) Ladoga, “key sites” - Number of sites ------X - X should be considered - Thereof in RAMSAR for the RAMSAR list. ------0 - 0 - Phocaena phocaena Acceptable (Harbour Porpoise, (although no sites Common Porpoise) in Sweden) - Number of sites - 23 - - 2 ? - ? - 1 26 - Thereof in RAMSAR - 14 - - 0 - - - - 0 14 53.8

50 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments REPTILES AND all AMPHIBIANS Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Emys orbicularis (Euro- Not acceptable pean Pond Terrapin) – too low representa- - Number of sites X - - - 23 1 5 37 X - 66 tion of this species - Thereof in RAMSAR ? - - - 0 0 1 0 ? - 1 1.5 under constant threat and decline. Triturus cristatus Acceptable (Crested Newt) – widespread species, - Number of sites X 56 X 1 86 5 7 39 X 55 249 many sites - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 6 ? 0 3 0 1 2 ? 6 18 7.2 Bombina bombina Acceptable. (Fire-bellied Toad) - Number of sites X 6 - - 41 2 31 68 X 6 154 - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 4 - - 2 0 3 3 ? 0 12 7.8 Bombina variegata Not acceptable (Yellow-bellied Toad) – not reported for any - Number of sites ------26 - - 26 RAMSAR site. - Thereof in RAMSAR ------0 - - 0 0.0

Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)

Yellow bellied toad (Bombina variegata) Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus carnifex) is reported only from Poland, and none of the sites are included on the RAMSAR list

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 51 Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments VASCULAR PLANTS all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Allisma wahlenbergi Acceptable - Number of sites - - - 10 - - - - X 1 11 – endemic to the Baltic - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 4 - - - - ? 0 4 38.6 Region. Angelica palustris Not acceptable - Number of sites - - 7 - 0 2 - 3 - - 12 – too few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - - 1 - 0 0 - 0 - - 1 8.3 Apium repens Not acceptable - Number of sites X ext - - 0 - - 2 - - 2 – rare species with no - Thereof in RAMSAR ? ext - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 0.0 sites in the RAMSAR network. Arctophila fulva Not acceptable - Number of sites - - - 1 - - - - - 4 5 – possibilities to include - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - - - - - 0 1 20.6 additional sites (in Sweden) with this species should be investigated. Subspecies A. f. pendulina is endemic to the Baltic Region. Artemisia campestris Not acceptable ssp bottnica – endemic to the Baltic - Number of sites - - - 3 - - - - - 0 3 Region (around 50 sites - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - - - - - 0 1 33.3 in Sweden but none them are listed in the EUNIS database). Botrychium simplex Not acceptable - Number of sites - 0 ext 1 ext 1 X X X 1 3 – too few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - 0 - 0 - 0 ? ? ? 1 1 33.3

Caldesia parnassifolia Not acceptable - Number of sites - - - - ext - ext 3 - - 3 – rare species with no - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - - ext - ext 0 - - 0 0.0 sites in the RAMSAR network.

Creeping marchwort (Apium repens)

52 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments VASCULAR PLANTS all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via ua- land sia den catch- nia ment area Carex holostoma Acceptable? - Number of sites - - - 4 - - - - - 1 5 – few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - - - - - 0 1 20.0 Cochlearia polonica Not acceptable - Number of sites ------4 - - 4 – endemic for Poland and - Thereof in RAMSAR ------0 - - 0 0.0 restricted to special types of spring habitats on calcareous ground. Hippurus tetraphylla Acceptable? - Number of sites - - - 6 - - - - X 1 7 – few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 3 - - - - ? 0 3 42.9 Liparis loeselii Not acceptable (Fen Orchid) – too low degree of repre- - Number of sites X X 18 X 3 16 24 50 X 3 64 sentation. - Thereof in RAMSAR ? ? 1 ? 0 1 3 1 ? 0 5 7.8 Luronium natans Not acceptable (Floating Water- – too low degree of repre- plantain) X - - - 1 - - 10 - 2 13 sentation. - Number of sites ? - - - 0 - - 1 - 0 1 7.7 - Thereof in RAMSAR

Najas flexilis Acceptable? (Slander Naiad) – few sites. - Number of sites - ext - 4 - 1 - 1 X 1 7 - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 2 - 0 - 0 ? 0 2 28.6 Najas tenuissimna Acceptable? – additional - Number of sites - - - 8 - - - - X - 8 sites in Finland might be - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 4 - - - - ? - 4 50.0 considered, as 50% of the world population in Finland and additional sites only in Russia (incl. Leningrad Re- gion) and Kazakhstan. Persicaria foliosa Acceptable? – additional - Number of sites - - - 4 - - - - - X 4 sites might be considered - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 3 - - - - - ? 3 7.7 for Sweden (several sites but none of the are listed in the EUNIS database). Primula nutans Acceptable - Number of sites - - - 8 - - - - - 1 9 – subspecies endemic to - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 4 - - - - - 1 5 28.6 the Baltic Region.

Saussurea alpina Not acceptable ssp esthonica – endemic to the Baltic - Number of sites - - 3 - - 1 - - X - 4 Region (Estonia, Latvia - Thereof in RAMSAR - - 0 - - 0 - - ? - 0 0.0 and Leningrad Region of Russia).

Saxifraga hirculus Acceptable. (Marsh Saxifrage) - Number of sites X 3 5 28 ext 4 9 18 X 6 73 - Thereof in RAMSAR ? 1 3 3 - 0 2 1 ? 0 10 13.7

Trisetum subalpestre Not acceptable - Number of sites - - - 4 - - - - - 1 5 – too low degree of repre- - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - - - - - 0 1 20.0 sentation; in Europe this species occur only in Swe- den and Finland.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 53 Table 7. Continuation.

Species: Number of sites % of Comments BRYOPHYTES all Bela- Den- Es- Fin- Ger- Lat- Lith- Po- Rus- Swe- Whole sites rus mark tonia land many via uania land sia den catchment area Bryhnia novae-angliae Not acceptable – - Number of sites ------1 1 in Europe this species - Thereof in RAMSAR ------0 0 0.0 is found only in Sweden and Norway (and only in Sweden with reference to the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, less than 10 sites in total). Dichelyma capillaceum Not acceptable – - Number of sites - X - X - - - X - 6 6 too few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - ? - ? - - - ? - 1 1 16.7 Drepanocladus Not analysed; no site- (Hamatocaulis) verni- related information cosus for this species in the - Number of sites X X X X X X X X X X - EUNIS database (but - Thereof in RAMSAR the species is quite ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - - widespread in the Bal- tic Region). Hamatocaulis lapponicus Acceptable? - Number of sites - - - 3 - X - - - 2 5 – few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - ? - - - 0 1 20.0 Hygrohypnum monta- Not acceptable num – in Europe only in - Number of sites ------6 6 Sweden (very few - Thereof in RAMSAR ------0 0 0.0 sites) and Norway (more common but outside the Baltic Sea Catchment Area).

Meesia longiseta Acceptable? - Number of sites - ext - 4 - X X 1 X 9 14 few sites. - Thereof in RAMSAR - - - 1 - ? ? 0 ? 3 4 28.6

Table 8. Overview of the representation of species.

Number of taxa Judgements (number of taxa)

Total Thereof Thereof Thereof with Acceptable Acceptable? Not Not analysed priority endemic to substantial parts acceptable the catch- of the European ment area populations in the catchment area Mammals 9 2 3 0 4 0 3 2 Reptiles and 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 amphibians Fish 9 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 Molluscs 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 Insects 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 Vascular plants 19 2 4 6 3 5 11 0

Bryophytes 6 0 0 2 0 2 3 1 TOTAL 57 4 (7%) 7 (12%) 8 (14%) 15 (26%) 15 (26%) 23 (40%) 4 (7%)

54 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Figure 2. Comparison of the In RAMSAR sites Marine habitats distribution of surface areas of Whole catchment area wetland types in the RAMSAR sites in countries with a good or Coastal habitats acceptable accuracy in the country-wise analysis and in the whole catchment area inside these Freshwater habitats countries.

Wet meadows The figure is based on data from Table 5.

Mires

Swamp woods / alluvial forests

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%

Figure 3. Comparison of the dist- In RAMSAR sites Watercourses ribution of surface areas of fres- Whole catchment area hwater habitats in the RAMSAR sites in countries with a good or acceptable accuracy of the coun- Oligomesotrophic lakes try-wise analysis and in the whole catchment area inside these countries.

Eutrophic lakes The figure is based on data from Table 5 and percentages relate to the total wetland areas in the RAMSAR sites and the whole Dystrophic lakes catchment area.

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0%

Figure 4. Comparison of the dist- In RAMSAR sites Raised bogs ribution of surface areas of mire Whole catchment area types in the RAMSAR sites in countries with a good or accep- Transition mires, intermediate / nutrient poor fens etc table accuracy of the country-wise analysis and in the whole catchment area inside these countries. Calcareous and alkaline fens

The figure is based on data from Table 5 Aapa mires and percentages relate to the total wetland areas in the RAMSAR sites and the whole catchment area.

Palsa mires

Bog woodland

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0%

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 55 Acknowledgements

Following persons has assisted with country-wise information: Mr Erik Buchwald and Mr Olaf Chris- Mr Heikki Korpelainen, Finnish Min- Ms Jurate Joneckyte, Lithuanian Min- tiani, Danish Forest and Nature Agen- istry of Environment, for providing for istry of Environment, for providing in- cy, for providing for providing infor- providing information about total sur- formation about the representation of mation about total surface areas etc of face areas etc of FFH habitats in Fin- various mire types etc, additional to FFH habitats in Denmark. land. what is available on the official NAT- URA 2000 website. Ms Herdis Fridolin, Estonian Ministry Ms Anneli Stenman, Swedish Environ- of Environment, for providing informa- mental Protection Agency (SEPA) for tion and advice about how to extract in- providing information about total sur- formation from the national NATURA face areas etc of FFH habitats in Swe- 2000 website etc. den.

Production

PRODUCTION: Page 18: Bengt Lundberg / naturepl.com (flower), Page 34: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon (wetland), Världsnaturfonden WWF 2008 Anton VORAUER / WWF-Canon (turtle), Chris Martin Nerijus Zableckis (lake) BAHR / WWF-Canon (beaver) Page 35: Olivier Van BOGAERT / WWF-Canon (bird- GraPHIC DESIGN AND TecHNICAL PRODUCTION: Page 19: Germund Sellgren (Tipuloides), Fritz PÖL- watching tower), Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon Odelius #4360 KING / WWF (damselfly) (marshland) Gävle Offset AB Page 20: Germund Sellgren Page 36: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon (Estonia), PHOTO: Page 21: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon (sand Fred F HAZELHOFF / WWF-Canon (goose and Page 1: Niall Benvie / naturepl.com ridge), Sergey Rezvyi (Russia) kingfisher) Page 3: Anton VORAUER / WWF-Canon Page 22: Mats Eriksson Page 37: Chris Martin BAHR (lake) Page 4: Kevin SCHAFER / WWF-Canon Page 23: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon Page 38: Fritz PÖLKING / WWF (bird), Fred F HA- Page 5: SANCHEZ & LOPE / WWF-Canon (Finland), Page 24: Mats Eriksson ZELHOFF / WWF-Canon (marshland) Håkan Flank (Lasse Gustavsson) Page 25: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon (peatland), Page 39: Lennart Mathiasson Page 6: Michel GUNTHER / WWF-Canon Heikki Luhamaa (forest) Page 40: Lennart Mathiasson Page 7: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon Page 26: Lennart Gladh Page 43: Germund Sellgren Page 8: Fritz Pölking / WWF Page 27: Mats Eriksson Page 47: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon Page 9: Germund Sellgren Page 28: Willelm Kolvoort / naturepl.com (fish), Len- Page 51:Jan VAN DE KAM / WWF (seal), Ingo Arndt / Page 10: SANCHEZ & LOPE / WWF-Canon (cranes), nart Henrikson (mussel) naturepl.com (toad), Steve Knell / naturepl.com (great Sergey Rezvyi Page 29: SANCHEZ & LOPE / WWF-Canon (otter), crested newt) Page 11: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon (peatland), Rein Nellis (stork), John Cancalosi / naturepl.com Page 52: Andrew Harrington / naturepl.com Heikki Luhamaa (river) (turtle) Page 57: SANCHEZ & LOPE / WWF-Canon Page 12: Fred F HAZELHOFF / WWF Canon Page 30: Lennart Mathiasson, Michèle DÈPRAZ / Page 14: Chris Martin BAHR WWF-Canon (Marsh Marigolds) Page 15: Fred F HAZELHOFF / WWF-Canon (grey Page 31: Lennart Mathiasson heron), Sergey Rezvyi (Russia) Page 32: Lennart Mathiasson Page 16: Nerijus Zableckis Page 33: Lennart Gladh (Russia), Harmut JUNGIUS / 807589 Page 17: Mauri RAUTKARI / WWF-Canon WWF-Canon (Poland)

56 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Narewka River at dawn in Winter. Bialowieza National Park, Poland.

The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 57 References etc

Background information for this report has been collected from various sources, the most important ones listed below:

Websites Reports etc www.am.lt/natura2000 www.naturvardsverket.se Callaghan, D, Heath M.F., O'Sullivan, The official website information about The official web-site of The Swedish J. & Pritchard, D. (eds.) 2001. Impor- NATURA 2000 in Lithuania; with Environmental Protection Agency tant Bird Areas and potential Ramsar substantial information also in Eng- (SEPA), with links both to information Sites in Europe. – BirdLife Internation- lish. Site-wise information etc is still in about the RAMSAR sites and NATU- al, Wageningen. preparation. RA 2000 sites in Sweden (the latter also Heath, M.F. & Evans M.I. (eds.) 2000. www.eunis.eaa.eu.int available http:// w3.vic-metria.nu). Important Bird Areas in Europe: Pri- European Nature Information System, www.ramsar.org ority sites for conservation, Volume 1. prepared and maintained by the Euro- The official website for the RAMSAR – BirdLife Conservation Series No. 8, pean Topic Centre of Biological Diver- Convention. Volume 1, Cambridge. – Used as a ref- sity; very useful information tool for erence for information about represen- representation of habitats, legal con- www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=790098 tation of habitats in various countries. servation measures and much more etc The official decision about NATURA for protected areas (including the NAT- 2000 sites in Estonia, by August 2004, Joosten, H. 2002. The current extent of URA 2000 sites). with information about site surface ar- peatland in the World. – International eas and representation of habitats (but Mire Conservation Group Newsletter, www.envir.ee/natura2000 no percentages etc). A more “public- issue 2002/1, April 2002: 14–16. The official NATURA 2000 website for friendly” website is under construc- Estonia, still in preparation. tion. Löfroth, M. 1991. Våtmarkerna och deras betydelse. – Naturvårdsverket Re- www.grida.no/baltic www.stanoviste.natura2000.cz port 3824. The Baltic Sea Region GIS, maps and The official Natura 2000 database for statistical database; initially prepared The Czech Republic. Löfroth, M. & Moen, A, 1994. Euro- by the Baltic Drainage Basin Project pean mires – distribution and conser- (BDBP) 1991-94; a EU financed project www.um.mv.regierung.de/naturdaten vation situation. – Manuscript. carried out by the Beijer Institute The official NATURA 2000 website for (Stockholm), Department of Systems the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vor- Ecology at Stockholm University and pommern, Germany. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. The website www.wetlands.org has been continuously updated until The official website of Wetland Interna- October 2005. tional, with links to country-wise and www.helcom.fi site-wise information about all RAM- The official website for the HELSINKI SAR sites and the RAMSAR Classifi- Convention. cation System for Wetland Types. www.imcg.net www.ymparisto.fi The website of the International Mire The official website of the Finnish Min- Conservation Group, with links to their istry of Environment, with links to the newsletters and the IMCG Global peat- information about NATURA 2000 land Database (under construction). sites etc prepared by the regional environmental centres. www.mluv.brandenburg.de Official website for the Ministry of www2.skovognature.dk/natura2000 Development, Environment and Con- The official website for information sumers Rights in Brandenburg Federal about NATURA 2000 in Denmark, State, Germany; with links to regional prepared by the Danish Forest and Na- NATURA 2000 information ture Agency (Skov- og Naturstyrelsen) under the Danish Ministry of Environ- www.natura2000.mos.gov.pl/natura2000 ment. The official NATURA 2000 website for Poland (so far and in our view the best and most user-friendly one prepared for the countries around the Baltic Sea).

58 | The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area | 59 The representation of wetland types and species in RAMSAR sites in the Baltic Sea Catchment Area.

The Convention of Wetlands was signed services. Today we know that wetlands can in the city of Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Over 150 be important natural sinks reducing nu- countries have signed the convention cov- trients and others substances in a natural ering 1743 wetland sites and some 161 mil- and sustainable way. These ecosystems lion hectares of Wetlands of International services are of course of great importance importance. Since the very beginning, WWF for the Baltic Sea. Other important serv- has actively participated in the Convention ices as carbon sinks, reducing greenhouse work at all levels - national, regional and in- emissions, and as storages against floods, ternational. which we will see more of due to climate change. Wetlands have been drained for agricultural or forest production, used for peat extrac- WWF thinks that it is time to change atti- tion, landfills or different kinds of exploita- tudes and practices – we need to stop see- tion, and construction works. The price of ing wetlands as problematic useless areas this destruction has been a massive loss filled with mosquitoes and not suitable for of biodiversity as well as other ecosystem anything but exploitation.

WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme conservation organisations, with almost 5 million members and supporters is part of WWF, set up to save the Baltic and a global network active in some 100 countries. marine environment and restore vitality and beauty to the surrounding region. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Please contact us for more information! • conserving the world’s biological diversity • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme Ulriksdals Slott • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. SE-170 81 Solna Sweden Tel +46 8 624 74 00 Fax +46 8 85 13 29 www.panda.org/baltic