Andrea Burmester, Barbara Engels & Birgit Scheuerbrandt

Jochen C. Krause, Henning von Nordheim and Stefan Bräger (Comp.)

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Proceedings of the Symposium, May 2006

BfN-Skripten 193

2007

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Proceedings of the Symposium held in Stralsund, Germany, 8th - 12th May 2006

Compiled by Jochen C. Krause Henning von Nordheim Stefan Bräger

Front page: Poster of the Conference (© Käning, Krause, Hübner, Dinter, BfN)

Coordination for the BfN: Dr. Henning von Nordheim Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Dr. Jochen Krause International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm Section I 3.2 “Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation”

Conference preparation: Dr. Stefan Bräger Berliner Ring 19 24211 Preetz

Further information on the actual status and background of marine protected areas under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive of the EU in the German Exclusive Economic Zone can be found on the web page www.habitatmarenatura2000.de.

This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de)

This volume of BfN-Skripten is not available in book trade but can be downloaded in a pdf version from the internet at: http://www.habitatmarenatura2000.de

Publisher: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Konstantinstrasse 110 53179 Bonn, Germany URL: http://www.bfn.de

All rights reserved by BfN

The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties. Views expressed in the papers published in this issue of BfN-Skripten are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publisher.

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the copyright owner.

Printed by the printing office of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Bonn, Germany 2007 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 1

Contents Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………5 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….…7 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………...9

Presentations Opening addresses

Wolfgang METHLING: Opening speech of the Minister for Environment of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ……………………………….…13

Jochen FLASBARTH: “The German Contribution to Marine Conservation: Achievements and Future Perspectives” ……………………………….…..19

Marine Nature Conservation Policies

Plácido HERNÁNDEZ AGUILAR: “The European Marine strategy. The implementation of Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Birds and Habitats Directives” .………………………………………………27

Carl Gustaf LUNDIN and Kristina Maria GJERDE: “Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction: management and governance issues” …………………………………………………………...33

Alan SIMCOCK: “Targets and achievements of OSPAR in conserving marine biodiversity” (Pre-conference abstract only) ………………………43

Anne Christine BRUSENDORFF: “Marine Biodiversity at the Heart of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan” …………………………………………..45

Jens ENEMARK: The Wadden Sea: “Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context” ……………………………………………….53

Callum M. ROBERTS, Leanne MASON, Julie P. HAWKINS and Iris MENN: “Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves on the high seas” ……………………………………………………………...65

Stephan LUTTER: “Concepts for management of human activities: Reconciling marine conservation with fisheries (Pre-conference abstract only) ………………………………………………75

Janet I. SPRENT and Jonathan E. WENTWORTH: “Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report” …………………………………………...77

2 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Anthropogenic Impacts on the Marine Environment

Joel R. REYNOLDS and Michael JASNY: “Ocean Noise Pollution: The Rise of an environmental problem and emerging international response” …………………………………………………………………..…..87

Jochen C. KRAUSE: “Extraction of Marine Sediments: international policies to reduce negative effects on the marine ecosystem” …………..97

Richard C. THOMPSON: “Plastic debris in the marine environment: consequences and solutions” ……………………………………………...107

Han LINDEBOOM: “Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas” …………………………………………………………...117

David CONNOR: “Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic” ……………………………………………..……………123

Dan d’A. LAFFOLEY, Steve HAWKINS & Carol TURLEY: “Climate change, surface ocean acidification and their impacts on European seas” ……..133

Solutions for Protecting the Marine Biodiversity

Michael TÜRKAY: “Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation” ………………………………………………………….……..143

Kjartan HOYDAL: “Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool” ………………………………………………..…………………..……...147

Stefan LÜTKES: “Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the north and Baltic seas in the context of international and European law” ……………...….153

Heike IMHOFF: “PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection?” …………..161

Paul A. MACNAB: “The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada” …………………………………………………………..167

John TANZER and Jon DAY: “Lessons learned from 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park” ………………………………………173

Henning VON NORDHEIM: “The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas” ………………………………………………….189

Peter J. CORKERON: “Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals?” ……………………………………………………….………….197

Gunnar NORÉN: “Development of sustainable practices for Baltic Sea fisheries – problems and solutions” (Pre-conference abstract only) …...201

Jeff ARDRON and Ian BURFIELD: “Marine Bird Conservation in Europe” ……...203

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 3

F. Iván RAMÍREZ: “Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ” ………………………………………………..………….215

Euan DUNN: “Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards” …………………………………………………………….…..221

Fernando TEMPERA and Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS: “Recent developments in the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal)” …………………………………………………………..231

Short Notes on Some Marine Research Projects

Sybille VAN DEN HOVE: “Science–Policy Interface for the Deep Sea: the case of the HERMES project” …………………………………………241

Ole VESTERGAARD, Thomas K. SØRENSEN and Erik HOFFMANN: “Marine Protected Areas as a tool for Ecosystem Conservation and Fisheries Management - Overview and initial findings of the research project PROTECT” ……………………………………………….247

Christian PUSCH and Søren A. PEDERSEN: “Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Protected Areas (The EMPAS research project)” …………….…………………………………………………………255

Annexes …………………………………………………………………………………..263 Annex I: List of speakers Annex II: Programme of the Conference

4 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 5

Preface

In May 2006 in Stralsund, Germany, a wide range of speakers representing international conventions and agreements, as well as renowned scientists, managers of marine protected areas (MPA), and many other internationally distinguished experts such as the representative from the EU Commission, took part at the international symposium 'Marine Conservation in Europe 2006'. The conference was an encouraging and successful event due to its participants, who engaged in many long and fruitful discussions on how we can manage to stop biodiversity loss in European seas, while sustainably using their goods and services. The roots of the conference go back to the year 2004, which was an important one for marine nature conservation in Germany when a comprehensive set of eight marine protected areas under the EU Habitats Directive and two under the EU Birds Directive were designated in the offshore waters of the German North Sea and Baltic Sea. These networks of marine protected areas comprise a total of 1.040.783 ha or 31.5% of the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This mayor achievement, together with the progress of protection activities within the German coastal zones, was reflected and analysed in 2004 at the first national symposium on marine nature conservation, also in Stralsund at the German Oceanographic Museum (DMM). While the boundaries of all ecosystems transcend national boundaries, those for marine ecosystems are particularly fluid and dynamic. Thus organising a subsequent international symposium in 2006 on European Marine Conservation was the natural consequence of all our efforts to protect the biodiversity of our seas. Responsibilities of the BfN regarding marine nature conservation are increasing. Since 1992 BfN has provided advice to the German federal states and the German government in all questions regarding marine conservation in territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles offshore) and in international conventions (e.g. Helsinki Convention, OSPAR). In 2002, BfN was assigned the responsibility for nature conservation in Germany’s EEZ (12-200 nm offshore) of the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea, with regard to the selection and management of the coherent European network of protected areas. At a time when maritime industrial activities and pressures are constantly increasing, the protection of the sea becomes a major challenge of the European nature conservation agenda. Currently, this is becoming particularly pertinent in the offshore

6 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

regions. Therefore, the European Union is developing an integrated protection framework applicable to all European marine areas and activities, known as the European Marine Strategy Directive with the protection of the marine biodiversity being a vital part of it. This 'First European Symposium on Marine Nature Conservation' encouraged an integrated approach, identified harmful issues contributing to the deterioration of our seas and moreover, presented sustainable solutions for the sustainable, ecosystem based management of human activities - from fisheries to pollution. The following proceedings pay tribute to the high quality of the presentations. We hope that the approaches discussed intensely in Stralsund will provide the basis for relevant actions considering the needs of future generations to enjoy the beautiful biodiversity of our seas - a privilege which we can still enjoy today.

Prof. Dr. Hartmut Vogtmann President of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 7

Introduction „Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006“ From 8 to 12 May 2006, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) on behalf of the Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) held an international conference on “Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006,” at the German Oceanographic Museum (DMM), in Stralsund. With attendance from more than 200 participants from 20 countries, the event proved to be a very fine success. The conference focussed on the current status of marine conservation efforts, particularly within European waters, and what next steps will be necessary to assure lasting marine biodiversity. Presentations were given by representatives of European marine conventions, non-governmental organisations, universities, and governmental agencies. The historic German Oceanographic Museum, with its many displays of current and past marine life, provided an ideal and fitting venue for these discussions. The proceedings reflect the high quality of presentations which were extensively discussed during the three days of the conference. The contributions are presented here mostly in the same order as they were presented at the conference (see the programme in Annex I) according to the various subheadings. Two excellent opening addresses warmly welcomed the participants and gave an overview of the German regional, national and international marine conservation policy. As this year (2006) BfN is celebrating 100 years of federal nature conservation in Germany, Jochen Flasbarth (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) called for the beginning of a 'century of Marine Nature Conservation'. In the first session on 'Marine Nature Conservation Policies,' the European Marine Strategy and its effects on the implementation of Natura 2000 in the marine environment were introduced. Additionally, conservation targets and tools beyond national jurisdiction were analysed. The three General Secretaries of HELCOM, OSPAR, and the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation explained the goals and the current status of implementation with regard to the conventions to protect the Baltic Sea, the Northeast Atlantic, and the Wadden Sea, respectively. Examples for global and regional protection initiatives were presented by Greenpeace and WWF, such as a global network of marine protected areas (MPAs) for the protection of species and habitats in the high seas (areas beyond national jurisdiction). The issue of the second session was “Anthropogenic Impacts on the Marine Environment” and included the over-exploitation of fish populations, degradation of benthic habitat, and the bycatch of seabirds and cetaceans (such as harbour porpoises). Also discussed were the effects of sand and gravel extraction, noise pollution, and the pervasive distribution of large and small plastic particulate matter in

8 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

the marine environment. The transition from current fishing practices to sustainable fisheries was a topic of discussion throughout the conference. The necessity of excellent taxonomy as foundation for marine biodiversity protection provided the background in discussions concerning the principles of conservation. The last marine session called for 'Solutions for Protecting Marine Biodiversity'. Marine protected areas (MPA) were discussed extensively as probably the most powerful conservation tool that can limit destructive activities and preserve important marine ecosystems. Examples were presented by Australia, which established the Great Barrier Reef thirty years ago; Canada, which has recently protected a large submarine canyon called “The Gully” in the Northwest Atlantic; and Portugal, which is exploring the creation of large scale reserves for seabirds. This sharing of experiences should support ongoing activities for selection of MPAs in Europe and Germany, and underlined the necessity that MPAs need to be sufficiently large in order to fulfil their intended conservation goals. In the final session, three important marine research projects were introduced, dealing with the protection of the deep sea and environmentally sound fisheries management. The following proceedings show, that almost all authors haven taken on the task of writing an extensive summary of their presentations, including one or two of their more significant figures. Thanks to all, for their efforts to meet the publication timeline. Unfortunately, the compilation of the extensive and productive discussions was beyond the scope of these proceedings. The editors would like to clarify that the contributions have not been peer-reviewed and are thus solely the authors’ responsibility, and that these contributions do not necessarily express the opinion of the BfN. That said, we are confident that these proceedings will offer a valuable contribution to the European discussion on the protection of marine biodiversity and in the development of sustainable solutions.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 9

Acknowledgements

'Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006' would not have been possible without the great effort and help of many people on and behind the scenes. The organisers would like to warmly acknowledge the support from all persons named below and from those we may have unintentionally forgotten.

In the German Oceanographic Museum (DMM) Director Dr. Harald Benke, Gerd Bühring, Waldemar Fischer, Heiko Haack, Karin Hellmeier, Thomas Menzel, Ines Podszuck, Angelika Vogel, Ines Westphal, and Sylvia Zielke provided the perfect environment and infrastructure for the conference.

From the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), branch office Isle of Vilm all from Unit “Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation”, but especially Sandra Käning, Ute Herrmann, Ulrike Ruffani, Peter Hübner, Florian Herzig, Dieter Boedeker, and Thomas Bosecke helped to make the conference a success.

The excellent collaboration with the staff of the conference hotel, Steigenberger Baltic, in Stralsund was much appreciated.

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

10 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 11

Opening addresses

12 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 13 Opening speech

Opening speech for the international conference on „Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006“ in Stralsund, 9 May 2006

Wolfgang METHLING Minister for Environment and Deputy Prime Minister of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Dear Mr. Präsident, dear Jochen Flasbarth, dear Dr. Benke, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues and friends, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this exciting conference. I am very grateful to the German Oceanographic Museum and to the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation for arranging this event here in Stralsund, on the territory of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I think, the place is well selected – in the middle of an historical highlight of the Baltic Sea area, as it is the UNESCO World Heritage Site Stralsund, and close to some natural highlights, as there are, for instance, the National Parks “Jasmund” and “Western Pomeranian Lagoon Area” as well as the Biosphere Reserve South-East Rügen. On Friday, you will have the chance to visit some of these places. I hope for nice weather and I hope you will leave Mecklenburg- Vorpommern with good impressions and feelings. Perhaps you will come back. There are many natural and historical treasures waiting for being discovered. Please, do understand this as an invitation! I was requested to give you a short introduction about the contribution of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to the conservation of the Baltic Sea. There is no doubt – the Baltic Sea is unique in the world and of particular beauty. And within the Baltic Sea, the same is true for the coastal areas of Mecklenburg-Vorpom- mern. This statement should not be understood as a depreciation of other Baltic regions: The Baltic Sea is beautiful almost everywhere. But the Mecklenburg- Vorpommern coast is well distinguished from all other areas. The lagoon landscape, in German “Boddenlandschaft”, as we find it from the Darß- Zingst Lagoon chain to the Odra Lagoon, with all the lagoons around Rügen, with Greifswald Lagoon and Strelasund, and also Wismar Bight and Salzhaff in the western part of the country, is unique, there is nothing comparable in the whole Baltic.

14 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Opening speech

A special feature of the coast line of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is its permanent change due to abrasion and sediment accumulation. From the nature conservation point of view, the inner and outer coastal waters are much more than of local importance. I would just like to recall the survey of important marine areas for wintering birds in the Baltic, elaborated by Durinck and co-workers and published by the European Commission in 1994: Of the 39 areas of major importance for wintering birds in the Baltic, 4 areas are situated within the jurisdiction of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, among them the two top–areas of the ranking list: The Szczecin- and Western Pomeranian Lagoon area and the Pomeranian Bay. Another example: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is the most important resting site for cranes between their Scandinavian and northern Baltic breeding areas and the wintering areas in Spain. Only in the Darß-Zingst/Western Rügen lagoon area one may observe up to 60,000 cranes at the same time, which is about a quarter of the total European population! One instrument for conservation of habitats and species is the designation of protected areas. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has two coastal and marine National Parks and a Biosphere reserve. The isle of Usedom and the surrounding lagoon areas are managed as Nature Park. Another Nature Park was recently established at the southern coast of the Odra Lagoon. Several landscape reserves and almost 70 nature reserves are completing the system of coastal and marine protected areas. Beside these national protection categories, many areas are designated as “Natura 2000” sites according to the Habitat and Bird Directives of the European Union. Already in 1992, Wismar Bight, Greifswald Lagoon and Strelasund, and the National Park “Western Pomeranian Lagoon area” have been notified to the European Union as “Special Protected Areas” according to the Bird Directive. At that time, the knowledge about bird distribution and especially resting and wintering in offshore areas was still incomplete. Now we know more, and a new SPA concept has been brought on the way. This concept does not only revise and amend the terrestrial areas, but gives special attention to the marine offshore areas. Using the results of scientific investigations and research projects as well as surveys within other contexts, such as Environmental Impact Assessments, we could not only identify the most important marine resting and wintering areas for birds, but also elaborate a precise and scientifically sound delimitation of those areas which have to be considered as the “most suitable” ones for the conservation of bird species in the sense of article 4 of the Bird Directive. Actually, the government has accepted the new proposal for “Special Protected Areas” and asked me to organize the information and hearing of the public. The process shall be concluded with the notification of the areas to the European Commission by the end of 2007.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 15 Opening speech

Concerning areas to be protected according to the Habitat Directive, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern has almost fulfilled its obligations. From 1998 to 2004 a total of 230 areas have been proposed to the Commission. Almost all internal coastal waters – lagoons, estuaries and large shallow inlets and bays - are proposed as “Natura 2000” sites. A large proportion of these areas has been already included in the list of “Sites of Community Importance”. For the terrestrial areas and internal coastal waters, I consider the designation as completed. The only missing elements are the areas to be designated for the protection of marine habitats and species in the outer territorial waters. The delay of the designation of these areas is due to the fact, that submarine habitats are not so easy to map. We needed more time to identify, on the basis of existing geological, hydrological and biological data, those structures, which have to be considered as “Sandbanks, which are slightly covered by sea water all the time” and “Reefs”. Meanwhile we have compiled the necessary information and delimited the areas to be proposed to the Commission. The further procedure is the same as with the Special Protected Areas for Birds: After a public information and hearing process, the notification to the European Commission is planned for the end of 2007. Another international system of protected areas was started to be developed with the HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 in 1994. This recommendation aims on the establishment of a system of “Baltic Sea Protected Areas”. It includes a list of 62 areas proposed to be integrated into this system. For Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 4 areas are listed: 1. Strelasund Sound / Greifswald Lagoon / Isle Greifswalder Oie / Odra Mouth Area 2. Jasmund National Park 3. Western Pomeranian Lagoon Area / waters around Westrügen 4. Wismar Bight / Salzhaff Area One characteristic of large protected areas is the fact, that they are subject to a large variety of uses, which may conflict with the nature conservation goals. It is neither possible nor desirable to exclude economic or leisure activities from these areas. For instance, assigning the large lagoons or “Bodden” as Special Protected Areas according to the Bird Directive cannot mean to exclude fishing, shipping, sailing, angling or similar activities. We need regulations, which give the different actors clear guidelines how to behave, to inform them about what’s compatible with the conservation requirements and what not. Traditionally, these “behavioural guidelines” are established by the respective, area-specific protection decree. However, people not always like it very much to get restrictions imposed by decree. To improve the understanding for nature conservation needs and the acceptance for restrictions, I have tried a different approach: The

16 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Opening speech voluntary agreement between users, represented by their organizations or institutions, and nature conservation authorities. Until now, such agreements have been signed for two SPA: Wismar Bight and Greifswalder Bodden. The process of elaboration of the agreements, the dialogue between the different actors, was very positive and promising. Now it has to be monitored how successful the instrument “voluntary agreement” will be in the practice. Another instrument to protect coastal nature and landscape is the building ban for the coastal strip for areas outside of settlements. Such a general building was recommended by HELCOM Recommendation 15/1, adopted in 1994. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the legal protection of the coastal strip of 200 m with landwards and seawards has been already established with the First Nature Conservation Act in 1991. And finally I would like to refer to the general legal protection of certain marine and coastal biotopes, as given by § 20 of the Nature Conservation Act of Mecklenburg- Vorpommern. This paragraph establishes a strict protection status for biotopes such as reed beds, salt marshes, dunes, rock and moraine cliffs, wind generated wadden areas, marine and coastal stone and boulder grounds, lagoons and estuaries (in German: “Bodden- gewässer”). At the end of my presentation I would like to give you some information about population trends of some species. Strict nature protection measures and other conservation efforts, but also the ban of certain harmful substances such as DDT and PCB already in the 1970th, have reversed the negative population trends of some species. For instance, the White-tailed Eagle shows a strong population growth since the beginning of the 1990th. In 2005, we could record 215 breeding pairs in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The same positive trend is also true for the Osprey and the crane. In the next future, perhaps we may expect the return of the grey seal to our coast: Obviously as a consequence of the general population growth in the Baltic, grey seals are actually recorded with more frequency in our waters, and according to some preliminary information it seems, that this year for the first time since its extermination from our area a grey seal has given birth to a pup in the Greifswald lagoon. However, beside these positive developments, we also have to state strongly negative trends for some animal populations. A major group of concern are the waders, terns and shore birds in general. Dunlin and Ruff have almost disappeared as breeding birds from our area, Ringed Plover, Lapwing, Redshank and Little tern have dramatically declined. The reasons have to be seen in habitat losses, especially by drainage and agricultural intensification already at the end of the 1960th, in combination with strong increase of predator density in the more recent past due to

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 17 Opening speech rabies vaccination and immigration of new species such as mink, racoon and racoon dog. Inappropriate grazing practices may also be considered as negative factors in some areas. Some action has already been undertaken in order to improve the conditions for coastal birds. For instant, habitat conditions have been improved, or even lost habitats have been recovered, by restoration projects. These projects have provided new breeding habitats for some coastal birds, it is still not enough. The coastal bird populations will require stronger attention in the next future.

Ladies and gentlemen, it was a great pleasure for me to give you a certain overview about the conservation efforts of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with respect to the Baltic Sea. However, it is very clear, that all conservation efforts can only be successful in a context of international cooperation. How successful cooperation can change things has been demonstrated impressively during the 32 years’ history of HELCOM. Many negative environmental trends could be reversed by the joint efforts of the Convention Parties. Nowadays, conservation issues have got high priority also on the EU agenda, and cooperation is intensified as well on this level. But not only governmental institutions have established fruitful cooperation structures. The same is true for the environmental NGOs. I only want to mention the European Union for Coastal Conservation and the Coalition Clean Baltic. Whatever we will achieve, we will achieve it together or we will fail. Conferences like this one are very important not only to exchange knowledge and information but also provide opportunities for establishing working and personal contacts. I am sure, that this conference will contribute to the strengthening of the international cooperation, for the wealth of our Baltic Sea and the marine environment worldwide.

Thank you for your attention.

18 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 19 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation The German Contribution to Marine Conservation: Achievements and Future Perspectives

Jochen FLASBARTH German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Minister Methling, Hardy Vogtmann, Colleagues and friends, When I first thought about the title of this event, I instinctively asked myself: is marine nature conservation really different from marine environmental protection? Can one exist without the other? Isn’t one part of the other, and vice versa? From discussions in the fields of terrestrial nature conservation and environmental protection, we in Germany are well familiar with the tricky task of distinguishing between “nature” and “environment”. In my function as Director-General for Nature Conservation at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, I am constantly asked to define and differentiate between the terms “nature conservation” and “environmental protection”. The distinction between “environmental protection” on the one hand, which is focused on technical measures for the prevention or reduction of harmful effects of substances, and “nature conservation” on the other hand, which concentrates on the (preservation of) biological diversity and the issue of “spatial requirements”, has long been the subject of excessive discussions. Starting off as purely scientific debates, these discussions can become quite philosophical and at times highly emotional. With regard to the marine sector, I have to say that especially marine conservation has long been looked at from a purely “environmental” point of view and that the disregard for biological diversity has actually resulted in one-sided political initiatives. It is thus not only justified, but imperative to explicitly consider marine nature as a three-dimensional sphere that has to compete with various human and economic demands. Marine nature conservation is still in its early stages and has a lot to catch up on. We need to catch up in two different areas: Firstly, awareness-raising for the natural wealth of the three-dimensional ecosystem of the sea among the general public, but also among decision-makers in politics and industry. And secondly: The need for action for the preservation of biological diversity on the one hand and a sustainable management of natural resources and their spatial requirements in the sea on the other hand. What do I mean by awareness-raising?

20 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation

It seems that nature conservation at sea – as compared to nature conservation on land with its longstanding tradition (in Germany we are celebrating 100 years of nature conservation as a governmental task) – was not an issue for a long time. While nature conservation areas on land for example have existed for a very long time, the designation of marine protected areas has only recently begun. This may have several reasons: Pressure to exploit natural resources was much more acute and significantly higher on land than it was at sea. This is a fact we cannot and must not deny. However, we also must not ignore that this fact mainly applies to the “high seas”, the world’s oceans. For certain areas such as intensive mariculture or frequently used shipping routes like the English Channel or the Kadetrinne passage in heavily used seas like the North Sea or the Baltic, we get a completely different picture. So in the end we have to consider that marine nature conservation has come into the focus of environmental policy too late. As a second point I mentioned the “need for action” for the preservation of biological diversity and the sustainable management of marine resources. Let me briefly comment on this issue: if we look at early initiatives in the field of marine conservation, they only considered human activities that had an immediate polluting effect on marine waters or on economic resources. Marine nature was not “acknowledged” as such and the possibility of external impacts or disturbances of this system was therefore not even considered. For a long time, various spatial requirements only played a role in the framework of land use planning measures on land. This spatial planning was only recently extended to offshore seas. In Germany we are just now on our way to preparing the spatial planning for our exclusive economic zone. In the past, protective measures were introduced in order to prevent accidents or disasters, such as tanker accidents, dying seal populations or the collapse of fish stocks. Apart from prevention and rehabilitation measures for accidents, national and international conservation activities were mainly focused on improving the chemical quality of water bodies, which of course was of huge necessity and still is a big challenge. Other insidious threats that have an impact on the sea as an ecosystem rather than on water quality, for example destructive and unselective fishing practices, large-scale extraction of sand and gravel or underwater noise levels, only receive marginal attention from politics and the public and were insufficiently headed off by appropriate protective or regulatory measures. With regard to the protection of marine ecosystems, there was a “gap” in traditional marine conservation which has only begun to close in the last few years. This is also reflected in the chronology of global and regional marine conservation initiatives:

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 21 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation

There is the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes in 1970 or the MARPOL Convention, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The two regional conventions that are important for Germany and the European Member States, the OSPAR Convention for the north- eastern Atlantic region and the Helsinki Convention for the Baltic Sea also date back to the 1970s. The 1980s saw the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, in 1982, also known as the “constitution of the seas”. It notably regulates conflicts related to fishing and shipping as well as deepwater mining activities and marine pollution. It might be seen as a shortcoming that the convention only contains very general provisions on the protection of marine habitats and species. It was not until the 1990s that the protection of marine ecosystems and biological diversity became more of a priority with the launching of the Rio process in 1992. The development of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) broke new ground for the global protection of species and habitats, also in the marine sector. This process culminated in the adoption of the 2010 Biodiversity Target at the World Summit in Johannesburg (WSSD, 2002) with the aim of reducing the current loss rate of biological diversity. At their summit in Gothenburg in 2001, the EU Member States even went one step further and decided not only to reduce, but to really stop the loss of biological diversity by 2010. All of us here in this room are certainly aware of the fact that we are at half-time: four years have passed since Johannesburg – and we still have four years to go to 2010. What also resulted from the Johannesburg summit was the decision to establish a network of marine protected areas by 2012 and to ensure that it is effectively managed on a global scale. This explicitly includes areas of the high seas. This objective was reinforced at COP 7 of the CBD in 2004 in Kuala Lumpur and recently COP 8 in Curitiba/Brazil. One of the most controversially discussed topics in this context was “High Seas Marine Protected Areas”. This issue was also on the agenda of the “Ad hoc informal working group on marine biodiversity”, which was established by the UN General Assembly and met in February this year. In both fora the EU called for a new “Implementing Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction” in the framework of UNCLOS, which would lead to an integrated management of high seas MPAs and to reaching the 2012 objective. In this respect there was a call to the UN General Assembly that has to decide on the continuation of this process to further set the course for securing vulnerable deep-sea habitats. Due to the heavy pressure from Germany and other parties as for example our Dutch colleagues in Kuala Lumpur the CBD also made a strong call to the UN General

22 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation

Assembly to protect sensitive marine ecosystems from deep-sea bottom trawling. Which means nothing else than the consideration of interim prohibitions (moratoria) were suggested until effective legal regulations are in place. On the basis of submitted reports the General Assembly will review the progress this year and give further recommendations in this respect. And I hope that this will give significant support for actions against destructive fishing practices. As regards the European activities in this field, some good examples will be presented during this conference. Nevertheless, much more efforts have to be made to secure the endangered habitats of the deep-sea. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) increasingly considers marine plant and animal species. For the 14th Conference of the Parties in June 2007, the German Ministry for the Environment strongly advocated and submitted the proposal to include the Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), which is threatened by international trade, and the Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in Annex II. Those are two species of quite significant economic value. Discussions on this proposal will of course be difficult. But I am convinced that we have to focus on CITES being an instrument to regulate trade in those species which play an important economic role and which are affected by trade - instead of collecting amendments to the annexes which are only on the margin of economic trade. The idea of protecting biological diversity has also subsequently been integrated into the OSPAR and HELCOM Conventions: An article on marine nature conservation was added to the HELCOM Convention during its review in 1992. Since then, a number of pertinent recommendations on the protection of threatened marine habitats and the establishment of marine protected areas have been adopted. One of the most prominent recommendations in this context is probably the one on the HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs). In 1998, the OSPAR Convention was extended by an Annex V on the “Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area”. On this basis, the Convention also takes into account those human activities that can have detrimental effects on the ecosystems or the biological diversity of the sea although they do not cause any pollution. Both Conventions have set up working groups in the fields of nature conservation and biological diversity, in which Germany is strongly involved: Since its establishment, the OSPAR Working Group MASH (Marine Areas, Species and Habitats) has been chaired by Germany. Germany also co-founded the HELCOM Working Group HABITAT in 1992 and chaired it for 11 years. At their first Joint Ministerial Conference in Bremen in 2003, both Conventions agreed on the establishment of an efficiently managed and coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the North-East

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 23 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation

Atlantic and the Baltic Sea again by 2010. It was explicitly stated that this network should also include all marine NATURA 2000 sites. Germany has already made a contribution: the federation has followed the coastal states of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in making its two Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the German Exclusive Economic Zone part of the common MPA network. Germany also complies with the provisions of the EC Birds and Habitats Directives for marine areas: more than 30 % of the surface area of the German EEZ and more than 40% of the total marine surface area of Germany have been designated as marine protected areas. The experiences with identifying, delimiting and coordinating the areas have been compiled in a scientific compendium which is – as Hardy Vogtmann mentioned earlier –now available for sale. A new interactive CD is also available. We now hope that further Member States will designate their marine sites to the Commission as soon as possible in order to make joint progress. It was a good feeling for Germany to be frontrunner by designating the Natura 2000 sites in our EEZ. However, we are now starting to feel a little lonely. And as an EU network that consists of only one or a few Member States does not make a lot of sense, we would very much appreciate, if the Commission could now continue establishing this network. However, the management reveals that marine conservation does not stop at national boundaries or at the scope of responsibility of the competent authorities. Fisheries are a classic example: Without any doubt, fishing is still one of the activities that have a significant negative impact on marine ecosystems. Necessary fishing regulations in order to ensure the effective protection of sites, however, only make sense if they are based on the existing legal provisions for fisheries. In my opinion, the crucial task is first of all to identify possible impacts on the basis of sound scientific findings and then to derive the necessary fishing measures. The implementation of these measures should take place in the framework of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. You can see it as an offer of environmental policy not to take over issues under the responsibility of the common fisheries policy. But of course it is at the same time a strong demand to act. This is why I am very happy that with the BMU-funded research project on “Environmentally and ecologically sound fisheries management at marine protected sites” a concrete project of cooperation between nature conservation and fisheries has been launched with an international workshop in April 2006. I would like to use this occasion to appeal to the fisheries industry sector to contribute to this project with their knowledge and experiences to make this project a success.

24 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The German Contribution to Marine Conservation

Another important approach is voluntary agreements with the user groups concerned. Close and fair cooperation between the different parties is of prime importance. There was a first workshop in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in April 2006 on reducing bird by-catch in set-net fishing particularly in EU Bird protection sites, which showed that this kind of cooperation is both desirable and feasible. The BMU also actively support eco-labelling of fisheries. In this context, I very much welcome that the German saithe fishing industry is now being monitored according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and is aiming at obtaining certification in the course of this year. I am convinced that marine conservation can only be successful if we pursue an integrated approach. The integration of marine conservation aspects into other policy areas, such as agriculture, fisheries, mineral extraction, or transport, is thus the central challenge for marine conservation. This Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment, the related draft EU Marine Strategy Directive and the ICZM Process are good examples for this approach. Looking at the coming (two) years, Germany has a chance to promote marine conservation at a number of different levels: In the context of the upcoming German G8 Presidency and the EU Presidency next year, both biological diversity in general and marine protected areas will be important topics on which Germany would like to give innovative input. I am delighted that Germany has the honour to host the next COP to the CBD in 2008. This constitutes a further opportunity to play an active role in the processes related to the biodiversity targets and global marine protected areas and in setting the course for the future. I would very much like to invite you all to support us in these huge tasks. Coming to the end I am happy to state that in the field of marine conservation the spectrum has been broadened from pursuing a rather one-dimensional approach of hazard control to the multi-dimensional protection of ecosystems. In order to continue this way in the years to come, we have to make use of meetings like this to discuss the pertinent issues with national and international experts and decision-makers and to jointly find solutions. I hope and I am firmly convinced that if we join forces, we will again get a step closer to our goal: to protect and conserve sound and well-functioning marine ecosystems and its components.

Let me close with an appeal to all of us: Let’s be ambitious! Thanks a lot.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 25

Marine Nature Conservation Policies

26 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 27 The European Marine Strategy The European Marine Strategy and the implementation of Natura 2000 in the marine environment

Plácido HERNÁNDEZ AGUILAR Environment General Directorate of the European Commission

The presentation focused on three major policy issues: • The future EU maritime policy • The thematic strategy for the protection and the Conervation of the Marine environment • Nature conservation of the marine environment: establishment of the marine component of the Natura 2000 network

Some basic data: Europe is a maritime continent. Over two thirds of the Union’s external borders are coastal; the maritime spaces under the jurisdiction of its Member States are larger than their terrestrial territory. Europe is surrounded by many islands and by four seas: the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North Sea and the Black Sea; and by two oceans: the Atlantic and the Arctic.

28 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The European Marine Strategy

Europe benefits for a very substantive maritime area were important natural resources are present.

EU maritime policy Looking for a new integrated approach, the Commission has elaborated a Green Paper EU integrated maritime policy. Sustainable development is at the heart of the EU agenda. Three pillars: economic growth, social welfare and environmental protection Sustainable enjoyment of the benefits that seas provide will only be possible through a profound respect for them. The accelerated reduction of marine biodiversity due notably to pollution, impacts of climate change and overfishing are warning signals that we cannot ignore.

The Green Paper seeks to identify the potential for beneficial interfaces and synergies between the sector policies looking for a right balance between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The Green Paper also hopes to contribute to a new awareness among Europeans

Strategy for protecting the marine environment

The 6th Environment Action Programme of the E. Community (2002) idenfified the need for the elaboration of this Strategy. In 2002, the Commission produced a communication called “Towards a Strategy to Protect and Conserve the Marine Environment”. EU Council and parliament supported the Commissions initiative.

The package delivered in 2005 by the Commission is composed by: • The Strategy, as adopted by the European Commission, COM(2005)504 • The proposal for a directive, COM(2005)505 • The Impact Assessment, SEC(2005)1290 • Ecosystem Approach Guidance (ICES cooperative research 273)

The objectives of the Marine Strategy are

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 29 The European Marine Strategy

• to protect and restore Europe’s oceans and seas and ensure that human activities are carried out in a sustainable manner so that current and future generations enjoy and benefit from biologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas that are safe, clean, healthy and productive »

• to achieve good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2021 at the latest, and to ensure the continued protection and preservation of that environment and the prevention of deterioration

The obligations of the EU Member States would be: • To carry out the initial assessment of the current environmental status of the waters concerned and the environmental impact of human activities thereon • The determination of good environmental status for the waters concerned • The establishment of environmental targets • The establishment and implementation of a monitoring programme for assessment and updating of targets development (by 2016) of a programme of measures designed to achieve good environmental status and entry into operation of the programme by 2018.

Marine Conservation Policy in the context of the EU biodiversity policy The International context the EU Nature and Biodiversity Policies are the following: Member States have committed themselves in the World Summit of Sustainable Development to establish a globally representative system of marine and coastal protected areas by 2012. In the context of the Biodiversity Convention (CBD) COP7 Parties (all MS) decided to establish (by 2012) and maintain a network of marine and coastal protected areas that are effectively managed, ecologically based, consistent with international law and based on scientific information. It is also to be considered for the Atlantic and Baltic sea the commitment of the Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (June 2003) to complete by 2010 a joint network of well-managed marine protected areas that, together with the Natura 2000 network, would be ecologically coherent.

30 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The European Marine Strategy

The establishment of Natura NATURA 2000 in the marine environment

The Natura 2000 network is a key element of the Marine Strategy for conservation Natural values of EU seas. Future marine Natura 2000 network has to be part of a coherent European ecological network enabling the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. • Natura 2000 network shall include – Special Protected Areas (SPA) under 79/409 Birds Directive – Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Under 92/43 Habitats Directive A first step in protecting the marine environment is to fully implement the existing Natura 2000 provisions.

Some legal elements There is no legal difference between marine and terrestrial environments in relation to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive. The final obligation of delivering a favourable conservation status to protected areas is the same in both environments. Site designation process is exclusively based on scientific criteria. Future management challenges should not be a determining element in this process. Human activities are possible; They are mainly regulated following art 6 provisions of Habitats Directive Obligation to apply nature legislation not only in territorial waters, but also in waters were sovereign rights are exercised. Recognition by a coastal State of an Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) brings not only rights but obligations. If rights are exercised over natural (living and non-living) resources, obligations exist to apply the appropriate National and Community legislation. Same reasoning applies for the Continental shelf. Natura 2000 network to be extended within the area where rights on the exploitation of natural resources are exercised: internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ and Continental shelf. Germany has already proposed to the Commission a significant set of marine protected areas as pSCI and designated SPAs. in its territorial waters and EEZ.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 31 The European Marine Strategy

The elaboration of a guidance document The Commission was asked to establish a working group under the Habitats Committee in order to progress with the definition of practical guidelines to apply the Directives in the marine zone. The Commission working for delivering this matter. This document is intended as a document of the Commission services. It has been prepared with the support of the Marine Expert group, looking for the largest possible consensus. The Marine working group included representatives from Member States, Stakeholders (NGO, economic actors…) and the Commission services. Three working subgroups established, – Habitat types definition (to develop a common understanding on existing definitions of marine habitats types) – Procedures for site identification, assessment and site selection rationale for SPAs (Birds Directive) and SAC (Habitats Directive) – Guidelines on aspects related to management of Natura 2000 marine sites

Works carried out have permitted the Commission to elaborate a first consolidated draft Guidelines document.

32 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The European Marine Strategy

Next priorities:

– Approval by the Habitats Committee of the proposals for the modification of the Interpretation manual of EU habitats types (three new definitions)

– Finalisation of the guidance document

– proceeding with site selection by MS (2008 target)

– Full establishment of Natura 2000 at sea by a date to be agreed during next nature Directors meeting (2008? 2010?)

Other issues

– species protection provisions beyond sites

– Further work on management/monitoring issues & guidance where needed

– Future possible adaptation of Annexes for marine habitats/ species

– Other issues like possible noise regulations

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 33 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction: management and governance issues

Carl Gustaf LUNDIN and Kristina Maria GJERDE Head of the Global Marine Program and High Seas Policy Advisor, The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Marine nature beyond national jurisdiction is under threat as never before. Comprising the largest biosphere for life on earth, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, commonly called the high seas, are generally defined in international law as the water column beyond the 200 nm exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of states (or beyond the territorial sea where no EEZ has been declared), and the seabed beyond the legal continental shelf. In this once remote realm, overfishing, destructive fishing practices and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing are destabilizing ecosystems and threatening species. At the same time, pollution from various sources is weakening marine ecosystems and undermining their ability to withstand further stresses, in particular from climate change. This paper highlights some of the key concerns and relevant management tools, reviews the main legal agreements and political processes, and concludes with preliminary options and recommendations for responding to this growing challenge. It is clear that we will need to act urgently to improve and develop new management and governance tools at the same time as we expand research to enhance our understanding of the deep seas and open oceans. The time for good ocean management and governance is well overdue. Many of the tools are already in hand to do a better job.

Introduction We have long assumed that the oceans beyond the continental shelves are uniform with few distinguishing characteristics or variations. Hence our management approaches have been simple and uniform. With advances in ocean exploration we now understand that oceans are very complex, containing many defining benthic features such as seamounts, cold water corals and sponges, submarine canyons, deep sea trenches, abyssal plains, hydrothermal vents, cold seeps, gas hydrate communities as well as complex oceanographic features and boundaries (Baker et al., 2001). In combination these create an abundance of biogeographic regions and discrete habitats.

34 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

In the deep sea, an amazing discovery in the past five years was that coral reefs are found not just in tropical waters, but also in cold and deep waters off of many countries and in polar regions. In fact, two thirds of known coral species are from cold waters, though only 10 species form reefs. The oldest known animal on earth is gold coral dated at over 1800 years. Cold water reefs can continue building for more than 8,000 years; some rival the size of the island of Manhattan (Freiwald, et al. 2004). Scientists have also discovered that while features such as whale carcass falls are of less permanent nature, they provide habitat for a range of specialized organisms. Such discoveries have demonstrated that many deep sea species live in very restricted ranges, with slow growth and slow recovery time (Smith et al., 2006). This highlights the need for a very precautionary approach to management. Distinguishing physical features of the open ocean include temperature, salinity and nutrient gradients, upwellings, fronts, currents, gyres and eddies that create both temporary and permanent hotspots of biological diversity and productivity. Oceanic hotspots such as upwellings associated with seamounts create oases in mid ocean and in polar regions that are teaming with life. Through animal tagging and satellite monitoring, we are now better able to understand animal migration patterns and to identify migration corridors as well as key feeding, breeding, spawning and nursery areas for many vulnerable marine animals. With better understanding, we are now able to define ocean areas and corridors of great importance to life in the seas and worthy of protection and management, even when these may shift over time (Norse, 2005).

Management issues Our improved understanding has also helped us to better identify the threats facing the oceans and the actions needed to manage these threats. Commercial activities at sea are expanding rapidly and plunging ever deeper. Modification of habitat and changes in trophic relationships are emerging as important management issues. Overfishing and destructive fishing practices are responsible for most of these changes. However whaling is another shift that has lead to less than 10% of the whale falls compared to historic norms. What are the biological effects for species survival, if only 10% of fractured habitat remains? In addition to unsustainable fishing impacts, other threats or concerns include harmful effects of noise pollution and shipping, submarine cables and pipelines, bioprospecting, some forms of marine scientific research, solid, chemical and plastic wastes, climate change and ozone depletion (UNEP, 2006). The effects of climate change have made conservation efforts more important. It is expected that climate change will cause shifts in ocean currents. Ocean acidification

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 35 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction will result from increased CO2 levels. Large variations in ice cover and nutrient cycles are predicted to have negative impacts for most species and ecosystems. Proposals for ways to store or sequester CO2 in the oceans through fertilization (enhancing primary productivity) or deep sea disposal or sub seabed burial could also have significant impacts (IPPC, 2005). These require further study to assess their risks, costs and benefits. It is time to develop management responses to increasing human activities that affect biological diversity and productivity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Management tools will need to incorporate an ecosystem and a precautionary approach and be targeted towards building ecosystem resilience to predicted climatic changes. It is expected that these may include: initiating new impact assessment and monitoring programmes; enabling science-based decision-making; expanding mandates of management bodies so that all fisheries and other human activities are covered; improving compliance and enforcement; strengthening of actions to eliminate IUU fishing; promoting technologies that minimize risk and harm, e.g. adopting the use of fishing gear that reduces bycatch and habitat destruction; and piloting the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) as tools in fisheries management in particular and biodiversity conservation in general. At the same time, the most pressing impacts such as deep sea bottom trawl fishing will need to be addressed or irreversible damage will ensue.

Governance issues It is time to consider whether the current governance regime for marine areas beyond national jurisdiction is sufficient to address the acknowledged need for improved biodiversity management and governance. The rights and duties of states with respect to protecting and conserving living marine resources, biodiversity and the environment beyond national jurisdiction are clearly stated in the1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Additional instruments such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development Joint Plan of Implementation (WSSD) set forth globally agreed commitments, goals and principles for oceans governance (Kimball, 2005). Internationally recognized duties include protection and preservation of the marine environment, including rare and fragile ecosystems, conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and cooperation for these purposes. WSSD commitments include the use and facilitation of tools such as ecosystem approaches to management with a target date of 2010, elimination of destructive fishing practices, and representative networks of MPAs, based on science and consistent with international law, by 2012. However they are not yet applied on a consistent basis to

36 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. In consequence, there are gaps in coverage and implementation that must be addressed. The need to protect marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction has been a major topic of discussion since 2000, when IUCN’s World Conservation Congress adopted a resolution on the topic. In 2001, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation sponsored an expert workshop on “Managing Risks to the Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Sea, including Tools such as Marine Protected Areas” (Thiel & Koslow, 2001). Other important meetings of experts followed soon thereafter, including the 2003 Malaga, Spain “Workshop on High Seas MPAs” (Gjerde & Breide, 2003), the 2003 “Defying Ocean’s End Conference and agenda for action” (Glover & Earle, 2004), the 2003 Cairns, Australia “Workshop on Governance of High Seas Biodiversity Conservation” (Australia National Oceans Office, 2003) and the 2005 St. John’s, Canada “Conference on High Seas Fisheries Governance and the Fish Stocks Agreement” (Canada Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, 2005). In 2006 the Global Oceans Forum convened “multistakeholder dialogue sessions” to further stimulate awareness and expert-level discussions (Global Oceans Forum, 2006). As a result, high seas biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are now priority issues in several global arenas. These include the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS), the Conferences of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP), the UN Food and Agriculture’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI), and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The UNGA has adopted a series of resolutions from 2002 noting with concern increasing impacts to deep sea biodiversity and calling for enhanced efforts to conserve biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction. Discussions during the annual UNICPOLOS meetings among representatives from states, international bodies, research institutes and non-governmental organizations have played a critical role in advising the UNGA on these issues. In 2004, the UNGA called upon states and RFMOs “to take action urgently… and consider on case by case basis… the interim prohibition of destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling that has adverse effects on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals located beyond national jurisdiction.” (UNGA Res.A/59/25, para, 66). In October 2006 the UNGA will discuss further measures, based on reported progress by states and RFMOs (see UN Sec. Gen., 2006), to address biodiversity concerns arising from destructive fishing practices. To enable broader discussions, the UNGA in 2004 agreed to a meeting of an Ad hoc Open Ended Informal Working Group to study issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. At its meeting in February 2006, the key parameters of concern and options for future progress were outlined

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 37 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

(United Nations, 2006a). Participants agreed that UNCLOS served as the basis for cooperation and action, and that there was a need for improved implementation, cooperation and coordination. The Working Group also recognized that area-based management measures such as MPAs could be a key conservation tool. The European Union introduced a proposal for an UNCLOS implementing agreement to address some of the gaps in international law regarding biodiversity conservation. The idea of an UNCLOS implementing agreement, while not universally accepted, was noted by most States as a possible option. It is hoped that discussions in this forum will continue into the future, as there are many issues to address. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which meets every two years to discuss implementation of the CBD, has since 2004 issued a series of recommendations for improving high seas biodiversity conservation and use. The CBD includes a key obligation for States to control nationally regulated processes and activities (e.g. activities of their nationals and vessels) that may affect biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction. The CBD COP in 2004 and in 2006 made urgent calls on parties to control and report on such activities, particularly with respect to destructive fishing practices and marine genetic resources and to promote scientific and technical work to, inter alia, develop criteria for high seas MPAs (CBD, 2006). The next Conference of the Parties in 2008 in Germany will provide an excellent opportunity to review progress that has been made in the variety of fora, what more needs to be done, and to determine what further steps might enhance global cooperative efforts. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement is the key legal agreement setting forth global standards for managing and conserving highly migratory and straddling fish stocks in international waters. It contains clear obligations to apply a precautionary approach, reduce fishing impacts, and protect marine biodiversity. In 2006, Parties and non- Parties met to review its effectiveness and agreed on a number of important steps to strengthen its implementation. It was recognized that 1) the precautionary approach and the ecosystem approach should be incorporated more fully into fisheries management measures; 2) new RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management Organizations) should be established to manage stocks and areas not now covered; 3) RFMOs should undertake performance reviews; 4) steps should be taken to assist developing countries; and 5) more should be done to combat IUU fishing (United Nations, 2006b). As had been noted in COFI in 2005, some speakers at the Review Conference stressed the need to develop management tools, including MPAs, to effectively conserve and manage straddling and highly migratory fish stocks and discrete high seas fish stocks and to protect habitats, marine biodiversity and vulnerable marine ecosystems in accordance with the best available scientific

38 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction information and consistent with international law. Participants agreed to reconvene the Review Conference no later than 2011 to assess progress and additional needs. Key governance issues that will need to be addressed at upcoming meetings at the UN, the CBD, and COFI include: 1) the need for urgent action to manage for conservation high seas bottom trawling and its impacts on deep sea biodiversity; 2) unregulated and/or emerging activities of concern such as shark fishing and finning, tuna ranching, underwater noise, energy production, CO2 sequestration, marine scientific research and bioprospecting; 3) the many internationally regulated activities such as shipping and fishing that threaten biodiversity conservation; 4) the lack of procedures for preventing harm to biodiversity or the marine environmental, for example by implementing impact assessments, risk minimization, and strategic assessment; 5) the lack of an integrated or coherent approach to oceans management (Laffoley, et al. 2004); and 6) the lack of an agreed framework for the designation and establishment of MPAs and representative networks of MPAs. Additionally, several fundamental issues will need to be discussed, though their resolution should not stand in the way of addressing the most pressing conservation concerns. These larger debates include whether deep seabed genetic resources are or should be treated as the “common heritage of mankind”, as seabed mineral resources have been designated as the “common heritage of mankind” under UNCLOS. This debate centers on whether the revenues and other benefits generated from marine genetic resources taken from areas beyond national jurisdiction should be shared in some form by all states, or whether marine genetic resources are subject to high seas freedoms whereby the resource and economic benefits belong to those who first capture it? Another issue is how to reconcile the traditional concept of freedom of the seas, with its origins in 17th century maritime trade, with the 21st century technological capacity to cause irreversible harm to resources, species and ecosystems through, for example, destructive fishing practices and pollution? What is to be done when certain states are unable or unwilling to restrain the actions of their citizens or flagged vessels to the detriment of the global commons that is the heritage of all nations? How should traditional notions of state responsibility and liability be applied so as to prevent damage? While these debates proceed, states will need to find ways to safeguard marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction. The first step will be to enhance the implementation of existing legal obligations, including the duty to protect rare and fragile ecosystems and to apply the precautionary approach. States should use existing instruments and powers to eliminate destructive fishing practices, to prevent pollution, and to establish protected areas consistent with international law. They should also work to reform existing regional bodies and to enhance cooperation and coordination between regional fisheries bodies and other regional bodies, such as the

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 39 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Northeast Atlantic, whose ambit covers areas beyond national jurisdiction. At the same time it may be useful to further discuss and assess the need for additional mechanisms under UNCLOS to address broader conservation, use and equity issues. What might additional mechanisms under UNCLOS cover? Aspects that might be ad- dressed include: 1) seeking to harmonize the mandates of existing bodies and agreements so that all international and regional bodies seek to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity and protect the marine environment beyond national jurisdiction; 2) encouraging compatible conservation efforts between national and international waters so that management can transcend political boundaries to work at the ecosystem level; 3) providing positive incentives and building the capacity of developing countries to improve their national oceans management systems and to participate in global oceans governance; 4) finding new ways of incorporating precaution and the ecosystem approach to ensure that all uses are sustainable while providing higher levels of protection to rare, vulnerable, significant and representative areas; 5) ensuring effective compliance and enforcement; 6) promoting innovative forms of benefit sharing so that benefits of uses and activities are shared on an equitable basis while rewarding the entrepreneurial spirit necessary to spur innovation; and 7) considering what forms of new or reinvigorated global or regional institutions might play a useful role in enhancing coordination at multiple levels. The debate may be long and hard. Though states are convinced of the need for action, there is no consensus on the need for an UNCLOS implementing agreement. Some states prefer to focus on sector-based and threat-based management, rather than developing a more integrated, precautionary and coherent approach. And some states prefer no new initiatives at this time. Thus the future of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction remains in the balance. It is hoped that the discussions proceed in an open, transparent and participatory manner, for decisions affecting the future of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction will affect the health and integrity of ecosystems and resources in national waters, and thus us all.

40 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

Concluding remarks There is clearly a need for urgent action to address the most pressing threats to marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, such as the impacts of deep sea bottom trawling and IUU fishing activities. New ocean management tools and laws need to be developed and applied while improving the implementation of those already in place. Concerted efforts must be made to stimulate research and innovation while building the capacity of developing countries to participate. This conference focuses on Marine Nature Conservation in Europe, thus it is noted that Europe has a central role to play. Success stories are needed, and Europe has the power and ability to lead by example, such as through stimulating progress in biodiversity conservation in the high seas where regional institutions and agreements already exist, for example in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Antarctic, or are emerging, as in the Southern Indian Ocean and South Pacific. Through leadership and good examples, Europe can help pave the way to ensuring the future health and integrity of the world ocean.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to express their gratitude for the assistance of Kirsten Martin and Harlan Cohen.

References:

AUSTRALIA NATIONAL OCEANS OFFICE [now DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE] (2003): Workshop on the Governance of High Seas Biodiversity Conservation. 16-19 June, 2003, Cairns, Australia (full proceedings on file with K. Gjerde). BAKER, M., BETT, B., BILLETT, D. and ROGERS, A. (2001): An environmental perspective. In: (WWF/IUCN/WCPA Eds.):The status of natural resources on the high–seas. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.iucn.org/ themes/marine/pdf/highseas.pdf CANADA DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS (2005): Conference on the Governance of High Seas Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement: Moving from Words to Action. 1-5 May 2005. St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fgc-cgp/conf_report_e.pdf CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY [CBD] (2006): Report Of The Eighth Meeting Of The Parties To The Convention On Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 20-31 March 2006. Decisions VIII/21 and VIII/24. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/ doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/official/cop-08-31-en.pdf FREIWALD A., FOSSA, J., GREHAN, A., KOSLOW, T., and ROBERTS, J.M. (2004): Cold- Water Coral Reefs, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/press/cold_water_coral_reefs/PDF/CWC_LR.pdf GJERDE, K. M. and BREIDE, C. (2003): Towards a Strategy for High Seas Marine Protected Areas: Proceedings of the IUCN, WCPA and WWF Experts Workshop on High Seas Marine Protected Areas, 15-17 2003, Malaga, Spain. IUCN,

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 41 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

Gland, Switzerland, pp. 180. Available at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/ pdf/GjerdeBreideHSMPA.pdf GLOBAL OCEANS FORUM (2006): Reports from the Third Global Conference: Meeting the Commitments on Oceans, Coasts, and Small Island Developing States Made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development: How Well Are We Doing? Co-Chairs’ Report— Volume 1, and Reports from the Third Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands: Moving the Global Oceans Agenda Forward, Co-Chairs’ Report— Volume 2. Available at http://www.globaloceans. org/globalconferences/2006/outcomes.html GLOVER L. and EARLE, S. (Eds., 2004): Defying Ocean’s End: An agenda for action. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London. Available at: http://www.islandpress.org IPCC (2005): Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary. Prepared by Working Group III. Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ KIMBALL L. 2005. The International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction and Options for Cooperation for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Marine Areas Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no. 19. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/ doc/publications/cbd-ts-19.pdf NORSE, E.A. (2005): Pelagic protected areas: the greatest parks challenge of the 21st century. In: High Seas Marine Protected Areas. Parks Magazine. (K.M Gjerde & G Kelleher, eds.): World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). IUCN/WCPA, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pdf/ parks_hsmpajun06.pdf LAFFOLEY D., MALTBY, E., VINCENT, M.A., MEE, L. DUNN, E., GILLILAND, P., HAMER, J., MORTIMER, D. and POUND, D. (2004): The Ecosystem Approach: Coherent actions for marine and coastal environments. A report to the UK Government Peterborough, English Nature. Available at: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/ pubs/publication/PDF/EcosystemApproach.pdf SMITH, C.R., L.A. LEVIN, J.A. KOSLOW, P.A. TYLER, and A.G. GLOVER (in press): The near future of the deep seafloor ecosystems. Proceedings 5th International Conference on Environmental Future. Zurich, Switzerland, March 2003. THIEL, H. and J.A. KOSLOW (Eds., 2001): Managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on the high sea, including tools such as marine protected areas — Scientific requirements and legal aspects. Proceedings of the Expert Workshop, Vilm, Germany, February– March 2001. Available at: www.bfn.de/09/090203.htm UNEP (2006): Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. A report prepared by Kristina M. Gjerde. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 178, UNEP/IUCN, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/ IUCN_Report_16June06.pdf UNITED NATIONS (2006a): Report of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. A/61/65. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm#A /61/65

42 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine nature conservation beyond national jurisdiction

UNITED NATIONS (2006b): Report of the Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 22 to 26 May 2006), prepared by the President of the Conference with the assistance of the Secretariat." (A/CONF.210/2006/15). Available at: http://www.un.org/ depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/reviewconferencedraftreport.pdf UN SECRETARY GENERAL (2006): The Impacts of Fishing on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems: Actions taken by States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to give effect to paragraphs 66 to 69 of General Assembly resolution 59/25 on sustainable fisheries, regarding the impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/ los/general_assembly/documents/impact_of_fishing.pdf

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 43 Targets and achievements of OSPAR

Pre-conference abstract:

Targets and achievements of OSPAR in conserving marine biodiversity

Alan SIMCOCK OSPAR Commission Executive Secretary

The Contracting Parties to the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic are under obligations, inter alia, to take all possible steps to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities, so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems. OSPAR has also adopted an ecosystem approach to management, as the basis of its strategies and the integration of its work. As part of the revised OSPAR Strategy on Biological Diversity and Ecosystems adopted in 2003, four aspects of work are being pursued: identification of species and habitats in need of protection and, where necessary, the development of measures to ensure their protection; development of an OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas (both inside waters under national jurisdiction and on the high seas), with the aim of ensuring by 2010 an ecologically coherent network of well managed MPAs; development of a system of Ecological Quality Objectives and its trial application in the North Sea, both as a long-term system for the North Sea and in other OSPAR regions; assessment of the impact of human activities on the marine environment and, where necessary, the development of measures to controlling their impact on species and habitats that need to be protected or conserved; or to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected. This presentation will consider in more detail the background, aims and objectives of these aspects of OSPAR's work, the progress made and the key challenges as well as the way OSPAR is seeking to develop its programmes through co-operation with other international organisations.

44 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 45 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan Marine Biodiversity at the Heart of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

Anne Christine BRUSENDORFF Executive Secretary, Helsinki Commission

Biodiversity – genetic, species and functional diversity - is at the essence of healthy ecosystems. With the overall aim of HELCOM being “to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea Area and the preservation of its ecological balance”1 the status of the marine biodiversity is thus also an indicator for how well HELCOM has managed its work. With the new Article 15 on Nature Conservation and biodiversity in the revised Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 this understanding became even more evident.2 This is even more so as marine and coastal biodiversity in the Baltic Sea is facing pressures from many human activities. • Eutrophication has increased plankton production and consequently reduced water clarity and oxygen concentrations in near bottom waters - thus reducing biodiversity in littoral and benthic communities; • Hazardous substances have accumulated in the biota – with consequent impacts on the reproductive success and/or survival rates of offspring; • Some species are directly threatened – with overexploitation of fish stocks and by-catches of mammals and birds in fishing gear; • Many species are severely impacted due to the destruction of habitats, caused inter alia by coastal developments and eutrophication; • And the rising number of ships in the Baltic also presents an increasing risk – as regards potential oil spills and introduction of non-native species through ballast water. For this same reason HELCOM has decided to address the issue of marine protection and restoration from a holistic and policy integrated approach, by applying the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities affecting the marine

1 Cf. Article 3, §1 of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992. The following unmarked Articles refer to this Convention. All HELCOM material is available on the HELCOM web-site: www.helcom.fi 2 Article 15 states: “The Contracting Parties shall individually and jointly take all appropriate measures with respect to the Baltic Sea Area and its coastal ecosystems influenced by the Baltic Sea to conserve natural habitats and biological diversity and to protect ecological processes. Such measures shall also be taken in order to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources within the Baltic Sea Area. To this end, the Contracting Parties shall aim at adopting subsequent instruments containing appropriate guidelines and criteria.”

46 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan environment.3 Several things are fundamental to the application of the ecosystem approach. Firstly, there needs to be an aspiration for a healthy sea (or a sea in good ecological status), which can be described through the use of ecological objectives. The ecological objectives need to be measurable by indicators with targets; and implemented via targeted and cost-effective measures. The novelty of the approach is that HELCOM is now putting the ecosystem at the centre, by firstly defining the status of the sea as we want it to be in the future, and basing our management decisions on this goal. Traditionally, HELCOM has addressed the sources of pollution, without directly linking the measures to the status of the Baltic Sea.4 The first set of HELCOM Ecological Objectives were adopted at the 27th Meeting of the Helsinki Commission in March 2006, embedded in an overall vision of “A healthy Baltic Sea environment, with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human economic and social activities”. This vision is spelled out in four strategic goals, covering the four main environmental priorities within HELCOM’s work: • a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication; • a favourable status of Baltic Sea biodiversity; • Baltic Sea life undisturbed by hazardous substances; and • maritime activities carried out in an environmentally friendly way. For each goal several ecological objectives have been chosen, which describe more specifically the future of the Baltic Sea that we would like to have (see figure 1: HELCOM applying an ecosystem approach). While all of this work is related to the application of the ecosystem approach, and has taken off as a result of the problems encountered in the Baltic Sea, HELCOM has just entered a more normative, and standard-setting phase; namely by choosing indicators and developing targets for the agreed ecological objectives. Not forgetting the holistic approach – let’s focus for a while on our biodiversity column and how to assess marine biodiversity in the Baltic Sea in order to be able to quantita- tively assess its status. A quantification which shall make it possible for us to, in the end, state whether we have reached our goal of: “Favourable status of Baltic Sea biodiversity”.

3 Cf. the 2003 HELCOM Bremen Ministerial Declaration and the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Declaration. The ecosystem approach has also been globally recognized, inter alia, in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Also the draft European Marine Strategy applies an ecosystem approach. 4 An example of the traditional HELCOM approach are the 1988/98 Ministerial decisions on a flat 50% reduction target for discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 47 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

The first set of biodiversity ecological objectives is divided into three levels: • landscape/seascape level; • community level; and • species level Thus, HELCOM uses the same formula as used within assessments by the Convention on Biological Diversity, focusing on assessing the three levels: “within species”, “between species” and “of ecosystems”. The three levels at the same time also reflect key areas of work carried out by HELCOM. Let’s start with the biodiversity objective to maintain natural land- and seascapes. This can be translated into ensuring the existence of a diversity of coastal and marine landscapes and their associated ecosystems and cultural values. This correlates with both the work of HELCOM to set up an ecological coherent network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs) and work being carried out to protect coastal strips; all with the aim of ensuring a comprehensive coverage of different ecosystems and landscapes.5 As of today, 97 BSPAs have been designated, taking into account and harmonising this Baltic approach with other international approaches.6 A database has been created with information on the BSPAs, e.g. selection criteria, location, size, protection status and management measures. This database is going to be the foundation for the establishment of an interactive web-based map-service. The map- service will allow not only a visualisation of the information on the protected areas, linked also to other activities carried out in the Baltic region, but what’s more, it will allow the carrying out of different analyses using the data in the database. HELCOM has developed guidelines for the designation and management of BSPAs, in order to ensure that the aim of establishing such areas is achieved. The achievement of this aim would be an ecologically coherent network of sites protecting: • areas of high natural biodiversity; • rare, unique or representative areas/structures/processes; • threatened/declining species/habitats;

5 Cf. HELCOM Recommendation 15/1 “Protection of the Coastal Strip” and HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 “System of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas”, adopted in 1994. In 2003 at the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Meeting a joint HELCOM/OSPAR work programme on marine protected areas was adopted, to ensure consistency across the two marine regions and to ensure that by 2010 a ecological coherent network of marine protected areas is in place in the two regions. 6 Cf. the Natura 2000 network established under the Habitats and Birds Directives (Council Directive of 2 April 1974 on the conservation of wild birds (74/409/EEC) and Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC)) and the Emerald network launched by the Council of Europe as part of its work under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). HELCOM has decided that the designation under, for instance the Natura 2000 Network, will serve also as a BSPA designation.

48 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

• important species and habitats. In addition, the designated areas shall ensure connectivity and replication7 of protected features. Analyses of the selection criteria for the established BSPAs have shown that the parameters indicated as ensuring an ecological coherent network have also been decisive when identifying the BSPAs. Thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals are essential for the favour- able status of the Baltic Sea biodiversity, and is our next ecological objective. Habitat builders, such as bladder wrack and eel grass, provide important habitat and breeding grounds for many species. Changes in, or disappearance of such habitat builders, can therefore have devastating effects on their associated species and the ecological function of the ecosystem. The well-being of for instance the two mentioned communities are therefore two good indicators of whether or not Baltic Sea biodiversity can be characterised as favourable. Both natural ecosystems and balanced communities rely on our last ecological objective; viable populations of species. A viable population consists of a successfully breeding, healthy population that is able to maintain itself and perform its functional role in the community and the ecosystem on a long-term basis. It is not possible to assess the status of all species. But information, in long time series, does exist for quite a number of the well-known populations’ characteristic for the Baltic Sea. This includes both top predators, which by their placement at the end of the food chain are also good indicators for a variety of anthropogenic pressures, as well as threatened and declining species. The HELCOM COMBINE monitoring programme provides data on the structure of littoral, pelagic and benthic plant and animal communities. There are examples of conceptual models developed for understanding the viability of species, especially within the field of commercial fisheries. Such models assess the viability of species on the basis of population size and could also be deployed as a potential indicator for the viability of other species. The favourable conservation status of species is to be found somewhere between the population’s safe biological limit and the carrying capacity of the environment. The conservation work of HELCOM has contributed to many success stories, including: • The recovery of the white-tailed eagle around the Baltic Sea • The return of the cormorant to the whole region

7 The connectivity aspect ensures that sites in the network are well connected with each other and the replication aspect that important features are protected in several sites.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 49 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

• Early signs of recovery in Baltic wild salmon populations • Increasing numbers of seals in northern areas of the Baltic Sea More work, however is also needed – and for this I would like to pinpoint a couple of areas:

Scientifically based decisions As a term “biodiversity” is very broad like “climate” or “economy” and can only be assessed by HELCOM within a determined framework, and as it relates to human activities. The ecosystem approach is based on best available scientific information which is used to support decision making. In order to ensure this, HELCOM needs to further work to develop common, harmonised criteria to assess the status of biodiversity and nature protection in the Baltic Sea – and to produce a comprehensive thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature protection in the Baltic Sea.

Ecologically coherent and well-managed Baltic Sea protected areas From our knowledge about the status of biodiversity and nature protection in the Baltic Sea we shall further analyse possible gaps in the BSPA network and take steps towards developing a more ecological coherent network which protects the unique biodiversity of the region.

Spatial planning Acknowledging the increasing uses of the marine area and the potential conflicts between various existing or planned uses, the BSPA database and its GIS connection will be further developed as a tool to demonstrate conflicts and suggest solutions.

Management measures The increased scientific knowledge about threats from human activities affecting endangered and/or declining species and habitats shall lead to management plans, including protective actions and measures.

Cost-benefit analysis An important part of the biodiversity and nature protection work is to be able to convince other stakeholders that the work we are carrying out is giving “value for money”. For this reason we will carry out a cost-benefit analysis, including a valuation of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, an analysis of the costs of a “business-as-usual”

50 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan approach, and a cost-benefit analysis of the needed measures to be included to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Vision A healthy Baltic Sea environment, with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human economic and social activities

Goals

Baltic Sea unaffected Baltic Sea life Favourable status of Maritime activities in the by eutrophication undisturbed by Baltic Sea Baltic Sea carried out in an hazardous substances biodiversity environmentally friendly way

Objectives No illegal pollution Concentrations of Safe maritime traffic nutrients close to natural Concentrations of Natural landscapes without accidental levels hazardous substances and seascapes pollution close to natural levels Clear water Efficient response capability Natural level of algal All fish safe to eat Thriving and balanced No introductions of alien blooms communities of plants and animals species from ships Natural distribution and Healthy wildlife Minimum air pollution occurrence of plants and animals Viable populations from ships of species Natural oxygen Radioactivity at pre-Chernobyl levels Zero discharges from levels offshore platforms

Fig. 1: HELCOM applying an ecosystem approach General outline of the HELCOM system. For each Objective a number of indicators with targets have to be agreed upon. In order to have objectives for all HELCOM main issues of concern, HELCOM has also developed management objectives for maritime activities. As maritime issues are a pressure acting on, and not an ecological state of, the marine environment, the maritime objectives are coloured white.

The Helsinki Commission, or HELCOM, works to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental co-operation between the countries bordering the sea - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden as well as the European Community. HELCOM is the governing body of the "Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area," more usually known as the Helsinki Convention. For more than three decades, the Helsinki Commission, or simply HELCOM has been acting as the main environmental policy-maker for the Baltic Sea area by developing specific measures to protect and conserve its unique marine environment. The Commission, working through intergovernmental co-operation between all the Baltic coastal countries, has produced many environmental gains in the course of the past 30 years, thus validating the belief that the deterioration of once one of the most

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 51 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan polluted seas in the world can be arrested and the state of the marine environment improved. The 1974 Helsinki Convention and the revised 1992 Helsinki Convention were created, signed and ratified by the riparian countries for two reasons, firstly due to the special nature of the Baltic Sea and its environmental problems and secondly due to the fact that measures for the prevention and elimination of pollution entering the Baltic Sea must be developed and implemented mainly by the riparian countries. The added value has been a sincere interest of all stakeholders in doing their utmost for their common marine environment. The riparian countries have jointly pooled their efforts in HELCOM, which is working as: • an environmental policy maker for the Baltic Sea area by developing common environmental objectives and actions; • an environmental focal point providing information about (i) the state of/trends in the marine environment; (ii) the efficiency of measures to protect it and (iii) common initiatives and positions which can form the basis for decision-making in other international fora; • a body for developing, according to the specific needs of the Baltic Sea, Recommendations of its own and Recommendations supplementary to measures imposed by other international organisations; • a supervisory body dedicated to ensuring that HELCOM environmental standards are fully implemented by all parties throughout the Baltic Sea and its catchment area; and • a co-ordinating body, ascertaining multilateral response in case of major maritime incidents.

52 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 53 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

Jens ENEMARK Secretary General, Common Wadden Sea Secretariat

The Significance of the Wadden Sea The Wadden Sea is a coastal sea stretching over 450 km along the North Sea coast of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark and is one of the largest wetlands on a global scale. A network of tidal channels, sandbars, mudflats, salt marshes and islands creates a transition zone between land and sea characterized by daily changing flood and ebb tides and high dynamics in salinity, light, oxygen and temperature. This has resulted in a complex system which provides a unique habitat for a rich flora and fauna. The great productivity and size of the Wadden Sea provide a foundation for the repro- duction of North Sea fish stocks and for its function as a turntable of bird migration. The ecological importance of the Wadden Sea thus extends from the Arctic to South- Africa. The Wadden Sea is an open system and there are many interactions with the adjacent North Sea. The quality of water, sediment and marine habitats is, to an important degree, influenced by the North Sea and activities in the catchment area of the debouching rivers. The Wadden Sea region is also an area where people live, work and recreate. About 3.7 million people live along the Wadden Sea coast, of which about 75,000 live inside the Wadden Sea Area. The Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan (1997) acknowledges this by stating that economic and social values should also be maintained and enhanced. With the establishment of a Wadden Sea Forum as an independent stakeholder forum, the inhabitants of the Wadden Sea region have been given an opportunity to get actively involved in the activities of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation.

54 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

Fig. 1: The Wadden Sea

Conservation and Management Protection Regime Though the importance of the Wadden Sea for birds had been well known it was only after the 2nd World War that scientists from the three Wadden Sea countries documented the significance of the Wadden Sea as world-wide important ecosystem. Since the beginning of the last century smaller nature reserves have been established in practically all parts of the Wadden Sea to protect primarily breeding birds. In the 1960s-70s major projects and developments such as large scale embankments, harbor and industrial developments, substantial increase in tourism and pollution constituted significant impacts on the Wadden Sea ecosystem. Scientists and non- governmental organizations, in particular the WWF and the Dutch Wadden Society, which had been established in 1965 in protest of a Dutch dam project, strongly advocated a comprehensive protection and conservation of the entire ecosystem

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 55 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context which could effectively tackle the negative impacts both from inside and outside the Wadden Sea. The small scale nature reserves were too limited in their scope and inadequate instruments to protect an entire ecosystem, they contended. The Wadden Sea environment movement was the major force, which resulted in the designation of comprehensive protection schemes by the responsible authorities in the countries and in the establishment of a trilateral Wadden Sea cooperation to protect the Wadden Sea as a n ecological entity. It all started in the 70s in the last century. Around 1980 major conservation schemes were introduced in all three countries leading to a comprehensive protection of the Wadden Sea. In 1979/81 the Danish part of the Wadden Sea was designated Wildlife and Nature Reserve. The Dutch part was made subject to a planning decree in 1980 setting out the conservation objectives and regulation the human activities. In 1985/86 the two German states Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony declared their part of the Wadden Sea national parks followed by Hamburg in 1990. The designations have since been amended and extended but the main traits of the conservation schemes introduced a generation ago have been maintained. These schemes constitute the trilateral Conservation Area (se map) and amounts to about 11,000 km². The Wadden Sea is further subject to a multitude of international designations. The large majority of the Wadden Sea Area has been designated Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive and designated as habitat areas under the Habitats Directive which forms the Natura 2000 for the Wadden Sea. Further, most of the area has been designated as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and Particularly Sensitive Sea Area by the International Maritime Organization.

Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation In parallel the three governments started a cooperation with the aim to ensure a coordinated protection of the Wadden Sea. The first trilateral Danish-German-Dutch Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea was held in 1978 in The Hague. The 10th Ministerial Conference was held on the Dutch island of Schiermonnikoog on 3 November 2005. The formal basis of the Cooperation is the “Joint Declaration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea” signed at the Third Wadden Sea Conference in Copenhagen in 1982. The Joint Declaration is a declaration of intent of the three Wadden Sea countries to consult each other in order to coordinate their activities and measures to implement a number of legal instruments with regard to the comprehensive protection of the Wadden Sea region as a whole including its fauna and flora. In 1987, the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat was established to facilitate and support the Cooperation.

56 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

It is important to acknowledge that the trilateral cooperation is a political cooperation which aims at a coordinated implementation of relevant international legal instruments such as the European Union directives and strategies, the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention) in the field of nature and environmental protection for a comprehensive protection of the Wadden Sea. The ministerial conferences which are held as a rule every 3-4 years are the central decision making bodies for the cooperation. The three countries also concluded the "Agreement on the Conservation of Seals in the Wadden Sea" in 1990, which is a regional agreement under the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, Bonn Convention). Since 1997, the arrangements of the Wadden Sea Cooperation have been embedded in the framework of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan, which entails policies, measures, projects and actions agreed upon by the three countries. The Plan is a statement of how the three countries envisage the future coordination and integration of management of the Wadden Sea Area and of the projects and actions that must be carried out to achieve the commonly agreed Targets (Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan, 1997). The geographical scope of the Wadden Sea Plan is the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation Area, in brief the Wadden Sea Area. The Wadden Sea Area is, in general terms, the area seaward of the main dike (or, where the main dike is absent, the spring-high-tide-water line, and in the rivers, the brackish-water limit) up to 3 nautical miles from the baseline or the offshore boundaries of the Conservation Area. Additionally, some adjacent inland marsh areas of the Denmark and Schleswig- Holstein are part of the Wadden Sea Area (see Fig. 1). The Wadden Sea Area covers an area of about 14,700 km².

Shared Principles and Targets The Guiding Principle of the trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation is ‘to achieve, as far as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in which natural processes proceed in an undisturbed way’. In addition, seven Management Principles were adopted which are fundamental to decisions concerning the protection and management of the Wadden Sea Area. The trilateral conservation policy and management is directed towards achieving the full scale of habitat types which belong to a natural and dynamic Wadden Sea. Each of these habitats needs a certain quality (natural dynamics, absence of disturbance, absence of pollution), which can be reached by proper conservation and management. The quality of the habitats is to be maintained or improved by working towards achieving Targets agreed upon for six habitat types: Salt Marshes, Tidal Area, Beaches and Dunes, Estuaries, Offshore Area and Rural Area. Targets for the

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 57 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context quality of water and sediment are valid for all habitats. In addition, supplementary Targets on birds and marine mammals were adopted, as well as Targets for landscape and cultural aspects (Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan, 1997). A list of the Targets is in the Annex. For each Target category, trilateral policy and management and proposals for trilateral projects and actions necessary for the implementation of the Targets are included in the Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan. The trilateral policy and management is the core of the agreements on the common protection and management of all relevant uses and activities.

Status An important instrument in the trilateral cooperation is the joint monitoring program TMAP (“Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Program”). It regularly measures a large number of parameters enabling an evaluation of the ecological state of the ecosystem and the status of implementation of the trilateral Targets of the Wadden Sea Plan. More than 50 institutions in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands participate in the TMAP. After a pilot phase which started in 1994, a Common Package of monitoring parameters including the associated data management has been implemented since 1997. Joint monitoring programs for breeding and migratory birds and seals had already been trilaterally implemented since 1989 and 1992, respectively, and are also part of the TMAP. On the basis of the TMAP data, experts assess the condition of the Wadden Sea ecosystem and evaluate the extent to which the common Targets have been reached. The results are reported periodically, most recently in the “Wadden Sea Quality Status Report 2004” - more than 90 scientists have contributed to this report. The Quality Status Report (QSR) documented the success in protection of the Wadden Sea. For instance, pollution through nutrients and contaminants has been reduced, many salt marshes have returned to their natural state, mechanical cockle fishing is not allowed any more in almost all parts of the Wadden Sea, and the harbour seal population as well as breeding populations of certain bird species such as little tern have recovered. Despite many successes there are still developments in the Wadden Sea that are a cause for concern. Examples are the reduction in mud flat area and the increased use of beaches by tourists. The latter has led to a reduction in the numbers of Great Ringed Plovers and Kentish Plovers. Another concern of the QSR was that new pollutants, introduced species, and sea level rise could have negative consequences that cannot be calculated today. Further research will be necessary to fill the

58 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context remaining gaps in knowledge, and the precautionary principle needs to be rigorously applied.

Protection and Management in a Coastal Context There is a close interrelationship between the Wadden Sea Area and its surroundings. On the one hand, areas adjacent to the Wadden Sea Area can benefit from the values of the Wadden Sea. On the other hand, developments and activities outside the Wadden Sea Area may have an impact on the values of the Wadden Sea Area. The benefits should be improved and the negative impacts addressed.

Fig. 2: Summary of trends for breeding birds in Wadden Sea between 1991-2001. Given is the annual rate of increase or decrease (in %). For Common Snipe, Ruff and Dunlin, the rates of decline could not be calculated from the census data and have been assumed to be >25% (considering data from 1991, 1996 and 2001)

The activities in this regard have been many and addressed many issues of relevance for protecting and managing the Wadden Sea in a coastal area context with a view to

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 59 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context further the sustainable development of the larger coastal area. Three examples are particularly addressed, namely the landscape heritage, shipping and shipping safety and the Wadden Sea Forum:

Cultural Environment The cultural-historic and landscape values of the area are intimately related to the economic and social development of the coastal area and, by international standard, unique and unrivalled. The cultural-historic and landscape heritage and the diversity between the regions are essential for the comprehension of the area’s development and identity and the inhabitants’ identification with the landscape. It entails a distinctive international dimension comparable to its natural values. Therefore, it was agreed at the Leeuwarden Conference in 1994 to pay attention to this aspect as the third dimension in the trilateral Wadden Sea cooperation, in addition to the natural and environmental dimensions. The integration of all three dimensions into a coherent policy and management is essential to ensure a sustainable development. From 1999 until 2001 the tracks from the past in the landscape were being investigated in the Lancewad project. Lancewad means Landscape and Cultural Heritage of the Wadden Sea Region. The project produced an accurate inventory of all important cultural qualities of our landscape and our heritage. Countless examples have been mapped like dwelling mounds, sluices, mills, dikes, lighthouses and embankments which are symbols of the interaction of Man with nature. The follow-up project LancewadPlan, running from 2005 until 2007 and financially supported by the Interreg IIIB North Sea program focuses on the management and planning issues regarding our unique cultural landscape and heritage. The aims of the project are to develop and agree on a vision and a strategy for the conservation, management and sustainable use of our common heritage and to reinforce the planning by looking at the heritage in its entirety, because it is the elements in their context that make up the heritage. Such cultural environments and areas of historic interest, which display important features of the social development of the region, will be delimited and characterized geographically.

Shipping and Shipping Safety The southern North Sea is intensively used by shipping and the Wadden Sea area is influenced to a major extent by these international activities. Directly adjacent to the Wadden Sea, there are several major ports of international significance, which have considerable economic relevance for the entire region. Besides these, a number of smaller ports with ferry and supply traffic in the Wadden Sea, are relevant to tourism, the supply of islands and maritime installations. Thus safety and ship’s safety area

60 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context extremely relevant for the protection of this sensitive sea area. Simultaneously shipping, offshore and port activities are important factors for the economy of the region. Despite the considerable progress made in the improvement of shipping safety and the environmental protection measures intended to minimize maritime pollution, shipping will continue to be a potential source of risk for damaging the Wadden Sea and its adjacent coastline. The designation of major parts of the Wadden Sea as the world’s fifth and Europe’s first Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA Wadden Sea) in 2002 was an important step in the joint Danish-German-Dutch efforts to protect the Wadden Sea in respect of impacts from shipping and offers a good basis for the further development of measures to enhance shipping safety. A PSSA is an area that needs special protection through action by the IMO based on two aspects. The first is the area's significance for key ecological, socio-economic or scientific reasons. Secondly, the area should be at risk from international shipping activities. The PSSA designation is a recognition of the Wadden Sea as a unique natural area, which is vulnerable to the impact of human activities and especially international shipping. The designation will send a strong signal to the international shipping community and increase awareness of the particular sensitivity of the area to impacts from shipping. It will thus assist the bordering countries in further protecting and using the area in a sustainable way. Furthermore, the designation of the PSSA Wadden Sea is seen as a recognition of the extensive regime of protective measures already in place, via national, EU and IMO measures. This meant that it was not necessary to propose additional associated protective IMO measures linked to the PSSA designation at the present time. At the 10th Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea, which was held on the Dutch Wadden Sea island of Schiermonnikoog on 2-3 November 2005 also shipping safety again was discussed. A package of measures was adopted and agreement was reached to focus on a number of areas in the forthcoming period, such as emergency towing and pollution response.

Wadden Sea Forum The Wadden Sea Forum (WSF) is an independent platform of stakeholders from the Wadden Sea Region, established in accordance with a decision by the 9th Governmental Wadden Sea Conference, Esbjerg 2001, with the remit to develop scenarios for sustainable development. The Forum started its work in August 2002 with 41 members, representing the sectors fisheries, agriculture, industry and harbours, tourism, energy and nature protection as well as local and regional governments. Since the end of 2002, the number of organisations involved in the

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 61 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

Forum work has increased to more than 300. The work was carried out as a project with support from the Interreg IIIB North Sea programme. The area covered by the Forum work, the so-called Wadden Sea Region, includes the Wadden Sea and the adjacent North Sea up to twelve nautical miles as well as the adjacent counties on the mainland. The Wadden Sea Region has some 3.7 million inhabitants and can be characterised as a mainly rural area. Important economic sectors are agriculture and food processing, harbour activities and tourism and recreation. There is a substantial spin-off from some of the bigger cities bordering the Region, in particular the Hamburg metropolis (1.7 million inhabitants). The WSF final report contains an overall Vision, as well as objectives for the three dimensions of sustainability (WSF 2005). Of common interests for all stakeholders in the Region are infrastructure, coastal protection and safety of shipping for which common views and proposals are presented in the report. The final part of the report deals with sustainability strategies for the sectors agriculture, fisheries, tourism, energy and industry and harbours. The groundwork for the Vision and the sector strategies was done in five thematic working groups in which various scenarios for future development in Europe were elaborated and discussed. The time horizon was the year 2020. On the basis of these discussions strategy elements for each of the sectors were selected which were best suited to meet future demands. These strategy elements were then tested for the three dimensions of sustainability, that is ecological, social and economic aspects relevant for the Wadden Sea Region. Finally, the resulting sustainability strategies for the sectors were compared with the existing legal and administrative regime and main obstacles for the implementation of the strategies identified. This identification process resulted in the formulation of a catalogue of policy recommendations, which were submitted to the Schiermonnikoog Conference. WSF has continued its activities with the adoption of an Action Plan for the period 2006-2010, focusing on integrated coastal zone management, harmonisation and simplification of rules and regulations and sector-specific activities.

Challenges and Opportunities At the Schiermonnikoog Conference, 2005 a number of decisions were taken that will direct the work of the cooperation until the next Wadden Sea conference to be held in Germany in 2010 and which will be of major importance for the continuation of the cooperation and the protection and management of the Wadden Sea as an ecological entity. It is intended to nominate the German-Dutch Wadden Sea Conservation Area for inscription in the World Heritage List (“the List”) and to have the nomination accepted

62 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context by the World Heritage Committee until the 2010 Conference. Denmark will not be able to join the nomination because of the ongoing discussions on designating the Danish Wadden Sea as a national park. The inscription in the List will constitute a recognition of the outstanding universal value of the Wadden Sea and the conservation efforts for more than a generation. The Wadden Sea meets the criteria for the inscription in the List and the requirements in terms of the conservation and management measures. An inscription in the List will undoubtedly increase the awareness world wide and be attractive for the tourism industry and at least a segment of tourists in addition to those recreating in the area. The further development of the Wadden Sea Plan as agreed at the Schiermonnikoog Conference constitute a major opportunity for further conserving and managing the Wadden Sea as an ecological entity. The aim it to update the Plan in the light of new information gained through e.g. the QSR and to adjust it to the requirements of the Habitats, Birds and Water Framework Directives in particular as a management plan in the sense of Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive. A major challenge is the bringing together the Principles and Targets of the Wadden Sea Plan with the favorable conservation objectives and the good ecological status requirement of the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive respectively. There are apparently many similarities between the Wadden Sea Plan approach and the requirements of the directives but it should be acknowledged that directives entail legal obligations which the member states must fulfill. The conservation objectives and the good ecological status therefore have legal implications. The overall aim is to ensure that sustainable use of the resources within the Wadden Sea Area. A further opportunity is to integrate the Wadden Sea Plan and the TMAP into a coherent integrated management plan. A further challenge is to advance the sustainable development of the Wadden Sea Region through the continuation of the Wadden Sea Forum and the implementation of its proposed strategy with all stakeholders involved in the Region. The environmental, social and economic development of the region is of vital importance for the protection and management of the Wadden Sea on a long-term basis. The further development of shipping safety, coastal protection in response to climate change and enhancing the awareness of the landscape heritage will play an important role in this regard.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 63 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

ANNEX: Targets of the Wadden Sea Plan

Landscape and Culture Identity – to preserve, restore and develop the elements that contribute to the character, or identity, of the landscape. Variety – to maintain the full variety of cultural landscapes, typical for the Wadden Sea landscape. History – to conserve the cultural- historic heritage.Scenery – to pay special attention to the environmental perception of the landscape and the cultural-historic contributions in the context of management and planning.

Water and Sediment A Wadden Sea which can be regarded as a eutrophication non-problem area. Background concentrations of natural micropollutants in water, sediment and indicator species. Concentrations of man-made substances as resulting from zero discharges.

Salt marshes An increased area of natural salt marshes.An increased natural morphology and dynamics, including natural drainage patterns, of artificial salt marshes, under the condition that the present surface is not reduced.An improved natural vegetation structure, including the pioneer zone, of artificial salt marshes.

Tidal Area A natural dynamic situation in the Tidal AreaAn increased area of geomorphologically and biologically undisturbed tidal flats and subtidal areasAn increased area of, and a more natural distribution and development of natural mussel beds, Sabellaria reefs and Zostera fields A favorable food availability for migrating and breeding birds.

Beaches and Dunes Increased natural dynamics of beaches, primary dunes, beach plains and primary dune valleys in connection with the Offshore Zone.An increased presence of a complete natural vegetation succession.

Estuaries Valuable parts of estuaries will be protected and river banks will remain and, as far as possible, be restored in their natural state.

64 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Wadden Sea: Conservation of Coastal Marine Area in a Trans-Boundary Context

Offshore Area An increased natural morphology, including the outer deltas between the islands. A favorable food availability for birds.Viable stocks and a natural reproduction capacity of the common seal, grey seal and harbor porpoise.

Rural Area Favorable conditions for flora and fauna, especially migrating and breeding birds.

Birds Favorable conditions for migrating and breeding birds:- a favorable food availability,- a natural breeding success,- sufficiently large undisturbed roosting and molting area- natural flight distances.

Marine Mammals Viable stocks and a natural reproduction capacity of the common seal, grey seal and harbor porpoise in the tidal areas and the offshore zone.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 65 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

1 1 1 2 Callum M. ROBERTS , Leanne MASON , Julie P. HAWKINS and Iris MENN 1Environment Department, University of York, UK; 2Greenpeace e.V., Germany

Introduction Our Earth is an ocean planet. The sea covers nearly three quarters of its surface. Long ago, before tribes wrestled control of patches of land from one another, and before tribes gave way to nations, people were free to roam the world, taking what they needed where they found it. The land was a commons for use by all. Today, the land has long since been privatised and fenced, and few places remain where such freedom applies. But on the oceans – beyond the 200 nautical mile limits of national waters – the seas are still a global commons. The high seas, as these regions are known, cover 64% of the area of the oceans, and nearly half of the planet’s surface. On the high seas, our freedom to exploit still takes precedence over our duty to protect. The high seas are the least regulated and least protected places in the world. Lying beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, they are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention only came into force in 1994, and has yet to be signed by some of the most influential nations in the world. The Law of the Sea enshrines the right of access and use of the high seas for all. It allows for nations to fish, lay submarine cables and pipelines, or create other installations such as rigs and even artificial islands, for example. While signatory nations are obliged to conserve and manage the resources they exploit, including fish, in reality few exercise much control over their high seas fleets. Many do not monitor fishing operations, leaving their fleets to exploit high seas resources unhindered, to the detriment of all. Recent research shows that industrial fishing has reduced populations of large, predatory fish, like tunas and billfish, by ninety percent or more in the last fifty years (Myers and Worm 2003). Some particularly vulnerable species, like sharks, have been reduced by factors of a hundred, or even a thousand (Baum and Myers 2004). In the process of capturing these fish, industrial fishing methods are killing untold numbers of other wildlife, endangering birds, turtles and marine mammals. Fisheries have also moved into the deep sea, where heavy bottom trawling gears are destroying seamount habitats that have taken thousands of years to develop and may be irreplaceable on human timescales. Much of this activity is illegal, unregulated or goes unreported.

66 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

The collapse of life in the high seas has led to calls for urgent action to reverse the decline, including the establishment of a global network of high seas marine protected areas (World Parks Congress Resolution 23, Gjerde 2003, Balmford et al. 2004). In this report we present plans for such a network. Our objective is to identify candidate sites for a representative network of marine reserves that would afford protection to the full spectrum of life on the high seas. The network of marine reserves we propose aims to protect places that are biologically rich, supporting outstanding concentrations of animals and plants. It also seeks to protect places that are particularly threatened or vulnerable to present or possible future human impacts, like fishing or seabed mining. Our overarching aim is for a network that is representative of the full variety of life in the sea.

Marine reserves – A powerful tool for the conservation of ocean wildlife Marine reserves are places that are protected from all fishing and other extractive or harmful human uses, such as mining and drilling for oil (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). They are also protected from harm by other causes, so far as it is possible, such as pollution. Recreational boating, passage of shipping etc. are permitted up to levels that do not harm the environment. Marine reserve status does not interfere with the right of innocent passage embodied in the UN Law of the Sea. However, reserves may require additional restrictions on shipping where such areas are also designated as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas. Marine reserves are the most powerful tool available for the conservation of ocean wildlife and may also benefit fisheries by promoting recovery and reproduction of exploited species. The idea of marine reserves is not driven simply by the need to protect threatened species or habitats. It is based on an ecosystem approach with the overall aim to protect and restore the whole ecosystem. The most frequent criticism of using marine reserves on the high seas is that species there are too mobile to gain sufficient protection. Animals like tunas, for example, are the ultimate planetary wanderers. Bluefin and albacore cross oceans and in the Pacific undertake an eighteen thousand kilometre round trip every year. The key to success for these species is to protect them in the places and times that they most need it. Marine reserves can safeguard species where and when they are aggregated or are otherwise particularly vulnerable to human impact, such as breeding sites, nursery grounds or migration bottlenecks. On land we are very familiar with the idea of using protected areas to safeguard highly migratory species. Dozens of migratory birds arrive and depart each year as they move between breeding and over-wintering habitats. We protect their breeding sites and their resting and refuelling spots along the way. This strategy is also used in the sea. For nearly a century, fishery managers have protected the breeding sites of migratory species like herring and capelin when

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 67 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas they gather in coastal shallows to spawn. They also protect juvenile nursery habitats to ensure that animals are able to grow undisturbed to marketable sizes. Many high seas migratory species come close to coasts at some stage of their lives. Birds, turtles, seals and sea lions (pinnipeds) must come to land to breed. They can benefit from protected areas in national waters and on land. But there are also places on the high seas that support remarkable and predictable concentrations of life. Some of them are fixed, such as zones of high productivity around seamounts. Others are mobile, snaking around some general area of ocean at the whim of weather and currents or, like spinning eddies, may simply drift off then dissipate. These areas can be highly productive, such as upwellings and convergence zones between currents, and can draw animals from far afield to feed or breed. In other places, phenomena like downwellings, may concentrate plants and animals passively. Drifting rafts of plants, flotsam and jetsam can become important features enhancing productivity, acting shelters and nurseries for animals, which in turn attract others to feed on them. Marine reserves will meet some of the conservation and management needs of highly mobile and migratory species, but in most cases will not be sufficient on their own. Where species remain subject to moderate or high levels of threat outside protected areas, there will need to be supplementary management, such as additional fishing restrictions implemented by Regional Fishery Management Organisations. In general there are some kinds of harm that marine reserves cannot counter, such as global warming and highly mobile pollutants from distant sources. It will require action at regional or global scales to benefit species and habitats occurring in the high seas, though healthier ecosystems such as those protected by large-scale marine reserves are likely to be more resilient.

Principles of marine reserve networking A network (1) should be representative of the full range of biodiversity, (2) should replicate habitats in different marine reserves, (3) should be designed so that populations in different marine reserves can interact and be mutually supporting, (4) should be sufficiently large to ensure long-term persistence of species, habitats, ecological processes and services, and (5) should be based on the best available scientific, local and traditional information (Roberts, Gell and Hawkins 2003). The World Parks Congress in 2003 recommended that at least 20-30% of all marine habitats should be included in networks of marine reserves (World Parks Congress Recommendation 22, 2003). There are good scientific arguments for taking an even more precautionary approach, since higher levels of protection can be required to maintain the integrity of marine ecosystem processes. Gell and Roberts (2003) reviewed nearly forty studies examining how much of the sea should be protected.

68 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

The majority of studies concluded that between 20 and 50% of the sea should be protected to achieve the conservation of viable populations, support fisheries management, secure ecosystem processes and assure sufficient connectivity between marine reserves in networks. Given the large scales of oceanic processes and species’ movements on the high seas, a high level of protection is warranted. In this report, we have adopted the goal of protecting 40% of all habitats and biogeo- graphic zones on the high seas. We also set a series of subsidiary targets for inclusion of places identified as important for different species groups. Additionally, we have adopted a minimum reserve size of 5o latitude x 5o longitude. At the equator, this represents a size of approximately 560km x 560km, or 314,000km2. We recognize in doing this that the size of 5o x 5o cells will decrease approaching the poles. While the latitudinal dimension remains unchanged regardless of latitude, the longitudinal dimension decreases polewards.

Identifying candidate sites for protection To identify candidate sites for a global network of high seas marine reserves, we brought together many different kinds of biological, physical and oceanographic data. Data on oceanographic features like water temperature gradients and upwelling areas, together with fishery and tracking data on oceanic megafauna, enabled us to identify places that are hotspots of activity on the high seas for large-bodied and vulnerable species. They included tunas and billfish, albatrosses, turtles, pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) and penguins, animal groups whose ranges cover the seas from pole to pole. To this we added maps of cetacean diversity. To ensure that our network is representative, we used data on the distribution of different biogeographic areas, depth zones, seabed sediment types and ocean trenches to represent the variety of habitats and their variation across the globe. We paid particular attention to highly sensitive deepwater habitats, using maps of seamount distribution and bathymetry to identify places vulnerable to harm by bottom fishing. We also used bathymetric data to calculate seabed complexity, which helps in identifying biologically rich places in the deep sea. All data were mapped using a geographic information system (ArcInfo 3.3 ®) and gridded into 5o latitude by 5o longitude cells, the size of the smallest marine reserves that we considered to be viable in the high seas. Full details of data layers and the reasons for the grid are given in Roberts, Mason and Hawkins (2006). In addition to this data gathering approach we consulted with experts in marine science and management, requesting them to nominate sites they believe should be afforded protection. We also requested they provided justification for their choice and send us supporting documentation, if any was available.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 69 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

Procedure used for computer-assisted design of a network of marine reserves We used the computer program Marxan to help develop network designs. Marxan is the most widely used computer program for designing networks of marine reserves (www.ecology.uq.edu.au/marxan.htm) and has been instrumental in rezoning the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia and the California Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary in the United States (Airame et al. 2003). Marxan works by selecting sites for protection to create networks that meet user-defined conservation targets. The aims of our network design process was to select sites that will protect the richest and most vulnerable concentrations of high seas marine life, represent the full spectrum of high seas biodiversity, represent all habitat types in different marine reserves, and include forty percent of the high seas in marine reserves. Full details of targets set for the design see Roberts, Mason and Hawkins (2006). To use Marxan, the area being considered for protection has to be split into units of area, referred to as planning units. Features that are to be represented in the reserve network are then mapped, such as seamounts, presence of species of conservation interest, and biogeographic zones. Undesirable qualities can also be mapped, such as fishing intensity or pollution levels. For each planning unit the amount of each feature is calculated. In some cases direct area measures can be used, while for other features, such as use by birds or turtles, scoring systems may be developed and each planning unit scored for the feature (such as that used in this report for air- breathing aquatic megafauna). Marxan works towards ‘good’ network solutions iteratively. It begins with a ‘seed solution’ which is usually a random pick of planning units. It then adds and subtracts planning units in a pre-determined number of iterations (usually several thousand). For each iteration the cost of the network is calculated, which is the area, plus the boundary, plus any penalty for not meeting the conservation targets. Advantageous changes are retained, although there is also a possibility that disadvantageous changes will be included early on. In this way the program seeks to meet the conservation targets with the smallest total area protected given constraints set on boundary length. At the outset of a Marxan run, priority sites for protection can be locked in, and undesirable areas locked out. Marxan can be run many times to provide alternative marine reserve network designs for any given set of targets, and to ensure that efficient conservation solutions are found. From these, a selection frequency or ‘irreplaceability value’ can be calculated for each planning unit, indicating its relative importance to meeting the given targets. This value may be useful in deciding which planning units are high priorities for protection.

70 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

For each network design calculated by Marxan we ran the simulated annealing model 1000 times. We repeated this 10,000 times to generate 10,000 different network designs. They were then compared with each other to find the designs that met the targets set most efficiently. At the end of each run of 10,000 network designs, we calculated the irreplaceability metric for each cell, i.e. the number of times that cell was picked to be part of a network. We used this irreplaceability statistic to identify high scoring cells which should be locked in to the network prior to the next run of Marxan. In this way, we ran Marxan iteratively, progressively working towards a final network design that met all targets set. In the final step, locked in cells covered 36% of the oceans, and the program was run to select cells to make up the final approximately 4% coverage needed to complete the network. For this final run, we also locked out a small number of cells to prevent Marxan amalgamating nearby protected areas that we preferred to keep separate.

Design of a network of high seas marine reserves Figure 1 shows the final design of the candidate network of marine reserves. It covers 40.8% of the global oceans and includes twenty-nine separate candidate reserves. These cover every ocean and include representatives of all twelve ocean biogeographic zones. The network met all of the targets we set and is representative of biodiversity on the high seas. All the marine reserves identified incorporate places that are biologically important based on available data. However, their boundaries may be refined as more data become available. In the Mediterranean, the high seas begin at the boundary of territorial waters, 6 or 12 nautical miles from the coast. We have identified two areas in the Mediterranean Sea that have particularly high biodiversity values, but they are not the only places that warrant protection. To adequately protect Mediterranean biodiversity a regional network of marine reserves will have to be developed at a finer scale. This is to take account of the finer scale distribution of ecological features and associated human uses compared to the high seas. A design for such a network has recently been set out by Greenpeace (2006). Like the Mediterranean, Antarctica has no Exclusive Economic Zone, nor does it have territorial waters. The high seas thus begin adjacent to the coast. We have identified several areas of the Antarctic that are high priorities for protection based on their rich marine wildlife. However, there is a case for extending protection to all waters south of 60oN, the area covered by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Such a protected area could safeguard one of the most pristine environments left on this planet for the benefit of all humanity.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 71 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

Fig. 1: Proposed global network of marine reserves.

Implementing the network It is our view that this network of marine reserves is essential to safeguard life on the high seas for the sake of our own and future generations. Implementing the network represents a challenge to the will and cooperative spirit of the world’s nations. But time is short as the scale and severity of harm are growing day by day. More recently the value of marine reserves as a key tool in preventing the loss of marine biodiversity has been widely recognised. The UN Millennium Project calls for 10% of the oceans to be covered by marine reserves in the short to medium term, with a long-term goal of 30%. Furthermore in 2004, echoing pledges taken at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) 7th Conference of the Parties (CoP 7) committed to the establishment of a global network of marine protected areas by 2012 (Decision VII/28). These are admirable targets but given the current rate of designation there is little to suggest that they will be achieved. A recent study indicated that the World Parks Congress target of creating a global system of marine protected area networks by 2012 – including ‘strictly protected areas’ amounting to at least 20-30% of each habitat will not be reached until at least 2085. The 2085 date is even more alarming given that it is based on an assumption that all marine protected areas from now on will be strictly protected i.e. no-take marine reserves and that all existing marine protected areas will be converted to strictly protected marine reserves. Similarly the

72 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

Convention on Biological Diversity 2012 target will not be met until 2069 (MPA News 2005). The current rate of progress is simply not going to deliver what the world’s governments have already agreed is needed to protect our oceans and the marine life that they harbour. Besides that there is currently no mechanism under the existing international framework provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the CBD for implementing such reserves on the high seas. The CBD is the primary instrument providing direction to states for the establishment of marine protected areas and marine reserves under their jurisdiction, and also explicitly acknowledges the need for protective measures in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Article 4 of the Convention obliges Parties to apply the Convention to all processes or activities under their jurisdiction or control, including those taking place on the high seas. However, the Convention on Biological Diversity does not oblige states to take collective measures to protect the high seas and does not contain the necessary provisions to implement its 2012 goal of a comprehensive global network. It is Greenpeace’s view that in order to implement the CBD commitment and provide the necessary mandate to establish and manage marine reserves on the high seas, a new implementing agreement under UNCLOS is required. Such an implementing agreement would not require any amendment to the text of the Convention and would be consistent with article 22 (2) of the CBD which already obliges parties to implement the convention “with respect to the marine environment consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the Law of the Sea”. The agreement would provide formal recognition of the need to protect biodiversity on the high seas, and a mandate to protect high seas areas for conservation purposes. Such an implementing agreement could be modelled on the UN Fish Stocks Agreement – which was itself negotiated in order to implement some of the Articles of UNCLOS, and could be used to address a number of gaps in the current governance of high seas biodiversity in addition to those relating to the establishment of high seas marine reserves. Other advantages of developing such an implementing agreement under UNCLOS include: • UNCLOS is regarded as the framework agreement that delimits ocean areas and details state rights and duties in the high seas and the ‘Area’, and it is recognised as customary international law; • UNCLOS’ broad remit already covers most or all of the activities that impact on marine biodiversity, including emerging issues such as bioprospecting and noise pollution; • UNCLOS provides a binding dispute settlement mechanism

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 73 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

Such an agreement would build on and provide for the implementation of existing provisions in UNCLOS relating to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the ‘Area’.

Literature cited

AIRAME, S., J.E. DUGAN, K.D. LAFFERTY, H. LESLIE, D.A. MCARDLE and R.R. WARNER (2003): Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications 13 (Supplement): S215- S228. BALMFORD A, GRAVESTOCK P, HOCKLEY N, C. MCCLEAN AND C. ROBERTS (2004): The Worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 9694-9697. BAUM, J.K. and R.A. MYERS (2004): Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 7:135-145. GELL F.R. and C.M. ROBERTS (2003): Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448-455 GJERDE, K.M.(ed., 2003): Ten-year strategy to promote the development of a global representative system of high seas marine protected area networks, as agreed by Marine Theme Participants at the 5th World Parks Congress Governance Session Protecting Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction,” Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003). IUCN, WCPA WWF. Available at www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pdf/10ystrat.pdf GREENPEACE (2006): Marine Reserves for the Mediterranean Sea. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. Available at http://oceans.greenpeace.org/raw/content/ en/documents-reports/marine-reserves-med.pdf MPA NEWS (2005): Global targets for MPA designations will not be met; experts respond. MPA News 7(5): 1-2. MYERS, R.A. and B.WORM (2003): Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283 ROBERTS, C.M. and J.P. HAWKINS (2000): Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide. Endangered Seas WWF-US, Washington DC, and University of York, UK. 131pp. Translated into Spanish and French. All language versions are available to download from: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/marinereservescolor.pdf ROBERTS, C.M., F.R. GELL, and J.P. HAWKINS (2003): Protecting Nationally Important Marine Areas in the Irish Sea Pilot Project Region. Report to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK. www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2847 ROBERTS, C.M., MASON, L., and HAWKINS J.P. (2006): Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. Available from: http://oceans.greenpeace.org/raw/content/en/documents-reports/roadmap-to- recovery.pdf WORLD PARKS CONGRESS RECOMMENDATION 22. (2003): Building a global system of marine and coastal protected area networks. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r22.htm

74 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 A global network of marine reserves on the high seas

WORLD PARKS CONGRESS RECOMMENDATION 23. (2003): Protecting marine biodiversity and ecosystem processes through marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/ recommendations/approved/english/html/r23.htm

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 75 Reconciling marine conservation with fisheries

Pre-conference abstract:

Concepts for management of human activities: Reconciling marine conservation with fisheries

Stephan LUTTER Director of WWF’s North-East Atlantic Marine Ecoregion (NEAME) Programme

Reconciling marine conservation with fisheries is a key process within the holistic eco- system approach to management of human activities affecting the marine environment. In Europe, the name of pertinent attempts made by intergovernmental fora and authorities since the mid-90s is legion, including consensus statements jointly adopted by fisheries and environment ministers from North Sea states (IMM, 1997), the incorporation of marine biodiversity and ecosystem aspects into the reviewed EC Common Fisheries Policy (CFP, 2003), and the increased co-operation between regional seas conventions and regional fisheries management organisations in recent years. • Top-down: as a first step, the paper briefly reviews history and milestones of this integration process at the umbrella policy and regulatory level. Has it led to a change of heart at the practical and management level? Successes and drawbacks are illustrated by a number of concrete examples and measured against the political commitments adopted and the complex scientific advice provided: measures and instruments to mitigate and reduce by-catch; measures to protect cold-water coral reefs from gear impacts; regulation of deep-water fisheries; fisheries management in marine protected areas; closed areas in fisheries management. Conclusion: although some progress has been made, the shift towards sustainable management solutions is often hampered by sectoral policies, incoherent governance, national egoisms, lack of adaptive concepts or strategic assessment. In parallel, stakeholder involvement and co-management have been mushrooming all over Europe during the last decade. There are various scenarios and models ranging from voluntary observer participation and/or consultative status in international fora (e.g. regional seas conventions and their subsidiary bodies; regional fisheries management organisations; ICES advisory councils) to fully institutionalised stakeholder fora providing their own management advice (e.g. Regional Advisory Councils under the CFP; Wadden Sea Forum). • Bottom-up: as a second step, the paper looks into case studies of multi-stake- holder collaboration with equal benefits for livelihoods of people dependent on fishing

76 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Reconciling marine conservation with fisheries

• and the conservation of marine species, habitats and ecosystems: Invest in Fish South West England; management of human activities in the Koster area in Sweden; management plans for seamounts in the Azores region. Conclusion: Bringing conservationists, fisheries managers, fishing industry, fishers and scientists together on one platform enhances the exchange of ideas and concepts. To be successful in terms of mutual buy-in and reliable results, the roles of stakeholder fora must be clearly defined, the geographic scale be appropriate, and the scope and remit of work fit into the overall ocean governance structure.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 77 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report

Janet I. SPRENT and Jonathan E. WENTWORTH Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, UK

In December 2004, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published its twenty-fifth report: ‘Turning the tide: Addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment’. The report was based an analysis of recent international research. It called for a profound restructuring of marine environmental management. The report stated that fishing activities should be assessed for their effect on marine ecosystems and be brought under a framework of environmental protection. The regulatory position on the marine environment should be shifted away from management of fish stocks to policies with the wider aim of protecting the marine environment. The report also recommended positive measures to allow the marine environment to recover from the impacts of fishing, including the use of a network no take marine reserves and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within a system of marine spatial planning.

Introduction The Royal Commission is an independent UK advisory body appointed by the Queen and funded by the UK Government, which publishes in depth reports on what it identifies as the crucial environmental issues facing the UK and the rest of the world. In June 2002, the Royal Commission announced it would begin a study into the environmental effects of marine fisheries. The study considered a wide range of environmental impacts associated with a variety of commercial fishing activities. It also examined regulatory and management practices, the institutional and legal framework and the state of marine science and data. As well as taking evidence from over 90 organisations and individuals, and gathering evidence from a number of different countries, the study commissioned consultants reports on aquaculture, the environmental impacts of fishing gear and marine protected areas. The study focused on the impacts of fishing in the region of the North-East Atlantic covered by the OSPAR treaty, in particular the fisheries regulated by the European Community’s Common Fisheries Policy and to the waters round the UK. The report was published in December 2004.

The Challenge Over 70% of the planet is covered by sea and it plays a critical role in determining environmental conditions on land. Marine ecosystems are affected by long-term

78 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report environmental processes such as climate change over thousands of years. They are also affected by medium-term climate variations, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, that can last from a few weeks to a decade, and other physical changes such as tides and daylight that occur on daily, seasonal, or annual cycles. Ecosystems are generally able to cope with short-term, limited environmental fluctuations, but when there are strong longer-term trends in the environment species may change their geographical distribution and become locally extinct or more abundant. Human activities can also result in damaging global changes to the marine environment. Human activities are now having a larger impact on marine ecosystems than any natural variations have had for thousands of years. This is causing species to decline or become extinct, impoverishing ecosystems and reducing their robustness in the face of natural or human-induced change. Significant impacts on marine ecosystems include nutrient pollution, chemical pollution, dumping of rubbish and waste and climate change. However, OSPAR has identified fishing as the cause of three of the most important threats to the North Sea8 – through the removal of target species, seabed disturbance and effects of discards and mortality of non-target species. Overfishing is a growing global problem that has caused serious, enduring damage to the marine environment and led to the collapse of fisheries in many areas. The damage caused by fishing is not confined to commercial fish populations. It also affects the wider ecosystem – habitats, plants, non-target fish, birds and mammals. Past fishery management policies have failed, and incremental improvements will not deliver a sustainable future. We face further decline unless there is significant and urgent action. This is particularly important at a time when climate change is likely to put extra stress on the marine environment. The specific impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems were reviewed in detail in the report and include: • Overfishing of commercial species – it is estimated that half the fish landed by the UK fleet under the current quota management system come from sources that are unsustainable or borderline;9 • ‘Fishing down the food chain’10 – globally over 90% of larger predatory fish may have been lost since the pre-industrial era.11 Removal of these important

8 OSPAR Commission. (2000). Quality status report, 2000. OSPAR Commission, London. 9 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2004). Net Benefits. A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing. Cabinet Office, London. 10 Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres, F. (1998). Fishing downmarine food webs. Science 279 , 860-863. 11 Myers, R.A. and Worm, B. (2003). Rapid depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280- 283.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 79 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report

components of the marine food web can affect predator-prey relationships, genetic diversity and breeding ability as well as resulting in catches of small, younger fish. Once it is no longer worth catching these predatory species, commercial activity is expected to increasingly concentrate on lower trophic levels. • Discards and bycatch – large quantities of fish from target species are discarded because they are too small, are over the fishing vessel’s catch quota or are species for which the vessel does not hold a quota. Large numbers of birds, sea mammals, non-target fish species and other marine organisms are also caught as bycatch. These mortalities occur at levels that will have an environmental impact on marine ecosystems. • Damage to the seabed habitats by fishing gears – demersal trawling is a source of chronic and widespread disturbance of the seabed on the continental shelf. Trawling reduces the diversity of benthic communities, either by directly inflicting unsustainable rates of mortality on species with slow rates of population increase or indirectly by modifying and removing habitats that support diverse communities, as well as disrupting and re-suspending sediment and effecting geochemical cycling. • Exploitation of deep-sea species – demersal trawling on the edge of the continental shelf and seamounts causes unsustainable damage to complex and fragile habitats. Deep-water species are generally slow growing and late maturing and highly vulnerable to overfishing and slow to recover.12

A Precautionary Approach to Marine Environmental Regulation On this basis, the Commission concluded that policies are needed to protect the long- term future of the marine environment and promote a sustainable fishing industry. Large-scale interventions are necessary to preserve important marine ecosystems, and to break the present cycle of unrealistic quotas and diminishing fish populations. The Commission argued that similar scale of destruction on land would not be tolerated, but because the impacts of fishing occur in the sea, the damage is largely hidden. On land, we have had a planning system for over 50 years to control development and set aside areas for protection. Unless similar steps are taken at sea to allow recovery from decades of intensive fishing, species may disappear and the ecosystem itself be put in danger.

12 Koslow, J.A., Boehlert, G.W., Gordon, J.D.M., Haedrich, R.L., Lorance, P. and Parin, N. (2000). Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science , 57 , 548-557. Koslow, J.A., Gowlett-Holmes, K., Lowry J.K., O’Hara, T., Poore, G.C.B. and Williams, A. (2001). Seamount benthic macrofauna off southern Tasmania: Community structure and impacts of trawling. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 213 , 111-125.

80 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report

The Commission recommended that the precautionary approach should be applied comprehensively to fisheries management. Applicants for fishing rights should have to demonstrate that the effects of their activity would not harm the sea’s long-term environmental sustainability. This change would place the burden of justification on those seeking fishing rights and make both the industry and its regulator focus much more on the biological state of the marine environment. The policy measures embodied in this precautionary approach would also be a pragmatic means of implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

Marine Act for the UK In order to introduce such a framework, the Commission suggested that the UK government and the devolved administrations should introduce Marine Acts to set out the principles for managing human impacts on the marine environment and set out the long-term goals for protecting the marine environment. Within the UK, there are over a hundred Acts of Parliament13 governing the marine environment with often confusing, sometimes overlapping, jurisdictions covering the seas and coast around the UK. Despite this web of legislation, there is no spatial vision for UK waters that sets out the top-level objectives for the management of the marine environment, the principles that should guide its use, or how to integrate the demands of different groups. This makes it difficult to find a rational basis for the day-to-day management of competing uses and more likely that the environment will not receive adequate priority or protection.

Marine Spatial Planning The Act would provide the necessary statutory framework for a marine planning and a complementary system of licensing. The Commission envisaged a comprehensive system of marine spatial planning. This would involve the development of integrated regional management plans to guide all major uses of the sea, including fishing. These regional plans should ensure high standards of marine protection, and be subject to strategic environmental assessment. The regional plans should also have a clear framework for public participation to input into the system. As part of this system, there will also be areas that need to be entirely protected in order to fulfil the precautionary principle and achieve recovery of ecosystems. Therefore, a network of marine protected areas and reserves should be one aspect of any such system. However, at present less than 0.5% of the world’s oceans are

13 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2004). Marine Environment. House of Commons, London.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 81 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report protected and in the UK waters only 2%. Less than 4 km2 of the protected UK waters are fully protected from fishing.

Marine Protected Areas The Commission recommended the establishment of a large-scale network of marine protected areas and reserves to protect 30% of the UK seas from fishing. The fisheries benefits of fully protected areas for mobile species in temperate waters are likely to remain a matter of debate between marine biologists and fisheries scientists, as are their socio-economic impacts on fishers. However, unlike other management options, marine protected areas and reserves can protect the entire ecosystem, from spawning fish, to the organisms living in the ocean depths, to the seabed itself. Designed in the right way, the Commission believes they can protect commercial fish, non-commercial species and features of the seabed that might be damaged by trawling. They could also reduce pressure on marine ecosystems facing impacts from climate change and ocean acidification. Research indicates that, in general, about 10–40% of the sea should be protected to yield biodiversity benefits, while 20–50% may need to be protected to help some fish species recover.14 Given the heavy overexploitation of the OSPAR region and the need to need to help both fish and ecosystems recover in a time of environmental change we recommended that the UK should be aiming to protect 30% of its waters. There are a number of international examples of similar networks of marine reserves already in existence, and the creation of such a network would meet OSPAR, WSSD and CBD commitments for a network of marine protected areas by 2010-12. Building on work by the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee for the Review of Marine Nature Conservation,15 we commissioned further research to investigate what extensive reserve networks could look like in the North and Irish Seas.16 These were designed to cover around 30% of both seas. Maps were drawn up using Marxan modelling software, that reflects a range of habitat attributes and uses a mathematical algorithm to identify near optimal protected area networks that meet conservation targets (indicated by these attributes) while minimising some measure of costs. This Marxan model was used to examine two types of scenario. The first were Biodiversity

14 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2003). Biophysical Operational Principles as recommended by the Scientific Steering Committee for the Representative Areas Program. Available at GBRMPA website www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/rep_areas/info_sheets.html#Biophysical%20 operational%20principles. 15 Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., Lumb, C.M., Golding, N., Lieberknecht, L.M. and Webster, M. (2004). Marine nature conservation and sustainable development – the Irish Sea Pilot. Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 16 Roberts, C.R. and Mason, L. (2004). Design of marine protected area networks in the North Sea and Irish Sea. Available at http://www.rcep.org.uk/fisheries/ReporttoRCEP.pdf

82 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report

Only scenarios whose primary objective was conservation. In the second set of Fishery + Biodiversity scenarios, the needs of commercially valuable mobile and migratory fish species were incorporated by identifying their spawning and nursery sites and assigning these high priority for protection. These examples are illustrative only, but they showed that there is a great deal of flexibility in the management options available. Any network created would need to be designed to ensure that an appropriate biomass level of fish populations remain unex- ploited, minimise risk by ensuring all habitats are protected more than once and have appropriate connectivity so larval offspring can be exchanged between reserves. Whilst there will be some areas of such high environmental value or such high vulnerability that they should protected under all circumstances, the Commission also recognises that local interest has a key role to play in determining which areas should be specified as marine protected areas and no take zones. The design of any network of marine reserves and protected areas should contain a strong element of public and stakeholder participation to give ownership and credibility to such an undertaking. It would also be necessary to provide financial assistance to fishers during the transitional phase of creating a network in conjunction with other management measures to ensure successful compliance. Fishing effort must be reduced during this period to avoid large-scale displacement of fishing activity from reserve areas. On the basis of modelling work done, it is estimated that the cost of running the modelled networks of reserves in the North and Irish Seas would be £9 to 15 million per annum. This compares favourably with the terrestrial National Parks in England and Wales, which cost £35 million to run.

Reduction in Fishing Effort There is also a clear need to tackle to the current overcapacity in the UK and European fishing fleets, and reduce the fishing effort down to environmentally sustainable levels. The aim should be to match the overall fishing effort – the total amount of fishing activity – to fish populations that can be sustained in the long term. The degree of decommissioning required will vary between the various fisheries sectors and areas, but is likely to be largest for the whitefish (demersal) fleet.17 All fisheries subsidies that could result in increased fishing pressure, including vessel modernization, and improving port and fish processing facilities. Even if fleet capacity is reduced the modernization of vessels and reduced times for handling and processing the catch could result in actual increased catching power. The Commission also recommended that the UK government should move towards managing fisheries on the basis of effort controls. Current fisheries management is

17 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2004). Net Benefits. A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing. Cabinet Office, London.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 83 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report based on total allowable quotas that set limits on the amount of individual fish species that can be landed. Their ability to manage fish populations can be severely undercut if there are high levels of misreporting or illegal fishing, since this reduces the quality of the data on which quotas are based. Quotas also encourage practices such as high grading (throwing away low value fish) and discarding of unwanted fish. Again, this increases the uncertainty over the total catch of all kinds of fish, and tends to push actual levels of mortality well above precautionary limits. In contrast, effort control system set limits for the amount of time vessels can be at sea, which is a more accurate reflection of actual commercial fishing activity. The Commission also made recommendations for bycatch reduction, a discarding ban and for improved enforcement of fisheries regulations.

Deep-sea fishing Worldwide only around 300 boats operate in the deep-sea fishing sector but their environmental impact is large; causing overfishing, damage to the seabed and bycatch of other species. Quota schemes and effort controls are unlikely to control deep-sea fisheries adequately, because fishing pressure can deplete fish populations faster than control measures can take effect. There are also significant shortcomings in our knowledge of deep-sea species and habitats, which makes it difficult to set quotas. Monitoring and enforcement pose additional problems on the high seas beyond nations’ exclusive economic zones. The Commission therefore recommended that the UK should immediately halt any deep-sea trawling taking place in UK waters or being carried out by UK vessels. We also recommended that the UK government should press the European Commission to ban bottom trawling, gillnetting and long- lining for deep-sea species in EU waters.

The response to the report The report gained widespread media coverage, partly because the launch of the report coincided with the annual negotiation of fishery quotas in Brussels. Much of the coverage was positive, helping generate greater public awareness of the damage being done to the seas. However, some criticised it for being insensitive to the plight of fishers and setting back relations between fishers and environmentalists.18 As with all Royal Commission reports, the recommendations of the reports are intended to initiate a process of change rather than dictating the outcomes in detail, and the ensuing debate should be seen in this vein. It is likely that new government regulation will also be a driver for change. The UK government and the devolved administrations are due to respond to the report shortly.

18 Symes, D. 2005. Fishing , the environment and the media. Fisheries Research 73, 13-19.

84 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Turning the Tide – The Royal Commission’s Report

The UK government is already consulting on a Marine Bill that is likely to go some way to addressing the report’s recommendations on marine spatial planning, marine protected areas and a greater use of the precautionary principle. The measures being consulted on include strengthening and modernising fisheries management; a new system of marine spatial planning; an integrated licensing system for Marine Activities; improving marine conservation through various mechanisms, including MPAs and ecosystem objectives; and, a possible new Marine Management Organisation to oversee such measures. There are also opportunities to make progress at the European level through the Marine Thematic Strategy and Marine Strategy Directive. Although the contents of these instruments remain under negotiation by Member States, it does seem likely that they will include some kind of regional integrated management plans. The EU Maritime Policy Green Paper is also likely to include an environmental pillar. Individual Member States are also taking measures to introduce fully protected marine reserves to meet requirements under the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 85

Anthropogenic Impacts on the Marine Environment

86 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 87 Ocean Noise Pollution Ocean Noise Pollution: The Rise of an environmental problem and emerging international response

19 Joel R. REYNOLDS and Michael JASNY Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), USA

Most whales and many other marine species depend on sound as they hunt for food, detect predators, find mates, and maintain their awareness in the darkness of the sea. Over the past century, however, the acoustic landscape of the ocean has been trans- formed by human activity. Some biologists have compared the increasing levels of background noise in many places off our coasts to a continuous fog that is shrinking the sensory range of marine animals. Others, concerned about a growing number of whale mortalities linked to military sonar, have compared the effects of intense sound to those of dynamite. Together these analogies suggest the range of impacts that noise can have: from long-term behavioral change to hearing loss to death. In the past decade, the scientific record and the public’s awareness of the issue have grown with astonishing rapidity. It has become increasingly clear that the rise of ocean noise presents a significant, long-term threat to an environment that is utterly dependent on sound. This paper will survey the leading contributors to the problem, summarize the range of impacts, and suggest what might be done to reduce the impacts of noise on the sea—before the proliferation of noise sources makes the problem unmanageable.

The rise of an environmental problem There is general agreement that hearing is probably the primary sense of whales, dol- phins, and other marine species, as vitally important to them as seeing is to us. Yet the acoustic environment is increasingly overshadowed by a gamut of military, commercial, and industrial sources: dredgers that clear the seabed for ship traffic, pipelines, and structures; high explosives for removing oil platforms and testing the seaworthiness of military ships; pile-drivers for construction; harassment devices for fisheries; tunnel borers; drilling platforms; commercial sonar; modems; transmitters; and innumerable jet skis and power boats. In deep water, background noise seems to be growing by about three to 5 decibels per decade in the band occupied by commercial ships. In some areas near the coast, the sound is persistently several

19 Joel R. Reynolds is a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and Director of its Marine Mammal Protection Project, based in Los Angeles, California. Michael Jasny is a Senior Policy Consultant to NRDC, based in Vancouver, Canada.

88 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Ocean Noise Pollution orders of magnitude higher than in less urbanized waters, raising concerns about chronic impacts on marine life. Among the leading contributors to the problem: • Military active sonar systems put out intense sound to detect and track subma- rines and other targets. Mid-frequency tactical sonar, which is currently installed on close to 200 American vessels and on the ships of other navies, is linked to a growing number of whale strandings worldwide. Low-frequency sonar, which has proliferated rapidly over the last decade, can travel hundreds of miles at intensities strong enough to affect marine mammals. Navies are increasingly using both types of systems in coastal waters. • High-energy seismic surveys are used by industry to detect oil and gas deposits beneath the ocean floor. Surveys typically involve firing airguns every few seconds at intensities that, in some cases, can drown out whale calls over tens of thousands of square miles. The industry conducts more than 100 seismic surveys each year off the coast of the United States, and that could increase significantly with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which mandates an inventory of the entire U.S. outer continental shelf. Global hotspots (mapped in the report) include the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, and the west coast of Africa. • The low-frequency rumble of engines, propellers, and other commercial shipping noise can be heard in virtually every corner of the ocean. Over the last 75 years, the number of merchant ships has tripled, and their cargo capacity (which relates roughly to the amount of sound they produce) has increased steadily. Some believe that the biggest ships will become faster and larger still, possibly tripling in capacity, and that their numbers will double over the next 20 to 30 years. Increasingly short hauls between ports could take cargo ships nearer to shore—directly through coastal habitat for many marine species. That some types of sound are killing some species of marine mammals is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate. A range of experts, from the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee to the U.S. Navy’s own commissioned scientists, have agreed that the evidence linking mass strandings to mid-frequency sonar is con- vincing and overwhelming. Suspect strandings have occurred off the Bahamas, the Canary Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, North Carolina, Alaska, Hawaii, Greece, Italy, Spain, Japan, and other spots around the world. Some stranded animals have been found to suffer bleeding around the brain, emboli in the lungs, and lesions in the liver and kidneys, symptoms resembling a severe case of decompression sickness, or “the bends.” That these injuries occurred in the water, before the animals stranded, has

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 89 Ocean Noise Pollution raised concerns that whales are dying in substantially larger numbers than are turning up on shore. Other sources of noise, such as the airguns used in seismic surveys, may have similar effects. But to many scientists, it is the cumulative impact of subtle behavioral changes that pose the greatest potential threat from noise, particularly in depleted populations: what has been called a “death of a thousand cuts.” We know that sound can chase some animals from their habitat, force some to compromise their feeding, cause some to fall silent, and send some into what seems like panic. Preliminary attempts at modeling the “energetics” of marine mammals (the amount of energy an animal has to spend to compensate for an intrusion) suggest that even small alterations in behavior could have significant consequences for reproduction or survival if repeated over time. Other impacts include temporary and permanent hearing loss, which can compromise an animal’s ability to survive; chronic stress, which has been associated in land mammals with suppression of the immune system, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems; and the masking of biologically important sounds, which could be disastrous for species like the endangered fin whale that are believed to communicate over long distances. Although marine mammals have received most of the attention, there are increasing signs that noise, like other forms of pollution, is capable of affecting the entire web of ocean life. Pink snapper exposed to airgun pulses have been shown to suffer virtually permanent hearing loss; and the catch rates of haddock and cod have plummeted in the vicinity of an airgun survey across an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Indeed, fishermen in various parts of the world have complained of declines in catch after intense acoustic activities, like oil-and-gas surveys and sonar exercises, moved onto their grounds, suggesting that noise is seriously altering the behavior of commercial species. Other potentially vulnerable species include brown shrimp, snow crabs, and the giant squid, which is known to have mass stranded in the vicinity of airgun surveys.

The domestic and global response As yet there is no domestic or international law to deal comprehensively with ocean noise. The closest approximation in the United States is the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which requires those who would harm animals incidentally, as an unavoidable consequence of their business, to first obtain permission from one of the wildlife agencies. Congress dictated a precautionary approach to management given the vulnerable status of many of these species, their great cultural and ecological significance, and the exceptional difficulty of measuring the impacts of human activities on marine mammals in the wild.

90 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Ocean Noise Pollution

But undersea noise is not just a national issue: it is a global problem. Many noise- producing activities occur on the high seas, a gray zone of maritime jurisdiction, and both sounds and affected species have little respect for boundaries. Fortunately, as scientific and public consensus has crystallized around ocean noise, so has international recognition that the strategy for reducing it must be regional and global. A number of international bodies, including the European Parliament, the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee, and several regional seas agreements, have begun to address the problem, urging that nations work together. Options range from the direct, comprehensive control that a federal system like the European Union can exercise; to the guidelines or regulations that specialized bodies such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the International Maritime Organization can propose for certain activities; to the coordination that regional agreements can bring, particularly to matters of habitat protection. Unfortunately, the present U.S. administration has opposed the international regulation of active sonar, which may weaken its leadership and standing on the broader issue of ocean noise. Principal international actions include: ASCOBANS The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), in 2003, passed a resolution entitled “Effects of Noise and of Vessels.” Among other things, this resolution requests that Parties take a series of steps to reduce the impact of noise on cetaceans from seismic surveys, military activities, shipping vessels, acoustic harassment devices, and other acoustic disturbances.20 Specifically, and inter alia, the ASCOBANS resolution of 2003: Requests Parties and Range States to introduce guidelines on measures and procedures for seismic surveys to (1) alter the timing of surveys or to minimise their duration; (2) reduce noise levels as far as practicable; (3) avoid starting surveys when cetaceans are known to be in the immediate vicinity; (4) introduce further measures in areas of particular importance to cetaceans; (5) develop a monitoring system that will enable adaptive management of seismic survey activities; Invites Parties and Range States to

20 Fourth Meeting of Parties to ASCOBANS, Res. 5 Effects of Noise and of Vessels (2003).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 91 Ocean Noise Pollution

(1) develop, with military authorities, effective mitigation measures including environmental impact assessments and relevant standing orders to reduce disturbance of, and potential physical damage to, small cetaceans; (2) report before the Advisory Committee meeting in 2005, where possible, on approaches to reduce or eliminate adverse effects on small cetaceans by military activities.21

OSPAR The OSPAR Commission has named “noise disturbance” among the potentially dangerous effects of human activities that may need to be regulated within or in the vicinity of MPAs in order to achieve the objectives of MPA designation.22 In 2004, the Commission published its Case Reports for the Initial List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Four marine mammals are listed among the potentially imperiled species: the Bowhead Whale, the Blue Whale, the Northern Right Whale, and the Harbour Porpoise. For each of these marine mammals, the Commission lists “noise disturbance” as among the potentially harmful effects of human activities posing threats to the species, recognizing that “[a]coustic disturbance from shipping, military and research activities adds to the pressure” on these species.23 In 2005, the OSPAR Commission began work on an assessment of the impact of ocean noise on marine life and is now preparing a report on that topic, with the goal of determining in 2006-2007 whether further regulatory action is warranted.

IWC In the summer of 2004, and following a scientific workshop dedicated to examining the impacts of ocean noise on cetaceans, a working group of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission issued a strong statement of concern regarding intense underwater noise. The group detailed their “alarming concerns” over harm from noise, and unanimously agreed that there is now “compelling evidence implicating anthropogenic sound as a potential threat to marine mammals,” a threat manifested “at both regional and ocean-scale levels that could impact populations of animals.” The scientists expressed particular concern about intense underwater noise from military sonar and from air guns used for oil and gas exploration.

21 Id. 22 See OSPAR Commission, Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area (2003). 23 OSPAR Commission, Case Reports at 91.

92 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Ocean Noise Pollution

The Scientific Committee, reviewing this data, agreed that the increase in ocean noise was cause for “serious concern,” and called for, among other things, the inclusion of noise exposure standards in national and international ocean conservation plans. The Scientific Committee continued to call attention to ocean noise in its 2005 session, with particular focus on several additional mass strandings coincident with noise events, a call on noise producers to share information regarding noise source characteristics, the creation of a workshop to address impacts from seismic noise and a suggestion that noise may be impacting more species than previously thought. The Scientific Committee report of 2004, along with the working group’s findings reported at Annex K, may be downloaded at: http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/ sci_com/SCRepFiles2004/56SCrep.pdf

European Parliament In October 2004, the European Parliament approved a resolution acknowledging the threat to marine mammals and other ocean wildlife posed by high intensity active sonars. The resolution: • Recognizes that certain intense sounds “pose a significant threat to marine mammals” and “may have a negative impact on commercial fishing and the already depleted fish stocks throughout the world’s oceans;” • States that underwater noise is a form of pollution of the marine environment under the Law of the Sea; and • Calls on the EU Commission and Member States to develop international agreements regulating noise levels in the world’s oceans, with a view to regulating and limiting the adverse impact of anthropogenic sonars on marine mammals and fish. The European Parliament resolution on ocean noise may be downloaded at: http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2004- 0089+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y

ACCOBAMS In November 2004, the parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) adopted a resolution on undersea noise that, inter alia,: • Recognizes anthropogenic ocean noise as a form of pollution, comprised of energy, that can have adverse effects on marine life ranging from disturbance to injury and mortality;

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 93 Ocean Noise Pollution

• Urges Parties and non Parties to, if appropriate, “avoid any use of man made noise in habitat of vulnerable species and in areas where marine mammals or endangered species may be concentrated …within the ACCOBAMS area”; and • Calls for the development of a common set of guidelines on conducting activities known to produce underwater sound with the potential to cause adverse effects on cetaceans. The ACCOBAMS resolution on ocean noise may be downloaded at: http://www.accobams.org./index_science.htm

IUCN Also in November 2004, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) passed a resolution, entitled “Underwater Noise Pollution,” that, inter alia,: • Recognizes that “anthropogenic underwater noise, depending on source and intensity, is a form of pollution, comprised of energy, that can degrade habitat and have adverse effects on marine life ranging from disturbance to injury and mortality”; • Notes that certain intense sources of noise are not now mitigated and that few protected areas are managed for noise impacts; • Entreats member governments, through mechanisms available under domestic and international law, to require the use of mitigation to reduce the impacts from individual noise sources; and • Urges member governments that are parties to the UN to work through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to develop mechanisms for the control of undersea noise. The IUCN resolution on ocean noise may be downloaded at: http://www.awionline.org/whales/news/IUCN%20RES053.pdf

UN Secretary General In July 2005, the UN Secretary General prominently included the problem of ocean noise in his report to the General Assembly on issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The report names anthropogenic underwater noise as one of five “current major threats to some popula- tions of whales and other cetaceans,” ( 147), and also among the ten “main current and foreseeable impacts on marine biodiversity” on the high seas ( 130, 159). It states:

94 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Ocean Noise Pollution

The increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the oceans constitute smog for acoustically active species, obscuring acoustic signals potentially critical to migration, feeding and reproduction. Other observed effects include stranding and displacement from habitat, tissue damage and mortality. Fish are also damaged by noise and this may reduce fish catches. Better assessment of the impacts of underwater noise on acoustically sensitive oceanic species, including both fish and cetaceans, as well as consideration of noise abatement strategies, are needed. Report of the Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, 159 (A/60/63/Add.1) (July 15 2005).

UN General Assembly In November 2005, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the problem of ocean noise in its resolution on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, requesting “further studies and consideration of the impacts of ocean noise on marine living resources.” General Assembly Resolution, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, 84 (A/60/30) (November 2005).

CMS The parties to the Convention on Migratory Species passed a resolution naming marine noise among six human threats to cetacean populations. The resolution also calls on its Scientific Council to assess whether marine noise is adequately addressed in the Convention’s threat abatement activities. Resolution on Adverse Human Induced Impacts on Cetaceans, Convention on Migratory Species (November 2005).

Ad Hoc Working Group on High Sea Biodiversity The UN General Assembly has established an Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (i.e., on the high seas). In February 2006 that working group convened its first meeting, where it recognized ocean noise as a “growing human pressure” that “require[s] urgent action though international cooperation and coordination.” Report of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Informal Working Group, 38 (March 2006).

The Way Forward The mass strandings that have unfolded over the last several years are a wake-up call to a significant environmental problem. The issue is too complex to be solved

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 95 Ocean Noise Pollution tomorrow. Yet now is the moment when progress is possible, before the problem becomes intractable and its impacts irreversible. With this in mind, NRDC recommends that the following steps be taken: Develop and implement a wider set of mitigation measures. The regulatory agencies in the United States, NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service, should move beyond the inadequate operational requirements that are currently imposed and develop a full range of options, particularly geographic and seasonal restrictions and technological (or “source-based”) improvements. Build economies of scale. Agencies should use programmatic review and other means to develop economies of scale in mitigation, monitoring, and basic population research. In conducting programmatic review of noise-producing activities, the agencies should take care to make threshold mitigation decisions early in the process and to allow public participation at every stage, as the law requires. Improve enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS should exercise the enforcement authority delegated by Congress under the Act to bring clearly harmful activities, such as military sonar, into the regulatory system and should adopt process guidelines to ensure that an arm’s length relationship is maintained with prospective permittees. And Congress should add a “citizen-suit” provision to the MMPA, which would empower the public to do what, in some cases, the regulatory agencies will not. Increase funds for permitting and enforcement. The U.S. Congress should in- crease NMFS’ annual budget for permitting and enforcement under the MMPA. Set effective standards for regulatory action. So that the MMPA can serve the protective role that Congress intended, the Act’s standards for “negligible impact” and behavioral “harassment” should protect the species most vulnerable to noise, ensure that major noise-producing activities remain inside the regulatory system, and enable wildlife agencies to manage populations for cumulative impacts. Establish a federal research program. Congress should establish a National Ocean Noise Research Program through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, or similar institution, allowing for coordination, reliability, and inde- pendence of funding. A substantial portion of the budget should be expressly dedicated to improving and expanding mitigation measures. Commit to global and regional solutions. The United States and other nations should work through specialized bodies such as the International Maritime Organization to develop guidelines for particular activities like shipping noise; through regional seas agreements to bring sound into the management of

96 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Ocean Noise Pollution

coastal habitat; and through intergovernmental regimes, like the European Union, to develop binding multi-national legislation.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 97 Extraction of Marine Sediments Extraction of Marine Sediments: international policies to reduce negative effects on the marine ecosystem

Jochen C. KRAUSE German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Introduction Marine sediments have been extracted since historic times in near-shore and coastal regions. Marine aggregate extraction from offshore areas started in the 1960s, as the demand for sand and gravel throughout Europe steadily increased. Within the marine areas of the ICES member states, the scale of marine sand and gravel extraction24 has increased from about 37 Mm³ in 1992 to more than 53 Mm³ in recent years (ICES 2001a). Information on resources and the granting procedure for the extraction of sand and gravel is not standardised in Northwest Europe and there is a wide disparity in national data. The most comprehensive and actual data sets are held by the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Denmark (ICES 2005). Likewise, baseline and background information on the extraction fields is usually dispersed among governmental organisations, naval hydrographical departments, the dredging industry and other commercial companies. Therefore, most of the information presented here summarises information originally collected by the members of the “ICES Working Group on the Effect of Sediment Extraction” (ICES WG-EXT)25 and a recent research training network funded by the European Commission called EUMARSAND (http://www.azti.es/eumarsand/eumarsand.htm). ICES WG-EXT meets annually and publishes reports providing up-to-date information on marine extraction activities, seabed resource mapping programmes, and recent results of environmental impact assessments (EIA) and research projects. In addition, the group tracks ongoing developments concerning legislation and policy advice of the member states. Until now, two Cooperative Research Reports have been published (ICES 1992, ICES 2001 a) and an updated report is in preparation. The aim of this article is to summarise the current knowledge on the effects of sediment extraction on the marine environment, to explain obligations under the regional environmental organisations of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR,

24 This article concentrates on marine sediment extraction of sand and gravel for construction purposes, land reclamation and beach replenishment. Dredging activities related to navigational dredging or for maerl or shells are not considered. 25 Established as a scientific working group on the effects of extraction of marine sediments on fisheries in the 1970s.

98 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Extraction of Marine Sediments www.ospar.org) and the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Convention, www.helcom.fi), and to illustrate potential threats of extraction activities for habitats protected under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of the European Union.

Marine Sediment Extraction and its Effects Sand and gravel resources are not evenly distributed in the European seas. Although additional resources have been reported since 1992, coarse marine aggregates must be considered finite, as should all sand and gravel resources in the Baltic Sea. For offshore sand and gravel extraction only two dredging types are in use: (a) static or anchor dredging and (b) trailer suction hopper dredging, both illustrated in fig.1. In type (A) the dredger anchors above the deposit and from this stationary position, sucks the sediment from the seafloor forming large pits of up to 10 m in depth and 10 - 50 m in diameter. In contrast a trailer suction hopper dredger (type B) is self- propelled and extracts the sediment like a floating vacuum cleaner leaving single furrows of up to 0.3 - 0.5 m in depth and 3 m in width. By circling several times over the same area, multiple dredging furrows can expand more than 3 m in depth and over 5 m in width (Herrmann et al. 1999). A multibeam illustration shows the effects on the seafloor in the Tromper Wiek, Germany, Baltic Sea (Manso 2005) where both techniques were used (fig. 1). Over the past 30 years an extensive literature has grown which describes the impacts of the extraction processes. Focussing initially on the effects on the benthic fauna, more recently a wider variety of effects have been analysed and summarised. From these studies, a general pattern of the biological recolonization of the extraction sites is emerging (ICES 2001 a). After the cessation of dredging, a few opportunistic species are able to take advantage of the sometimes unstable sediment and initiate the re-colonization (phase 1). Frequently, these species substantially increase in abundance; however, normally overall biomass of the area remains reduced and the low biomass values can persist for a number of years (phase 2). This second phase can end with a significant increase of the biomass and finally, in a third phase (phase 3) the recovery of sediment, e. g. by bed load transportation, which allows the pre- dredging community to re-establish itself. Despite these general findings, local impacts and recovery times can differ enormously. The following three examples from the North Sea and the Baltic Sea shall illustrate this.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 99 Extraction of Marine Sediments

Fig. 1: Dredging methods and their effect on the seafloor. A) Static Dredger; B) Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger. (Herrmann et al. 1999) . C) Multibeam image of a long term extraction site (left) and a non-dredged area (right) in the Tromper Wiek, Baltic Sea, Germany (Manso 2006, DHI).

RIACON Project (The Netherlands) The RIACON Project (Risk Analyses of Coastal Nourishment Techniques) evaluated the risks of beach nourishment and sand extraction on benthic communities. Essink (1997) and van Dalfsen & Essink (1997) describe that the short-term effects of dredging in front of the Dutch coast for beach nourishment off the island of Terschelling. This short-term extraction caused a significant reduction in benthic species abundance and biomass. Two years later the structure and species composition of the benthic community had largely recovered, whereas the abundance and biomass of long-living species (i.e. bivalves and echinoderms) had not returned to pre-dredging levels.

North Norfolk (United Kingdom) At an offshore experimental dredging site off north Norfolk (UK) a rather small amount (50,000 t) of aggregates were extracted from a treatment site and compared with a non-dredged area of the same sediment type nearby. Kenny & Rees (1994, 1996) showed that the recolonization proceeded rapidly and that within the first twelve months abundance and number of species recovered. This was probably because the pre-dredged benthic community was already dominated by opportunistic species with

100 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Extraction of Marine Sediments an ability for rapid settlement (i. e. Dendrodoa and Balanus). Although after two years physical structures and biomass had not completely recovered , significant progress towards the pre-dredged situation had been made.

Area 222 (United Kingdom) A commercial extraction site located in the North Sea offshore from Felixstowe in the outer Thames region, the so called Area 222, was analysed by sidescan sonar, single and multibeam bathymetric measurements and benthic samples by a Hamon Grab (Boyd et al., 2004; Boyd et al., 2005) for a period of three years starting four years after the area was relinquished by the industry. The area was intensively extracted for 25 years, particulary within the north of the site. Despite the absence of a comprehensive baseline, the results show that the fauna remained in a perturbed state in the areas exposed to the most intensive dredging for at least seven years following the cessation of dredging. Areas of lower levels of dredging intensity and their benthic communities were found to be almost indistinguishable from the surrounding sediments, which supports the idea that the intensity of dredging is a major factor determining the period for recovery.

In summary, despite a general pattern of recovery, the state of the benthic fauna after dredging varies enormously at a local scale. Depending on the sediment type, the hydrodynamic patterns, the original benthic community, and the intensity of dredging, the physical and biological recovery after cessation can be very rapid or take years or even decades.

Guidelines, Recommendations and Policies Recognising the various impacts by marine sediment extraction and thereby its potential to have severe and long-lasting effects on the environment, the ICES WG EXT published a ‘code of practice’ together with a first ‘draft guidance’ on the commercial sand and gravel extraction and a suitable environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 1992 (ICES 1992). Advice was given to the Helsinki Commission for the Protection of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM), which adopted Recommendation 19/1 on ‘Marine Sediment extraction in the Baltic Sea area’ in 1998 (Herrmann et al. 1999). In 2001 ICES WG EXT developed guidelines for the management of marine sediment extraction (ICES WG EXT, 2001 b) which updated both the previous code of practice and the guidelines of an EIA. These guidelines were confirmed by OSPAR in 2003 (OSPAR 03/17/1, para 4.17. Agreement on Sand and Gravel Extraction (ref.-number: 2003-15).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 101 Extraction of Marine Sediments

In both guidelines, reference is made to sites protected under the Habitats Directive (HD 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (BD 79/409/EEC) of the European Union. HELCOM Recommendation 19/1 states that permits for marine sediment extraction shall not be granted for areas ‘to be included or which are proposed to the European ecological Natura 2000 network according to the EC Habitats Directive and Birds Directive except when the procedure of Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive is followed’ (HELCOM Rec. 19/1 Art. 1 (1) c). OSPAR agreed that the ‘authorisation for the extraction of marine sediments from any ecologically sensitive site (such as …, a Natura 2000 site …) should only be granted after an EIA, the procedures laid down in Art. 6 of the Habitat Directive are fulfilled, and over-riding public interests require the extraction of marine sediments …’ (OSPAR 03/17/1, para 4.17. Agreement on Sand and Gravel Extraction (ref.-number: 2003-15). Therefore the following will summarise the protection objectives of the Natura 2000 sites and the potential threats to them caused by sediment extraction.

Effects of Sediment Extraction on Natura 2000 Sites To establish the coherent European ecological network, Natura 2000, all member states must designate ‘special areas of conservation (SAC)’ to enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats of concern to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (Habitats Directive Art. 1). In the German offshore regions of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea only two habitat types protected under Annex I of the HD exist, ‘sandbanks slightly covered by sea water all the time’ (code 1110) and ‘reefs’ (code 1170) (Krause et al. 2006). To date, only Germany has nominated a comprehensive set of Natura 2000 sites in the offshore areas (Exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (von Nordheim et al. 2006). Therefore the following considerations concentrate on these marine regions only. Fig. 2 shows licensed or requested sediment extraction fields which largely overlap areas with the habitat type ‘reef’ protected in the German nominated offshore Natura 2000 sites. In 2004 and 2005 dredging activities in one permission field were analysed by sidescan sonar, multibeam (Schwarzer & Diesing 2006, unpubl.) and underwater video transects (Hübner & Krause, unpubl.).

102 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Extraction of Marine Sediments

Fig. 2: Licensed or requested sediment extraction fields, areas with the habitat type ‘reef’ (under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC), and Natura 2000 sites nominated in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the German North Sea.

Results shown in fig. 3 clearly indicate that within the reefs sediment had been extracted. These geogenic reefs belong to stony reef bands along the slope of the glacial Elbe Valley (Winn & Werner, 1984) where they, together with boulder and cobble fields, rise from the seafloor. They are characterised by their epi-benthic communities (Boedeker et a. 2006). These regions are of particular conservation concern as the reefs form habitats that contain approximately 100 more benthic species than the surrounding sandy areas. Additionally, many of these species are considered to be rare, threatened or declining (Rachor & Gusky 2005, unpubl.). The threat of sand extraction in these habitats is illustrated in fig. 4 by the actual difference between the impoverished epibenthic fauna found in the newly extracted area (fig. 4 A) and the rich fauna on the undisturbed reefs in the same area (fig. 4 B). In summary, the described long-term effects (e.g. for the Area 222, United Kingdom) of aggregate extraction in the vicinity of, or inside, ‘reef’ areas protected under the Habitats Directive could be a major threat and obstacle in achieving favourable conservation status.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 103 Extraction of Marine Sediments

Fig. 3: Distribution of the habitat type „reefs“ and dredging activities in an extraction field (indicated by the arrow) in the nominated Natura 2000 site „Sylter Außenriff“ in the German EEZ of the North Sea. Map based on multibeam and sidescan sonar investigations by Schwarzer & Diesing (2006 unpubl.) and analyses of uw-video transects by BfN (Hübner & Krause, unpubl.).

A B Fig. 4: Difference between the epibenthic fauna found in the a extracted area (A indicated in figure 3) and an undisturbed reef habitat in the same area (B indicated in figure 3). Underwater Video images by BfN (Hübner & Krause).

104 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Extraction of Marine Sediments

Conclusions • Marine sand and gravel extraction has the potential to degrade and can severely damage the habitat types ‘sandbanks slightly covered by sea water all the time’ (code 1110) (not discussed in this summary) and ‘reefs’ (code 1170), protected under the Habitat Directive of the European Union (92/43/EEC). • Fast recovery rates after cessation of sand and gravel extraction, i.e. within two or three years are described especially in highly dynamic sandy areas. However, this speedy recovery is not the general case and severe long-lasting perturbations of the seafloor which hinder the recovery of the original benthic fauna can occur as a result of marine dredging especially in gravel substrates. • The actual rates of physical and - more importantly for conservation - biological recovery, is dependent on site-specific physical and biological features and the intensity of dredging, which should be thoroughly analysed by an EIA before the granting of permits, as recommended by ICES, HELCOM and OSPAR. • However, for small-scale habitats like reefs in the German North Sea an EIA might not provide decision makers with sufficient background information on the potential effects. Therefore, a monitoring programme initiated at the outset of the extraction activities is recommended as a basis for adaptive management. • A key tool to enforcing dredging activities and to protect ecologically valuable structures, especially small patches, is the ‘Black Box’, which can track dredging activity whilst at sea.

Acknowledgement Preparation of the talk and compilation of the summary was supported by S. Käning, U. Ruffani, F. Herzig, F. Tanneberger, J. Ardron, M. Diesing and S. E. Boyd which is gratefully acknowledged. Additionally the author wants to thank all members of the ICES Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem (WGEXT) for a friendly introduction nearly ten years ago and all following fruitful discussions.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 105 Extraction of Marine Sediments

References Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC). BOEDEKER, D., KRAUSE, J. C. and VON NORDHEIM, H. (2006): Interpretation, identification and ecological assessment of the NATURA 2000 habitats “sandbank” and “reef”. In: Progress in Marine Conservation. Natura 2000 Sites in German Offshore Waters. Von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D. and Krause J. C. (eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, 263pp. BOYD, S.E., COOPER, K.M.; LIMPENNY, D.S., KILBRIDE, R., REES, H.L., DEARNALEY, M.P., STEVENSON, J., MEADOWS, W.J. and MORRIS, C.D. (2004): Assessment of the re-habilitation of the seabed following marine aggregate dredging. Sci. Ser. Tech. Rep., CEFAS Lowestoft, 121, 154pp. BOYD, S.E., LIMPENNY, D.S., REES, H.L., and COOPER, K. M. (2005): The effects of marine sand and gravel extraction on the macrobenthos at a commercial dredging site (results 6 years post-dredging). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 145-162. VAN DALFSEN, J. and ESSINK, K. (1997): RIACON – Risk analysis of coastal nourishment techniques in The Netherlands. Part A, Part B, Part C. EC DG XII, Mast II. (No. MAST2-CT94-0084), National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management / RIKZ, Haren, 1-98. SCHWARZER, K. and DIESING, M. (unpubl.): Erforschung der FFH-Lebensraumtypen Sandbank und Riff in der AWZ der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee. Bundesamt für Naturschutz Abschlussbericht FKZ-Nr. 802 85 270. Institut für Geowissenschaften Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel. ESSINK, K. (1998): Risk analysis of coastal nourishment techniques (RIACON): Final evaluation report. National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ). Haren. RIKZ-97.031, 98pp. HERRMANN, C., KRAUSE, J. C., TSOUPIKOVA, N., and HANSEN, K. (1999): Marine Sediment Extraction in the Baltic Sea – Status Report. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings, No. 76, Helsinki Commission, 33pp. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA [ICES] (1992): Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on Fisheries. WG-EXT. Copenhagen, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Cooperative Research Report No. 182. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA [ICES] (2001a): Effects of extraction of marine sediments on the marine ecosystem. WG-EXT. Copenhagen, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Cooperative Research Report No. 247, 80pp. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA [ICES] (2001b): ANNEX 2: Draft ICES Guidelines for the Management of Marine Sediment Extraction. In: Report of the Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem. Ref. ACME ICES Marine Habitat Committee CM 2001/E:06. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA [ICES] (2005): Report of the Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem. Ref. ACME ICES Marine Habitat Committee CM 2005/E:06.

106 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Extraction of Marine Sediments

KENNY, A.J. and REES, H.L. (1994): The effects of marine gravel extraction on the macrobenthos - early post-dredging recolonization. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 28, 442-447. KENNY, A.J. and REES, H.L. (1996): The effects of marine gravel extraction on the macrobenthos: Results 2 years post-dredging. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 615- 622. KRAUSE, J. C., BOEDEKER, D., BACKHAUSEN, I., HEINICKE, K., GROß, A., and VON NORDHEIM, H. (2006): Rationale behind site selection for the NATURA 2000 network in the German EEZ. In: Progress in Marine Conservation. Natura 2000 Sites in German Offshore Waters. Von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D. and Krause J. C. (eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, 263pp. VON NORDHEIM, H., BOEDEKER, D. and KRAUSE J. C. (eds.., 2006): Progress in Marine Conservation. Natura 2000 Sites in German Offshore Waters. Springer, Heidelberg, 263pp. RACHOR, E., and GUSKY, M. (2005): Benthologische Arbeiten zur ökologischen Bewertung von WEA-Eignungsgebieten in der Nordsee. Bundesamt für Naturschutz FKZ 80285240 Abschlußbericht. Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, unpubl. Winn & Werner (1984): Ein integriertes akustisches Fernmeßsystem (IAFMS) zur Typisierung von Schichtfolgen im Meeresboden und Bestimmung ihrer Raumlage. - Berichte - Reports, Geol.-Paläontol. Inst. der Univ. Kiel, 5, 132 S.; Kiel.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 107 Plastic debris in the marine environment Plastic debris in the marine environment: consequences and solutions

Richard C. THOMPSON Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, University of Plymouth, UK

Introduction Plastics have been mass produced since the 1950’s and in just a few decades plastic products have become essential to our daily lives. As a consequence plastic production has risen dramatically over this period and is now in excess of 100 million tones per annum. Plastics are lightweight, inexpensive durable materials that can readily be shaped into a wide range of products that have brought many important societal benefits (Table 1). For instance, plastics provide a lightweight alternative to steel in components for cars, busses and lorries, so helping reduce fuel costs. In hospitals plastics are used for a wide range of applications from dialysis machines to sterile dressings. Plastic cases have helped make recent advances in telecommunications and computing technology more readily available and affordable. The durability of plastic products also makes them invaluable in the construction industry with products ranging from drain pipes to floor covering. Because plastics are so lightweight and inexpensive their most substantial usage is as materials for packaging. This key role is essential to help reduce damage and deterioration of foodstuffs and other products. However, plastic packaging materials are of particular environmental concern because most are disposable and are discarded within a year of production (EA 2001).

Table 1: Uses of the 30.4 million tonnes of plastic consumed in Western Europe during 1998 (EA 2001) Uses of plastics (%) Packaging 41 Building and construction 19 Electrical and electronic 8 Agriculture 3 Other household uses 18 Automotive 7 Large industry 4

108 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Plastic debris in the marine environment

So why are plastics a problem? The short answer is that they are not, it is what we do with them that creates the problems. As a consequence of the growing demand (+4% per annum in Europe) for plastic products and their longevity, plastic is rapidly accumulating in the environment where they are likely to persist because of their durability. It has been suggested that some polymers will last for 100’s if not 1000’s of years. Most plastic debris is disposed of to landfill, but in addition a substantial proportion is discarded as litter which now contaminates habitats from the poles to the equator (Ryan and Moloney 1993; Gregory and Ryan 1996; Barnes and Milner 2005). There is concern about plastics in landfill, and about plastic litter in a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, here I focus on the effects of plastic debris in marine habitats although the solutions offered to reduce plastic waste are appropriate in a much broader context.

Accumulation of plastics in the marine environment Plastics are by far the most abundant types of anthropogenic debris in the marine environment comprising as much as 70% of all debris (Laist 1987). Plastic debris reaches the sea via rivers and water courses, as a consequence of being blown from the land and as a result of items being discarded directly to the sea. It is difficult to estimate exactly how much plastic debris is now present in marine habitats, but it has been suggested that as much as 10% of all plastic debris ends up in the sea. Most plastics are buoyant and tend to accumulate at the sea surface where they can become concentrated by ocean circulation or are washed ashore and stranded in the intertidal. An extensive survey in the early 1970’s reported that some regions of the North-eastern Atlantic contained over 160,000 items of plastic per km2 (Colton et al. 1974). While recent work in the North Pacific Central Gyre recorded concentrations of plastic pieces in excess of 960,000 items per km2 (Moore 2001). Abundance in intertidal habitats is variable and is strongly influenced by prevailing winds which cause considerable quantities of debris to accumulate on some shorelines. Barnes and Milner (2005) present data collected from 35 sites worldwide. The amount of debris varied by several orders of magnitude among these sites, with an average of 1.72 ± 0,75 items per square mete of shoreline across all sites, a global average of 1.7 million items of debris per km2 of shoreline. Once in the sea plastic readily becomes fouled by marine life and this together with sediment which accumulates on the surface of plastic items can cause debris to sink. We have relatively little data on the abundance of plastic on the seabed, but one comprehensive study in Europe recorded plastic debris during 27 oceanographic cruises and using submersibles down to 2700m showed that some areas were contaminated with over 100,000 items pre km2 (Galgani et al. 2000).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 109 Plastic debris in the marine environment

There are numerous studies reporting on the presence of plastics in marine habitats worldwide. However, most of these present a snap-shot in time. Relatively few studies have examined rates of accumulation of plastics in the environment and in many loca- tions it is not possible to accurately estimate accumulation because of beach cleaning. A six year survey of a remote shoreline in the South Atlantic showed an exponential increase in the abundance plastic debris that accumulated during the 1980s (Ryan and Moloney 1993). More recently Barnes and Milner (2005) report an increase in the abundance of plastic on some shorelines, but relatively stable quantities of debris floating in the Atlantic Ocean. A particularly noticeable trend on some shorelines is an increase in the abundance of plastic fragments and granules (Figure 1A). These appear to be forming as a consequence of the mechanical breakdown of larger items of debris. In addition small plastic granules are now used as abrasives in a range of cleaning products and as a material for shot blasting to remove paint from boats and aircraft (Zitko and Hanlon 1991; Gregory 1996). These plastic ‘scrubbers’ are unlikely to be removed from wastewater by sewage treatment and are also accumulating in marine habitats. One of the longest time series we have demonstrates the accumulation microscopic plastic fragments such as these that have been captured in Continuous Plankton Recorder samples since the 1960s (Figure 1B). These data show a significant increase in the abundance of plastic in the North East Atlantic over the last 40 years (Figure 1E, Thompson et al. 2004).

Consequences of plastic debris in the environment The effects of large items of plastic debris on marine life are well documented they are known to present a physical hazard to wildlife resulting in entanglement and reducing the sensation to feed (Laist 1987; Gregory and Ryan 1996; Derraik 2002; Gregory and Andrady 2003). In addition the accumulation of plastic debris is unsightly and generates a problem of economic importance for the tourist industry; however, less has been done to quantify these aesthetic impacts. Entanglement in discarded plastics presents a serious threat to wildlife causing mortality for numerous species of seabirds, marine mammals and fish. Once entangled these creatures either drown, become injured or otherwise impaired such that they are no longer able to effectively forage or escape predators. Plastics are also mistaken for food and ingested by birds, fish, turtles, marine mammals including whales, manatees and sea lions and by a range of invertebrates. Ingestion of plastic debris can lead to suffocation or cause a reduced sensation to feed when debris becomes permanently trapped in the digestive tract (Laist 1987; Gregory and Ryan 1996; Derraik 2002; Gregory and Andrady 2003).

110 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Plastic debris in the marine environment

A B

50 µm CP R 2

1 fragment from shore C R P C )

% ( n nylon

ssio

Transmi 4000 2400 1400 650 Wave number cm-1

D 8 E 0.08 25 ent * m 6 * 20 -1 r 0.06

nthetic e r sedi t

y a

y -1

15 s

4 0.04

eaw

10 tons s 3 on of 50ml 2 3 i 0

s 0.02 5 m

s 0 oduct Fiber e l 0 0 y n a bers 1 nd ri id aan a t 0's 0's 0's 0's Pr fi S tu ub Fiber 6 7 8 9 Es S 19 19 19 19

Fig. 1: (A) Fragment of microscopic plastic from shoreline. (B) Sampling locations in North-East Atlantic, showing Routes (CPR 1 and 2) sampled by Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) since 1960 and used to assess changes in the abundance of microplastics in the water column (see Fig. 1E). Shores around the UK where similar fragments were found (●) and the location of sites near Plymouth (□) used to compare the abundance of microscopic plastic among habitats (see Fig. 1D). (C) Example showing how FT-IR spectroscopy was used to identify fragments from the shoreline and the water column. Here an unknown fragment is identified as nylon. (D) There were significant differences in abundance of microplastics between sandy beaches and subtidal habitats (ANOVA on log10(x + 1) transformed data, F 2,3 = 13.26, P < 0.05, * = P < 0.01), but abundance was consistent among sites within habitat type. (E) Accumulation of microscopic plastic in CPR samples revealed a significant increase in abundance when comparing the 1960’s and 1970’s to the 1980’s and 1990’s (ANOVA

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 111 Plastic debris in the marine environment on log10(x + 1) transformed data, F 3,3 = 14.42, P < 0.05, * = P < 0.05). Approximate figures for global production of synthetic fibres overlain for comparison. Microplastics were also less abundant along the oceanic route CPR 2 than CPR 1 (F 1, 24 = 5.18, P < 0.5). Reproduced from Thompson et al. (2004), with permission.

The effects of smaller items of plastic debris such as fragments and abrasive scrubbers are less clear. Small pieces of plastic (100µm in diameter) are ingested by invertebrates including barnacles, lugworms and amphipods which have a range of different feeding modes (filter feeder, deposit feeder and detritivore, respectively). Hence there is the potential for small items of debris to be available to a wide range of organisms (Thompson et al. 2004). However, most marine organisms are accustomed to dealing with small non-food items such as grains of sediment and are adapted to discard unwanted particles prior to ingestion or to allow them to pass through the gut without harm. More work is required to establish whether small plastic particles will behave in this way or if there is the potential for them to accumulate either in the gut causing reduced feeding efficiency or for them to be come incorporated into body tissues. Floating plastic can also act as a transport system for the juvenile and adult stages of a wide range of marine organisms. In this way plastic debris could increase the spread of non-native ‘invasive’ species including: barnacles and bryozoans and hence have potentially deleterious effects on local biodiversity (Barnes 2002; Barnes and Milner 2005). In addition to the physical hazard presented by plastic in the environment there is considerable speculation that plastics might present a toxicological challenge to wildlife. A wide range of potentially toxic chemicals are added to plastics during production as plasticizers, colourings, flame retardants and antimicrobials. It has been suggested that these chemicals might leach from plastics upon ingestion and be taken up into body tissues (Colton et al. 1974; Ryan et al. 1988). In addition plastics are known to accumulate hydrophobic contaminants such as PCBs and DDE that have arisen in the marine environment from other sources (Mato et al. 2001). It is possible that these contaminants could also be released from plastics under different physical and chemical conditions such as those in the gut of marine organisms. However despite much speculation over the last 30 years the extent to which plastic debris might present a toxic hazard in the environment is not known and represents a key research priority (Thompson et al. 2005). As well as the environmental problems associated with accumulation of plastics in the environment an overarching concern is that the manner in which we currently use plastics is not sustainable. It is estimated that eight percent of world oil production is

112 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Plastic debris in the marine environment used to make plastics, and over 40% of the plastics that are produced are packaging materials of which most are discarded within a very short time frame (EA 2001). So we are using a significant proportion of the world’s non-renewable resources to make products that despite their durability and longevity are simply throw away. With increasing pressure on these resources the sheer wastefulness of our approach to plastic consumption may ultimately be a far more powerful lever, acting to reducing the amount of debris that is discarded into the environment, than the hazard that this debris is currently posing to wildlife.

What can be done? In my opinion there are several actions that need to be considered as a priority in order to directly reduce the accumulation of plastic debris in the environment. These are appropriate at a range of levels from individual consumers, through retailers, plastic producers and manufactures to governments. In isolation these may be relatively piecemeal and slow to take effect, but in combination it should be possible to for us to achieve significant advances. As individuals we have a responsibility to dispose of plastic properly via recognised waste disposal routes and a small improvement by us all would substantially reduce the quantity of plastic debris entering the environment. Here the priorities should be to raise public awareness of the problems associate with plastic and to focus on appropriate legislation and enforcement together with appropriate port reception facilities for waste to further reduce the quantities of plastic that are dumped at sea. Further reductions in plastic waste can be achieved by shifting the emphasis from plastic products that are, by virtue of their design or lack of monetary value, regarded as being disposable toward products that can be reused. For example, a shift from thin one-trip carrier bags which are given away by retailers, to more substantial bags that can be re-used, or by encouraging the return of plastic containers by charging a refundable deposit at the point of sale. Most importantly, there needs to be an increased emphasis on recycling plastic. In this respect a lot could be achieved by focusing on packaging such as food cartons that cannot be reused for of health and safety reasons. At present the labels to identify recyclable materials can be difficult for consumers to follow. The wide variety of additives that are used even within the same type of plastic also make it difficult to recycle plastic items in order to make more of the same. For example, it is difficult for a soft drinks bottle to be recycled to become another identical soft drinks bottle because plastic waste that is destined for recycling contains so many different varieties of plastic. Hence much of what we currently recycle is used to produce relatively low-grade plastic with rather limited applications such as pallets and garden furniture. We need to close this loop so that a far greater proportion of plastics are

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 113 Plastic debris in the marine environment retained within a product specific recycling loop. This problem can be addressed by reducing the diversity of plastics that are used in one-trip packaging applications so that a greater proportion can be recycled to make more of the same packaging. We need to colour code such materials so that they are easy to recognise and separate according to a particular recycling streams. There is also a need to reduce the amount and the diversity of disposable packaging that is used purely for the marketing of products. With ever increasing public awareness about sustainability there are considerable opportunities for plastic manufacturers and retailers to work together here to help keep plastic items within a product specific recycling loop (McDonough and Braungart 2002). A further topic that needs to be addressed is the potential value of biodegradable plastics as an approach to reducing the amount of debris in the environment. Most consumers would probably expect that a biodegradable product would degrade completely into harmless components relatively rapidly in a range of natural habitats. This is typically not the case; since most ‘biodegradable’ plastics are designed to biodegrade in industrial composting plants under controlled conditions at high temperature and humidity. Therefore most biodegradable packaging is unlikely to degrade within an acceptable time frame in natural aquatic habitats (Gregory and Andrady 2003) and so current use of the term ‘biodegradable’ is ambiguous and requires clarification. Moreover, it has been suggested that the notion that a product is ‘biodegradable’ can be counterproductive since it may actually promote littering. ‘Biodegradable’ plastics also have the potential to contaminate recyclable waste streams. Therefore international standards on the definitions and appropriate usage of biodegradable materials need to be clarified so that these novel polymers can be used to better advantage. In parallel we need to develop an appropriate range of standardised monitoring tech- niques to asses the success of these measures in reducing the quantities of debris in the environment. While there have been numerous surveys of debris in the environment including large scale surveys and cleaning activities by volunteers in many countries the approaches used are often variable between locations and survey dates making quantitative comparisons difficult. One useful method has been to quantify debris found in the stomachs of dead seabirds (Fulmars) found washed ashore in Northern Europe. These birds feed mainly at sea and are known to ingest plastic hence they integrate the abundance of debris across broad geographic areas. Data collected since 1982 indicate that 98% of these birds have plastic in their stomachs and also show an increase in the amount of consumer related debris over this period. This approach is currently the subject of a pilot study by OSPAR to assess the use of debris in Fulmar stomach to set a target EcoQO (Ecological Quality Objective) for the amount of plastic debris in the sea (Van Franeker et al. 2004,

114 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Plastic debris in the marine environment

Figure 2). This will no doubt prove valuable for assessing changes in the abundance of plastic fragments in the environment. However, we also need to develop approaches that more sensitive to changes in the amount of ‘new’ debris that is entering the ocean each year. It may be possible to use the ‘sell by date’ on packaging to help with this or to work with packaging manufacturers in order to explore ways in which packaging can be marked according to the date of production. In conclusion, the problems associated with the accumulation of plastic debris in the environment and the unsustainable manner in which we currently abuse plastic materials are cause for considerable concern. There are solutions to these problems, some of which would take effect quickly, others will take much longer to develop and implement. Ultimately we need to ensure that plastics are re-used and recycled more effectively. If we can achieve this then there is considerable potential for plastic materials to help us reduce our impacts on the environment, rather then generate them.

Faeroe (38) 26% Target < 2%

44%

A Skagerak (143) Scottish Islands (64)

51%

56% 60% E England (45) B C SE North Sea (308)

Fig. 2: (A) Fulmars are known to ingest plastic debris (B) Example of plastic debris from the stomach of a dead fulmar, 98% of which some plastic in their stomachs. (C) A target EcoQO that <2% of dead birds should have < 0.1g of plastics in their stomachs has been proposed (top right). However, this target is far from being realised. Map shows regional trends, 2002 -2004, for the percentage of birds that had more than 0.1g of plastic in their stomachs. Courtesy of J.A. van Franeker, IMARES, Texel, The Netherlands.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 115 Plastic debris in the marine environment

References Barnes DKA (2002) Biodiversity - Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416: 808-809 Barnes DKA, Milner P (2005) Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 146: 815-825 Colton JB, Knapp FD, Burns BR (1974) Plastic particles in surface waters of the Northwestern Atlantic. Science 185: 491 - 497 Derraik JGB (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852 EA (2001) Plastics in the Environment. Environment Agency Galgani F, Leaute JP, Moguedet P, Souplet A, Verin Y, Carpentier A, Goraguer H, Latrouite D, Andral B, Cadiou Y, Mahe JC, Poulard JC, Nerisson P (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 516-527 Gregory MR (1996) Plastic 'scrubbers' in hand cleansers: A further (and minor) source for marine pollution identified. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32: 867-871 Gregory MR, Andrady AL (2003) Plastics in the marine environemnt. In: Andrady AL (ed) Plastics and the environemnt. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, pp 379- 397 Gregory MR, Ryan PG (1996) Plastic debris and other seabourne persistent debris. In: Coe JM, Rogers DB (eds) Marine Debris. Springer, Berlin, pp 49 - 69 Laist DW (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18: 319 - 326 Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T (2001) Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science & Technology 35: 318-324 McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle. North Point Press, New York Moore CJ, Moore, S. L., Leecaster, M.K.,Weisberg, S. B. (2001) A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1297-1300 Ryan PG, Connell AD, Gardner BD (1988) Plastic Ingestion and PCBs in Seabirds - Is There a Relationship? Marine Pollution Bulletin 19: 174-176 Ryan PG, Moloney CL (1993) Marine Litter Keeps Increasing. Nature 361: 23-23 Thompson R, Moore C, Andrady A, Gregory M, Takada H, Weisberg S (2005) New directions in plastic debris. Science 310: 1117-1117 Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG, McGonigle D, Russell AE (2004) Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304: 838-838 Van Franeker JA, Meijboom A, de Jong ML (2004) Marine litter monitoring by Northern Fulmars in the Netherlands 1982-2003. Alterra, 1093, Wageningen Zitko V, Hanlon M (1991) Another Source of Pollution By Plastics - Skin Cleaners With Plastic Scrubbers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22: 41-42

116 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Plastic debris in the marine environment

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 117 Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas

Han LINDEBOOM IMARES, The Netherlands

Comparing the maps from Olsen’s Piscatorial Atlas published in 1883 with present fish surveys, a clear change of species distribution in the North Sea can be deduced. Many species have disappeared from large areas. Even in Olsen’s time, concern about the fishing pressure was expressed. For the sole (Solea) Olsen wrote:”The Common Sole formerly plentiful now very scarce, requires immediate attention for its preservation or propagation.” His map of the oyster (Ostrea edulis) distribution around 1880 shows a huge oyster area of 20.000 km2 on the Dutch and German Shelf. Olsen wrote: “The oyster is so great a delicacy and so well known that any comment is needless. Hundreds of Oyster culture establishments are multiplying the supply around these [UK] isles, and yet not equal to the task of supplying the demand: but Mother Sea has yet in store a bed or beds of 200 miles in length, and varying even to 70 miles in width, situated between Heligoland and the Dogger Bank, or Bothy Gut. Oyster vessels are now being added to the Great Grimsby fishing fleet.” From then on the oyster beds were heavily fished. In 1936, the last oysters were marketed; around 1970 the last live oysters were caught. Most likely changes in climate or ocean currents, in combination with tremendous over-fishing and possibly diseases lead to the extinction of the oyster on the Dutch and German North Sea shelf. For centuries, the Dutch part of the North Sea has been heavily fished. And since the 1960s a large beam trawl fleet has been harvesting sole and plaice using 4 and 12 m beam trawls with tickler chains that frequently rake most of the sea floor in this area. The direct effects of this type of fisheries are well known. Large amounts of unwanted by-catch are discarded and die. A direct mean mortality of 21% of the benthic fauna over the width of the fish track was established. Groenewold (2000) estimated that per trawl haul of 100m2, 41g (afdw) of fish was caught. Of this amount, 12g was used for human consumption, whereas 29g ended as discards to be eaten by seabirds (8g) or other marine animals (21g). In addition, during that same haul 122g of benthos is left dead or damaged after passing of the trawl, to be eaten by opportunistic demersal fish and other benthos. The effects of this type of fisheries include destruction of habitats and shifts in species composition or age structure of benthic invertebrate and fish communities. Recently, Bergman et al. (2005) compared the macrofauna in a non-fished 500m zone around a gas production platform with fished areas outside that zone. Using a deep digging dredge, suited to sample larger areas and larger infauna, they found clear differences between the fished and non-fished areas. Higher

118 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas abundances of mud shrimps (Callianassa subterranea, Upogebia deltaura) and sensitive bivalves (Arctica islandica, Thracia convexa, Dosinia lupinus, Abra nitida, Cultellus pellucidus) were found in the non-fished area. They concluded that the fact that deep-living mud shrimps are affected by trawling may point to larger consequences for the functioning of the benthic ecosystem than solely the loss of biodiversity. Witbaard (in prep.) studied the fate of the Quahog (Arctica islandica) in the Dutch part of the North Sea and came to the following conclusions: • The Oyster Grounds and Frisian Front have a relatively low abundance of Quahogs (0.06/m2): 20 years ago this was 6 times higher • Beam trawl fisheries cause a large additional mortality upon Quahogs • Model calculations indicate that the Quahog will basically disappear from the Dutch Shelf in 2017 (Bergman & Sandbrink, 2000) • To save Quahogs on the Dutch Shelf, fisheries intensities in areas with relative high densities should be strongly reduced • Quahog populations may be genetically different, and the Dutch population may be unique (Holmes et al., 2003) • Climate changes may lead to a change in Quahog distribution • The central Oyster Grounds are the most suited area to protect Quahogs on the Dutch Shelf • Can Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) turn the tide? Using the distribution of benthic macrofauna , fish, birds and mammals, Lindeboom et al. (2005) identified areas with high ecological values in the Dutch part of the North Sea (Fig.1). In the governmental Integrated Management Plan North Sea 2015, it was announced that four of these areas (Coastal Sea north and south, Frisian Front, Doggerbank and Cleaverbank) will be proposed as MPAs to the EU by the Dutch government. Whether these MPAs will be affective will highly depend upon the measures taken (Lindeboom and Bäck, 2005) and the legal possibilities that EU Directives offer for implementation. In the Integrated Management Plan 2015, it was announced that only new human activities will be subject to protective management. Existing activities will not be challenged or changed. For the time being, this implies that the intensive beam trawl fisheries in the Frisian Front and Oysterground areas will continue, and that the unique Quahog population on the Dutch shelf faces the same fate as the oysters a century ago. In the near future, sustainability targets will be defined for the potential MPAs on the Dutch shelf. However, the development of the marine ecosystem is the result of a

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 119 Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas very complex interplay between natural and human induced causes, the final result being an integrated summation of the effects of manageable and non-manageable factors. When monitoring the development of MPAs one has to take into account effects of climate change, pollution, introduced species and other drivers. To support management, a new tool EMIGMA (Effect Modelling of Indicators, usaGe and MAnagement) was developed by Wageningen IMARES. In this data management system, temporal trends in the development of biota and forcing factors, including human uses, are combined. An easy access system and the possibility to calculate statistic relationships enable scientists and managers to get a quick overview of observed changes and possible causes. For example the declining plaice stocks seem to be correlated to rising water temperatures and declining phosphate loads. But on the other hand EMIGMA shows that the number of dinoflagellates as well as the total biomass of fish in the coastal zone increased in the same period. Weijerman et al. (2005) found proof for regime shifts in the North Sea and Wadden Sea in 1978/79 and 1988/89. Many of the long term data series indicate sudden changes in numbers or biomasses of marine organisms in these years. The shift in 1988/89 has a significant correlation with a temperature shift and could be climate related. More scientific research into the natural and human induced variability of marine ecosystems is needed before conclusions on actual cause-effect relationships can be drawn. This knowledge is also indispensable for management of MPAs. Because what action should be taken if the number of organisms for which an MPA was established suddenly drops. This was experienced when the plaice box was introduced in the late 1980ies, when instead of increasing as predicted, the number of plaice declined. The fishermen blamed biologists for inappropriate advice, but possibly a regime shift explains most of the observed developments. If we do not understand this type of changes, support for the protection of the invisible marine under water habitats and biota by governments, industry and the general public will falter. Long term data collection and scientific research into the functioning of marine ecosystems are a prerequisite for sustainable use and protection.

120 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas

Fig. 1: Areas with special ecological values at the Dutch Continental Shelf. The blue areas have been proposed as possible MPAs. The government decided to drop the Central Oyster Grounds and the central part of the Coastal Sea. The hatched areas need more research before they possibly qualify.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 121 Impacts of bottom-trawling on habitats in European seas

Literature BERGMAN, M.J.N., G.C.A. DUINEVELD and M.S.S.LAVALEYE (2005): Long term closure of an area to fisheries at the Frisian Front (SE North Sea): Effects on the bottom fauna. NIOZ-rapport 2005-6. Pp. 18. BERGMAN, M.J.N. and J.W. VAN SANTBRINK (2000): Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57 : 1321-1331. GROENEWOLD, S. (2000): Effects of beam trawl fishery on the food consumption of scavenging epibenthic invertebrates and demersal fish in the southern North Sea. University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Pp 146. HOLMES, S.P., R.WITBAARD and J.V.D. MEER (2003): Phenotypic and genotypic population differentation in the bivalve mollusc Actica islandica: results from RAPD analyses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 254: 163-176. LINDEBOOM, H.J. and S. BÄCK (2005): Establishing coastal and marine reserves- with the emphasis on fisheries. Pages 103-118 In: Managing European Coasts: Past, Present and Future, J. Vermaat, L.Bouwer, K.Turner, W.Salomons (Eds). Springer-Verlag. LINDEBOOM, H.J., J GEURTS VAN KESSEL and L. BERKENBOSCH (2005): Areas with special ecological values on the Dutch Continental Shelf. Report RIKZ/2005.008; Alterra Report nr. 1203. Pp 103. OLSEN, O.T. (1883): The Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea, English and St. George’s Channels. Taylor and Francis, London. 50 Maps. WEIJERMAN, W., H.J. LINDEBOOM and A.ZUUR (2005): Regime shifts in marine ecosystems of the North Sea and Wadden Sea. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Series 298: 21-39. WITBAARD, R. (in prep). Evaluatie en streefdoelen voor de noordkromp populatie op het Friese Front en in de Oester Gronden. Wageningen-IMARES rapport.

122 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 123 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic

David CONNOR Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), UK

With increasing policy requirements to manage the marine environment in an ecosys- tem-based manner (e.g. OSPAR, European Marine Strategy and proposed Marine Strategy Directive), and active consideration of the needs for improved marine spatial planning mechanisms, information on the nature of the seabed and its habitats is becoming increasingly important for policy makers and environmental managers. However, to date our level of knowledge both at national level and across Europe is extremely patchy and inconsistent, and significantly hampers our ability to develop national and international policies on how best to manage and protect the marine environment. Advances in seabed mapping technologies over the past decade, improvements in data management processes, including web-based GIS dissemination tools, and new national and international programmes are beginning to redress these issues. This paper outlines current initiatives in compiling and harmonising available data, under- taking new survey and modelling, and the development of international programmes which are beginning to provide habitat mapping information across European seas. Consideration is also given as to future needs and policy requirements.

What is marine habitat mapping? In its broadest sense habitat mapping is the mapping of ecological character; this can be related to a single species (the habitat of a species) or to communities of species (such as a mussel bed) (sometimes called biotopes) or to suites of communities such as can occur on rocky reefs (referred to as marine landscapes or seascapes). As such habitat mapping is distinguishable from the mapping of purely physical and hydrographic features, such as seabed substratum or temperature, although such types of data can be very useful in modelling habitat types as such data are important in determining habitat character. For many types of management and policy, there is a need to have this ecological perspective on the marine environment in order to deliver an ecosystem-based approach to management and to protect biodiversity. This paper considers mapping of seabed features at both a coarser marine landscape level and a finer habitat (biotope) classification level. Most studies and new surveys which map relatively small areas tend to map the seabed according to their habitat

124 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic types (e.g. kelp forests, seagrass beds, sandy sediment plains), based upon various types of remote sensed data (e.g. satellite images, sidescan sonar) and ground vali- dation samples (e.g. grab samples, video). For mapping of much larger areas, such as whole seas, a broader marine landscape approach is often adopted which takes more account of major topographic features (the mountains and valleys of the seabed) and which is achieved through modelling geophysical and hydrographic data. Mapping of water column types is also being undertaken (e.g. within the UKSeaMap project), but is not further discussed in this paper.

Management and policy needs for marine habitat mapping Marine habitat maps can support a number of regional, national and international policy, planning and management requirements. Potential uses include: Protection of the marine environment - this can generally be better informed through the availability of such maps, allowing all users and managers to have a better understanding of the nature and distribution of marine seabed features; this is especially important because European countries have such extensive areas of sea to manage and protect and this environment is largely hidden from sight. Strategic planning advice to industry - the availability of ecological seabed maps should enable strategic advice to industry to take account of the distribu- tion and extent of particular seabed features. In particular, it should be possible to assess whether specific industries may potentially have disproportionate impacts on particular types of seabed feature (at a national or regional level) and offer advice accordingly. Marine spatial planning – the emerging developments in marine spatial plan- ning could be much better informed and follow the ecosystem-based approach to management, through the availability of habitat maps. Marine spatial plan- ning is being considered both by national governments and at the regional level (e.g. by OSPAR). Marine protected areas – within an overall balanced approach to marine envi- ronmental management, MPAs play an important role, both in protecting specific features and in providing a refuge for biodiversity generally; as such they can provide the reference areas against which the state of the rest of the marine environment can be assessed (for instance as required by the Water Framework Directive). In the latter role, the identification of a suite of MPAs which representative the full range of ecological character present is important. The availability of holistic landscape and habitat maps will allow such a

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 125 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic

representative suit of MPAs to be identified; this would help fulfil OSPAR and HELCOM obligations for the development of representative networks of MPAs. Monitoring and surveillance programmes - to adequately assess the state of the marine environment, it is necessary to establish programmes which sample across the range of ecological features and have a sound geographical spread of sampling stations. The availability of broadscale habitat maps should ena- bling sampling stations to be distributed in a more ecologically relevant manner. This should be an important consideration for the developing monitor- ing and assessment strategies for implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the proposed Marine Strategy Directive (MSD). European Directives – implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the proposed Marine Strategy Directive, both of which are based on an ecosys- tem approach, should be better informed through the availability of marine habitat maps. The Marine Strategy Directive requires an initial characterisation of Member States’ marine waters, which includes a description of the main habitat types and mapping of important habitats. Both WFD and MSD require periodic assessments of status, which include habitat types. Implementation of the Habitats Directive in offshore waters is being undertaken by many Member States and requires significant new information on the distribution, extent and character of the Annex I habitat types.

Current status of marine habitat mapping in Europe There have been many technical advances over the past decade or so which have led to improved capability in both field survey techniques and in processing, interpret- ing and presenting of habitat mapping data. Seabed mapping has become an increasingly popular and important aspect of many branches of marine environmental management, with many sectors embracing the need for seabed maps to support their activities. These range from industries like oil and gas, aggregate extraction and renewable energy (e.g. wind-farm developments), which undertake seabed surveys as part of their Environmental Assessments prior to new developments, to the fisheries, nature conservation and heritage sectors. For field surveys, it is now accepted best practice to undertake new studies using a combination of complimentary techniques which include a remote-sensing element to provide wide area (often 100%) coverage of the shore or seabed and a ground- truthing element to provide the biological samples which validate the remote-sensed ‘signatures’ (see recent reports of the ICES Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping: www.ices.dk/reports/MHC/). Remote sensing is undertaken by various techniques including satellite imagery, aerial photography, Lidar, Casi, multibeam

126 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic sonar, sidescan sonar and interferometric sonar. The ground validation is done using intertidal surveyors, divers, remote video and grabs, cores or trawls. See www.searchMESH.net for a review of available techniques. Processing and interpretation of data are now greatly enhanced with improved soft- ware to speed up the processing of remote-sensed data, whilst Geographical Informa- tion Systems (GIS) have transformed the preparation and display of maps from their traditional paper form and now enable Internet delivery of dynamic mapping facilities. Despite these technical advances, there remain significant challenges: Few countries have national programmes or strategies in place to systemati- cally survey and map their waters. Often there are multiple uncoordinated surveys which lead to patchy data of variable quality and an inability to aggre- gate the data into maps covering larger areas. Most countries therefore have very limited and patchy coverage in habitat mapping. Exceptions to this are the national programmes for: Ireland (Irish National Seabed Survey and its successor InfoMar: www.gsiseabed.ie, www.marine.ie), France (Rebent: www.rebent.org) and Norway (Mareano: www.imr.no/english/activities/ mareano). Surveys are undertaken using a variety of techniques to unknown or differing standards and there are few standards specifically for marine habitat mapping itself. Consequently the data emanating from such surveys is of quite variable quality. Interpretation of the data into habitat types for display on maps is typically undertaken according to local (i.e. within study area) classification schemes, making it very difficult to aggregate data from different studies. There is limited use of national or international habitat classification schemes which help en- sure consistency of data interpretation between studies. Mapping data are typically not archived in designated national data archiving systems; access to the data and resulting maps is often very difficult or impossible, leading to poor use (re-use) of data which are costly to collect, which could have multiple uses if made available to others and which could be contributing to provide a more comprehensive picture of our seabed resources. Lack of metadata and data standards additionally is a barrier to sharing and re- using data.

Recent mapping and classification initiatives A number of recent initiatives are helping to address the problems described above by laying the foundations for mobilising existing data, facilitating data sharing,

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 127 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic harmonising data interpretation, establishing standards and developing international mapping programmes. Some of these are outlined below.

EUNIS The European Nature Information System (EUNIS) habitat classification is a pan- European system, which has been developed by the European Environment Agency in collaboration with experts across Europe. It covers all types of natural and artificial habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial (http://eunis.eea.eu.int/habitats.jsp) and aims to provide a comprehensive classification of habitats set in a hierarchical framework which will facilitate consistent reporting of habitat information amongst European countries. The marine components of EUNIS were originally developed from the 1997 BioMar classification for Britain and Ireland with additional habitats added for the Baltic (from the Helsinki Convention) and the Mediterranean (from the Barcelona Convention). The north-east Atlantic elements were further developed through co-operative work between the OSPAR Convention, ICES and the EEA leading to proposals for a revised classification which, together with an updated classification for Britain and Ireland (Connor et al. 2004), were incorporated into EUNIS in 2004. The marine classification is now under further development as part of a programme led by the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD), which intends to improve the classification for all European seas by 2009. On behalf of the ETC/BD, the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) are continuing work to improve the north-east Atlantic and Baltic sections, particularly through the practical use of the classification in mapping programmes (see for example MESH below), relating the classification to remote-sensed data and issuing guidance on proposals for new habitat types and a correlation table which converts the EUNIS marine classification to the following schemes (www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3365): The marine habitat classification for Britain and Ireland (version 0405) EC Habitats Directive Annex I types OSPAR priority habitat types UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat types

MESH The Interreg-funded programme MESH (Development of a framework for mapping European seabed habitats) (www.searchMESH.net) extends over the north-west European countries of the Netherlands, Belgium, France (northern part), Ireland and the UK.

128 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic

MESH has a number of key elements: 1. To provide a metadata catalogue of habitat mapping and studies and related datasets (acoustic data, images etc). This is available online and has a search- able function to allow easy access to the data available. 2. To prepare the first harmonised marine habitat maps for north-west Europe. Maps from a wide variety of sources are being collated into a common GIS format within each of the five MESH countries. The maps are then ‘translated’ into the common language of the EUNIS classification (and also the Habitats Directive Annex I types and the OSPAR priority habitats), aggregated together at national and then international level and disseminated via a bespoke webGIS facility (www.searchMESH.net/webGIS). Data are transferred between the countries in a series of agreed Data Exchange Formats (DEFs), which help promote the use of consistent data formats for mapping data. 3. To establish standards and protocols for habitat mapping so that future surveys can be undertaken to approved and quality assured standards, yielding data and maps that are interoperable. Each of the main habitat mapping techniques has been reviewed (www.searchmesh.net/default.aspx?page=1442). A com- prehensive and practical web-based guide to habitat mapping is being prepared which will include best practice guidance on each technique, advice on survey strategies to suit particular end needs and environments, guidance on the integration of multiple techniques and on the interpretation and dissemi- nation of habitat mapping information in a consistent manner. 4. To undertake new field surveys to test and further develop the protocols and standards, to prepare maps of new areas and to provide data to support other aspects of the project. 5. To produce models which will predict the distribution of habitat types based on the use of several physical or hydrographic datasets. Such models are impor- tant, as significant areas of the seabed remain unmapped. Reliance on existing mapping data will yield only patchy maps and new surveys to produce more comprehensive maps will take many years to complete. 6. To demonstrate the use of habitat maps through a series of case studies, in- cluding in relation to fisheries, aggregate extraction and the identification of representative suites of Marine Protected Areas. The MESH project is therefore developing a series of techniques and tools which should greatly facilitate habitat mapping and the sharing and aggregation of data in the future. A forward strategy is being prepared to help ensure the maps developed can continue to be added to and improved beyond the end of the project in 2007.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 129 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic

UKSeaMap The UKSeaMap project was started in 2004 in recognition that, for the extensive waters under UK jurisdiction (about 1.2million km2), only a very small proportion has been comprehensively mapped. The lack of a comprehensive ecological map for UK waters is hampering implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to manage- ment of the marine environment and delivery of government policies on sustainable use of the sea and improved protection for its biodiversity. UKSeaMap aims to use available geological, physical and hydrographical data, com- bined where possible with ecological information, to produce a simple interpreted broadscale and ecologically relevant map of the dominant seabed, coastal and water column features (referred to as ‘marine landscapes’) for the whole sea area under UK jurisdiction. The resultant maps are intended to provide a national-level understanding of the range, extent and distribution of these broadscale features (marine landscapes) in UK waters. The broadscale modelling of UKSeaMap, with its emphasis on topographic features (the mountains and valleys of the sea), compliments the finer-scale habitat mapping being undertaken in MESH (see above). For the seabed, the following datasets, with an indication of their relevance to ecological mapping, have been prepared in GIS: Bathymetric slope – slope values derived from bathymetric data can be used to identify major topographic features and smaller bed-forms, such as pinnacles, trenches and sandbanks. Seabed substratum – the nature of the substratum (sand, mud) has a marked influence on the biological communities which live in or on them. Light attenuation – determines the depth to which macroalgae (e.g. kelp) can grow Depth – increasing depth brings greater stability (in terms of temperature, salinity, wave action) and greater pressure, both factors to which biological communities respond. Bottom temperature – broad biogeographic patterns across UK waters are re- flected in major temperature changes. Wave-base – the depth to which waves can penetrate the sea and thus disturb the seabed and its communities varies considerably around the coast. Near-bed stress – bottom current has a strong influence on both the character of the seabed (sediment type, formation of surface features such as sand waves and ripples) and the biological communities it supports. The datasets were summarised across a 0.02 decimal degrees (about one nautical mile) raster grid and analysed in a supervised classification to develop a marine

130 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic landscape map for UK waters. To this was added a series of topographic and bed- form features (identified from bathymetric slope data and other sources) and coastal features, such as estuaries and sealochs. The resultant map (see Figure) has been ecologically validated by comparing the expected biological character of each land- scape type (according to habitat classes from EUNIS) with ground-validation data from grabs, trawls and videos (Connor et al. 2006). The maps and underlying datasets are available in a webGIS application (www.jncc.gov.uk/UKSeaMap).

Fig. 1: Marine landscape map developed in the UKSeaMap project (Connor et al. 2006).

Mapping of habitats on the OSPAR Initial List In 2004 the OSPAR Commission adopted an Initial List of 14 habitats (together with a set of species) which were considered to be under threat or in decline and needed priority action for their protection. To accompany work within its Biodiversity Commit- tee to develop programmes and measure for their protection, a habitat mapping project was started, which aimed to collate the available information on the distribu- tion of these habitat types across the OSPAR area (north-east Atlantic). This was particularly necessary as there was, at that time, no mechanisms at the international

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 131 Marine habitat mapping programmes in the north-east Atlantic level in Europe to collate information on the distribution and extent of marine habitats.26 Point distribution data on each of the fourteen habitat types is being submitted by each of the 12 coastal OSPAR Contracting Parties for collation by JNCC and dis- semination via a bespoke web mapping facility (www.searchNBN.net/hosted/ospar/ ospar.html).

Future considerations With the considerable momentum in marine habitat mapping programmes across much of Europe, and an ever increasing demand and policy requirement for seabed maps, including in support of European legislation, there is a need to further develop on the initiatives outlined above: • Fill gaps in data coverage • Short term – mobilise existing data (as in MESH) and modelling (e.g. UKSeaMap) • Longer term - new survey (as per national surveys such as in Ireland) • Harmonise the data (maps) • Improve its interoperability • Use of common classifications • Extend mapping to other countries (beyond the MESH countries) • Develop applications for mapping • Relationship to human activities and their impacts • Sensitivity mapping • Spatial planning mechanisms, including MPAs • Strategic planning

References

CONNOR, D.W., ALLEN, J.H., GOLDING, N., HOWELL, K.L. LIEBERKNECHT, L.M., NORTHEN, K.O. and REKER, J.B. (2004): The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05 (internet version: www.jncc.gov.uk/Marine HabitatClassification). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough CONNOR, D.W., GOLDING, N, ROBINSON, P., TODD, D., and VERLING, E. (2006): UKSeaMap: The mapping of marine seabed and water column features of UK seas. Final report. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

26 www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html and follow links 'Protection and conservation of Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystems‘ then 'Mapping of habitats on the initial list‘)

132 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 133 Climate change and surface ocean acidification Climate change, surface ocean acidification and their impacts on European seas

1 2 3 Dan d’A. LAFFOLEY , Steve HAWKINS & Carol TURLEY 1English Nature, UK. 2The Marine Biological Association of the UK,. 3Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK.

At Christmas 1968 the Apollo astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders enthralled a large proportion of the people of earth by showing them for the first time, in the now famous ‘earth rise’ pictures, the sight of their home from space – our entire world as a small, blue and very finite globe, with our nearest celestial neighbour a desolate presence in the foreground. The ‘blue planet’ is of course due to the preponderance of oceans covering its surface. It was a moment in history that even today ranks as one of the most important photographs taken. Thirty-six years later we look back at earth from space and we are confronted by another moment in history. For now we are poised not just to be altering our climate, due to elevated carbon dioxide emissions, but also the very functionality of our oceans and seas covering the majority of its surface. This is as the same increased levels of carbon dioxide begin to alter its pH balance to make it more acidic. Our oceans occupy around 70% of our planet and are home to the greater part of the world’s biodiversity, much of which is specially adapted to live in a narrow range of conditions. The oceans both shape and help regulate our climate at regional and global scales. Any impacts on the oceans will accordingly affect us all, now and in the future. It is now evident though that permanent, large-scale changes to physical and chemical processes and marine biodiversity now appear inevitable. The route cause of these impacts is the rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

For the last twenty million years or so the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained between 200 – 270 parts per million by volume. This has risen dramatically to around 381 ppm in 2006 due to our anthropogenic emissions. Scientists have recently lowered the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that represents the ‘tipping point’, beyond which we will not be able to manage the resultant climate effects. A recent conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change in 2005 in Exeter, UK (see http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html), concluded that the tipping point is probably around 400 ppm CO2. As we give out roughly 2 ppm CO2 per year, this means that the tipping point will be reached in about 10 years time, based on the emission levels connected to ‘business as usual’. Alongside increasing levels of CO2 has been a change to surface temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect,

134 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Climate change and surface ocean acidification which has resulted in dramatic increases in temperature on land and in the surface of our seas in recent years, especially since the late 1990s. In the context of our European seas, the average sea surface temperatures has increased by about 0.6oC since the late nineteenth century and, as a result, the average global sea-level is rising steadily, due to thermal expansion of sea water coupled with increasing melt of ice from glaciers and ice sheets. Such rising sea levels present a clear threat to some coastal habitats that are unable to adapt to such a pace of change. In England, and elsewhere in Europe, habitats such as saltmarshes are particularly vulnerable as they often exist seaward to fixed coastal defence structures. They are unable to naturally migrate landwards. Between 1972 and 1997 25% of the saltmarsh in Essex has been lost due to this effect. In the longer-term, however, rising sea levels fuelled by increasing melting of ice at the poles will have much further reaching consequences. This is because of the relationship with ice in the Arctic and the redistribution of thermal energy in the seas by ocean currents. One issue of particular concern is how the reduced southerly deepwater flows of dense cold water from the pole may impact the nature and strength of the Gulf Stream and north Atlantic drift, which maintain Western Europe at warmer temperatures compared to Labrador, at the same latitude across the Atlantic. It is difficult to study such impacts as it is not possible to measure the strength of the Gulf Stream directly. Since 1957 samples have been taken of the strength and direction of water flow at depth along a transect between West Africa and the Bahamas. Of concern is a possible weakening of the return leg of the Gulf Stream as it flows at deep levels down past Africa. The study (Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, & S.A. Cunningham 2005) showed a recent 30% weakening of its strength, which may be a reorganisation of current patterns or possible something more serious such as a weakening in strength as many of the climate models predict. Weakening of the thermo-haline circulations are factored into global climate models, which predict huge temperature increases (see www.ipcc.ch). Any changes in current patterns bringing warmer waters to our shores, or a general increase in ocean temperature, will have significant impacts on our marine wildlife and the benefits we obtain from it (Southward, A.J., et al. 2004). This is because the UK and countries in Western Europe sit beside seas which bridge the junction between cold artic waters and its wildlife to the north, and warmer waters to the south with its own distinctive flora and fauna. Any climate changes that move the junction of the warmer and colder waters further north will be amplified in the response of species well adapted to their current distribution ranges. As on land, for example, where spring is happening earlier, so in the sea we are also seeing profound changes to the growing seas for marine plants in the plankton

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 135 Climate change and surface ocean acidification

(Beaugrand, G., et al. 2002, Edwards, M. & A.J. Richardson 2004). We have shifted from a situation up to the mid 1980s where there was a pronounced spring and autumn bloom and no growth in the winter, to a situation where growth is more or less continuous throughout the year. Alongside such changes is a redistribution of the plankton species themselves. As the waters have warmed so warm water taxa have advanced further north while cold water taxa have retreated northwards. It is not just the smaller microscopic species such and plankton that are showing profound responses to changing conditions in our seas. Recent studies have shown that larger species are also changing their distributions, such as fish (Attrill, M.J. & M. Power 2002, Beare, D.J., et al. 2004, Genner, M.J., et al. 2004, Quero, J.C. 1998). Over the last 25 years the range of nearly two-thirds of North Sea species - including commercially important fish such as cod and haddock - have shifted either further north or to colder depths (Perry, A. et al. 2005). In recent years bass has spread up into the North Sea, John Dory has expanded its range, red mullet have become more abundant, and species such as trigger fish are more frequently found in the waters of the English Channel. Of longer-term concern is not necessarily that some fish species may move further north but prey species may not show such responses. This could lead to ecosystem decoupling as predator and prey respond in different ways. Such changes in open waters are also being seen on the seashore. Since the later 1950s studies have been undertaken around the UK on the relative distribution on northern and southern species of barnacles, top shells and limpets (Mieszkowska et al. 2005). These species are easily studied and are now showing pronounced effects from elevated temperature, and, just like plankton, showing range expansions for warm water species, whilst the colder water ones retreat northwards. Alongside such impacts from changing climate are the less obvious implications for our seas of elevated concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution our oceans have taken up around half of the CO2 produced by human activities such as burning fossil fuels (Sabine et al 2004). This is a major pathway for removing CO2 from the air and it is absorbed into the sea through the ‘carbonate buffer’. Vastly elevated atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now impacting the carbonate buffer, causing a release of hydrogen ions, which results in the seas becoming more acidic. Studies of the ice cores, surrogates such as boron isotopes and plant stomata, and direct measurements all show that since pre-industrial revolution times we have changed the pH of our seas to be 0.1 units more acidic. This equates to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions in the last 200 years.

Business as usual projections for future rises in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 indicates that a further pH shift totalling 0.5 units and 0.7 units is possible by 2100 and 2250 respectively (Caldera & Wicket 2003). The pH of our seas has changed over the earth’s history. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is now, however,

136 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Climate change and surface ocean acidification

100 times greater than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia (Turley et al 2006). The issue is therefore the unprecedented speed of change and whether marine species can adapt to the consequences that this will bring for ocean chemistry, their physiology, and their life cycles. The consequences of such changes will continue for hundreds or even thousands of years because of the inertia in the atmosphere and oceans. The reason that surface ocean acidification is potentially so serious is that changing the pH alters the balance of chemicals and the form or ‘speciation’ in which they exist. Just a small increase in acidity (pH being a log scale) has a tremendous impact on the balance between, for example, ammonia and ammonium. The decrease in carbonate chemistry is of great concern as there will be a global decrease in carbonate ions in the form of calcite and aragonite which are used by many marine organisms to make their shells and hard skeletons (Orr et al. 2005, Feely et al. 2004). The phenomenon of ocean acidification was only broadly recognised by the scientific community in 2003, and since then many scientists are conducting experiments to determine what this may mean to marine life. Some clues exist from laboratory experiments conducted at acidity levels at or beyond worst case scenarios of acidity that could be caused by atmospheric emissions. Here zooplankton suffered high mortality (Kurihara & Shirayama 2004 a& b), those with calcium carbonate shells are thought to be very vulnerable, and reduced fertilization is evident. Species with calcium carbonate shells may be particularly vulnerable, such as coccolithophores, which act as the carbon pathway from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. They also produce dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which is though to be important in cloud formation. Other species such as the small snail-like plankton called pteropods form the basis of cold-water food chains. Accordingly any impacts on such species could be very significant to our seas and our climate. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that other species in the seabed (Shirayama & Thornton 2005, Kurihara & Shirayama 2004), which help recycle nutrients back into the marine food chain, could also be hard hit, possibly impacting how energy flows though our marine ecosystems (Blackford and Gilbert 2006). Recent studies are now predicting that surface ocean acidification will impact entire groups of species (Riebesell et al. 2000, Caldeira & Wickett 2003, Orr et al. 2005, Royal Society 2005, Kleypas et al. 2006, JGR 2005, Hoegh-Guldberg 2005, Turley et al. 2006, Haugen et al. 2006). In the tropics warm water corals are already being impacted by the intolerance of species to higher seawater temperatures and ocean acidification will just add to their stress (Hoegh-Guldberg 2005). In such situations the endosymbiotic algae are ejected from the host coral. Denied of their source of energy, bleaching occurs and the individuals can die. For deep water, cold water corals in northern waters around Europe it is expected that it will not be temperature that

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 137 Climate change and surface ocean acidification affects these species first, but rather the reduced concentration of aragonite, the carbonate ion they use to make their skeletons. The reason for this is due to the great depths at which they live and how ocean chemistry is expected to be impacted as surface ocean acidification takes effect. These deep water corals live beyond the penetration of sunlight and have no endosymbiotic algae, but they do need a aragonite at sufficient concentrations to be able to secrete their stable coral skeleton. The depth at which aragonite concentrations are sufficient to enable this to occur is related to the acidity of the seawater. With increasing acidity, due to changes in the carbonate buffer, the saturation horizon for aragonite will move upwards towards the surface, with the prediction that with continuing emission levels there will frequently be insufficient aragonite at depth for such species to prosper by 2100 (Guinotte et al. 2006). In our seas a planned response to climate change could involve monitoring changes and reducing human activities that endanger ecosystem functioning. There must be greater ambition to tackle pollution, unsustainable fishing practices and other damaging activities. Measures might also be taken to maintain and enhance areas of conservation value and protect ecosystem functioning. Alongside this the use of new technologies for carbon capture and storage beneath the seabed will be seen as an attractive option for the future, combined with greater use of marine ‘renewable’ such as wind, wave, and tidal current generation technologies. The direction of many of the changes brought about by climate change and acidification is fairly certain, but their timing, rate, magnitude and consequences are often far less so. Moreover, we are facing often unprecedented changes at a time when we know little about many species and habitats and the way they interact. We are also far from having a complete understanding of the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes in the oceans. Seeing our home from space has brought many issues into sharp focus. Back in the 1990s when one of the original space probes, Voyager 2, was leaving our solar system, mission control asked it to turn around one last time and photograph the planets it had passed by on its mission. Unexpectedly from around four billion miles away it photographed earth. From that distance we show up as a pale blue dot. From this distance the preponderance of ocean is what matters – and so indeed it does matter overwhelmingly to life on earth as it shapes and regulates our world. The Voyager picture also shows there is not a lot else around here. So perhaps the key point in conclusion is that we need to take climate change and surface ocean acidification very seriously indeed, if we and our following generations are to have a future and prosper on planet earth.

138 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Climate change and surface ocean acidification

References:

ATTRILL, M.J. and M. POWER (2002): Climatic influence on a marine fish assemblage. Nature. 417: p. 275-278. BEARE, D.J., et al. (2004): Long-term increases in prevalence of North Sea fishes having southern biogeographic affinities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 284: p. 269-278. BEAUGRAND, G., et al. (2002): Reorganization of North Atlantic marine copepod biodiversity and climate. Science 296: 1692-1694.

BLACKFORD, J.C., and GILBERT, F.J. (2006): pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems. Available online doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.03.016. BRYDEN, H.L., H.R. LONGWORTH & S.A. CUNNINGHAM (2005): Slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26.5°N, Nature, 438 (10.1038), 655-657 CALDEIRA, K. and M. E. WICKETT (2003). Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 365. EDWARDS, M. and A.J. RICHARDSON, (2004): Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430: 881- 884. FEELY R. A., SABINE C. L., LEE K., BERELSON W., KLEYPAS J., FABRY, V. J., and F. J. MILLERO (2004): Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO2 system in the ocean. Science 305, 362–366. GENNER, M.J., et al. (2004): Regional climatic warming drives long-term community changes of British marine fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Biological Sciences. 271(1539): 655-661. GUINOTTE, J.M., ORR, J., CAIRNS, S., FREIWALD, A., MORGAN, L., and R. GEORGE (2006) Will human-induced changes in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian corals? Front. Ecol. Environ., 4, 141–146. HAUGAN, P.M; TURLEY,C; and POERTNER, H.O (2006): Effects on the marine environment of ocean acidification resulting from elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, DN-utredning 2006-1, 1-36.

HOEGH-GULDBERG O. (2005): Low coral cover in a high-CO2 world. J. Geochem. Res. – Oceans 110, C09S06, doi:10.1029/2004JC002528. JGR (2005): The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO and Scientific Committee of Oceanic Research (SCOR) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) co-host a symposium on the potential environmental consequences of using the deep ocean for intentional storage of CO2 and to address for the first time the consequences of higher atmospheric CO2 on the oceans, its chemistry and the organisms and ecosystems within them. The symposium “The Ocean in a High CO2 World” was held in Paris on May 2004 (http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/co2panel/HighOceanCO2.htm). Key scientific papers from the symposium were published in a special issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110 in 2005. KLEYPAS, J.A., R.A. FEELY, V.J. FABRY, C. LANGDON, C.L. SABINE, and L.L. ROBBINS, (2006): Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL, sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, 88 pp.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 139 Climate change and surface ocean acidification

KURIHARA H, SHIMODE S and SHIRAYAMA Y (2004a): Sub-lethal effects of elevated concentration of CO2 on planktonic copepods and sea urchins. Journal of Oceanography 60, 743–750.

KURIHARA H, SHIMODE S and SHIRAYAMA Y (2004b): Effects of raised CO2 concentration on the egg production rate and early development of two marine copepods (Arctia steuri and Acartia erythraea). Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 721–727.

KURIHARA, H. and SHIRAYAMA, Y. (2004c): Effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on sea urchin early development. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274, 161-169. MIESZKOWSKA, N., LEAPER, R., MOORE, P., KENDALL, M. A., BURROWS, M. T., LEAR, D., POLOCZANSKA, E., HISCOCK, K., MOSCHELLA, P. S., THOMPSON, R. C., HERBERT, R. J., LAFFOLEY, D., BAXTER, J., SOUTHWARD, A. J. and HAWKINS, S. J. (2005): Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change Assessing and Predicting the Influence of Climatic Change Using Intertidal Rocky Shore. Marine Biological Association of the UK. ORR, J. C., V. J. FABRY, O. AUMONT, L. BOPP, S. C. DONEY, R. A. FEELY, A. GNANADESIKAN, N. GRUBER, A. ISHIDA, F. JOOS, R. M. KEY, K. LINDSAY, E. MAIER-REIMER, R. MATEAR, P. MONFRAY, A. MOUCHET, R. G. NAJJAR, G.-K. PLATTNER, K. B. RODGERS, C. L. SABINE, J. L. SARMIENTO, R. SCHLITZER, R. D. SLATER, I. J. TOTTERDELL, M.-F. WEIRIG, Y. YAMANAKA, and A. YOOL (2005): Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437, 681-686. PERRY, A. et al. (2005): Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine Fishes. Science 308 (5724), 937. QUERO, J.C. (1998): Changes in the Euro-Atlantic fish species composition resulting from fishing and ocean warming. Italian Journal of Zoology. 65: p. 493-499. RIEBESELL U, ZONDERVAN I, ROST B, TORTELL P D, ZEEBE R and MOREL F M (2000): Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 407, 364–367. ROYAL SOCIETY (2005): Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Policy document 12/05 Royal Society: London. The Clyvedon Press Ltd, Cardiff, UK, 68pp. SABINE C L, FEELY R A, GRUBER N, KEY R M, LEE K, BULLISTER J L, WANNINKHOF R, WONG C S, WALLACE D W R, TILBROOK B, MILLERO F J, PENG T H, KOZYR A, ONO T and RIOS A F (2004): The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305, 367–371.

SHIRAYAMA, Y. and THORNTON, H. (2005): Effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on shallow water marine benthos. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 110, No. C9, C09S08 10.1029/2004JC002618 SOUTHWARD, A.J., et al. (2004): Long-term oceanographic and ecological research in the western English Channel. Advances in Marine Biology 47: 1-105. TURLEY, C., BLACKFORD, J., WIDDICOMBE, S., LOWE, D., NIGHTINGALE, P.D. and REES, A. P. (2006): Reviewing the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the marine ecosystem. In: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Schellnhuber, H J., Cramer,W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe, G (Eds). Cambridge University Press, 8, 65-70.

140 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 141

Solutions for Protecting the Marine Biodiversity

142 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 143 Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation

Michael TÜRKAY Senckenberg Research Institute, Germany

Taxonomy is one of the oldest disciplines of biology. It can be defined as the science of the detection, description and classification of taxa. The basic taxon is the species, a unit which does not mix with other such units under natural conditions, thus leading to discernible units. On higher taxonomic levels the discontinuity caused by evolution- ary history is as clear as it is at the species rank. This discontinuity is a basic property of life. For some time this has been denied by modern biology, but in our days we rediscover that living beings are not just spots in a continuum. Biology is moving back to its roots, not being the science of life, but the science of living beings. There is no life as such, life can only be perceived in many different and ever specific forms, being specific answers to diverse specific conditions of our planet. The concept of “biodiversity” captured this hierarchical complexity of life in a single term and was therefore very successful. Biodiversity is not simply a synonym of or a buzz word for species numbers. It means complexity on all levels of life: genetic, species, construc- tion plans, ecosystems (Figure 1). Nevertheless, it is impossible to meaningfully deal with biodiversity if taxonomy is omitted. The “actors” in our biodiverse nature are the species and they are the objects of evolution. Therefore it matters knowing or not knowing of which kind of biodiversity we are talking in a given system. Ecological functions are always attached to individual species and differ in specific quality from one species to the other, making the systems with different actors also different. Taxonomy is a scientific discipline with her hypotheses, concepts and theories that deal with the management, understanding and explanation of biological diversity. The methods used are very diverse: molecular biology, genetics, morphology, histology, fine-structure, behaviour, bioacoustics, every possibility of distinguishing organisms can be used for the detection of differences. If this is done with finer and finer observation at the end differences between individuals will be the obvious result. In front of the situation that no two individuals in nature are exactly identical, the science of taxonomy offers concepts to circumscribe taxa. This shows that it is not a mere register of distinguishable objects, but that the circumscription of taxa is a scientific decision. In fact, in nature we only observe individuals. Also, a certain kind of discontinuity among groups of individuals is perceivable. By classifying and grouping the individu- als we individuals them from the world of “non science” into the world of science. The specimens extracted from nature for examination are incorporated into collections and

144 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation are regarded as representative samples of all other individuals out there in nature. Therefore it is presumed that classifications worked out on the basis of such collec- tions reflect a correct understanding of our natural environment. Of course, nobody can ever be sure that the sampling was representative and that he did not miss any exceptional specimens. This shows that collections are snapshots documenting the occurrence of a certain species at a certain place at a certain time. But beyond that, they are also snapshots of our knowledge and our concepts within a given period. Through the documented identification by a specific scientist they get part of a cultural heritage, which explains ways of thinking and classifying in the present and past. The specimens are now more than just corpses of individuals taken from nature. They are part of our scientific infrastructure. Whenever we put a name on an individual we logically attach it to a given unit, a taxo- nomic concept. This process is called determination. Determining a specimen is more than just putting a name on it. It is the claim that it shares the properties of all other individuals that bare the same name, and its specific features get part of the taxon’s features, expanding them accordingly. Re-identification of a specimen formerly attrib- uted to another species cuts the former relation and sets new ones, thus affecting also our understanding of the species to which the specimen was formerly attributed. Biological disciplines applying taxonomy for their needs, i. e. using taxonomic units are affected by name changes and reclassifications. In Biology we use the name of a species in order to claim that our results are comparable to earlier ones, gathered from specimens that were assigned the same name. In environmental studies, for example, species lists are produced and compared to earlier ones. The question is, how differences have to be interpreted. The detection of two closely related but different species at different periods in a give area can be caused by faunal change or by a change in the circumscription of the species. In this last case, it is necessary to know if the earlier author had, in fact, the species before him that we also have today. In this case he would either have misidentified it or the circumscription of the species at that time was different from our today’s understanding. The second possibility is that he, indeed, had a specimen that also in our today’s understanding would corre- spond to the name given to it by the original author. It is obvious that in case 1 we have no faunal change, while in case 2 there is such a change. This example shows that the only way of relating taxon-based information to earlier ones goes through the way of examining the specimens involved. Collections, thus, serve as unchangeable co-ordinate systems for the calibration of taxon-related results across longer periods. It is therefore necessary that specimens are collected and archived during environ- mental assessment studies if these are to be used again for long term comparison. The crucial role of taxonomy and collections in recognising environmental change and needed protection measures is not reflected in the perception of the scientific

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 145 Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation communities of our days. The so called “modern biology” thought that the classical disciplines are not any more of primary interest and resources have moved out of taxonomy. In many countries we reached a critical point with too few specialists to meet the needs of environmental sciences. There is some hectical movements in a number of places now to overcome what is felt to be a problem. But: taxonomy is a long term business and a sound knowledge of a taxonomic group cannot be learned with a few weeks. This means that the infrastructure has to be intact in order to have offspins not only in environmental but also in technical meaningful subjects. The National Science Foundation in the United States of America was the first large organisation to react in 1995 by launching an initiative for the education of the next generation of taxonomists called PEET (= Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy). More recently the CBD and SBSTTA have acknowledged the existence of a taxonomic impediment worldwide and have proposed measures to remove this impediment (Darwin declaration, 1998). The “Global Taxonomic Intiative” (GTI) was endorsed at the meeting of the parties of the CBD in Bratislava in 1998. However, in spite of increasing national activities in biodiversity research, there is no movement towards an initiative like PEET in countries outside the US. The missing political initiatives for the recovery of taxonomy on a broad scale are sur- prising, because since 1992 the term “biodiversity” has been widely used in biology and policy making. Two reasons seem to be hindering taxonomy to take advantage of the general appreciation trend. First, the perception that biodiversity is more than taxonomy, has been understood in the way that it is not necessary to support taxon- omy sufficiently in order to get answers to questions on biodiversity. Second, modern, molecular methods that came up rapidly raised hope and expectation that results would be obtained more efficiently and quicker than with classical approaches. In this connection it must be clearly stated that molecular methods have increased the potential of routine identification work and the detection of differences of genomes. However, they are not the solution to all problems that classical taxonomy can tackle. Of course bar-coding and molecular taxonomy have to be promoted and much more widely used, but not “instead” of classical methods that have also to be promoted. Promotion of molecular taxonomy can and should not be seen under the aspect of saving on current expenses. This would be really endanger the whole of taxonomy. It can be seen under an economic aspect concerning the growing demands of high quality routine identification for environmental studies for which nobody could afford employing armies of well trained taxonomists on a long term basis. Conservation makes only sense if it deals with specific environments populated by specific communities of native species. It makes no sense, just to protect a function- ing ecosystem with a certain energy and organic matter turnover that has nothing to do with the original native ecosystems. Taxonomic baseline studies of earlier years

146 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Taxonomy – the endangered foundation of marine conservation can help to define the targets of a necessary restoration. Continued research and sampling allows to detect changes in a time where they are only observed by special- ists and are not obvious to protection agencies or the public. Good knowledge of species furthermore allows to better identify preferences and optimum conditions and can help in identifying indicator species for certain contexts. New species coming into the system can be detected by non-specialists only if they obviously differ from any- thing else, i. e. belong to animal or plant groups formerly not represented in the area. The vast majority of alien species are relatives of already existing ones or belong to groups that are difficult to identify. If an non-specialist identifies samples, he will not recognise such organisms, because they are not included in the keys and therefore the next possible name will be given to the specimens, considering differences as mere variation. The taxonomic specialist, who knows a group on a world wide basis, is much better triggered to see such differences and detect new taxa entering the system. The knowledge on such intrusion events as early as possible is of prime interest for conservation, because in this early phase reactions could be of more ef- fect than lateron. In consequence, conservation depends on exact identification and long term knowledge. It is therefore definitively based on existing taxonomic infra- structure and expert knowledge.

Fig. 1: Levels of life: genetic, species, construction plans, ecosystems

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 147 Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool

Kjartan HOYDAL Secretary, Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)

With a background in fisheries science and having worked both as a scientist and a manager, I am astonished that experience from areas closed to fisheries do not play a more prominent role as a tool in a general ocean management in the discussion of marine protected areas of variable design. In the North-East Atlantic areas closed to certain fisheries or certain gears have been used for centuries in waters under national jurisdiction and, more recently, also in waters beyond the areas under the fisheries jurisdiction of coastal states.

Some initial remarks Nobody will contest that closing areas to human activity should have a beneficial effect on conservation. The big question is, however, how much or rather how little has to be closed to meet a given target. Exaggerated claims of closed areas as the solution for all problems, even boosting human activities, have not been helpful. Closed areas face precisely the same problems as other management tools. One complicating factor is the way environmental problems in the oceans are handled in public debate and by the media. I am myself particularly averse to campaign material, which is based on one picture of the effects of a trawl on a cold water coral locality, a misleading map from the Seas Around Us Project on the trends in fish stock abundance in the North Atlantic from 1900 – 1999, exaggerated anecdotal or circumstantial evidence on the benefits of marine reserves and political opinion that fisheries are the human activity that has most environmental impact on the oceans.

Task at hand States and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, RFMOs, like NEAFC, face the same tasks and problems in attempting to establish sustainable fisheries. Sustainability is the key word that takes precedence over and encompasses every other objective. Regional Fishery Management Organisations, like NEAFC, attempt to establish fisheries management systems in the high seas supporting and compatible with systems in sea areas under national jurisdiction. The general principle of subsidiarity should mean that regional and local management has more chance of succeeding than global initiatives.

148 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool

The management framework Fisheries managers have to plan, develop and manage fisheries in ways that address the multiple needs and desires of society and maximise the flow of benefits over time from marine resources. At the same time, the management framework should reduce the risk of impacts leading to irreversible or avoidable changes to ecosystems and biodiversity. It should not be forgotten that fishing is the only human activity in the oceans that is totally dependent on healthy ecosystems and clean oceans. Fisheries cannot avoid having an impact on the marine ecosystems in the process of producing seafood from healthy fisheries. Fishing communities and societies must be allowed to pursue their legitimate business of establishing economic development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs

Management tools Target species fisheries are managed by measures aimed at controlling the overall exploitation level with catch or effort quotas, the exploitation pattern, and the fishing pressure on different age classes. Habitat preservation by closing areas has often arisen from conflicts between different fishing gear, especially passive and active fishing gear. With respect to fishing gear impact, there is currently much investment into gear modifications to mitigate the impact of fishing gear on habitats Areas closed to fishing are a well-established tool in fisheries management. They are known to affect the exploitation pattern and properly designed exploitation overall, for example by closing spawning areas, where fish stocks are vulnerable to exploitation. To a varying extent it is used by NEAFC’s Contracting Parties in waters under national jurisdiction. Closing areas permanently or temporarily at short notice to protect juvenile fish is common. NEAFC has done so in the Regulatory Area by closing the Rockall Box to trawl fishing. The Faroe Islands are probably one of the most extreme examples in using closed areas. Almost 60 % of the fishable area is closed permanently and/or seasonally to trawls and other gear. Iceland has also developed a system of closed areas and closed areas as fisheries management tools. Norway, Iceland and the Faroes close areas at short notice if the percentage of juveniles or by-catch goes above a certain number. Norway has closed some cold water coral areas to trawling, as have the EU, Faroe Islands and Iceland. The EU has applied boxes to reduce exploitation in a number of instances; however, results have not been convincing.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 149 Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool

Research in the effect of areas closed to fisheries Since the 1960s there has been very little research into the effect of closed areas. Fisheries advice has almost entirely concentrated on assessing stocks and calculating annual TACs. The UNFA Annex 2 set-up focuses on single species criteria and this has not made it easier to consider other management tools. It is, therefore, difficult to get precise scientific advice on how to set up closed areas and its effect on, for example, the exploitation pattern, overall fishing mortality or relation to management reference points. Closed areas according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO Quote from Report to Committee on Fisheries 2005: While an extensive scientific literature exists to document the ecological benefits of MPAs, the research had not yet matured to the point where MPAs could be recommended for wide application in an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Some new information has been accumulated. While a number of questions remain and hasty generalizations should be avoided, the role, potential effects and shortcomings of MPAs and reserves in relation to fisheries is becoming better understood, with a number of successful cases and failures from which lessons can be drawn In 2005 FAO COFI: i. Agreed that the use of MPAs as a fisheries management tool should be scientifically based and backed by effective monitoring and enforcement and an appropriate legal framework. ii. Agreed that MPAs were one of a number of management tools and that they would be effective in combination with other appropriate measures such as capacity control. iii. Noted that RFMOs would need to develop means of interacting with other relevant IGOs, in particular in the environmental field, including the CBD, and other organizations such as IMO, when there was a need to exclude non- fishery human activities within an MPA on the high seas.

Short presentation on NEAFC NEAFC goes back a long time to initiatives before World War II. The present Convention was signed in 1980 and entered into force in 1982. Its text reflects discussions and negotiations leading up to the signing of UNCLOS in 1982. There are at present five Contracting Parties: the EU, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation. NEAFC

150 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool was “a sleeping beauty” until 1995. The signing of the UNFA sparked life into the organisation. From 1995 and onwards all major fisheries in the NEAFC Regulatory Area have been brought under regulation and NEAFC has systematically adapted the requirements in international law and instruments, i.e. science based management, effective surveillance and inspection transparency, fast track dispute settlement, and effective tools against IUU fishing. In 2004 the NEAFC Commission by consensus agreed to close five areas in international waters to all fishing gears on a precautionary basis from 2005-2007, pending further scientific advice. From South to North: the Altair, Antialtair, Hekate and Faraday seamounts and a section of the South Reykjanes Ridge. The areas were closed on a precautionary basis without asking for scientific advice from NEAFC’s science provider, ICES. This led to a proposal to amend the Convention to bring it more in line with more recent international developments and directly allows NEAFC to address problems outside strict fisheries management. There was consensus on this way forward in the NEAFC Commission in November 2005.

Updating the NEAFC Convention The important changes updating and modernising the Convention are: 1. The Commission shall perform its functions in order to ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilisation of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits. 2. When making recommendations in accordance with Article 5 or 6 of the Convention the Commission shall in particular: a. ensure that such recommendations are based on the best scientific evidence available; b. apply the precautionary approach; c. take due account of the impact of fisheries on other species and marine ecosystems, and in doing so adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures that address the need to minimise harmful impacts on living marine resources and marine ecosystems; and d. take due account of the need to conserve marine biological diversity. 3. The Commission shall provide a forum for consultation and exchange of information on the state of the fishery resources in the Convention Area and on the management policies, including examination of the overall effects of such

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 151 Regional fishery closures in Europe as a management tool

policies on the fishery resources and, as appropriate, other living marine resources and marine ecosystems. 4. From areas closed to fisheries to MPAs.

152 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 153 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the north and Baltic seas in the context of international and European law

Stefan LÜTKES Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany

- 8 sites have been notified under the Habitats Directive (the European Commission is currently preparing to draw up the European Community list) 2 bird sanctuaries placed under protection as nature conservation areas -

Starting situation The North and Baltic Seas continue to be under considerable – in some cases even growing – utilisation pressures. Fisheries and nutrient inputs from agriculture are examples of this. Further growth is forecast in other branches of industry which directly or indirectly use the resources of the seas (for instance in tourism, mariculture and shipping). Major efforts must therefore continue to be made in to achieve a sustainable, environmentally sound management of the North and Baltic Seas in the long term.

Legal situation in the exclusive economic zone International maritime law The EEZ is an area which lies beyond and is adjacent to the territorial sea and which is subject to a special legal regime. Under this regime, the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal state and the rights and freedoms of other states are governed by the relevant regulations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 10 December 1982 (Article 55 UNCLOS). In contrast to the territorial sea, the EEZ does not belong to the territory of the coastal state. The coastal state does not have territorial sovereignty or territorial jurisdiction in the EEZ. The coastal state is only granted functionally restricted rights and powers or utilisation privileges, which are countered on the other hand by certain rights of other states. In contrast, under Article 58 paragraph 1 UNCLOS, in the EEZ all states, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy in principle the freedoms of navigation, overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, as well as other internationally lawful uses

154 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone of the sea related to these freedoms. The distribution of rights and duties between coastal states and other states is complemented by mutual obligations to have due regard for the rights of others (see Art. 56 para. 2 and Art. 58 para.3 UNCLOS) and an equity clause for cases in which neither the coastal state nor other states are attributed rights or jurisdiction under UNCLOS.

European and national (nature protection) law The question is: Which regulations can permissibly be laid down on these marine areas. Who is authorised to do this? In the EEZ the European Community can refer especially to its competences in fisheries (Article 32 ff. EC Treaty) and environmental protection (Article 174 ff EC Treaty). In relation to the preservation of marine biological resources the European Court of Justice already clarified this in principle in 1976. Following the judgement of the English High Court of Justice in 2001 the virtually uncontested opinion was that the two European nature protection directives - the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive – should be assumed to apply in the EEZ too. Therefore in the 2002 amendment to the Federal Nature Conservation Act the new Article 38 was created. This Article extends the geographical area of application of Articles of 33 and 34 to the EEZ. These Articles are the two key provisions for implementing the regulations of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive relating to protected areas.

The Nature Conservation Area Ordinances "Östliche Deutsche Bucht" (Eastern German Bight) and "Pommersche Bucht" (Pomeranian Bight) On 15 September 2005 the Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety signed the two nature protection area ordinances for the "Östliche Deutsche Bucht" in the North Sea and "Pommersche Bucht" in the Baltic Sea. These were subsequently promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette and entered into force on 24 September 2005. The area "Östliche Deutsche Bucht " is located in the German bight to the west of the North Friesian Wadden Sea and north of Helgoland island. It is an area of around 313,000 hectares. The "Pommersche Bucht" lies east of the island of Rügen and covers around 200,000 hectares. Both areas have an important function as feeding grounds, wintering, moulting, migratory and resting sites for numerous bird species to be protected under the EU Birds Directive. They essentially cover the sections of the Important Bird Areas of the same name situated in the German EEZ. Both areas were therefore already notified to the Commission by the Federal Government in May 2004 as future protected areas in the German EEZ.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 155 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone

Procedure Unlike in the case of proposed areas under the Habitats Directive, in which notification by the Member States is followed by selection at Community level, namely the compilation of a Community list pursuant to Art. 4 para. 2 of the Habitats Directive, bird sanctuaries are immediately placed under protection according to national law.

Content of the regulation The two ordinances were drawn up at the same time and have a parallel structure. Apart from the relevant description of the area to be protected and the conservation objective, they are identical in content. They each consist of nine paragraphs and two annexes. Basis for authorisation The basis for authorisation is derived from the Federal Nature Conservation Act.

Designation as a nature conservation area In Article 1 the marine area in the EEZ specified in the description of the area to be protected is declared as nature conservation area and given its respective identification. Due to the already existing chain of references, the legislator was restricted to the categories of protected areas listed in Article 22 para. 1 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. This provision is finalised, and there is consequently a numerus clausus of protected area categories.

Description of the area to be protected Size, geographical location and boundaries of the two nature protection areas are described in Article 2 of the ordinances. The borders are determined by geographical coordinates which are stated in the respective Annex 1 of the Ordinances. Furthermore, the respective nature conservation area is marked in a survey map contained in Annex 2 of each ordinance, on a scale of 1:150 000 for the North Sea and 1:100 000 for the Baltic Sea.

Protection purpose In accordance with Article 33 para. 3 sentence 1 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, Article 3 of the ordinances determines the protection purpose in accordance with the conservation objectives. Here the conservation objectives in both cases are the permanent conservation and rehabilitation of the marine area in its function as feeding grounds, wintering, moulting, migratory and resting site for the species occurring there

156 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone pursuant to Annex I of the Birds Directive and for the regularly occurring migratory bird species as defined in Art. 4 para 2 of the Birds Directive. This corresponds to the definition of the conservation objectives contained in Article 10 para. 1 No. 9 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. To further specify the protection purpose the legislator especially emphasised essential characteristics of the respective areas and their bird populations for achieving a favourable conservation status. These include in particular the natural stock development and the population dynamics of the bird species themselves, the natural population densities, age group distribution and distribution patterns of the organisms which are the staple food of the bird species. Determining the protection purpose is of legal significance in many respects. The protection purpose forms the basis and limit of the orders and prohibitions to be issued for the protection of an area as well as the measures to be taken for management, development and rehabilitation. The protection purpose is the yardstick for measuring the need for the regulations specified or are to be specified. If it is not specific enough, prohibitions which ought to be placed on activities may not be allowable. Moreover, the protection purpose for Natura 2000 areas pursuant to Article 34 para. 1 sentence 2 (in conjunction with Article 35) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act is a yardstick for assessing the environmental impact of projects and plans (see under 6).

Prohibitions As envisaged in Article 33 para. 3 sentence 3 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, Article 4 of the ordinances contains prohibitions in order to guarantee the effective protection regime required under European law. • Article 4 para 1 of the ordinances prohibits all actions for the exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of the living and non-living natural resources of the waters over the seabed, and of the seabed and its subsoil as well as other activities for the economic exploration and exploitation which can lead to the destruction, damage or alteration of the nature conservation area or its components or to permanent disturbance (No. 1). The establishment of artificial islands, installations and structures (No.2) is also prohibited. The grounds for prohibition in Article 4 para. 1 No. 1 takes up the sovereign rights of the coastal state in the EEZ pursuant to Art. 56 para.1 letter a) of the UNCLOS and combine them with the general prohibition on changes laid down in Article 23 para. 2 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Article 4 para. 1 No. 2 prohibits the establishment of artificial islands, installations and structures with a view to the sovereign rights granted to the

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 157 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone

coastal state under Art. 56 para. 1 letter b of UNCLOS. This corresponds to the usual prohibition on construction in terrestrial nature conservation areas. • Article 4 para. 2 of the ordinances contains special grounds for prohibition. These prohibit the establishment and operation of marine aquacultures (No. 1) and the sea disposal of dredging waste (No. 2). A comparison with ordinances governing nature conservation area on land shows that these two Federal ordinances lack a more detailed catalogue of prohibitions. This can be attributed in part to the smaller number of marine utilisation forms, but also substantially to the coastal state's restricted possibilities for laying down regulations in the EEZ. • These are also apparent in the exemption provisions of Article 4 para. 3 of the ordinances, which limit the scope of the prohibitions of Article 4 para. 1. Under this, they do not apply to air traffic, shipping, military use permitted under international law, scientific marine research or professional fisheries (No. 1). Nor do they apply to measures to fulfil public obligations for hazard aversion, emergency response, removal of warfare agents and for dealing with accidents, including emergency sea rescue systems (No. 2) or to projects and measures directly concerned with the administration of the nature conservation area (No. 3).

The exemptions listed in No. 1 are based on the provisions of Article 38 para. 1 Nos. 1-3 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. In Article 38 para. 1 No. 1 sentence 1 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act the legislator declared restrictions on air traffic, shipping, military use permitted under international law and scientific marine research projects as defined in Article 246 para. 3 of the CLS to be impermissible. The regulating powers of the coastal states in relation to fisheries are even comprehensive. As mentioned earlier, exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the living natural resources here represent a sovereign right under Article 56 para. 1 letter a of the UNCLOS. However, in the case of the Member States these rights no longer belong to them, but to the European Community. As a part of agricultural policy, fisheries policy lies within the competence of the Community. Especially the so-called Fisheries Basic Regulation regulates this field extensively. This gives rise to the question of whether this circumstance prevents the Member States from independently laying down restrictions on professional fishing which are exclusively or predominantly motivated for reasons of nature conservation. The Commission has taken a express stance on this. For instance, in 2003, on the application of the United Kingdom and based on Article 7 of the Fisheries Basic Regulation, the Commission used an emergency decree valid for six months to ban

158 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone the use of bottom trawl nets in the area of the Darwin Mounds. This area is a site of deep sea coral reefs and is to be designated a site of special interest to nature.

Specific projects and measures, plans The bans laid down in Article 4 para. 1 of the ordinances do not apply to specific projects and measures, especially on energy generation and raw materials extraction, nor to plans. This is due to the previously mentioned proviso in the introduction to Article 4 para. 1. Article 5 of the ordinances lays down a special regulation for these cases. • Under Article 5 para. 1, prior to their implementation or approval projects and measures for energy generation from water, current or wind (No. 1) for the prospecting, extracting and processing of mineral resources (No. 3), for the laying and operation of pipelines (No. 3) or the laying and operation of undersea cables (No. 4) must be examined for their admissibility according to Article 34 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, bearing in mind the conservation objective. The case-by-case examination of projects can decide whether these projects are compatible with the conservation objective. Under Article 38 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, restrictions on energy generation from water, current or wind or on the prospecting and extraction of mineral resources are only permissible subject to the provisions of Article 34 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Article 5 para. 1 of the ordinances does not introduce any new approval procedures. Instead the already existing approval procedures are broadened to meet the material-legal requirements of Article 34 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act.

Exceptions and exemptions Under certain conditions the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation can grant exceptions and exemptions.

Management and development plan Article 7 of the ordinances contains requirements regarding procedure and content for the management and development plan which must be drawn up for the two nature conservation areas. This will be elaborated by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation with the participation of the adjacent Länder, the public concerned, the

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 159 Designation of nature conservation areas in the German exclusive economic zone relevant public agencies and the associations recognised under Article 59 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act.

Outlook The 8 sites, which have been notified to the European Commission under the Habitats Directive will be placed under protection after the European Commission will have finished the European Community list.

160 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 161 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ? PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

Heike IMHOFF Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany

Protection comes under many names A lot of different categories have been defined to name marine areas, which are or should be protected. A large number of terms and definitions are used to lable conservation areas across the world. We are talking about Marine Reserves, Marine Protected Areas (MPA), Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA), no-go-areas, Special Areas and –last but not least Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). In 1994 already HELCOM decided on a Recommendation 15/5 on a ‘System of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA), thus putting into force the first real measure in terms of Marine Protected Areas in Europe. On the Global level Marine Protected Areas are under discussion for more than 20 years already and have been re-emphasised during the WSSD in Johannesburg 2002, setting up the deadline 2012 for the establishment of a global network of marine protected areas by then. The joint Ministerial Decision of OSPAR and HELCOM in 2003 to establish a coherent network of well managed Marine Protected Areas has – so far- been the last ‘political’ contribution to the development of this tool. As regards the instrument of PSSA, there is one big difference with regard to the instruments enumerated before: The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is the only international body, responsible for designating areas as PSSAs and adopting associated protective measures. After approval by the IMO those decisions are binding for international shipping.

What is a PSSA? According to the definition of the ‘Revised [IMO] Guidelines for the identification and designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas’ (IMO Guidelines), a PSSA is an area [of a sea or an ocean] that needs special protection through action by IMO [International Maritime Organization] because of its significance for recognized ecological, socio economic or scientific attributes where such attributes may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities. Two indispensable components are marked by that: Criteria (be it ecological, socio economic or scientific) of the area concerned and vulnerability with regard to impacts from shipping.

162 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

Who may apply for the establishment of a PSSA and what should an application for a PSSA contain? An application to IMO for designation of a PSSA and the adoption of associated protective measures may be submitted only by a Member Government. Two or more Governments having a common interest in a particular area should put forward a coordinated proposal, containing integrated measures and procedures for co- operation between the respective jurisdictions. As a prerequisite there must be evidence that shipping may cause harm to the respective area with regard to the criteria described. To be identified as a PSSA, the area concerned must • meet one of the criteria listed in the IMO Guidelines (ecological, socio- economic or scientific) • provide information pertaining to the vulnerability of this area to damage from international shipping activities • include proposed associated (protective) measures Having a brief look at the actual List of adopted PSSAs, an interesting observation can be made: After the first designation of a PSSA, the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, designated in 1990, (and extended in 2005) there was a 7 years’ time span during which no further designation of a PSSA worldwide took place. The next one concerned the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba (1997). After another break of 5 years the PSSA Malpelo Island, Colombia, was designated in 2002 thus starting a series: the sea around the Florida Keys, United States and the Wadden Sea, comprising Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands followed in 2002. Next were Paracas National Reserve, Peru (2003), Western European Waters (2004), Canary Islands, Spain (2005), Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador (2005) and –last but certainly not least- the Baltic Sea Area (2005). The described development might probably have the following reasons: • increasing need for optimized marine protection • missing experience with that instrument in the past made responsible actors hesitate to start the formal process within the IMO; • after having gained some experience with designating PSSAs worldwide there is some routine in applying this tool, which has proven to contribute effectively to marine protection policy; additionally awareness raising may have taken place;

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 163 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

PSSA Baltic Sea Coming back to the Baltic Sea: the PSSA ‘Baltic Sea’ was adopted in 2005. The application to IMO had been brought forward by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. The area concerned comprises the major part of the Baltic Sea area, with the exception of marine areas under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. As stated earlier ‘Ecological criteria’, requested by the ‘IMO Guidelines’ have to be fulfilled. Breaking them down to the particular needs and conditions of the Baltic Sea Area, by following the official application to the IMO, the following concrete evaluations have been put forward: • Uniqueness or rarity: The Baltic Sea area is a globally unique and sensitive northern brackish-water ecosystem. • Critical habitat: Some of the species in the Baltic Sea are so called habitat- forming or key-species. • Dependency: The whole Baltic Sea ecosystem is highly dependent on the productive and ecologically particular valuable shallow bottom areas along the coasts (like lagoons). • Representativeness: The Baltic Sea is highly representative for an almost enclosed sea as well as a brackish water sea. • Diversity: Due to exceptional salinity conditions, the Baltic Sea is characterised by only few species, but with a unique mixture of marine, freshwater and brackish water species. The diversity of coastal biotopes is high and the biotopes are characterised by a large number of threatened aquatic and terrestrial species. • Productivity: The Baltic Sea area is characterised by many individuals of few species which lead to a high productivity, particularly in the coastal zones. • Spawning or Breeding Grounds: The Baltic Sea is an important spawning and breeding ground for many species including seal, fish and particularly birds. • Naturalness: The naturalness of the Baltic Sea area is high. However, most marine and coastal biotopes are to some degree threatened. • Integrity: Although effects of pollution have become evident, the Baltic Sea is still a unique biological living environment. As regards the formal pre-condition of ‘Vulnerability to impacts from International Shipping’ the following factors have to be considered:

164 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

• Vessel traffic characteristics (e.g. operational factors/ vessel types/ traffic characteristics/ harmful substances carried) • Natural factors (hydrographical/ meteorological/ oceanographic) • Other information may also be provided (e.g. shipping causing damage to the described attributes of the area? Any history of groundings / collisions etc. from other sources? Any measures already in effect?) Once again those abstract criteria need to be broken down to the concrete case of the Baltic Sea: the area is highly susceptible to degradation caused by human activities (including shipping, e.g. through accidents). When it comes to the bio-geographic importance a long coastline with different types of beaches, archipelagos with thousands of islands, influence by the Atlantic, continental and boreal ecological features and a characterisation by invasive and relict species have to be mentioned. A look at the existing impacts, resulting from shipping activities in the Baltic Sea illustrates the need/background for the PSSA exercise:

Forecast for ship movements in 2015 The Baltic Sea is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world with a still increasing number of passages. Narrow straits and routes that are difficult to navigate, as well as long annual periods of ice cover increase the risk of serious oil accidents. The map shows a doubling of ship movements through the Danish straits compared to the year 2000 and the number of –in particular oil transportation passages- is still increasing. Despite the improvements that have been achieved in terms of maritime safety measures, the ‘simple’ increase in passages causes increasing threat. Oil and other harmful substances from ships are still spilled into the sea. Comprehensive aerial and satellite surveillance discover around 400 proven illegal oil discharges / year. Extrapolations of these figures indicate a real number exceeding 700 illegal discharges / year. Oil, also in low concentrations, has a negative impact on the food chains and has a particular impact on fish eggs. Due to the slow water exchange in the Baltic Sea (25 – 30 years) the contents of hydrocarbons are three times higher in the Baltic Sea compared to the oceans. Thousands of wintering sea birds are killed or have to be shot every year due to impacts from illegal oil spills. Having described now the particular characteristics in terms of vulnerability and shipping impacts the question arises:

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 165 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

What actions can be taken by IMO? An application for PSSA designation should demonstrate how the identified vulnerability will be addressed by (existing or) proposed associated measures. Examples for such measures are: • Designation of an area as a Special Area under MARPOL Annexes I, II or V, or a SOx emission control area under MARPOL Annex VI, or application of special discharge restrictions to vessels operating in a PSSA. • Adoption of ships’ routeing and reporting systems near or in the area, under the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and in accordance with the General Provisions on Ships’ routeing and the Guidelines and Criteria for Ship Reporting Systems; With regard to PSSA Protective Measures which have been introduced in the Baltic Sea Area so far, the following measures, having been in place in Germany before the described joint IMO application already, can be reported: • IMO adopted international routeing measures (recommended tracks) along the German coast: “Kiel-Ostsee-Weg”, “Lübeck-Gedser-Weg”and together with DK the “T-Weg” in connection with the TSS “South of Gedser” and the “DW Southeast of Gedser”. • The traffic in the Kadetrenden is monitored by AIS from the VTS Warnemünde. • Emergency towing capacity and oil combating services are available. • Pilotage services are arranged. It has to be stressed that there is room for additional and/or new associated measures even after designating a PSSA and adopting (first) associated measures since the process is an open ended one. Having reported about the formal preconditions for designating a PSSA and having applied those formal criteria to the case of the Baltic Sea Area the answer to the intro- ductory question of this speech needs to be given:

PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection? From the point of view of the author of this contribution, the answer is “yes”. PSSAs are indeed an effective tool for marine protection, because: 1. The international regulations are meant to be valid for all ships wherever they go; given a valid designation, the freedom of shipping may not cause difficulties for effective protection of those areas of the marine environment which are particularly sensitive;

166 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PSSA – a tool in Marine Biodiversity Protection ?

2. PSSA can support coastal states to protect their national areas against adverse impacts from international shipping; 3. Through PSSA rules can be matched to local needs and conditions; the pas- sage of ships can be regulated away from sensitive areas; 4. PSSA can help coastal states to prevent accidents and their adverse impacts such as habitat damage; 5. PSSAs offer the opportunity to create tailor made solutions, by weighing possible pressure on the marine environment on the one hand and the need for protection on the other; 6. Respective PSSA information in nautical charts might lead to improved information of ships – then hopefully taking special care when approaching and / or passing the PSSA; 7. Global publicity may support efforts to protect it from (potentially) harmful maritime activities, even other than shipping (e.g drilling, dredging, land based operations, fisheries) As a matter of fact ‘associated protective measures’ are a “must” – not only with regard to the need for protection; designating a PSSA without having defined associated measures will lead to a devaluation of this –as I see it- effective tool for marine protection.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 167 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada

Paul A. MACNAB Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Introduction The Gully MPA protects the biological diversity of the largest submarine canyon in eastern North America. A fifteen-year history of conservation culminated in May 2004 with the designation of the Gully MPA under Canada’s Oceans Act. The MPA (2,364 km2) protects a wide range of benthic and pelagic habitats ranging in depth from 18 m to over 2 km. Commercial and non-commercial species, including rare coral and endangered northern bottlenose whales, are protected in the MPA. This presentation discusses the ecosystem basis for the MPA, the regulations and the management measures implemented since designation. The paper also describes conservation pressures and management challenges posed by the shelf edge location in an area of significant hydrocarbon, fishing and shipping activity. The paper concludes with some lessons learned for offshore settings.

Canyon Ecosystem The Gully submarine canyon is approximately 65 kilometres long, 15 kilometres wide, and more than 2500 metres deep at its mouth. The canyon itself has many near- vertical cliffs and large areas of exposed bedrock. The MPA also encompasses smaller feeder canyons, an upper basin, shallow banks on the canyon sides, and portions of the continental slope. Owing to its location, shape, size, geology and physical oceanography, the Gully ecosystem contains many diverse habitats and is highly productive (Rutherford and Breeze 2002). Large scale circulation patterns collect and transport primary productivity from the surrounding banks, providing a year-round source of food. Circulation within the canyon creates an important deep water retention area and a key habitat for deep water species. Large numbers of whales are attracted to the Gully by its high productivity and food supply, particularly the concentrations of krill, lanternfish and squid. Baleen whales feed here during their migrations and deep diving whales feed in the canyon throughout the year. The Gully is especially important for about 200 endangered northern bottlenose whales that make use of the canyon year-round (COSEWIC 2002). The Gully is known to be important for both commercial and non-commercial fish species. The area has a high diversity of demersal and pelagic species and high concentrations of mesopelagic fishes. The MPA protects a range of depths that

168 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada support a diversity of benthic habitats and organisms including the highest known diversity of cold water coral species in Atlantic Canada (Breeze and Fenton, in press; Mortensen and Buhl-Mortensen 2005).

Human Use and Threats The deep water ecosystem of the Gully and the range of organisms it supports are susceptible to impact from human activity. Shipping, fishing, hydrocarbon exploration and scientific research are the most active sectors in and around the Gully (see DFO 2005b). These human activities are potential sources of pressure on this unique ecosystem. Primary conservation issues include disturbance to coral and other benthos, risks associated with vessel traffic, contaminants transported from nearby areas and disturbance or injury to whales as a result of noise, fishing gear interactions and vessel collisions (Fenton et al 2002). The present level of human activity in the Gully remains low in comparison to adjacent areas. As a result, the Gully remains an intact and relatively undisturbed ecosystem that requires protection and direct management prior to any increase in human use or introduction of new activities.

Regulations and Zoning Following several years of research, planning, design and consultation, the Gully MPA was designated by regulation under the Oceans Act in May 2004 (Canada Gazette 2004). The purpose of this particular MPA designation is to conserve and protect the natural biological diversity of the Gully and to ensure its long-term health. General prohibitions against disturbance, damage, destruction or removal of any living marine organism or any part of its habitat apply to the entire water column and include the seabed to a depth of 15 metres. The regulations also prohibit activities, including the depositing, discharging or dumping of substances within the MPA or in the vicinity of the MPA that contravene the general prohibitions. This part of the regulations recognizes that human activities outside the MPA have the potential to cause harmful impacts within the MPA. Indeed, although the MPA is mostly defined by the canyon feature, there are oceanographic processes, trophic connections and acoustic pathways that link the MPA to a much larger area. The regulations establish the MPA boundary and three internal management zones in which different activities may be permitted, provided that they do not compromise the conservation objectives of the MPA. The MPA is 2364 square kilometres in size and the outer boundary is defined by six points (see Figure 1). The three management zones, with varying levels of protection based on ecological vulnerability, are defined by a series of points and connecting lines.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 169 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada

Zone 1 comprising the deepest parts of the canyon is preserved in a relatively undis- turbed state. Canyon waters deeper than 600 metres receive full ecosystem protection, that is, no extractive activities are permitted on the seabed or in the water column from top to bottom. Zone 1 includes those potions of the Gully that are thought to be primary canyon habitat for endangered northern bottlenose whales. Zone 2 imposes strict protection for the canyon head and sides, feeder canyons and the continental slope. Structurally complex seafloors and diverse benthic communities are the conservation focus in this zone—net fisheries and mobile fishing gears have not been allowed. Zone 3 includes the shallow sand banks on either side of the canyon. These areas are prone to regular natural disturbance and are regarded as less sensitive than the deeper portions of the MPA. Limited hook and line fisheries for demersal and pelagic species are permitted in Zones 2 and 3. Scientific research and monitoring are generally approved in all zones of the MPA. For other proposals, which are limited to Zone 3, submitted plans will be approved by the Minister on a case by case basis provided the activities will not result in effects beyond natural variation. Exceptions to the general prohibitions are made for public safety, law enforcement, national security, Canadian sovereignty, emergency response and international navigation.

Managing the MPA Legal designation of the Gully MPA triggered immediate actions by operational branches of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Paper and digital updates added the MPA boundary to navigation charts published by the Canadian Hydrographic Service. A webpage with multi-media content was created to publicize the new MPA (http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/gully/essim-gully-e.html) and a Notice to Mariners was issued by the Canadian Coast Guard to provide voluntary guidance for vessel operation in the area. Departmental review procedures were modified to ensure that domestic and foreign research plans and scientific permit applications were sent to the MPA management team for review and assessment against the regulations. Scientists started to work on monitoring strategies and DFO advised Transport Canada, the federal shipping authority, to place ballast water exchange zones well away from the Gully (DFO 2004). MPA prohibitions and fishery exceptions were translated into control measures consistent with Canadian fisheries management procedures. Restrictions for most and limited access for some fleets have been administered and enforced by way of licence conditions issued pursuant to the Fisheries Act. A vessel monitoring system was developed for the MPA to integrate all data feeds associated with surveillance and reporting. Automated routines check for potential infractions such as variance

170 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada between reported and observed fishing locations. This enables fisheries officers to respond as necessary. Other government departments, partner regulators and industry have assisted with implementation of the MPA. For example, although the regulations do not explicitly prohibit hydrocarbon activity, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) adopted a Gully Policy that prevents the authorization of oil and gas activities and licences within the MPA. The CNSOPB has also helped operationalize the regulatory clause prohibiting adjacent activities that cause damage or disturbance to the MPA. In particular, environmental review processes and approval mechanisms have been adjusted to reflect the uncertainty surrounding potential effects of this sector on the Gully. Compliance and enforcement is another area where an inter- agency approach has been essential. On the water, in the air and in digital environments, fisheries surveillance programs have been augmented by Canadian Naval patrols and data feeds from several departments. Non-regulatory actions form an integral part of the MPA. Oil and gas companies have developed expanded environmental assessments, codes of conduct, enhanced mitigation and effects monitoring for nearby activities (Macnab, in press). Industry has also participated in multi-party research projects designed to assess the impact of seismic surveys. A multi-stakeholder planning process for the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) initiative has resulted in an ocean management plan for a large offshore area surrounding the Gully (Rutherford et al 2005, DFO 2005a). Objectives and indicators are being established for both the ecosystem (O’Boyle et al 2005) and human uses on the Scotian Shelf (Walmsley et al, in press). In addition to improved government coordination and stakeholder involvement in ocean planning, this initiative will secure greater stewardship and responsible ocean use, both within and outside the MPA.

Lessons Learned Management challenges dealt with in the Gully are likely to be encountered in other offshore and high seas areas where commercial interests and sensitive ecosystems overlap. Some early lessons have emerged from the Gully MPA experience. Make all boundary descriptions compatible with contemporary navigation and information systems. Get the word out by using appropriate communication channels such as industry bodies and sector information sources. Access hard-to-reach users such as foreign scientists through existing application and permitting processes. Use fisheries management procedures to administer and supplement restrictive MPA regulations. Link MPAs to integrated ocean management exercises and cooperate with other regulators to leverage their statutory powers, especially when dealing with external threats. Work with industries to develop codes of conduct and other voluntary

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 171 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada measures. Take advantage of vessels and aircraft of opportunity. Compile, integrate and cross reference surveillance data from all available sources. Finally, and perhaps most importantly from a compliance perspective, explain the MPA to users by providing clear interpretation and specific at-sea directions for each affected sector.

Fig. 1: Gully MPA boundaries and zones shown over multibeam bathymetry. The inset map locates the Gully MPA in Atlantic Canada.

172 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The Gully: A Shelf Edge Marine Protected Area in Atlantic Canada

References

BREEZE, H. and D.G. FENTON (in press): Designing Management Measures to Protect Cold-Water Corals off Nova Scotia, Canada. Bulletin of Marine Science. CANADA GAZETTE (2004): The Gully Marine Protected Area Regulations and Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Canada Gazette Part II 138 (10). Available from http://gazetteducanada.gc.ca/partII/2004/20040519/html/sor112- e.html COSEWIC (2002): COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus (Scotian Shelf population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22pp. DFO (2004): Alternative ballast water exchange zones; 30 November – 1 December 2004. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series 2004/042. Ottawa. DFO (2005): Eastern Scotian Shelf integrated ocean management plan (2006-2011): draft for discussion. Oceans and coastal management report 2005-02. Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Oceans and Habitat Branch, Maritimes Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, NS. 73 p. DFO (2005b): The Scotian Shelf: An Atlas of Human Activities. Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Maritimes Region). Halifax. FENTON, D.G., P.A. MACNAB, and R.J. RUTHERFORD (2002): The Sable Gully Marine Protected Area Initiative: History and Current Efforts. In S. Bondrup-Nielsen, N.W.P. Munro, G. Nelson, J.H.M. Willison, T.B. Herman and P. Eagles (eds.), Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, pp.1343-1355. MACNAB, P.A. (in press): The Gully Marine Protected Area and Northern Bottlenose Whales on the Scotian Shelf. In Acoustic Monitoring in the Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf During Active Seismic Programs. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report. MORTENSEN, P.B. and L. BUHL-MORTENSEN (2005): Deep-water corals and their habitats in The Gully, a submarine canyon off Atlantic Canada. Pages 247-277 in A. Freiwald and J.M. Roberts, eds. Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. Springer, Berlin. O’BOYLE, R., M. SINCLAIR, P. KEIZER, K. LEE, D. RICARD and P. YEATS (2005): Indicators for Ecosystem-based management on the Scotian Shelf: bridging the gap between theory and practice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 598 – 605. RUTHERFORD, R.J. and H. BREEZE (2002): The Gully Ecosystem. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2615: vi + 28 pp. RUTHERFORD, R.J., G.J. HERBERT and S.S. COFFEN-SMOUT (2005): Integrated ocean management and the collaborative planning process: the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Marine Policy 29: 75-83. WALMSLEY, J., S. COFFEN-SMOUT, T. HALL and G. HERBERT (in press): Development of a Human Use Objectives Framework for Integrated Management of the Eastern Scotian Shelf. Coastal Management.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 173 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Lessons learned from 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

John TANZER and Jon DAY Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) covers approximately 344,400 km² on the northeast coast of Australia. It encompasses one of the world's largest and most complex ecosystems, ranging from shallow coastal areas to mid-shelf reefs, exposed outer reefs and the deep open ocean. To protect this magnificent area, and to ensure its sustainable use, the Australian Government established the GBRMP in 1975. The GBRMP is a multiple-use marine protected area, allowing a range of ecologically sustainable uses. This means that reasonable activities are allowed, but the area is zoned and regulated to minimise impacts and conflicts, whilst ensuring an overriding conservation objective. Establish- ment of the Park and its subsequent management has been in accordance with the legislative framework of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Since the GBRMP was established in legislation as a multiple-use MPA, various man- agement approaches have evolved and changed. This paper attempts to look at the major management changes over the last 30 years to identify lessons learnt. It has not all been ‘smooth sailing’ and ever improving management. However, progress has been made and the overall outcomes have been successful in the context of ecosystem management. This paper discusses how management has responded and evolved to deal with changing issues over the last 30 years, along with their potential significance for other MPAs. These changes include: Changes in the way in which State and Federal agencies collaborate to manage such a huge and complex area; A shift in management focus, from coral reefs or specific fisheries, to consid- eration of all activities within a broader ecosystem-based approach; The recognition of a number of critical issues facing the Great Barrier Reef, and a restructure of the agency to effectively address these issues; A more co-operative and collaborative approach to planning and management, with greater use of various advisory committees, public involvement and community partnerships, Engagement in the management of the effects of fishing on the ecosystem,

174 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Increased consideration of the impacts of land-based activities on water quality with considerable efforts being directed towards industry, all levels of government and the adjoining catchments areas; Increases in the overall extent of the Marine Park, and the proportion within it that is highly protected Clear identification of the information required for management and greater alignment of the research priorities for management and research expenditure, Development and implementation of a strong and well resourced compliance framework prioritised according to environmental harm, Rezoning the entire Park to establish a system of representative, compre- hensive system of highly protected areas and formalising the ‘no trawl’ Habitat Protection areas, Development of a strong partnership approach with the largest reef industry, tourism; Increasing emphasis on co-operative management with indigenous people in the Park; and How the main management tools have evolved and been augmented by additional tools such as statutory Plans of Management, Industry Codes of Practice, community engagement and economic instruments like the Environmental Management Charge. While the GBRMP is not a typical MPA in terms of its size or its complexity, it is considered that the experience gained in the GBR may have relevance to many other MPAs.

Introduction As the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is a critical global resource.27 The GBR and its associated features also directly contribute significantly to Australia’s economy, and today add an overall gross product amount of AUD$5.8 billion annually (Access Economics, 2005). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) was established in 1975 to protect the GBR and to ensure its sustainable use. Covering 344,400 km² (an area only slightly smaller than Germany), it is complex jurisdictionally, with both the Federal and State (Queensland) Governments involved in the management of the coastal areas, waters and islands within the outer boundaries.

27 Its global uniqueness was recognised in 1981 when it was inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 175 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The Australian Government, through its specialist agency the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (‘GBRMPA’), has responsibility for the overall planning and management of the GBRMP. The Great Barrier Reef was declared on the World Heritage list 1981 in recognition of its outstanding natural values. The GBRMP was a forerunner to the establishment of marine protected areas around the world, and as such, has provided a test case for development and implementation of management especially on a large scale. Because of the iconic status of the GBR, many people think the entire area is a marine sanctuary or a marine national park, and therefore protected equally throughout. Many do not understand that while the context is predominantly protection and sustainable use the GBRMP is a multiple-use area, in which a wide range of activities and uses are allowed, including fishing and collecting. The comprehensive, multiple-use zoning system governs all human activities, providing high levels of protection for specific areas, whilst allowing a variety of other uses, including shipping, dredging, aquaculture, tourism, boating, diving, commercial fishing and recreational fishing, to continue in certain zones. Where these uses do occur in accordance with the zoning plan, they are subject to management arrangements applied mainly through the permit system, management plans and site plans. This means that virtually all-reasonable activities are allowed to occur in parts of the GBRMP, but all areas are zoned and regulated to minimise impacts and conflicts between activities. The spectrum of zone types is set within the framework of a large multiple use area, with each type of zone contributing to varying degrees whilst ensuring an overriding conservation objective (Day, 2002a).28 Managing this complex task requires balancing reasonable human use with the maintenance of the area's natural and cultural integrity. The enormity of the task is due, in part, to the sheer size and diversity of the GBRMP, its ecological and economic importance, the political interests (local, state, national and international) and the jurisdictional complexities determined by Australia's system of Federalism. Moreover, the close proximity of rural and urban populations to the coast, the range of users and interest groups whose use patterns frequently compete with each other, the need for equity and fairness in facilitating use and access to the GBRMP, and the ecological diversity of the region are all factors that the management and policy framework need to consider (GBRMPA, 2005). Despite these complexities, the integrated governance and management model set out in legislation (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 that has been functioning with relatively minor legislative amendments over the last 30 years, has proven to be effective and successful. Notwithstanding this legislative stability there has been

28 For a guide to the Zoning of the Park see the GBRMPA website www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning/

176 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park considerable evolution and adaptation in methods, policies and techniques of management. In short, how the Authority goes about its management task has changed in response to the changing nature, level and pattern of use and based on increasing experience and community expectations. The first zoning plan in 1981 for a small section of the GBRMP introduced the spectrum of zone types, ranging from a General Use Zone at one end of the zoning spectrum (the least restrictive zone, allowing most reasonable uses), through to a Preservation Zone at the other end (very small ‘no-go’ areas, set aside as scientific reference areas). Within each zone type, certain activities are allowed ‘as-of-right’, other activities require a permit, and some activities are prohibited (Day, 2002a). Other management tools (e.g. permits, management plans, public education, surveil- lance and enforcement)] are also important, however, and are used in conjunction with zoning to help achieve ecological protection and other management objectives (Day, 2002b). The GBRMP has always relied on this range of tools, but zoning has long been regarded as the cornerstone of effective planning and management. Different sections of the GBRMP were progressively zoned, and by the late 1990s, the ‘no-take’ areas (National Park Zones) and ‘no-go’ areas (Preservation Zones) covered ~ 4.7% of the Marine Park, but the location of these zones reflected a historical focus on virtually only one habitat type (i.e. coral reefs), with a skewed emphasis in the more remote and ‘pristine’ areas (Day et al, 2004). A major re-zoning of the GBRMP was undertaken between 1999-2004, with the specific aim to better protect the entire range of habitat types. The primary aim of the re-zoning was to better protect the range of biodiversity in the GBRMP, whilst minimising the negative and maximising the positive impacts for the existing users. The final outcome included an increase in ‘no-take’ zones from less than 5% to more than 33%, and today comprises the world’s largest systematic network of ‘no-take’ zones (Fernandes et al, 2005).

Changing pressures, community expectations and management response. The history of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and its management is, in a sense, relatively short-only 30 years, yet it spans the time of formal marine protected area management around the world. The issues that resulted in its establishment such as public concern about the effects of limestone mining and oil extraction, are very different from those that confront management today. It is remarkable and a credit to the skill and foresight of the original legislative architects that, given the enormous changes which have occurred in the uses and public expectations, the legislative framework that was constructed all those years ago has not only provided a robust base and foundation for adaptive management to occur but has not required major

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 177 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park change or overhaul of its provisions. The value to effective management of having a single, comprehensive piece of legislation that has facilitated a broad ecosystem based approach, overseen by a single agency and allowed flexible and adaptive management cannot be overstated. Since the Park was established the adjacent coastal catchments and the islands have experienced considerable development. Thirty years ago the north Queensland coastline was relatively undeveloped and remote especially by European standards. The northern part of the Park was difficult to access for most people. This remoteness and low level of development meant that for large areas the threats were low and hence the need for active management was not pressing. Today it is a different picture: Tourism has grown substantially and now dominates the economic activity in the Park. It is the major employer for most coastal cities and towns. Urban and industrial growth has also been dramatic, albeit off a relatively small base. Fishing effort, both commercial and recreational has also increased with technological advances in vessels, motors and electronics catapulting the growth in real terms.

Adapting to major changes in the GBR over the last 30 years Changes in the way in which state and federal agencies collaborate to manage such a huge and complex area The Great Barrier Reef is fortunate in some respects in that it adjoins only one State – Queensland. Queensland is the only State in Australia where a Commonwealth marine park abuts the coast at low water; however ‘low water’ is a complex and difficult boundary for legal, political and administrative purposes (GBRMPA, 2005). Although jurisdiction remains an ongoing issue for management, GBRMPA and Queensland have worked together to resolve these issues for the benefit of Park users for the past 30 years without litigation. The close working partnership between Queensland and the GBRMPA includes such aspects as complementary zoning and joint permits (Day et al, 1997). This partnership has ensured the effective management of the complex and inter-related mix of marine, coastal and island issues, and provides for integrated management of the Great Barrier Reef on a whole-of-ecosystem basis. The arrangement requires active engagement at all levels of management by the officers of the GBRMPA and ensures good facilitation, consultation and negotiation skills are highly relevant to work in the GBRMPA. An essential component underpinning Queensland’s acceptance of the GBRMP, is that its role in management and decision-making is reflected in the legislation and management arrangements. The inter-governmental arrangements for management of the Great Barrier Reef established since the early 1980s have overcome the complex issues of jurisdictional uncertainty between the Commonwealth and State

178 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Governments. This level of co-operation was unprecedented in Australia and its continued survival is evidence of the value placed on the Great Barrier Reef by successive Governments. This situation is rare, if not unique, in terms of management of marine and coastal areas involving multiple jurisdictions around the world. In addition to the Day-to-Day Management arrangements, Queensland Government agencies with State responsibilities for policy co-ordination, environment, local government, maritime matters, catchment and land use and fisheries are actively involved in administration and management of issues pertinent to the health and operation of the Marine Park. To carry out its functions effectively, the GBRMPA maintains comprehensive liaison and policy co-ordination arrangements with all of these, both at the operational and strategic levels. The Director-General of Premiers Department is the Queensland nominee on the Board of the agency (i.e. the Authority). The benefit of this cross jurisdictional approach is that it allows for the application of a single management framework to be applied to the broader ecosystem rather than an ecologically fragmented approach based on politically determined boundaries. Maintenance of the strong working relationship across jurisdictions requires constant attention and effort as well as a preparedness to adapt co-ordination forums and mechanisms. To this end a joint management unit has been set up for oversight and planning of field management including compliance. The lesson here is that maintenance of a multi-jurisdictional management approach requires ensuring it is recognised for its value, afforded priority at all levels and supported by relevant and adaptable co-ordination arrangements. The relationship requires constant attention and officers need to be equipped with the necessary management skills to work across political and institutional boundaries.

Shifting the management focus, from only coral reefs or specific fisheries, to consideration of all activities within a broader ecosystem-based approach The biodiversity and the interconnectedness of species and habitats makes the Great Barrier Reef and the surrounding areas one of the richest and most diverse and complex natural systems on Earth. While coral reef, mangrove and seagrass habitats occur elsewhere on the planet, no other World Heritage Area contains such biodiversity (GBRMPA, 2002). Rather than the more historic approach of developing a plan for single issues in isolation (e.g. single commercial fishery or a source of pollution), the broader ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach focuses on the multiple activities occurring within the area defined as an ecosystem, rather than within ecologically inappropriate boundaries based solely on governance or jurisdiction. It also minimises

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 179 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park conflicts between differing management entities with differing mandates with the defined area. The current management approach in the GBRMP aims to ensure the maintenance of: Ecological processes in all ocean areas, including, for example, water and nutrient flows, community structures and food webs, and ecosystem links; Marine biological diversity, including the capacity for evolutionary change; and Viable populations of all native marine species in functioning biological communities. Emphasis is still placed on working with fisheries managers (eg Huber, 2003), but a far greater emphasis today is also placed upon ensuring that the GBR is represented within highly protected areas of broad habitat types across their natural range of variation (Day et al, 2004).

Recognition of a number of critical issues facing the Great Barrier Reef, and a restructure of the agency to effectively address these issues In its formative years, the GBRMPA recognised that the task of simply establishing management of a MPA of this size was a significant challenge. Accordingly, the initial critical issues facing the agency were ones of process. An administrative structure to the agency was formed to cope with this incorporating a focus on: • Establishing a sound science basis for management (Done, 1998); • Initiating planning arrangements for the GBRMP; • Establishing and promoting awareness of the GBRMP and its management; and • Establishing field management activities. Some 20 years of active management later it became clear that the agency required a focussing of its resources to deal more directly with the major emerging threats and pressures- especially those associated with declining water quality and the ecological impacts of fishing. A number of critical issues are now widely recognised as pressures facing the GBR: Increased pressures from land use on water quality (RWQPP, 2003). Increasing coastal development/use of the GBRMP because of increasing coastal population Declines in various species, impacting on both fisheries and tourism interests. Inadvertent introduction of exotic pests and disease into the Marine Park.. Ensuring all fisheries are able to demonstrate that they are ecologically- sustainable.

180 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The environmental impacts from climate change will increase in frequency and severity. To address the most pressing issues, a major restructure of GBRMPA occurred in 1998 – with the specific aim of increasing the focus on the four issues considered most critical: • Water quality and coastal development • Fisheries issues • Tourism and recreation; and • The maintenance of conservation, biodiversity and World Heritage values.

Addressing the effects of fishing as part of an ecosystem based approach to management of the park Under the original agreement between the GBRMPA and the Queensland Government, management of fishing was the preserve of the Queensland government agency responsible for fisheries management. This institutional demarcation, which has fisheries managed separately to other components of the ecosystem is not unusual in Australia or other parts of the world. It reflects most often the historical pattern of fishing being managed primarily as an economic development activity pre-dating the management of marine areas for broader conservation. Too often it has lead to management arrangements that treat fish populations as separate and irrelevant to the functioning of marine ecosystems. By the late 1990s it had become obvious that such an approach was leading to major impacts on the biodiversity of the Park and the GBRMPA was going to have to take a more active and interventionist role in managing the effects of fishing. Initially this occurred in relation to the otter trawl fishery which resulted in a 15% reduction in fishing effort as well as the closure of substantial areas of the Marine Park to trawling. It has been a difficult matter with many in industry and the fisheries agencies strongly resenting the engagement of GBRMPA on these matters. Yet the need to do so is indisputable given the seemingly relentless increasing fishing effort and resultant impacts on biodiversity and habitat that have been occurring.

More co-operative approach to planning and management, with greater use of various advisory committees, public involvement and community partnerships The staff of the GBRMPA has a good understanding of the issues and problems in, and around, the GBR. Much of the knowledge is built upon personal relationships and years of experience working with individuals, agencies and communities. There is

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 181 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park also comprehensive range of expert and local advisory committees feeding into locally relevant decision-making. This includes: • Geographically-focused Local Marine Advisory Committees; • Four issue-focussed Reef Advisory Committees; and • The Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee that provides another link to Marine Park stakeholders whilst also reporting directly to the Federal Minister. Following the huge public involvement in the 2004 rezoning, it was decided to build on the huge number of contacts and extensive body of information that had been accumulated as part of the consultation associated with the exercise. A specialised community engagement section has been established which includes regional offices of the GBRMPA and Regional Liaison Managers/Officers have been appointed to work with communities along the entire GBR coast (GBRMPA, 2005). This new approach is much more than the establishment of a physical regional presence. The GBRMPA is very aware that long-term public support for the Park is essential to successful management. The initiative also must ensure a sound understanding by GBRMPA of the patterns of use and also the concerns, aspirations and need for information of communities along the coast. The relationship needs to be two-way and informed if it is to strengthen over time. Following the 2004 rezoning, rebuilding a sound and mutually respectful relationship with commercial and recreational fishing industry is a key priority for the GBRMPA. The GBRMPA has also developed an excellent rapport with, and the support of, the scientific community throughout Australia. Achievement of the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of the GBRMP depends, in part, on the knowledge and understanding gained from basic and applied research and monitoring.

Indigenous involvement in GBR management This has evolved significantly in the past 30 years, with major changes including: The Act was amended so that the Board included a “member appointed to represent the interests of Aboriginal communities adjacent to the Marine Park”; The Regulations were amended to ensure cultural and heritage values were considered when assessing permits (and permits have been refused on these grounds); Indigenous Rangers have been employed to manage their own ‘sea country’ in a number of key locations (despite the success of these programs, funds have not always been ongoing). The 2004 GBRMP Zoning Plan recognised Native Title and the Traditional Use of Marine Resources; and

182 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The first legal agreement relating to the traditional use of marine resources was accredited by both Commonwealth and State agencies in late 2005; this limits the take of certain species (eg. green turtle) and prohibits the take of other threatened species (eg dugong) and facilitates improved monitoring system of protected species. It is expected that in forthcoming years there are likely to be more formal arrangements for Traditional Owners (TOs) managing sea country issues on behalf of the GBRMPA. This will require greater acceptance of Indigenous issues by wider community and the right and responsibility of TOs to undertake management activities.

Increased consideration of the impacts of land-based activities with considerable efforts being directed towards industry, all levels of government and the adjoining catchment areas A major change has been an increasing acceptance by most relevant agencies and many industries that land runoff, increasing nutrients and sediments are collectively causing significant impacts on the degradation of water quality and inshore biota of the GBRMP and the World Heritage Area. Principal agricultural industries on the catchment are grazing and cropping (sugar cane and banana farming), but management of land runoff is complex as the source is in catchments, which are outside the legislative boundaries of both the Park and the GBRWHA (RWQPP, 2003). The Act provides for regulations to be made in certain circumstances to manage activities that occur out side the Marine Park but which are likely to have a detrimental effect on it (Sparkes, 1997).

Development of a strong partnership approach with the largest reef industry, tourism In 2003, more than 1.8 million people visited the Great Barrier Reef with commercial operators. The flow-on effect of these industries, which rely on the continued health of the Reef system for long-term economic sustainability, underpins a significant and growing proportion of Queensland’s regional economy (Access Economics, 2005). Permits were initially used as the major tool for managing the environmental and social impacts of tourism use, with applications being assessed against criteria specified in the legislation. While this approach was appropriate in the early days of the GBRMPA, an over-reliance on permits led to numerous problems when the tourism industry burgeoned during the 1990s. Skeat et al. (1998) provide a summary of the latest approaches to tourism management, including a major review of the permit system, and is based upon:

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 183 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

• Strategic policy and planning • Direct management (well defined, enforceable and effective management controls) • Industry self-regulation; and • Active partnerships between industry and managers.

Increases in the overall extent of the marine park, and the proportion within it that is highly protected In 2000-01, a further 28 new coastal areas totalling 4,800 square kilometres were incorporated increasing the overall size of the Marine Park to 344, 400 km². Prior to the ‘Representative Areas Program’ (or RAP), there were concerns that the levels of protection were inadequate to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef remained a healthy, productive and resilient ecosystem now and into the future (Day et al, 2004). Between 1999 and 2004, the GBRMPA undertook a complex planning and consultative program to develop the new zoning for the Marine Park. The primary aim of the program was to better protect the range of biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef, by increasing the extent of no-take areas, ensuring they included ‘representative’ examples of all the different habitat types (hence the name, the Representative Areas Program). A further aim was to minimise impacts on the existing users of the Marine Park. A comprehensive program of scientific input, community involvement and innovation achieved these aims (Day et al, 2004, Lewis et al, 2003).

Key achievements of the RAP include (GBRMPA, 2005) : Protection of over 33% (>115,000 km2) of the Marine Park within the world’s largest network of highly protected ‘no-take’ areas. Creation of a network of highly protected areas that is representative of all 70 bioregions (habitats) within the Marine Park. Most comprehensive process of community involvement and participatory planning for any environmental issue in Australia’s history, including over 31,000 public submissions. In November 2004, the State of Queensland ‘mirrored’ the new zoning in most of the adjoining State waters, so now there is complementary zoning for virtually all the State and Federal waters within the GBRWHA.

184 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Developing and implementing an effective compliance Compliance with the permit system and zoning plan by users has been generally high for most of the history of the Park. However from the early 1990s there was increasing evidence that a more effective compliance program was needed. Moreover with the increasing level of fishing, both recreational and commercial and the declaration of much greater areas of restricted or non extractive areas especially in near shore areas it was clear that greater attention had to be brought to bear on surveillance and enforcement. During the development of the new zoning plan the issue of the need for effective compliance was often raised at community meetings. People were generally accepting of the need for increased restrictions as long as there was to be adequate efforts devoted to ensuring high levels of compliance. Over the last 7 years additional resources have been devoted within field management to improving surveillance and enforcement. The major elements of the new approach are: Clear allocation of enforcement capabilities according to priorities based on an activity’s likely environmental harm. Improved intelligence and information systems, which provide the basis for field operations and greater co-ordination of vessel and aircraft patrolling. Increased fines for illegal activities, and the use of ‘on the spot’ tickets for lesser offences. Training for field officers in interview and breach report preparation. Specialised and well-equipped field compliance teams with fast response vessels. Experience has shown that it is far more effective to provide a capable deterrence through professional and well-targeted compliance framework than to wait until an escalating culture of non-compliance undermines the integrity of the management regime.

Clear identification of information needs for management based on the critical issues and active participation with research providers to facilitate timely and relevant outcomes Managers at the GBRMPA have recently determining and articulating the research needs required to inform managers and policy makers on best management options. A research information system has been established.29 The establishment of specialist research brokers and managers such as the Reef Co-operative Research Centre and the recently formed Marine and Tropical Science and Research Fund

29 See www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp-site/info-services/science/research-priorities/

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 185 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have enabled better co-ordination and synergy between management needs and research capability.

How the main management tools have evolved and been augmented by additional tools Over the years, a range of management ‘tools’ have been applied, or developed, for regulating access, and to control and mitigate impacts associated with human use of the area. Historically, management of the GBRMP has relied upon utilising a combination of these management tools, but with the greatest reliance upon zoning plans, permits, education, surveillance and enforcement (Day, 2202b) The key components of the GBRMPA’s adaptive management approach include various policies (based on a sound understanding of the system’s status and behaviour), partnerships with others where responsibility is shared, management systems that implement those policies; and monitoring plans to determine system responses and provide a basis for adjusting management (Day 2002b, 2003). Any successful management regime must integrate all four aspects (i.e. the policy and the implementation/management aspects cannot be separated). Furthermore, it must be adaptable and be able to incorporate changes such as new information becoming available or as circumstances change. Irrespective of whether a change in marine management results from new data, ‘in-the-field’ experience, or as a result of external circumstances, all management practices must be periodically reviewed and updated where appropriate. Adaptive management enables managers to be flexible and to expect, and deal with, the unexpected (eg climate change was not even considered an important marine issue a decade ago) (GBRMPA, 2005). It is also important to recognise that some management actions need to be in place for a reasonable period of time to be effective or to enable a reasonable assessment of their effectiveness.

Conclusion As the GBRMP moves into its fourth decade, the need for a comprehensive approach to the sustainable management of one of the world’s great natural systems, and one that sustains a wide range of economic activities supporting coastal communities, regional economies and the national economy to around AUD$5.8 billion per annum (Access Economics, 2005), becomes ever more important. The approach taken in the RAP is now recognised as one of the most comprehensive, innovative and exciting global advances in the systematic protection

186 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of marine biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades.30 However the GBRMPA is well aware that the rezoning alone will not ensure the future of the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst the rezoning was a fundamental component, essential for conserving habitats and ecosystem processes, the GBRMPA continues to implement a range of key strategies to increase the resilience of the GBR to cope with increasing pressures, including: Improving water quality (Reef Water Quality Protection Plan) Promoting sustainable fisheries (Queensland Fisheries Management Plans) Developing sound policy regarding the effects of climate change on reefs (Climate Change Action Plan) Promoting sustainable tourism (by implementing aspects of the Australian Government Tourism White Paper (2003)) Identifying and dealing with direct threats to species based on best available science Establishing targeted research and monitoring to underpin responsive and adaptive management. There are clearly other MPAs around the world with differing management models and strategies. There are many lessons to be learnt from the successes and mistakes made in the GBRMP, and the GBRMPA is continually looking outwards, and is willing to work with others to develop the best outcomes for marine area management The management agency, GBRMPA, is currently under review (GBRMPA, 2005). Our hope is that the GBRMPA becomes a stronger and more contemporary agency, with the ability to effectively manage the Great Barrier Reef on behalf of all Australians for the next 30 years.

References

ACCESS ECONOMICS PTY LIMITED (2005): Measuring the Economic and Financial Value of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, GBRMPA Research Publications Series No. 84, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, June 2005. DAY, J.C, WALTER, D, BURSTON, I and BALDWIN, J. (1997): Day to Day Management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area “Management at the Crossroads (in: Wachenfeld, D, Oliver, J. and Davis, K (eds) The State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop, Workshop Series No. 23, Proc. Tech. Workshop, Townsville, Nov 1995). DAY JC. (2002a): Zoning – Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (139-156). DAY JC. (2002b): Marine Park Management and Monitoring – Lessons for Adaptive Management from the Great Barrier Reef. In: Soren Bondrup-Nielsen, Neil W.P.

30 A list of the recent national and international awards for the GBRMPA is on the web.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 187 30 years of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Munro, Gordon Nelson, J.H. Martin Willison, Tom B. Herman and Paul Eagles (Editors). Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World, (Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Science & Management of Protected Areas, May 2000), Wolfville, Canada. DAY, J.C. (2003): ‘Monitoring and Reporting in Natural World Heritage Areas – A World Heritage Manager’s Perspective’, Paper presented to Workshop on Monitoring & Reporting in World Heritage, Vicenza, Italy, Nov 2002, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, World Heritage Papers No.4. DAY J C, L. FERNANDES, A. LEWIS, G. DE’ATH, S. SLEGERS, B. BARNETT, B. KERRIGAN, D. BREEN, J. INNES, J. OLIVER, T. WARD and D. LOWE (2003): The Representative Areas Program – protecting the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Proc. Int. Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, 2000. DAY J.C. DAY, J, L FERNANDES, A LEWIS and J INNES (2004): ‘RAP – An Ecosystem Level Approach To Biodiversity Protection Planning’, Proc. ITMEMS: Manila, Philippines, March 2003. DONE, T. (1998): Science for management of the Great Barrier Reef. Nature & Resources, Vol 34 (3):16-29. FERNANDES l, et al. (2005): Establishing Representative No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-Scale Implementation of Theory on Marine Protected Areas. Conservation Biology, Vol. 19 (6):. 1733-1744. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK ACT 1975 (Commonwealth). GBRMPA (2002): Report on the State of Conservation of Great Barrier Reef, Australian Contribution to the 2003 Asia-Pacific Region Synthesis Report to the World Heritage Committee, compiled December 2002 http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ corp_site/key_issues/conservation/docs/gbr_wh_part_ii.pdf GBRMPA (2005): Submission by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ corp_site/review/index.html HUBER, D (2003): Audit of the management of the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Unpubl. Int. Report. GBRMPA, 2003. LAWRENCE, D, KENCHINGTON, R. and WOODLEY, S. (2002): The Great Barrier Reef- finding the right balance. Melbourne. Melbourne University Press. LEWIS, A., SLEGERS, S., LOWE, D., MULLER, L., FERNANDES, L. and DAY, J. (2003): Use of spatial analysis and GIS techniques to re-zone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Paper for Coastal GIS Workshop, Wollongong, NSW, 7-8 July 2003. REEF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PLAN (2003): Australian Government and Queensland Government. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/ water_quality/rwqpp.pdf SKEAT, H., BARNETT, B. and WATSON, M. (1998): Tourism Management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. SPARKES, S. (1997): Legislation protecting the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property? (in Wachenfeld, D, Oliver, J. and Davis, K (eds) The State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop, Workshop Series No. 23, Proc. Tech. Workshop, Townsville, Australia, November 1995). TANZER, J. (1998): Fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-seeking the balance. Parks 8 (2): 41-46.

188 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 189 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

Henning VON NORDHEIM German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Isle of Vilm

The ministers for the environment of the member states of the OSPAR and Helsinki conventions agreed in 2003 in Bremen (Germany) to identify the first set of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2006, establish what gaps then remain and complete by 2010 a joint network of well-managed marine protected areas that, together with the Natura 2000 network, is ecologically coherent. Earlier the European Community decided to include the marine environment in its Natura 2000 protected area network and recently further agreed to include MPAs of the Exclusive Economical Zones (EEZs) of its member states by 2008. This meshes well with the global agreement of the World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) at Johannesburg, 2002, that called for establishment of a worldwide network of protected areas by 2012. How are the intentions of this international forums brought together in Northern Europe to finally end up with a MPA-network of 18 nations?

The establishment of a MPA network typically is a five step process (see also Fig. 4): (1) develop a selection concept (needs: selection criteria) - predominantly a scientific process (2) nominate sites (nat. proposals for territorial + EEZ seas; in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ): multinational & stakeholders) - political/stakeholder process (3) establish legal status of sites (nat. activity for territorial +EEZ seas; multinational for ABNJ) - political/stakeholder process (4) establish the “well managed” site (needs: guidelines for management plans) - stakeholder/political process

190 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

(5) achieve ecologically coherent network of sites (needs: criteria to determine the ecological coherence) - predominantly a scientific process

The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) in 1994 agreed on an first set of 62 MPAs to form the initial basis for a comprehensive network in the Baltic Sea. Currently a further set of areas is under consideration (Fig. 1).

HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA) as of 2005

Facts for HELCOM MPAs: − all 9 CPs have submitted sites − 75 nominated − 67 with legal status − 32 finally approved, (incl Norway Finland management) − Most are Natura 2000 − Most in terrestrial waters Sweden Russia ~ 15% partially/fully in EEZs Estonia ~ 7% HELCOM maritime area = approx. 35.000 km2 are covered La tvia Denmark

Lithuania Baltic Sea N Russia Legend National Border New proposed marine BSPA Poland Germany (Helcom Expert Report 1998) BSPA (Helcom Rec. 15/5, 1994)

Fig. 1: HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA) as of 2005

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 191 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

In contrast to the conditions in HELCOM the OSPAR maritime area includes also large parts of the High Seas, which makes here the establishment of MPAs particularly challenging (Fig. 2).

"High Seas" areas and 200 nm-zones of countries bordering the OSPAR Maritime Area

5 1°E

W ° 4 4

5 9°N

W ° 2 4

3 6°N

OSPAR Maritime Area OSPAR contracting parties 200 nm-zones without new EEZ-extensions towards 350 nm or foot-baselines of continental slopes or 100 nm-extensions from the 2,500 m isobath "High Seas" by, Wolfgang Dinter, Annette Groß Dec. 2003 Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Fig. 2: “High Seas” areas and approximate 200 nm-zones of countries bordering the OSPAR Maritime Area

The OSPAR Commission started its MPA work in 1999. The most recent report on the status OSPAR network as of June 2006 shows 81 sites being nominated covering approx. 25,000 sq. km (OSPAR, 2006) (Fig. 3).

192 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

OSPAR MPA Nominations 2005 / 2006

Total Network Size: ~25 000 sq km Parties with no Percentage of Overall Area: ~0.25% nominations as of 10 April 06: Belgium Denmark Norway Iceland 6 Sites Ireland ~2 000 sq km Sweden Netherlands 6 sites Spain UK 56 Sites ~600 sq km ~10 000 sq km

Germany 4 sites ~12 000 sq km Portugal Azores 1 site France ~500 sq km 8 Sites ~250 sq km

Fig. 3: OSPAR MPA Nominations 2005/ 2006

In addition the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) has temporarily closed five large marine areas from fisheries mainly to protect deepwater corals summing up to about 25,000 sq. km. So in summary as of June 2006 the OSPAR MPA-network shows following facts:

(1) 6 of 12 Contracting Parties (CPs) have submitted OSPAR-MPAs (2) 25 000 sq km total area is about 1/4% of the OSPAR Maritime Area, if ice is accounted for (3) Tendency to nominate sites near to shore (4) No sites nominated in areas beyond national jurisdiction (5) All EU sites are also Natura 2000 (6) Ecological coherence is not achieved

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 193 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

MPAs in OSPAR regions The table, below, summarizes the distribution of MPA nominations by OSPAR marine region. The best represented regions, II & III, are a reflection of the UK nominations, as well as those from Germany and Sweden, and two from Norway. Norway’s other four nominations make up those in the Arctic Region I. The one Atlantic region V nomination is from Portugal. Regions I and V are by far the largest regions, including also areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, to date, there have been no nominations in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Region IV, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, has received just three small nominations to date, a reflection of the French contributions, and the absence of nominations by Spain and mainland Portugal.

Table: OSPAR Regions

I: Arctic II: N. Sea* III: Celtic* IV: Biscay V: Atlantic Total*

Sites 4 39 34 3 1 81

Area sq. km.) 1902 15958 6575 75 525 25035 *Areas for the UK sites are estimates based on Natura 2000 marine area. Actual UK OSPAR numbers have not yet been received, but are expected to be somewhat higher, thereby also raising the overall total.

OSPAR biographic regions Dinter (2001) delineated the OSPAR maritime area into three large biomes. The first Biome considered the pelagic waters less than 1000m in depth, of which there were three provinces. The second biome considered the seafloor up to 1000m depth, of which there were 17 provinces and sub-provinces. Finally, waters and the seafloor deeper than 1000m were treated together with two broad provinces. Thus altogether, there are 22 biogeographic zones. Using biogeographic zones as a surrogate for describing different ecosystems is generally accepted as the only way forward in the absence of detailed biological information. If an MPA network contains representative portions of each bioregion, it can be considered more likely to meet broad-scale ecological objectives, than a network that does not. The Dinter biomes have been accepted by MASH as one indication of broad-scale representativity for the purpose of establishing the OSPAR network. The representativity of the current

194 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas network ranges up to 2.72% of the biogeographic zones (Boreal). However, thirteen of the twenty-two biogeographic zones have no representation at all.

Natura 2000 network The Natura 2000 network of the EC is legally binding but has been sufficiently implemented so far only for terrestrial areas. To speed up the implementation also for marine areas (including EEZ) a “Marine Expert group” was created. Only Germany has submitted a complete proposal set of MPAs for Natura 2000 to the European Commission (35% of the German North Sea and Baltic Sea waters including the EEZ).

Conclusions on the status of northern european MPA network in 2006 Analysing the status of the three MPA network approaches in northern Europe leads to following observations (Fig. 4):

marine Natura OSPAR HELCOM 2000 (EC) step 1 (selection) step 2 (nomination) step 3 (legal status)

step 4 (management) step 5 (coherence)

Legend:

fulfilled good acceptable lot to do

Fig. 4: Status of MPA-networks in northern Europe (in 2006)

Whereas all three approaches have agreed on site selection criteria, the Natura 2000 system shows clear gaps in terms of the number of marine biotopes and species listed.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 195 The status of the OSPAR/HELCOM network of marine protected areas

The amount of sites selected/ nominated to date is a good start, but clearly needs to be intensified to meet the 2010 goal. Most sites are located near to shore, with few in the EEZ and none so far in areas beyond national jurisdiction. There is a clear preference by Contracting Parties to nominate sites as HELCOM or OSPAR – MPA that are also Natura 2000 sites. This guarantees in many cases already certain legal protection under national law. To guarantee a sufficient degree of legal protection for sites further offshore becomes more complicated, particularly in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). All three MPA selection and nomination processes are ongoing. Further serious engagement by most contracting parties is required to achieve to a comprehensive, ecologically coherent network of MPAs for the North East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea by 2010.

References

DINTER, W. P. (2001): Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area - A Synopsis and Synthesis of Biogeographical Distribution Patterns described for the North-East Atlantic. – Bonn (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation): 168 pp.

OSPAR [OSLO-PARIS COMMISSION] (2006): 2005/2006 Report on the Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas – Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Stockholm, 26-30 June 2006, Publication 0268, www.ospar.org

196 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 197 Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals? Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals?

Peter J. CORKERON Bioacoustics Research Program, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology,

We appear to be entering a new era of international discourse in how to manage human interactions with marine mammals. The dramatic expansion of industrial fisheries through the latter half of the last century occurred in oceans where marine mammals generally, and whales in particular, were scarce, a legacy of industrial hunts. Now, as some fisheries are in crisis, some marine mammal populations are showing signs of recovery, a result of decades of protection from hunting. This has led some to call for increased hunts of marine mammals as a component of fisheries management. The fisheries establishments of some nations, in their response to the Johannesburg Summit's call for implementation of the “Ecosystem Approach” to fisheries management, aver that culling marine predators is an aspect of “Ecosystem Based Fishery Management” [EBFM]. I've referred to this elsewhere as “Multispecies Fisheries Management” (MSFM, Corkeron in press) to differentiate it from the consensus on EBFM found in the refereed scientific literature. Consensus holds that EBFM means that restoring and sustaining ecosystem function takes priority over maximizing fisheries yields (e.g. Pikitch et al 2004a). Norway's current policy on marine mammal management, introduced in 2004, is the first official implementation of the MSFM approach. I contended in the scientific literature recently that “the principle embodied in the new Norwegian policy is to reduce marine mammal populations, or prevent population increases, in the hopes of increased fisheries production” (Corkeron 2004 p 1891), which I have described as culling by harvest (Corkeron in press). Some management actions arising from this policy are clearly antithetical to actions that are being implemented as part of the consensus view of EBFM (Corkeron in press). In essence, MSFM avers that our knowledge is sufficient to construct models of ecosystems that can provide specific management forecasts (rather than general projections), and that these forecasts demonstrate that fisheries yields will be enhanced by culling marine mammal populations. Policy prescriptions using these models fail to account appropriately for the caveats introduced by the models' authors in their refereed publications (e.g. Schweder et al. 1998, detailed in Corkeron in press). Current management also includes no measures to determine whether a signal of improved fisheries output attributable to culls can be detected in fisheries time series data.

198 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals?

The consensus view of EBFM holds that currently, our knowledge of marine ecosystems, and our capacity to manage our activities in them, remain inadequate (e.g. Pikitch et al 2004b). This needs addressing through precautionary and design- based approaches to using science in management. Elsewhere, I have given examples of how MSFM, as implemented in management responses to Norway's new policy, differs from, and at times clashes directly with, EBFM as it is currently being implemented (Corkeron in press). One problem with the EBFM/MSFM divide is that protagonists for each view of the “ecosystem approach” seem unaware that the other exists. This is best exemplified in the responses to my letter noting this dichotomy (Corkeron 2004) by those at the forefront of developing concepts of EBFM (Pikitch et al. 2004), and those implementing MSFM (Ludvigsen 2005). S. Ludvigsen (2005, p 498), the (then) Norwegian Minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, stated in his letter to Science that “the White Paper talks about profitability, not culling per se”. Elsewhere (Corkeron in press), I have given examples of how implementing Norway's new policy seems aimed at reducing the size of, or to stop increases in, marine mammal populations. This fits current definitions of culling (Yodzis 2001). More tellingly, there are also instances where implementing the new policy should result in actions that would reduce the size of, or eliminate, some marine mammal hunts, but the hunts continue. For example, Ludvigsen (2005 p 498) stated that “The government also follows the principle that no hunting of seals or whales should be permitted in cases where estimates of stock size are not available”. Hunts for bearded seals, Erignathus barbatus, in Svalbard continue, despite no estimate of their abundance, nor of the size of the hunt. Another example is that of coastal seals in Norway. Ludvigsen (2005 p 498) also stated that the new policy follows “the principle of conservation and sustainable use based on scientific advice”. Advice from Norwegian government scientists was not taken when quotas for 2005 and 2006 were set for grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, along the Norwegian coast. Quotas were set at 1186 animals (Lekve 2004, Anonymous 2005), more than double the quotas advised by scientists from the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (Anonymous 2004, Nilssen 2005). Scientists' advice on quotas for harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, were not heeded also. For 2006, a quota of 305 was recommended by government scientists (Nilssen 2005), but the quota was set at 750 (Anonymous 2005). Norwegian hunts of coastal seals, along with those from Sweden and Finland, get financial support from the European Union (see http://www.nordicseal.org/). Is there evidence to date that culling marine mammals will solve Europe's (or Norway's) fisheries problems? Not so far. Massive depletions of most of Europe's harbor seal populations in two epizootics do not appear to have been detected in

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 199 Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals? fisheries statistics. Could the hunts underway in Norway provide answers? Monitoring currently in place appears inadequate to detect a signal of change in fisheries production (or profitability) from changes in the abundance of marine mammals. This seems to have been ignored when implementation plans for the new policy were being drawn up. Had those responsible for implementing this policy taken a design- based, adaptive management approach to allocating quotas, perhaps the question could be answered one way or the other. To elaborate, calls for implementing no-take marine reserves as a component of EBFM are becoming common (e.g. Lubchenco et al. 2003, Browman and Stergiou 2004). These options allow a break from traditional population-model-based approaches to fisheries management and an entry into the more conceptually powerful options of design-based approaches (Corkeron in press). Without manipulating fisheries effort (no-take reserves being the most obvious case), scientists will have only model-based approaches with which to make inference regarding cause and effect between fisheries and marine ecosystems. Manipulating fisheries effort, or in this case hunt effort, requires political will, something that is unlikely to be available unless the general public accepts the value of the manipulation. In coastal Norway, the perception that marine mammals are responsible for fisheries problems is so pervasive that this would be difficult to achieve. (Such a manipulation would also require scientists, fisheries managers and policy makers who understand the basics of adaptive management, which is also an issue). A few years ago, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the ex-Prime Minister of Norway, described the relationship between science and environmental policy in an editorial in Science (Brundtland 1997); “As caretakers of our common future, we have the responsibility to seek scientifically sound policies, nationally as well as internationally. If the long-term viability of humanity is to be ensured, we have no other choice.” . Fisheries problems are largely of fisheries' own making (e.g. Pauly et al. 2003). There are a few minor instances where culling isolated problem animals may resolve short-term, local fisheries conflicts. The European marine mammal fauna is already depauperate, a legacy of centuries of human intervention in European marine ecosystems. There is little cause to deplete it further in the name of “the ecosystem approach” to fisheries management.

References.

ANONYMOUS (2004): Regulering av fangst av kystsel i 2005. The Norwegian Fisheries Directorate, Oslo, Norway. Available from http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/ content/download/3713/24229/file/sak4_2004.doc

200 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Can fisheries problems be solved by culling marine mammals?

ANONYMOUS (2005): Forskrift om kvoter i jakt på kystsel i 2006. The Norwegian Fisheries Directorate, Oslo, Norway. Available at: http://www.fiskeridir.no/ fiskeridir/ressursforvaltning/j_meldinger/gjeldende_j_meldinger/j_244_2005 BROWMAN, H. I. and STERGIOU, K.I. (eds., 2004): Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 269-303. BRUNDTLAND, G. H. (1997): The Scientific Underpinning of Policy. Science 277: 457. CORKERON, P. J. (2004): Fishery management and culling. Science 306: 1891. CORKERON, P. J. (in press): Opposing views of the “Ecosystem Approach” to fisheries management. Conservation Biology. LEKVE, O. (2004): Kvotene for kystsel er fastsatt. The Norwegian Fisheries Directorate, Oslo, Norway. Available from http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/ aktuelt/fiskets_gang/sjoepattedyr/2004/1104/kvotene_for_kystsel_er_fastsatt LUDVIGSEN, S. (2005): The Norwegian position on culling. Science 308: 497. LUBCHENCO, J., PALUMBI, S. R., GAINES, S. D., and ANDELMAN, S. (2003): Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13(Supplement): S3-S7. NILSSEN, K. T. (2005): Kvoteanbefaling for kystsel i 2006. Available from: http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/ressursforvaltning/sakspapirer_ og_referater/saksliste_til_sjoepattedyrraadet_2005 PAULY, D., ALDER, J., BENNETT, E., CHRISTENSEN, V., TYEDMERS, P. and WATSON, R. (2003): The Future for Fisheries. Science 302: 1359-1361. PIKITCH, E. K., et al. (2004a): Fishery management and culling. Response. Science 306: 1892. PIKITCH, E. K., et al. (2004b): Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Science 305: 346-347. SCHWEDER, T., HAGEN, G. S., and HATLEBAKK, E. (1998): On the effect on cod and herring fisheries of retuning the Revised Management Procedure for minke whaling in rgw greater Barents Sea. Fisheries Research 37: 77-95. YODZIS, P. (2001): Must top predators be culled for the sake of fisheries? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 78-84.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 201 Development of sustainable practices for Baltic Sea fisheries

Pre-conference abstract:

Development of sustainable practices for Baltic Sea fisheries – problems and solutions

Gunnar NORÉN Executive Secretary to Coalition Clean Baltic

Baltic Sea fisheries has fundamental problems with sustainability, as in many other sea areas of the world. Two species having special problems are cod and salmon. Important fisheries aspects can be separated into: Overfishing – Baltic cod stocks have been evaluated as ”outside safe biological limits” by ICES for many years. The problem is overcapacity of the fishing fleet, and to high fishing efforts compared to the cod stock size. Fishing on salmon mixed stocks – 80% of the Baltic salmon fishery is an open-sea fishery on mixed salmon populations. This implies also fishing on 25 wild Baltic salmon river populations that are weak and threatened, which obviously can lead to an extinction of some of these populations the coming years. Atlantic (Baltic) salmon is a species in the EU Habitat directive, that shall maintain a ”good favourable status”. Today there is no EU-plan to balance the fishery needs with nature conservation. Fisheries sector rules the management today. Fisheries on mixed salmon populatons should be restricted or phase-out. Salmon artificial stocking programmes – 75 % of all salmon smolt come from reared and released salmon smolts, and 25 % from naturally spawning. 75 % of all naturally produced smolt come from river Tornio and river Kalix in Bothnian Bay. Extensive stocking programmes threaten the wild Baltic salmon and its genetic variability. Such programmes must be limited or phase-out to safeguard all weak wild Baltic salmon river populations. Damaging fishing techniques – is fishing methods having a strong impact on the marine environment. Alternatives are usually available, but is usually not as financially interesting for the fisheries sector. Dangers of bottom-trawling – trawling vessels can have trawl-doors, weighing several tons, that ploughs 0.5-1 m deep tacks in the bottom-sediments, that kills and harms bottom-living animals. In the Kiel Bight it is estimated that 140 km2 of bottom is repeatedly trawled during the year. Such level of trawling intensity have major impact on the seabed, with demrsal fish and benthic invertebrate communities. There is a

202 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Development of sustainable practices for Baltic Sea fisheries need to introduce environmental permits for bottom-trawling, on the basis of an EIA. Cod fishing gear with high selectivity are e g long-lines and gill-nets. Natural distribution areas for Baltic cod – The possibility for cod spawning is dependent of the salinity of bottom-waters in the Baltic Sea. Last years spawning has been limited to the Bornholm deep. Cod spawning usually also take place in the Gdansk deep and Gotland deep. Baltic cod has regularily been landed in harbours in southern Bothnian Sea in the 1960-1970s, which show that its natural distribution area is up to Aaland islands. A cod management goal should be set up, that says – Baltic cod shall be distributed in sustained populations up to the Aaland Sea- northern Baltic proper, e g as an important predator in coastal marine ecosystems. Other aspects on sustainable Baltic Sea fisheries practices will also be presented.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 203 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

Jeff ARDRON and Ian BURFIELD NABU, Germany and BirdLife International, Netherlands

Introduction This informal paper is intended to provide an overview of marine bird protection in Europe. It is structured into six sections: • Why Protect Seabirds in Europe? • Main Mechanisms Available to Protect Seabirds • Building Upon Existing Structures • Current Seabird Protection Status (overview and national examples) • Scientific Challenges and Solutions: Identifying Marine IBAs • Looking Ahead: EU Marine Policy Given the short space available, many details will be omitted, and in particular the summary of protection in various European national waters must be considered cursory and incomplete at this time. Nonetheless, it is hoped that from this overview, a general picture of the state of seabird protection in Europe will become clear.

Why Protect Seabirds in Europe? Covering around 47 million km2, Europe’s seas are about five times larger than its land area (c. 10 million km2). European seas are important for the survival of 62 bird species, or about 12% of all European species (Tucker & Evans 1997). Seven (c. 16%) of these are of global conservation concern and are included on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2006). Twenty-eight (45%) of these 62 seabirds are considered to have an Unfavourable Conservation Status (UCS) in Europe (BirdLife International 2004a). Regionally, UCS is as follows: 41% of the 51 species in Northwest European seas; 93% of the 14 species in Macaronesian seas (the area of the Atlantic including the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores); and 61% of the 13 species in the Mediterranean and Black Seas (Tucker & Evans 1997). Thus, the health of seabirds in European waters is generally poor (and declining – see later). To date, protection efforts have generally been greater in those areas with greater species richness, i.e. the Northeast Atlantic. Protecting seabirds provides an “umbrella” under which other species and habitats can also be protected. For example, seabird colonies are often in remote areas that are difficult to access, which

204 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe reduces the rate of predation on eggs and chicks. Protecting such places (e.g. islets) helps ensure that these ecosystems remain intact and unaffected by threats such as introduced species (e.g. rats) and human disturbance. Being top predators that are easier to monitor than fish, seabirds can also be good indicators of the health of their prey, and of the marine ecosystem in general. For example, poor reproductive success of seabirds in the northern North Sea has been linked to reduced numbers of sand eels, which in turn appears to be linked to climate change. Thus, seabirds have been a key indicator of what is now believed to be a larger ecosystem disturbance.

Main Mechanisms Available to Protect Seabirds In Europe, four main tools exist to protect seabirds: EU legislation, international conventions, regional seas conventions, and other international agreements. Each of these is discussed below. 1. Natura 2000 compasses the EU Birds Directive (1979) and the Habitats Directive (1992). Both apply to territorial seas and to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs, when they have been claimed by nation states). The Birds Directive is, as its name suggests, devoted to the protection of birds. Originally, it also had some provisions regarding habitat protection, but these were superseded by the Habitats Directive when it came into force. However, only nine of the 181 habitats covered by the Habitats Directive are marine. The Birds Directive covers all species of naturally occurring wild birds, but requires Member States to take special conservation measures (i.e. establish Special Protection Areas, SPAs) for: a. Species listed on Annex I, which includes 18 seabirds; b. Other migratory species; although not listed, 24 other seabirds have been identified as common European migrants (EC Directorate-General Environment, draft April 2006). With regard to the marine environment, the Natura 2000 habitat and species lists are recognized as being incomplete. Thus, while some key habitats and species have been identified, others have not. The Natura 2000 system as it currently stands in the marine environment cannot be said to be representative. The Natura 2000 network has generally been slow to meet its target dates, particularly in the marine environment. Target dates continue to be revised... During the Malahide Conference in May 2004, 2008 was set as a target for completion of the marine Natura 2000 network (Duke 2005). The most recent communication from the European Commission, however, appears to indicate that 2010 is the current target, with 2012 as the target for management plans to be in place, which is two years later than the terrestrial targets (EC 2006).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 205 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

As of June 2005, there are 459 Birds Directive SPAs that have some sort of marine component, and 1249 Habitats Directive pSCIs with a marine component (EC Directorate-General Environment, draft April 2006). Almost all of these are in territorial waters, close to shore. Very few sites are further offshore, or exclusively marine (with no land), and fewer still in EEZs − only Denmark and Germany.

2. Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: These international conventions include several agreements and memoranda of understanding (MoUs). The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) was signed in 1995, came into force in 1999 and involves most (but not all) European countries. It is the largest of all the CMS agreements, takes a “flyway approach” and covers 235 species, including some birds associated with the sea, such as pelicans, storks, flamingos, ducks, waders, terns, gulls and geese. In general, however, the AEWA and also RAMSAR do not cover truly marine species, and all the sites they protect are on land or close to shore. The CMS Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) was signed in 2001, and came into force in 2004. While the focus is mostly outside of European waters, it does fall within some European territories, and applies to European fishing vessels (flying European flags), regardless of where they are fishing.

3. Regional Seas Conventions in Europe include OSPAR (Northeast Atlantic), HELCOM (Baltic), Barcelona (Mediterranean) and Bucharest (Black Sea – not yet ratified). In terms of marine bird protection, OSPAR and HELCOM are the furthest advanced, but the species lists are not yet finalized. It should be noted that the OSPAR Maritime Area includes high seas as c. 40% of its maritime area. To date, the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species includes just five seabirds: • Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus fuscus • Iberian Guillemot Uria aalge albionis • Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri • Little Shearwater Puffinus assimilis baroli • Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii The last three of these were proposed by BirdLife, which plans to put forward more proposals for consideration at the OSPAR MASH meeting in autumn 2006.

4. Other International Agreements usually encourage an ecosystem approach and/or precautionary approach to marine conservation, and thus imply the inclusion of

206 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe other species such as seabirds, even if they are not explicitly mentioned. These include: • UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) – Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) – Ad-hoc Informal Working Group on High Seas Biodiversity – UN Informal Consultative Process and Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) • UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) – Compliance Agreement (International Conservation & Management by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas,1993) – Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) • The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – Dumping at sea: London Convention & 1996 Protocol – Shipping: MARPOL (1973 / 1978) – Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA; 1992, under review) • UN Environment Program (UNEP) • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) – Global protected areas by 2012 (WSSD: Sustainable fisheries by 2015) – Protected Areas Working Group – COP-9 in Germany, 2008

Building upon Existing Structures BirdLife International and its Partner organisations work extensively with European Union Member States, using the current legal tools available to effect bird protection. Identification of Important Bird Areas and the creation of Species Action Plans are two approaches that are explained below. 1. Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified through the development of scientifically credible criteria. These IBAs often lead to Natura 2000 nominations in Member States, but more work is needed to complete the network. Currently about 44% of all IBAs in the EU25 are Birds Directive SPAs, but only 11% of marine IBAs have been nominated to Natura 2000 (BirdLife International 2004b). This statistic is particularly poor when it is taken into account that these marine IBAs are still very incomplete. IBAs are recognized as scientifically credible, and have formed the basis

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 207 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe for four successful cases at the European Court of Justice when Member States did not consider them in their conservation plans. 2. Species Action Plans (SAPs) have, with the assistance of Partners and other stakeholders, been developed for a number of Europe’s most threatened species, including almost all species of global conservation concern and several seabirds. The European Union, through the ORNIS Committee, has approved 45 SAPs, while the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention has endorsed 49. The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has endorsed 18 and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) has endorsed 3. BirdLife International recently assessed the implementation of the first 23 SAPs within the EU15, and found that Birds Directive Annex I species with SAPs in place did better during 1990–2000 than those that did not (BirdLife International 2004b).

Current Seabird Protection Status (European overview and examples from various nations) Key findings from Birds in the European Union: a status assessment (BirdLife 2004b), and other studies, paint a mixed portrait of both good and bad news for Birds in Europe: Good News... • Nearshore and coastal species are generally increasing in the EU. This can probably be attributed to habitat restoration and the implementation of Natura 2000. The Water Framework Directive (in force as of 2000, with a 2015 target of “good status”) can be expected to also have a positive effect on these species and their habitats. • Birds Directive Annex I species (including terrestrial) do better than other species. • Annex I species did better in the EU15 than outside during 1990-2000. Bad News... • The conservation status of birds in Europe has deteriorated overall. • There have been recent alarming failures in reproductive success of North Sea seabird colonies. • Long distance migrants are declining rapidly, including offshore species. • Bycatch from long line fisheries is especially problematic. Fortunately, this can be addressed in a straight-forward manner using existing technology, if there is political will to do so. [See talk by Euan Dunn.]

208 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

• No Seabird Action Plan has been put forward. Despite the earlier commitment made at the Malahide ministerial meeting to do so by 2006 (Duke 2005: Malahide conference, 2004, Objective §7.4, p152), one has not appeared. Recent communications from the EC still note the need for an action plan, but target dates are no longer being specified (EC 2006). From our various Partners, we have assembled the following summaries of seabird protection in some European countries. States vary greatly in their level of current seabird protection, with both Germany and Denmark having significant sites further offshore in their EEZs. Other states have implemented little or no seabird protection. Information on protection measures is usually difficult to attain, and therefore these summaries should be considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to correction as further information becomes available. Those countries for which we have some information are arranged in alphabetical order below: Belgium: 2005 saw the designation of three SPAs and two SACs in the Belgian part of the North Sea. The SPAs are designated for Sandwich Tern, Common Tern, Great Crested Grebe and Little Gull. The SACs are designated for a combination of seals and habitat type “sandbank”. They are nearshore (up to 6nm offshore). Cyprus: Its waters are not generally rich in seabirds. There are no truly marine SPAs. One of the seven existing SPAs has a marine component − Capa Aspro, which includes an area of sea extending from the chalk sea cliffs used by Falco eleonorae, Falco peregrinus and Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Denmark: Two large marine SPAs (Kattegat & Waddensee); with one of these entirely offshore. These two sites total about half a million hectares. There are another 47 smaller ones with a marine component; in all, over one million hectares. Habitats Directive and Birds Directive sites often overlap, and together account for about 1.3 million hectares, or 12.3% of Denmark’s total marine area (Sorensen 2005). Estonia: There have been identified twenty-four IBAs with a marine component, almost half of all Estonian IBAs by area. Mostly coastal, these IBAs appear to have been largely accepted by the government to be SPAs, but this is not yet officially confirmed (as of Jan. 2006). An EU LIFE project is ongoing to identify marine protected areas in the eastern Baltic. Germany: Almost all of Germany’s North Sea coastline is protected in SPAs. A large portion of its Baltic coast is also protected with SPAs. In its EEZ, Germany also has two large SPAs, one in the North Sea and another in the Baltic. As such, it is one of the most advanced EU Member States in seabird protection. SPAs total about 581 thousand hectares in the Baltic, and over a million hectares in the North Sea. Some SACs, such as the Dogger Bank (170 000 ha) in the North Sea, also contain

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 209 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe numerous bird values. [See also the talk by Christian Pusch on fisheries interactions in Natura 2000 sites.] Italy: Coastal IBAs (Eleonora’s Falcon & Audouin’s Gull) have been identified. Pelagic IBAs not yet identified (e.g. feeding grounds for shearwaters). Latvia: All seven coastal Natura sites have a marine component. Three are designated SPAs, but there is some question re qualifying bird concentrations. An EU LIFE project is ongoing to identify marine protected areas in the eastern Baltic. Malta: Seabird colony IBAs have been extended 4 km out to sea. It is yet to be seen if the corresponding SPAs are likewise extended, though there have been some encouraging indications. Netherlands: Two SPAs (& SACs), in shallow water nearshore. There are two or three more areas with bird values, further offshore, that are under review. Portugal: Europe’s largest EEZ. IBAs are currently being identified. [See talk by F. Ivan Ramirez.] Spain: Some coastal SPAs (by regional governments), but none in EEZ (federal government). Species richness distributed over three biogeographic regions; e.g. Mediterranean contains the entire breeding population of the Balearic Shearwater, and 90% of Audouin’s Gull. IBAs are being identified, including through the collection of new data as part of an EU LIFE project. United Kingdom: Significant proportions of the global populations of some marine bird species are reliant on UK coastal and offshore waters for their survival, most notably Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus (69%), Northern Gannet Morus bassanus (59%) and Great Skua Stercorarius skua (60%). Scotland alone has colonies holding c. 45% of all seabirds breeding in the EU. Only one truly marine SPA has been designated in the UK: Carmarthen Bay, Wales. It is likely that one or two more SPA proposals will come forward in 2006: Liverpool Bay (Common Scoter and Red-throated Diver) and the Outer Thames (Red-throated Diver). Recommendations for SPA colony extensions have been put forward for: Guillemot, Razorbill, Puffin (1 km extensions), Gannet and Fulmar (2 km), and Manx Shearwater (at least 4 km but greater if available data suggest that it should be). No marine extensions are recommended for existing breeding site SPAs for Great Cormorant, skuas, gulls, Black-throated Diver, Great Crested Grebe, Slavonian Grebe, Common Scoter, or Red-necked Phalarope. Extensions are being studied for possible SPAs for petrels, shag or terns. The UK has also submitted 56 of its coastal SPAs as OSPAR MPAs.

210 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

Scientific Challenges and Solutions: identifying Marine IBAs The marine environment is a dynamic environment, with pelagic boundaries defined by the probabilities of events occurring in a certain place at a certain time. Seabirds usually can adapt to such seasonal and inter-annual variations much more readily than can our conservation measures. Thus, the challenge is to develop strategies within this fluid environment that still allow for spatial protection of seabird species −at least for part of their life history. Adapting the terrestrial Important Bird Area (IBA) criteria to the sea has required a review of principles and approaches. Two workshops were held in 2005, in Spain and Portugal, and from those the Birds & Habitats Directive Task Force envisaged four types of marine IBAs: 1. Seaward extensions of breeding colonies - i.e. adaptations to existing IBAs, with boundaries based on species’ foraging ranges; 2. Concentrations of non-breeding waterbirds - i.e. those covered by RAMSAR criteria for >1% biogeographical population or >20,000 birds; 3. Migration bottlenecks - i.e. straits or headlands through/past which many birds pass regularly; 4. Foraging areas used by pelagic species – i.e. discontiguous with breeding colonies - these are especially important for Procellariidae.

Seaward extensions of breeding colonies Several seabird colonies that are protected on land could conceivably be extended seaward. However, the exact foraging areas for many colonies are not well known. In the absence of such data, it has been suggested that designating a radius around the colony could capture most of the activities. Nonetheless, such buffers should be considered as a provisional compromise, and would likely end up protecting several places where the birds do not frequent. Proposed default distances, in the absence of specific data, are listed below:

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 211 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

In British Columbia, Canada, one of the authors (Ardron 2003) used this approach, setting up different “search radii” for different species, and performed a density analysis on seabird colonies based on populations. If a second colony of the same species fell within the designated search radius, it contributed to the overall population density for that species in that area. When mapped, these density maps helped clarify the key densities of seabird colonies (by species), and how far to sea might be considered appropriate protection. Regarding protection measures, it should be noted that other than the UK (esp. Scotland), many of the major European seabird colonies are situated in Norway and Iceland, which are not EU countries, and therefore not subject to the creation of Natura 2000 sites. Nonetheless, all these sea areas are part of the OSPAR convention. Currently, however, neither of these two countries have put forward seabird MPAs to OSPAR. Concentrations of non-breeding seabirds: In order to try to extend the approach taken to identify IBAs on land and in freshwater habitats, the Marine Classification Criterion (MCC) has been developed and used to identify marine IBAs in some areas (e.g. the Baltic). It may have wider applications in the marine environment, which are currently being explored. • Principle: >1% of birds in <1% of available area • Aggregation classified as important if MCC ≥ 1 • For most species wintering in the Baltic Sea, more than 80% of the estimated total number of individuals occur within the selected areas • MCC = (n/N) x 100 a/A

Where n is the estimated number of birds within the aggregation; N is the size of the total population; a is the area of the aggregation; and, A is the maximum size (3000 km2) of an important area, supporting 1% of the population.

Migration bottlenecks At the workshops, it was agreed that major migration bottlenecks could represent highly appropriate marine IBAs. A priority site in Iberia would be the Straits of Gibraltar; and possible sites in Baltic could include Estonia/Gulf of Finland. It should be noted that such bottlenecks might form IBAs for which SPA management prescriptions apply only to specified times of year.

212 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

Foraging areas used by pelagic species The interaction between the criteria used and the size of the potential IBAs is a critical issue, requiring the development of empirically-based models to explore this and undertake sensitivity analysis. The workshops recommended testing a range of models. There are various ways to collect data, such as: general surveys, remote tracking/recording and focused surveys. Each method comes with advantages and disadvantages in given situations; for example, telemetry is valuable for ground- truthing survey-based approaches, and adds new information (usage).

Looking Ahead: EU Marine Strategy BirdLife International, in close collaboration with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs: Greenpeace, Oceana, IFAW, WWF, Seas at Risk, FISH, EEB), has formulated a response to the draft EU Marine Strategy. In summary, this NGO Coalition welcomes the initiative, but points out that there are some shortcomings as it currently stands: • it so far fails to establish targets; and, defers key decisions on what constitutes a healthy marine environment to a later date; • it does not attempt to consolidate existing measures into a single legal framework (i.e. harmonization rather than complication); and, • it fails to address adequately the cumulative impacts of all sectors on the marine environment. The NGO coalition therefore makes the following recommendations: 1. Set a clear objective; 2. Define a healthy marine environment; 3. Identify the cumulative threats; 4. Ensure collective responsibility; 5. Link more with existing laws; and 6. Guiding principles of EU environmental policy should be made explicit. It is widely accepted that there is a pressing need to integrate EU marine environmental legislation. This especially so for seabirds, which are subject to stressors and threats from a wide range of human activities. The Marine Strategy and the Maritime Directive, if properly crafted, could structure the basis of future collaborations and synergies amongst marine sectors. However, if a cohesive ecosystem approach is not taken, there is the considerable risk that marine environmental health will continue to deteriorate, and that the services provided to

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 213 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe humans from the marine environment will likewise decline. Seabirds, like canaries in a coal mine, will be the first to let us know.

Acknowledgements Thanks to the many people who supplied information for this presentation (though the mistakes are not theirs!). They include, in no particular order: Stefan Garthe (ICES), Tatiana Sutiakova (BirdLife International), Kate Tanner (RSPB), Andrew Dodd (RSPB), F. Iván Ramírez (SPEA, Portugal), Antra Stipniece (Latvia), Martin Hellicar (Cyprus), Katrin Heinike (BfN, Germany), and the many BirdLife Partners.

References

ARDRON, J. (2003): BC Coast Information Team Marine Ecosystem Spatial Analysis, v. 1.2. Excerpted and revised from: Rumsey, C., Ardron, J., Ciruna, K., Curtis, T., Doyle, F., Ferdana, Z., Hamilton, T., Heinemyer, K., Iachetti, P., Jeo, R., Kaiser, G., Narver, D., Noss, R., Sizemore, D., Tautz, A., Tingey, R., Vance- Borland, K. An ecosystem analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, and North Coast British Columbia. Sept. 22, 2003. (184 pages.) http://www.livingoceans.org/documents/ CIT_marine_report1-2b.doc. 44 pages. BIRDS DIRECTIVE (1979): European Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2004a): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. [Species factsheets available at http://birdsineurope. birdlife.org] BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2004b): Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International. Last accessed June 2006: http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/birds_in_europe/birds_in%20_the_ eu.pdf DUKE, G. (ed., 2005): Biodiversity and the EU – Sustaining Life, Sustaining Livelihoods. Conference Report. Stakeholder Conference held under the Irish Presidency of The European Union in partnership with the European Commission, 25th - 27th May 2004, Grand Hotel, Malahide, Ireland. Last accessed June 2006: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ develop_biodiversity_policy/malahide_conference/index_en.htm EC DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT (draft April 2006): Guidelines for the estab- lishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment: Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Natura 2000 Marine Experts Group. EC (2006): Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 — and beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for human well–being; Annex 1. Brussels, 22.5.2006, COM(2006)216 final. Last accessed June 2006: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/biodiversity/current_biodiversity_policy/biodiversity_com_2006/index_en. htm HABITATS DIRECTIVE (1992): European Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC).

214 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Bird Conservation in Europe

SORENSEN, T.K. (2005): Protection of marine nature in inner Danish seas: status and recommendations. English translation 2006. WWF Denmark. TUCKER, G.M. and HEATH, M.F. (1994): Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 3. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. TUCKER, G.M. and EVANS, M.I. (1997): Habitats for birds in Europe: a conservation strategy for the wider environment. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 6. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International IUCN (2006): The 2006 IUCN Red List of threatened species. http://www.redlist.org

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 215 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ

F. Iván RAMIREZ SPEA / BirdLife Portugal

The future marine component of the Natura 2000 network has to be part of a coherent European ecological network, composed of sites selected for, under the Habitats Directive, (i) the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and (ii) the habitats for the species listed in Annex II. This will enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored to a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The Natura 2000 network will include also Special Protection Areas classified pursuant to the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC. These are to be the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of birds listed in annex I of Birds directive and migratory birds, taking into account their protection requirements. BirdLife International has successfully implemented a network of terrestrial Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and has obtained general recognition that these sites represent prime sites for bird conservation. This European network of IBAs has formed an important scientific reference for the designation of special protection areas (SPAs) under the Wild Birds Directive of the European Union.

The Portuguese case SPEA, BirdLife International partner in Portugal, has classified 92 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and although there are still many IBAs that are not classified as SPAs, we could say that the implementation of this Directive in land is acceptable and seems to be a mature and well-defined process. This is not the case for the marine environment, where the size of the Portuguese Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), 1.727.408 Km2 being the 11th largest of the world, and its very narrow continental platforms that quickly descend down to 2000-3000 m, represent both a challenge and a problem for all scientists and national bodies that try to study and characterise this area. Because of its depth, it is also an area with low productivity, which only rises near the coast or at very specific grounds, such as the various seamounts, upwellings and small islets that contain the main fishing and research grounds. With regards to seabirds occurring within the Portuguese waters, 14 Annex I seabird species occur within the Portuguese EEZ, 4 of them being globally threatened. Many

216 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ of these species, like the breeding petrels and storm-petrels from the Azores and Madeira archipelagos have very disperse distributions, not forming easily-identifiable concentrations that could help us defining important bird areas at sea. Their feeding range while breeding has yet to be quantified but data suggests current statistical approaches would define far bigger areas than those identified for northern European countries.

Table 1: Main seabird species occurring in Portuguese waters

Species Globally Annex Where in Breeding/Wintering threatened I PORTUGAL Pelagic/Coastal ? Pterodroma feae X X M B, P Pterodroma madeira X X M B, P Bulweria bulwerii X M,A B, P Calonectris X M,A,C B, P diomedea Puffinus X X C P mauretanicus Puffinus assimilis X M,A B, W, P Pelagodroma X M B, P marina Oceanodroma X M,A,C B, P castro Morus bassanus C W, P Larus minutus X C W, C Larus X C W, C melanocephalus Larus audouinii X X C B, W Sterna sandvicensis X C W, C Sterna dougallii X M,A B, C Sterna hirundo X M,A B, C Fratercula arctica C P Explanatory Notes: M= Madeira, A= Açores, C= Continental Portugal. B= Breeding, W= Wintering, P= Pelagic, C= Coastal

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 217 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ

Some information on the Portuguese fishing fleet Fisheries in Portugal have crossed notorious changes in the last decades: fleet, fishermen and landings decreased significantly and simultaneously its weight in national economy has also decreased. Moreover, considering the actual circumstances, these trends will be maintained. The actual state of biological conservation of some resources shows that more adequate management measures are needed to invert the decline trend of some target stocks of the Portuguese fleet. The size of the Portuguese fishing fleet is approximately 60% (in number and capacity) of that existing in 1970. Contrary to what happened to the contiguous Spanish fleet, Portugal has experienced a serious drop that affects almost all sectors of the fishing effort. The trend inversion also coincides with the Portuguese join to the EU in the eighties. See Figure 1.

The Portuguese EEZ provides 80% of the national catches, sardine is the most captured resource (67 thousand tonnes), seine is the fleet segment with higher landings(66 thousand tonnes) and the North West Atlantic (NAFO) and North East Atlantic (ICES) areas are second and third in terms of presence of Portuguese boats. The last 5 years have witnessed a small increase, but the number of fishing vessels will probably not be as big as it was in the past. This is not necessarily good or bad news, as the capacity is much more important, and as the seabird mortality caused by the Portuguese fishing gear is still to be studied.

218 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ

Marine MPAs in Portugal, still an early stage The number of marine protected areas in Portugal is still quite low, so far we can summarise them in the following: • Azores Archipelago o SCIs “Formigas Bank and Dollabarat”, “Dom João de Castro Bank” o Regional MPAs • “Formigas Bank and Dollabarat” and “Menez Gwen & Lucky Strike “ o OSPAR submission of both Regional MPAs • Continental Portugal o SPA a seaward extension of the Berlengas seabird colonies (SPA Berlengas and Farilhoes) o Inshore area (up to 20m depth) for wintering scoters (SPA Aveiro). o SCI proposed in Arrabida to protect the last sea-grass prairie in the marine environment in Portugal. • Madeira Archipelago o SPA designated for the main breeding colonies in Desertas and Selvagens include a seaward extension of 100m to 200m depth. The areas listed above are clearly insufficient for protecting seabird fishing and/or resting marine grounds, so much more work is needed.

Our work, the Marine IBA LIFE Project It is clear that defining marine SPAs in the Portuguese EEZ will only be possible when enough seabird and oceanographic data is available, data that will then be used to create a coherent set of criteria that can integrate the needs of the conservation, fishing, maritime transport and other sectors. To do this, SPEA launched in 2004 an European funded project called “Important Seabird Areas in Portugal”, that aims to Identify the most suitable areas for seabirds included in Annex I of the Birds Directive and also to contribute to the future designation of Special Protected Areas in coastal and pelagic waters in Portugal. It also aims to characterise each area with GIS cartography, the main threats and conservation measures, to define a demonstrative methodology to identify the boundaries of marine IBAs and to collaborate with Portuguese authorities for using the Marine IBA list as the principal base for the extension of the Birds Directive into the marine environment.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 219 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ

The Marine IBA Project is already using the latest technologies to understand where seabirds go to feed and how important the oceanographic variables are to their distribution patterns. Satellite images are used together with data obtained from research-vessels run by the Project partners, such as the National Research Institute of Fisheries (INIAP-IPIMAR) and the Department of Oceanography of the Azores (DOP). Individual tracking of Cory shearwater, Calonectris diomedea, with data- loggers, and radio-tracking of the smaller species, such as Madeiran Storm-petrel Oceanodroma castro, Bulwer’s petrel Bulweria bulwerii and Roseate Tern Sterna dougalli, is also used to obtain direct data of the species’ behaviour.

Aerial surveys :More than 50 hours of aerial surveys will be done until 2008. so far we’ve already covered the whole of continental Portugal (20 hours) identifying interesting spots for migrating seabirds and wintering populations of northern European breeding birds, such as Alca torda, Uria aalgae, Fratercula artica . Boat-based observations: Boat-based censuses started in 2004 and since then more than 9000 km of sea transects have been surveyed at all Portuguese regions. Project partners allow seabird observers to embark constantly in different cruises. All contracted observers were trained in the European Seabirds at Sea (ESAs) method, so all data is comparable and can be directly inserted into the European ESAS database. These surveys have already shown very interesting concentrations of seabirds, and although data-analysis is still at a very early stage, we can already pinpoint some of the hotspots where more effort should be put at in the following years. More than 40 species of seabirds have been identified, totalling more than 34000 birds. 7 different species of cetaceans have also been identified (1944 individuals). Most common seabird species are Cory shearwater Calonectris diomedea, lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus and Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans . Radio tracking: Putting radio tags to the lighter seabird species was identified as the only method to individually track species such as Oceanodroma castro, Bulweria bulwerii, Pelagodroma marina or even Puffinus assimilis. Crossing data obtained from these species with the one obtained via data-loggers of Calonectris diomedea could give us a better picture of which areas to study. However, the team is aware of the complex logistical problems it represents. So far more than 10 Oceanodroma castro, Bulweria bulwerii and Sterna dougalli have been tracked, using both tail-mount and glue-on fixation methods, and using two receiving stations with 5-element antennas for triangulation. Previous experiences in Portugal showed a range of up to 7-miles detection of the transmitters from both a cape (300m high) and plane (500 feet). Both fixation methods proved successful, but the number of triangulations during field-work

220 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Identifying marine protected areas for offshore seabirds in Portugal’s EEZ is far from optimum when no plane is used, a common situation in the autonomous regions of Madeira and Açores. Data-loggers: Data-loggers where chosen as the ideal method to track Cory shearwater Calonectris diomedea. 12 gr devices are used and so far more than 40 birds have been tracked on all regions. We intend to visit at least twice (incubation and chick-rearing periods) each seabird colonies. Data-loggers have proved as a very reliable and cheap method in comparison to PTTs and very interesting data is being obtained. Oceanographic research: Parallel to the direct observations from planes and boats, and to the individual tracking of birds, oceanographic data such as chlorophyll, salinity, sea-currents, bottom-sea topography, temperature, fishing effort and other are being collected. In some cases these data is collected during the same time/space frame as of the tracked seabirds, so we get a better relation between sea variables and sea presence.

Crossing individual tracking and oceanographic data represents our best chance of defining sensible MPAs, manageable from both the conservation and economic point of view and stable enough not to be too affected by seasonal and/or temporal variations. For more info visit www.spea.pt/MIBA

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 221 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards

Euan DUNN The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – RSPB, UK

Introduction Apart from the recent recognition of global warming as a driver, commercial fishing has been identified as the most widespread agent of change in marine biodiversity. In the last century, the growth of commercial fisheries in Europe has radically altered the ecology and balance of seabird populations. Two broad categories of fisheries effect occur: ‘direct impacts’ which kill seabirds through by-catch in fishing gears, especially nets and lines; and ‘indirect impacts’ whereby fishing alters habitats or the trophic balance to affect the food supply of seabirds. A direct impact is illustrated here by the interaction between longline fishing and seabirds in the North Atlantic. North Sea seabird populations are used to highlight indirect impacts of, respectively, the sandeel fishery and discarding of fish waste. Collectively, these three case studies shed light on the application of an ecosystem- based approach to fisheries management in the North-East Atlantic.

By-catch: the Norwegian longline fishery The nature of the problem Where longline fisheries overlap with the distribution of seabirds, they have the potential to inflict mortality by snaring and drowning birds trying to snatch baited hooks before they sink from the sea surface. In the Southern Ocean, such incidental mortality or ‘by-catch’ is largely responsible for the fact that 19 out of the world’s 21 albatross species are now threatened with extinction. There is international pressure to changing fishing practices and apply technical solutions (some of which, well deployed and in the appropriate combination, are well known to virtually eradicate the problem) for eliminating or at least significantly reducing these unsustainable losses of seabirds. Applying such measures also increases the vessel’s fishing efficiency, since fewer baits lost to birds translates into better fish catch rates. Although longlining impacts on seabirds (and also marine turtles) are best known from the tuna and toothfish fisheries in the southern hemisphere, it is less well known that conflicts also arise in the Mediterranean (notably by-catch of Cory’s shearwater and Balearic shearwater) and North Atlantic longline fisheries (by-catch of northern

222 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards fulmar). This paper describes the impact of longline fishing on northern fulmar, by Norwegian vessels operating in the Norwegian Sea, and the mitigating effect of technical measures they deploy in efforts to deter birds from getting caught, based on field research by BirdLife International (Dunn and Steel 2001), Løkkeborg and Robertson (2002) and Løkkeborg (2003).

The fishery and its by-catch of northern fulmars In Norway, longline vessels fish mainly for cod, haddock, ling and tusk by ‘setting’ lines of baited hooks behind the stern which sink to the seabed. Usually 6-8 lines are set in close succession, totalling 30,000-40,000 hooks baited with mackerel or squid. Each baited hook is attached to a short branchline; branchlines are attached to the longline at intervals of 1m approx. At the time of the studies cited above, Norway had 61 ‘autoliners’ which collectively set 476 million hooks in 1996. These are ‘high tech’ ocean-going vessels in which the hooks are automatically baited and shot out behind the vessel by the ‘Mustad’ autolining system. In total, however, Norway has over 9000 boats engaged in longlining for at least part of the year, the vast majority being smaller inshore vessels not equipped with this automated system, rather involving more manual labour. In addition to the Norwegian fleet, Iceland also had a fleet of over 800 vessels in 1996 engaged wholly or partly in longlining, and setting an estimated 230 million hooks that year. In 1997-98, the Faeroes had 718 vessels longlining for all or part of the time, deploying an estimated 153 million hooks in total. Thus, just taking into account the 61 Norwegian autoliners and not the countless smaller vessels, Nordic fleets collectively set 859 million hooks per annum in the 1990s. The field research by Løkkeborg and by BirdLife International provides the first ever quantitative data on by-catch rates for northern fulmars incurred by Norwegian autoliners. These could be as high as 1.75 birds per 1000 hooks (when no mitigating measures were taken by the vessel to try and reduce the by-catch: see below for details), but averaged 0.02 birds per 1000 hooks. Without detailed knowledge of the mitigating measures individual vessels routinely apply to reduce by-catch, we can only estimate how many northern fulmars are killed annually by the Norwegian and other Nordic fleets. BirdLife’s conservative estimate of by-catch by the total Norwegian longline fleet (including the small inshore vessels) is 20,000 in the recent past is birds per annum. Again, a conservative estimate is that the combined activities of the Norwegian, Icelandic and Faeroese fleets kill 50,000- 100,000 northern fulmars annually. While northern fulmars are clearly caught in significant numbers by longlining, this mortality is not thought to be status-threatening given that the total North-East Atlantic

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 223 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards breeding population of this species is ca 2-4 million pairs, and much higher when non- breeding adults and immatures are included. Nevertheless, this mortality is a needless waste of life which can easily be minimised by applying appropriate mitigation measures (see below). Moreover, these countries have international obligations, notably under the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, to minimise incidental by-catch of seabirds in their operations. It is for this reason that attention focuses on the need to apply the seabird-friendly mitigating measures capable of reducing this by-catch and to integrate the use of this gear into the routine longlining practices of all Nordic longline vessels. From ring recoveries, it is also known that Icelandic longline vessels kill great skuas. The extent of this mortality is not known but with Iceland holding around one-third of the world population of 16,000 pairs, longline mortality of this species may actually be a relatively greater threat than it is for northern fulmar.

Efforts to reduce the seabird mortality As mentioned, various mitigation measures exist to reduce the threat of seabirds being hooked and drowned. The vessel can avoid discharging offal when setting its line, which attracts less scavenging seabirds. Increasingly, in the Southern Ocean, demersal longlines are weighted to make them sink faster so that birds have less time to reach the baited hooks. Longline vessels can also deploy, above the longline, a streamer line (also known as a bird-scaring or ‘tori’ line) which has long plastic streamers hanging at intervals along it. These scare the birds away (acting as both a visual and physical deterrent) from where the baited hooks enter the water. Both line- weighting and the streamer line, in conjunction with other measures (such as reducing discharge of discards and offal), have been proved to virtually eliminate by-catch of albatrosses in the Southern Ocean. In the Norwegian Sea, Løkkeborg and colleagues, as well as BirdLife International, have tested the effectiveness of various mitigation measures, notably a streamer line and an underwater setting tube designed and built in Norway by the longline equipment manufacturers Mustad Ltd. The tube is attached to the stern of the vessel and the longline guided through it to emerge about 1m below the water surface, hopefully out of sight to seabirds. Extensive, controlled field trials showed that a well- designed streamer line is the most effective of the tested options, reducing by-catch of northern fulmars by over 98% and also increasing the catch rate of fish, which is a valuable incentive for compliance by fishers. The underwater setting tube was less effective than a streamer line, partly because the depth at which is conceals the line is dependent on the pitch of the vessel. In addition, an underwater setting tube is an expensive to fit and relatively high-maintenance whereas a streamer line is cheap, easy to make and operate, and easily replaced if lost at sea.

224 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards

With tried-and-tested technology available to substantially reduce seabird by-catch of northern fulmars, the challenge is to ensure that it is widely used by the Norwegian and other Nordic fleets. BirdLife has been urging the Norwegian Government to develop and adopt a FAO National Plan of Action for reducing seabird by-catch in longline fisheries and make the use of an effective streamer line mandatory. While Norway does not wish to impose the further regulation on its fishing industry, it has made efforts to raise awareness of the issue in the sector and has alerted longline vessel owners and companies to the availability of a streamer line and winch at relatively low cost, and while the uptake was initially low, the knowledge that the use of a streamer line also enhances fish catches (by reducing bait loss) should prove attractive to the sector. Little is yet known about the use of mitigation measures in Iceland and Faeroes although we understand that large Icelandic longline vessels use a streamer line.

Prey depletion: the North Sea sandeel fishery The potential for competition between seabirds and man Sandeels breed in the northern winter months and their larval stages are subject to widespread drift in the North Sea. However, once the new generation (0-group) settles on a sandbank early in the summer it is relatively sedentary. Because sandeels are locally concentrated, discrete aggregations, and not easily replenished from elsewhere, they are potentially vulnerable to overfishing. Sandeels breed mostly at 2 years old when they are about 10cm long. Sandeel fisheries target fish from 1 year old. Sandeels are often characterised as propping up the food chain. They are a principal prey species for many other fish and a variety of higher marine predators: seals, cetaceans and a variety of seabirds (notably arctic tern, kittiwake, puffin, guillemot, and razorbill), some of which are almost wholly dependent on sandeels for getting into breeding condition and raising their young. Up until recently, the Danish-led fishery for sandeels (which are then processed into fishmeal and oil for the livestock and aqua-feed fishery) has been the biggest (by weight) single-species fishery in the North Sea. The Danish sandeel fishery began in the mid-1950s and rapidly expanded to a peak of over 1 million tonnes in exceptionally productive years in the late 1980s and 1990s, representing nearly half the tonnage of all fish taken at the time from the North Sea. Since 2002, however, there has been a dramatic slump in catches, with those in the last 3 years only about a third of catch levels in the immediately preceding years. This reflects a major decline in Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) rather than a reduction in fishing effort for sandeels.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 225 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards

The advent of ecosystem-based regulation of the fishery However, even before this decline, which I will return to later, the management of the fishery had already raised significant concerns for the RSPB and BirdLife International. The Danish fleet operates widely in the North Sea, including close to major seabird colonies on the UK’s North Sea coast. Beginning in the late 1980s, a chronic decline was observed in the breeding productivity and population size of dependent seabirds, especially black-legged kittiwake, on the east coast of Scotland, adjacent to key sandeel fishing grounds. There was good evidence that the kittiwakes, which are restricted to catching sandeels near the sea surface, were suffering especially badly from a shortage of sandeels. The potential for the sandeel fishery to deplete prey for seabirds has long been a controversial issue. However, on a precautionary basis, ICES drew up criteria to protect local aggregations of sandeels from the threat of overfishing, facilitating, in 2000 (up to the present), the establishment of an area closed to sandeel fishing off eastern Scotland and north-east England. This represents a pioneering application of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

Sea warming: a new driver of change for seabirds and fishers The conservation effect of the sandeel closed area is uncertain but whatever benefits it may confer, another environmental forcing factor has dominated of late and appears to be behind the recent dramatic decline of the North Sea sandeel stock. This has resulted in disastrous breeding seasons for almost all sandeel-dependent seabirds on the UK coast and has led to further restrictions on the fishery which – even without added restraints - has been unable to maintain catches in recent years and has consequently suffered extreme economic hardship. Up to 2003, the fishery was subject to a Total Allowable Catch, sometimes as high as 1 million tonnes but in recent years the TAC has represented merely ‘paper fish’ because the fleet has substantially undershot its quota. The RSPB has always argued that TAC-setting was too blunt an instrument for regulating the sandeel fishery. So we welcomed the introduction, in 2004, of a regime of real-time management in which scientific sampling of the strength of the incoming year-class of sandeel in spring dictates how much fishing effort is subsequently allowed on the sandeel stock that year. In the worst-case scenario (recruitment below a specified threshold = less than 300,000 million 0-group individuals in the North Sea in spring), the fishery is closed altogether; this happened in 2005, forcing the closure of the fishery in summer. There are signs of much healthier stock this year (2006), and the potential for a fishery, but

226 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards the consistent downward trend in recent years is unprecedented and signals that new factors are likely to be operating. Much research remains to be done to explain the recurrent recruitment failure of sandeels but it appears that North Sea temperatures have risen by up to 1deg C in the last 25 years. This in turn has induced a ‘regime shift’ in the species mix, timing and abundance of the zooplankton on which hatching sandeel (and cod) larvae depend for survival, seriously undermining recruitment to the stock. There is evidence that post-larval sandeels are also food-stressed, growing less well and being less nutritious for birds than normally.

The impact of discharging discards and offal on North Sea seabirds The history of seabird dependency on fish waste It is widely believed that seabird community in the North-East Atlantic has changed over the course of the last century with the growth of demersal trawling and its production at sea of fish waste in the form of discards and offal from gutting operations. The provision of this gratuitous food supply has favoured species capable of scavenging for fish food (notably northern fulmar, northern gannet, great skua, various Larus gulls). Discarding of small haddock and whiting has been especially beneficial to many seabirds, while offal has benefited northern fulmar in particular. In the 1980s, it was calculated that North Sea seabirds consume about 600,000 tonnes of prey annually, including ca 100,000t of discards and ca 70,000t of offal. This bonanza of food has undoubtedly contributed to populations of North Sea seabirds increasing ten-fold over 1900-1990 (Furness 1992). Some of these seabird populations are of international importance. The British Isles hold ca 60% of the world population of great skua and over 70% of the world population of northern gannet and the subspecies graellsii of lesser black-backed gull. Almost the entire west European population of the great black-backed gull is thought to winter in the North Sea. Because the fate of these significant concentrations is inextricably linked to the changing circumstances of fish stocks and fishing practices, the RSPB commissioned a study (Reeves and Furness 2002) to review the current status of this relationship, to predict (by modelling) how it may change in future in the northern North Sea, and to explore the implications of change for the conservation status of seabirds dependent on fish waste and their interaction with other seabird species.

Declining stocks and increasing stock conservation measures While the public perception is that discarding is out of control and probably increasing, the study showed that quantities of discards and offal generated by fishing vessels

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 227 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards have declined overall since the mid 1970s and have been at a relatively low level in recent years, reflecting the reduced abundance of stocks of haddock, whiting and other whitefish. The modelling indicated that future fisheries management measures, particularly better gear selectivity (notably the introduction of square-mesh panels into trawl nets) and to a lesser extent reduced fishing effort, are likely to lead to a further reduction in the quantities of haddock and whiting discarded, with a particularly marked decline in the availability of small discards favoured by seabirds. However, assuming the continuation of current gutting practices, any measure which reduces discards will also result in an increase in offal production, as a greater proportion of fish would survive to be caught at the size at which they would be gutted at sea.

The implications for scavenging seabirds of changing fishing practices Given the relatively high European population of scavenging seabirds, less discarding is likely to have consequences for their populations, although this will depend to some extent on the availability of other (wild) food sources. Although seabird populations respond rather slowly to changes in environmental conditions, the long-term effects of declining discards are likely to be reduced breeding numbers not only of the species directly affected but also in some cases of other seabirds they prey on to make up for the shortage of their accustomed discard diet. The negative effects of discard loss will be most pronounced among the smaller scavenging species which prefer small discards, i.e. great skua and most gull species (especially herring gull and lesser black-backed gull). Northern gannet and great black-backed gull which can handle larger discards should be less affected, and the offal-eating northern fulmar should also be relatively immune in future. Shortage of discards for great skuas in the UK’s Northern Isles is predicted to lead to ‘prey-switching, including increased predation by this species on other seabird species such as kittiwake, puffin, European storm-petrel, Leach’s storm-petrel, red- throated diver and common eider. The incidence of such killing, which is possibly the most serious implication for seabird populations of evolving fisheries management measures, will probably be a function of both discard and sandeel abundance, since the latter is also an important diet component of seabirds.

Managing seabird dependence on fish waste While seabirds have in a sense benefited from the vast production of fish waste in past decades, the RSPB and BirdLife International in no way support the maintenance of this dependency. On the contrary, discarding is extremely wasteful of valuable fishery resources, often symptomatic of unsustainable fishing, and disruptive

228 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards of ecosystems in the North Sea and elsewhere. So measures to reduce or even eliminate discarding should be strongly encouraged, even though they may have serious short- and medium-term implications for seabird populations. Studying the implications for seabirds of changes in the production of discards and offal will assist in forecasting likely changes in seabird populations and in devising more sensitive management for the conservation of adversely affected species. In particular, there is a clear need for further research into interactions between scavenging seabirds and other seabird species which may suffer from the prey- switching behaviour of discard-deprived species so that the impacts of changing discard patterns on the overall seabird community can be understood and conservation efforts targeted accordingly.

References

DUNN, E and STEEL, C (2001): The impact of longline fishing on seabirds in the north- east Atlantic: recommendations for reducing mortality. A report for The RSPB, Norsk Ornitologisk Forening (NOF) and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The RSPB, Sandy, UK. FURNESS, RW (1992): Implications of changes in net mesh size, fishing effort and minimum landing size regulations in the North Sea for seabird populations. JNCC Report No 133, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. LØKKEBORG, S (2003): Review and evaluation of three mitigation measures – bird- scaring line, underwater setting and line shooter – to reduce seabird bycatch in the north Atlantic fishery. Fisheries Research 60, 11-16. LØKKEBORG, S and ROBERTSON, G (2002): Seabird and longline interactions: effects of a bird-scaring streamer line and line shooter on the incidental capture of northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. Biol. Conserv. 106, 359-364. REEVES, SA and FURNESS, RW (2002): Net loss-seabirds gain? Implications of fisheries management for seabirds scavenging discards in the northern North Sea. The RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 229 Fisheries impacts on seabirds: by-catch, prey depletion and discards

Annex: Glossary of bird and fish names cited in the text

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Common eider Somateria mollissima Common guillemot Uria aalge Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea European storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus Great black-backed gull Larus marinus Great skua Stercorarius skua Herring Gull Larus argentatus Leach’s storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Northern gannet Morus bassanus Puffin Fratercula arctica Razorbill Alca torda Red-throated diver Gavia stellata

Cod Gadus morhua Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus Ling Molva molva Toothfish Dissostichus spp Tusk Brosme brosme Whiting Merlangius merlangus

230 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 231 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal) Recent developments in the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal)

Fernando TEMPERA and Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS Department of Oceanography and Fisheries (DOP) – University of the Azores

The archipelago of the Azores is located at the triple junction of the American, Eurasian and African plates. Its nine volcanic islands span 615 km across the mid- Atlantic ridge and have an associated EEZ sub-area of nearly 1 million km2 (Figure 1). The islands were uninhabited until the Portuguese colonized them in the 15th Century. Presently they uphold a population of approximately 250.000.

Fig. 1: Marine conservation areas in the Azores overlain on a colour-coded shaded relief map of the seafloor surrounding the archipelago.

The diversity of open and deep ocean habitats (namely seamounts, abyssal bottoms and hydrothermal fields) endow the marine environment of the Azores with a considerable significance for marine conservation and biological studies (Santos et al., 1995). At a coastal level, this interest is enhanced by the young geological age of

232 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal) the islands and isolation of their shores and shelves in relation to the continental coasts. Despite such geographical isolation, the marine resources of the region have experienced increasing impacts from human activities. However, a precautionary approach to exploitation has permitted most fishery resources to be harvested at sustainable levels inside Azorean waters (Menezes, 2003; Dâmaso & Bray, 2006). Preventive measures included (i) preservation of the artisanal character in many fisheries, (ii) phasing out of netting, (iii) zoning of fishing vessel operation by size and gear and (iv) maintenance of a limited capacity in the fishery with the most industrial nature (long-lining). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have also been among the suite of scattered legal measures used by the Regional Government to tackle marine conservation issues. Throughout the 1980’s and 90’s a total of 9 marine protected areas were designated around 4 islands and on an offshore bank (Santos et al., 1995). However, in our opinion, the results achieved haven’t done much for crediting this instrument for fisheries management. The detailed regulations were never issued for most areas, dedicated management was poorly implemented and enforcement of the few measures set by the MPA designation acts has been insufficient.

Natura 2000 With the application of the EC “Birds” and “Habitats” Directives in the archipelago, conservation benefited from a new strategic perspective and driving force. An inventory by Santos et al. (1995) partially informed the site selection process by listing 40 marine sites of conservation importance. In 2001, 17 Sites of Community Interest (SCIs) and 13 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) were eventually designated to protect marine features including reefs, marine caves, shallow inlets and bays, bottlenose dolphins and loggerhead turtles (Commission Decision 3998/C2001). Since then, management planning proposals based on a characterization of both ecological and socio-economical factors were completed for all the Azorean sites. This was undertaken by projects MARÉ and OGAMP with specific contributions from CLIPE, PAINHO, ASIMOV, MAROV and CETAMARH (for acronyms see Annex). One of the major conclusions was that most SCIs were undersized if they were to provide a robust protection for the mobile organisms, such as cetaceans and fish of commercial interest associated to the reef habitats. A programme has just been started to integrate the management of Natura 2000 sites with the other conservation features of regional importance on an island basis. Stricter protection was already introduced in the Formigas Bank (DLR 26/2003/A, 27th May) by revision of the existing Nature Reserve spatial delimitation and broad regulations. This offshore MPA, originally established in 1988, was partially designated as an SCI in 2001 and constituted the first Portuguese MPA submitted to the OSPAR network. The bylaw for

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 233 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal) this MPA is currently in preparation. Amendments were also introduced in the Vila Franca Islet MPA (São Miguel island) by DLR 22/2004/A (3rd June), enhancing reserve delimitation, zoning, regulations and management framework. Designation of other MPAs is at an advanced stage for the Faial-Pico passage (comprising 3 marine SCIs) and the island of Corvo (including both an SCI and an SPA). Both are to be designated as Nature Parks and protect marine areas that extend well beyond the Natura 2000 sites. The final proposals should be submitted to public hearing soon. Concurrently with these achievements, general measures for the Natura 2000 sites have been implemented by the Sectorial Plan. This has been recently issued by DLR 20/2006/A (6th June) and is legally binding to all the administrative bodies.

Seamounts Seamounts have been another habitat concentrating research and conservation efforts given their role as ecological and zoogeographical ‘hot spots’ in oceanic regions. A total of 21 seamounts (in the classical definition of “underwater elevations rising ≥1,000 metres above the surrounding seafloor) has been inventoried in the Azores region by a recent OSPAR listing but significant elevations (≥200m) total more than 130 (Machete et al., 2005; Morato et al, in prep.). The case of the Sedlo seamount (located N of the archipelago) was exhaustively studied from an oceanographic, biological and economical perspective under the EU- funded project OASIS. Based on these assessments, a management plan was proposed for this area (Gubbay, 2005) which may become a conceptual model for the managing of seamounts in the north-eastern Atlantic. Benthic communities of the Azorean seamounts are currently protected from bottom trawling and deep-sea netting by a ban introduced by the EU Council Regulation (EC) No. 1568/2005. A joint cruise between the University of the Azores and Greenpeace has surveyed the summits of a few seamounts during Spring 2006. Imagery of great quality was obtained of coral assemblages (sensu latu) associated to these habitats and directly benefiting from the non-use and ban of towed nets.

Hydrothermal vent fields Intensive and long-term research programmes have focused on hydrothermal vent fields within the Azorean EEZ sub-area over the last decade (see Santos et al., 2002). This fact, in conjunction with the potential of the sites for bio-prospecting and

234 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal) extended geological studies including deep-sea drilling, have called for conservation measures that safeguard these restricted deep-sea biotopes. Both the Lucky Strike and Menez Gwen sites (placed at around 1700m- and 900m-deep, respectively) are currently being established as MPAs and submitted to the OSPAR MPA network. Their management plans aim not only at avoiding conflicts between different research programmes but also at combining preservation of these restricted habitats with requirements from scientific sampling (see Santos et al., 2003).

Scientific research Several research lines aim at informing the design of current and future MPAs. Fine- scale habitat mapping is ongoing in the Faial-Pico passage using tools such as multibeam, phase-measuring swathe sonar and AGDS associated to in situ validation by scuba-diving, ROV, drop-down camera. The same area is being used to evaluate the potential effects of MPAs and design requirements for protecting coastal fish species of commercial importance with distinct habits (project MARÉFISH). The study includes tagging and acoustic telemetry (with passive and active methods) to analyze the movement patterns and habitat preferences of the species. Expected results from this research include the establishment of guidelines regarding the species potential for reserve and spillover effect, protection of critical habitats and requirements in terms of MPA size, type and number. Testing of the benefits of existing MPAs is the subject of a specific project (EMPAFISH) that includes analysis of time series of fish visual counts in Azorean MPAs. Marine mammal research has concentrated on species occurrence, patterns of residence and habitat use in coastal species such as the bottlenose dolphin. This included surveying by ship transects, photo-ID and land-based monitoring. Work in the Faial-Pico passage produced an estimate of the size of the resident population and revealed the spatial scale of its movements (home ranges) which extend much farther than the small SCIs and therefore support the designation of an enlarged MPA (Mónica Silva, pers. comm..). Occurrence data (derived either from the fisheries observing programme or independent scientifically-devised transects) were crossed with environmental datasets (depth, sea surface temperature, chlorophyll-a, slope, distance to shore, seamount proximity) to develop statistical models that can help map the most important areas for cetaceans (Seabra et al., 2005). Recent research on seabirds has focused on monitoring SPAs, identifying offshore Important Bird Areas, studying population dynamics and genetics, and assessing

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 235 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal) foraging ecology of selected species by telemetry. The latter has included tracking the movements of Cory’s shearwaters at local and oceanic scales by radio and satellite throughout the breeding cycle. The results may be relevant to the selection of High Seas IBAs.

Further classifications A scientific reserve has been maintained in the biogeographic region of Macaronesia by the European Commission for the habitat named Reefs. As more scientific knowledge on the distribution of this habitat is collected the submission of both enlarged SCIs (which is generally suggested by studies on cetacean and fish movements) and new sites (including seamounts and hydrothermal vents) is to be expected. Beyond the Natura 2000 network, an important set of Azorean sites has also been classified in the scope of the BIOMARE/MARBEF network (see Warwick et al., 2003 and http://www.marbef.org/data/sites.php). After the designation of the Formigas Bank as an OSPAR MPA, six other applications are in preparation for the same network.

Environmental awareness Since only a well-informed, involved and supportive public is believed to guarantee the continuation and success of the marine conservation programmes, a special emphasis has been given to raising the environmental awareness of local communities in parallel with the research and legislative efforts. Regular activities have included campaigns and information sessions for students, teachers, stakeholders and public in general, production of promotion material, exhibitions and guided tours in SCIs. A Marine Interpretation Centre dedicated to the “Ecosystems of the Azores Triple Junction & Mid-Atlantic Ridge” is currently being establish in Faial island and will be supported by a virtual version in a DVD format.

References

COMISSION DECISION of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (notified under document number C(2001) 3998) (2002/11/EC). Official Journal of the European Communities 9.1.2002, L5/16-17. DÂMASO, C. and P. BRAY (2006): Friend of the Sea – Azorean Demersal Fishery, Preliminary Analysis Report. Arquivos do DOP: Série Relatórios Internos nº 3/2006, 118 pp. DLR #20/2006/A. Região Autónoma dos Açores, Assembleia Legislativa Decreto Legislativo Regional n.o 20/2006/A Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 da

236 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal)

Região Autónoma dos Açores. Diário da República—I Série-A No. 109—6 de Junho de 2006: 3866-3915. GUBBAY, S. (2005): Toward the Conservation and Management of the Sedlo Seamount. OASIS Report, Hamburg, XIV + 34pp. + 3 append. MENEZES, G. (2003): Demersal Fish Assemblages in the Atlantic Archipelagos of the Azores, Madeira, and Cape Verde. PhD Thesis, Universidade dos Açores. MACHETE, M., T. MORATO and G. MENEZES (2005): Modelling the distribution of two fish species in seamounts of the Azores. Pp: 182-195 in R. Shotton (ed.). Deep Sea 2003: Conference on the governance and management of deep-sea fisheries. Part 1 Conference reports. Queenstown, New Zealand, 1-5 December 2003. FAO Fisheries Proceedings 3/1, Rome. MORATO, T., M. MACHETE, A. KITCHINGMAN, F. TEMPERA, S. LAI, G. MENEZES, R.S. SANTOS and T.J. PITCHER (in prep.): Abundance and distribution of seamounts in the Azores. SANTOS, R.S., J. ESCARTIN, A. COLAÇO and A. ADAMCZEWSKA (eds., 2002): Towards planning of seafloor observatory programs for the MAR region (Proceedings of the II MoMAR Workshop). Arquipélago – Life and Marine Sciences. Supplement 3: xi + 64pp. SANTOS, R.S., A. COLAÇO and S. CHRISTIANSEN (eds., 2003): Planning the Management of Deep-sea Hydrothermal Vent Fields MPAs in the Azores Triple Junction (Workshop proceedings). Arquipélago – Life and Marine Sciences, Supplement 4: xi + 64pp. SEABRA, M.I., F. TEMPERA and R.S. SANTOS (2005): Experiences in Applying Geographic Information Systems to Marine Conservation and Ecology in the Azores. Geoinova 11: 139-159. WARWICK, R.M., C. EMBLOW, J.-P. FÉRAL, H. HUMMEL, P. VAN AVESAATH and C. HEIP (2003): European Marine Biodiversity Research Sites. Netherlands Institute of Ecology - Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Yerseke.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 237 Marine Protected Areas in the Azores (Portugal)

ANNEX

Acronyms: CLIPE: Climatic effects on the ecology of littoral fishes: A geographic and phenological approach. (PRAXIS-XXI/3/3.2/EMG/1957/95). PAINHO: Ecology and conservation of the temporally segregated populations of the Madeiran storm petrel Oceanodroma castro breeding in the Azores. (POCTI/BIA/13194/1998) MAROV: Coastal marine habitats, thematic mapping of the seabed using GIS, AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) & ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicles). (PDCTM/P/MAR/15249/1999). MAREFISH: Benefits of marine protected areas: testing the theory with field experiments. (POCTI/BSE/41207/2001) CETAMARH: Ecology and population structure of bottlenose dolphins and sperm whales in the Azores: assessing the relationship with habitat features. (POCTI/BSE/38991/2001). ASIMOV- Advanced system integration for managing the coordinated operation of robotic ocean vehicles. (MAST3- CT97-0092). MARÉ: Integrated management of coastal and marine areas in the Azores (LIFE98 - NAT-P-5275) BIOMARE: Implementation and Networking of large-scale long-term marine biodiversity research in Europe. (EVK2 - 1999 – 00250) OASIS: Oceanic Seamounts: An Integrated Study. (EVK3 – CT 2002 – 00073). OGAMP: Management of marine protected areas in Macaronesia (Azores, Canaries and Madeira) (INTERREG IIIb/MAC/4.2/A2 2001) MARBEF – Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (FP6-GOCE-CT-2003- 505446). MARMAC – Knowledge, promotion and valorisation for a sustainable use of marine protected areas in Macaronesia. (INTERREG IIIb - 03/MAC/4.2/A2 2004). EMPAFISH – European marine protected areas as tools for fisheries management and conservation. (FP6 2003 SSP3 – P006539)

238 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 239

Short Notes on Some Marine Research Projects

240 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 241 HERMES Science–Policy Interface for the Deep Sea: the case of the HERMES project

Sybille VAN DEN HOVE Median SCP and Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

The purpose of this paper is to present an example of an innovative science-policy interface for deep sea governance as developed by the HERMES project. HERMES (Hotspot Ecosystem Research on the Margins of European Seas) is an international, interdisciplinary research programme investigating Europe's deep marine ecosystems and their environment. Deep sea resources are increasingly exploited and anthropogenic impacts on deep sea ecosystems are rising. (Gjerde 2006) Direct impacts relate to exploitation of resources (fisheries, hydrocarbon extraction, mining, bioprospection,...), to seabed uses (cable laying, pipelines, carbon sequestration), to pollution (contamination from land-based activities, waste disposal, dumping, noise, impacts of shipping and accidents) and to research activities. Indirect impacts relate to climate change and ozone depletion. Meanwhile, the important life support functions of marine ecosystems as part of the global ecosystem are increasingly recognised. In response to the rapid rise of threats to deep sea ecosystems, policy processes have multiplied at all levels and the deep sea is becoming a major and pressing area for policy action. For instance, there is presently a heavy focus on the high seas at the UN (UN 2005). Given the complexity of the issues at hand, the interface between scientific research and policy action has become of crucial importance for the sustainable use and conservation of deep sea ecosystems. This was stressed for instance at the February 2006 meeting of the ‘United Nations Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction’ where “One of the areas of growing agreement within the Working Group was the need to promote cooperation and coordination for both multi-purpose and specific marine scientific research to improve the understanding of marine biological diversity and therefore facilitate better informed policy and decision-making. A more direct connection between increased scientific knowledge and the policy debate on marine biodiversity conservation and management was called for.” (UN 2006, p. 16) The first section briefly presents the HERMES project. The next section describes the innovative science-policy interface developed in HERMES.

242 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 HERMES

HERMES HERMES is an integrated project funded by the European Community’s Sixth Frame- work Programme for Research. The project started in 2005 and will last four years. The aim of the project is to gain new insights into the biodiversity, structure, function, dynamics and environment of ecosystems along Europe’s deep-ocean margin. Europe’s deep-ocean margin stretches over a distance of 15,000 km along the Atlantic Ocean from the Arctic to the Iberian margin and from western to eastern Mediterranean, and to the Black Sea. The margin extends from the shelf edge at about 200 m depth until about 4000 m depth where the abyssal plain or oceanic basins begin, and covers three million square kilometers, an area about one third of that covered by Europe’s landmass. Most of this deep-ocean frontier lies within Europe’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and has huge potential for the exploitation of biological, energy and mineral resources. However, any development of these resources must be carried out in a sustainable manner, which requires a profound knowledge of ocean margin ecosystems and their environment. (Weaver et al. 2004) HERMES studies ‘hotspot’ ecosystems: discontinuous environments that are constrained by chemical, physical, topographic and geological factors and which contain a wealth of unknown species that thrive in insular habitats. Determining the distribution as well as the resilience of these ecosystems is fundamental to producing plans for their sustainable management. Study sites extend from the Arctic to the Black Sea and include biodiversity hotspots such as cold seeps, cold-water coral mounds and reefs, canyons and anoxic environments, and communities found on open slopes (see Figure 1). These important systems require urgent study because of their possible biological fragility, unique genetic resources, global relevance to carbon cycling and susceptibility to global change and human impact. Selection of study sites is based on existing data and known ecosystems identified in previous research. Each geographic region has something different to offer in terms of physiography, geological activity and oceanographic regime, resulting in a broad spectrum of ecosystems and communities.31 HERMES brings together expertise in biodiversity, geology, sedimentology, physical oceanography, microbiology, biogeochemistry, law and socio-economics so that the generic relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning can be understood, and the links with socio-economic dimensions studied, in support of sustainable ocean governance. The consortium comprises 45 partners including 9 small companies, from 15 European countries. The total budget is € 50 million of which the EC contribution is € 15 million. The project is coordinated by the UK National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. Partners include small and large

31 See www.eu-hermes.net for more details on the HERMES project and most recent results.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 243 HERMES institutions and both universities and government laboratories. HERMES is therefore one of the largest marine science projects in Europe, and as such it is expected to have a high profile and a high impact on policy developments, public awareness and education of young scientists throughout Europe.

Fig. 1: HERMES Study Areas

244 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 HERMES

HERMES has five key objectives: • To understand better the natural drivers that control ocean margin ecosystems • To understand better the biodiversity and ecosystem function of ‘hotspot’ ecosystems • To forecast changes in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning linked to global change • To develop concepts and strategies for the sustainable use of marine resources • To provide an integrated framework for data management, training, education and outreach

Developing the HERMES Science-Policy Interface One important intended outcome of HERMES is to develop concepts and strategies for the sustainable use of offshore marine resources, while taking into account the negative impact of human activities. The objective is that knowledge from HERMES underpin the future development of a comprehensive European Ocean and Seas Integrated Governance Policy. To effectively inform decision making, HERMES needs a good science-policy interface and a good dissemination strategy. The focus of this paper is on the former but it is important to stress that HERMES is concurrently putting serious efforts on education and public outreach activities. The objective there is to educate and enthuse a wide range of societal groups about the value of the offshore environment and sustainable use of its resources. This is crucial for governments because they need to be able to make decisions regarding management of the Earth's ecosystems and resources that are supported by the public. HERMES is also committed to train a new generation of experts on deep ocean margins from Europe and outside by offering educational activities and training opportunities to a broad audience, from schoolchildren through to undergraduate students and young researchers. As part of its efforts to link research and policy and provide policy-makers and stakeholders with good, relevant and timely scientific knowledge in support of policy developments, HERMES is developing an innovative and dynamic science-policy interface which is composed of three mechanisms: • the Science Implementation Panel (SIP); • the Science Policy Panel (SPP); • national/regional scientist/stakeholder partnerships.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 245 HERMES

These mechanisms aim at: (i) ensuring policy-relevance of the research through constant dialogue with stakeholders during the entire lifetime of the project; (ii) creating partnerships to facilitate rapid translation of research into policy advice at national, European and international levels; and (iii) providing a primary channel for dissemination of results towards policy circles and other end-users. The Science Implementation Panel (SIP) is composed of six members who attend the HERMES annual general science meetings to allow for in-depth discussions with scientists. SIP members inform the HERMES community on key political and societal issues and milestones and provide HERMES with input concerning policy needs, relevance of research questions, and any other important information. The Panel focuses on two questions: (i) what value has HERMES produced to date? and (ii) what key areas should be focussed on in future activities/data collection? The SIP may then make suggestions to the project steering committee to adjust the work programme in order to maximise implementation possibilities and the links with pressing policy issues. The SIP Members are: Dr. Sabine Christiansen (WWF), Dr. Jacques Fuchs (EC DG Fisheries and Maritime affairs), Dr. Kristina Gjerde (IUCN), Dr. Stefan Hain (UNEP), Dr. Arne Myhrvold (Statoil) and Dr. Ron O'Dor (Census of Marine Life). All panel members attended the first HERMES annual science meeting in April 2006 and this led to very productive discussions with the scientists and between panel members. A report of all SIP inputs to the first meeting has been prepared and will be distributed to all HERMES scientists. The SIP process triggered a lot of enthusiasm, energy and dedication on the part of SIP members, scientists and EC representatives alike and its high potential as a science-policy interface was recognised by all. The SIP is a subset of the Science Policy Panel (SPP), of which SIP members –and in some cases also another representative from their organisation– are members. The SPP is composed of key European policy-makers, stakeholders from industry and NGOs, representatives of international institutions, and leading scientists. The objective of the SPP is to ensure that research progress and the strategies emerging from it are promptly brought to the attention of the relevant European and international policy-makers so that policy evolution can take place through constant iteration during the entire lifetime of the project. The Panel will convene for a first meeting in Brussels on September 29th, 2006 and interact electronically in the period prior to a final meeting in year 4 of the project (early 2009). During its first meeting, the SPP will discuss critical scientific, socio-economic, governance and management issues for the deep sea. It will provide HERMES with inputs on policy needs and priorities, and SPP members will be informed of the aims and results of HERMES. The third mechanism in the HERMES science-policy interface is made of national and regional stakeholder-scientist partnerships as well as specific media entry points.

246 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 HERMES

These are under the responsibility of partners in the different participating States. Such partnerships vary in structure from country to country. They allow for further policy dialogue and research dissemination at the national level.

Conclusion Science-policy interfaces can be defined as social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making. (van den Hove & Sharman 2006) Such interfaces are increasingly recognised as key elements of environmental governance. They can (and should) take various forms and happen at various policy levels. The challenge today is to go beyond the mere recognition of the importance of such interfaces and to design effective real-life processes. HERMES, at its level and with its capacities, is committed to address the challenge and to continue the development of innovative mechanisms for linking its research to policy. One year into the project our first results are extremely promising and motivating and we can only hope that this will inspire other scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders to develop dynamic and participatory science-policy interface processes.

References

GJERDE, K. (2006, forthcoming): Critical Ocean Issues: Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. UNEP/World Conservation Union (IUCN), Switzerland. VAN DEN HOVE S. and SHARMAN, M. (2006, forthcoming): “Interfaces between Science and Policy for Environmental Governance: Lessons and open questions from the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy”, in: A. Guimaraes Pereira, S. Guedes Vaz, S. Tognetti (Eds.) Interfaces between Science and Society, Greenleaf: Sheffield. UNITED NATIONS (2005): Report of the Secretary-General on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (A/60/63/Add.1). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_ assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm UNITED NATIONS (2006): Advance and unedited report on the work of the United Nations Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/biodiversity workinggroup/biodiversityworkinggroup.htm WEAVER, P. et al. (2004): Hotspot Ecosystem Research on Europe's Deep-Ocean Margin. Oceanography 17 (4): 132-143.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 247 PROTECT Marine Protected Areas as a tool for Ecosystem Conservation and Fisheries Management - Overview and initial findings of the research project PROTECT

Ole VESTERGAARD, Thomas K. SØRENSEN and Erik HOFFMANN Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DIFRES), Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (on behalf of the PROTECT project consortium)

Marine protected areas (MPAs) can serve as a tool for both ecosystem conservation and fisheries management. However, while many benefits of MPAs have been identified, further empirical-based work is required to utilise fully this potential of MPAs in a temperate water setting. It includes development of tools and scientific knowledge to assist MPA selection, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In particular, effective coupling of fisheries management and ecosystem conservation objectives requires further attention. PROTECT is an interdisciplinary research project involving 17 European marine research institutions working to strengthen the decision-base on the use, selection, development and management of MPAs in Europe as part of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. PROTECT is running from January 2005 - June 2008 with support from the EU 6th Framework Programme. Using intentionally a broad MPA definition, i.e. “any marine area set aside under legislation or other effective means to protect marine values”, the project aims to: Evaluate the potential of MPAs as a tool to protect sensitive species, habitats and ecosystems from effects of fishing; Outline and develop scientific monitoring, assessment and evaluation tools for MPAs to assess: a) impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems; b) effects of different levels of protection; c) socio-economic effects of MPAs on fishing communities; Facilitate linkages between science and management in the areas of: a) MPA design and implementation; b) timing and level of stakeholder involvement; c) management effectiveness and adaptability. Five cross-cutting themes are addressed: (1) MPA success criteria and knowledge required to model and evaluate MPAs; (2) MPA monitoring strategies;

248 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PROTECT

(3) Analyses of ecological effects; (4) Analyses of social and economic effects; (5) (MPA modeling tools. The results will be synthesized and disseminated in a format that can effectively assist management and policy-making. Three MPA scenarios, representing different ecological, social and economic conditions, and thereby varying management objectives, are investigated as follows: 1. A top-down controlled ecosystem in the Baltic Sea: The upper trophic ecosystem levels in the central Baltic Baltic are dominated by cod as the top predator and sprat and herring as its most important prey items. A fragile and highly dynamic balance exists between these species and the hydrographical conditions, such as salinity and oxygen. Biological interactions and fisheries have recently driven the system into a sprat dominated system, with the cod stock at low levels. The high stock size of sprat has impacted the growth condition and potential recruitment of herring through competition for food, leading to a herring fishery outside safe biological limits in the Central Baltic. The spatial and temporal location of different fish life-stages (spawning grounds, nursery areas, feeding grounds, etc) are investigated to assess the most effective location and timing of areas closed for fisheries to ensure reproductive success and recruitment to the stocks, ensuring their long-term survival. 2. A “wasp-waist” ecosystem in the North Sea studying effects of sandeel closures at Firth of Forth and Shetland. The energy flow in ecosystems with abundant stocks of small pelagic species is often characterised as a mid trophic level, or “wasp-waist”, system. Sandeel constitute an important component of the food webs in the North Atlantic and may be considered an intermediate trophic link between secondary producers and larger predators such as fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Furthermore, sandeel represents a commercially important fish species. The effects of MPAs established in the areas to protect the sandeel stock are evaluated, including their effects on sea bird densities and fisheries. 3. Deep-water Lophelia coral reefs in the Northeast Atlantic: This case study addresses the effects of fisheries on the fragile deep-water coral reefs, including development of tools to assist design and implementation of MPAs for the protection of sensitive habitats in general. In 1999, the Sula Reef off the west coast of Norway was the first cold-water coral reef area to be protected in Europe and other Norwegian reef areas have since come under protection. Through the revised Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the European

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 249 PROTECT

Commission has banned trawling from the Darwin Mounds area west of Scotland to protect deep water coral reefs, and it is expected to ban trawling from other ecologically sensitive areas. Four cold-water reefs within areas under Irish jurisdiction are currently under review for their suitability for designation as ‘Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. To date, however, there has been no assessment of the effectiveness of such protected areas. Given the long distance to some of the offshore coral reef areas, monitoring strategies and factors such as enforcement and compliance are among the challenges in ensuring long-term success of these offshore MPAs. The project case studies areas are shown in Figure 1. For each case study a set of cross-cutting themes are addressed as indicated below.

Fig. 1: PROTECT case study areas in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and North East Atlantic

250 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PROTECT

PROTECTs MPA review An initial review of the literature on MPAs and fishing closures as management tools in temperate waters has been carried out by PROTECT (available will full references at www.mpa-eu.net). The main findings further addressed by the project are introduced in the following.

Defining and monitoring MPA success As MPAs are established for a wide range of purposes, different considerations are involved in determining how successful a given MPA is reaching predefined goals. To evaluate MPA performance, specific and measurable objectives must be defined in terms of what outputs and outcomes can be expected. This in turn requires detailed management plans with pre-defined criteria for MPA success and monitoring of the impact of management actions. The PROTECT project is working to develop such benchmarks of MPA success as well as monitoring strategies for each of the three case studies. Monitoring programmes represent an integral component in the management of any MPA and/or fishery, as they are essential in determining the effectiveness of manage- ment tools, allowing for adjustment of MPA design and providing information on progress to stakeholders, funding agencies and civil societies. Results from these activities should be fed back into an MPA planning process for possible revision of objectives, plans and outcomes, i.e. so-called adaptive management.

Evaluating MPA effects Advanced models are used for example to evaluate the spatial dynamics of fish populations and their exploitation in relation to MPA design, including seasonal dimensions. Models should account for e.g. mixed fisheries (multispecies, multifleet fisheries), fishers’ responses to MPA establishment and analyses of MPA designs, e.g. permanent vs. temporary MPAs, partial restrictions of fishing activities, and MPA networks. The models also take into account other management measures, as MPAs are usually just one of several potential management tool used in a given fishery. A new model, ISIS-Fish, incorporating most of these features is being developed and tested in the PROTECT case studies.

Ecological and hydrographical modelling The location of different fish habitats varies with the preference and tolerance of a given species to environmental characteristics (e.g. bottom substrate, hydrographical features including temperature, oxygen, salinity) during different life-stages. Coupling

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 251 PROTECT information on habitat preferences and tolerances with the spatial distribution of fish habitats can assist in locating, implementing and evaluating the performance of spatial management measures such as closed areas.

Economic and bioeconomic modelling Very few empirical-based analyses exist of the economic effects on fisheries arising from implementation of MPAs in Northern European waters, i.e. the majority of economic studies are theoretical. However, empirical studies have received increasing interest in recent years, and bio-economic models are increasingly being developed to measure the impact of MPAs with regard to biological and economic objectives. The three PROTECT case studies are working to develop bioeconomic models for use in analyses based on empirical evidence. Economic valuation of MPAs with regard to conservation targets is particularly challenging, as the conservation target often has no direct market price, i.e. it has a ‘non-use’ or ‘passive-use’ value. ‘Choice experiments’ are the primary method used to estimate non-use values for two PROTECT case studies: the North Sea sandeel and deep water corals. In addition, aspects of conservation relating to birds and corals are addressed.

Legal issues The PROTECT literature review concluded that a broad range of international and European legal instruments and policy documents recommend the adoption of MPAs as a tool for ecosystem conservation and fishery management. It also found sufficient legal basis available within the CFP and European environmental policy to implement MPAs. The requirement from a legal perspective is that MPAs can be used as a tool for ecosystem conservation and fisheries management only if they are: ‘proportionate’ to a given set of objectives; ‘based on scientific evidence’; ‘enforceable’; ‘specific for each marine area’, ‘objective’; ‘consistent with the ecosystem approach’, and ‘conform to European and international law’. In addition, any measures to implement MPAs for fishery management purposes must be subject to scientific advice and assessment by ICES and STECF. Therefore, in order to make the MPA concept feasible in a European context, scientists and managers must adhere to this legal ‘playing field’ when developing frameworks and tools for MPA implementation and evaluation.

Past and present use of MPAs The PROTECT project has reviewed the literature regarding MPAs/closed areas as fisheries management tools in temperate waters in general, followed by a review of

252 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PROTECT several existing and past North Sea MPAs (and one North American MPA), i.e. the Plaice Box, the North Sea cod closure, the Shetland Box, the Norway Pout Box and the sprat closed area adjacent to the west coast of Denmark. In the majority of these cases, it is difficult or impossible to separate the effects of management measures and natural variability occurring during the lifespan of the investigated MPAs/closed areas. For example, with regard to the Plaice Box (as well as the majority of the other reviewed MPAs) there is no single parameter from which the ecological effect of the closure can be measured. The Plaice Box was not set up as an experimental design, with a control area allowing statistically sound comparisons and conclusions. A ubiquitous lack of recorded reference data prior to the closure crates a situation where it is difficult to determine whether or not the use of MPAs/closed areas is indeed a successful strategy. Common to all the reviewed MPAs is that none of them are protected per se. In e.g. the Plaice box and other established fisheries closures in the North Sea, smaller vessels (including beam trawlers) as well as vessels targeting other fisheries than the concerned species being managed (e.g. Crangon shrimpers in the Plaice Box), are permitted to fish throughout the areas (e.g. in 2003, still 7% (6.695 tonnes) of the total plaice landings from North Sea came from within the Plaice box), potentially nullifying MPA-effects. In some cases, European MPA and fisheries managers have reacted too slowly to changes in the ecosystem or in fleet behaviour when implementing a given MPA/closed area. In the case of the Plaice Box, changes in the ecosystem may already have been occurring during the implementation of the closure, causing the distribution of juvenile flatfish to shift to areas outside the closure boundaries. Similarly, when almost one fifth of the North Sea was closed to all fisheries likely to catch cod, little was done to predict the response of the fishing fleet, including beam trawlers. As a result, previously non-fished areas were impacted by heavy fishing for the duration of the closure (75 days), while no beneficial effects of the closure itself on the cod stock have been registered.

Concluding remarks In the process of developing a strong foundation for future uses of MPAs in European ecosystem conservation and fisheries management, PROTECT works to contribute to a more informed decision-base through new knowledge, tools and decision criteria for MPA development and implementation. Results will serve to assist managers in assessing the effects of key decision variables in the socio-economic and ecological environment. Recommendations will be discussed with relevant stakeholders, planners and policy-makers and made broadly available.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 253 PROTECT

European MPA Symposium 2007 A European open science symposium on MPAs will be held 25-28 September 2007 in Murcia, Spain. The symposium will present and discuss the results from ongoing MPA research, aiming to contribute to the development of a range of new tools required to design, implement, monitor and evaluate the effects of different types of MPAs. The symposium offers opportunities to discuss new findings and approaches regarding ecological, economic and social aspects of MPA development, emphasising integration of fisheries management and ecosystem conservation. Scientific contributions are invited from Europe and other global regions. Emerging science, empirical evidence and interdisciplinary approaches relevant for temperate waters will be given priority. Scientists, managers, stakeholders and decision-makers are invited to participate in panel discussions on future MPA development and implementation. The symposium is convened jointly by the EU research projects PROTECT and EMPAFISH and is co-sponsored by ICES through publishing the symposium proceedings as a special volume of ICES Journal of Marine Science. For further information, please visit the PROTECT website: www.mpa-eu.net.

References References and background papers, including the MPA Review report, are available from the project website.

254 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 PROTECT

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 255 EMPAS Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Protected Areas (the EMPAS research project)

1 2 Christian PUSCH and Søren A. PEDERSEN 1 German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 2International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

Fisheries, if not properly managed, have the potential to exert harm to the habitats and species of the Natura 2000 sites designated within the German EEZ. Such threats include by-catch of seabirds and harbour porpoises in the gillnet fishery and destructive effects of bottom trawls on vulnerable habitat structures. These effects could jeopardize the conservation targets of the Natura 2000 sites. The documentation of fine-scale spatial and temporal fishing effort, and the analysis of its effects on habitats and species, are major prerequisites in the development of sound fishery management concepts within Natura 2000 sites. Because fisheries in the German EEZ are conducted within the broader scope of EU jurisdiction and policy, the involvement of fishery research institutes and stakeholders of all participating European countries is necessary. To address this challenging task, the International Council Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was identified as a suitable organisation, owing to its scientific reputation, independency, and international orientation. In November 2005, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and ICES initiated the research and development project Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS) with the objective of developing fisheries management plans for the NATURA 2000 sites within the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The background of the project can be summarized as follows: 1) Each EU member country is responsible for keeping Natura 2000 sites in ‘favourable’ ecological condition and to protect habitats and species; 2) Fishing activities can have major impacts on habitats and species; 3) No data are available regarding the fine-scale spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort in the German EEZ and other European waters; 4) No data are available regarding the impacts of these on-going fishing activities on specific species and habitats intended to be protected by the MPAs. In analysing all fishing activities of all vessels operating in (and adjacent to) Natura 2000 sites, the project is expected to significantly improve the quality of data used in

256 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 EMPAS the evaluation of potential conflicts between fisheries and nature conservation targets. The analysis will be based on existing and, where appropriate, newly accessed data or data acquired especially for this project. After assessment of the information, a management concept will be developed to safeguard the Natura 2000 conservation targets. It is indented to develop concrete fisheries management measures which may include spatial and temporal regulation of the fishery, and the introduction of sustainable fishing methods that comply with ecosystem requirements. The project will run until the end of 2008 and is structured around three expert workshops. The first workshop with participants of eight European countries took place in April 2006 in Copenhagen.

Background Human activities have many impacts on the marine environment. In addition to chemical loadings and increasingly offshore based activities, fisheries continue to exert a particularly strong impact on marine ecosystems. Biomass removal of the target species; by-catch of marine mammals, seabirds, and fish; discarding of by- catch; physical disturbance and damage of benthic communities by bottom trawling, may all have severe effects on the marine environment (e.g. ICES, 2006a; Kaiser et al., 2006). Moreover, fisheries are believed to have fundamental long-term impacts such as shifts towards smaller faster growing, but less fecund fishes, with possible irreversible harm spanning from particular genotypes through to ecosystem function as a whole (e.g. Daan et al, 2005). Such adverse influences, with their associated threats to species, and reductions of biodiversity, clearly must be addressed. Over the past decade, two essential EU Nature Directives have been the driving force for nature conservation and biodiversity protection in EU Member States: The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The Special Protected Areas (SPAs) of the Birds Directive together with the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) of the Habitats Directive constitute the elements of the Natura 2000 network. In May 2004, Germany nominated ten Natura 2000 sites in its exclusive economical zones of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea to the EU Commission (Figure 1). Germany is the first EU Member State with a complete set of marine Natura 2000 nominations, accounting for, approx. 31 % of its EEZ (Krause et al., 2006). Including current nominations within its territorial seas, approx. 38 % of Germany’s total marine area is covered by Natura 2000 sites. Two SPAs, one in the North Sea and one in the Baltic Sea already achieved in September 2005 the national legal status of a nature reserve, IUCN category IV) (von Nordheim et al. 2006).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 257 EMPAS

Research and development project: “Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS)” In November 2005, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) initiated the research and development project Environmentally Sound Fishery Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS) with the objective of developing fisheries management plans for the Natura 2000 sites (MPAs) within the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea (Figure 1). The main tasks of the project, which will run until November 2008, are: 1) Documentation of the fine-scale spatial and temporal distribution of fishing activities in and around the German MPAs; 2) Investigation of effects of fishing activities on habitats and species in marine Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ; 3) Identification of possible conflicts between fisheries and nature conservation targets; and 4) Development of fisheries management plans within these MPAs. More details about the EMPAS project and the Natura 2000 concept are available on: www.ices.dk/projects/empas.asp and www.habitatmarenatura2000.de The first workshop in the EMPAS project was held 3-5 April 2006 in ICES (ICES, 2006b). A short summary of workshop results is given in the following.

Summary of the results of the 1st EMPAS workshop (Copenhagen, April 2006) The workshop identified a need for detailed information about fishing activities in and around the ten designated Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ by fishing fleets from each country. Descriptions and analysis of individual national fishing efforts are needed. Also needed are information about the impacts of species and habitats to be protected in each Natura 2000 site of the ongoing fisheries. The information needed about fishing efforts includes: - type of vessels and gears (by country) - seasonal variation, resolution dependent on conservation objective (e.g. monthly) - spatial resolution, dependent on objective (e.g. 1 km-range); for management, small scale (SPATIAL resolution is much more important than timely resolution!) - consistency over years / inter-annual variation. Importance depends on natural factors (fish abundance, weather, etc) but also on socio-economics (fish price, fuel price)

258 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 EMPAS

- consistency of participants / dependency of individual participants on the particular area and availability of alternative areas <-> may vary seasonally The information needed regarding fishing impacts on protected species and habitats includes: a) Protected species (mainly sea birds, marine mammals and anadromous fishes) Bycatch of species - by gear type (static gears and trawls) - per (meaningful) unit of effort - at a fine spatial resolution - at a fine temporal resolution b) Protected habitats (habitat features) - Fine scale distribution of valued features - Sensitivity to various fishing gears; and - Capacity for recovery (includes analyses in comparison to the effects of natural disturbance). For the fisheries impact assessments the EMPAS project will need scientific advice from other ICES Expert Groups for example the ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (ICES, 2006a). It is anticipated that the available data and information can be obtained from the fishing industry, fishing ministries and fishery research institutes. Information on a finer spatial resolution than available data on ICES rectangles levels (30 x 30 nm) is required (Figures 2 and 3). Fine scale data of the spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort should be collected in cooperation with the national fisheries organisations and the fishermen. In many European countries adequate fisheries data and information are presently not available nor are they collected at the necessary spatial scale for site-specific protection and management purposes. Therefore, there is a pressing need to collect the relevant data by the competent authorities in cooperation with the commercial fishery; and to ensure that such data are made available to science and projects like EMPAS. Data collection should be supported and validated by the competent authorities and fisheries research institutes. The workshop identified a need to define and outline the conservation targets and objectives in each of the ten Natura 2000 sites in the German EEZ. This is a prerequisite to develop and define specific fisheries management measures. The conservation targets to be reached will partly define the needed spatial and temporal resolution of fisheries data. For example considering the variability in the distributions and migrating patterns of seabirds, a spatial resolution of one nautical mile and a temporal resolution of half a month would probably be sufficient.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 259 EMPAS

Mapping of fishing activities is an important task for the ICES/EMPAS project in order to visualise where, when, and how fisheries operate within a given area. The GIS tools for this task exist and several of the workshop participants show examples of GIS mapping of high resolute (VMS) data. These tools need to be used and developed prior to the next workshop in the project. The project can benefit from experiences and results from other ongoing mapping projects such as the ICES Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (ICES, 2005) and the North Sea RAC WG spatial planning, which established a project on mapping fishing activities in the North Sea (Mackinson, 2006).

1

4 4 2 1 3 2 6 5

3

Fig. 1: The ten nominated NATURA 2000 sites in German EEZ. There are eight proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCIs) (green areas in Fig. 1) - three in the North Sea and five in the Baltic Sea. In addition there are two Special Areas of Protection (SPA) (blue areas in figure) – one in the North Sea and one in the Baltic Sea. For more information see: www.habitatmare.de

North Sea (habitats and species to be protected): 1 – Doggerbank (sandbank, Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal); 2 - Sylt Outer Reef (sandbank, reef, Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal, Grey seal, Lamprey, Twaite shad); 3 - Borkum Reef Ground (sandbank, reef, Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal, Grey seal, Twaite shad; 4 - Eastern German Bight SPA (Seabirds: Red-throated diver, Black-throated diver, Northern gannet, Little gull, Common gull, Lesser black-backed gull, Great black-backed gull, Kittiwake, Sandwich tern, Common tern, Arctic tern, Guillemot, Great Crested Grebe, Fulmar, Common scoter, Black-headed gull, Herring gull, Razorbill).

Baltic Sea (habitats and species to be protected): 1 - Fehmarn Belt (sandbank, reef, Harbour porpoise, Harbour seal); 2 - Kadet Trench (reef, Harbour porpoise); 3 - Western Rønne Bank (reef, Harbour porpoise);; 4 - Adler Ground (sandbank, reef, Harbour porpoise, Grey seal) 5 - Pommeranian Bay with Odra Bank (sandbank, Harbour porpoise, Sturgeon, Twaite shad); 6 - Pommeranian Bay SPA (Seabirds: Red-throated diver, Black-throated diver, Red-necked grebe, Slavonian grebe, Common eider, Long-tailed duck, Common scoter, Velvet scoter, Little gull, Black guillemot, Great Crested Grebe, Herring gull, Common gull, Lesser black-backed gull, Great black-backed gull, Black-headed gull, Great Cormorant, Guillemot, Razorbill).

260 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 EMPAS

Fig. 2: Landings (tonnes) of all species excl. sandeel+sprat (upper panel) and sandeel+sprat (lower panel) by ICES rectangles and country. ICES data, 2004, provided by Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Belgium. Landings by the Dutch shrimp fishery are not included in the upper panel. The German EEZ mark by black line. 12 nautical mile limit marked by dotted line. (Data on the Belgian sea fisheries were provided by Sea Fisheries Service (Ostend, Belgium) and ILVO- Fisheries (Ostend, Belgium)).

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 261 EMPAS

Fig. 3: Landings (tonnes) of all species excl. sprat (upper panel) and sprat alone (lower panel) by ICES rectangles and country. ICES data for 2004 were provided by Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and Latvia. Landings by the Polish fishery are not included. The German EEZ is marked with a black line and the 12-nautical-mile limit ismarked with a dotted line.

262 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 EMPAS

References

DAAN, N., GISLASON, H., POPE, J. G., and RICE, J. C. (2005): Changes in the North Sea fish community: evidence of indirect effects of fishing? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:177-188. ICES (2006a): Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 5-12 April 2006. ICES CM 2006/ACE:05, 174pp. ICES (2006b): Report of the Workshop on Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas [WKFMMPA], 3-5 April 2006. ICES CM 2006/MHC:10. ICES (2005): Report of the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM) 5– 8 April Bremerhaven, Germany. ICES Marine Habitat Committee. ICES CM 2005/E:05, REF. ACE, B

KAISER, M.J., K. R. CLARKE, H. HINZ, M. C. V. AUSTEN, P. J. SOMERFIELD and I. KARAKASSIS (2006): Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311: 1–14.

KRAUSE, J.C., D. BOEDEKER, I. BACKHAUSEN, K. HEINICKE, A. GROß and H. VON NORDHEIM (2006): Rationale behind site selection for the NATURA 2000 network in the German EEZ. In: von Nordheim, H., D. Boedeker and J. C. Krause (Eds). Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe. Chapter 4, Springer Verlag: 65-95.

MACKINSON, S. (2006): Feasibility Report: Mapping fishing areas in the North Sea. Conducted by Cefas. CEFAS. Contract report no. C2633/01. 21 pp.

VON NORDHEIM, H., D. BOEDEKER and J. C. KRAUSE (2006): International conventions for marine nature conservation and marine protected areas relevant to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. In: von Nordheim, H., D. Boedeker and J. C. Krause (Eds). Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe., Springer Verlag: 5-24.

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 263

Annexes

264 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 265

Annex I: List of speakers

266 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Jeff Ardron Anne Christine Brusendorff Scientific Advisor on Marine Protected Executive Secretary Areas Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. Katajanokanlaituri 6B c/o German Federal Agency for Nature FI-00160 Helsinki Conservation Finland Island of Vilm e-mail: D-18581 Putbus/Rügen [email protected] Germany e-mail: [email protected]

David Connor Peter J. Corkeron Head of the Marine Habitats Team Bioaccoustics Research Program Joint Nature Conservation Committee Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology (JNCC) current address: Woods Hole Monkstone House Oceanographic Institution City Road 90 Ambleside Drive Peterborough PE1 1JY Falmouth, MA 02540 UK USA e-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Euan Dunn Jens Enemark Royal Society for the Protection of Secretary General Birds (RSPB) / BirdLife International Common Wadden Sea Secretariat The Lodge Virchowstraße 1 Sandy (Beds) SG19 SDL, England D-26382 Wilhelmshaven UK Germany e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Jochen Flasbarth Kristina Maria Gjerde Federal Ministry for Environment, High Seas Policy Advisor Nature Conservation and Nuclear IUCN - The World Conservation Union Safety Ul. Piaskowa 12c Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 05-510 Konstancin-Chylice 53175 Bonn Poland Germany e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 267

Plácido Hernández Aguilar Erik Hoffmann Environmental General Directorate of Danish Institute for Fisheries Research the European Commission (DIFRES) BU9 3/107 Ministry for Food B-1049 Bruxelles Agriculture and Fisheries Belgium Charlottenlund Castle e-mail: DK-2920 Charlottenlund [email protected] Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

Kjartan Hoydal Heike Imhoff Secretary Federal Ministry for Environment, North East Atlantic Fisheries Nature Conservation and Nuclear Commission Safety 22 Berners Street Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 London W1T 3DY 53175 Bonn UK Germany e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Jochen C. Krause Dan d’A. Laffoley German Federal Agency for Nature Head of Marine Conservation, English Conservation (BfN) Nature & Island of Vilm Vice Chair Marine, IUCN’s World D-18581 Putbus/Rügen Commission on Protected Areas Germany Northminster House e-mail: [email protected] Peterborough PE1 1UA UK e-mail: [email protected]

Han Lindeboom Stefan Lütkes Wageningen Marien-Texel Head of Division N I 5: Nature P. O. Box 167 Conservation and Landscape Management Legislation 1790 AD Den Burg Federal Ministry for Environment, The Netherlands Nature Conservation and Nuclear e-mail: [email protected] Safety Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 53175 Bonn Germany e-mail: [email protected]

268 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Carl Gustaf Lundin Stephan Lutter IUCN - The World Conservation World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Union Magdeburger Straße 17 28 rue Mauverney 20547 Hamburg 1196 Gland Germany Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Paul A. Macnab Iris Menn Department of Fisheries and Oceans Biologist, Greenpeace Oceans Oceans and Coastal Mnagement Campaign Division Greenpeace e.V. Oceans and Habitat Branch Große Elbstraße 39 Bedford Institute of Oceanography 22767 Hamburg P.O. Box 1006 Germany Dartmouth (Nova Scotia) B2Y 4A2 e-mail: [email protected] Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Wolfgang Methling Henning von Nordheim Minister for Environment and Deputy Scientific Director and Head of "Marine Prime Minister of the state of and Coastal Nature Conservation" Mecklenburg-Vorpommern German Federal Agency for Nature Environmental Ministry Mecklenburg- Conservation (BfN) Vorpommern Isle of Vilm Schloßstraße 6–8 D-18581 Putbus/Rügen 19053 Schwerin Germany Germany e-mail: E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Gunnar Norén Søren Anker Pedersen Coalition Clean Baltic Project Coordinator Östra Ågatan 53 International Council for the SE-753 22 Uppsala Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Sweden H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46 e-mail: [email protected] DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 269

Christian Pusch Fernando Iván Ramírez German Federal Agency for Nature Coordenador Programa Marinho e Conservation (BfN) IBAs Island of Vilm Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estrudo D-18581 Putbus/Rügen das Aves Germany Rua da Vitória N53 -3° Esq e-mail: [email protected] 1100-618 Lisboa Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

Joel R. Reynolds Alan J. C. Simcock Senior Attorney and Co-Director of Executive Secretary the Urban Program OSPAR Commission for the Protection Natural Resources Defense Council of the Marine Environment of the North- (NRDC) East Atlantic 1314 Second Street New Court Santa Monica, CA 90401 48 Carey Street USA London WC2A 2JQ e-mail: [email protected] UK e-mail: [email protected]

Thomas K. Sørensen Janet I. Sprent Danish Institute for Fisheries Royal Commission on Environmental Research (DIFRES) Pollution Ministry for Food, Agriculture and 32 Birkhill Avenue Fisheries Wormit (Fife) DD6 8PW Charlottenlund Castle Scotland DK-2920 Charlottenlund UK Denmark e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

John Tanzer Fernando Tempera Vice Director Department of Oceans and Fisheries, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park University of the Azores Authority Cais de Santa Cruz PO Box 1379 PT-9901-862 Horta Townsville QLD 4810 Portugal Australia e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

270 Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006

Richard C. Thompson Michael Türkay Reader in Marine Ecology Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg School of Biological Sciences Senckenberganlage 25 University of Plymouth 60325 Frankfurt a. M. Drake Circus Germany Plymouth PL4 8AA e-mail: UK [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Sybille van den Hove Ole Vestergaard Median SCP Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Passeig Pintor Romero, 8 (DIFRES) 08197 Valldoreix (Barcelona) Department of Marine Fisheries Spain Charlottenlund Castle e-mail: [email protected] DK-2920 Charlottenlund Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

Marine Nature Conservation in Europe 2006 271

Annex II: Programme of the Conference