HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM HABITAT 10/2008Nature Protection and Biodiversity Group Tenth Meeting Warsaw, Poland, 5-9 May 2008

Note by Secretariat: FOR REASONS OF ECONOMY, THE DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING

Agenda Item 5 Assessment reports, HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets, Species/biotopes Fact Sheets and working practices

Document code: 5/8

Date: 2.5.2008

Submitted by: Secretariat

LINKING PRESSURES ON, AND STATES OF, THE BALTIC SEA BIODIVERSITY This document presents some results of work to scope important pressures on different components of the Baltic marine biodiversity, including the answers to a questionnaire sent to HELCOM BIO experts.

The contents will be developed further as a part of the HELCOM BIO project for the final BIO Assessment 2009. This document is a product of the HELCOM HARMONY project.

The Meeting is invited to take note of the document as part of the HELCOM BIO process.

Linking pressures on, and states of, the Baltic Sea Biodiversity This document presents some results of a questionnaire sent to HELCOM BIO experts to scope important pressures on different components of the Baltic marine biodiversity. Using pragmatic definitions the status of Baltic Biodiversity can be assessed quantitatively using a tool like HELCOM BEAT, as will be done on a pilot basis in HELCOM BIO (HELCOM thematic biodiversity assessment project). However, in order to enable improvement of the observed status an assessment needs to get to the root causes of the problem identified, i.e. link ecosystem states to concrete human pressures. When consensus on the relevant pressures have been reached graphical means can be used in visualising the interlinkages in an assessment product. Such illustrations could be coupled to a system like BEAT, defining, grouping and collectively assessing relevant indicators, to identify roughly the management action needed. When compared to other issues, e.g. eutrophication, this identification and ranking of concrete pressures is especially important for Biodiversity which is likely to respond to most, if not all, human pressures. This makes biodiversity presently a quite difficult topic for following up the factual efficiency of management. This document is a product of the HELCOM HARMONY (Action 07.0201/2006/444167/SUB/D2). The issues presented here will be further developed within the HELCOM BIO during 2008. Defining HELCOM biodiversity: three spatial scales

Figure 1: The HELCOM three tiered spatial approach to assessing Baltic marine biodiversity. The unique biological components of the Baltic Sea (Remane and Schlieper 1958; Elmgren and Hill 1997; Nordheim von and Boedecker 1998; Johannesson and André 2006) have been observed to be under pressure, either due to direct resource extraction or synergistic/unknown effects of various human activities. Due to the unsettled discussions of the meaning of the biodiversity concept in general (Haila and Kouki 1994; Sheppard 2006) the HELCOM objectives for biodiversity (HELCOM 2007a; Backer and Leppänen 2008) are general formulations dividing the status of biodiversity spatially into 1) landscapes, 2) communities and 3) species (Figure 1). HELCOM biodiversity assessment (HELCOM BIO) has further divided the three HELCOM objectives to use them operationally in BIO and the quantitative BEAT pilot assessment (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Further thematic definitions of the HELCOM Biodiversity Objectives. 3.6. is an addition by author. I. Landscapes The objective referring to landscapes “natural landscapes and seascapes” underlines the importance of diverse coastal and marine landscapes (large scale, or geological, habitat complexes) including associated ecosystems, processes and cultural values to the Baltic Sea environment. This objective is closely linked to the ideas behind the Baltic Sea Protected Area (BSPA) network (HELCOM 1994), meant to cover different Baltic marine ecosystems and landscapes to ensure their protection. With this reasoning the tools to assess implementation status and the ecological coherence of the network, presently under development as demanded by the HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2003 (HELCOM 2003b) can be used to estimate the overall level of protection afforded to coastal and marine landscapes, like has been done in other fora (CBD COP 7 2004; Mace et al. 2005). The INTERREG BALANCE –project has produced scenarios how coherent networks of protected areas in the Baltic Sea can look like. Another important issue when it comes to operationally assessing landscapes are the links to other requirements such as those of the EC Habitats Directive (43/92/EEC). The Habitats listed in the Directive 43/92/EEC bear the characteristics what in HELCOM is called “Landscapes”. Thus the obligatory reporting of the HELCOM countries that are also EC members can be used as a part in assessing the status of the Baltic landscapes and seascapes. In the obligatory reporting of the Habitats Directive, Favourable Conservation Status should be assessed in the context of clear, measurable reference values or Favourable Reference Values (FRV). For habitats two types of such FRVs should be defined: Favourable Reference Areas (FRA) for habitats and Favourable Reference Ranges (FRR). II. Communities The second objective referring to “thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals” focuses on communities traditionally monitored and assessed within HELCOM programs, including plankton communities, benthic invertebrate fauna and phytobenthos. Changes in the structure of these communities can have cascading effects on their associated species and the ecological function of the ecosystem as has been observed in the Baltic and elsewhere (Elmgren 1989; Harvey et al. 2003; Scheffer and Carpenter 2003; Österblom 2006). For example, observed changes in Baltic plankton communities such as increased algal blooms during the 20th century (Poutanen and Nikkilä 2001) can have effects on entire food chains including other phytoplankton taxa (Suikkanen et al. 2004), zooplankton (Koski et al. 1999) and in this way even zooplanktivorous fish stocks (Flinkman et al. 1998). Such central Baltic sublittoral habitats like bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) beds (Segerstråle 1928; Segerstråle 1944), Furcellaria lumbricalis and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) beds (Kautsky 1974) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows (Boström and Bonsdorff 2000) depend on a limited number of species as habitat builders but harbor diverse communities of fauna and flora. Some of these communities in coastal waters (phytoplankton, macrophytes and benthic invertebrate fauna) are covered as “Quality elements” in the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), and thus are part of the reporting cycle of this EC Directive.

III. Species Species are the building blocks of the whole biodiversity concept. 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 ecosystem (Anon. 1992). Especially the population trends of certain predator species of the Baltic Sea, such as the seals (Elmgren 1989; Harding and Härkönen 1999), white-tailed eagle and other birds (HELCOM 2002a), salmon (Rappe and Soler 1999; ICES 2005) and cod (Gislason 1999; MacKenzie et al. 2002; ICES 2005) have an impact on the food webs, are relatively well known due to long-term studies and can be quite readily assessed. Many fish species harvested by man are under intensive pressure in the Baltic (ICES 2005). Fisheries in the Baltic Sea has been managed by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission until January 2006, presently the Baltic fisheries quotas are set by bilateral agreements between Russia and the European Community. However, it should be noted that fish stocks are an integral part of Baltic fauna and are assessed under the strategic goal for biodiversity. Fish stocks of commercial and recreational interest, as well as environmental effects of fisheries, have been traditionally and naturally included in the HELCOM periodic assessments (HELCOM 1990; HELCOM 1993; HELCOM 1996; HELCOM 2002b; HELCOM 2003a). Threatened and declining species in the marine environment are generally difficult to monitor but the ecosystem changes resulting from eutrophication and toxification of the environment may result in an increasing number of local declines or even extinctions. Introduction of non-native species is another threat to the Baltic biodiversity which is difficult to manage by the available methodology, ballast water treatment of cargo ships may be one way to stop the presently threatening influx of alien species (Leppäkoski and Olenin 2001). A note on functional attributes in biodiversity assessment A different way to look at biodiversity than that adopted by the HELCOM Action Plan would be one less focused on spatial scales but one that divides the biodiversity components into compositional, structural and functional properties. This is an approach commonly preferred by ecological scientists, which are often mainly interested in functional attributes. Unfortunately quantification of functional attributes, especially in a Baltic-wide scale, is difficult. Further, as functional relationships between ecosystem components are not under direct control by humans, and thus the need to focus on them in a management oriented assessment can be questioned. However, if needed these ways of seeing biodiversity can be combined with the spatially oriented approach by considering functional/process indicators within the different spatial scales/ biodiversity components (Noss 1990; Zacharias and Roff 2000). The HELCOM BEAT tool is an example of an flexible approach where functional indicators can be included if available/ judged necessary.

Identifying relevant pressures affecting biodiversity A central component in any assessment activity aiming at management action is naturally to identify human activities responsible for the observed degradation and to recommend actions to improve status or at least to minimise/halt impact. This is also true for HELCOM BIO, which aims at making recommendations on management actions. As stated earlier, the task of scoping concrete targeted actions for addressing biodiversity degradation is more difficult than with many other issues in the marine environmental agenda (e.g. eutrophication). Biodiversity is a “compound issue” where several pressures jointly create the degradation observed as e.g. decline in populations of species and ranges of habitats. This means that a good status of Baltic Sea biodiversity cannot be reached without a broad consideration of all human activities. Describing exhaustively human activities taking place in the Baltic Sea area is a daunting task and not likely necessary in the Baltic scale work of HELCOM. The HELCOM BIO Assessment has selected the following general headline pressures for topics of specific BIO assessment sections (some of these, e.g. hazardous substances are themselves complexes of different issues/substances):

− Fisheries

− Hunting

− Construction works

− Maritime traffic

− Underwater noise (reviewing the extent of this pressure)

− Nutrients

− Hazardous substances

− Climate change

− Invasion of non-indigenous species

Moving from pressures to actions Traditionally, much like elsewhere (Zacharias and Roff 2000), efforts on protecting biota of the Baltic Sea explicitly has largely followed two main routes: a) direct conservation or management of species (e.g. cod, seals) by applying general hunting bans and fishing quotas and b) conservation of specific areas (Baltic Sea Protected Areas of HELCOM, National Protected areas, the Natura 2000 and Emerald sites). Strictly speaking, these two approaches are not clearly separated as many protected areas are aiming to protect specific species. It should be noted that the emerging practices of marine spatial planning (HELCOM 2007b) further develop and extend the spatial approach of the Marine Protected Areas. Main pressures possible to address in this traditional way include:

− Harvesting (including recreational fisheries, hunting and commercial fisheries) − Direct physical habitat alteration and loss (constructions, gravel extraction, dredging and

sludge dumping, and to some extent also underwater noise) − Recreational activities (pleasure boating, hiking) − Maritime traffic and other maritime activities

However, like elsewhere, the main threats to the Baltic marine biodiversity do not limit to such issues but also include additionally at least:

− Land and sea based nutrient pollution (agriculture, municipalities, maritime and terrestrial traffic)

− Land based hazardous substances pollution (industry, municipalities) − Human induced Climate Change (i.e. climate gas emissions) − Species and disease introductions (as a special case within maritime traffic and inland

waterways artificial channels from e.g. the Ponto-Caspian area)

Thus, in addition to specific nature conservation and natural resources –related actions many other actions focusing on e.g. pollution control are essential in order to reach favourable status of Baltic Sea biodiversity (HELCOM 2007a): It is evident that reduced eutrophication will decrease algal blooms, suffocating growth of filamentous littoral algae and anoxic bottoms, and making possible the natural distribution and occurrence of natural marine landscapes, habitats, and plant and animal species. Further, minimized concentrations of hazardous substances in the biota are a prerequisite for a healthy wildlife, i.e. viable populations in the Baltic Sea. Enhancing the safety of navigation will decrease the probability of environmental stress caused by minor and severe oil spills. Nevertheless, even if e.g. eutrophication has been identified as a main concern in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2007a) it is still widely recognised that also other human pressures are important and must be addressed by measures such as Marine Protected Areas. Relative importance of different measures In order to scope effective actions to reach a good status of a given biodiversity element the relative importance of major pressures should be carried out. Within HELCOM BIO this is carried out with the help of national project experts, an activity which will be completed by the end of 2008.

Questionnaire on estimated links between pressures and components of biodiversity During February 2008 a questionnaire was sent to BIO experts, nominated roughly to topics listed in Figure 2 (fish components are taken care of by a single expert and endangered/declining species are not singled out as a separate topic), to get an overview of the important sectors of human activity to a given Baltic marine biodiversity component. During the writing of this document in April four out of eight experts (on birds, fish, phytoplankton and zooplankton) had answered to the questionnaires. The main issues in the received answers are presented in graphical form in Figures 3 and 4. The pending questionnaires on harbor porpoises, seals, zoobenthos and macrophyte communities have been intermediately filled out by the Secretariat. Some drafts constructed around pressure types are available in Figure 5. Annex I presents a compilation table, providing a draft overview of the estimated linkages between human pressures and biodiversity components, divided along the three level (spatial) approach of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. The general approach in Annex I follows a model developed within OSPAR system even if the table is completely redrafted according to HELCOM/Baltic issues. The questionnaire information presented in figures 3, 4 and 5, as well as Annex I, will be further amended and developed in co-operation with BIO experts during the remaining year 2008, when the HELCOM BIO project is finalizing the HELCOM Biodiversity Assessment. This includes the task to, within reasonable limits, to find the central literature references for each relevant pressure. No questionnaire answers from the topic experts so far included any literature references and the results are based on “expert opinion”. The human pressures presented in Figures 3 and 4 as well as Annex I are not all comparable in the spatial scale they affect the Baltic Ecosystem. Some of these (such as navigational dredging and individual constructions) can be thought to be less important in the Baltic-wide scale, others (such as Baltic-wide eutrophication) have effects everywhere. Further, some pressures affect species abundances and distribution directly, e.g. fisheries, while others change mainly the physical environment and change species and communities in indirect ways (e.g. constructions). Naturally also the interlinkages among biodiversity components are important, particularly for processes such as bioaccumulation of hazardous substances.

Figure 3: Most important pressures affecting the biodiversity components under the “community” umbrella, drafted on the basis of answers from HELCOM BIO Experts when available.

Figure 4: Most important pressures affecting the biodiversity components under the “species” umbrella, drafted on the basis of answers from HELCOM BIO Experts when available.

Figure 5: Illustrations of some effects of the different types of human pressures on components of Baltic biodiversity. Eutrophication is not covered as ready models exist elsewhere (e.g. HELCOM EUTRO assessment project).

References Anon. (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats

and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L 206 Backer H, Leppänen J-M (2008) The HELCOM system of a vision, strategic goals and ecological

objectives: implementing an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 321-334

Boström C, Bonsdorff E (2000) Zoobenthic community establishment and habitat complexity- the importance of seagrass shoot-density, morphology and physical disturbance for faunal recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 205: 123-138

CBD COP 7 (2004) Seventh Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (9 - 20 February 2004)

Elmgren R (1989) Man's Impact on the Ecosystem of the Baltic Sea: Energy Flows Today and at the Turn of the Century. Ambio 18: 326-332

Elmgren R, Hill C (1997) Ecosystem Function at Low Biodiversity - The Baltic Example In: Ormond RFG, Gage J, Angel M (eds) Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp 319-336

Flinkman J, Aro E, Vuorinen I, Viitasalo M (1998) Changes in northern Baltic zooplankton and herring nutrition from 1980s to 1990s: top-down and bottom-up processes at work. Marine Ecology Progress Series 165: 127-136

Gislason H (1999) Single and multispecies reference points for Baltic fish stocks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 571-583

Haila Y, Kouki J (1994) The phenomenon of biodiversity in conservation biology. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 5-18

Harding KC, Härkönen T (1999) Development in the Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and ringed seal (Phoca hispida) populations during the 20th century. Ambio 28: 619-627

Harvey CJ, Cox SP, Essington TJ, Hansson S, Kitchell JF (2003) An ecosystem model of food web and fisheries interactions in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60: 939-950

HELCOM (1990) Second Periodic Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea, 1984-88: Background document Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 35B: 432

HELCOM (1993) First Assessment of the State of the Coastal Waters of the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 54

HELCOM (1994) Recommendation 15/5: System of coastal and marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA)

HELCOM (1996) Third Periodic Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea, 1989-93: Background document Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 64B: 212

HELCOM (2002a) Breeding statistics for white-tailed eagle along the Swedish Baltic coast 1965-1995 Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 82B: Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1994-1998

HELCOM (2002b) Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1994-1998. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 82B

HELCOM (2003a) The Baltic Marine Environment 1999-2002. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 87: 46

HELCOM (2003b) HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (HELCOM Bremen Declaration) HELCOM (2007a) HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial meeting,

Krakow, Poland 15th November 2007) www.helcom.fiHELCOM (2007b) HELCOM recommendation 28E/ 9 : Development of broad-scale marine spatial

planning principles in the Baltic Sea area ICES (2005) The Baltic Sea. ICES Advice 8 Johannesson K, André C (2006) Life on the margin: genetic isolation and diversity loss in a

peripheral marine ecosystem, the Baltic Sea. Molecular Ecology Kautsky N (1974) Quantitative investigations of the red algal belt in the Askö area, northern Baltic

proper. Contributions from the Askö Laboratory/University of Stockholm 3 Koski M, Engström J, Viitasalo M (1999) Reproduction and survival of the calanoid copepod

Eurytemora affinis fed with toxic and non-toxic cyanobacteria. Marine Ecology Progress Series 186: 187-197

Leppäkoski E, Olenin S (2001) The Meltdown of Biogeographical Peculiarities of the Baltic Sea: The Interaction of natural and man-made processes. Ambio 30: 202-209

Mace G, Delbaere B, Hanski I, Harrison J, Garcia Novo F, Pereira H, Watt A, Weiner J, Murlis J (2005) A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators. EASAC Policy report 4

MacKenzie BR, Alheit J, Conley DJ, Holm P, Kinze CC (2002) Ecological hypotheses for a historical reconstruction of upper trophic level biomass in the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 173-190

Nordheim von H, Boedecker D (1998) Red List of Marine and Coastal Biotopes and Biotope Complexes of the Baltic Sea, Belt Sea and Kattegat. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 75

Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355-364

Österblom H (2006) Complexity and Change in a Simple Food Web: Studies in the Baltic Sea (FAO Area 27.IIId). Doctoral. Stockholm University, Department of Systems Ecology

Poutanen EL, Nikkilä K (2001) Carotenoid Pigments as Tracers of Cyanobacterial Blooms in Recent and Post-glacial Sediments of the Baltic Sea. Ambio 30: 179

Rappe C, Soler T (1999) Baltic Salmon Rivers -status in the late 1990s as raported by the countries in the Baltic Region. IBSFC, HELCOM, ICES The Swedish Environment Protection Agency & Swedish National Board of Fisheries

Remane A, Schlieper C (1958) Biologie der brackwassers. Die Binnengewässer 22: 1-348 Scheffer M, Carpenter SR (2003) Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to

observations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 648-656 Segerstråle SG (1928) Quantitative studien über den Tierbestand der Fucus-vegetation in den

schären von Pellinge (an der südküste Finnlands). Soc.Scient. Fennica, Commentat. Biol. 3 (2): 1-14

Segerstråle SG (1944) Weitere Studien über die Tierwelt der Fucus-Vegetation an der südkuste Finnlands. Soc.Scient. Fennica, Commentat. Biol. 9(4): 1-28, Taf. 21-22, Tab. 21-22

Sheppard C (2006) The muddle of "Biodiversity". Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 123-124 Suikkanen S, Fistarol GO, Granéli E (2004) Allelopathic effects of the Baltic cyanobacteria

Nodularia spumigena, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Anabaena lemmermannii on algal monocultures. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 308: 85-101

Zacharias MA, Roff JC (2000) A hierarchical ecological approach to conserving marine biodiversity. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1327-1334

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Activities contributing to impact Impact type Commercial IA fish

(Herring and Sprat) Commercial IA fish (other) Coastal non assessed fish Seals and Porpoise Seabirds & water birds Phytoplankton Zooplankton Deeper zoobenthos (aphotic ~30m-) Large scale marine and coastal features ('landscapes' and biotope complexes)

Vegetated shallow soft bottom habitats (incl. Fladas and gloes)

Shallow rock with biogenic reefs (Macroalgae and Blue mussels)

Coastal infrastructure development - marinas, harbours and real estate

Habitat transformationDestruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Decrease in potential breeding grounds and habitat

Decrease in potential breeding grounds and habitat Large scale changes Loss Loss

Use of inland navigation channels

Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & translocations

(planktivore predation on young stages)

(planktivore predation on young stages) New Species Potential positive impact as

increase in food New Species/potential loss New Species/potential loss New Species/potential loss New Species/potential loss New Species/potential loss

Riverine/estuarine infrastructure - (e.g. Hydroelectric Dams)

Barrier to species movement Migration (Salmon & Sea Trout) Impact on distribution

Coastal infrastructure development - marinas, harbours and real estate

Water current and wave exposure changes - local

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Changing currents Changing currents Changing currents

Construction work Underwater noise disturbance Impact on distribution ? ? ?

Coastal Power stations thermal waste

Temperature changes - local Impact on species distribution Impact on distribution Impact on species distribution Impact on species distribution Settling ground for non-native

introductions

Settling ground for non-native introductions, impact on species distribution

Settling ground for non-native introductions, impact on species distribution

Wind turbines and other structures

Death or injury from collision Collisions

Construction phase of fixed offshore structure

Sedimentation rate changes and increased turbidity?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Impact on species distribution Impact on species distribution Sedimentation Changes in distribution, loss Changes in distribution, loss

Cables Electromagnetic changes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Tourism/recreation -terrestrial Abrasion/disturbance Disturbance (reproduction) Disturbance (reproduction) Terrestrial abrasion Habitat structure changes, loss Habitat structure changes, loss

Tourism/recreation - recreational boating & anchoring

Abrasion/disturbance Shallow, frequently visited bays Shallow, frequently visited bays Shallow, frequently visited bays

Fishing - recreational Removal of target species Fishing, target species Fishing, target species Potential impact on species distribution, changes in foodweb structure

Hunting - recreational Removal of target species Hunting, target species Potential impact on species distribution, changes in foodweb structure

Tourism/recreation -bad practices Litter Entangle, swallow Entangle, swallow Visual pollution

Sand & gravel extraction Removal of substratum Habitat loss (certain species) Loss in extent

Sand & gravel extractionSedimentation rate changes and increased turbidity?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning? Impact on species distribution Sedimentation Changes in distribution, loss Changes in distribution, loss

Navigational dredging Removal of substratum

Navigational dredgingSedimentation rate changes and increased turbidity?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning? Impact on species distribution Sedimentation Changes in distribution, loss Changes in distribution, loss

Dredging waste disposal Habitat transformation Burial/sedimentation Changes in distribution, loss Changes in distribution, loss

Dredging waste disposalSedimentation rate changes and increased turbidity?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning? Burial/sedimentation Changes in distribution, loss Changes in distribution, loss

Navigational dredging

Non-synthetic compound contamination - Heavy metals (release from sediments)

Biological effects Biological effects Biological effects Biological effects

Dredging waste disposal

Non-synthetic compound contamination - Heavy metals (release from sediments)

Biological effects Biological effects Biological effects Biological effects

Climate Change gas emissions (increased rainfall)

Sedimentation rate changes

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning?

Destruction or harm to spawning grounds and spawning? Sedimentation Sedimentation Sedimentation

Climate Change gas emissions (changed levels of solar radiation )

Light climate change Photosynthetically Active radiation, UV radiation Impacts of changes in UV-radiation? Photosynthetically Active radiation Photosynthetically Active radiation

Climate Change gas emissions (Elevated CO2) pH changes Community changes (?)

Climate Change gas emissions (changed weather patterns)

Salinity changes - regional/national

Salinity changes (Physiological effects)

Salinity changes (Physiological effects)

Salinity changes (Physiological effects) Salinity changes (Physiological effects) Salinity changes (Physiological effects) Salinity changes (Physiological effects) Salinity changes (Physiological effects) Salinity changes (Physiological effects)

Climate Change gas emissions (changed weather patterns)

Temperature and ice cover changes - regional/national

Temperature changes (Physiological effects)

Temperature changes (Physiological effects)

Temperature changes (Physiological effects) Ice cover wintering Temperature changes (Physiological

effects), Impact on species distributionTemperature changes (Physiological effects), Impact on species distribution

Temperature changes (Physiological effects), Impact on species distribution

Temperature changes (Physiological effects), Impact on species distribution

Temperature changes (Physiological effects), Impact on species distribution

Climate Change gas emissions(changed weather patterns)

Water flow (wind driven currents and waves) rate changes - regional/national

Changing currents Changing currents Changing currents

Shipping -densely trafficked areas Increase in waviness Sedimentation Sedimentation

Shipping -illegal discharges Litter Entangle, swallow Entangle, swallow Visual pollution

Shipping -noise Underwater noise disturbance ? ? ? ? ?

Shipping - Nox emissions Input of nitrogen & phosphorus

Eutrophication (ZP availabilty) Anoxia (cod recruitment ) Community composition changes Eutrophication (community changes)

Community changes due to eutrophication induced changes in phytoplankton community

structureEutrophication (Anoxia, sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity,

sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity, sedimentation)

Shipping -antifouling substances

Synthetic compound contamination Reproduction Reproduction ? ? Reproduction ? ?

Shipping -hydrocarbon leaks and discharges

Non-synthetic compound contamination - Hydrocarbons

Physical smearing Physical smearing

Dre

dgin

g an

d di

spos

al o

f dre

dged

spo

ilsC

onst

ruct

ions

(EEZ

)R

ecre

atio

nC

limat

e ch

ange

Mar

itim

e ac

tiviti

es

Communities (phytoplankton and invertebrates, watercolumn or grab samples) Landscapes, biotopes and habitats (diving, video and GIS)Species (higher taxa -various sampling means)

Con

stru

ctio

ns (c

oast

al a

nd ri

verin

e)

2

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Activities contributing to impact Impact type Commercial IA fish

(Herring and Sprat) Commercial IA fish (other) Coastal non assessed fish Seals and Porpoise Seabirds & water birds Phytoplankton Zooplankton Deeper zoobenthos (aphotic ~30m-) Large scale marine and coastal features ('landscapes' and biotope complexes)

Vegetated shallow soft bottom habitats (incl. Fladas and gloes)

Shallow rock with biogenic reefs (Macroalgae and Blue mussels)

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Oil & gas industry -hydrocarbon leaks and discharges

Non-synthetic compound contamination - Hydrocarbons

Physical smearing Physical smearing

Shipping -alien species in ballast water, on hulls

Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & translocations

(planktivore predation on young stages)

(planktivore predation on young stages) New Species New Species New Species New Species New Species

Power stations - nuclear (accidental leaks) Radionuclide contamination Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? ? ? Biological effects? ? ?

Airborne pollution (industry)

Non-synthetic compound contamination (inc heavy metals, hydrocarbons)

Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? ? ? Biological effects? ? ?

Waterborne pollution (industry)

Non-synthetic compound contamination - Heavy metals

Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? ? ? Biological effects? ? ?

Airborne pollution (Industry)

Synthetic compound contamination Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? ? ? Biological effects? ? ?

Waterborne pollution (industry, muncipalities)

Synthetic compound contamination Biological effects? Biological effects? Biological effects? ? ? Biological effects? ? ?

Airborne pollution (Nox from Industry)

Input of nitrogen & phosphorus

Eutrophication (ZP availabilty) Anoxia (cod recruitment ) Community composition changes Eutrophication (community changes) ? Eutrophication (Anoxia, sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity,

sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity, sedimentation)

Airborne pollution (Nox from Land Traffic)

Input of nitrogen & phosphorus

Eutrophication (ZP availabilty) Anoxia (cod recruitment ) Community composition changes Eutrophication (community changes) ? Eutrophication (Anoxia, sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity,

sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity, sedimentation)

Waterborne pollution - (waterborne N&P from agriculture)

Input of nitrogen & phosphorus

Eutrophication (ZP availabilty) Anoxia (cod recruitment ) Community composition changes Eutrophication (community changes) ? Eutrophication (Anoxia, sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity,

sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity, sedimentation)

AquacultureIntroduction or spread of non-indigenous species & translocations

Competing sub-species, strains, genes, loss of indigenous diversity

Aquaculture Input of nitrogen & phosphorus

Negative effects of eutrophication induced anoxia on cod recruitment

Eutrophication induced community composition changes Eutrophication (community changes) Eutrophication (Anoxia, sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity,

sedimentation) Eutrophication (water clarity, sedimentation)

Aquaculture Synthetic compound contamination ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Aquaculture Introduction of pathogens Parasites, disease Parasites, disease

Fishing - benthic trawling Removal of target species Cod, Flatfish species

Fishing - benthic trawling Habitat structure changes - abrasion Abrasion (trawl), sedimentation ?

Fishing - benthic trawling Removal of non-target species Bycatch Bycatch (?) Bycatch

Fishing - pelagic trawling Removal of target species ?

Fishing - pelagic trawling Removal of non-target species Bycatch Bycatch (?) Bycatch

Fishing - set netting Removal of non-target species Bycatch Bycatch Bycatch (?) Bycatch

Fishing - set netting Removal of target species

Fishing - Furcellaria harvesting Removal of target species Furcellaria (Estonia)

Fishing - shellfish harvesting Removal of target species Shellfish fisheries (Denmark)

Com

mer

cial

fish

erie

sA

quac

ultu

re L

and-

base

d ac

tiviti

es