Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
Group on the State of the Environment and Nature Conservation
Parnu, Estonia
3-7 November 2014
Document title
Code
Category
Agenda Item
Submission date
Submitted by
Reference
STATE 1-2014
Working Paper of the drafting group on the draft Recommendation on conservation of
Baltic Sea species threatened according to the HELCOM Red List including conservation
plans
[Agenda item #]-WP.1
INF
[Agenda item #]– HELCOM Recommendations on conservation plans for species,
habitats and biotopes which are at risk of extinction by 2015
11.11.2014
Secretariat
Outcome of the Nature conservation section of STATE 1-2014, Paragraph 4-6
Background
This document contains a Working Paper provided by the drafting group on the draft Recommendation on
conservation of Baltic Sea species threatened according to the HELCOM Red List including conservation plans.
STATE 1-2014, WP.1
Working Paper of the drafting group on the draft Recommendation on
conservation of Baltic Sea species threatened according to the HELCOM
Red List including conservation plans
The drafting group considered the recommendations part of the document 4N-1 and proposed the following
revisions and amendments to draft recommendation:
Title sentence of recommendation part: “Recommends to the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki
convention”. Consider to add: “individually or jointly”
Paragraph 1 Keep – but switch order with paragraph 2.
-
Amend the paragraph so that it reflects all kinds of plans e.g. also action plans, recovery plans,
management plans
Refer also to plans for groups of species (not only single species)
Paragraph 2 Keep – but switch order with paragraph 1 (to reflect the need to first assess existing
conservations plans)
-
-
-
Focus the paragraph on conservation plans (or other type of plans as proposed for Paragraph 1) and
rewrite to reflect the need to make an inventory of existing relevant plans (national and regional),
and to identify the need for additional conservation plans. Define a time frame for this activity.
Move reference to targets of the 2013 Ministerial Declaration to the pre-amble part
Paragraph 2.1 Keep - reflect and highlight the need to make analysis the sufficiency of existing
measures. Define a time frame for this activity e.g. 2016 when inventories of existing measures as
part of development of Programmes of Measures under MSFD Article 12 are expected to be in place.
Consider how to formulate in relation to Paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2.2 will be deleted but reference to the generic tool will be kept in a footnote linked to
paragraph 3.5.4.
Paragraph 3.1 Concerns from the Contracting Parties were raised. The paragraph needs considerable revision
in order to be included in the recommendation, e.g. soften language and delete those sub-paragraphs that
have implications for national legislation.
Paragraph 3.2 Consider the added value of the paragraph in relation to existing recommendation 35-1 (i.e.
the new recommendation should not repeat components of the recommendation part of 35-1).
-
Paragraph 3.2.1. Delete
Paragraph 3.2.2. Keep but consider potential redundancy with paragraph 3.2
Paragraph 3.3 Keep a paragraph related to MSP in the recommendation but rewrite it to reflect the role of
MSP in marine protection and highlight the current limitations, e.g. data.
Paragraph 3.4 Keep – but rewrite to reflect that pressures in one country can have transboundary impacts
on species in the waters of other countries
Paragraph 3.5 Keep but rewrite and shorten overall. Consider mentioning all pressures in the beginning of
the paragraph (e.g. as proposed under 3.5.4) and specifically
-
Paragraph 3.5.1 Keep but rewrite reference to “competent authorities for fisheries management” to
reflect mutual cooperation
STATE 1-2014, WP.1
-
Paragraph 3.5.2 Delete since it repeats existing commitments under the CFP
Paragraph 3.5.4 Include table from Red list assessment to reflect all pressures and threats on a broad
scale – but reflect also geographic difference regarding impact of fisheries (since different gears are
used in different areas of the Baltic Sea). Make reference to risk assessments as a tool to define
threats. Add to this section information from Annex 1 to provide the link between pressures and
different organism groups on a high level (see also Annex 1 below)
Paragraph 3.6 Keep and consider to include in the beginning with para 3.5
Paragraph 3.7 Delete since it is repetition from the 2013 Ministerial Declaration
Paragraph 4 Keep
Paragraph 4.1 The paragraph does not reflect ongoing work to develop core indicators in HELCOM which is
not focused on threatened species. Take away first part of the paragraph and start para graph with “to
systematically investigate…”
Paragraph 4.2 Consider redundancy between paras 4.1 and 4.2 and rewrite accordingly
Paragraph 4.3 Split the paragraph to keep separate awareness raising in general from information campaigns
directed towards fishermen and other relevant stakeholders
Paragraph 4.4 Remove the specific reference to fisheries or mention also other pressures
Paragraph 4.5 Delete
Paragraph 5 Currently incorporated in paragraph 4.3 (see proposal to split again)
Recommends further: Keep but delete reference to Annex 1
Annex 1 deleted in its current form; but add information from Annex 1 to the table on pressures and risks, as
proposed under 3.5.4, and provide link to different organism groups on a high level - but leave out links
between specific species, pressures and measures
Recommends also: Keep a-c, bearing in mind that it should reflect other reporting obligations. Delete d.
Reporting template: (Annex II) to be developed when the recommendation is more ready.
The drafting group furthermore proposed to firstly revise and have a general agreement on the
Recommendation on Species before discussing the Recommendation on biotopes/habitats in further detail.
Remaining components of Conservation of Baltic Sea species threatened according to the HELCOM Red List
including conservation plans after proposed deletions as above:
[Remaining paragraphs will be inserted here]