19:31 This however depends on the location of the MPA, as tourists would preferably see | |
| This however depends on the location of the MPA, as tourists would preferably see coral reefs with beautiful colours to the “dead bottom” of the Baltic Sea.Table of content Introduction 2 1. Marine Protected Areas 4 1.1. Expected benefits within the Protected Area 4 1.2. Expected benefits Outside the Protected Area 5 1.3. Expected Costs 5 1.4. Management Uncertainties 5 1.5. Marine Reserves 6 1.6. Advantages and disadvantages 7 1.7. Measuring and experimenting 7 2. Baltic Sea Bottom 9 2.1. Fish species and their habitat 9 3.2. Pollution of the Baltic Sea 10 2.2. The Convention 10 2.3. Monitoring report of the Baltic Sea environment 10 3. EU Fisheries Policy 14 3.1. Report to the Public Accounts Committee on the fisheries control and environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. 15 3.2. Green Paper, a Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 16 3.3. Current policies towards the Baltic Sea 17 4. Policy alternatives 18 4.1. Criteria 19 Appendix 20 References 24 Introduction The sea has always been an important part in the life of every human being. In the ancient times wars were conducted in order to gain a seacoast. The access to its waters offered work and food for many people, welfare for the state and was inspiration for poets. Successful trade and communication were not possible without sea access. Sea access was one of the indicators of power. The meaning of the large bodies of water did not decrease nowadays. We are still dependent on the sea and its resources. The most important sea resource are fish and this paper will concern the ways we can preserve the sustainability of the population of fish with a closer look at marine reserves. According to the data of Greenpeace UK from 2007, about 50% of fish stocks have been exploited. This brings about lots of negative consequences and touches multiple aspects of the human condition. Less variety in fish species means the lack of biodiversity, extinction of other species, which used to live in symbiosis with the others, and in the end can lead to the collapse of ecosystems. From the mere social point of view, decrease in the sustainability of fish population illustrates the slowdown in the fisheries sector of economy. This process is connected to less profitable fishing, rise of unemployment and social unrest in general. A huge variety of policies has been implemented in order to see to what extent we can protect the sea life and whether some actions can increase the sustainability of the fish. In our paper we shall examine the effects of marine reserves on conservation of fish in the Baltic Sea. Marine reserves are a special type of the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), where all forms of extraction or destruction are forbidden. These are the areas where no fishing is allowed and the disturbance of humans is strictly limited to enjoying the side effects, which have a positive impact on knowledge about the sea life and tourism. However there are limited ways to achieve this sustainability of the fish population and restore the huge biodiversity of the seawaters, as the perfect solution needs to be free of bias created between the fishermen and the government and strict in its application. The Baltic Sea is chosen as the area of research thanks to its special values. The Baltic Sea is a sphere of 7 EU countries. Because of its shallow character and variable degrees of salinity, about 100 000 km 2 (25%) of the sea bottom is called a ‘dead zone’. Other effect of these features has been the evolution of some divergent kinds of species, such as the Baltic herring. Within different spheres of the sea, divergent species of fish can be observed. Cod and herring belong to the marine species; salmon in an example of migratory species, while pike, burbot or ruffle resemble the species within the coastal line. This distinction is very important, when we look at the character of the Baltic Sea. It helps to determine which areas could be the habitat for which fish. Ineffective governance is a significant feature of Mare Balticum, as each year tonnes of pollution are being dropped into the seawater, which as effect brings about the eutrophication of the coastal waters. Where regional and international regulatory commissions have agreed on remedial action there is often a lack of political will at the national levels to take the steps necessary to restore depleted fish stocks and protect marine ecosystems. In New Zealand, the major success of marine reserves was connected with effective maritime management and the consciousness of the government. If we still want to enjoy the taste of a delicate Baltic cod on our plates, we need to work together for only then we can improve the environment to recover to her natural condition. Thus the policy of marine reserves with regard to the restoration of divergence of Baltic Sea fish species has become the main field of our research. 1. Marine Protected Areas Many years ago, when fish was caught in small amounts and fishermen had no choice but to stay near the coastline, the fish population and the whole of marine ecosystem existed as should; there was a natural Marine Protected Area (MPA). Certain parts of the Ocean even were off limits, as people simply did not have the ability to go there. Unfortunately due to the rise of technology, the inventions of catch systems such a trawl nets and on-board freezing, the fish population has decreased rapidly and all the toxic components people throw in the waters disturb the natural marine habitat. For restoring this ecosystem MPAs were set up. MPAs are areas with special regulations to assure that fish population will increase, the coral is protected, water is clean of toxics and preferably there is no disturbance of humans, in other words, the conservation of marine resources and its surrounding habitat. “Today only 31% of all MPAs meet their goals, because too many are set up either at the wrong location or with idealistic expectations”, according to S.C. Jameson et al. And while only 31% functions as should, of all the oceans surface just 0.6% is an MPA. How it functions depends on its size and number, its location and the specific type of MPA. Some allow fishing, however regulated, others refuse oil drillings, stimulate ecotourism, turn the area into a ”no-take” zone, or a place where recreational and commercial fishing is allowed. MPAs can be seen as an investment, as the expected benefits should outweigh the expected costs. There are biological benefits, such as spillover effects and healthier fish stocks. Also increase in harvest and catch are potential benefits. However, there are risks involved as MPAs are fixed in space and fishermen can adapt to MPAs by redesigning their vessels so they can increase the amount of fish catched. Closing of MPAs indicate a temporarily trade off, as the expected benefits will arise in the future, while the costs are immediately present. Someone has to pay these costs somehow. Ecotourism may be a solution to these immediate costs, although this is currently lacking sufficient research. 1.1. Expected benefits within the Protected Area It is discussed that MPAs will improve the ecosystem within its borders, such as higher age and bigger size fish, the larger stock quantity, the yield per recruit. However, the reliability of these effects remains uncertain, due to imprecision and lack of controls. Nonetheless, it is believed that marine ecosystems will improve one way or another in the protected areas. Besides the first benefit, MPAs can also have an influence on increased biodiversity after closing an area and it can increase the non-consumptive use, the ecotourism idea. This however depends on the location of the MPA, as tourists would preferably see coral reefs with beautiful colours to the “dead bottom” of the Baltic Sea. For this latter area, some other form of tourism needs to be considered. A final benefit inside the MPA is the room for scientific research. Today stock assessments greatly rely on catch-effort data, which is highly uncertain. Scientists believe this improvement in stock abundance forecasts and reduce in the uncertainty level shall improve the long run economic and biological position in fisheries. 1.2. Expected benefits Outside the Protected Area Effects both within and outside the MPA are believed to be linked together, for example due to fish migration, tides and currents or the location of the MPA. . This biological link should not be too strong, as that would result into almost all fish migrating from closed to open area. However when there is no link, the closed area will only have an impact within its borders. When fish migrates outside the protected area, this can improve the ecosystem, which is called the spill over effect. Also MPAs can increase the catch levels in the fishery, due to the spill over effect and a catch increase from the status quo outside of the MPA. And of course market value will improve, as older and larger stocks will receive a higher market price per unit of weight. 1.3. Expected Costs Fishing is a multipart process which depends on many factors, such as the type of vessel used, the stock density, the area where to fish and the time spend on fishing to name a few. Less fish catching means less costs per unit of catch, and strong currents can lead to the fishermen need to increase the fuel use and thus higher costs. When MPAs are situated, for fishermen who used to fish in these waters, it means an increase in transportation time, as they need a new location where to catch fish. Also more fishermen in the same area in the ocean can lead to conflict. Thus the costs, after closing an area to become an MPA, merely come down to the fishermen. 1.4. Management Uncertainties The long run success of MPAs in controlling effort is uncertain. As fishermen try to keep profitable they will adapt to new regulations by changing fishing gear and methods, and they will circle around the borders of the protected areas in case fish migrates. Also, “MPAs cannot protect against the possibility of pollution run-off originating upstream”, according to Sanchirico. Physical protection is another problem, as there is little more possible than to monitor a protected area, thus the area remains open for harvesting. Especially fishermen having a hard time keeping profitable may not be able to resist catching fish in these protected waters. Within the boundaries of Marine Protected Areas the biological pay offs seem to be positive. However, if the benefits remain is still uncertain. It depends on the linkage between the closed and open areas, which cannot give any guarantees. The state of the ecosystem outside the closed area will depend on how the industry and the affected users respond to this closure. Another problem is that the fishing industry is most likely the one that has to bear the most costs; therefore the economic factor will be important when making decisions about MPAs, besides the environmental factor. Thus while MPAs might safeguard certain ecosystems, they are still focusing merely on a symptom and not the fundamental cause of overfishing and pollution in the waters. 1.5. Marine Reserves Special forms of Marine Protected Areas are called marine reserves systems, on which we will focus deeply in our paper. Marine Reserves are areas in the sea with strict regulations, where no human disturbance is allowed, so that the variety of fauna and flora can be maintained or in most cases, can recover to a more natural state. Marine reserves are not that popular in Europe, most of them are located in the Mediterranean Sea and are of little biological significance. Instead, Europe created so called Marine Protected Areas. In the other areas, such as New Zealand, before the marine reserves developed to its current shape and size, the progress was very slow and variable within regions. Most reserves have been small, isolated and were created for specific reasons that were locally acceptable. However, on a world scale, progress has been continuous and steadily accelerating. Some changes take place quite quickly, but others may take a decade or more years to develop. The question is whether it is worth to work according to the Latin principle festina lente in order to observe significant results. 1.6. Advantages and disadvantages The prohibition of all human activities within marine reserves made their concept unique and practical, as all marine life is in principle protected. Marine Reserves are important to science and education, essential for conservation, and useful in resource management, which is useful in any ecosystem. Systems of fully-protected marine reserves are an addition to standard marine planning and management, which will continue to apply (and develop) for the majority of the sea. Establishment of marine reserves brings about a huge variety of advantages, such as: size ranges, metabolic diversity, genetic, physiological and developmental diversity within, as well as between species, behavior and movement, life histories, widening biogeography, diversifies ecosystems, habitats and communities, discovering specific patterns in time, including large-scale biogeochemical cycles or restoration of economic viability of the distressed fishing industry. They also offer a permanent protection of fish. There are however a few problems concerning the effectiveness of marine reserves. Due to fishing and other human disturbances that have been wide spreading intensively for so long it is very difficult to predict the stages of recovery that occur in Marine Reserves. This is also the main policy concern in the reference to the Baltic Sea. Marine reserves are controls that can be useful for scientists in order to understand the intrinsic processes and obtain data that are not confounded by human activities. Marine reserves are a new idea, that even though revolutionary, can bring about a good impact on the variation of fish species in the Baltic Sea. Marine reserves are beneficial for scientists as well. Scientists have no more rights in marine reserves than anyone else, but the managers of reserves will generally permit and license scientific projects if these are carefully designed to involve only trivial and temporary disturbance and to provide interesting and useful information. This licensing is very important. It means that the protection of the reserve is extended to the scientific project including apparatus, markers and actual experiments. They might also be valuable from the view of ecologists, as they are not human-oriented and independent of government’s quotas. The creation of marine reserves on the Baltic Sea could diminish the problem of annual eutrophication of the sea waters, that prevents the ‘dead zone’ from becoming a significant source of divergent fish species. 1.7. Measuring and experimenting The effectiveness of marine reserves has to be measured with the concern on 5 stages of the process. In the 1st stage, the biological diversity increases, that can be seen on biomasses. During the 2nd stage, the progress somewhat slows down – it means that the natural selection of species able to survive occurs. During the other three stages the progress in clearly visible, with regard to flora and increasing fish population sustainability. And, as the main purpose of the efficient fishery policy is to maintain fish population, the concept to marine reserves can deliver the wished goals. Changes within the reserve system will begin to affect the region outside the reserves and produce changes there. These are the reserve effects and are of great interest to fisheries and other resource users. On the other hand, unlike to the experiment of marine reserves, in a standard experimental design, the scientist arranges the manipulation and merely selects the control areas. But Marine Reserves need to be set up, and manipulations continue to occur everywhere else. Normally, no changes are expected in the control areas (except natural variation), Marine Reserves continue to change in many ways, while the manipulated areas (outside) may not. We shall not forget that marine reserves are controls, not manipulations. These controls are necessary to protect the sea life. The question is whether all the benefits of marine reserves will occur in the Baltic Sea after the implementation. For the time being, there are a few Marine Protected Areas, especially along the Polish and Swedish coasts, but no further plans to develop marine reserves. Greenpeace would recommend marine reserves in the areas of the Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Riga, in the areas of Kattegat, Hiiumaa, Saaremaa and Gotland. The deeper analysis of Baltic Sea floor will allow us to assess, whether the areas recommended by Greenpeace are of biological importance and whether the establishment of marine reserves would improve the sustainability of the fish species in the Baltic Sea and help them achieve the previous diversity. 2. Baltic Sea Bottom Salinity and variable oxygen conditions on the sea bottom are crucial for the benthic flora and fauna in the Baltic Sea to develop. For the time being, about 25% of the benthic zone in the Baltic Sea remains a dead zone. Benthic zone is the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water, including the sediment surface and some sub-surface layers. Organisms living in this zone are called benthos. They generally live in close relationship with the substrate bottom. The water of the Baltic Sea is layered. It means, that the more saline and heavier water near the bottom receives oxygen irregularly when the salt water pulses through Kattegat and Skagerrak. It means that the bottom water becomes oxygen- depleted in time which has dramatic consequences for the benthic organisms. About 30 % of the bottom areas of the Baltic Sea is touched by this natural phenomenon, which is especially remarkable in the Gulf of Finland. 2.1. Fish species and their habitat Plenty of factors can affect the species distribution of bottoms of the Baltic Sea. The sea water is brackish, less saline than for example the water of the North Sea. The Baltic Sea is relatively young, when we look at its geology, therefore only a few brackish species had time to evolve. The original species, such as the Baltic herring, come from marine environments that have acclimated to tolerate specific conditions of the sea. Due to the phenomenon of osmosis many species can adjust their inner level of salinity to the level of salinity of the environment they live in. It has however two effects with regard to the Baltic Sea: the very first freshwater species, such as perch, pike or burbot shrink, and marine species, for instance Baltic herring, swell. At the bottom areas, where the level of salinity is high, for example in the Arkona Basin, the share of fish population is higher, most of them belonging to marine species. On the other hand, in the area of the Bay of Bothnia, where the salinity is at low level, the share of fish species is very low, most of them being from freshwater origin. In such environments the abundances of individual species can be enormous and fish communities can consist of only one species. This biological phenomenon makes the Baltic Sea bottom species and their habitat unique and worth exploring. 3.2. Pollution of the Baltic Sea Another problematic issue with regard to the Baltic Sea bottom is the mere shallowness of the basin. On one hand the lack of depth encourages the water masses to mix which can enrich the benthic zone with inflow of existing species, on the other – it prevents migratory species from permanent accommodation. In the past years, the Baltic Sea sedimentary environment has changed from detrial rich sediment to the more organic rich sediment, partly due to increased eutrophication, which influenced the distribution of harmful chemical substances, for example carbon, phosphor or cadmium in the sediment. The chemical substances found in the Gulf of Finland are cadmium, mercury and lead, due to the pulp and paper industry. The Bothnia Bay shows concentrations of arsenic, mercury, lead and cadmium and both Gdansk and Lubeck show cadmium and lead in the sediment of the sea. Moreover, eutrophication results in the lack of oxygen in the near bottom waters which results in the algae blooms in the Baltic Sea. 2.2. The Convention The Helsinki Protocol, which has been signed in 1974 and applied in 1980, is the convention that protects the Baltic marine environment and where all the sources of pollution around the Baltic Sea were put into for control. In 1992, a new convention was signed by all the states around the Baltic Sea, although it took 8 years, to come into force in 2000. This convention covers both the Baltic Sea water and inland water, plus the seabed. Further it wanted to reduce all land-based pollution. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is the government body of the new convention, which is also known as the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. In 2002, the Finnish government decided to further improve the marine natural environment. 2.3. Monitoring report of the Baltic Sea environment As the Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest pools of brackish water with limited water exchange, it makes it extremely sensitive to pollution. In recent years, pollution has been the cause of alga blooms and lack of oxygen at the bottom of the Baltic Sea which has reduced the number of animals and fish living there. This report is about most important changes, what happened during a year. The theoretical mean sea level is a forecast, made for practical purposes, of the long-term mean value of sea level. More precisely, it is an expectation value calculated such that the land uplift as well as the slow rise in sea level is taken into account. The monitors change yearly, and confirm the height of the theoretical mean sea level for 5 years onwards. Sea level observations are needed, among other things, for port and route planning, mapping, building activity and navigation. Long-term sea level series are utilized to study possible effects of the climate change on the Baltic Sea level. The average sea level was high along the Finnish coastline in January (about 50 cm). Especially in the Gulf of Finland and in the Archipelago Sea, the sea level was higher than normal for unusually long. Short-term fluctuations in the sea level were stronger in Bothnia Bay (aprox. 160cm) Ice season in Baltic Sea could be classified as a mild one: Temperatures were exceptionally high in December and March. Usually the first ice developed at the beginning of November, but only towards the end of January. The maximum extent of the ice cover was reached in late February, when the ice covered 33% ( 139,000 km) of the Baltic Sea. The Bothnia Bay did freeze until the beginning of February, three weeks later than normal. The Aland Sea did not freeze in the winter this year. During the last 30 years there have been 17 severer and 13 milder seasons. Temperature and salinity are the fundamental physical parameters for seawater, because they determine the density and, through that, the dynamics of water masses and affecting to many chemical and biological processes. The presence of oxygen is essential for life, its concentration affects many chemical processes. Especially the near-bottom oxygen concentration is of importance, because the deep waters are isolated from the direct gas exchange between the atmosphere and the sea surface. In recent years, oxygen conditions in the deep waters of the Bothnia bay and Bothnia basin have slowly deteriorated. During spring more saline and oxygen poor water flowed from the Baltic proper into the Gulf of Finland, causing strong stratification and poor oxygen condition below 70 m depth. This situation in deep areas of the Gulf Of Finland is already a decade ago and is not improving. The fauna is still either missing completely or abundances are very low in this area. Soft-sediment macro benthic communities provide important ecosystem services and are central elements of Baltic Sea ecosystems. In the brackish Baltic Sea the distribution and abundance of species is governed by the distinctive salinity and oxygen gradients present. These conditions result in strong gradients in species and functional diversity throughout the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton bloom: the spring bloom in the Gulf of Finland formed a week earlier than normal, the summer bloom reached its peak at the beginning of July and was twice as high as normal. In general blooms consisted of non-toxic cyanobacteria. Weather conditions in July remained cool and windy, and thus occasional, scattered cyanobacterial blooms occurred in the Gulf of Finland, the Archipelago Sea, and the Aland Sea – along the coast. After the surface waters had warmed up, the relative proportion of the toxic spumigena increased in the surface blooms. The Baltic is hence a very difficult environment for marine organisms, making the species assemblages a mixture of marine and freshwater species. Therefore, monitoring of the zooplankton is important, as it gives a good insight into the status and development of the higher levels of the pelagic food webs. The zooplankton monitoring date from different sea areas indicates clear trends of change since the observations started in 1979. In the Gulf of Bothnia zooplankton biomass has increased and abundances of trophically important species have remained stable. The ecosystem of the Gulf of Bothnia does not suffer from anoxic deep-water, and this facilitates access also to deeper water layers, which is important for many zooplankton species. In the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Finland especially the Pseudocalanus acuspes has decreased dramatically. The zooplankton species composition continues to develop according to the trend observed in the 1979-2006 period, the Gulf of Bothnia does not suffer from anoxic deep-water, so the species composition has not changed significantly, but in general zooplankton biomasses are increasing. A new invasive species, the American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi arrived in Baltic waters during 2007. The highest abundances reached 400-600 individuals/m2 in the deep areas of Aland Sea and Bothnia Bay. Was discovered that this species are able to reproduce in Baltic waters at the smaller size and in colder temperature and winter monitoring indicate that it can survive at the winter conditions. The Baltic Sea has been subject to intensive chemical input for decades. Various pollutants have entered the Baltic Sea and its food webs since 1930’s and 1940’s when the bleaching of chlorophenols as wood preservatives started. Environmental pollution by heavy metals started after 1900, for decades, it freely discharged into marine environment. Total oil concentrations in surface waters follow the trend observed in previous years; concentrations have decreased significantly from the 1990s to 2007 in nine out of twelve sampled areas. Oil concentrations are lowest in the north, but increase towards the south. Restrictions in the emissions of harmful organic compounds and heavy metals have had a clear positive effect in sea areas around Finland. Pesticides, mercury and cadmium concentration have decreased, it is a positive sign of the diminishing contaminant load to the Baltic Sea. The reduction of anthropogenic pollution in herring and oil in surface water is likely to continue, and will improving the environmental situation of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and the safety of marine food sources. Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, blue-green bacteria or Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis. They are a significant component of the marine nitrogen cycle and an important primary producer in many areas of the ocean, but are also found in habitats other than the marine environment. (on the left) In the Central Baltic Sea, Pseudocalanus acuspes is a key species, serving as a major food item for com- mercially important zooplanktivorous fish. (on the right) 3. EU Fisheries Policy After the extensive analysis of the Baltic Sea bottom, it is worth to examine the policies that have been implemented and the effect they brought about. Therefore we begin with the general outline of the EU policies and then move towards the more specific aspect – the policies towards the Baltic Sea and their implementation in several EU countries. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union. It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions. The CFP was reformed in 2002 to improve approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimize the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. In 2008, the Commission launched a review of the Common Fisheries Policy which will be based on an analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the current policy, and will look at experiences from other fisheries management systems to identify potential avenues for future action. The CFP includes several measures to limit the environmental impact of fishing. Among them are the protection of non-target species such as marine mammals, birds and turtles, juvenile fish and vulnerable fish stocks and the protection of sensitive habitats. The EU Common Fisheries Policy controls fisheries through fish quotas and recovery plans for endangered fish species in the Baltic Sea. The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy includes regulations governing preservation, management and exploitation of fish populations The International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) was established pursuant to Article V of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts (the Gdansk Convention) which was signed on the 13 September 1973. The Area of Competence of the IBSFC comprises the Baltic Sea and the Belts. On signing this Convention, the Contracting Parties recognized that they shared responsibility both for protecting the living marine resources of the Baltic Sea and for making rational use of such resources. The duty of the Commission is to co-ordinate the management of the living resources in the Convention area and to prepare and submit recommendations based on results of scientific research for consideration of the Contracting Parties. IBSFC is the lead party for fisheries matters of the Agenda 21 of the Baltic Sea Region. The main objective is to reach sustainability before 2030. In the interest of the conservation of the living resources and their rational exploitation, the IBSFC establishes a number of Regulatory Measures for the fishing activity in the Baltic Sea: • Total Allowable Catches (TACs), or catch limits for the main four commercially exploited species: cod, salmon, herring and sprat. • Technical Regulatory Measures, such as closed periods and areas for fishing. Also minimum landing sizes and mesh sizes. • Strengthen the enforcement and prevention of uncontrolled fishing by increased exchange of information between contracting parties. • Adoption of Long term Management Strategies for the main regulated resources, among which the Salmon Action Plan, adopted in 1997, which is one of the first long-term management schemes adopted by an international fisheries organization. 3.1. Report to the Public Accounts Committee on the fisheries control and environmental monitoring in the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest pools of brackish water with limited water exchange that makes it extremely sensitive to pollution. In recent years, pollution has been the cause of alga blooms and lack of oxygen at the bottom of the Baltic Sea which has reduced the number of animals and fish living there. The countries bordering the Baltic Sea are, according to the Helsinki Convention, obliged to establish monitoring programmes to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea against pollution. The first Helsinki Convention was signed in 1974 and took effect in 1980. The convention was revised in 1992. All the countries bordering the Baltic Sea have acceded to the convention. Recommendation no. 19/3, which was issued in 1998 in accordance with the Helsinki Convention, concerns the marine environment monitoring programme COMBINE. The objective of COMBINE (Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine Environment) is to identify and quantify the impact of discharges and human activities on the Baltic Sea, and to measure the potential impact of different measures on the environmental condition of the Baltic Sea. Monitoring of the Baltic Sea has been examined in purpose to understand how fisheries and environment control is organized. During examination have been made cooperation with the supreme audit institutions of the countries bordering the Baltic Sea conducted a parallel audit. The supreme audit institutions of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden participated in the parallel audit. The main findings and conclusions of this report is that countries surrounding the Baltic Sea need to implement more effective control programmes and monitoring of the fisheries and the environment in the Baltic Sea. There are major differences between the individual countries bordering the Baltic Sea with respect to competencies, resources and control strategy. And it is important that the authorities of the individual countries continue the international cooperation on fisheries control and continue to prioritize participation in joint control activities. 3.2. Green Paper, a Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) The above vision for the future is a far cry from the current reality of overfishing, fleet overcapacity, heavy subsidies, low economic resilience and decline in the volume of fish caught by European fishermen. The current CFP has not worked well enough to prevent those problems. By the reform of the CFP, it can help EU get away from the trapped circle, where it has been stuck for recent years. And due to the high importance of the fishing industry for European citizens, ensuring its future is policy objective for the EU. The marine ecosystems in Europe’s waters have the potential to support a high productivity of fish stocks. But most fish stocks have been fished down. Of all community stocks, already 88 % are being fished beyond maximum sustainable yield (MSY): this means that these fish populations could increase and generate more economic output if they were left for only a few years under less fishing pressure. Of these stocks, 30 % are outside a safe biological limit, which means that they might not be able to replenish. European fisheries today depend on young and small fish that more often than not get caught before they can reproduce. Another problem of overfishing is high political pressure to increase short-term fishing opportunities at the expense of the future sustainability of the industry. Economic and social sustainability require productive fish stocks and healthy marine ecosystems. The economic and social viability of fisheries can only result from restoring the productivity of fish stocks. There is, therefore, no conflict between ecological, economic and social objectives in the long term. However, these objectives can and do clash in the short term, especially when fishing opportunities have to be temporarily reduced in order to rebuild overexploited fish stocks. Social objectives such as employment have often been invoked to advocate more generous short-term fishing opportunities: the result has always been to further jeopardize the state of the stocks and the future of the fishermen who make a living out of them. Thus it is crucial that any compromises made to cushion the immediate economic and social effects of reductions in fishing opportunities remain compatible with long-term, ecological sustainability, including a move to fishing within MSY, eliminating discards and ensuring a low ecological impact of fisheries. We need to understand that ecological sustainability is therefore a basic premise for the economic and social future of European fisheries. 3.3. Current policies towards the Baltic Sea The Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union has had an impact on the development of policies towards maintaining the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea. It has set the quota of fishing in Denmark, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states, but without mere success. Even though the fisheries industries of these countries were less active as expected, the catch records and growth records remained rather way too significant as to the former and too poor as to the latter. That plan of 2008, prepared by the European Commission stated, that the quotas on cod have to be cut with the next 15%, but did not mention the questions of the other species. The EC suggested banning on catches of cod in the Baltic Sea, but this plan was met with a strong disagreement among the relevant member states. We can therefore conclude, that the CFP was a mere failure and the policies towards the Baltic Sea require much more underpinning from supranational institutions in order to abolish poaching behavior of the fishermen, illegal fishing and timid statements of the local governments. In 2007 in Krakow, Poland, another gathering of HELCOM process for the Baltic Sea took place. The core points in the agenda were: the problem on pollution and eutrophication, stating nutrient quota systems per relevant state, nutrient quota trading system, pollution (cambium, asotium, carbon), maritime activities and biodiversity. As Poland and Denmark opposed the common policy towards the Baltic Sea, the HELCOM gathering was mere ineffective and was concluded with establishing new plans, such as the salmon and cod management, removal of toxins via the fish wastes and controlling migratory species. Again, no relevant institutions and legal measures were established in order to maintain the biodiversity of fish species on the Baltic Sea. In conclusion, the current policies towards the maintaining biodiv | |
|
| |
| Всего комментариев: 0 | |