MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF PROJECT FOR COMPLETING THE HELCOM RED LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS/BIOTOPES (HELCOM RED LIST 1/2009)

Transcription

1 HELSINKI COMMISION HELCOM RED LIST 1/2009 Project for Completing the HELCOM Red List of Species and Habitats/Biotopes First Meeting Uppsala, Sweden, 6-7 May 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF PROJECT FOR COMPLETING THE HELCOM RED LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS/BIOTOPES (HELCOM RED LIST)...2 Introduction...2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the Agenda...2 Agenda Item 2 Foreseen outcomes of the HELCOM Red List project...2 Agenda Item 3 Defining sets of target species...3 Agenda Item 4 IUCN s system for classifying threatened species, data requirements and potential problems in the application...4 Agenda Item 5 Assessments in the sub-regions of the HELCOM area...5 Agenda Item 6 Habitat/biotope types: classification and alternative methods for threat status assessments...5 Agenda Item 7 Participation in the expert groups for species and habitats/biotopes...6 Agenda Item 8 Any other business...6 Agenda Item 9 Outcome of the meeting...6 Annexes Annex 1 List of Participants...7 Annex 2 Red List Project sub-basin division...9 Annex 3 Preliminary timetable for the HELCOM Red List project with the most important project milestones...10

2 MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF PROJECT FOR COMPLETING THE HELCOM RED LIST OF SPECIES AND HABITATS/BIOTOPES (HELCOM RED LIST 1/2009) INTRODUCTION 0.1 With reference to the Minutes of HELCOM HABITAT 10/2008, Paragraph 4.50 and HELCOM HOD 26/2008, Paragraph 3.11, the First Meeting of the Project for Completing the HELCOM Red List of Species and Habitats/Biotopes (HELCOM RED LIST 1/2009) was held in Uppsala, Sweden, at the premises of the Swedish Species Information Centre (SSIC) on 6-7 May The main objective of the Meeting was to discuss and define the aims of the project in relation to e.g. set of target species, habitat classification work, objectives on the sub-regional level, form of the end product, and the organization of the actual assessment work. 0.3 The Meeting was chaired by Mr. Jan Terstad, Sweden. Ms. Maria Laamanen, Professional Secretary, acted as the Secretary of the Meeting assisted by Ms. Tytti Kontula, Project Manager of HELCOM RED LIST. 0.4 Mr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Deputy Director of the Swedish Species Information Centre introduced to the meeting the work of the Swedish Species Information Centre and welcomed the Participants to the Meeting. 0.5 Experts from Finland, Germany, Russia and Sweden attended the Meeting. The List of Participants is contained in Annex 1 to these Minutes. 0.6 Ms. Maria Laamanen, Professional Secretary informed the Meeting about the background and HELCOM framework related to the HELCOM Red List project (Presentation 1). Ms. Tytti Kontula further introduced the project and the agenda to the Meeting (Presentation 2). Agenda Item 1 Documents: 1/1 Adoption of the Agenda 1.1 The Meeting adopted the Agenda as contained in document 1/1. Agenda Item 2 Documents: 2/1 Foreseen outcomes of the HELCOM Red List project 2.1 The Meeting emphasized that a common Baltic-wide Red List produced using a harmonised approach will be of great importance for the Baltic Sea nature conservation purposes. 2.2 The Meeting discussed about the format of the end product, the Red List report and stressed that a Red List is a document which is used for everyday work and was of the opinion that therefore it should be published as a printed document in addition to publishing it on the HELCOM website. 2.3 The Meeting agreed that, in addition to the Red List report itself, the species Information Sheets for at least the threatened and near threatened species and habitats/biotopes should be produced. They should contain the more detailed background information and justification on the threat category assignments of each of the species and the habitats/biotopes. The Meeting was of the opinion that such Species Information Sheets should be published at least on the HELCOM website taking into account the need to update the Sheets at regular intervals. Page 2 of 10

3 2.4 The Meeting considered the Examples of Species Information Sheets: a description using an IUCN model as a basis and an example of the current HELCOM species fact sheets (document 2/1). The Meeting agreed that the format of the IUCN model should be followed. The Meeting invited the participants to send further comments on the contents of the IUCN Information Sheet model to the Secretariat (tytti.kontula@helcom.fi) by 22 May The Meeting pointed out that geographical distribution should be included in the Sheets and presented on maps as far as possible. The Meeting stressed that compilation of distribution data should be carried out on a sub-region by sub-region basis rather than country by country basis, possibly involving a gridding of the Baltic Sea. The Secretariat pointed out that HELCOM GIS may provide opportunities for a database and GIS-based map production which could also facilitate updating of the data. Agenda Item 3 Documents: 3/1 Defining sets of target species Checklist comprising a full list of species naturally occurring in the Baltic 3.1 The Meeting took note of a list of checklists of the Baltic Sea species (document 3/1) and that Sweden has a comprehensive taxonomic checklist of all species occurring in Sweden but that Baltic species cannot be extracted from that list easily. 3.2 The Meeting noted that the purpose of a checklist should be a compilation of a full list of species occurring in the Baltic Sea from which the list of species to be evaluated should be extracted by the expert groups. The species not to be included would be selected into a group of species not to be evaluated (NE) according to the IUCN principles. 3.3 The Meeting agreed that a checklist of species naturally occurring in the Baltic Sea should be produced to serve as a starting point for the assessment work. 3.4 The Meeting was of the opinion that such checklist should be compiled using the list of checklists in document 3/1 as a basis. The Meeting agreed that, for that purpose any additions to the list of checklists in document 3/1 should be forwarded to the Secretariat (tytti.kontula@helcom.fi) by 22 May 2009, and that those additions should concern particularly Baltic Sea species. The Meeting tasked the Project Manager to compile a full list based on those checklists and that each expert group should subsequently complement and refine the checklist concerning its group of organisms. 3.5 Concerning the format of the checklist, the Meeting considered that the checklist should be a taxonomical checklist of all species occurring in the Baltic Sea with species names and taxonomical affiliations and references to the origin of the information. List of target species to be evaluated 3.6 The Meeting pointed out that the information contained in the national Red Lists should be used as far as possible and that reporting and information produced under any other convention, such as AEWA or linked to reporting under any of the EU Directives, such as the Birds Directive should be utilised as far as practical. 3.7 The Meeting decided that the main focus should be put on species occurring or growing under the water surface and also to include species occurring or growing in the geolittoral, up to the highest water level whenever possible. 3.8 The Meeting agreed that all species that naturally occur in the Baltic Sea should be included in the list of target species, including regularly occurring species that occur in the margin of their distribution or ecological range. The Meeting took note that the IUCN criteria can also be applied to geographically connected populations by downgrading e.g. as in the case of common freshwater species which only rarely occur in the Baltic estuaries. 3.9 The Meeting decided that species that depend on the Baltic Sea during at least a part of their life cycle should be included in the list of target species. Page 3 of 10

4 3.10 The Meeting pointed out that the above conclusion would mean the inclusion in the list of target species also wintering and migrating bird species and took note of a German example on the production of separate lists for breeding and migrating or wintering species. The Meeting was of the opinion that the widest possible definition of water birds should be employed The Meeting, however, invited Sweden to provide the participants further guidance on the possible use of the Swedish 2 % rule of the European population as a general rule for inclusion of migrating or wintering species in the Baltic Sea list and invited the participants to send further opinions and input on this issue to Mona Johansson, Sweden (mona.johanssson@artdata.slu.se) and Sweden to send the guidance to the Secretariat (tytti.kontula@helcom.fi) for distribution to the participants of the meeting by 22 May The Meeting considered that the basic taxonomic level to be employed should be species level and was of the opinion that subspecies or different morphs/life history forms should only be included based on a well justified opinion of an expert group The Meeting agreed to include also invertebrates occurring in the littoral zone in the benthic invertebrates The Meeting agreed to include otter in the list of mammals The Meeting pointed out that alien species should be excluded from the list of target species using the HELCOM list of alien species and the CBD definition of an alien species. Agenda Item 4 Documents: 4/1 IUCN s system for classifying threatened species, data requirements and potential problems in the application 4.1 The Meeting took note of the summary of the IUCN criteria and guidelines for classifying threatened species (document 4/1). 4.2 The Meeting considered whether the IUCN criteria can be applied in a regional context, in a similar manner as they can be applied in national context and pointed out that some modifications may be necessary. 4.3 The Meeting took note that IUCN Criterion A requires data on population size development to justify the threat assignment and can be used for at least birds, mammals, certain fish and possibly also for certain macrophytes and benthic invertebrates. 4.4 The Meeting noted that Criterion B is applicable to macrophytes and invertebrates and that it had also been successfully used for fish species in Sweden. 4.5 The Meeting took note that Criterion C is applicable to birds and mammals and has also been applied to certain macrophytes at least in Sweden and that Swedish and Finnish national guidelines give guidance for defining a single individual in cases when the concept is not clear, such as vegetatively growing plants. 4.6 The Meeting decided that any national guidelines should be forwarded to the Project Manager (tytti.kontula@helcom.fi) by 22 May 2009 in order for her to elaborate a compilation of best practices. 4.7 The Meeting pointed out that the category Data Deficient should be used in cases when not even an expert opinion exists. 4.8 The Meeting considered how to take into account natural fluctuations in populations when applying IUCN criteria and took note that Sweden has developed national principles for a number of such cases, such as cod. The Meeting noted that in unclear situations both the worst case and the best case scenario could be evaluated and used as a basis of expert judgement in assigning the threat category. 4.9 The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties and, in particular Sweden, to inform the Project Manager about such national principles by 22 May The Meeting agreed Page 4 of 10

5 that the Project Manager will compile the principles and circulate them to the Steering Group for comments with the view that they will be forwarded to the expert groups for guidance. Agenda Item 5 Documents: 5/1 Assessments in the sub-regions of the HELCOM area 5.1 The Meeting discussed the need and possible alternatives of sub-basin divisions of the HELCOM area (document 5/1). 5.2 The Meeting agreed that the threat assignments should be aimed to be done at a Baltic-wide scale. 5.3 The Meeting also agreed that a sub-basin (cf. paragraph 5.4) or even a finer scale could be used if considered relevant by the expert group. The Meeting also agreed that the expert groups should describe the situation of populations in each sub-basin as far as possible. The Meeting took note that also a reduced assessment i.e. consideration of whether a species is threatened or not is an option to use for sub-basins. 5.4 The Meeting decided to use the subdivisions presented with thick lines in Annex 2 i.e. division into the five sub-basins: the Kattegat and the Sounds, Baltic Proper, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia. The Meeting however pointed out that in the descriptions also more specific geographic references could be used. 5.5 The Meeting decided that distribution of species should be presented on maps in a harmonised manner using a gridded map of the Baltic Sea. The Meeting asked the Secretariat to provide a gridded map to the meeting participants and the experts. The Meeting agreed that the Secretariat should produce the distribution maps based on information on species occurrence provided as coordinates by the experts. Agenda Item 6 Documents: None Habitat/biotope types: classification and alternative methods for threat status assessments 6.1 The Meeting took note of the agreement in the Baltic Sea Action Plan to update a complete classification system for Baltic marine habitats by the year 2011 and that the updating mainly refers to BSEP 75 (HELCOM Red List of marine and coastal biotopes). The Meeting noted that thus far the work on updating the classification has not progressed within HELCOM but that a classification is essential for threat status assessments. 6.2 The Meeting agreed that the term biotope should be used in the HELCOM RED LIST project when referring to an abiotic environment and the biological community living in it, instead of the term habitat. 6.3 The Meeting emphasized that the biotope units should be biologically meaningful and an update to the existing classification should include biology to a higher extent than currently. 6.4 The Meeting took note of the Kustbiotoper i Norden publication produced within the Nordic Council of Ministers framework. 6.5 The Meeting also noted the Finnish work carried out on assessing threatened habitat types, development of background information sheets of altogether 12 marine habitat types (Raunio et al. 2008). 6.6 The Meeting considered that the classification should be accomplished before the threat assessments. 6.7 The Meeting was of the opinion that a specific workshop of biotope experts should be organised to initiate and plan the work on updating and improving a complete classification system using BSEP 75 as a starting point, taking into account the possibility to compare the new classification to that classification. The Meeting pointed out that such work should begin by considering the purposes of a classification system (e.g. habitat threat assessments, maritime spatial planning). Page 5 of 10

6 6.8 The Meeting agreed that the task of the workshop of habitat experts should be to initiate and plan the work of updating and improving classification system. The Meeting emphasized that the updating and improving should end up in a biologically meaningful system and also take into account inter alia the EUNIS classification, Habitats directive (Annex I), WFD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Annex I and III parts concerning habitats). In addition, the Meeting pointed out that the updating should take into account the status of knowledge on biotopes. Agenda Item 7 Documents: None Participation in the expert groups for species and habitats/biotopes 7.1 The Meeting took note of the willingness of HELCOM SEAL to take responsibility of the expert work concerning marine mammals and the willingness of HELCOM FISH to work on the fish and agreed that invitations to the meetings of the respective expert groups should be sent to those groups. The Meeting also took note that HELCOM MONAS has agreed on the forming of a macrophytobenthos expert group and that the members of that group nominated thus far should be invited. 7.2 The Meeting considered the nomination of members to all the expert groups and in particular to the expert groups on macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, birds and biotopes and invited all Contracting Parties to inform the HELCOM HABITAT 11/2009 of their experts to the groups. The Meeting also agreed that, due to the specific expertise needed in the groups, the participants should also inform the Secretariat (tytti.kontula@helcom.fi) by 29 May 2009 of potential candidates that could be invited, for example as guests to those expert groups. 7.3 The Meeting pointed out that the expert groups should nominate Chairs amongst themselves. 7.4 The Meeting agreed that a joint kick-off meeting for the species experts should be organised in late August/early September 2009 with the view to train the experts in applying the IUCN criteria. Agenda Item 8 Documents: Any other business 8.1 A preliminary time schedule for the whole project was introduced to the Meeting by the Secretariat and the Meeting amended it inter alia by adding the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting of 2013 as the final milestone and agreed on the preliminary time table as included in Annex 3 to these Minutes. 8.2 The Meeting also agreed that in the future this group should be considered as a Steering Group of the HELCOM RED LIST project with the role of steering and monitoring the work of expert groups. 8.3 The Meeting decided to hold the next meeting of the Steering Group in early June Agenda Item 9 Documents: 9/1 Outcome of the meeting 9.1 The Meeting agreed that the draft Minutes of the Meeting will be finalized by the Chair and the Secretariat. The finalized minutes will be made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal. Page 6 of 10

7 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Annex 1 CHAIR Mr. Jan Terstad ArtDatabanken, SLU Swedish Species Information Centre Bäcklösavägen 8 SE Uppsala Dir.Phone: Fax: jan.terstad@artdata.slu.se Mr. Jan Ekebom Ms. Nina Peuhkuri Mr. Janne Pitkänen FINLAND Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services P.O. Box 94 FI Vantaa Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute P.O.Box 2 FI Helsinki Maa- ja Metsätalousministeriö P.O.Box 30 FI Valtioneuvosto Dir.Phone: Fax: jan.ekebom@metsa.fi Dir.Phone: Fax: nina.peuhkuri@rktl.fi Dir.Phone: Fax: janne.pitkanen@mmm.fi Mr. Dieter Boedeker GERMANY German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm D Putbus Dir.Phone: Fax: dieter.boedeker@bfn-vilm.de Ms. Anna Doronina Mr. Vladimir Fedorov Mr. Vladimir Ivanov Ms. Anna Razumovskaya Ms. Anna Ulanova RUSSIA St. Petersburg State University Universitetskaya Emb., 7/9 RU St.Petersburg St. Petersburg State University Universitetskaya Emb., 7/9 RU St.Petersburg St.Petersburg State University Department of Entomology Universitetskaya Emb., 7/9 RU St. Petersburg Neftegazgeodeziya Ltd, BFN SPNS Zanevsky avenue 54-5 A RU St.Petersburg St. Petersburg State University Biology and Soil Sciences Faculty Botany Department Universitetskaya Emb., 7/9 RU St. Petersburg Dir.Phone: Fax: baccador@mail.ru Dir.Phone: Fax: va_fedorov@mail.ru Dir.Phone: Fax: v--ivanov@yandex.ru Dir.Phone: Fax: anna-lynx@mail.ru Dir.Phone: Fax: anna_ulanova@yahoo.com; anna.ulanova@ebc.uu.se Page 7 of 10

8 SWEDEN Ms. Ann-Britt Florin Ms. Anna Karlsson Mr. Olle Karlsson Ms. Christina Rappe Ms. Francesca Vitale Swedish Board of Fisheries Institute of Coastal Research P.O.Box 109 SE Öregrund ArtDatabanken, SLU P.O.Box 7007 SE Uppsala Swedish Museum of Natural History P.O.Box SE Stockholm Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Marine Environment Section Valhallavägen 195 S Stockholm Swedish Board of Fisheries Institute of Marine Research Turistgatan 5 SE Lysekil Dir.Phone: Fax: ann-britt.florin@fiskeriverket.se Dir.Phone: Fax: anna.karlsson@artdata.slu.se Dir.Phone: Fax: olle.karlsson@nrm.se Dir.Phone: Fax: christina.rappe@naturvardsverket.se Dir.Phone: Fax: francesca.vitale@fiskeriverket.se Ms. Maria Laamanen Professional Secretary Ms. Tytti Kontula Project Manager of HELCOM RED LIST HELCOM SECRETARIAT Helsinki Commission Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI Helsinki Helsinki Commission Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI Helsinki Dir.Phone: Fax: maria.laamanen@helcom.fi Dir.Phone: Fax: tytti.kontula@helcom.fi Page 8 of 10

9

10 Preliminary timetable for the HELCOM Red List project with the most important project milestones Annex Preparatory work First Project Group meeting on 6-7 May Establishment of expert groups Preparation of species checklists (S + G) Kick-off seminar (species experts) Development of habitat classification system Selection and tests of the method for assessing the habitat types Identification of clear NEs, NAs and LCs (G) Expert groups established in June 2009 Species checklists ready in October 2009 (published on the web) 2010 Identification of clear NEs, NAs and LCs continues (G) Group meetings: potentially threatened species divided for responsible persons (G) Gathering of species data, assessment work and documentation Steering group meeting cations required) (G assisted by S) Preliminary lists of clear NEs, NAs and LCs ready in January 2010 Report of the assessment situation for HELCOM HABITAT in September 2010 Development of habitat classification system continues Finishing habitat classification system Habitat classification and assessment Selection and tests of the method for assessing the habitat types continues and the assessment method method ready in December Assessment work (species)... continues Checks of results (S) Descriptive texts by species (G) Analyses of overall and group results (S) Gathering of habitat type data, assessment work and documentation (G assisted by S) Editorial work with species texts (S) Other species texts (results by groups) (G) Preliminary results for species ready in April 2011 and introduced for HELCOM HABITAT in May Final results for species and texts by species ready in December 2011 Preliminary results for habitats ready in December Species texts to groups for final check-up Editorial work with other species texts (S) Checks of habitat results (S) Descriptive texts by habitats (G) Analyses of habitat results (S) Other texts to groups for final check-up (species) Editorial work with habitat texts (S) Habitat texts to Editorial work group for final with other check-up habitat texts Layout for the species section and/or preparations for web publishing (S) Other habitat texts (describing results) (G) Other texts to group for final check-up (habitats) Layout for the habitats section and/or preparations for web publishing Final results for habitats ready in April 2012 and introduced for HELCOM HABITAT in May? Manuscript of species section ready in April 2012 Manuscript of habitats section ready in October Final reports ready for the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013 Finalizing and publishing Page 10 of 10