BaltSeaPlan Report 13

Transcription

1 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Plan for the Pärnu Bay Authors: Georg Martin 1, Robert Aps 1, Madli Kopti 1, Jonne Kotta 1, Laura Remmelgas 2 and Merle Kuris 2 1 Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Estonia 2 Baltic Environmental Forum, Estonia Project part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

2 IMPRINT Authors Georg Martin, Robert Aps, Madli Kopti and Jonne Kotta Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Estonia Laura Remmelgas and Merle Kuris Baltic Environmental Forum, Estonia Lead Partner Dr. Nico Nolte Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH) Bernhard-Nocht-Str. 78, Hamburg, Germany Tel. +49 (40) Fax.+49 (40) External Project Coordination Office Angela Schultz-Zehden s.pro sustainable projects GmbH Rheinstraße 34, Berlin, Germany Tel. +49 (30) Fax.+49 (30) Tallinn December, This report has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of the Authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Cover photos: Joanna Przedrzymirska, The Maritime Institute in Gdansk; Karsten Dahl, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University (formerly National Environmental Research Institute NERI); Siemens press photo

3 CONTENT CONTENT Executive summary Introduction The Pilot Project Project objectives Working Environment Planning organisation & process Working group Planning steps Planning methodology Stakeholder involvement Planning Context Environmental context Sea and coastline character Other physical conditions Valuable environmental areas Socio- economic context Spatial planning documents and relevant strategies National and regional documents and strategies International documents and strategies Stocktake Overview of relevant issues Relevant issues in detail Environmental protection Sea uses Additional issues (trends, strategies) Conflict Analysis General overview Main conflicts in the pilot area Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions Spatial Plan Recommendations and future steps to implement MSP Lessons learnt

4 Executive Summary Executive summary The Pärnu Bay pilot area - located in the northern part of the Gulf of Riga - is characterised by intensive human uses as well as problematic environmental conditions. In addition to long tradition uses such as shipping, fishing and recreation activities, there are also plans for offshore wind parks as well as an expansion of Pärnu Port. The main environmental issue is eutrophication, which manifests itself in increased biological production and worsened light conditions for the seabed while at the same time positively affecting fish populations. The BaltSeaPlan Report N 13 "Towards a Pilot MSP for Pärnu Bay" shows the stocktake of the area including methods for how to generate information in case of missing data sources. It also describes the stakeholder involvement and conflict analysis undertaken. In view of missing legislation for MSP in Estonia at the current stage it does not go the full cycle by actually proposing an MSP for the area. 2 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

5 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1. The Pilot Project The Pärnu Bay pilot area handled in the BaltSeaPlan project is located in the northern part of the Gulf of Riga and encompasses Pärnu Bay and the estuary thereof in the Gulf of Riga; the land boundary of the area extends from the Matsi Recreation Area in Varbla Rural Municipality to the Latvian border at Ikla (Figure 1). The area is administratively situated in Pärnu County, Varbla, Tõstamaa, Audru, Tahkuranna, Häädemeeste and Kihnu Rural Municipalities and in Pärnu City. The area of the pilot area is 1990 km². The respective area is a complex of diverse human use and varied environmental conditions. Figure 1. General map of the Pärnu Bay pilot area 1.2. Project objectives The objective of MSP is to determine the general principles for use of the planning area in cooperation with interest groups, having regard to the existing and possible future sea and coast usage, environmental conditions and requirements of nature conservation. The objective of the BaltSeaPlan pilot project was to try it out in the Pärnu Bay pilot area, to find out difficulties, gaps in information and contribute to development of MSP methodology for Estonia. In the course of the BaltSeaPlan project, it was not possible to officially initiate a plan for the Pärnu Bay marine area or conduct strategic environmental assessment, but the description of the current situation, analysis of controversies and recommendations for spatial planning of the area contained in the draft shall serve as input for a future official plan. The necessity of preparing the Pärnu Bay plan is caused by the continuously intensifying use of the sea. The intensity of maritime transport is increasing and new activities have been initiated or are being planned (e.g. various water sports, construction of offshore wind farms) that are at times in contradiction with other activities or the objectives of environmental protection. Planning is related to the need to minimise the impacts arising from the use of the sea to the marine environment and ensure sustainable development. A plan of the marine area should help make decisions when planning new activities for the respective marine area and grant a certain degree of assurance for the current users of the sea; their activities have been put on the map and shall be taken into account in the future when new activities are initiated. 3

6 1. Introduction The objectives are, more precisely: > protection and preservation of the marine resources of Pärnu Bay; > protection of regions of ecological value; > minimising and resolving conflicts between human activities and protection of the marine environment; > minimising contradictions between various human activities and finding solutions; and > preserving/ensuring the development of existing activities characteristic for the region (fishing, maritime transport & ports, tourism & Summer Capital, marine research) and taking the aforesaid into account when planning other activities Working Environment Systematic spatial planning in Estonia has so far mostly been limited to land, yet the need to plan the use of marine areas has become more actual along with an increasing pressure to use the marine area for various purposes. The existing plans therefore do not include marine areas. The currently (2011) existing Planning Act in principle can be applied also in marine areas but there are still various unclear aspects related to competence, planning level, the extent of the rights of county governments in planning of marine areas (there are no county/administrative borders defined in the sea), spatial planning in the exclusive economic zone, etc. MSP is a new thing for Estonia. In an analysis of the current situation and initial proposal of methodology for MSP was developed by the consultant company Hendrikson & Ko in cooperation with Estonian Ministry of the Interior and Estonian Marine Institute ( Methodology for Maritime Spatial Planning ) but the pilot projects carried out in the frame of the BaltSeaPlan project were the first attempts to try it out in practice. Spatial planning in Estonia, including maritime spatial planning, is regulated by the Planning Act (adopted , RT I 2002, 99, 579, entered into force on ). Pursuant to the Planning Act, a county plan may be prepared for public bodies of water, but it is not mandatory (clause 7 (2) 3) of the Planning Act). The objectives of a county plan are to, inter alia (clauses 7 (3) 8)- 13) of the Planning Act): > define general provisions for the use of land and water areas; > define the land use provisions for areas influenced by mining of mineral resources or earth material; > determine the location of waterways and ports; > take into account protected areas and the provisions for their use in planning and make proposals for the amendment of such provisions if necessary or the establishment of new protected areas or termination of the protection regime; > designate recreation areas and the provisions for the use thereof; > designate national defence areas of national importance. According to the analysis composed by the Estonian Environmental Law Centre (EELC) in , maritime planning with a county plan is not possible according to the valid legislation as the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act and other legislation do not provide a basis for extending the boundaries of a county to the territorial sea; thus counties have no territory at sea and the competence of county governors regarding the territorial sea is undefined. In the opinion of the EELC, organising planning activities in marine areas is possible by local governments, but only in the case of a public body of water bordering the administrative territory of the local government and a 1 E. Saunanen and K. Vaarmari Maritime spatial planning. Analysis of valid legislation and solutions for amendment thereof. Estonian Environmental Law Centre. 4 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

7 1. Introduction structure permanently connected to the shore is being planned (subsection 4 (3) of the Planning Act). The county, comprehensive or detailed plan that contains plans for such a structure shall be approved by the Technical Surveillance Authority before the adoption thereof (subsection 171 (3) of the Planning Act). According to the recommendations of the EELC, it would be most reasonable to plan marine areas on the national level with a respective thematic plan, dividing the marine area into parts by criteria arising from natural conditions or regions of use of the marine area if necessary. In the event that planning still takes place on the county level, the respective proceedings shall be coordinated on the national level to ensure cohesion (and provide for the respective mechanisms in legislation). Maritime planning on the county level implies amending the legislation. For that purpose, the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act should be amended to establish a basis for designating the boundaries of a county at sea, determine the boundaries of counties at sea and prepare a map of the marine area along with county boundaries. In the opinion of Hendrikson & Ko 2, maritime planning should above all take place via county plans as using the marine area conveys the interests of the state. As the county borders are not defined in the marine area, the MSP for a certain marine area should be initiated by the Estonian Government (Planning Act 10 (3) allows initiation of a county plan by the Government) and development of the MSP should be delegated to the relevant county government. In addition to the Planning Act, the activities related to sea are regulated in Estonia by the Law of Property Act 3, Water Act 4, Building Act 5, Ports Act 6, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act 7, Exclusive Economic Zone Act 8, Nature Conservation Act 9, Sustainable Development Act 10, Maritime Boundaries Act 11, Electricity Market Act 12, Fishing Act 13, Earth s Crust Act 14, Maritime Safety Act 15, State Borders Act Hendrikson & Ko, Methodology of maritime spatial planning. 3 Adopted , RT I 1993, 39, 590, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 6, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 1994, 40, 655, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 18, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2002, 47, 297, date of entry into force pursuant to 102. Last amended wording published RT I, , 5, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2009, 37, 251, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 10, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2005, 15, 87, entered into force on , partially pursuant to 71. Last amended wording published RT I, , 13, entered into force on Adopted , RT 1993, 7, 105, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 19, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2004, 38, 258, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 5, entered into force on Adopted , RT I 1995, 31, 384, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I 2009, 12, 73, entered into force on Adopted , RT 1993, 14, 217. Last amended wording entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2003, 25, 153, entry into force pursuant to 119. Last amendments entered into force on Adopted , RT I 1995, 80, 1384, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 34, entered into force on

8 1. Introduction 14 Adopted , RT I 2004, 84, 572, entered into force on Last amended wording entered into force on Adopted , RT I 2002, 1, 1, entered into force on Last amended wording entered into force on Adopted , RT I 1994, 54, 902, entered into force on Last amended wording published RT I, , 3, entered into force on BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

9 2. Planning organisation & process 2. Planning organisation & process 2.1. Working group The draft plan for the Pärnu Bay marine area was created in the framework of the BaltSeaPlan project in The project team included experts from Estonian Marine Institute of the University of Tartu (Georg Martin, Jonne Kotta, Madli Kopti, Robert Aps) and Baltic Environmental Forum- Estonia (Laura Remmelgas, Merle Kuris). Estonian Marine Institute was responsible for data collection, modelling, production of maps, writing parts of the draft pilot plan and participation in the stakeholder events. The Baltic Environmental Forum was responsible for communication with stakeholders, organisation of stakeholder meetings and conferences, compilation and writing parts of the draft pilot plan. The Development and Planning Department of Pärnu County Government actively participated in the process by hosting the local stakeholder meetings and contributing to the information collection and development of this document. Contribution to the draft pilot plan was received also from other stakeholder groups like fishermen organisations, Maritime Administration, surfing clubs, wind farm developers, environmental authorities etc Planning steps In the course of the BaltSeaPlan project, it was not possible to officially initiate a plan for the Pärnu Bay marine area or conduct strategic environmental assessment, but the following steps were carried out: 1. Collection of existing information about the environment, existing uses and interests; 2. Identification of data gaps; 3. Modelling of valuable marine habitats; 4. Preparation of maps of current uses and interests as well as nature values; 5. Identification of stakeholders related to the area; 6. Communication/information exchange with stakeholders; 7. Analysis of existing/potential conflicts between different uses/interests; 8. Compilation of the draft planning material including description of the current situation, conflict analysis and recommendations for spatial planning of the area; 9. Discussion of the compiled document with the stakeholders Planning methodology Existing international guidelines e.g. UNESCO Step- by- Step Approach for Marine Spatial Planning towards Ecosystem- based Management ioc- marinesp.be/msp_guide, The PlanCoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning Balance project report Towards marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea eu.org/publications/index.html, HELCOM recommendations as well as experience gained in the BaltSeaPlan project and the Vision 2030 Towards the sustainable planning of the Baltic Sea Space developed in the project were taken as basis for the used methodology. Also an Estonian guidance document on Methodology for Maritime Spatial Planning (Hendrikson & Ko, 2010; was used Stakeholder involvement The preparations already started in 2009 when the initial information regarding the project area and the related interest groups was gathered. On 27 November 2009, the conference Maritime Spatial Planning How to Implement it in Estonia? was held in Tallinn, introducing the Pärnu Bay project area and discussing implementation of maritime spatial planning in Estonia. The following events were held to inform and involve the interest groups: > Conference for interested parties for maritime spatial planning ( , Tallinn) > Meeting on Planning the Use of the Pärnu Bay ( , Pärnu County Government) > Meeting of interest groups Planning the use of the BaltSeaPlan project Pärnu Bay pilot area conflict of interests and resolution thereof ( , Pärnu County Government) > Meeting of interest groups Introduction and discussion of the BaltSeaPlan project Pärnu Bay pilot area draft plan ( , Pärnu County Government). 7

10 2. Planning organisation & process Between the meetings also e- mail and telephone were used for communication with the stakeholders. The draft documents and maps were sent to the stakeholders by e- mail and later also the Boundary GIS Map Application developed by the Estonian Marine Institute of the University of Tartu was used for information exchange with the stakeholders. Boundary GIS Map Application was also helpful in the meetings for presenting the maps and making notes directly on the map based on comments of stakeholders. Also a short questionnaire was sent to stakeholders by e- mail but only a few responses were received. The questionnaire included the following questions: 1. What currently existing activities/interests should be added to the map of the uses of the pilot area? Please specify spatially and temporally. 2. What activities/interests are planned or will probably come up in the next 5 years in the pilot area? Please specify spatially and temporally if possible. 3. Where and what kind of problems or conflicts can, in your opinion, appear (or may be there are already existing problems that need to be solved?) concerning the use of the pilot area? Efforts were made to involve all the interest groups related to the project area in preparing the draft plan (Table 1). Table 1. Interest groups involved in preparing the Pärnu Bay draft plan Local and county governments situated in the Pärnu Bay area Business and development Ports and marine transport Fishing Wind energy Tourism and recreation Ministries/state authorities Research institutions Pärnu County Government Varbla, Tõstamaa, Audru, Tahkuranna, Häädemeeste and Kihnu Rural Municipality Governments and Pärnu City Government NGO Association of Local Authorities of Pärnu County Business and Development Centre of Pärnu County Maritime Administration, AS Kihnu Veeteed, Association of Estonian Minor Ports, Port of Pärnu, NGO Estonian Ports Association, Raeküla Port Association of Estonian Fishermen, NGO Gulf of Riga Fishing Association Eesti Energia SA Pärnumaa Turism, NGO West- Estonia Tourism, Personal Watercraft Club Shark Racing, Pärnu Yacht Club, Pärnu Surf Club, Stingram Personal Watercraft Club Ministry of the Interior, Planning Dep., Migration- and Border Policy Dep. Ministry of Defence Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery Department Environmental Board, Pärnu- Viljandi Region Ministry of the Environment, Marine Environment Dep., Nature Conservation Dep., Fish Resources Dep. Environment Information Centre University of Tartu, Pärnu College Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu Environmental organisations Companies Consultation undertakings Estonian Ornithological Society, Estonian Fund for Nature, Estonian Green Movement Sindi Barrage Ramboll Eesti AS 8 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

11 3. Planning Context 3. Planning Context 3.1. Environmental context Sea and coastline character The area is a typical marine area of the Gulf of Riga with specific environmental conditions. The salinity of seawater is generally lower in the Gulf of Riga than in the open part of the Baltic Sea, yet the concentrations of nutrients are significantly higher. This in turn affects several other environmental parameters such as the transparency of water, which is generally substantially lower in the Pärnu Bay region than in other marine areas. Pärnu Bay is significantly affected by inflow of freshwater from the Pärnu River. The high amount of freshwater also brings a substantial amount of organic material to Pärnu Bay that in turn affects the optical properties of the seawater of the region. The seabed topography of the region is typical for the northern part of the Gulf of Riga. The project area is a part of shallow coastal waters with maximum depths extending down to merely 35 meters. Seabed deposits in the Pärnu Bay and the open part of the Gulf of Riga are generally sandy, but there are also extensive areas with rock and rubble at the seabed in the northern part of the project area Other physical conditions The Gulf of Riga is a body of water which is subject to relatively large annual water temperature fluctuations. From the end of June to the middle of August the temperature of the water near the coast generally remains above 18 C. The Gulf has some ice cover every winter. Ice cover usually starts to form in shallow bays in the middle of December. In harsh winters this process is brought forward by about a month and in warm winters is postponed by roughly the same amount of time. Pärnu Bay is the first part of the Gulf to freeze over. The pack ice that is piled up on the shore by strong westerly gales has occasionally even threatened the resort buildings on Pärnu beach. The gulf is completely frozen during roughly 60% of winters. Estonia s thickest coastal ice 90 cm, was recorded in the eastern part of the Gulf of Riga during the extraordinarily cold wartime winter, 1941/1942. In average winters the ice cover melts by the end of April. In warm winters the whole sea is free of ice by March. In some winters there has been ice in Pärnu Bay for up to 6 months. The largest fluctuations in sea level along the Estonian coast have also been observed in the Gulf of Riga. Strong and prolonged westerlies raise the water level in the east, and easterlies lower it. In October 1967 the water level in Pärnu Bay rose 253 cm above its average level and caused extensive flooding in the town. In December 1959 the level dropped to 120 cm below the average; as a result many shallow bays dried up and the sea receded hundreds of metres in places Valuable environmental areas The particular environmental conditions determine the diversity of the marine biota in the respective region to a large extent. The described marine area is one of the regions with the least number of species in the Baltic Sea. Freshwater species are generally prevalent in the biota. BENTHIC HABITATS AND BIOTA One of the most important guidelines in international nature conservation and designation of nature conservation areas is the EU Habitats Directive. Pursuant to the Habitats Directive, valuable habitats related to the sea in the Estonian coastal waters are reefs, sandbanks that are slightly covered by seawater all the time, estuaries, large shallow inlets and bays and mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tides (foreshores). Reefs, sandbanks and foreshores can be found in the Pärnu Bay pilot area. Reefs as habitats are defined as areas rich in boulders or formed from seabed rocks that rise from the seabed. Upon designating the respective habitat, it is not depth that matters, but the existence of the characteristic plant and animal communities. Coverage of at least 10% of the characteristic species in the area is used as the

12 3. Planning Context lower limit. In coastal shallows, the characteristic plants of reefs are the perennial brown seaweed bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus) and the red seaweed Furcellaria lumbricalis. Of the aforesaid, only Furcellaria lumbricalis can be found in open sea sandbanks. In terms of fauna, the key species for all reefs are the bay mussel (Mytilus trossulus), bay barnacle (Balanus improvisus) and, in regions with lower salinity, the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Sandbanks that are slightly covered by seawater all the time are formations rising from the seabed that mainly consist of sandy sediment. Apart from the sandy sediment, the seabed substrate may include larger fractions up to gravel and stones. A feature of sandbanks is the existence of characteristic biota that, in the conditions of the Baltic Sea, is represented by higher plants, Charophyta and numerous bivalve populations. In open sea sandflats, the characteristic biota only includes buried bivalves (Baltic macoma (Macoma balthica), soft- shell clams (Mya arenaria) and the Cerastoderma glaucum). Foreshores in the Estonian context stand for sand, clay and mud beaches exposed to strong winds. For the purposes of this document, areas with a depth of less than 1 meter that generally have soft sediment (or mixed sediment) have been conditionally defined as the aforesaid habitat. Our knowledge of the valuable marine habitats of Pärnu Bay is very limited. As of today, less than 5% of the marine region has been mapped and there is no methodology to assess the condition of the habitats. Modelled data regarding the spatial location of marine habitats and expert assessments regarding the condition of the habitats were therefore used for writing this chapter. Figure 2 indicates the modelled location of marine habitats valued in the EU. Figure 2. Modelled distribution of marine habitats of EU importance in Pärnu Bay pilot area Main issues The marine habitats and seabed biota of Pärnu Bay are endangered by the following factors: eutrophication in the sea, inflow of toxic substances, shipping traffic, extraction of mineral resources, dredging and dumping and matters related to construction of wind farms. Eutrophication is a situation in the marine ecosystem where the high content of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) causes rapid growth of algae and overproduction of organic substances, thereby knocking the system 10 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

13 3. Planning Context out of balance. The consequences of eutrophication are oxygen depletion seat deeper sea areas and decrease in the transparency of water in addition to rapid growth of drifting and attached algae. The hazardous substances contained in the marine environment accumulate into the organisms of the top levels of the food chain, causing deterioration in their health and reproduction ability. The main sources of pollution are agriculture, industry and wastewater of settlements. In order to stop the eutrophication process and reduce pollution, cooperation of all the Baltic Sea countries is required as the sea is not affected by national borders and pollution dumped into the sea at one location may spread everywhere in the end. There is heavy shipping traffic in the Pärnu Bay pilot area. An increased risk of oil pollution is a direct consequence of shipping. Oil pollution affects the seabed biota by decreasing the existence of macroalgae and thereby increasing the fragmentation of habitats. Oil products also cause immediate death of numerous Crustacea. Sand and gravel that is used for construction of ports or roads is extracted from shallow marine areas with a sandy seabed. Extraction of mineral resources may bring about destruction of the seabed habitats, release of pollutants from the substratum and water cloudiness. All these processes have a negative impact on the entire ecosystem. Dredging and dumping work is performed to keep the shipping lanes operating and the impact of such work on the marine biota is similar to extraction of mineral resources. Shallows are attractive locations for developers of wind farms as the sea has better wind conditions than inland and fewer people are disturbed by the wind turbines. The seabed biota is destroyed in the course of construction of wind farms, but the impact is not irreversible thanks to the rapid recovery capacity of open sea biota. The firm substrate created in the course of construction of wind farms may cause massive migration of non- native species from the southern part of the Baltic Sea towards the north if the distance of the planned wind farms from the next is too small. In the working phase of the wind farms, the impact thereof on the seabed biota is relatively weak. Status assessment According to the modelled data, valuable habitats are located all over Pärnu Bay (Figure 2). Reefs are located in the south- east and south- west parts of the bay. Due to the low salinity of the seawater, the characteristic species for reefs are the bladderwrack, Furcellaria lumbricalis and the zebra mussel whereas the proportion of the latter is very high. The clayey substratum of the Gulf of Riga is the reason why the transparency and light conditions of Pärnu Bay are rather poor and the benthic macrophytes do not extend to great depths. Arising from the high eutrophication level of the region, the conservation status of the reefs of Pärnu Bay may be assessed as average. Eutrophication processes endanger reefs that are covered with fauna, but generally not reefs that are covered with the zebra mussel. Sandbanks are located in regions that are more protected from the winds close to the coast and on shallows located to the north of Kihnu Island. The characteristic species of sandbanks are various higher plants and Charophyta. Sandbanks are sensitive to eutrophication similarly to reefs and increased eutrophication may result in a substantial decrease in the area of sandbanks. The spatial extent of foreshores is relatively small and the aforesaid are mainly concentrated in the north- east part of the bay. Eutrophication does not significantly affect the condition of foreshores. As the impact of eutrophication is so dominating, other factors such as inflow of toxic substances, shipping traffic, extraction of mineral resources, dredging and dumping and matters related to construction of wind farms do not currently have a significant impact on the conservation status of the valuable marine habitats. FISH FAUNA The Gulf of Riga is a relatively shallow and biologically very productive marine area that serves as one of the most important fishing grounds for the Baltic herring. The Gulf of Riga as an important spawning ground for the Baltic herring is used by two Baltic herring populations. The open sea Baltic herring enters the bay immediately after the ice melts only for spawning and returns to the open sea at the end of July. However, the Baltic herring population of the Gulf of Riga mainly lives in the Gulf of Riga throughout the year whereas both populations use the same spawning grounds. The Baltic herring spawns on red and brown algae mainly in water up to 5 meters deep. The natural conditions for spawning and growth of juvenile fish for Baltic herring are more 11

14 3. Planning Context favourable in the Estonian part of the Gulf of Riga, including Pärnu Bay and the surroundings of Kihnu Island where the coast is more differentiated and the seabed is extremely varied, thereby ensuring more favourable growth conditions for the seabed flora serving as the substratum. 18 The Baltic herring resources of Pärnu Bay are a part of the Baltic herring population of the Gulf of Riga; the use thereof is internationally regulated and the biomass of the spawning pool (the resources of Baltic herring used) has fluctuated from 54,521 tons in 1977 to 118,795 tons in 1994 and to 75,748 tons in The salmon resources present in Pärnu Bay are a small part of the salmon resources of the centre part of the Baltic Sea (located in international fishing regions and includes the Gulf of Riga). The perch, pike perch, smelt, vimba and eel form fish resources of local importance for Pärnu Bay and the size and differences in time thereof are assessed on the basis of fishing for monitoring purposes performed on fish fauna. MARINE MAMMALS Of marine mammals, two species of seal the grey seal and the ringed seal are present in the project area, and the area may be occasionally visited by the harbour porpoise, the only Cetacean in the Baltic Sea who has become very rare. The grey seal is a species of seal with an open sea lifestyle that travels around the entire Baltic Sea according to telemetry research data. The population of the grey seal has constantly increased in the Baltic Sea since the 1980s and has currently stabilised at 23,000 24,000. The population of the grey seal in Estonia is estimated to be 3,000 4,000. The grey seal is protected in the European Union as a species of Annexes II and V to the Habitats Directive, as a species of protection category III in Estonia and has been entered in Annex III to the Bern Convention and Annex II to the Bonn Convention and in the IUCN Red List (category least concern). One haul- out area of the grey seal is located in the project area the region of shallows of Sangelaiu located north- west of Kihnu. The grey seal generally gives birth on the drift ice of the Gulf of Riga. During winters without ice, the grey seal give birth in the Allirahu island group, on Kerju Island and rarely at Vesitükimaa. The ringed seal is protected in all Baltic Sea countries as a threatened species. There are currently estimated to be 6,500 8,000 ringed seals in the Baltic Sea of whom 1,000 1,500 live in Estonia. The species is listed in the international IUCN Red List as a vulnerable species, in Annex II to the EU Habitats Directive, Annex III to the Bern Convention, as a species of protection category II in Estonia and in the Red Data Book of Estonia. The summer habitats of the ringed seal of Western Estonia are located in the region of Väinamere and Kihnu shallows from where the ringed seal conducts feeding trips to deeper waters in the estuary of the Gulf of Finland and in the Gulf of Riga. Winter spread of the ringed seal is related to certain types of ice into which it is possible to build nests and systems of breathing holes. These are mostly marine areas with ridged ice that are relatively far from the coast. A few ringed seals have stayed at Väinameri during winters with abundant ice, but generally they move to the Gulf of Riga when the sea is covered in ice. The seals are unable to choose a habitat during winters with lack of ice cover and nests of ringed seals can then also be found on the ice near the coast. In the project area of Pärnu Bay, the most important region for the ringed seal is the region south- east and west of Sangelaid along with Sillalaid. The Sangelaid region may be deemed as the southernmost permanently used gathering grounds of the ringed seal in the Baltic Sea during periods free of ice. The region is under protection as the Sangelaiu ringed seal species protection site and presence of people in the special 18 Explanatory memorandum to draft Regulation Temporary Trawling Restrictions in Gulf of Riga in 2008 of the Minister of the Environment and explanatory memorandum to Regulation Temporary Fishing Restrictions in Baltic Sea in 2010 of the Minister of the Environment. 12 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

15 3. Planning Context management zone is prohibited from 15 February to 15 November 19. Fishing with a fish trap and fishing with a fishing net with a mesh size of over 200 mm is prohibited around the year in the species protection site. However, it must be taken into account that seals use a substantially wider marine area for feeding trips than the protected areas created for them. The ringed seal must therefore be ensured a favourable protection status on the entire Pärnu Bay project area. This in turn means that facilities must be found to improve fishing gear that is dangerous for the species or limit the implementation thereof in areas important for the ringed seal and an environmental impact assessment must be conducted for every potential infrastructure development in the Väinameri region and the northern region of the Gulf of Riga that takes into account the biological needs of the ringed seal. Issues The main hazards for seals caused by human activities are dying in fishing gear (above all in fishing traps), disturbance caused by marine and air traffic, environmental toxins and oil pollution, changes in the foodbase arising from intensive fishing as well as poaching. Combined with natural hazards (unfavourable breeding conditions during warm winters, illnesses, death of pups caused by fights, blue- green algae toxins, changes in the foodbase caused by eutrophication), the aforesaid hazards may have a significant negative impact on seal populations. Disturbance that poses a hazard to seals means any kind of human activity that disturbs the normal activities of the seals. The consequences of disturbance are most dangerous during the birthing period when the connection between mother and pup may be lost as a result of driving the mother away from the pup, as well as during the fur shedding period when the seals have to spend a lot of time out of water in order for the fur shedding to take place normally. The energy supplies of the seals are low during fur shedding as they have not yet managed to recover the resources lost during the winter and the reproduction period. Drowning in fishing gear is the main factor that causes mortalities for seals. Up to 80% of the seals that die in such manner are pups aged from less than a year to 3-4 years. Drowning in fishing gear is most common in the waters of the Western Estonian archipelago and Pärnu Bay. The number of seals who die every year in fishing gear is estimated to be at least 200. Drowning in fishing traps may have decreased during the last years in relation to the decrease in fishing intensity. The most dangerous fishing gear for seals are fishing traps at 1.5 m or deeper where 90% of all mortalities take place. Only a few cases of drowning of seals in pound nets and trawls have been registered. Entangling nets made of thin materials that are widely used in the Estonian coastal waters are generally not strong enough to hold the seals and therefore do not pose much danger. Long lines may be dangerous for seals when the hook is stuck in the mouth or throat of the seal. The use of other fishing methods is not directly hazardous for adult seals, but ringed seal pups may get stuck in entangling nets and low fyke nets and eel traps. As known, the birthing areas of the ringed seal in the northern part of the Gulf of Riga and in Pärnu Bay are regions of very intensive fishing during both the ice fishing period and immediately after the melting of ice. The risks of disturbance and the of getting stuck in fishing gear after the melting of ice are therefore high for the ringed seal during the respective period. Ringed seal cubs may also be endangered by early spring trawling when fish are caught from ice openings in the breaking ice. The shipping traffic does not generally disturb the grey seal at its current intensity as the main shipping lanes are located away from seal breeding grounds. It may only become hazardous if drift ice fields where seals are birthing become situated in a region of intensive shipping traffic where the ships or ice plates propelled into movement by ships may injure or kill the seals. The ringed seal mainly populate pack ice and landfast ice where natural movement of the ice is very small, thereby enabling the seals to create systems of caves and breathing holes. Shipping lanes broken into these types of ice break the monolithic ice fields, the ice starts moving due to wind and the structures built by the 19 Regulation Placing Species Protection Sites of Grey Seal and Ringed Seal Under Protection and Protection Rules, RTL 2005, 124,

16 3. Planning Context seals are destroyed. Re- frozen shipping lanes are attractive for the ringed seal because of the formed artificial heaps and ice shapes that offer favourable nesting and living grounds for the ringed seal. Breaking such a shipping lane open several weeks after the freezing endangers seals more than movement of ships on ice fields previously untouched by traffic. The hydroacoustic noise created by ships moving in the ice is a factor that greatly disturbs the seals as ringed seals use sound and echo sounding for underwater orientation, feeding and intragroup communication, and this may be interfered with and suppressed by the noise created by ships. Water tourism as a risk factor may have great importance depending on the region. The amount of fast boats that has increased in the last years allows people to visit islands further away from the coast and they are thereby increasingly visiting areas close to grey seal breeding grounds. Disturbance causes stress in the animals and the constantly elevated content of stress hormones in the organism of the animals weakens their immune system. They are consequently more vulnerable to illnesses. Animals driven into water from reefs initially stay in the proximity thereof and the danger of collision with watercraft moving at a high speed may arise. Disturbance caused by watercraft is currently low but may become a disturbing factor of great importance for seals in the future. Similarly to watercraft, a plane or a helicopter flying low over the breeding grounds will drive the animals into the water. The potential disturbing impact of planes is present in the vicinity of the Kihnu Airport. The said disturbance factor has been taken into account for planning the flight sectors of the airport. Pollution: Accumulation of organochlorine compounds dumped into the marine environment in the organism of the seals causes infertility of the animals, bone tissue rarefaction, deformation of nails, hinders the development of the immune system and causes other physiological disturbances. Even though the content of well- known organochlorine compounds (PCB, DDT) is falling in the Baltic Sea and the organisms of the animals, the affect thereof is long- term. In addition, new compounds with unknown impact have been discovered from the organisms of the seals during the last years. Oil pollution is a very important hazard in Estonia. It may be hazardous for animals even upon partial pollution of the habitat. Disturbance caused by military exercises has been a considerable disturbance factors for seals in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere. Bombing of the Pakri Islands and Krassgrund carried out during the Soviet era may have been one of the reasons that caused a decrease in the number of seals in the respective region in the 1980s. When planning military exercises, it should be taken into account that they do not take place closer than 10 nautical miles to seal breeding grounds even though no military exercises hazardous for seals have taken place in Estonian waters. Protection of seals and controversies of coastal fishing People active in the fishing industry see seals as their direct competitors in using the marine resources and believe that this competition substantially decreases their income. Seals cause additional economic damage for fishermen by breaking fishing nets. The entire Estonian coastal waters are involved in the conflict to some extent. Damage to catch and fishing gear in coastal entangling net fishing and fishing using fish traps are prevalent in Estonia. The main issue when fishing with pound nets is that seals scare the fish out of the nets. Compensating the fishing industry for the damage has so far failed to resolve the conflict situation in fishing as the compensation does not compensate for the actual damage (damaged catch, fish escaped from nets due to attacks by seals, working time spent on restoring damaged nets, etc.). Only damage caused to nets and traps is to be compensated pursuant to the current valid procedure. Improving fishing gear in order to avoid damage and also damaging seals has been tried to a limited extent in the Baltic Sea countries, including Estonia. It is very convenient at times as a protective measure and a manner to mitigate the conflict. It is possible to apply for benefits from the EU Fisheries Fund to acquire/manufacture seal proof fishing gear. Seal hunting Reinitiating hunting of grey seals has been considered in Estonia in the last years in order to preserve the hunting traditions in the traditional seal hunting regions and the related cultural heritage. Determining the hunting quotas upon managing the population has to take place pursuant to the precautionary principle and be scientifically reasoned, taking into account the size of the population and the speed of growth. As the current legislation does not allow for intentional killing of grey seals for hunting purposes, the valid legislation has to be amended before the hunting commences. The prerequisite for re- establishing traditional 14 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

17 3. Planning Context seal hunting is a plan that sets out the allowed hunting methods, hunting regions, the hunting season, number of animals to be hunted, the sex- specific and age- specific relationship and reporting. BIRDS Basically the entire Pärnu Bay belongs among the Important Bird Areas. It is an important bottleneck of international importance for migrating birds. Upon migration, over 20,000 water birds stop here, the most important of them being the loons, tundra swan, whooper swan and the barnacle goose. Of nesting birds, the most important are the sterna and the dunlin and short- eared owl in coastal meadows. One of the largest bird areas of Estonia encompasses the entirety of Pärnu Bay along with Kihnu and other islands and islets and extends to the western boundary of Pärnu County. The area is divided into three in terms of character open marine areas, small islands and islets and coastal meadows and grasslands. A separate complex is formed by the Audru Polder located in the northern edge of the area, being an essential feeding area for thousands of water birds on migration and especially for the tundra swan. Luitemaa and Kabli Important Bird Areas where over 20,000 migrating water birds of numerous species stop over are also located in the project area. The most important species in the Luitemaa Bird Area are the tundra swan, whooper swan, greylag goose, barnacle goose, Eurasian teal, northern shoveler, common goldeneye, smew, white- tailed eagle, great cormorant, corn crake, bar- tailed godwit, Eurasian pygmy owl, Boreal owl, European nightjar and woodlark while the most important species in the Kabli Bird Area are the long- tailed duck and common goldeneye in addition to a substantial number of tundra swans and common mergansers. 20 Main issues The wild birds related to Pärnu Bay are mainly endangered by the following factors: eutrophication in the sea, inflow of toxic substances, shipping traffic and matters related to construction of wind farms as well as disturbance caused by recreation and increasing sea tourism. Eutrophication of the sea impacts the wild birds indirectly by means of the foodbase. As the water becomes more nutritious, the composition with regard to the seabed flora and fauna species and the domination relations change; therefore, the foodbase of birds that feed on higher plants deteriorates and the foodbase of birds that feed in clams improves. Oil pollution may cause death of birds by eating the toxic compounds or due to loss of insulating ability of feathering that has become spoiled with oil. Shipping traffic brings about disturbing noise that substantially affects the behaviour of wild birds. Wild birds may be disturbed by wind turbines and the noise accompanied with the construction, operation and maintenance thereof, causing a decrease in numbers on former good stopover grounds or even abandonment of the former. Birds are driven off to areas that may not be as suitable for them or where excessive competition may arise. Wind turbines may additionally cause death of birds upon collision (especially in bad weather and during night migration when the lighting of the wind farms may attract the birds), lengthen migration routes and cause use of more energy for flying around wind turbines. Upon assessing the impacts of wind farms for wild birds, it is important to take into account the cumulative impact of all the wind farms located in the region (or further in the path of migration of the birds) Socio- economic context The area is quite densely populated (Table 2). The mean population density in the municipalities bordering with the project area is 38 inhabitants per km² (without Pärnu city 8,8 inhabitants per km²). 20 Estonian Ornithological Society and Environmental Board, Important Bird Areas in Pärnu County. 15

18 3. Planning Context Table 2. Population number and density in the municipalities bordering with the Pärnu project area in (the database of the Statistics Estonia Population Area, km² Pärnu city , ,556 Audru rural municipality ,84 12,818 Häädemeeste rural municipality ,34 7,77 Kihnu rural municipality ,88 29,265 Tahkuranna rural municipality ,36 19,611 Tõstamaa rural municipality ,01 5,958 Varbla rural municipality ,81 3,072 Population density, inhabitants per km² The marine area chosen as the pilot area is intensively used by humans. Activities with a long- standing tradition that have already been established are shipping (shipping lanes and Port of Pärnu), fishing (use of various types of fishing gear) and recreation and related activities (intensively used recreation and coastal areas in Pärnu Bay). The intensive activities of creating wind energy and transport are additionally planned for the project area. Nature conservation activities that encompass the majority of the described territory can also be viewed as a separate type of human use Spatial planning documents and relevant strategies National and regional documents and strategies Pärnu County: > Development Strategy Pärnu County (Pärnu County Government 2010) > Pärnu County Plan (established 1998) > Plan for Development of Pärnu as Tourism Location (University of Tartu, Pärnu College, 2010) > Pärnu County Recreation and Tourism Industry Development Strategy > Pärnu County Thematic Plan Environmental Conditions Guiding Settlement and Use of Land (established ) > Pärnu City Comprehensive Plan (established ) > Thematic Plan Connecting Networks of Pärnu City and Surroundings (being prepared) Pärnu City: > Pärnu City Development Plan up to 2015 (adopted ) and Pärnu City Development Plan up to 2025 > Pärnu Local Agenda 21 Audru Rural Municipality: > Audru Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan (established , prepared by AS Pöyry Entec) > Audru Polder Partial Comprehensive Plan initiated with Resolution no. 49 of the Audru Rural Municipality Council of > Audru Rural Municipality Development Plan BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

19 3. Planning Context Häädemeeste Rural Municipality: > Häädemeeste Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan and Partial Comprehensive Plan of Coastal Areas > Häädemeeste Rural Municipality Development Plan > North Livonia Tourism Strategy > North Livonia Yacht Harbour Strategy > Häädemeeste Rural Municipality Lemme Campsite Partial Comprehensive Plan (established ) > Häädemeeste Rural Municipality Krapi Campsite Partial Comprehensive Plan (established ) > Häädemeeste Rural Municipality Kabli and Treimani Public Beaches Partial Comprehensive Plan (established ) Kihnu Rural Municipality: > Kihnu Rural Municipality Development Plan Project (version dated ) > Kihnu Rural Municipality Development Plan > Kihnu Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan (established ) Tahkuranna Rural Municipality: > Tahkuranna Rural Municipality Development Plan > Tahkuranna Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan (established ) Tõstamaa Rural Municipality: > Manija Island Thematic Plan > Tõstamaa Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan (established ) > Tõstamaa Rural Municipality Development Plan up to 2015 Varbla Rural Municipality: > Matsiranna Partial Comprehensive Plan (established ) > Varbla Rural Municipality Comprehensive Plan (established ). National level: > Estonian Fisheries Strategy > National Development Plan Estonian Maritime Policy , approved by the Government of the Republic and sent to the Riigikogu for discussion on The draft development plan provides for planning the entire Estonian marine area by For this purpose, mapping strategic regions has been planned for 2012 (Ministry of the Environment), conducting a maritime spatial planning pilot project for 2013 (Ministry of the Interior), mapping marine areas and planning sustainable use for 2014 (Ministry of the Environment), elaboration of methodology for maritime spatial planning on the basis of the pilot project, 2015 (Ministry of the Interior) and preparing maritime spatial plans for all counties, 2020 (county governments). > National Plan Estonia should be ready by the end of

20 3. Planning Context International documents and strategies Spatial planning of marine areas is not compulsory for the Member States of the European Union (EU), but it is a method recommended by the European Union in order to implement sustainable development principles in coastal regions and marine areas. The European Commission has emphasised the need for spatial planning of marine areas in several political documents such as the Blue Book and Action Plan of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU (2007) 21 and Communications Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU (2008) 22 and Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU Achievements and Future Development (2010) 23. Several EU Directives have to be taken into account upon maritime spatial planning, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 24, Habitats Directive 25, Birds Directive 26, Water Framework Directive 27, Environmental Assessment 28 and Strategic Environmental Assessment 29 Directives. International conventions must also be taken into account, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 30 and the Rules of the International Maritime Organisation; Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea 31 and the HELCOM recommendations; Convention on Biological Diversity 32. The obligation of transboundary environmental impact assessment arises from the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention) 33 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Protocol Communication from the Commission An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, COM(2007) 757, final, and SEC(2007) 1278, COM(2008) 791 (final), COM(2010) 771, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. 25 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 26 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of on the conservation of wild birds (amended version of Directive 79/409/EEC). 27 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. 28 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of June on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. 29 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 30 Estonian accession in 2005, RT II 2005, 16, Estonian ratification in 1995, RT II 1995, 11, Estonian ratification in 1994, RT II 1994, 13, Estonian ratification in 2000, RT II 2000, 28, Estonian ratification in 2010 RT II 2010, 3, 6, entered into force in July 2010, unofficial Estonian translation 18 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

21 4. Stocktake 4. Stocktake 4.1. Overview of relevant issues The existing interests of various interest groups for using the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area may be divided into larger groups: national nature conservation and sustainable use of natural resources (including scientific research and monitoring), non- governmental environmental organisations, ports, shipping and shipping lanes, sea tourism, fishing, recreation. The activities of the natural and legal persons belonging to the said interest groups are regulated by relevant Acts and legislation established on the basis thereof, of which the most important are the following: the Planning Act, Building Act, Ports Act, Maritime Safety Act, Water Act, Fishing Act, Earth s Crust Act, Exclusive Economic Zone Act, Nature Conservation Act, Environmental Monitoring Act, Environmental Supervision Act, Public Information Act. The interests are expressed pursuant to the procedure and terms and conditions provided in valid legislation and the right to use the natural resources is realised on the basis of actually receivable permits, licences, etc. For example, a fisherman s fishing permit grants the right to fish, except fishing for flounder, with commercial fishing gear at sea up to the 20 m isobath. A fisherman s fishing permit for the fishing of flounder grants the right to fish flounder at sea regardless of the depth of the sea. The fishing permit shall designate the permitted fishing gear, quota allocations, fishing seasons and/or the number of fishing days and the fishing area. Fishing rights are subject to a fee and the fee for fishing rights shall be paid pursuant to the Environmental Charges Act and the legislation established on the basis thereof. Granting/receiving the right to use the natural resources of the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area often takes place on the basis of several different Acts. For example, upon encumbering the marine area with construction works, the Law of Property Act (everyone may use a public body of water pursuant to the procedure provided by Acts or established on the basis thereof), Planning Act (county plan for public body of water) and Water Act (the Water Act provides public bodies of water owned by the state (including the territorial sea and inland sea); in order to encumber a body of water with construction works, the superficies licence provided in the Water Act shall conform to the requirements of the respective county plan) shall be relied on. The Water Act and related Acts regulate the construction of construction works that are permanently connected to the shore such as wharfs and jetties, installation of navigational marking (permit for special use of water) and underwater cables (permit by the Government of the Republic, permit for special use of water) and construction of construction works that are not permanently connected to the shore, e.g. wind farms (superficies licence by the Government of the Republic, permit for special use of water). Another example the Earth s Crust Act: 1) mineral deposits located in a transboundary body of water, on the territorial sea or in inland maritime waters or in the exclusive economic zone are of national important; 2) the process related to extraction starting from conducting research up to issuing an extraction permit (permit for special use of water, extraction permit); the Commission of Estonian Mineral Resources shall deliver an opinion regarding every stage. Applying for a right to use the natural resources for a marine area and granting thereof pursuant to the cases, procedure and terms and conditions provided in the relevant Acts generally eliminates the possibility of a conflict of interests between valid permits and licences. In the event that such a conflict arises for any reason, a mechanism exists to resolve the legal conflict. When characterising the existing situation, it may be said that, based on the valid legislation and the issued permits and licences (with different periods of validity), the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area is already planned, i.e. divided between the current users in both spatial and time aspects. Further planning/re- planning of the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area is therefore subject to proposals for creating new rights by restricting or amending the existing rights. A necessity may also arise to amend existing legislation or even establish new legislation. The situation can be illustrated by the creation of a new interest group wind farm developer on the basis of legislation that determines the procedure and terms and conditions for such creation. Planning a wind farm on the basis of the Fishing Act and the Fishing Rules on a marine area in the Pärnu Bay pilot area prescribed for fishing may serve as an example. In the course of disclosure (Public Information Act) accompanying the marine area plan of the wind farm and the later environmental impact assessment of the plan, the interested parties can reach a solution that satisfies both parties. Upon reaching a compromise (between the wind farm developer and representatives of the fishing industry in this case), further planning of the marine area or amending the existing plan would mean complete or partial limitation of the fishing right in the marine area to be allocated for the wind farm along with making the respective amendments in the Fishing Act and/or the Fishing Rules. 19

22 4. Stocktake The legally ensured human uses of the Pärnu Bay pilot area are indicated in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the existing and planned uses (interests). Figure 3. Legally ensured human use of the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area 20 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

23 4. Stocktake Figure 4. Legally ensured human use of the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area along with the planned wind farms and the related underwater cables and military practice area 4.2. Relevant issues in detail Environmental protection INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS ON PILOT AREA Important bird areas (IBA) A large part of the project area is formed by the Pärnu Bay Important Bird Area (code 059) where over 20,000 water birds stop and which is the so- called bottleneck area for migration of the common crane, i.e. at least 3,000 common cranes pass through the area upon migration. The Pärnu Bay Bird Area is a stopover of international importance for several species of Annex 1 to the EU Birds Directive (loons, the tundra swan, whooper swan and barnacle goose) as well as other bird species (the greylag goose, Eurasian widgeon, northern pintail, greater scaup, long- tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, common goldeneye, mute swan and the great cormorant) and a nesting area of international importance for the following species of Annex 1 to the EU Birds Directive: the dunlin, sandwich tern, common tern, Arctic tern, little tern and the short- eared owl. Over 20,000 water birds stop over on Luitemaa Important Bird Area (030) as well and it serves as a stopover of international importance for several endangered species in the European Union (the tundra swan, whooper swan, barnacle goose, smew and the bar- tailed godwit) as well as other species (the greylag goose, Eurasian teal, northern shoveler and the common goldeneye). The area is also a nesting area of international importance for several endangered bird species in the European Union, e.g. the white- tailed eagle. Kabli Important Bird Area (058) is likewise an area where over 20,000 water birds stop over and it serves as a stopover of international importance for the long- tailed duck and the common goldeneye and as in important stopover for the tundra swan and as wintering grounds for the common merganser. The area also includes the Pärnu Bay HELCOM Baltic Sea Protected Area (registry code RAH ). 21

24 4. Stocktake Figure 5. Important Bird Areas (IBA) 22 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

25 4. Stocktake Natura 2000 network areas Figure 6 indicates Natura 2000 areas located in Pärnu Bay pilot area Sites of Community Interest (SCI) designated according to the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated according to the Birds Directive. Figure 6. Natura 2000 areas located in Pärnu Bay pilot area The Pärnu Bay SPA (EE ) belonging to the Natura 2000 network more or less covers the borders of the IBA. The species whose habitats are protected are the great weed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), Eurasian widgeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), garganey (Anas querquedula), gadwall (Anas strepera), greater white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser anser), bean goose (Anser fabalis), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), short- eared owl (Asio flammeus), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), greater scaup (Aythya marila), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeruginosus), long- tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), common gull (Larus canus), lesser black- backed gull (Larus fuscus), black- headed gull (Larus ridibundus), black- tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red- breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), ruff (Philomachus pugnax), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), common eider (Somateria mollissima), little tern (Sterna albifrons), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus); The following Sites of Community Interest are located within the boundaries of the Pärnu Bay SPA: Sõmeri SCI (EE ), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: coastal lagoons (*1150), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Northern Boreal alluvial meadows (6450) and alkaline fens (7230) as well as the species Angelica palustris specified in Annex II; 23

26 4. Stocktake Tõstamaa SCI (EE ), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1110), coastal lagoons (*1150), reefs (1170), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), semi- natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites 6210) and Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270) as well as the species Angelica palustris specified in Annex II; Manilau- Hanilaiu SCI (EE ), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130) and semi- natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (* important orchid sites 6210); Kihnu SCI (EE ), protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1110), coastal lagoons (*1150), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi- natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (*important orchid sites 6210), Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey- silt- laden soils (6410), hydrophobilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080) as well as the species specified in Annex II: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), the ringed seal (Phoca hispida bottnica), Angelica palustris and the Liparis loeselii; Sorgu SCI (EE ), protecting the types of habitat specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620); The Pärnu Bay SPA is bordered by Luitemaa SPA/SCI (EE ), protecting the following bird species: the great weed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), Eurasian widgeon (Anas penelope), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), garganey (Anas querquedula), gadwall (Anas strepera), greater white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser anser), bean goose (Anser fabalis), grey heron (Ardea cinerea), hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), European nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), black stork (Ciconia nigra), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeruginosus), stock dove (Columba oenas), corn crake (Crex crex), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), red- breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva), Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), white- tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), red- backed shrike (Lanius collurio), great grey shrike (Lanius excubitor), bar- tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), woodlark (Lullula arborea), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), smew (Mergus albellus), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red- breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), ruff (Philomachus pugnax), Eurasian golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), little crake (Porzana parva), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix), western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus); as well as protecting the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1110), mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), humid dune slacks (2190), natural dystrophic lakes and ponds (3160), water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation (3260), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey- silt- laden soils (6410), hydrophobilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), Northern Boreal alluvial meadows (6450), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), active raised bogs (*7110), degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration (7120), transition mires and quaking bogs (7140), depressions of peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion (7150), Fennoscandian mineral- rich springs and springfegs (7160), calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to 24 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

27 4. Stocktake alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) (8220), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad- leaved deciduous forests (Quercus, Tilia, Acer, Fraxinus or Ulmus) rich in epiphytes (*9020), Fennoscandian herb- rich forests with Picea abies (9050), Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080), Tilio- Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (*9180), bog woodland (*91D0), alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (*91E0) and riparian mixed forests along great rivers (91F0) as well as the species specified in Annex II: the European otter (Lutra lutra), pond bat (Myotis dasycneme), spined loach (Cobitis taenia), river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), thick shelled river mussel (Unio crassus), Angelica palustris, Drepanocladus vernicosus and the Saxifraga hirculus; At the southern part of the project area lie the Kabli SPA/SCI (EE ), protecting the habitats of the common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), long- tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii) and the common merganser (Mergus merganser); as well as the types of habitats specified in Annex I to the EU Habitats Directive: mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), embryonic shifting dunes (2110), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), humid dune slacks (2190), Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270), Western Taiga (*9010) and Tilio- Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (*9080) as well as the species specified in Annex II: the European otter (Lutra lutra), pond bat (Myotis dasycneme), river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), scarce fritillary (Euphydryas maturna), Angelica palustris and the Dianthus arenarius subsp. arenarius; In addition, there are several SCI- s on the coast of Pärnu Bay directly bordering with the project area but not covering the marine area (Raespa, Kastna, Lao, Metsapoole, Valgeranna, Rannaniidu, Pärnu River, Lemme River and Orajõe SCI- s). 25

28 4. Stocktake National protected areas Figure 7 indicates the areas under national protection located in the Pärnu Bay pilot area. The conservation objective of the Pärnu Bay Special Conservation Area is to protect the habitats of bird species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC and of migrating bird species not specified in Annex I. The species whose habitats are protected are: the great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), bean goose (Anser fabalis), greater white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser anser), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), Eurasian widgeon (Anas penelope), gadwall (Anas strepera), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), mallard (Anas plathyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), garganey (Anas querquedula), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), greater scaup (Aythya marila), common eider (Somateria mollissima), long- tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), red- breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), common merganser (Mergus merganser), smew (Mergus albellus), white- tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeruginosus), spotted crake (Porzana porzana), corn crake (Crex crex), common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), ruff (Philomachus pugnax), black- tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), bar- tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), common redshank (Tringa totanus), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), black- headed gull (Larus ridibundus), common gull (Larus canus), lesser black- beaked gull (Larus fuscus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), little tern (Sterna albifrons), great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) and the red- backed shrike (Lanius collurio). Figure 7. Areas under national protection in Pärnu Bay pilot area 26 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

29 4. Stocktake The Sangelaiu Ringed Seal Species Protection Site has been created for the protection of the haul- out area of the ringed seal pursuant to Regulation no. 78 of the Minister of the Environment of The presence of people in the special management zone is prohibited from 15 February to 15 November. Fishing with a fish trap and fishing with a fishing net with a mesh size of over 200 mm is prohibited around the year in the species protection site. The Species Protection Site is not indicated on the map because according to the nature Conservation Act 53(1) the publication of the exact habitats of the species of the I and II protection category is prohibited. Sangelaiud Protected Area (an area with old protection regime) was established as a botanical/zoological area in The area was extended in 1994 and a total of 8 islets along with the special management zone (200 m) surrounding them are under protection. It was created first and foremost to protect the breeding birds and seals. Protected islets: Sangelaid, Sillalaid, Küllaid, Umalaid, Ültra, Edikrava, Imutlaid, Imutlaaru. The islets are low in height (only Sangelaid is higher than 3 m) and geologically young. The biggest of them Sangelaid is covered with a forest and the shore is stony with pebbles. The sea surrounding the islets is very shallow and full of reefs. The area of the protected area is 201 hectares. The conservation objective of Kihnu Special Conservation Area is to protect the types of habitats specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1110), coastal lagoons (*1150), annual vegetation of drift lines (1210), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation (1640), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), semi- natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210), Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (*6270), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey- silt- laden soils (6410), hydrophobilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), alkaline fens (7230), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (9070) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080) as well as the species specified in Annex II: the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), the ringed seal (Phoca hispida bottnica), Angelica palustris and the Liparis loeselii. Kihnu islets nature conservation area is being planned (proceedings initiated with Directive no of the Minister of the Environment of 14 December 2010); the plan is to form the nature conservation area on the basis of the Sangelaiu Ringed Seal Species Protection Site and the bird islets currently in the composition of the Pärnu Bay Special Conservation Area. The conservation objective of the Manija Landscape Protection Area is to: 1.) preserve landscape appearance of the small island and islet; 2.) preserve the cultural heritage landscapes; 3.) protect the protected nature monument Kokakivi (Kotkakivi) and the protected species; 4.) protect the protected species specified in Annexes I and II to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds that are also protected species of categories I or II as well as the following protected species of category III: the velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), little tern (Sterna albifrons), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), common redshank (Tringa totanus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeroginosus) and the red- backed shrike (Lanius collurio); 35 Regulation Placing Species Protection Sites of Grey Seal and Ringed Seal Under Protection and Protection Rules, RTL 2005, 124,

30 4. Stocktake 5.) protect the habitats specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: coastal lagoons (1150*), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (1630*) and Fennoscandian wooded meadows (6530*); and 6.) protect the habitats of the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC that are also protected species of categories I or II. The Sorgu Island Protected Area (with old protection regime) was established in 1991 to protect wild birds. The island is a rocky and relatively high ridge covered by low brushwood. A small peninsula covered by an aspen forest stand connected to the rest of the island only recently. There is a lighthouse on the island (constructed in 1864). The area of the protected area is 3 hectares. The planned Sorgu Nature Conservation Area also includes the marine area surrounding the island. Proceedings for taking the area under protection were initiated by Directive no. 486 of the Minister of the Environment of 5 April The conservation objective of the Tõstamaa Landscape Protection Area is to protect: 1.) the coastal landscape and the respective biota; 2.) habitat types specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The respective habitats are: Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (1630*), sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110), reefs (1170), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620) and semi- natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210); 3.) a species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and which is also a species of category III. The respective species is Angelica palustris. 4.) the species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds that are also protected species of categories II or III: the barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeruginosus), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), common tern (Sterna hirundo), Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), barred warbler (Sylvia nisoria), red- backed shrike (Lanius collurio), little tern (Sterna albifrons); 5.) the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds that are also protected species of categories II or III such as the protected species of category III: the common redshank (Tringa totanus) and the velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca); and 6.) the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds that do not belong to any groups of protected species such as the mute swan (Cygnus olor), bean goose (Anser fabalis), gadwall (Anas strepera), garganey (Anas querquedula), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), red- breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), common merganser (Mergus merganser), northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), greater white- fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser Anser), Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), Eurasian teal (Anas crecca), mallard (Anas plathyrhynchos), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula). The conservation objective of the Luitemaa Nature Conservation Area is to protect: 1.) the habitat types specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time (1110), mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), coastal lagoons (*1150), large shallow inlets and bays (1160), perennial vegetation of stony banks (1220), Boreal Baltic islets and small islands (1620), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), humid dune slacks (2190), natural dystrophic lakes and ponds (3160), water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation (3260), Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey- silt- laden soils (6410), hydrophobilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430), Fennoscandian wooded meadows (*6530), active raised bogs (*7110), degraded 28 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

31 4. Stocktake raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration (7120), transition mires and quaking bogs (7140), Fennoscandian mineral- rich springs and springfegs (7160), calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) (8220), Western Taiga (*9010), Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad- leaved deciduous forests (Quercus, Tilia, Acer, Fraxinus or Ulmus) rich in epiphytes (*9020), Fennoscandian herb- rich forests with Picea abies (9050), Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080), Tilio- Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (*9180), bog woodland (*91D0), alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (*91E0) and riparian mixed forests along great rivers (91F0); 2.) habitats of the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC: the European otter (Lutra lutra), spined loach (Cobitis taenia), Angelica palustris and the Agrimonia pilosa that are all protected species of category III as well as river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) and salmon (Salmo salar); 3.) the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC that are also protected species of category II; 4.) the species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds; the habitats of the species specified in Annex I that are also protected species of category III: the hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), European nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), western marsh- harrier (Circus aeruginosus), corn crake (Crex crex), red- breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva), Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), red- backed shrike (Lanius collurio), bar- tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), woodlark (Lullula arborea), Eurasian golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) and the wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola) as well as migrating bird species; and 5.) species that are protected species of category III: the stock dove (Columba oenas), great grey shrike (Lanius excubitor), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) and the common redshank (Tringa totanus). The conservation objective of the Kabli Nature Conservation Area is to: 1.) ensure the protection and restoration of the wetland, favourable status of natural and semi- natural communities and of diversity; 2.) ensure protection for habitat types specified in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The respective habitats are: mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140), Boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), shifting dunes along the shoreline (white dunes 2120), fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes *2130), wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region (2180), humid dune slacks (2190), water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation (3260), Fennoscandian lowland species- rich dry to mesic grasslands (6270*) Western Taiga (*9010) and Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods (*9080); 3.) ensure protection for species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC and the habitats thereof and for habitats of protected species of category I specified in Annex IV to the Directive. One of the species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC is also a protected species of category II. The species specified in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC that are also protected species of category III are: the European otter (Lutra lutra), Angelica palustris and Dianthus arenarius ssp. Arenarius. The species specified in Annex II are: the river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) and salmon (Salmo salar); and 4.) ensure protection for species specified in Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and that are also species of category II, and for species specified in Annex I and the habitats thereof. The species specified in Annex I are: the common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), long- tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) and the common merganser (Mergus merganser). The conservation objective of the Sõmeri Special Conservation Area is the protection of types of habitats specified in Annex I to the Council Directive 92/43/EEC: boreal Baltic coastal meadows (*1630), Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands (5130), Nordic alvar and Precambrian calcareous flatrocks (*6280) and Northern Boreal alluvial meadows (6450) as well as the protection of the habitat of a species specified in Annex II the Angelica palustris. The following protected areas are directly adjacent to the project area: Raespa Special Conservation Area, Kastna Landscape Protection Area, Audru Reed Protected Area (an area with old protection regime), Pärnu 29

32 4. Stocktake River Special Conservation Area, Valgeranna Special Conservation Area, Pärnu Coastal Meadow Nature Conservation Area, Metsapoole Special Conservation Area (and the largely overlapping Metsapoole botanical/zoological Protected Area), Orajõe Special Conservation Area and Lemmejõe Special Conservation Area. Limits and issues The protection rules of protected areas must be adhered to. The protection of a special conservation area has been regulated under Chapter 5 of the Nature Conservation Act. Destruction or harming of the habitats for the protection of which a special conservation area was formed, significantly disturbing the protected species, and all activities that are likely to endanger the favourable conservation status of the habitats and protected species are prohibited within a special conservation area. The impact of activities planned within a special conservation area on the status of habitats and species shall be evaluated in the course of environmental impact assessment or upon proceedings regarding the respective notice. Pursuant to the Nature Conservation Act, the possessor of an immovable located within the boundaries of a special conservation area shall submit a notification to the administrative authority of the special conservation area if the following activities are planned: 1) construction of a road; 2) removal of a natural rock or soil; 3) altering the water levels and shorelines of bodies of water; 4) use of biocides and pesticides; 5) cultivation and fertilising of natural and semi- natural grasslands and polders; 6) cutting trees located within areas that have the characteristics of a wooded meadow; 7) construction and reconstruction of land improvement systems. General restrictions arising from 14 of the Nature Conservation Act are also applicable on a special conservation area. Upon planning activities on protected areas or in the immediate vicinity thereof, the possible impact of the activity on the protection objectives of the protected areas, special conservation areas and the Natura 2000 network areas. As Important Bird Areas form a very large part of the project area, the main issue is the possible impact of planned wind farms on wild birds, especially migrating birds. The area is likewise important for seals, above all the endangered ringed seal, whose conservation status may be negatively affected by construction of wind farms as well as fishing and increase of water traffic. COASTAL AREAS As initiated by the Ministry of the Environment, a preliminary assessment of risks related to the risk of floods has been prepared 36 that maps the floods that have taken place in Estonia, and points out the most important of them and designates the most important risk areas related to a risk of flood. The activities related to assessment and management of risks related to floods were initiated upon establishment of the Floods Directive 37 in the European Union in Every Member State, including Estonia, has the obligation to implement the Directive based on hydrographic basins and the work involves the initial assessment of risks related to a risk of floods, hazard and risk maps and management plans. According to the assessment, the entire coast of the Pärnu Bay project area as well as Kihnu and Manija Islands belong to significant flooding areas. The densely populated areas of Pärnu City and Papsaare Village of Audru Rural Municipality additionally belong to the important risk areas related to a risk of floods. Such risk areas were designated for significant flooding areas located in densely populated areas and where the significant flooding area would affect at least 500 people. 36 AS Maves, Initial assessment of risks related to risk of floods. Accessible at 37 DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. 30 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

33 4. Stocktake The assessment also covers long- term developments that may affect the occurring of floods: on the basis of a report of the IPCC 38, Estonia is located in the area of the fastest rise in temperature of the last decades. The average temperature has generally increased from January to May. The average temperature has also increased in June to some extent. Thus the period of forming of ice on the sea has remained the same while the melting of ice and the end of winter come earlier than before (by days). The amount of precipitation in the winter period has increased. As winters are becoming warmer and shorter, excessive snow cover that might overflow rivers during rapid melting in the spring does not form. In addition to the sea, problems arise from an increase in the frequency of extreme rainfall. The basis of mitigating the possible impact of such rainfall lies in correctly constructed rainwater systems. In this case, it may be expected that the floods are smaller in magnitude and shorter in time. The most significant flood in Estonia caused by climate changes may be considered the storm of that brought seawater to all larger coastal cities (Pärnu, Haapsalu, Tallinn, Kuressaare). The total amount of damage caused by the storm was estimated to be 480 million euros. It must be pointed out that the said sum characterises the storm in its entirety, not just the damage caused by floods. The global sea level rise has been between 1-2 mm/year during the last half century; a more frequently indicated average value is either 1.5 mm/year or 1.7 mm/year. The global sea level rise trend is mainly caused by conditions of rising air and water temperature levels arising from thermal expansion of the seawater and by melting of glaciers and ice plates to a lesser degree. These processes carry a great effect of inertia: should the trend of air temperature show signs of decrease, the sea level would still rise for a certain period of time. Global sea level estimates have fluctuated to a large degree during the past decades. One extremity has indicated the melting of all the ice cover of Antarctica and a rise in the sea level of up to 77 meters. However, should this prove true, the process would last for thousands of years. Significantly more realistic scenarios that offered a rise in the sea level of about cm per 100 years were set out about ten years ago. It was pointed out that the degree of indeterminacy is rather large, depending on the climate model and the CO 2 emission scenarios used in the model. The estimate has been further decreased in the IPCC report to about cm. Should the current trend continue, sea levels would rise by cm. The earth s crust started rising after the melting of the glacier sheet. In the area of Estonia, the isostatic rise of land has taken place at a speed of up to 3 mm per year. It has been the fastest in Hiiumaa, on the northern coast of Saaremaa and in North- West Estonia whereas there is a slight fall in South- East Estonia. The average annual sea level of Estonia mainly shows a slightly increasing trend (0.1 1 mm/year) in the coastal waters of Estonia. In general, it may be stated that in the current state of the Estonian coastal waters, the average rise of land and the rise of the sea level are approximately balanced whereas the rise in the sea level already slightly exceeds the rise of land in many locations. During an 84- year period ( ), the average monthly sea level has only significantly statistically increased during winters (December, January, February) by a total of cm based on data of Pärnu and Narva- Jõesuu. The average annual sea level for the entire year has increased on account of winters. The existence of such a seasonal trend is related to climate warming that has also above all taken place during the cold half- year. Strictly said, it is not known how the wind climate will change in the future. Although climate models predict increased warming for the 21 st century and a cyclonic increase in Northern Europe accompanied by the strengthening of westerly winds during the cold half- year by 2-3 m/s and less during the warm half- year, it cannot be taken as fact. It is basically also possible that the strengthening of westerly winds that were dominant the last half century will cease, meaning a relative strengthening of easterly winds. Model simulations indicated that upon slight further strengthening of westerly winds, the average rise of sea level 38 Jaagus, J Climate changes in Estonia during the second half of the 20th century in relationship with changes in large- scale atmospheric circulation. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 83,

34 4. Stocktake would be 2-3 cm in Pärnu, Matsalu and Haapsalu Bays and 1 cm in the open part of the Gulf of Riga and on the coast of Saaremaa. A fall of the same magnitude would take place in the event of a slight strengthening of easterly winds. If the storm strength increases which seems inevitable in the event of general warming of the atmosphere and thereby an increase in energy the maximum sea levels are also likely to rise. The mere strength of the wind is not enough to bring about a very rapid rise in the sea level; the path of the cyclone has to be suitable as well. Therefore, many favourable conditions have to coincide. The more frequent the cyclones are, the bigger the probability of the necessary conditions coinciding. Modelling indicated that even a rise of up to 350 (current biggest 297) cm is possible in Pärnu both in terms of meteorology and hydrodynamics. Only a few conditions would need to coincide, and taken separately, the conditions as such are not rare at all Sea uses MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND PORTS Situation and main issues During winters, the Pärnu Bay is covered in ice and using the Port of Pärnu is either complicated or impossible. The average length of the ice period is two to three months and an icebreaker is needed to keep the shipping lanes accessible; therefore, visiting the Port of Pärnu during winters is costly. The size/draught of the ships serviced by the port is likewise limited to the smallest draught of the shipping lane (fluctuating and depends on the wind direction). Of the other ports of Pärnu County, the Munalaiu Port located in Pärnu County, Tõstamaa Rural Municipality, must be pointed out. The main objective of the port is servicing passenger ferries. Passenger ferries depart from Munalaiu to Kihnu and Manilaiu Ports. The port can also handle yachts and recreational craft. The wharf of Manilaiu Port is also included in the composition of Munalaiu (Manija) Port. Manilaiu Port services passenger ferry traffic, but it can also handle boats and recreational craft. Kihnu Port is located on Kihnu Island. The port consists of three parts that belong to separate owners. AS Saarte Liinid administrates the part belonging to the state, with the main objective of ensuring passenger ferry traffic. The port can additionally also handle yachts, launches and recreational craft. The port has been recently reconstructed. Dredging and dumping are sea uses related to maritime transportation and ports. In the Pärnu Bay project area there are 3 dumping grounds. A revision of dumping grounds in the Estonian marine area in cooperation of the Maritime Administration and Ministry of the Environment is planned for BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

35 4. Stocktake Main factors beneficial for development The geographically and logistically good location of Pärnu Bay (intersection of maritime transport and highway transport) and the naturally beautiful region favour the development of recreational and tourism industry as well as sea tourism, which in turn increases the intensity of the use of waterways. Vision and trends The further development of the Port of Pärnu affects the development of maritime transport in the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area. The hinterland of Pärnu Port are the Pärnu, Viljandi, Tartu, Põlva, Võru and Valga Counties and the southern parts of Lääne County and Järva County. The aforesaid region contains a substantial part of raw materials exported through Estonian ports (up to 45% of wood and up to 65% of peat) and of the production of the processing industry. Regular shipping traffic between the ports of Pärnu, Munalaiu, Manilaiu and Kihnu is planned for navigable periods. There are plans to acquire a passenger ferry with an ice class in order to maintain regular connection with Kihnu and Manija Islands. FISHERIES Situation and main issues Fishing The Baltic herring caught in Pärnu Bay forms a part of the internationally regulated Baltic herring resources of the Gulf of Riga. Estonian and Latvian fishermen use both trawling and pound nets to catch Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga. In , the total catch of Baltic herring from the Gulf Riga has been 37,096 tons, 37,322 tons and 34,948 tons, respectively % of the Latvian catch of Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga is caught by trawling whereas 15-20% of the Baltic herring is caught with pound nets. At the same time 70% of the Estonian catch of Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga is caught with pound nets and only 30% of the Baltic herring is caught by trawling. The Estonian Baltic herring quota in the Gulf of Riga is 15,854 tons in Pärnu Bay yields the majority of the Estonian catch of Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga. According to the data of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the situation concerning the Baltic herring in the Gulf of Riga shows signs of overfishing and using the Baltic herring resources at the current intensity is not sustainable. Catching salmon in the Gulf of Riga is also internationally regulated and the Estonian quota for salmon (number of fish) in fishing regions of the Baltic Sea (including the Gulf of Riga) was 5,267. However, the Estonian salmon catch in the Gulf of Riga generally amounts to only a few dozen fish per year. The eel resources of the Baltic Sea are decreasing and this is mainly caused by constant decrease in the numbers of young eels entering the Baltic Sea. This circumstance will cause continuing decrease in the eel catch of Pärnu Bay in the next few years. In addition to the impact of changing natural conditions, the resources of bass, pike perch and vimba in Pärnu Bay are very heavily fished throughout the coastal waters. The heavy fishing will not allow the fish resources of Pärnu Bay to recover sufficiently even with favourable natural conditions. Development of fisheries sector The economic development of the Estonian fisheries sector has been slow and substantially so compared to the development of other economic sectors whereas the rate of investments is the lowest and the proportion of depreciation in the total expenses of companies is one of the highest in the fishing sector. In the Pärnu Bay pilot area, fishing is divided into trawling (forming a small part of trawling in the Gulf of Riga) and coastal fishing. Coastal fishing is performed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast or up to 20 m to the depth isobath. Perch, Baltic herring, smelt, pike perch, flounder and eel are the most economically important of the caught fish, seconded by garfish and sea trout, and salmon and pike to a lesser extent. The main fishing gear is fish traps, fishing nets and tended lines. Fishing for Baltic herring with pound nets is becoming more and more important. The working season of coastal fishermen is up to 4 months per year as estimated by fishermen and most of the professional coastal fishermen perform fishing as an additional source of income that is secondary to other work. 33

36 4. Stocktake The unloaded amounts of fish are relatively small in the ports of the Pärnu Bay pilot area (a total of 9,569.5 tons of fish were unloaded in 2010, forming 10.95% of all the fish unloaded in Estonian ports) and the profit gained from unloading fish forms a small proportion of the income of port owners. Therefore, ports undertake other activities in addition to unloading fish, such as tourism and transport of goods and passengers. The use of the fish resources of the Pärnu Bay pilot area reflects the characteristic socio- economic problems of Estonian fishing: 1) small appeal of the sector due to low income; 2) fishing capacities exceed fishing possibilities; 3) depreciation of production and processing equipment, big energy consumption (ships, fishing gear, production and processing equipment, etc.); and 4) insufficient cooperation. Factors beneficial for development of fisheries sector The factors beneficial for economic activities based on using the fish resources of the Pärnu Bay pilot area are characteristic for the Estonian fisheries sector as a whole. The following belong to the most important beneficial factors for the fisheries sector: 1) existence of natural resources, water and fish resources; 2) clean and diverse nature, interesting historical and cultural heritage; 3) long- term fishing and processing traditions and experienced workers in the sector; 4) existence of production equipment (fishing ships and boats, transporting and processing fish, etc.); and 5) market demand for and export potential of fish. Vision and trends The main objective of the Estonian Fisheries Strategy is to develop Estonian fisheries as a sector of the economy and to increase the competitiveness of fish products in the internal and foreign markets in order to help create an advantageous and balanced fishing economic environment in Estonia. The objective of the fisheries strategy is to restructure the Estonian fisheries sector such that it would ensure an increase in the income of persons active in fisheries to the average level of Estonia by achieving the following goals: 1. There is still more fishing capacity than fishing possibilities in Estonia. Therefore, the objective is to ensure that the fishing capacity meet the amount of fish resources (achieving an optimal size of the fishing fleet). This ensures stable work and income for fishermen and decreases the pressure for illegal fishing. 2. In several regions of coastal fishing, the number of fishermen dependent on fishing does not correspond to the size of fish resources used. In- service training and retraining of fishermen will be improved with the goal of making the activities more efficient and to diversify the situation or find alternative means of income for people. 3. Development of fishing tourism is seen as the main future perspective of coastal fishing (support of infrastructure and services related to small- scale fishing and tourism (including ecotourism) directed at small fishing communities). 4. Increasing the quality of the caught fish and having the fishermen provide a bigger added value to the fish is one of the most important components in increasing the income of fishermen. Upgrading fishing ports (equipped with icing, unloading and sorting equipment as well as cold storage plants) will help achieve this goal. 5. Organisation and cooperation of fishermen are developed through the activities of producer organisations, ensuring an increase of the economic impact of fishermen in the fishing sector. FISH FARMING There is no development of fish farming in net pens in the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area. There are currently no known intentions to develop fish farming in net pens in Pärnu Bay. CABLE LINES The underwater cable lines located in the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area are indicated on the navigation map of the marine area under Estonian jurisdiction as published by the Maritime Administration (Figures 2 and 3). The buffer zone for the cables is 0,5 nautical miles. There are plans to construct wind farms in the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area and construct new cable lines to connect the wind farms to the mainland grid. Fishing and environmental organisations have expressed the opinion that the electromagnetic field created around the new cable lines may hinder migration of fish in the Pärnu Bay pilot area. In the course of environmental impact assessment and disclosure for the planned wind farms, it must be ensured that this 34 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

37 4. Stocktake issue is addressed upon constructing new cable lines in the Pärnu Bay pilot area and that alleviating measures are used to reduce the electromagnetic field (e.g. shielding, sinking, preferably use of triple core alternating current cables). (Öhman, M.C., P. Sigray, and H. Westerberg Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio 36: ; Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Environmental impact assessment regarding construction of offshore wind farms in South- West Estonian coastal waters (Opinion of M. Vetemaa regarding possible effects of wind farms on fish fauna and fishing). NATIONAL DEFENCE Use of marine areas is also required to organise training for the Defence Forces of Estonia and other authorities. The Ministry of Defence has prepared the Development Programme of Defence Forces for Training Areas at Sea for this purpose; strategic environmental impact assessment has been performed for the said programme pursuant to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act. The said programme designates the training areas for the Navy and the locations for anti- aircraft and artillery shooting exercises directed from the land to sea. According to the current practice, reservation of marine areas for military exercises is performed by passing the Planning Act and using the Defence Forces Organisation Act that prescribes the possibility to create a temporary military zone. 39 Monitoring corridors where the spread of light and radio waves would not be hindered must be additionally ensured upon planning marine areas. The main conflicting use of the sea lies in offshore wind farms where the interests of the Ministry of Defence have to be taken into account for planning thereof. Main issues Sõmeri Training Area has been planned on the Pärnu Bay pilot area. Putting the said area into practice as training area raises conflicts with several already existing manners of use. Firstly, the planned shooting area is located on a special conservation area. The training area intersects with passengers between Pärnu and Kihnu and a great risk factor is the local partitioned coastline; coastal watercraft may unexpectedly appear at sea from the bays. At the same time, one of the most important migration routes of water birds is located along the eastern shore of the Gulf of Riga; therefore, in terms of wild birds the Sõmeri Training Area is basically unsuitable throughout the year. The Sangelaiu Ringed Seal Species Protection Site is located 3 km from the planned sector of fire. The distance is sufficient to not endanger the condition of the species protection site of the ringed seal, but may nevertheless disturb the seals. 40 Vision and trends The current practice where the use of the sea for national defence is not regulated through the Planning Act and the situation where the information is partially classified has brought about a situation where both developers and the state have insufficient information regarding the values in terms of nature conservation in a certain marine area, of areas important for national defence and closed for development, or of areas important for the local community for other values. It is therefore, important to involve the Ministry of Defence in the initial stages of the planning process in order to determine the areas that are important for military purposes and thereby avoid and resolve any possible conflicts at the first stages of the plan. This approach would help reduce any possible fears or misconceptions that manifest in a situation with no clarity as to what and to what extent the planned use of the sea will affect. SOURCES OF POLLUTION 39 Practice and legal bases of spatial planning of Estonian marine areas. Tartu 2010, OÜ Hendrikson&Ko, pages Strategic environmental impact report for Development Programme of Defence Forces for Training Areas at Sea. Tallinn University of Technology, Marine Systems Institute. Tallinn

38 4. Stocktake The Baltic Sea, located between developed industrial and agricultural countries, is a sea with one of the heaviest pollution burdens. Various toxic substances are dumped into the sea from many local sources in addition to diffuse sources of pollution. The limited water exchange with the ocean causes accumulation of toxic substances in the Baltic Sea. While the content of some toxic substances such as lead, mercury and DDT in nature has decreased as of the 1970s thanks to limits on usage, eutrophication is an increasing problem nowadays. Eutrophication means inflow of nutrients that limit plant growth (N, P) to the body of water either in organic or inorganic form. The primary production of the body of water increases due to the nutrients, causing deposition of more organic matter in turn. The composition of flora also usually changes. Regardless of origin, the direct consequences of organic pollution to our marine biota are similar. Due to low salinity, the impact of pollution for biota is often stronger in the Baltic Sea than in other seas. The biota is also not numerous in species and it is therefore, easier to spin the ecosystem out of balance. The content of nutrients of the water of Pärnu Bay is high compared to other regions of the Estonian coastal waters. As a positive trend, decrease of total nitrogen by 15% and decrease of total phosphorus by 49% has been observed during the last few decades. The concentrations were the lowest in 2008, with the last few years showing a trend of increase. The quality of water in Pärnu Bay is mainly affected by the condition of the Pärnu River and partially by the general situation of the Gulf of Riga. Therefore, it is mainly possible to improve the condition of Pärnu Bay by improving the drainage area of the Pärnu River. The concentrations of heavy metals of fish of Pärnu Bay do not differ from other regions of the Baltic Sea. The concentration of practically all researched heavy metals in the organisms was lower in than in the 1990s. The increase of content of copper, cadmium and zinc in the Baltic herring since 2003 gives cause for concern. The content of organic pollutants (HCH, DDT, PCB, HCB) in Baltic herring muscles is also comparable to the indicators of other Baltic Sea countries. Based on the content of hazardous substances in the perch, the environmental condition of surface bodies of water has been rated as mostly good or average with regard to most parameters. The results regarding the content of hazardous substances in the organisms are not generally in contradiction with the objective of quality provided in the EU water protection standards that prescribe that the content of hazardous substances may not significantly increase during a certain period of time. The analysed concentration of hazardous substances in the Baltic herring and the perch do not pose a threat to the health of people who consume these fish. MINING MINERAL RESOURCES FROM SEA Main issues The main issues of Pärnu County are as follows: 1) there are no estimates or plans for use of future need of mineral resources; 2) there is no county- wide conception for supplying the larger centres (e.g. Pärnu City) with the required construction materials; and 3) the geological data regarding the county has not been entered on modern data media. Main factors beneficial for development There are sufficient active consumption supplies of mineral resources to satisfy the needs of the near future but the need for sand and gravel is increasing and in longer perspective the resources from land can run out. Then extraction of sand and gravel from the sea could solve the problem. Vision and trends Peat and mineral resources used in construction (sand and gravelly sand, clay, dolomite) are of great importance in Pärnu County currently and also in the future, but sapropel, lime and curative seamud have not yet found means of practical use. On the other hand there is no current knowledge of any applications for extraction of sand, gravel or any other mineral resources in Pärnu Bay. There are currently, therefore, no grounds for conflict between extraction of mineral resources in Pärnu Bay and other human uses of the marine area of Pärnu Bay. However, the possibilities to extract sand and gravel from the sea should be investigated for potential future use. 36 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

39 4. Stocktake OFFSHORE WIND FARMS Main issues Constructing wind turbines in the sea is an actively spreading activity in the world that allows increasing the use of energy based on renewable resources, thereby reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and the related creation of greenhouse gases. According to the Development Plan of the Estonian Electricity Sector until 2018 based on the Electricity Market Act, it has been indicated that an estimated 160 MW of means of electricity production based on wind have to be constructed to develop production of electricity by 2015, but the capacity will very likely be reached already by The State Development Plan of the Estonian Electricity Sector until 2020 provides increase of the proportion of renewable energy for final consumption from 17.5% (2006) to 25% (2020); the State Action Plan of the Estonian Renewable Energy Sector provides construction of offshore wind farms in the extent of MW by The main problem with constructing offshore wind farms generally manifests in opposition by various public interest groups that is inter alia based on the following argumentation: wind farms create 1) visual pollution; 2) noise and vibration (affecting both humans and the entire biota); 3) an impact on marine biota (electromagnetic fields of power cables that may hinder movement/migration of fish, impact on spawning grounds); and 4) impact on wild birds (driving birds away from good feeding grounds, increase of energy used upon migration, death of birds upon collision with wind turbines). Main factors beneficial for development The main natural prerequisites in terms of construction of wind farms in the respective area are favourable wind conditions and shallows located in the sea on which it is technically easier and economically more feasible to construct wind farms. Construction of wind farms is politically supported by the Estonian obligation to develop the use of alternative energy and the established legislation such as the Electricity Market Act, Development Plan of the Estonian Electricity Sector until 2018, State Development Plan of the Estonian Electricity Sector until 2020 and the State Action Plan of the Estonian Renewable Energy Sector until Vision and trends Eesti Energia wishes to construct offshore wind farms in the Gulf of Riga for which several surveys have been conducted in the region of Gulf of Riga. Taking into account the various wind surveys and the limits, approximately 5 regions have been mapped where wind turbines with a total power of up to 600 MW (arising from the Sindi 330 kv connection point capacity of 600 MW) could be constructed. Eesti Energia has abandoned three of the initial regions due to conflicts with sea monitoring radars and shipping traffic and submitted an application for a superficies licence for two areas Kihnuedela (estimated total output of 235 MW pursuant to the application) and Kihnulõuna (550 MW). The exact locations and possible output of the wind turbines will become clear in the course of environmental impact assessment, should balancing the interests of various interest groups reach that phase. TOURISM AND RECREATION Situation and main issues The length of the coastline of Pärnu County is 242 km, the coastal waters are shallow and the coast of Pärnu Bay is one of the warmest regions in Estonia in terms of climate, thus creating favourable conditions for the development of the tourism and recreation industry. Pärnu is annually visited by approximately 500,000 people of whom a third are Estonians and two- thirds are foreigners. The Pärnu County Sun Circles that divide the county into four serve as basis for tourism routes: the blue sea region, the land by the sea, the green riverland and the ancient woodland. There were approximately 200 hotels and restaurants in the county in 2009 with 75% of them in the Pärnu urban area. The proportion of companies with activities directly meant for vacationers is about five per cent in the county. The entire county is covered in terms of accommodation services. Most of the establishments providing accommodation are located in the territories of local governments that are well known as summer resorts, i.e. in Pärnu and in Audru, Tõstamaa, Häädemeeste, Tori and Tahkuranna Rural Municipalities. Many of the holiday villages and camps are located in coastal regions and mostly active during the peak season, i.e. summer. 37

40 4. Stocktake The tourism sector is characterised by heavy seasonality. 46% of the visitors visited the region in the three summer months in 2009 (including 43% in Pärnu City). As a positive trend, seasonality in general has decreased and the proportion of visitors during summer months only increased again in Main factors beneficial for development The Pärnu County Sun Circles that divide the county into four serve as basis for tourism routes: the blue sea region, the land by the sea, the green riverland and the ancient woodland. The location of Pärnu by the sea and the international highway connection of the Via Baltica create good preconditions for movement of vacationers and tourists for moving by sea or vehicle. Vision and trends Pursuant to the Pärnu County Development Strategy 2030+, the following is deemed important in terms of development of tourism and recreation: 1) activity of the local population as the largest contributors to regional tourism products in shaping the recreation and tourism cluster; 2) modernisation of the infrastructure that supports the current recreation and tourism; 3) creation of an integral development conception of recreation and tourism for the county and directing the activities to more specific target groups and markets; 4) county- wide development of recreation and tourism products; and 5) better usage of the location of the county between two focal points (Tallinn and Riga) and creation of stronger business and marketing relationships with these centres Additional issues (trends, strategies) The prerequisites for development of the Pärnu Bay marine area are based on the natural values of the region as well as the infrastructure and are presented in the document Pärnu County Development Strategy which is in turn based on the development plans of the rural municipalities of Pärnu County and on other development documents of the Pärnu County region (thematic plans, sector development plans, visions, estimates). The Pärnu County Development Strategy sets out the most feasible development scenario called the Pearl of the Baltic Sea. This scenario sets out development for the region that is based on sustainable use of natural resources. The Pärnu County Development Strategy sets out the development of the human use of the Pärnu Bay marine area as follows: 1. Existence of natural resources (sea, forest, fish) and mineral resources (peat, clay, silt, dolomite, gravel, sand, mineral water) provides excellent development capacities for the industrial sector and for maritime transport by means of export. Peat production has gained good ground on the export market (above all the flower industry in the Netherlands) and has created new jobs. Companies Ruukki Products and AQ Lasertool, which are successful in the metalworking industry, have centred their production activities in Pärnu and Audru. 2. The location of Pärnu by the sea as well as the Via Baltica international highway passing through the city and connecting Tallinn with Riga have created good prerequisites for the development of the transport and logistics sector. However, the existing potential has only been partially implemented. The number of ships serviced in the Port of Pärnu has constantly decreased in the current economic conditions. While 1,086 ships were serviced in 2000, the number was merely 434 in Most of the turnover of the Port of Pärnu was created by export (raw wood, wood products, peat and peat products) whereas milled asphalt and crushed stone were prevalent in import. One of the development directions involves the wish to develop a functional passenger port and at least one international regular service. A chain of minor ports along the coast of Pärnu Bay is being developed. 3. The length of the coastline of Pärnu County is 242 km, the coastal waters are shallow and the coast of Pärnu Bay is one of the warmest regions in Estonia in terms of climate, thus creating favourable conditions for the development of the tourism and recreation industry. Pärnu is annually visited by approximately 500,000 people of whom a third are Estonians and two- thirds are foreigners. The Pärnu County Sun Circles that divide the county into four serve as basis for tourism routes: the blue sea region, the land by the sea, the green riverland and the ancient woodland. There were approximately 200 hotels and restaurants in the county in 2009 with 38 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

41 4. Stocktake 75% of them in the Pärnu urban area. The proportion of companies with activities directly meant for vacationers is about five percent in the county. The entire county is covered in terms of accommodation services. Most of the establishments providing accommodation are located in the territories of local governments that are well known as summer resorts, i.e. in Pärnu and in Audru, Tõstamaa, Häädemeeste, Tori and Tahkuranna Rural Municipalities. Many of the holiday villages and camps are located in coastal regions and mostly active during the peak season, i.e. summer. 4. There is sufficient wind resource to develop offshore wind farms set out in plans for the development of the technical infrastructure and conduct surveys and prepare thematic plans for the development possibilities of wind energy. Eesti Energia has performed the first steps for constructing wind farms in the marine area of the Pärnu Bay pilot area. 39

42 5. Conflict Analysis 5. Conflict Analysis 5.1. General overview For the project area in total 12 different uses and 28 combinations of different uses were identified (Figure 8, table 3). In this area the area of single use is quite limited and is located mostly in the southernmost and easternmost part of the area (Figure 9). Major part of the area is recorded as double use mostly it is combination of fishing and nature protection or fishing and wind farms. In the latter case there is obvious conflict of uses and in case of realisation of the wind farm project the conflict is solved in favour of wind farm developers. In the northern part of the Pärnu Bay the combinations of different sea uses include beach bathing areas, sailing areas, dumping areas and fishing areas. In most cases the other uses are geographically separated creating the conflict only with fishing. Ship routes heading towards Pärnu harbour create zones with multiple uses but in this case there is no conflict between these uses. Possible conflicts between sea uses can occur in the area between Kihnu Island and mainland. Here the maximum number of multiple sea uses is recorded (5 uses) from which potentially conflicting are dumping, nature protection and fishing. In this case the conflict should be solved with regulatory mechanisms restricting the activities temporally. Figure 8. Combinations of different uses in Pärnu Bay pilot area 40 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

43 5. Conflict Analysis Table 3. Coding of different seause combinations in Pärnu Bay area Code Ship- route Beach Pipe- line Ancho- ring area Cables Dumping area Nature pro- tection Fishing Shipping area Mili- tary Sailing Wind farm

44 5. Conflict Analysis Figure 9. Number of uses in Pärnu Bay pilot area 5.2. Main conflicts in the pilot area The main existing conflict in the area occurs between fishing and recreation (water sports). This conflict was alleviated (but still not finally solved) by designating special yachting areas where it is prohibited to hinder or compromise the traffic of vehicles used for water sports (that are marked accordingly) in certain times (1 July 1 September in the sailing area 1 and 1 September 15 September in the sailing area 2). Potential conflicts in case of introduction of new activities include conflicts between nature conservation and other sea uses (the planned military training area, wind farms, also increasing recreation/tourism); conflicts between offshore wind farms and other sea uses (fisheries, shipping, recreation/tourism); conflicts between the planned military training area and fishing, recreation/tourism. 42 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

45 6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions 6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions There are obviously conflicts between the need to utilize the marine resources and the need to manage and protect these resources. However, all existing legal human activities in the Pärnu Bay pilot area are regulated by different relevant legal acts in force. In this sense the sea areas concerned are already planned which means that sea space is allocated to different kind of sea use (not to confuse with sea space allocation to different legal entities) according to legal acts in force. For example, the purpose of Estonian Fishing Act is to ensure the sustainable use of fishery and aquatic plant resources arising from the principles of responsible fisheries. Fishing is performed pursuant to fishing rights that are either free of charge or subject to a fee. The Fishing Rules, a secondary legislation, specify and put in force all the necessary details of the fishery management. The Fishing Rules list and describe 1) the fishing gear, 2) close seasons and forbidden areas for fishing, 3) minimum standard size of fish and the by- catch conditions, 4) restrictions and requirements for fishing gear and fishing methods, 5) documents certifying the fishing rights etc. This means that fishing rights are allocated and enforced both spatially and temporally, and the associated technical conservation measures are prescribed in necessary details. There are many different complex and often overlapping existing human use rights (public access rights, riparian rights, fishing rights, navigation rights, seabed use rights etc.) that are affected by the emerging maritime spatial planning. However, the planning itself needs also to be performed according to Estonian Planning Act that regulates relations between the state, local governments and other persons in the preparation of plans with aim to ensure conditions which take into account the needs and interests of the widest possible range of members of society for balanced and sustainable spatial development. The strategic environmental assessment resulting from implementation of the planning policy is organised in the cases and pursuant to the procedure provided for in the Estonian Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act. All existing human use rights, including the overlapping ones, are allocated and enforced according to the harmonized system of legal acts in force. Therefore, the existing human use activities performed according to issued permits and licenses usually are not in conflict, and if there is any, then there are the legal procedures in force to resolve these conflicts as appropriate. Introduction of the new kind of human activity (e.g. development of the wind park area) presumes the democratic process of stakeholder participation which takes into account the long- term strategies in and needs for the development of the economic, social, cultural and natural environment. Method for dealing with the identified conflicts is the consensus building stakeholder meetings as an obligatory element of the maritime planning process facilitated by the BSP project representatives. More specifically, the Mutual Learning methodology is used. Proposed solutions and recommendations are conflict specific. 1. The spatial overlapping of the existing fishing and nature protection uses not presumes the conflict by itself. Based on the results of previous scientific studies the fishery is regulated spatially and temporally with the aim to avoid any irreversible impact. If any new scientific facts based concerns would arise then additional fishery restrictions will be introduced and the Fishery Rules will be amended accordingly. No specific recommendations have been made. 2. The spatial overlapping of fishing area (existing human use) and the wind park area (planned human use) do not necessarily presume the arising conflict resolution. If the planning process will lead to decision to give the permit for the wind park development in the Pärnu Bay then at that stage it is not clear whether the spatial restriction of existing fishing rights with or no compensation will be imposed or not. If some kind of spatial restriction will be imposed then the Fishing Rules will be amended accordingly. It is proposed to resolve this potential spatial conflict either technically based on the provisions of existing legislation or in a course of negotiations of parties concerned. Considerable opposition of environmentalists (important bird area) and the tourist industry (visual pollution vs. the clean horizon what the industry sells) is expected. Fishery opposition will arise only in the case of potential and expected spatial restrictions of the fishing rights. There is no site specific factual information available also whether the planned wind park will improve/worsen the environmental conditions of the local fish stocks. In any case the dispute will involve strong political and legal argumentation. 3. The spatial overlapping of the multiple but not exclusive human uses beach bathing areas, sailing areas, shipping routes, dumping areas and fishing areas in the northern part of the Pärnu Bay (all are the existing sea uses) do not necessarily cause the conflict of sea uses. All these sea uses, including shipping, dumping and 43

46 6. Methods for dealing with the identified conflicts and solutions fishing are regulated and enforced in a way that that they are not causing any irreversible impact according to best knowledge we have. However, the whole complex environmental impact will be reassessed if introduction of some new type of human use will be planned or new scientific facts on the possible irreversible harm will be revealed. No additional specific recommendations have been made. 44 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

47 7. Spatial Plan 7. Spatial Plan As mentioned before it was not possible to compile a spatial plan for the Pärnu Bay pilot area in the course of the BaltSeaPlan project due to the fact that the official planning procedure could not be initiated and the Strategic Environmental Assessment could not be carried out. However, the aspects highlighted below should be considered while compiling the plan. The existing uses in Pärnu Bay pilot area include fishing, submarine cables, shipping/boating, anchorage area, dumping grounds, pipeline, ports (Port of Pärnu and 22 small ports), yachting areas and beaches (Figure 3) as well as nature protection (Figures 5, 6, 7). Pärnu Bay is also an area where scientific research (monitoring of fish, invasive species etc.) is going on. All the current uses do not have major conflicts. There was a conflict between fishing and water sports but this was alleviated by designating special yachting areas where it is prohibited to hinder or compromise the traffic of vehicles used for water sports (that are marked accordingly) in certain times (1 July 1 September in the sailing area 1 and 1 September 15 September in the sailing area 2). In case of introduction of new activities some new spatial or temporal restrictions might be needed to apply for the existing activities. Concerning future activities, there are currently identified only interests to establish offshore wind farms (together with cables connecting the wind farm with the grid on land) and a military practice area (Figure 4). The conditions for establishment of offshore wind farms are the following: > wind farms can be established only outside of existing Natura 2000 sites/protected areas; > A thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) has to be carried out, considering amongst others the impacts on marine ecosystem and biodiversity (migrating and nesting birds, seals (especially the ringed seal), fish, benthos, valuable marine habitats) as well as socio- economic impacts including impacts on fisheries, tourism & recreation (visual and landscape impacts), impacts on regional economy/development (e.g. real estate prices, employment etc.). > An appropriate assessment according to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the EU Habitats Directive has to be carried out because there are several Natura 2000 sites that might be affected by the planned wind farms even if the wind farms will be located outside of the Natura 2000 sites. > Wind farm can be established only if the results of EIA and appropriate assessment will prove that the planned wind farm will not have any significant impacts on marine ecosystem and on the conservation objectives of protected areas/natura 2000 sites. The conditions for establishing the planned military area are the following: > A thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) has to be carried out, considering amongst others the impacts on marine ecosystem and biodiversity (especially migrating and nesting birds, the ringed seal, valuable habitats and other conservation objectives of protected areas) as well as socio- economic impacts (e.g. impacts on tourism & recreation). > An appropriate assessment according to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the EU Habitats Directive has to be carried out because there are several Natura 2000 sites that might be affected by the planned military practice area. > The military practice area can be established only if the results of EIA and appropriate assessment will prove that it will not have any significant impacts on marine ecosystem and on the conservation objectives of protected areas/natura 2000 sites. In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected. (Article 6.4) Concerning dumping grounds, a revision of dumping grounds in the Estonian marine area in cooperation of the Maritime Administration and Ministry of the Environment is planned for 2012, so the results of this process must be taken into account 45

48 8. Recommendations and future steps to implement MSP 8. Recommendations and future steps to implement MSP According to the Estonian law (Planning Act) MSP is possible but there are still some legal deficits and unclear aspects. Also the human resources and information basis for MSP are weak especially at the municipalities. Such problems were also emphasized in the stakeholders meetings carried out in the frame of the BaltSeaPlan project. However the new national spatial plan (Estonia 2030+) that is under development will cover also MSP to some extent. Currently the borders in the sea between the municipalities are not set and this should be done in the frames of national spatial plan. National maritime policy should facilitate development of maritime spatial planning. The draft National Development Plan Estonian Maritime Policy foresees development of an official pilot MSP in 2013 (planned to be developed for Pärnu Bay) and preparation of MSPs for all counties by The latter deadline might be too late, considering all wind farm and other plans for use of the Estonian marine area. In the Estonian circumstances the following is important in order to realize the MSP: > Establishment of proper legal basis for MSP in Estonia (including land- sea planning harmonization, hierarchical planning system, zoning principles in MSP): Maritime spatial plans should be developed for the Estonian marine area. It is recommended to apply similar principles for spatial planning in marine as well as terrestrial areas, considering thereby the differences arising from different character of sea and land. It is advisable to take the existing categories of spatial plans as basis also for planning of marine areas. That means that the general principles of MSP should be set in the national spatial plan (in addition to the territorial sea, the directions can be given also for the EEZ in co- operation with other countries). County level spatial plans should be elaborated for the whole Estonian marine area and in case of need also general or detailed spatial plans for certain areas. MSP documents should be in line with and basis for the permits/licences issued through specific regulations. For example, if the spatial plan foresees sand mining in a certain area then no permits for conflicting uses are given (before the relevant spatial plan must be changed). > Establishment of clear priorities or at least general principles for solving conflicts between different interests/uses in MSP process in Estonian marine areas. > Sea use development should be sustainable and based on eco- system approach. It should follow the goals of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. MSP should be used as an instrument to avoid cumulative effects of the sea use activities on marine biodiversity; > Development of information basis for MSP, e.g. through development of the cross- use system of the existing data bases (Land Board, Maritime Administration, Environmental Register etc.). The database(s) should follow EU standards (Inspire directive), be regularly updated and be available for MSP development and permitting process on sea use activities; > Development of research agenda for MSP e.g. Filling data gaps on marine biodiversity in the whole Estonian marine area; Research on impacts of different scenarios of different sea uses and climate change; Development of decision support models for MSP (e.g. from basic models on oils spills diffusion up to complex models for assessment of policy options for the sustainable management of maritime space); > Development of MSP methodology, including methodology for new type of approaches in planning process e.g. blue corridors, intelligent corridors etc.; > Development of human capacity for the MSP; > Application of Pan- Baltic thinking perspective in the national MSP process, to regard the Baltic Sea as one planning space and ecosystem to be shared 46 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

49 9. Lessons learnt 9. Lessons learnt The strategic environmental impact assessment should be the basis of planning the use of marine space. In the frame of the BaltSeaPlan project this activity was not foreseen which means that although stakeholders were active to represent and defend their interests the analyses worked out in the frame of the project could only be suggestive and rely on previous sectoral based analyses or available background information. Estonian marine space in present is already organised by different legal acts but new sea uses such as wind farms cannot be planned using the sectoral based approach. Organizing the sea space needs clear priorities or at least general principles for solving conflicts between different interests/uses in MSP process. Another important aspect witnessed during the BaltSeaPlan project was the unclarity of national legislation and distribution of responsibilities at the state level. It is not set yet who should initiate the MSP and how can local or county governments find resources to cover their responsibilities. Although municipalities/counties recognise MSP as a positive tool for the future they see a strong need for additional human and financial resources. Currently there is no common understanding at the state level how it would be best to divide responsibilities and also how to draw the administrative borders in the sea. Also lack of data was a challenge for the BaltSeaPlan project team. This concerns mainly data on marine species and habitats as well as data on impacts of different activities on marine environment. The conclusion of the project team and involved stakeholders was that a lot of research is still needed to make the right decisions for planning the sustainable use of marine space. Considering the high costs of marine research it should be the responsibility of the state to initiate the relevant research programme and plan its financing. 47

50 48 BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot Maritime Spatial Planning for the Pärnu Bay

51 The BaltSeaPlan project in general Activities BaltSeaPlan activities were designed to support all major aspects of maritime spatial planning within the Baltic Sea region: > Improving the joint information base / stocktaking for maritime spatial planning: A forum for dialogue bringing together spatial planners and scientists and identify sources of data / information. Compiling current uses, conflicts and natural values of the Baltic Sea. Filling data gaps, exchange of data, improve integration of ecological and socio-economic data sets, identify relevant modelling methods, clarify MSP data needs. > Including Spatial Planning in National Maritime Strategies Assessment of national frameworks, methodologies and sectoral strategies that influence the use of sea space (e.g. energy, fishery, transport, tourism, as well as nature conservation) Developing recommendations on spatial issues within National Maritime Strategies. Exploiting the visions to foster a national cross-sectoral debate, discussing goals & targets for dealing with space and filling gaps in national sectoral policies & strategies > Develop a Vision for Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea 2030 taking into account transnational interdependencies and cumulative impacts initiate a Baltic Sea region wide campaign as to discuss the BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030 > Demonstrate MSP in 8 pilot areas Danish Straights / T-Route (DK) Pomeranian Bight (DE/DK/SE/PL) Western Gulf of Gdansk (PL) Middle Bank (SE/PL) Lithuanian Sea (LT) Latvian Sea (LV) Pärnu Bay (EE) Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands (EE) > Lobbying and capacity building for MSP stakeholder involvement & participative planning methods BaltSeaPlan series of guidelines & policy recommendations workshops & conferences for decision-makers Partners Germany Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH), Lead Partner Ministry of Energy, Infrastructure and Regional Development of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern WWF Germany, Baltic Sea Unit Poland Maritime Office in Szczecin Maritime Office in Gdynia Maritime Institute in Gdańsk Denmark Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University (formerly National Environmental Research Institute NERI) Sweden Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Estonia Estonian Marine Institute of University of Tartu Baltic Environmental Forum Estonia Lithuania Klaipėda University Coastal Research and Planning Institute (CORPI) Baltic Environmental Forum Lithuania Latvia Baltic Environmental Forum Latvia

52 BaltSeaPlan Publications BaltSeaPlan Reports BaltSeaPlan Findings BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030 Towards the sustainable planning of Baltic Sea space Become a Maritime Spatialist within 10 Minutes (EN, DE, LV, LT, PL, EE) BaltSeaPlan Bulletin #1 BaltSeaPlan Bulletin #2 BaltSeaPlan Project Flyer (EN, DE, LV, LT, PL, EE, SE) Impact Assessments 1 - Strategies with relevance for Estonian maritime space 2 - Strategies with relevance for German maritime space 3 - Strategies with relevance for Latvian maritime space 4 - Strategies with relevance for Lithuanian maritime space 5 - Strategies with relevance for Polish maritime space 6 - Strategies with relevance for Russian maritime space 7 - Strategies with relevance for Swedish maritime space 8 - Implications of the international and national policy context for Baltic Sea space and MSP Pilot MSP reports 9 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Pomeranian Bight and Arkona Basin 10 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Middle Bank 11 - Developing a Pilot SEA for the Western Gulf of Gdansk 12 - Preparing for a MSP at the Danish Straits 13 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Pärnu Bay 14 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Saaremaa and Hiiumaa Islands 15 - Towards a Pilot MSP for the Lithuanian Sea 16 - Developing a Pilot MSP for the Western Coast of Latvia MSPs and SEA 17 - Pilot MSP for the Western Coast of Latvia (LV) 18 - SEA for the Western Gulf of Gdansk (PL) Technical reports 19 - Modelling for MSP Tools, concepts, applications 20 - Data exchange structure for MSP 21 - Effects of underwater noise on harbour porpoises around major shipping lanes 22 - Remote sensing methods for detecting small fishing vessels and fishing gear 23 - Legal and planning options for integrating fisheries into Maritime Spatial Planning 24 - Stakeholder Involvement in MSP 25 - SEA in MSP: Recommendations from the German and Polish experience 26 - Fisheries in the MSP context 27 - Seabed and habitat mapping in the Hatter Barn area 28 - BaltSeaPlan Web-advanced tool in support of MSP 29 - Case Study: Systematic site selection for offshore windpower with Marxan in the pilot area Pomeranian Bight 30 - Case Study: Site selection of fisheries areas for MSP 31 - Recommendations for legislative action regarding the MSP in Europe

53 Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has become a widely acknowledged and necessary tool for co-ordinating spatial use and balancing of interests in the sea. In view of expanding activities such as offshore wind energy parks and growing shipping traffic and at the same time increasing needs to protect the marine environment a systematic, integrative and forwardlooking planning is required in order to safeguard the sustainable development of the seas. Currently, however, this tool is far from being established practice. The 3.7 million INTERREG IVB project BaltSeaPlan ( ) has been the largest project in recent years dealing with maritime spatial planning throughout the Baltic Sea Region. Under the lead of the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) and covering partners from all Baltic Sea countries (except Finland) the project has not only developed pilots in 8 demonstration areas, but also advanced methods, instruments & tools as well as data exchange necessary for an effective maritime spatial planning. The results of BaltSeaPlan are published in a series of reports all available for free download under The Pärnu Bay pilot area located in the northern part of the Gulf of Riga is characterised by intensive human uses as well as problematic environmental conditions. In addition to long tradition uses such as shipping, fishing and recreation activities, there are also plans for offshore wind parks as well as an expansion of Pärnu Port. The main environmental issue is eutrophication, which maninfests itself in increased biological production and worsened light conditions for the seabed while at the same time positively affecting fish populations. The BaltSeaPlan Report 13 Towards a Pilot MSP for Pärnu Bay shows the stocktake of the area including methods for how to generate information in case of missing data sources. It also describes the stakeholder involvement and conflict analysis undertaken. In view of missing legislation for MSP in Estonia at the current stage it does not go the full cycle by actually proposing an MSP for the area. Project part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) ISBN