Introduction
Materials and methods
Results
International level
Agreement | No. hits, words, pages | Brief summary of statements concerning genetic biodiversity |
---|---|---|
International conventions | ||
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1993) | 26 9440 28 | Conservation of biodiversity of ecosystems, species, and genes a fundamental goal. Genetic resources (= genetic material of actual or potential value) are highlighted as being of utmost importance. 1. Yes, high priority, not measurable. 2. Yes, but linked to biological diversity (e.g., legislation, area protection, research and transfer of technology). 3. Yes (genetics as part of biological diversity) |
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention 1992, entered into force 2000) | 0 13 033 26 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
EU directives | ||
The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) | 3 14 454 44 | The Natura 2000 network is of vital importance for “…the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species…” (Article 10). 1. Yes, high priority. 2. Yes, mainly area protection. 3. Not explicitly linked to the gene level |
The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) | 0 33 714 82 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
The Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) | 0 5737 25 | Conservation of listed populations. The gene level is not explicitly referred to |
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) | 1 12 598 22 | 1. Yes, the genetic level is one of several indicators to be used when determining environmental status of marine areas. 2. Calls for inventories of genetically distinct forms of native species. Protected areas need to meet the requirements in the CBD (the gene level is not explicitly mentioned). 3. See question 2 |
Follow-up documents to the conventions | ||
CBD (2 documents) | ||
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (COP10 Decision X/2, 2010) | 14 7210 13 | Strategic goal C: “Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity.” Target 13: “By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity”. 1. Yes, high priority. 2. Yes, but unspecified (except for biodiversity—protected areas). 3. Not explicitly linked to the gene level |
Consolidated update of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011-2020 (COP10 Decision X/17, 2010) | 5 3046 7 | Mentions endurance of plant genetic diversity. Target 5: “At least 75 per cent of the most important areas for plant diversity of each ecological region protected with effective management in place for conserving plants and their genetic diversity.” Target 9: “70 per cent of the genetic diversity of crops including their wild relatives and other socio-economically valuable plant species conserved…” 1. Yes, high priority (a sustainable future presupposes genetic diversity). Some goals are measurable (above). 2. Yes, protection of important areas and the genetic diversity of crops. 3. Yes, implicitly |
HELCOM (16 documents) | ||
Recommendation 15/1, Protection of the coastal strip (1994) | 0 939 2 | Coastal areas important for biodiversity. CBD is mentioned but not genetic diversity |
Recommendation 15/5, System of coastal and marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (1994) | 0 1357 5 | Protection of representative ecosystems. Refers to CBD. Genetic diversity is not explicitly considered |
Recommendation 16/3, Preservation of natural coastal dynamics (1995) | 0 691 2 | Preservation of biodiversity in coastal areas. The genetic level of biodiversity is not explicitly considered |
Recommendation 17/2, Protection of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea area (adopted 1996, revised 2013) | 0 414 1 | Concern about the status of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea. The genetic level is not mentioned |
Recommendation 18/4, Managing wetlands and freshwater ecosystems for retention of nutrients (1997) | 0 470 2 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
Recommendation 19/2, Protection and improvement of the wild salmon (Salmo salar L.) populations in the Baltic Sea area (1998) | 4 941 3 | Genetic diversity is vital to the survival of wild salmon populations. Goal to attain “safe genetic limits,” calls for “immediate actions” to safeguard salmon survival and genetic diversity. 1. Yes, high priority. 2. Yes, immediate action is called for. 3. Yes. “The releases of reared salmon should be carefully monitored and their genetic or other impact on wild salmon evaluated by scientists” |
Recommendation 19/3, Manual for the marine monitoring in the COMBINE programme of HELCOM (1998) | 0 473 2 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
Recommendation 27-28/2, Conservation of seals in the Baltic Sea area (2006) | 0 1399 3 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
Planning and Management of Baltic Sea Protected Areas: guidelines and tools (Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, No 105; HELCOM 2006) | 6 46 263 88 | Genetic diversity important conservation and management goal. Can be attained through MPAs. 1. Yes. 2. Yes, “preserve genetic diversity” though area protection. 3. Not explicitly linked to the gene level |
Baltic Sea Action Plan (2007) | 4 36 949 101 | Goal: favorable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity in line with CBD. “Genetic variability” and “safe genetic limits” stressed as important goals for salmon, sea trout, and sturgeon. 1. Yes, genetic variability and safe genetic limits for salmon, sturgeon, trout. 2. Appropriate breeding and re-stocking practices in place by 2012. 3. No, but inventory and classification of Baltic salmon rivers |
Toward an ecologically coherent network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas–Implementation report on the status and ecological coherence of the HELCOM BSPA network (HELCOM 2010, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, No 124B) | 5 58 518 146 | Conservation of genetic diversity an overarching objective. Criteria to be used when evaluating the BSPA network: “…connectivity among protected areas is of vital importance. It … allows for genetic interchange between populations.” 1. Yes, a general aim of MPAs is to protect genetic diversity. 2. Yes, via MPAs and connectivity among them. 3. Genetic diversity and the connectivity among protected areas are important to consider when evaluating the ecological status and coherence of the MPAs |
Recommendation 32-33/1, Conservation of Baltic salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations by the restoration of their river habitats and management of river fisheries (2011) | 1 2058 6 | Genetic diversity addressed for stocking practices; “stocking for enhancement purposes is conducted on a temporary basis until natural reproduction reaches stable levels and are based on original strains or if not available on nearby populations with genetic proximity and similar ecological conditions.” 1. Yes, implicitly. 2. Yes, with regard to stocking practices. 3. Yes, implicitly |
Recommendation 34E/1, Safeguarding important bird habitats and migration routes in the Baltic Sea from negative effects on wind and wave energy production at sea (2013) | 0 1277 4 | Nothing relating to genetic diversity |
Taking Further Action to Implement The Baltic Sea Action Plan–Reaching Good Environmental Status for a healthy Baltic Sea (Ministerial Declaration 2013) | 2 10 938 20 | Genetics addressed for sustainable aquaculture, to prohibit risks of “ecological and genetic impacts on wild fish stocks from unintended releases of farmed species,” and concerning conservation of Baltic salmon and sea trout; genetic guidelines needed to improve stocking practices. 1. Yes, for sustainable aquaculture and conservation of salmon and sea trout. 2. Yes (genetic guidelines). 3. Yes, implicitly |
Overview of implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (2013) | 1 18 681 40 | Subspecies are mentioned with reference the HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea Species. 1. Yes, below species diversity in terms of subspecies. 2. Yes, protection of subspecies. 3. Yes, implicitly |
Recommendation 35/1, System of coastal and marine Baltic Sea protected areas (2014) | 1 2248 5 | Genetic diversity is recognized as one of the Aichi targets that need to be reached. 1. Yes. 2. Yes, protected areas and “other effective area-based conservation measures.” 3. Not explicitly linked to the gene level of biodiversity |
Follow-up documents to the EU directives | ||
The Habitats and Birds Directives (4 documents) | ||
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament—Biodiversity Action Plan for Economic and Development co-operation (COM/2001/0162 final) | 16 8969 11 | Genetic resources important. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculture a large problem. Refers to CBD. 1. Yes, high priority. 2. Policies, investments, research, gene banks, protected areas. Protected areas in representative habitats and areas of high diversity maintain genetic resources. 3. Yes, “careful assessment of the most useful/important species/populations. Wild relatives of domestic stocks should be included in these assessments” |
Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives (2007) | 8 46 622 112 | Genetic diversity a rationale for site selection; isolated populations tend to contribute stronger to genetic diversity of species. Genetics mentioned for bird inventories and effects of aquaculture; escapes of individuals that are genetically different can affect local populations. 1. Yes, degree of isolation of population is “an approximate measure of the contribution of a given population to the genetic diversity of the species and of the fragility of the specific population at the site being considered.” 2. Yes, mainly area protection. 3. Yes, concerning isolated populations and inventories of rare bird subspecies |
Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (European Parliament resolution 2012) | 8 8653 20 | The Commission is called upon to develop a strategy for the conservation of genetic diversity. Genetics important in agriculture, for human, and animal sustenance. Mentions Aichi targets. 1. Yes, high priority. 2. More research on genetics. 3. Implied rather than explicitly stated with regard to the gene level of biodiversity |
Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007-2012 (2011) | 18 44 923 123 | Genetic structure of species should be considered when estimating its conservation status. Genetic variability is included when assessing the quality of a habitat. “Genetic pollution” is mentioned as a threat resulting from release of non-native conspecifics. 1. Yes. 2. Yes, include genetics when assessing species and habitat conservation status. 3. Implicitly as assessments should be carried out and reported continuously |
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2) | ||
Commission Decision of September 01, 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters | 5 7270 11 | Genetic structure relevant to consider when estimating conservation status of species and habitats. 1. Yes. 2. Consider genetics when assessing species and environmental status. 3. Not explicitly |
Action Plan for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EU Commission 2013) | 11 66 884 191 | Genetic resources high priority but primarily for agriculture and forestry. 1. Yes, genetic variation is important for food, forestry, and agriculture. 2. Cooperation networks, information exchange/education, a European database on plant genetic resources. 3. See strategies |
The Water Framework Directive (25) | ||
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Documents (GD) No 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 17, 20-27, 30-33 | 7 995 541 2660* | GD No 3 (1 hit): refers to the threat imposed by genetic contamination of wild fish populations. GD No 12 (1): quotes the text of the Habitats Directive on genetic exchange of wild species. GD No 25 (2): concerns experimental methodology when monitoring chemicals in biota and the possibility to reduce unwanted effects of genetic differences among sampling organism. GD No 27 (3): concern that certain chemicals can cause genetic effects, and that genetic differences among model organisms for chemical testing can affect the results |
Conservation goals
Strategies, measurable goals, and monitoring
National level
International agreement | National document | Country | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sweden | Finland | Estonia | Germany | ||
CBD, EU Habitats, and Birds Directives | Document | A Swedish Strategy for Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Services. Government Bill 2013/14:141 (Swedish Government 2013; In Swedish) | Government Resolution on the Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020, ‘Saving Nature for People’ (Finnish Government 2012) | Estonian Nature Conservation in 2011 (Estonian Environment Information Centre 2012) | National Strategy on Biological Diversity (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety 2007) |
No hits | 88 (72870 words, 192 pages) 1.2 ‰ hits/word, 0.46 hits/page | 51 (11633 words, 26 pages) 4.4 ‰/word, 1.96 hits/page | 13 (44136 words, 126 pages) 0.3 ‰/word, 0.10 hits/page | 247 (100312 words, 180 pages) 2.5 ‰/word, 1.37 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity | Genetic diversity is important for maintaining viable populations of species and to ensure the resilience of ecosystems. Strategies: Mapping and monitoring genetic variation in wild and domesticated plants and animals needed and started by 2015. Goal: Aichi targets recognized |
Goal: Commitment to CBD objectives, including conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Strategies: ex situ conservation projects to support in situ conservation. Monitoring trends in genetic resources for agriculture and forestry | Genetic diversity a vital part of biodiversity. Goal: Genetic erosion in cultivated plants, forestry, agriculture, farmed/domesticated animals and wild relatives needs preventing. Strategies are called for but not specified, except coastal/marine area protection |
Goal: maintain genetic diversity and natural distribution of species in Germany. Genetically distinct populations conserved. Loss of genetic diversity halted by 2010. Area protection main strategy to protect genetic diversity in nature | |
CBD | Document | Information on the Swedish national biodiversity strategies and action plans (Ministry of Sustainable Development 2006) | Saving Nature for People. National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland 2013-2020 (Finnish Government 2012) | Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 (Ministry of the Environment 2012) | National Strategy on Biological Diversity (the German Cabinet 2007) |
No hits | 126 (95839 words, 236 pages) 1.3 ‰/word, 0.53 hits/page | 152 (66273 words, 107 pages) 2.3 ‰/word, 1.42 hits/page | 27 (24475 words, 54 pages) 1.1 ‰/word, 0.50 hits/page | 247 (65644 words, 242 pages) 3.8 ‰/word, 1.02 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity |
Goal to conserve genetic diversity explicit. Strategies: conservation of ecosystems and viable populations. Points to difficulties to measure genetic variation. Calls for research and synthesis on genetic variation and marine biodiversity. Present knowledge-gaps make defining objectives and actions for to genetic diversity difficult | Genetic diversity incl. in goal. Identifies: genetics insufficiently included in environmental impact assessments. Strategies: protect species and habitats, measures against alien species, live gene bank for fishes, agriculture, and forestry. Monitoring of genetic diversity of fish stocks shall increase |
Goal: highest possible level of genetic diversity maintained Genetic profiles of subspecies/populations to be conserved. Genetic diversity of salmon, brown trout, asp, Atlantic sturgeon, European cat/crayfish threatened. Strategies: gene banks, avoiding spread of alien species and GMOs |
Goal: loss of genetic diversity halted by 2010. Vision: conserve genetic variation of wild animals and plants in Germany including area-typical populations for ability to adapt to changing environments. Strategies: area protection and use of the precautionary principle | |
CBD | Document | Fifth National Report to the CBD—Sweden (Swedish Government 2014) | Fifth National Report to the CBD—Finland (Ministry of the Environment 2014) | V National Report to the CBD (Estonian Ministry of the Environment 2014) | Fifth National Report, CBD (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety 2014) |
No hits | 60 (35824 words, 77 pages) 1.7 ‰/word, 0.78 hits/page | 97 (70663 words, 141 pages) 1.4 ‰/word, 0.69 hits/page | 19 (41346 words, 86 pages) 0.5 ‰/word, 0.22 hits/page | 99 (59071 words, 131 pages) 1.7 ‰/word, 0.76 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity | Genetic diversity objectives related to CBD targets. Milestone target: mapping and monitoring of genetic diversity are initiated by 2015. Notes: Swedish 16th environmental quality objective A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life lack indicators that measure genetic variation. A draft action plan for protection of genetic variation in wild species exists, but not yet implemented | Relate to Target 13; genetic biodiversity of cultivated plants and wild relatives, forest trees, fish stocks, farmed/domesticated animals safeguarded by 2020 “Enhance the monitoring of genetic diversity of fish stocks and their sub-stocks.” Calls for research and a national program for knowledge and awareness on the importance of plant genetic resources called for | Preservation of genetic diversity important for biodiversity. Focus is on agriculture. A plan for the collection of plant genetic resources is called for | Stresses importance of genetic variation for species survival and adaptation. Protect genetic wild population genetic diversity from harmful effects of alien species and “breeding varieties.” Genetic exchange among marine populations necessary with inter-linked marine biotopes. Strategies: research, genetic studies of endangered species, information, conservation networks | |
Helsinki Convention | Document | National Implementation Plan for the Baltic Sea Action Plan (Government Offices of Sweden 2010) | Implementation of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in Finland. Status Report 17 May 2010 (The Ministry of the Environment, Finland) | Baltic Sea Action Plan Implementation Programme 2008–2011 (Estonian Government 2008) | Implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in Germany (German Government 2011) |
No hits | 1 (15603 words, 28 pages) 0.06 ‰/word, 0.04 hits/page | 0 (10576 words, 16 pages) 0 ‰/word, 0 hits/page | 3 (11362 words, 27 pages) 0.26 ‰/word, 0.11 hits/page | 0 (29640 words, 87 pages) 0 ‰/word, 0 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity | Gene level mentioned with regard to a “small, genetically isolated population of around 200 harbour porpoise” | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | The gene level is addressed for preservation of salmonid populations. Calls for maintaining genetic diversity in artificial breeding and release of sea trout. Genetic mixing of geographically separate populations should be avoided | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | |
MSFD | Document | Article 12 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations Sweden (2014) | Article 12 Technical Assessments of the MSFD 2012 obligations Finland (2014) | Article 12 Technical Assessments of the MSFD 2012 obligations Estonia (2014) | Article 12 Technical Assessments of the MSFD 2012 obligations Germany (2014) |
No hits | 27 (26727 words, 51 pages) 1.0 ‰/word, 0.53 hits/page | 3 (21019 words, 45 pages) 0.1 ‰/word, 0.07 hits/page | 0 (15561 words, 38 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | 0 (28918 words, 53 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity | The reporting sheets list nine genetically distinct forms of native species for the Baltic region considered to be under pressure | “Good Environmental Status” includes sufficiently complex population genetic structure to allow adaptation to environmental change. Goal: preserve genetic diversity of sea trout. Strategies: restore streams to allow large spawning populations minimizing genetic change | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | |
WFD | Document | Member State: Sweden on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). River Basin Management Plans (European Commission 2012) | Member State: Finland on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). River Basin Management Plans (European Commission 2012) | Member State: Estonia on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). River Basin Management Plans (European Commission 2012) | Member State: Germany on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). River Basin Management Plans (European Commission 2012) |
No hits | 0 (19370 words, 63 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | 0 (22106 words, 64 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | 0 (16124 words, 50 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | 0 (31078 words, 87 pages) 0 hits/word, 0 hits/page | |
Summary statements on genetic diversity | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | The genetic level is not explicitly considered | The genetic level is not explicitly considered |
Conservation goals
Strategies, measurable goals, and monitoring
Regional level
HELCOM MPA | Figure 3 ID | No. N2 K | No. add. MPAs | No. management plans | Cover HMPA | Hits (plans) | Content on genetic diversity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finland—33 HELCOM MPAs 14 management plans | |||||||
Hailuoto northshore | 22 | 1 | – | 1* | Yes | 0 | –* |
Isomatala–Maasyvänlahti | 25 | 1 | – | 1* | Yes | * | See Hailuoto |
Eastern Gulf of Finland Archipelago and waters | 53 | 2 | 1** | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Kirkkonummi Archipelago | 46 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Kirkkosalmi | 26 | 1 | – | 1* | Yes | * | See Hailuoto |
Kokkola Archipelago | 29 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Kristiinankaupunki Archipelago | 33 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Liminka Bay | 23 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Luoto Archipelago | 28 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Outer Bothnian Threshold Archipelago—The Quark | 31 | 1 | – | 1 (draft) | Yes | 0 | – |
Närpiö Archipelago | 32 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Oura Archipelago | 34 | 1 | 1*** | 1 (draft)*** | Yes | 1 (1) | Concerns the introduced, non-native mouflon sheep on an island in the MPA: their population size should be large enough to maintain genetic diversity |
Pernajabay and Pernaja Archipelago MPAs | 50 | 1 | ** | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Bothnian Bay National Park | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 (draft) | Yes | 0 | – |
Porvoonjoki Estuary-Stensböle | 49 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Rahja Archipelago | 27 | 1 | – | 1**** | Yes | 0 | – |
Saaristomeri—Archipelago Sea | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 3 (1) | Regarding hunting important that genetic diversity is maintained. Gene banks potential aid for rare plants and animals |
Söderskär and Långören Archipelago | 47 | 1 | – | 1 (draft) | Yes | 0 | – |
Tammisaari and Hanko Archipelago and Pojo Bay MPA | 45 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Tulliniemi bird protection area | 43 | 1 | – | 1 (draft) | Yes | 0 | |
Uusikaarlepyy Archipelago | 30 | 1 | – | – | – | – | |
Uusikaupunki Archipelago | 35 | 1 | *** | 1 (draft)*** | – | *** | See Oura Archipelago |
Länsiletto | 52 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Luodematalat | 51 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Merikalla | 24 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Björkör Islands | 39 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Boxö Islands | 36 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Långör-Östra Sundskär Islands | 38 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Signilskär-Märket Islands | 37 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Sea area south from Sandkallan | 48 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Open sea area southeast from Hanko | 44 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Lågskär Islands | 40 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Bogskär Islands | 41 | – | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Germany—4 HELCOM MPAs, 2 management plans | |||||||
Kadetrinne | 64 | 1 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Pommersche Bucht-Rönnebank | 61 | 4 | – | 0 | – | – | – |
Jasmund National Park | 62 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 2 (1) | Area aim includes preserving genetic resources of species |
Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park | 63 | 5 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 3 (1) | Aim of area includes preserving genetic resources of species. Baltic marine fish differ from North Sea populations. Two types of herring within the Baltic—spring and autumn spawning |
Estonia—7 HELCOM MPAs 13 management plans | |||||||
Hiiu Madala | 56 | 3 | – | 1 | No | 0 | – |
Kura Kurk | 60 | 6 | 1 | 4 | No | 0 | – |
Lahemaa | 54 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Pakri | 55 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 0 | – | |
Pärnu lahe | 58 | 4 | 1 | No | 0 | – | |
Väinameri | 57 | 2 | 2 | 3 | No | 1 (1) | Assisted gene flow by pasturing cattle needed for disconnected marsh angelica (Angelica palustris) populations along seashores to avoid genetic impoverishment of the plant |
Vilsandi | 59 | 2 | – | 2 | Yes | 1 (1) | Inbreeding a factor potentially affecting natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) viability |
Sweden—20 HELCOM MPAs 132 management plans | |||||||
Hoburgs bank | 5 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Kopparstenarna/Gotska Sandön/Salvorev Area | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Yes | 1 (1) | Areas with no fishing allowed protect genetically valuable individuals of fish |
Axmar | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | No | 0 | – |
Finngrundet-östra banken | 14 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Northern Midsjöbanken | 4 | 1 | – | 0 | – | ||
Värnanäs Archipelago | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Yes | 1 (1) | Baltic harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) population genetically vulnerable to small population size. Genetically separate from Swedish west coast populations |
Haparanda Archipelago | 20 | 13 | 2 | 15 | No | 14 (13) | Risk of negative genetic effects due to isolated populations of Siberian primerose (Primula nutans; 13 plans) and bluntleaf sandwort (Moehringia lateriflora; 1 plan). The exact same text is repeated in 13 plans |
Marakallen | 19 | 1 | – | 1 | Yes | 0 | – |
Falsterbo Peninsula with Måkläppen | 1 | 5 | 7 | 12 | No | 4 (1) | Risk of negative genetic effects due to small population size for harbor seal Phoca vitulina, and due to small and isolated populations of little grapefirn (Botrychium simplex) |
Torhamns Archipelago (Blekinge arkipelag) | 2 | 5 | 4 | 9 | Yes | 0 | – |
Bullerö-Bytta | 10 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Yes | 0 | – |
Stora Nassa–Svenska Högarna | 11 | 2 | 2 | 5 | Yes | 8 (3) | Genetic exchange among populations needed for long-term favourable status. Unclear if this goal is reached. Risk of negative genetic effects due to small, isolated/poorly connected subpopulations of little grapefern (Botrychium simplex) and northern crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Restoring pike (Esox lucius) populations through releases should be documented and monitored to avoid negative genetic effects and inbreeding |
Fifång (Askö-Hartsö) | 9 | 11 | 12 | 23 | Yes | 3 (3) | Fragmentation of habitats results in a general threat due to lack of gene flow between populations. An endemic subspecies of Cakile maritima ssp. baltica is protected in two areas |
Gräsö–Singö Archipelago | 12 | 5 | 2 | 7 | No | 10 (3) | Pool frog (Rana lessonae) representing the genetically distinct Swedish population important to conserve. Genetically distinct populations often occur at distribution edges. A special section on genetic diversity and resilience with several examples in one plan |
Kronören | 17 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Yes | 1 (1) | Risk of negative genetic effects due to isolation in the endangered four leaf mare´s tail (Hippuris tetraphylla) |
The Holmö Islands | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Yes | 0 | |
High Coast | 16 | 13 | 22 | 35 | Yes | 14 (2) | Section of text on threats posed by release of alien species, populations, and genes including risks for genetic changes including loss of genetic variation. Subspecies of conservation concern listed |
Vänta litets grund | 15 | 1 | 1 | Yes | 0 | ||
Kvädöfjärden med Torrö | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Yes | 1 (1) | Protected areas important as gene banks to protect genetically distinct fish populations. Protected areas conserve fishes that carry genes for rapid growth |
S:t Anna–Missjö Archipelago | 8 | 2 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 4 (2) | Fragmented habitats result in a general threat due to lack of gene flow between populations. Ecosystem approach to be applied aimed at securing all components of ecosystems including genetic variation. Probably genetic adaptation developed by Baltic Sea species. Population concept defined as a genetically separate group of individuals |