11th Meeting of the Advisory Group on Conservation and Biodiversity
Minutes
May 16–17, 2007 Istanbul, Turkey
A1: Opening and welcome, introduction of participants, adoption of the Agenda, approval of the Minutes 10th CBD AG Meeting.
Mr. A. Kideys welcomed the AG and talked about the importance of the CBD AG work. Participants presented themselves. Ms. Velikova introduced logistics of the meeting. Mr. Alexandrov overviewed the Agenda of the 10th CBD AG Meeting, as Minutes were not available for approval.
A2: Black Sea Counties Presentations on ‘Recent state of biodiversity in the Black Sea: in country national waters or based on national data for other Sea areas’.
BG, RU: Oral presentations, written documents in electronic version will be provided after the meeting.
All countries reported, available presentations will be attached/uploaded onto the WEB page of the Commission. Mr. Kideys kindly asked to improve the quality of presentations putting data into better format from scientific point of view, to enable easy retreat of data for the State of the Environment reporting – not to forget to include place of sampling, year, units, method of sampling and processing, approach to assessment of results. Mr. Kideys wanted to know what happened to the Biodiversity Activity Center. GE delegation explained that the place (MEFRI) was almost abolished, only 14 people continue working in this Institute in the field of Hydrochemistry and Biology, no enough funds to support regular research and AC.
Chairman’s statement: We have conducted lots of activities in the AG. Many investigations and publications evidence improvement of the Black Sea state. However, different countries report differently on the improvement of the Black Sea state. Basic questions are not clearly stated in the reports:
· When was the improvement of Black Sea state observed for the first time in your National Waters?
· How it happen in terms of biodiversity?
· What is the present biodiversity in your National waters?
For instance, in Romanian waters the improvement in zooplankton communities was observed in 1994 initially, while in Russian waters it was after 2000.
Note: RU is interested to receive data from Georgia, to improve cooperation, organize joint cruises. There is a new publication/book of IO ‘P.P.Shirshov’ for the Black Sea, the BSC would be very grateful to receive a hard copy. Russia continues observations in the Black Sea on a regular basis, however, reporting to the BSC needs serious improvement. Mr. V. Mokievsky gave idea to strengthen the cooperation between BSC and ‘P.P.Shirshov’ via the Russian Commissioner in the BSC.
TU delegation reported about the legal/policy framework of the biodiversity issues in Turkey. TU will send data for Black Sea species diversity in Turkish waters to the BSC PS.
A3: Presentation of the Chairman: Recent state of biodiversity in the Black Sea on the basis of joint information from theBlack Sea Commission Draft Report in development"State of the Black Sea environment".
The report is based on data collected till 2003. Introduction to the SoE is in process of preparation. Turkish and Russian contributions are missing.
TU: NFP take the floor and stated that the situation/problems about gathering data on biodiversity in Turkish Back Sea waters is very well known by the Turkish side. On the other hand, with
its 1447 km coast line and more than 6 institutions working on this issue, it is really hard to collect data and to do the overall coordination with limited budget within Turkey. New projects are needed
for the Turkish side.
A4: Presentation Mr. A. Birkun: Recent state and prospects ofresearch and conservation of the Black Sea mammals according to the BSSAP and ACCOBAMS. (Chapter to the SoE report submitted). BG delegation wanted to know which areas could be designated as protected for dolphins. Mr. Birkun explained that there were no good data from Bulgaria and Romania on cetaceans, despite of the several international projects carried out by these countries. In relation to MPAs, it is important to know the winter numbers of cetaceans, their places of wintering. BG delegation wanted to know also about availability of Pinger (?) equipment. Mr. Birkun: Expensive, not supported by fishermen who do not mind dolphins by-catch. Project with ferryboats was carried out in Kerch Straight. The crew was photographing cetaceans and recording them in a diary. However, it cannot be reliable information, better to work with experts. Captains of ships can help in cases of collision with dolphins. Fortunately, such collisions do not happen often in the Black Sea.
Mr. B. Alexandrov asked about the situation with gill nets. Cetacean abundance declined due to increased mortality related to such nets. Mr. Birkun commented that nobody knew the exact loss related to gill nets. Known: 95% of all dead dolphins are harbor porpoise. Data of absolute numbers of by-catch are in process of collection. If we know how many km of gill nets we have in the Black Sea, then it is possible to estimate the by-catch. However, we have other kinds of fishing, such as poaching. We know nothing about Turkish illegal fishery. It can be more than the legal one. A boat might have 100 legal and 500 illegal nets. The problem of illegal fishing is not scientific but political and item of corruption in the region. Often poaching private companies are protected by police.
Chairman wanted to now how Coastal Surveys of stranded animals are used. Mr. Birkun explained that this approach was used, but it was not precise. Since 1989 (17 yeas) monthly observations results are available from coastal surveys (statistics piled). During this period at least 7 mass mortalities of dolphins were observed as a result of different diseases, not by-catch. We also never know how many animals after by-catch reach the coast. Many of the animals are not stranded but consumed in the sea, as for instance by dog fish.
A5: Presentation of Mr. Birkun on Marine Litter Report. Basics: no legal mechanism to deal with the Marine Litter problem in the Black Sea region. Observations on dolphins were complimented by studies of marine litter problem in the Black Sea. Assessment of marine litter was produced for Ukrainian National Black Sea Waters, including % of floating marine litter. Mr. Kideys informed that marine litter was counted and assessed for Turkish Waters (Aegean Sea?) during scientific trawling.
Mr. B. Alexandrov recommendation: To elaborate and introduce guidelines for practical measures to prevent and reduce Marine Litter Pollution into the revised BSSAP.
A6: National information on progress in planning and designation of marine protected areas in the Black Sea and exploring the possibility to establish Black Sea Network of protected areas.
All countries reported, BU and RU were kindly asked to provide their information in written form, electronic version after the meeting.
Ms. V. Velikova presented joint paper on Marine Protected Areas in the Black Sea, produced for the Coastline journal. RU and Turkey did not agree with the information collected on potential MPAs in their National waters. RU and TU promised to provide after the meeting official information (from Ministry of Environment) on potential MPAs in Turksih and Russian Black Sea Waters.
Mr. Birkun commented on the quality of the paper, recommended some improvements, as for instance, no otters were available in the Black Sea, and they were mentioned in the paper. According to his opinion not all data about MPAs in the paper are correct, as there are very few officially designated MPAs in the Black Sea. Mr. Birkun talked also about pilot projects related to MPAs in the frames of ACCOBAMS. Discussion was initiated: What exactly we have in mind under ‘Marine Protected Areas’. Are they only ‘marine’ or include ‘coastal’ areas as well. Most of the participants agreed that the term included coastal areas as well. RU (Mr. Mokievsky) proposed to publish ATLAS of MPAs in the Black Sea. No decision was taken for the moment.
Mr Birkun provided Recommendations of ACCOBAMS on MPAs in the Black Sea: Extracts bellow:
The Committee of ACOOBAMS recommends that Parties, in co-operation with the Scientific Committee, give priority to giving full consideration to assessing the value of creating MPAs for the following additional three areas in the Black Sea and adjacent waters:
(1) Cape Anaklia to Sarp (Georgia) – this represents winter habitat for common dolphins and harbour porpoises; in particular there is a problem with pelagic trawling for anchovy, which has
a dolphin bycatch.
(2) Kerch Strait (Ukraine, Russia) – used by semi-resident Black Sea bottlenose dolphins and as a
migration corridor for several thousand harbour porpoises moving to and from the Azov Sea;
there is intensive marine traffic and coastal fisheries with bycatch in gillnets and live captures of
bottlenose dolphins.
(3) The Turkish Strait System (Turkey) – used by all Black Sea cetacean species, including harbour
porpoises (also present in the Aegean Sea).
TU Statement: "Turkey is not a party to the ACCOBAMS Agreement, due to this fact, the above mentioned recommendations neither prejudices, nor affects the position of Turkey"
A7. Biological indicators in relation to the BSSAP process and EMMA Pan-European indicator scheme development: Focus mainly on zoobenthos, as rather an imprecise indicator is included into the present list of Black Sea indicators.
Discussions about either the development of aspecific Black Sea macrozoobenthos index or theadoption/adjustment of an existing biological index were undertaken. Introduction to the topic was given by Ms. Velikova Tables of indicators proposed by EMMA, OSPAR, HELCOM, UNEP were provided. The following ideas were discussed in the AG:
RU: Indicators:
1. Lowest level of Cystoseira distribution.
2. Rhapana venosa (not specified exactly what?).
3. Everything related to invasive species.
Open list of reporting on benthic communities indicators was recommended, as bottom habitats are very dynamic systems, and what is indicative today, might not be tomorrow.
RO: Indicators
1. Tolerance of benthic species to different environmental conditions (needed more info about this indicator from Valeria).
2. AMBI, indicator elaborated in Spain (info needed). Adequate indicator for the assessment of eutrophication/organic enrichment impact in the Black Sea. However, it appears insensitive to toxic compounds pollution effect, such as DDTs.
Mr. B. Alexandrov commented that invasive species are reported to the Commission. Such indicator can be included into the List of Indicators of the Black Sea. It can be relevant indicator of ecosystem stability. Needed to specify also the depth of distribution of invasive species in different Black Sea areas.
Mr. Mokievsky mentioned that any significant change of benthic communities should be reported – in diversity, biomass, abundance. Unfortunately, any indicator is sensitive to sampling strategy. In this context, the indicators for benthic community should be more flexible, such as depth limit of species distribution and sudden decrease or increase in biomass
Mr. Alexandrov reminded that ‘Area of hypoxia’ is a very sensitive indicator. But we have serious limitations in measuring them. Catches of main groups might be an indicator. However, Mr. Mokievsky commented that reported catches are at least 2-fold lower than real due to non-reported catches (poaching). Still, excellent indicators are: Frequency of algal booms and number of blooming species. BOD5 can not be always indicative because at high level of hazardous substances, bacteria get killed; the BOD5 remains low though organics might be at a very high level. Shannon index is a very good indicator, as well as Surface of seaweeds as an indicator of eutrophication (Minicheva).
Homework: Ms. Velikova proposed to continue the discussion on indicators, and for the next CBD AG meeting to prepare List of Indicators to be adopted. The proposals to be sent to the other BSC AG for comments and additional ideas.
Mr. Mokievsky proposed to create ‘Thematic groups’, e.g. Experts in Fishery, Experts in Benthic Communities and to discuss such questions in the frames of this Thematic Groups.
A8: Continuation of the work onhabitat classification and mapping withdiscussions on the initialresults from theHabitat Mapping Workshop (14-15th of May to be held), organised by the BSC incooperation with EEA Topic Centre on Biodiversity.
All countries presented information on Habitat classification and mapping. From Bulgaria written document is expected to be sent. Georgia reported during the Habitat Mapping Workshop. RU reminded about the Petrov’s publication from 1960 on Habitat Mapping. According to Mr. Mokievsky, little change was observed in Russian waters for sandy and rocky habitats since 1960. Ms. Abaza gave presentation on NATURE 2000. The relation between NATURE 2000 and EUNIC was discussed and how EU countries report according to NATURE 2000, Annex1 (RO and BG report the same way). EUNIC develops further NATURE 2000 into marine habitats classification, as the latter is basically concentrated on terrestrial and coastal habitats.
Chairman reminded that the classification list of Black Sea Habitats, elaborated during the Habitat Mapping Workshop would be distributed in 2 weeks time to all the members of the AG. The AG was requested to complement the list with all types of bioceonoses identified in National Waters. The list to be sent to the BSC PS for uploading onto the WEB page of the Commission with copyright reserved.
Ms. Velikova asked whether all the Black Sea countries like the EC approach to Habitat Classification and Mapping. Mr. Alexandrov mentioned that lots of additional work would be needed to report Habitats according to EUNIC. Mr. Mokievsky talked about technical problems: due to the very narrow shelf in RU waters, it is difficult to follow the vertical distribution of habitats, small scale maps will be needed. RU scientists are more interested in community dynamics/processes than in classification and mapping (needed Reference: Dynamics and distribution of benthic communities). How can you map soft-bottom communities, which are very dynamic, not permanent to be mapped and classified? Mapping approach is not suitable, better to demonstrate gradients, rapid and prominent change in bottom communities. Relevant source of information on benthic communities of rocky bottoms in Russian BSea waters is the paper of Maximova, Chikina, Kucheruk, presented during the 1st BSC Conference (not found among the submitted papers for publishing).
Ms. Velikova asked how to identify MPAs without Habitat mapping. Mr. Mokievsky explained that in Russia unique environmental objects (from scientific point of view as well) would be subject of conservation and protection. Polygons used in the long-term run for scientific investigations will be also subject of protection. However, catalogue of habitats in Russian waters might be produced upon request (3 months work of 2 specialists). RU Environmental policy and legislation do not refer to Habitat Mapping. RU has no obligation for reporting Habitats, though personally Mr. Mokievsky is interested in the ways Habitats might be reported and in developing of a special Protocol.