Skip to main content

Assessment of management practices regarding genetic biodiversity in Baltic Sea marine protected areas

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine, and tentatively explain, how genetic biodiversity is handled in the management of Baltic Sea Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Genetic biodiversity is critical for species’ adaptation to changing environmental conditions and is protected by international agreements. Nevertheless, recent research indicates that genetic biodiversity is neglected in marine environments and in the management of MPAs. This study focuses on Sweden and Finland, which together govern a substantial part of Baltic Sea MPAs, and builds on in-depth interviews with regional conservation managers that are responsible for establishing and managing these areas. The empirical findings confirm that genetic biodiversity is absent, or plays a minor role, in contemporary MPA management. The findings also provide several possible explanations to this situation: unclear understandings of formal policy, lack of resources, deficient knowledge base, and the managers’ own policy beliefs. Policy makers and high-level managers need to consider these aspects in their efforts to protect biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    SwAM stands for Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.

  2. 2.

    The Metsähallitus govern most MPAs in Finland while the ELY Centres are responsible only for a minor part.

References

  1. Barshis DJ, Ladner JT, Oliver TA, Seneca FO, Traylor-Knowles N, Palumbi SR (2013) Genomic basis for coral resilience to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:1387–1392. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210224110

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bill 2013/14:141. Swedish Government. En svensk strategi för biologisk mångfald och ekosystemtjänster [A Swedish strategy for biological diversity and ecosystem services]. http://data.riksdagen.se/fil/039414A3-66DD-4ABE-929E−53E5E25AD707. Accessed 8 Feb 2016

  3. Borgström S, Bodin Ö, Sandström A, Crona B (2015) Developing an analytical framework for assessing progress toward ecosystem-based management. Ambio 44(3 Suppl.):357–369. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0655-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cairney P (2012) Understanding public policy. Theories and issues. Palgrave Mcmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  5. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Rio de Janeiro, 5 June. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol 1760, 1-30619. Into force 29 December 1993. https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/. Accessed 13 Oct 2015

  6. CBD COP10 Decision X/2 (2010) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In: The tenth meeting of the conference of the parties, 18–20 October 2010, Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12268. Accessed 13 Oct 2015

  7. Council Directive 2009/147/EC. The Birds Directive. Brussels, 30 November 2009. Official Journal of the European Union, L20, Vol. 53, 26 January 2010. Into force 15 February 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147. Accessed 14 Oct 2015

  8. Council Directive 92/43/EEC. The Habitats Directive. 21 May 1992, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 206, 22 July 1992. Into force 10 June 1992. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043. Accessed 14 Oct 2015

  9. European Commission (2007) Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives (2007). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/marine_guidelines.pdf

  10. Finnish Government (2012) Saving Nature for People. National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity in Finland 2013–2020

  11. Finnish Government (2013) Saving Nature for People, Government resolution on the strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020

  12. Finnish Nature Conservation Act 1096/1996. Ministry of the Environment. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1996/en19961096. Accessed 13 Oct 2015

  13. HELCOM (1992) Helsinki convention, 9 April 1992. Into force 17 January 2000. http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/About%20us/Convention%20and%20commitments/Helsinki%20Convention/Helsinki%20Convention_July%202014.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2015

  14. HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 (2014) System of coastal and marine Baltic Sea protected areas (HELCOM MPAs). http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/Rec%2035-1.pdf

  15. Hellmair M, Kinziger AP (2014) Increased extinction potential of insular fish populations with reduced life history variation and low genetic biodiversity. PLoS ONE 9(11):e113139. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hill HC (2003) Understanding implementation: street-level bureaucrat’s resources for reform. J Public Adm Res Theory 13:265–282. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hill M (2009) The public policy process. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johannesson K, André C (2006) Life on the margin: genetic isolation and diversity loss in a peripheral marine ecosystem, the Baltic Sea. Mol Ecol 15:2013–2029. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02919.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Johannesson K, Smolarz K, Grahn M, André C (2011) The future of Baltic sea populations: local extinction or evolutionary rescue? Ambio 40:179–190. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0129-x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Koppenjan J, Klijn E-H (2004) Managing uncertainties in networks. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Laikre L (2010) Genetic biodiversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conserv Genet 11:349–354. doi:10.1007/s10592-009-0037-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Laikre L, Larsson LC, Palmé A, Charlier J, Josefsson M, Ryman N (2008) Potentials for monitoring gene level biodiversity: using Sweden as an example. Biodivers Conserv 17:893–910. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9335-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laikre L, Allendorf FW, Aroner LC, Baker CS, Gregovich DP, Hansen MM, Jackson JA, Kendall KC et al (2010) Neglect of genetic biodiversity in implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Conserv Biol 24:86–88. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01425.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Laikre L, Lundmark C, Jansson E, Edman M, Sandström A (2016) Lack of recognition of genetic biodiversity: international policy and its implementation in Baltic Sea marine protected areas. Ambio. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0776-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lundquist L (1987) Implementation steering: an actor-structure approach. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  27. May PJ, Winter S (2007) Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: influence on policy implementation. J Public Adm Res Theory 19:453–476. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reusch BHT, Ehlers A, Hämmerli A, Worm B (2005) Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2826–2831. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500008102

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ryman N, Utter F, Laikre L (1995) Protection of intraspecific biodiversity of exploited fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 5:417–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:129–168. doi:10.1007/BF00136406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 117–166

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sandström A (2010) Institutional and substantial uncertainty. Mar Policy 34:1357–1365. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sandström A (2011) Navigating a complex policy system—explaining local divergences in Swedish fish stocking policy. Mar Policy 35:419–425. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Semmens BX, Auster PJ, Paddack MJ (2010) Using ecological null models to assess the potential for marine protected area networks to protect biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5(1):e8895. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008895

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. SEPA (2012) Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Sweden’s environmental objectives—an introduction. Davidssons tryckeri: Växjö. http://www.miljomal.se/Global/24_las_mer/broschyrer/Swedens-environmental-objectives.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2015

  37. Sevä M (2013) A comparative case study of fish stocking between Sweden and Finland: explaining differences in decision making at the street level. Mar Policy 38:287–292. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sevä M (2015) The decisive role of street-level bureaucrats in environmental management. Dissertation, Luleå University of Technology. http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/102244209/Mikael_Sev_.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2015

  39. Sevä M, Jagers SC (2013) Inspecting environmental management from within: the role of street-level bureaucrats in environmental policy implementation. J Environ Manag 128:1060–1070. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. SwAM (2013) Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. Marint områdesskydd. Redovisning av uppdrag i regleringsbrevet för 2013. Rapport 2013-05-28. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, Göteborg

  41. Swedish Environmental Code (2015) [Miljöbalk1998:808)]. SFS 2015:232. http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Miljobalk-1998808_sfs-1998-808/. Accessed 13 Oct 2015

  42. Weible CM (2008) Expert-based information and policy subsystems: a review and synthesis. Policy Stud J 36(4):615–635. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00287.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Weible CM, Sabatier PA (2009) Coalitions, science, and belief change: comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Stud J 37(2):195–212. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00310.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work resulted from the BONUS BAMBI project was supported by BONUS (Art 185), funded jointly by the EU and the Swedish Research Council Formas (219-2013-2045, AS, LL), and additional grants from the Swedish Research Council Formas (215-2012-1550, LL; 942-2015-996, AS).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annica Sandström.

Additional information

Communicated by Anurag chaurasia.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandström, A., Lundmark, C., Jansson, E. et al. Assessment of management practices regarding genetic biodiversity in Baltic Sea marine protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 25, 1187–1205 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1121-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biodiversity
  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
  • Genetic variation
  • HELCOM
  • MPA
  • Marine management
  • Marine policy
  • Implementation resources
  • Policy beliefs