Lack of recognition of genetic biodiversity: International policy and its implementation in Baltic Sea marine protected areas

Genetic diversity is needed for species’ adaptation to changing selective pressures and is particularly important in regions with rapid environmental change such as the Baltic Sea. Conservation measures should consider maintaining large gene pools to maximize species’ adaptive potential for long-term survival. In this study, we explored concerns regarding genetic variation in international and national policies that governs biodiversity and evaluated if and how such policy is put into practice in management plans governing Baltic Sea Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Germany. We performed qualitative and quantitative textual analysis of 240 documents and found that agreed international and national policies on genetic biodiversity are not reflected in management plans for Baltic Sea MPAs. Management plans in all countries are largely void of goals and strategies for genetic biodiversity, which can partly be explained by a general lack of conservation genetics in policies directed toward aquatic environments. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0776-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.


HELCOM MPAs
There are several types of MPAs in the Baltic Sea including variation among countries, legal status, etc. We initially intended to focus on two different types -Natura 2000 and HELCOM MPAs. Natura 2000 is a network of nature protection areas established under the EU Habitats Directive and/or the EU Birds Directive. Natura 2000 areas occur both on land and in water including in the Baltic Sea. Their governance are outlined and monitored by the EU Commission.
HELCOM MPAs (until recently called BSPAs, Baltic Sea Protected Areas) are coastal and marine protected areas in the Baltic Sea established under the Helsinki Commission (www.helcom.fi). They represent regional implementation of the Helsinki Convention. HELCOM MPAs are established based on HELCOM Recommendation 15/5 which was renewed in 2014 and is now superseded by the HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 (See Table  1).
Our rational for choosing these two types of MPAs (Natura 2000 and HELCOM MPAs) were that i) they represent types of marine protected areas that occur in all four countries that we chose to study, and ii) they represent different degree of legal commitment. The Natura 2000 network of conservation areas is linked to the implementation of the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EEC) that are binding for all EU member states (including our four focal countries; Moussis 2015), whereas the HELCOM MPA system represents a non-binding agreement.
We identified HELCOM MPAs of the four separate focal countries from www.helcom.fi, and Natura 2000 that included at least some marine habitat using the Natura 2000 Network viewer (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#), the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency´s map function (http://skyddadnatur.naturvardsverket.se/). We also contacted responsible authorities in the four countries to obtain lists of Natura 2000 with marine habitat in the Baltic Sea. To obtain management plans for the MPAs we searched the above sites, performed regular searches on the Internet, and contacted a range of authorities and contact persons of the separate countries.
During this work we became aware that i) HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 are, in most cases overlapping, ii) such overlap occur in all four countries that we investigated, although the degree of overlap varies both among and within countries, iii) specific management plans for HELCOM MPAs that are separate from the Natura 2000 plans rarely exist in any of the investigated countries, and iv) in all four countries the HELCOM MPAs and the Natura 2000 often overlap with other national forms of area protection. Further, we found that there are several hundred Natura 2000 sites in the Baltic Sea and that the management plans for them are not easily accessible in all countries. Also, it is not always straightforward to find out which areas include marine habitat and which areas only concern values on land. Thus, we chose to focus on HELCOM MPAs of the four countries and collected all available management plans that we were able to locate for protected areas within these MPAs.

Management complexity
There are a total of 64 HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea countries we investigated; 20 Swedish ones, 33 Finnish, 7 Estonian, and 4 German (Fig. 3, Tables 3; S3). Finding management plans was not straightforward in any of the countries. We had to use Internet searches, e-mail correspondence, as well as many telephone contacts before we were able to locate a total of 161 management plans that apply to 45 of the 64 HELCOM MPAs; 19 HELCOM MPAs lack management plans (1 in Sweden, 2 in Germany, and 16 in Finland, 11 out of which were established during 2014-2015).
In all four countries the HELCOM MPAs overlap with other types of protection including Natura 2000, and national protection measures such as national parks or nature reserves. Overall, the HELCOM MPAs include other types of protected areas with 1-35 such areas (average=3) per HELCOM MPA. Management responsibility varies among countries and rests with regional, county administrative boards (Sweden), regional authorities (Finland), federal states (Germany), and the national environmental board (Estonia).
The management plans have typically not been developed for the HELCOM MPA but for other types of protection that apply to the whole or parts of the same area (Natura 2000, national parks, or nature reserves). For 8 of the 45 HELCOM MPAs that have management plans the plans only cover part of the HELCOM MPA area (4 Estonian, 4 Swedish; Tables 3,  S3).
In Sweden, each of the 20 HELCOM MPAs includes one or several other types of protection (Natura 2000, nature reserves, and/or national parks), and available management plans typically refer to those areas. Only in four cases single, overall plans for the entire HELCOM MPA have been developed (Table S3). Often the protected areas overlap in the sense that a Natura 2000 MPA also is a nature reserve or a national park. In such cases plans typically exist for both types of protection, yet referring to the same area. This management structure implies that there are a multitude of different management plans; we located a total of 132 management plans for the 20 Swedish HELCOM MPAs with between 1 and 35 plans per HELCOM MPA.
The situation is similar in Estonia, although at the most 7 protected areas are included in one HELCOM MPA. In one case, three types of protection apply to the same area: HELCOM MPA, Natura 2000, and national park regulation. All Estonian HELCOM MPAs have one or more management plans (Tables 3, S3).
In Finland there is usually a complete overlap between the various forms of protection such that HELCOM MPAs typically overlaps completely with a Natura 2000. Further, there can be additional overlap with national parks or other types of area protection in Finland. In many cases there is a complete overlap between a HELCOM MPA, a Natura 2000, and a national park such that the one and same area is protected in all three ways. Only one plan applies to a particular HELCOM MPA, however, and all the forms of protection are included in the same plan. In two cases one plan even covers several HELCOM MPAs including all other protected areas within them and in one case the plan refers to an even larger protected area which is not in itself a HELCOM MPA (Tables 3, S3).
There are no separate management plans for the German HELCOM MPAs. For the two areas where plans are available they apply to the national park locatedin these two cases there is a complete overlap between HELCOM MPA, national park and Natura 2000 (Table S1). Table S1. Baltic Sea HELCOM MPAs in Sweden (20), Finland (33), Estonia (7) and Germany (4) included in this study (cf. Figure 3). In all four countries the HELCOM MPAs overlap with Natura 2000 and/or with other forms of protection such as national parks or nature reserves. Thus, in many cases a separate HELCOM MPA includes one or more Natura 2000, and in some cases it also includes a national park. The system for management plans varies among countries; in Finland if a management plan is available it covers the whole HELCOM MPA and all the other protected areas within it. Typically, there is complete overlap between HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 in Finland, and sometimes these also overlap completely with national parks. In contrast, in Sweden, Estonia, and Germany, when plans are available they apply to separate Natura 2000 or other protected areas within the MPA. In very few cases there are management plans that apply directly to the whole HELCOM MPA in these countries. No HMPAs=number of HELCOM MPAs, N2K=Natura 2000. No hits=number of times search terms (cf. Figure 2) occur in management plan(s), and the last column summarize if and how the hits refer to genetic diversity. *=the same one management plan refers to these three HELCOM MPAs. **one plan for two HELCOM MPAs