Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 1994 -2018 trend: local increase due to a shift in the population within the North Sea.
Belgian waters form only a very small part of the range of the population of this highly mobile species, and its range is determined for a large part by local food availability. A large part of its range within Belgian waters is temporarily unavailable due to offshore windfarm construction (piling).
Trends are determined on the basis of the results of a number of dedicated aerial surveys, on strandings data, and on the results of the statistically robust estimates from the international SCANS I, SCANS II and SCANS III surveys. SCANS I vs SCANS II surveys indicated a population shift towards the south in the North Sea, with SCANS III confirming the shift. ||
->Population: Short-term trend 2007-2018: based on aerial surveys;
Long-term trend 1994-2018: based on strandings.

A regional approach for this highly mobile and widely distributed species is more suitable. ||
->HabInfo: No trend can be observed in habitat occupation or suitability for the species, but recently areas with construction ongoing (piling for offshore wind farms) became temporarily unsuitable. It is still unknown if the area with operational turbines are or will be suitable, less suitable or more suitable. ||
->Future: 1) Large area temporarily unavailable during construction of offshore wind farms, with unknown future prospect.
2) No known evolution of fishing activities, with currently predominantly trawling with little effect – a change to gillnetting would mean a probably high impact during certain times of the year. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: not relevant ||
->Other: none

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Übernahme aus DE-Einheit;
Auf Basis der aktuellen vorliegenden wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse konnte Deutschland die Veränderungen der Populationsdaten [für die streng geschützte Art Phocoena phocoena] noch keiner abschließenden Bewertung unterziehen [Bewertungsparameter = d]. Deutschland hat aber bereits begonnen die Gründe für die Änderung der Populationszahlen einschließlich nicht anthropogen bedingter Ursachen zu analysieren. Dazu können jetzt auch die zusätzlich zur Verfügung stehen Daten aus Genehmigungsverfahren in die Analysen eingebunden werden. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The assessment of range is only based on the Danish part of MATL. ||
->Population: The Danish part of MATL (76600 km2) are inhabitet by two populations: one in the North Sea and Skagerrak and one in Kattegat, the Belt Seas, the Sound and the western Baltic. Thus the abundance estimates listed above cover the entire North Sea and Skagerrak as defined by SCANS. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat quality for long term survival is unknown because of impacts from fisheries, contaminants and noise pollution. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Para la estimación del rango se ha efectuado un polígono mínimo convexo (MCP) con las localizaciones encontradas en cada demarcación marina, ya que ha resultado ser el medio más fidedigno de representación, al compararlo con diversos modelos (GAM, Kernel, etc.). Para ello se ha empleado el MCP al 95% mediante la herramienta Home Range Tools para ArcGIS 10.1.
La reducción con respecto al área estimada en el sexenio anterior parece ser real. ||
->Population: Debido a la tendencia poblacional se ha propuesto revisar su estado de conservación en España hacia un mayor grado de amenaza. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The natural range of Harbour porpoises in Irish waters, and marine waters covered by the Directive, is a small component of the species’ wider North Atlantic range (Hammond et al., 2008; Bjørge & Tolley (2009); DEHLG, 2009; Hammond et al., 2017; Rogan et al., 2018), while ongoing evidence from repeated high quality surveys (Rogan et al., 2018) continues to confirm the species’ occurrence in Irish waters in all seasons.
The range map provided consists of the species’ recorded and likely predominant natural range based on comparatively recent data (2001-2018) and expert judgement, and is partly derived from 2.3. It consists of a block of contiguous 50km x 50km grid cells distributed in Irish marine waters up to 2,000m deep, and including the Irish Sea and coastal areas.
Prior to 1999-2000, survey effort targeting cetacean species in Irish offshore waters was comparatively limited in coverage, both spatially and temporally. Since 1999-2000 a number of dedicated multi-annual surveillance programmes for cetaceans have operated in Irish waters, with visual and acoustic surveys extending to the limits of Ireland’s EEZ and beyond. With regard to this species it is considered that the years 2007-2018 represent an appropriate period for the evaluation of short-term trends since all survey efforts intensified further during this period.
Sighting records from ongoing dedicated surveillance effort in Irish waters (e.g., Berrow et al., 2010; Wall et al., 2013; Cronin & Barton, 2014; Craig et al., 2016; Kavanagh et al. 2017; O’Donnell et al., 2017; O’Sullivan & Manning, 2017; O’Brien & Berrow, 2014-2018; Rogan et al., 2018) provide no evidence of a decline in distribution/range in the recent past. Therefore the short-term trend for Range is considered to be stable.
The long-term trend over the period 1994-2018 is considered to be uncertain for this species due to limited data availability prior to 1999-2000, as outlined above.
The range value derived from the map referred to above is considered to be a revised baseline for this species. This surface area calculation is slightly greater than that reported in 2013.
Since there is no evidence of a decline in range since the Directive came into force the current range is set as the FRR.
There is an assumption that the current range in Irish waters is large enough (a) to encompass all of the ecological variation required by this species during its occurrences therein and (b) to contribute to the long-term survival of the species. ||
->Population: Evidence from multi-annual surveillance programmes (e.g., Ó Cadhla et al., 2004; Berrow et al., 2010; Wall et al., 2013; Kavanagh et al., 2017; Rogan et al., 2018) demonstrate that Harbour porpoises occur widely in Irish waters and do so throughout the year. This is generally the case throughout continental shelf and slope habitats, though the species appears to occur much less frequently in waters over 1,000-1,500m deep.
Recent and comprehensive data for the entire region of western Europe have been lacking until recently, particularly with regard to sufficient temporal (i.e., beyond one or more summer months or one year) and spatial coverage (i.e., spanning coastal, continental shelf, slope and deeper basin waters, all of which may represent Harbour porpoise habitat).
Within the North-East Atlantic, based on aerial survey effort approximately 424,000 Harbour porpoises were estimated to occur in the summer of 2016 in waters off western Europe but excluding Ireland (Hammond et al., 2017). A further 73,573 Harbour porpoises were estimated from ship-based survey data collected further offshore during the same period (Hammond et al., 2017).
Harbour porpoise data from Ireland’s ObSERVE Programme (see Rogan et al., 2018) have not yet been integrated into a European-wide assessment of population size for the species, although this should now be feasible given simultaneous aerial survey efforts in the summer of 2016 (Hammond et al., 2017; Rogan et al., 2018).
In a new departure for data acquisition on Harbour porpoises in Irish offshore and inshore waters, the aerial surveys carried out under this programme were successful in enabling abundance estimates to be derived from the species sighting data acquired in summer and winter. The most comprehensive and most robust of these four seasonal estimates (i.e., those with the lowest CV = 0.22; summer 2016) has been presented in 6.2 via minimum and maximum 95% Confidence Limits.
The Favourable Reference Population has been set as approximately equal to the current population to account for improved knowledge. Although the short-term trends are uncertain, this value is considered to represent the minimum necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the species. ||
->HabInfo: Use of the range descriptor and range surface area calculation as proxies for habitat and habitat area are judged appropriate for this wide-ranging coastal and offshore species. The species’ natural range and thus habitat in Irish waters is a small component of its wider North Atlantic range (Hammond et al., 2008; Bjørge & Tolley, 2009; DEHLG, 2009; Wall et al., 2013; Hammond et al., 2017; Rogan et al., 2018).
The quality of habitat for Harbour porpoise was determined by consideration of the relevant direct and indirect pressures thought to be acting on the species and/or its functional group, and its habitat within its natural environment. These pressures were evaluated in development of the Conservation Plan for Cetaceans in Irish waters (DEHLG, 2009) and informed by more recent scientific surveillance (e.g., Cronin & Barton, 2014; Craig et al., 2016; Hammond et al., 2017; Kavanagh et al., 2017; O’Sullivan & Manning, 2017; Rogan et al., 2018), using available data concerning, inter alia, habitat use, population size, distribution and ecology, and threats to the species’ protection (e.g., via natural/biological sources, human sectoral activities, management gaps, etc.).
Harbour porpoises may be subject to a number of local and/or regional environmental pressures throughout their range in Irish waters (DEHLG, 2009). However, based on current spatial and temporal data none are considered to be of sufficient impact on the species to be causing a significant deterioration in overall habitat quality in Ireland from a status that is sufficient for long-term survival.
Long-term trends in habitat for Harbour porpoise remain uncertain due to insufficient accurate data for this species prior to 1999-2000. However, with improved surveillance and numerous ongoing records of Harbour porpoises in the last 18 years, the short-term trend indicates the continued existence of sufficient quality habitat for the species. ||
->Future: Visual and acoustic records of Harbour porpoise in Irish waters indicate a wide and regular occurrence of the species in coastal waters and those overlying the continental shelf and slope, and to a lesser extent in some deeper basins.
Since many significant (i.e., high level) anthropogenic impacts that may affect this wide-ranging species’ distribution are more localised in space and time within this extensive and diverse marine area, the Future prospects for the Range and Habitat for the species are considered to be Good.
A number of pressures that could act upon this species have been identified. The effect of these pressures may operate on a temporary and/or regional scale and some are likely to continue to act as pressures into the future, thereby constituting a potential threat.
While the impacts on individuals or populations of Harbour porpoise in Irish waters are not well understood, partly due to continuing uncertainty regarding its population trends and ecology within Ireland’s marine area, ongoing threats as listed or identified into the future via surveillance will be managed appropriately in Ireland. Therefore the Future prospects for the Population are considered to be Good. ||
->Conclusion: Contemporary sightings of Harbour porpoises indicate a wide occurrence of this species primarily through Irish coastal waters and those overlying the continental shelf and continental slope. Hence the Range and Habitat for the species are considered to be Favourable.
While robust and long-term data on Harbour porpoise population size and trends in Irish waters as a whole are not available, knowledge of the species’ seasonal distribution and summer abundance in western European waters has improved significantly since the Directive came into force.
There has also recently been some improvement in population abundance data from a large part of the Irish EEZ, yielding new estimates and associated 95% Confidence Limits based on dedicated cetacean surveillance since 2013.
While there is some uncertainty in the trajectory of North-East Atlantic populations of Harbour porpoise, given the available estimates for a large part of Irish waters and the species’ wide occurrence throughout the year, the Population parameter is considered Favourable.
A number of pressures have been identified. While the effect of these pressures may act on a temporary and/or regional scale and some are likely to continue to act as pressures into the future, none is considered to be of sufficient magnitude to be causing an adverse impact on populations of Harbour porpoise in Irish waters. Ongoing threats as listed or identified into the future via surveillance will be managed appropriately. Hence the Future prospects for the species are considered to be Favourable.
Based on the assessments for the Range, Population, Habitat and Future prospects parameters, the overall conclusion is that the Conservation Status of Harbour porpoise in Ireland remains Favourable. This overall result is the same as the previous two Article 17 assessments. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Het precieze aantal hokken is 26 hokken hoger dan in de vorige rapportage (van 698 naar 724). Dit kan echter gezien worden als een fluctuatie, niet als een werkelijke verandering. ||
->Population: Om een populatieschatting van bruinvissen te maken worden jaarlijks transecten m.b.v. vliegtuigen gevlogen. Vervolgens worden de aantallen op de transecten geëxtrapoleerd naar aantallen op de gehele Nederlandse Noordzee. De geschatte populatiegroottes zijn: in juli 2017 46,902 dieren (CI = 24,389 – 93,532); in 2015 41,299 dieren (CI 21,194-79,256) en in 2014 76,773 dieren (CI = 43,414-154,265) (Geelhoed et al., 2017). Als populatieschatting zijn de hoogste en laagste geschatte waardes genomen, afgerond 41.300 dieren (min) en 76.800 (max) (Geelhoed et al, 2017).
Op basis van vliegtuigtellingen, zowel nationaal als internationaal (SCANS III) kan niet geconcludeerd worden dat de populatie groeit. De populatie is ten opzichte van 2006, op basis van vliegtuigtelingen, niet veranderd in omvang. ||
->HabInfo: Onderwatergeluid door bouw windparken is mogelijk een probleem waardoor de habitatkwaliteit achteruit gaat. Metingen zijn echter pas recent beschikbaar (nog geen rapport, project ‘Jomopans’, https://northsearegion.eu/jomopans/).
Er is nu, anders dan in de vorige periode, door de expert ingeschat dat omvang en kwaliteit van het leefgebied van voldoende kwaliteit zijn voor long-term survival. ||
->Future: Het toekomstperspectief voor de populatie is niet duidelijk. Tellingen laten zien dat er grote variatie is tussen jaren. Door klimaatverandering zou bruinvis weer teruggedrongen kunnen worden tot noordelijke deel van de Noordzee, omdat aanbod/verspreiding prooi zou kunnen veranderen.

Het toekomstperspectief voor de habitat is ‘poor’, omdat het leefgebied in de Noordzee in de periode tot 2030, maar ook daarna door zeer grootschalige bouw van windmolenparken mogelijk ingeperkt wordt. Het is onbekend wat het effect van deze grootschalige bouw is op de populatie bruinvissen. ||
->Conclusion: De vorige keer is de overall trend als 'improving' ingevuld, maar het is niet duidelijk waarom. Met de gestandaardiseerde methode die deze keer is gebruikt, zou de trend vorige keer ook als 'stable' moeten zijn ingevuld. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Annual aerial census were performed between 2010 and 2015 (LIFE+ MarPro) until the ±50 nm limit from the coast, leading to a multi-year mean estimate of 1531 individuals. The 2016 SCANS III aerial census provided an 1617i estimate in portuguese waters and Block AB (includes Galician waters) comprised 2715i. In Portugal, a decreasing population trend was verified as of 2013. Aiming at achieving the porpoise density in the southern Celtic Sea (2nd lowest density, Portuguese porpoise density being the lowest), a favourable reference population in Portugal should amount to at least 5336 individuals. ||
->HabInfo: The quality of occupied habitat may not be sufficient for long‐term survival and there is no sufficiently large area of unoccupied habitat of suitable quality. Human pressures and threats (mainly the high % of incidental capture - Bycatch) are responsible for the decreasing habitat quality. Diet adaptability over the years ensures a secondary importance of a potential main prey shortage. Porpoise mortality increased from 2001 to 2016. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The change is mainly due to the different range-tool. ||
->Population: Two distict populations, the belt sea population also resides partly in the baltic (but is reported here). Each population estimate is robust, but the part belonging in Swedish waters, and the summary of them is not completely correct statistically. The total populations are estimated to be 42324 (23368-76658) in the belt Sea population, shared with Denmark (50% of the population) and Germany (15% of the population). The North sea population is estimated to 31249 (6111-159786) in block 1 (See Hammond et. al 2017), which is shared with Denmark (30% of the population) and Norway (20% of the population). The Swedish proportions of those two populations are then summed to make a population estimate. ||
->HabInfo: As there is large uncertaiunties (look at the variation in populatiuon estimates) regarding theese two populations, it is hard to tell the quality of their habitat, but the expert guess (By J Carlström) is that it is probably OK. ||
->Future: A lot of questions around this species due to large uncertainty in measurements of population parameters. ||
->Conclusion: Note that the uncertainty arond the population size both now and in the past makes trends extremely hard to detect, hence the FRP is a guess at best. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range estimated for the current period matches the range given in the 2013 reporting round (excluding analytical differences). This range is considered and includes all significant ecological variations to ensure survival of the species. The current range of harbour porpoises includes all of the UK's continental shelf and there appears to have been no change in range since 1994 (Paxton et al. 2016). Areas within the range are utilised to a lesser or greater extent (e.g Heinanen and Skov, 2015). ||
->Population: The estimate of population size (6.2) is given as a point estimate (6.2d) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (6.2b&c).Although the population estimate is lower than that of the 3rd reporting round (2013; ~17% lower), there is considerable overlap between the confidence intervals of the 2013 estimate and the current estimate, indicating that there is likely no significant difference between the two values. However, there are too few data points to confidently conclude trend. The SCANS-III survey in July 2016 did not include waters around Ireland and therefore the picture of harbour porpoise distribution and abundance in wider European waters is incomplete. The apparent reduction in abundance in UK waters is due to lower densities of porpoise on the UK portion of the Celtic Shelf. However, taking into account the results from the Irish Observe program (Rogan et al. 2017), there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference between the SCANS-II and SCANS-III surveys in wider European waters. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: These results are based on the current conservation status for each parameter combined with the future trend for each parameter. The future trend is an estimate of how the parameter is likely to progress into the future, using the current trend as a baseline and considering the balance between threats and measures to assess how these are likely to affect that trend over the next two reporting cycles (12 years). For harbour porpoise, the future trend of Range is assessed as Overall Stable. As the current conservation status for Range is Favourable for this species, the future prospects are considered Good.
The future trend and consequently the future prospects for the Population parameter is assessed as Unknown; this is due to there being insufficient data to establish a current trend for this species.
The future trend for the Habitat parameter is assessed as Very Positive - Important Improvement; this is due to the establishment of Special Areas of Conservation for this species in UK waters. This additional protection is expected to have a substantial positive impact on the habitat of harbour porpoise. Although the current conservation status of this parameter is unknown, the positive assessment of future trend results in an overall conclusion of Good for the future prospects of this parameter.
||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Population reached because: (i) the FRP is unknown; and ii) the short-term trend direction in Population size is unknown.
Conclusion on Habitat for the species reached because: (i) the area of habitat is sufficiently large but (ii) the habitat quality is unknown for the long-term survival of the species; and (iii) the short-term trend in area and quality of habitat is unknown.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future Prospects for Range are good ii) the Future prospects for Population are unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Habitat for the species are good.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unknown because two or more of the conclusions are Unknown.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Population - unknown, and Habitat for the species - unknown. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Methodik zur Ermittlung der Populationsgröße in EU-Einheit: Übernahme aus DE-Einheit ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The range assessed above are based on the Danish part of MBAL. ||
->Population: The population size is based on the summer abundance estimates of both the Belt Sea population and the Baltic proper population combined for the waters of the entire Baltic range states. There is only one abundance estimate for the Baltic Proper population and thus the trend for this population is unknown. The trends are therefore based on the Belt Sea population. ||
->HabInfo: Habitat quality for long-term survival is unknown because of impacts from
fisheries, contaminants and noise pollution. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg wyliczony za pomocą range tool na podstawie mapy rozmieszczenia -gap distance 90 km. ||
->Population: Oszacowanie bałtyckiej populacji morświna zostało wykonane podczas realizacji projektu SAMBAH (2011-2014). Morświny występujące w polskich obszarach morskich należą do ogólnobałtyckiej populacji. Problemy z dokładnym oszacowaniem liczebności morświnów występujących w ocenianych obszarach związane jest z bardzo niską liczebnością całej populacji bałtyckiej. Obecnie nie znana jest całkowita liczebność populacji bałtyckiej ani liczba osobników zamieszkujących polskie obszary morskie. ||
->HabInfo: Siedlisko morświnów poddawane jest presjom związanym z intensywnym transportem morskim, poszukiwaniem surowców energetycznych oraz kruszyw. Jednocześnie zanieczyszczenie siedliska hałasem podwodnym jest znaczącym czynnikiem limitującym. Największym zagrożeniem jest rybołówstwo oraz zjawisko przyłowu, czyli przypadkowej śmierci w narzędziach połowowych. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The new range tool calculates a somewhat different range. ||
->Population: Distinct population (Baltic population), at the moment the entire population breeds in the Swedish part of MBAL, but they use other PARTS of MBAL, especially during winter. Some animals from the belt sea population also uses parts of the baltic, especially in winter, but they do not breed in the same areas as the genetically distinct baltic population. The total population estimate is 500 (100-1000) with individuals during summer sighted in Sweden (97%), Latvia (0,4%), Poland (1,4%) And an estimation for Russia with no detectors (0,8%). The summer population (when they breed, is the base for the Swedish population estimation). During winter, they reside in Sweden (75%), Finland (1,8%), Latvia (1,3%), Lithauenia (1,1%), Poland (5,6%), Denmark (5,8%) and an estimation for Russia (3,4% with no detectors). If we instead were to estimate the population based on winter numbers , the Swedish population would be estimated at 376 Individuals. ||
->HabInfo: For the Baltic sea population, the problem is most likely habitat quality, which problem is worst is hard to tell, dioxines, fisheries (both as competition and bycatch), noice pollution etc. ||
->Future: It is hard to evaluate this small and relatively unstudied population, if we could say that there was a positive growth of the population, prospects would be better. ||
->Conclusion: A species under high threath, and also with large gaps in knowledge (reproductive success, age structure of the population etc) that are important to fill during the next reporting period. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Evaluation of marine mammals populatio: Birkun A. Jr, Northridge S. P., Willsteed E. A., James F. A., Kilgour C., Lander M., Fitzgerald G. D., 2014. Studies for Carrying Out the Common Fisheries Policy: Adverse Fisheries Impacts on Cetacean Populations in the Black Sea. Final report to the European Commission, Brussels, 347p. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Phocoena phocoena"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: The surface area of the habitat is estimated at 6211 km2 and its quality is bad. Based on the very high fishing pressure in the habitat of the species and climate change, given that the species is locally at the southern edge (and hotter waters) of its distribution. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: This is the last population of harbour porpoises in the entire Mediterranean Sea, and consists of extremely few or very few animals! Globally, the species usually inhabits shallow, often very coastal waters, at depths of less than 200 m over the continental shelf, and occasionally, can cross deep offshore waters. However, in a recent survey in the North Aegean, it was detected only close to the coasts and at depths up to 50 m. There are 6 stranding cases recorded further south than the reported range in the map (both at the west and east coast of the Central Aegean in Greece and Turkey), but so far they seem to represent occasional explorative excursions of individuals or sick animals. Considering that the species has a very limited distribution, the minimum proposed is the absolute possible minimum for a population to inhabit the North Aegean Sea (30 individuals), considering the number of detections made in a recent survey. Based on the same data and the fact that the coverage of the harbour porpoise habitat was dense and repeated twice during the survey the maximum (300 individuals) is unlikely to be higher than tenfold. Although our knowledge regarding this population is limited, there is little doubt that the future prospects are poor or even bad, since there is an important competition with local fisheries for prey. For the same reason there is clear deterioration of the habitat due to rapid depletion of prey fish stocks, but most importantly due to climate change. The values proposed as minimum and maximum population within the limits of Natura 2000 sites (in 3.1.1 b and 3.1.1 c) are purely indicative, because the marine area of such sites in the range of Phocoena phocoena is too coastal and too small for a valid estimation to be possible and to have a meaning. The reality is that individuals from the neighboring to the Natura 2000 sites population of P. phocoena may occasionally enter in their limits for a very short period, but by no means we are allowed to say that a certain number of individuals live within their limits. The Natura 2000 sites in the Thracian Sea include a very tiny and insignificant part of the habitat of P. phocoena in the area and therefore those sites have to be significantly expanded offshore to have a meaning in the conservation efforts for this species. Phocoena phocoena distribution does not include SAC GR1110004 due to insufficient data, but it is included in the species’ range and as mentioned in the species reporting format a future expansion of the existing sea SACs for the species is essential and will be considered.

Open Original Report