The status of biodiversity is assessed using several core indicators. Each indicator focuses on one important aspect of the complex issue. In addition to providing an indicator-based evaluation of the distribution of seals, this indicator will also contribute to the next overall biodiversity assessment to be completed in 2018 along with the other biodiversity core indicators.
The core indicator on distribution of Baltic seals addresses the Baltic Sea Action Plan's (BSAP) Biodiversity and nature conservation segment's ecological objective 'Viable populations of species'.
The core indicator is relevant to the following specific BSAP target:
The core indicator also addresses the following qualitative descriptors of the MSFD for determining good environmental status (European Commission 2008):
Descriptor 1: 'Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions' and
Descriptor 4: 'All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity'.
Descriptor 8: 'Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects'
and the criteria element 'seals' using the following criteria of the Commission Decision on GES criteria (European Commission 2017):
Marine mammals were recognized by the MSFD Task Group 1 as a group to be assessed.
In some Contracting Parties the indicator also has potential relevance for implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD, Chemical quality) and Habitats Directive. The WFD includes status categories for coastal waters as well as environmental and ecological objectives, whereas the EU Habitats Directive (European Commission 1992) specifically states that long-term management objectives should not be influenced by socio-economic considerations, although they may be considered during the implementation of management programmes provided the long-term objectives are not compromised. All seals in Europe are also listed under the EU Habitats Directive Annex II (European Commission 1992), and member countries are obliged to monitor the status of seal populations.
Being top predators in the Baltic Sea ecosystem, seals are exposed to ecosystem changes in lower trophic levels, but also to variations in climate (length of seasons and ice conditions) and human impacts. These pressures can affect fish stocks, levels of harmful substances, as well as direct mortality caused by hunting or by-catch. The vulnerability of seals to these pressures makes them good indicators for measuring the environmental status of ecosystems.
The effects of climate change are a threat to the ringed seal that breeds on sea ice.
Fishery and food availability.
Substances, litter and energy
Historically, hunting of seals has been a major human pressure on all the seal species in the Baltic Sea. A coordinated international campaign was initiated in the beginning of the 20th century with the aim of exterminating the seals (Anon. 1895). Bounty systems were introduced in Denmark, Finland and Sweden over the period 1889-1912, and very detailed bounty statistics provide detailed information on the hunting pressure. The original population sizes were about 180,000 for ringed seals, 80,000 for Baltic grey seals and 5,000 for the Kalmarsund population of harbour seals (Harding & Härkönen 1999; Härkönen & Isakson 2011). Similar data from the Kattegat and Skagerrak suggest that populations of harbour seals amounted to more than 17,000 seals in this area (Heide-Jørgensen & Härkönen 1988).
The hunting pressure resulted in extirpation of grey and harbour seals in Germany and Poland in 1912, and grey seals were also extirpated from the Kattegat by the 1930s. Ringed seals declined to about 25,000 seals in the 1940s, whereas grey seals were reduced to about 20,000 (Harding & Härkönen 1999) over the same time period. Ringed seal breeding occurred in Stockholm county up to the beginning of the 1940s, but ceased in the mid of that decade (Hult 1943). A similar rate of reduction of harbour seals occurred in the Kalmarsund and the Kattegat (Heide-Jørgensen & Härkönen 1988; Härkönen & Isakson 2011). However, after these heavy reductions, populations appear to have been stable up to the 1960s (Harding & Härkönen 1999).
Then, in the beginning of the 1970s grey seals were observed aborting near full term foetuses, and only 17% of ringed seal females were fertile (Helle 1980). Later investigations showed a linkage to a disease syndrome including reproductive disorder, caused by organochlorine pollution, in both grey seals and ringed seals (Bergman & Olsson 1985). The reduced fertility resulted in population crashes, where numbers of ringed and grey seals dwindled to approximately 3,000 of each species in the beginning of the 1980s (Harding & Härkönen 1999). Increasing numbers of these species were recorded after levels of PCB in biota decreased by the end of the 1980s. Recent samples show that fertility is normal in grey seals, but still impaired in ringed seals (Bäcklin et al. 2011; Bäcklin et al. 2013). The very low numbers of ringed seals in the Gulf of Finland may be caused by impaired female fertility.
Climate change poses a pressure on species breeding on ice because shorter and warmer winters lead to more restricted areas of suitable ice fields (Meier et al. 2004; Results figure 2). This feature alone will severely affect the Baltic ringed seals and the predicted rate of climate warming is likely to cause extirpation of the southern subpopulations (Sundqvist et al. 2012). Grey seals are facultative ice breeders and their breeding success is considerably greater when they breed on ice as compared with land (Jüssi et al. 2008). Consequently, both ringed seals and grey seals are predicted to be negatively affected by a warmer climate. However, effects of climate change should not be included in assessments according to the Habitat Directive.