The variety of statements and questions raised by the different contributors clearly indicate the complexity of biodiversity issues even in such a „relative simple“ ecosystem such as the Baltic Sea. For me it also became apparent that we already have a good perception concerning marine biodiversity in the Baltic Sea.
On the other hand, I got the impression that most of us still think we have to „justify” our Baltic work, e.g. in explaining that the low diversity situation in the Baltic is of advantage and nothing to apologise for. I also know from my own experience how frustrating it could be if you have to explain again and again why the findings in the Baltic Sea are of general importance. Nevertheless, as Erik Bonsdorff put it in his statement („where is the „Cutting Edge Science“ in the Baltic marine biodiversity.“ ) there is „every reason for us to promote and conduct marine biodiversity research in the Baltic Sea“. We should not underestimate that we are in the good position of having long-term data sets on important abiotic and biotic factors due to monitoring performed within various national and international monitoring programmes (e. g., HELCOM). We already have built up cross-border research collaborations. We still may have to further strengthen our „corporate identity“ for the Baltic Sea. In order to do this we may use as common credo: „by primarily testing general hypotheses utilizing the specific (species-poor) characteristics of the Baltic biota to validate or develop our (marine) ecological thinking, thus gradually increasing the awareness and knowledge of the Baltic Sea, as a valuable model for general (global) marine ecology and biology“ as Erik Bonsdorff has put it in his statement.
How to find a common platform to do this kind of research? Apart from already existing collaboration among different research groups, I think, EU- projects offer good opportunities, particularly since in 2004 most of the countries around the Baltic will be members of the EU. We should use these international programmes to further spread and establish our research ideas within the European scientific community.
International research and collaboration is very important to improve our understanding of marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in general and in the Baltic. Nevertheless, monitoring, assessing and management of biological biodiversity is also of vital importance as Eugeniusz Andrulewicz has pointed out in his statement. He raised several questions and for me it is obvious that in order to answer them an integrated approach is needed.
When reading Eugeniusz Andrulewicz’ comments, the following questions crossed my mind. Is it sufficient to develop national/regional management systems or do we need an overall Baltic Sea approach and how to establish this? - I support the idea of utilising ongoing monitoring programmes (e.g. HELCOM) and the suggestion to include biodiversity, e.g. as an additional core component of the COMBINE programme-. But how to link the activities of HELCOM, ICES and other agencies and stakeholders involved in environmental monitoring and research? What would be the appropriate structure/platform?
As natural scientists our main interest might be the conservation of biodiversity. I also see the “conflict between biodiversity conservation and economic development in coastal areas” (Georg Martin). We may overcome this problem when biodiversity issues are embedded in an integrated ecosystem management approach.
Other important tasks scientists should participate in are the development of tools and indicators for assessing and managing marine biodiversity. This will help to make sure that most of the factors we think are relevant will be included, when establishing a full D-P-S-I-R framework of indicators, as suggested by the EU. We are all aware that sets of indicators developed for other marine ecosystems are not directly transferable to the Baltic with its relatively simple ecological structure, but complicated hydrographic features and severe anthropogenic impacts. The same applies in my opinion to the EU EUNIS habitat classification.
We as scientist should also contribute to advising decision maker. We still have to overcome the gap between scientists and manager (or the public) and to find a common language. I fully agree with Eugeniuz Andrulewicz that scientific papers are not the suitable way to inform a broader public about the status of biodiversity. On the other hand, scientific papers are one of the most important ways for scientists to gain recognition within the scientific community. They are also the main basis for further promotion and career. How to solve this problem?
The EU-FP6- research programme might offer the opportunity to gain better knowledge in respect to marine biodiversity on a larger, pan-European scale (spatial and temporal), e.g. in comparing different BIOMARE focal sites. The specific situation in the Baltic (lower diversity, many immigrants, human impact) on the other hand, provides a good basis to improve our understanding in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and the controlling factors (natural or anthropogenic).
The Baltic is an extreme example in many ways, and when compared with other aquatic systems, perhaps general theories and conclusions can be tested or developed.
Dr. Doris Schiedek
Baltic Sea Research Institute Warnemünde |
