|Scientific Name:||Phocoena phocoena (Baltic Sea subpopulation)|
|Species Authority:||(Linnaeus, 1758)|
Several genetic and morphometric studies
have concluded that the Baltic porpoises are a separate subpopulation distinct
from those living in Kattegat, Skagerrak and
Synonyms: Phocoena communis Lesson, 1827; Phocoena vomerina Gill, 1865; Phocoena relicta Abel, 1905; Phocoena phocoena relicta Abel, 1905.
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Critically Endangered C2a(ii) ver 3.1|
|Assessor/s:||Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B.|
|Reviewer/s:||Rojas-Bracho, L. & Smith, B.D. (Cetacean Red List Authority)|
The current information on abundance provides evidence for a population size of fewer than 250 mature animals in the
In the Baltic Sea area the historic range apparently included all of the Kattegat/Skagerrak area, the Gulfs of Riga, Finland, and Bothnia, and much of the Baltic Sea proper. However, in the latter half of the 1900s, the range was reduced considerably, and currently porpoises are considered to be virtually absent in the north-eastern Baltic (Koschinski 2002).
Native:Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Latvia; Lithuania; Poland; Russian Federation; Sweden
|FAO Marine Fishing Areas:||
Atlantic – northeast
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
The abundance of the Baltic Sea stock has been estimated at 599 (CV=57%; 95% confidence interval = 200-3,300) (Hiby and Lovell 1996), of which about 50% or 300 would likely be mature (Taylor et al. 2007). Using a precautionary approach (Wade 1998), a minimum abundance estimate of mature animals would be the lower 20th percentile of the abundance estimate of mature individuals, equal to 192. Scheidat et al. (2004) reported that on the Oderbank east of Rügen, Baltic harbour porpoise densities between May and August 2002 were high relative to nearby Mecklenburg and Kiel Bights. There is evidence that porpoises in the Kattegat –Skagerrak area migrate to the North Sea (Teilmann et al. 2004).
Although there are no reliable estimates of pre-exploitation subpopulation size, harbour porpoises were once numerous in the Baltic proper (Kinze 1995).
|Habitat and Ecology:||
Historically, large commercial catches occurred when porpoises migrated through the Danish Straits, mainly during winter and spring months. Annual catch levels averaged about 1,000 porpoises during most of the nineteenth century, increasing to 2,000 at the end of the century with a subsequent declining trend during the twentieth century until catches increased again in the 1940s. According to Kinze (1995), historical directed catches in the Baltic proper might have been higher than the catches in the Danish Straits.
Today, the most significant threat is incidental catches in fishing nets, primarily various types of gillnets (including both set gillnets and driftnets; Berggren 1994, Koschinski 2002). In addition to gillnets, harbor porpoises are also taken in smaller numbers in trawls (Berggren 1994). The current bycatch, known to be at least seven porpoises per year, is thought to be unsustainable, and Baltic porpoises may become extinct in the near future unless actions are taken to prevent future anthropogenic mortality (ASCOBANS 2000). Skóra and Kuklik (2003) recorded information on 62 observations of harbour porpoises in Polish waters during 1990-1999. Of these, 45 (75.6%) were reported bycaught in fishing gear, 10 observed at sea and 7 found dead on the shore. The bycatches occurred mostly in semi-driftnets (anchored at one end) set for salmonids and bottom-set gillnets set for cod.
The annual bycatch in German Baltic fisheries is assumed to be between 3-5 porpoises (ICES 2005). Eight porpoises in Poland and two in Latvia were reported bycaught in 2003-2004 (ICES 2005). In Finland two porpoises were reported bycaught in the period 1986-1999. No bycatches were reported from Finland after 1999 (ICES 2003).
Pollution is of particular concern in the Baltic Sea where toxic compounds (in particular PCBs) have been described as the likely source for reduced fertility and population decline in Baltic Sea pinnipeds (Helle et al. 1976, Helle 1980, Bergman and Olsson 1986, Bergman 1999). Porpoises from the Baltic Sea have up to 254% higher mean levels of PCBs than corresponding samples from the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Berggren et al. 1999, Bruhn et al. 1999), and currently, a number of lesions and pathological changes are reported from the Baltic Sea porpoises (Siebert et al. 1999, Clausen and Andersen 1988), including pneumonia, liver fibrosis, arthrosis, abscesses in muscles, lungs and other organs, skin lesions and heavy attacks from parasites (Siebert et al. 1999, Clausen and Andersen 1988). Therefore, pollution cannot be excluded as a contributing factor in the past decline in abundance in the Baltic Sea. However, a recent decline of PCB concentration in Baltic Sea biota has been observed (Bignert et al. 2003).
The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.
The European Union adopted a Council Regulation 812/2004 entering into force in July 2004. This regulation is aimed at reducing the incidental catch of small cetaceans in fisheries in European Union waters. The regulation includes measures restricting Baltic Sea drift net fisheries, providing for mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) in some EU gillnet fisheries in the Baltic Seas, and the use of onboard observers on vessels of over 15 m in length. Immediate actions to reduce the magnitude of bycatches are necessary. A review of the progress of implementing the regulation was scheduled for 2007.
|Citation:||Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Phocoena phocoena (Baltic Sea subpopulation). In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 25 May 2013.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided|