Protecting the proper Baltic harbour porpoise: An evaluation of Sweden’s conservation plan

(1)

Protecting the proper Baltic harbour porpoise

An evaluation of Sweden’s conservation plan

Isabelle Faringstam

Bachelor of Science

Environmental Science - SGMVP 15 ECTS

Spring/2021

Supervisors: Göran Ewald and Yahya Jani Examiner: Magnus Johansson

(2)

2

Abstract

More than a third of the earths marine mammal species are threatened. This study aims to analyze and evaluate the conservation of the proper Baltic harbour porpoise in Sweden. The population is estimated to consist of only 500 individuals and are likely to be extinct if measures are not taken. A new Swedish conservation plan for harbour porpoises will be implemented in 2021 and will be the first since 2013. This study analyzes the suggested conservation plan and aims to identify strengths and weaknesses in the actions. Through a grounded theory approach, a qualitative content analysis is performed to identify the action strengths and weaknesses. A scoring matrix was developed to create indicators of the actions effort, delivery and conservation. The findings show that the short-term goals and the actions have a multidirectional approach which lack an alignment to the vision and the long-term goal of the plan. The study presents the action efficiency which shows the need for, and

importance of prioritizing the actions with the most potential impact for conservation. Mainly, the study provides a framework for species conservation plan evaluation and by performing the plan evaluation prior to implementation, the study contributes to the field of

environmental evaluations.

Keywords: Conservation, Evaluation, Rationality, Efficiency, Harbour porpoises, Sweden

Sammanfattning

Över en tredjedel av jordens marina däggdjursarter är hotade. Studien analyserar och

utvärderar Sveriges planer för bevarandet av Östersjötumlaren. Populationen beräknas bestå av endast 500 individer och är trolig att utrotas om förändring inte implementeras. En bevarandeplan för tumlare ska implementeras under 2021 och kommer att vara den första planen sedan 2013. Studien analyserar den föreslagna bevarandeplanen och identifierar styrkor och svagheter i de föreslagna åtgärderna. Genom en grundad teori genomförs en kvalitativ innehållsanalys av åtgärdernas styrkor och brister. En poängmatris utvecklades för att möjliggöra indikatorer för åtgärdernas ansträngning, utdelning och bevarandepotential.

Studien presenterar huvudsakligen ett ramverk för utvärdering av artbevarandeplaner. Genom att utvärdera bevarande planen innan implementering bidrar studien till området för

miljöutvärderingar.

Nyckelord: Artbevarande, Utvärdering, Rationalitet, Effektivitet, Tumlare, Sverige

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge my gratitude towards my supervisors, for all of the support and honest feedback during this process. I would like to thank Göran especially, for always inspiring me to find my own solutions and for never ever giving me a straight answer. Your way of supervising has allowed for growth and made me more confident in my cynicism.

Thank you, Johanna for always taking your time to provide help and support, you really go beyond any expectations. Also, thank you Lucifer, my cat, for always reminding me to take brakes.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Species are going extinct at an accelerating pace and more than a third of the earths marine mammal species are threatened (United Nations [UN], 2019). In July 2020 the European Commission [EC] urged Sweden to improve their conservation of harbour porpoises (EC, 2020). The EC argued that Sweden was failing to implement required measures in line with the Habitat directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation 2019/1241). The Commission also stated that Sweden had failed to correctly fulfill the obligation on protective measures within Natura 2000 sites to avoid disturbance of marine species (EC, 2020). The European Habitat directive aims to ensure biodiversity through conservation of habitats, animals and plants (Directive 92/43/EEC). The directive states that union states should implement special conservation areas for marine mammals and protected areas in proportion to the species habitat within the state territories.

To improve the protection of harbour porpoises the Swedish Government assigned Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water

management [HaV] to produce an action plan for conservation (HaV, 2021a). The action plan is expected to be implemented in the summer of 2021 and will be the first conservation plan for harbour porpoises in Sweden since 2013. The previous action plan was implemented in 2008 and was finalized in 2013 (HaV, nd). That plan was evaluated in 2015 and the

evaluation showed that only 8 out of the 32 actions had been implemented (Königson, 2015).

Since the evaluation, a population estimate for the Baltic population has been performed and a new Natura 2000 site has been implemented (HaV, 2021b). As the first porpoise conservation plan in eight years, the action plan presented in 2021 and its included actions will be vital for the conservation of harbour porpoises.

Three populations of harbour porpoises are resident to Swedish waters

(Wiemann et al., 2009). Only one of these populations are considered critically endangered, the proper Baltic harbour porpoise [PBHP] (Braulik et al., 2020). This study aims to assess and evaluate conservation of the PBHP in Sweden and to provide an indication on the potential success of the conservation actions. Two questions of research were formulated for the study. Firstly: What strengths and weaknesses for the PBHP conservation can be

identified in the actions? And secondly: How should the actions be prioritized?

(6)

6

2. Background and State of Knowledge

2.1. Protective actions

A new Natura 2000 marine site was implemented in 2016 as a protective measure for the PBHP, Hoburgs Bank and Midsjöbankarna (figure 1) (HaV, 2021b).

Figure 1. The location of Natura 200 site Hoburgs bank and Midsjöbankarna, Presents the different areas located within the Natura 2000 site. Adapted from HaV (2021b).

The Natura 2000 site is still lacking a conservation plan, despite the requirement of such plans. The county administrative board of each county are responsible for implementing conservation plans, and for proposing new Natura 2000 sites (Naturvårdsverket, 2003).

Special permits are required for conducting certain activities within Natura 2000 sites. The Natura 2000 status of Hoburgs Bank and Midsjöbankarna has resulted in requirements of more specific environmental assessments for companies that are planning to place wind farms in or around the areas, and several project applications has been denied (Naturvårdsverket, 2020; Naturvårdsverket, 2021).

The evaluation of the previous action plan did not include a concerted assessment of the plan strengths and weaknesses, but instead evaluated the actions

individually. Some of the implemented actions included sampling of porpoise carcasses, a public data base for porpoise sightings and collection of derelict fishing gear. Actions that included development of information strategy, regional collaborations for bycatch,

distribution mapping of PBHP prey and studies of underwater noise were not implemented (Königson, 2015).

(7)

7 2.2. The Baltic Sea Harbour Porpoise

The harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, is the only cetacean species resident to Swedish waters (HaV, 2016). The Swedish populations consist of the Skagerrak population, the Belt Sea population, and the Baltic Sea sub-population (Wiemann et al., 2009). The division of populations serves as an important factor when implementing conservation plans (Carlén et al., 2018). Genetic differences have been observed between the populations and the PBHP has shown the lowest number of genetic variations, but samples have been limited (Wang &

Berggren, 1997; Palmé et al., 2008).

The harbour porpoise is one of the smallest toothed whales and grows to be 140- 170 cm long and can weight up to 75 kg (Carlström & Carlén, 2016). Like other whales, porpoises hearing constitutes their most vital sense and they use echolocation to orientate, hunt and communicate (Carlström & Carlén, 2016). The Swedish porpoise diet mainly consist of herring and cod but can vary over the season (Carlström & Carlén, 2016).

The Harbour porpoise reproduce seasonally and the PBHP mating season occurs during the summer (Kesselring et al., 2017). Female harbour porpoises are estimated to birth 0,6 calves per year after reaching sexual maturity between the age of 3 and 5 years (Carlström

& Carlén, 2016) The average age of death has shown to differ significantly between populations, studies show the PBHP average age of death is 3.67 years, compared to the North Sea populations average of 5.70 years (Kesselring et al., 2017). Bycatch and low population numbers are considered to be likely causes of the observed difference (Kesselring et al., 2017).

Population data has long been deficient from the Baltic Sea population and the first official population size estimation was published by Sambah in 2016. From acoustic data collected between 2011 and 2013 it is estimated that the Baltic sub-population consist of approximately 500 individuals (Sambah. 2016). The reproduction area for the PBHP is identified to consist of an area between the south of Gotland and east of Öland, which partly correlates with the Natura 2000 sites presented in figure 1 (Sambah, 2016). With the new population estimation, knowledge of the populations seasonal distribution areas has increased.

Seasonally important areas for the PBHP are presented in figure 2.

(8)

8

Figure 2. Seasonally important areas for the PBHP, shows the difference in distribution throughout the year.

Adapted from Carlström & Carlén (2016).

Knowledge of the PBHP distribution area and reproduction area are vital to provide adequate protection for the population (Carlström & Carlén, 2016). The harbour porpoise has been listed as a protected species in Sweden since 1973 (WWF, nd). The international union for conservation of nature [IUCN] lists the harbour porpoise globally as least concern, meaning the species is viable and considered to have a favorable conservation status (Braulik et al., 2020). However, the PBHP is listed as critically endangered (SLU artdatabanken, 2020).

2.3. Threats

Interview surveys suggest a drastic decline of the Baltic sub-population between the 1960’s and the 1980’s, with no subsequent sign of recovery (Berggren & Arrhenius, 1995). Fertility in seal populations declined in the 1980’s due to PCB pollution, and it is assumed that a similar decline occurred in the PBHP (Cervin et al., 2020). A combination of increased fishing efficiency and persistent organic pollutants, which reduced reproductivity, are considered likely explanations for the population decline (Benke et al., 2014). Berggren (1995) presents that in the 90’s, the annual porpoise bycatch was most likely to occur right before the mating season and that gillnets were responsible for most of the porpoise bycatch along the Swedish coast (Berggren, 1995).

Significant threats to the species today are bycatch, chemical pollution, noise pollution and depleting fish stocks (van Elk et al., 2019). The PCB levels in the Baltic biota have decreased today, but instead per- and polyfluoroalkyl is accumulating which risks affecting the PBHP fertility (Cervin, 2020). Carlström and Carlén state that research on noise

(9)

9 pollution and its effect on porpoises is insufficient and cannot conclude long-term effects.

Germany have implemented guidelines and threshold values to reduce harbour porpoise noise disturbance but no corresponding underwater noise pollution regulations have been

implemented in Sweden (ASCOBAN, 2014; BSH, 2013). Noise sources that risk disturbing porpoises include offshore wind farms, military sonars, explosions, seismic inventories and ship traffic (Carlström & Carlén, 2016).

The main threat to the PBHP is fishing-nets due to the risk of entanglement and drowning (Braulik et al., 2020). With echolocation, a fishing net with plenty of prey is likely considered highly attractive for porpoises (Berggren, 1995). Autopsies performed on Swedish porpoises during the past 10 years show that the majority of the examined porpoises where cause-of death could be identified, had drowned in fishing-net interactions (Neimane, 2019).

Lost, abandoned or discarded fishing gear can stay intact and continue capturing marine animals (Tschernij & Larsson, 2003). Such nets are found within the Baltic Sea and are likely constituting a threat for the PBHP (Carlström & Carlén, 2016). The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] advice that fisheries in the PBHP distribution area should be closed to prevent human-caused mortalities. (ICES, 2020).

A population viability analysis for the PBHP show that the sub-population is viable with a good health status and without bycatch exposure. Due to the high levels of pollutants, the PBHP reproductive capacity and health status are likely impaired (Cervin et al., 2020). The extinction risk is dependable on the populations fertility rate and the levels of bycatch as presented in figure 3.

Figure 3. Quasi-extinction risk in percentage over the next 100 years, dependent on bycatch level. A) extinction risk with 73% fertility rate, B) Extinction risk with 60% fertility rate, C) extinction risk with 40% fertility risk

(adapted from Cervin et al., 2020).

A best-case scenario for the PBHP would be that their health status is equal to the Belt Sea population, with a 73% fertility rate (Cervin et al., 2020). With a 73% fertility rate and a bycatch level of 15 individuals per year, there is still a 44% risk extinction within the next 100

(10)

10 years (Cervin et al., 2020). Even with the best-case estimations of the populations fertility rate, the most important measure is to minimize bycatch. However, the PBHP is presumed to have a lower fertility, which increases the importance of minimizing bycatch and human- caused mortalities if extinction is to be avoided which can be observed in figure 3.

Minimizing bycatch generally includes three measures, minimizing fishing efforts, implementation of alternative fishing gears and implementation of sound scares, commonly referred to as pingers (Carlström & Carlén, 2016). Porpoises have been shown to avoid fishing grounds with pinger activity, but as a result they risk avoiding important feeding grounds. Some studies have also shown that the pinger avoidance decreases over time

(Carlström & Carlén, 2016). Pingers have also been shown to attract seals, who in some areas have adapted the pingers as a "food-bell” and caused damage to the nets (Carlström & Carlén, 2016).

2.4. Porpoise Conservation

Marine mammal conservation often involves fishing regulations as a mean to minimize bycatch. Such regulations are also suggested to be necessary for a successful conservation of the PBHP (Braulik et al., 2020).

One example of a conservation effort that has included strict fishing regulations is the conservation of the Morro-Bay population of harbour porpoises in California, USA (Braulik et al., 2020) The Morro-Bay population was estimated to consist of 265 individuals in 1993 (Moore et al., 2009). Fishing regulations were implemented in the 90’s which

successfully reduced bycatch (Moore et al., 2009). In the beginning of the 21^st century, stricter regulations were implemented which essentially shut down fishing in the area, thus,

eliminating bycatches (Moore et al., 2009). Since then, the population has recovered well, in 2012 the population estimate held over 4000 individuals (Forney et al., 2019). This recovery shows that conservation management can be successful if effective regulations are

implemented in an early stage.

Another example of fishing regulations and conservation efforts are the Vaquita, phocoena sinus. The vaquitas occur only in Mexico’s northern Gulf of California (Rojas- Bracho & Taylor, 2017). The first ever population estimation was conducted in 1997, where the population was estimated to consist of 567 individuals, and gillnets used in fisheries were identified as their greatest threat (Rojas-Bracho & Taylor, 2017). Since the first alarming population estimation, several conservation actions such as a ban on using or transporting

(11)

11 gillnets in the area have been taken (Rojas-Bracho & Taylor 2017). Despite several

conservation plans and actions, including goals of zero bycatches to occur, the population has continiously decreased. Rojas-Bracho and Reeves (2013) state that contradictory and

insufficient regulations that are difficult to control have contributed to the ongoing population decline. The implemented conservation area only accounted for part of the populations

distribution area and bycatches still occurred outside of the formal conservation area (Rojas- Bracho & Reeves, 2013). Other efforts have included economic compensation to fishermen and implementation of alternative fishing gears, both of which has been unsuccessful (Rojas- Bracho & Reeves, 2013). In 2017 an attempt was made to capture remaining vaquitas and keep them in captivity to avoid extinction. The attempt was cancelled after one vaquita died during the capture. (Rojas-Bracho & Reeves, 2013). In 2018 it was estimated that only 19 individuals remained of the population (Jaramillo-Legoretta, 2019). Rojas-Bracho and Reeves (2013) argue that more effective conservation measures could have saved the species if implemented at an early stage and that the conservation failure could have been avoided with better collaborations between stakeholders.

Carlström and Carlén (2016) state that the resilience of the PBHP likely is lower than for both the Vaquita and the Morro-bay population due to the high levels of pollutants in the Baltic Sea and the PBHP’s low fertility rate.

(12)

12

4. Rationality

4.1. Bounded rationality

Rationality is a commonly used economic theory which conceptualizes behaviors in decision- making (Hanley et al., 2019). The rational-choice theory is a traditional model of decision- making where decisions are based on systematic use of information. By ranking all benefits and costs of all possible actions, the outcome will be the most efficient and rational (Bertoul- Garcia et al., 2018). In opposition to this approach of comprehensively rationality and

expected utility in decision-making Herbert Simon presented the theory of bounded rationality (Connelly et al., 2012). Bounded rationality addresses the discrepancy between perfect

rationality and human cognition and accounts for limitations in information availability (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001). Decisions will, according to Simon (in Connelly et al., 2012), rarely be based on perfect information or awareness. In the view of bounded rationality, decision-makers are seeking a satisfactory solution rather than an optimal solution (Mu, 2018).

Uncertainty and shortage of information are common factors to account for in environmental decision-making. Todd and Gigerenzer (2012) argue that the uncertainties decision-makers face often result in neglection of environmental factors. Lack of knowledge and ample evidence will cause doubt in decision-making and problems that are considered smaller and that requires less disruptive solutions are therefore easier to prioritize (Connelly et al., 2012). The complexity and uncertainty that is involved in environmental problems are often perceived to require solutions that could be disruptive to administrative structures, economic growth or industrial development (Connelly, 2012). Deprioritizing large and complex environmental issues is often motivated with faith in future technical developments, since technological development could enable less disruptive solutions in the future (Connelly et al., 2012). The present cost is thereby considered higher than the future benefit, which puts ecological sustainability at risk (Hornborg, 2010).

Lidskog and Sundqvist (2011) state that contemporary environmental problems fundamentally depend on research to discover hazards and suggest solutions to avoid

uncertainty. Beck (in Hanningan, 2006) argues that science is becoming increasingly necessary but decreasingly sufficient for societal change.

The theory of bounded rationality is used in the study as a tool to analyze the uncertainties and approach of the findings.

(13)

13 4.2. Instrumental Rationality

Max Weber presented instrumental rationality to identify reasoning in human behavior and decision-making (Eriksson-Zetteruist et al., 2012). Weber’s instrumental rationality opposes bounded rationality by expecting the outcome to maximize the utilitarian value rather than just being satisfactory (Bolis et al., 2017). Instrumental rationality includes a rational balancing of different goals against the vision as well as accounting for side-effects that chosen means or achieved goals might include (Eriksson-Zetteruist et al., 2012). The goal- determination should be led by a vision that formulates the desired future (IUCN, 2017).

Applying instrumental rationality in strategic processes enables the result of actions to build up to the vision as presented in figure 4.

Figure 4. Alignment of vision and goals in a strategic process. Used in this study to visualize Weber’s instrumental rationality and analyze the vision alignment of the findings.

Functionality and efficiency are main priorities within the instrumental rationality, where the means justify the end, and some goals are important enough that sacrifices are necessary to make in order to achieve them (Eriksson-Zetteruist et al., 2012). With instrumental rationality as a foundation for actions (instrumental actions), the expected outcome must be weighed in and the actions prioritized in order to maximize the impact (Alrøe, 2017). In accordance with the rational-choice theory, instrumental rationality assumes that all factors are calculated into the decision, hence, making the decision rational (Alrøe, 2017). In the implementation of actions, the effect and result of the actions are weighed against the goals and desired outcome.

The need for prioritizing actions can be compared to the four-time management quadrant presented in figure 5 (Covey, 2013).

(14)

14

Figure 5. Four-time management quadrant adapted from Covey (2013) for this study. The model is used in the study for the prioritizing of actions. In accordance with instrumental rationality, the actions with the most

impact are to be prioritized, while actions with low impact and high effort are to be avoided.

The four-time management quadrant accounts for the impact and effort of an action and used as a tool for prioritizing actions or tasks (Covey, 2013). When applying instrumental

rationality in prioritizing, the effort is considered less important than the impact, which correlates to the prioritizing of actions in the model (figure 5) adapted from Covey (2013).

Bolis et al. (2017) identifies a unanimous criticism of instrumental rationality in environmental sustainability studies, claiming that instrumental rationality has caused society to be willing to achieve their goals despite sacrifice of others. However, Bolis et al. (2017) argue that the roots of these problems are the capitalist system and individualism that permeates society and are facilitated by disregard of bounded rationality. Instrumental rationality can thereby be used for promoting sustainable development (Bolis et al., 2017).

Despite instrumental rationality being considered as a knowledge-based approach striving to maximize utility Alrøe et al. (2017) argue that the goals and desired outcome of instrumental actions may well be determined in a value-oriented manner.

Instrumental rationality is included in the study as a tool to analyze the priorities and the vision alignment of the findings.

(15)

15

5. Methodology

5.1. Research design

A grounded theory approach permeated the methodology of the study as described by Bryman (2018). As the study aimed to evaluate harbour porpoise conservation actions in Sweden, the evaluation was performed in a theory-driven manner. The reasoning for this was to include perspectives of how and why the actions would be successful. Chen (2012) argues that information on the effect of different actions and identified factors determining the effect is essential for stakeholders to improve both existing and future plans. Thus, the study was designed to provide valuable information of the action’s quality and efficiency.

Several studies have been performed with a similar approach and methodology, but these studies were identified to be targeted at climate change plans (Kumar & Geneletti, 2015; Geyer et al., 2017) or protected area plans (Geldmann et al., 2019). The identified studies were also found to be performed after the plans had been implemented (Kumar &

Geneletti, 2015; Geyer et al., 2017; Geldmann et al., 2019). No equivalent evaluation studies on species conservation plans were identified. The majority of the studies identified to evaluate conservation plans were performed during, or after the plans had been implemented (Geldmann et al., 2019; Geyer et al., 2017; Courrau et al., 2006).

This study evaluated the conservation plan prior to its implementation, and with regards to the lack of equivalent evaluation studies of species conservation plans, this study contributes to the field of environmental evaluations.

5.2 Selection

The selection criteria for the study included national conservation actions aimed at the PBHP that were suggested for implementation or had recently been implemented.

No conservation plans for the Natura 2000 site within the BPHB distribution area were implemented and such plans could therefore not be included in the study. The suggested conservation action plan for harbour porpoises by HaV was the only document fulfilling the selection criteria and that therefore could be included in the analysis (HaV, 2021b). The selection of the action plan contents was performed to include all of the suggested actions relevant for the PBHP. The action plan contained a total of 45 actions presented in 11 target areas. After an initial screening, two actions were excluded since they were exclusively aimed at other populations. The actions titled “Calculate the mortality limit for the Belt Sea porpoise” (action 19) and “Expand the monitoring of by-catches of the Belt

(16)

16 and North Sea populations” (action 43) were excluded. The inclusion and exclusion of the actions are presented in figure 6 and shows that one action (action 19) was excluded from the target area “research”, and one action (action 43) was excluded from the target area “reducing human impacts”.

Figure 6. Included and excluded actions from the action plan target areas.

The selection included 43 actions from the suggested action plan, and all of the target areas are represented in the included actions (HaV, 2021b).

The vision ang goals presented in the action plan were also included in the study (HaV, 2021b). Other sections of the action plan that included knowledge and facts of the species were not considered relevant for the analysis and therefore excluded.

The suggested action plan did not include information about action budgets, action responsibilities or the action priorities. Hence, these factors could not be included in the analysis.

5.3 Qualitative content analysis

A qualitative content analysis was performed in accordance with Bryman (2018) to assess the included actions, the formulated vision and the goals of the action plan. The qualitative content analysis was performed to answer the question of research: What strengths and weaknesses for the PBHP conservation can be identified in the conservation plan?

Through a grounded theory approach, each individual goal and action were coded and analyzed in accordance with Bryman (2018). First, the goals and vision were analyzed with the objective of identifying alignments between the formulated vision, long- term goal and short-term goals. This was performed by the identified categories bycatch,

5 2 5 1 2 3 1 15 1 3 5

1

Follow-up Monitoring Reducing human impacts Habitat care & restoration Protected areas Review of regulations Inventory Research Education Collaborative measures Information & advisement

Included Excluded

(17)

17 knowledge, protected areas and regulations. All of the included actions were then analyzed through the identified categories strengths, weaknesses and contradictions.

The action plan was written in Swedish and a translation of the included vision, goals and actions were performed with great consideration and accuracy. The findings from the analysis of the actions were then compared with the bounded rationality theory and instrumental rationality to identify factors of rationality in the findings to identify strengths and weaknesses in the actions.

5.3.1. Scoring Matrix

A scoring matrix was developed in accordance with Chen (2012) as a part of the qualitative content analysis. The objective of the scoring matrix was to quantify the actions and assess the effectiveness of the actions. The effectiveness of the actions was evaluated to answer the question of research: How should the conservation actions be prioritized?

The foundation for the evaluation framework was inspired by Courrau et al.

(2006) effectiveness evaluation framework. A scoring matrix was developed as a multi- criteria decision tool and W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s (2004) “logic model” was adapted for the formulation of principles and categories used in the scoring matrix. The two principles effort and delivery were formulated to present the actions effectiveness. The principle effort included two categories, strategy and input. The delivery principle included the categories output and outcome. Within the categories, several codes, or sub-principles were identified, as presented in figure 7.

Figure 7. Logic model, adapted from W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). The model constituted the principles and categories used in the study.

Objective, Approach Strategy

Resources, Viability

Input

Result, Conflict Output

Impact Outcome

Delivery Effort

Categories

Principles Sub-principles

(18)

18 The principles used in the scoring matrix were developed in accordance with the important factors in effectiveness evaluation presented by Corrau et al. (2016). The scoring matrix was developed and designed to allow for the effort and delivery of each action to be quantified and compared.

In addition to the categories effort and delivery, as presented in figure 7, a third category was formulated with the objective of explicitly measuring the conservation impact of each action. The conservation action and principle were formulated to allow for comparison between the delivery and the conservation impact of the actions. A total of eight principles were included in the scoring matrix, objective, approach, resource, viability, result, conflict, impact and conservation impact. The scoring matrix used in the study is presented in table 1.

Table 1. Scoring matrix developed for the action assessment

The scoring process of each action was performed with the presented background and state of knowledge as a foundation.

The effort scoring of each action was calculated by the mean of the scored sub- principles objective, approach, resource and viability. The delivery scoring was calculated by

(19)

19 the mean of the sub-principles result, conflict and impact. The conservation scoring only included the sub-principle of conservation impact, and no further calculation was needed.

All action scores were then inserted in bubble charts to provide a visual understanding of the action efficiency distribution. The scored actions in the bubble charts were then further

analyzed and compared to the assessment of the qualitative content analysis and the presented theories of rationality to determine a rational prioritizing of the actions.

(20)

20

6. Empirical findings

6.1. Vision and Goals

The analyzed vision and goals included in the analysis and quoted in this section were found in the suggested conservation action plan (HaV, 2021b).

The vision of the action plan is formulated “All Harbour Porpoise populations around Sweden has favorable conservation status, and there’s no need to have the harbour porpoise on the national red list”. The vision was perceived to portrait the desired future and the formulation was perceived as a strong foundation for the action plan. If Weber’s

instrumental rationality (Eriksson-Zetterquist et al., 2012) were to be applied, the vision would constitute the ultimate goal and all other goals and actions would be in direct alignment with the vision to ensure success, no matter the efforts or sacrifices required

The goals are divided into long-term goals and short-term goals, where the long- term goal specifies requirements needed to achieve the vision. The long-term goal states that by the year 2040 the conditions for harbour porpoises should be favorable enough so that the populations can recover to at least 80% of their carrying capacity until year 2120. The long- term goal also states that until the PBHP conservation status is considered unfavorable, the human-caused mortality shall be zero. Finally, the goal states that the majority of the human- caused mortalities derive from bycatch. The long-term goal was perceived to be in alignment with the vision and to display instrumental rationality. This interpretation was based on the similar formulations identified in the vision and the long-term goal along with the determined focus to improve the conservation status.

The action plan presents twenty short-term goals and formulates that they should be achieved by year 2025. The goals are divided into six target areas, the first being

“information and advisement”. Both of the goals under this target area were perceived to lack a connection to both the long-term goal and the vision. The goals being aimed at increasing public knowledge and authorities having a regular dialog with industries were not interpreted to influence the human-caused mortalities nor the conservation status. The same weakness was identified in the goals under the target areas “research”, “inventory” and “underwater noise”. No alignment could be identified between these goals and the vision, and instrumental rationality was not considered applicable for these goals. Without an alignment to the vision, the goals were perceived as unable to contribute with an impact relevant for the vision. In comparison with figure 4, the unaligned goals exclude the vision from the process, and this unaligned process is presented in figure 8.

(21)

21

Figure 8. Presents the action process without an alignment between the vision and goal. Goals without an instrumental rationality approach will not provide results that impacts the vision. (Compare with figure 4)

Instead, bounded rationality was interpreted as an explanation for the short-term goals multidirectional approach, as a mean to be satisfactory but with less disruptive demands.

Several of these goals aims for increased knowledge of the populations. The uncertainty expressed as a common factor in bounded rationality (Connelly et al., 2012) was identified in the formulated strive for increased knowledge within the goals.

The target area titled “area protection” include two goals aimed at implementing area conservation plans and formally protected areas. These goals were perceived to have a weak alignment to the vision. An inclusion of protected areas in the vision or the long-term goal would strengthen the perceived alignment. The two goals relevant for the PBHP in the target area titled “bycatches” was perceived to contain goals with a strong alignment to the vision. The goals formulate “measures must be taken to ensure zero bycatches of the PBHP within their distribution area” and “fishing with passive net-gears within the PBHP

distribution area will be monitored in regards of bycatch”. Despite the perceived vision alignment of both goals, a contradiction between the goals were identified. The perception of the first goal was that no bycatches should occur, no matter the measures needed. This goal was perceived to be constituted by instrumental rationality due to its target determination. The second goal was perceived as contradictory to the first one due to its monitoring of bycatch. If the first goal was to be achieved, there would be no need to achieve the second one. The action plan was perceived to formulate the bycatch rate as an uncertainty. Hence, the second bycatch goal was interpreted to aim for increased knowledge, rather than protection. In bounded rationality, uncertainty is a constant factor which can be minimized by increased knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012), the second bycatch goal was therefore previewed to be permeated by bounded rationality.

The short-term goals were perceived to be constituted by bounded rationality.

(22)

22 Since for instrumental rationality to be applied, a strong alignment between goals and the vision are found (Eriksson-Zetterquist et al., 2012).

6.2. Actions

The analyzed and quoted actions were found in the suggested conservation action plan (HaV, 2021b). The general analysis concluded that the actions presented a multidirectional approach, and that the implementation of the actions would involve and affect several industries and decision-makers. The quality of the action descriptions was identified as uneven, where some actions had explicit descriptions and others were considered ambiguous.

6.2.1. Strengths

The action titled “Implement regulations for further protection of the proper Baltic harbour porpoise” (action 28) aims to improve porpoise protection in areas that are not formally protected, but important for the PBHP. The action was perceived to indicate instrumental rationality though its alignment with the vision, in accordance with figure 4.

The action titled “Implement fisheries regulation for the implementation of ICE's advice on emergency measures regarding the proper Baltic harbour porpoises” (action 27) was identified to include measures with great conservation potential. The action measures include fishing-net bans, pinger implementations and bycatch monitoring. Such measures were considered to have a strong alignment to the vision and the goals.

The action titled “Implement conservation areas for porpoises” (action 34) were identified to include similar measures as action 27. The main difference identified was the phrasing “Protected areas for the purpose of protecting porpoises do not have to be limited to Natura 2000 sites but can also be made in areas with other forms of protection, outside protected areas” in action 34. Thus, action 34 was identified to relate to both action 27 and action 28. The identified alignment to the vision in action 27, 28 and 34, along with the strong conservation basis for the measures was perceived to relate to instrumental rationality through the protection of the population as a foundation.

6.2.2 Weaknesses

The action titled “International cooperation”(action 8) describes measures for international cooperation. The action phrases, “It is of great importance that Sweden continues to play an active role in the EU and other international cooperation’s…”. This was perceived as

(23)

23 ambiguous and contradictory, due to the action description of continuing doing what is

already being done. Thus, no implementation of the action is needed, and the result of the action would neither contribute to the goals nor the vision. The measure was perceived as unsuitable to be presented as an action. The action titled “education” (action 9) was also perceived as ambiguous. The action was formulated with a single sentence, “If needed, education should be offered to relevant authorities and organizations”. No clear strategy or objective could be identified in the action. Neither of these two actions were perceived to align with any of the goals, and the aim and strategies for the actions remains unidentified. No instrumental rationality could be identified in the actions, since they are not aiming to achieve any goal, both actions were therefore perceived as unnecessary.

Resource availability was identified as a barrier for the actions that require porpoise cadavers. Four actions with this barrier were identified under the target area

“research”. The action titled “Increase knowledge about porpoises' diet, with a focus on the Baltic porpoise” (action 14) explicitly acknowledges the limited cadaver availability and states “…access to stomach contents from fresh dead porpoises is almost non-existent”. All of the actions identified with this barrier were perceived to be aimed at minimizing uncertainties of the population. The barrier of uncertainty was identified to relate to Simon’s statement (in Connelly et al., 2012) of decisions rarely being based on perfect information. In accordance to bounded rationality, decisions of conservation need to strive to find the best solutions, given the available information (Mu, 2018).

The action titled “Establish levels for favorable conservation status and favorable environmental status” (action 10) was identified to have a vague objective. The objective of the action was identified as “According to the [EU] Habitats Directive and the [EU] Marine Environment Directive, the abundance of porpoises must be evaluated…” The action objective was not perceived to relate to the vision and to lack a clear conservation relevance in its phrasing . If the purpose of the action plan simply was to fulfil directives, it should be formulated in the vision. The vague objective was perceived to contradict

instrumental rationality since the purpose of the action is not correlating to the vision.

Action 34 was also identified to have a weak objective. The phrasings

“According to ICES advice…”, “ICES recommends that…”, “ICES also notes that…” …to meet the requirements for protection under the [EU] Habitats Directive…” was perceived to constitute a weak objective. These phrasings were perceived to create a distance between the problems and the responsibility. The referring to ICES and EU was perceived as a mean to not

(24)

24 claim responsibility for the action, due to uncertainty. The uncertainties were perceived to permeate the action description and exemplify bounded rationality due to the fear of the action not maximizing utility and risk disrupting administrative structures or industries.

The actions presented within the target area “research” represent many of the suggested actions included in the study (16 actions of 43). Uncertainty regarding the Baltic populations diet, genetics, habitat requirements and noise impact were perceived to attract much of the attention of the plan. As Connelly et al. (2012) stated, uncertainty is a common factor in environmental problems, which also was identified to apply for conservation of the PBHP. The relevance of the unknown depends on the extent to which new knowledge can improve the conservation (Connelly et al., 2012). Therefore, bounded rationality needs to be acknowledged, since uncertainties are likely to be inevitably present.

6.2.3. Contradictions

The description formulations of the actions regarding pingers were considered highly ambiguous. Two actions were identified to favor pinger implementation in the PBHP

distribution area. Another action was identified to oppose studies on pinger efficiency within their distribution area. Action 27 phrases “Requirements to introduce sound scares [pingers]

in all net fishing, in large parts of the Baltic Sea” and “Implement measures such as the use of pingers […] within the proper Baltic porpoise seasonal distribution areas”. The action titled

“Bycatch” (action 42) concurs with the implementation “... pingers are used in order to evaluate the impact of pingers”. The action titled “Further develop seal-safe pingers” (action 22) was identified to contradict action 27 and 42 with the phrasing “Studies on the

effectiveness of pingers in reducing by-catches of porpoises should not be performed within the Baltic Sea population distribution area due to the poor conservation status of the

population”. The uncertainty regarding pinger efficiency in limiting bycatch was perceived as the motivation for action 22’s precaution on implementing pingers, while action 27 and 42 motivates the implementation by referring to ICES advice. The identified ambiguity was perceived to relate to uncertainty in decision-making. A strive to find satisfactory solutions, rather than optimal ones can be found in bounded rationality (Mu, 2018). Hence, the actions were perceived to be based on bounded rationality and to accept satisfactory but non-optimal outcomes.

A contradiction was also identified within the description of action 27. The action formulates that the marine Natura 2000 sites located in the PBHP distribution areas should be closed for

(25)

25 all net fishing. The action also formulates that pingers should be used on all net fishing within the population distribution area and does not separate the Natura 2000 sites from the

implementation of pingers. Hence, the measures suggested in action 27 were considered ambiguous and in need of a clarification. The identified contradiction was perceived to relate with bounded rationality, because if the area can not be closed for all net-fishing, at least pingers should be used. This too was perceived to seek a satisfying solution, rather than an optimal solution. Thus, being bound by bounded rationality.

6.3. Action Efficiency

The scored actions are presented in bubble charts to illustrate the distribution of the actions efficiency. The scoring of each action is presented in appendix 1. The efficiency is presented in the variables of effort and impact. The impact variable is presented with the principles delivery and conservation.

6.3.1. Delivery

The effort values of the 43 actions ranged from 1.5 (50% of the maximum score: 7 actions) to 3 (100% of the maximum score: 2 actions). The mean of all effort values was 2.03 and the median value was 2, indicating that none of the actions scored low on all effort principles.

Hence, all actions should be considered feasible and possible to implement. Since none of the actions are expected to require high effort, no actions can be excluded solely from an effort aspect. Instead, the impact of the actions should be considered when prioritizing the actions.

The delivery value of the 43 actions ranges from 1 (33% of the maximum score:

4 actions) to 2.33 (77% of the maximum score: 4 actions). The mean of all delivery values was 1.6 and the median value was 1.67. The delivery and effort distribution of all actions are presented in figure 9 and indicates that none of the actions are considered to have neither a particular high nor low delivery.

(26)

26

Figure 9. The action numbers are presented in the bubbles with bubble size relating to the number of actions.

The actions efficiency distribution is presented on the horizontal scale of effort, which is reversed, and the vertical scale of delivery impact. The actions efficiency is based on the expected effort of the actions (mean of

each actions effort scores) and their expected delivery (mean of each actions delivery scores).

The actions present a narrow distribution of the actions expected delivery impact. An enhancement of the actions distribution is presented in figure 10.

Figure 10. Enhanced version of the action distribution in figure 9. Presents the actions efficiency distribution in greater detail, based on the delivery impact and expected effort in greater detail.

The action titled “Information to the public regarding porpoises” (action 1) was identified as the action with the highest delivery and the lowest effort. The four-time management quadrant adapted to the theory of instrumental rationality suggests that actions with the highest impact

1

2, 29

3, … 4, …

5, 7, 23, 33

6, 14

8, 17 9, 21 10, 36,

39

11

12, 22 13, 40,

45 15, 27 16

18, 25, 44

26 28

31, 37

32, 35

34

41

42

Effort(High)

Effort (Low)

Delivery (High)

Delivery (Low)

1

2, 29

3, 24, 30 4, 20, 38

5, 7, 23, 33

6, 14

8, 17

9, 21 10, 36, 39

11

12, 22 13, 40, 45 15, 27

16

18, 25, 44

26 28

31, 37

32, 35

34

41

42

Effort(High

Effort (Low)

Delivery (High)

Delivery (Low)

(27)

27 and the lowest effort should be prioritized (Covey, 2013; Alrøe, 2017). Hence, the conclusion based on the actions delivery and effort was that action 1 should be the first to be

implemented. However, the delivery scoring was dependable on the formulated goals of the action plan, where a multidimensional aspect was identified and the goals were targeted to different areas. An instrumental rationality approach maintains the vision as the ultimate goal (Eriksson-Zetterquist et al., 2012) while the identified multi-directional goal approach was perceived to provide a higher score for action 1. The high delivery score does therefore not necessarily indicate that action 1 would generate the most protective measure. Action 1 addresses information to the public about harbour porpoises and increasing the public’s knowledge about the species is formulated as a short-term goal. The formulated goal, together with the low risk of conflict was hypostatized to influence the action’s high delivery.

6.3.4. Conservation

The distribution of the conservation impact of the actions was not based on possible conflicts or the formulated goals, but instead on the expected protective impact for the PBHP. The assessment of the conservation scoring and effort scoring resulted in a shift regarding the distribution of the actions. The conservation scoring of the 43 actions ranged from 0 (0% of the maximum score: 30 actions) to 3 (100% of the maximum score: 3 actions). The mean of all conservation values was 0.48 and the median value was 0. The action distribution with the conservation principle is presented in figure 11.

Figure 11. The actions efficiency distribution is presented on the horizontal scale of effort, and the vertical scale of conservation impact. The actions efficiency is based on the expected effort of the actions (mean of each

actions effort scores) and their expected conservation (conservation score).

1, 41

2 3, …

4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 25, 44 5,

23…

6, 10, 14, …

9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 40, 45 16, 26,

29, 42

20, 38 27 28

31 32

33

34

36

37

Effort(High)

Effort (Low)

Conservation (High)

Conservation (Low)

(28)

28 Figure 11 presents a greater impact distribution of the actions based on the conservation principle, compared to the delivery principle presented in figure 9 and figure 10. Considering that public knowledge does not generate protective measures, action 1 was with the

conservation principle considered to have a low conservation impact. With the conservation principle as a basis, a need for a different prioritization of the actions was observed. The actions generating the greatest impact and demanding the lowest effort should be prioritized according to instrumental rationality and the four-time management quadrant (Covey, 2013;

Alrøe, 2017). Here action 28, 27 and 34 was perceived as actions that should be prioritized.

The distribution based on the conservation principle presents a majority of the actions to have a low impact, compared to the delivery principle. With was perceived to suggest that the conservation principle was in alignment with the vision.

6.3.3. Comparison

A comparison between the actions conservation distribution and delivery distribution is presented in figure 12.

Figure 12. The actions are presented according to their expected effort and their expected impact. The expected impact varies between the conservation impact (green) and the delivery impact (blue). All included actions are

represented and can be found in both the delivery principle and in the conservation principle.

1, 41

3, 7, 30 2

4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 25, 44

5, 23, 24 6, 10, 14, 35,

39

9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 40, 45 16, 26,

29, 42

20, 38 27 28

31 32

33

34

36

37 1

2, 29 3, 24,

30

4, 20, 38 5, 7, 23,

33

6, 14

8, 17 9, 21 10, 36,

39

11

12, 22 13, 40,

45 15, 27 16

18, 25, 44

26 28

31, 37

32, 35

34

41

4

Effort(High)

Effort (Low)

(High)

(Low)

Delivery Conservation

(29)

29 The conservation principle presented a wider distribution, while the delivery distribution was significantly more centered. The differences in distribution were hypostatized to be dependant on the fluctuation observed in the short-term goals. The multidirectional aspect of the goals was presumed to influence the scoring in delivery and causing a greater shift between the conservation aspect and the delivery aspect. As an example, the goals targeting information had a positive impact on the delivery scoring for action 1. However, when implementing the conservation scoring action 1 was considered to have a low impact since no protective measure was considered to be directed towards protecting the PBHP.

The majority of the actions scored lower with the conservation principle, except for action 28, 27, 33 and 34. The fact that these actions scored lower with the delivery

principle could be explained by the delivery principle of conflict, while the conservation principle did not account for potential conflicts from the action implementation. Considering Weber’s instrumental rationality, potential conflicts are acceptable to reach the goals and vision (Eriksson-Zetterquist et al., 2012). In this case, instrumental rationality was considered to be necessary for the implementation of effective measures and actions. Alrøe (2017) argues that value-oriented goals can be the foundation of an instrumental rationality approach. For the conservation of the PBHP, a value-oriented goal should be applied in an instrumental rationality approach to motivate the potential economic loss of fisheries.

Depending on the rationality, the prioritizing of actions differs. Bounded

rationality could allow for less effective actions to be prioritized while instrumental rationality would have the vision achievement as the main priority. The findings show that weaknesses in the actions include the multidimensional targets, which deprioritize actions with the potential to have the most significant impact in protecting the PBHP. Other identified weaknesses were the recurring weak objectives of the actions and the contradictions and ambiguates identified in the action descriptions.

(30)

30

7. Discussion and Conclusion

The study aimed to assess and evaluate conservation actions aimed at the PBHP and to provide an indication for the conservation plan success. The two questions of research were formulated ‘What strengths and weaknesses for the PBHP conservation can be identified in the conservation plan?’ and ‘How should the conservation actions be prioritized?’. The study identified several action weaknesses, including a lack of correlation between the vision and the short-term goals, a multidirectional approach among the short-term goals and the actions and ambiguous descriptions of some actions. The conservation plan, being the first to be implemented in eight years, provides potential for the PBHP conservation. The short generations in porpoise populations (Carlström & Carlén, 2016) allows for the success of conservation actions to be observed early. The suggested action plan is to be finalized in 2025 (HaV, 2021b) and positive results of the actions could be observed before then.

The actions identified with the strongest potential for conservation were aimed at limiting net-fishing and bycatch within the populations distribution area. The results indicated a significant difference in impact, depending on the delivery variable or the conservation variable. The conclusion for the prioritizing of actions was that a holistic view should be used when prioritizing the actions, but that the conservation principle should set the foundation for the prioritizing of the actions to achieve effective conservation.

The action plan explicitly acknowledges bycatch as the main threat for the PBHP (HaV, 2021b). However, a minority of the actions (HaV, 2021b) were identified to aim for bycatch mitigation. Instead, many of the actions were identified to be targeted at

increasing knowledge about the population. As learned from the Morro-Bay population

conservation (Moore et al., 2009) and stated by Cervin et al. (2020), banning net-fishing in the PBHP reproduction area is of great importance for the populations survival.

The learning outcome of the Vaquita conservation efforts was that effective actions need to be implemented at an early stage and that regulations need to be strict and apply for the whole distribution areas (Rojas-Bracho & Reeves, 2013). Action 34 (HaV, 2021b) was identified to suggest regulations both inside and outside the established Natura 2000 sites and if implemented the measures could reduce the risk of the PBHP population decline.

Seasonal distribution maps are available for the PBHP (Sambah, 2017) and the greatest threats to the population are known. More detailed knowledge may increase the understanding for the species needs and biology, but bycatch would likely still constitute

(31)

31 greatest threat. Thus, the unknowns should be considered minor details and the focus should be aimed at the available information to properly protect the population. There is no

uncertainty regarding the fact that the PBHP is endangered and will go extinct if no protective measures are taken (ICES, 2020). The knowledge is sufficient know where, when and from what the protection is needed (Sambah, 2016: Carlström & Carlén, 2016). Although the suggested action plan provides a framework for the conservation of the PBHP, the population will be heavily dependent on the different actors and stakeholders tasked with implementing the actions.

7.1. Method discussion

The presented result is an indicator on the effort and impact of the actions. If the method were to be applied at the end of the action plan’s finalization, the results could be compared to this assessment, which could review the validity of the applied methodology.

Inclusion of other relevant factors such as budgets and responsibilities may have provided different results of the effort and delivery variables. The conservation impact of the actions within the target area “research” were considered low, if the analysis were to include long-term conservation effects of improved knowledge, the result may have varied. The results from the evaluation of the action plan are thereby highly dependable on the included principles. Including conservation impact as a separate factor allowed for the results to be compared, which showed a differ in the actions efficiency distribution, indicating that the goals of the action plan lack a conservation focus.

The two theories of rationality provided a strong foundation for the analysis and allowed for conclusions to be drawn regarding the action prioritizing, the vision alignment and the uncertainties that permeated the conservation actions. Other theories of rationality could be applied to analyze other aspects of the actions.

(32)

32

8. References

Alrøe, F, H., Sautier, M., Legun, K., Whitehead, J., Noe, E., Moller, H., & Manhire, J. (2017).

Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems.

Sustainability, 9(3), 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030332

ASCOBAN. (2014). Information Document 3.2.2.a Concept for the Protection of Harbour Porpoises from Sound Exposures during the Construction of Offshore Wind Farms in the German North Sea.

https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/AC21_Inf_3.2.2.a_German_Sou nd_Protection_Concept.pdf

Benke, H., Bräger, S., Dähne, M., Gallus, A., Hansen, S., Honnef, G, C., Jabbusch, M., Koblitz, C, J., Krügel, K., Liebschner, A., Narberhau, I., & Verfuß, K, U. (2014). Baltic Sea harbour porpoise populations: status and conservation needs derived from recent survey results. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 495, 275–290.

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10538

Berggren, P. (1995). Bycatches of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Seas; 1973-1993. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 15, 211–215.

https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/217510/3702978B-04EE-438E-962D- B3DD8FA8EA98.pdf

Berggren, P., & Arrhenius, F. (1995). Sightings of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Swedish waters before 1990. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn., 16, 99–107

https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?search=1995&k=&modal=&display=list&order_

by=resourcetype&offset=0&per_page=240&archive=0&sort=DESC&restypes=&recent daylimit=&foredit=&ref=3487

Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2017). Are we making decisions in a sustainable way? A comprehensive literature review about rationalities for sustainable development.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 310–322.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.025

Braulik, G., Minton, G., Amano, M. & Bjørge, A. (2020). Phocoena phocoena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: IUCN. e.T17027A50369903.

https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T17027A50369903.en Bryman, A. (2018). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. (3^rd ed.) Liber.

BSH. (2013). Investigation of the Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines on the Marine Environment (StUK4).

(33)

33 https://www.bsh.de/DE/PUBLIKATIONEN/_Anlagen/Downloads/Offshore/Standards/

Standard-Investigation-impacts-offshore-wind-turbines-marine- environment_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6

Carlén, I., Thomas, L., Carlström, J., Amundin, M., Teilmann, J., Tregenza, N., Tougaard, J., Koblitz, J. C., Sveegaard, S., Wennerberg, D., Loisa, O., Dähne, M., Brundiers, K., Kosecka, M., Kyhn, L. A., Ljungqvist, C. T., Pawliczka, I., Koza, R., Arciszewski, B.,

… & Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A. (2018). Basin-scale distribution of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea provides basis for effective conservation actions. Biological Conservation, 226, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.031

Carlström, J., & Carlén, I. (2016). Skyddsvärda områden för tumlare i svenska vatten.

(2016:04) AquaBiota. https://www.aquabiota.se/wp-content/uploads/abwr_report2016- 04_skyddsvarda_omraden_for_tumlare_i_svenska_vatten.pdf

Cervin, L., Harkonen, T., & Harding, K. C. (2020). Multiple stressors and data deficient populations; a comparative life-history approach sheds new light on the extinction risk of the highly vulnerable Baltic harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Environment International, 144(2020), 106076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106076 Chen H. (2012). Theory-driven evaluation: Conceptual framework, application and

advancement. In: R, Strobl., O, Lobermeier., W, Heitmeyer. (eds) Evaluation von Programmen und Projekten für eine demokratische Kultur, Springer VS.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19009-9_2

Courrau, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Leverington, F., & Stolton, S. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness : a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas.

(Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: 014). IUCN.

https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2006.PAG.14.en

Covey, S. (2013). The 7 habits of highly effective people : powerful lessons in personal change (25^th anniversary edition.). RosettaBooks.

https://proxy.mau.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db

=nlebk&AN=1364536&site=eds-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_1

Directive 92/43/EEC. Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01992L0043-20130701

Eriksson-Zetterquist, U., Styhre, A., & Kalling, T. (2012). Organisation och organisering.

(3^rd ed.) Liber.

Protecting the proper Baltic harbour porpoise: An evaluation of Sweden’s conservation plan