| | ESTABLISHMENT OF ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (EcoQOs) |
| | 2,29 | | MB | FOR A REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN THE BALTIC SEA. |
| | 97 | | stron |
| | 4414 | | ID | Helsinki Commission |
| | 2003 | | rok |
| | LIST OF CONTENTS |
| | TITLE PAGE 1 |
| | COPY RIGHT STATEMENT 2 |
| | ABSTRACT 3 |
| | LIST OF CONTENTS 4 |
| | LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES USED 6 |
| | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7 |
| | 1.0 INTRODUCTION 8 |
| | 1.1 SUSTAINABILITY 8 |
| | 1.2 THESIS OVERVIEW 9 |
| | 2.0 BACKGROUND – THE CONTEXT 10 |
| | 2.1 RELAVANT GLOBAL CONVENTIONS 11 |
| | 2.2 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 13 |
| | 2.2.1 THE BALTIC SEA 13 |
| | 2.2.1.1 ABIOTIC VARIABILITY 14 |
| | 2.2.1.2 BIOTIC VARIABILITY 15 |
| | 2.2.1.3 A UNIQUE AND VULNERABLE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 15 |
| | 2.2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVERSITY 15 |
| | 2.2.3 INTERACTION WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 17 |
| | 2.2.4 INTERLINKED SUSTAINABILITY 18 |
| | 2.2.5 A REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 18 |
| | 2.2.5.1 TWO MAJOR PLAYERS 18 |
| | 2.2.5.2 OTHER INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATING BODIES 19 |
| | 2.3 TOWARDS A REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 21 |
| | 3.0 METHODOLOGY 21 |
| | 3.1 THE STUDY 21 |
| | 3.1.1 INTERVIEWEES 21 |
| | 3.1.2 THE QUESTIONNAIRE 22 |
| | 3.1.3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS 22 |
| | 4.0 RESULTS 22 |
| | 4.1 BARRIERS TO THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 22 |
| | 4.2 ATTITUDES ON ASSESSEMENT AND MANAGEMENT 23 |
| | 4.3 CRITERIA FOR GOOD EcoQOs 24 |
| | 4.4 PRIORITIZATION OF KEY ISSUES 25 |