Protection of the Baltic Sea - From the programmes to the actions Saara Bäck Ministry of the Environment 1
The Baltic Sea 90 million people living in the catchment area (14 states, 4 times bigger than water area) Vulnerable, shallow, brackish water, slow change of water pollution from land based sources Lähde: Suomen luonto CD-facta 2
DPSIR approach The causal framework -driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses -syy-yhteys ketjun käsite: aiheuttaja paine tila vaikutus vaste -describing the interactions between society and the environment - adopted by the European Environment Agency extension of the PSR model developed by OECD). AIM: -to be able to provide information on all of the different elements in the DPSIR chain -to demonstrate their interconnectedness - to estimate the effectiveness of Responses (management actions). 3
DPSIR approach discharges of waste water Pressures, e.g inputs of nutrients into coastal waters Driving forces, source emitting nutrients to the environment Industry, agriculture, diffuse loading emission abatements, taxes, regulations Responses, of society, policy making water quality State, e.g. nutrients in coastal waters Impacts, e.g. eutrophication effects on population, economy, on ecosystem e.g water unsuitable for drinking, swimming 4
DPSIR DRIVER RESPONSE Human Society IMPACT PRESSURE Cost benefit trade offs STATE CHANGE Natural systems 5
Driving forces; traffic Forecast for the ship movements in 2015. Passenger traffic is excluded (Rytkönen et al. 2002): Ballast water problems; distribution of the invasive species 6
Driving forces; sectors emitting nutrients to the environment Point source loading Industry Municipalities Catchment Loading via lakes Retention Loading via lakes Non-point loading Agriculture Forestry Fish farming Direct loading into sea Riverload Monitoring stations of water quality and river flow Riverload Atmosheric deposition Scattered dwellings Natural leaching Direct loading into sea 7 River discharge into sea SYKE
P tot load of monitored rivers Ptotload of unmonitored rivers and coastal areas P tot load of direct point sources Pressure: Phosphorus loading to the Baltic Sea 35 000 tn annual SWEDEN 4970 t FINLAND 4840 t RUSSIA 4620 t DENMARK 1860 t ESTONIA 970 t LATVIA 2210 t GERMANY 490 t # LITHUANIA 1900 t POLAND 12650 t 8 National Land Survey of Finland 144/MYY/03 Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, FINLAND 2003
Impact: General scheme of eutrophication Enrichment phase Macroalgae biomass Phytoplankton biomass Benthos biomass Fish Initial effect Changed species composition Secondary effect Shading depth reduction Hypoxia toxic/nuisance blooms Behavioral effects Extreme effect Mass growth of filamentous algae Toxic effects Mortality of species Ultimate effects Anoxia/mass mortalities 9 Gray 1992
Common to different programmes: Towards a Baltic Sea unaffected by Eutrophication Eutrophication is the major problem Exessive inputs from - inadequately treated sewage - agricultural run off - airborne emissions from shipping and combustion processes Visible problems - algal blooms - turbid water - oxygen depletion and lifeless sea bottoms 10
Human introduced rapid change Lehtoranta SYKE 11 Bäck SYKE
Nearly all articles and reports start with Baltic Sea being affected by human influence How the Baltic Sea affects the human beings Providing good and services Should it do that also in future Also those problems that the Baltic Sea is causing to us, health problems, economic losses Need of holistic scientific approaches Baltic Sea natural sciences research can not be separated from the socio-economic research We need holistic point of view to solve the problems of the Baltic Sea Ecological and Socio-economic information interaction 12
Multidisciplinary research Scenarios, predictions and risk assessments Human consequences of such changes Economic impacts Social impacts Health impacts Can we obtain something new innovative knowledge Or are we just diving deeper in already tackled issues in basic natural sciences Our research should reveal linkages between environmental problems and societal and economic dynamics 13
Who will do the work EU- level Regional level such as HELCOM National decision making National progremes of measures Scientists/Expert level Implementation in national level Stakeholders and their involvement 14
Responce: political decision making 15
RESPONCES CAP Common Agricultural Policy Biodiversity Policy CFP Common Fishery Policy Maritime Policy Marine Strategy 16
International Responses: Water Framework Directive Marine strategy Directive HELCOM, Baltic Sea Action Plan Regional Responses: Finnish Baltic Protection Programme Water protection policy outlines to 2015 17
Response: Water Framework Directive Aims to achieve no later than 2015: good surface and groundwater status Something new; Ecosystem approach HOW TO MANAGE HUMAN ACTIVITIES WFD requires: monitoring of the ecological and chemical status of the surface water and groundwater the establishment of programmes of measures to achieve the objectives the summarizing of all the above in a 'River Basin Management Plan Public consultation, Scientist are one member in the stakeholder group Impact on legislation 18
Purpose Establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater Prevents further deterioration Protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems Promotes sustainable water use Improvement of aquatic environment reduction of discharges, emissions of priority substances and hazardous substances 19
Ecological classification of the coastal waters Ecological status of coastal wares will be assessed by using Composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton Composition and abundance of other aquatic flora macroalgae and higher plants Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna, macrozoobenthos Supportive elements are physico - chemical parameters temperature, nutrients, secchi depth 20
Ecological Quality Ratio EQR Biological parameter value observed Deviation Status EQR = to Reference value 1 High OK Slight Good Need of management actions Moderate Moderate Poor Bad 0 21
WFD and planning process Characterisation 2004 water body types; typology identification of pressures assessment of impacts Environmental objectives 2006 ecological classification Management plans 2009 Assessment of good status 2015 22
WFD and EU implementation organisation 2003/2004 Expert Advisory Forum 1) Priority Substances 2) Groundwater (mid-2003) Chair: Commission Water Directors Steering of implementation process Chair: Presidency, Co-chair: Commission Strategic Co-ordination group Co-ordination of work programme Chair: Commission Art. 21 Committee Working Group 2.A Ecological Status Lead/Co-lead: D, JRC, UK Working Group 2.B Integrated River Basin Management Lead/Co-lead: F, SP (JRC) Working Group 2.C Groundwater (after end of EAF GW) Lead: A (tbc) Working Group 2.D Reporting Lead: Commission COAST expert network Lakes expert network Rivers expert network 23 Stakeholders, NGO s, Researchers, Experts, etc.
Some impacts of WFD Management plans and actions need to be revised and renewed Environment legislation Water Act Ecological classification will change assessment procedures Renewing monitoring programmes, biological elements Broadens the participation on stakeholders Reporting systems; Status reports to EU 24
Marine Strategy Directive Accepted in May/June 2008 Good environmental status obtained by 2020 Elements of Ecosystems Physico-chemical elements, T, S, currents, retention time Habitat types and species associated to them Other characters; nutrients, hazardous substances Marine Strategies Coordination and collaboration Analyses Monitoring Targets with indicators Programmes of measures Regional cooperation, marine conventions 25
HELCOM HELCOM has a history of more than 30 years Contracting Parties: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Sweden and European Community There has been improvement in many areas of the protection of the Baltic Sea Remaining challenges more difficult to solve than the earlier ones A new different approach needed The forthcoming EU Marine Strategy Directive - Baltic Sea as a Pilot Area, the Role of Baltic Sea Action Plan 26
A new HELCOM Approach In 2005 preparations for a new comprehensive procramme for the enhanced protection of the Baltic Sea A Plan based on Ecological Objectives Definition of four main Areas - Combating Eutrophication - Curbing inputs of Hazardous Substances - Halting Habitat Destruction and the ongoing Decline in Biodiversity - Ensuring Maritime Safety and Response Capasity 27
28
HELCOM S Baltic Sea Action Plan BSAP Adopted by the HELCOM Ministers on 15 November 2007 AIM: reaching good ecological and environmental status by 2021 The Fair Burden Share -principle The cross sectoral plan identifies the specific actions needed to achieve the agreed targets within the given timeframe Diminish nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea the maximum allowable level of nutrient loading the actions shall be taken not later than 2016 reduce the nutrient load from waterbourne and airbourne inputs 29
BSAP... The good environmental status to be achieved, the maximum allowable annual nutrient pollution inputs into the Baltic Sea would be 21000 tn/p and 600000 tn/n Over the last years (period 1997-2003), average annual inputs amounted to 36000 tn/ P and 737000 tn/n, annual reductions: 15000 tn/p and 135000 tn/n To achieve reductions, provisional country-wise annual nutrient input reduction targets for both phosphorus and nitrogen Flexibility in actions chosen by MS s, cost effective measures, national programmes 30
Country-wise Provisional Nurtrient reduction requirements Phosphorus (tonnes) Nitrogen (tonnes) DK 16 17210 EE 220 900 FI 150 1200 DE 240 5620 LV 300 2560 LT 880 11750 PL 8760 62400 RU 2500 6970 SE 290 20780 Transboundary Common Pool : P 1660 N 3780 Total reduction targets. N 15250 N 135000 31
Reductions to be achieved Most of the reductions are required in such sub-basins as the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Finland, the Danish Straits, and the Kattegat. Recommendations Municipal wastewater treatment On-site wastewater treatment of single family homes, small businesses and settelments up to 300 person equivalents Measures aimed at the substitution of polyphosphates (phosporus) in detergents Identification of possible Hot Spots 32
Towards a Baltic Sea undisturbed by hazardous substances Once released into the sea, hazardous substances can remaining the marine environment for very long time and accumulate in the marine food web HELCOM has already set a zero-emission target for all hazardous substances in the whole Baltic Sea catchment area by 2020 BSAP: focus on nine organic hazardous substances and two heavy metals National programmes addressing hazardous substances Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural level, ensuring e.g. that all Baltic fish are safe to eat 33
Towards a Baltic Sea with environmentally maritime activities The Baltic Sea is a busy marine motorway A lot has already done on the shipping area in HELCOM Shipping adds the problem of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea with its nutrient inputs from sewage discharges and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions The Baltic Sea Countries agreed to act jointly within IMO to apply stricter controls over these sources of nutrient pollution Proposion of an amendment to MARPOL to introduce standards for nutrients in sewage discharges from ships 34
Towars favourable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity To restore and maintain natural marine landscapes Thriving and balanced communities of animals and plants Viable populations of species Marine spatial planning 35
Implementation A regular overall follow up by HELCOM Implementation group was established by March 2008 BSAP; High in political agenda More information including the complete Baltic Sea Action Plan www.helcom.fi 36
The Baltic Sea Action Plan and Finland Finland will reach the protection level of the BSAP The new brake out: the Fair Burden Share principle adopted In Finland the provisional reduction target can be carried out by implementing Finnish Government decision-in principle on Water Protection Policy Outlines to 2015 The Baltic Sea Countries act jointly within IMO to apply stricter controls over nutrient inputs from sewage discharges from ships 37
Science meets policy Decision will be made in due time with or without scientific advise Human-centred point of view with 4 questions How does a system provide services (including goods such as fish) and why is this important? How is it changing and why? What policies and practices are in place to manage the system or its components and are they working? What options are there for the future? Our aim should be that we are needed in cost effective well informed decision making process The dissemination and integration of knowledge to facilitate the use of policy relevant results by the appropriate bodies Strengthen the dialogue and debate on scientific issues and research results with a broader public beyond the research community. 38
discharges of waste water DPSIR approach facilitate the implementation of the programmes Pressures, e.g inputs of nutrients into coastal waters Driving forces, source emitting nutrients to the environment Industry, agriculture, diffuse loading Responses, of society emission abatements, taxes, regulations water quality State, e.g. nutrients in coastal waters Impacts, e.g. eutrophication effects on population, economy, on ecosystem e.g water unsuitable for drinking, swimming 39
Summary: Nutrient reductions EU legistlation; different directives, WFD, MSD, nitrate directive, urban waste water Directive UWWD HELCOM recommendations National regulations and programmes Targets of Water protections for 2005 Finnish Government decision-in principle on Water Protection Policy Outlines to 2015 Finland s programme for the protection of the Baltic Sea Government s decision-in-principle Actions e.g. reduction of nutrients; financial support for Russian water purification system and for agricultural sector maritime safety, oil BD issues VELMU programme 40
What will come out of this Will all this improve the ecological status of the marine waters? YES If we all work very hard Consensus will be found in member countries between stakeholders 41
Expectations are high 42