Speech Bretschneider HELCOM observer

Statementby the President of theParliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernSylvia Bretschneiderpresented at the18th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference“New Security Challenges”First Session“Co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region”“Reporton the Exercise of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference’s Observer Statusat the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission(Helsinki Commission)in the Period from 2008 to 2009”31 August 2009Nyborg,DenmarkEmbargoed until the end of the speechCheck against delivery!1Introduction:Ladies and Gentlemen,The environmental status of the Baltic Sea is still alarming and calls for particularattention from all Baltic Sea countries.This assessment has been consistently reflected by the political priorities of the BalticSea Parliamentary Conference, which pursues a holistic and integrative approach. Theobjective of this approach is to ensure that environmental protection, protection of themarine and coastal environment, global warming management, cross-border regionalplanning for marine areas, as well as sustainable and socially balanced energy,transport and economic policies are well coordinated with each other.Exercise of the Observer Status:Ladies and Gentlemen,As in the past, the representatives of the Standing Committee agreed that theParliament of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern would primarily exercise the HELCOMobserver status at political and secretary level during the Regular HELCOM Meeting,the meetings of national heads of delegation (HOD), as well as conferences. In addition,Ms Thörnroos and Mr Olsson also helped to exercise the BSPC’s mandate at HELCOM,for which I would like to thank both colleagues very much, indeed.Furthermore, I would also like to thank my Finish colleague Christina Gestrin, who wasappointed last year as the BSPC’s representative in the Baltic Sea Action PlanImplementation Group.Ladies and Gentlemen,In my report, I will briefly describe major results and developments during the period of2008-2009. Should you want more detailed information, I would like to refer you to mywritten report, which will certainly be made available to you at this meeting.In this context, I would like to point out that, in my written report, I have also presentedmajor issues discussed by the Baltic Sea Action Plan Implementation Group in order togive a full overview of the political developments within the framework of HELCOM.The deliberations of the national heads of delegation and the discussions at the regularHELCOM Meeting were focused on steering the implementation process of HELCOM’sBaltic Sea Action Plan, on limiting land-based emissions from agriculture and forestry,the harmful effects of fishing, options for reducing municipal and industrial effluents, aswell as financing measures to improve the environmental status of the Baltic Sea.2The Baltic Sea Action Plan Implementation Group has so far dealt with the nationalimplementation progress and the associated problems in the fields of “maritimeactivities” and “inputs of nutrients and pollutants”. On the latter point, the Group madethe critical comment that data which were important for an extensive assessment of thesituation – such as regional inputs and emission sources – were not made available bythe Contracting Parties, or only with long delays.This point was also criticised at the meetings of the national heads of delegation as wellas at the Stakeholders Conference and the subsequent regular HELCOM Meetingbecause this was bound to have an adverse impact on the development of the variousnational programmes for the implementation of BSAP measures.However, in view of the fact that nutrient and pollutant inputs via the water path tendedto decline in the period from 2000 to 2006, this may be a highly explosive issue.Because the Baltic Sea Action Plan does not stipulate any static reduction targets forthe various marine areas; instead, it lays down differentiated reduction targets thatreflect the current status, ladies and gentlemen.And only if all the data from national monitoring programmes are available to beintegrated into the latest so-called “PLC-5 Report” (The Fifth Baltic Sea Pollution LoadCompilation – HELCOM-PLC-5), can the situation be properly assessed and the BSAPrevised accordingly. In this respect, the Contracting Parties still have to do theirhomework.Ladies and Gentlemen,Scientific evidence suggests that only very few areas in the Kattegat and the Gulf ofBothnia are affected to a lesser extent by the harmful effects of eutrophication. Overall,however, phosphate inputs are declining, which is positive. Consistent sewagetreatment and voluntarily refraining from the use of phosphate-containing detergentshave led a 50-percent decrease in phosphate input. Nevertheless, inputs fromagricultural sources are still much too high.The latter also applies to nitrogen inputs. There is an urgent need to readjust nitrogeninputs. In view of the key role played by agriculture, additional economic incentives orfines imposed on violators are considered to be promising measures. An essentialelement in this context will be stringent monitoring by the responsible supervisoryauthorities.Finally, the involvement of international financial institutions and of the private sector infunding activities is considered to be another major prerequisite to the BSAP’s success,ladies and gentlemen. To assess the value of a healthy environment, Sweden andFinland will present a so-called STERN Report next year based on the BALTIC NESTmodel in order to determine the socio-economic benefit.3The key topics addressed in the field of shipping were measures designed to limit SOxand NOx emissions from ships. While the BASP Implementation Group believes thatstricter rules should be adopted, the Group is also afraid that the plan to further reducefuel sulphur concentrations might have very adverse effects on the maritime industry.This might lead to unwanted side-effects, such as trade flows shifting from waterways toland-based transportation.In future, the effects of NOx emissions on human health will also be examined moreclosely. In this context and with reference to plans to designate the Baltic Sea Regionas an NOx monitoring region, the Implementation Group called on the IMO to paygreater attention to this problem. Furthermore, the Group felt that the North Sea as wellas other European maritime regions should also be designated as NOx monitoringregions.In addition, the Group believed that it was necessary to raise the IMO’s awareness ofthe problem posed by waste water discharges from ships, in particular passenger ships,cruise liners and ferries, which are particularly harmful. In this context, the Groupemphasised that the availability of adequate port reception facilities for ship-generatedwaste water and solid waste as well as a harmonised “no-special-fee system” for theentire Baltic Sea were of paramount importance. In this context, the Group also felt thatit was necessary to develop an action plan for major ports and harbours for cruise ships,with the involvement of industry and private stakeholders. This Action Plan should beadopted by the environment ministers in 2010.With reference to the planned construction of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline, the Groupemphasised that the environmental impact assessment should be carried out openlyand transparently, based on the criteria of the ESPOO Convention and in accordancewith the relevant national legislation. The Group did not see any need for HELCOM tobe formally involved in the licensing process because each Contracting Party would beable to participate with its own experts in the national process.Conclusion:Ladies and Gentlemen,In terms of its concept, the Baltic Sea Action Plan Implementation Group is anotherpolitical steering committee of HELCOM, which is expected to observe, evaluate andprioritise the implementation processes in the Baltic Sea countries and, if necessary, tointervene in order to steer these processes.As a matter of fact, however, nearly all the members of the Implementation Group are atthe same time the national heads of delegation. It goes without saying that this willreduce the effectiveness of the Implementation Group because its members have theirown decisions confirmed in a different function. At the 30th Regular HELCOM Meetingand the 28th Meeting of national Heads of Delegation, this problematic situation wasalready critically scrutinised.4A simple and pragmatic solution would be to dissolve the Implementation Group and totransfer its responsibilities to the level of the Heads of Delegation. However, this couldbe completely misunderstood politically as suggesting that the Baltic Sea Action Planwas no longer important to the Baltic Sea countries – also in view of the global financialand economic crisis.Nevertheless, such an approach would transfer the work to the proper political level andalso avoid duplication, which is something that the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencehas also regularly requested in the past.However, this question should be solved in the near future in order not to block or slowdown the implementation process of the Action Plan.Ladies and Gentlemen,Another problem is that environmental and climate protection aspects do not play amajor role in the negotiations of HELCOM’s Contracting Parties on the budget. It wouldtherefore be advisable to strongly advocate in the responsible budgetary groups andcommittees the allocation of adequate funds for such purposes, in particular for theprotection of the marine environment.Policy-makers should get away from the traditional cost-benefit mentality. They shouldno longer ask: How much does it cost to protect the environment, the climate and themarine environment? What charges will that impose on industry, agriculture, forestryand fishery, etc.?Instead, policymakers should ask in future how much it will cost if “nothing is done”.In view of the BSPC’s successful co-operation with HELCOM to date and the politicalsynergy effects at international, regional and national level, I would like to recommend inconclusion that the BSPC should continue to exercise its observer status at HELCOMand that, in view of the current environmental challenges, the BSPC should continue toactively support HELCOM’s work.Thank you very much for your attention.5Parliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernPresidentSylvia BretschneiderSchloss SchwerinLennéstrasse 119053 Schwerin (GERMANY)Phone: +49-385-525-2100Fax: +49-385-525-2107Email: sylvia.bretschneider@landtag-mv.deWeb: www.landtag-mv.de6