Report on HELCOM 2008-2009 by BSPC Observer Sylvia Bretschneider

PARLIAMENT OF MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN (GERMANY)18th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (30 Aug. to 1 Sept. 2009)Nyborg, DenmarkReport on the Exercise of the Observer Status of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference (BSPC) at the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission(Helsinki Commission – HELCOM) in the period of 2008-20091. BackgroundThe environmental status of the Baltic Sea is still alarming and calls for particular attention fromall Baltic Sea countries. This assessment is reflected by the political priorities of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference, which is pursuing a holistic and integrative approach. The objectiveof this approach is to ensure that environmental protection, protection of the marine and coastalenvironment, global warming management, cross-border regional planning for marine areas, aswell as sustainable and socially balanced energy, transport and economic policies are properlycoordinated with each other.In this context, HELCOM's Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is seen as the environmental pillar ofthe EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive, whose objective it is to achieve a goodenvironmental status for the Baltic Sea by the year 2021. At the same time, the Baltic SeaAction Plan is expected to help implement the European Union’s Baltic Sea Strategy.As in the past, the representatives of the Standing Committee of the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference agreed that the Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern would primarily exercisethe HELCOM observer status at political and secretary level during the Annular HELCOMMeeting, the meetings of the national heads of delegation (HOD), as well as conferences. MsChristina Gestrin, member of the Finnish Parliament and Chairman of the Standing Committeeof the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, was appointed as the representative of the BalticSea Parliamentary Conference in the BSAP Implementation Group.The following report describes major results and developments in the period 2008-2009.The deliberations of the national heads of delegation and at the regular HELCOM Meeting werefocused on steering the implementation process of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan, onlimiting land-based emissions from agriculture and forestry, on the harmful effects of fishing, onoptions for reducing municipal and industrial effluents, as well as on the financing of measuresdesigned to improve the environmental status of the Baltic Sea.12. Results- 3rd Meeting of HELCOM’s BSAP Implementation Group on 14-15 October 2008 inTalinnAt the meeting, Contracting Parties reported on the progress made in their countries with regardto the implementation of the BSAP. In order to inform each other promptly about the progressmade, the Parties agreed to establish an “online reporting system”. Other key topics addressedat the meeting were measures designed to improve maritime safety and minimising adverseeffects of maritime traffic on the environment.With reference to the BSAP’s maritime section, participants emphasised the need to give moresupport to the BRISK project (Sub-regional risk of spill of oil and hazardous substances in theBaltic Sea) in order to shorten response times in the event of accidents and to introduce newsecurity measures. Participants agreed that, for most accidents, sufficient funds were availablefrom the IMO’s liability and compensation funds to combat the effects of such accidents. To thisend, however, it was necessary, the participants emphasised, that the Baltic Sea countries ratifyand put into force all the conventions.They added that there was a need for reliable (electronic) nautical charts to further improvemaritime safety. To this end, however, sea areas would have to be re-surveyed. In addition,they stated that ship reporting systems and ship traffic guidance services should be harmonisedin order to increase system compatibility and to reduce the effort involved for ship officers.As far as the reduction of ship-generated emissions of pollutants were concerned, participantsdiscussed the options for introducing an emission trading system for nitrogen and sulphuroxides, and for having the IMO designate the Baltic Sea as an SOx and NOx monitoring regionunder the provisions of the MARPOL Convention. Overall, they felt that more stringent rulesshould be adopted. Participants also recommended that initiatives should be taken via the IMOto minimise waste water discharges into the Baltic Sea – in particular from passenger ships,cruise liners and ferries – and to have the Baltic Sea designated as a Special Area.- 4th Meeting of HELCOM’s BSAP Implementation Group on 2-3 December 2008In addition to presenting reports about further progress made at national level since October2008 with regard to the implementation of the BSAP, participants mainly discussed the BSAP’seutrophication chapter. In this context, they emphasised the need for closer co-operation withBelarus.In the discussion, participants stated that nutrient inputs from rivers and point sources near thecoast had gradually declined in the period between 1994 and 2006. They explained that thishad been due to measures implemented by the Baltic Sea countries and also to naturalprocesses. In the period between 1990 and 2006, there had been a significant decline, theysaid, specifically for the parameters “nitrogen” and “phosphate”. In this context, participantsmade the critical comment that data which were important for an extensive assessment of thesituation – such as regional inputs, emission sources, etc. – had not been made available by theContracting Parties, or only with a long delay. They added that this was bound to have anadverse impact on the development of the various national programmes for the implementationof BSAP measures.2- 27th Meeting of the National Heads of Delegation in Helsinki on 3-4 December 2008The deliberations of the national Heads of Delegation were focused on the results of the 3rd and4th meetings of HELCOM’s BSAP Implementation Group, the reports presented by HELCOM’sworking groups, the status of preparations for the 30th Regular HELCOM Meeting and theMinisterial Meeting scheduled to be held in the second half of May in the year 2010 in Moscow.The heads of delegation emphasised that the BSAP pursued an “Ecosystem Approach” andhelped to comply with obligations under the Helsinki Convention as well as other bindinginternational rules such as the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In thiscontext, they proposed that the remediation of the Baltic Sea should be chosen as a Europeanpilot project. To this end, it would essentially be necessary, they felt, to develop indicators forthe monitoring process as well as a holistic assessment of the environmental status of the BalticSea, while also taking into consideration conflicting interests and socio-economic analyses. Thegoal was to make commitments to the necessary approaches at the Ministerial Meeting in 2010in a way that would be binding for all Contracting Parties. In addition, the heads of delegationattached importance to the fact that, as far as possible, the BSAP should be compatible with theEU’s Baltic Sea Strategy.As far as nutrient inputs were concerned, they stated that inputs via the water path weregenerally on the decline. This decline was attributed both to the particular hydrologicalconditions prevailing in the Baltic Sea and to water conservation measures that had beenadopted. However, the heads of delegation pointed out that for a fundamental assessment, theContracting Parties would have to provide additional data.Against this background, the heads of delegation also discussed the current status of therevision of the reduction targets for nutrients specified in the Action Plan; the targets would haveto be determined step by step, based on the latest PLC-5 data material, they said.They also emphasised the need for suitable financing measures to be implemented by theNordic Investmentbank (NIB) and the Nordic Environmental Finance Cooperation (NEFCO),stating that projects for the inclusion of measures within the framework of the NorthernDimension would also have to be taken into consideration in order to achieve synergies and afavourable cost/benefit ratio.HELCOM Response adopted a proposal to amend HELCOM Recommendation 11/13, which isdesigned to improve the national ability to respond to spillages of oil and other harmfulsubstances. In addition, HELCOM Response proposed that Recommendation 6/14 on theestablishment of a reporting system for pollution incidents and Recommendation 23/2 on co-operation between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia in the field of combating marinepollution incidents should no longer be valid. In the maritime field, participants welcomed anagreement to propose to IMO that, as of 2010, the Baltic Sea should be designated as an NOxmonitoring region in Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, and they also welcomed the efforts made toamend Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 so that waste waster from passenger ships, cruise linersand ferries would no longer be allowed to discharge waste water into the Baltic Sea.Potential priority topics discussed for the Ministerial Meeting in 2010 included that current statusof the national BSAP implementation processes, a potential STERN Report for the Baltic SeaRegion, as well as common work priorities in co-operation with other organisations such asOSPAR, with a view to a coherent network of protected marine areas, regional planning formarine areas, as well as the performance of functions at international level.3- 4th Stakeholders Conference on the development of the HELCOM Baltic Sea ActionPlan in Helsinki on 3 March 2009 and 30th Regular HELCOM Meeting in Helsinki on 4-5March 2009The Stakeholders Conference mainly dealt with measures designed to ensure the cost-effectiveimplementation of the BSAP. Discussions were focused on regional co-operation for theprotection of the Baltic Sea, the inclusion of the European level in connection with all segmentsof the BSAP as well as linking legal bases and strategies.Participants emphasised that experts and policymakers would have to co-operate closely andthat stakeholders from industry and the private sector would have to become involved in orderto achieve the objectives. They pointed that the BSAP marked the beginning of a new era forthe protection of the Baltic Sea, especially since Russia was included by the EU MemberStates.The participants stated that biodiversity was considerably affected not only by human activitiesbut also by climate change. Case studies had proven, for instance, that it was not sufficient toprotect endangered species. In addition, they said, there was no coherent network of protectedareas. In many areas, participants stated, conflicts were caused by different uses, in particularby fishing. From the perspective of sustainability, these conflicts could be remedied, they said,by means of well-thought-out regional planning of marine areas. The stakeholders agreed thatbiodiversity was an important factor for tourism, and hence for the regional economy.For the first time, participants discussed the results of an “Integrated Assessment of the Effectsof Eutrophication”. According to this assessment, only very few coastal areas in the north-eastern part of the Kattegat and in the Gulf of Bothnia were largely unaffected by eutrophication.Participants suggested that, all in all, these new findings should be used for the revision of theBSAP and the implementation of the European Nitrates Directive as well as the Urban WasteWater Treatment Directive and should lead to the designation of the Baltic Sea as a “nitrate-sensitive” area. While participants were pleased, overall, to see that phosphate inputs haddecreased by 50 per cent due to consistent waste water treatment and voluntary commitmensto refrain from the use of phosphates in detergents, inputs from agricultural sources were still fartoo high. There was an urgent need, participants said, to readjust phosphate inputs. As far asnitrogen inputs were concerned, there had not been a substantial decline. In view of the key roleplayed by agriculture in reducing nutrient inputs, additional economic incentives or finesimposed on violators were considered to be promising measures in order to achieve the BSAP’sobjectives.The involvement of international financial institutions (IFIs) and of the private sector was alsoconsidered to be an essential prerequisite to the BSAP’s success. However, this would requiregreater awareness of the “true value” of a healthy environment. To this end, it was decided thatSweden and Finland would prepare a so-called “Baltic Sea STERN Report” by 2010, based onthe BALTIC NEST model, in order to determine the socio-economic benefit. However,participants pointed out that it would be difficult to apply reference standards because there wasinsufficient knowledge about the linkage between environmental effects and ecological services.The IFIs had recognised the BSAP as a guideline for environmental actions that would also helpto implement European directives and additional HELCOM recommendations beyond the BalticSea Region in the entire water catchment area. However, participants stated that it was oftendifficult to obtain a sufficient volume of loans from local financial institutions. Alternatively, theysaid, waste water treatment plants might be co-financed to a greater extent via the EU’sStructural Funds. As far as shipping was concerned, stakeholders pointed out that there werealready cost-efficient concepts for further reducing SOx and NOx emissions, i.e. by enforcingstringent measures laid down in Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. On the other hand, theysaid that reducing the sulphur concentrations in marine fuel oils to 0.1 per cent as of 2015 wouldbe counterproductive.4Higher fuel costs would shift transportation of goods from waterways to roads. For this reason,representatives of the shipping industry also suggested that an emission trading system shouldbe introduced in order to reduce emissions.With reference to regional co-operation, participants stated that many activities designed tosolve problems were not co-ordinated and therefore were not very cost-efficient. In this respect,they said, there was considerable scope for improvement. In addition, they pointed out that thePLC-5 data were an indispensable prerequisite for setting national reduction targets. Twoprojects were mentioned in this context as examples of good co-operation: “Sub-regional risk ofspill of oil and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea” (BRISK) and “Control of hazardoussubstances in the Baltic Sea region” (COHIBA). The former is designed to change theassignment of responsibilities and the provision of equipment used jointly to combat spills; thelatter is designed to manage national programmes for monitoring inputs of hazardoussubstances.The round-table discussion was focused on questions such as how bridges can be builtbetween academia and politics, how the financial priorities of the EU Funds can be used for theimplementation of the BSAP, and how the interest of politicians in the implementation of theBSAP can be increased.Participants requested that political decisions should generally be based on the best availablescientific evidence. For this purpose, they said, more funding would have to be made availablefor science and research. At the same time, however, problems involved in transferring thenecessary know-how would have to be overcome and socio-economic aspects would have tobe taken into consideration within the framework of a holistic approach. Experts shouldgenerally also be involved in legislative procedures.Participants added that the implementation of other legal frameworks such as the EuropeanMarine Strategy Framework Directive or the Water Framework Directive could also build bridgesfor improved co-operation. In view of the limited financial resources, they said, answers wouldhave to be found to key questions. The financial resources available were actually sufficient,they added. They pointed out that the use of EU Funds currently available would be essentialfor the successful implementation of measures. IFIs and other national and private lendersshould be included to co-finance activities.The results of the Stakeholders Conference were intensively discussed during the subsequentRegular HELCOM Meeting. Other key issues discussed at this meeting included the FinalReport on “Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment of the effectsof nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea region”, a “Holistic assessment of the environmentalstatus of the Baltic Sea” as a contribution of national BSAP implementation processes, criteriafor the designation and elimination of agricultural “hot spots”, measures proposed to the IMO forreducing the discharge of waste water and the dumping of waste by passengers ships, cruiseliners and ferries, for the binding acceptance and expansion of port reception facilities, and forimplementing the “no-special-fee system” in the Baltic Sea region, as well as the preparation ofthe HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2010.During the meeting, HELCOM representatives expressed their concern that, while governmentlevels made pompous promises with regard to the implementation of the BSAP, there was alack of serious efforts to implement concrete measures. However, participants also criticisedHELCOM itself by stating that the dual function of government representatives as both nationalheads of delegation (HOD) and members of the BSAP Implementation Group would have anadverse impact on the work of the Implementation Group and hence ultimately also on theimplementation of the BSAP. Another major problem, they said, was that, across the Baltic Searegion, there were many parallel activities which were not sufficiently well co-ordinated.5Participants referred to the holistic approach of the BSAP and its integration into Europeanstrategies as “epochal”. In addition, regional planning of marine areas would in future providethe opportunity, they said, to bring together a wide variety of sectors and organisers in order toensure effective action.However, participants drew attention to the fact that the effects of the global financial andeconomic crisis also had to be taken into consideration in the implementation of the Action Plan.With reference to the planned construction of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline, governmentrepresentatives emphasised that the environmental impact assessment should be carried outopenly and transparently, based on the criteria of the ESPOO Convention and in accordancewith the relevant national legislation. Participants did not see any need for HELCOM to beformally involved in the licensing process because each Contracting Party would be able toparticipate with its own experts in the national processes.There was general approval of the proposal that contacts with government representatives fromUkraine, the Czech Republic, and in particular Belarus should be intensified in future in order toinvolve these countries, located in the Baltic Sea’s catchment area, to a greater extent in theecological remediation of the Baltic Sea within the framework of HELCOM.- 5th Meeting of HELCOM’s BSAP Implementation Group in Helsinki on 21-22 April 2009The key political topics discussed at this meeting included once again the status of the nationalBSAP implementation, the development of assessment instruments and methods for theimplementation of the BSAP, as well as the BSAP’s chapters on eutrophication and hazardoussubstances.Generally speaking, participants stated that it would be necessary to continue to reduce nutrientinputs into the Baltic Sea in order to achieve the agreed targets. MONAS was urged to presentkey indicators for the Baltic Sea’s degree of eutrophication by the Ministerial Meeting in 2010.Based on national reports on the implementation of the European Nitrates Directive, participantsalso discussed the progress of the efforts made to designate the Baltic Sea region as a nitrate-sensitive area. With regard to the revision of the BSAP’s preliminary nutrient reduction targets,they stated that the targets should be reduced step by step, as agreed at the 30th RegularHELCOM Meeting. The Contracting Parties were called upon repeatedly to comply with theirobligations in terms of transmitting the necessary data, in particular on diffuse nutrient inputs.All Contracting Parties, except for one, agreed on three points: firstly, criteria for the designationof agricultural point sources should be adopted by 2009, as agreed; secondly, the closeconnection of the BSAP with the EU’s Baltic Sea Strategy should be recognised; and thirdly, theSwedish Council Presidency should be used for the national implementation of the BSAP’sAnnex III.- 28th Meeting of the National Heads of Delegation in Helsinki on 9-10 June 2009As before, the HOD’s deliberations were focused on the BSAP. In this context, therepresentative of the European Commission explained the close connections of the BSAP withthe objectives and the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive and with theEU’s Baltic Sea Strategy; she added that measures implemented at regional level wereobviously important for the success of implementation. She said that HELCOM and COM werein close contact in this respect in order to prepare the ground for a pilot project that wouldidentify the necessary legal conditions, also for holistic approaches.6The Commission’s representative pointed out that it would only be possible to decide ultimatelywhether the BSAP itself would be suitable as a pilot project for the Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective once this information was available.With reference to the reduction targets established in the BSAP for specific basins in the BalticSea and their revision in response to real developments, the heads of delegation discussedtrends in reference periods (1997 to 2003 and 2000 to 2007), based on PLC-5 and EMEP data.The latest reference period had demonstrated, they said, that significantly lower nutrient inputshad reached the Baltic Sea via the atmosphere and via the water path.However, they pointed out that the hydrographical particularities – such as the elevatedrainwater runoff due to higher rainfall – had to be taken into consideration. The heads ofdelegation decided that this issue should be discussed in greater depth during the 6th meeting ofthe BSAP Implementation Group in mid-October 2009. They agreed that the first few steps interms of assessments and decisions for the revision of the BSAP should be initiated during theHELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2010; in 2013, these assessments should then be furtherevaluated and validated for the various parts of the Baltic Sea. By way of a critical comment, theheads of delegation however stated that a reassessment would make it necessary that all thedata from all Baltic Sea countries would be available and that national programmes for theimplementation of the BSAP would have entered into force, which could not be assumed basedon the experience to date. Some Contracting Parties had failed to comply with their obligations,they said.The heads of delegation approved the major results of LAND in terms of the revised criteria foridentifying agricultural point sources and for deleting the following points sources from the hotspot list: No. 55 (Panevezys waste water treatment plant) and Nos. 18.4, 18.14 and 18.16(waste water treatment plants in south-west St. Petersburg, Potonny and Repino.As far as the designation of ports of refuge in the Baltic Sea region was concerned, there werediverging views about the need for additional bilateral agreements that go beyond the provisionsof the 3rd European Maritime Safety Package (ERIKA-3). The draft of a new HELCOMrecommendation to that effect did not meet with unanimous support, either. The heads ofdelegation decided to continue the deliberations on this draft during their meeting in December2009.Another topic discussed was ship-generated emissions of pollutants. In future, the participantssaid, the effects of NOx emissions on human health should also be examined more closely. Inthis context and with reference to plans to designate the Baltic Sea region as an NOxmonitoring region, the heads of delegation called on the IMO (MEPC 59) to pay greaterattention to this problem. Furthermore, they felt that the North Sea should also be designated asan NOx monitoring region.In addition, they believed that it was necessary to raise the IMO’s awareness of the problemposed by waste water discharged from ships, in particular passenger ships, cruise liners andferries, which were particularly harmful. In this context, they emphasised that the availability ofadequate port reception facilities for ship-generated waste water and solid waste as well as aharmonised “no-special-fee system” for the entire Baltic Sea were of paramount importance.This topic was being discussed with shipping companies and ship operators, they said. In thiscontext, the heads of delegation also felt that it was necessary to develop an action plan formajor ports and harbours for cruise ships, with the involvement of industry and privatestakeholders, and that his Action Plan should be adopted by the environment ministers in 2010.Other topics discussed included the status of the network of protected marine areas, the“Biodiversity Report”, as well as opportunities for and the progress made in common regionalplanning of marine areas in the Baltic Sea.7As far as the timing for the 2010 Ministerial Meeting in Moscow was concerned, the heads ofdelegation agreed on the following dates: 18 May (Stakeholders Conference), 19 May (HODMeeting) and 20 May (Ministerial Meeting, including EU Commissioner).3. ConclusionsIn terms of its concept, the Baltic Sea Action Plan Implementation Group is a political steeringcommittee, which is expected to observe, evaluate and prioritise the implementation processesin the Baltic Sea countries and, if necessary, to intervene in order to steer these processes.In actual fact, however, nearly all the members of the Implementation Group are at the sametime the national heads of delegation. It goes without saying that this is bound to reduce theeffectiveness of the Implementation Group because its members have their own decisionsconfirmed in a different function. At the 30th Regular HELCOM Meeting and the 28th Meeting ofnational Heads of Delegation, this problematic situation was already critically scrutinised.A simple and pragmatic solution would be to dissolve the Implementation Group and to transferits responsibilities to the level of the Heads of Delegation. However, this could be completelymisunderstood politically as suggesting that the Baltic Sea Action Plan was no longer importantto the Baltic Sea countries.On the other hand, the work done by the Implementation Group is so important that it should betransferred back to the level of the national heads of delegation. This should be done in the nearfuture in order not to block the implementation process of the Action Plan. Such an approachwould transfer the work to the proper political level and also avoid duplication.Another problem is that environmental and climate protection aspects do not play a major role inthe negotiations of HELCOM’s Contracting Parties on the budget. It would therefore beadvisable to strongly advocate in the responsible budgetary groups and committees theallocation of adequate funds for such purposes, and in particular for the protection of the marineenvironment.Policy-makers should get away from the traditional cost-benefit mentality. They should nolonger ask: How much does it cost to protect the environment, the climate and the marineenvironment? What charges will that impose on industry, agriculture, forestry and fishery, etc.?Instead, policymakers should ask in future: How much will it cost if “nothing is done”?In view of the BSPC’s successful co-operation with HELCOM to date and the political synergyeffects at international, regional and national level, we recommend to the BSPC’s StandingCommittee that the BSPC should continue to exercise its observer status at HELCOM and that,in view of the current environmental challenges, the BSPC should continue to actively supportHELCOM’s work.Sylvia BretschneiderPresident of theParliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern8