Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea BSPC 2019
BSPCBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceEutrophicationof the Baltic SeaBSPC 2019BSPCBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceEutrophicationof the Baltic SeaBSPC 20192Report The Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceEutrophication of the Baltic Sea (BSPC) was established in 1991 as a forum forpolitical dialogue between parliamentariansBSPC 2019 from the Baltic Sea Region. BSPC aims at rais-ing awareness and opinion on issues of currentpolitical interest and relevance for the BalticSea Region. It promotes and drives various in-Text: Saara-Sofia Sirén itiatives and efforts to support a sustainableEditing: Bodo Bahr environmental, social and economic develop-ment of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives at en-Layout: produktionsbüro TINUS hancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea Regionand its issues in a wider European context.Photos: BSPC SecretariatBSPC gathers parliamentarians from 11national parliaments, 11 regional parliamentsand 5 parliamentary organisations around theBaltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes aunique parliamentary bridge between all theEU- and non-EU countries of the Baltic SeaRegion.BSPC external interfaces include parlia-mentary, governmental, sub-regional and oth-er organizations in the Baltic Sea Region andthe Northern Dimension area, among themCBSS, HELCOM, the Northern DimensionPartnership in Health and Social Well-Being(NDPHS), the Baltic Sea Labour Forum(BSLF), the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Co-operation (BSSSC) and the Baltic Develop-ment Forum.BSPC shall initiate and guide political ac-tivities in the region; support and strengthendemocratic institutions in the participatingstates; improve dialogue between govern-ments, parliaments and civil society; strength-en the common identity of the Baltic Sea Re-gion by means of close co-operation betweennational and regional parliaments on the basisBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference of equality; and initiate and guide political ac-Bodo Bahr tivities in the Baltic Sea Region, endowingSecretary General them with additional democratic legitimacy+49 171 5512557 and parliamentary authority.bodo.bahr@bspcmail.net The political recommendations of the an-www.bspc.net nual Parliamentary Conferences are expressedin a Conference Resolution adopted by con-sensus by the Conference. The adopted Reso-lution shall be submitted to the governmentsBSPC Secretariat of the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and theSchlossgartenallee 15 EU, and disseminated to other relevant na-19061 Schwerin tional, regional and local stakeholders in theGermany Baltic Sea Region and its neighbourhood.3Contents1 INTRODUCTION ....................................41.1 Eutrophication and Circular Economy ...............71.2 Political topicality ...............................81.2.1 Topicality on EU level .......................81.2.2 Topicality on the level of Baltic Sea Region ........91.3 Aim of the report ...............................102 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? .................112.1 The Baltic Sea .................................112.2 Circular economy ..............................112.3 PESTEL analysis ...............................122.3.1 Political factors ............................132.3.2 Economic factors ..........................152.3.3 Social factors .............................162.3.4 Technological factors .......................172.3.5 Environmental factors ......................182.3.6 Legal Factors ..............................203 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS ..........................223.1 Forming the scenarios .............................223.2 Admission to possibilities ..........................233.3 Future dominated by other things ...................243.4 Continuum of status quo ..........................253.5 Geopolitics, random coincidences andprivate saviors ...................................264 CONCLUSIONS .....................................284.1 Implications ....................................30REFERENCES ........................................32Literature: ............................................32Articles: ..............................................32Electronic sources: ......................................35Web sites: .............................................38Other: ...............................................404 Introduction1 INTRODUCTIONThe Baltic Sea is one of themost vulnerable seas in theworld. It is a young, small,stressed and sensitive ecosys-tem. The sea is very importantto all coastal states located atthe drainage basin. The condi-tion of the Baltic Sea effects notonly our natural heritage, butthe wellbeing, livelihood andhealth of the 85 million peopleliving around the sea.However, it is the making of ushumans which has caused dra-Saara-Sofia Sirén matical environmental load andMember of the pressure to the Baltic Sea. FromFinnish Parliament an economic point of view, thecondition of our waters can beseen as a market failure affect-ing people’s lives. This makes water pollution in fact an external costwhich requires actions from the government.Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea is not a new topic. For example,Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - HelsinkiCommission (HELCOM), has been researching and working onprotection of the Baltic Sea already for four decades. Various pro-grams, strategies and agreements have been committed to through-out the years (some of them presented in chapter 3.3.1). Despite allof them, the Baltic Sea still suffers from eutrophication (see e.g.HELCOM State of the Baltic Sea holistic assessment 2011–2016).So why is it that we fail repeatedly to meet the standards that wehave set together? To start with, the sea is very sensitive. Eventhough we have now, to some extend, been successful in decreasingnutrient input, the Baltic Sea has faced external load for decades. Itwill take time for the sea to recover. Furthermore, I believe that oneof the main reasons could be the fact that political perspective is tooshort. To understand the future of the Baltic Sea, a wider perspec-tive would be needed. Political decision-making could benefit fromfuture oriented research and long-perspective visions.Introduction 5Political decision-makers are not the only ones lacking long-timeperspective. It has been shown, that eutrophication is a subject ofpublic discussion in the summer time, when blue-green algal is vis-ible in coastal areas. After the algal disappears when autumn comes,the topic disappears from the media too.This report focuses in the possibilities that circular economy has indecreasing nutrient flows that cause eutrophication. The viewpointis on international co-operation between countries and areas thatshare the sea or are located around the drainage basin.The main aim of this report can be summarized to one question:How could international policy linked to Circular Economy affect eu-trophication of the Baltic Sea in the future?For this report, this question was approached through two futuresstudies methods: horizon scanning and morphological analysis. Toclarify the ideal situation and worst case scenario, future scenarioswere formed based on analysis. Scenarios show how financial diffi-culties can lower the importance of environmental topics both inthe eyes of decision-makers and people in general. This may beshown in the number of investments made, in the level of ambitionin strategies and legislation, as well as in the attitudes and require-ments of citizens.Circular economy could reduce nutrient loads from agriculture anddecrease eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. There is great potential forexample in nutrient recycling. International cooperation and policyplay a key role in the protection of the Baltic Sea. However, coun-tries around the Baltic Sea are different and have different situa-tions.There are numerous strategies, programs and commitments relatedto eutrophication of the sea. The challenge is in implementing settargets on a national level. Legislative structures should supportadopting sustainable ways of thinking and the idea of circular econ-omy. This, however, would require restructuring of legislation relat-ed to, for example, agricultural subsidy mechanisms.Much work still lies ahead of us in ensuring that our children willhave an opportunity to enjoy and sustainably benefit from the Bal-tic Sea. Climate change and global warming will only make the sit-uation more challenging.6 IntroductionThis report serves as an overview of eutrophication and circulareconomy in the Baltic Sea area. It is based on my Master thesis inthe field of Futures studies (University of Turku, 2018). My previ-ous BSPC report regarding eutrophication was published at the an-nual conference in 2017.Saara-Sofia SirénMember of Parliament, Parliament of FinlandBSPC Rapporteur on EutrophicationIntroduction 71.1 Eutrophication and Circular EconomyThe most serious environmental problems at the Baltic Sea arecaused as a result of eutrophication. A lot of efforts have been takenplace to improve the situation; however, we have not been success-ful in restoring the waters to good condition. Even though theamount of phosphorus and nitrogen has decreased, the Baltic Sea isstill affected by eutrophication. For example, the condition of threequarters of Finnish coastal waters is weakened.The subject of eutrophication at the Baltic Sea has been researchedquite widely. Most of the research has been focusing on the historyand current situation of the Baltic Sea. Although research concern-ing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea has been taken place already inthe 80s and 90s, the topic is continually researched. For example,HELCOM collects data regularly. The latest State of the Baltic Sea–report was published last year (HELCOM 2018).At the moment the condition of the Baltic Sea is under wide inter-est in many Baltic Sea states, especially the Nordic countries. For ex-ample, Baltic Sea Centre of Stockholm University has a team of sci-entists (Baltic Eye) working independently on research regardingthe Baltic Sea, with eutrophication as one focus of their research.The aim of their work is to bridge the gap between the extensive re-search conducted and the policy-making of the Baltic Sea Region.In this report, I am interested in the possibilities that circular econ-omy has in decreasing nutrient flows that cause eutrophication inthe Baltic Sea. Circular economy is an economic model where add-ed value is created through a smarter way of doing things. In circu-lar economy, the focus is in reusing materials and in creating as lit-tle as possible, if any, waste.This is also the idea of nutrient recycling in agriculture. Eutrophica-tion is mainly caused by nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen.In the past the nutrients have been from several causes. Biggest de-crease has taken place in sewage treatments of both industries andhouseholds. Today, the biggest potential in decreasing nutrient flowis in agriculture. Even though technologies have improved a lot,phosphorus and nitrogen are not always used effectively in agricul-tural systems, whereupon nutrient flows may end in waters.8 Introduction1.2 Political topicalityWellbeing of the Baltic Sea has been a political topic for decades, es-pecially since the founding of HELCOM in 1974. Eutrophicationand circular economy are mentioned as topics for example in theCircular Economy Strategy of the European Commission.The exceptionally warm summer of 2018 lead to vigorous bloomingof blue-green algae all around the Baltic Sea. This further boostedthe political discussion regarding eutrophication and circular econ-omy.1.2.1 Topicality on EU levelAs several countries share the Baltic Sea, international co-operationis vital for decreasing eutrophication of the sea. International docu-ments such as the EU Marine Strategy, the Baltic Sea Action Plan ofthe Baltic Marine Environment Commission and the EU Strategyfor the Baltic Sea Region create the framework for political deci-sion-making regarding the Baltic Sea and thus form a basis for theactivities of improving the condition of the Baltic Sea. These docu-ments are further introduced in chapter 2.3.1.In the beginning of December 2015 European Commission pub-lished a new strategy for circular economy. This Circular EconomyPackage presents ambitious proposals addressing various sectors, in-cluding water policies and recycling of nutrients. The CircularEconomy Strategy of the European Commission offers a timelyframe of reference for this report. The package has a strong focus onwaste management and recycling (especially plastics), however thecommunication “Action Plan for the Circular Economy” for exam-ple includes new regulation, which aims at encouraging recycling ofnutrients.In the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in Brussels on 6th of March2018, the Baltic Sea countries responsible Ministers and the EUCommissioners adopted the HELCOM Brussels Ministerial Decla-ration and agreed on new commitments for the Baltic marine envi-ronment, one of the main objectives being the updating of the Bal-tic Sea Action Plan.The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), originally adopted by all thecoastal states and the EU in 2007, aims for the good environmentalstatus of the Baltic Sea by the year 2021. Two years remaining fromIntroduction 9the goal, there is a lot to be done. Therefore, the Ministerial Meet-ing of Brussels decided in March that the BSAP needs to be updat-ed to include new measures to ensure that the existing goals areachieved. The participants of the meeting also committed to devel-oping a Baltic-wide nutrient recycling strategy by 2020. This is animportant step towards the Baltic Sea unaffected of eutrophication.The aim is to reduce the nutrient inflow to the sea and to ensuremore efficient use of nutrients.1.2.2 Topicality on the level of Baltic Sea RegionBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) is a cooperation initi-ative between parliamentarians from national and regional parlia-ments as well as parliamentary organizations located around theBaltic Sea. BSPC was founded in 1991 with the aim of increasingdialogue and cooperation between parliament level politicians fromdifferent countries and regions surrounding the sea. What is specialin the work of BSPC, is that is bridges BSR parliamentarians fromboth EU- and non-EU countries in a unique way.The main event of BSPC is the yearly conference, which gathers to-gether parliament representatives from all BSR states. The hostingstate influences the head topics of each conference. In the previousyears the discussion has been somewhat focusing on topics such assecurity, immigration, health and tourism within the BSR. Howev-er, in the BSPC conference in Mariehamn 2018, eutrophication ofthe Baltic Sea was mentioned in several speeches, even though it wasnot on the focus on the official agenda. Three reports related to thetopic were presented in the seminar.Wellbeing of the Baltic Sea was at the core also in the openingspeech held by the President of Finland, Sauli Niinistö in Marie-hamn. The President pointed out for the audience that the status ofthe Baltic Sea is not very good, especially after an exceptionallywarm summer and extensive amount of blue-green algae blooming.The President reminded the representatives that throughout history,the Baltic Sea has served well the people living in the Baltic Sea re-gion, and we must ensure that it will be able to do so in the futureas well. The President mentioned climate change and eutrophica-tion as the main concerns, and reminded that every nation, everyparliament and every citizen must be involved in turning the courseof development towards the goals of sustainable development andrestoring a healthy marine ecology.10 IntroductionAccording to President Niinistö, a lot has been done to enhance thestatus of the Baltic Sea, but measures need to be further accelerated.The President pointed out in his speech the importance of measuressuch as reducing the nutrient load caused by human activity, suchas agriculture, and reducing the amount of plastic waste coming tothe sea. President Niinistö also underlined that the intergovern-mental cooperation is vital in the process of protecting the marineenvironment of the Baltic Sea, and that the work of Helsinki Com-mission is an important cornerstone in achieving the goals.Finland received the presidency of the Helsinki Commission for atwo-year term. Also President Niinistö agreed, that the next impor-tant goal in HELCOM is to update the Baltic Sea Action PlanBSAP. The President also pointed out in his speech, that he warmlywelcomes the idea that one day the Baltic Sea Region would be-come a model for sustainable development.1.3 Aim of the reportThe aim of this report is to give insight of the effects Circular Econ-omy could have on eutrophication of the Baltic Sea by the year2030. The viewpoint of this report is international, taking into con-sideration all Baltic Sea states and policy making structures withinthe Baltic Sea region.The main aim for this report can be shown in one question:How could international policy linked to Circular Economy affect eu-trophication of the Baltic Sea in the future?The question is limited to policy making within the Baltic Sea re-gion. The future perspective is set to the probable end year of thenew, yet to be updated HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan: 2030(HELCOM Draft strategic plan for the BSAP update 2018).2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 112 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA...OR NOT?2.1 The Baltic SeaThe Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed sea and one of the largest brackishwater basins in the world. It is located between Scandinavia andmainland Europe. The Baltic Sea is linked to the North Sea with avery narrow and shallow connection. This causes challenges in in-flows of salt water and thus renewing the water masses.Nine countries have coastline to the Baltic Sea: Finland, Sweden,Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark.The catchment area is even wider, including states such as Belarus,Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia and Ukraine. All in all, the Bal-tic Sea affects the lives of tens of millions of people.Main threat to the Baltic Sea is eutrophication, which is caused bynutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. Enrichment of nu-trients leads to excessive growth of algal and plant. Almost thewhole Baltic Sea is said to suffer from eutrophication. Much efforthas been put into improving this situation; however, we have beenunsuccessful in getting these waters back into good condition. TheBaltic Sea is still affected by eutrophication, despite a decrease in theamount of phosphorus and nitrogen.2.2 Circular economyCircular economy, an economic model which involves creatingadded value through a smarter way of doing things, could providean overall approach to achieving a healthier Baltic Sea. Expressedsimply, circular economy is a way of doing things more intelligent-ly, which has the potential to benefit all parties when done properly.This would pave the way for an entirely new business ecosystemwith the potential to create new jobs, new merchandise, wellbeing,bigger harvests and a healthier Baltic Sea.The European Commission Circular Economy package sets strictertargets for the use of natural resources and directs political deci-sion-making towards achieving more sustainable outcomes. Oneexample involves recycling nutrients from agriculture for reuse,12 2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT?rather than burdening the environment. Furthermore current gov-ernment activities are also playing a major role in decreasing eu-trophication caused by nutrient loading. A concrete example of thiscan be seen in the recycling of nutrients from agriculture.2.3 PESTEL analysisAn often-cited idea in Futures studies is that the future cannot be pre-dicted – but alternative futures can (and should) be forecasted. Take forexample eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. We would need to set a goal,a preferable future scenario of the ecological status of the sea, and thenaccordingly take a path of measures, which lead us towards this goal.To have this kind of foresight, we would need to scan the environ-ment and form an understanding of the current situation. Thus, tounderstand the status of the Baltic Sea from a wider perspectivethan just the numbers of algae growth, we would need a compre-hensive view of the situation.Eutrophication is not only an environmental question, but an eco-nomic and social question too. Furthermore, it has political, legaland technological aspects. These qualitative variables could form astrategic analysis.PESTEL analysis is a tool used to identify and analyze external fac-tors in strategic planning. There are various versions of the tool, butFactors in PESTEL analysis2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 13for this report I chose to use PESTEL, which categorizes political,economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors ef-fecting eutrophication of the Baltic Sea and possibilities of circulareconomy to prevent eutrophication.Figure above shows the factors analyzed through PESTEL. These fac-tors are linked to several variables that all influence the topic at hand.The conditions of each factor also influence other factors. For exam-ple, changes in the policies conducted by governments (political andlegal) can influence the economic situation. On the other hand, eco-nomic conditions affect political decisions and legislation. The varia-bles of each factor affecting eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are furtherdiscussed in the next paragraphs. As the topic has an environmentalemphasis, the environmental variables are discussed in more detail.2.3.1P olitical factorsInternational cooperation is vital to decreasing the eutrophicationof the Baltic Sea.Several international agreements, programs and commitments havebeen conducted throughout the years regarding the wellbeing of theBaltic Sea. On EU level, one of the key documents is Marine strat-egy framework directive. Another one is Water framework directive.One important document is the European Union Strategy for theBaltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). Saving the Baltic Sea is one of thethree key aims of the strategy. All coastal states and the EU are com-mitted to the HELCOM “Baltic Sea Action Plan” -program. Eu-trophication has also been one of the main themes within Nordicco-operation. Wellbeing of the Baltic Sea is a topic also in theNorther Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP), however,lately the NDEP has not been active in topics relevant to this thesis.All these documents form a basis for the political discussion regard-ing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is an ambitious program adopt-ed by the EU and all coastal states of the Baltic Sea in 2007. Theplan aims to achieve a healthy Baltic Sea by the year 2021 and pro-vides the basis for the work of HELCOM (the Helsinki Commis-sion). To achieve the joint goal, set by the coastal states, for a health-ier Baltic Sea, the Action Plan would have to be fully implementedon an urgent basis.The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) is an agree-ment between the EU member states and the Commission to14 2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT?deepen cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. The Strategy aims toimprove cooperation between member states and to allocate fundsto projects in the most beneficial manner possible. The overall goalof the Strategy is to solve the region’s problems and take better ad-vantage of existing opportunities.The implementation of the EUSBSR is based on three objectives; 1.Save the sea, 2. Connect the region, 3. Increase prosperity. No fund-ing has been allocated for the Strategy, but the idea is to align exist-ing funding with the jointly agreed actions and projects. The mem-ber states are cooperating on the implementation of the plan withthe Commission, other member states, regional and local authori-ties, and inter-governmental and non-governmental bodies.The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive re-quires that member states develop strategies to achieve a good envi-ronmental status by 2020. The aim of these strategies is to protectthe marine environment and prevent any further damage caused byhuman activities. It underlines the need for cooperation betweenthe countries involved. The EU Marine Strategy also requires mem-ber states to assess the environmental status of their marine waters,set targets and create a program, which includes various measures.Evaluation and monitoring are also required.EU provides funding to Member States through several channels.As different research reports show, efforts to develop EU environ-mental compensation systems could have a major impact on theamount of emissions into waters. Such measures are viewed as im-portant and cost-effective approaches to marine protection.European Court of Auditors (ECA) conducted a special report“Combating eutrophication of the Baltic Sea: further and more ef-fective action needed” in 2015. In its report, the ECA criticizes thelack of action taken by the EU Member States. Measures taken to-wards placing agriculture on a more sustainable basis are inade-quate, given the pressure the sector is imposing on the Baltic Sea.More defined programs and effective measures are needed. TheECA also reminds that Member States are ultimately responsible fordrawing up programs involving the actions necessary to cleaning uptheir waste waters.Eutrophication is a major problem in the Baltic Sea and repairingthe damage is a complex and time-consuming task. The results maybecome visible only after a long period of time. This should be tak-en in to account when evaluating strategies.2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 152.3.2 Economic factorsThe worrying situation of the Baltic Sea can be seen as a market fail-ure. The bad condition causes costs. The HELCOM report (2017)states that the total annual loss of benefits from eutrophication inthe Baltic Sea region totals around 4,000 million euros. This showshow much the welfare of citizens living around the sea would in-crease if a better eutrophication status were achieved.It has been calculated that decreasing eutrophication would bringeconomic benefits for the region worth of 3,6 billion euros. Thebenefits are greatly bigger than the costs of reducing nutrient load.Water pollution can in fact be regarded as an external cost, whichrequires action from the governments concerned.On the other hand, circular economy has hundreds of billions ofmarket potential. Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea therefore haseconomic affects that go both ways: bad condition costs more thanit would cost to fix the problem, plus the solutions enable signifi-cant possibilities for growth.According to estimates by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, on aglobal basis this represents an economic opportunity worth hun-dreds of billions dollars. Besides the environmental and social ben-efits of circular economy, Europe could further generate economicadvantage worth of 1,8 trillion by the year 2030. A report by Clubof Rome suggests that circular economy could create 75 000 newjobs by 2030 in Finland only. According to a study conducted byGaia for Sitra, efficient nutrient cycle would create additional valuein Finland 0,5 billion euros by the year 2030.Our work towards creating a healthier Baltic Sea lacks implementa-tion and targeting. Actions by Member States have resulted in onlylimited progress and investments have not been as effective ashoped. Between 2007 and 2013, the EU provided 4.6 billion eurosin co-funding for waste water collection and treatment projects inthe Member States. Funding towards agricultural development pro-jects, including water protection programs, totalled 9.9 billion eu-ros.The European Court of Auditors report (2015) states that we arefailing to achieve the related goals because the related measures arenot targeted at the most problematic areas with respect to nutrientflows. Furthermore, the most polluting farms do not apply foragri-environmental schemes and funding, due to the limited16 2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT?compensation payments available. Also, Member States do not pe-nalize offenders because the ‘polluter pays’ principle is difficult toapply to agriculture.As part of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EU coun-tries are required to control the cost-efficiency of any new measurestaken. The cost-efficiency evaluation of measures taken to end theeutrophication of the Baltic Sea may not be reasonable in some cas-es. This observation was made in a report examining the cost-effi-ciency of measures taken under the Finnish marine strategy. Evalu-ating the effectiveness of measures is crucial, but the target year ofthe good condition of the sea (2020) and the expected results of themeasures taken are hard to compare. The necessary investments aremade now and the possible results are somewhere in the future. Thefull impact of the proposed measures will only be visible over alonger period of time. Estimating the cost-efficiency of the meas-ures taken now is therefore hard if not impossible.2.3.3 Social factorsThe condition of the Baltic Sea effects not only our natural heritage,but the wellbeing, livelihood and health of the 85 million peopleliving around the sea. Unfortunately, people do not always seem tounderstand the role of human actions in both causing and solvingthe situation. According to a survey by Swedish Environmental Pro-tection Agency (2010), people living around the Baltic Sea havevery varying attitudes regarding the status of the sea. The numbersdiffer from country to country, but in some countries less than halfof people state that they are worried about the Baltic Sea environ-ment. Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea has affects to the lives of allpeople living in the region, however, most people do not think thattheir own actions play a role in improving the status of the sea.27% of Baltic citizens find the wellbeing of the Baltic Sea “extreme-ly important”. As many as 86% of Baltic citizens have not taken anyaction related to the wellbeing of the Baltic Sea. 23% state that theyhave plans to do so in the future.On the other hand, people in nine Baltic Sea states value signifi-cantly the aim of achieving targets set in the Baltic Sea Action Plan– and are willing to pay for it. However, there are great differencesbetween countries. Most willing to pay for a cleaner sea are peoplein Sweden, and least in Latvia.2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 172.3.4 Technological factorsCircular economy could be the solution to decrease the nutritioninflow that causes eutrophication. One key idea is to recycle nutri-ents from agriculture so that instead of the nutrients causing envi-ronmental load, they would be re-used. Multiple innovations basedon the idea of re-using nutrients already exist.There are projects bringing together research, decision-making andprivate funding with the aim of supporting eco-technologies withcircular economy approach in the Baltic Sea region. For example,European Commission funded projects such as the Aquabest. Oneof the aims of this project was to find ways to “close the nutrientloop of Baltic Sea aquaculture through fish feeds based on regionalingredients” and another one to “create innovative concepts forland-based farms and transfer the technology throughout the re-gion”. The project was successful: such concepts were piloted andnew technologies were developed and are now used.Aquabest-project performed hands-on examples on how to increaseaquaculture production without negative environmental effects.New regulation systems were suggested and partially adopted, spa-tial planning process carried out, regional feed ingredients pilotedand low-pollution farming technologies developed and implement-ed in new regions.Another EU-funded project called “Bonus Return”, coordinated bythe Stockholm Environmental Institute, has the aim of “turningnutrients and carbon from environmental problems into societalbenefits in the Baltic Sea Region”. The project bases its work on re-search with the target of creating a market hub that produceseco-technologies.Furthermore, there are various non-governmental organizationsbringing different stakeholders together and working on the field ofnutrient recycling. One example from Finland is the Baltic Sea Ac-tion Group (BSAG). Their nutrient cycling project develops on sus-tainable nutrient management and in creating a market for organicwaste-based fertilizers. Another Finnish example is the NutriTrade-project by John Nurminen Foundation. The foundation has creat-ed an online platform for different stakeholders from around theBaltic Sea Region, to introduce different methods that could de-crease nutrient flow.18 2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT?2.3.5 Environmental factorsThe condition of the Baltic Sea has changed dramatically during thelast decades. As the sea is semi- enclosed, the sea suffers from lack ofinflow of saltwater. The temperature of the deeper layers has also in-creased. All in all, the Baltic Sea has recently faced significantly dra-matic changes.One of the main causes for the current condition of the Baltic Seais the inflow of nutrients. The two main nutrients affecting the seaare nitrogen and phosphorus. According to HELCOM’s UpdatedFift Baltic Sea Pollution load Compilation (2015) total nutrient in-put in 2010 was 977 000 tons of nitrogen and 38 300 tons of phos-phorus. If the numbers are normalized in terms of interannual var-iation and meteorology effects, the inputs are lower: 802 000 tonsof nitrogen and 32 200 tons of phosphorus. The largest amounts ofnutrients originate from three countries: Poland, Russia and Swe-den.We have some good news regarding the status of the Baltic Sea. Nu-trient inputs to the Baltic Sea have, in fact, been reduced during thelast decades. According to the HELCOM Baltic Sea pollution loadcompilation (2015), the amount of nitrogen input has fallen by morethan 200,000 tons and phosphorus input by 7,000 tons per year.However, eutrophication is still affecting the Baltic Sea, despite thefall in the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen. The nutrient inputhas not been decreasing as planned and a deterioration has occurredin the condition of three quarters of Finnish coastal waters, for ex-ample. Whereas nutrient loads from urban agglomerations havebeen decreasing – mainly thanks to improved waste water systems –the nutrient load from agriculture has remained the same. In somecountries, the nutrient load caused by agriculture has even in-creased. Agriculture is the main source of nitrogen and phosphorusthat cause eutrophication.According to HELCOM’s Assessment of 2010, the environmentalstatus of the Baltic Sea can be regarded as ‘impaired’ in general. Al-though steps have been taken towards reducing the nutrient input,only one or two areas of the Baltic Sea are currently unaffected byeutrophication.The HELCOM report (2017) also states that point-source inputs ofnitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic Sea decreased by 60 percentand 68 percent between 1990 and 2000, and total inputs of nitro-gen and phosphorus were reduced by 30 percent and 45 percent2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 19between 1990 and 2006. However, atmospheric nitrogen deposi-tion may even have increased during the same period, making thenet reduction much smaller.HELCOM published the first version of its latest ‘State of the Bal-tic Sea’ report in July 2017, which provides scientific informationregarding the environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Besides pre-senting an assessment of the current status and the pressures andimpacts on the Baltic Sea marine environment, the report includesanalyses of various social and economic impacts. The related datawas prepared in close cooperation with Baltic Sea countries in2015–2017. The timeline covered by the report is 2011 to 2015.For the HELCOM report, the eutrophication status of the BalticSea has been evaluated using core indicators. These core indicatorsare still under development and some new ones have been addedsince the previous status report. The indicators assessed have beendivided on the basis of three criteria: nutrient levels and the directand indirect effects of eutrophication. The key findings of the reportcan be divided into three topics: 1) eutrophication, 2) hazardoussubstances and 3) biodiversity. In this report, I will focus only onthe findings regarding the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.Eutrophication affects over 95 percent of the Baltic Sea region. Incomparison to the previous HELCOM report, the eutrophicationstatus has improved in two out of seventeen open-sea assessmentunits – whereas the situation has deteriorated in seven units.The HELCOM report shows how net inputs of nitrogen and phos-phorus into the Baltic Sea sub- basins have changed over recentyears. There has been a significant reduction: nitrogen inputs havedecreased by 13 percent in total and phosphorus inputs have de-creased by 19 percent. Most remarkable is the reduction of phos-phorus in the Gulf of Finland, where a change of 50 percent oc-curred between 1997–2003 and 2012-2014. The only increase innet inputs to sub-basins is a 3.2 percent increase in the phosphorusload into the Gulf of Riga.However, despite falling nutrient loads from land areas, there has beenno improvement in the Baltic Sea’s environmental status in general, atleast not yet. Positive outcomes may take time to appear. “Althoughsigns of improvement can be seen in some areas, the effects of past andcurrent nutrient inputs still predominate in terms of the overall status,”the report states. According to the comprehensive report by HEL-COM, the targets set in the Baltic Sea Action Plan will not be achievedon time. This is the case, despite improvements in management.20 2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT?Indeed, it is worth noting that it may take time for the decreasedamount of nutrients to appear in the overall condition of the BalticSea. It takes time for the changes to be seen in research measure-ments. As it has taken decades of nutrient flows to cause the currentsituation, it may take decades for the sea to recover from the eu-trophication.The ECA auditors visited Poland, Latvia and Finland, whereas ques-tionnaires were sent to Sweden, Lithuania, Estonia, Germany andDenmark. The auditors found that, at the time of the inspection(2012), the input of nutrients was even higher in some cases thancompared with the 1997– 2003 average. Nitrogen inputs werehigher in the case of Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.Expert bodies such as the Finnish Environment Institute believethat global climate change is affecting the climate in the northern-most parts of the world. Unfortunately, climate change will onlyworsen the problems caused and threats posed by eutrophication.Surface waters will become warmer as average temperatures rise,particularly during the summer. This will have multiple impacts,leading, for example, to further changes in the habitats and repro-duction of species and organisms living in the Baltic Sea. Anotherpredicted consequence is an even higher amount of rainfall, par-ticularly during the winter months. As a result, the salinity level willdecrease even further, intensifying the effects of eutrophication.2.3.6 Legal FactorsIn principle, international political agreements are not legally bind-ing. For example, most of the European Union directives (such asthe Marine strategy framework directive 2008) are not legally bind-ing. Generally, directives are acts that set a goal or target, but theimplementation is up to the individual countries. Recommenda-tions neither have any legal consequences, if not followed.On EU level there is not yet much legislation related to circulareconomy that would be directly linked to nutrients or wellbeing ofwaters. The directive proposals published so far consider mainlywaste and packaging. Much of the national legislation linked to thewellbeing of the Baltic Sea, is related to wastewater treatments. InFinland for example, the Environmental Protection Act providesthe framework for treatment of waste waters.2 SAVING THE BALTIC SEA... OR NOT? 21In terms of agriculture, an effective means of control are the subsidemechanisms. Farmers are payed special aid to support their produc-tion and especially its profitability. In order to receive this aid, farmsneed to make an environmental commitment. The content, moni-toring and controlling of these commitments are therefore legisla-tive means that could be used to foster nutrient recycling in agricul-ture.22 3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSISFor this report I have used horizon scanning for collection of re-search material and for structuring it. As horizon scanning is an ex-ploratory method, it has helped in giving an overall view of the top-ic at hand. The research material for this report consists mainly ofofficial documents and international policy related to eutrophica-tion of the Baltic Sea and circular economy as a means to decreasenutrient flow.Morphological analysis was further used for analysis, discoveringnew relationships between parameters, and representing possiblefutures. As a normative method, it has provided suggestions regard-ing the future.Based on these two Futures Studies methods, I formed four roughscenarios explained briefly in the next chapters.3.1 Forming the scenariosScenarios can be described in many ways, but in general scenariosare seen as outlines or descriptions of possible futures based on a setof different variables and factors. Scenarios can be used for strategicplanning in corporations and in public offices. They are especiallyuseful in situations where decisions should be made in a changingand uncertain environment. Scenarios are helpful in picturing in-teractions between different factors and understanding the situationholistically, as they guide to consideration of several alternative fu-tures.The process of forming the scenarios for this report started with list-ing as many as possible variables under the drivers of PESTEL anal-ysis as possible. I then selected the relevant variables based on thereport material as well as my personal experience on the field of eu-trophication and circular economy in the Baltic sea region.In the following chapters scenarios of possible futures based on themorphological analysis are roughly introduced and explained. Thesefour scenarios present different future paths formed from the vari-ous factors effecting the possibilities of circular economy in savingthe Baltic Sea.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS 233.2 Admission to possibilitiesThe basis of this “green scenario” is in the emphasis of environmen-tal topics. Economic growth creates space for environmental discus-sion and strengthens the importance of the wellbeing of Baltic seaboth in the eyes of politicians and people in general.As the economy is growing and the uncertainty in the Baltic Sea Re-gion has decreased, concern regarding eutrophication attracts atten-tion and realizes into political actions. The BSAP is updated withreasonable level of ambition, based on research data. Baltic Seastates and regions have open dialog with each other and share a viewof an adequate target level, as well as necessary measures to decreasenutrient flows causing eutrophication. International targets are im-plemented on country level and politicians are committed to act inorder to gain improvement in the condition of the Baltic sea. Fur-thermore, actions regarding climate change take place keeping theeffects of global warming in control.When concern about economy and security is not a prevalent factorin the overall atmosphere, general public is more receiving and bet-ter prepared to face, and even demand, changes that affect their per-sonal lives. Also, as environmental topics are more often publiclydisplayed and discussed, people are more willing to make changesfurther in their own habits as residents and consumers.This atmosphere shows also in the legislation processes, which lead tonew restrictions concerning nutrient use in agriculture. This meansfor example, that a certain percentage of nutrients need to be recy-cled. On the other hand, legislation is modernized to support the ideaof circular economy. This means more flexibility in, for example,treatment of waste and side streams of production. Furthermore, thesubside mechanisms are modernized to support change towards cir-cular economy. The starting point of the new structure for subsidiesis to recognize environmental acts, functions and investments.The change in attitudes and legislation further creates opportunitiesto exploit the market potential of circular economy. Circular econ-omy is seen profitable from the perspective of environment as wellas agriculture. Positive attention and enthusiasm attract financialinvestments as well as governmental contributions. Taking advan-tage of innovations related to recycling of nutrients creates costs ona short term. However, the improved condition of the Baltic Sea en-ables new market value. Experiments of new technology are inmany places successful, best practices are distributed widely and nu-trient flows are decreasing around the Baltic Sea region.24 3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS3.3 Future dominated by other thingsThe analysis of this path (“red scenario”) starts from the economicand political aspects. As people are more interested in environmen-tal topics during better economic times, a depression decreases thewillingness to work towards the wellbeing of the Baltic Sea. Worryof the weakening economy leads to less ambitious targets in the up-dating of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Uncertainty within the BalticSea region continues, which complicates the relation and coopera-tion between BSR countries. This happens especially in regard tocountries such as Russia and Poland, which play a big role in nutri-ent flow from agriculture. The relation with Russia is further com-plicated through sanctions, which especially hamper cooperationaround environmental topics.This scenario is also the scenario of growing protectionism. As thecompetition in the international markets polarizes, turning inwardand pursuing towards own interests also describes attitudes towardscircular economy and saving the Baltic Sea. When countries stressbenefits for themselves to the detriment of the common interest,shared targets are not implemented on country level. This impliesfurther, that BSR countries do not value the condition of the seaand the condition decreases.Due to uncertainty, economic depression and tightening atmos-phere within the Baltic Sea region, the ecological condition of theBaltic Sea is not among the most important topics in political dis-cussions. As often happens, topics related to economy and safetyleave environmental aspects behind and the relations of thesethemes are not observed. Circular economy remains an impor-tant theme among politicians orientated towards sustainabilityand environmentalism in general. Uncertainty, doubt and thefeeling of insecurity give rise to extensive demonstrations. Manyof them are about economy and defense policy, some of environ-mental themes too. Nevertheless, the focus on national and inter-national politics remains on other topics than those linked to sus-tainability.The attitudes of politicians reflect those of the general public. Peo-ple are not willing to change their own behavior – often not evenwhen they would find saving the Baltic Sea an important target.Confrontation between different views strengthens. This shows alsoin the differing viewpoints between agriculture and nutrient flowsto the waters. The possibilities of circular economy in creating mu-tual benefit are not understood.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS 25In this scenario the potential of circular economy is not fully used.The idea of circular economy is not understood holistically through-out legislation processes, but rather limited to narrow single topics.Because of growing protectionism and with the aim of increasinggrowth of agriculture, restrictions concerning nutrients are de-creased. This increases the use of nutrients in agriculture but doesnot increase the growth of the sector.Due to economic downturn and lack of interest, there are notenough investments in research and development. Legislation doesnot provide possibilities or support to taking use of the potential ofcircular economy as a whole, nor recycling of nutrients as an exam-ple. Even though there are a few projects and experiment, the scaleis small and best practices are not shared. Failures dampen the gen-eral interest and mood towards applications of circular economy.The good development in nutrient flows and improvement in thecondition of the Baltic Sea stops and increasing nutrient inputs ag-gravate eutrophication. At the same time climate change worsensthe situation towards an environmental catastrophe.3.4 Continuum of status quoThe “yellow scenario” is based on the idea of no major changes inthe factors forming the future. The development of political atmos-phere, economics and attitudes of people follow a stable path re-maining somewhat unchanged and unsurprising. Even thoughthere are no positive nor negative black swans, the overall develop-ment of the Baltic Sea is towards an un-preferred future scenario.In this scenario many factors remain on an uncertain status. Theeconomic situation remains unstable in terms of development of in-ternational markets (for example the relations between USA, EUand China). Whereas free trade agreements are achieved with somecountries, import duties may occur with others. Economic growthslows down and investments to sustainability in general, and well-being of the Baltic Sea in particular, remain on a modest level.International cooperation within the Baltic Sea region continueswith emphasis on other issues rather than environmental topics.The BSAP is updated, however the challenges of the plan remain:targets are not based on biological facts, but rather on political com-promises. Regarding implementation of the targets, the degree of26 3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIScommitment varies among countries. The Nordic countries takeleadership of environmental topics on international forums, howev-er, there is an ongoing discussion channel and some level of cooper-ation between all BSR countries.The potential of circular economy arouses some enthusiasm, but thehopefulness is shown mainly on big words rather than actual open-ings. The focus of circular economy in practice is on other possibil-ities than recycling of nutrients. This is shown also in the number offinancial investments. Even though there are promising outcomesfrom experiments and small-scale projects, these innovations do notwake up major attention or attract enough investors.Saving the Baltic Sea is not a big question among the general pub-lic, nor do people demand stronger actions from the politicians re-garding nutrient flows causing eutrophication. Prevailing attitudestowards environmental impacts of agriculture are rather nonchalantand indifferent than contradiction and confrontation. Legislationon the matter remains the same, as does the structure of environ-mental subsidies to agriculture.Therefore, nutrient flows to the Baltic Sea remain on approximatelythe same level. However, as climate change progresses and thus hasmajor effects, the overall condition of the sea deteriorates.3.5 Geopolitics, random coincidences andprivate saviorsStarting point of this “black scenario” is growing tension in the Bal-tic Sea region. Unstable political situation is shown especially in therelationship between the Nordic countries and Russia and Poland.The economy takes a downturn and international market remainsunpredictive. Sanctions and market restrictions take place bothways making international cooperation difficult. Co-operative pro-jects on protecting the Baltic Sea are put to hold, as is the updatingof HELCOM BSAP.This situation decreases the role and importance of environmentaltopics in the eyes of both the public and the decision-makers. Astimes are tense and uncertain, other topics, such as security, seemmore relevant. There are no major changes in legislation related towaters, agriculture or circular economy in general.3 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS 27Nevertheless, research is conducted, and new innovations based onthe nutrition cycle are being commercialized. Private investors ac-knowledge the potential of Circular Economy and a wellbeing Bal-tic Sea. Thanks to private money increasingly flowing to the causeof preventing climate change and to protect the Baltic Sea, nutri-tion inflows and eutrophication are somewhat decreasing. However,the decrease is slowed down by static policy structures.28 4 CONCLUSIONS4 CONCLUSIONSThe status of the Baltic Sea remains alarming despite all the strate-gies, programs, commitments and funding implemented within theBaltic Sea Region since the 1980s. However, it is important to note,that there have been some improvements too. It takes time for ac-tions to be shown in the wellbeing of the sea.Eutrophication is still affecting the Baltic Sea, despite the fall in theamount of phosphorus and nitrogen. Global climate change will ampli-fy the effects of nutrient load. The challenge is not getting any easier.Eutrophication is a major problem in the Baltic Sea and repairingthe damage is a complex and time-consuming task. The results maybecome visible only after a long period of time. Circular economyis not about repairing damage that has already been done. Programsand strategies would still be needed in order to reduce the eutroph-ication of the sea. However, circular economy could lead to adop-tion of a processes that would cause less harm.In the previous chapter four alternative futures scenarios were pre-sented:• “Green scenario”: Potential of circular economy is utilized ex-tensively. The nutrient flow to waters is decreased and there-fore are also the impacts of eutrophication. Countries also takeaction regarding climate change and therefore global warmingis stopped at a manageable level. Technology is developing andbeing used to an increasing extent. The Baltic Sea Action Planis updated, and targets are set to a reasoned ambitious level.Baltic Sea states are implementing these targets on nationallevel. Cooperation between BSR countries, including Russiaand Poland, is intensifying. NGOs are closely involved in cir-cular economy through funding and cooperation.• “Red scenario”: This is the worst-case scenario, where the de-velopment regarding the condition of the Baltic Sea takessteps backwards. Climate change accelerates and worsens eu-trophication at the same pace. The potential of circular econ-omy is not exploited, as the intensifying political situation inthe Baltic sea complicates cooperation between countries. Es-pecially funding of environmental projects faces challengesdue to political sanctions. The update of the BSAP comes toan end and fades. States and regions prioritize their own com-petitiveness at the expense of international benefit.4 CONCLUSIONS 29• “Yellow scenario”: This scenario is based on the continuum ofthe current situation. Locally the status of the Baltic Sea im-proves to some extent, based mainly on actions that have tak-en place previously. As the external load remains at the samelevel, eutrophication will continue, and climate change willmake the situation even worse. Economic downturn leaves en-vironmental aspects with less attention and the concern re-garding eutrophication is easily forgotten. Environmentalnon-governmental organizations however continue their worktowards better wellbeing of the Baltic Sea and many pilot pro-jects are successful. However, the potential of circular econo-my is only partly used. At the political level, the topic remainsat the focus and activity of individuals.• “Black scenario”: The fourth scenario is based on a more ran-dom selection of values for variables. For this scenario remark-able effect comes from geopolitical tension between countries.Together with challenges in the economy, the unstable inter-national situation in the Baltic Sea region decreases the impor-tance of environmental topics in political decision-making.However, private funding is directed into research, innovationand product development on the basis on circular economy.Privately funded and supported projects create business mod-els for example for recycling nutrients and tackling climatechange. However, decision- makers have their focus elsewhereand most citizens do not see need to change one’s own behav-ior. Also, static policy structures and legislation do not supportrapid change towards circular economy. Despite of this, pri-vate investments enable modest decrease in nutrient load tothe Baltic Sea.All four scenarios are scenarios of possible futures. Needless to say,from these four alternative futures scenarios, the green scenario,“Admission to possibilities”, would be a preferred future.Circular economy does indeed have great potential in reducing eu-trophication of the Baltic Sea. At the same time, it could restoretrust between environmentalists and the agricultural lobby on a‘win-win’ basis, which will undoubtedly facilitate further coopera-tion. The technology to recycling nutrients in agriculture alreadyexists. Renewing structures and legislation to support usage of suchprocesses, would be useful in reaching the targets of decreasing eu-trophication of the Baltic Sea.30 4 CONCLUSIONSAs the Baltic Sea is surrounded with several countries and states, in-ternational policy is needed in order to protect the marine environ-ment. The strategies and agreements that are committed to on a po-litical level, should be based on latest environmental research andfollowed up regularly. Moreover, for the strategies to be successful,they would need to be fully implemented on a national level. Thisrequires political stability and international cooperation, both ofwhich become more challenging at times of economic depression.4.1 ImplicationsEutrophication, one of the main threats to the Baltic Sea, could betackled by adopting the circular economy in legislative structures,international policy and therefore official acts, business practicesand lifestyles of the tens of millions of people that live around theBaltic Sea. Difficulty is that effective and efficient utilization of thecircular economy requires a new way of thinking. The changeshould be supported by legislative structures and international pol-icy. A holistic understanding of circular economy would be neededin order to, for example, remodel critical legislation towards recy-cling of nutrients in agriculture. Subsequently taken measures, suchas additional allocations of funding to reduce impacts of nutrients,are positive and necessary, and may reduce eutrophication on locallevel. However, a more sustainable, comprehensive and long-termsolution would be to decrease the amount of nutrient flows in thefirst place. This, however, would require modernization of struc-tures and policies.For international policy to have significant effects on the wellbeingof the Baltic Sea, special focus should be put on national implemen-tation of international agreements and strategies. It is further evita-ble that international relations, ways of cooperation and the overalleconomic situation greatly impact the possibilities for effective im-plementation of shared targets.It is critical that agriculture is viewed as the solution rather than theproblem. Both farmers and the environment could benefit from thecircular economy and nutrient recycling. Mutual and enlightenedself-interest forms the best way of engaging all parties in workingtowards a healthier Baltic Sea.For example, mutually beneficial actions could involve developinginstruments within the agricultural subsidy mechanism in a way,4 CONCLUSIONS 31that the structure and policy of the system would motivate farmersto engage in more environmentally friendly production, especiallyin the key areas with the greatest impact on the Baltic Sea. Underthis scheme, the same amount of aid could be divided in differentways than now and be subject to authorization. This measure couldtherefore affect the allocation criteria of environmental compensa-tion, not the amount of compensation itself.Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, as well as the impacts of climatechange, are still on the focus of wide scientific research. As new datais available, information should be easily accessible to decision-makers around the Baltic Sea region. Future-oriented, sustainabledecision-making would require up- to-date results of the situationof the sea and the causes of eutrophication.32 REFERENCESREFERENCESLiterature:Bailey, K. (1994) Typologies and Taxonomies, An Introduction toClassification Techniques. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Dator, J. (2002) Advancing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Edu-cation. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Hanley, N. – Shogren, J. F. – White, B. (2001) Introduction to En-vironmental Eco- nomics. Oxford University Press Inc., NewYork.Kuusi, O. – Bergman, T. – Salminen, H. (toim.) (2013) Miten tut-kimme tulevaisuuk sia? Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry.Sastamala.Leppäranta, M. – Myrberg, K. (2009) Physical Oceanography of theBaltic Sea. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH &Co. KG.Wilenius, M. (2015) Tulevaisuuskirja, Metodi seuraavan aikakau-den ymmärtämiseen.Otava.Zwicky, F. (1969) Discovery, Invention, Research through the Mor-phological Ap proach. The Macmillan, New York.Articles:Adema, K. – Roehl, W. (2010) Environmental scanning the future ofevent design. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, Vol 29, Issue 2, 199–207.Álvarez, A. – Toja, P. (2018) From our perspective: An informalsurvey on the appli-cation of General Morphological Analysis in the private sector.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 126, 182–185.REFERENCES 33Amer, M. – Daim, T. – Jetter A. (2013) A review of scenarioplanning. Futures, 23– 40.Bonsdorff, E. – Blomqvist, E.M. – Mattila, J. – Norkko, A. (1997)Coastal Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Perspectivesin the Archipelago Areas of the Northern Baltic Sea. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science 44 (Supplement A), 63–72.Cederwall, H. – Elmgren, R. (1990) Biological effects ofeutrophication in the Baltic Sea, particularly the coastal zone.AMBIO - Journal of Human Environment, Vol. 19 No. 3.109–112.Czajkowski, M. – Meyerhoff, J. – Alemu, M. – Dahlbo, K. –Fleming, V. – Hasler,B. – Hyytiäinen, K. – Karloseva, A. (2012) Benefits of meeting theBaltic Sea nutrient reduction targets - Combining ecologicalmodelling and contingent valuation in the nine littoral states.MTT Discussion Papers 1.Duczynski, G. (2017) Morphological analysis as an aid toorganizational design and transformation. Futures. Vol 86, Feb2017, 36–43.Johansen, I. (2018) Scenario modelling with morphological analysis.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 126, 116–125.Kautskyl, N. – Kautskyl, H. – Kautskyl U. – Waern, M. (1986)Decreased depth penetration of Fucus vesiculosus since the 1940’s indicates eutrophicationof the Baltic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 28: 1–8.Könnölä, T. – Salo, A. – Cristiano, C. – Vicente, C. – Vilkkumaa,E. (2012) Facing the future: Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy, Vol 39,222–231.Lipscomb, R. (2011) Identifying Opportunities: A Report on the2010 American Dietetic Association Environmental Scan onRestaurant Menu Labeling. Journal of the American DieteticAssociation, Vol 111, Issue 5, S36–S41.34 REFERENCESLord, S. – Helfgott, A. – Vervoort, J. (2016) Choosing diverse sets ofplausible sce- narios in multidimensional exploratory futurestechniques. Futures, Vol 77, 11–27.Lyytimäki, J. (2012) The environment in the headlines, Newspapercoverage of climate change and eutrophication in Finland.MONOGRAPHS of the Boreal Environment Research No.42: 2012.McCrackin, M.L. – Jones, H.P. – Jones, P.C. – Moreno-Mateos, D.(2016) Recovery of lakes and coastal marine ecosystemsfromeutrophication: A global meta-analysis. Limnology andOceanography, No. 62: 2017, 507-518.Miles, I. – Saritas, O. (2012) The depth of the horizon: searching,scanning and widen- ing horizons. Foresight, Vol 14, Issue 6,530–545.Oinonen S, – Hyytiäinen K, – Ahlvik L, – Laamanen M, –Lehtoranta V, – Salojärvi J, et al. (2016) Cost-Effective MarineProtection - A Pragmatic Approach. PLoS ONE 11(1):e0147085.