Final Report on Eutrophication

Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on EutrophicationFinal Report from theWorking Group on EutrophicationJune 2007Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationReport from theWorking Group on EutrophicationContent1 Preface 32 Policy recommendations 43 Background 84 Working Group’s mode of work 85 Parliamentarian initiatives taken 96 Working Group activities 107 Members of the Working Group 11Annexes 121 Mandate of the WG 132 WG comments the CBSS High-Level Representatives meeting in April 2007 153 WG Chair’s speaking notes to the CBSS High-Level Representatives meeting 194 WG note to the HELCOM stakeholder conference in March 2007 235 “Action needed to rescue the Baltic Sea” – WG’s News article prior the HELCOM 26Stakeholder conference on 6 March 20076 “One plus one can make three” – WG’s News article prior to the CBSS High- 28Level Meeting on 19-20 April 20077 WG Chair’s speech on midterm report to 15th BSPC in Reykjavik in September 3020068 Optional standardised questionnaire for parliaments to request information 33from their governments9 Answers to questionnaire from the Schleswig-Holstein regional government 3510 Answers to questionnaire from the Mecklenburg-Western Pomeranian regional 43government11 Comments on eutrophication in the Baltic Sea from the Committee of 47Environment Protection of the Lithuanian Parliament - on request from theBaltic Assembly12 WG Conference Brochure “Nutrients and Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.Effects, causes, solutions”, released in Mariehamn in August 2006 (notincluded)13 Clean & Clear. Report from the Working Group on Baltic Sea Eutrophication.To be released in August 2007 in Berlin (in press)2Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication1. PrefaceThe unsatisfactory development of the environment of the Baltic Sea has been ofgreat concern to the parliamentarians of the Baltic Sea region for many years.After the 2005 situation of extreme algae blooming, including fierce developmentof the poisonous blue-green algae, the Standing Committee of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference established a Working Group with the mandate to raisepolitical and public awareness on the eutrophication issue and to come up withrecommendations as on how to mitigate the current situation directed to the CBSS,to HELCOM and to the governments of the Baltic Sea countries.The Working Group started in January 2006. During its working process, the Grouphas been stimulated by the interest shown to the problem by the CBSS and byHELCOM. The latter is now in the final stage of developing a comprehensive BalticSea Action Plan, BSAP. The Working Group has related it’s work to the activities ofthe CBSS and to the BSAP.There are no easy solutions to overcome the Baltic Sea eutrophication problem. Itis a problem that has built up under several decades and to which all countries andseveral sectors have contributed. To turn around the unacceptable situation oftoday will need strong actions now to achieve positive results to come in the yearsahead of us. The alternative of not doing anything would on the other hand lead toa catastrophic situation.We are fully aware of our continued parliamentarian responsibility of keeping thepolitical and public focus on the problem and we call on the governments of theregion to take strong actions as fast as possible and to collaborate in a spirit ofgood neighbourhood, commitment and generosity.We are convinced that the BSPC Working Group on Eutrophicationrecommendations and suggestions for political initiatives to our governments, aspresented in this report, will serve to redress the eutrophication problem so that allcitizens can look forward to be enjoying a clean and clear Baltic Sea in the future.On behalf of the BSPC Working Group on EutrophicationAsmund Kristoffersen, WG ChairmanChairman of the Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee, MP NorwayIndulis Emsis, WG VicechairmanSpeaker of the Latvian Parliament, Chairman of the Baltic Assembly Environment Protection andEnergy CommitteeReinhardt Dankert, WG VicechairmanMP of the Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania3Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication2. Policy recommendations(As adopted by the Working Group on 14 May 2007 in Visby, Sweden)ContextWith a rise in both the volume and the number of instances of abnormal algaegrowth in many areas of the Baltic Sea, eutrophication is an increasingly visiblephenomenon. Caused by excessive nutrient input of nitrogen and phosphorous,eutrophication constitutes a serious threat to not only the environment andbiodiversity of the Baltic Sea, but also to tourism, to fisheries and to recreation inand around the affected waters. A healthy sea is vitally important to all countries inthe Baltic Region. Reliable and durable solutions require extensive co-operationand a committed effort from the Baltic States, all of which contribute to theproblem.Not all nutrient input to the Baltic Sea originates from the riparian countries –considerable water-borne volumes originate from countries located upstream of therivers that feed the Baltic, while some of the airborne load originates from sourceseven further afield.Over the years, governments and research institutions have providedcomprehensive information on the causes and effects of eutrophication. A numberof government initiatives in the Baltic Region have previously addressed the issue,but until now the situation has not improved satisfactorily. In November 2006, theEU Parliament adopted the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, which includes anumber of recommendations on the eutrophication issue, in connection with the EUCommon Agricultural Policy.The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, HELCOM, is in the processof preparing a Baltic Sea Action Plan, BSAP, to be released at the end of 2007. Theplan will address the serious problems posed by eutrophication. The Council of theBaltic Sea States, CBSS, is also addressing the issue. A joint statement oninitiatives to combat eutrophication was issued by an April 2007 meeting of high-level representatives of the ministries of agriculture and of the environment fromall CBSS member countries.In order to address and ameliorate the unacceptable situation wherebythe Baltic Sea suffers from an excess of nutrients such as nitrogen andphosphorus in the water and in the sediment, causing oxygen deficit at thesea bed, which in turn leads to abnormal algae growth, a major loss ofbiodiversity, financial losses in the fisheries and the tourism sector, and areduced quality of outdoor life for everybody concerned, the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication recommendsthe following initiatives and measures:General1. All governments of CBSS member states are encouraged immediately toenforce all existing legal commitments aimed at reducing nutrient inputs intothe Baltic Sea.4Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication2. The April 2007 meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, of high-level representativesof the ministries of agriculture and the environment from all CBSS membercountries is acknowledged and welcomed. CBSS and all its member states areencouraged to follow up on this initiative and arrange further meetingsbetween the ministers of agriculture and the ministers of the environment ona regular basis, in order to discuss the eutrophication status of the Baltic Seaand amend policy accordingly.3. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, BSAP, which is based on ecologicalobjectives, is welcomed. All governments of the region are strongly urged tosupport an ambitious action plan, to commit to the plan, and to implement itfully.4. All governments of CBSS member states are urged to develop (or reviseexisting) national eutrophication-reduction plans before the end of 2009,incorporating detailed information on how the country will achieve BSAPtargets. For EU member states, the national implementation plan shouldreflect cohesion and possible synergies between the BSAP and related EUlegislation.5. As part of BSAP-2007, HELCOM and the governments are urged to establishand commit themselves to a set of binding country-by-country and sub-basin-by-sub-basin targets for nutrient reduction, which will need to be achievedwithin a specified, short time limit, and which will allow each country to makeuse of cost-effective solutions.6. HELCOM is encouraged to make further assessments of the feasibility ofdeveloping an efficient, cost-effective nutrient-quota trade system in the BalticSea area.7. The existing bilateral and trilateral cooperation between some CBSS membercountries and non-CBSS members in the catchment area (e.g. Belarus andUkraine) is welcomed. CBSS and HELCOM should intensify this communicationwork and seek the active participation of non-HELCOM and non-CBSScountries in implementing relevant HELCOM initiatives aimed at reducingeutrophication in the Baltic Sea.8. The EU members of the CBSS should individually and collectively support theadoption of an EU Marine Strategy Directive. In parallel, the Russiangovernment is urged to implement strict environmental regulations on waste-water treatment, agriculture and other sectors contributing to the Balticeutrophication. Within the framework of existing co-operation, the CBSSshould work towards the introduction and harmonisation of comprehensiveenvironmental legislation concerning the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea innon-CBSS countries across the whole catchment area – e.g. Belarus andUkraine.Agriculture9. Each country should aim to improve co-ordination of their agricultural policywith their environmental policy in such a way that the policies generatesynergy effects and agricultural production policy does not counteractenvironmental policy.5Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication10. HELCOM and the governments are urged to specify actions designed to reducethe input from agriculture, so that such measures may be included in the finalBSAP by November 2007.11. All governments should also comprehensively:• promote Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) at farm level• promote nutrient-efficient organic farming in the region• promote farming techniques that help to reduce the nutrient output andmotivate farmers to introduce such methods• promote a better balance between animal production and available land.12. The EU member states of the CBSS should:• exchange experiences and strive to make the best of the existingopportunities inherent in the Common Agricultural Policy in order toreduce the nutrient contribution from agriculture• secure a full and proper implementation of the EU Industrial Pollution andPrevention Control Directive (IPPC) on industrial farms• support the necessary amendments to the EU Common Agricultural Policyto tighten the environmental requirements on farm subsidies – e.g.during the ‘CAP-health-check’ process – by 2008.The non-EU member governments of the CBSS and the governments in the fullcatchment area are encouraged to implement and reinforce environmentalregulations in the agricultural sector.Sewage and Waste Water13. All governments are urged to establish and maintain an efficient waste-watertreatment system based on the best available technology from all of the localauthorities around the Baltic Sea, and – where relevant – to increaseconnectivity to sewers.14. Governments are encouraged to collaborate in order to assess the feasibilityof potential cost-effective methods of reducing the input from scatteredsettlements and small communities.15. All governments are urged, as soon as possible, to forbid the sale and use ofdetergents containing phosphorous.16. The governments are encouraged to ensure that waste-water treatmentplants and ponds are designed in such a way as to prevent flooding withuntreated waste water, including during heavy rainfall. Foreseeable changes inthe climatic conditions across the region should also be taken intoconsideration.17. The governments are encouraged to allocate adequate administrative andfinancial resources for water-system management, and sufficient provision forparticipation in regional and international co-operation.Airborne Nitrogen Emissions18. All governments and HELCOM are urged to take initiatives to reduceimmediately airborne nitrogen emissions from land-based and sea-based6Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationtransportation, from combustion processes, and from agriculture in the BalticSea area.19. All governments are encouraged to intensify international co-operation on thereduction of long-distance nitrogen emissions through HELCOM and the EU.Shipping and Maritime Activities20. The governments and HELCOM are encouraged to take immediate initiativesto reduce the nutrient input caused by sewage discharge from all kind ofvessels in the Baltic Sea.21. The governments are encouraged to take initiatives to ensure that Baltic Seaports possess facilities to store sewage water from ships.22. All Governments and HELCOM are urged to influence IMO/MARPOL tointroduce stricter regulation on waste-water discharge and airborne emissionsfrom ships in the Baltic Sea.Public Awareness, Research & Development23. The governments – in collaboration with interested universities, schools,business associations and civil organisations – are encouraged to:• generate awareness of eutrophication problems among local authorities,industries, farmers, rural communities, ship owners, tourists and the generalpublic. An important aim should be to stimulate a shift in personal behaviourand to increase acceptance of the requisite environmental measures.• establish and fund demonstration projects for new technologies and systemsdesigned to reduce the nutrient output – e.g. means of reducing nutrientdischarge from agriculture, small-scale waste-water treatment plants andsewage-water reception facilities in ports, the re-organisation of land-basedand maritime transport, etc.• promote the systematic export of successful initiatives, demonstrationprojects and methods developed in one country in the fields of agriculture,remote and sparsely populated settlements, local authorities, shipping andindustry, to all of the other countries in the catchment area. The feasibilityof success in other countries should be assessed, and positive experiencespublicised as widely as possible.24. The governments are encouraged to establish regional and national researchprogrammes in order to stimulate the development of new and improvedtechnologies, solutions and recommendations aimed at reducingeutrophication in the Baltic Sea, and in doing so provide valuable backgroundinformation for political decisions as well as for private and publicinvestments.25. The MARE modelling system – a decision-support system that links ecologicaltargets with human activity and with assessments of scenarios for cost-effective political responses – is welcomed. The governments are urged torefine the system to facilitate calculations of, for example, the potentialreductions as a result of specific agricultural regulations.7Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication3. BackgroundEstablishmentThe Working Group was established in January 2006 based on the decision of theBSPC Standing Committee. It was established to focus on the eutrophicationproblem of the Baltic Sea.This challenge was, and still is, of great concern for all countries and all partiesaround the Sea. The ecological balance has been disturbed by the over-enrichmentby nutrients. This leads to heavy growth of algae, to a reduced transparency of thewater, to the depletion of oxygen. Eventually it leads to the death of fish and otherorganisms. Eutrophication is hence a great problem for the fisheries and for therecreational opportunities as well as the tourism industry at sea and on the coasts.The resulting “soup of algae” is devastating for many leisure activities such asbathing, fishing, sailing, surfing etc. Some algae even tend to be poisonous forhumans, for dogs and other animals.MandateThe Working Group was given the mandate to raise political and public awareness;refer annex 1. Further, the Group should pursue to draft a resolution to be adoptedby the BSPC with recommendations directed to the CBSS, the HELCOM and to thegovernments of the Baltic Sea states. Hence, the ambition of the Working Grouphas been to draft directions to mitigate the current situation.Except from Iceland all the parliaments of the BSPC members have nominatedtheir representative to the Working Group on Eutrophication, which illustrates thata BSPC ad hoc group working on a specific policy issue is attracting broad interestfrom all parliaments.The Working Group was requested to submit its final report to the BSPC to bediscussed at the 16th Conference in August 2007 in Berlin.4. Working Group’s mode of workThe Working group has during its meetings discussed the eutrophication problembased on reports and information from experts; refer chapter 6. Also during theconference in August 2006 in Aland Islands a large number of presentations gaveinput to the discussions and final results of the Working Group.Researchers, government officials as well as representatives from sewagetreatments plants, business associations and civil organisations have shared theirknowledge and points of view with the Working Group. The Working Group owesdeep thanks to everybody who has contributed with information and advice.8Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationRepresentatives from HELCOM, the CBSS Secretariat and the Baltic 21 havecontributed with information and point of views.The working Group has had a presentation on the Baltic Sea eutrophication seenfrom a Belarusian perspective.As a background for the Aland Islands conference a booklet on the causes effectsand solutions of the eutrophication in the Baltic Sea was released; refer annex 12.The booklet is currently in process of being translated into Russian.Parallel to the work of the Group a number of national and regional parliamentsand parliamentarian bodies have taken initiatives to raise the eutrophication issueon the political agenda in their home areas, refer chapter 5.The Working Group has had frequent contacts to the media of the countries in theregion. The Working Group has, as of May 2007, written two news paper articleswidely printed in the media of the countries of the region, refer annexes 5 and 6.The Working Group has contributed to the events of HELCOM and CBSS concerningtheir work on eutrophication; refer chapter 6.5. Parliamentarian initiatives takenDuring the Working Group’s life time a number of national and regional parliamentsas well as parliamentarian bodies have taken initiatives to raise the eutrophicationissue on the political agenda in their home areas. Some of them are listed below:• Nordic Council recommendations on reducing emissions to the air fromships and on reducing the toilet waste water from ships in 2003-05 and inOctober 2006 respectively• Baltic Assembly’s conference on Eutrophication issues in March 2006• Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’s request of informationfrom government in May 2006; refer annexes 9 and 10• Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein’s request of information from governmentin May 2006; refer annexes 8 and 10• Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’s sessions andrecommendation on eutrophication in June 2006• Baltic Assembly’s information in February 2007 of the standing committeesof the parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on the eutrophicationissue and the BSPC Working groups progress; including an invitation tocomment and suggest of input for the finalisation of the BSPC WG; referannex 11.9Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication6. Working Group activitiesOwn activitiesThe Working Group has accomplished five meetings and arranged a conference on14-15 August 2006 at the Aland Islands. The WG’s final report will be presented atthe 16th BSPC in Berlin in August 2007. The meetings were conducted as shown inthe table below:Date Venue Activity10-11 January 2006 Helsinki (Finland) First meeting of the WG1-2 March 2006 Tallinn (Estonia) Second meeting of the WG14-15 August 2006 Mariehamn, Aland Conference andIslands (Finland) Third meeting of the WG22-23 February 2007 Oslo (Norway) Fourth meeting of the WG13-14 May 2007 Visby, Island of Gotland Fifth meeting of the WG(Sweden)27-28 August 2007 Berlin (Germany) Final Report of the Chairman at the16th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceRelated activities(cid:131) The WG-Chair presented a mid-term report to the 15th BSPC in Reykjavik on 3-5 September 2006; refer annex 7.(cid:131) Working Group members participated in the “Gotland Initiative” on 16-17August 2006 in Visby, Sweden. The Chairman gave a speech at this occasion.(cid:131) WG-Chair’s presentation on WG progress at the BSPC Standing Committee’smeeting in Brussel on 28 February 2007.(cid:131) “Stakeholder Conference” on 6 March 2007 in Helsinki (Finland), organized bythe HELCOM within the framework of Baltic Sea Action Plan. The Working Groupsent comments to HELCOM; refer annex 4.(cid:131) The WG took part in Baltic Islands Maritime Issues - Follow-Up of the “GotlandInitiative” in Ronne, Bornholm on 16-17 April 2007. The Chairman gave aspeech at this occasion.(cid:131) The Working Group took part in the international conference “Land and sea –more cooperation, less eutrophication” on 19-20 April in Saltsjöbaden10Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication(Stockholm). The meeting was attended by high-level representatives from theagriculture and the environment ministries of all countries in the Baltic SeaRegion. The Working Group sent comments to the CBSS, and the Chairmangave a speech at this occasion; refer annexes 2 and 3.7. Members of the Working Group1. Mr. Asmund Kristoffersen, WG Chair, Chairman of the Nordic CouncilCommittee of Environment and Natural Resources, MP, Norway2. Mr. Indulis Emsis, WG Vicechair, Speaker of the Latvian Parliament, Chair-man of the Baltic Assembly Environment Protection and Energy Committee3. Mr. Reinhardt Dankert, WG Vicechair, MP, State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania4. Mr. Küllo Arjakas, MP, Estonia (until August 2006). Replaced by Mr. MihhailLotman, MP, Estonia and Mr. Vladimir Velman, MP, Estonia5. Mr. Axel Bernstein, MP, State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein6. Ms. Sinikka Bohlin, MP, Sweden7. Mr. Per Clausen, MP, Denmark8. Ms. Christina Gestrin, MP, Finland (from April 2007 also representing theNordic Council)9. Mr. Vladimir Grachev, Chairman of the Ecology Committee of the State DumaFederal Assembly of the Russian Federation10. Dr. Christel Happach-Kasan, MP, German Bundestag11. Ms. Hanna-Leena Hemming, Vicechair of the Nordic Council Committee ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, MP, Finland (until March 2007)12. Mr. Donatas Jankauskas, MP, Lithuania13. Mr. Ivar Kristiansen, MP, Norway14. Mr. Viktor Shudegov, Chairman of the Committee on Science, Culture,Education, Public Health and Ecology of the Council of Federation of theRussian Federation15. Ms. Veronica Thörnroos, MP, Aland Islands16. Mr. Michal Wojtczak, Senator, MP, Poland (from April 2006) replacing Mr.Stanislav Kalemba, MP, Poland.Secretariat:Mr. Jens Nytoft Rasmussen, Senior Advisor, MSc.11Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnexes1. Mandate of the WG2. WG comments the CBSS High-Level Representatives meeting in April 20073. WG Chair’s speaking notes to the CBSS High-Level Representatives meeting4. WG note to the HELCOM stakeholder conference in March 20075. “Action needed to rescue the Baltic Sea” – WG’s News article prior theHELCOM Stakeholder conference on 6 March 20076. “One plus one can make three” – WG’s News article prior to the CBSS High-level Meeting on 19-20 April 20077. WG Chair’s speech on midterm report to 15th BSPC in Reykjavik in September20068. Optional standardised questionnaire for parliaments to request informationfrom their governments9. Answers to questionnaire from the Schleswig-Holstein regional government10. Answers to questionnaire from the Mecklenburg-Western Pomeranian regionalgovernment11. Comments on eutrophication in the Baltic Sea from the Committee ofEnvironment Protection of the Lithuanian Parliament - on request from theBaltic Assembly12. WG conference Brochure “Nutrients and Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.Effects, causes, solutions”, released in Mariehamn in August 2006 (notincluded)13. Clean & Clear. Report from the Working Group on Baltic Sea Eutrophication.To be released in August 2007 in Berlin (in press)12Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 1Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceSecretariatApril 2006MandateforParliamentary Working Group onCombating Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea(Adopted by the Standing Committee 14 October 2005 in Moscow)(Amended by the Standing Committee 31 January 2006 in Copenhagen)ConstitutionThe Working Group is constituted as an ad-hoc working group under the auspices ofthe Standing Committee of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in accordancewith the BSCP rules.The Working Group, at its first meeting, nominates of its own members the ChairPerson and Vice-Chair Person. Further, one or more rapporteurs for specific issues orinformation collection could be nominated among the participants as agreed upon.The Working Group, at its first meeting, adopts the draft mandate given by theStanding Committee, an activity plan, a mode of operation and a time schedule for thework.Unanimous decisions should be pursued by the Working Group.Working language will be English for documents as well as negotiations. Necessaryinterpretation and translation will only be done on initiative and costs borne by therequesting member parliament.Summarising minutes should be produced after each meeting and it is theresponsibility of the Chair to ensure this facility.13Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationMandateThe Working Group should review the existing situation and the status forimplementation of previously approved recommendations. The Working Group shouldexchange experience on successful reduction efforts of the countries.The Working Group and its members should raise the political focus on the problem ofeutrophication of the Baltic Sea on the national agendas of each of the countries.The Working Group should pursue to draft a resolution to be adopted by the BSPC,preferably in 2007 in Berlin with recommendations to mitigate the current situationdirected to the CBSS, the HELCOM and to the governments of the Baltic Sea states.ParticipantsAll participating parliaments of BSPC shall be invited to take part in the work.Also Nordic Council, Baltic Assembly, and the EU-Parliament shall be invited.Representatives of the parliaments of Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic mightbe involved in the work.Each institution is invited to participate with one member accompanied by one advisorand/or one interpreter if envisaged.Each participating parliament/parliamentary body should cover its own expenses. Twoor three meetings are anticipated – one of which might be conducted together with aconference or seminar.SecretariatSecretarial assistance to the Working Group arrangements and meetings will beprovided by the BSPC Secretariat. The Nordic Council has kindly offered to enforce itscontribution to the Secretariat in terms of advisory expertise.Secretarial assistance to members of the Working Group shall be provided by thehome parliaments.Additional secretarial assistance to the Chair, Vice-Chair and possible Rapporteursshall be provided by the home parliament of the nominees.14Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 2ToMr Carl BildtMinister for Foreign Affairs, SwedenChairman of the Council of the Baltic Sea States28 February 2007Dear Mr Bildt,We would like to express our warm thanks for the invitation to the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference – the BSPC – to attend the meeting of the Agriculture and Environment Ministers of theCouncil of the Baltic Sea States in Saltsjöbaden, 19-20 April.The theme of the meeting – Land and Sea: More Cooperation, less Eutrophication – is extremelytopical and timely. The Baltic Sea is in dire need of political action and practical efforts in order tocombat eutrophication. BSPC wholeheartedly supports CBSS initiatives to this end. A closeinteraction between parliamentary and governmental activities will, we believe, reinforce thepolitical support for a sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region.On 30 August 2005, the BSPC appointed a Working Group on Eutrophication. The Working Groupwill submit its final report at the16th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Berlin 27-28 Augustthis year.Please allow us to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the attached note, containing anumber of preliminary conclusions of the Working Group. It is our hope that they can provide someinput to the deliberations at your meeting in April. We are of course prepared and willing to give areport on the progress and results of the Working Group at the meeting.Yours sincerelyFranz Thönnes, MP Asmund Kristoffersen, MPPresident of the BSPC Chairman of the BSPC Working Group onEutrophication15Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on Eutrophication26th February 2007Adopted by the BSPC Eutrophication Working Groupon 22-23 February 2007 in OsloNOTE TOTHE COUNCIL OF THE BALTIC SEA STATES (CBSS)In Preparation of the Meeting“Land and Sea – more cooperation, less eutrophication”of High-level representativesof the Environment and Agriculture Ministriesof the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)on 19th and 20th April 2007 in SwedenThe effects of eutrophication constitute a serious threat to the environment,fisheries, bio-diversity and tourism in the entire Baltic Sea Region. For this reason,the 14th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) appointed a ParliamentaryWorking Group on 30 August 2005, which is to submit recommendations forpolitical action directed at solving the problem of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.In its resolution of 5 September 2006, the 15th BSPC urged the governments of theBaltic Sea Region to “strongly support all kinds of measures and instrumentsdesigned to further reduce pollutant and nutrient inputs from agriculture,municipalities, shipping and industries” and to “take active part in theplanned April 2007 CBSS conference of ministers of environment and ministers ofagriculture, in order to optimize their contribution to a less eutrophicated Baltic16Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationSea and to present the results of this conference at the 16th BSPC-Conference inBerlin 2007”On the basis of a comprehensive hearing of experts, the Working Group hasdiscussed the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea in great detail devoting four sessionsto this issue. The BSPC Working Group on Eutrophication wants to draw theattention of the Environment and Agriculture Ministers of the CBSS to the belowrecommendations. The parliamentarian working group requests the Conference“Land and Sea: more cooperation, less eutrophication” to be convened on 19-20April 2007 in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden to pay due consideration to theserecommendations in their deliberations and decision-making.1. The CBSS should welcome the HELCOM activities in preparation of a Baltic SeaAction Plan (BSAP) as a guideline for future work on issues - including thereduction of eutrophication - in such a way as to ensure that the mostcomprehensive and concrete measures possible for further reducing pollutantand nutrient inputs from agriculture, municipalities, shipping and industries arelaid down in the BSAP. Also, each country represented in the CBSS shouldcommit itself to implementing the BSAP by taking the required measures,providing the required funds, evaluating the effects, and carrying out therequired monitoring.2. Within the framework of the existing cooperation, the CBSS should encourageeach country in the full catchment area of the Baltic Sea (including Belarus, theCzech Republic, and Ukraine) to stipulate corresponding strict regulations intheir national legislation.3. All CBSS member states should stringently implement existing legalcommitments aimed at reducing nutrient inputs in the Baltic Sea.4. Each country should strive at integrating their agricultural policy with theenvironment policy in a way that the measures of the policies add synergy toeach other, and to avoid that the agricultural production policy measures workcounterproductively to the environment policy.5. In the context of nutrient input reduction in the Baltic Sea, governments shouldpropose that the experience of successful initiatives and methods developed inone country in the fields of agriculture, scattered settlements, municipalities,shipping and industries be systematically shared with the other states of thecatchment area and looked into with respect to its feasibility in those countriesso that such a positive experience is disseminated as far as possible.6. Governments should encourage and support the national and regionalorganizations representing the interests of the agricultural professions todevelop their own initiatives for reducing eutrophication and to pass theavailable experience on to farmers in their own country and abroad.7. Governments should design and plan regional and national researchprogrammes in order to stimulate the development of new and refinedtechnologies, solutions and recommendations aimed at the reduction ofeutrophication in the Baltic Sea, which are to be included in political decisions.17Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication8. The EU members of the CBSS should jointly support adjustments to the EUCommon Agricultural Policy in order to strengthen the environmentrequirements for direct subsidies to farmers and to promote best agriculturalpractices at the farm level.9. The EU members of the CBSS should individually and jointly support theadoption of a EU Marine Strategy Directive to maintain the political prioritydevoted to it. Within the framework of the existing cooperation, the CBSSshould push for the introduction and harmonisation of the principles of theabove Directive in a way that includes non-EU members in the full catchmentarea of the Baltic Sea.10.The EU members of the CBSS should join efforts to persuade the EuropeanUnion to give appropriate consideration, also in the future, to the specificrequirements of the Baltic Sea Region in terms of funding, subsidies andlegislation to mitigate the problem of eutrophication.18Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 3Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, BSPCWorking Group on EutrophicationApril 2007Speaking notesFor Asmund Kristoffersen, Chairman of the BSPC Working Group onEutrophication, Chairman of the Nordic Council Environment and NaturalResources Committee, MP Norway.For the invited presentation to the CBSS High-Level Representatives Meeting“Land and Sea – more cooperation, less eutrophication”in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden 19-20 April 2007(Check against delivery)Collaboration and Commitment NeededViews from the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Groupon EutrophicationChair, dear participants,Thank you for the opportunity to address this important meeting and such a well-informed forum.I am the Chairperson of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group onEutrophication. I am also the Chair of the Nordic Council Environment and NaturalResources Committee, and a Norwegian Labour Party MP.The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference which comprises the parliaments of allcountries around the Baltic Sea, in 2006, established a Task-Force Working Group tofocus on the issues of the Baltic Sea Eutrophication. The Working Group will finish itstask this year and we find it of great importance that also this interparliamentaryforum can contribute to the governmental work on eutrophication carried out by CBSSand HELCOM.19Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationThe Working Group has sent notes and comments to this meeting and to the HELCOMStakeholder Conference of last Month. These documents are available here today forthose of you who are interested.The parliamentary Working Group also published a booklet on the eutrophicationproblems, its causes and solutions. That was in connection with a topical conferencelast autumn at the Aland Islands. Also copies of this booklet, which is currently beingtranslated to Russian for further distribution, are available here today.Ladies and Gentlemen,From our work we know that the eutrophication is caused by the contribution ofnutrients form many sources and from all the countries around the Baltic Sea, and wealso know that the single most important contributor is agriculture.Based on this knowledge, one of our recommendations would be that the countriesneed to integrate agricultural policy with environmental policy in a more efficient waythan they do at present. Put simply, we have to see environment and agriculturalpolicy as a single entity and not as two stand-alone areas that, in the worst cases,counteract each other.Therefore, I think we can all very much welcome the initiative of the CBSSChairmanship to convene this meeting of high-level representatives from both theenvironment and the agriculture ministries. We appreciate that you have got togetherand that you hopefully can make firm decisions.On the eutrophication issue lots of data, lots of context and lots of possible solutionshave already been disclosed. One can always want to ask for even more detailedinformation and even more advanced probability analysis, but.....the wish for suchrefinement – in my mind, in this case - should certainly not be used as an excuse fornot making the possible sound decisions today.The state of art concerning knowledge has been presented in the backgroundinformation to this meeting. Also HELCOM has over the years compiled a huge amountof high-quality information. HELCOM is – as we all know – in process of creating aBaltic Sea Action Plan based on a set of ecological objectives to be achieved. In theplan eutrophication is addressed as being one of the most urgent issues. From theBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference we warmly welcome this initiative. We hope thatthe completion over the coming months will be successful and we strongly urge allgovernments to support an ambitious action plan, to commit themselves to the plan,and to implement it properly. We should bear in mind that HELCOM is a forum forcollaboration, but it will be for the national governments to perform and to make thevisions come trough.Mr. Chairman,Talking about agricultural policies and integration of environment and agriculturepolicies, it is obvious that for many of the countries this is not just a national matter.The EU Common Agricultural Policy is shaping the overall framework. This policyduring recent years already has adopted some elements and measures to enhance theenvironment protection. It is now for the countries to make the best out of theseopportunities and to specifically use the CAP mechanisms – also at the farm level toreduce the nutrient contribution form agriculture. As we understand the situation it isprobably not all countries that have fully succeeded in getting the maximum out ofthe existing possibilities. Our appeal to you is that you learn from each other and thatyou implement the best solutions in your own country – in dialogue with the farmers20Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationand with other relevant NGOs. And please, dare to be foresighted and courageous inyour approach!The governments should use the existing system at its best, but they should not stopby that. We also call on you to agree on the necessary adjustments in the CAP. Whena group of EU-members together support certain changes, changes could comethrough. May be even specifically measures adapted for the special Baltic Seasituation should be pursued. The CAP shall run through a so-called “health check”during 2008. Here must be some options to scope the policy in order to better caterfor the Baltic Sea environment. Please, do take this opportunity!Of course, all countries should also make sure that their existing national agri-environmental legislation is strictly implemented and reinforced. That also counts forother EU-regulations on nitrate, the water framework, the marine environment, andthe regulation of big, industrial farming.The corresponding regulation in the non-EU-member countries should influence andshould be influenced by the said approach in order to create a common understandingof the needs and means to protect the vulnerable Baltic Sea. In this respect thedialogue and contact with up-streams countries like Belarus and Ukraine should beintensified.Ladies and Gentlemen,Concerning the wider European perspective on the Baltic Sea environment, I find itvery encouraging that one can find support from the EU-parliament. I would like todraw your attention to the recently issued “EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region”,which was adopted by the EU-Parliament last year. The first and one of the mostimportant, issues to be addressed by this strategy is the improvement of theenvironment. And among the environment issues the first one to be addressed is theeutrophication. Even from the EU parliamentarians one can find a strong support to,for instance, the development and adjustment of the CAP, which I just touched upon.Also at the regional level I am quite sure that the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencewill give you all the support needed for lasting solutions when we convene in Augustthis year in Berlin. The mandate of the Working Group, that I have the honour tochair, includes an obligation to raise the public and political awareness on the BalticSea eutrophication. From the Working Group we have taken this challenge seriouslyand we will continue to do so. We shall be airing our views - In the news, in ourparliaments, and when we speak to our fellow citizens!Mr. Chairman,To conclude, I want to assure you that the people and the parliamentarians of theBaltic Sea countries want trustworthy initiatives to turn around the current veryunlucky state of our common sea. We believe we have the right to expect somepromising and well-founded results of this meeting and for the cross-ministerial workin the days to follow.We want a solution to a common problem that needs common international and cross-sectoral cooperation. And we want it now!As all the countries and the two teams of ministries act together, we are sure thatsolutions can be found. So my very short message for today would be: Don’t leave us21Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationdisappointed in our reasonable expectations of you! Your political and professionalcriteria of success in this matter surely rests in your ability find solutions, tocompromise, to be generous to each other, and to highlight the long term benefits ofsolutions rather than to focus too much on the short-term costs and inconveniences.Thank you for your attention.22Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 4HELCOMAtt.: Anne Christine Brusendorff, Executive SecretaryHelsinki CommissionBaltic Marine Environment Protection CommissionKatajanokanlaituri 6 BFI-00160 HelsinkiFinlandDear Ms Brusendorff,We would like to thank You for the possibility to participate at the HELCOMStakeholder Conference on the Baltic Sea Action Plan on 6th March 2007 inHelsinki.The BSAP is a very timely and relevant process, and the BSPC support this importantinitiative. A close interaction between parliamentary and governmental activities will, in ourview, reinforce the political support for a sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region.Specifically the effects of eutrophication constitute a serious threat to the environment,fisheries, bio-diversity and tourism in the entire Baltic Sea Region. For this reason, the 14thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) appointed a Parliamentary Working Group on30 August 2005, which is to submit recommendations for political action directed at solvingthe problem of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea to the 16th BSPC in Berlin in August 2007.On the basis of a comprehensive hearing of experts, the Working Group has discussed theeutrophication of the Baltic Sea in great detail devoting four sessions to this issue. Pleaseallow us to take the opportunity to draw your attention to the attached comments. Theparliamentarian working group requests HELCOM to pay due consideration to thesecomments in their further development of the Baltic Sea Action Plan.Yours SincerelyAsmund KristoffersenChairman of the BSPC Working Group on Eutrophication, MP NorwayJens Nytoft RasmussenSenior Advisor, Secretary to the Working Group23Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on Eutrophication26th February 2007WG comments to the HELCOM draft Baltic Sea Action Plan, BSAPconcerning eutrophicationTo be communicated at the occasion of theHELCOM Stakeholder Conference on 6th March 2007The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Working Group on Eutrophication, representing membersof parliaments of all the Baltic Sea countries, The Baltic Assembly and the NordicCouncil, wants to express the following:1. Welcomes the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and call for each of thecountries to commit themselves to reduce the input of nutrients to the BalticSea which shall be guided by the clear ambition to arrive at a Baltic Seaunaffected by eutrophication within a reasonable time frame. The individualcountry should find its own cost-effective measures to achieve the reductiontarget. A Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication means that all sub-basinsshall be having clear water, only natural algae blooming and natural oxygenlevels in the water. The reduced concentrations of Phosphorous and Nitrogenwill lead to natural populations of fish and sea plants etc.2. Supports the proposal of implementation of efficient waste water treatmentfrom municipalities and the increased connectivity to sewers3. Support a proposal, as fast as possible, in the whole Baltic Sea region, toforbid the sale and use of washing detergents containing Phosphorous. Theban should be introduced in a way that, as fast as possible, encourages theindustry to rapidly develop alternatives ofphosphorous free detergents that are harmless to the environment4. Urges HELCOM to specify the actions aiming at reducing the input fromagriculture so that such measures will be included in the BSAP before24Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationNovember 2007 (when the CBSS ministers of environment are supposed toadopt the Action Plan at a meeting in Krakow, Poland)5. Suggests that HELCOM assesses the feasibility of the potential of cost-effective reductions in the input from scattered settlements and smallcommunities6. Suggests that HELCOM assesses the feasibility and potential of nutrientreduction by banning all sewage discharge from larger vessels in the BalticSea7. Urges HELCOM to specify the initiatives to be taken in international foraaiming at a substantial reduction of the airborne emissions of nitrogen to theBaltic Sea8. Asks for detailed information from HELCOM on the proposal of establishingbinding country-by-country quota for the nutrient reduction, to beaccomplished within a short time limit of how many years? The reductionquota will be set at a level which will be guided by the clear ambition to arriveat the ecological objectives and targets within a reasonable time frame, buthow will the total reduction amount – specified at sub-basin level - be brokendown at the country level? Can the reduction amount also be broken down atsector level, including the input from the agricultural production?9. Asks HELCOM for more information on how to further develop the proposal ofnutrient quota trade system among countries10. Suggests that the MARE modeling system should be further developed withthe aim to e.g. enable it to make calculations on the reduction effects ofspecific regulations in the agricultural sector11. Suggests that the BSAP should be evaluated in 2012 with the aim ofintroducing adjustments if necessary.25Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 5Framework News article, March 2007(in connection with the HELCOM Stakeholder Conference)Action needed to rescue the Baltic SeabyAsmund Kristoffersen, chair of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Working Group onEutrophication, chair of the Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee, andmember of the Norwegian parliamentandXX, deputy chair/member of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Working Group onEutrophication, member of parliament in XXThe world has never been so environmentally threatened as it is today. We are all aware of thedevastating effects that climate change has on our environment, but there are also other seriousthreats that require immediate attention.One such threat is the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. The ecological balance of this common seaof ours has been seriously affected by over-enrichment caused by nutrients, mainly nitrogen andphosphorus. This alarming development kills fish and other organisms, and it is devastating forleisure activities such as bathing and fishing. We have all seen the thick, green soup of algae, someof them poisonous, floating on the water and polluting our beaches.The debate on eutrophication usually starts in the summer, when the problem literally rises to thesurface. In winter, the heavy growth of algae is not visible to the naked eye, but the problem stilllures in the depths. Work against eutrophication demands constant action and co-operation. Thiswork must go on even when parts of the Baltic Sea are covered with a thick layer of ice.Measures are being planned at this very moment to reverse eutrophication. One important actor inthis process is the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), which works to protect the marineenvironment of the Baltic Sea through intergovernmental co-operation among all states in the regionand the EU.HELCOM is now in the midst of drafting an ambitious strategy, the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP),to reduce pollution in the Baltic Sea and restore the healthy status of the marine environment. It isof the utmost importance that this initiative includes concrete and effective measures to be taken bythe region as a whole as well as by each individual member state. HELCOM will meet in Helsinkion March 6-7 to discuss these measures.26Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationParliamentarians in the Baltic Sea states warmly welcome the BSAP initiative and call for each ofthe countries to commit itself to this process.There is a need for both wide-ranging and small-scale measures to reverse eutrophication. One keyquestion is the reduction of nutrients from agriculture, the main cause of over-enrichment. Suchmeasures must be included in the BSAP, which hopefully will be adopted by the HELCOMministerial meeting in November in Krakow, Poland.There are many other measures to be considered. For example, we must consider a ban on largevessels discharging sewage into the sea. We also suggest that HELCOM assess the feasibility ofstudying the potential of cost-effective reductions in sewage from scattered settlements and smallcommunities.We need measures that can help private individuals in their efforts to ensure a cleaner Baltic Sea.We should, for example, wash our clothes in an environmentally sustainable manner. This could bedone by introducing phosphorus-free detergents as soon as possible. At the same time, we shouldban the sale and use of detergents that contain phosphorus.A parliamentarian working group was established just over a year ago to raise political and publicawareness of the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Our primary objective is to push for concreteaction to be taken by governments in the Baltic Sea states, and we will also participate in theHELCOM meeting in Helsinki.We want the people living along our shores to be able to swim in clear and clean water, withoutworrying about their health. This is not only a question of our own future, but also the future of ourchildren and grandchildren.Notes to the editor:In order to raise political and public awareness of the eutrophication process a parliamentarianworking group was established in January 2006, based on a decision by the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference (BSPC). The group, consisting of parliamentarians from all Baltic Seastates, has since then met on a regular basis, the last time in Oslo 22-23rd of February.The working group will conclude its task in a resolution draft to be discussed and adopted by BSPCon its 16th Conference in August in Berlin.The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, more usually known as the HelsinkiCommission, or HELCOM, is an intergovernmental organisation of all the nine Baltic Sea countriesand the EU. HELCOM works to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sourcesof pollution.HELCOM is the governing body of the "Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environmentof the Baltic Sea Area" - more usually known as the Helsinki Convention.HELCOMs website: www.helcom.fi27Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 6Framework News article, April 2007(in connection with the CBSS High-Level Representative meeting)One plus one can make threeAgriculture and environment ministries from Baltic Sea countries discusseutrophicationbyAsmund Kristoffersen, chair of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Working Groupon Eutrophication, chair of the Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee,and member of the Norwegian parliamentandXX, deputy chair/member of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Working Groupon Eutrophication, member of parliament in XXIt may sound dramatic, but the harsh truth is that the Baltic Sea slowly dying. The biggestoffender is, of course, over-fertilisation (or ‘eutrophication’), which is caused by an increase ofchemical nutrients to a level that is far too high. The alarming development results in copiousquantities of algae, a severe lack of oxygen and a reduction in biological diversity. It is noexaggeration to say that immediate action needs to be taken or we will soon find ourselvesunable to swim in the sea we share, because of the health risks it poses.We know how the sea can look on warm, still summer days. The algae rise to the surface andform the thick, green broth we have all seen for ourselves or in pictures. What we don’t see,however, is that this negative process continues throughout autumn, winter and spring – it justisn’t as visible to the naked eye as it is in summer.As early as first grade, we learned that one plus one equals two. That might be truemathematically, but in more philosophical terms you might say that one plus one cansometimes come to less than two, and sometimes more. Using this reasoning, we might saythat different sectors working together in integrated partnerships are capable of providingsynergy effects that they cannot achieve individually.It is, therefore, a extremely positive move that the Baltic Sea countries will gather for justsuch a multisectoral meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, on 19-20 April. The meeting will beattended by high-level representatives from the agriculture and the environment ministries inthe Baltic Sea Region.It is clear that the biggest individual source of emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen in theBaltic Sea is the agriculture sector. On the other hand, the sector which has overallresponsibility for curbing over-fertilisation is the environment sector. As a result, in order tomaximise the synergy effects, the countries need to integrate agricultural policy withenvironmental policy in a more efficient way than they do at present. Put simply, we have tosee environment and agricultural policy as a single entity and not as two stand-alone areas28Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationthat, in the worst cases, counteract each other.There are many ways of integrating the environmental aspect of agriculture more efficiently.Farmers should receive more in-depth training in environmentally-friendly production methods,and those growers who really invest in reducing emissions (for example, through more efficientprocessing of fertilisers), should be offered financial incentives. Fully ecological agriculture, i.e.environmentally friendly throughout the production process, is possible. Successful initiativesand methods that are developed in one Baltic Sea country must systematically be spread toother countries in the region. The governments need to encourage and support national andregional farmers’ organisations to develop their own methods to curb eutrophication.On the path towards more sustainable agriculture and a healthier Baltic Sea, the EU’s CAPplays an important role. For example, its most recent programme requires farmers to paygreater attention to the environment. There are opportunities for even greater environmentalefforts within the framework of the EU’s current agricultural policy, however. It is up to thecountries themselves to exploit these opportunities for the greater benefit of the Baltic Sea.Together, the Baltic Sea countries should also put forward new proposals for environmentalmeasures when the EU evaluates the effect of the current CAP agreement in 2008.Agricultural policy needs to give farmers equal and positive production conditions, as well asplacing higher demands on environmental protection. Old and new EU members alike facemajor challenges if intensive agricultural production is to be maintained and if it is to continueto be developed. As far as the condition of the Baltic Sea is concerned, efficiencyimprovements and development (including that of agriculture in new EU countries and Russia)need to be done in a way that does not lead to further emissions of nutrients into the sea.Quite simply, the Baltic Sea cannot cope with it...The work to combat over-fertilisation in the Baltic Sea must include a commitment at everylevel, from international to individual. Every measure plays an important role, whether it is amultinational agreement or a single farmer deciding to store his fertiliser in a moreenvironmentally friendly way. One thing is certain – co-operation always pays. And, to returnto where we started from, in the best-case scenario one plus one can definitely make morethan two.Information for editors:The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) set up a working group in January 2006to focus on the issue of eutrophication (over-fertilisation)). It consists of MPs from all thecountries around the Baltic Sea and is chaired by the Norwegian MP, Asmund Kristoffersen,who also chairs the Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Theworking group will present its report to the annual BSPC conference in Berlin in August 2007.The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) was formed in 1992 and consists of all theBaltic Sea countries (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden andGermany) as well as Norway, Iceland and the EU Commission. The CBSS is an organ formultilateral co-operation between the region’s governments.The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is an international organisation consisting of all nineBaltic Sea countries as well as the EU Commission. HELCOM works to protect the Baltic Sea’smarine environment.The conference ‘Land and sea – more co-operation, less eutrophication’ is to be held inSaltsjöbaden outside Stockholm, on 19-20 April. The main organiser is Sweden, in its capacityas chair of the CBSS.29Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 7Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceSecretariatSeptember 2006The 15th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceon 4th September 2006 in ReykjavikSpeaking Notes(Check against delivery)Algal Blooming – a Baltic Sea Distress SignalMidterm Report from theWorking Group on Eutrophication of the Baltic SeaBy Mr. Asmund Kristoffersen, BSPC WG Chairman, MP of Norway, Chairman ofThe Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee.Thank You Mr. Chairman/Madam ChairThe Working Group was established in January 2006 based on the decision of the BSPCStanding Committee.The Working group was given the mandate to raise political and public awareness. Further, theGroup should pursue to draft a resolution to be adopted by the BSPC with recommendationsdirected to the CBSS, the HELCOM and to the governments of the Baltic Sea states. Hence, theambition of the Working Group is to draft directions to mitigate the current situation.The Working Group has had three meetings and has arranged a conference on 14-15 August2006 at The Aland Islands. The Mandate of the Group runs for another year, meaning that theWorking Group is supposed to submit its final report to the BSPC to be discussed at the 16thConference in August 2007 in Berlin. The Working Group has planned to discuss and draft thereport at two up-coming meetings – probably in the winter and spring of 2007.But already for this BSPC Conference, as a preliminary result, the Working Group has drafted afew sentences as an input to the Reykjavik Resolution.The Working Group was established to focus on the eutrophication problem of the Baltic Sea.This challenge is of great concern for all countries and all parties around the Sea. Theecological balance has30Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationbeen disturbed by the over-enrichment by nutrients. This leads to heavy growth of algae, to areduced transparency of the water, to the depletion of oxygen. Eventually it leads to the deathof fish and other organisms. Eutrophication is hence a great problem for the fisheries and forthe recreational opportunities at sea and on the coasts. The resulting “soup of algae” isdevastating for many leisure activities such as bathing, fishing, sailing, surfing etc. Some algaeeven tend to be poisonous for humans, for dogs and other animals.Mr. Chairman/Madam ChairThe Working Group has, among other things, studied the prior and ongoing initiatives byHELCOM, CBSS and EU. HELCOM is in process of preparing a Baltic Sea Action Plan. Thisinitiative is fully acknowledged by the Working Group, and The Group would welcome anyinvitation to contribute to the remaining HELCOM drafting process. The CBSS and the nationalgovernments are now in process of implementing the EU Water Framework Directive and theEU Marine Strategy for the Baltic Sea. Also this work will be of great importance for theecological status of the Baltic Sea.It is now obvious for the Working Group, that also the EU Common Agricultural Policy has atremendous influence on the agricultural mode of production, and hence on that sector’s inputof Nitrogen and Phosphorous to the Baltic Sea. The national and regional implementation of theoverall Common Agricultural Policy is of great importance.Thinking of the role of agriculture in eutrophication, we should all welcome the initiative, in thespring of 2007, to bring together both the agriculture and the environment ministers of all theBaltic Sea countries. I hope everybody present today will work politically at home in order tostimulate to a broad high level participation at this joint ministerial meeting.In addition, I think we should express great expectations for this meeting: That agriculturaland environmental ministers sincerely work to develop a regional approach to theimplementation of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Water Frame Work Directive, andby doing so, to strive for a less eutrophicated Baltic Sea.Hopefully, a report on the results from the ministerial meeting can be given at the BSPC BerlinConference next autumn.Mr. Chairman/Madam ChairRepresentatives of HELCOM, CBSS and the EU have contributed substantially to the WorkingGroup, and the Working Group has taken part in the CBSS – “Gotland Initiative” last month.Also the future initiatives of the Working Group will be coordinated with the plans and policiesof the said institutions. The Working Group should welcome all kind of close interactionbetween the parliamentary level and the government institutions in the work ahead.The Working Group decided to prepare a booklet on the effects, causes and solutions to theeutrophication problem of the Baltic Sea. The booklet was presented and discussed at theConference in August. The Booklet is also available here at this conference. The purpose of thepublication is to outline the situation and also to serve as a platform for raising public andpolitical awareness of the problem. Please, take a copy with you and bring the discussions intopolitical agenda of your own political party and parliament.The current situation with excessive input of Nitrogen and Phosphorous originates from thescale and character of human activities. All inhabitants around the Baltic Sea contribute to theoutlet of Nitrogen and Phosphorous. Some should feel more responsible than others, but weare all part of the problem. In our daily life many of our decisions have an impact – directly orindirectly: When we demand energy from polluting sources, when we choose means of31Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationtransportation that pollutes, when we are not sincerely interested in building modern wastewater treatment plants. And, of course also the kind of demand for food influences the mode ofagricultural production and in that way influences the amount of nutrients discharged to theBaltic Sea.Phosphorus is practically only waterborne, whilst for Nitrogen, 3⁄4 is waterborne and 1⁄4 isairborne.The airborne deposition is mainly generated by road transport, energy combustion, andshipping. As for the waterborne deposition, in general agriculture, forestry and scattereddwellings contribute 60% of Nitrogen and 50% of Phosphorous. About 10% of the Nitrogen and25% of the Phosphorous originate form municipalities and industries. The proportion of naturalbackground losses are 30% for Nitrogen and 25 % for Phosphorous.The proportions of input vary in the different areas of the Baltic Sea as well as from country tocountry. The Working Group will discuss on relevant and cost-effective political and economicaltools to reduce the future input of Nitrogen and Phosphorous.The solution will probably need to be tailor made from place to place and situation to situation.Certainly it will need to involve researchers, authorities, NGOs, and the public in general. Thepolicy will need to be developed in dialogue with agriculture, industries, municipalities andother interested parties.Together with the two Vice-Chairmen of the Working Group, Mr. Reinhardt Dankert and Mr.Indulis Emsis it is a pleasure to inform you that – except from Iceland, which country I believecould be excused in this respect – all the parliaments of the BSPC members have nominatedtheir representative to the Working Group on Eutrophication. This illustrates for us, that aBSPC ad hoc group working on a specific policy issue is attracting broad interest from allparliaments. For the Chairmanship, this is a fortune! And a challenge!Ladies and Gentlemen!On behalf of the Working Group I am looking forward to address you again next year.Hopefully, at that time, we will be in a position to specifically point to directions for a futurewith a clean and transparent Baltic Sea.32Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 8Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on Eutrophication6 March 2006Generalised questions and information needs to be completed byHELCOM and the governments of all the Baltic Sea states1. What share of the inputs comes from mechanical, biological and advanced centralisedwaste water treatment facilities in the Baltic Sea states? What volume of nutrientsoriginates from decentralised waste water discharges (e.g. from dispersedsettlements)?2. How are the requirements that are stipulated in the EU Nitrate Directive implemented inthe Baltic Sea states, and are there relatively similar statutory provisions in Russia?What N and P losses occur in the Baltic Sea states in connection with farming andanimal production, and what efforts are being made to reduce such losses?3. According to the EU Water Framework Directive each country must deliver an “Article 5risk analysis report” for water areas that are not in compliance with good ecologicalstatus. Which are the main problems that the Baltic Sea countries have identifiedconcerning eutrophication of the Baltic Sea?4. Are any new “hot spots” expected to emerge in the medium term?5. What use is being made of the options created by the decision to reform the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) in terms of cross compliance, i.e. tying direct payments madeby the European Union to specific purposes with a view to reducing nutrient inputs intothe Baltic Sea from the various Baltic Sea states?33Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication6. What programmes or action plans have the various Baltic Sea states on their owninitiative developed to reduce inputs of nutrients from: (Baltic Sea protection actionplans, aquatic environment action plans, agricultural environmental programmes etc.)(a) the atmosphere,(b) the streams of running water flowing into the Baltic Sea,(c) industrial and municipal point sources as well as(d) maritime traffic?7. What measures have been adopted by the Baltic Sea states in the past 10 years inorder to reduce nutrient inputs into theBaltic Sea, and what quantifiable results have been achieved? Are any additionalmeasures planned?8. What information is available in the Baltic Sea states on inputs, via the pathways listedin 6 (a) to (d) above, from other countries that are part of the Baltic Sea’s catchmentarea? Have certain Baltic Sea states, where applicable, concluded bilateral agreementswith countries that are upstream from the river catchment areas, with the aim ofreducing nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea?9. To what extent is Baltic Sea states directly involved in the implementation and financingof projects designed to reduce nutrient inputs?10. In what way do the various Baltic Sea states co-operate with professional organisationsand trade associations as well as NGOs with the aim of reducing nutrient inputs?11. How is monitoring (i.e. the collection of data in accordance with standardised criteriaand methods that apply throughout the Baltic Sea region), as well as the processing ofthese data and their transmission to data collection centres (e.g. HELCOM) organised?What problems have been encountered in this context?12. Is information additionally transmitted to the European Commission or the EuropeanEnvironment Agency? If so, in what way?34Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 9Answers by the State Government of Schleswig-Holsteinto the List of Questions Put Forward by the Working Group "Eutrophication"of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)(Forwarded by Mr. Martin Kayenburg, Speaker of Parliament)Question No. 1:Which is the respective share of mechanical, biological, and advanced central waste water treatmentin the countries bordering the Baltic Sea? What is the rate of nutrient input through decentralizedwaste water discharge (e.g. from settlements with scattered buildings)?Answer to Question No. 1:All sewage treatment plants in Schleswig-Holstein are equipped with mechanical, biological treatmentsystems. When set in relation to the number of people connected to the system, nutrients are eliminated by amore advanced process at a rate of app. 90%, meaning that the reduction rate at the sewage treatment plantsis roughly 94% for phosphorous and 88% for nitrogen.The connection rate to the centralized sewage systems (primarily separate sewer systems) is app. 93%. It isvirtually impossible to quantify the nutrients entering the Baltic Sea from the remaining decentralizedsewage systems used by 7% of the population. As a rule, the small sewage treatment plants are equippedwith a mechanical-biological treatment stage.Storm sewage runoff or rather overflows and industrial point sources are of minor importance as far asnutrient input is concerned.Question No. 2:How are the standards set by the European Nitrate Directive beingimplemented in the Baltic Sea states and do comparable regulations exist inRussia?Which main problems with respect to the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea havethe Baltic Sea states identified?Answer to Question No. 2:The EC Nitrate Directive has been transposed into German law by way of the National Fertilizer Ordinanceand by regulations of the individual federal states on the storage of substances hazardous to waters. TheFertilizer Ordinance, amended in January 2006, regulates the application of fertilizers, soil adjuvantsubstances, culture media, and plant growth-promoting agents consistent with good agricultural practice inorder to minimize substance-related risks (e.g. N and P losses) when using these agents on agricultural land.Essentially, the following regulations must be observed:• plant nourishment must be applied needs-adapted in terms of timing and quantity;• when determining the need for fertilization, the soil's nutrients, humus and lime content must be35Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationconsidered as well as the cultivation conditions under which significant quantities of nutrients areapplied;• soil must be tested for phosphorous at least every 6 years, the available N content in the soil mustbe known prior to application of fertilizers;• fertilizers may not be applied to flooded, water-saturated or completely frozen soil nor to groundwith an uninterrupted snow cover of > 5 cm;• application equipment must be operated consistent with good technical practice;• a minimum distance of 3 m to the top of the embankment of surface water bodies must bemaintained to avoid a direct runoff of nutrients; should the agricultural cropland have an extremeslope (grade > 10%), the minimum distance is 10 m;• observance of a period of embargo within which fertilizers containing significant content ofavailable N may not be applied: 1 Nov. - 31 Jan. for cropland and 15 Nov. - 31 Jan for grassland;• any liquid organic and organic-mineral fertilizer with significant N content spread on fields atrest must be worked into the ground without delay.• the upper limit for fertilizers applied to cropland after harvesting is 80 kg N/ha in total or 40kg ammonium-N, respectively;• the upper limit for organic manure application is set at 170 kg N/ha p.a. on average peragricultural operation;• compilation of a comparative nutrient analysis for N and P with fixed ceilings for nutrient balancesand• obligation to document and record any measures taken.The Installations Ordinance of the State of Schleswig-Holstein (VAwS) was amended in December 2005,requiring farmers to provide for storage capacity for farm manure (e.g. liquid manure, sullage) of at least 6months.Talks on whether the European Commission will formally accept the National Fertilizer Ordinance as thetransposition of the EC Nitrate Directive and if an exception requested by Germany will be granted, arecurrently being held between Germany and the EU Commission. It is not known here whether comparableregulations exist in Russia.As for N and P losses resulting from land cultivation and animal production it is not yet possible to providereliable figures or data for Schleswig-Holstein. As part of a research project conducted by Kiel University, astate-wide comparative study of organic and conventional farms is currently being done which, inter alia, isrecording the nitrogen and energy flows at the level of the individual farms. However, initial, conclusiveresults will be available only at the end of 2006 or in early 2007.Question No. 3:Pursuant to Article 5 of the EU Water Framework Directive every country must prepare a riskanalysis for water bodies that are not in good ecological condition. Which main problems with respectto the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea have the Baltic Sea states identified?Answer to Question No. 3:The report pertaining to the European Water Framework Directive, Article 5 states that all coastalwater bodies of the Baltic Sea are at risk of not meeting the aim of good ecological status. Theeutrophication problems encountered in the Baltic Sea is the reason for this assessment; with diffuse-source entry of nutrients into the Baltic Sea being the main problem.36Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationQuestion No. 4:Are new "hot spots" to be expected in the medium term?Answer to Question No. 4:Based on current knowledge no new "hot spots" are to be expected in the medium term.Question No. 5:With the adoption of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) various cross-compliance options were introduced in connection with direct financial support from theEuropean Union. How do the individual Baltic Sea states make use of these options with a viewto reducing nutrient loading of the Baltic Sea?Answer to Question No. 5:It is expected that the implementation of the agricultural reform adopted in January 2005 will lead toadditional reductions in the input of nutrients because incentives for improved nutrient efficiencyhave been created by decoupling direct payments from production quantities, by making such directpayments conditional to the fulfillment of environmental and animal protection criteria as well asfood and animal feed safety criteria (cross compliance), and by introducing modulation. Whenagricultural operations are inspected within the framework of cross compliance, 1 % of the recipientsof direct payments are reviewed in systematic checks. In so doing, the storage capacity for liquidmanure, the mean organic manure application per agricultural operation, the results of soil tests, thefertilizer needs evaluation and the completion of the comparative nutrient analysis are checked. Inaddition, so-called cross checks are used to monitor observance of the embargo period and avoidanceof discharging nutrients into surface waters. Among other things, these cross checks also examinewhether fertilizers are applied only to soils with adequate absorption capacity, whether liquid organicand organic mineral fertilizers were worked into the soil without delay and whether the storagecontainers are leak-proof. Any relevant violations are sanctioned by fines. Since these measures wereimplemented in 2005 for the first time, no conclusive evaluation can be done at present.Question No. 6:Which programs of their own responsibility (e.g. agricultural environmental programs) havebeen adopted by the individual Baltic Sea countries to reduce the discharge of nutrients viaa) the atmosphereb) watercourses emptying into the Baltic Seac) industrial and municipal point sources as well asd) maritime traffic?Answer to Question No. 6: Part a)Besides international efforts aimed at curbing emissions no specific programs to reduceemissions into the atmosphere are known in Schleswig-Holstein.Part b)37Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationSchleswig-Holstein has implemented its own programs to regenerate watercourses and lakes.Particularly in the catchment area of the Baltic Sea, specific lakes and watercourses have beendesignated as priority areas to receive support. The supporting measures do not only aim at reducingpoint and diffuse sources but also at designing near-natural watercourses, meaning that water andnutrient retention are increased.A fen regeneration program is designed to lower the proportion of nutrient runoff resulting fromthe use of these fens.It is likely that support for these prioritized water bodies will be continue as part of theimplementation process of the Water Framework Directive.The modulation procedure makes it possible to keep parts of the direct payments and spend them onthe development of rural regions. Of the six modulation programs that have been offered inSchleswig-Holstein since 2003, the variant "environmentally friendly application of liquid farmmanure" merits special emphasis, given its impact on improved nutrient efficiency. To benefit fromthe program, farmers must acquire the suitable equipment themselves and must pledge to apply allliquid farm manure directly to the ground by means of the drag hose system or directly into the soilby injection for a period of 5 year. If they are using cooperative installations they are obliged toapply partial quantities according to the said methods. Moreover, the liquid manure must be testedonce a year for nutrients. Liquid farm manure may only be applied until 30 September of each year.Part c)Programs to reduce nutrient discharge through municipal sewage treatment plants or point sourcesconsist of the following:As part of a "Phosphorous Crash Program" the 20 largest municipal sewage treatment plantswere retrofitted with chemical treatment stages for removing phosphate in 1988 and 1989.• Beginning in 1989, the state government's "Priority Program" to reduce the loading of theBaltic and the North Sea with nutrients discharged together with waste water wasimplemented at the 38 largest municipal sewage treatment plants. The target values forphosphorous and nitrogen are significantly lower than the minimum standards required bylaw!• In 1995, a program aiming to "expand municipal sewage treatment plants with more than10.000 connections" ensured that the standards were consistent with the European UrbanWaste Water Treatment Directive and the state of technology stipulated by the WasteWater Ordinance.No programs were adopted to reduce nutrient input from industrial point sources. The law enacted inSchleswig-Holstein to implement the Law on Waste Water Charges in principle provides the possibility ofoffsetting the waste water fee with the expenses for relevant reduction measures.Part d)Because of its global scope, lowering the discharge of nutrients associated with maritime traffic is beingaddressed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and partly at the EU level. The basic principlesand rules drawn up by these authorities are binding for all member countries - including Germany. TheInternational Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships adopted by the IMO in 1973,38Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationamended in a Protocol in 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), and the Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Shipsthat took effect on 19 May 2005, in particular, are relevant in this context. The former contains targets tocurb the effects of burning fuels, such as fixed limits on toxic nitrogen and sulfur emissions and theestablishment of areas in which SOx is to be monitored (North Sea and Baltic Sea). In order to implementthese standards, modifications in fuel composition, exhaust gas treatment plants and measures aiming tolower fuel consumption as well as emission control and reduction technologies are under discussion or arebeing applied at the international and national levels. It is important that these measures be appliedworldwide in order to maintain a level playing field in maritime traffic. Any measures taken exclusively atthe local or national level are hot highly conducive. The R&D project Implementation of the Agenda 21 inEuropean Ports: A Case Study of Lubeck-Travemunde may serve as an example in this context. The aim ofthe research project is to examine different possibilities of lowering the environmental impact of ships on theports of Lubeck-Travemunde. Based on an analysis of the status quo, solutions were to be developed that, forexample, would help lower air pollution (including NOx and SOx emissions) from ships or ferries dockingin the ports. During the course of the project, emissions were studied and technical solutions were proposed;for example, offering the vessels dockside electricity, among other things. However, it has not been clarifiedyet if such measures could also be implemented in competing ports and shipping companiesQuestion No. 7:What measures have been taken by the Baltic Sea countries within the past tenyears to reduce the discharge of nutrients into the Baltic and what are the quantifiable results? Whichmeasures do you consider suitable for actually reducing the entry of nutrients?Answer to Question No. 7:The extensions of the central sewage treatment plant in Lubeck and of the sewage treatment plant inFiensburg as well as the connection of the Community of Surendorf (Schwedeneck) to the sewage plant inKiel in 2005 represented the successful completion of the programs launched by the State of Schleswig-Holstein and described under No. 6c. All municipal sewage treatment plants with more than 10,000connections are equipped with advanced treatment stages to eliminate phosphorus and nitrogen.Compared to the year 1995, the nitrogen discharge load from municipal sewage treatment plants waslowered by app, 75% to less than 1,000 t/a, whereas the phosphorus load was reduced by app. 25% to lessthan 50t/a. Additional programs that might be suited to significantly reduce nutrient entry from waste waterdischarge cannot be conceived of at present.A renaturation of individual sections of watercourses has been undertaken in the past. Accompanyingmeasurements to reduce nutrients are not effective even though these measures do contribute to the retentionof nutrients. In the period from 1995 to 2005, the drainage facilities of various fens or lowlands situated indips were reconstructed in such a way that the raised water level created shallow lakes (e.g. PohnsdorferStauung (embankment), the Dodauer Niederung (lowland), the Bars-beker See Niederung (lowland aroundLake Barsbek)).The effect of raising the water level in the Pohnsdorfer Stauung and reconnecting it to the network ofwatercourses was monitored by hydrological and hydrochemical measurements. These tests indicated thatapp. 10% of the total nitrogen discharged were retained in the eastern polder region of the PohnsdorferStauung. The study has shown that nitrogen retention depends on both the location in the catchment area andthe weather conditions.Additional plots that have been purchased in a number of other lowlands as part of the implementation of theWater Framework Directive are to be returned to a waterlogged state as soon as the deal is completed.39Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationEvidence for the efficacy of action taken at sewage treatment plants draining directly into the Baltic Sea orinto the catchment area can be found at points where samples are frequently collected, e.g. Kiel's outer fjord.Here, a trend towards decreased concentrations of nitrate and phosphate can be identified in the winter.Question No. 8:Which information is available in the Baltic Sea countries concerning influx from other countriesbelonging to the Baltic Sea's catchment area via the paths detailed under numbers 6a) to d)? What isthe share of pollution originating from agriculture, industry, transport or regional authorities? Dobilateral agreements exist between individual Baltic Sea countries and upstream countries which aimat reducing the drainage of nutrients into the Baltic Sea?Answer to Question No. 8: Part a)Various reports have been published on this issue within the framework of the BERNET Project:- BERNET Final Report: Strategies for improved eutrophication management in the Baltic Sea region(Ed.: Fyn's Amt/ Denmark, Nov. 2001)- Schleswig-Holstein's Action Plan for the BERNET Project (Ed.: Ministry of the Environment,Nature and Agriculture, Aug. 2001)Part b)It is impossible to measure the discharge of substances from wide-spread land use (agriculture, forestry, butalso traffic etc.) directly. What can be done, however, is to measure the concentration of substances in waters(ground- and surface waters) more or less selectively. Offsetting this value with other parameters (e.g.seepage in connection with graundwater, runoff with watercourses) makes it possible to estimate thequantities of substances (loads). However, this assessment is always based on assumptions which are moreor less reliable and thus represent no more than a model. Within the framework of the BERNET Project (seeabove), one has tried to estimate the proportion to which non-point sources (discharge from surface areas)and point sources (sewage treatment plants) contribute to the total nitrogen and phosphorus loads dischargedfrom Schleswig-Holstein into the Baltic Sea. The results were as follows: 73.5% of nitrogen drainage (totaldischarge 11,832t/a) and 79.2% of phosphorus runoff (total 304 t/a) originated from surface areas.Part c)The management plans for the European Water Framework Directive take the requirements regardingnutrient loading of coastal waters into account. The overall objective is to meet the targets for coastal watersby taking action in the catchment areas of the rivers emptying into the Baltic Sea. No special bilateralagreements are needed to do so.Question No, 9:To which extent are the Baltic Sea countries directly involved in realizing andfinancing projects to reduce nutrient discharge?Answer to Question No. 9:In the past, the State of Schleswig-Holstein has supported the expansion of municipal sewage treatmentplants by funding 25% of the investment costs on average. Investments made since 1949 and the share offunds contributed by the state are shown in the annex. This investment program, which also served to meet40Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationstandards stipulated by the EU, has been completed by and large, except for a few remaining projects that arestill being realized.Particularly since the year 2004, funding that previously had been earmarked for the above programs hasbeen used to support projects intended to improve the ecological state of water bodies consistent with thestandards of the Water Framework Directive. These funds are disbursed to water and land associations thatare responsible for development projects which will also improve nutrient retention in the lowlandsbordering the water bodies.Question No. 10:How do the individual Baltic Sea countries cooperate with professional interestgroups and NGOs with a view to curbing the discharge of nutrients?Answer to Question No. 10:At the level of the unit formed by the Schlei / Trave River Basin, which corresponds to the catchment areaencompassed by the Schleswig-Holstein part of the Baltic Sea coast, an advisory board was set up, in whichevery association, federation or organization is represented that might be affected by the implementation ofthe Water Framework Directive. This board includes associations representing business, agriculture, fishery,nature conservancy, tourism, and water management as well as the Chamber of Agriculture, the Chamber ofIndustry and Commerce; and the associations of municipal authorities. On the one hand, the advisory boardsare used to brief the representatives from these groups on the latest plans for the Schlei / Trave River Basin.On the other hand, the institutions are able to present their own interests with regard to these plans so thatfuture concepts and plans can take these concerns into account.Given that the Schlei / Trave River Basin district is too big to ensure the requisite active participation of theparties affected at the local level, 12 sub-districts were formed within the river basin district. The task forcesestablished at this level are not only responsible for developing local programs for the implementation of theWater Framework Directive and thus for the reduction of nutrient discharge, but also for coordinating theseplans among each other.This must be done, in order to reconcile the different expectations and different interests. Since some of themeasures have a far-reaching impact on the usability of the adjacent land, it is imperative that all planningand implementation steps be developed and closely coordinated together with all parties concerned.For that reason, the bodies of self-government that are primarily affected, e.g. volunteer nature conservancyorganizations and associations as well as agricultural, land and water, and fishery associations, are involvedin the work at the local sub-district level. The cities, communities and the water authorities are also includedin the process.The Ministry of Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Regions (MLUR) cooperates closely with theAssociation of Water Resources, Waste Management and Land Reclamation Engineers (BWK) and theGerman Association of Water, Waste Water and Waste (DWA).The North German chapter of the BWK (BWK-Nord) offers continuing education programs and field trips toits members; some of these events are co-sponsored by the MLUR, with representatives of the State ofSchleswig-Holstein often serving as speakers. The programs address topics like waste water management,the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and others. One representative of the MLUR serveson the advisory board of the North German chapter of the DWA (DWA-Nord) and thus is involved inarranging the DWA's program. The DWA issues its own worksheets and bulletins on water managementtopics which also include waste water technology and water body design. These worksheets are considered41Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationto be generally acknowledged rules of technology in the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition, theDWA offers basic continuing education programs and organizes trend-setting conferences.Question No. 11:What is the organizational structure for monitoring (data collection consistent with uniform criteriaand methods in the Baltic Sea region), processing and transmitting the data to a central recordingagency (e.g. Helcom)? Which problems have been encountered?Answer to Question No. 11:In Germany, "Baltic Sea monitoring" is being done by a joint measuring program operated by the federaland state levels (BLMP). Once a year, the individual institutions forward their measured data to HELCOMvia the federal level so that an overall evaluation and report can be complied.At present, a project on the "Reorganization of German Marine Environmental Monitoring" is underway torevise and develop the BLMP in order to ensure a harmonized marine monitoring and reporting system,particularly in view of the Water Framework Directive, the conventions on the protection of the marineenvironment, and the ongoing debate about a marine strategy of the European Commission. In this contextefforts are being made to dovetail the data collection methods even further.Question No. 12:Does an additional transfer of information to the European Commission exist?If so, how is this done?Answer to Question No. 12:The reporting duties set forth in the Water Framework Directive uniformly regulate the transfer ofinformation to the European Commission. Reports must be submitted every 6 years. In the future, theEuropean Commission wishes to receive these reports in a digitalized version rather than on paper. For thispurpose, the European Commission is currently developing the Water Information System Europe (WISE).Once the system is set up, all pertinent information related to water (flood control measures, marine strategy)is to be communicated to the European Commission with the aid of WISE,42Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 10Replies Given by the Mecklenburg-Western PomeranianState Agency for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology(LUNG –Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie )to selected Questions of the Generalised Questionnaire of Working Group1. What share of the inputs comes from mechanical, biological and advanced centralisedwaste water treatment facilities in the Baltic Sea states? What volume of nutrient inputsis due to decentralised waste water discharges (e.g. from dispersed settlements)?The waste water treatment facilities mentioned above account for varying shares in the Baltic Seastates. In Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Germany, big waste water treatment plants largely includetertiary treatment facilities to eliminate nutrients. In these countries, the number of non-state-of-the-art treatment plants appearing on HELCOM’s list of 132 “hot spots” was also relatively small. Mostof these formerly inadequate treatment plants are no longer on the list of hot spots (HELCOM,BSEP No. 99). For Germany, this applies to hot spots No. 114 (Greifswald), 115(Neubrandenburg), 116 (Stralsund), 117 (Stavenhagen-Malchin), 120 (Wismar), 121 (Rostock) and119 (Lübeck), which are now all equipped with tertiary treatment facilities.In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, all of the approx. 600 public waste water treatment plants havemechanical and biological treatment facilities. Approx. one-third of the plants are additionallyequipped with advanced – i.e. additional – treatment facilities (nitrification, denitrification and/orphosphorus elimination). Approx. 90 per cent of the waste water produced is treated in these plants.Relative to the total number of treatment plants, approx. one-third is equipped with tertiarytreatment facilities.Information on the share of nutrient inputs from decentralised waste water treatment plants (smalltreatment facilities) is not available for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as a whole. Model studies whichwere conducted in selected catchment areas and which have since been published in literature showthat the shares of nutrient inputs from small-scale treatment plants amount to approx. 20 per cent fornitrogen and approx. 30 per cent for phosphorus relative to the total pollution loads from wastewater treatment plants. Hence, small-scale treatment plants account for a maximum of 4 per cent oftotal nitrogen inputs and a maximum of 9 per cent of total phosphate inputs relative to the totalinputs to water resources.In countries that have recently acceded to the European Union (Poland and the Baltic states) and inRussia, the development of waste water treatment plants is not yet as far advanced. However, someof the hot spots (e.g. Petersburg) have also been taken off the list of hot spots.43Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophication4. Are any new “hot spots” expected to emerge in the medium term?In Germany, this is not expected.7. What measures have been adopted by the Baltic Sea states in the past ten years in orderto reduce nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea, and what quantifiable results have beenachieved? What measures do you consider to be suitable to achieve a reduction ofnutrient inputs?The measures adopted in the past have been primarily designed to reduce nutrient inputs frommunicipal and industrial sewage treatment plants. A large number of HELCOM’s list of 132 “hotspots” are no longer on the list today because plants have been modernised or new plants have beenbuilt and equipped with tertiary treatment for eliminating nutrients. This also applies to all thesewage treatment plants in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern that had been included in the list of hot spots(Rostock, Greifswald, Wismar, Neubrandenburg, Stavenhagen).Due to the reduction of nutrient inputs from municipal and industrial sewage treatment plants, it hasbeen possible to reach HELCOM’s target for phosphorus – i.e. to cut inputs in half – in nearly allthe Baltic Sea states. Only in Sweden and Poland has this target not yet been achieved (as of theyear 2000) (see HELCOM, BSEP No. 100, page 12). Most countries – including Germany – failedto reach the target for nitrogen.In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the pollution loads have been assessed separately for each coastalwater resource (Bachor, 2005). In the 1990s, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern reached the target ofcutting phosphorus inputs in half for all coastal waters. In 1996-2000 relative to 1985-1990, inputswere reduced by between 54 per cent (Kleines Haff) and over 90 per cent (Unterwarnow,Strelasund). Mecklenburg-Vorpommern failed to reach the reduction target for nitrogen in mostcoastal waters. Reductions of inputs varied between 20 to 30 per cent (Wismar-Bucht, Darß-Zingster and Rügensche Bodden, Greifswalder Bodden, Peenestrom, Kleines Haff), 50 per cent(Unterwarnow) and 70 per cent (Strelasund). The highest reductions of inputs were achieved inwater with high pollution loads from municipal sewage treatment plants by building new plants(e.g. Rostock and Stralsund).Because of the construction of new plants and the modernisation of existing sewage treatmentplants, diffuse sources of nutrient inputs are predominant in coastal waters and in the Baltic Sea. Inthe German catchment area of the Baltic Sea, diffuse sources already accounted for 78 per cent ofphosphorus input in the period from 1993-1997, and diffuse nitrogen sources accounted for as muchas 85 per cent (Behrendt et al. 1999, pp. 229 and 235). These shares are likely to have increased inrecent years because additional state-of-the-art sewage treatment plants have been put into operationin the catchment area (e.g. Stavenhagen, Neubrandenburg, Lübeck, Güstrow). Hence, any measuresaimed at further reducing inputs of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, will have to focus on diffusesources. Relative to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s coastal waters, the reduction potential inmunicipal sewage treatment plants is generally speaking very limited; however, it may still besignificant locally in specific cases (in small water resources).The reduction of nitrogen inputs from diffuse sources requires measures that will lead to a furtherreduction of the annual nitrogen excess to approx. 50 kg N/ha (excess from farmland) and to anincrease in the denitrification capacity of the landscape (e.g. by closing drainage trenches, re-44Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on Eutrophicationwaterlogging of wetlands, and improving the morphological structure of water resources) (GermanFederal Environmental Agency, 2005).8. What information is available in the Baltic Sea states on inputs, via the pathways listedin 2 (a) to (d) above, from other countries that are part of the Baltic Sea’s catchmentarea? What are the relative shares of the various sectors in this context, i.e. agriculture,transport, industry as well as central, regional and local authorities? Have certain BalticSea states perhaps concluded bilateral agreements with countries that are upstreamfrom the river catchment areas, with the aim of reducing nutrient inputs to the BalticSea?HELCOM has published information on the nutrient inputs mentioned above (e.g. HELCOM,BSEP No. 45, 69, 99, 100).Nearly 50 per cent of river-borne phosphorus entering the Baltic Se is from agriculture, approx. 25per cent from direct municipal discharges, and another 25 per cent is from natural backgroundsources. In the case of nitrogen, agriculture accounts for an even higher share of the inputs.The LUNG is not aware of any international bilateral agreements concluded between countriesupstream and countries downstream from river catchment areas. However, with the implementationof the Water Framework Directive, such agreements will become inevitable, not only atinternational level but also at national level. In order to cut in half water-borne nitrogen pollutionloads entering the North Sea and the Baltic Sea from rivers in Germany, actions taken by the littoralstates alone will not be sufficient. For this reason, it will always be necessary to take intoconsideration the protection of the marine environment, as well, when defining quality standards forstreams of running water (e.g. nitrate or total nitrogen). This means that countries located upstreamalong rivers that flow into the North Sea or Baltic Sea will also have to implement measuresdesigned to reduce nutrient inputs to these rivers. Even if these measures are not imperative forimproving the quality of “their” rivers, they are significant for improving the quality of the coastalwaters into which they flow.11. How is monitoring (i.e. the collection of data in accordance with standardised criteriaand methods in the Baltic Sea region), as well as the processing of these data and theirtransmission to data collection centres (e.g. HELCOM) organised? What problems havebeen encountered in this context?The efforts made by the State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to monitor its coastal waters includethe measurement of land-based nutrient inputs to the marine environment by monitoring river waterflowing into the Baltic Sea as well as direct discharge effluents (from municipal and industrialsewage treatment plants) and by monitoring the condition of the coastal waters themselves. Hence,both the pollution loads and their effects are being monitored, i.e. the State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern applies the modern principles of coupled emission/ambient pollution monitoring.The samples are collected by the State Agencies for Environment and Nature (Staatliche Ämter fürUmwelt und Natur - StAUN). The coastal waters are monitored by the „Strelasund“, a watermonitoring and oil spill control ship (Gewässerüberwachungs- und Ölbekämpfungsschiff – GÖS)operated by the State Office for Environment and Nature at Stralsund.The samples are usually analysed by the Joint Laboratory for Environmental Analysis of the StateAgency for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology (LUNG) at Güstrow (analysis ofriver water) or in its field agency, the Coastal Laboratory at Stralsund (analysis of coastal waters).45Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationIn addition, universities and private institutions are awarded contracts for specific analyses. Theresults of the analyses are collected in a centralised data base of the State Agency for Environment,Nature Conservation and Geology (LUNG) where they are reviewed and transmitted once a year toGerman federal agencies (Federal Environmental Agency at Dessau: river water and sewagetreatment plant data; Federal Agency for Maritime Shipping and Hydrography in Hamburg andRostock: coastal water data). These federal agencies pass on the data to other national andinternational data bases (e.g. the HELCOM data base in Helsinki and the data base of the EuropeanEnvironment Agency in Copenhagen). Aside from these national and international reportingobligations, the data are also used in order to assess the condition of the water resources of the Stateof Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (e.g. water quality reports published by LUNG, status report onwater pollution loads in accordance with European Water Framework Directive).12. Is information additionally transmitted to the European Commission? If so, in whatway?With the monitoring activities that will be initiated in 2007 in accordance with the WaterFramework Directive, the volume of information transferred to the European Commission willincrease substantially because new substances and biological quality components will have to beanalysed.46Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationAnnex 11LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS SEIMOAPLINKOS APSAUGOS KOMITETASSEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIACOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION53 Gedimino Ave., LT-01109 Vilnius, LITHUANIA Tel. +370 5 239 67 42 Fax +370 5 239 63 79 E-mail gamta@lrs.lt___________________________________________________________________________________________________________Mr. Indulis EmsisSpeaker of the Latvian Parliament,Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Working Group on EutrophicationChairman of the Environmental Protectionand Energy Committee of the Baltic AssemblyVilnius, 21 February 2007Dear Mr. Speaker,The Committee on Environment Protection of the Seimas of the Republic ofLithuania has analysed your appeal concerning measures aimed at reducing eutrophication inthe Baltic Sea. We appreciate the efforts of the Baltic Assembly Parliamentary Working Groupto combat eutrophication and we are glad that one of the topical problems concerning theBaltic Sea environmental status is being tackled on the parliamentary level.The problem of eutrophication has been dealt with for many years on international,European as well as national level of the Baltic Sea countries. A number of Directivesregulating the action causing eutrophication have been approved and are currentlyimplemented by the EU, such as EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, The urban wastewater directive 91/271/EEC, the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC, etc. The main goal of thepolicy of water resource protection and rational use is greatly ambitious – by 2015 to reach asituation where all surface waters are in good ecological condition. One more Directive that willset the EU sea protection policy and create all the preconditions for a better ecological statusof the Baltic Sea is currently being drafted.We fully agree with the opinion of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Groupdealing with eutrophication issues, regarding the necessity to reduce the impact on the BalticSea from non-EU member states. This task is also set for member states in the Directivesregulating water protection issues (the EU member states are urged to co-operate with thethird countries in the water protection area); the issue is also being dealt with on the basis ofmultilateral and bilateral co-operation. The primary international initiative covering the wholeBaltic sea region aimed at solving the problem of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea is the BalticSea Action Plan currently being developed by the Baltic Marine Environment ProtectionCommission (HELCOM). The plan will include measures for achieving a good ecological status;their implementation will demand very huge investments and additional restrictions ofeconomic activity that may be extremely painful for Russia and Belarus, countries with theworst social and economic situation. Therefore, assistance of the EU and the neighbouringcountries to Russia and Belarus in implementing HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and otherenvironmental measures is crucially important.47Working Group on EutrophicationBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Working Group on EutrophicationWe would like to note that alongside with its active involvement in international activities ofthe Baltic Sea environment protection Lithuania is engaged in the implementation of a numberof successful national measures aimed at reducing pollution of the sea. On 21 June 2006 theGovernment of the Republic of Lithuania approved the programme of Improvement of theCuronian Bay water quality; its goal is to achieve good status of the Curonian Bay water by2015. The measures included in the programme are expected to help to reduce nitrogenpollution from point sources by 810 tonnes, phosphorus pollution – by 85 tonnes by 2010 andto decrease nitrogen pollution from diffused sources by 15 per cent and phosphorus pollution –by 8 per cent by 2010 compared to 2004. Successful implementation of this programme willimprove the condition of the Curonian Bay and the sea littoral. The cooperation between theMinistry of the Environment and the corresponding Russian and Belarusian institutions in thearea of water pollution is also important and is rather successful. Co-operation on the basis ofIntergovernmental Lithuanian - Russian Commission in the environment protection area isgoing on; a joint Lithuanian and Russian monitoring programme of the Baltic Sea and theCuronian Bay environmental status is being currently implemented; a draft intergovernmentalagreement between Lithuania and Russia on prevention of the pollution of the sea, applicationof elimination measures and damage compensation has been developed, negotiations aimed atconcluding an agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, theGovernment of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Russian Federation onCooperation in the area of use and protection of the Nemunas river basin water are currentlyunder way.Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my compliments and wishes for interestingdiscussion in the event. Members of our committee would also like to take part in thediscussions on eutrophication.Yours sincerely,Gediminas JakavonisVice-Chairman of the Committee48Working Group on Eutrophication