”HELCOM achievements and coming challenges – NGO views” -

1. ”HELCOM achievements and coming challenges – NGO views”- • International Co-operation for the Baltic Sea Environment: Past, Present and Future, 22 March 2004 Riga, Latvia • Mr Gunnar Norén Executive Secretary toCoalition Clean Baltic

2. HELCOM’s historical development 1970s- Ban on DDT and PCBs 1980s - Development of HELCOM recommendations. Mainly for point source pollution (industries, wastewater treatment etc) and Shipping/Combating - Development of a Baltic environmental monitoring and assessment system

3. 1990s - Launching the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme (1992) A powerful programme for a 20-year period. - Main activity - investments on Point source pollution but also activities on- Policies, Laws and Regulations- Institutional Strengthening and Human Resource Development- Management Programmes for Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands- Applied Research- Public Awareness and Environmental Education - Many successes and concrete actions implemented through the JCP

4. HELCOM achievements on Openness and Transparency Early 1990s – only Commission meeting open for observers Mid 1990s – Committees and Working Groups opened for observers 2002 – also Heads of Delegation group opened for observers Now all HELCOM official meetings open for observers HELCOM can serve as a good example for other International Conventions ( e g OSPAR, IBSFC )

5. HELCOM recommendations - experiences ·great number of Recommendations·problem to get an overview of actions decided on ·reporting is lacking ·implementation halt -not taken seriously. Many HELCOM recommendations have not been succesful to solve the environmental problem addressed, e g eutrophication Effectiveness of many HELCOM recommendations cannot be easily evaluated Effectiveness of many HELCOM recommendations can be questioned

6. Example EUTROPHICATION OF THE BALTIC SEA Critical views – HELCOM recommendations have not solved the eutrophication problem within 30 years - Prognosis that this instrument, HELCOM recommendations, will solve the problem in the future is low

7. NGO conclusions * Strengthen the enforcement of existing HELCOM recommendations * Clearly state and describe why Contracting Parties not implemented recommendations * Critical evaluation needed, use the “Name-Shame-Blame” approach * Critical evaluation of the instruments used by HELCOM

8. * HELCOM main focus to develop new HELCOM recommendations should be changed * HELCOM should have an awaiting attitude to produce new recommendations * Future focus on Action-oriented measures * Develop more effective instruments for Baltic environmental protection, such as concrete Action Programmes, incl time-table, resource allocation etc Action Programmes demand active participation from all countries

9. Important future challen- ges for HELCOM • * Ability to effectively address • ·diffuse sources (PLC-4 : P-diffuse sources • 53%; N-diffuse sources 59%) • ·pollution from “economic sectors” to the Baltic Sea environment * Challenge to find interest and succesful co-operation with sectors like Agriculture, Fisheries , Transport A success for new co-operations is crucial for restoration of the Baltic Sea Environment

10. * Ability to focus Helcom work on some “Top Priorities” such as Europhication and Environmental impact of Fisheries • * If rich and developed countries in northern Europe cannot co-operate within sectors and solve its environmental problem, we cannot expect success in other regions

11. Proposals for future HELCOM actions • * Development of concrete HELCOM Action Programmes, incl time-table, resource allocation etc (use experience from JCP) 3 – 5 year action programmes. • One top priority must be Baltic Eutrophication • “HELCOM Eutrophication Action Programme” • with components, such as 1. Agricultural nutrient run-off - Assessment of Industrial Farms (Big animal farms, one of main sources from agriculture), and development of proposals for requirements

12. - Support for non-intensive farming including low agri run-off - Develop common Baltic views on requirements to cease impact that cause eutrophication from agriculture. Present such proposals for the review of the new CAP ( next review in 2006 ) 2. Wastewater from small- and medium-sized municipalities and single family-homes The aggregated impact of such nutrient load is considerably. In coastal municipalities, 80 % of nutrient load can arise from single family-homes

13. - Develop Baltic guidelines/regulations for small- and medium-sized municipalities and single family-homes (sensitive areas close to coastal zones and rivers) ·Use experiences from Baltic region ·New regulations in Finland (2003) – new high standards for wastewater treatment from single family-homes ·Swedish municipalities require 50 % recycling of nutrients in single family-homes outside wastewater collecting system ·Develop requirements on nutrient reductions for settlements < 10 000 pe. Stronger demands than EC Urban Wastewater Directive

14. Sealed sand filter bed Sampling Well Septic tank Urine tank Figure. Schematic description of urine diverting system Figure. Example of a double-flushed urine diverting toilet. Ther are several different models available on the market.

15. Environmental Impact of Baltic Fisheries • - Fish are key organisms in aquatic ecosystems “Ecological Key Role of Fish” - Fisheries constitute the most important human impact on marine ecosystems. No other factor, such as nutrients and toxics, has had more far reaching impacts • - The most serious impact of fisheries is the massive killing of targeted fish species- Baltic Cod stocks are outside “safe biological limits” • - The scientific advice from ICES on Baltic fish catch quotas is regularily exceeded

16. - Half of the Baltic cod populations are killed in fisheries every year. Many of them without a chance to reproduce - Serious mismanagement of Baltic common fish resources - Bottom trawling ploughs vast sea-bed areas and harms bottom living species. Intensively trawled areas will be trawled up to four times per year or more

17. CONCLUSION Threats on Baltic marine ecosystem and “Ecological Key Role of Fish” is serious POSSIBILITIES - New CFP ( December 2002 ) a new basic regulation for EU fisheries, “Regulation on conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources (2371/2002)” ·aims for sustainable use, more long-term resource management ·application of the precautionary approach ·sustainable exploitation, minimising the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem, ·progressive implementation of an ecosystem- based approach to management.

18. - Bremen declaration HELCOM-OSPAR - Eco-system based management of the marine environment HELCOM Action Programme on Environmental Impact of Fisheries - Environmental ministries focus also on fisheries management (expert resources) - Negotiations with Fisheries ministries on “Ecosystem-based management of marine resources” - Development of a common HELCOM position - Develop system with environmental permits for bottom-trawling, with an EIA as basis

19. - Develop marine eco-system management goals - Cod in viable populations in its natural distribution area, up to Aaland Sea - Arrange Baltic High-Level meetings on Fisheries – marine resources – management If environmental sector don’t take on the task – the situation will likely not change

20. Protection of wild Baltic Salmon Wild Baltic salmon is threatened - 80-85 % of all Baltic salmon are reared and released from fish-farms - only 15-20 % are naturally spawning salmon - Most of the Baltic salmon is catched in open-sea fisheries on mixed populations(catching both reared and wild salmon).  Each wild salmon river population represent a unique genetic resource, invaluable for the countries sharing the Baltic Sea  Very severe situation for the wild salmon in the Gulf of Finland

21.  Improper commercial fishing policies, and extensive artificial salmon stocking programmes threaten the naturally spawning Baltic salmon.  2/3 of all wild Baltic salmon river populations are threatened (26 river populations )

22. Actions needed to save naturally spawning Baltic Salmon - Safeguard all weak wild Baltic salmon river populations, and the genetic diversity - Maximize production of naturally spawning Baltic salmon - Restrict or phase-out salmon fisheries on mixed salmon populations/wild Baltic salmon - Limit the extensive artificial salmon stocking programmes that threaten wild Baltic salmon

23. Possible HELCOM tasks Develop clear objectives to safeguard wild Baltic salmon river populations Develop a HELCOM Action Programme to safeguard wild Baltic salmon river populations Develop, together with IBSFC, a joint Salmon Action Plan (SAP) Provide resources - to study and monitor wild salmon river populations - to restore weak wild salmon river populations

24. Wild Baltic salmon – a Baltic heritage to be esteemed Let the wild Baltic salmon become a symbol for a unique and rich Baltic Sea Baltic Region citizens are obliged to restore all wild Baltic salmon populations.

25. New big installations with potential strong impact on Baltic Sea environment New development – new threats - New oil-terminals and harbours for hazardous and radioactive material - Industries for re-processing of radioactive metals - New big industries – e g Al-plant in Kingisepp area, Russia - Offshore oil-extraction, e g D 6 oil-field outside Kaliningrad HELCOM needs to develop actions to balance upcoming threats to Baltic Sea – a sensitive sea area in northern Europe

26. HELCOM actions needed: - Guarantee that highest possible environmental standards and safety measures can be secured for new big installations - To assess and describe planned projects with potential strong environmental impact - To organise a workshop to discuss new innovative ways to solve problems mentioned above. - To raise these matters for high-level political discussions within HELCOM (e.g. Ministerial meetings). D 6 oil-field now discussed within HELCOM – a test-case if the Helsinki Convention can be used to mitigate environmental impact of new big installations. A matter of most importance for HELCOM

27. Protection of Baltic Sea Coastal Areas On-going exploitation of coastal land- and sea areas in all Baltic Sea Region countries - New installations of recreational centers - New marinas in shallow areas can have strong impact on coastal ecosystems (e.g. breeding and nursing areas for fish species etc.) - New housing areas in coastal zones - Private houses in coastal zones - Harbours, terminals and industries

28. Consumption of Baltic Sea coastal zones accelerates The process is irreversible – lost natural areas/values Proposals for HELCOM actions: - Assess the implementation of HELCOM recommendations on coastal zone protection - Organise a HELCOM workshop that can give advice for development of new requirements to safeguard Baltic coastal natural values

29. Alien Aquatic Species and Ballast Water Threats from alien aquatic species have been discussed within HELCOM for many years. No concrete measures/recommendations to prevent unintentional introductions have been decided on by HELCOM - Global Ballast Water Management Programme/IMO has developed advice on step- wise actions for better control of ballast water - Such actions has been adopted by some sea- areas and many countries - Unfortunately - NO such actions for better control of ballast water has been adopted in Baltic Sea

30. Proposals for HELCOM action: - Mandatory information on ballast water situation for all ships arriving to all Baltic harbours ( simple fill in of formats from GloBallast Programme)

31. Helcom and Russia EU and Russia The role of Russia in HELCOM is crucial - A strong component for environmental protection (Baltic Sea) needed in coming agreement between EU and Russia - EU-support to Russia, should target fulfilment of HELCOM requirements in Russia - Provide info to monitoring, PLC, implementation of HELCOM decisions

32. CLOSING WORDS Our role as Watchdog-observer for HELCOM - critical views on HELCOM work -contribute with proposals and ideas, for a more efficient and succesful HELCOM HELCOM is the only governmental body , with main focus on protection of the Baltic Sea environment - this gives HELCOM a historically extremly important role - HELCOM must, also for the future, continue to play a very important role for protection of Baltic Sea environment - If not ?