On November 15, a Baltic Sea Action Plan to improve the environmental status of the Baltic Sea was finally adopted at a HELCOM ministerial meeting in Krakow, Poland. Despite progress in some areas, such as eutrophication, the plan is judged by many to be a failure.
In 2005, the environmental situation in the Baltic Sea led Ministers to initiate the process of creating a Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). It was also an initiative in line with the EU process of agreeing on a Marine Framework Directive, demanding regional solutions to protect EU seas. The Baltic Sea was to be a leading example of the way forward. The plan has been drafted by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), involving the nine Baltic States and the European Union.
Pollution, depletion of fish stocks and eutrophication are some of the major challenges that the BSAP has to tackle. The original proposal produced by HELCOM contained a stronger set of actions needed to improve the situation in the Baltic. Due to a lack of political will, however, the plan has been gradually watered down in negotiations between the Baltic States and the European Union. This lack of political will was further demonstrated by the fact that four of the environmental ministers did not attend the final meeting in Krakow: Denmark, Germany, Latvia and Russia.
According to environmental NGO’s, the agreed plan is not strong enough and lacks the firm actions needed to protect one of Europe’s most threatened marine ecosystems. For example, in tackling eutrophication the adopted BSAP outlines national quotas for nutrient reduction, removal of phosphates in municipal wastewater treatments, and general improvements to on-site wastewater treatment. However, the problem is so severe in some areas of the Baltic that these measures alone will not suffice.
Currently, around 100,000 square kilometres of the Baltic Sea are already affected by advanced eutrophication, mainly due to inputs from agricultural and industrial processes, including shipping activity, which results in algal blooms, oxygen depletion, dead sea-beds and poor reproduction in many fish stocks.
The BSAP also lacks firm commitments to restore the decimated Baltic fish stocks, particularly Baltic cod. Both stocks are currently in a bad state, with the eastern stock at a low level suffering from high levels of illegal fishing (estimated to 35-40 %) and the western stock suffering from poor reproduction. Economic challenges may continue to push many fishermen to fish illegally or significantly overfish their quotas, threatening the long-term sustainability of fisheries as well as the ecosystem.
Although Baltic Sea pollution from hazardous substances has been curbed in the last 30 years, the problem still persists with noted increases in perfluorinated substances. The BSAP mainly reflects on hazardous substance, ship and oil pollution. The “Indicators and Targets” document has been included in the BSAP and outlines the substances that are a particular threat to the Baltic Sea. There is a general feeling, however, that the section on pollution has been watered down, and groups such as BirdLife Finland argue that oil pollution and illegal oil discharges, for instance, have been seriously overlooked.
On protection of marine biodiversity, the text is also weak. The HELCOM network of designated Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs) is only given marginal attention in the Plan. Currently, only 6 per cent of the Baltic Sea area is protected – indicating very slow progress considering that HELCOM’s recommendation 15/5 “System of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas” was adopted in 1994. The BSAP, very generally, stipulates an increase of protected areas over the next three years, especially in the off-shore areas beyond territorial waters.
There is consensus among NGOs that the outlined plans are not strong enough to fullfill the ecological target objectives of “natural landscapes and seascapes” and not tough enough to protect the ecological integrity of the Baltic Sea ecosystems. The proposed Baltic Sea Protected Areas are located in seven Baltic States (Finland, Poland, Latvia, Germany, Lithuania, Russia, Estonia).
A more fundamental problem is that HELCOM’s recommendations and decisions are not legally binding for the contracting parties. This means that in practice, the BSAP may never be implemented. The non-binding recommendations may simply be swept aside in favour of short-term economic interests. Furthermore, the agreement on the plan has only involved Ministers of the Environment, something which may prove to be a major weakness in the implementation phase.
According to Katarzyna Guzek, Greenpeace Poland, “the Baltic Sea Action Plan in its current form will not ensure the realization of the most important goal which is achieving ecological sustainability by 2021”.
Despite its failings, the BSAP will serve as a pilot for the implementation of the new EU Marine Directive initiatives for the Baltic Sea, says Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish Environmental Minister.
The next step will be to agree on implementation mechanisms and a strong commitment from the Contracting Parties will be needed to successfully manage and monitor progress. To ensure the much needed environmental improvements in the Baltic Sea region, binding agreements in key areas will be necessary. For this, a new process will need to be started as this one fell short of its target.