2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard - WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme 2008
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme 2008
“
The Action Plan is not static. We have a
possibility of following up the effectiveness
of the actions that we have decided upon,
and whether they will lead us to the desired
status of the Baltic Sea.”
Anne Christine Brusendorff,
Executive Secretary, HELCOM
“
The more we postpone protective measures,
the more difficult and the more expensive
MEASURING PERFORMANCE It should be noted that the choice of
they will become.” Last year, WWF published its first Bal- indicators for this assessment has
Tarja Halonen, President of Finland i tic Sea Scorecard. The 2007 Scorecard been limited by the data available in What is Integrated
assessed how the nine nations border- all countries ii. In many cases, such as Sea Use Management?1
ing the Baltic Sea are trying to protect control and enforcement of fishing ac-
• Works toward sustainable de-
and restore this fragile ecosystem to tivities, countries often inspect and re-
velopment, rather than simply
Baltic Blues
health. It focused on countries’ efforts port on very valuable indicators, but
conservation or environmental
to ratify and implement existing inter- do not make the information official. protection, and in doing so con-
national agreements and conventions WWF hopes that all countries will at- tributes to more general social
to manage and protect the Baltic Sea. tain greater transparency in the future. and governmental objectives
The Baltic Sea is one of the most unique marine ecosystems in the ministers were involved in the proc- The indicators provided a snapshot that As access to information improves, so
• Provides a strategic, integrated
world, and is also one of the most threatened. This is primarily due ess. In order to be successful, a plan let readers see the performance of each will the depth and quality of future and forward-looking framework
to poor management in the way we use the sea. like the BSAP requires strong support of the nine countries and whether po- Scorecards. WWF will continue to add of all uses of the sea to help
from the highest level of government litical commitments were being met. It and refine indicators that seem reliable achieve sustainable develop-
of each contracting party, and com- showed which countries took the prob- measurements of activities affecting ec- ment, taking into account envi-
Eutrophication, overfishing, hazard- of the ambitious actions and commit- mitment that it will be implemented lems surrounding the Baltic Sea seri- osystem health. At the same time, we ronmental, as well as social and
ous substances, and irresponsible ship- ments needed to save the Baltic Sea, in a coordinated and integrated way ously and were making the best efforts will continue to give governments and economic goals and objectives
ping practices all encroach upon and even though these were the reason why across all relevant ministries, depart- to fulfill their promises. Less than half their representatives the opportunity • Applies an ecosystem approach
threaten the health of this highly sen- the BSAP was originally conceived. ments and sectors. the Baltic Sea States (4) passed the test, to present their view on how they are to the regulation and manage-
sitive sea. Despite a long and rich tra- While the BSAP takes steps in the An integrated approach is partic- only scoring a “C” grade overall. One meeting Baltic challenges. ment of development and human
dition of environmental stewardship, right direction, such as country quotas ularly important in a region like the of the key conclusions from the 2007 The result of the 2008 analysis is activities in the marine environ-
ment by safeguarding ecological
access to vast scientific knowledge on for nutrient reduction, the agreed plan Baltic Sea, where a multitude of differ- report was that the low overall grades expressed in 10 grade levels, from the
processes and overall resilience
the sea, and the world’s oldest regional in fact rarely goes further than negoti- ent sectors, industries, and stakehold- were largely due to poor political lead- top A+ to the weakest C-. If less than to ensure the environment has
seas convention (HELCOM), the situ- ated agreements from other fora. Two er groups are affected by, or affecting ership and poor integration, both na- half of required actions have been ful- the capacity to support social
ation only continues to get worse. of the biggest threats to the ecosystem the Sea and where a myriad of inter- tionally and internationally. filled, an F grade is given, indicating and economic benefits (includ-
In November 2007, Baltic Sea states of the Baltic Sea, overfishing and cli- national, regional, national and local The 2008 Scorecard focuses more that the government has failed to take ing those benefits derived di-
adopted the HELCOM Baltic Sea Ac- mate change, are barely addressed in governmental bodies from nine coun- keenly on assessing whether concrete its responsibility in working to improve rectly from ecosystems)
tion Plan (BSAP), intended to “drasti- the BSAP. Even the agreed actions are tries are responsible for governing the actions, necessary to achieve good envi- the situation for the Baltic Sea. WWF • Identifies, safeguards, or where
cally reduce pollution to the Baltic Sea only non-binding recommendations, different players. This patchwork gov- ronmental status for the Baltic Sea, have hopes that giving readers a picture of necessary and appropriate, re-
and restore its good ecological status which means that there is no guaran- ernance is a challenge, but no excuse. been accomplished. We have kept the the current situation may help encour- covers or restores important
by 2021.” The BSAP had great ambi- tee that contracting parties will ever To reach the goals and objectives of same five key areas as last year – eutroph- age nations, governments and individ- components of marine ecosys-
tions which were successively nar- act upon them. The original inten- the BSAP we urge the Baltic Sea states ication, fisheries management, biodiver- uals to increase their work to actively tems including natural heritage
rowed in scope and weakened due to tion of the BSAP was to take a holistic to develop a process to address the still find solutions to ecosystem restoration, and nature conservation re-
sity, pollution from hazardous substanc-
sources and
political and economic disagreements and integrated approach to tackling urgent need to take dramatic and inte- es, and maritime transport. In addition, so that even future generations can en-
between contracting parties and sec- the region’s challenges. However, this grated action. Without strong leader- to address the main conclusion from last joy all of the wonders of the the deep • Allocates space in a rational
tors such as agriculture and fisheries. ambition was doomed to fail from the ship and immediate action, the Baltic year’s analysis, we added a sixth area – blue Baltic Sea. manner that minimizes conflict
Sadly, the final document lacks many very beginning as only environmental remains in serious jeopardy. of interest and, where possible,
integrated sea use management.
maximizes synergy among sec-
i
Said in a speech given at the Überseeclub in ii
Data for certain indicators are based on feedback from WWF and partner organization representatives in each
tors.
Hamburg, Germany on May 8, 2008. country. While it is recognized that this methodology introduces a subjective component to the overall assess-
ment, the indicators in question were kept as simple as possible and guidance was offered to minimize this risk.
2 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 3
Limited Action
The result of the 2008 Scorecard is extremely disappointing. While Grading scheme
Overall Ranking
Germany is best in the class, this best is still only implementing 46% Percentage Grade allocated Countries Average percentage Grade
of the measures suggested. The 2008 Scorecard clearly shows that achieved
far too little is being done. 96 – 100 % A+ Germany 46% F
90 – 95 % A Denmark 41% F
The only area where progress is clear highest in the area of hazardous sub- marine management as they are re-
84 – 89 % A- Estonia 40% F
appears to be fisheries management, stances, largely due to decreasing pol- viewing their current organization.
79 – 83 % B+ Finland 39% F
though this conclusion is influenced lutant emissions throughout the stud- It is clear that each nation needs
73 – 78 % B Sweden 35% F
by success in a few nations rather ied years and maintaining low levels to be a leader or an extremely strong
67 – 72 % B- Lithuania 34% F
than success in all Baltic Sea nations. the last few years. Russia garnered follower in all of these areas, or the
Lithuania and Latvia have strong con- highest scores for maritime transport continued outlook for the Baltic Sea 62 – 66 % C+ Latvia 30% F
trol and enforcement measures, but issues in this Scorecard, being the only is extremely dire. Important deci- 56 – 61 % C Russia 26% F
are also small nations with few ports nation with a strategy for preventing sions have been made, and actions 50 – 55 % C- Poland 25% F
to monitor. invasive species introductions. No that move us in the right direction. Less than 50 % F Total 35% F
Within most individual sections, real leaders stand out in addressing Now an accelerated pace of integrat-
weak leaders do stand out. Germany eutrophication, however. Finland ed and concerted actions are urgent-
should be commended for its consider- gets kudos for having a single cross- ly needed. We hope the examples in Summary of Overall Grading
able work protecting large areas of its governmental marine policy. Swe- the Scorecard, where action has been
Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden Total
marine territory, especially in its ex- den, Germany and Estonia also show taken, will inspire others to follow, Baltic
clusive economic zone. Estonia scored promise in having a more integrated and follow fast. Sea
Countries
Biodiversity F F F A- F F F F F F
Fishing C C C- F B- B- F N/A* F C-
Maritime C- F C- F F F F C F F
Transports
Hazardous F C- F F F F F F F F
Substances
Eutrophication F F F C- F F F F F F
ISUM F F F F F F F F F F
Average 41 40 39 46 30 34 25 26 35 35
Grade F F F F F F F F F F
* The fisheries assessment is based entirely on EU indicators. Russia is therefore excluded from this analysis.
2008’s Top 5 Actions for the Baltic Sea
1. Poland to pay for overfishing cod very high concern are coming under in- this past year, which means high-
European Fisheries Council sentenced creased pressure. ly toxic organotins are no longer al-
Poland to reduced cod quotas over the 3. Sweden bans phosphates lowed to be used in the Baltic Sea.
coming four years as “pay back” for ex- in detergents A similar EU regulation went into force
ceeding its quota in 2007 by 8000 tonnes. As of March 1st 2008, Sweden will be in January 2008.
This is a huge demonstration of the Com- the first Baltic Sea state to have a legal 5. Marine landscape maps arrive
mission’s strong will to reduce illegal fish- ban on the use of phosphates in laundry Although this is not a management meas-
ing in the region. detergents. Sweden is even consider- ure in itself, the development of region-
2. REACH-ing toward safer ing enforcing a legal ban of phosphates al coherent marine landscape maps for
chemicals management in dishwasher detergents. This sets a the entire Baltic Sea is an important step
The EU’s REACH regulation, one of the strong precedent for other countries forward to enable the establishment of a
most advanced chemicals management to follow. representative network of marine protect-
regulation in the world, came into effect 4. Bye-bye organotin-based hull paints ed areas as well as spatial planning of the
in June 2008. Results for the Baltic Sea The International Maritime Organ- Baltic Sea . However, real change for the
may take time, but work has begun as ization’s Convention on the Con- Baltic Sea will not happen until the maps
companies have started pre-register- trol of Harmful Anti-Fouling Sys- are used for management by all countries
ing their chemicals and substances of tems on Ships finally came into force in the region.
4 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 5
Biodiversity
Table 1: Percentage of Baltic Sea Territorial Sea (TS) and Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) protected as a BSPA and SAC/Emerald site8
Biodiversity degradation is rampant in the Baltic. Up to 90% of all habitats and species – rare, threat-
*For total area
ened and endangered as well as those Countries Territorial Sea (TS) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
southern Baltic wetlands have been drained over the past few decades. Percentage Percentage Points Percentage Percentage Points scored*
of TS or EEZ
considered common and unthreatened protected:
Dead zones are increasing due to eutrophication and permanently of TS protected protected as scored* protected as protected as (maximum = 10) > 30% = 5 points
– must be protected. as BSPA SAC / Emerald (maximum = 10) BSPA SAC / Emerald 20% = 4 points
cover 42,000 km2, or an area similar in size to all of Denmark2. 10% = 3 points
The Baltic-wide BALANCE project site site
5% = 2 points
has undertaken a preliminary assess- Denmark 10% 15% 6 0% 1% 1 1% = 1 point
THREAT herent and well-managed network of ment of the ecological coherence of the Estonia 15% 14% 6 1% 0% 1
Environmental degradation remains a MPAs in the Baltic Sea by 2010. current Baltic Sea MPA networks. The Finland 20% 11% 7 0% 0% 0
potent obstacle to the recovery of pre- The 2008 Scorecard’s biodiversity project found that existing networks Germany 37% 27% 9 39% 34% 10
carious salmon stocks, and other fish assessment is broader and assesses not must be improved in order to achieve Latvia 9% 5% 4 0% 0% 0
species like cod and eel are at the risk only designation of marine protected that coherence. Sand and hard bottom Lithuania 22% 29% 8 0% 0% 0
of extinction. Baltic harbour porpoise areas but also considers the range of areas are better represented in the ex- Poland 40% 17% 8 5% 9% 4
populations are now so threatened marine landscapes protected, the rep- isting MPA networks, while mud and Russia 5% 0% 2 0% 0% 0
(some estimates put adult population resentativeness of these, and protec- hard clay habitats are not, particu- Sweden 7% 6% 4 1% 2% 2
at or around 100) that only urgent and tion measures necessary for particu- larly in the deeper non-photic zones.
extensive cross-boundary action will larly threatened marine species. Many scientific studies recommend
prevent extinction of this beautiful an- that 20-30% of each marine habitat or Table 2: Presence and representativeness of benthic marine landscapes 8
imal. Habitat–building species such as Marine Protected Area landscape should be protected to en- *For percentage
Countries Presence Representativeness benthic marine
eelgrass and bladder wrack have also designation8 sure long-term viable populations8. of benthic marine landscapes in MPAs of benthic marine landscapes in MPAs landscapes at least
significantly dropped in many areas (Table 1) Many international frame- This analysis looks at whether or not Total number Percentage Points Number Percentage Points partially protected:
100% = 6 points
due to dreaded algae overgrowth3. works, such as the Convention on Bi- countries protect a minimum of 20% present in each protected scored* with > 20% with > 20% scored**
90% = 5 points
ological Diversity (CBD), OSPARiii, of each of their benthic marine land- country (maximum = 6) protected protected (maximum = 6)
Physical exploitation, such as ports, 80% = 4 points
Denmark 35 71% 3 9 26% 2 70% = 3 points
coastal development, pipelines, and HELCOM and EU, have made strong scapes. 60% = 2 points
wind power, all require space and commitments to establish coherent Estonia 16 81% 4 8 50% 5 50% = 1 point
networks of MPAs. The World Summit Endangered or threatened species 9 < 50% = 0 points
compete with species and marine habi- Finland 23 87% 4 4 17% 1
**For percentage
tats for this limited space. On top of on Sustainable Development, and sub- (Table 3) While protected areas are Germany 27 89% 4 17 63% 6 benthic marine
all of these threats, climate change’s sequently the CBD, adopted a global a highly critical component of pro- Latvia 17 24% 0 1 6% 0 landscapes with
> 20% protected:
influence on biodiversity is becoming target for 10 % of all marine ecologi- grammes to protect biodiversity and Lithuania 11 46% 0 3 27% 2 > 60% = 6 points
increasingly apparent. cal regions to be effectively conserved halt its loss, additional measures are Poland 19 37% 0 1 5% 0
50% = 5 points
40% = 4 points
Marine protected areas are a tried by 20124. Both HELCOM’s network of necessary, particularly for those spe- Russia 24 0% 0 0 0% 0 30% = 3 points
and tested method for protecting bio- Baltic Sea Protected Areas 5 (BSPAs) cies that are highly mobile or migra- 20% = 2 points
Sweden 58 81% 4 13 22% 2 10% = 1 points
diversity, but despite the urgent need, and the EU’s Natura 2000 6 network tory such as birds, marine mammals, < 10% = 0 points
still only about 7% of the Baltic Sea is are far behind schedule. The Emerald and some fish. As part of the commit-
protected. Network is complementary to EU’s ment to reverse declines in biodiver-
Natura 2000 network in non-EU coun- sity, many governments are producing Table 3: National species management or recovery plans
ASSESSMENT tries. Despite the fact that the regulat- management plans or recovery plans for endangered or threatened marine species9
Last year’s biodiversity assessment fo- ing Bern Convention has been in force for specific species. Harbour porpoise, Countries Ringed seal Sea eagle Baltic salmon Harbour porpoise Points
Countries are only
scored for species
cused exclusively on the extent of ma- for over 25 years, Russia has still not in particular, is one of the Baltic Sea’s scored * for which the coun-
rine protected areas (MPAs) in each ratified it7. This analysis looks at how most threatened marine species. Extra Management Management Management Management Designated try is considered a
range state.
country. The conclusion was clear - much marine territory each country focus is therefore placed on the man- plan plan plan plan areas of special
has protected under the auspices of significance
overall progress in designating MPAs agement of these beautiful mammals *1 point is awarded
Denmark -- -- -- Yes No 1/2 for each positive re-
falls far short of international commit- these international agreements. to see if areas of specific significance sponse.
ments to establish an ecologically co- have been designated for them in their Estonia Yes No No -- -- 1/3
Representativeness of habitats
home countries. Finland Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4/5
protected 8 Germany -- Yes -- No No 1/3
(Table 2) In addition to area of MPAs, GRADING Latvia -- -- No -- -- 0/1
another vital aspect is the diversity and The data for all MPA assessments Lithuania -- -- Yes -- -- 1/1
representativeness of species and habi- (Table 1 and 2) reflect the situation Poland -- Yes -- Yes Yes 3/3
tats protected. In order for MPAs to ef- in Spring 2007. The assessment of the
Russia Yes No Yes -- -- 2/3
ficiently contribute to the protection of Natura 2000 network focuses exclu-
Sweden No No No Yes No 1/5
the ecosystem, a sufficient amount of sively on Special Areas of Conserva-
iii
OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
6 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 7
Biodiversity
tion (SAC), aimed at protecting a range graded on those species for which the areas will be followed through with
of habitats listed in the Annex to the country is considered a range state. habitat restoration and proper man-
Habitats Directive. As Russia is not a agement of biodiversity within the des-
part of the EU, it is only assessed based CONCLUSION ignated sites.
on its designation of BSPAs and Em- Based on this assessment, only Ger- In terms of protecting threatened or
erald Network sites. Points on MPA many can be identified as currently endangered species, Poland is the only
designations (Table 1) were allocated making any significant, quantitative country to have designated areas of
based on the total coverage of marine contribution to protecting Baltic Sea special significance for harbour por-
protected areas (Natura 2000/Emerald biodiversity.All countries except for poise. The recent ban on driftnet fish-
sites and BSPAs) in the territorial wa- Germany are very poor at protect- ing in the Baltic Sea is a long-awaited
ters and exclusive economic zones. ing areas in their larger EEZs. The and important victory for the harbour
For MPA representativeness (Ta- European Commission has required porpoise, which was often caught as
ble 2), as many scientific reports sug- the designation of additional sites in bycatch. Other species, such as guil-
gest that a minimum of 20-30% of each the marine environment by 2008. The lemots and wild salmon, are also ben-
marine landscape should be protected, process is ongoing. Sweden, for ex- efiting by this decision. The future
points were allocated based on the per- ample, has recently designated 9 new status of Baltic wildlife will also be
centage of marine landscapes present sites. Germany’s “A-” grade is due to influenced by other assessments, in
in MPAs as well as the percentage of strong leadership shown in establish- particular those addressing environ-
marine landscapes with over 20% pro- ing a large and relatively representa- mental quality (toxics and eutrophica-
tection. tive network of marine protected are- tion) and fisheries.
For the assessment on threatened as. However, there is no guarantee that
species (Table 3), countries were only leadership in establishing protected
Table 4: Total grading - biodiversity
Country Points Points Points Total points Percentage of Grade
MPA MPA threatened maximum available
designation representativeness species
Denmark 7 5 1 13 38% F
Estonia 7 9 1 17 49% F
Finland 7 5 4 16 43% F
Germany 19 10 1 30 86% A-
Latvia 4 0 0 4 12% F
Lithuania 8 2 1 11 33% F
Poland 12 0 3 15 43% F
Russia 2 0 2 4 11% F
Sweden 6 6 1 13 35% F
8 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 9
“
The Baltic Sea region 31
Fisheries can serve as an example
in several areas of the
Action Plan, for example,
Besides a few recent lights of hope, the situation for the fish stocks of ceeded the agreed TAC, which in turn in regard to spatial 30 FINLAND
the Baltic Sea continue to give serious cause for concern, with most exceeded the recommendations made planning, fisheries,
by scientists. This year’s assessment
stocks at or near their all time low. as well as nature
looks again at countries’ abilities to
influence the final TAC recommenda- conservation issues.” SWEDEN
32
THREAT in the region. The few culprits caught tion. In addition, this year’s assessment Raimonds Vejonis, 29
For 20 years now, scientists have rec- and convicted are asked to pay a piti- starts looking into the ever important Minister of Environment, ESTONIA
ommended reduced cod and other fish ful penalty. We need to stop the “crime issue of control and enforcement. Latvia RUSSIA
catches, and policy makers have not pays” fishing policy! Not only does il- 27
28,2 28,1
heeded the recommendations. For legal fishing press down prices and Total Allowable Catch (TAC)11,12
5 of the past 8 years, scientists have negatively affect fishermen working (Table 1) Each year, research find-
LATVIA
recommended a complete stop to cod legally, it also skews the scientific as- ings aid ICES in providing scientific DENMARK
fishing! Instead, landings have regu- sessment of fish stocks, which are the advice on sustainable levels of catch 23
larly exceeded advice as well as agreed basis for quota setting. Most impor- for the coming year. Taking into ac- 25 LITHUANIA
26
catch levels. Overcapacity of around tantly, it affects the entire ecosystem count social and economic factors, the 22
24
30-40% still remains a major obstacle of the Baltic Sea. European Commission then issues its KALININGRAD
(Russia)
in achieving sustainable fisheries. own tonnage advice for each fish stock
To make matters worse, illegal, un- ASSESSMENT via TACs. Finally, EU Member State GERMANY POLAND
reported and unregulated (IUU) fish- Last year’s fisheries assessment fo- Fisheries Ministers make a final TAC Baltic Sea with ICES areas
ing is rampant. With earlier estimates cused on International Council for the recommendation at the Council meet-
that every second Baltic cod sold has Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) advice ing, and then divide the TAC between
been caught illegally, it is clear that we for fishing levels, accepted Total Al- Member States. At both of these stag-
Table 1: Changes in TAC recommendations from the original ICES advice to the final TACs for 200811,12
are not even able to enforce current lowable Catches (TACs) and landings. es, our decision-makers have the op-
laws and regulations, let alone to the The conclusion was clear – landings portunity to influence the resulting Fish stock (ICES area) ICES advice EC advice Agreed TAC 2008 Points awarded
levels necessary to tackle the problems for eastern Baltic cod regularly ex- TAC. This analysis looks at the col- Cod (25-32) 0 31561 38765 0
lective decisions made by our decision- Cod (22-24) 13500 17930 19221 0
“
makers at each stage of negotiation Herring (30-31) 70300 77860 87440 0
leading up to the final TAC.
The difficult situation of cod stocks in the Baltic Herring (22-24) 49500 39600 44550 1
Herring (25-27, 28.2, 29, 32) 194000 148407 152630 1
Sea can be attributed, apart from the ecological Control and enforcement13 Herring (28.1) 30100 36094 36094 0,5
causes, to illegal overfishing over years.” (Table 2) As important as quotas are,
1 point awarded if agreed TAC ≤ ICES advice
Government of Germany they are meaningless if they can be ex- 0,5 points awarded if TAC is unchanged after a negotiation round
ceeded without notice or reprimand. Us-
ing data collected by the EU during in-
spections on Baltic cod fisheries in 2005 Table 2: Control and enforcement of Baltic cod fishery13
and 2006, we have selected 5 indicators Countries National control Inspection Inspectors Deviation Sanctions Points
organisation and have direct in scored
for control and enforcement. Accord- access to recorded
resources
ing to Council Regulation, all Member VMS data * landings **
Action plan Benchmarks Single 24 hour Sanction Immediate
States shall have a national control ac- authority coverage scheme Enforcement *
tion programme, including specific in- Denmark Yes Yes Yes No Yes 12.79% Yes No 7 / 11
spection benchmarks. Then in order to Estonia Yes No No Yes No N/A Yes Yes 5/9
properly implement control, there must Finland Yes Yes N/A No Yes N/A No No 4/8
be sufficient means at the disposal of au- Germany Yes No No No Limited 13.59 % Yes Limited 5 / 11
thorities to perform their tasks. Latvia Yes Yes No No Yes 7.56% Yes Yes 9 / 11
A well-coordinated organisation Lithuania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15.64% Yes Yes 9 / 11
for inspection obviously increases ef- Poland Yes No No No No 48.71% Yes Limited 3 / 11
fectiveness and efficiency in this work. Sweden Yes Yes No No No 21.42% Yes No 3 / 11
Satellite monitoring systems (VMS) N / A = No Answer *For access to VMS data and immediate
can be an aid to inspectors to verify log- For national control, organisation and enforcement of sanctions:
resources, and sanction schemes: Yes = 2 points, Limited = 1 point, No = 0 points
book data. As a measure of the coun- Yes = 1 point, No = 0 points **For deviation in recorded landings:
try’s control and inspection system, < 8% deviation = 2 points, 8-15% = 1 point, 15+ % = 0 points
10 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 11
Fisheries Maritime Transport
It is important to note that in the con- and have few ports that need to be The Baltic Sea is one of the oldest trading routes in Europe and
trol and enforcement assessment (Ta- monitored. Amongst the larger fish- today remains one of the busiest routes in the world with 15% of
ble 2), the Commission inspections ing nations, Denmark should be ap- global traffic15. As well as fostering internal trade between states,
looked exclusively at the Baltic cod plauded for its verification system, the
the Baltic Sea is a strategic route for oil exports from Baltic Sea
fishery, which is not equally important only one providing real time access to
for all Baltic Sea States. For this rea- VMS data to all inspectors. States to the rest of Europe and further afield.
son, Estonia and Finland do not have The weakest aspect across the re-
values for all indicators; their cod fish- gion is that of sanctions. Latvia and THREAT the water, wastewater and air emissions ASSESSMENT
eries are too small. Lithuania and Estonia have systems Over the coming decade, shipping traf- make a significant contribution to eu- Last year’s Maritime Transport assess-
in place where inspectors can follow a fic is predicted to increase by over 100% trophication, and alien or invasive spe- ment focused on ratification of interna-
CONCLUSION predefined sanction scheme and, most in the Gulf of Finland and by 80% in the cies can be introduced via ships’ hulls or tional shipping agreements. The con-
As is obvious from our TAC negoti- importantly, enforce sanctions imme- Baltic proper16. Over the last 25 years, from ballast water discharges. Around clusion was clear – only two countries
Commission Inspectors compared re- ations analysis, when it comes to the diately. In all other countries, any larg- an average of one major shipping acci- 100 alien species have already been re- Sweden and Latvia had ratified more
ported landings from vessels when in- threatened, but also commercially im- er infringements must first be reported dent a year with more than 100 tonnes corded in the Baltic Sea18. than half of the agreements (4 out of
spected to when not inspected. Finally, portant cod, politicians are not willing and later enforced. Unfortunately, in of oil spilled has occurred in the Baltic. Improving shipping management is 7). The rest had committed to even less
a clear sanction scheme is important for to make the tough decisions, opting in- most countries, the follow-up proce- While illegal discharges of oil have de- complicated by the fact that the major- than that. This year’s assessment goes
fishers to understand the potential con- stead to address the short-term inter- dures are unclear. Even if an offend- creased, there were still 238 illegal spills ity of ships travelling in the Sea will not to the next level and looks at national
sequences of inappropriate action. To ests of the industry. This kind of short- er is convicted, sanction levels differ observed in 200717. Shipping has a di- be flying a flag of a Sea state. Thus port action taken to address management
strengthen the credibility of the whole sightedness will inevitably lead to a widely across the region and do little rect impact on Baltic biodiversity. control measures such as inspections, objectives. Even though shipping is an
system, inspectors should be allowed to collapse of the stocks and with them more than provide a light slap on the In addition to oil spills and illegal traffic monitoring, and prosecuting il- international activity regulated by an
enforce sanctions immediately. the very industry and livelihoods that wrist. What are needed are increased discharges of oil and chemicals, ships’ legal dischargers of oil and chemicals international body, much action can be
were supposed to be protected. In- and strictly harmonised controls and antifouling paints leach chemicals into are a top priority. taken within the territorial seas to man-
GRADING stead, politicians need to both follow sanctions throughout the region.
“
Since the final TAC decision is made scientific advice for TAC levels in or- Whereas neither EU policies nor
by consensus, our assessment (Table 1) der to ensure guaranteed sustainable national regulation seem to be do-
allocates equal blame or reward for de- harvesting, and reduce the number of ing enough, thankfully consumers
The Ministry of the Environment has started
cisions made by all countries that com- vessels in order to ensure socio-eco- and supply chains seem ready to fight preparations that would allow Estonia
mercially fish a certain stock. Sweden nomic stability for the industry. The unsustainable fishing. In Sweden, all to accede to the [Ballast Water Management
was awarded a bonus 0,5 points for its European Fisheries Fund’s newly in- major supermarkets recently under- Convention]. Studies have been conducted
strong position during the negotia- creased support for scrapping of ves- took plans to stop selling threatened to identify the possible ballast water changing
tions for the Eastern Baltic cod TAC sels fishing Baltic cod is an excellent fish like Baltic cod14. Consumers must areas in our marine waters.”
in 2008. Even though the final TAC is opportunity for Member States. stand up and raise their voices that
very high, Sweden’s position through- Lithuania and Latvia scored high- so politicians, fishermen and suppli- Andrus Ansip, Prime Minister of Estonia
out the negotiations was consistently est in our assessment on control and ers will follow through and act to save
that the ICES recommended morato- enforcement, which is not surprising threatened fish.
rium should be followed. as they are both small fishing nations
Table 3: Total Grading - Fisheries
Countries Points Points Total points Percentage of Grade * Countries are
only scored for
TAC Control & maximum available
those stocks that
negotiations* enforcement they commercially
fish.
Denmark 2/4 7 / 11 9 60% C
Estonia 1,5 / 2 5/9 6,5 59% C ** Bonus 0,5
points for consist-
Finland 1/2 4/8 5 50% C- ently maintaining
throughout nego-
Germany 2/4 5 / 11 7 47% F tiations that the
ICES recommen-
Latvia 1,5 / 4 9 / 11 10,5 70% B- dation should be
followed.
Lithuania 1/3 9 / 11 10 71% B-
Poland 2/4 3 / 11 5 33% F
Sweden 2,5** / 5 3 / 11 5,5 34% F
12 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 13
Maritime transport
Table 1: National assessment of shipping risks
and identification of protective measures9
age shipping safely in national waters. Introduction of alien species9 the polluters to court and to ensure
The Baltic Sea States have agreed on a (Table 2) The introduction of alien or that the penalties, including impris- Countries Preparation of Identification Points scored
a formal risk of protective (maximum=3)
number of management objectives rel- invasive species is recognised to be one onment and hefty fines, are sufficient analysis measures
evant to maritime transport, including of the greatest threats to marine bio- to act as a future deterrent. Denmark Yes Yes 3
ensuring safe maritime traffic with- diversity around the world, and par-
Estonia Yes No 1
out accidental pollution, preventing ticularly to an enclosed sea such as the CONCLUSION
Finland Yes Yes 3
the introduction of alien species from Baltic. The International Maritime Or- The overall assessment for maritime
ships, and enforcing international reg- ganization (IMO) adopted a Conven- transport is different from the 2007 Germany No No 0
ulations to prevent illegal discharges tion in 2004 to control and manage the Scorecard, as it places more focus on Latvia No No 0
of oil and chemicals. This assessment discharge of ships’ ballast water and action measures introduced by Baltic Lithuania No No 0
aims to see which countries are taking sediments so as to ultimately eliminate Sea States instead of ratification of Poland No No 0
on their responsibility. the transfer of harmful aquatic organ- conventions. The result, however, is Russia No No 0
isms. equally bleak. Three countries man- Sweden No No 0
Risk assessment9 Four years later, the Ballast Water age to squeak by with a C/C- grade.
Formal risk analysis = 1 point
(Table 1) Risk analysis is being increas- Management Convention has only Russia managed to score the highest Identification of protective measures = 2 points
ingly used to understand the impact been ratified by 14 states (represent- grade this year, being the only country
that shipping activity poses to sensi- ing 3.55% of the world’s shipping ton- to have a strategy for preventing spe-
Table 2: Measures to Table 3: National legislation for pro-
tive environments. It involves an as- nage19) and none of them a Baltic Sea cies introductions. Critics argue that
address the threat of secution of illegal discharges of oil
sessment of both the sensitivity of the nation. In the Baltic Sea Action Plan, this is not so surprising as Russia is of-
alien species9 and chemicals into the Baltic Sea 9
environment and the vulnerability of commitment to ratify the convention ten good at writing official documents;
an area to shipping activities. Through is left open until 2013 – nearly 10 years implementation of these legislations Countries Ratification National Ballast Points Countries National Points
HELCOM, Baltic Sea States have com- after the Baltic Sea States adopted the and strategies, on the other hand, is a of BWM strategy water port scored legislation scored
convention preventing state control (maximum=5) (maximum=2)
mitted to undertake an assessment of international convention. totally different story. species inspections
the risks of oil and chemical pollution On the brighter side, IMO’s Bal- introduction
and to finalise quantification of the Illegal discharges9 last Water Management Convention Denmark No No No 0 Denmark Yes 2
emergency and response resources at (Table 3) Recognising that illegal dis- has spurred innovation in ship-based Estonia No No No 0 Estonia Yes 2
the sub-regional level. Action is first re- charges of oil and chemicals remain a technologies to control invasive or- Finland No No No 0 Finland Yes 2
quired to assess the risk at a national problem, Baltic Sea nations reaffirmed ganisms through filtering and clean-
Germany No No No 0 Germany Yes 2
level. Once potential risks have been in the BSAP their intent to continue to ing of ballast water prior the release.
Latvia No No No 0 Latvia Yes 2
identified, protection measures nec- prosecute offenders of illegal discharg- What remains is for nations to ratify
Lithuania No No Yes 2 Lithuania Yes 2
essary to eliminate or mitigate these es and to cooperate in the prosecution the Convention and find new ways to
Poland No No No 0 Poland N/A --
risks must then be identified and, ulti- of illegal dischargers20. Effective na- monitor and control other discharges
mately, implemented. tional legislation is essential to bring that threaten Baltic Sea health. Russia No Yes * Yes 4 Russia Yes 2
Sweden No No No 0 Sweden Yes 2
Ratification of Convention = 1 point National legislation = 2 points
“
Implementation of measures = 2 points each
* Russian regional strategy for Gulf of Finland
Maritime safety is another key issue.
Due to increasing maritime traffic the risk Table 4: Total Grading - Maritime Transports
of accidents is increasing, and this risk must Countries Points Points Points Total points Percentage Grade
above all be reduced by developing the Risk assessment Alien species Illegal discharge (maximum=10) of maximum
available
maritime awareness picture and the vessel Denmark 3 0 2 5 50% C-
traffic monitoring and information system.” Estonia 1 0 2 3 30% F
Tarja Halonen, President of Finland Finland 3 0 2 5 50% C-
Germany 0 0 2 2 20% F
Latvia 0 0 2 2 20% F
Lithuania 0 2 2 4 40% F
Poland 0 0 N/A 0* 0% F
Russia 0 4 2 6 60% C
Sweden 0 0 2 2 20% F
* Maximum = 8 N / A = No Answer
14 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 15
Table 1: Change in heavy metal emissions from 1990 to 2005 24
*For change between
Countries Mercury emissions Cadmium emissions 1990 and 2005:
1990- 2005* 2002-2005** Points scored 1990- 2005* 2000-2005** Points scored 100% reduction = 6 points
(maximum = 11) (maximum = 11) 80% = 5 points
Denmark -61% 0% 5 -45% 0% 5• 60% = 4 points
40% = 3 points
Estonia -55% 0% 5• -86% 0% 7• 20% = 2 points
Finland -18% 29% 1 -79% -7% 6 1% = 1 point
Germany -86% 0% 6 -78% 13% 4 No change or increase = 0 points
Latvia -67% 5 4 -67% -38% 8• **For trend between
Lithuania 5 33% 0 -89% -71% 10 • 2002 and 2005:
> 50% reduction = 4 points
Poland -40% 2% 3 -50% -8% 6•
25% = 3 points
Russia -10% 37% 1 -25% 16% 2 1% = 2 points
Sweden -56% 0% 5• -78% 0% 6• No change = 1 point
Increase = 0 points
5= Increase from 0%
• = Bonus point for 2005 level
equalling lowest emission level
Hazardous Substances Table 2: Change in dioxin and furan emissions from 1990 to 2005 25
Countries Dioxin and furan emissions Points scored
*For change between
1990 and 2005:
(maximum=11) 100% reduction = 6 points
1990 - 2005* 2000 – 2005**
80% = 5 points
The Baltic’s brackish environment and the long timeframe required in dioxins and furans (Table 2), with Denmark -63% -22% 6 60% = 4 points
a particular focus on emissions from 40% = 3 points
for water exchange to the sea make it uniquely vulnerable to toxins. Estonia -50% 0% 5•
20% = 2 points
Hazardous substances are released into the marine environment small-scale combustion appliances. Finland -13% -16% 4• 1% = 1 point
Two analyses are made for each of No change or increase = 0 points
through wastewater, air, urban and agricultural run-off, direct emiss- Germany -27% 0% 3
these groups of toxins – the first looks Latvia 171% 36% 0
**For trend between
ions from ship transport, harbour operations and offshore installations. at change in emission levels between
2002 and 2005:
Lithuania 83% 175% 0 > 50% reduction = 4 points
1990 and 2005. The second assessment 25% = 3 points
Poland -21% 25% 2 1% = 2 points
THREAT This year’s assessment is quite differ- zooms in on the last few years to see No change = 1 point
Russia -25% 18% 2
Hundreds of hazardous chemicals in- ent. It focuses on concrete results - the what the current trend is. Increase = 0 points
Sweden -35% 18% 2
cluding deadly dioxins, PCBs, bro- success of Baltic Sea States in reduc- • Bonus point for 2005 level
Anti-fouling systems 9 equalling lowest emission level
minated flame retardants, and DDT ing inputs of two of the most common
residues pollute Baltic waters. Organ- and deadly heavy metals, as well as (Table 3) The International Mari-
otins from hull paints have been noted success in reducing inputs of dioxins time Organization adopted an Inter-
in mussels and in the livers of flatfish, and furans. We also follow-up on last national Convention on the Control
especially on the Polish coast21. Heavy year’s indicator on the elimination of of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Table 3: Ratification and implementation of provisions
metal concentrations are higher in the organotin-based antifouling paints on Ships (AFS Convention) in October of the Antifouling Systems (AFS) Convention 9
2001. Thirty states - representing 49%
Baltic than in the North Atlantic22. In ships. Countries AFS Convention Sampling and Procedures in Points scored
1 point is awarded for
each positive response.
some areas, dioxin and PCB levels in of the world’s merchant shipping ton- ratification procedures development (maximum=3)
Toxic emissions 24,25 nage - have ratified the Convention, developed * Maximum = 1
fish, particularly salmon and herring,
which will come into force in Septem- N / A = No Answer
still exceed accepted EU food safety (Tables 1 and 2) Cadmium and mercu- Denmark Yes No No 1
levels23. ry, two highly toxic heavy metals, have ber 200819. This is an increase of seven Estonia No No Yes 1
been a particular focus of a number states since last year, but sadly no new Finland No No No 0
ASSESSMENT of regulatory agreements and reduc- Baltic Sea states have ratified. Germany No No Yes 1
The 2007 hazardous substances assess- tion efforts in the Baltic in the past two The AFS Convention prohibits the Latvia Yes No Yes 2
ment focused on the ratification of in- decades. Further commitments to ad- use of harmful organotins (one of the Lithuania Yes Yes No 2
ternational conventions and cleaning dress emissions of cadmium and mer- most toxic chemicals deliberately re-
Poland Yes N/A N/A 1*
up polluting hot spots. The conclusion cury were agreed on in the Baltic Sea leased into the marine environment) in
Russia No No Yes 1
was that some progress and leadership Action Plan (BSAP). A similar com- anti-fouling paints - used on ships’ bot-
Sweden Yes No No 1
could be seen in the region. mitment was given for the reductions toms to kill plants and animals which
16 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 17
Hazardous Substances
ratification and implementation of in-
ternational agreements to real change,
and the resulting scores are abysmal.
Between 1990 and 2005, annual
emissions of cadmium dropped 45%,
and mercury emissions dropped 46%.
While significant total reductions oc-
curred between 1990 and 2000 (due
largely to increased use of lead-free fu-
els and use of cleaner production tech-
nologies23), the rate of decrease has
levelled off in the last few years. Esto-
nia’s higher score is due largely to their
success in decreasing toxic emissions
throughout the studied years, coupled
with their ability to maintain low lev-
els during the last few years. While
Latvia and Lithuania should also be
commended for having low levels of
might slow a ship and increase its fuel from the territory relevant to the Eu- emissions, the numbers appear to be
consumption. In addition, the EU ropean Monitoring & Evaluation Pro- on the rise again.
regulation banning the use and pres- gramme area. Progress in general has been slower
ence of organotins on ships (782/2003) with dioxins and furans, with only a
came into force on 1 January 2008. In CONCLUSION 24% decrease in emissions during the
order to enforce the AFS Convention The Baltic Sea States’ scores on haz- 15-year period. Only Denmark has
and comply with the EU Regulation, it ardous substances are extremely dis- managed to continue reducing its di-
will be necessary for Baltic Sea States appointing. Only Estonia was able to oxin and furan emissions in the last 5
to have systems in place to sample and score even half of the available points. years all other countries in the region
test vessels. This is in stark contrast with the haz- show an unchanged or upward trend.
ardous substances assessment in the From these results, it is clear that all
GRADING 2007 Scorecard, which was the strong- Baltic Sea States have considerable
For all countries, emission data are est of all the assessments, receiving an work ahead if we are to enjoy “a Bal-
from the entire country, except for overall grade of B- in the region. This tic Sea undisturbed by hazardous sub-
Russia for which emission data are year’s assessment shifts the focus from stances”26.
Table 4: Total Grading - Hazardous Substances
Countries Points Points Points Total points Percentage of Grade
Heavy metals Dioxins and Antifouling (maximum=36) maximum available
“
furans Systems
Denmark 10 6 1 17 47% F
REACH still contains many loopholes and
Estonia 12 5 1 18 50% C-
Finland 7 4 0 11 31% F
uncertainties, and is very vulnerable to
Germany 10 3 1 14 39% F
weakening in reviews and implementation.
Latvia 12 0 2 14 39% F Monitoring and continuous pressure are
Lithuania 10 0 2 12 33% F therefore key for real improvements and
Poland 9 2 1 12* 35% F a clean Baltic Sea.”
Russia 3 2 1 6 17% F Ninja Reineke, Chemicals expert, WWF
Sweden 11 2 1 14 39% F
*Maximum=34
18 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 19“
Buffer zones should be focused
on the most problematic areas.
It is also necessary to increase Table 1: Change in nutrient input per flow between 1994 and 2005 30
funding for establishing wetlands.” Countries Phosphorus inputs Nitrogen inputs
Percentage change Number of years Points scored Percentage change Number of years Points scored
Matti Vanhanen, Prime Minister of Finland
between with decreased input (maximum = 10) between with decreased input (maximum = 10)
1994 and 2005 from 2003 to 2005 1994 and 2005 from 2003 to 2005
Denmark -26% 1 4 -32% 1 6•
Estonia 13% 1 1 23% 1 1
Finland -20% 1 4 9% 2 2
Germany -29% 2 6• -30% 0 4
Latvia 60% 1 1 -33% 1 5
Lithuania -29% 1 5• 37% 1 1
Poland -20% 1 5• -34% 1 6•
Russia -2% 1 2 21% * 1* 1**
Sweden -18% 1 3 -22% 1 5•
For change between 1994 and 2005: For trend between 2003 and 2005: * Russia’s analysis is limited to 2000 to 2004
> 75% reduction = 7 points 1 point for each year the input has decreased due to incomplete or unavailable data
50% = 6 points
40% = 5 points • Bonus point for 2005 level equalling ** Maximum = 9
30% = 4 points lowest emission level
20% = 3 points
10% = 2 points
1% = 1 point
No change or increase = 0 points
Table 2: HELCOM hot spots Assessment31
Countries Municipal and industrial wastewater sites Agricultural and coastal lagoon / wetland sites
Eutrophication Denmark
Total number of
hotspots
3
Percentage of hot
spots cleaned up
100%
Points scored
(maximum = 4)
4
Total number of
hotspots
3
Percentage of hot
spots cleaned up
0%
Points scored
(maximum = 4)
0
Estonia 5 60% 2 4 75% 3
Eutrophication has been identified as the single biggest threat to the Finland 1 100% 4 1 0% 0
health of the Baltic Sea. The most easily witnessed symptom of these Germany 7 100% 4 2 50% 2
excessive inputs of nutrients is the algal blooms that plague large Latvia 3 0% 0 2 100% 4
areas of the sea during warm summers. Lithuania 9 56% 2 2 0% 0
Poland 22 41% 1 4 0% 0
THREAT worse as fertilizer use and meat produc- Waterborne nutrient inputs 30 Russia 20 40% 1 4 0% 0
A more subtle, but more damaging tion are expected to increase substan- (Table 1) Last year’s assessment looked Sweden 2 50% 2 3 0% 0
result of eutrophication is the lack tially in the coming 10 years28 and cli- at total change in waterborne inputs of
For amount of hot spots cleaned up:
of dissolved oxygen leading to the mate change further exacerbates the phosphorus and nitrogen from 1994 to 100% = 4 points
increasing death of seabeds, with ef- problem29. 2004. This year, we update this analy- 75% = 3 points
50% = 2 points
fects such as decreased reproductive sis with data from 2005iv and provide 25% = 1 points
success of commercial fish stocks ASSESSMENT in-depth analysis by zeroing in on data < 25% = 0 points
such as flatfish and cod 27. Dead zones Last year’s eutrophication assessment trends for the last three years. The Bal-
have been measured to stretch over focused on the implementation of tic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) reaffirms
HELCOM hot spots 31 try, municipal & industry wastewater nitrogen and phosphorus. Originally 16
up to 100,000 km 2 of the Baltic Sea’s three agreements. The conclusion was the commitment to reduce nutrient
(Table 2) Since 1992, 162 serious pol- sites, agriculture sites, and coastal la- agricultural hot spots and five coastal
bottom 2. clear – none of the Baltic Sea States load from waterborne and airborne
lution areas or “hot spots” have been goon / wetlands sites, according to the lagoon / wetland hotspots were identi-
Agricultural run-off accounts for had come even close to implementing inputs. However, the deadline for ac-
identified by HELCOM around the source of the pollution. Municipal and fied, of which only a disappointing five
half of all nitrogen and phosphorus satisfactory measures to address the tion has disappointedly been delayed
Baltic Sea and in its catchment. Of industrial wastewater sites are gener- were deleted from the list by March
inputs to the Baltic Sea. Other sourc- problem. This year’s analysis follows to 2016, with the aim of reaching good
these, around half have been cleaned ally significant sources of nutrients and 2008.
es include forestry, industrial and mu- up on some of last year’s indicators, ecological and environmental status
up and subsequently removed from the particularly phosphorus. Agricultural
nicipal wastewater, shipping, and car and starts to look at action taken to by 2021.
list. Hotspots are grouped into indus- sites are also significant sources of both
emissions. Problems are expected to get reach the HELCOM goal.
iv
Russia’s nitrogen inputs data is limited to data from 2000 to 2004 due to incomplete or unavailable data
20 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 21“
The reduction of phosphates
in household detergents and the
improved wastewater treatment Eutrophication
have resulted in a reduction of
the German phosphate loads by
more than 50 percent. In April 2007,
the Ministry for the Environment
initiated consultations with the New phosphorus-removal system
industry about the possibilities for St. Petersburg’s wastewater
to further reduce or substitute St. Petersburg will soon be receiv- is estimated that the new system will re-
the use of phosphates in deter- ing a new, enhanced phosphorus duce the phosphorus loads entering the
removal process for its wastewater Gulf of Finland by 300-500 tonnes per
gents for dishwashing machines
treatment plant. This has been identi- year, corresponding to some 5-8% of
and industrial cleaning processes.” fied as the single most cost-effective the current total phosphorus input into
Government of Germany measure available for improving the the Gulf 33. Unfortunately, the increase in
ecological state of the Gulf of Fin- industrial farms in the Leningrad region
land. With co-funding provided by the and run-off from these facilities into the
Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Gulf of Finland risk off-setting these im-
the project has now been launched. It provements.
Phosphorus in detergents9 ommendation on measures aimed at ers and the restoration of buffer strips some years off, extra points are awarded Only Germany achieves a passing good start, but that must be followed
(Table 3) The removal of phosphorus the elimination of phosphorus in de- along waters courses to act as nutri- to countries that have reduced their in- mark in this year’s assessment. It is up with legislation that enforces remov-
from detergents has been identified as tergents by 2012 in the BSAP. Howev- ent sinks have both been identified by puts by over 50% in the nutrient inputs clear that significant improvement is al of phosphorus from wastewater for
one of the most cost-effective measures er, no specific schedule or deadline is HELCOM and endorsed by Baltic Sea analysis (Table 1). required, not only in meeting existing all municipalities over 10,000 inhabit-
available to reduce eutrophication of set as to when a total ban should come States. Of equal importance is the res- commitments to reduce inputs of phos- ants, creative solutions for wastewater
the Baltic Sea. A recent HELCOM re- into force. toration or recreation of lost coastal CONCLUSION phorus and nitrogen, but also in crea- treatment in rural areas, and stricter
port32 estimates that if all Baltic Sea wetlands to act as sinks for nutrient A careful reading of the tables in this tive ways to reduce other contributors legislation for agricultural run-off.
States were to completely ban phos- Agricultural run-off 9 run-off. section reveals that while different Bal- to eutrophication. Failure to do so will
phorus from laundry and dishwasher (Table 4) Agricultural run-off remains tic Sea States have taken actions to avoid undermine any future attempt to de-
detergents, this could reduce phospho- the biggest contributor to the nutrient GRADING eutrophication, none have attacked the liver holistic management of this frag-
rus inputs into the Sea up to 24%. Bal- problems faced by the Baltic Sea. Lim- Given the fact that the HELCOM problem from all angles in order to ile environment. A ban on phosphorus
tic Sea Ministers adopted a new rec- its on the use of phosphorus in fertiliz- deadline for eutrophication remains achieve lasting improvement. in laundry and washing detergents is a
Table 3: Assessment of the elimination Table 4: Assessment of measures to reduce
of the use of phosphorus in detergents9 run-off of nutrients from agricultural land 9 Table 5: Total grading – eutrophication
Countries Elimination of Points scored Countries Maximum limit Programme Plans to restore/ Points scored Countries Points Points Points Points Total Points Percentage Grade
phosphorus in (maximum = 2) on Phosphorus and financing recreate coastal (maximum = 3) Nutrient Hot spots P-free run-off (maximum=33) of maximum
detergents amounts in scheme for wetlands reduction detergents available
fertilizers buffer strips
Denmark No 0 Denmark No Yes Yes 2 Denmark 10 4 0 2 16 48% F
Estonia No 0 Estonia Yes Yes No 2 Estonia 2 5 0 2 9 27% F
Finland No 0 Finland Yes Yes* Yes 3 Finland 6 4 0 3 13 39% F
Germany Voluntary 1 Germany No Yes* No 1 Germany 10 6 1 1 18 55% C-
Latvia No 0 Latvia Yes No No 1 Latvia 6 4 0 1 11 33% F
Lithuania No 0 Lithuania No Yes No 1 Lithuania 6 2 0 1 9 27% F
Poland No 0 Poland N/A N/A N/A N/A Poland 11 1 0 N/A 12* 40% F
Russia No 0 Russia Yes Yes No 2 Russia 3 1 0 2 6** 19% F
Sweden Regulation 2 Sweden Yes Yes Yes 3 Sweden 8 2 2 3 15 45% F
Regulation = 2 points 1 point is awarded for each positive response. * Maximum = 30
Voluntary ban = 1 point * Voluntary ** Maximum = 32
No = 0 points N / A = No Answer N / A = No Answer
22 | WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard 2008 Baltic Sea Scorecard – WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme | 23You can also read
