Baltic Sea Action Plan (2007): To reach Good Environmental Status by 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Baltic Sea Action Plan (2007):
To reach Good Environmental Status by 2021
co-funded by EU
LIFE Programme
NGOs RAISED CONCERNS on
the Baltic Sea Action Plan implementation!
2007
co-funded by EU LIFE
Programme
Baltic Sea Action Plan (2007): Where are we?
co-funded by EU
LIFE Programme
Baltic Sea Action Plan update (2021)
• Efficiency of current measures and adapting if necessary
• New issues - underwater noise, marine litter
• Economic and social benefits of achieving the BSAP
• Ecosystem approach
• Water and ocean related SDGs, the Aichi targets, and MSFD descriptors
• Role of municipal and local actions
co-funded by EU
LIFE Programme
Ideas for road ahead
• Baseline: where we are
– WWF Scorecard – based on HELCOM Explorer
– CCB’s Civil Society Declaration on the Health of the Baltic Sea
– BSAP Index of Actions: a reminder and tool for checkup
• Formulation of asks
– Minimum/maximum acceptable level of deviation from BSAP –
how far we are ready to accept changes / omitting actions
• HELCOM process
– Inputs to the update in expert and policy level
– National consultations
• Plan B (can always become Plan A )
– Formulation of an alternative BSAP update – based on CSOs
knowledge of actions needed – jointly and regionallySuggested mode of work • Split into 3 groups (6 prs each group) 1. Eutrophication 2. Hazardous 3. Biodiversity • Discuss the following Qs (1 hr) –Where we are (regionally and nationally)? –What is our acceptable range of deviation? –How we can contribute to the BSAP update? –Examples of actions we may already suggest? • Report and discuss in a bigger group (30 min)
EUTROPHICATION Where we are (regionally and nationally)? • WWTPs lacking capacity vs. not having capacity, • scattered settlements not yet properly assessed and addressed; • even some of the point sources are not addressed properly – e.g. fertiliser handling in ports • Shipping – not all PRF are ready for 2021 deadline • Airborne sources only cover shipping and nothing is addressed in agriculture sector • Climate adaptation/mitigation not inlcuded
EUTROPHICATION What is our acceptable range of deviation? • No watering down / weakening provisions • Keep stricter HELCOM requirements as a priority in comparison to • Address major pressures by human activities with the same level of importance (shipping, fisheries and agri) • Ensure that BSAP targets are coherent/integrated with relevant EU law • Make sure the BSAP is ambitious and not ‘realistic’ • Start implementing • Nutrient reduction accounting should not be achieved between sub-basins • Current nutrient reduction targets are based on the best science
EUTROPHICATION General notes • Monitoring funding is diminishing but without it is difficult to measure • Transparency for national stakeholders’ involvement into BSAP update process • Took us serious: if you ask consultation – listen and use our inputs • Partnership with stakeholders, .e.g. farmers, making it attractive to them to engage in environmental improvements • Enforcement – compliance mechanism
You can also read
