Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2016-17
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt
1767722_0001.png
Summary report on the development of revised Maximum
Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country Allocated
Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan
This document was prepared for the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting
to give information on the progress in implementing
the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0002.png
Summary report on the development of revised Maximum
Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country Allocated
Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan
0 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 2
1
2
2.1
2.2
3
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.
6.
6.1
6.2
Background ............................................................................................................... 4
Revision of nutrient reduction scheme ................................................................... 5
Revised eutrophication (status) targets ................................................................... 5
Allocation principles................................................................................................. 5
How are revised MAI calculated............................................................................... 7
How are updated CART determined ........................................................................ 8
Establishing a complete dataset on air- and waterborne inputs to the Baltic Sea .... 8
Transboundary inputs .............................................................................................. 9
Steps for calculating country allocated reduction targets (CART) ...........................10
Proposed CART .....................................................................................................12
Division of reduction requirements on an air- and a waterborne part ......................14
Progress ...................................................................................................................14
Perspectives ............................................................................................................15
Response in the Baltic Sea to the nutrient input reductions ....................................15
Validity of the results of the revised BSAP nutrient reduction scheme figures ........16
Why not consider economy before MAI and CART are settled ...............................17
Uncertainty of the MAI and CART figures ...............................................................17
Implications of climate change on MAI, CART and needed measures ....................17
7.
8.
9.
References ...............................................................................................................18
Definitions/Glossary ................................................................................................19
Technical Annex ......................................................................................................20
Page 1 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0003.png
0 S
UMMARY
The aim of this summary report is to describe in a concise way how the revised HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country
Allocated nutrient Reduction Targets (CART) have been developed. The main target
audience of this report is the decision-makers of the Baltic Sea coastal countries, as well as
any stakeholders interested in understanding the revision process of the nutrient reduction
scheme of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.
The HELCOM Nutrient Reduction Scheme is a regional approach to sharing the burden of
nutrient reductions to achieve the goal of a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication, as
agreed on by HELCOM.
The Scheme was first introduced and agreed on in 2007, in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action
Plan. At that time, the countries agreed on provisional nutrient reduction targets and decided
that the figures would be revised using a harmonised approach and most updated data as
well as through enhanced modelling. The revision process started in 2008 and has been
completed in 2013.
There are two main components of the nutrient reduction scheme:
•
Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI)
of nutrients, indicating the maximal level of inputs
of water- and airborne nitrogen and phosphorus to Baltic Sea sub-basins that can be
allowed to fulfill the targets for a non-eutrophied sea;
•
Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART),
indicating how much the HELCOM
countries need to reduce nutrient inputs compared to a reference period (1997-2003).
A great deal of work has been carried out to improve the scientific basis of the scheme.
1. New eutrophication targets describing
good eutrophication status of the Baltic
Sea
2. Improved marine model (BALTSEM) of the
Baltic Nest Institute (BNI) Sweden
3. Calculation of revised Maximum Allowable
Inputs (MAI) with BALTSEM, using new
eutrophication targets for Baltic Sea sub-
basins
4. Agreement of allocation principles for
calculating new Country Allocated
Reduction Targets (CART)
5. Updated dataset on water- and airborne
nutrient inputs for 1994-2010
6. Calculation of new Country Allocated
Reduction Targets (CART)
7. Scientific documentation of the process
Non-
eutrophicated
water
Eutrophicated
water
Detailed information on the development and calculation of MAI and CART will be included in
the scientific report by the Baltic Nest Institute (BNI, Stockholm) “Revision of the Maximum
Allowable Loads and Country Allocation Scheme of the Baltic Sea Action Plan” (Gustafsson
& Mörth, in prep).
Page 2 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0004.png
Revised Maximum Allowable Inputs
Figure 1. By comparing Maximum Allowable Inputs and actual nitrogen and phosphorous inputs during the reference
period (1997-2003), we can see what the needed reductions for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) are in
individual sub-basins of the Baltic Sea (cf. Table 9.1 in Annex).
The proposed Country Allocated Reduction Targets
The following Country Allocated Reduction Targets for nitrogen and phosphorus have been
proposed for adoption by the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting:
Table 1. Country Allocated Reduction Targets for nitrogen and phosphorus per country (rounded figures)
Country
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
PHOSPHORUS
38
320
330+26*
110+60*
220
1,470
7,480
3,790*
530
NITROGEN
2,890
1,800
2,430+600*
7,170+500*
1,670
8,970
4,3610
10,380*
9,240
*
Reduction requirements stemming from:
−
German contribution to the river Odra inputs, based on ongoing modeling approaches with MONERIS
−
Finnish contribution to inputs from river Neva catchment (via Vuoksi river)
−
these figures include Russian contribution to inputs through Daugava, Nemunas and Pregolya rivers
The figures for transboundary inputs originating in the Contracting Parties and discharged to the Baltic Sea
through other Contracting Parties are preliminary and require further discussion within relevant transboundary
water management bodies
The Country Allocated Reduction Targets take into account transboundary inputs in order to
give the clearest indication of the national reduction demand. The anticipated nutrient input
reductions resulting from emission reductions from non-Contracting Countries by
implementation of the Gothenburg Protocol and from international shipping are taken into
account as well as anticipated reductions of transboundary waterborne inputs by non-
Contracting Countries.
The basis for calculating the revised MAI and updated CART is the best available scientific
knowledge. Ecological targets and revised MAI and CART have been developed with the
involvement of all the Baltic Sea countries.
Page 3 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0005.png
1 B
ACKGROUND
In November 2007, the environment ministers of the HELCOM countries and the high-level
representative of the EU adopted the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), which aims
to reduce pollution of the Baltic Sea and reverse its degradation by 2021 (HELCOM
2007a).
Each of the main goals of the BSAP is
defined by
ecological objectives,
which describe the characteristics of
the sea that we aspire towards.
Ecological objectives for
eutrophication include:
•
•
clear water
concentrations of nutrients close to
natural levels
natural levels of algal blooms
natural distribution and occurrence
of plants and animals
natural oxygen levels.
•
•
•
Adaptive management is one of the principles of HELCOM’s work. In Figure 2 the
management cycle of the BSAP is shown.
Monitoring and assessment are the tools for measuring the progress towards the ecological
objectives, using a set of indicators with quantitative targets. These targets collectively define
good environmental status, and the distance
to targets indicates to what extent further
measures are needed in order to reduce
pressures on the Baltic Sea. Monitoring is
then continued and the effects of implemented
measures are again assessed in the next
management cycle.
To reach good eutrophication status of the
Baltic Sea, the countries agreed in 2007 on a
provisional nutrient reduction scheme which
was based on the concept of maximum
allowable nutrient inputs via water and air.
These are the maximum nutrient inputs
allowed in order for the Baltic Sea to reach a
good ecological status.
Figure 2. The management cycle of the BSAP.
In BSAP 2007 the Baltic Sea coastal countries acknowledged that ‘there is a need to reduce
the nutrient inputs and that the needed reductions shall be fairly shared by all Baltic Sea
countries. Initial estimates of MAI to reach the eutrophication target (clear water) were
calculated using the SANBALT model developed by the
MARE Research programme
in
Sweden (Wulff et al 2007). Based on the MAI and agreed allocation principles for dividing the
reduction burden between HELCOM countries, nutrient reduction targets were calculated.
The reduction targets were derived by comparing MAI for each sub-basin with the average
nutrient input during a reference period (1997-2003). Based on those, HELCOM Contracting
Parties identified priority actions to reducing nutrient loading.
The calculated figures were provisional though, based on the best available scientific
information at the time, and requiring review and revision using a harmonized approach and
data.
In 2010, the HELCOM Moscow Ministerial Meeting agreed to carry out a review of the
HELCOM BSAP environmental targets for eutrophication, the Maximum Allowable Inputs and
Page 4 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0006.png
the nutrient reduction targets, as well as the Ccountry-wise nutrient reduction targets
including updated information on the atmospheric nitrogen deposition by 2012.
2 R
EVISION OF NUTRIENT REDUCTION SCHEME
Since 2008, work has been on-going to improve the nutrient reduction scheme, including:
•
The scientific basis for review of the ecological targets for eutrophication of the
HELCOM BSAP within the
TARGREV project,
•
The
Baltic Nest Institute-Sweden
(BNI) has further developed its marine models to a
new BALTSEM model for calculating the MAI,
•
The
HELCOM PLC-5.5 project
has compiled an updated and more complete data set
on waterborne and airborne pollution inputs to the Baltic Sea. The data set covers the
period of 1994-2010 and input data has also been normalized to smooth out the
influence of annual variations in weather conditions,
•
BNI has developed a new software tool for calculating CART,
•
Allocation principles have been revised.
Furthermore, the HELCOM Expert Group on follow-up of national progress towards reaching
BSAP nutrient reduction targets (HELCOM
LOAD)
has been developing tools for following up
on fulfilment by the countries regarding the nutrient input reduction requirements (Larsen,
S.E. and Svendsen, L.M., in press).
2.1 Revised eutrophication (status) targets
The revision of the scientific basis underlying the ecological targets for eutrophication was
carried out by the HELCOM TARGREV project (HELCOM, 2013).
In the 2007 BSAP only one indicator for good environmental status with regard to
eutrophication - clear water/transparency (expressed as annual average Secchi depth) - was
used to calculate MAI. To increase the reliability of the eutrophication status assessment,
four more eutrophication indicators have been developed.
Indicators used to describe the Baltic Sea in a good environmental status
with regard to eutrophication.
•
BSAP 2007
Secchi depth (annual)
•
•
•
•
•
2013
Secchi depth (summer)
winter nutrient concentrations of DIP
winter nutrient concentrations of DIN
Chl α (summer)
oxygen debt/concentration
Eutrophication status targets are available for all 18 HELCOM open sea areas (Table 9.2 in
the Annex, HELCOM HOLAS sub-division). However, they have been aggregated into the
seven-basins that MAI are calculated on and correspond to the ones used in BSAP 2007
(Table 9.3 in the Annex).
2.2 Allocation principles
One step in developing the revised MAI and CART is the agreement on allocation principles
for calculating updated Country Allocated Reduction Targets. The overall principle is the use
of the polluter pays principle according to Article 3 in the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM,
1992). It has been supplemented with further principles as listed in Table 2.
Page 5 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0007.png
Table 2. Comparison of allocation principles used for BSAP 2007 and the new nutrient reduction scheme.
Allocation Principle
Polluter pays
Maximum Allowable Inputs
Reference inputs
Reference period
Flow normalization
Compensation for improved sewage treatment
Retention deducted on transboundary inputs
Common pool
Yes
BSAP 2007
Yes
Waterborne inputs
Waterborne inputs
1997-2003
No
Yes
No
Yes
BSAP Review 2013
Water- and airborne inputs
Water- and airborne inputs
1997-2003
Yes
No
Yes
No, but instead non-
Contracting Parties’
waterborne inputs are
allocated to the emitting
country
Yes
Yes
Gothenburg Protocol expected reductions by
2020 from non-Contracting Parties
Expected reductions from shipping
No
No
In BSAP 2007 all atmospheric deposition of phosphorus and nitrogen (amounting to 6,300
tonnes phosphorus and 230,000 tonnes nitrogen respectively) was treated as background
inputs to the Baltic Sea (it was taken into account when deriving MAI but the reduction
targets were only calculated from, and allocated on, the waterborne inputs).
Atmospheric nitrogen deposition originating from HELCOM countries’ emissions are
now included in the updated reduction targets.
As a consequence HELCOM countries
have to meet the reduction target also for sub-basins they are not bordering to. Reductions in
both airborne and waterborne nitrogen inputs can be accounted for in fulfilling the reduction
targets.
All
atmospheric phosphorus input is also this time treated as background input
as the
sources to these inputs are not known. A survey of available monitoring of phosphorus
deposition has led to a revised deposition estimate from the 6,300 tonnes used in BSAP
2007 to 2,100 tonnes phosphorus for the whole Baltic Sea, using a fixed deposition rate of 5
kg P km
-2
in the 2013 revision.
Keeping the 1997-2003 reference period makes it easier and statistically safer to
evaluate trends and effects
of taken measures since
long time series are available.
The reference (1997-2003) waterborne inputs used in BSAP 2007 and the new waterborne
reference inputs are shown in Table 9.4 (cf. Annex). The new waterborne reference inputs
have been updated with updated and corrected pollution input data and flow normalization.
In BSAP 2007, an
ex ante
reduction of discharges from municipal wastewater treatment in
countries not fulfilling the HELCOM Recommendation and EU UWWT Directive was applied
in the CART calculation, while some countries (Sweden, Denmark and Germany) received
an extra bonus as compensation for higher treatment levels than required.
In the revised
scheme the
ex ante
principle has not been applied.
BNI studies during 2010-2011 show
that it is not possible to accurately estimate the sewage treatment potential. Further,
according to the polluter pays principle reduction requirements to a sub-basin are divided
according to real input of each HELCOM country. Therefore, if a HELCOM country has
reduced their wastewater emissions they also get a lower reduction requirement, and hence
ex ante
accounting would lead to a kind of double compensation.
For two border rivers between the Contracting Parties (Neva and Torne rivers), the riverine
inputs are divided according to the agreed proportion of input from the involved countries.
Page 6 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0008.png
In BSAP 2007, transboundary waterborne inputs reaching the Baltic Sea from non-HELCOM
countries was estimated without taking into account the retention on the transboundary
inputs from the border down to the coast.
For calculation of the new CART, retention is
deducted from the transboundary waterborne inputs entering HELCOM countries.
Retention plays an important role as on average 25-50% of nitrogen and 30-60% of
phosphorus entering as transboundary inputs in the coastal countries are retained in the
catchment before rivers enter the Baltic Sea. Retention in coastal areas, after waterborne
inputs have entered the Baltic Sea, is not taken separately into account and is indirectly
included in the BALTSEM model when it is calibrated with water- and airborne inputs.
In BSAP 2007 a common pool of was allocated for transboundary waterborne inputs from
upstream countries such as Belarus. The common pool of 3,779 tonnes of nitrogen and
1,662 tonnes of phosphorus was based on a very rough estimate of potential input
reductions resulting from improved waste water treatment in Belarus and inputs via rivers to
the Baltic Sea.
The revised CART take into account expected reductions of transboundary inputs from non-
HELCOM countries. For the waterborne transboundary inputs, the expected reductions are
calculated by allocating according to the same principles as for HELCOM countries, which
lowers reduction requirements for the countries with waterborne inputs to the Baltic Proper
and the Gulf of Riga. Also the expected
reduction of atmospheric nitrogen
deposition due to the implementation of
the Gothenburg Protocol in non-
HELCOM countries is taken into
account. This lowers nitrogen reduction
requirement for all HELCOM countries
to the Baltic Sea sub-basins. Further,
80% reduction of nitrogen deposition
originating
from
shipping
(implementation of the Baltic NECA) is
assumed.
3
H
OW ARE THE REVISED
MAI
CALCULATED
MAI is calculated using the coupled
physical-biogeochemical model
BALTSEM. The model simulates
circulation and development of
stratification driven by meteorology, river
flow and boundary conditions to the
North Sea, as well as simulating cycles
of inorganic and organic nutrients and
dominating plankton groups.
Figure 3. The basin division of the Baltic Sea and the parts of the catchment contributing to the waterborne inputs to
each of the basins. Further the borders of Contracting Parties are inserted to illustrate that besides the 9 HELCOM
countries five countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Norway contribute with waterborne inputs to
the Baltic Sea (transboundary waterborne inputs).
The model explicitly takes into account sediment biogeochemistry so that the complete
nutrient cycles of phosphorus, nitrogen and silica, including their internal loading, are
covered.
Obtaining MAI is formally an optimization problem: finding the highest possible inputs that will
still satisfy the given environmental targets. In practice, a pragmatic approach needs to be
Page 7 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0009.png
used to solve the mathematical problem. The model is run from present day conditions long
enough into the future so that it is absolutely certain that the Baltic Sea is in balance with
imposed nutrient inputs (125 years), thereafter averaged indicator values are calculated from
an additional 75 years of simulation. By running the model with different combinations of
nutrient inputs a database of indicator values and associated inputs is created. From the
database complex, pressure-response relationships are established and these are used to
find MAI, as well as to assess the sensitivity of MAI to various sources of uncertainty. For
basins without additional reduction requirements, the 1997-2003 normalized averaged inputs
obtained from the PLC 5.5 project are used as MAI.
BNI results show that the optimal MAI can be estimated by first considering inputs and target
fulfilment in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Riga and Gulf of Finland and thereafter in the remaining
four main sub-basins.
The basin-wise MAI, as presented in Table 3 (cf. Table 9.1 in the Annex), are obtained by
satisfying all targets in all basins, with a few exceptions, of which the most important ones
are:
1 Nitrogen input reductions were not considered necessary to the Bothnian Bay and
Gulf of Riga because of extremely strong phosphorus limitations of the ecosystem in
these basins (resulting in a situation where DIN targets are not fulfilled)
2 A less strict application of the targets in the Gulf of Finland by applying the so-called
HEAT approach
on winter nutrient concentration
3 Model bias on phosphorus in the Bothnian Bay made it impossible to use the winter
phosphorus (DIP) target for this basin.
Table 3. Maximum Allowable nutrient Inputs to main Baltic Sea sub-basins. Values that represent reductions compared
with reference inputs (1997-2003) are highlighted by italics.
Maximum Allowable Inputs
Baltic Sea sub-basin
Kattegat
Danish Straits
Baltic Proper
Bothnian Sea
Bothnian Bay
Gulf of Riga
Gulf of Finland
Baltic Sea
Total nitrogen, tonnes
74,000
65,998
325,000
79,372
57,622
88,417
101,800
792,209
Total phosphorus, tonnes
1,687
1,601
7,360
2,773
2,675
2,020
3,600
21,716
4 H
OW ARE THE UPDATED
CART
WAS DETERMINED
4.1 Establishing a complete dataset on air- and waterborne inputs to the Baltic Sea
The data set on nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea has significantly improved in most aspects
since BSAP 2007.
•
The HELCOM PLC data set, now covering 1994-2010, has been revised and
updated, data gaps have been filled in, some data have been corrected and the
dataset quality has been assured as far as possible. This has resulted in a more
complete and consistent dataset (PLC-5.5 project). Use of flow normalized riverine
data and climate normalized airborne deposition data before calculating average
water- and airborne inputs during the reference period, as compared with using a
simple average of non-normalized water and airborne inputs from 1997-2003 in
BSAP 2007. Normalization creates time-series with strongly reduced variability
caused by annual weather and river flow variations.
Page 8 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0010.png
•
Air emission data, the meteorological and the chemical model used for deposition
modelling have all been improved, resulting in revised annual deposition data.
The reference inputs are defined as the average of normalized airborne and flow normalized
waterborne inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus per country and per basin in the reference
period 1997-2003. The inputs are compiled in Table 9.5 and Table 9.6 for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus, respectively (cf. Annex).
4.2 Transboundary inputs
4.2.1
Waterborne inputs from non-Contracting Parties
Estimates of waterborne nutrient inputs entering the Baltic Sea are based on monitoring at
the river mouth. For some rivers, a share of the nutrient inputs originates from catchment
areas upstream of the country bordering the sea. Such inputs are called transboundary
inputs, and can originate from both non-Contracting Parties and HELCOM countries. A part
of these transboundary inputs never enter the Baltic Sea due to retention in the surface
waters in the receiving HELCOM countries. In principle, the HELCOM countries receiving
transboundary inputs should not be accounted for these shares.
Net transboundary inputs from non-Contracting Parties in most cases constitute only small
percentages (1-6%) of the waterborne nutrient inputs entering the Baltic Proper from Poland
and Lithuania (Table 9.8), but constitute more than 40% of the total waterborne phosphorus
input to the Gulf of Riga from Latvia. In Table 9.8 of the Annex, the net transboundary inputs
from non-Contracting Parties have been estimated.
The potential reductions in these transboundary inputs have been estimated assuming the
same level of ambition as for HELCOM countries (cf. section 4.4).
4.2.2
Waterborne inputs from HELCOM countries
For two border rivers (Torne Älv and Narva) the countries sharing the waterborne inputs
have agreed in advance on a percentage division of these rivers.
However, there are five country-by-basin catchments where upstream HELCOM countries
contribute to the waterborne inputs:
•
Lithuania contributes to the waterborne inputs from Latvia to the Baltic Proper,
•
Poland contributes to Russian waterborne inputs to the Baltic Proper,
•
Germany contributes to Polish waterborne inputs to the Baltic Proper,
•
Lithuania and Russia contribute to the waterborne inputs from Latvia to the Gulf of
Riga, and
•
Finland contributes to the waterborne inputs from Russia to the Gulf of Finland.
The net waterborne inputs from these upstream catchment areas are summarised in Table
9.8 in the Annex. Using these net waterborne inputs the reduction burden can be shared
between HELCOM countries.
4.2.3
Airborne inputs from outside HELCOM countries
EMEP has estimated the potential reduction in nitrogen deposition due to national NOx and
NH
3
emission reduction commitments for 2020 under the Gothenburg Protocol. This includes
quantification of the decrease in nitrogen deposition per sub-basins resulting from the
decrease of emissions from non-Contracting Parties. These figures make it possible to follow
up on the development in relation to expected reductions from non-Contracting Parties due
to these regulatory frameworks. The results are presented in Table 4.
In addition, the implementation of the NOx Emission Control Area for shipping would
significantly reduce the emissions from shipping (80%) by 2030.
Page 9 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0011.png
Table 4. Modelled reduction in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (tonnes) by 2020 as compared with deposition in the
reference period due to emission reduction commitments under the Gothenburg Protocol as calculated by EMEP.
“EU20” is non-HELCOM EU countries (including Croatia) and “other sources” are all other non-Contracting countries
and sources contributing to nitrogen deposition, including Baltic Sea shipping.
Source
HELCOM countries
"EU20"
Other sources
All sources
BOB
1,396
642
167
2,205
BOS
3,999
2,242
606
6,847
BAP
20,059
12,917
1,808
34,784
GUF
1,816
1,093
393
3,302
GUR
1,393
955
254
2,602
DS
4,120
2,741
10
6,871
KAT
3,730
2,482
29
6,241
BAS
36,513
23,072
3,267
62,854
For the whole Baltic Sea, the reduction in atmospheric nitrogen deposition in 2020 (as
compared to the level in the reference period 1997-2003) is estimated to be nearly 63,000
tonnes from all deposition sources; of which nearly 60% (more than 36,000 tonnes) is
reduction from HELCOM countries. The highest estimated nitrogen deposition reductions
from Contracting Parties are from Germany (12,600 tonnes), Denmark (8,700 tonnes) and
Poland (7,300 tonnes).
Approximately 13% of the reduction requirement to the Baltic Proper can be achieved by the
expected reductions from EU countries that are not HELCOM Contracting Parties, and for
Kattegat it amounts to about 52%.
There has already been a substantial decrease in airborne nutrient inputs from non-
Contracting Parties.
4.3 Steps for calculating country allocated reduction targets (CART)
The calculation of CART (allocation scheme) is described in simple
steps
below:
1.
Establish reference data on country by sub-basin inputs including all sources (all riverine
inputs, coastal point sources discharging directly to the Baltic Sea and atmospheric
deposition) - table 9.5-9.7 in Annex.
2.
Subtract atmospheric nitrogen deposition from non-HELCOM countries and ship traffic
and atmospheric phosphorus deposition on the Baltic Sea from the reference inputs to
each sub-basin
3.
Calculate the share (%) of input from each country to each basin based on steps 1-2.
4.
Calculate needed reduction per sub-basin by subtracting the reference inputs with the
Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI).
5.
Reduce the calculated needed reduction per sub-basin by the anticipated reduction of
nitrogen deposition from decreased emissions in non-Contracting Parties
(implementation of the Gothenburg Protocol) and from reduced shipping emissions
(implementation of NECA).
6.
Obtain the country by basin allocation by multiplying the results from Step 5 with the
share computed in Step 3.
7.
Where there are transboundary waterborne contributions from upstream countries, the
country by basin allocation is shared among these countries.
Page 10 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0012.png
Figure 4. How the shares of total nitrogen inputs from different HELCOM countries to a Baltic Sea sub-basin are
determined.
The left figure on Figure 4 illustrates all waterborne and airborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic
Sea. From this, atmospheric inputs from non-Contracting Parties are subtracted, i.e. nitrogen
deposition on the Baltic Sea and shipping (middle). The remaining 87% of the inputs
originating from Contracting Parties are then divided between the nine HELCOM countries
(right), in this example showing that e.g. Poland contributes with 58% of total nitrogen inputs
originating from HELCOM countries.
In Figure 5 the left bar illustrates the reference input to a sub-basin in
the reference period (as given in Table 9.5 and Table 9.6 in the
Annex). The needed reduction is the difference between the
reference inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus and the calculated MAI
to the basin (cf. Table 9.1 in Annex). A proportion of the needed
nitrogen reduction is allocated as the expected reductions on
atmospheric deposition by non-Contracting Parties. The needed
nitrogen reduction requirement to sub-basins is then shared between
the HELCOM countries based on their share of the pollution inputs.
Figure 5. (to the left) Illustrates how needed reduction in nutrient inputs to a Baltic Sea sub-basin is calculated in table
9.1 (in annex).
Figure 6. Illustrates how each HELCOM country’s share of the reduction requirements to a Baltic Sea sub-basin is
calculated.
Page 11 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0013.png
As shown in figure 6, the needed reduction (see Figure 5) is multiplied by each HELCOM
country’s share of the reference input to the sub-basin (see Figure 4). In the example Poland
had 58% of the total reference water- and airborne input originating from HELCOM countries
to this sub-basin and therefore has 58% of the reduction requirement (right figure). For
HELCOM countries that receive transboundary inputs, a share of the reduction requirement
is calculated for each of the upstream countries, both HELCOM and non-HELCOM. To
obtain the final Country Allocated Reduction Targets the shares are added or subtracted to
each HELCOM country (see section 4.4).
4.4 Proposed CART
Based on the steps above, the updated CART are calculated for waterborne and airborne
inputs of nitrogen (Table 5) and phosphorus (Table 6) for countries and specific sub-basins.
In these tables the country by basin reduction requirement without deduction of
transboundary sharing is given, which may easily be compared with the annual PLC data set.
Further, the waterborne transboundary reduction shares (calculated with retention to the river
mouths) are singled out and the total country by basin reduction target is calculated. The
country-wise summaries comprise of the sums of the sub-basin-wise reduction (cf. rounded
figures in Table 1).
Table 5. Proposed country by basin allocation of nitrogen reductions CART (tonnes).
NITROGEN
Country by basin
reduction before
deducting
transboundary shares
Transboundary shares
CART
HELCOM
countries
non-HELCOM
countries
2,136
382
424
7,419
1,645
8,935
43,436
2,498
8,356
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Gothenburg Protocol expected
reduction in non-Contracting
Parties
Expected reduction from
shipping
Belarus
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Sum
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Gothenburg Protocol expected
reduction in non-Contracting
Parties
Expected reduction from
shipping
Sum
Baltic Proper
2,136
382
424
6,922
2,360
9,550
45,178
3,153
8,356
497
-715
715
158
-655
-1,330
-1,900
14,725
5,735
1,977
727
526
0
14,725
5,735
1,977
727
526
98,921
42
1,419
2,603
165
23
33
147
7,879
63
1486
592
0
14,452
98,921
Gulf of Finland
42
1,419
2,004
165
23
33
147
8,478
63
1486
592
14,452
0
599
-599
Page 12 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0014.png
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Gothenburg Protocol expected
reduction in non-Contracting
Parties
Expected reduction from
shipping
Sum
Kattegat
708
0
2
79
1
1
27
4
826
2,511
602
4,761
708
0
2
79
1
1
27
4
826
2,511
602
4,761
Table 6. Proposed country by basin allocation of phosphorus reductions CART (tonnes).
PHOSPHORUS
Country by basin
reduction before
deducting
transboundary shares
Transboundary shares
HELCOM
countries
non-HELCOM
countries
CART
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Belarus
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Sum
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Sum
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Belarus
Sum
Baltic Proper
38
15
0
111
171
1,671
7,810
609
535
64
-42
42
64
-128
-272
-397
10,960
Gulf of Finland
268
338
0
424
187
58
0
38
15
0
175
129
1,441
7,477
481
535
424
187
58
10,960
268
364
26
3,303
3,909
Gulf of Riga
38
270
-26
0
0
3,277
3,909
38
-56
26
30
-128
86
26
30
308
0
128
0
128
308
Page 13 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0015.png
4.5 Indication of reduction requirements on an air- and a waterborne part
The airborne and a waterborne part of CART can be illustrated using the proportion of
airborne to waterborne inputs during the reference period, and adding/subtracting the share
of waterborne transboundary inputs on the waterborne part. The results are shown in Table
4.4. As all atmospheric deposition of phosphorus is included as a part of the background
inputs there are no reduction requirements on the airborne phosphorus inputs for the
HELCOM countries.
Table 7. Illustration of HELCOM Contracting Parties nitrogen reductions requirements split into atmospheric and
waterborne parts for sub-basins.
Country/basin,
tonnes
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Baltic Sea total
BAP
air
1,740
141
424
5,466
206
507
4,179
825
1,683
15,171
water
396
241
0
1,953
1,439
8,428
39,257
1,673
6,673
60,060
air
GUF
water
0
1,343
2,492
0
0
0
0
7,683
0
11,518
air
KAT
water
575
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
804
1,379
air
Total
water
971
1,584
2,492
1,953
1,439
8,428
39,257
9,356
7,477
72,957
42
76
111
165
23
33
147
196
63
856
133
0
2
79
1
1
27
4
22
269
1,915
217
537
5,710
230
541
4,353
1,025
1,768
16,296
5. P
ROGRESS
The trend and development in waterborne input from 1994 to 2010 and from the reference
period to 2008-2010 is tested and reported in
HELCOM PLC-5.5 extended summary report
(in press). From 1995 to 2010 there have been significant reductions of approximately 16%
on total airborne and waterborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea and approximately 18% of
the total phosphorus inputs, with some countries having even higher significant reductions
(up to 35% for nitrogen and 29% for phosphorus), but with one or two countries having
significant increases in nutrient inputs.
For sub-basins with reduction requirements according to table 9.1 (cf. Annex), there have
been reductions in total nitrogen and phosphorus inputs (except for the Gulf or Riga) since
the reference period to 2008-2010 (Figure 7). For Kattegat, the reduction in nitrogen inputs is
about 3 times higher than the reduction requirement. For the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of
Finland in 2008-2010 more than one third of the needed reduction requirement has been
obtained by 2008-2010, while for phosphorus the input reduction has been about 22-25% of
the required reduction. To the Gulf of Riga it seems as phosphorus inputs have increased
since the reference period.
Page 14 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0016.png
Figure 7.
Changes in nitrogen and phosphorus inputs since the reference period to 2008-2010 (average of three year
normalized inputs) for sub-basins with reduction requirements. Phosphorus inputs to Gulf of Riga have increased with
nearly 400 tonnes. Reduction from non-Contracting Parties is related to reduced atmospheric deposition.
6. P
ERSPECTIVES
6.1 Response in the Baltic Sea to the nutrient input reductions
It is a generally accepted scientific fact that it will take substantial time to restore the Baltic
Sea from the long period of large anthropogenic pressure it has been under. Exactly
predicting the path of recovery is more challenging than estimating the ultimate state
because of the many non-linear processes involved in the biogeochemical cycles. However,
model predictions of time-scales give reasonable account for the time-scales involved and
inter-comparisons show that in this respect BALTSEM provides a rather conservative
estimate compared to other models.
Page 15 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0017.png
Figure 8. Time development of inorganic winter nutrient concentrations in the Baltic proper surface waters. The grey
bars with associated curves represent the case with inputs as in the reference period (1997-2003) during the whole
scenario, and the red represents inputs reduced to MAI by year 0. The thick lines are 11-years running average, thin
lines average of 10 realizations using different weather forcing and the grey and red bars indicate the range of natural
variability. The dotted line is the target.
Figure 9. Time development of nitrogen fixation in the
Gulf of Finland. The grey bars with associated curves
represents the case with inputs during all 30 years as in
the reference period and the red represents inputs
reduced to MAI by year 0. The thick lines are 11-years
running average, thin lines average of 10 realizations
using different weather forcing and the grey and red bars
indicate the range of natural variability.
After implementation of full input reductions,
it may take a long time before the Baltic Sea
reaches an equilibrium with the new inputs,
which is clearly seen, for example, in surface
winter nutrient concentrations in the Baltic
Proper (Figure 8). The intricate dynamics of nitrogen makes the path of winter DIN reduction
somewhat bumpy, contrary to the steady reduction of winter DIP.
But it is very important to
notice that significant improvements will be seen much more rapidly. For example, as
shown in
Figure 9,
already the first year after the implementation,
nitrogen fixation in the
Gulf of Finland will decrease with almost 20% and a decade after implementation the higher
end of natural variability in nitrogen fixation, indicating risk of cyanobacteria blooms, will be
below present day average. Thus, we could quite soon anticipate seeing less summer
blooms.
6.2 Validity of the results of the revised BSAP nutrient reduction scheme figures
PLC-5.5 data set
The used PLC-5.5 data set of airborne and waterborne nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea is the
most complete and consistent pollution input data set established so far within HELCOM.
The highest uncertainty of nutrient input data seems to apply to the Gulf of Finland and the
Gulf of Riga, but overall it is evaluated that the PLC-5.5 dataset gives rather robust results,
and further corrections on the data set would not give markedly different MAI and CART.
However, especially for phosphorus, it is possible that inputs from some big point sources
are not quantified at all, which would underestimate the reduction requirement and the share
of the reductions in the countries where these point sources are situated.
Page 16 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0018.png
Why not consider economy before MAI and CART are settled
The vision of HELCOM is to have a healthy sea. Eutrophication targets and nutrient
reduction schemes have been developed with natural science models, in order to calculate
optimized necessary nutrient reductions to the individual sub-basins needed to fulfill
eutrophication targets from an ecological viewpoint.
Economic cost-benefit models are relevant when evaluating and selecting among the palette
of nutrient reduction measures that could be identified, and where the most cost efficient
measures can be taken and implemented. Further, economical cost-benefit models are not
developed to determine the ecological optimal solutions for the Baltic Sea.
Uncertainty of the MAI and CART figures
The uncertainty of eutrophication status targets was not explicitly assessed by the
TARGREV project, however, targets have been ranked into groups according to their
confidence.
It is straightforward but laborious to explore how MAI varies with changes in target values
from the pressure-response relationships. The laborious aspect arises from the numerous
combinations of uncertainty that can arise if many indicator values and basins are
simultaneously taken into account. However, the impression is that the most challenging
target for most basins is nitrogen, as in most cases there are no, or only few, trustworthy
measurements to indicate the eutrophication situation in the early levels. Also, the
relationship between nitrogen input and concentrations in sea waters is rather weak in basins
featuring hypoxia, i.e., the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Finland unless phosphorus input
reductions are so large that a strong phosphorus limitation occur.
In the calculation of MAI, it has been attempted to take biases in BALTSEM into account,
either by discarding indicators in basins were they are not adequately modelled, but also to
raise a concern whether MAI is really trustworthy because of model deficiency/bias. An
especially intricate example, still under investigation, is the Danish Straits.
NB: both MAI and CART calculations are affected by the input data to the model. If input data
are inconsistent, it may lead both to over- or underestimation of MAI and CART, and thus to
an unfair distribution of reduction requirement between countries.
The highest uncertainty regarding input data is in the calculation of the proportion of
transboundary waterborne input data entering the Baltic Sea, because there is a need to take
into account retention in surface waters in the countries receiving the transboundary input.
Despite much work done to model and estimate retention, these should still be seen as
rather rough averages for big catchments.
Finally it should be stressed that the calculated MAI are the minimum reduction requirement
to fulfill the eutrophication targets. They are derived for Baltic Sea open sea areas and they
are therefore not directly comparable with reduction targets derived for fulfilling targets in
coastal waters.
Implications of climate change on MAI, CART and needed measures
Recent findings indicate that climate change may reinforce effects from eutrophication and
thus increase the risk of not reaching the environmental targets. However, it is also clearly
shown that without curbing inputs the situation will deteriorate even further. In this
perspective, reducing nutrient inputs could be seen also as a precautionary measure against
the negative effects from climate change.
At present, scientific knowledge and tools are not in place to make a proper assessment of
MAI under the constraints of climate change. There is also another more fundamental
problem with addressing climate change and targets because climate change is inherently a
time-dependent process whereas the target definition is static. Thus, one needs either to set
a time-fixed goal (sensu the 2 degree by 2100 target for climate change) or make some sort
of adaptation with climate change so that one stays within targets despite changing
conditions. However, at present, the best foreseeable way to handle climate change issues is
to initiate a cyclical revision of MAI.
Page 17 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0019.png
7. R
EFERENCES
Gustafsson, B.G and Mörth, C.M. (in prep.). Revision of the Maximum Allowable Inputs and
Country Allocation Scheme of the Baltic Sea Action Plan V. 3 with contributions from the BNI
team: Bärbel Mïller-Karulis, Erik Gustafsson, Bonghi Hong, Christoph Humborg, Steve Lyon,
Marmar Nekoro, Miguel Rodriguez-Medina, Oleg Savchuk, Erik Smedberg, Alexander
Sokolov, Dennis Swaney, and Fredrik Wulff. Baltic Nest Institute, Stockholm University, SE-
106 91 Stockholm.
HELCOM 1992. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea
Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention). 48 pp.
HELCOM 2007a. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Adopted in Krakow, Poland on 15
November 2007.
HELCOM, 2007b: An approach to set country-wise nutrient reduction allocation to reach
good ecological status of the Baltic Sea. Document 2.1/2 HELCOM HOD 22/2007, 34 pp.
HELCOM 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment of the
effects of nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
No. 115B.
HELCOM 2013. Approaches and methods for eutrophication target setting in the Baltic Sea
region. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 133
HELCOM in prep. Update of 5
th
Pollution Load Compilation of water and airborne nutrient
inputs to the Baltic Sea 1994-2010 (PLC-5.5).
Larsen, S.E. and Svendsen, L.M. (in prep). Statistical aspects in relation to Baltic Sea
Pollution Load Compilation (task 1 under HELCOM PLC-6), Department of Bioscience and
DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. Draft, 26 pp
HELCOM PLC-5.5 Extended Summary (in press). Svendsen et al. Extended Summary of
“Update of 5
th
Pollution Load Compilation of water and airborne nutrient inputs to the Baltic
Sea 1994-2010 (PLC-5.5)”.
Wulff F, Savchuk OP, Sokolov A, Humborg C & Mörth C-M 2007. Management options and
effects on a marine ecosystem: Assessing the future of the Baltic. Ambio 36 (2-3): 243-249.
Page 18 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0020.png
8. D
EFINITIONS
/G
LOSSARY
Airborne
Anthropogenic
Atmospheric deposition
Border river
BSAP
Catchment area
Contracting parties
Country-Allocated
Reduction Targets (CART)
Diffuse sources
DIN and DIP
Direct Sources
Eutrophication
Flow normalization
HOLAS open sea sub-
basins
Input ceiling
Maximum Allowable Input
(MAI)
Monitored areas
Monitoring stations
Non-contracting parties
PLC
Point sources
Reference period
Reference input
Retention
Riverine inputs
Statistically significant
Nutrients carried or distributed by air.
Caused by human activities.
Airborne nutrients or other chemical substances originating from emissions to the air and deposited from the air
on the surface (land and water surfaces).
A river that has its outlet to the Baltic Sea at the border between two countries. For these rivers, the inputs to the
Baltic Sea are divided between the countries in relation to each country’s share of total input.
Baltic Sea Action Plan.
The area of land bounded by watersheds draining into a body of water (river, basin, reservoir, sea).
Signatories of the Helsinki Convention (Denmark, Estonia, European Commission, Finland, Germany, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden).
Country-wise requirements to reduce waterborne and airborne nutrient inputs (in tonnes per year) to reach the
maximum allowable nutrient input levels in accordance to the Baltic Sea Action Plan.
Sources without distinct points of emission e.g. agricultural and forest land, natural background sources,
scattered dwellings, atmospheric deposition (mainly in rural areas)
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphorus compounds.
Point sources discharging directly to coastal or transitional waters.
Condition in an aquatic ecosystem where increased nutrient concentrations stimulate excessive primary
production, which leads to an imbalanced function of the ecosystem.
A statistical method that adjusts a data time series by removing the influence of variations imposed by river flow,
e.g. to facilitate assessment of development in e.g. nitrogen or phosphorus inputs.
Open sea areas not affected by coastal dynamics. Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, Åland and Archipelago Sea,
Northern Baltic Proper, Gulf of Finland, Western Gotland Basin, Eastern Gotland Basin, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of
Gdansk, Bornholm Basin, Arkona Basin, Kiel and Mecklenburg Bight, Belt Sea, Kattegat
The allowable amount of nitrogen and phosphorus input per country and sub-basin. It is calculated by subtracting
the CART from the input of nitrogen and phosphorus during the reference period of the BSAP (1997-2003).
The maximum annual amount of a substance that a Baltic Sea sub-basin may receive and still fulfill HELCOM’s
ecological objectives for a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication.
The catchment area upstream the river monitored point. The chemical monitoring decides the monitored area in
cases where the locations of chemical and hydrological monitoring stations do not coincide.
Stations where hydrographic and/or chemical parameters are monitored.
Countries that are not partners to the Helsinki Convention 1992, but that have an indirect effect on the Baltic Sea
by contributing with inputs of nutrients or other substances via water and/or air.
Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation
Municipalities, industries and fish farms that discharge (defined by location of the outlet) into monitored areas,
unmonitored areas or directly to the sea (coastal or transitional waters).
1997-2003
The average normalized water + airborne input of nitrogen and phosphorus during 1997-2003 used to calculate
CART and input ceilings.
The amount of a substance lost/retained during transport in soil and/or water including groundwater from the
source to a recipient water body. Often retention is only related to inland surface waters in these guidelines.
The amount of a substance carried to the maritime area by a watercourse (natural or man-made) per unit of time.
In statistics, a result is called "statistically significant" if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The degree of
significance is expressed by the probability, P. P< 0.05 means that the probability for a result to occur by chance
is less than 5%.
Subdivision units of the Baltic Sea. Kattegat (KAT), Belt Sea (BES), Western Baltic (WEB), Baltic Proper (BAP),
Gulf of Riga (GUR), Gulf of Finland (GUF), Archipelago Sea (ARC) Bothnian Sea (BOS) and Bothnian Bay
(BOB).
Transport of an amount of a substance (via air or water) across a country border.
Total nitrogen and total phosphorus which includes all fractions of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Any sub-catchment(s) located downstream of the (riverine) chemical monitoring point within the catchment and
further all unmonitored catchments. It includes also the coastal areas, which have been used in former version of
the guidelines.
Substances carried or distributed by water.
Sub-basins
Transboundary input
TN and TP
Unmonitored area
Waterborne
Page 19 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0021.png
9. T
ECHNICAL
A
NNEX
The Technical Annex contains data tables used in calculation of Maximum Allowable Inputs
and Country Allocated Reduction Targets.
Table 9.1. Needed reductions for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in individual sub-basins of the Baltic
Sea in comparison to Maximum Allowable Inputs and nitrogen and phosphorous inputs in the reference period (1997-
2003).
Maximum Allowable Inputs
Reference inputs
Needed reductions
TN
TP
TN
TP
TN
TP
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
Kattegat
74,000
1,687
78,761
1,687
4,761
0
Danish Straits*
65,998
1,601
65,998
1,601
0
0
Baltic Proper
325,000
7,360
423,921
18,320
98,921
10,960
Bothnian Sea*
79,372
2,773
79,372
2,773
0
0
Bothnian Bay*
57,622
2,675
57,622
2,675
0
0
Gulf of Riga
88,417
2,020
88,417
2,328
0
308
Gulf of Finland
101,800
3,600
116,252
7,509
14,452
3,909
Baltic Sea
792,209
21,716
910,343
36,893
118,134
15,177
*
See the text in the Ministerial Declaration concerning need for addition actions to reduce nutrients also in basins
without reduction targets.
Baltic Sea Sub-basin
Table 9.2. HELCOM
targets for nutrients (in μmol l
−1
), summer chlorophyll a (in μg l
−1
) and summer Secchi depth (m) for
the Baltic Sea HOLAS open sea sub-basins. Winter means are December-February and summer means are June-
September.
Basin
Kattegat
The Sound
Great Belt
Little Belt
Kiel Bay
Bay of Mecklenburg
Gdansk Basin
Arkona Sea
Bornholm Sea
Eastern Gotland Basin
Western Gotland Basin
Northern Baltic Proper
Gulf of Riga
Gulf of Finland
Åland Sea
Bothnian Sea
The Quark
Bothnian Bay
Winter DIN
5.0
3.3
5.0
7.1
5.5
4.3
4.2
2.9
2.5
2.6
2.0
2.9
5.2
3.8
2.7
2.8
3.7
5.2
Winter DIP
0.49
0.42
0.59
0.71
0.57
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.29
0.33
0.25
0.41
0.59
0.21
0.19
0.10
0.07
Summer Chl
a
1.5
1.2
1.7
2.8
2.0
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.2
1.7
2.7
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
Summer Secchi depth)
7.6
8.2
8.5
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.5
7.2
7.1
7.6
8.4
7.1
5.0
5.5
6.9
6.8
6.0
5.8
In addition to the eutrophication targets listed in table 2.1 oxygen debt targets have been
agreed:
•
Gotland Sea and Gulf of Finland: 8.66 mg l
-1
•
Bornholm Basin: 6.37 mg l
-1
•
and on oxygen concentration >2 mg l
-1
in Danish Straits and Kattegat
Page 20 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0022.png
Table 9.3. HELCOM eutrophication status targets for 18 HELCOM open sea areas (Table 9.2) were aggregated into
seven-basins that MAI are calculated on by an area-weighted average for all variables. Winter means are December-
February and summer means are June-September.
Basin
Kattegat
Danish Straits
Baltic Proper
Bothnian Sea
Bothnian Bay
Gulf of Riga
Gulf of Finland
Winter
DIN (μmol l
−1
)
5.0
5.0
2.6
2.8
5.2
5.2
3.8
Winter
DIP (μmol l
−1
)
0.49
0.56
0.30
0.19
0.07
0.41
0.59
Summer
Chl
a
(μg l
−1
)
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.0
2.7
2.0
Summer
Secchi (m)
7.6
7.8
7.4
6.8
5.8
5.0
5.5
Table 9.4. Waterborne reference inputs (tonnes) used in BSAP 2007 and the new waterborne and airborne reference
inputs used for calculating the new nutrient reduction requirements to the Baltic Sea (in BSAP 2007 reference
atmospheric input was approx. 280,000 tonnes nitrogen and 6,300 tonnes phosphorus).
Basins/ inputs in
tonnes
Kattegat
Danish Straits
Baltic Proper
Bothnian Sea
Bothnian Bay
Gulf of Riga
Gulf of Finland
Baltic Sea total
BSAP 2007 waterborne
reference inputs
Total N
Total P
64,257
1,573
45,893
1,409
327,259
19,246
56,786
2,457
51,436
2,585
78,404
2,180
112,680
6,860
736,714
36,310
New reference waterborne
inputs
Total N
Total P
58,484
1,569
41,605
1,496
297,679
17,274
54,605
2,379
49,437
2,494
78,373
2,235
102,919
7,359
683,102
34,807
New reference airborne
inputs
Total N
Total P
20,277
118
24,393
105
126,243
1,046
24,767
394
8,185
181
10,045
93
13,333
150
227,242
2,087
In Table 9.5, atmospheric input from the Contracting Parties included in the total inputs to the
sub-basins, while nitrogen deposition from non-Contracting Parties (in total 85,500 tonnes
nitrogen) and shipping on the Baltic Sea (in total nearly 11,900 tonnes nitrogen) to the main
sub-basin is shown separately. In Table 9.7 the normalized deposition of atmospheric
nitrogen deposition in the reference period is shown. Phosphorus deposition on the Baltic
Sea (ca. 2,100 tonnes phosphorus) cannot be allocated to any country and is therefore given
in a separate row in Table 9.6.
Table 9.5. Total country by basin normalized nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea during the reference period 1997-2003.
“Baltic Shipping” is shipping within Baltic Sea, “EU 20 atm” is atmospheric deposition from non Contracting Parties
EU countries (including Croatia) and “other countries” are deposition from other non-Contracting Parties and other
sources on the Baltic Sea sub-basins.
Country/Basin
Denmark
Estonneia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Other atm. sources
Baltic Shipping
EU 20 atm.
Baltic Sea
BOB
226
93
34,389
801
62
108
631
696
17,571
1,090
361
1,595
57,622
BOS
854
299
27,978
2,994
258
464
2,647
1,465
31,502
3,793
1,461
5,658
79,372
BAP
10,046
1,795
1,993
32,554
11,100
44,920
212,486
14,831
39,299
15,278
7,169
32,449
423,921
GUF
376
12,683
17,903
1,477
206
294
1,313
75,754
565
2,166
739
2,775
116,252
GUR
374
12,777
250
1,437
66,284
437
1,335
510
440
1,572
561
2,441
88,417
DS
28,587
17
60
20,708
23
51
1,061
164
5,870
1,958
826
6,673
65,998
KAT
30,027
20
79
3,364
26
61
1,133
178
35,032
2,152
751
5,938
78,761
Total
70,490
27,684
82,652
63,335
77,959
46,335
220,606
93,598
130,279
28,009
11,868
57,528
910,343
Page 21 of 22
 MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 804: Spm. om oversendelse af dokumentation for, at der i Kattegat findes et såkaldt miljømæssigt Råderum, til miljø- og fødevareministeren
1767722_0023.png
Table 9.6. Total country by basin normalized phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Sea during the reference period 1997-
2003. “Atm. Dep” is atmospheric deposition of phosphorus on the Baltic Sea.
Country/Basin
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Atm. dep.
Baltic Sea
BOB
0
0
1,668
0
0
0
0
0
826
181
2,675
BOS
0
0
1,255
0
0
0
0
0
1,125
394
2,773
BAP
59
23
0
175
269
2,635
12,310
960
843
1,046
18,320
GUF
0
504
637
0
0
0
0
6,218
0
150
7,509
GUR
0
277
0
0
1,958
0
0
0
0
93
2,328
DS
1,040
0
0
351
0
0
0
0
105
105
1,601
KAT
829
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
740
118
1,687
Total
1,928
804
3,560
526
2,227
2,635
12,310
7,178
3,639
2,087
36,893
Table 9.7. Total country by basin normalized atmospheric nitrogen deposition during the reference period 1997-2003.
“Baltic Shipping” is shipping within Baltic Sea, “EU 20 atm” is atmospheric deposition from non HELCOM Contracting
Parties EU countries (including Croatia) and “other countries” are deposition from other non-Contracting Parties on
the Baltic Sea sub-basins.
Country/Basin
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
Other countries
Shipping
EU 20 atm.
Baltic Sea
BOB
226
93
1,764
801
62
108
631
696
758
1,090
361
1,595
8,185
BOS
854
299
2,337
2,994
258
464
2,647
1,465
2,537
3,793
1,461
5,658
24,767
BAP
8,182
661
1,993
25,708
967
2,384
19,655
3,881
7,916
15,278
7,169
32,449
126,243
GUF
376
680
994
1 477
206
294
1 313
1 748
565
2,166
739
2,775
13,333
GUR
374
247
250
1 437
441
437
1 335
510
440
1,572
561
2,441
10,045
DS
5,311
17
60
7,865
23
51
1,061
164
384
1,958
826
6,673
24,393
KAT
5,635
20
79
3,364
26
61
1,133
178
941
2,152
751
5,938
20,277
Total
20,958
2,017
7,476
43,646
1,983
3,799
27,774
8,642
13,541
28,009
11,868
57,528
227,243
Table 9.8. Transboundary riverine inputs (in tonnes yr
-1
) from HELCOM countries and non-Contracting Parties used in
the CART calculations. Retention coefficient is from table 9.4 in Gustafsson and Mörth (in prep). All data are averaged
1997-2003 except for the Belarusian data which are averaged 2004-2011. Input at the border is multiplied with the
retention coefficient to estimated net waterborne input to the Baltic Sea. “Share of inputs” is - expressed in percentage
- how big proportion of the total input at the river mouth originates from the non-contracting Party.
From
Via
To
Border
TN
TP
tonnes
tonnes
5,700
13,600
4,124
5,071
8,532
5,516
4,400
410
914
127
331
1,360
158
320
Retention
TN
TP
To Baltic
TN
TP
tonnes
tonnes
3,420
6,256
2,474
3,043
15,193
6,228
3,365
3,080
2.337
8,782
5,245
1,957
7,202
5,353
295
430
91
238
1,055
925
66
202
101
369
192
215
407
49
Share of input
TN
TP
(%)
(%)
1.1
2.1
0.8
1.0
5.1
7.9
1.1
1.0
0.8
3.0
6.7
2.5
9.2
5.2
1.7
2.5
0.5
1.4
6.1
41.4
0.4
1.2
0.6
2.1
8.6
9.6
18.2
0.7
From non-Contracting Parties:
Czech
Poland
Belarus
Lithuania
Ukraine
Poland
Belarus
Poland
Total
Belarus
Latvia
Between Contracting Parties
Lithuania
Latvia
Poland
Russia
Germany
Poland
Total
Lithuania
Russia
Total
Finland
Latvia
Latvia
Russia
BAP
BAP
BAP
BAP
BAP
GUR
BAP
BAP
BAP
BAP
GUR
GUR
GUR
GUF
0.4
0.54
0.4
0.4
0.27
0.39
0.30
0.28
0.53
0.28
0.28
0.32
0.58
0.37
7,185
4,256
282
734
0,27
0,54
0.48
0,32
0,71
0.82
Page 22 of 22