MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 891: Spm. om at oversende samtlige dokumenter, mødereferater mv. fra HELCOM samt eventuel korrespondance mellem Danmark og HELCOM i tidsrummet januar 2013 til og med juni 2017 vedrørende spørgsmålet om anvendelse af merreduktioner i forhold til de fastsatte reduktionsmål for kvælstof og fosfor, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2016-17
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt

HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial

Declaration

Taking Further Action to Implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan

- Reaching Good Environmental Status

for a healthy Baltic Sea

3 October 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 891: Spm. om at oversende samtlige dokumenter, mødereferater mv. fra HELCOM samt eventuel korrespondance mellem Danmark og HELCOM i tidsrummet januar 2013 til og med juni 2017 vedrørende spørgsmålet om anvendelse af merreduktioner i forhold til de fastsatte reduktionsmål for kvælstof og fosfor, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Taking Further Action to Implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan

Reaching Good Environmental Status for a healthy Baltic Sea

Declaration of the Ministers of the Environment of the Baltic Coastal Countries and the EU

Environment Commissioner, HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration 2013

Six years after the adoption of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and three years after the first

Ministerial review and update, responsible Ministers and the EU Commissioner

ASSEMBLED

Copenhagen, Denmark, in order to assess the progress towards reaching the common goal of the

Baltic Sea in a good environmental status by 2021, on the occasion of the Ministerial Meeting of

the Helsinki Commission, on 3 October 2013.

The Ministers and the Commissioner reconfirmed the commitment to implement the Baltic Sea

Action Plan (BSAP) and decided on further action needed as well as the future strategic approach

of HELCOM;

APPRECIATING

the High-level Conference on the Protection of the Environment of the Baltic Sea

Region (Baltic Sea Forum), organized on 5-6 April 2013 in St. Petersburg in the context of the

Russian Presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, where high-level political decision-

makers gave their support to the joint protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea,

including the Baltic Sea Action Plan, and pointed to specific priorities to be dealt with in the future.

RECALLING

the fundamental principles the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention shall

apply in their efforts to restore the good environmental status of the Baltic Sea, including the

polluter-pays principle, the use of Best Environmental Practice and Best Available Technology, and

that when applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, while

enabling a sustainable use of marine goods and services, priority should be given to achieving or

maintaining good environmental status in the marine environment;

CONFIRMING,

our aim is to contribute to coherence between different policies and foster the

integration of environmental concerns into other policies, such as in fisheries, agriculture and other

relevant policies;

We believe that the Baltic Sea region can make an important contribution to

international commitments in the field of environmental policy,

including climate change policy

RECALLING

the

chapter on “Oceans and seas” of the Rio+20 outcome,

the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Action Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its associated

Aichi Biodiversity Targets which are also addressed under the EU Biodiversity Strategy to

2020;

SUPPORTING

HELCOM’s continued commitments to contribute to global efforts for healthy

and productive oceans and seas, especially under the framework of the UNEP Global

Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from the Land-based

Activities and in cooperation with other Regional Seas Conventions, in particular the OSPAR

Convention and the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution;

CALLING

for enhanced action across the relevant sectors to respond, prepare and better

adapt to the current and future impacts of climate change on the Baltic Sea environment;

We are concerned about the still unsatisfactory environmental status of the Baltic Sea

NOTING WITH ALARM

that the environmental status of the Baltic Sea, which is especially

fragile, is still impaired;

RECOGNIZING WITH CONCERN

the magnitude and intensity of human pressures and their

cumulative impacts, affecting all areas of the Baltic Sea and exceeding levels compatible with

achieving good environmental status;

BEING AWARE

that climate change already has an impact on ecosystems and exacerbates

pressures on the marine and coastal environment;

Page 1 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

We believe that Baltic Sea ecosystems, and the services they provide, are vital for our

well-being and economies

RECALLING

the agreement of HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan that the Baltic Sea shall

become a model of good management of human activities and

COMMITTING

to make the

Baltic Sea region a model for sustainable growth, applying best practices in the maritime field,

providing jobs and prosperity;

8. At the same time

REAFFIRMING

that sustainable development, as well as sustainable growth

in the region must be supported by an ecosystem-based approach to the management of

human activities, including consideration of possible cumulative effects, and while enabling a

sustainable use of marine goods and services, priority should be given to achieving or

maintaining good environmental status in the marine environment, to continuing its protection

and preservation and to preventing subsequent deterioration; In this respect, increasing

general awareness is the cornerstone of successful implementation of the ecosystem approach

and thus also ecosystem based management;

NOTING

that the economic benefits of reaching the targets of the Baltic Sea Action Plan

concerning eutrophication alone are in the magnitude of one billion Euros per year in welfare

gains (according to BalticStern);

10.

RECOGNIZING

that green investments in cleaner technologies, developing environmental

know-how, and applying best environmental practices, are necessary to implement the Baltic

Sea Action Plan will strengthen the economy in the Baltic Sea region and will improve the

quality of the environment for all;

We strive for more coherent policies and implementation

11.

STRESSING

the need to further develop marine and maritime governance capacity and to

integrate environmental concerns and internationally agreed targets into all relevant policies;

12.

NOTING

with satisfaction the HELCOM platform for the implementation of the ecosystem

approach and

WELCOMING

the opportunities which it creates for identifying mutual goals and

approaches between the Baltic Sea Action Plan, the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian

Federation, and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive as an environmental pillar of the

EU’s Integrated

Maritime Policy, to reach a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea by

2021;

13.

WELCOMING

the well-established cooperation between HELCOM and VASAB on coherent

and ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea, and

CALLING FOR

the use

of maritime spatial planning in combination with other policy instruments including coastal zone

management, strategic environmental assessment, designation of marine protected areas,

internalization of environmental costs in prices and phasing out environmentally harmful

subsidies;

14.

ENCOURAGING

development of activities and projects in the environmental field under the

cooperation of the EU and Russian Federation;

We commit to strengthen our efforts

15.

APPRECIATING

that nearly one third of the actions contained in the Baltic Sea Action Plan, to

be completed by 2021, have been implemented, however;

16.

EXPRESSING CONCERN

about the low level of activities in implementing some of the

measures of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and

STRESSING

the need to fulfill HELCOM

requirements by the agreed deadlines. In particular actions for preserving biodiversity, further

improvements in municipal waste water treatment and prevention of pollution from agriculture

as well as prevention of emissions and discharges of hazardous substances, require special

attention;

17.

UNDERLINING

the key role of agriculture, land-based and offshore industries, fisheries,

shipping, waste water management, tourism, the private sector, local actors as well as science

in fulfilling the Baltic Sea Action Plan in a cost efficient way, and

CALLING ON

stakeholders

and civil society at large to actively engage in working towards reaching the targets for a

healthy Baltic Sea environment, including nutrient reduction targets;

Page 2 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

18.

DETERMINED

to take further measures, initiatives or efforts needed to reach a healthy marine

ecosystem supporting a prosperous Baltic Sea region, including addressing pollution of the

marine environment by litter, as well as impacts on marine organisms from underwater

impulsive and continuous noise;

19.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

to national legislation, international agreements and legislation of the

European Union;

20.

WE DO HEREBY ADOPT

this HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration.

Page 3 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Future strategic approach for HELCOM

WE DECIDE

to continue to strengthen cross-sectoral cooperation in the fields of maritime

traffic, maritime spatial planning, integrated coastal management, agriculture and fisheries and

stimulate the implementation of the ecosystem approach in all sectors and policies, through

awareness raising, exchange of experiences and implementation of adequate management

principles and measures;

WE ALSO DECIDE

to further pursue the coordinated development and implementation of

programmes of measures for the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea,

through HELCOM, building on the Baltic Sea Action Plan and its follow up, including the BSAP

National Implementation Programmes and the nutrient reduction scheme, with the aim to

reach good environmental status in the most cost-efficient way;

II.

III. In order to further align the implementation of the ecosystem approach through the HELCOM

BSAP, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive implemented by the

HELCOM

Contracting States being also EU Member States

and the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian

Federation,

WE DECIDE

to:

promote the regional knowledge and specificities of the Baltic Sea at the European and

international fora;

use limited resources effectively by better drawing on synergies between the work of

HELCOM, other relevant international organisations, including Regional Seas

Organizations, and the Common MSFD Implementation Strategy;

produce joint documentation in support of regional coordination and coherence -

“Baltic

Sea roof reports”;

IV.

WE FURTHER DECIDE

to cooperate with institutions having leading expertise on economic

and social analysis of the use of the Baltic Sea and of the cost of degradation of the marine

environment in order to contribute to the holistic assessment’s socio-economic

analysis;

WE ACKNOWLEDGE

that environmental deterioration such as oxygen depletion is

increasingly affecting marine life by e.g. affecting the geographical distribution and

reproductive success of cod and accelerating eutrophication by increasing the internal load;

VI.

RECOGNIZING

the need to reduce human pressures and their cumulative impacts,

AGREE

to strengthen the protection of biodiversity, including an improvement of the network

of the Baltic Sea Protected Areas, in such a way that Baltic Sea biodiversity will effectively

contribute to the resilience and buffering capacity of the ecosystem in the face of external

stressors, and that biodiversity can optimally contribute to mitigation of global climate change

by storing and absorbing carbon;

VII.

WE DECIDE

to better prepare and adapt policies in response to the impacts of climate change

on the Baltic Sea ecosystem and its services, taking necessary measures in areas such as

agriculture and forestry, informed by modelling practices and assessments of the effects of

climate change on the Baltic Sea ecosystem, its catchment and the resulting inputs of

nutrients to the sea;

VIII.

BEING SERIOUSLY CONCERNED

about the growing evidence of harmful effects of marine

litter on wildlife and habitats and on marine biodiversity and the environment with a dominance

of plastics of different sizes (ranging from macro- to microparticles);

IX.

WE AGREE

to prevent and reduce marine litter from land- and sea-based sources, causing

harmful impacts on coastal and marine habitats and species, and negative impacts on various

economic sectors, such as fisheries, shipping or tourism, and to this end

DECIDE

to develop a

regional action plan by 2015 at the latest with the aim of achieving a significant quantitative

reduction of marine litter by 2025, compared to 2015, and to prevent harm to the coastal and

marine environment;

WE AGREE

to continue the intensified efforts to improve data and information quality and

availability as well as coordinated monitoring practices, constituting the basis of HELCOM

work, which is to ensure a sufficient knowledge base for devising cost-efficient measures and

overall the implementation of the ecosystem approach and management of human activities in

the Baltic Sea;

Page 4 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

XI.

WE DECIDE

to further streamline HELCOM working structures, make resources available for

identified priorities and foster cross-sectorial cooperation and synergies, in a focused, cost

efficient way.

TO THIS END:

WE ADOPT

- HELCOM Recommendation 34E/1

“Safeguarding

important bird habitats and migration routes in

the Baltic Sea from negative effects of wind and wave energy production at sea”;

- Regional Baltic Maritime Spatial Planning Roadmap 2013-2020;

- HELCOM Recommendation 34E/2

“Further

testing and development of the concept of pro-

active route planning as well as other e-navigation solutions to enhance safety of navigation and

protection in the marine environment in the Baltic Sea Region”;

- HELCOM-BSHC Harmonised Re-survey Scheme 2013, with time schedule estimations and

funding arrangements, bearing in mind that these are likely to be modified when new national

needs or priorities arise;

- HELCOM Recommendation 34E/3

“Amendments to Annex VII Response to Pollution Accidents

of the 1992 Helsinki Convention, concerning response on the shore”;

- HELCOM Response Manual Volume III

“Response

to Pollution Incidents on the shore”;

- HELCOM Recommendation 34E/4

“Airborne

surveillance with remote sensing equipment in the

Baltic Sea Area”;

WE FURTHER ADOPT

the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Guidelines on the granting of exemptions

under the International

Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and

Sediments, Regulation A-4 and the related HELCOM online decision support tool and port survey

database, and

AGREE

to develop further necessary details of the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR

Guidelines through a continuation of cooperation with OSPAR;

WE ENDORSE

regional HELCOM Interim Guidance on technical and operational aspects of

delivery of sewage by passenger ships to port reception facilities and

NOTING

that there are some

outstanding issues identified in the Guidance,

AGREE

to clarify these open issues latest by 2014;

WE ENDORSE

the updated HELCOM Palette of optional agro-environmental measures to be

implemented through corresponding international and national instruments;

WE ALSO ENDORSE

the Palette of measures on management options to reduce discharges,

emissions, and losses of hazardous substances from various sources. The document is meant to

be used by national authorities and industries as a background on indicative measures and their

cost-efficiency and to inform further work on regional level;

WE ADOPT

the revised HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy implying a six-year

monitoring and assessment cycle;

WE WELCOME

that the provisional nutrient reduction scheme of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action

Plan has been reviewed and revised based on a new and more complete dataset as well as an

improved modeling approach and revised harmonized eutrophication status targets, which resulted

in the following Maximum Allowable Inputs;

Maximum Allowable Inputs

Baltic Sea Sub-basin

Kattegat

Danish Straits

Baltic Proper

Bothnian Sea

Bothnian Bay

Gulf of Riga

Gulf of Finland

Baltic Sea

TN, tons

74,000

65,998

325,000

79,372

57,622

88,417

101,800

792,209

TP, tons

1,687

1,601

7,360

2,773

2,675

2,020

3,600

21,716

Reference inputs 1997-2003

TN, tons

78,761

65,998

423,921

79,372

57,622

88,417

116,252

910,344

TP, tons

1,687

1,601

18,320

2,773

2,675

2,328

7,509

36,894

Needed reductions

TN, tons

4,761

98,921

14,452

118,134

TP, tons

10,960

308

3,909

15,178

Page 5 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

WE RECOGNIZE

that the revised Maximum Allowable Inputs represent best available scientific

knowledge base and data, and characterize the HELCOM long-term vision of the Baltic Sea

unaffected by eutrophication that we aspire;

WE ARE COMMITTED

to implement nutrient reductions to improve the environmental status of

eutrophied Baltic Sea sub-basins including coastal areas, even if the modelling approach taken did

not establish reduction requirements for these areas

;

WE WELCOME

the overall progress in reducing phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea

and

RECONFIRM

the goal of the Baltic Sea Action Plan to reach good environmental status by

2021.

WE NOTE,

however, that the Baltic Sea is still affected by eutrophication and that, while due

to natural processes it may take a long time before the HELCOM eutrophication objectives are

reached, modeling indicates that significant improvement is expected to take place rapidly and

immediately after reaching the Maximum Allowable Inputs;

With this background,

WE RECOGNIZE

that in order to reach the ecological objectives of the

Baltic Sea Action Plan by 2021, HELCOM Contracting States need to confront the continuing

challenge to further cut their discharges and emissions to the marine environment and that the

challenge is likely to be further exacerbated due to the expected impacts of climate changes on the

Baltic Sea basin;

WE AGREE

that the following revised Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CARTs), covering

both pollution from land and airborne, substitute the provisional country-wise nutrient reduction

requirements of the Baltic Sea Action Plan:

Nitrogen

Denmark

2890

Estonia

1800

Finland

2430 +600*

Germany

7170 +500*

Latvia

1670

Lithuania

8970

Poland

43610

Russia

10380*

Sweden

9240

The figures are rounded

Phosphorus

320

330 +26*

110 +60*

220

1470

7480

3790*

530

WE DECIDE

to take strong actions to reduce the nutrient inputs from HELCOM countries further,

to reach good environmental status, to be included in national implementation programmes, river

basin management plans and schemes as well as programmes of measures by 2016, and jointly

address common challenges, including through sub-regional and bilateral projects, as well as

develop additional reduction measures as needed based on cost-efficiency to be in place by 2020;

WE ACKNOWLEDGE

that sustainability of agricultural production is a key to the success of

reaching input reductions for Good Environmental Status,

RECALLING

that agriculture

substantially contributes to the nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea;

WE STRIVE

for the development and application of sustainable agricultural practices with the least

environmental impacts on the Baltic Sea, underpinned by technical, economic and regulatory

measures. Based on the latest developments and best practice

WE AIM

at improved farm nutrient

Finland’s view is that according to HELCOM assessment open parts of the Bothnian Sea, Åland Sea and the Archipelago Sea are

eutrophied and need reduction of nutrient levels, although BALTSEM model did not establish nutrient input reduction requirements to

the drainage basins of these sea areas. Finland will address water protection measures to the drainage basins of these areas in its

national plans.

At this point in time Poland accepts the Polish Country Allocated Reduction Targets as indicative due to the ongoing national

consultations, and confirms their efforts to finalize these consultations as soon as possible.

* 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.

Page 6 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

management, especially manure nutrient recycling, including calculation of nutrient surplus in

fertilization practices, and nutrient accounting at the farm level;

WE STRESS

that the achievement of good

environmental

status in relation to eutrophication

the

Baltic Sea also relies on additional reduction efforts by non-Contracting Parties as follows:

- 18720 tons of airborne nitrogen from non-Contracting Parties assuming full implementation of

the Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone of the

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution until 2020;

3230 tons of waterborne nitrogen and 800 tons of waterborne phosphorus from non-Contracting

Parties assuming that they take the same responsibility to reduce as the Contracting Parties,

RECALLING

the decision of the Moscow Ministerial Meeting on reduction of air-borne nitrogen

pollution from shipping which will lead to the reduction of 6930 tons on nitrogen over thirty years

WE ALSO STRESS

that the achievement of good environmental status in relation to

eutrophication in the Baltic Sea also relies on additional reduction efforts by shipping;

THEREFORE WE AGREE

that transboundary pollution originating in the non-Contracting States

should be addressed by

initiating

joint activities

e.g.

by bi- and/or multilateral projects and through

other existing funding mechanisms as well as by

international

agreements such as the 1992

UNECE Convention on Transboundary Waters

and

Lakes, and the River Basin Management Plans

of the EU Water Framework Directive for HELCOM Contracting States being also EU Member

States;

WE APPRECIATE

the upcoming scientific background report "Revision of the maximum allowable

inputs and country allocation scheme of HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan",

NOTING

that it contains

in particular a more detailed overview of the airborne and waterborne contributions of the

Contracting and non-Contracting Parties to form the basis for a detailed follow-up of the

achievement of the reduction targets set above, and

AGREE

that this process needs to be further

developed based on the best available scientific knowledge,

NOTING

that for those HELCOM

Contracting Parties being also EU Members States it would need to be compatible with the

requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

RECOGNIZING

that reductions in nutrient inputs in sub-basins may have wide-spread effects,

AGREE

that extra reductions can be accounted for, in proportion to the effect on a neighboring

basin with reduction targets, by the countries in reaching their Country Allocated Reduction

Targets;

WE SUPPORT

development of environmentally sound approaches to remove the nutrients before

they enter inland waters and the sea, and to address the internal loading, in coastal areas and

semi-enclosed lagoons, as well as in the open sea;

WE AGREE

to monitor and evaluate regularly the progress in implementing the measures;

WE RECALL

and

CONFIRM

that there is a need for review of nutrient reduction scheme based on

best available scientific knowledge as necessary;

Finally,

WE AGREE

to fully implement the 2007 Baltic Sea Action Plan by 2021. With this

Declaration with its general and specific approaches, actions and measures

WE FURTHER

AGREE

to step up efforts for further strengthened implementation of the BSAP

WE NOTE WITH

APPRECIATION

the following further general and specific approaches, actions and measures.

WE WILL

continuously

REVIEW and REPORT

how these commitments are implemented.

Page 7 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Biodiversity and resilient ecosystems which underpin ecosystem services,

human well-being and prosperity

1 (B).

WE DECIDE to maintain biodiversity of the Baltic Sea and ensure that the quality and

occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species is in line with prevailing

physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions;

2 (B).

WE AGREE to mainstream the conservation of biodiversity, specifically marine biodiversity,

across government and society through more effective policy integration, planning processes,

incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, reporting systems and via awareness

raising;

3 (B).

WE AGREE, for Contracting Parties being also EU Member States, to use HELCOM as the

regional cooperation platform implementing the biodiversity related aspects of relevant EU

Directives and Strategies;

4 (B).

WE DECIDE to implement on a regional level the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the 2011-

2020 period of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,

taking into account the special characteristics of the Baltic Sea, bearing in mind that the

implementation of the Plan in the EU and its Member States is carried out through the EU

Biodiversity Strategy, and more specifically DECIDE to:



develop by 2015 regional targets for the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity,

including the completion and further development of a set of HELCOM core indicators for

biodiversity and their monitoring;

increase positive incentives to enhance reduction of pressures on biodiversity and to work

towards elimination by 2020 of incentives and subsidies which could be harmful to

biodiversity in order to improve the buffering capacity of the marine and coastal ecosystems

for a better resilience ;

take measures so that by 2020, regionally, the loss of all red listed marine habitats and

biotopes in the Baltic Sea will be halted and they have largely recovered, and that

degradation and fragmentation have been significantly reduced, the progress of which will

measured with a core indicator to be produced; develop by 2015 a new HELCOM

Recommendation on conservation plans for species, habitats and biotopes which are at risk

of extinction;

protect seabirds in the Baltic Sea, taking into consideration migratory species and need for

co-operation with other regions through Conventions and institutions such as the Agreement

on Conservation of African Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) under the Convention on

Migratory Species (CMS), and particularly in the North Sea (OSPAR) and Arctic (Arctic

Council) areas;

protect sturgeon through supporting the HELCOM project on Baltic sturgeon remediation as

well as raise public awareness concerning re-introduction of sturgeon among fishermen,

other relevant stakeholders and the public;

protect the ringed seal in the Gulf of Finland, whose population is severely depleted and

faces extinction in this area, STRESSING that immediate action is needed to significantly

reduce by-catch and to improve the understanding of the other direct threats on the seals,

and URGE transboundary co-operation between Estonia, Finland and Russia to support

achieving a viable population of ringed seals in the Gulf;

take decisive action to work towards a favourable conservation status of the harbor porpoise

based on implementation of the CMS ASCOBANS Jastarnia Plan for the harbor porpoise in

the Baltic Sea, in particular by addressing the pressing problem of by-catch;



−

5 (B).

WE AGREE to revise by 2014 HELCOM Recommendation 15/5

“System

of coastal and

marine Baltic Sea protected areas (BSPAs)”, taking into consideration new developments under

relevant legislation of the Contracting Parties as well as under the CBD, IUCN and other

institutions;

6 (B).

WE DECIDE to re-enforce action to achieve by 2020 an ecologically coherent network of

well-managed marine protected areas for the Baltic Sea as decided in the BSAP and the Moscow

Ministerial Declaration, including the objective to provide specific protection to those species,

Page 8 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

habitats and biotopes included in the HELCOM Red Lists that are considered to be priorities for

protection and hence contributing to achieving a good environmental status of the marine

environment;

7 (B).

WE AGREE to modernize by 2014 the HELCOM BSPA database to make it publicly

available and to update by 2015 the assessment of ecological coherence of the network of

protected areas in the Baltic Sea, with an evaluation of marine areas in need of further protection;

8 (B).

WE AGREE to strengthen the efforts to implement the decision made at the HELCOM 2010

Moscow Ministerial Meeting to develop and apply by 2015, management plans and/or measures

for already existing Baltic Sea Protected Areas; and to follow every new BSPA designation by the

establishment of a management plan and/or measures within five years;

Fisheries-related actions, especially within Marine Protected Areas

9 (B).

WE AGREE to ensure that measures to address fisheries practices which have a negative

impact on conservation goals and/or threatened or declining species and habitats are continued,

including new measures to be initiated by 2015;

10 (B).

WE AGREE to further work to develop and implement, as soon as possible, sustainable

fishing methods and practices into management plans for marine protected areas, in order to

contribute to meeting the specific conservation objectives set for the marine protected areas,

including protecting essential fish habitats, and cooperate with the International Council for the

Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and regional stakeholders including EU Baltic Sea Regional

Advisory Council and BALTFISH Forum, when doing so;

11 (B).

WE SUPPORT the further development and testing of the HELCOM generic decision-

support tool to map possible negative impacts of specific gear types on threatened or declining

species and habitats, and which helps to develop and/or recommend measures to address these;

Ecosystem-based fisheries

12 (B).

WE AGREE that populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish should be

within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy

stock and that Maximum Sustainable Yield shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and on a

progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks;

13 (B).

WE WELCOME the introduction, as from 2015, of the discard ban under the EU Common

Fisheries Policy and SUPPORT regionally appropriate solutions to solving the discard problem

such as through improved selectivity and fishing behavior and incentives to facilitate a smooth

transition to applying the ban;

14 (B).

WE SUPPORT an ecosystem-based approach for fisheries management with the

development of a multi-species management plan for the main commercial Baltic Sea fish stocks

including conservation measures to maintain or restore fish stocks above levels capable of

producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) exploitation rates by 2015 where possible and by

2020 at the latest; This approach should contribute to the achievement of Good Environmental

Status as measured by indicators under the coherent implementation of HELCOM BSAP and the

EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

15 (B).

WE DECIDE to take action to reduce the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine

ecosystem and to this end, SUPPORT the development of fisheries management and technical

measures to minimize unwanted by-catch of fish, birds and mammals in order to achieve the close

to zero target for by-catch rates of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and minimize damage to sea bed

habitats;

16 (B).

WE AGREE to continue the work on strengthening ecosystem-based management for

coastal fish populations, utilizing, and enhancing as far as possible, monitoring for assessment of

coastal fish communities;

17 (B).

WE AGREE to continue to work to develop common procedures to facilitate the sharing of

aggregated data on fisheries activities in the Baltic Sea in an applicable format for the purpose of

assessing pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems e.g. to be applied in maritime spatial

planning.

Page 9 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Salmon and sea-trout

18 (B).

WE NOTE the regional perspective in the European Commission proposal for a multi-

annual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and its targets on protection and restoration of riverine

habitats and populations based on HELCOM results and the scientific advice from ICES;

19 (B).

BEING AWARE that many of the Baltic salmon and sea trout stocks are unlikely to achieve

MSY by 2015, WE AGREE to prioritise and intensify implementation of HELCOM BSAP (2007)

conservation goals for the Baltic salmon and sea trout to be met by 2015, based on HELCOM

Recommendation 32-33/1

“Conservation

of Baltic Salmon (Salmo

salar)

and Sea Trout (Salmo

trutta)

populations by the restoration of their river habitats and management of river fisheries”, and

the upcoming EU multi-annual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that

stock (as applicable to EU Member States), through exchange of best practices, knowledge and

experiences on regional level, as well as follow-up initiatives addressing salmon and sea trout

restoration activities and further development and implementation, by 2015 and onwards, in co-

operation with ICES, of:

- common practices for breeding, rearing and releasing salmon and sea trout as

reintroductions in potential salmonid rivers;

- investigations of needed improvements for stocking practices (e.g. biological and genetical

guidelines);

- recommendations for riverine and estuarine management and conservation measures, such

as fish ways for up and down migration, restoration and protection of spawning grounds,

concerning fisheries within rivers and estuaries;

- comparable methodology for data collection through surveys, especially on recreational

fisheries;

Baltic Sea cod

20 (B).

ACKNOWLEDGING the important recovery of the Eastern cod spawning stock biomasses

in the Baltic Sea, WE SUPPORT the further implementation of commitments under the BSAP and

relevant legislation to secure the full recovery of all cod stocks to healthy population size and age

distribution by 2020 and management consistent with achieving MSY, with the aim of further

developing and applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries;

European eel

21 (B).

BEING CONCERNED with the critical status of European eel and that fisheries

management and other measures undertaken by individual countries have not yet shown any

significant improvement in the status of eel, WE AGREE to continue the efforts underway and

enhance co-ordination of measures within the Baltic Sea as well as with other European countries,

for the conservation of eel stocks, in line with national eel management plans and to consider

additional measures if necessary, such as reducing fishing mortality in accordance with the ICES

Advice, removing migration barriers, and re-stocking in eel-safe river systems, e.g. utilising the

outcomes of co-operation between ICES, HELCOM and other stakeholders on this issue;

Sustainable aquaculture

22 (B).

HIGHLIGHTING the increasing importance of sustainable aquaculture, WE AGREE to

develop a new HELCOM Recommendation on sustainable aquaculture by 2014 to substitute the

existing HELCOM Recommendation 25/4 aiming at limiting potential environmental impacts of

aquaculture activities such as the introduction of non-indigenous species, ecological and genetic

impacts on wild fish stocks from unintended releases of farmed species, nutrient pollution, as well

as introduction of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals;

Recreational fisheries

23 (B).

RECOGNIZING that recreational fisheries conducted e.g. from boats using commercial

gears at a certain scale may contribute to fishing mortality of certain commercially exploited fish

stocks and impacts on biodiversity, WE AGREE to ask for advice from Regional Coordination

Groups within the EU Data Collection Framework and ICES on how to improve data collected on

such recreational fisheries, with a view to evaluate the impacts of such recreational fisheries on the

marine environment;

Page 10 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Marine litter

24 (B).

WE AGREE that the regional action plan on marine litter should allow to:



carry out concrete measures for prevention and reduction of marine litter from its main

sources with the aim of achieving significant quantitative reductions focusing

inter alia

working with industry to reduce or phase out microbeads in certain products in the market

develop and test technology for removal of microplastics and nanoparticles in municipal

waste water treatment plants by 2020 and

inter alia

work with industry to ban the use of

microplastics and on the assessment of the use of nanoparticles within the production

process (e.g. in cosmetics);

utilize existing networks to address marine litter issues;

develop common indicators and associated targets related to quantities, composition,

sources and pathway of marine litter, including riverine inputs, in order to gain information

on long-term trends, and carry out the monitoring of the progress towards achieving the

agreed goals and to gain an inventory of marine litter in the Baltic Sea as well as scientific

sound evaluation of its sources. Where possible, the harmonized monitoring protocols

based on the recommendations of the EU Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter will be

used;

identify the socio-economic and biological impacts of marine litter, also in terms of toxicity of

litter;

review regularly the effectiveness of the measures, for the first time by 2020;



Introduction of energy, including underwater noise

25 (B).

WE AGREE that the level of ambient and distribution of impulsive sounds in the Baltic Sea

should not have negative impact on marine life and that human activities that are assessed

to result in negative impacts on marine life should be carried out only if relevant mitigation

measures are in place, and accordingly as soon as possible and by the end of 2016, using

mainly already on-going activities, to:



establish a set of indicators including technical standards which may be used for

monitoring ambient and impulsive underwater noise in the Baltic Sea;

encourage research on the cause and effects of underwater noise on biota;

map the levels of ambient underwater noise across the Baltic Sea;

set up a register of the occurrence of impulsive sounds;

consider regular monitoring on ambient and impulsive underwater noise as well as

possible options for mitigation measures related to noise taking into account the

ongoing work in IMO on non-mandatory draft guidelines for reducing underwater noise

from commercial ships and in CBD context;

Nutrient Pollution from air and waterborne sources on land

Agriculture

1 (N).

RECOGNISING challenges in addressing diffuse pollution, ACKNOWLEDGING that

sustainable agricultural production is a key to the success of reaching Good Environmental Status,

and BEING AWARE that modernization and future development of agriculture production in the

Baltic Sea region, including effective nutrient management can bring opportunities for better

addressing nutrient losses to the sea;

2 (N).

WE AGREE to make use of appropriate policy and economic instruments such as full

implementation of EU

aquis

including EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nitrates Directive,

Water Framework Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control and Common Agricultural

Policy for EU Member States and funding opportunities on national and international level, as well

as economic levies and incentives, in order to minimize nutrient losses in agriculture and thus

contribute to keeping the nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea below the Maximum Allowable Inputs;

Page 11 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

3 (N).

RECOGNIZING the value of an open dialogue on the regional level among authorities,

farmer organizations, industry and other stakeholders, WE ACKNOWLEDGE the HELCOM

Agriculture and Environment Forum as a platform for thematic discussions on the applicability and

development of measures;

4 (N).

WE AGREE to initiate activity to identify/verify areas critical to N and P losses, utilizing the

available data and as a starting point, to enable directing targeted and cost-effective measures

where they can bring the greatest environment effect, e.g. compulsory measures on manure

handling (storage and application) for installations of intensive rearing of cattle, poultry and pigs;

5 (N).

WE AGREE to facilitate enhanced transfer of knowledge and technology and exchange of

good examples as well as development of co-operation projects to reduce agricultural impact on

the Baltic Sea;

6 (N).

WE RE-ITERATE the commitment to implement and enforce the provisions of part II of

Annex III ”Prevention of Pollution from

Agriculture” of the Helsinki Convention and SUPPORT its

effective and cost-efficient implementation;

7 (N).

WE DECIDE to investigate measures to reduce nutrient surplus in fertilization practices to

reach nutrient balanced feritilization with the objective to come to an agreement on national level

by 2018;

8 (N).

WE AGREE to promote and advance towards applying by 2018 at the latest annual nutrient

accounting at farm level taking into account soil and climate conditions giving the possibility to

reach nutrient balanced fertilization and reduce nutrient losses at regional level in the countries,

noting the positive examples of mandatory requirements on nutrient bookkeeping in some

HELCOM countries and with an aim to apply it region-wide, as a first step, in areas critical to

nutrient losses;

9 (N).

WE AGREE to follow-up and exchange experiences and ideas for potential development of

policy instruments, both voluntary and mandatory, as well as measures for improved farm nutrient

management;

10 (N).

With a view to fully utilize nutrient content of manure in fertilization practices and to avoid

overfertilization WE ALSO AGREE to establish by 2016 national guidelines or standards for

nutrient content in manure and to develop by 2018 guidelines/recommendation on the use of such

standards;

11 (N).

WE AGREE to initiate and accomplish by 2016 a review and an updating of part II of Annex

III of the Helsinki Convention, in order to better serve the purposes of reaching good environmental

status;

12 (N).

Awaiting the release of the updated

EU’s

BREF document and Conclusions on BAT for

intensive rearing of poultry and pigs (to become legally binding under the EU Directive on Industrial

Emissions), WE AGREE on the application of at least equally ambitious BAT throughout the

region, especially for the facilities located within areas critical to nutrient losses;

13 (N).

RECOGNIZING the concerns about limited future supplies of nutrients, especially

phosphorus, and the water and soil pollution caused by the losses at several steps of their

lifecycle, STRESSING the need for sustainable use of nutrients, AGREE to enhance the recycling

of phosphorus (especially in agriculture and waste water treatment) and to promote development

of appropriate methodology;

14 (N).

WE AGREE to apply innovative water management measures, in particular under difficult

soil conditions, to ensure that upgrading and renovation of the agricultural drainage systems aim at

reducing nutrient concentrations in the outlets of the adjacent catchment;

Point sources

15 (N).

WE AGREE to prioritize further upgrading of waste water treatment to fully implement

HELCOM Recommendation 28E/5,

inter alia

through launching pilot activities by engaging a wider

network of municipalities, and where appropriate enhancing co-operation in environmental field

under the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region between HELCOM countries being EU Member

States;

Page 12 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

16 (N).

WE DECIDE to continuously assess potential significant sources of nutrient pollution on

land e.g. industries, fur- and fish-farming, and when needed, address them with abatement

measures and/or emission limits;

Hot Spots under Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme

17 (N).

Based on the assessment of efficiency of the Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action

Programme (JCP), 1992-2012, WE ACKNOWLEDGE the efforts undertaken with support of

International Financial Institutes and European institutions to clean-up and remediate 110 pollution

hot spots, which has led to significant reductions of pollution loads, including nutrients from the hot

spots and proving the overall value of the JCP in improvement of environmental situation in the

Baltic Sea region;

18 (N).

RECOGNISING the challenges in remediation of still active hot spots (52), especially

represented by agricultural run-off (6) and coastal management programmes (3), WE AGREE to:

aim for elimination of remaining hot spots from the JCP List as part of the implementation of

the Baltic Sea Action Plan by 2018 latest, with a view that municipal (23) and industrial (20)

hot spots should be removed from the List by 2016; Possible remaining JCP Hot Spots

should then be included in the National Implementation Programmes of the Baltic Sea Action

Plan;

follow up the progress in hot spots remediation and support exchange of information and

knowledge, especially on application of BAT for remaining industrial hot spots, with a view to

facilitate necessary abatement measures to speed up remediation;

19 (N).

WE ENCOURAGE and APPRECIATE national initiatives to promote green technologies

and practices to implement all segments of the Baltic Sea Action Plan;

Hazardous substances from air and waterborne sources on land

1 (H).

WE SUPPORT intensification of efforts and co-operation to reduce inputs of hazardous

substances with an ultimate aim to reach good environmental status, through e.g.:

- monitoring and assessment of airborne inputs and development of measures addressing

airborne transport of hazardous substances;

- encouraging continued research on hazardous substances of specific concern to the Baltic

Sea, including on their interaction and cumulative effects as well as source reduction

measures and development of cost-efficient end-of-pipe solutions, in collaboration with e.g.

the BONUS Programme and the Priority Area Hazard of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea

Region;

- assessing the need for joint measures to reduce emissions and discharges of hazardous

substances;

- making use of information generated by REACH Regulation, EU WFD and EU MSFD, e.g.

substance-specific risk assessments and dossiers, etc., as well as exchanging information

collected within HELCOM work with relevant legal frameworks and in the IPCheM exposure

knowledge base, a platform to exchange and access monitoring information,

2 (H).

NOTING that the Whole Effluent Assessment approach was tested and evaluated for

possible introduction in the Baltic Sea region through a joint region-wide research initiative, WE

AGREE that further research is needed before its region-wide application can be recommended as

a cost-efficient instrument;

3 (H).

RECOGNIZING that the concentrations of several of the 11 hazardous substances /

substance groups identified within HELCOM as of specific concern to the Baltic Sea need to be

further reduced in the marine environment in order to reach good environmental status and that

additional risk management measures are needed especially for some substance groups:

−

WE ENCOURAGE early ratification of the UNEP 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury, as

well as a quick start of the implementation of the Convention, taking into account existing and

possibly updated HELCOM Recommendations limiting the use of mercury in products and

processes;

Page 13 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

−

WE RE-ITERATE the agreement to establish combustion efficiency requirements and/or

emission limit values for dioxins according to HELCOM Recommendation 28E/8 by 2016 in

order to minimize dioxin emissions from small-scale combustion sources as well as develop

cost-efficient and BAT measures to large-scale industrial sources;

4 (H).

BEING CONCERNED about the negative impacts of some pharmaceuticals and resistant

micro-organisms, WE DECIDE to collect more information and assess the state of contamination

with pharmaceuticals and their degradation products of the aquatic environment, which would also

contribute to the development of the EU's strategic approach to addressing the pollution of water

by pharmaceutical substances, and to develop measures, as appropriate, to prevent

pharmaceuticals from reaching the Baltic Sea;

5 (H).

RECOGNIZING the importance of raising public awareness in the field of hazardous

substances, WE AGREE to further promote and continuously support actions aiming at changing

e.g. consumer behavior towards “greener” (less associated with use of hazardous substances)

products, processes and services;

6 (H).

ACKNOWLEDGING that due to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident the Baltic

Sea has the highest concentrations of

137

Cs of any regional sea and RECOGNIZING the risk of

pollution by radioactive substances caused by nuclear accidents in the Baltic Sea catchment area

or farther away, WE AGREE to continue monitoring of radioactive substances in accordance with

HELCOM Recommendation 26/3 and making assessments of the impacts of radioactivity on the

marine environment and humans;

Shipping and activities at sea

1 (M).

RECOGNIZING the international nature of shipping and the need to agree on global rules

for shipping in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and RECALLING the role of

HELCOM, according to the Helsinki Convention, in the effective and harmonized implementation of

rules adopted by the IMO, WE REAFFIRM the importance of joint proposals to IMO regarding the

rulemaking to promote clean and safe shipping in the Baltic Sea area;

Ballast Water

2 (M).

WE WELCOME the accessions to the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention by

Sweden on 24 November 2009, the Russian Federation on 24 May 2012, Denmark on 11

September 2012 and ratification by Germany on 20 June 2013, and ENCOURAGE the remaining

HELCOM countries to speed up the ratification of the Convention taking into account the

agreement from 2007 to have the Convention ratified by all Baltic Sea countries by 2013;

3 (M).

WE AGREE to develop, based on an overview of the situation, a comprehensive regional

Baltic Sea implementation plan for the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention by the end of

2014 bearing in mind the possible need to accept a transitional period for exemptions in case of

lacking data;

Sewage from Ships

4 (M).

EMPHAZISING the importance of reducing nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea from

ships’

sewage, and RECALLING the designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under IMO

MARPOL Annex IV, WE AGREE to continue efforts to upgrade port reception facilities in the

remaining ports, in order to strive for that HELCOM countries are in the position to report to IMO,

by 2014 (IMO MEPC 67), that adequate facilities are available for the regulation to enter into force

by 1 January 2016 for new ships;

5 (M).

WE WELCOME the efforts by the cruise industry to use on board waste water treatment

plants on cruise ships operating in the Baltic Sea which meet the standards set by IMO for the

Baltic Sea as part of the MARPOL Annex IV Special Area designation;

Airborne emissions from ships

6 (M).

EMPHASIZING the importance and RECOGNIZING the need of reducing nutrient inputs to

the Baltic Sea also from airborne emissions from shipping, which constitutes 7% of the overall

nitrogen deposition to the Baltic Sea, and RECALLING the 2010 Moscow Ministerial decision to

work towards submitting, preferably by 2011, a joint proposal by the Baltic Sea countries to the

IMO applying for the NOx Emission Control Area (NECA) status for the Baltic Sea, taking into

account the results of the study by HELCOM on the economic impacts of a Baltic Sea NECA;

Page 14 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

7 (M).

WE SUPPORT the idea of a designation of NOx Emission Control Area in other sea areas,

particularly the neighbouring areas as larger geographic coverage of NECA would bring greater

environmental benefits;

8 (M).

WE TAKE NOTE of the fact that due to the need for further technical consultations amongst

some of the Contracting Parties as regards to the availability of technology to implement the Tier III

NOx emission standards under MARPOL Annex VI, the application on the Baltic Sea NECA has

not yet been submitted to IMO. WE NOTE that in that context, in order to move forward, HELCOM

Stakeholder Conference “Baltic Sea – NOx Emission control area” was organized in March 2013

which discussed the availability of technology to implement the Tier III NOx emission standards

under MARPOL Annex VI, including further enhancement of existing and development of new

relevant technology. A review of the status of technological developments to implement the Tier III

NOx emissions standards has been prepared by IMO and considered in May 2013;

9 (M).

EMPHASIZING the need to work jointly in co-operation with other regional governmental

and non-governmental organizations, the industry and research community, to further promote

development and enhanced use of green technologies and alternative fuels, including LNG,

methanol as well as other propulsion technologies, in order to reduce harmful exhaust gas

emissions and greenhouse gases from ships, WE AGREE to work towards the creation of a joint

“Green Technology and Alternative Fuels Platform for Shipping” together with other regional

actors

in the Baltic Sea;

10 (M).

WE WELCOME co-operation between the Contracting Parties to enhance the enforcement

of the more stringent limits for SOx emissions that will come into force in 2015;

Safety of navigation

11 (M).

RECALLING the HELCOM Copenhagen 2001, Krakow 2007 and Moscow 2010

commitments to increase safety of navigation in the Baltic Sea, WE AGREE to further strengthen

co-operation with IMO in the field of safety of navigation and to further develop technical co-

operation between the European Maritime Safety Agency and HELCOM, including to ease

collection and analysis of maritime data relevant for the Baltic Sea;

12 (M).

WE AGREE to further work with regard to the regional HELCOM AIS system operational

since 2005 in order to increase safety of navigation and gain environmental benefits;

13 (M).

WE AGREE to comprehensively assess the status, environmental risks and opportunities of

maritime activities in the Baltic Sea region within HELCOM by 2016, contributing to the HELCOM

Holistic Assessment planned for 2016, as well as to safety measures including routeing and those

on winter navigation, and further AGREE to disseminate information on the Baltic Sea

environmental regime for mariners, by updating the “HELCOM Clean Seas Guide” and further

developing the online Mariners' Routeing Guide Baltic Sea;

14 (M).

RECALLING the HELCOM Copenhagen 2001, Krakow 2007 and Moscow 2010

commitments on hydrographic re-survey and COMMENDING WITH APPRECIATION the

subsequent substantial progress made in systematic re-surveying of major shipping routes and

ports in the region according to the HELCOM-BSHC Re-survey Scheme aimed at ensuring that

safety of navigation in the Baltic Sea region is not endangered by inadequate source information;

15 (M).

WE AGREE to take actions to ensure the completion of the re-surveys for areas used by

navigation (CAT I and II) within the time schedules estimated in the 2013

Re-survey Scheme, to promote wider use of accurate and reliable depth information by e.g.

developing existing and/or new products including an enhanced and freely accessible Baltic Sea

Depth Model, and to foster CAT III re-surveys of other areas not primarily for safety of navigation

purposes, e.g. for environmental protection;

16 (M).

RECALLING the Helsinki Convention Article 9 on pleasure craft, WE AGREE to consider an

assessment of pleasure craft activities in the Baltic Sea Area, including

inter alia

their

environmental impacts and risks of accidents, in order to consider the safety of navigation of both

recreational as well as commercial vessels;

Enforcement of international regulations

17 (M).

WE AGREE to enhance co-operation between Paris MoU and HELCOM by applying for

advisor status of HELCOM to Paris MoU on Port State Control;

Page 15 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

Preparedness and response to pollution at sea and on the shore

1 (R).

RECALLING commitments on regional co-operation in combatting marine pollution and

notification and consultation on pollution incidents included in the Helsinki Convention and its

Annex VII, WE AGREE to consider and implement the recommendations of the HELCOM BRISK

and BRISK–RU projects to strengthen preparedness and response capacity to marine accidents in

the Baltic Sea;

Preparedness and response on the shore and oiled wildlife response

2 (R).

NOTING the current status of Oiled Wildlife Response (OWR) in the Baltic Sea countries,

WE AGREE to develop and adopt national wildlife response plans by 2016; AGREE to strengthen

the work on OWR under HELCOM RESPONSE through a targeted expert working group and by

enhancing co-operation with NGOs and the private sector,

inter alia

in order to accommodate the

involvement of volunteers;

3 (R).

WE WELCOME the submission by Denmark, Poland and other countries to IMO of a paper

regarding discharging of paraffin wax, the substance which has been found washed up on several

beaches in the countries bordering the Baltic Sea during the last few years;

Preparedness and response to accidents at sea

4 (R).

WE AGREE to update HELCOM Manual on Co-operation in Combatting Marine Pollution

Volume II, focusing on response to accidents at sea involving spills of hazardous substances and

loss of packaged dangerous goods by 2016;

5 (R).

WE AGREE to further develop by 2015 regional preparedness and response related

services including HELCOM SeaTrackWeb, HELCOM Automatic Identification System, HELCOM

Pollution Reporting System (POLREP), HELCOM GIS and links to relevant EU systems towards a

second generation HELCOM oil response information system covering the whole Baltic Sea on an

equal basis;

Hazardous submerged objects

6 (R).

WE AGREE to produce by 2015, a one-off HELCOM thematic assessment on

environmental risks of hazardous submerged objects covering contaminated wrecks, lost or

dumped dangerous goods (e.g. containers), and other objects, also utilizing the 2013 report on

dumped chemical munitions;

Marine knowledge, monitoring and assessment

1 (K).

WE AGREE to develop regional assessments jointly and in such a way that they can be

used by the Contracting Parties in assessments of their marine and coastal waters, as well as for

their reporting purposes under EU MSFD and other international frameworks, and WE AGREE to

start implementing the revised HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy immediately,

including:

as the first step, to review and update the monitoring programme by 2014, and related

guidelines and manuals by 2015, and thereby streamline the work of the Contracting Parties

to serve the BSAP and other international and national monitoring and reporting

requirements such as the MSFD and Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation;

to further develop, test and apply HELCOM assessment tools starting already in 2014;

to develop and deliver operational assessments of pressures, including nutrient and

hazardous substances inputs (PLC), impacts of fisheries on other species and on the

seabed, pressures from shipping and other relevant pressures on the Baltic Sea and use

these to update the Baltic Sea Impact Index and to support the implementation of

ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Planning;

by 2016, to develop the second holistic assessment of ecosystem health, including the status

of the Baltic Sea in regard to eutrophication, hazardous substances and biodiversity;

to make the Red List assessments of Baltic Sea species and habitats/biotopes a regular

activity which will enable the tracking of long-term trends in the status of the Baltic Sea

biodiversity;

Page 16 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

to make the assessment of regional climate change and its implications on the Baltic Sea

ecosystem a regular activity, collaborating with Baltic Earth (BALTEX) in this respect, with

the aim to make it an indicator-based assessment;

2 (K).

WE SUPPORT the first set of core indicators of environmental status and pressures with

the intention that they will form the basis of an indicator-based follow-up system for measuring

progress towards achieving good environmental status with a full set of operational core indicators,

and further STRESS that the joint coordinated monitoring by the Contracting Parties should

provide the data necessary for regular updating of the HELCOM core indicators and assessments;

3 (K).

WE AGREE to develop monitoring and assessment methods for the rate of loss of quantity

and quality of natural marine habitats to serve further core indicator development and the needs

stemming from implementation of the UN CBD Aichi targets, and AGREE to enhance scientific

understanding of Baltic Sea species and habitats and biotopes, as well as pressures and impact

mechanisms acting on ecosystems, ecosystem services and the benefits provided by the Baltic

Sea environment;

4 (K).

WE AGREE to review the agreed set of HELCOM eutrophication indicators and status

targets at regular intervals, especially in the light of new scientific findings and further developed

ecological models for the assessment of eutrophication, and that this process should also aim for

further regional differentiation of the targets, in particular in the coastal zone, with the view to seek

coherence between open sea and coastal waters targets;

5 (K).

STRESSING the need for spatially and temporally relevant data and information at scales

corresponding to diverse planning and decision-making processes, and UNDERLINING the

scarcity of such data and information for the Baltic Sea, WE AGREE to strengthen efforts to ensure

that data and information meeting these requirements are obtained and made available;

6 (K).

WE DECIDE to further develop and update HELCOM data and information systems with

the view to strengthen HELCOM’s role as the key Baltic Sea data hub for online information on the

state of the environment as well as on human activities and their impacts on the Baltic Sea

complementing and compatible with the ongoing national, regional and European data

management processes, to support the national data functions, and taking into account the need to

make available and utilizable the data that have been compiled during various assessment

processes;

7 (K).

WE AGREE, in particular, to strive for active and regionally harmonized data collection on

marine species and habitats, their distribution, abundance and trends, as well as the quality of

habitats and biotopes with the view that the data will be made available in the regional data pool;

8 (K).

WE ACKNOWLEDGE the increasingly evident conflict between the new and emerging

economic uses of the sea (e.g. for offshore wind farms, cables, pipelines, sea bed mining) and the

legacy of submerged hazardous objects in the Baltic Sea;

9 (K).

WE RECOGNIZE the need for forward-looking options for solutions and an assessment of

the environmental risks posed by all kinds of submerged hazardous objects containing harmful

substances which may affect the environment and all activities in the Baltic Sea, including wrecks

filled with oil and other hazardous cargo, sea-dumped munitions and warfare materials;

10 (K).

WE WELCOME the 2013 report of the HELCOM Ad Hoc Expert Group To Update And

Review The Existing Information On Dumped Chemical Munitions In The Baltic Sea (HELCOM

MUNI) which has provided significant new information and insight but also reconfirmed that most of

HELCOM’s recommendations and advice on dumped chemical munitions

are still valid. When

significant new findings will be made available by e.g. CHEMSEA, preparation of updated report

will be decided;

11 (K).

WE REQUEST the Contracting Parties to further strengthen co-operation with ICES in

responding to the scientific needs arising from the implementation of the BSAP and relevant global,

European and national requirements, including integration of environmental and fisheries surveys,

These systems include: the environmental information needed for the proposed core set of indicators,

HELCOM AIS system, annually collected shipping accident data, the HELCOM POLREP, MSP related

Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets, information on air- and waterborne pollution loads, etc.

Page 17 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

and as the first step for the purposes of co-operation towards automatized data aggregation and

further enhanced quality assurance for the assessments;

12 (K).

WELCOMING the fruitful cooperation between BONUS and HELCOM, WE ENCOURAGE

similarly good collaboration in the future;

13 (K).

WE AGREE to revive the co-operation with the European Environment Agency for mutual

benefits and to contribute to European wide assessments of marine and coastal waters;

Maritime Spatial Planning applying the Ecosystem approach

1 (MSP).

NOTING that the Baltic Sea countries are entitled to establish a legal regime for Maritime

Spatial Planning throughout their Internal Waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zones;

WE AGREE to put national frameworks for coherent Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) in place by

2017 reflecting HELCOM-VASAB MSP principles, including the ecosystem approach, taking into

account the relevant EU policy instruments for the Baltic Sea countries being EU Member States;

2 (MSP).

FURTHER AGREEING that the ultimate goal is to draw up and apply maritime spatial

plans throughout the Baltic Sea region by 2020, which are coherent across the borders and

applying the ecosystem approach, WE DECIDE to continue the work towards reaching common

understanding and adopting guidelines on ecosystem approach, transboundary consultation and

co-operation as well as public participation in the MSP framework according to the Regional Baltic

MSP Roadmap 2013-2020;

3 (MSP).

WE WELCOME the progress made within the joint HELCOM-VASAB MSP Working

Group since 2010 and SUPPORT the continuation of the HELCOM co-operation with VASAB and

the role of the joint MSP Working Group to utilize the full potential of the EU Strategy for the Baltic

Sea Region and to serve transboundary and cross-sectorial co-operation and consultation;

4 (MSP).

WE ENCOURAGE the development of effective and efficient exchange of experience

and knowledge from all relevant disciplines taking into account the results from Maritime Spatial

Planning practices and projects;

Benefits of protecting the Baltic Sea (section on financing)

1 (F).

WE APPRECIATE the results of the BalticStern network research that

overall benefits of

implementing the BSAP clearly exceed its costs, while the costs of inaction will be significant,

and that the BSAP is an economically sound plan to solve the eutrophication problem

;

2 (F).

WE AGREE to make efforts to mobilize resources for the BSAP implementation on national

and regional level by reflecting or prioritizing the BSAP targets in the country specific and co-

operation programmes, including for the upcoming EU programming period 2014-2020;

3 (F).

WE WELCOME the growing interest of the private sector to provide financing for the

implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan;

4 (F).

WE APPRECIATE and ENCOURAGE further co-operation with the Northern Dimension

Environmental Partnership contributing to reaching HELCOM’s targets of the Baltic Sea Action

Plan and the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region through cost effective investment

projects in

the municipal infrastructure sector by combining IFI’s lending with NDEP grants;

5 (F).

WE INVITE the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics to likewise co-

operate with HELCOM to support the environmentally friendly and safe maritime activities in the

Baltic;

6 (F).

WE RECOGNIZE the important role of International Financial Institutions to speed up the

implementation of the BSAP commitments and HELCOM Recommendations, and SUPPORT their

broader engagement in projects reducing environmental impact on the Baltic Sea, both in

HELCOM countries as well as non-Contracting Parties such as Belarus and Ukraine, including

remediation of the remaining JCP Hot Spots;

Page 18 of 19

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration

7 (F).

WE AGREE to identify and prioritize by 2016 the remaining investment needs for further

reduction of nutrients, with the aim to bridge the gap in translating HELCOM nutrient reduction

targets into area or site specific implementation and thus strengthen local contributions towards

regional goals;

8 (F).

WE AGREE to initiate or intensify the work to attribute economic value to marine and

coastal ecosystem services and their contribution to societal, cultural and ecological well-being, in

cooperation with initiatives such as the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and

International Policy Makers (TEEB), with a view to starting more comprehensively embracing an

ecosystem accounting approach;

9 (F).

WE AGREE, to a greater extent, to incorporate the emerging environmental economics

knowledge as well as socio-economic analysis in the work of HELCOM, with the purpose of

ensuring and demonstrating cost-effectiveness of new measures to protect the marine

environment.

Page 19 of 19

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Heads of Delegation

Helsinki, Finland, 16-17 September 2014

HOD 46-2014

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Reference

Information on progress with follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

4-17

INF

4 - Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups

26.8.2014

Executive Secretary

Background

The HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme was revised and new Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and Country-

wise Allocation of Reduction Targets (CART) adopted by the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting.

This document summarizes the steps towards development of tools for following up on the progress towards

MAI and CART. Progress towards MAI to be presented via the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs and

progress towards CART via a web-based follow-up tool.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to:



take note of progress in developing follow-up tools for MAI and CART

support the roadmap for implementing the MAI-CART follow-up process, and

note that the updating and full operationalization of the MAI-CART follow-up will require further work

and filling in the knowledge gaps, e.g. regarding transboundary inputs, for which dedicated expert

resources and a formal arrangement, or aproject will need to be established, and request a new WG

based on LOAD and LAND, pending the final decision on its establishment, to prioritize this work and

come up with a proposal how the work could be organized for the December meeting of HOD.

Page 1 of 5

HOD 46-2014, 4-17

Information on progress with follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme

1. Background

The HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme is based on:



Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) of nutrient 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 non-eutrophied sea; and

Country-wise Allocation of Reduction Targets (CART), indicating how much nutrient inputs (in tonnes

per year) the HELCOM countries need to reduce comparing to a reference period (average annual

normalized input during 1997-2003).



The MAI have been updated and CART have been recalculated from the 2007 Baltic Sea Action Plan

provisional figures based on improved scientific basis, more recent and complete data and revised allocation

principles. The revised figures were adopted by the

2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration.

There is a need to establish an operational, regularly updated, process for following on progress in nutrient

input reductions. The system should allow:

1. for following progress in fulfilling MAI: an evaluation of the overall amount of atmospheric and

waterborne nutrient inputs entering the Baltic Sea sub-basins and relate this information to the

assessed eutrophication status (Requirement 1)

2. for following progress in fulfilling CART:

Contracting Parties to evaluate whether their national measures taken are successful and

how far they are from fulfilling their national nutrient reduction requirements (Requirement

Contracting Parties to evaluate whether non-HELCOM Contracting Parties and the

international shipping sector are fulfilling the nutrient reduction targets assigned to these

polluters according to the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration (Requirement

2. Components of the MAI-CART follow-up process

A. Core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs

The web-based core nutrient input indicator [or core pressure indicator on nutrients input] presents the

actual

air- and waterborne inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus for the latest available year to the sub-basins

of the Baltic Sea. Actual (not normalized) input data is used to present the actual pressure on the marine

environment.

The indicator evaluates whether the latest annual air- and waterborne inputs are above or below the MAI

using a statistical

method developed as a part of the PLC-6 project.

Further, it presents also the % change in

inputs since the reference period (average normalized input during 1997-2003) in order to show the progress

towards reaching MAI. The indicator also evaluated trends in air and waterborne inputs to the Baltic Sea sub-

basins since 1995. All these analyses are based on use normalized data

The indicator is in line with MSFD reporting requirements and follows the common indicator structure set

out by the CORESET II project. The MAI are the Environmental Target of the core indicator and the CART is to

be seen as a means to reach the Environmental Target.

Page 2 of 5

HOD 46-2014, 4-17

Data basis:

Annual data on waterborne nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea sub-basins reported to the HELCOM

PLC database and atmospheric deposition data provided by EMEP. Further annual normalized air- and

waterborne inputs.

Possible updating frequency:

could be updated annually if Contracting Parties submit complete PLC data sets

on time.

Challenges:

Since the marine ecosystem is complex, and there is a delay in the response of the ecosystem to

reductions in nutrient inputs, it is difficult to determine a direct link between the core input indicator on

nutrients and the eutrophication status indicators and assessment. Further work is needed to explore this

aspect. Interannual natural variability may give contradictory results for individual years, i.e., when close to

MAI, some years may be below and others above.

Further challenges are descri ed under section B CART follow-up tool

B. CART follow-up tool

Contracting Parties need to evaluate whether their national measures are successful and how far they are

from reaching their CART. It is also necessary to evaluate how non-HELCOM Contracting Parties and the

international shipping sector are fulfilling the nutrient reduction targets.

A simple web-based tool could be set up on the HELCOM website, following a similar idea to the core

indicator, in that it starts with a top level, general, overview page from which there are links to country-wise

and sub-basin-wise graphs and tables showing progress towards CART. There would also be links to technical

annexes and tables showing most commonly asked questions. MONAS 20-2014 requested that the follow-up

tool should explicitly give information on how much Contracting Parties are allowed to discharge into the sea

(input ceiling).

Present PLC data on waterborne inputs and EMEP data on airborne inputs can be used to assess country-

wise inputs of nutrients to the different sub-basins. Since meteorological and weather conditions cause

annual variability in riverine as well as airborne nutrient inputs, it is important to

normalize

the input data in

order to reduce the influence of meteorology and weather conditions. Normalization of input data serves as

a management support tool which makes it easier to determine possible trends in nutrient inputs and the

effectiveness of pollution reduction measures.

CART is allocated to each Contracting Party taking into account transboundary air and waterborne inputs.

Information on transboundary inputs is necessary as are estimates of retention on transboundary riverine

inputs in inland surfaces waters of Contracting Parties receiving these inputs.

Data basis:

PLC and EMEP data needs to be normalized (so far done voluntarily by BNI, Sweden) and trend

analysis needs and test for targets fulfilment to be carried out (so far done voluntarily by DCE, Aarhus

University, Denmark). Additional data on transboundary inputs and retention in inland surface waters are

needed which are currently not available via the present PLC reporting, but included as a request to

Contracting Party in the draft PLC6 guidelines.

Possible updating frequency:

requires additional data and further development of assessment methods, and

hence could be assessed less frequently, e.g. every three years, taking into account also reporting

requirements under the WFD and MSFD.

Challenges:

Follow-up of CARTs (and the principles set out by the 2013 Ministerial Declaration) is

complicated, especially due to the separation of transboundary inputs (taking into account retention in

Page 3 of 5

HOD 46-2014, 4-17

Contracting Parties receiving these inputs) as well as the fact that countries may wish to account for extra

reductions in one basin for CARTs to another basin.

There is a need to formalize/operationalize the future updating of the MAI-CART follow-up, taking into

account that the LOAD core group will cease to exist and the tasks do not fall under the activities of on-going

PLC projects. The LOAD Core group can continue with the task until it is decided how the MAI-CART follow-

up should be dealt with under the umbrella of the future WG based on LAND and LOAD. The calculations of

transboundary inputs and retention, calculation of normalized inputs, trend analysis, test of CART fulfilment

etc. are time and resource consuming activities and Contracting Parties have been placing different,

challenging demands, which up to now have been done on a voluntary basis by BNI and DCE. There is also a

need to further discuss the scientific and technical aspects related to the follow-up of the CART, especially

the aspects related to transboundary input and retention in inland surface waters, and it may take some time

to finalize the process. The current work process is not sustainable and some kind of formal working group

or project should be set up for this task.

Open questions/issues:



Does HELCOM need to separately follow-up on the explicit numbers on transboundary inputs

between Contracting Parties in the 2013 CART or should this be done at the national level?

Need for improved data on inputs and retention in transboundary rivers

There may be implications for CART if, in the future, retention figures are found to be significantly

different from those used for the 2013 revision of the nutrient reduction scheme.

Should the follow up of CART include evaluation of air and waterborne inputs separately

How should extra reductions by a country to one basin be accounted for in terms of adjusting CART

to adjacent basins (see footnote 1)?

3. Roadmap for implementing the follow-up process

A. Core input indicator

Good progress has been made in elaborating a core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs and the following

schedule is proposed for finalizing it.

1. September 2014: LOAD core group will submit a draft of the core pressure indicator on nutrient

inputs (based on data up to 2010) to the next meeting of CORESET II (which will be held on 29-30

September 2014) for review.

2. October 2014: Based on feedback from the CORESET II project meeting, an updated version to be

submitted to the first meeting of the future WG based on LAND and LOAD for review (end of

October)

December 2014: Submitted to HOD 47-2014 for endorsement

March 2015 and HELCOM 36-2015: Published on HELCOM website

Although other core indicators being elaborated by the CORESET II project are planned to be finalized and

published only in June/July 2015, it is proposed that the core nutrient input indicator is published earlier so

that it can be released at the same time as the preliminary CART follow-up tool

–

as the two data products

are closely interlinked.

Contracting Parties, in the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen declaration, recognized that reductions in nutrient inputs in

sub-basins may have wide-spread effects, and agreed that extra reductions can be accounted for, in proportion to the

effect on a neighboring basin with reduction targets, by the countries in reaching their Country Allocated Reduction

Targets

Page 4 of 5

HOD 46-2014, 4-17

B. CART follow-up tool

LOAD 7-2014 requested that a first version of the CART follow-up tool should be prepared during the summer

of 2014 so that it could be used as input to the second round of the river basin management plans. Due to

numerous other time consuming tasks, e.g. related to PLC-5.5, PLC-6 and PLUS projects, and some open

questions that need further discussion in the new working group following up LAND and LOAD it has not been

possible to prepare a draft CART follow-up tool yet.

1. A preliminary CART follow-up tool (based on data up to 2010) to be presented to the meeting of the

WG based on LAND and LOAD to be held in October 2014.

2. An updated version of the follow-up tool (based on data up to 2012 and revised based on comments

by the WG) to be submitted to HOD 47-2014 for endorsement

3. A preliminary CART follow-up tool to be presented to HELCOM 36-2015.

4. New WG 2/2015 or a project: Further elaborate the follow-up tool

The preliminary CART follow-up tool will need to be further developed in the future to better take into

account transboundary inputs, including the importance of retention in Contracting Parties receiving these

inputs, and inputs from non-HELCOM Contracting Parties and shipping. Further, methodology for how to

account for extra reductions in one basin for CART in another basin requires development.

A project and/or expert working group should be set up for:



Providing/facilitating access to and improving the transboundary input data and retention

developing methodology for follow-up of CART according to principles set out in the 2013 HELCOM

Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration; and

operationalization (future updating) of the CART follow-up, as well as the core nutrient input

indicator (for following up on progress towards MAI).

The work could start as a project together with an expert group and when the follow-up tool is ready the

expert group can make the updates of the CART follow-up.

Page 5 of 5

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Heads of Delegation

Helsinki, Finland, 9-10 December 2014

HOD 47-2014

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Reference

Draft CART follow-up system

3-26

CMNT

–

Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups

8.12.2014

Executive Secretary

Background

This document contains a draft follow-up assessment on progress towards the country-wise allocation of

nutrient reduction targets (CART) based on data up to 2012. Statistical analysis of the data has been

performed to be able to evaluate trends (as well as fulfillment of input ceilings).

The structure of the follow up is designed for web presentation, with the intention to first present the main

message, which will be followed with more detailed information and technical details.

The draft is the first presentation of the results with data up to 2012. It will be further fine-tined and updated

and addtional tables and figures added as necessary prior to HELCOM 36-2015. Also text will be added to the

assessment at a later stage.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to:

note that the draft follow-up assessment on progress towards the country-wise allocation of nutrient

reduction targets (CART) is almost complete and that it has been carried out with data up to 2012,

provide an overall feedback on the follow-up from the point of view of presentation of results and

policy needs, especially on the key message,

agree to discuss the progress towards CARTs at HELCOM 36-2015 when the final draft will be

available, including its web version,

thank the authors for the work on the follow up assessment.

Page 1 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Draft CART follow-up system

This is a preliminary assessment for following-up on progress towards the country-wise allocated reduction

targets on nutrients (CART) adopted by the 2013 Copenhagen HELCOM Ministerial Declaration.

The present version of the CART follow-up assessment is based on data from 1994-2012.

Authors

Lars M. Svendsen

, Bo Gustafsson

, Minna Pyhälä

, Seppo Knuuttila

and Lars Sonesten

With support from the HELCOM expert group on follow-up of national progress towards reaching BSAP

nutrient reduction targets (HELCOM LOAD)

DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University

Baltic Nest Institute, Sweden

HELCOM Secretariat

Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU

Background

The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan reduction scheme was reviewed and revised in 2013 leading to updated

revised maximum allowable inputs (MAI) for fulfilling eutrophication status targets on nutrients, secchi

depth, chlorophyll a and oxygen debt. Based on the revised MAI and revised allocation principles (Gustafsson

& Mörth, in prep, HELCOM 2013, b) new Country allocated reduction targets (CART) were calculated. The

2013 Copenhagen HELCOM Ministerial declaration decided that reduction targets should be specific related

to net nutrients inputs from the countries, and reductions requirement should be allocated also on

transboundary air-and waterborne inputs. The overall CART from is shown in

Table 1.

Table 1:

Country allocated reductions targets (CART) from 2013 Copenhagen HELCOM Ministerial declaration

(HELCOM 2013a).

Country/Source

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Waterborne transboundary

Nitrogen (tonnes)

2,890

1,800

2,430+600*

7,170+500*

1,670

8,970

43,610

10,380*

9,240

3,230

Phosphorus (tonnes)

320

330+26*

110+60*

220

1,470

7,480

3,790*

530

800

Page 2 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Airborne non-Contracting Parties

Shipping

Total

18,720

6,930

118,134

15,178

Finland's view is that according to HELCOM assessment open parts of the Bothnian Sea, Åland Sea and the

Archipelago Sea are eutrophied and need reduction of nutrient levels, although BALTSEM model did not establish

nutrient input reduction requirements to the drainage basins of these sea areas. Finland will address water protection

measures to the drainage basins of these areas in its national plans;

At this point in time Poland accepts the Polish

Country Allocated Reduction Targets as indicative due to the ongoing national consultations, and confirms their efforts

to finalize these consultations as soon as possible.

* 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.

Following up Contracting Parties reduction commitments from the Copenhagen 2013 HELCOM Ministerial

Declaration requires quantification of the water- and airborne nutrient inputs

that can be assign to each

Contracting Party

and further to quantify the transboundary nutrient inputs entering Baltic Sea sub-basins.

In the declaration it is remarked that transboundary inputs are preliminary and requires further discussion.

In this document some questions are raised to solve it.

This document is the follow-up progress in CART fulfilment, while the follow-up on MAI is in the Core Pressure

Indicator of nutrient inputs.

Key Message

Country allocated reduction requirements (CART) of nitrogen and phosphorus have been expresses as input

ceilings for each country and source by sub-basin.

Bases on analysis on normalized inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus from mid-

99 ’ties to

and 1b2) the following conclusion with high statistical certainty can be made:



(Tables 1a

Denmark fulfils nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM sub-basins

Germany and Sweden fulfil nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM basins with exception of Baltic Proper

Russia exceeds their ceiling to all sub-basins

Baltic Sea shipping and countries outside HELCOM exceed their ceilings to all sub-basins

All countries with waterborne phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Sea exceed their ceiling to Baltic Proper

and Gulf of Finland

Total nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to Bothnian Sea, Danish Straits and Kattegat are below the ceiling

for the HELCOM sub-basins

Denmark, Germany, Poland, Sweden and countries outside HELCOM have reduced their total nitrogen

inputs to all HELCOM sub-basins

Nitrogen input from Baltic Sea shipping has increased

Page 3 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26



Denmark and Poland have reduced their total phosphorus input to the HELCOM sub-basins to which

they have waterborne inputs

Latvia has increasing phosphorus inputs to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Riga

Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and Belarus have increase phosphorus input to Gulf of Riga

Since the reference period (1997-2003) nitrogen and phosphorus inputs overall decrease with 9% and

14 %, respectively to the Baltic Sea

Table 1a:

Evaluation of fulfilling CART for total nitrogen inputs country per basin based on statistical adjusted 2012

inputs. Red = CART are not fulfilled/input ceilings are with 95 % statistical certainty exceeded. Yellow: Within the

statistical uncertainty it cannot be justified if CART is fulfilled/inputs ceilings exceeded. Green: CART is with 95 %

statistical certainty fulfilled/inputs ceiling not exceeded. Blue: classification not relevant. The arrows indicates where

there is a trend in total nitrogen inputs from mid-

99 ’ties to

and whether it is a decrease ↓ or increase ↑ in

inputs. BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS = Baltic Sea shipping; OC= other countries and sources as

the 20 EU countries not being HELCOM Contracting Parties, countries outside EU including BY, CZ and UA, North Sea

shipping etc.

Country/basin BB

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

Sum

↓

Sum

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

Table 1b:

Evaluation of fulfilling CART for total phosphorus inputs country per basin based on statistical adjusted 2012

inputs. Red = CART are not fulfilled/input ceilings are with 95 % statistical certainty exceeded. Yellow: Within the

statistical uncertainty it cannot be justified if CART is fulfilled/inputs ceilings exceeded. Green: CART is with 95 %

statistical certainty fulfilled/inputs ceiling not exceeded. Blue: classification not relevant. The arrows indicates where

there is a trend in total nitrogen inputs from mid-

99 ’ties to

and whether it is a decrease ↓ or increase ↑ in

inputs.BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS = Baltic Sea shipping; OC= other countries and sources as

the 20 EU countries not being HELCOM Contracting Parties, countries outside EU including BY, CZ and UA, North Sea

shipping etc.

Page 4 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Country/basin BB

Sum

↓

↑

↓

Sum

↓

↑

↓

↑

↓

Figure 1a and 1b compares the average normalized nitrogen and phosphorus in 2010-2012 inputs per

country/sources per HELCOM sub-basin with the respective inputs ceiling. The overall conclusion is the

same as given in tables 1a and 1b.

Page 5 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Figure 1a

Net nitrogen ceilings

per country pr. sub-basin and average air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs in 2010-12.

Red: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yellow colour: it cannot be judged with statistical certainty if average input in

2010-12 is higher than the ceiling. Green colour: Nitrogen ceiling is fulfilled taking into account statistical uncertainty.

Figure 1b:

Net phosphorus ceilings per country pr. sub-basin and average air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs in

2010-12. Red: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yellow colour: it cannot be judged with statistical certainty if average

input in 2010-12 is higher than the ceiling. Green colour: Nitrogen ceiling is fulfilled taking into account statistical

uncertainty.

Progress toward fulfilling nutrient input ceiling

The normalized statistical estimated nutrient inputs per country and sub-basin in 2012 are compared with

the corresponding ceilings using a statistical method (see annex and Larsen & Svendsen, 2013) to evaluate

progress in fulfilling nutrient reduction requirements (Tables 1a and 1b). These tables show with statistical

high significance (>95%):



Denmark fulfils nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM sub-basins



Germany and Sweden fulfil nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM basins with exception of Baltic Proper



Russia exceeds their ceilings to all sub-basin



Baltic Sea shipping and countries outside HELCOM exceed their ceilings to any sub-basin

For the final version: The ceilings may quite easily be turned from bars to horisontal lines in a drawing programme

Page 6 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26



All countries with waterborne phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Sea exceed their ceiling to Baltic Proper

and Gulf of Finland

Total nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to Bothnian Sea, Danish Straits and Kattegat are below the ceiling

for the HELCOM sub-basins

Denmark, Germany, Poland, Sweden and countries outside HELCOM have reduced their total nitrogen

inputs to all HELCOM sub-basins

Nitrogen input from Baltic Sea shipping has increased

Denmark and Poland have reduced their total phosphorus input to the HELCOM sub-basins to which

they have waterborne inputs

Latvia has increasing phosphorus inputs to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Riga

Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and Belarus have increase phosphorus input to Gulf of Riga

In the section Longer ter trends and changes in inputs further details on changes in total

inputs and in

air and waterborne inputs can be found.

For basins and for country by basins where the ceilings are fulfilled with statistical high certainty the margin

of fulfilment can be evaluated to indicate how many tons of nitrogen and/or phosphorus the latest inputs

are below the ceiling taking into account statistical uncertainty. This could indicated how much inputs could

increase without exceeding the input ceilings taking into account precautionary principles. An examples is

shown in table 2.a and 2.b

Table 2a:

The bold numbers are an estimate of how many tons the total statistical estimated normalized water +

airborne nitrogen inputs in 2012 were below the inputs ceiling taking into account

statistical uncertainty. no : Inputs

2010-12 are numerically below the ceiling but taking into statistical uncertainty it cannot be evaluated if the ceilings

are fulfilled.

Input ceiling no fulfilled.

Input ceiling

Estimated input 2012

Input 2012 minus input ceiling

Estimated Uncertainty

Fulfilment margin

57,622

59,032

1,410

1,764

79,372

72,856

-6,876

2,220

4,656

325,001

364,152

39,151

13,298

101,800

117,679

15,879

2,440

88,418

91,222

2,804

7,153

65,998

50,157

-15,841

1,533

14,308

74,001

64,287

-9,714

1,734

7,980

Table 2b:

The bold numbers are an estimate of how many tons the total statistical estimated normalized water +

airborne phosphors inputs in 2012 were

elow the inputs ceiling taking into account statistical uncertainty. no :

Inputs 2010-12 are numerically below the ceiling but taking into statistical uncertainty it cannot be evaluated if the

ceilings are fulfilled.

Input ceiling no fulfilled.

Input ceiling

Estimated input 2012

Input2012 minus input ceiling

Uncertainty

Fulfilment margin

2,675

2,669

-6

142

2,773

2,376

-397

130

267

7,360

14,754

7,365

446

3,600

7,254

3,654

343

2,020

2,566

546

254

1,601

1,345

-256

-173

1,687

1,536

-151

Page 7 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

[For

discussion:

Tables 2a and b above can be further broken down for country by basin where the total

water and airborne inputs of nitrogen/phosphorus input during 2010-12 is with statistical high certainty so

far below the input ceilings, that there is a potential margin for an increase in inputs without exceeding the

input ceilings.]

In table 3 is shown an example for nitrogen inputs to Kattegat where the table includes a proposals for

discussion. It is based on the estimate from table 2a on how much it would be possible to increase nitrogen

inputs compared with estimated inputs in 2012 and with high statistical certainty fulfilling the nitrogen

ceiling to Kattegat. The potential increase can either be divided according to countries percent of CART or

countries proportion of obtained reductions.

Table 3:

How a potential increase in nitrogen inputs to Kattegat could be divided between countries either according

to the percentages of CART or according to the proportion of obtained nitrogen input reduction since the reference

period. In table 2a is estimate that nitrogen inputs to Kattegat could be increased with 7,920 tonnes compared with

2010-2012 inputs and still with high statistical certainty fulfilling the nitrogen ceiling to Kattegat.

Country

CART

Potential Reduction since Proportion

Potential

(tonnes)

(% of total

increase in

reference

of increase in

CART)

inputs (1) period (tonnes)

reduction

inputs (2)

(tonnes)

(%)

(tonnes)

Total

708

826

602

2,511

4,761

14.9

1.7

0.6

0.1

17.3

12.7

52.7

100

1180

134

1370

1006

4174

7,920

6,061

535

134

-17

7,008

-124

1,444

15,007

40.4

0.1

0,04

0,1

46.7

9.6

100

3155

278

3647

751

7,920

Changes in inputs since the reference period

The natural way to evaluate fulfilment is to compare with a national emission ceiling of nutrient inputs to

the Baltic Sea. This is calculated using the PLC 5.5 reference data set averaged for 1997-2003. The national

inputs from the countries are computed as the sum of the waterborne and airborne parts, taking into

account transboundary waterborne contributions from/to other countries. For the reference period these

data were readily presented in the background documents to the 2013 Ministerial meeting (HELCOM

2013,b). A nutrient input ceiling is calculated by subtracting the national inputs in the reference period

(1997-2003) with the CART. In tables 4-5, the national input ceilings are shown together with the achieved

Page 8 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

reductions 2010-12 compared to the reference input data and in the last column, how large proportion of

the CART that was achieved by 2010-12. Negative reduction indicates increased inputs. For the basins

without reduction requirements, the countries may still not increase their inputs because of the

precautionary principle was applied when calculating MAI rather that estimating the largest possible inputs

to these basins.

In tables 6-7, the background data for the calculation of national reductions are provided so that each

country can follow the changes in airborne, waterborne and transboundary inputs between 1997-2003 and

2010-2012.

Page 9 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 4:

Country by basin wise total normalized nitrogen input ceilings, achieved reductions in 2010-2012 compared

to the reference inputs (1997-2003), average normalized input 2010-2012 and these inputs in percentage compared

with the ceiling. Negative reductions indicate increased inputs. In tonnes.

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Denmark

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

231

904

7910

334

381

30313

29319

69392

253

2625

116

110

7220

6061

16450

Estonia

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

317

1413

11265

13029

26156

377

-421

1876

1839

Finland

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

35081

29619

1569

20653

255

87318

-2122

1511

504

615

613

36510

26466

1489

22642

188

87391

104

110

100

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

710

1551

9253

62522

2516

174

76900

298

1418

13105

10901

25845

100

116

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

644

2802

160857

1166

1361

1125

1106

169062

159

601

7422

260

264

21368

23967

54041

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

110

491

33093

261

5795

39864

Lithuania

610

-382

311

Poland

256

29175

122

132

134

30004

Russia

-205

-386

-515

-2181

-265

-9

-17

-3578

901

1851

12266

72583

2732

173

195

90701

127

119

133

116

109

100

112

118

569

2391

175118

1191

1213

929

999

182409

109

102

108

423

41418

275

6064

48378

125

105

121

Page 10 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Germany

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

817

3170

27473

1312

1465

21957

3285

59480

164

649

5823

324

317

2315

535

10127

Latvia

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

273

6091

183

53898

60558

-1

-12

-1718

-18

-5022

-6770

270

9454

224

57876

67934

100

155

123

107

100

112

637

2345

29069

1153

1120

18393

2829

55546

106

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

17924

33350

30942

502

449

6224

34206

123597

Sweden

2192

2393

6781

117

1123

7008

19698

15378

29109

32518

448

356

4747

28024

110579

105

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Other sources

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

1876

6603

33002

3455

2804

5880

5579

59199

571

2105

9859

1137

866

1768

1444

17750

2114

7346

37868

3804

3147

6863

6646

67788

113

111

115

110

112

117

119

115

Page 11 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Baltic Sea shipping

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

292

1434

147

112

165

149

2372

-79

-286

-1133

-146

-106

-122

-124

-1996

440

1747

8302

885

667

948

875

13864

610

598

579

602

595

574

587

585

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Belarus

BAP

GUR

Sum

7322

6352

13673

720

-501

219

Czech republic

BAP

Sum

2693

465

Ukraine

BAP

Sum

1948

Ceiling

337

Achieved

2138

Input

110

% of

ceiling

2955

110

8578

6729

15308

117

106

112

Total Baltic Sea

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

57622

79372

325001

101800

88418

65998

74001

792212

660

6526

53910

-316

-2840

12453

15077

85471

56962

72846

370012

116568

91257

53545

63685

824875

114

115

103

104

Page 12 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 5:

Country by basin wise total normalized phosphorus input ceilings, achieved reductions in 2010-2012

compared to the reference inputs (1997-2003), average normalized input 2010-2012 and these inputs in percentage

compared with the ceiling. Negative reductions indicate increased inputs. In tonnes.

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Denmark

BAP

KAT

Sum

1040

829

1890

161

Estonia

BAP

GUF

GUR

Sum

236

239

483

131

Finland

BOB

BOS

GUF

Sum

1668

1255

322

3245

-26

107

Germany

BAP

Sum

101

351

451

-10

Latvia

BAP

GUR

Sum

541

615

-94

-48

-142

296

676

972

403

125

158

285

340

625

283

138

1694

1148

676

3518

102

210

108

BOB

BOS

BAP

KAT

Sum

826

1125

308

105

740

3104

470

183

673

252

199

139

BAP

GUF

GUR

Sum

277

2892

185

3354

982

732

1767

245

BAP

Sum

4309

BAP

GUR

Sum

831

166

996

Lithuania

679

-8

670

Poland

2691

Russia

987

-9

978

Sweden

-123

139

111

190

949

986

732

696

3449

115

238

111

758

5183

224

6165

273

179

121

184

9095

211

1593

200

1793

192

121

180

Page 13 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Belarus

BAP

Sum

244

797

1041

195

-40

155

Czech Republic

BAP

Sum

108

Ukraine

BAP

Sum

211

229

212

473

965

1438

194

121

138

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Total Baltic Sea

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

2675

2773

7360

3600

2020

1601

1687

21717

-149

246

3669

1031

-12

141

5013

2824

2527

14651

6478

2340

1514

1546

31882

106

199

180

116

147

Page 14 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Ceiling

Achieved

Input

% of

ceiling

Atmospheric deposition

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Sum

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

100

Page 15 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 6:

Summary of country-wise total normalized nitrogen inputs Country by basin in the reference period,

compared with 2010-2012 averaged, reduction between the periods and the changes in percentages. Negative

reductions indicate increased inputs. In tonnes.

Reference 1997-2003

2010 - 2012

Reduction

Rel.

(%)

Rel.

(%)

-3

Rel.

(%)

-6

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

1864

23277

24392

49533

Air

226

854

8182

376

374

5311

5635

20958

Transb.

Net

226

854

10046

376

374

28588

30027

70491

Water

1503

17407

19654

38563

Air

159

601

5919

260

264

3961

4313

15478

Transb.

Net

159

601

7422

260

264

21368

23967

54041

Water

361

5870

4739

10970

Air

253

2263

116

110

1350

1322

5480

Net

253

2625

116

110

7220

6061

16450

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

1134

12004

12530

25667

Air

299

661

680

247

2017

Transb.

Net

299

1795

12684

12777

27684

Water

791

12389

10648

23828

Air

298

627

715

253

2017

Transb.

Net

298

1418

13105

10901

25845

Water

343

-386

1882

1839

Air

-35

-6

Net

377

-421

1876

1839

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

32625

25641

16909

75175

Air

1764

2337

1993

994

250

7477

Transb.

5353

Net

34389

27978

1993

23256

250

88005

Water

34863

24404

16384

75650

Air

1648

2063

1489

816

188

6299

Transb.

5442

Net

36510

26466

1489

22642

188

87391

Water

-2238

1237

526

-475

Air

116

274

504

178

1178

Net

-2122

1511

504

615

613

Page 16 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Rel.

(%)

Rel.

(%)

-2

-5

-22

-9

-10

-11

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

6847

12843

19690

Air

801

2994

25708

1477

1437

7865

3364

43646

Transb.

2337

Net

801

2994

34892

1477

1437

20708

3364

65673

Water

6120

11715

17835

Air

637

2345

20930

1153

1120

6678

2829

35691

Transb.

2019

Net

637

2345

29069

1153

1120

18393

2829

55546

Water

727

1128

1855

Air

164

649

4778

324

317

1187

535

7955

Net

164

649

5823

324

317

2315

535

10127

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

10134

65843

75977

Air

258

967

206

441

1983

Transb.

-3365

-13431

-16795

Net

258

7736

206

52853

61164

Water

12522

71874

84396

Air

270

1027

224

513

2143

Transb.

-4094

-14511

-18605

Net

270

9454

224

57876

67934

Water

-2388

-6031

-8419

Air

-1

-12

-60

-18

-72

-160

Net

-1

-12

-1718

-18

-5022

-6770

Page 17 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Reference 1997-2003

2010 - 2012

Reduction

Rel.

(%)

-7

Rel.

(%)

Rel.

(%)

-29

-26

-4

-3

-11

-6

-9

-4

Rel.

(%)

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

42536

Air

108

464

2384

294

437

3799

Transb.

-2891

5245

2354

Net

108

464

42028

294

5682

48689

Water

41175

Air

423

2099

275

397

3391

Transb.

-1855

5667

3812

Net

423

41418

275

6064

48378

Water

1361

Air

285

408

Net

610

-382

311

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

192832

Air

631

2647

19655

1313

1335

1061

1133

27775

Transb.

-8194

Net

631

2647

204293

1313

1335

1061

1133

212413

Water

164260

Air

569

2391

17481

1191

1213

929

999

24773

Transb.

-6623

Net

569

2391

175118

1191

1213

929

999

182409

Water

28572

Air

256

2174

122

132

134

3002

Net

256

29175

122

132

134

30004

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

10950

74006

84956

Air

696

1465

3881

1748

510

164

178

8642

Transb.

-3080

-5353

1957

-6476

Net

696

1465

11751

70401

2467

164

178

87123

Water

10751

75799

86549

Air

901

1851

4633

2226

618

173

195

10597

Transb.

-3118

-5442

2114

-6446

Net

901

1851

12266

72583

2732

173

195

90701

Water

199

-1792

-1593

Air

-205

-386

-752

-478

-108

-9

-17

-1955

Net

-205

-386

-515

-2181

-265

-9

-17

-3578

BOB

Water

16813

Air

758

Transb.

Net

17571

Water

14759

Air

620

Transb.

Net

15378

Water

2054

Air

138

Net

2192

Page 18 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

28964

31382

5485

34091

116736

2537

7916

565

440

384

941

13541

31501

39298

565

440

5869

35032

130277

27036

25917

4444

27245

99400

2073

6601

448

356

303

780

11179

29109

32518

448

356

4747

28024

110579

1929

5465

1041

6847

17336

464

1315

117

161

2362

2393

6781

117

1123

7008

19698

Reference 1997-2003

2010 - 2012

Reduction

Rel.

(%)

Rel.

(%)

-22

-20

-16

-20

-19

-15

-16

-17

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

Air

2685

9451

47727

4941

4013

8631

8090

85538

Transb.

Net

2685

9451

47727

4941

4013

8631

8090

85538

Water

Air

2114

7346

37868

3804

3147

6863

6646

67788

Transb.

Net

2114

7346

37868

3804

3147

6863

6646

67788

Water

Air

571

2105

9859

1137

866

1768

1444

17750

Net

571

2105

9859

1137

866

1768

1444

17750

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

Air

361

1461

7169

739

561

826

751

11868

Transb.

Net

361

1461

7169

739

561

826

751

11868

Water

Air

440

1747

8302

885

667

948

875

13864

Transb.

Net

440

1747

8302

885

667

948

875

13864

Water

Air

-79

-286

-1133

-146

-106

-122

-124

-1996

Net

-79

-286

-1133

-146

-106

-122

-124

-1996

Page 19 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Reference 1997-2003

2010 - 2012

Reduction

Rel.

(%)

-8

Rel.

(%)

Rel.

(%)

BAP

GUR

BAS

Water

Air

Transb.

9299

6228

15527

Net

9299

6228

15527

Water

Air

Transb.

8578

6729

15308

Net

8578

6729

15308

Water

Air

Net

720

-501

219

BAP

BAS

Water

Air

Transb.

3420

Net

3420

Water

Air

Transb.

2955

Net

2955

Water

Air

Net

465

BAP

BAS

Water

Air

Transb.

2474

Net

2474

Water

Air

Transb.

2138

Net

2138

Water

Air

Net

337

Reference 1997-2003

2010 - 2012

Reduction

Rel.

(%)

-3

ALL

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

49437

54605

297679

102919

78373

41605

58484

683102

Air

8185

24767

126243

13333

10045

24393

20278

227244

Transb.

Net

57622

79372

423922

116252

88418

65998

78762

910346

Water

49621

51439

263038

104572

82521

33566

46898

631655

Air

7341

21407

106975

11997

8736

19978

16786

193220

Transb.

Net

56962

72846

370012

116568

91257

53545

63685

824875

Water

-184

3166

34641

-1652

-4149

8039

11585

51446

Air

844

3360

19268

1336

1309

4415

3492

34024

Net

660

6526

53910

-316

-2840

12453

15077

85471

Page 20 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 7:

Summary of country-wise total normalized nitrogen inputs Country by basin in the reference period,

compared with 2010-2012 averaged, reduction between the periods and the changes in percentages. Negative

reductions indicate increased inputs. In tonnes.

Reference 1997-2003

BAP

KAT

BAS

BAP

GUF

GUR

BAS

BOB

BOS

GUF

BAS

BAP

BAS

BAP

GUR

BAS

BAP

GUR

BAS

BAP

BAS

Water

1040

829

1928

Water

504

277

804

Water

1668

1255

637

3560

Water

175

351

525

Water

269

1959

2228

Water

2635

Water

12310

Transb.

101

Transb.

-66

-1331

-1398

Transb.

-363

192

-171

Transb.

-524

Net

1040

829

1928

Net

504

277

804

Net

1668

1255

686

3609

Net

276

351

626

Net

203

627

830

Net

2272

192

2463

Net

11786

2010 - 2012

Water

982

732

1767

Water

470

183

673

Water

1694

1148

635

3477

Water

207

340

547

Water

390

2065

2455

Water

1787

Water

9457

Transb.

-94

-1389

-1483

Transb.

-194

200

Transb.

-361

Net

982

732

1767

Net

470

183

673

Net

1694

1148

676

3518

Net

285

340

625

Net

296

676

972

Net

1593

200

1793

Net

9095

Reduction

Abs.

161

Abs.

131

Abs.

-26

107

Abs.

-10

Abs.

-94

-48

-142

Abs.

679

-8

670

Abs.

2691

Rel. (%)

-2

Rel. (%)

-3

Rel. (%)

-46

-8

-17

Rel. (%)

-4

Rel. (%)

Page 21 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

BAP

GUF

GUR

BAS

BOB

BOS

BAP

KAT

BAS

Water

960

6218

7178

Water

826

1125

843

105

740

3639

Transb.

-202

-49

215

-36

Transb.

Net

758

6169

215

7142

Net

826

1125

843

105

740

3639

Water

960

5224

6184

Water

949

986

732

696

3449

Transb.

-202

-41

224

-19

Transb.

Net

758

5183

224

6165

Net

949

986

732

696

3449

Abs.

987

-9

978

Abs.

-123

139

111

190

Rel. (%)

-4

Rel. (%)

-15

BAP

GUR

BAS

BAP

BAS

BAP

BAS

Water

Transb.

668

925

1593

Transb.

295

Transb.

Net

668

925

1593

Net

295

Net

Water

Transb.

473

965

1438

Transb.

229

Transb.

Net

473

965

1438

Net

229

Net

Abs.

195

-40

155

Abs.

Rel. (%)

-4

Rel. (%)

Page 22 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Reference 1997-2003

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Air

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

Net

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

2010 - 2012

Air

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

Net

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

Reduction

Abs.

Rel. (%)

Reference 1997-2003

ALL

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

BAS

Water

2494

2379

17274

7359

2235

1496

1569

34807

Air

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

Transb.

Net

2675

2773

18320

7509

2328

1601

1687

36894

Water

2643

2133

13605

6328

2247

1409

1428

29795

2010 - 2012

Air

181

394

1046

150

105

118

2087

Transb.

Net

2824

2527

14651

6478

2340

1514

1546

31882

Reduction

Abs.

-149

246

3669

1031

-12

141

5013

Rel. (%)

-6

-1

It has been tested if the changes in total normalized average inputs 2010-12 compared with the reference

period is statistical significant the results is shown in table 8a and 8b. Denmark, Sweden and countries

outside HELCOM had significant decrease in nitrogen inputs with 23%, 15% and 21% respectively. Inputs

from Baltic Sea shipping increased significantly with 17 %. The nitrogen inputs decreased significantly to

Baltic Proper (13%), Danish Straits (19%), Kattegat 19%) and Baltic Sea (9%). Phosphorus inputs decreased

significantly from most of the countries to Baltic Proper, and increased significantly from Latvia with 46%.

Overall there is a decrease in total phosphorus since the reference period but it is only significant to Baltic

Proper (20%), Kattegat at 90-95% significant (8%) and to the Baltic Sea (14%).

Page 23 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 8.a

Changes (%) in total normalized average nitrogen inputs 2010-2012 compared with the average in

the reference period country by HELCOM sub-basin.

–

indicates decreasing input since the reference

period. Green colors indicates high statistical significance (>95%), yellow 90-95 % statistical significance and

red no statistical significant changes. Blue indicates no input from the country to the sub-basin.

[Comma

will e ha ge to .”]

Country BB

Sum

-29,4

-1,8

6,2

-20,5

2,2

-8,8

-9,9

29,4

-12,5

-29,6

-0,5

-5,4

-21,7

4,6

-8,8

-9,7

26,4

-7,6

-26,1

-21,0

-25,3

-16,7

22,2

-1,5

-14,3

4,4

-17,3

-7,8

-13,6

15,8

-20,7

-12,7

-30,7

3,3

-2,6

-22,0

9,0

-6,3

-9,3

3,1

-20,8

-29,4

-14,7

-24,8

-22,0

9,5

6,7

-9,1

10,7

-19,1

8,0

-25,3

-13,0

-30,3

-11,2

-5,7

-12,9

-12,4

5,7

-19,1

-20,2

-12,4

-30,6

-15,9

-4,1

-12,0

-11,9

9,1

-20,0

Sum

-23,3

-6,6

-0,7

-15,4

11,1

-0,6

-14,1

4,1

-15,1

-1,4

-13,6

16,8

-20,8

-9,4

22,0

-21,3

-1,1

19,5

-22,3

-8,2

19,7

-23,0

0,3

19,0

-21,6

3,2

14,8

-20,5

-18,9

16,5

-17,8

-19,1

Table 8.b

Changes (%) in total normalized average phosphorus inputs 2010-2012 compared with the

average in the reference period country by HELCOM sub-basin.

–

indicates decreasing input since the

reference period. Green colors indicates high statistical significance (>95%), yellow 90-95 % statistical

significance and red no statistical significant changes. Blue indicates no input from the country to the sub-

basin.

[Comma will e ha ge to .”]

Country BB

Sum

-11,9

-12,3

-6,8

-1,4

-34,0

-5,6

-11,7

Sum

-8,4

-16,3

-2,5

-0,2

17,0

-27,2

-22,8

-13,7

-5,2

-9,8

-22,3

0,0

-13,6

1,6

-8,5

3,5

46,0

-29,9

-22,8

0,0

-13,2

-29,2

-22,3

0,0

-20,0

-3,1

7,7

4,3

-16,0

4,3

-17,3

42,6

-6,0

14,9

-12,4

0,0

5,6

0,0

-8,9

0,0

-13,7

0,0

0,5

0,0

-5,4

0,0

-8,3

Page 24 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Changes in normalized net nitrogen and phosphorus water—and airborne inputs compared with the

corresponding inputs in the reference period have been calculated (Tables 9 and 10). Further it has been

tested if the changes are significant.

[more text to be added when statistical analysis are ready]

Table 9a:

Changes (%) in normalized airborne nitrogen inputs (tonnes) from the reference period (1997-2003) to the

average 2010-2010. BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS = Baltic Sea shipping; OC= other countries and

sources as the 20 EU countries not being HELCOM Contracting Parties, countries outside EU including North Sea

shipping etc. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 6.

Country/Basin

ALL

22.0

-26.9

-13.1

-10.3

19.5

-26.8

-15.5

-13.6

15.8

-26.0

-9.3

-15.3

19.7

-26.7

-18.3

-10.0

19.0

-26.2

-14.5

-13.0

14.8

-28.4

6.4

-18.1

16.5

-26.9

7.1

-17.2

16.8

-26.5

-8.9

-15.0

-29.4

-1.8

-6.6

-20.5

2.2

-8.8

-9.9

29.4

-18.2

-29.6

-0.5

-11.7

-21.7

4.6

-8.8

-9.7

26.4

-18.3

-27.7

-5.2

-25.3

-18.6

6.2

-12.0

-11.1

19.4

-16.6

-30.7

5.2

-17.9

-22.0

9.0

-6.3

-9.3

27.4

-20.8

-29.4

2.5

-24.8

-22.0

16.2

-9.1

21.0

-19.1

-25.4

-13.0

-30.3

-15.1

-5.7

-12.9

-12.4

5.7

-21.3

-23.5

-12.4

-30.6

-15.9

-4.1

-12.0

-11.9

9.1

-17.1

ALL

-26.1

0.0

-15.7

-18.2

8.1

-10.7

-10.8

22.6

-17.4

Table 9b

: Changes (%) in normalized net waterborne nitrogen inputs from the reference period (1997-2003) to the

average 2010-2012. BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 6.

Country/Basin

-19.4

-30.2

3.2

-2.0

-11.4

24.5

-0.8

-14.6

-3.0

2.5

-15.0

-25.2

-19.4

ALL

-22.1

-7.2

0.7

6.9

-4.8

-8.8

9.4

8.0

-19.0

8.0

-20.1

-9.9

11.2

0.2

-14.6

2.1

-14.9

-1.4

-13.6

-12.2

-6.7

-17.4

-7.8

-13.6

Significant changes will later be shown in bold

Page 25 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

ALL

0.4

-5.8

-11.6

1.6

5.3

-19.3

-19.8

-7.5

-13.6

Table 10

: Changes (%) in normalized total waterborne phosphorus inputs from the reference period (1997-2003) to

the average 2008-2010. BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS = Baltic Sea shipping; OC= other countries

and sources as the 20 EU countries not being HELCOM Contracting Parties, countries outside EU including and North

Sea shipping etc. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 7.

Country/Basin

ALL

5,6

-8,9

-20,0

-13,7

0,5

-5,4

-8,4

-13,6

14,9

-12,4

1,6

-8,5

3,5

46,0

-29,9

-22,8

0,0

-13,2

-29,2

-22,3

4,3

-16,0

4,3

-17,3

-6,0

7,7

4,3

-11,9

-12,3

-6,8

-1,4

-3,1

-34,0

-5,6

-11,7

ALL

-8,4

-16,3

-2,5

-0,2

17,0

-27,2

-22,8

-13,7

-5,2

-9,8

-22,3

Longer term trend and changes in inputs

section xxxx is included se eral

figures with shown time series of normalized water- and airborne

nitrogen (Figures xx-xxx) and phosphorus (Figures yy-yyy) during 1995 to 2012 country per basin including

figures for the transboundary air- and waterborne inputs. These figures include ceilings and show the trend

line.

Significant changes will later be shown in bold

Page 26 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 11.a

Significant changes in

total (air- + waterborne)

normalized nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Sea

by country and by sub-basin from 1994 to 2012. For phosphorus, only the country by sub-basin results are included where

there are waterborne inputs from the country. N.i. = no waterborne inputs from the Contracting Party to this sub-basin.

Only results where the trend is statistically significant (confidence < 5%) are shown; results where the confidence is

between 5-10% are given in parentheses.

BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine (only waterborne); SS = Baltic

Sea shipping; OC= other countries and airborne sources as BY, CZ, UA, other countries outside EU including and North

Sea shipping etc.

BOB

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

-34

-24

-34

-33

-31

-21

-29

-46

-45

-40

-28

-46

-39

-26

-31

-24

-12

-21

-29

-38

-13

-12

-20

-36

-41

-40

-41

-15

-27

-23

-28

-27

-26

-13

-9

-21

-24

-39

-37

-39

-27

-23

-21

-38

-23

-29

-23

-29

EU20

-38

-37

-40

-23

-25

-16

-30

-25

Table 11b

Significant changes in normalized nitrogen and phosphorus

deposition

to the Baltic Sea by country and by

sub-basin from 1995 to 2010. As phosphorus deposition is calculated as the same fixed value during 1995-2010 no

statistical test was performed. Only results where the trend is statistically significant (confidence < 5%) are shown; results

where the confidence is between 5-10% are given in parentheses.

BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS =

Baltic Sea shipping; OC= OC= other countries and airborne sources as BY, CZ, UA, other countries outside EU including

and North Sea shipping etc.

BOB

EU20

BOS

BAP

GUF

GUR

KAT

Finalized in January 2015

Page 27 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table 11c.

Significant changes in flow normalized total

waterborne

nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Sea by

country and by sub-basin from 1994 to 2010. Only results where the trend is statistically significant (confidence < 5%)

are shown; results where the confidence is between 5-10% are given in parentheses. N.i. = no waterborne inputs from

the Contracting Party to this sub-basin.

BY = Belarus; CZ = Czech Republic; UA = Ukraine; SS = Baltic Sea shipping; OC=

other countries and sources as the 20 EU countries not being HELCOM Contracting Parties, countries outside EU

including and North Sea shipping etc.

BOB

n.i.

BOS

n.i.

BAP

n.i.

GUF

n.i.

GUR

n.i.

KAT

n.i.

Data per country/source

Status on inputs 2012

The normalized net water and airborne inputs and the river flow entering Baltic Sea sub-basins from each

country in 2012 is shown in table 15. In the northern and eastern part of the catchment river flow was much

higher Finland and Sweden) or higher (Estonia and Russia) than the average for 1994-2011 while it was much

lower that this average from most of the southern part of the catchment (Lithuania and Poland). It was also

higher than the average for Germany.

Table 15

River flow (as average 1994-2011 and for 2012), flow normalized waterborne and normalized airborne inputs

of phosphorus and nitrogen to the Baltic Sea in 2012 by a) country and b) sub-basin. EU20 = non-HELCOM EU countries

including Croatia ; other at . “ources’ and at ospheric phosphorus sources’ = other countries and sources

contributing to atmospheric deposition on the Baltic Sea.

Country

1994-

2011

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Belarus

283

413

2,528

128

1,070

636

1,967

2,891

5,799

Flow

2012

281

497

3,509

150

1,249

638

1,548

3,191

7,051

Nitrogen (tonnes)

Phosphorus (tonnes)

Airborne

15,513

1,984

6,098

32,813

2,397

3,824

24,111

7,149

10,778

Waterborne

38,553

24,501

79,960

15,889

62,132

48,587

137,490

77,465

96,465

15,069

Total

54,046

26,485

86,059

48,702

64,528

52,411

161,601

84,614

107,242

15,069

Airborne

Waterborne

1,811

624

3,372

557

1,050

1,572

8,627

5,129

3,368

1,515

Total

1,811

624

3,372

557

1,050

1,572

8,627

5,129

3,368

1,515

Page 28 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

2,570

1,859

14,081

41,366

25,666

2,570

1,859

14,081

41,366

25,666

2,087

15,715

18,114

185,778

600,520

782,298

2,087

27,909

2,087

29,997

217

Czech Republic

Ukraine

Baltic Shipping

EU20

Other atm. sources

Atm. P sources

Total

Page 29 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Technical information

Figure A.1-A.2 are supplementary figures to the key messages.

Figure A.1

Average net air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs (normalized) per country and basin during 2010-12 and

to the Baltic Sea. The numbers in the figures are nitrogen input (water- or airborne) in tonnes. Countries with

waterborne nitrogen inputs to a sub-basin are shown separately on the catchment to the sub-basin. Countries only

contributing with airborne nitrogen inputs are shown together in the pie diagram located on the sub-basins. Red

colour: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yellow colour: it cannot be judged with statistical certainty if average input in

2010-12 is higher than the ceiling. Green colour: Nitrogen ceiling is fulfilled taking into account statistical uncertainty.

In figure A.2 is shown and alternative version of figure A.1. If this version is preferred a figure for each basin

will be developed.

We are aware to it might be difficult to see all details. The intention is to colour the catchment according to

fulfilment of CART. Will be updated.

Page 30 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Page 31 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Figure A.2:

Alternative presentation of figure A.1 net normalized air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs to Baltic Proper

in 2010-12 from countries/sources. A separate pie diagram is given for countries with waterborne inputs, while

countries/sources only with airborne inputs is shown together in one pie

diagram [It is the intention to add red,

yellow, green to all pie diagrams according to the fulfilment of input ceilings as shown for the bottom right pie

diagram.]

Page 32 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Figure A:3

Average net air- and waterborne phosphorus inputs (normalized) per country and basin during 2010-12

and to the Baltic Sea. The numbers in the figures are phosphorus input (water- or airborne) in tonnes. Airborne inputs

from all sources are aggregated per sub-basin (OC = other sources). Red: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yellow: it

cannot be judged with statistical certainty if average input in 2010-12 is higher than the ceiling. Green: Phosphorus

ceiling Nitrogen ceiling is fulfilled taking into account statistical uncertainty.

Page 33 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Page 34 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Figure A.4

Normalize net inputs of water- and airborne nitrogen 1995-2012 to Baltic Proper from countries/source. The

input ceiling (dotted line) is inserted.

Further a trend line is inserted, where full line indicates statistical significant trend

and dotted line no statistical significant trend as shown in figure A.4.

7 figures will be include for nitrogen, representing each sub-basin

This trend lines will be added when the statistical analysis are ready

Page 35 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Page 36 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Figure A.5

Normalize net inputs of water- and airborne nitrogen 1995-2012 to Baltic Proper from countries/source. The

input ceiling (dotted line) is inserted. Trend line (full line) inserted when trend are statistical significant (>95%), and with

dotted line with significance between 90-95%.

An example illustrating the importance of changing retention for CART

[An example will be elaborated including a table/tables to illustrate the importance of changing retention

for the resulting CART]

Impact of reducing nutrient inputs in one sub-basin for neighbouring basins

[Text will be added to introduce table 8.a and 8.b]

7 figures will be for phosphorus, representing each sub-basin

Page 37 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Table x.a:

Example from BALTSEM simulations on how large nitrogen input reductions to one basin needs to be to give

the same effect as reductions of external inputs to another basins. For example: 1.7 tonnes/year reductions to DS give

the same effect in KAT as 1 tonnes/year reductions of the external inputs to KAT.

Gives the equivalent effect of 1 tonne reduction of direct inputs to these basins

KAT

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

KAT

1.7

7.3

4.6

1.3

4.0

1.1

7.8

A reduction of this

magnitude in these

basins

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

Table x.b:

Example from BALTSEM simulations on how large phosphorus input reductions to one basin needs to be to

give the same effect as reductions of external inputs to another basins. For example: 3.2 tons/yr reductions to DS

gives the same effect in BAP as 1 ton/yr reductions of the external inputs to BAP.

Gives the equivalent effect of 1 ton reduction of direct inputs to these basins

KAT

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

KAT

0.8

2.4

3.8

3.6

4.0

2.8

4.6

4.3

3.2

1.5

9.0

1.6

3.3

8.3

4.8

7.7

2.6

3.8

5.8

6.5

A reduction of this

magnitude in these

basins

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

3.6

4.2

1.3

4.1

Challenges and need for further development:

This section includes issues discussed at the LOAD 8/2014 meeting and it in a final draft of the CART follow-

up proposals will be included for further consider. Some of the question will probably need a project for

development of solutions.

Under the preparation of this draft and in working with the development of follow-up assessment several

questions for discussion or further elaboration appeared:



How can we establish time series for transboundary inputs (if they are not reported use a fixed

proportion of total waterborne inputs to the basin according to the proportion set under reference

period)? If the proportion changes (due to real changes and/or due to reported/monitored data) how

to take into account these changes when evaluating progresses in CART fulfilment



Should we introduce a minimum transboundary input (%) before it is taken into account



How to establish time series for retention (at present we use the same retention coefficient every

year). If we change retention coefficient how to take into account the influence on CART between

CP’s-

use an exa ple to show what will happen if retention coefficient are change for CART etween CP’s



How should we follow up CART for FI and GE regarding the division of their CART?

Page 38 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26



Should we show waterborne inputs from non-CP to sub-basins as sums or separately for Belarus, Czech

Republic and Ukraine?

If old data are reported again/corrected and when we add new data (years) and make new

normalization we will get changed data also for the reference period. In this draft we have used the

reference period data from the 2013 Copenhagen HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (PLC-5.5 report)

–

when comparing changes with inputs in 2010-2012

–

but scientifically speaking this is not 100% correct,

because changes in inputs 2010-2012 since the reference period should be based on the same

normalized data. Regarding trends and changes from 1995 to 2012 we use the new normalization

–

we have a challenges to decide on and solve

–

because if we change the input during the reference

period that would change the input ceiling (and then CART!!!)

Further develop statistical methods:



Make statistical evaluation on whether changes in inputs 2010-12 as compared with reference

period are statistical significant



Evaluation of fulfilling CART for sub-basins where CART are 0 should be done slightly different that

for basins where CART >0



For CP/sub basins with CART>0 and CART are statistical fulfilled estimated how many tons inputs are

under the threshold for statistical fulfilling CART. Further how could this free input e di ided

among Contracting Parties (based on proportion of CART, proportion of real reductions or?)

Which data should be available in a spreadsheet on HELCOM web-site regarding the CART follow-up

Discussion on how some of the figures/presentation could be done



Page 39 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

References

Gustafsson, B.G & 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 Müller-Karulis, Erik

Gustafsson, Bonghi Hong, Christoph Humborg, Steve Lyon, Marmar Nekoro, Miguel Rodriguez-Medina, Oleg

Savchuk, Erik Smedberg, Alexander Sokolov, Dennis Swaney, & Fredrik Wulff. Baltic Nest Institute, Stockholm

University, SE-106 91 Stockholm.

HELCOM in prep. Updated Fifth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-5.5). Baltic Sea Environment

Proceedings.

HELCOM 2013a. HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration "Taking Further Action to Implement the Baltic Sea

Action Plan - Reaching Good Environmental Status for a healthy Baltic Sea". Adopted 3 October 2013.

HELCOM 2013b. Summary report on the development of revised Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and

updated Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Supporting document for

the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting.

Available online.

HELCOM 2013c. Review of the Fifth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation for the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial

Meeting. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 141.HELCOM 2012. Fifth Baltic Sea Pollution Load

Compilation

–

An Executive Summary. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 128A.

HELCOM 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. Adopted in Krakow,

Poland, 15 November 2007.

Hirsch, R.M., Slack, J.R. & Smith, R. A. 1982. Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data.

Water Resources Research, 18, 107-121.

Larsen, S.E. & Svendsen, L.M. 2013. Statistical aspects in relation to Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation.

Task 1 under HELCOM PLC-6. Aarhus University, DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 34 pp.

Technical Report from DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 33.

http://dce2.au.dk/pub/TR33.pdf.

Page 40 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Abbreviations/definitions

Airborne (or windborne)

AIS

Anthropogenic

Atmospheric deposition

Nutrients carried or distributed by air.

Automatic Identification System with devices on ships that allow for real-

time surveillance and statistics of movement of ships.

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).

Baltic Proper

The entire Baltic Sea (as a sum of the Baltic Sea sub-basins). See the

definition of sub-basins.

Baltic Nest Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Bothnian Bay

Bothnian Sea

Baltic Sea Action Plan

Belarus

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.

Czech Republic

Danish for the Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, Denmark.

Germany

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.

Denmark

Danish Straits

Estonia

Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range

Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe

Condition in an aquatic ecosystem where increased nutrient

concentrations stimulate excessive primary production, which leads to an

imbalanced function of the ecosystem.

Finland

BAP (or BP)

BAS

BNI

BOB (or BB)

BOS (or BS)

BSAP

Catchment area

Contracting Parties

Country-Allocated Reduction

Targets (CART)

DCE

Diffuse sources

DIN and DIP

Direct Sources

EMEP

Eutrophication

Page 41 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Flow normalization

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.

France

Great Britain

Gulf of Finland

Gulf of Riga

The allowable amount of nitrogen and phosphorus input per country and

sub-basin. It is calculated by subtracting the national CART from the input

of nitrogen and phosphorus during the reference period of the BSAP

(1997-2003).

Kattegat

HELCOM Expert Group on follow-up of national progress towards reaching

BSAP nutrient reduction targets

Lithuania

Latvia

The maximum annual amount of a substance that a Baltic Sea sub-basin

may receive and still

fulfil HELCOM’s ecological o jecti es for a Baltic “ea

unaffected by Eutrophication.

The catchment area upstream of the river monitoring station. 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.

EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Municipal wastewater treatment plant

Netherlands

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.

North Sea Shipping

GUF (or GF)

GUR (or GR)

Input ceiling

KAT (or KT)

HELCOM LOAD

Maximum Allowable Input

(MAI)

Monitored areas

Monitoring stations

MSFD

MWWTP

Non-contracting parties

NOS

OC, OC

or OC

PLC

Point sources

Other countries (sources of transboundary inputs) airborne (OC

) or

waterborne OC

Poland

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).

Quality assurance

1997-2003

The average normalized water + airborne input of nitrogen and

phosphorus during 1997-2003 used to calculate CART and input ceilings.

Reference period

Reference input

Page 42 of 43

HOD 47-2014, 3-26

Retention

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.

Russia

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%.

Sub-division units of the Baltic Sea: the 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). The whole Baltic Sea is abbreviated BAS.

Sweden

Baltic Sea Shipping

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.

Ukraine

Any sub-catchment(s) located downstream of the (riverine) chemical

monitoring point within the catchment and further all unmonitored

catchments; e.g. partly monitored rivers, unmonitored part of monitored

rivers, unmonitored rivers and coastal areas including unmonitored

islands.

In previous versions of the guidelines, direct diffuse sources (scattered

dwellings and storm waters overflows) were reported separately and

some countries also reported coastal areas separately. These are now

reported as part of the unmonitored area.

Substances carried or distributed by water.

EU Water Framework Directive

Riverine inputs

Statistically significant

Sub-basins

Transboundary input

TN and TP

Unmonitored area

Waterborne

WFD

Page 43 of 43

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Heads of Delegation

Helsinki, Finland, 10-11 December 2015

HOD 49-2015

OUTCOME OF THE 49TH MEETING OF HEADS OF DELEGATION

(HELCOM HOD)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Agenda Item 1

Agenda Item 2

Agenda Item 3

Agenda Item 4

Agenda Item 5

Agenda Item 6

Agenda Item 7

Agenda Item 8

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....…….…...2

Adoption of the Agenda………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Preparations for HELCOM 37-2016……………………………………………………………………………..….2

Next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting ………………………………………………………………………….….…2

Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups …………………………………………………………..………..3

HELCOM institutional and organisational matters ……………………………………………………….14

Any other business ………………………………………………………………………………………………………14

Next meeting(s)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..16

Outcome of the Meeting……………………………………………………………………………………………...16

List of Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………….....17

Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap 2015-2017..…………………………………….…….…19

Statement by Denmark concerning the draft Roadmap for designating a NECA in the

Baltic Sea in parallel with the North Sea as well as the NECA-related outcome of

MARITIME 15-2015……………………………………………………………………………………………..…...….22

HELCOM project on the assessment of maritime activities in the Baltic Sea………..…….…23

Statement by the European Commission Regarding Financing and the Implementation of

EU Legislation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….26

Annex 4

Annex 5

List of Documents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...27

Page 1 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

OUTCOME OF THE 49TH MEETING OF HEADS OF DELEGATION

(HELCOM HOD)

Introduction

0.1

The 49th Meeting of the Heads of Delegation was held in the premises of the HELCOM

Secretariat in Helsinki, Finland, on 10-11 December 2015.

0.2

The Meeting was attended by participants from all Contracting Parties as well by Observers from

Baltic Farmers' Forum on Environment (BFFE), Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC), Coalition Clean

Baltic (CCB), Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP), John Nurminen Foundation (JNF),

Oceana and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The List of Participants is contained in

Annex 1.

0.3

The Meeting was chaired by the Chair of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Harry Liiv.

Adoption of the Agenda

Agenda Item 1

Documents: 1-1, 1-2

1.1

The Meeting adopted the Agenda as contained in document 1-1.

Preparations for HELCOM 37-2016

Agenda Item 2

Documents: 2-1, 2-2

2.1

The Meeting discussed and agreed on the Provisional Agenda for HELCOM 37-2016 (10-11

March 2016) (document 2-2) with the addition of a new agenda item “Next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting” as

Agenda Item 3.

2.2

The Meeting discussed the preparations for HELCOM Marine Litter Stakeholder Conference (9

March 2016) and took note of input to the programme from Contracting Parties and endorsed in principle

the draft provisional programme for the HELCOM Stakeholder Conference (document 2-1) to be further

developed based on the discussions in the meeting.

Agenda Item 3

Documents: 3-1

3.1

The Meeting took note of the updated Roadmap of HELCOM activities based on the progress

since HOD 48-2015 (document 3-1) and agreed that the Roadmap is to be further updated based on the

outcome of this Meeting and submitted to HELCOM 37-2016 for endorsement.

3.2

The Meeting discussed the next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting and identified HOLAS II and

MAI/CART as the most important issues suitable for ministerial attention, with the possibility to include other

issues as well. The Meeting agreed that in order to attract high-level political attention the discussion of the

next Ministerial Meeting should focus on a few topical priority issues and that the programme should be

arranged so that it is interactive and the ministers can actively make an impact, and a new type of outcome

could be planned for.

3.21

The Meeting tentatively agreed that the next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting will be held in 2018.

The exact timing will be decided as soon as possible based on knowledge of other events on the international

agenda and the development of the priority topics identified and invited the Secretariat to start preparations.

Next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting

Page 2 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Agenda Item 4

Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups

Documents: 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-

19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-25-Corr.1, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-30-Corr.1, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33,

4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39

Pressure

4.1

The Meeting took note in general of the outcome of the Third Meeting of the new Working

Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 3-2015), Copenhagen,

Denmark, 7-9 October 2015 (document 4-3), presented by the Chair of the Pressure WG Mr. Lars Sonesten.

4.2

The Meeting welcomed the offers for leadership in implementing the actions from the Regional

Action Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML) received so far from the Contracting Parties and other actors and the

information that Germany is ready to co-lead matters related to the implementation of the pressure-related

actions of the RAP ML, if needed and having also a co-lead for the State & Conservation WG related parts,

and invited further offers for lead in the remaining actions.

4.3

The Meeting was of the opinion that the work on further development of the HELCOM

Recommendation on sewage sludge management should be continued by the Pressure group and the issues

related to the Annexes containing limit values should be further discussed by experts in order to prepare

acceptable suggestions for the meeting of PRESSURE 4-2016. The Meeting took note that Germany will

provide initial suggestions by end of the year 2015.

4.4

The Meeting noted the Terms of Reference for the HELCOM Expert Network on Marine Litter

(EN-Marine Litter) (Attachment 1 in document 4-3).

4.5

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Germany to lead development of the registry of sources of

impulsive underwater noise and related indicator.

4.6 The Meeting took note of the concerns by Finland and Estonia regarding the impact of dredging activities

in the Port of Bronka (Russia) and that a letter has been sent by Finland as well as the HELCOM Executive

Secretary to the Russian Federation requesting information on how the requirements of the Helsinki

Convention have been followed in this large scale operation.

4.7

The Meeting noted that this information request concerns e.g. the exact amounts and level of

contamination of material dredged and dumped for the port construction, as well as monitoring in the area.

4.8

The Meeting took note of the information by Russia that the data required to prepare the

detailed answer to the request is being collected from data holders and that the information will be provided

to the Contracting Parties as soon as the compilation is ready. The Meeting took note of the information by

Russia that some information is available in English on the web page of the Port of Bronka at

http://eng.port-

bronka.ru.

4.9

The Meeting noted the status of reporting within PLC-6 and annual PLC, and requested Poland

and Russia to report annual PLC data as soon as possible.

4.10

The Meeting approved arranging the next meeting of the Pressure WG (PRESSURE 4-2016) on

19-21 April 2016 in Gothenburg, Sweden, and PRESSURE 5-2016 on 24-28 October 2016 and welcomed the

offer by Poland to consider hosting the Meeting.

4.11

The Meeting took note of the information on the status of reporting and assessment of dredging

and exploration of mineral resources in the Baltic Sea (document 4-32), provided feedback to the Secretariat

regarding the focus of such assessment and welcomed the information that Pressure WG at its next meeting

will consider both the assessment methodology and related improvements in reporting, taking into account

similar work in OSPAR. The Meeting requested that also the Maritime Working Group is involved in

improving the assessment of dredging activities/depositing of dredged material.

4.12

The Meeting recalled that HELCOM Recommendation 36/2 on management of dredged material

and its reporting format has been recently revised and adopted.

Page 3 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.13

The Meeting considered progress in the elaboration of the PLC products (document 4-11) and

an updated division of tasks and timetable in the implementation plan of the HELCOM MAI-CART OPER

project (document 4-11-Add.1).

4.14

The Meeting decided that the next PLC assessment (PLC-7) will be made in 2019 based on the

monitoring data from 2017. The Meeting agreed on the need to make already plans for timing of PLC-8

assessment to be able to plan ahead and noted the proposal by Germany to conduct monitoring in 2021 and

reporting in 2023. The Meeting requested PRESSURE 4-2016 to consider the timing of PLC-8 and make a

proposal to HOD 50-2016.

4.15

The Meeting recognized that the PLC assessment routine needs re-consideration, since the

“traditional” PLC products have changed their character, and the focus in periodic PLC is much more now on

source apportionment and effectiveness of measures. Also coupling of future PLC assessments and CART

assessment needs to be further considered by Pressure WG.

4.16

The Meeting took note of the view by Germany that human and financial resources should be

dedicated to PLC-7 to work towards a more harmonised approach for source apportionment, aiming at

harmonising the catchment models (or even using one catchment model for all countries).

4.17

The Meeting discussed the first draft of the CART assessment (accessible via a link circulated by

the Secretariat) and appreciated efforts made by the experts involved in preparing the assessment. The

Meeting noted that a few of the Contracting Parties had some further suggestions for improvements,

however, recognized that the assessment should be published without further delay as clear indications

where the Baltic Sea region stands with respect to CART are urgently needed.

4.18

On the basis of the above, the Meeting agreed to publish the CART assessment as preliminary

results with the understanding that these are scientific results, noting that besides editorial improvement

the two remaining issues are:

―

to include, in the key message, information that Poland accepts the Polish Country Allocated

Reduction Targets as indicative due to the ongoing national consultations and confirms their efforts

to finalize these consultations as soon as possible;

―

in the key message tables it should be made clearer that there is a difference in how far the countries

are from the targets.

4.19

The Meeting agreed that in the future the science-based CART assessment product has to be

separated from a policy message product, related to the implementation of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme.

4.20

The Meeting requested the Pressure WG to continue work to implement this new approach

(para 4.19), including through a possible expert workshop, and take into account the comments provided by

the Contracting Parties and the need to make the next CART assessment - though remaining a scientific

project- more user friendly.

4.21

The Meeting encouraged all Contracting Parties to be involved in the PLC work within the

Pressure WG.

4.22

The Meeting requested PRESSURE-4 to consider the reference contained in the Copenhagen

Ministerial Declaration regarding an extra reduction in basins where reduction targets have already been

fulfilled, to be accounted for in other basins, and if the assessment of inputs by major rivers could be

provided.

4.23

The Meeting agreed to discuss the progress in implementation of the HELCOM nutrient

reduction scheme at HELCOM 37-2016.

4.24

The Meeting noted the start-up of the project on operationalization of the nutrient reduction

scheme follow-up system (MAI-CART OPER, 2015-2017) including the outcomes of the project workshop on

1 December 2015 and approved the implementation plan of the project (document 4-11, Attachment 3 and

document 4-11-Add.1) and requested that also a user manual is prepared by the project.

Page 4 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.25

The Meeting took note of the clarification by the Secretariat that the project should be seen as

contributing to the overall operationalisation of MAI/CART assessments and that it focuses on automation of

certain steps in the assessments, improving overall quality of the assessment result and transparency of the

assessment procedures.

4.26

The Meeting pointed out that the Pressure WG should be actively involved in the project

coordination. The Meeting invited Contracting Parties to consider contributing financially to bridge the gap

in the project budget which would otherwise need to be covered from the HELCOM budget.

4.27

The Meeting agreed and endorsed the draft HELCOM Recommendations on waterborne

pollution input assessment and on monitoring of airborne pollution input (document 4-6) and agreed to

submit them to HELCOM 37-2016 for adoption pending the confirmation by Germany by

8 January 2016.

4.28

The Meeting decided on removing of the JCP Hot Spots Nos. 87.1, 99.2, 82, 83.1, 84 and 85 from

the list of JCP Hot Spots (document 4-4) and congratulated Poland for the achievement.

4.29

The Meeting considered the draft roadmap to build a knowledge base on underwater noise

(document 4-21) and the revised version based on the comments by Russia (document 4-21 Rev.1), noting

that the draft was also considered by HELCOM MARITIME 15-2015, which should be made more clear on the

cover page.

4.30

The Meeting approved the roadmap as included in

Annex 2,

pending clarification of the study

reservation by Russia by

31 January 2016.

4.31

The Meeting noted that underwater noise is a crosscutting issue and should continue to be also

considered by the Maritime group.

4.32

The Meeting took note of the progress in setting up the registry for impulsive underwater noise

(document 4-22) and recognized the opportunity to join the OSPAR regional registry being set up in ICES with

minimal cost, allowing timely fulfillment of the Ministerial commitment.

4.33

The Meeting agreed that HELCOM joins the OSPAR registry of impulsive noise and on the need

to clarifify hosting of the database and condition of hosting and noted that the work on reporting details is

still ongoing and is aimed to be finalized by HELCOM EN-Noise in close cooperation with OSPAR and ICES.

Fish

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the Third Meeting of the HELCOM Group on

4.34

Ecosystem-based Sustainable Fisheries (FISH 3-2015), Warsaw, Poland, 26-27 November 2015 (document 4-

35).

4.35

The Meeting agreed on an option for HELCOM to be involved as a partner in the SUSFISHING

project for restoration of sea trout rivers in the Baltic Sea (presentation 4 from HELCOM FISH 3-2015) to

support activities of the Task Force on migratory fish species.

4.36

The Meeting

approved organizing the next meeting of the Fish Group during the first week of

May 2016.

The Meeting stressed the importance of close cooperation between HELCOM and other

4.37

organisations working with fish and/or fisheries, in particular BALTFISH, as HELCOM can provide scientific

input.

4.38

The Meeting welcomed the information that Estonia is willing to host FISH 5 if it will take place

during 2016.

4.39

The Meeting took note of the draft HELCOM Recommendation on sustainable aquaculture in

the Baltic Sea as editorially revised intersessionally (document 4-10).

The Meeting considered and discussed the submission from Denmark regarding the draft

4.40

Recommendation (document 4-37) with a proposal for alternative wordings to point 1c iii of the Annex of

the Recommendation.

Page 5 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.41

The Meeting agreed on the wording for points 1c iii of the Annex

“…avoid or minimize negative

impacts on the current status of the environment and aim at not jeopardizing the achievement of good

ecological/environmental/chemical status of the area affected, and…”.

The Meeting agreed further to change, for reasons of consistency, the wording in point 3 (page

4.42

3) in the main text of the draft Recommendation as follows:

“…in an overall endeavour by the Contracting

Parties to keep inputs to within Maximum Allowable Inputs for nitrogen and phosphorus for the Baltic Sea

basins…”.

The Meeting recalled that the FISH 3-2015 meeting had agreed to propose a follow up to the

4.43

HELCOM Recommendation by developing a draft document on BAT/BEP for sustainable aquaculture in the

Baltic Sea region in a HELCOM Fish Correspondence Group and noted that the Chair of FISH Group proposed

the following way forward:

―

that given the heterogeneous nature of aquaculture a scoping/matrix approach could be a good

start;

―

variability in technology and geography (differences between sub-regions) are important

dimensions in the scoping exercise.

4.42

The Meeting took note of the comment by Finland that their reservation on the

Recommendation follow-up as expressed in FISH 3-2015 remains.

4.44

The Meeting discussed the follow up of the Recommendation, once adopted, regarding BAT/BEP

for aquaculture in the Baltic Sea region and noted the different views of the Contracting Parties on the the

approach and further process in developing BAT/BEP.

4.45

The Meeting agreed on the need to clarify this issue before adoption of the Recommendation

and agreed to establish a correspondence under the lead of [the HELCOM FISH Chair] to pave the way to be

able to agree on the Recommendation and its follow-up at HELCOM 37-2016.

4.46

The Meeting agreed that HELCOM 37-2016 should reconsider the draft Recommendation based

on the outcome of the correspondence work.

The Meeting took note of the comment by FEAP that involving the aquaculture industry in the

4.47

work on HELCOM Recommendation on sustainable aquaculture is highly appreciated, the regional

aquaculture BAT/BEP process should be industry driven and that the economic feasibility of measures should

be included in the work.

4.48

The Meeting noted the comment by CCB that developing regional HELCOM BAT/BEP

documentation is a key element based on fundamental principles of 1992 Helsinki Convention. The Meeting

also took note of the information on CCB Seminar on Land-based aquaculture systems, held on 11-12

November 2015 in Stockholm, Sweden, as a first step of involving industry in development of BAT/BEP.

4.49

The Meeting took note of the information by the EU, as a follow up to FISH 3-2015 considerations

on international agreements for the management of eel stock, that an eel management plan has been

prepared by Poland and the Russian Federation and that, following the scientific assessment of the plan, the

European Commission will consider approving the plan as it is expected to contribute to the improvement of

the stock status and its recovery.

Gear

4.50

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the 12th Meeting of the Group for the Implementation

of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR 12-2015), Warsaw, Poland, 29-30 October 2015 (document 4-2).

4.51

The Meeting noted that 14 future HELCOM actions are proposed as the result of the

coordination efforts relating to national PoMs that have taken place in the process of documenting regional

coordination of programmes of measures (document 4-26). These proposed actions are new activities to be

taken forward by the HELCOM working groups, as a follow-up of BSAP.

4.52

The Meeting took note of the information on the amended Action 11 and 12 related to the Fish

Group (document 4-36) and that they substitute the corresponding actions in document 4-26.

Page 6 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.53

The Meeting took note that Germany here, as in other places and due to a formal study

reservation, is not in a position to agree on any of the proposed future actions.

4.54

The Meeting noted that several Contracting Parties expressed their concern about the German

formal study reservations under the HOD 49 Agenda (4.27, 4.53, 4.55, 4.94, 4.124, 4.128) and its paralyzing

effects on HELCOM work, and about the HELCOM MSFD-coordination that has been requested by the EU,

being jeopardised, and invited Germany to explain what the substantive issues at stake are regarding the

individual documents in order to allow for a constructive way forward. Following that request, Germany

informed the meeting as follows: The reason for the study reservations relates to ongoing national

discussions between different levels of administration (Federal coastal states and federation) about the

national consultation procedures concerning regional work. Until those procedures are not clarified,

Germany is not in a position to formally endorse documents which – directly or indirectly - relate to the MSFD

implementation process. Germany will inform HOD as soon as possible about progress and the possibility to

lift its reservations.

4.55

The Meeting noted the specific study reservation by Germany on action 1.

4.56

The Meeting noted the study reservation by Denmark on actions 2 and 9 (document 4-26) and

invited Denmark to clarify the position on action 2 by

4 January 2016

and that the clarification on action 9

will be discussed in the planned intersessional activity to elaborate the Recommendation on conservation

plan for species (cf. paragraph 4.112)

4.57

The Meeting considered action 14 'To develop a Roadmap for Biofouling management' and

could not agree to it in its current form and proposed that it could be reconsidered after further

development. The Meeting furthermore requested a clarification if the action is aimed at "outlining the steps

towards reducing the risk of spread of non-indigenous species" (as indicated in document 4-25) or

"environmentally friendly and safe TBT-free antifouling systems on ships" (as indicated in document 4-36).

4.58

Taking note of the German (c.f. para 4.53 and 4.55 above) and Danish (c.f. para 4.56 above)

study reservations, the Meeting agreed on the remaining actions as included in document 4-36, with the

following specific comments for further consideration:

Action 2: ‘Assess the role of internal nutrient reserves/accumulated nutrients/stored nutrients in the

Baltic and potential management measures’. The Meeting agreed on the alternative text proposed

by Sweden.

Action 11: ‘Adjustment or utilization of EU data collection framework to retrieve data for

assessments and the development of management measures related to by-catch of species’. The

Meeting noted the proposal from Finland to fine-tune the text of Action 11 to properly reflect the EU

Common Fisheries Policy Data Collection Framework (DCF) process and invited Finland to submit the

proposal to Lead country Poland. The Meeting invited the Secretariat to consult with the European

Commission to clarify aspects of the action related to the DCF.

Action 13: ‘Regional monitoring programme on non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea’. The

Meeting noted the view of Germany to cooperate with OSPAR on the development of the monitoring

programmes.

4.59

The Meeting noted that the action on regional risk assessment of shipping (Action 5) and joint

principles for environmental targets of sea-bed habitats (Action 10) are already agreed actions.

4.60

action.

The Meeting requested the Secretariat to identify responsible HELCOM working groups for each

4.61

The Meeting took note of the presentation of the HOLAS II project by the Secretariat (document

4-5,

Presentation 1).

The Meeting noted that several project activities until mid-2017 are taken forward

through projects co-financed by the EU, more specifically the BalticBOOST project and TAPAS project. The

Meeting welcomed the recent decision on financing TAPAS (document 4-8).

Page 7 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.62

The Meeting welcomed the progress of the HOLAS II project and acknowledged the need for

Contracting Parties to ensure national expertise and deliver required data according to the timetable of the

project.

4.63

The Meeting exchanged views on the planned consultations within countries with regard to

HELCOM assessments to be used for other reporting obligations and expressed the view that this issue

requires careful consideration in order to maintain the scientific quality of the HELCOM assessment products.

4.64

The Meeting noted that a questionnaire will be circulated to GEAR contacts to clarify national

requirements on the consultation process.

4.65

The Meeting noted the ongoing work of the European Environment Agency to develop a

European marine assessment under MSFD Article 20.3b, which is to be carried out in coordination with RSCs

and furthermore noted that Contracting Parties are invited to provide their views on the European marine

assessment and how the cooperation between EEA and HELCOM can be structured, including the tentative

need for resources for such cooperation.

4.66

The Meeting approved organizing the next meeting of the GEAR group on 10-11 February 2016

in Berlin, Germany.

4.67

The Meeting took note of the ‘Draft Joint documentation of regional coordination of

programmes of measures in the Baltic Sea’ and recognized that it is the result of the coordination undertaken

by Contracting Parties in relation to their Programmes of measures (document 4-25).

4.68

The Meeting noted proposed revisions to the document by Russia as well as Germany

(document 4-27) and that Finland intends to provide some editorial improvements by

11 January 2016.

4.69

The Meeting endorsed in principle the “Joint documentation of the regional coordination of the

programme of measures“ noting a study reservation on the document by Russia and invited Russia to clarify

the study reservation by

11 January 2016.

4.70

The Meeting agreed to delegate the deliberation of remaining comments and finalization of the

text in the Joint documentation to GEAR 13-2015 and requested GEAR to update the document to reflect the

finalization of national programmes of measures (by 28 February 2016 at the latest).

4.71

The Meeting clarifed that as soon as GEAR has finalised the joint documentation, it can be made

available for reporting under the MSFD, for those HELCOM countries which are also EU member states.

4.72

The Meeting agreed to keep and update Annex 3 of the draft Joint documentation on

Programmes of measures to reflect the outcome of the meeting regarding future actions (paragraphs 4.51,

4.52, 4.57-4.59), taking note of the study reservations raised at the Meeting (paragraphs 4.53, 4.55 and

4.565).

4.73

The Meeting considered the statement by CCB on funding the EU MSFD Programs of Measures

(document 4-17) and discussed relevant steps to fully utilize available funding while devising joint and

coherent implementation of the EU MSFD and HELCOM BSAP.

Maritime and Response

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the 15

Meeting of the HELCOM Maritime Working

4.74

Group (MARITIME 15-2015), Klaipeda, Lithuania, 23-25 November 2015 (documents 4-30 and 4-30-Corr.1).

4.75

The Meeting congratulated Ms. Anna Petersson, Sweden, Ms. Natalia Kutaeva, Russia, and Mr.

Jorma Kämäräinen, Finland, for re-election as chair and vice-chairs, respectively, of the Maritime Working

Group for the next two-year period (2016-2017).

4.76

The Meeting approved organizing the next meeting of the Maritime Working Group during the

week 5-9 September 2016.

The Meeting adopted the Terms of Reference for the Joint HELCOM-OSPAR Task Group on

4.77

Ballast Water Management Convention Exemptions (HELCOM-OSPAR TG BALLAST) for 2015-2016 (document

4-31) with the information that HELCOM considers the footnote as deleted.

Page 8 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.78

The Meeting took note that the 2004 IMO Ballast Water Management Convention is very close

to entry into force as on the basis of preliminary calculations by the IMO Secretariat only a fraction of a

percentage is missing from the remaining unfulfilled criteria on ratified flag state tonnage.

The Meeting recalled that HELCOM and OSPAR have carried out substantial work on preparing

4.79

for the implementation of the BWM Convention in the Baltic and North-East Atlantic regions and noted that

with entry into force of the Convention the results will likely collect increased interest from other regions.

4.80

The Meeting noted that one of the central products is the HELCOM-OSPAR Joint Harmonised

Procedure, a system to implementat regulation A-4 (exemptions) of the BWMC, and that the online risk

assessment tool would benefit from enhancements to make it more user friendly.

4.81

The Meeting took note that a revision to HELCOM Recommendation 25/7 has been endorsed by

MARITIME and will be submitted to HELCOM 37-2016 for adoption.

4.82

The Meeting took note that Sweden relies mainly on criminal sanctions, which limits a practical

application of harmonized level of administrative fines to be considered by the ongoing revision of HELCOM

Recommendation 19/14.

4.83

The Meeting took note of the draft Roadmap for designating a NECA in the Baltic Sea in parallel

with the North Sea (document 4-29) as well as the NECA-related outcome of MARITIME 15-2015 as presented

by Demark (Annex

3).

4.84

The Meeting took note of the statement by Germany, supported by WWF, that the

postponement of NECA submission dates and effective date in the NECA Roadmap to 2021 is not their first

option but can be accepted for the sake of compromise.

4.85

The Meeting considered further steps how to proceed with the NECA issue and with the draft

roadmap and welcomed that Denmark will submit a revised version, based on the outcome of MARITIME 15-

2015, to HELCOM 37-2016 for adoption.

The Meeting took note that national consultations are still ongoing in Finland, and therefore,

4.86

Finland will inform on their position on the timing of NECA at HELCOM 37-2016.

4.87

The Meeting noted that Finland remains the only country that is not ready yet to decide on the

timing of the Baltic NECA, in parallel to the North Sea NECA

4.88

The Meeting took note of the statement by the EU that it is important to keep in mind

appropriate procedures in Contracting Parties that are EU Member States when considering the different

steps under the NECA roadmap.

The Meeting considered the proposal by Sweden for financing model for the maintenance of the

4.89

Seatrack Web (STW) (document 4-16).

The Meeting took note that with regard to this financing scheme for Finland, Lithuania, Germany

4.90

and Latvia it is the only option that contributions from national institutions are paid directly to SMHI hosting

the tool.

4.91

STW tool:

The Meeting took note of the following comments by Contracting Parties on the financing of the

―

Denmark, Finland, Lithuania and Germany can support the contributions allocated to them in the

document 4-16.

―

Latvia needs to consider more the basis of calculating the contribution.

―

Russia is not prepared to participate as Russia is using another model and is not in favour of using

HELCOM budget for the scheme.

―

Poland and Estonia need more time for national consultations.

4.92

possible.

The Meeting invited Poland, Estonia and Latvia to clarify their position to Sweden as soon as

Page 9 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.93

The Meeting adopted the proposed core pressure indicator on oil spills affecting the marine

environment (document 4-9) with the change that Figure 1 (page 5) should include both flight hours and

estimates of volume of spills, and pending the confirmation by Germany by end of this year.

4.94

The Meeting approved the proposal for HELCOM Project on Maritime Assessment (Annex

enable involvement of the needed expertise and took note of the outline of the Maritime Assessment

(document 4-23). The Meeting took note of the Russian proposal to cover the positive long-term trends such

as the significant decrease in illegal spills in the Baltic Sea 1989-2015 and reduction of emission of sulphur

from shipping.

4.95

34).

The Meeting took note of the Baltic LINes project to be implemented 2016-2019 (document 4-

Follow-up system for HELCOM agreements

4.96

The

Meeting took note of

the presentation by the Secretariat of the draft assessment of

accomplishment of HELCOM actions implemented at a regional level and the test case of an action

implemented at the national level, carried out by the Secretariat as requested by GEAR 12-2015 (document

4-15, 4-15 Att 1,

Presentation 2).

The Meeting recalled that the

system covers actions committed under the Baltic Sea Action Plan

4.97

and 2010 and 2013 Ministerial Declarations as well as HELCOM Recommendations adopted since the BSAP.

4.98

The Meeting noted that the evaluation criteria for the follow-up of actions have been reviewed

by HELCOM Working Groups during 2015. The Meeting further noted that the aim is to create a web-based

implementation database with possibility to extract results and to visualize results based on a set of pre-

defined figures and that the technical completion of the system is supported by resources from the EU co-

financed BalticBOOST project.

4.99

The Meeting welcomed the system as a transparent way to follow progress of accomplishment

of HELCOM commitments and was of the view that it will simplify the reporting by Contracting Parties.

4.100

The Meeting noted that the WWF welcomed the development of a transparent follow-up of

HELCOM agreements.

4.101

The Meeting considered the proposal to report actions implemented at the national level by

mid-February 2016 with the view to presenting first exmplary draft results as progress report to HELCOM 37-

2016. The Meeting noted that a majority of Contracting Parties will be able to provide reporting of national

actions within this time-frame while other Contracting Parties were not in a position to guarantee reporting

on all themes by this time.

4.102

The Meeting agreed on a step-wise approach on the reporting where two themes would be

reported by mid-February 2016 and two themes by end of February 2016 and invited the countries to finalize

the reporting according to this time-table as far as possible. For one specific theme with the fewest number

of actions, still to be identified, all Contracting Parties are requested to prioritize reporting by mid-February

in order to be able to present results at HELCOM 37-2016.

4.103

The Meeting discussed two options of visualizing implementation of national actions and was of

the view that they could be visualized by

displaying accomplishment of individual actions by all Contracting

Parties in the same figure (cf. figure 3, document 4-15), or by

preparing web-pages listing country-wise

accomplishment of actions. The Meeting noted that

Lithuania preferred the first option while Denmark will

return with a clarification on the preferred visualization within a week.

4.104

The Meeting noted the comment by Russia on the importance of clarifying the information

contained in document 4-15 and 4-15 Att 1 before making it available to the general public.

4.105

The Meeting took note that Denmark might come back regarding the criteria for assessing

accomplishment by mid-February 2016 (by Gear meeting).

4.106

The Meeting noted that Sweden wished to see a possibility to seek for synergies with identifying

reporting requirements as under e.g. EU directives and to the EEA.

Page 10 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

State and Conservation

4.107

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the Third Meeting of the State and Conservation

Working Group (STATE & CONSERVATION 3-2015), Helsinki, Finland, 9-13 November 2015, as presented by

the co-Chairs Mr. Urmas Lips and Ms. Penina Blankett (document 4-7), and noted:

that reporting to the COMBINE data base is missing from some Contracting Parties and needs to

submitted as soon as possible to ensure access to data for the 2

HELCOM holistic assessment;

that a

joint EUSBSR PA Hazards/HELCOM background report on pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea is

being finalized and will be presented at a stakeholder conference in Copenhagen on 15 December

2015;

that State and Conservation agreed on the draft Terms of Reference of the HELCOM expert network

on hazardous substances;

that State and Conservation supported the proposal to establish a HELCOM expert network on

eutrophication and agreed on draft Terms of Reference;

that the modernized HELCOM MPA database has been published and that the

methodology for the

assessment of ecological coherence was discussed and agreed by the Meeting.

4.108

The Meeting agreed to convene STATE & CONSERVATION 4-2015 on 11-15 April 2016, in

Germany, and STATE & CONSERVATION 5-2015 on 7-11 November 2016, tentatively in Estonia.

4.109

The Meeting took note of the presentation by Lead Country Germany on the draft HELCOM

Recommendation on Conservation of Baltic Sea species categorized as threatened according to the HELCOM

red list (document 4-12).

4.110

The Meeting recalled that all Contracting Parties but Denmark were ready to adopt the final

draft HELCOM Recommendation on ‘Conservation of Baltic Sea species categorized as threatened according

to the HELCOM Red List’ at HELCOM 36-2015. The Meeting took note of the information that while

intersessional consultations have taken place, Denmark’s study reservation remains and furthermore took

note that the Danish national concerns are related to the costs of developing species specific conservation

plans and evaluating the red listed species in EIA-like procedures as well as questioning the efficiency of

protecting species that are naturally rare such as red listed species in the Kattegat area (documents 4-38 and

4-39).

4.111

The Meeting regretted that the current draft Recommendation would need further elaboration

to accommodate the Danish concerns while still being acceptable to all Contracting Parties and that this

Meeting is not in position to agree on the draft Recommendation.

4.112

The Meeting welcomed the willingness of Germany to continue leading the finalization of the

Recommendation and the offer to continue the further elaboration of the text bilaterally with Denmark and

via

consultation of all Contracting Parties, e.g. through written procedure or an online meeting, as

appropriate, with the view to reaching an agreement in time for adopting the Recommendation at HELCOM

37-2016. All Contracting Parties will be consulted on time e.g. through written procedure or the organization

of an online meeting as appropriate. Against that background the Meeting, furthermore, agreed to start with

the second Recommendation on “Conservation of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope

complexes threatened according to the HELCOM Red List” only upon finalization of the first

Recommendation.

4.113

The Meeting requested that in parallel to considering the Recommendation on conservation of

threatened species, the action to support conservation of Baltic species and biotopes/habitats categorized

as threatened according to the HELCOM Red List (action 9, document 4-26) is taken up with a possibility to

start work on some species/habitats/biotopes.

4.114

The Meeting considered the draft Recommendation 'Co-operation and coordination of research

vessel based monitoring in off-shore areas and procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research

activities' as presented by the co-Chair of State and Conservation (document 4-14).

Page 11 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4.115

The Meeting took note of the following comments and revised the Recommendation

accordingly:

to place the reference to UNCLOS as paragraph 3 of the pre-amble;

to remove reference to UNCLOS Article 247 and 248 in paragraph d);

to phrase paragraph d) according to the following: "to facilitate granting of permits, to carry out

monitoring and research activities in the framework of the HELCOM coordinated monitoring

programme in the exclusive economic zones, fishing zones, continental shelves or territorial waters,

aiming at within six weeks from the time of the request."

4.116

The Meeting took note of the of the study reservation by Russia on paragraph c, since granting

of one year permits may not be in accordance with national legislation, and that Russia will clarify the position

17 December 2015.

4.117

Taking note of the study reservation by Russia, the Meeting endorsed in principle the draft

Recommendation for adoption by HELCOM 37-2016.

4.118

The Meeting agreed to establish a HELCOM intersessional expert network on eutrophication and

agreed to the draft Terms of Reference as contained in document 4-13.

4.119

The Meeting welcomed the outcome of the EUTRO-OPER project and took note that the pre-

core indicators developed by EUTRO-OPER will not be finalized by end of the project and that in order to

finalize them Lead Countries are needed to ensure their continued development as well as resources for

modelling to develop GES-boundaries for three of the indicators. The Meeting noted the view of Finland,

Germany and Sweden to continue the project in 2016 with support of a part-time project manager. The

Meeting agreed to continue the project for a limited period 3-6 months and welcomed the offer by Germany

to contribute to the work financially.

4.120

The Meeting took note of the view of the Chair of the Pressure WG that it would beneficial to

link the work of the RedCore and EUTRO-OPER project.

4.121

The Meeting took note of the working arrangement for continued development of indicators

(document 4-20) and recalled that it is based on a Lead Country approach and a more continuous

engagement of HELCOM expert groups, networks and projects, as agreed by HOD 48-2015. The Meeting

noted that a key task for HELCOM experts groups, network and project is to carry out the updating of

indicator evaluations for core indicator reports as well as for the 2nd holistic assessment.

4.122

The Meeting noted that Germany is not in a position to be in the lead on the cumulative impact

indicators, and its repeated view that the core indicators on nutritional and reproductive status of marine

mammals are not suitable to assess the health of marine mammals.

4.123

The Meeting encouraged Contracting Parties to take the lead on development of indicators

where Lead country offers are lacking, noting that this is in particular the case for indicators related to

hazardous substances and benthic communities and habitats.

4.124

Noting the study reservation by Germany, the Meeting agreed, while taking into account a

respective German reservation (see para 4.54), to further consider the core indicator on incidental by-catch

under the Fish Group as well as the State and Conservation Working Group as regards defining the maximum

allowable catch of species.

4.125

The Meeting welcomed that Denmark is lifting the study reservation on GES boundaries for the

core indicators on Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season, Abundance of waterbirds in the

breeding season, Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS), Polybrominated

Diphenyl, Ethers (PBDE), Metals (Cd, Pb, Hg) and Radioactive substances (document 4-33).

4.126

The Meeting noted that for indicators included in Annex 1 to document 4-33, Denmark suggests

that further work is carried out in order to adjust them to be suitable also to Danish waters. The Meeting

invited Denmark to take an active part in the discussions and meetings being set up by Lead countries and

Page 12 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

relevant HELCOM experts groups and network during 2016 to clarify the views on the indicators and to

contribute with data to test and develop the indicators.

4.127

The Meeting requested the Secretariat to continue cooperation with OSPAR e.g. in the planned

development of databases for biodiversity elements.

4.128

The Meeting took note that Germany is not in a position to lift their reservation on the core

indicators due to matters of national administration (cf paragraph 4.54).

4.129

The Meeting took note of the ongoing ecological coherence assessment of the Baltic Sea MPA

network and the report planned to be finalized by HELCOM 37-2016 (document 4-28).

The Meeting considered the information by CCB on pending issues from HELCOM STATE &

4.130

CONSERVATION 3-2015 (document 4-19):

- proposal to consider the revision of HELCOM Assessment on Marine Sediment Extraction in the Baltic Sea,

as an input to the Holistic Assessment,

- proposal to relevant HELCOM groups to consider developing an international agreement to protect

European eel population under the CMS Convention as current legal frameworks are not enough.

4.131

The Meeting noted the support expressed by Sweden to consider all potential measures to

protect the eel, including the proposal for development of such international agreement to protect the

European eel population.

The Meeting noted the support from Sweden to the CCB concerns of the state of the eel

4.132

population.

4.133

The Meeting took note of the concerns expressed by CCB on the state of nature protection and

threats to Baltic MPAs within the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland, as exemplified by cases of Kurgalskiy

Nature Reserve and Kroshtadtskaya Kolonia (document 4-18). The Meeting noted that Lithuania, Finland and

Sweden welcomed the document and were concerned about the issues raised by CCB.

4.134

The Meeting took note of the information from Russia that information could be shared by

Russia on the issues of MPAs in the Gulf of Finland if requested.

Agri

4.135

The Meeting took note of the information on intersessional activities of the HELCOM Group on

Sustainable Agricultural Practices (Agri) (document 4-24) and that the work on both priorities of the Agri

Group (nutrient accounting on farm level and standards for nutrient content in manure) has been started

and that the outcomes of the related workshops as well as next steps will be considered by AGRI 3-2016, as

appropriate.

4.136

The Meeting supported HELCOM involvement as a project partner in the planned project on

manure standards led by Finland and invited potential project partners from the Contracting Parties to

contact Luke ([email protected]) as soon as possible.

4.137

The Meeting thanked Estonia for offering to host the next Agri Group meeting (AGRI 3-2016) in

the first week of April 2016.

4.138

The Meeting took note of the information by CCB that the seminar devoted to manure

management in the Baltic Sea region in the context of industrial animal farming will be held in Vitebsk, Belarus

17 December 2015.

MSP WG

4.139

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the Eleventh Meeting of the joint HELCOM-VASAB

Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG 11-2015), Riga, Latvia, 30 September-1

October 2015 (document 4-1).

4.140

The Meeting took note that the Guideline for the implementation of ecosystem-based approach

in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) in the Baltic Sea has been agreed by the Working Group and requested,

Page 13 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

to consider the conservation aspects in accordance with the ecosystem approach, that the guidelines are

consulted with State and Conservation WG before the adoption by HOD.

4.141

The Meeting approved organizing of the next meeting of the Group (HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG

12-2016) tentatively on 25-26 February 2016 in Poland, and noted that a workshop on MSP is planned by

Poland to be held back-to-back with the meeting.

4.142

The Meeting took note that the work of the newly established Baltic Sea Region MSP Data Expert

Sub-Group (BSR MSP Data ESG) has started with the first meeting held on 1-2 October 2015, in Riga, Latvia.

Agenda Item 5

HELCOM institutional and organisational matters

Documents: 5-1, 5-2, 5-3

5.1

The Meeting took note of the Audit Report and the Financial Statement of the Helsinki

Commission for the financial period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 as well as of the explanatory memorandum

(document 5-3) and advised the Executive Secretary to submit them to HELCOM 37-2016 in order to have

the accountables officially discharged from responsibility.

5.2

The Meeting took note of the recommendation included in the Audit Report, decided to come

back to this issue by HELCOM 37-2016 and took note of the offer by Finland to support the Secretariat in

investigations.

The Meeting considered the draft budget for the financial period 2016-2017 (document 5-1) and

5.3

advised the Executive Secretary to submit the draft budget to HELCOM 37-2016 for official adoption, pending

the clarification of the study reservations by Lithuania and Poland as soon as possible taking into account the

submission deadline of 60 days before the Commission meeting (c.f. Financial Rule 2.3).

5.4

The Meeting took note of the request by Russia and Latvia to further clarify how equal share is

reflected in the proposed budget. The Meeting took note of the explanation by the Executive Secretary

recalling that as endorsed by HELCOM 36-2015, the equal share contributions for the period 2016-2017 and

2017-2018 as required by the Helsinki Convention are based on the financial period 2014-2015, which was

the reference year for the negotiations with Latvia and Lithuania on the road map to reach equal

contribution. The Meeting requested the Executive Secretary to provide additional clarification as may be

needed by HELCOM 37-2016.

5.5

The Meeting considered and endorsed the draft budget estimate for 2017-2018 (document 5-

2), pending clarification of study reservations by Lithuania and Poland (c.f. paragraph 5.3).

5.6

The Meeting took note of the request by Estonia to the Secretariat to include estimates of

external contribution from projects into the draft budget tables to be submitted to HELCOM 37-2016.

The Meeting took note of the submission of the observer applications by PlasticsEurope and

5.7

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to HELCOM 37-2016.

5.8

The Meeting was concerned about late submission and high number of documents to the

working group meetings and HOD 49 meeting that cannot be properly coordinated anymore within different

governmental systems and such short deadlines. The Meeting agreed to review the status of HELCOM’s

streamlining, including organizational and work flows, in HOD 50-2016 next June.

Agenda Item 6

Any other business

Documents: 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12

6.1

The Meeting took note of the information on the planned activity in 2016 and 2017 of the oil

company Lukoil in the continental shelf of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea (document 6-6).

6.2

The Meeting took note of the information on the XVII International Environmental Forum «Baltic

Sea Day», to be held on 22-23 March 2016 in Saint-Petersburg, Russia (document 6-11) and invited

Contracting Parties to contribute to the programme of the meeting.

Page 14 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

6.3

The Meeting took note of the information on European Maritime Day, to be held in Turku,

Finland, on 18-20 May 2016 (document 6-10) where also HELCOM activities can be presented.

6.4

The Meeting took note of the information by Sweden on the EUSBSR Strategy Forum to take

place in Stockholm on 8-9 November 2016.

6.5

The Meeting took note of the information on upcoming meetings within HELCOM and other

forums in late 2015 and in 2016 (document 6-9) and invited Contracting Parties to inform on updates to the

meeting list if needed.

6.6

The Meeting took note of and welcomed the information by Sweden on plans to replenish the

BSAP Fund.

6.7

The Meeting took note of the information by Sweden on reinforced work against dumping in the

Baltic Sea (document 6-12) and supported closer cooperation between HELCOM and London Convention.

The Meeting took note that the London Convention and Protocol are IMO agreements, and agreed that

HELCOM, being an observer to IMO, should be more active within this field of IMO work as HELCOM has

much to offer to these global processes.

6.8

The Meeting welcomed the information that Finland is in the process of ratifying the 1996

Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,

1972.

6.9

The Meeting took note of the information on the publicity for the next HELCOM Ministerial

Meeting and approved the progress report on communication update (document 6-5).

6.10

The Meeting took note of the upcoming process of implementing the UN Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) from the Contracting Parties’ perspective and on a possible role of HELCOM in

this process (document 6-2).

6.11

The Meeting took note of the information on the joint UNEP/EC expert workshop on Regional

Ocean Governance, organized on 9-10 November 2015 in Brussels (document 6-7).

6.12

The Meeting took note of the WWF Report “All Hands on Deck: Setting Course to a Sustainable

Blue Economy in the Baltic Sea Region” (document 6-3).

The Meeting took note of the CCB Report on climate change in the Baltic Sea region, with a focus

6.13

on biodiversity, and policy recommendations, (document 6-4) and invited the Contracting Parties to make

use of those documents in national and regional work to protect the Baltic Sea marine environment.The

Meeting took note of the information about the CCB Seminar on promotion of BAT to reduce impacts of

Industrial Animal Farming (IAF) within Daugava/Western Dvina river basin to be held in Vitebsk, Belarus on

17 December 2015.

6.14

The Meeting took note of the information on the Baltic Sea City Accelerator, a platform for public

and private actors to explore and co-create innovative approaches to local water and wastewater

management challenges, and meet sustainability objectives (document 6-1), which is a follow-up of the

report commissioned by the Zennström Philantrophies, presented at HELCOM 36-2015.

6.15

The Meeting took note of the information on on-going projects within HELCOM (document 6-8).

6.16

Welcoming the new Danish Head of Delegation Anne Mette Hjortebjerg Lund the Meeting

warmly thanked former Danish HOD Tonny Niilonen for his commitment and dedication in the HELCOM work

for the Baltic Sea HELCOM work since years and wished him all the best for his retirement days.

6.17

The Meeting took note of the statement by the European Union as included in

Annex 5.

6.18

The Meeting took note of the information by the Chair that in the beginning of 2015 OECD

agreed to develop a Nitrogen Assessment on a global scale and that Estonia is prepared to facilitate closer

cooperation between HELCOM work in the Baltic and the work within OECD.

Page 15 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Agenda Item 7

Documents: 7-1

Next meeting(s)

7.1

The Meeting agreed to hold the next meeting of the HELCOM Heads of Delegation (HOD 50-

2016) on 15-16 June 2016 and welcomed the offer of Estonia to host the meeting.

Agenda Item 8

Documents: 8-1

8.1

The Meeting adopted the draft Outcome of the Meeting as contained in document 8-1. The final

Outcome, incorporating the comments by the Meeting, has been prepared by the Secretariat in consultation

with the Chair and made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal.

Outcome of the Meeting

Page 16 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Annex 1

Name

Chair

Harry Liiv

Denmark

List of Participants

Organization

Estonian Ministry of the

Environment

Danish Nature Agency

Email address

[email protected]

Telephone

+372 6262850

*) Head of Delegation

Anne-Mette Hjortebjerg

Lund *)

Estonia

Silver Vahtra *)

Urmas Lips

Co-Chair of HELCOM

STATE&CONSERVATION

Rene Reisner

European Union

Matjaž Malgaj *)

Clémentine Leroy

Finland

Eeva-Liisa Poutanen *)

Heikki Lehtinen

Penina Blankett

Co-Chair of HELCOM

STATE&CONSERVATION

Germany

Monika Luxem-Fritsch *)

Latvia

Baiba Zasa *)

[email protected]

+45 4178 2038

MoE of Estonia

Marine Systems Institute,

Tallinn University of Technology

Ministry of the Environment

European Commission, DG

Environment

European Commission

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry

Ministry of the Environment

[email protected]

+372 53225036

+372 6204304

[email protected]

+372 6262855

+32 2 298 8674

+32 2 2950944

+358 2952 50237

+358 2952 50058

Federal Ministry for the

Environment

Ministry of Environmental

Protection and Regional

Development

Ministry of Environment

National Water Management

Authority

Ministry of Maritime Economy

and Inland Navigation

Ministry of Agriculture and

Rural Development

Ministry of Natural Resources

and the Environment of the

Russian Federation

Marine Rescue Service of

Rosmorrechflot (MRS)

StPPO Ecology and business

Embassy of the Russian

Federation in Helsinki

monika.luxem-

[email protected]

+49 228 99 305 2781

+371 67026910

Lithuania

Agnė Kniežaitė-Gofmanė *)

Poland

Adriana Dembowska

Joanna Ignasiak

Marcin Rucinski

via Skype

Russia

Natalia Tretiakova *)

[email protected]

+48 22 37 20 215

+48 22 630 1696

+32 2 7804 217

[email protected]

+370 70663521

[email protected]

+7 4992547947

Natalia Kutaeva

Vice-Chair of HELCOM

MARITIME

Leonid Korovin

Dmitry Otorochkin

[email protected]

+7 495 626 1806

[email protected]

+7 812 4309305

Page 17 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Sweden

Anders Alm *)

Laura Piriz

Linda Rydell

Chair of HELCOM PRESSURE

Lars Sonesten

Observers

BFFE

Airi Kulmala

BSPC

Martina Kramer

CCB

Mikhail Durkin

FEAP

Anu-Maria Sandelin

JNF

Marjukka Porvari *)

Miina Mäki

OCEANA

Hanna Paulomäki

WWF

Ottilia Thoreson

HELCOM Secretariat

Monika Stankiewicz

Executive Secretary

Hermanni Backer

Professional Secretary

Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky

Professional Secretary

Ulla Li Zweifel

Professional Secretary

Johanna Laurila

Information Secretary

Satu Raisamo

Administrative Officer

Lena Bergström

Project Coordinator

HELCOM Secretariat

Helsinki Commission

HELCOM Secretariat

[email protected]

+358 40 840 2471

+358 46 850 9199

+358 40 630 9933

+358 46 850 9198

+358 40 523 8988

+358 46 850 9201

+358 400 803 428

WWF Baltic Ecoregion

Programme

[email protected]

+46 8 624 74 15

OCEANA

[email protected]

+358 409 311 690

John Nurminen Foundation

[email protected]

+358 41549 1535

+358 50 5763298

Coalition Clean Baltic

Finnish Fish Farmers

Association

[email protected]

+46 739770793

BFFE

Baltic Sea Parliamentary

Conference

[email protected]

+358 400 755454

+49 3855251538

Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences

[email protected]

+46 18673007

Ministry of Environment and

Energy

SwAM

[email protected]

+46 27008726

+46 106986000

Page 18 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Annex 2

Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap 2015-2017

Background information

Anthropogenic noise has potentially harmful effects on the marine environment and the species therein.

Pressure on the marine environment from anthropogenic noise in the Baltic Sea Area needs to be addressed.

Presently piling (impulsive noise) and shipping (continuous noise) are considered to constitute the two major

sources of underwater noise in the Baltic Sea, and more evidence is needed to adequately reflect the scale

of the problem in the Baltic Sea.

The 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration commits the Contracting Parties to take further

measures, initiatives or efforts to reach a healthy marine ecosystem supporting a prosperous Baltic Sea

region, including addressing pollution of the marine environment by litter, as well as impacts on marine

organisms from underwater impulsive and continuous noise.

In the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration it has been agreed that the level of ambient and

distribution of impulsive sounds in the Baltic Sea should not have negative impact on marine life and that

human activities that are assessed to result in negative impacts on marine life should be carried out only if

relevant mitigation measures are in place, and accordingly as soon as possible and by the end of 2016, using

mainly already on-going activities, to

−

establish a set of indicators including technical standards which may be used for monitoring ambient

and impulsive underwater noise in the Baltic Sea;

encourage research on the cause and effects of underwater noise on biota;

map the levels of ambient underwater noise across the Baltic Sea;

set up a register of the occurrence of impulsive sounds;

consider regular monitoring on ambient and impulsive underwater noise as well as possible options

for mitigation measures related to noise taking into account the ongoing work in IMO on non-

mandatory draft guidelines for reducing underwater noise from commercial ships and in CBD

context;

−

This roadmap will support the achievement of the commitments acquired in 2013.

There is a potential need for future revisions of the timetable indicated in this roadmap due to ongoing

international, regional and European processes.

Goal

To make every effort to prepare a knowledge base towards a regional action plan on underwater noise in

2017/2018 to meet the objectives of the 2013 Ministerial Meeting, and of the EU MSFD for HELCOM

countries being EU members.

Necessary steps

The following steps are perceived as necessary:

1. Knowledge gathering

1.1 Compile and review the available knowledge on impact of anthropogenic noise in the Baltic Sea;

1.2 Identify and map human activities that are the [main] sources of anthropogenic noise in the Baltic

Sea;

1.3 Investigate and assess the significance of the sources of anthropogenic noise in the Baltic Sea from

e.g. shipping, recreational vessels, ice-breaker vessels, low-frequency sonar, acoustic devices, acoustic

Page 19 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

experiments, as well as offshore construction, sand and gravel extraction, drilling, intense low or mid-

frequency (Naval) sonar, underwater explosions, seismic surveys.

1.4 Investigate and identify sound sensitive species in the Baltic Sea in order to prioritize needed

protection measures.

1.5 Compile information on measures to manage emissions and mitigate relevant impacts of

anthropogenic underwater noise proposed and/or implemented internationally.

2. Indicators

2.1 Support Lead Countries in the further development of the pre-core indicator ‘Continuous low

frequency anthropogenic sound’ towards its operationalization by taking the following necessary steps:

−

propose a concept for a regional monitoring network and propose HELCOM common monitoring

guidelines based on the BIAS standards

−

develop the assessment protocol based on experiences and information available;

−

identify spatial and temporal distribution of sound sensitive species and habitats in the Baltic Sea

including sensitive biological areas (spawning, nursery areas);

−

develop a concept for the GES-boundary based on the available data.

2.2 Support the Lead Countries in the further development of the candidate indicator ‘Distribution in

time and place of loud low and mid frequency anthropogenic impulsive sounds’ towards its

operationalization by taking the following necessary steps:

−

cooperate with OSPAR and ICES on the establishment of a joint regional registry of impulsive sound;

−

define the elements and mechanisms required for a joint regional registry of impulsive sound

activities, including reporting requirements;

−

coordinate testing of the regional registry of impulsive sound activities;

−

propose a concept for determining sustainable levels of impulsive sound.

3. Explore possibility to determine acceptable levels of underwater noise for marine species

3.1 Based on the compilation of information on impacts of noise (1.1), investigate the possibility to use

species specific tolerance to define Good Environmental Status / develop environmental targets based on

common principles.

4. Evaluation and follow-up

4.1. Carry out a workshop with all HELCOM members to discuss the Roadmap.

4.2. Update the Roadmap, if necessary, in 2016 e.g. based onapplicability of the measures identified under

section 1.5 in the Baltic Sea area and the knowledge gathered to be a starting point for initial considerations

on suitable measures to be implemented, including a cost effectiveness analysis.

4.3 Assess the implementation of this Roadmap in 2017.

Page 20 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

5. Updated working timetable

Milestone

Date

Cooperate with ICES and OSPAR on the establishment of a Joint HELCOM EN NOISE, ICG Noise-

regional registry of sound

HELCOM EN Noise - EU TG NOISE in

September 2015

Further work on the “Distribution in time and place of loud

FI and SE informed in PRESSURE 3-2015

low and mid frequency anthropogenic impulsive sounds”

candidate indicator aiming at its shift to pre-core indicator

and subsequently, core indicator

Further work on the "Continuous low frequency

PRESSURE 3-2015 considered

anthropogenic sound” pre-core indicator aiming at its shift

to core indicator

Establish a joint regional registry of impulsive noise

By Mid-2016

Workshop with all HELCOM members to discuss the Roadmap September 2016

By the end of 2016

−

Develop assessment protocol for ambient noise based

on experiences and information available

−

Test the regional registry using initial data

−

Identify and map human activities that are the [main]

sources of anthropogenic noise in the Baltic Sea

Progress by September 2016, work

−

Identify spatial and temporal distribution and

continued into 2017

subsequent mapping of sound sensitive species and

habitats in the Baltic Sea including sensitive biological

areas (spawning, nursery areas)

−

Explore possibility to use species specific tolerance of

underwater noise for defining GES and/or

environmental targets

Update the Roadmap, if necessary

In 2016

Assess the implementation of this Roadmap

In 2017

Page 21 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Annex 3

Statement by Denmark concerning the draft Roadmap for designating a NECA in the

Baltic Sea in parallel with the North Sea as well as the NECA-related outcome of MARITIME 15-2015

As you may recall, the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting held on the 20

of May 2010 agreed to work

towards submitting a joint NECA application by the Baltic Sea countries to the IMO. However, the

date of submission is still outstanding.

After some years of still-stand, the clarification of submission and not least the effective date (also

called “compliance date” in the roadmap) of NECA in the Baltic Sea has been re-invigorated in the

last year.

Denmark submitted a draft roadmap one year ago to HELCOM Maritime 14. Back then, the Baltic

Sea countries expressed their preference for a NECA designation in parallel with the North Sea

countries. At the meeting there was broad consensus that a NECA roadmap is valuable and needed

and there was general support for a dialogue meeting to be held between the North Sea and the

Baltic Sea countries.

The North Sea countries, (which count Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the UK,

Norway and Denmark) agreed during the spring this year that they are ready to submit their NECA

application to the IMO. The North Sea countries are likewise in favor of a NECA designation in

parallel with the Baltic Sea and therefore they invited the Baltic Sea countries to a technical meeting

in June 2015. At the meeting the timing and procedural steps for a parallel process were discussed.

The current roadmap proposal is based on the outcome of that technical meeting.

The roadmap proposes to submit the North Sea and the Baltic Sea NECA applications in parallel to

the IMO ahead of the Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting in October 2016 (MEPC

70). If the applications are approved at MEPC 70 they will be forwarded to MEPC 71 for adoption. In

the roadmap it is assumed that MEPC 71 will be held in May 2017. The NECA would enter into force

at least 16 months later taking us to October 2018.

It is proposed in the roadmap to give the industry three years from the date of adoption to the

effective date– which means that the effective date could be on the 1

of June 2020, three years

after the adoption at MEPC 71.

However, at HELCOM Maritime 15 it was agreed to adjust the

effective date in the roadmap to the 1

of January 2021.

This would imply Tier III emission

standards to be applicable only to new ships constructed on or after this date, namely the 1

January 2021.

At HELCOM Maritime 15 there was general agreement of the necessity to designate and effectuate

Tier III requirements in the Baltic Sea in parallel with the North Sea. The roadmap and the agreed

adjustments have been forwarded to HELCOM HoD in preparation for political decision by the Baltic

States, through HELCOM.

We propose from the Danish side that the HoD at its next meeting in June next year – based on an

updated NECA application – will decide on the submission of the application to MEPC 70 with

compliance date from 1

of January 2021 for the Baltic Sea. Denmark would kindly urge delegations

to support this compromise proposal.

The specific timing is expected to be supported by the North Sea countries as well, so that NECA will

be established in the two seas at the same time.

If there is support for this roadmap today, we will from the Danish side start the parallel formal

decision process among the North Sea countries.

Page 22 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Annex 4

HELCOM project on the assessment of maritime activities in the Baltic Sea

Title of Project: Assessment of Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea

Project Chair:

Project coordinator: Maritime Professional Secretary

Proposing Party:

Contracting Party: _______________

Commission: _______________

Subsidiary body: _______________

Heads of Delegation: _______________

Executive Secretary: X_______________

The body supervising the Project:

HELCOM MARITIME

Background, targets and activities

a) Background

The Contracting Parties agreed as part of the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration to comprehensively

assess the status, environmental risks and opportunities of maritime activities in the Baltic Sea region within

HELCOM by 2016. HELCOM MARITIME 13-2013 considered and approved the work plan and the outline in

general for a HELCOM Assessment on Maritime Activities with some additional suggestions. HELCOM

RESPONSE 18-2014 took note of the outline and highlighted that it would be useful to provide information

on response related matters including oil and chemical transportations.

However, due to lack of funding the Secretariat has not been in the position to start developing the

assessment in the originally agreed timeframe in 2014. In 2015 background work could start with the help of

related analyses of ship traffic data based on the HELCOM AIS network. These developments have enabled

to start the development of the maritime assessment but successful completion by 2016 requires additional

resources in the form of project.

A revised outline with some indicative content of the maritime assessment, based on the original 2013-2014

input and other more recent developments, can be found in Attachment 1 of document HOD 49-2015.

The aim is a concise document relying mainly on figures and maps, less on text. Possible publishing format is

online pdf with a summary brochure in printed form. In addition, an online data visualisation tool as part of

the assessment could be considered for exploring statistics generated from the AIS dataset.

Maritime Assessment will provide input to HOLAS II, including with regard to information on human activities

at sea.

Page 23 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

b) Targets for the MARAS project

The project will enable supporting the production of the HELCOM Maritime Assessment 2016 via contracting

experts as well as production of a summary brochure of the main contents.

The specific expertise and issues where project support is needed will be selected according to need but likely

include traffic statistics, shipping accidents, submerged hazardous objects, interactive online visualisation of

compiled data as well as lay-out and printing costs of a summary/brochure.

The HELCOM Maritime Assessment 2016 will include the following tangible products which will be supported

according to the emerging needs during 2016:

1. Assessment datasets

The maritime assessment will rely heavily on statistics, figures and maps and less on text. A key source of this

information is the AIS data on ship movements collected in the region during 2005-2015. Due to this, one of

the most work-intensive part of the assessment will be on compilation of reliable datasets.

2. Assessment main publication

The main assessment document will cover all maritime activities and uses of the sea. The main focus will be

on the developments during the period 2005-15.

3. Assessment executive summary/brochure

In addition to the main assessment document the aim is to produce a summary publication which will be

printed. This publication will try to crystallise the messages emerging from the main document in easily

understandable format.

4. Assessment online dimension

The assessment will be based on comprehensive datasets which would benefit from interactive visualization

and display.

c) Activities and outline of work

During spring 2016 the project will focus on compiling the needed datasets and writing initial drafts, during

summer-early autumn the focus will be on writing and adjusting the draft with comments from the

Contracting Parties.

A mature draft is aimed to be submitted for the MARITIME meeting to take place in autumn 2016 and, after

possible intersessional work and consultations, to HOD December 2016 for final publishing approval. The

publication will be finalised and lay-outed after the HOD in December 2016 and thus be available during early

spring 2017.

d) Project management

The project will be managed and implemented by the Secretariat. The Maritime Professional Secretary will

coordinate implementation.

Expected results

According to targets.

Consistency with HELCOM priorities

X yes ____ no

Timetable

The project will be carried during the period January 2016-January 2017.

Page 24 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Budget

Budget is tentative and depending on employment arrangements i.e. project employment at the HELCOM

Secretariat or engagement of experts.

9.1. Total cost:

45.000 Euro

9.2. Costs divided per financial year (Euro):

15/16

Experts&interactive visualization

Lay out& print of summary extract publication

Total cost

20000

16/17

20000

5000

25000

Total cost

40000

5000

45000

9.3. Sources of financing divided per financial year (Euro):

Financing to be provided from the HELCOM budget.

10.

Additional requests (manpower, equipment, facilities, etc.)

10.1 From the Contracting Parties

All Contracting Parties are requested to provide and check data, review assessment publication

according to their possibilities

10.2 From the Secretariat

Parts of the work fall under the regular mandate of the Secretariat.

11.

Organization of Project

The HELCOM Maritime and RESPONSE Group Contacts and Observers will be the main contact lists for project

implementation and consultation. The FISH Group will be consulted regarding Aquaculture and Fisheries.

Project Coordinator will be MARITIME Professional Secretary (as part of regular duties)

HELCOM Risk Assessment Procedure is to be observed.

12.

Signature of the Project Coordinator

13.

Opinion of the Chairs of the relevant body

14.

Opinion of the Executive Secretary

Executive Secretary supports the project

15.

Decision of the Heads of Delegation

HOD 49-2015 approved the proposal

Outline of HELCOM Maritime Assessment

(c.f. doc. HOD 49-2015, 4-23, Attachment 1)

Page 25 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

Annex 5

Statement by the European Commission Regarding Financing and the Implementation

of EU Legislation

The EU is an important financing body for potential projects being considered within the context of HELCOM.

In order to avoid any interference with the independent decision-making procedures established under the

various financing instruments, the EU does, as a matter of principle, not take any position as regards any

project proposal intended for submission to EU financing bodies. This should not be interpreted in any way

as prejudging the position of the EU when taking financing decision.

The responsibility for implementing EU legislation is solely with the EU Member States. The role of the

European Commission is, inter alia, to assess compliance with EU legislation once a Member State has

submitted its report. Hence, any statement or position taken by the EU within the context of HELCOM should

not be construed to give any assessment of whether the work done by HELCOM is compliant with EU

legislation.

Statement regarding MSFD Implementation

The EU pointed out that any agreement that the EU delegation will give within the context of HELCOM in this

respect is without prejudice to the European Commission's role under the EU Treaty to assess the

implementation and compliance of EU Member States with EU law and the assessments that the European

Commission is required to carry out in accordance with Articles 12 and 16 MSFD after EU Member States

have officially reported to the European Commission.

Page 26 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

List of Documents

Name

1-1 Provisional Agenda.pdf

1-2 Annotations to the Provisional Agenda.pdf

2-1 Preparations for HELCOM Marine Litter Stakeholder Conference

9.3.2016.pdf

2-2 Provisional Agenda for HELCOM 37-2016.pdf

3-1 Updated Roadmap of HELCOM activities - status December

2015.pdf

4-1 Outcome of HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG 11-2015.pdf

4-2 Outcome of GEAR 12-2015.pdf

4-3 Outcome of PRESSURE 3-2015.pdf

4-4 Proposal to delete hot spots from the list of JCP Hot Spots.pdf

4-5 Information on progress in preparing the second holistic

assessment.pdf

4-6 Draft HELCOM Recommendations on waterborne pollution input

assessment and on monitoring of airborne pollution input.pdf

4-7 Outcome of State and Conservation 3-2015.pdf

4-8 Summary of HELCOM TAPAS application.pdf

4-9 A proposal for Core pressure indicator on oil spills affecting the

marine environment.pdf

4-10 Draft HELCOM Recommendation on sustainable aquaculture.pdf

4-11 Progress in elaboration of the PLC products.pdf

4-11-Add1 Updated division of tasks and timetable in the

implementation plan of the HELCOM MAI-CART OPER project.pdf

4-12 Draft Recommendation on Conservation of Baltic Sea species

categorized as threatened according to HELCOM red list.pdf

4-13 Proposal to establish a HELCOM intersessional expert network on

eutrophication.pdf

4-14 Draft Recommendation on Co-operation and coordination of

research vessel based monitoring.pdf

4-15 Follow-up of HELCOM agreements - examples based on the new

system.pdf

4-15-Att. BSAP follow-up_regional actions.xlsx

4-16 Proposal for financing model for the maintenance of Seatrack

Web (STW).pdf

4-17 Funding the EU MSFD Programs of Measures_CCB.pdf

4-18 Call for HELCOM action regarding Baltic MPAs within Russian part

of the Gulf of Finland.pdf

4-19 Pending issues from State and Conservation 3-2015_CCB.pdf

4-20 Working arrangement for development of indicators and updates

of indicator evaluations.pdf

4-20-Attachment 1 List of nominated experts and participants of

HELCOM expert groups, networks and projects.pdf

4-21 Draft Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap.pdf

4-21-Rev1 Draft Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap.pdf

4-22 Progress on setting up a regional registry for impulsive noise

4-23 Proposal for HELCOM Project on Maritime Assessment

4-24 Information on intersessional activities of the HELCOM Agri group

4-25 Draft Joint documentation of regional coordination of

programmes of measures

4-25-Corr1 Draft Joint documentation of regional coordination of

programmes of measures in the Baltic Sea area.pdf

Category

DEC

CMNT

DEC

INF

DEC

INF

DEC

INF

DEC

CMNT

DEC

CMNT

DEC

INF

DEC

Submitted by

Executive Secretary

Chair and Executive

Secretary

Executive Secretary

Sweden

CCB

Executive Secretary

Chair of IG PoM

Executive Secretary

Date

27.10.2015

12.11.2015

30.11.2015

4.12.2015

6.11.2015

6.11. 2015

10.11. 2015

10.112015

13.11. 2015

16.11.2015

18.11.2015

3.12.2015

18.11.2015

19.11.2015

24.11.2015

19.11.2015

11.12.2015

20.11.2015

23.11.2015

8.12.2015

Page 27 of 28

Outcome of HOD 49-2015

4-26 Proposed actions within HELCOM

4-27 Comments to Draft Joint documentation of regional coordination

of programmes of measures

4-28 Ecological coherence assessment of the Baltic Sea MPA

network.pdf

4-29 Roadmap for designating a NECA in the Baltic Sea in parallel with

the North Sea.pdf

4-30 Outcome of MARITIME 15-2015.pdf

4-30-Corr1 Cover_Outcome of MARITIME 15-2015.pdf

4-31 Draft Terms of Reference for HELCOM-OSPAR TG BALLAST for

2015-2016.pdf

4-32 Initial stock-taking to improve assessment of dredging activities

in the Baltic Sea.pdf

4-33 Danish comments on core indicators and GES boundaries.pdf

4-34 Baltic LINes project.pdf

4-35 Outcome of FISH 3-2015.pdf

4-36 Amended future actions within HELCOM related to the Fish

Group.pdf

4-37 Danish comments on draft HELCOM Recommendation on

sustainable aquaculture.pdf

4-38 Danish comments on the draft HELCOM Recommendation on the

red list.pdf

4-39 Danish suggestions for a revised draft HELCOM Recommendation

on the red list.pdf

5-1 Draft budget for the financial period 2016-2017.pdf

5-2 Draft budget estimate for 2017-2018.pdf

5-3 Accounts of the Commission 2014-2015.pdf

6-1 Baltic Sea City Accelerator.pdf

6-2 UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.pdf

6-3 WWF Report All Hands on Deck.pdf

6-4 CCB Report on climate change in the Baltic Sea region.pdf

6-5 Publicity for HELCOM Ministerial Meeting and communication

update.pdf

6-6 Information on the planned activity of the oil company Lukoil.pdf

6-7 Information on the joint UNEP-EC expert workshop on Regional

Ocean Governance.pdf

6-8 Ongoing projects within HELCOM.pdf

6-9 Upcoming meetings within HELCOM and other forums in late 2015

and in 2016.pdf

6-10 European Maritime Day Turku May 2016.pdf

6-11 XVII International Environmental Forum Baltic Sea Day.pdf

6-12 Reinforced work against dumping in the Baltic Sea.pdf

6-13 EUSBSR Annual Forum 2016.pdf

DEC

CMNT

INF

DEC

INF

CMNT

INF

DEC

CMNT

DEC

INF

CMNT

INF

Executive Secretary

Germany

Executive Secretary

Denmark

Executive Secretary

Denmark

Executive Secretary

WWF

CCB

Executive Secretary

Russia

Executive Secretary

Finland

Russia

Sweden

23.11.2015

27.11.2015

30.11.2015

1.12.2015

3.12.2015

1.12. 2015

3.12. 2015

4.12.2015

7.12.2015

10.12.2015

19.11.2015

30.11.2015

6.11.2015

13.11.2015

1.12.2015

3.12.2015

4.12.2015

9.12.2015

Page 28 of 28

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Heads of Delegation

Helsinki, Finland, 14-15 December 2016

HOD 51-2016

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Reference

Draft methodology for accounting an extra reduction

6-2

DEC

6 – Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups

16.11.2016

Executive Secretary

Outcome of PRESSURE 5-2016, paras 8.10 -8.17

Background

In the Ministerial Declaration 2013 the Contracting Parties agreed that the countries can account for extra

reductions, in proportion to the effect on a neighboring basin with reduction targets, in reaching their

Country Allocated Reduction Targets.

Pressure 5-2016 considered the methodology and provided feedback on the accounting for extra reductions

to follow up CART assessment, as proposed in a document prepared by the RedCore Drafting Group.

The meeting took note that Sweden and Finland need the option to be credited with the extra reduction in

order to meet their CARTs. The meeting also took note of the concern of Germany regarding the use of the

methodology, particularly the assumption regarding nutrient fluxes between sea basins, and that Germany

will only use the methodology if it rests on sound scientific basis. Germany is also concerned about using

extra reductions that are not due to measures implemented since the reference period but result from basins

that have no reduction targets.

The Pressure group noted that the extra reduction can be used by all the countries where applicable, not

only by those which are exampled.

The meeting noted that Denmark supports the use of the methodology and its principles, but without

principle 8 that extra reduction cannot be used for purposely increase the input to a basin. The position by

Denmark is that the use of extra reduction is under national competence and not for HELCOM to decide.

The meeting also noted that Germany supports the precautionary principle which lays in the basis of principle

8 of the proposed methodology which is backed up by the commitment taken in the Ministerial Declaration

2013.

PRESSURE 5-2016 agreed that the methodology will be used for a trial calculation in the PLC-6 assessment.

Action requested

The Meeting is invited to endorse the use of the methodology for a trial calculation in the PLC-6 assessment.

Page 1 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Accounting for extra reductions

Introduction

As a part of the nutrient reduction scheme in the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration, the following

principle was approved:

RECOGNIZING that reductions in nutrient inputs in sub-basins may have wide-spread effects, WE AGREE

that extra reductions can be accounted for, in proportion to the effect on a neighboring basin with

reduction targets, by the countries in reaching their Country Allocated Reduction Targets.

The rationale behind this statement is that MAI was calculated focusing on offshore major basins and with

the optimization of aiming for a maximal total nutrient input, which in principle would be the most cost

efficient solution. The necessary reductions to meet MAI were allocated country-wise within each basin. Due

to lack of detailed information of reduction potential (or/and costs of measures) in the different countries

one had resided on simple principles for this allocation, i.e., countries have to reduce in proportion to their

emissions. However, one have to acknowledge that the reduction targets calculated in this way do not

necessarily match national plans or be the most cost-efficient solution for individual countries. Several

countries implement and/or have implemented measures because of other policies than BSAP (e.g. WFD,

Nitrates Directive, Gothenburg Protocol) that results in reductions in basins without reduction requirements

or with a magnitude that significantly exceeds the reduction requirements. Thus, inputs to some basins may

become significantly lower than MAI leading to winter nutrient concentrations decreasing below the

environmental targets. That effect will to some extent spread to adjacent basins, and as a consequence the

environmental targets can be reached with somewhat higher inputs than MAI to these “downstream” basins.

Thus, under these conditions, making overall larger reductions than required by MAI may be the most cost

effective and should be accounted for if it can be shown that the environmental targets are met everywhere.

The paragraph above is somewhat vaguely formulated in the Ministerial Declaration, and the following

clarifications based on the groundwork for the Declaration can be made:

•

The paragraph was clearly developed in the spirit that this accounting would be done for countries

individually, (for example, Sweden could take into account some of extra reductions done in the

Bothnian Sea in their bookkeeping of reductions to Baltic proper), and not shared between all

countries.

Any relocation of measures should lead to the same environmental improvement as if CART were

implemented.

•

To illustrate the potential of this principle in preparation of the Ministerial Declaration, BNI quantified how

much reduction needs to be done in one basin to get the same environmental effect in a “downstream”

basin. However, the mechanisms on how to estimate expected effects or how to evaluate compliance were

not discussed in the groundwork for the Ministerial Declaration. This ambiguity has led to some confusion as

to how to plan and implement the programs of measures to obtain the goals of the BSAP nutrient reduction

scheme in this respect. BNI provided a basis for discussing these issues to the PRESSURE 4 (Document 7-4

and Presentation 7). On the basis of this, PRESSURE 4-2016 requested RedCore DG to elaborate further

documentation of the methodology and limits for its application as well as provide examples.

This document provides a) principles that should be used when evaluating extra reductions, b) a brief

description of the methodology and c) examples as to how the methodology could be used for involved

countries, although limited to phosphorus at this stage.

Page 2 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Principles for accounting extra reductions

RedCore DG has developed the following principles to be used in the accounting of extra reductions

1. Accounting should be based on countries individually

This implies that countries can plan and implement measures across basins at their own discretion as

long as it results in conforming to CART after accounting of extra reduction is performed.

2. Countries could claim accounting for missing reductions even if MAI is exceeded due to

inputs from other countries

No country should need to wait for any other country before claiming themselves fulfilment of CART.

3. Any relocation of measures should lead to at least the same environmental improvement as

if CART were implemented

This is imperative for the GES to be achieved eventually. Inevitably, using extra reductions will lead to

less inputs than MAI as seen as a total for the Baltic Sea, but its distribution need to be such that GES will

be achieved everywhere.

4. The effect of extra reductions on neighboring basins with missing reductions should be

estimated given that these are minor deviations from MAI

The Baltic Sea is a strongly perturbed system and hence, functioning quite different today compared to

how it will function when measures been implemented and status approach GES. The whole calculation

of MAI is taking this into account and when deviations to MAI are to be analysed, it should be done

assuming that we are close to GES.

5. Accounting for extra reductions in connection with CART follow-up assessments are to be

performed in a uniform way supervised by RedCore DG

Accounting for extra reductions should be included in the regular CART assessment using a common and

harmonized methodology. RedCore DG is the forum that supervises development of methodology and,

after appropriate approval, implementation of this in the assessment.

6. The Archipelago Sea phosphorus input reductions should be accounted in the Finnish CART

for Gulf of Finland (cf. BSAP 2007)

Already in BSAP 2007, Finland pointed out that models failed to separate the Archipelago Sea from

Bothnian Sea and that this should be taken into account at a later stage. Also in the 2013 revision of the

nutrient reduction scheme, model limitations failed to address separate MAI calculations for the

Archipelago Sea. However, within the context of accounting for extra reduction can be an opportunity to

take into account separately the nutrient inputs to Archipelago Sea from the remaining Bothnian Sea

inputs.

7. In the context of extra reduction accounting, reductions of phosphorus to Baltic Proper could

be accounted as input reduction in Gulf of Finland

In the calculations of MAI, the most limiting targets affecting the distribution of MAI for phosphorus were

the winter nutrient concentrations in the Baltic Proper. Strictly following the principle of “maximum”

inputs, led to a situation where this gave an optimal solution resulting in removal of virtually all

phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Proper and barely any reductions to Gulf of Finland. This solution clearly

violated the principle of cost-efficiency so additional calculations based on cost functions for phosphorus

input reductions were performed to distribute reductions between Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland in a

cost-efficient way. The obtained MAI results in conforming to phosphorus target in Baltic Proper, but in

Gulf of Finland the resulting phosphorus concentrations will be significantly less than target. In line with

this, it could be argued for states having phosphorus inputs both to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland, that

extra reductions

to Baltic Proper could be deducted from missing reductions in Gulf of Finland with 100%

efficiency. However, one should bear in mind that the MAI for nitrogen to Gulf of Finland was determined

Page 3 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

from applying the HEAT approach, balancing nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, so if MAI for

phosphorus to Gulf of Finland is not achieved fully additional reductions on nitrogen inputs might be

necessary.

8. Following the precautionary principle, extra reduction accounting cannot be used to

purposely increase inputs to a basin

Although accounting of extra reductions is based current scientific knowledge and modelling, it comes

with significant uncertainty and will sooner or later be subject of improvement. Therefore, it would be a

risk for the environment to increase inputs to basins based on this methodology. In addition, a

prerequisite for the calculations here is an environment close to GES and additional inputs today may

cause significant deterioration of the present eutrofied state.

RedCore DG, with assistance of the MAI-CART OPER project, will test the methodology presented here and

in document 7-4 to PRESSURE 4-2016 when preparing the next CART assessment in connection with the

HELCOM PLC-7 project.

Extra reduction

is the margin to CART (or input ceiling) including the statistical

uncertainty for a given country and basin combination.

Missing reduction

is defined additional input reduction needed to reach CART

including the statistical uncertainty for a given country and basin combination.

Understanding effects of extra and missing reductions

The Baltic Sea comprises of a series of connected basins, and changes in the environment will lead to changes

in adjacent basins as well due to transport of nutrients between the basins. In simple terms, if the nutrient

concentrations change in one basin it will cause changes in the nutrient transports to adjacent basins. The

magnitude of the nutrient transport change will depend on the water exchange between the basins and

concentration difference between the basins. Note, however, that the nutrient transport also includes

nutrients within organic matter and not only the inorganic nutrients. In Figure 1, the simulated phosphorus

transports between the basins are shown for the present day situation and for the situation when MAI is

achieved. It is clear that at present day, the quite high phosphorus concentrations in the Gulf of Finland and

Baltic Proper cause significant fluxes to the other basins, thus causing elevated production also in these

basins. When MAI is achieved, concentrations in Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper decrease significantly and

therefore fluxes to the other basins decrease significantly.

Page 4 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Figure 1: The average fluxes of phosphorus between the Baltic Sea sub-basins at present day (to the left)

and when Baltic Sea adjusted to MAI (to the right). Unit is kTon/yr.

When inputs to a basin deviate from MAI, the fluxes in Figure 1 will be perturbed. When inputs are lower

than MAI (extra

reduction),

fluxes will increase to that basin and status will improve somewhat in the other

basins as well and while higher inputs than MAI (missing

reduction)

will lead to export of nutrients and

deterioration in adjacent basins. In Figure 2, examples are shown on what happens with fluxes when there is

extra reduction to Bothnian Sea and missing reduction to Baltic Proper, respectively. In this example, if one

would trade the missing reduction to Baltic Proper with the extra reduction in Bothnian Sea one must ensure

that a) the eutrophication status of the Baltic Proper retained by the additional export to the Bothnian Sea

and b) there is no deterioration of status in the other basins. For large missing and extra reductions, this

becomes a relatively complicated calculation, but if the reductions are small compared to the MAI and focus

is on single basin pairs a significantly simpler approach is valid. In principle, one could picture it as ensure

that the missing reduction is compensated by a flux of nutrient to the basin with extra reduction. In example

in Figure 2, we could assume that the extra reduction in Bothnian Sea will cancel out all the red and green

arrows to the basins south and east of Baltic Proper and these basins can then not benefit from extra

reduction in Bothnian Sea. However, there will still be some benefit in the Bothnian Bay from the extra

reduction, although it should be smaller than if Baltic Proper fulfilled MAI because of the elevated nutrient

flux to the Bothnian Sea. Assuming small changes one could probably assume that the net effect of the extra

reduction in Bothnian Sea and missing reduction in Baltic Proper on Bothnian Bay would be the difference

between the green and red arrow in Figure 2.

Page 5 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Figure 2: Illustration how extra reduction and missing reduction changes the phosphorus fluxes between the

basins. To the left it is illustrated with green arrows how an extra reduction to the Bothnian Sea cause

additional flux from the Baltic Proper and decreased flux to Bothnian Bay, and how these effects propagate

to the exchange with the other basins. To the right it is illustrated with red arrows how missing reduction to

the Baltic Proper causing additional flux to Bothnian Sea and the other basins. If the green arrow from the

Baltic Proper to the Bothnian Sea is so large that it equals the missing reduction, the environment will be the

same in the Baltic Proper as if MAI was applied and the red arrows would all be zero. NB! If there is missing

reduction to the Baltic Proper, the basins GF, GR, DS and KT will no longer get any benefit from the extra

reduction in BS.

A method to match missing reductions with extra reductions

The BALTSEM model was used to find the combination of inputs (MAI) that would eventually lead to the good

environmental status as quantified by the eutrophication status targets taking into account the circulation

and biogeochemical cycles of the Baltic Sea. The same model can be used to as basis for a method to match

missing reductions with extra reductions.

The methodology takes the starting point from the state obtained when MAI is achieved and GES is reached,

i.e., the model is run with inputs as given by MAI for a very long time. From this state, a series of model

experiments are performed for which N and P inputs are systematically perturbed from MAI, that is different

N and P input combinations for one basin at a time. In total about 160 simulations were performed providing

a large data set on how the state change in the Baltic basins depending on a nutrient input change to one

basin.

To simplify the further analysis, a few assumptions were made:

1. assume that deviation from MAI is relatively small so that linear response can be expected;

2. assume the analysis can be done separately for each single nutrient and basin combination.

It would be straightforward to evaluate single cases that violate the two assumptions, but presenting the

results in an easily-understandable way would be difficult.

The equivalent reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen obtained from BALTSEM simulations are shown in

Tables 1 and 2. Since in general nitrogen retention is higher, the equivalent reductions are in most cases

higher for nitrogen than phosphorus. The uncertainty increases for distant basins when the effective

reduction becomes really small and equivalent reduction high. Rather arbitrarily, values higher than 10 is

not shown in the tables.

Page 6 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 1: Equivalent reductions on phosphorus.

The table should be read so that each row provides the

necessary input reduction to the basins to the left to provide the equivalent environmental effect in the

basins in the top row, e.g. 1.5 ton reduction to BS gives the same effect in the BP as 1 ton reduction directly

to BP. NB! That the factors are valid on single basin pairs under condition that all other basins fulfil MAI.

0.8

2.4

3.8

−

3.6

4.0

2.8

4.6

−

4.3

4.2

−

3.2

1.5

9.0

1.6

1.3

−

3.3

8.3

4.8

4.1

−

7.7

2.6

−

3.8

5.8

−

6.5

Table 2: Equivalent reductions on nitrogen.

The table should be read so that each row provides the

necessary input reduction to the basins to the left to provide the equivalent environmental effect in the

basins in the top row, e.g. 1.3 ton reduction to GR gives the same effect in the BP as 1 ton reduction directly

to BP. NB! That the factors are valid on single basin pairs under condition that all other basins fulfil MAI.

1.7

−

7.3

−

4.6

−

1.3

4.0

−

1.1

−

7.8

−

How to use the equivalent reductions tables

Below in Annex A to this document there are examples on how one can use Tables 1 and 2 to calculate the

achieved effective reductions from extra reductions published in the CART follow-up

in the case of follow-

up. Exactly the same calculation should be used when relocating measures in developments of programs of

measures, but it may be on future expected extra reductions rather than achieved reduction.

It should be noted that not fulfilling CART in one basin leads to that other basins may not reach GES as defined

by the environmental targets because of the same reasons behind the equivalent reduction calculation. This

implies that one cannot necessarily use the extra reduction to one basin to compensate for missing reduction

in several basins. Thus calculation is quite straightforward when analyzing single pairs of basins, one with

extra reduction and one taking benefit of the effective reduction. In more general terms, it quickly becomes

more complicated.

If desirable, one could in each follow-up assessment directly take into account the extra reductions when

evaluating progress towards achieving CART following the approach outlined in Annex A.

http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/progress-towards-reduction-targets/in-depth-information/data-on-

fulfillment-of-nutrient-input-ceilings/

Page 7 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Annex A: Examples of follow-up calculations

Extra and missing reductions were calculated and presented in the CART follow-up

. Here we use these

figures to show some examples on calculations for some involved countries. Calculations are limited at this

stage to phosphorus. The examples start with Sweden, because that illustrates the complication of having

extra reductions in several basins and how that complicates the calculation. As long as one consider only a

pair of basins the values in Table 1 can be used without concern, but one cannot use extra reduction from

one basin to compensate for missing reduction in several basins without additional considerations.

Sweden:

In Table 3, the extra and missing reductions of phosphorus for Sweden are summarized based on the results

of table 5k in the CART follow-up

. Sweden has available extra reductions of 176 and 16 ton phosphorus to

the Bothnian Sea and Danish Straits, respectively. To calculate what the effective reductions from the

Bothnian Sea are in the other basins, we divide by the values on the Bothnian Sea row in Table 1, see Table

4. The effective reductions from the extra reduction available to the Danish Straits (16 ton) is calculated in

the same way, see Table 5.

If we just consider a single pair of basins, for example, how much less do Sweden need to reduce to Baltic

Proper when taking into account the extra reduction to Bothnian Sea the calculation is straightforward and

the number 117 ton can be used directly (leaving 313 ton remaining). Similarly, Sweden could deduct 20 tons

on the missing reduction to Kattegat (leaving 47 ton remaining) from the extra reduction to Danish Straits.

The results from a full calculation of remaining reductions for Sweden are presented in Table 6. The starting

point of this calculation was to use the 117 ton from Bothnian Sea on Baltic Proper and we see that for

Kattegat the remaining reduction is quite close to what is given by the missing reduction minus the effective

reduction from the Danish Straits as expected. We see that because reductions are less in Baltic Proper, the

full effective reduction to Bothnian Bay from the extra reduction in Bothnian Sea cannot be accounted.

Table 3:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Sweden according to the latest CART

assessment. Sweden has no reduction requirements on phosphorus to Gulf of Riga and Gulf of Finland.

Basin

Extra reduction

430

176

100

Missing reduction

Table 4:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Sweden to Bothnian Sea.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

1.5

2.6

Calculation

176/1.5

176/2.6

Effective reduction

117

Table 5:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Sweden to Danish Straits.

Basin

Equivalent factor

0.8

3.2

Calculation

16/0.8

16/3.2

Effective reduction

Page 8 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 6:

The extra and remaining reductions of phosphorus from Sweden in relation to the estimates in the

last CART assessment. In the calculation of remaining reductions the extra reductions are taken into

account.

Basin

Finland:

The extra and missing reductions for Finland are shown in Table 7. Finland is a special case because, firstly,

the Archipelago Sea should according to Ministerial Declarations be treated separately as far as possible, and

secondly, that additional phosphorus reductions needed to be placed on Gulf of Finland to obtain the

environmental targets in Baltic Proper (see BNI presentation to PRESSURE 4). NB! The latter only applies to

phosphorus, not nitrogen.

Table 8a shows the effective reductions due to extra reduction to Bothnian Sea, if applying equivalent

reductions from Table 1 directly without considering the special cases. This leads to extra and remaining

missing reductions shown in Table 9a.

To illustrate calculations separating Archipelago Sea from Bothnian Sea, we had to estimate how large part

of the extra reduction that stems from Archipelago Sea. This was done using a Finnish calculation that

compared the latest 5 year inputs with the reference inputs for the two seas separately. The 82 tons extra

reduction was then split according to the proportions of the input reductions according to the Finnish

calculation and this resulted in that Archipelago Sea had 28 tons extra reduction and Bothnian Sea had 54

tons. In an assessment one would of course need to redo the calculation using the proper methodology, i.e.,

split the CART for Finland to Bothnian Sea and calculate the extra reductions including statistical uncertainty

in the same way as for other basins.

Table 8b shows the effective reductions in the case that the Archipelago Sea inputs are accounted as part of

Baltic Proper, i.e. with equivalent reduction = 1 (cf. principle 6), while the remaining extra reduction for

Bothnian Sea is accounted for in Bothnian Bay and Gulf of Finland. Following argumentation above (principle

7), the effective reduction to Baltic Proper from Finland could directly be accounted for in the missing

reduction in Gulf of Finland as shown in Table 9b.

Table 8c shows a case were also the remaining extra reduction in Bothnian Sea is accounted for in Baltic

Proper, however, using the equivalent reduction between the seas from Table 1 (= 1.5) and Table 9c shows

the remaining missing reductions using these effective reductions taking into account principle 7.

Note that in the use of extra reductions in Bothnian Bay, it is assumed that missing reductions to Gulf of

Finland does not affect the environment in Bothnian Bay (no efficient reduction in Table 1), but this is a case

where some deeper analysis may be necessary so remaining reductions for Bothnian Bay in Tables 9a-9c

should be regarded as preliminary.

Extra reduction

313 (308 if the 5 tons from DS is

also subtracted)

176

Remaining reduction

Page 9 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 7:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Finland according to the latest CART

assessment. Finland has no reduction requirements on phosphorus to Gulf of Riga, Baltic Proper, Danish

Straits and Kattegat.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

417

Table 8a:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Finland to Bothnian Sea following

strictly the methodology above.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

5.8

2.6

Calculation

82/5.8

82/2.6

Effective reduction

Table 8b:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Finland to Bothnian Sea following

that the reductions to Archipelago Sea should be regarded as reductions to Baltic proper directly (principle

6).

Basin

Equivalent reduction

5.8

2.6

Calculation

28/1

54/5.8

54/2.6

Effective reduction

Table 8c:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Finland to Bothnian Sea following

that the reductions to Archipelago Sea should be regarded as reductions to Baltic proper directly (principle

6). In addition, the remaining Bothnian Sea reductions should be accounted to the Baltic proper since this

basin needs the largest phosphorus reductions (principle 7).

Basin

Equivalent reduction

1.5

2.6

Calculation

28/1

54/1.5

54/2.6

Effective reduction

Table

9a:

The extra and remaining reductions of phosphorus from Finland with effective reductions in Table

8a are taken into account.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

-4

403

Page 10 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 9b:

The extra and remaining reductions of phosphorus from Finland with effective reductions in Table

8b are taken into account. The effective reduction to BP is to be deducted directly from the Finnish missing

reduction to GF as explained in the text.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

380

Table 9c:

The extra and remaining reductions of phosphorus from Finland with effective reductions in Table

8c are taken into account. The effective reduction to BP is to be deducted directly from the Finnish missing

reduction to GF as explained in the text.

Basin

Denmark:

Denmark has made a national evaluation of the extra and missing reduction based on data up to 2014, and

using a more sophisticated statistical approach. For Denmark we use these numbers (presented in Table 10)

as basis for exemplifying the accounting for Denmark. Denmark is in the fortunate position to have managed

to get extra reductions both to Kattegat and Danish Straits. The effective reductions stemming from the extra

reductions in Danish Straits are shown in Table 11 and in Kattegat in Table 12. Since Denmark already is

fulfilling the reduction targets in Danish Straits, the extra reduction in Kattegat is not needed. However, the

missing reduction in Baltic Proper is 49 tons and the extra reduction in Danish Straits will only cover 5 tons

of this leaving a missing reduction of 44 tons (Table 13).

Table 10:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Denmark according to the latest CART

assessment. Denmark has only phosphorus inputs to these basins.

Basin

Extra reduction

114

Missing reduction

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

353

Table 11:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Denmark to Danish Straits.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

0.8

3.2

Calculation

17/0.8

17/3.2

Effective reduction

Table 12:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Denmark to Kattegat.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

Calculation

114/4

Effective reduction

Page 11 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 13:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Denmark after taking into account the extra

reduction to Danish Straits in the missing reduction to Baltic Proper.

Basin

Germany:

Germany has phosphorus inputs to Danish Straits and Baltic Proper, and the extra and missing reductions to

these basins are shown in Table 14. Since it is only two basins, calculations are straightforward. Table 15

shows the effective reduction calculation based on the extra reduction in Danish Straits and Table 16 shows

the resulting remaining reduction in the Baltic Proper after deducting the effective reduction.

Table 14:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Germany according to the latest CART

assessment. Germany has only phosphorus inputs to Danish Straits and Baltic Proper.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

208

Extra reduction

114

Missing reduction

Table 15:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Germany to Danish Straits.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

3.2

Calculation

30/3.2

Effective reduction

Table 16:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Germany after using effective reduction in

Baltic Proper.

Basin

Estonia:

Estonia has phosphorus inputs to Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga and Baltic Proper. According to the latest CART

assessment Estonia managed to achieve their reduction targets with a small margin to the Gulf of Riga and

got an extra reduction of 3 tons, see Table 17. The effective reduction from the extra reduction in Gulf of Riga

can be used in Baltic Proper, see Table 18. The adjusted missing reductions are shown in Table 19. We see

that Estonia could meet their Baltic Proper reduction targets by reducing another 15 × 1.6 = 24 tons to Gulf

of Riga. If they do reduce even more than this, one could consider using the same argument as for Finland

that phosphorus reductions to Baltic Proper could be accounted for in Gulf of Finland.

Table 17:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Estonia according to the latest CART

assessment. Estonia has only phosphorus inputs to Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

285

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

199

Page 12 of 13

HOD 51-2016, 6-2

Table 18:

Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Estonia to Baltic Proper.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

1.6

Calculation

3/1.6

Effective reduction

Table 19:

The extra and missing reductions of phosphorus from Estonia according to the latest CART

assessment. Estonia has only phosphorus inputs to Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper.

Basin

Extra reduction

Missing reduction

285

Page 13 of 13

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Heads of Delegation

Helsinki, Finland, 14-15 December 2016

HOD 51-2016

Outcome of the 51st Meeting of the Heads of Delegation

Table of Contents

Introduction

Agenda Item 1

Agenda Item 2

Agenda Item 3

Agenda Item 4

Agenda Item 5

Agenda Item 6

Agenda Item 7

Agenda Item 8

Agenda Item 9

Agenda Item 10

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

Annex 4

Annex 5

Annex 6

Annex 7

............................................................................................................................................2

Adoption of the Agenda ..................................................................................................... 2

Work plan of the EU Chairmanship of HELCOM ................................................................. 2

Ongoing global processes related to seas and oceans ....................................................... 2

Preparations for HELCOM 38-2017 including the high-level segment ............................... 4

Next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting ..................................................................................... 5

Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups ......................................................................... 6

HELCOM institutional and organisational matters ........................................................... 15

Any other business ........................................................................................................... 15

Next meeting(s) ................................................................................................................ 17

Outcome of the Meeting .................................................................................................. 17

List of Participants ............................................................................................................ 18

Danish Statement on HOLAS ............................................................................................ 20

Indicators .......................................................................................................................... 21

HELCOM Project for the Seventh Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-7) ............ 25

HELCOM Project for Quality assurance of phytoplankton monitoring in the Baltic Sea

(HELCOM PEG QA) ............................................................................................................ 39

Regional Baltic Sea plan for harmonized ratification and implementation for the 2004

IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) .................................................... 45

Statements by the European Commission Regarding Financing and the Implementation

of EU Legislation ............................................................................................................... 46

List of documents ..........................................................................................................................................47

Page 1 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Outcome of the 51st Meeting of the Heads of Delegation

Introduction

0.1

2016.

The 51st Meeting of the Heads of Delegation was held in Helsinki, Finland, on 14-15 December

0.2

The Meeting was attended by participants from all Contracting Parties and by observers from

Baltic Far ers’ Foru on En iron ent BFFE , Coalition Clean Baltic

(CCB), OCEANA and World Wide Fund

for Nature (WWF). The List of Participants is contained in

Annex 1.

0.3

The Meeting was chaired by the Chair of the Helsinki Commission, Ms. Marianne Wenning.

Agenda Item 1

Adoption of the Agenda

Documents: 1-1, 1-2

1.1

The Meeting adopted the Agenda as contained in document 1-1.

Agenda Item 2

Documents: 2-1

Work plan of the EU Chairmanship of HELCOM

2.1

The Meeting welcomed the workplan of the EU Chairmanship of HELCOM and endorsed it as

guidance for future HELCOM activities under the EU Chairmanship (document 2-1).

2.2

The Meeting noted that the factual correction will be made to the implementation year related

to the MARPOL Annex IV in the workplan.

Agenda Item 3

Ongoing global processes related to seas and oceans

Documents: 3-1, 6-14, 3-2

NECA

3.1

The Meeting recalled that HELCOM HOD 50-2016 approved the final Baltic Sea NOx Emission

Control Area application and the related information document on NOx reducing technology and decided

that they will be submitted to the 70th session of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO

MEPC 70) for consideration after editorial work by Finland.

3.2

The Meeting took note that the NECA documents were submitted as agreed to IMO MEPC 70 in

July 2016 and that the meeting agreed to the proposals to designate the North Sea and the Baltic Sea as

emission control areas for NOx Tier III control with an effective date of 1 January 2021.

3.3

The Meeting took note that, as these decisions involve amendments to the MARPOL treaty, the

IMO Secretary-General has circulated the related amendments among the Contracting Parties with a view to

formal adoption at MEPC 71, scheduled for 3-7 July 2017.

3.4

The Meeting highlighted the need to continue developing the technology needed to implement

NECA, including to reduce the economic impact to shipowners, and underlined the importance of all

Contracting Parties to be actively involved and participate in activities within the framework of HELCOM and

other fora.

Page 2 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

3.5

The Meeting took note of the information on the ongoing negotiations on the development of

an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on

the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction

(ABNJ).

3.6

The Meeting invited the Contrating Parties to provide their views on the needs to follow up this

process from the perspective of HELCOM work as a possible new international instrument would change the

global marine policy framework.

G7 Marine Litter

3.7

The Meeting took note of the information by Germany that, based on the positive outcome of

G7 action plan to combat marine litter, the intention is to continue this work in the G20 context. A workshop

on this issue will be organised on 7-8 March 2017, and Germany will provide more information on the

workshop at a later stage.

SOI initiative and Fisheries-Environment cooperation

3.8

The Meeting took note

of the outco e of the “ustaina le Ocean Initiati e “OI Glo al Dialogue

with Regional Seas Organizations and Regional Fisheries Bodies on Accelerating Progress Towards the AICHI

Biodi ersity Targets held in “eoul, Korea, on

-29 September 2016 (document 3-1).

3.9

The Meeting considered in general regional follow-up of global commitments and processes

related to closer cooperation between management of fisheries and marine environment, including SDG 14

(document 6-14) and the anticipated role and contribution of HELCOM FISH in this work (see also new

HELCOM FISH work plan 2017-2018 in Annex 3 of document 6-14).

3.10

The Meeting took note that the SOI event stressed the need for enhanced cooperation and

collaboration at the regional level in the fisheries and environment theme, supported by continual exchange

of information and lessons learned, exploring of shared objectives, and addressing issues of common interest.

3.11

The Meeting highlighted that the HELCOM FISH group is in itself a very good example of closer

cooperation between management of fisheries and marine environment called for by the SOI event as well

as recent global developments within UN General Assembly, FAO, CBD and UNEP.

3.12

The Meeting further stressed that a large number of UN SDG targets (particularly under SDG 14)

directly relate to fisheries and highlighted the importance of involvement of national fisheries

administrations in SDGs and Aichi Targets implementation in the context of HELCOM work.

3.13

The Meeting recalled that currently no formal regular exchange of information exists between

HELCOM groups and the fisheries management work taking place within BALTFISH or the EU-Russia

arrangement.

3.14

The Meeting took note that formal arrangement for regular and direct information exchange

would enable exploring synergies between activities taking place within the different bodies and remove

uncertainties regarding overlap of activities, for the benefit of national work.

3.15

The Meeting supported the plan for closer cooperation between marine environment and

fisheries management in the Baltic Sea (document 6-14) and agreed to initiate a process for closer

cooperation between HELCOM FISH, BALTFISH and the EU-RU fisheries commission based on the three steps

outlined on the cover page of document 6-14. The Meeting agreed that the Chair of HELCOM will initiate

communication with BALTFISH and other relevant stakeholders.

3.16

The Meeting noted that HELCOM FISH will consider the issue further based on intersessional

developments regarding the cooperation.

3.17

The Meeting took note of the comment by CCB that the success of this proposed closer

cooperation depends also on progress within BALTFISH to adopt clear rules of procedure reflecting good

governance, including access to decision making meetings for civil society observers or at least providing

access to reports containing the decisions made within such meetings.

Page 3 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

SDG 14 High level meeting

3.18

The Meeting took note

of the infor ation y “weden on the United Nations Conference Our

oceans, our future: partnering for the i ple entation of “ustaina le De elop ent Goal

, to e held on

5-9 June 2017 in New York (2017 SDG 14 Conference), co-hosted by Sweden and Fiji (document 3-2).

3.19

The Meeting discussed a possible HELCOM contribution to and presence at the SDG 14

Conference and agreed on the importance to showcase added value of regional cooperation in Regional Sea

Conventions, including in the Baltic Sea being an exemplary region for policy making based on best available

science, stakeholder involvement and establishing partnerships for integrated management of human

activities.

3.20

The Meeting took note of the information by EU on the recently released joint communication

International ocean go ernance: an agenda for the future of our oceans , in which i pro e ent and

strengthening of regional governance is a key topic.

3.21

The Meeting took note that one viable way to convey HELCOM message at the Conference

would be through the Contracting Parties. The Meeting took note that such a regional HELCOM message

requires national coordination which should be initiated without delay as a preparatory UN meeting to the

Conference will be organised on 15 February 2017 in New York.

3.22

The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties to stay in contact with the Secretariat in order to

inform on any possibilities to provide input in a form of short draft messages which can be used as material

for national consultations in the process of preparing for the SDG 14 Conference, taking into account the

conference focus on partnerships across different ad inistrations and pu lic and pri ate organisations,

and that the showcased HELCOM partnerships could include shipping-environment, environment-fisheries

and marine litter.

3.23

The Meeting took note of the information that Sweden will organise a side event at the SDG 14

Conference and welcomed the information that Sweden is inviting HELCOM to present its work at the side

event possibly through case studies to demonstrate best practices and lessons learned from the Baltic Sea

such as the MAI/CART system as well as recent measures to reduce nutrient pollution.

3.24

The Meeting discussed other possibilities for contributing to the side events in the UN SDG 14

Conference and welcomed an initiative of UN-Environment to organize a side event to demonstrate

cooperation among 18 Regional Sea Conventions and Action Plans, including HELCOM.

3.25

The Meeting suggested that the upcoming Intergovernmental Review (IGR-4)

event of the UNEP Global Programme of Action (GPA), on land-based sources of pollution, to take place in

October 2017 in Indonesia, is also a possibility for HELCOM to provide input.

Our Ocean 2017

3.26

The Meeting took note that the EU will host the global 'Our Ocean' 2017 Conference in Malta

which will build on the issues of the ocean and climate change, marine pollution and sustainable fishing. The

participants are invited to provide suggestions for conference substance and possible commitments to be

made at this Conference ([email protected]).

Agenda Item 4

Preparations for HELCOM 38-2017 including the high-level segment

Documents: 4-1, 4-2, 4-2-Rev.1, 4-3, 4-4

4.1

The Meeting took note of the Provisional Agenda for the 38th Meeting of the Helsinki

Commission (HELCOM 38-2017) to be held on 28 February - 1 March 2017 in Helsinki, Finland (document 4-

1).

Page 4 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

4.2

The Meeting considered the outline for the high-level segment on ocean-related Sustainable

Development Goals (SDG) and regional issues important for the Baltic Sea to take place on 28 February 2017

during HELCOM 38-2017 (document 4-2) and agreed on the amended outline including questions for debate

(document 4-2-Rev.1).

4.3

The Meeting took note of the information by Germany and Sweden that both countries

confirmed representation in the high-level segment and invited all other Contracting Parties to inform about

the attendance of their high-level representatives to the Secretariat by

15 January 2017.

4.4

The Meeting considered an initial proposal for the content of the HELCOM high-level segment

28 February 2017 (document 4-3) and suggested to keep the focus of the segment on HELCOM regional work

in the context of SDGs, e.g. climate change issues, effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in protection of

endangered species, fisheries management, marine litter and eutrophication.

4.5

The Meeting took note of the suggestion by WWF to also include a discussion regarding where

additional attention is still needed to ensure timely implementation of the agreed actions of the BSAP and to

highlight concrete proposals to effectively address remaining roadblocks to further progress.

4.6

The Meeting considered that the outcome of the preparatory meeting on UN SDG Conference,

to be held in February 2017, may be a useful contribution for the HELCOM high-level segment.

4.7

The Meeting highlighted that the high-level segment outcome should be structured around few

and rief political essages identifying HELCOM’s role in regional

implementation of SDG and contribution

to the global process; that the outcome should also have a clear future oriented aspect. The Meeting invited

the Contracting Parties to provide comments to the draft outcome by

15 January 2017

with the intention to

finalize the outcome by 15 February 2017.

4.8

The Meeting discussed and reviewed the draft document on HELCOM results and targets as

aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (document 4-4) and invited the Contracting Parties to

provide inputs and comments to the material by

15 January 2017,

with the aim to finalize material for final

approval by the Contracting Parties and finalize the layout work during February 2017.

Agenda Item 5

Documents: none

Next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting

5.1

The Meeting discussed the timing of the next HELCOM Ministerial Meeting and agreed that it

would be best to organize the Ministerial Meeting in spring or early summer 2018, possibly back-to-back with

the EU Environment Council to better attract Ministerial attendance.

5.2

The Meeting welcomed the offer by the EU to host the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting during their

Chairmanship and invited the EU to explore possible dates and come back on the issue at HELCOM 38-2017.

5.3

The Meeting supported the idea of inviting representatives of the OSPAR Commission to the

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting.

5.4

The Meeting agreed to continue planning concrete topics and possible outcomes of the

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting at HELCOM 38-2017.

Page 5 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Agenda Item 6

Matters arising from the HELCOM Groups

Documents: 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5-Rev.1, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-9-Add.1, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-15, 6-16, 6-17,

6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, 6-23-Rev.1, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32

HOLAS II

6.1

The Meeting took note of the timetable and process for finalizing and approving the first version

of the 2

HELCOM holistic assessment by June 2017 (document 6-23-Rev.1).

6.2

The Meeting supported the proposal by GEAR 15-2016 regarding the use of indicators in HOLAS

II: 1) if core indicators are not operational on a Baltic-wide scale, the indicators could still be used in the sub-

basins where they are operational if agreed by countries sharing that basin 2) if pre-core indicators will be

shifted to core indicators or if core indicators will become operational for additional assessment units during

2017, to consider including them in the final version of HOLAS II by mid-2018.

6.3

The Meeting took note of the concerns expressed by WWF, on behalf of the NGO observers,

regarding the delay in the timeline of the HOLAS, which raises issues of credibility given the tremendous

resources, time and capacity invested to date and threatens to already delay the stated priorities of the

workplan of the EU Chairmanship which was widely supported by the Contracting Parties. Furthermore, the

NGOs urged that this process, under the EU presidency, could demonstrate fruitful complementarity

between HELCOM and EU processes and urged the Contracting Parties to honour their commitments to this

process as agreed under the BSAP.

Core indicator

6.4

The Meeting considered the adoption of GES-boundary proposals for core indicators, adoption

of new core indicators and associated GES-boundaries, shift in status to pre-core indication as endorsed by

State and Conservation 5-2016 (document 6-17, Table 1).

6.5

The Meeting welcomed that Germany can lift the general study reservation on indicators.

6.6

The Meeting took note of the concern by Denmark that they are not for the time being in a

position to participate in an agreement on threshold values. The Meeting noted the proposal of Denmark

that boundaries used in association to HELCOM indicators should be called assessment values and should not

be equivalent to MSFD threshold values.

6.7

Concerning the usage of the term 'threshold value' for HOLAS II and relationship with the term

as used in the EU rules, the representative of the EU clarified that according to new GES decision, currently

under scrutiny procedure, the threshold values developed through process at regional level, such as HOLAS

II, do not automatically become binding on Member States. The freedom of Member States to incorporate

or not incorporate these regionally agreed threshold values is reflected in the text of the Commission

Decision (Recital 12, Article 4(1)(a) and Article 6).

6.8

The Meeting took note of the statement by Denmark as included in

Annex 2

and agreed on the

following clarifying statement in regard to HELCOM indicators:

At this point in ti e, HOLA“ II indicators and threshold alues should not auto atically e

considered by

the Contracting Parties that are EU Member States, as equivalent to criteria threshold values in the sense of

ission Decision EU

/… laying down criteria and ethodological standards on good en iron ental

status, but can be used for the purposes of their MSFD obligations by those Contracting Parties being EU

Me er “tates that wish to do so .

With this clarification Denmark lifted the general reservation on the indicators.

6.9

The Meeting noted that the ZEN-ZIIM project has proposed revisions to the GES-boundaries to

the core indicator )ooplankton ean size and total stock’ since the endorse ent y “tate & Conser ation

5-2016. The Meeting took note of the study reservation by Poland on the new proposal on GES-boundary for

Page 6 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Gdansk basin. The Meeting invited the ZEN-ZIIM project to submit the new proposal for GES-boundaries for

consideration at the intersessional meeting of State & Conservation to be held 26 January 2017.

6.10

The Meeting adopted GES-

oundaries for the core indicator “tate of the

soft-bottom

acrofauna co

unity’ as contained in

Annex 3

Table 1, taking note of the study reservation on the

indicator by Denmark and further noted that Denmark currently takes part in the development of the

indicator and GES-boundaries for additional areas.

6.11

The Meeting took note that Estonia lifted the study reservation on Pb in fish liver in offshore

waters while the study reservation on Cd in fish liver is retained (document 6-24) and endorsed the GES-

boundaries for the core indicator Metals as contained in Annex 3 Table 1.

6.12

The Meeting agreed

to extend the core indicator on Oxygen de t’ to Bothnian Bay, Bothnian

Sea and Åland Sea assessment units.

6.13

The Meeting took note that Germany can lift the study reservation on the core indicators on

A undance of coastal fish key functional groups’ and A undance of key coastal fish species’, noting that the

results are to be noted as preliminary since Germany sees the need for further development of the indicators.

6.14

The Meeting took note that Denmark lifted the study reservations on the core indicators

)ooplankton ean size and total stock’, Population trends and a undance of seals’ as well as on Nu er

of drowned a

als and water irds in fishing gear’ under the condition that during further de elop ent

and when considering values, the PBR should be replaced with specific values for by-catch.

6.15

The Meeting noted that Denmark can lift the study reservation on the protocol for calculating

indicators related to the concentration of hazardous substances.

6.16

The Meeting took note that Denmark and Poland lifted the study reservations on the shift of the

pre-core

indicator on Total nutrients’ to core indicator. The Meeting

took note that the GES-boundary for

total nitrogen in the Gdansk basin should adhere to the Polish national value, i.e. 18.8

mol

N/l. The Meeting

thus adopted

Total nutrients’ as a core indicator noting that GE“-boundaries

will be presented for

consideration at the intersessional meeting of State & Conservation to be held 26 January 2017.

6.17

The Meeting took note that with regard to shifting the status of the pre-core indicator

Cyano acterial loo index’ to core indicator, Ger any kept its reser e with the ai of clarifying the

situation as soon as possible. Germany explained that, at this point of time, there were no or little satellite

data from the Baltic Sea region being used for the development of this indicator, however, welcomed that

there has been agreement to apply satellite data in the future. Any further assessment on how well the

results of the satellite data will be for the Baltic Sea areas will only be looked into once results are available.

6.18

The Meeting took note that Poland, due to lack of data, placed a study reservation on the shift

to core indicator for indicators on Phytoplankton co

unity co position as a foodwe indicator’,

Diato /Dinoflagellate index’ and Cu ulati e i pact on enthic iotopes’. Poland seeks

to clarify the

situation and find a solution as soon as possible together with the Secretariat by

7 January 2017.

6.19

The Meeting took note that Denmark could lift the study reservation on the shift of the

candidate indicator “hallow water oxygen’ to pre-core.

6.20

The Meeting agreed

to shift the candidate indicators on ’Litter on the “eafloor’ and ’Distri ution

in time and space of loud low- and mid-fre

uency i pulsi e sound’ and “hallow water oxygen’ to pre-core

indicators.

6.21

The Meeting noted the available set of core indicator based on the outcome of the Meeting and

recgonized gaps in indicators related to the pelagic habitats and that resolving these reservations will

significantly improve completeness of the set of indicators according to themes that will be addressed in

HOLAS II.

6.22

Contracting Parties that still have study reservations on the individual indicators agreed that a

solution could be found to apply these indicators in HOLAS II by indicating that the results are of

intermediate/test character and that the indicators may need further development. The Meeting requested

Page 7 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

these Contracting Parties to come back with information to which indicators the solution could be applied

and the specific wording could be agreed by the online meeting of State and Conservation in January 2017.

6.23

The Meeting took note that with the approach proposed in the paragraph above, Denmark can

agree on the use in HOLA“ II of the indicators “tate of the soft- otto

acrofauna co

unity’,

Phytoplankton co

unity co position as a foodwe indicator’, “easonal succession of do inating

phytoplankton groups’, Cyano acterial loo index’.

6.24

Indicators with remaining study reservations are listed in Annex 3.

6.25

The Meeting took note of the document by Germany on HELCOM Indicators on population

demography of seals (document 6-31).

6.26

The Meeting noted the request to re-confirm the role as Lead and co-Lead Countries for pre-

core and core indicators to be further tested and developed and the re-confirm role as Lead Countries on all

indicators during the course of the HOLAS II project. The Meeting noted that Germany regretted that this

delegation for internal reasons had to withdraw, at this point of ti e, the lead on the indicator shallow

water oxygen . The Contracting Parties are in ited to inform

the Secretariat ([email protected]) on

their possibilities to do so by

31 January 2017.

The Meeting took note of the current list of Lead Countries as

contained in document 6-30.

Assessment tools

6.27

The Meeting took note that Germany recognizes that the assessment methods need to be

implemented in HOLAS II to keep the timetable, however, reserved its final position on the assessment tools

in the light of further work on the tools and the results of their application.

6.28

The Meeting considered an updated proposal for the biodiversity assessment tool (BEAT 3.0)

taking into account the agreements at State and Conservation 5-2016 (document 6-15).

6.29

The Meeting endorsed the methodology to assess biodiversity in HELCOM and HOLAS II. The

Meeting noted that there is a still an open issue regarding the integration of assessment results for mammals

beyond species. The Meeting mandated the national experts to come to an agreement at the HELCOM HOLAS

II workshop to be held in March 2017 and the HOLAS II project to continue working on the basis of the

outcome of the workshops and present the draft assessment results to the State and Conservation Working

Group. In that process, the HOLAS II project will take record of issues that could still need improvement and

should be considered in future developments of the tool.

6.30

The Meeting agreed in principle on the approach to assess confidence as presented in section

4.5 of document 6-15, taking note of the proposal by Sweden to make an analysis of weaknesses and

strengths of the confidence assessment and that Sweden is willing to support such analysis. The Meeting

noted

the proposal of Den ark not to include zero in the confidence inter al.

6.31

The Meeting took note of the view of Germany that the assessment of harbour porpoise under

the Habitats Directive should be included in the BEAT tool. The Meeting noted the explanation that the

biodiversity assessment tool has certain requirements on the indicators that are not met by assessments

under the Habitats Directive. However, key topics such as harbour porpoise, for which there is no operational

core indicators, can still be addressed in the HOLAS II report, for example through a descriptive approach.

6.32

The Meeting took note of the concerns of Germany on the dual use of indicators in the

eutrophication and biodiversity assessments.

6.33

The Meeting considered a proposal for a hazardous substances assessment tool (CHASE)

(document 6-16). The Meeting welcomed that Denmark lifted the study reservation on the tool.

6.34

The Meeting agreed on the method to assess hazardous substances in HELCOM and HOLAS II.

As suggested by the GEAR Group, the Meeting agreed that the integrated CHASE assessment can be used to

summarize the contamination status of the Baltic Sea in HOLAS II, however, that the integrated assessment

results should not be expressed in terms of GES/sub-GES.

Page 8 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

6.35

The Meeting agreed on the confidence assessment as presented in section 4-4 of document 6-

16 (Alternative 2).

6.36

The Meeting took note of the concern of Germany on the applicability of CHASE in coastal waters

and that a final position depends on testing of data in German coastal waters.

6.37

The Meeting agreed in principle on the method to calculate the Baltic Sea Impact Index (BSII)

and its use (document 6-7), noting that the method to assess the impacts on ecosystem components will still

be tested and the results will be presented to the planned HELCOM HOLAS II workshop in March 2017. The

Meeting mandated the workshop to recommend which method to use and the HOLAS II project to proceed

according to those recommendations and present the outcome to State and Conservation 7-2017. The

Meeting noted that the Baltic Sea Impact Index will continue to be developed in HELCOM in future as needed.

The Secretariat will provide information on links to the outcome of workshops and meetings that have guided

the development of the BSII.

6.38



6.39

The Meeting took note of the comments by Germany:

to revise Table 1 according to comments provided through the GEAR Group on the work done under

BalticBOOST project, Theme 3;

that terminology on page 8, point 9, should be harmonized with Table 2.

The Meeting took note of the status of data reporting for HOLAS II (document 6-29).

6.40

The Meeting noted that in order to solve the data situation for the first version of HOLAS II it is

accepted that data is made available from other sources than the agreed data arrangements in HELCOM,

however, that in the longer term, including for the final version of HOLAS II by mid-2018, it is necessary that

data is reported according to HELCOM agreements in order to facilitate the update of HOLAS II as well as

future assessments.

6.41

The Meeting invited those Contracting Parties that have not yet reported the requested data to

propose solutions including possible alternative sources of data to the Secretariat by

20 December 2016

([email protected]).

6.42

The Meeting took note that Russia agrees that the Russian national data on the state of the

marine environment and human activities collected by the Gulf of Finland -2014 Project can be used for the

purpose of the HOLAS II project and integrated into the related databases. The Meeting also noted that Russia

considers these data as scientific expert input and they should be recognized accordingly.

6.43

The Meeting also noted the view of Russia that the HOLAS II project, as a scientifically based

assessment, serves for evaluating the effectiveness of measures but the aim is not to use it as a sole basis for

making decisions on future measures.

6.44

The Meeting supported in principle the tentative planning for a regional consultation on HOLAS

II 2017-18 (document 6-22)

6.45

The Meeting agreed that the GEAR Group will continue planning intersessionally for a regional

consultation as outlined in the document, in a suitable timetable, taking into account also national

consultations and open questions regarding how and who is undertaking the consultation.

6.46

The Meeting proposed that tentative stakeholder events should be coordinated with the

Contracting Parties.

6.47

The Meeting considered and agreed on the roadmap for continued HELCOM work on economic

and social analyses (ESA) (document 6-10).

6.48

The Meeting recognized resource constrains in some of the Contracting Parties to assign all the

needed expertise to the network.

6.49

The Meeting noted the agreement in GEAR to strengthen the HELCOM ESA network and that

the Terms of Reference for the network will be presented to HELCOM 38-2017.

Page 9 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Outco es of worki g groups’

eeti gs

6.50

The Meeting took note of the outcomes of the recent working group meetings and marine litter

workshop and the essential issues stemming from the meetings (documents 6-9 and 6-9-Add.1).

6.51

The Meeting adopted the following new Work Plans/Terms of Reference for the working groups

and expert groups as contained in Attachments 1-10 of documents 6-9 and 6-9-Add.1:



Work Plan for MARITIME 2016-2018 (Attachment 1);

Updated ToR of HELCOM-OSPAR TG BALLAST 2016-2017 endorsed by Maritime 16-2016 and OSPAR

(Attachment 2);

Work Plan for PRESSURE 2017-2018 (Attachment 3);

Work Plan for State & Conservation 2017-2018 (Attachment 4);

Updated ToR of the HELCOM Expert Group on Monitoring of Radioactive Substances in the Baltic Sea

(MORS EG) as endorsed by State & Conservation 5-2016 (Attachment 5) (Denmark

withdrew the

proposal to

change the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the introduction);

Work Plan for RESPONSE 2017-2018 (Attachment 6);

Work Plan for AGRI 2017-2018 (Attachment 7), taking note of the Statement to the initial suggestion

on work plan for group by BFFE (document 6-25) and that the related paper by the Copa Cogeca was

distributed at the Meeting.

Work Plan of FISH 2017-2018 (Attachment 8);

Work plan for HELCOM Task Force on migratory fish species (FISH-M) 2017-2018 (Attachment 9);

Terms of Reference for the HELCOM expert coordination network on response on the shore

(HELCOM SHORE network) (Attachment 10).

6.52

The Meeting took note that concerning the FISH Group, the work plan will be further polished

for the next meeting of the group.

6.53

The Meeting noted the concern by CCB that the deadline for the revision of Annex III of the

Helsinki Convention is not set in the AGRI Group work plan and took note of the information by CCB on the

ongoing activities related to the promotion of existing and development of new BAT and BEP for Industrial

Livestock Farms, including cattle in the BSR.

6.54

The Meeting took note of the call by Finland for the Contracting Parties to engage more in the

work of the AGRI Group.

6.55

The Meeting noted the information by Russia regarding the ongoing national development of

the BAT for agricultural production and including cattle farms larger than 400 items in the Baltic Sea region.

The Meeting also took note of the opinion of Russia that there is a need to elaborate a methodology for

identification of the P sensitive areas in the Baltic Sea region and probably to consider a related project.

6.56

The Meeting clarified that, concerning the RESPONSE Working Group, the RESPONSE

Correspondence Group on HELCOM Recommendation 28E/12 led by Denmark will, as part of the work,

consider sub-regional response preparedness targets. However, this does not indicate that Denmark would

necessarily be in favour or approve such targets.

6.57

The Meeting took note that the Seventh Meeting of the Group of Experts on Safety of Navigation

(Outcome of SAFE NAV 7-2016, para 5.2) invited each Contracting Party to closely study and, if needed, revise

the Cat I & II areas in their waters based on up-to-date hydrographic surveys and current commercial shipping

AIS info to ensure safe navigation in their waters and highlighted the importance of this work.

6.58

The Meeting approved the amended reporting format for data on dredging and depositing

operations at sea.

Page 10 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

6.59

The Meeting took note that Germany appreciated the contribution of Sweden related to the

concept of green infrastructure as a tool for integrating environmental considerations in MSP as it was

reflected in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the outcome of the last HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG Meeting. The German

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation currently runs a complementary research and development project

which also deals with implementing Ecosystem Approach in MSP. This R&D approach has a special focus on

transferring scientific data on spatial claims of ecosystem components and their sensitivities into concrete

planning objectives and principles to provide scientific input to MSP of the German EEZ. Identifying and

establishing priority areas for nature conservation purposes and strengthening ecological connectivity of

MPAs is also part of this project. By 2017 the Agency envisages first results. Germany was of the opinion that

this method provides valuable knowledge for strengthening nature conservation concerns in MSP and

recognizes the high potential of developing and making use of synergies between the approach of R&D

project and other HELCOM-Parties for the implementation of Ecosystem Approach. Therefore, Germany

would welcome the opportunity for a fruitful exchange of views and experiences on these issues at the

occasion of the next meeting of the HELCOM-VASAB Group.

6.60

The Meeting took note that

Germany retains their study reservation to approve the proposed

change in the separation

etween the HELCOM assess ent units “ound and Arkona asin , as defined in

the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy.

6.61

The Meeting approved the organization of the next meetings of the working groups as listed in

documents 6-9 and 6-9-Add.1.

6.62

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Germany to host the HELCOM nutrient recycling workshop

in Berlin 27-28 March 2017.

6.63

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Russia to host the MARITIME 17-2017 meeting on 10-12

October 2017.

6.64

The Meeting congratulated the new Chairs/Vice-Chairs of the working groups for their

election/re-election:



Mr Lars Sonesten, Sweden, Chair of the Pressure Group for 2017-2018;

Mr Peter Sigray, Sweden, Chair of the HELCOM Expert Network for Underwater Noise;

Ms Penina Blankett, Finland and Mr. Urmas Lips, Estonia, Co-Chairs of the State&Conservation Group

for 2017-2018;

Ms Heli Haapasaari, Finland, Chair and Mr Ojars Gerke, Latvia and Mr Alexander von Buxhoeveden,

Sweden, Vice-Chairs of the Response Group for 2017-2018;

approved the nomination of Mr Joacim Johannesson as HELCOM Co-chair for the HELCOM-VASAB

Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group for the next three year period.

The Meeting thanked Finland for offering a Chair to the AGRI Group.

The Meeting advised that special attention is paid to the process of electing Chairs for the



6.65

6.66

groups.

Pressure

6.67

The Meeting considered the Scoping Study on International and European Processes that are

rele ant to and contri ute to the i ple entation of O“PAR’s and HELCOM’s Regional Action Plans

on Marine

Litter (document 6-27) submitted by Sweden.

6.68

The Meeting noted the Terms of Reference for the study, endorsed the proposal of HELCOM to

join the scoping study, and mandated the Executive Secretary to coordinate with the OSPAR Secretariat and

take necessary administrative steps.

6.69

The Meeting suggested sharing the results of the study with the Mediterranean region and

possibly other sea regions for their potential use.

Page 11 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

6.70

The Meeting considered the draft HELCOM Recommendation on Sewage Sludge Handling

(document 6-1) and the comments submitted by Germany (document 6-32).

6.71

The Meeting agreed in general on the proposed version of the document and invited the

Contracting Parties to provide minor written comments on the updated version of the draft Recommendation

20 January 2017

with an intention to adopt it at HELCOM 38-2017. The Meeting noted that the reporting

dates indicated in the document should be adjusted bearing in mind the actual date of possible adoption.

6.72

The Meeting also noted

the co

ent y Russia that the section leading countries in the

reporting format, annexed to the document, should be left blank until the lead countries are identified.

6.73

The Meeting took note of the study reservation by Sweden and Denmark for the final

consultations on the updated version of the draft Recommendation with national competent authorities.

6.74

The Meeting endorsed the use of the methodology for accounting extra reduction as a trial

calculation in the PLC-6 assessment (document 6-2).

6.75

The Meeting took note of the view of Denmark that principle 8 of the methodology application

is not relevant. The Meeting also noted the position of Russia that the trial can be made but the further use

of the methodology should be based on the strong scientific background.

6.76

The Meeting also noted the statement by Germany that it agreed to use of the proposed

methodology in a trial calculation. At the same time, Germany emphasized that the methodology to account

for extra reductions should only be used if it rests on a sound scientific basis, and if it follows a number of

agreed principles. The Meeting noted that principle 8 is of particular importance for Germany, notably the

precautionary principle that states to Contracting Parties that the methodology should not be applied to

purposely increase inputs to a basin. The Meeting took note that against that background, Germany and

Sweden expressed their concerns that Denmark had stated at PRESSURE 4-2016 that it would not intend to

follow principle 8 and the methodology would allow Denmark to compensate potential impacts on water

quality deriving from human activity with this methodology which, according to the understanding in

Germany, would not be in line with the respective principle of the Convention.

6.77

The Meeting approved the establishment of an intersessional Expert Network on

dredging/depositing operations at sea (HELCOM EN DREDS) and its Terms of Reference (document 6-4).

6.78

The Meeting took note of the status of the PLC national data reporting and the availability of

these data for the further work (document 6-26) and invited the Contracting Parties to prioritize the work on

assuring of the completeness and precision of national datasets.

6.79

The Meeting considered and approved the PLC-7 project proposal (Annex

4).

6.80

The Meeting noted the statement by Germany that it agreed to the PLC-7 project outline and in

particular welcomed the new structure of the PLC products with many smaller reports released in sequence

instead of one large report. Germany underlined that this will hopefully also contribute to having these

reports a bit more up to date. Furthermore, Germany pointed out that it is of high importance to further

harmonize the PLC reporting routines (e.g. parameters assessed, assessment areas used etc.) with the

requirements under the WFD. To achieve this, Germany has initiated a national process and will inform the

PLC Project Group on the outcomes of that process as soon as possible. Germany, finally, regretted to inform

the Meeting that due to constraints in terms of timing and personnel this delegation was not able to offer

taking the lead on any of the PLC-7 products.

6.81

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Denmark to take a lead in implementation of two tasks:

assessment of the sources of nutrients and updating of the PLC guideline with statistical report.

6.82

The Meeting agreed

on the deletion of the hot spot No.

Kehra Pulp and Paper in Estonia

from the HELCOM hot spot list (document 6-12) and congratulated Estonia for the achievement.

6.83

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Russia to host PRESSURE 6-2017 on 25-27 April 2017 in

St.Petersburg but noted that the official confirmation will be given by 15.01.2017.

Page 12 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

6.84

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Lithuania to consider a possibility to host the PRESSURE 7-

2017 meeting in autumn 2017 and noted that the offer will be confirmed at PRESSURE 6-2017.

6.85

The Meeting welcomed the information by Finland that NEFCO management board has recently

decided that this organization will take actively part in the work related to remediation of the toxic waste

landfill Krasnyi Bor in Russia and supported the decision by PRESSURE 5-2016 to invite NEFCO to contribute

to the remediation of the Krasnyi Bor landfill.

6.86

The Meeting also welcomed the effort by Russia to reduce the environmental risks posed by the

site and preparedness to cooperate with international experts in remediation of this HELCOM hot spot.

6.87

The Meeting noted the comment by CCB that a regular follow up of the situation around Krasny

Bor hazardous waste dumpsite should be maintained by HELCOM PRESSURE in line with the work on

remediation of other HELCOM hot spots.

Underwater noise

6.88

The Meeting welcomed the report

Noise “ensiti ity of Ani als in the Baltic “ea ,

agreed on its

publication in the Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings series (document 6-6), and proposed that the report

should be shared with other RSCs and the CBD. The Meeting took note that Finland and Germany will provide

editorial comments to the Secretariat.

6.89

The Meeting decided to postpone the discussion on the progress in implementing the

underwater noise roadmap to HELCOM 38-2017.

State and Conservation

6.90

The Meeting considered the draft HELCOM Recommendation on conservation of Baltic Sea

underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes (document 6-18) and the proposed changes to the

draft Recommendation submitted by Denmark (document 6-19). The Meeting noted that HELCOM

Recommendation 21/4 (Protection of Heavily Endangered or Immediately Threatened Marine and Coastal

Biotopes in the Baltic Sea) will we superseded if the new draft Recommendation is adopted.

6.91

The Meeting noted that Germany could not agree to the Danish proposals and that Germany

offered to continue a bilateral dialogue with Denmark to reach a solution with the aim to agree on the

Recommendation at HELCOM 38-2017. The Contracting Parties are invited to inform if they wish to join the

dialogue. The Meeting underlined that the new draft Recommendation should thus not weaken the

paragraphs that stem from Recommendation 21/4.

6.92

The Meeting endorsed the project proposal for PEG QA 2017-2019 (Annex

5).

6.93

The Meeting considered the proposal on the Limit Reference Level (LRL) for harbour seals

(document 6-21), noted that Denmark and Sweden can lift their study reservations, and agreed to define the

li it reference le el at

har our seals for the co ined anage ent unit Kattegatt including the

Danish “traits and “outhwestern Baltic .

6.94

The Meeting took note of the proposal by Finland for HELCOM to host a workshop in spring

2018, guided by the CBD secretariat, on identifying potential EBSAs (Ecologically or Biologically Significant

Marine Areas) in the Baltic Sea region (document 6-5-Rev.1). The Meeting noted that such a workshop would

focus on reaching a common understanding on the added value of nominating EBSAs in the light of the needs

identified in the HELCOM BSEP report 148.

6.95

The Meeting approved that Finland will start planning for a regional EBSA workshop and agreed

to the proposal to convene an online HELCOM expert meeting in spring 2017 to support the planning of the

workshop. The Meeting agreed to consider the outcome of the online meeting and the further planning of

the workshop at HOD in June 2017.

6.96

The Meeting took note of the interest stated by WWF to contribute to such a workshop where

results

from

their

Scorecard

MPAs

the

Baltic

Sea

(http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_mpa_scorecard_2016_nov.pdf)

and

recommendations regarding securing greater coherence of the Baltic Sea MPA network, in line with HELCOM

Page 13 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Recommendations, could be shared perhaps together with contributions from other NGOs active on this

topic.

6.97

The Meeting considered document 6-13 submitted by CCB on the status of the Baltic cod stocks

and took note of the comment by CCB that if no action is implemented on the Baltic cod the stock may face

collapse. CCB also reminded of the BSAP 2017, HELCOM Recommendation 37/2 and the actions therein, and

recommended to update the HELCOM Red list categorization of cod based on its current status, to consider

cod status as part of the HOLAS II work and MSFD assessments to be reported in 2018. CCB also highlighted

the need to establish new or extend existing MPAs to safeguard threatened species, including the cod stocks

in Kattegatt, in the Danish Straits and Belt Sea as well as in the Baltic Proper.

6.98

The Meeting took note of the EU competences on cod, and comments by Poland and the EU

that the proposals for recent TAC decisions on Baltic cod stocks were in line with the scientific advice and the

EU recalled that a number of associated measures should over time alleviate concerns regarding overfishing.

6.99

The Meeting took note that Denmark does not agree to the information in document 6-13

submitted by CCB.

6.100

The Meeting took note that Germany shares the concern of CCB from the biodiversity point of

view and supports the efforts to take further steps on Baltic Sea cod.

6.101

The Meeting agreed that the threat status of cod should be considered as part of the upcoming

work to revise the HELCOM Red List accoding to the existing timeplans.

6.102

The Meeting recalled the decision to strengthen the cooperation and partnerships on

sustainable fisheries (cf. para 3.15 above) to be initiated by the HELCOM Chair, creating prospects for

strengthened regional dialogue on Baltic Sea cod.

Maritime

6.103

The Meeting considered the regional Baltic Sea plan for harmonized ratification and

implementation for the 2004 IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC) (document 6-8) and

approved it as included in

Annex 6,

incorporating editorial changes reflecting the facts that Finland has

ratified the Convention on 8 September 2016 and that the BWMC will enter into force on 8 September 2017.

Response

6.104

The Meeting endorsed the revised HELCOM Response Manual Volume III Response to

pollution incidents on the shore (document 6-11) for adoption by HELCOM 38-2017 with the amendment

that prices of e uip ent of Ger any should e re o ed fro Annex

List of specialized on shore

e uip ent that can e sent to assist other Contracting Parties .

Other issues

6.105

The Meeting took note of the list of BONUS projects results having a potential in management

(document 6-28).

6.106

The Meeting suggested to the Secretariat to invite BONUS project to follow up closer the

HELCOM priorities and synthetize their expected policy input to HELCOM work and share it with the relevant

HELCOM bodies.

6.107

The Meeting also recommended to consider an opportunity to include an overview of the

BONUS projects contributing into the current agenda of one of the upcoming HELCOM meetings.

Page 14 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Agenda Item 7

HELCOM institutional and organisational matters

Documents: 7-1, 7-2, 7-3

7.1

The Meeting took note of the Audit Report and the Financial Statement of the Helsinki

Commission for the financial period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, as well as of the explanatory memorandum

(document 7-2) and advised the Executive Secretary to submit them to HELCOM 38-2017 in order to have

the accountables officially discharged from responsibility. Furthermore, the Meeting considered and

endorsed the proposal for a decision by HELCOM 38-2017 in response to the recommendation included in

the Audit Report.

7.2

The Meeting considered the draft budget for the financial period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018

(document 7-3) and noted the comments by Germany and the study reservations by Poland, Lithuania and

Latvia on the draft budget.

7.3

The Meeting advised the Executive Secretary to submit the draft budget to HELCOM 38-2017 for

official adoption.

7.4

The Meeting noted that the draft budget estimate for the following financial period (2018-2019),

to be based on the draft budget for 2017-2018, will also be submitted to HELCOM 38-2017 as per Financial

Rule 2.

7.5

The Meeting underlined in this context the importance of streamlining and priority setting and

invited the Contracting Parties into the work and decided to discuss this issue at HOD 52-2017, based on

intersessional exchange to be initiated after the annual Commission meeting.

7.6

The Meeting considered the vacancy announcement of the post of a Professional Secretary for

the Maritime, Response and Fish groups (document 7-1) and agreed on the timetable for the recruitment

process. The Meeting nominated the following three members (in addition to the

ex officio

members, i.e.,

the Chair and the Executive Secretary of the Commission) to the Recruitment Panel to conduct the selection

procedure: Germany, Latvia and Russia.

7.7

The Meeting took note that the Contracting Parties have been asked to provide their comments

21 January 2017

to the application for observer status to HELCOM by Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE)

distributed via e-mail to HODs on 28 November 2016 and by Baltic Sea States Sub-Regional Cooperation

(BSSSC) distributed via e-mail to HODs on 11 December 2016 and noted that the decision regarding the

observer status of these organizations will be made by HELCOM 38-2017.

Agenda Item 8

Any other business

Documents: 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6

8.1

The Meeting took note of the information on the on-going projects within HELCOM and with

HELCOM involvement (document 8-2).

8.2

The Meeting took note of the list of upcoming meetings within HELCOM and other forums in

2017 (document 8-3).

8.3

The Meeting took note of the information by Russia about the XVIII International Environmental

Foru Baltic “ea Day to take place in “t. Peters urg on

-23 March 2017 as well as of the information by

the “ecretariat on the situation regarding a project proposal on organizing the Baltic “ea Day su itted to

the Nordic Council of Ministers on 31 October 2016 (document 8-5).

8.4

The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties to contribute to the content of the agenda of the

Forum by mid-January 2017 and engage national stakeholders to attend the event.

Page 15 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

8.5

The Meeting took note of the support of the Forum by CCB and that it is preliminarily planning

to arrange a round table related to the the river basin management as a tool to reduce inputs of nutrients

into the marine environment.

8.6

The Meeting also noted that Sweden is planning to contribute to the organization of the Forum

programme related to the problem of littering of the marine environment.

8.7

The Meeting took note of the information by Sweden about the outcome of the EUSBSR Strategy

Forum held in Stockholm on 8-9 November 2016 and of the outcome of the political seminar '"This is what

we need to do for a cleaner sea." Sectors have their say' held by HELCOM at the 7th Strategy Forum of the

EUSBSR in Stockholm, Sweden, on 8 November 2016 (document 8-4).

8.8

The Meeting took note of the information on the 8th Annual Forum on EUSBSR in Berlin on 13-

14 June 2017, the focus of the event and the invitation to attend the Forum.

8.9

The Meeting considered the update on and future outlook for HELCOM communication activities

(document 8-1) and took note of the communication needs of HOLAS II.

8.10

The Meeting requested the Contracting Parties to consider offering additional funding for tasks

5-8 in section 1.4 to complement the funds available from the HELCOM budget and possible support via the

new SPICE project proposal.

8.11

The Meeting took note of the information from Russia, in accordance with Helsinki Convention

Annex VI Reg. 9, that Russia plans to carry out test drilling in 2017 at the offshore deposit D-33 (document 8-

6).

8.12

The Meeting took note of the information from Russia that as this is a test drill and not a full

launch of offshore activities, a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as called for by the Helsinki

Convention, is not planned. If a full project will be launched at a later stage the environmental impacts will

be considered in accordance with the international and national commitments of Russia.

8.13

The Meeting took note of the reminder expressed by CCB to all the Contracting Parties on the

need to follow relevant international EIA procedures in case large infrastructure projects are planned in the

BSR.

8.14

The Meeting took note of the comment by Poland that all the relevant environmental impact

provisions, including those of European law as well as the Helsinki and Espoo Conventions will be followed in

the project for a navigation canal between the Vistula Lagoon and Gulf of Gdansk across the Vistula Spit.

8.15

The Meeting took note of a scientific study commissioned by Oceana of European fish stocks

(http://eu.oceana.org/sites/default/files/exploitationstatus_8nov16_2.pdf?_ga=1.100437278.1662887962.

1482087650)

and its conclusions that 85% of the fish stocks are overfished, only 12% of the stocks fulfil the

goals set by the EU CFP and if the fish stocks would be well managed catches would increase by more than

half.

8.16

The Meeting took note of the statement by the European Union on financing and legislation as

included in

Annex 7.

8.17

The Meeting took note of the concern by Germany that there is an ultimate need to keep at

least three-week gaps between the meetings of Pressure and State and Conservation groups in order to

enable better preparation for the meetings.

8.18

The Meeting thanked the retiring Head of Delegation of Finland, Eeva-Liisa Poutanen for her

committed efforts covering four decades for the benefit of the Baltic marine environment.

8.19

The Meeting thanked Information Secretary Johanna Laurila, whose term of employment is

about to finish, for her excellent work since 2011 in making HELCOM more visible.

Page 16 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Agenda Item 9

Documents: none

Next meeting(s)

9.1

The Meeting confirmed that the next meeting (HOD 52-2017) will be held on 20-21 June 2017 in

Brussels, Belgium and hosted by the EU. The Meeting decided that HOD 53-2017 will be held tentatively on

13-14 December 2017.

Agenda Item 10

Documents: 10-1

Outcome of the Meeting

10.1

The Meeting adopted the draft Outcome of the Meeting as contained in document 10-1. The

final Outcome, incorporating the comments by the Meeting, will be prepared by the Secretariat in

consultation with the Chair and made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal.

Page 17 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 1

List of Participants

*) Head of Delegation

Representing

Chair of HELCOM

Contracting Parties

Denmark

Name

Marianne Wenning

Lisbet Ølgaard *)

Organization

European Union

Ministry of Environment and Food of

Denmark

Agency for Water and Nature Management

Ministry of Environment and Food of

Denmark

Agency for Water and Nature Management

Ministry of Environment and Food of

Denmark

Agency for Water and Nature Management

Ministry of Environment and Food of

Denmark

Ministry of the Environment

European Commission

European Commission - DG Environment

Ministry of the Environment

Prime Minister's Office

Federal Environment Ministry of Germany

Federal Ministry for the Environment,

Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear

Safety

Ministry of Environmental Protection and

Regional Development

Page 18 of 48

Email address

[email protected]

Telephone no.

+32 488068625

+45 2282 5089

Denmark

Hans Christian Karsten

[email protected]

+45 9358 7963

Denmark

Helle Knudsen-Leerbeck

[email protected]

+45 9359 7049

Denmark

Estonia

European Union

Finland

Germany

Jacob Korreborg Andersen

Rene Reisner *)

Matjaž Malgaj *

Vice-Chair of HELCOM

Clémentine Leroy

Eeva-Liisa Poutanen *)

Maria Laamanen

Chair of HOLAS Core Group

Jussi Soramäki

Monika Luxem-Fritsch *)

Matthias Steitz

[email protected]

+45 2280 0162

+372 6262855

+32 2 298 86 74

+32 2 2950944

+358 2952 50237

+358 503669849

+358 40 7541898

+49 228 99 305 2781

+49 228 99 305 2789

Latvia

Baiba Zasa *)

[email protected]

+371 67026910

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 1

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Chair of PRESSURE

Observers

BFFE

CCB

OCEANA

WWF

HELCOM Secretariat

Executive Secretary

Professional Secretary

Information Secretary

Administrative Officer

Project Manager

User-Centred Design

Specialist

Agnė Kniežaitė-Gof anė

Joanna Kopczynska *)

Adriana Dembowska

Natalia Tretiakova *)

Leonid Korovin

Laura Piriz *)

Lars Sonesten

Liisa Pietola

Mikhail Durkin

Hanna Paulomäki

Pauli Merriman

Monika Stankiewicz

Hermanni Backer

Ulla Li Zweifel

Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky

Johanna Laurila

Satu Raisamo

Lena Avellan

Sara Estlander

Ministry of Environment

National Water Management Authority

Ministry of Natural Resources and the

Environment of the Russian Federation

SPb PO "Ecology&business"

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water

Management

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Baltic Far ers’ Foru on En iron ent

Coalition Clean Baltic

OCEANA

WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme

HELCOM Secretariat

[email protected]

+370 70663521

+48 22 3692775

+48 22 37 20 215

+7 499 2547947

+78124311167

+46 702744430

+46 18673007

+358 504384014

+46 739770793

+358 409 311 690

+46 767 886 185

+358 40 840 2471

+358 46 850 9199

+358 46 850 9198

+358 40 630 9933

+358 40 523 8988

+358 46 850 9201

+358 40 162 2054

+358 40 558 5958

Page 19 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 2

Danish Statement on HOLAS

Like other Contracting Parties Denmark wants to be part of the HOLAS process and to maintain the right to

use the results of HOLAS to the extent, we find it useful and valid.

It is our understanding that a Commission directive adopted according to a formal committee procedure is

just as legally binding as the mother directive.

The Commission Decision adopted in November establishes in art 4 a general obligation for Member States

to regionally establish quantitative threshold values. Art. 5 further gives the right for Member States to use

national values or trends etc. but only until regional values have been established. Art. 6 says that Member

States are only bound by what they report to the European Commission.

If art. 6 could be read alone, we would have no concern, but it is our expectation that art. 6 will be interpreted

in the context of art. 4 and 5, which means that a Member State may be met with a request to justify their

choice not to use a regional threshold value.

Against this it is important for Denmark that regional values are something we adopt with open eyes and not

something we accept indirectly, because they are used for HOLAS. We are also of the conviction that a

regionally coordinated threshold value in accordance with art. 4 is something which exists or not exists, and

that it is not something an individual Member State may unilaterally decide.

Denmark recognizes that the Commission Decision has not yet come into force, however we understand that

it is expected to happen in the beginning of 2017. Some Contracting Parties have indicated that a Commission

Directive cannot be retroactive and will therefore not be applicable to the HOLAS values. In the view of

Denmark it is not clear, when a HOLAS value is adopted. Is it now or when the final HOLAS report is being

adopted? If the last option is the case the values are adopted after the Commission Directive.

So in order to maintain the right for Contracting Parties to choose which values to use, we find it important

that we adopt a disclaimer which makes it clear that HOLAS values are not art. 4 values.

Page 20 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 3

Indicators

Summary of status of HELCOM indicators as result of HOD 51-2016.

Annex 3 Table 1. List of new threshold values for previously agreed core indicators adopted by

HOD 51-2016

Biodiversity

State of soft-

bottom

macrofauna

community

Metals

Assessment unit

Åland Sea

Bothnian Sea

The Quark

Bothnian Bay

All offshore assessment units

Matrix

Water

Secondary GES boundary: Mussels

Secondary GES boundary: Sediment

Water

Secondary GES boundary: Mussels

Secondary GES boundary: Fish liver

Secondary GES boundary: Sediment

threshold value

4.0

1.5

Threshold value

0.2 µg/l

960 µg/kg dw

2.3 mg/kg

1.3 µg/l

1300 µg/kg dw

26 µg/kg ww

120 mg/kg

Reference

EQS

OSPAR BAC

QS from EQS dossier

EQS

OSPAR BAC

OSPAR proxy BAC

QS from EQS dossier

Annex 3 Table 2. List of HELCOM core indicators as of the outcome of HOD 51-2016

Theme: Biodiversity and foodweb

Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season

Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season

Distribution of Baltic seals

Population trends and abundance of seals

Nutritional status of seals

Reproductive status of seals

Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear

Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups

Abundance of key coastal fish species

Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt

Abundance of seatrout spawners and parr

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups

Theme: Non-indigenous species

Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species

Denmark has a remaining study reservation on the indicator (HOD 51-2016 outcome para 6.10), however agreed that

the indicator can be used in HOLAS II by indicating that the results are of interim/test character (HOD 51-2016

outcome para 6.22-6.23)

Denmark has a remaining study reservation on the indicator, however agreed that the indicator can be used in

HOLAS II by indicating that the results are of interim/test character (HOD 51-2016 outcome para 6.22-6.23)

Page 21 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 3

Theme: Eutrophication

Nitrogen (DIN)

Phosphorous (DIP)

Chlorophyll-a

Water clarity

Oxygen debt

Total nutrients

Theme: Hazardous substances

Hexabromocyclodecane (HBCDD)

Metals (Cd, Pb, Hg)

(partial study reservation, see Table 3)

Polybrominated biphenylethers (PBDE)

Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites

(partial study reservation, see Table 3)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

and dioxins and furan (partial study reservation, see Table 3)

TBT and imposex

(partial study reservation in place, Table 3)

Radioactive substances

White-tailed eagle productivity

Theme: Pressure

Inputs of nitrogen and phosphorous to the sub-basins

Operational oil-spills from ships

Annex 3 Table 3. List of core indicators with remaining indicator specific national study

reservations as of the outcome of HOD 51-2016

Core indicator

Study reservation

Theme: Hazardous substances

Polyaromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH)

and their metabolites

TBT and imposex

Denmark (HOD 50-2016 para 4-48)

Primary threshold value on metabolites (1-hydroxypyrene)

Secondary substance fluoranthene secondary threshold value for

sediment

Denmark (HOD 50-2016 para 4.48)

Primary threshold TBT in sediment,

Secondary threshold TBT in mussels

Primary threshold imposex

Estonia, Denmark (State and Conservation 5-2016)

Secondary threshold value for Cd in fish liver

Denmark (HOD 50-2016)

Secondary threshold CB-118 in biota

Metals

Polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCB) and

dioxins and furans

agreed thresholds: primary threshold Hg biota, primary threshold Cb, Pb water, secondary thresholds Cd mussels and

sediments, Pb mussels, fish liver and sediments

agreed thresholds; primary threshold benzo(a)pyrene, secondary substance fluoranthene secondary threshold value

crustaceans, secondary substance anthracene secondary threshold value sediment

agreed thresholds of the core indicator: primary threshold value dioxin in biota, primary threshold non-dioxin like

PCBs in biota

agreed thresholds: secondary threshold TBT in water

Page 22 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 3

Theme: Biodiversity and food-web

Proportion of large

fish in the community

(LFI)

Zooplankton mean

size and total stock

Lead Country presented approach for trend based threshold value and

assessment of available dataset for HOLAS II purposes was not endorsed at State

and Conservation 5-2016 (outcome para 4J.26). Germany, Estonia and Poland

provided written comments regarding their reservations after the meeting.

Poland (HOD 51-2016 outcome para 6.9) regarding Gdansk basin

ZEN ZIIM invited to submit threshold value proposals to 26 January online

meeting of State and Conservation

Annex 3 Table 4. List of pre-core indicators proposed to be shifted to core indicators but not

adopted as such by HOD 51-2016

Pre-core indicator

Study reservation on shift to core indicator

Theme: Biodiversity and food-web

Diatom/Dinoflagellate

index

Cumulative impact on

benthic biotopes

Theme: Eutrophication

Cyanobacterial bloom

index

Germany (HOD 51-2016 outcome para 6.17) expressed aim to clarify reservation

by considering applicability of satellite data when results are available.

Denmark (State and Conservation 5-2016, para 4J.41) analysis of the western

Baltic Sea to be carried out before being shifted to core, however agreed that the

indicator can be used in HOLAS II by indicating that the results are of interim/test

character (HOD 51-2016 para 6.22-6.23)

Threshold value proposal to be discussed at State and Conservation online

meeting 26 January

Sweden (State and Conservation 5-2016) can support the interim definition of

GES, however is not able to endorse the shift from pre-core to core indicator.

Denmark (State and Conservation 5-2016): national testing of the diatom-

dinoflagellate index does not show relevant responses to nutrient stress

Poland (HOD 51-2016): Lack of data

Denmark (State and Conservation 5-2016 para 4J.50) reservation placed due to

lack of data and current state of the indicator

Poland (HOD 51-2016): Lack of data

Theme: Litter

Beach litter

Annex 3 Table 5. List of HELCOM pre-core indicators as of the outcome of HOD 51-2016

Theme: Biodiversity

Lower depth limit distribution of the macrophyte community

Condition of benthic habitats

Theme: Eutrophication

Shallow water oxygen

Phytoplankton spring bloom intensity based on chl-a

Theme: Hazardous substances

Reproductive disorders: malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos

Acetylholinesterase inhibition

Diclofenac concentration

proposed to be used as supplementary indicator in HOLAS II by Finland and Sweden (State and Conservation 5-2016

outcome paragraph 4J.49)

Page 23 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 3

Estrogenic-like chemicals and effects

Lysosomal membrane stability (LMS)

Fish disease index

Micronucleus test

Theme: Litter

Beach litter

Litter on the seafloor

Theme: Underwater noise

Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound

Distribution in time and space of loud low- and mid-frequency impulsive sound

Annex 3 Table 6. List of HELCOM candidate indicators

Theme: Biodiversity and foodweb

Harbour porpoise distribution and abundance

Seal pup weight at weaning

ari e a

al health

Distribution of seabirds

Breeding success in guillemots of Gotland

Maximum length fish in the pelagic community

State of hard-bottom communities

Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae

Phytoplankton community composition as a foodweb indicator

Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors

Phytoplankton taxonomic diversity

Theme: Eutrophication

Deep-water oxygen consumption

Theme: Hazardous substances

PCB and dioxins for fish safe to eat

EROD activity

Theme: Litter

Microlitter in the water column

Pressures

Dredging and dumping of dredge materials

The specific indicator has not yet been specified, however the intention to develop new health indicators for marine

mammals has been noted by State and Conservation 5-2016 and that this intention should be reflected in HOLAS II

(outcome para 4J.10)

The indicator was endorsed to be shifted from candidate to core indicator and the proposed threshold values was

endorsed by State and Conservation 5-2016. At HOD 51-2016 Poland placed a study reservation on the shift of status

for the indicator, thus it is still a candidate indicator (outcome para 6.18)

Page 24 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Annex 4 HELCOM Project for the Seventh Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation

(PLC-7)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PROJECT NO. 11.56)

1. Title of Project

The Seventh Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-7)

2. Project Manager(s)

Lars M. Svendsen

3. Proposing Party

Contracting Party

Commission

Subsidiary body

Heads of Delegation

Executive Secretary

_____

__X__

_____

4. The body supervising the project

Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

5. Objective and background

In Article 3 and Article 16 of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea

Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention), the Contracting Parties agreed to undertake measures to prevent and

eliminate pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic and to provide pollution load data, as far as

available. Compilations of pollution load data (PLC) have been an integral part of HELCOM assessment system

since 1987, focusing on annual and periodic assessments of inputs of nutrients and selected hazardous

substances.

The 2013 Monitoring and Assessment Strategy and adoption of the nutrient reduction scheme by the 2013

HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting have created demands for new PLC products: a pressure indicator

report on progress towards fulfilment of Maximum Allowable Inputs of nutrients (MAI) and an assessment

of progress towards implementation of Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART).

HOD 48-2015 agreed on what should be the PLC assessment products in the future, including annual reports

on (actual) airborne and waterborne inputs of nutrients and selected hazardous substances and periodic PLC

assessments, in addition to assessments of MAI and CART. HOD 49-2015 agreed that the periodic PLC

assessment should be more focused on source apportionment and effectiveness of measures and coupling

of future PLC assessments and CART assessment needs to be further considered. HOD 49-2016 also decided

that the next PLC-7 assessment will be made in 2019 based on the monitoring data from 2017, which will

also serve those Contracting Parties that are EU Member States for their next generation river basin

management plans under WFD in 2019/2020.

The Project will use monitoring data obtained in accordance with the requirements of the HELCOM

Recommendations on waterborne pollution input assessment and on monitoring of airborne pollution input.

Also the Project will utilise data reported by the Contracting Parties under the Convention on Long-range

Page 25 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Transboundary Air Pollution and its protocols as well as data obtained in the frame of the EU and national

monitoring programmes. The assessment will be performed using the methodologies provided for in the

updated HELCOM PLC Guideline. The PLC-7 will also incorporate an assessment of inputs of nitrogen and

phosphorus from seven major rivers as it was agreed by PRESSURE 4-2016.

The PLC-7 project will be based on annual water- and airborne data on nitrogen, phosphorus and selected

heavy metals from 1995-2017, periodical data from 2017 supplied with former reported periodical data from

e.g. 2006 and 2014. Further background information and data on effects, and as far as possible effectiveness

of measures to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs will be collected and included in the assessment. The

assessment will use the new PLC database (produced by HELCOM PLUS project) for reporting and quality

assuring data. The tools developed by the HELCOM MAI-CART OPER project will be used to complete the

assessment data set, make normalizations, trend and other statistical analysis and the evaluation of

fulfilment of MAI and CART. Standard tables and figures for the updated Core Pressure Indicator on nutrient

inputs, the updated scientific report on CART follow-up assessment and for Seventh Baltic Sea Pollution Load

Compilation (PLC-7) will also be produced using the tools developed by HELCOM MAI-CART OPER project.

6. Tasks and expected results (summary, see Annex 1 for full description)

In order to reach project objective the following tasks, grouped in three working packages will be

implemented:



ESTABLISHING DATASETS AND UPDATE OF MAI AND CART

Monitoring and reporting of national annual/periodical data

Updating PLC-Water database and data on atmospheric inputs (PLC-Air)

Establishing the periodic assessment data set

PERIODIC ASSESSMENT

Assessment of sources of nutrients

Assessment of the effectiveness of measures

Assessment of inputs of selected hazardous substances

Compilation of the executive summary including policy messages

METHODOLOGIES



Updating guidelines and a statistical methodology report



Intercalibration on heavy metals and nutrients

The expected results are:

1. The PLC assessment data set based on annual and periodic reports of water- and airborne inputs of

nutrients and selected hazardous substances from 1995 to 2017 (periodic for 2017).

2. The updated HELCOM Core Pressure Indicator on nutrient inputs (update of MAI fulfilment follow-

up) covering data from 1995 to 2017.

3. Updated scientific report on follow up progress toward national reduction targets for nutrients,

CART follow-up assessment, covering data from 1995 to 2017.

4. A thematic report on sources of nutrients.

5. A thematic report on effectiveness of measures to reduce nutrients inputs to the Baltic Sea.

6. A thematic report on input of hazardous substances.

7. Executive summary of Seventh Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-7) including policy

messages (also on CART).

Page 26 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

8. A report on intercalibration on heavy metals and nutrients between at least 1-2 laboratories from

each Contracting Party conducting chemical analysis.

9. Updated PLC guidelines on nutrients and selected heavy metals, including updated statistical

methodologies used for PLC and MAI/CART assessments.

7. Consistency with HELCOM priorities ____ yes



In Article 3 and Article 16 of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the

Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention);

Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 November 2007;

Nutrient reduction targets, HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3 October 2013;

The HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Copenhagen,

Denmark, 3 October 2013.



8. Timetable

(see also

Annex 2)

Task

Timeframe (quarter/year)

Start of the task

End of the task

Project management (including about 12 project team meetings)

Workshops (2 workshops are planned)

Monitoring and compilation of national annual/periodical data

Reporting of quality assured national annual/periodic data

Establishing the periodic assessment data set

Assessment of sources of nutrients

Assessment of the effectiveness of measures

Assessment of inputs of selected hazardous substances

Compilation of the executive summary and policy messages

Updating guidelines and statistical methodology report

Intercalibration on heavy metals and nutrients

1/2017

3/2018

2/2019

4/2019

1/2019

3/2019

3/2020

1/2017

3/2017

4/2020

4/2019

4/2017

3/2019

4/2019

1/2020

2/2020

4/2020

1/2018

2/2018

9. Budget (taking into account financial year from 1 July to 30 June)

9.1 Total Costs

300,000 Euro

9.2 Costs divided per financial year

2016/17

–

50,000 Euro

2017/18

–

50,000 Euro

2018/19

–

60,000 Euro

2019/20

–

70,000 Euro

2020/21

–

69,750 Euro

9.3 Sources of financing divided per financial year

HELCOM budget

Page 27 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

10. Additional requests

(manpower, equipment, facilities, etc.)

10.1 From the Contracting Parties

The available funds from the HELCOM budget (the indicated above and in

Annex 3)

do not cover all expenses

for the implementation of the tasks. Additional funds are requested to be allocated by the Contracting Parties

either via national arrangement (e.g. in kind co-financing) or contribution to the HELCOM budget, in

accordance with monthly rate of the national experts and the working time required for the implementation

of the individual tasks except for the tasks under the contracts between HELCOM and HELCOM PLC-Water

Centre (SYKE) and HELCOM PLC-Air Centre (EMEP), laboratory work for intercalibration and expenses for

proofreading and publication (see

Annex 3

for details). The minimum estimated working time required for

the implementation of the project tasks is given in

Annex 4.

The Contracting Parties have been invited to take a lead on preparation of the individual thematic

assessment reports (see points 2.1-2.3 in

Annex 1).

The leads, through assigned experts, will be responsible

for preparing the assessment reports based on the gathered data and information, in accordance with the

description of the tasks and PLC Guidelines.

The PLC-7 project budget does not reflect national resources that need to be allocated for implementation

of national monitoring programmes, compilation and reporting of national data.

The Contracting Parties are expected to attend 2-3 meetings of the PLC-7 project implementation group per

year during 2017-2020 as well as two workshops. The Contracting Parties will be invited to host the meetings.

10.2 From the Secretariat

The Project will be supported by the Secretariat.

Annual PLC-Water data management will be covered by a separate annual contract.

Annual PLC-Air data on inputs of nitrogen and selected hazardous substances will also be covered by a

separate annual contract.

Contract with BNI for hosting PLC-water database and its supplementary functionality.

11. Organization of the project and procedure of nomination of the Project Team members

The project will be coordinated by a project manager. Project Manager

–

Lars M. Svendsen (DCE, Denmark)

- was nominated by the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

(outcome of PRESSURE 5-2016). The PLC-7 project manager coordinates the work and follows the

implementation of the project tasks. He is involved in the collecting of information, outlining of the project

products and contributing to their content. The Project manager with assistance of the HELCOM Secretariat

reports to PRESSURE and RedCore DG, prepares project meetings and organizes workshops on technical and

methodological solutions on follow-up of MAI/CART.

The HELCOM PLC-7 project will be implemented by a project implementation group consisting of participants

from all Contracting Parties (PLC-7 Project Group). Members of the PLC-7 project group, to be nominated by

the Contracting Parties, will guide and support the work of the project, attend project meetings and

workshops, and actively contribute into,

inter alia,

the collection of background information, revising

guidelines, and contributing to writing the assessment reports. The Contracting Parties are responsible for

collection, compilation, quality assurance and national data reporting. The PLC-7 project implementation

group will meet regularly 2-3 times per year (2-3 days/meeting) during 2017-2020. The Contracting Parties

will be invited to host project meetings.

Page 28 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

It is foreseen that country-leadership will be assumed for preparation of the individual thematic assessment

reports. Work on the Executive Summary will be done by a drafting team to be established at a later stage.

RedCore DG will provide methodological support for the project implementation. The group will assist with

quality assurance and preparing for approval of PLC assessment dataset, scientific advice, and quality

assurance of the assessment reports. HELCOM Secretariat will assist with the finalization of the reports

(design, linguistic check, etc.).

Pressure Working Group will provide overall guidance to the project including preparation of the

assessment reports. The progress in implementation of the PLC-7 will be regularly reported to Pressure

group to ensure that the final products correspond to the demands of the countries and HELCOM

agreements.

12. Signature of the Project Manager(s)

13. Opinion of the Chairs of the relevant body

The Chair of the Pressure working group supports the project proposal.

14. Opinion of the Executive Secretary

The Executive Secretary supports the Project proposal.

15. Decision of the Heads of Delegation

HOD 51-2016 decided

__X_ to establish ____not to establish

the project

Page 29 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Annex 1

Work packages and tasks

The PLC-7 assessment results will be reported as individual thematic reports, with an Executive Summary

summing up the main finding from these reports. The PLC-7 project will consist of the three thematic work

packages (WP) and WP0 - project management. The work packages will include:

WP0

Project management

The management of the project includes the overall coordination of project implementation,

communication with project partners and participants with an assistance by the Secretariat, planning

project activities and follow-up their implementation and reporting on status and progress of the project

to PRESSURE and RedCore DG. The work package includes organization of project team meetings with

assistance of the Secretariat and other project partners, as well as will support the preparation of two

workshops on technical and methodological solutions to follow-up of MAI/CART.

The appointed project manager will follow the

HELCOM risk management procedure.

WP1

Establishing datasets and update of MAI and CART

1.1

Contracting Parties will organize monitoring and compilation of national annual and periodical data in

2017 according to the relevant HELCOM Recommendations and Guidelines. Contracting Parties will report

national annual and periodic data using PLC reporting WEB application assuring quality control of the

reported data and their insertion into the PLC database. The annual and periodic data 2017 will be reported

by 31 October 2018 and 31 December 2018, respectively, and according to the established procedure

(Procedures for releasing the reported PLC water data adopted by HOD 50-2016). Contracting Parties will

also provide background information including data on effects of measures.

1.2

Reporting templates (with prefilled metadata) for PLC-7 (2017) will be prepared and update of the PLC

database will be made. Other activities include: carrying out manual data quality assurance, follow-up with

Contracting Parties on reporting and missing data, preparing datasets for RedCore DG and PLC-7 project

team to complete datasets taking into account missing data and data inconsistency. HELCOM procedure

for releasing the reported PLC water data will be followed. Selected standard figures will be provided to

PLC-7 project meetings upon request. Further, calculations and assessment of emissions of nitrogen as

source receptor matrix [2017] and of actual and normalized deposition (divided per country by basin

including shipping on Baltic Sea and North Sea, inputs from all individual EU countries and other significant

contributors of nitrogen deposition on the Baltic Sea) will be made. PLC-Water Data Centre and MSC-W

EMEP centre acting as HELCOM PLC-Air Centre will carry out the work. Further annual deposition in 2017

of four selected hazardous substances calculated by EMEP (MSC-E) will be included in the PLC-7 assessment.

1.3

Establishing the periodic assessment data set as filling in data gaps, removing inconsistent data and

approval of the assessment data set by Contracting Parties is included in the work package. Further,

normalization, trend analysis and other statistical analysis and the evaluation of fulfilling MAI and CART

applying the MAI CART OPER tools is included together with the preparing of updated MAI report (Core

Pressure indicator on nutrients) and an updated scientific CART report. The normalization and statistical

data processing might be repeated in case the data set are updated/corrected during the assessment

process. Further preparing periodic data for source apportionment, big rivers and hazardous substances is

included as well. The project task includes also operations related to processing and storage of the

assessment datasets.

Page 30 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

WP2 Periodic assessment

The periodic assessment is focused on three main themes: source apportionment, effects and as far as

possible effectiveness of measures and input of hazardous substances.

2.1

A thematic report on sources of nutrients (source apportionment) will be based on the periodic reports

by countries on industrial, WWTP and aquaculture point sources, and on natural background and diffuse

sources in accordance with the PLC Guideline. Also the assessment of flow and loads in selected (at least 7)

big rivers will be carried out.

2.2

A thematic report on effects of measures to reduce nutrients inputs to the Baltic Sea will be based on

information provided by the countries as replies to a questionnaire that will be prepared by the project.

The report will also utilize outcomes of the workshop(s) and other reporting by countries (e.g. programmes

of measures, etc.) and address effectiveness of measures as far as possible.

2.3

A thematic report on input of hazardous substances will be based on the periodic reports by countries

on inputs of selected hazardous substances according to the PLC Guideline, and airborne inputs on four

hazardous substances calculated by EMEP. The assessment will also as far as possible utilize the results of

questionnaires utilizing data obtained by national monitoring and screening campaigns.

2.4

Main outcomes of the PLC-7 assessment will be summarized in an executive summary, reflecting on

essential and policy-relevant aspects of the progress in implementation of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme and the themes of thematic reports. The work on outlining the content of the report will start along

with the work on other work packages.

The thematic assessments will be prepared by [2020].

WP3 Methodologies

3.1

In order to improve quality and intercomparability of PLC products, regular intercalibration between

laboratories conducting chemical analysis are necessary. The latest intercalibration was conducted in 2013

on nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus including fractions of these) and six heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni

and Pb) for river and waste water samples with participation of 18 laboratories. The PLC-7 project will

perform intercalibration with at least one laboratory from each Contracting Party participating, but

altogether up to twenty laboratories are budgeted. The intercalibration will be made for heavy metals (Cd,

Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn) and for total nutrients and nutrient fractions (total nitrogen, ammonia-N, nitrite-

nitrate-N, dissolved and total and phosphorus) from both river and point source (waste water) samples.

3.2

HELCOM PLC Guideline was adopted for publication by HOD 47-2015. The Guideline contains

description of assessment methodologies as well as data reporting format. The HELCOM PLC Guideline

(2015) needs to be updated utilizing the experienced gained by the PLC-6 project. The following

methodologies will be adjusted/updated by the PLC-7 project:



statistical methods;

evaluation of effects of measures;

calculation of transboundary input;

accounting extra reduction;

adjusting CART evaluation if requested as a result of the MAI/CART workshop scheduled for

February 2017;

definitions of source apportionment and retention.



Page 31 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

An update of the statistical methods will include new algorithms for trend analysis and modernized

approaches to flow normalization and evaluation of uncertainties. Altogether the following statistical

methodologies will be revised/added:



detection of break point in time series

testing for non-linear trend

–

and changes

flow normalization in case of trend in flow

estimates of uncertainties on e.g. monitored, unmonitored and total inputs country pr. basin and on

the CART evaluation

other necessary adjustments of the statistical methods

adjusting methodology for CART fulfilment evaluation as a result of MAI/CART workshop in February

2017 (MAI CART OPER project) and from a further workshop.

Descriptions of all the revised methodologies will be compiled in the updated version of the PLC Guideline.

PRESSURE 4-2016 noted that it will not be possible to develop a common methodology or fully harmonized

source apportionment approach for the PLC-7 assessment due to the short preparation time, but the

possibilities for further harmonisation will be investigated for the PLC-8 assessment.

Page 32 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Division of tasks and responsibilities

Work package

WP0:

Project

management

Task

0.1 Overall

coordination,

communication,

implementation and

follow-up

0.2 Preparations for

meetings and

workshops

WP1:

Establishing

datasets and

update of MAI

and CART

1.1 Monitoring,

compilation, quality

assurance and

reporting of national

annual and periodical

data

1.2 Updating periodic

data in the PLC

database and

providing data on

atmospheric inputs

Specification

- regular reporting of the progress to Pressure WG

- planning project activities

follow-up their implementation.

Responsible

Project manager

Deliverables

Progress reports to Pressure group meetings.

Outcomes of the project meetings.

Outcomes of workshops

Technical and methodological aspects of project

implementation.

With assistance from the Secretariat

According to the PLC Guideline and the timelines of HELCOM

procedure for releasing the reported PLC water data.

Contracting Parties

Project manager

2 workshops will be organized

2-3 project meetings per year during 2017-

2020

The tasks for the PLC Water Data Manager related to the PLC-7

assessment

The tasks for the WSC-W EMEP centre as PLC Air Centre

related to the PLC-7 assessment

PLC-Water Data Centre

PLC-Air Data Centre

The PLC database updated with the verified

periodical data 2017 reported by countries

Source receptor matrixes (2017) and

country pr. basin deposition for all HELCOM

CP’s, other EU countries and other ajor

sources on nitrogen deposition based on

normalized data 1995-2017. Reports and

data on airborne inputs selected hazardous

substances for the period 1995-2017

1.3 Establishing the

periodic assessment

data set

Verification of the periodic PLC data 1995-2017 for outliers and

suspicious data, filling-in data gaps, establishing waterborne

input country pr. sub-basin taking into account transboundary

inputs and retention. Getting approval from national experts in

BNI, DCE

RedCore DG and

Project manager

The periodic assessment dataset established

and approved by the national experts.

The updated HELCOM Core Pressure

Indicator on nutrient inputs.

Page 33 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Contacting Parties

Flow-normalisation of waterborne inputs, checking for trends

in riverine, direct, waterborne, airborne and total inputs

country pr. basin. Tables and figures, updating text.

Estimation of total inputs country pr. basin including,

uncertainty, evaluation of CART fulfilment, produce tables and

figures, elaborate scientific report.

Preparing data for the assessment of source apportionment

(periodical data), load data on big rivers (including trend and

changes) and for inputs of hazardous substances to the Baltic

Sea

WP2:

Periodic

assessment

2.1 Assessment of

sources of nutrients

Elaboration of source apportionment, assessing sources,

produce figures and tables, preparing text for PLC-7

assessment.

Assessing nutrient loads on the sea by at least seven big rivers,

evaluating significance of inputs to the Baltic Sea, and trend

and changes in loads

2.2 Assessment of

the effectiveness of

measures

Compilation of data on measures to reduce input of nutrients

implemented in the assessment period from all countries and

reduction achieved through these measures.

Compilation of information on measures foreseen by the

countries to reach the reduction targets by 2021 and

anticipated reduction through each of them.

Assessment of the effectiveness of measures throughout the

BS region,

2.3 Assessment of

inputs of selected

hazardous

Evaluate comparability of the data on hazardous substances

concentrations between countries and years. Calculate inputs

of HZS to the Baltic Sea, produce figures and tables, preparing

Lead needed for

preparing the report

together with project

team;

RedCore DG

methodological

support

Lead needed for

preparing the report

together with prohject

team;

RedCore DG

methodological

support

Thematic report on effectiveness of

measures to reduce nutrients inputs to the

Baltic Sea

Thematic report on source apportionment

as a part of PLC-7 assessment report,

including results of assessing nutrient load

by at least seven big rivers

The updated scientific report on follow up

progress toward national reduction targets

for nutrients - CART follow-up assessment

Lead needed for

preparing the report

together with project

Thematic report on input of selected

hazardous substances into the Baltic Sea

Page 34 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

substances

text for PLC-7 assessment.

team;

RedCore DG

methodological

support

2.4 Compilation of

the executive

summary with policy

messages

WP3:

Methodologies

3.1 Intercalibration

on heavy metals and

nutrients

Main outcomes of the PLC-7 assessment will be synthetized in

the executive summary covering policy messages on the

progress in implementation of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme and the themes of thematic reports.

Intercalibration with at least one laboratory from each

Contracting Party. The intercalibration will be made for heavy

metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn) from river and point

source samples.

Intercalibration for total nutrients and nutrient fractions (total

nitrogen, ammonia-N, nitrite-nitrate-N, dissolved and total and

phosphorus) will be carried out for at least one laboratory from

each Contracting Party.

3.2 Updated PLC

guidelines and

statistic report

The following methodologies are updated:

-statistical method for trend analysis including break points;

testing for non-linear trend

–

and changes, flow normalization

in case of trend in flow, estimates of uncertainties

-evaluation of effects of measures;

-calculation of transboundary input;

-accounting extra reduction;

- adjusting CART evaluation if requested as a result of the

MAI/CART workshop scheduled for February 2017

-definitions of source apportionment and retention.

Project manager,

PLC 7 project team and

DCE (statistical report)

Updated HELCOM PLC Guideline, including

an updated report with statistical methods

for PLC and MAI/CART assessments

A drafting team;

RedCore DG

methodological

support

Project manager,

PLC 7 project team

The intercalibration report covering at least

1 and up to 2 laboratories per Contracting

Party

Executive summary with policy messages

Page 35 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Annex 2

Project timetable

WP Task

WP0

Project management

Workshops

Monitoring and reporting of

national annual/periodical data

WP1

Updating PLC database and

data on atmospheric inputs

Establishing the periodic

assessment data set

Assessment of sources of

nutrients

Assessment of the effectiveness

of measures

WP2

Assessment of inputs of

selected hazardous substances

Compilation of the executive

summary and policy messages

Updating guidelines and

statistical methodology report

WP3

Intercalibration on heavy

metals and nutrients

1-2017 2-2017 3-2017 4-2017 1-2018 2-2018 3-2018 4-2018 1-2019 2-2019 3-2019 4-2019 1-2020 2-2020 3-2020 4-2020

Page 36 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

Annex 3

The HELCOM budget for PLC-7 project

Project tasks

Project

Statistical QA and

Assessment

Periodic PLC water Periodic data Assessment Report

Total for

management analysis

inter-

data processing data management on air-borne tasks by

proofreading the tasks

(DCE)

calibration* (BNI)

(SYKE)**

input (EMEP) experts

& publishing

WP0

Project management

Monitoring and reporting of

national annual/periodical data

Updating PLC database and data on

atmospheric inputs

Establishing of the periodic

assessment data set (DCE and BNI)

Assessment of sources of nutrients

Assessment of the effectiveness of

measures

Assessment of inputs of selected

hazardous substances

Compilation of the executive

summary and policy messages

(a drafting team)

Updating guidelines and statistical

methodology report

Intercalibration on heavy metals

and nutrients

46125

10000

71500

WP1

28500

33000

27 000

25500

20625

17625

16500

14250

55500

78000

27500

23500

22000

19000

WP2

20625

25000

15375

47500

25000

WP3

HELCOM budget

46125

20250

25000

33000

28500

27 000

109875

10000

299750

* price for la oratories participating in the intercali ration.

€ for la s . The cost for national la oratories

are not included.

** maximal number of man month calculated according to the Procedures for releasing the reported PLC water data.

Page 37 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 4

The minimum estimated workload for the implementation of the PLC-7 project tasks in man/month.

The HELCOM budget (Annex 3) does not cover total cost of the

project deliverables. The Contracting Parties leading the selected tasks (columns highlighted in yellow) are invited to co-finance implementation of the tasks in the

volume according to the monthly rates of the national experts. The co-financing can be provided to the HELCOM budget or through national arrangements including

in kind contribution.

Project tasks

Project

Statistical

management analysis

(dedicated task

by DCE)

QA and

Assessment Periodic PLC

data

inter-

water data

calibration* processing management

(SYKE)**

Periodic

Assessment Report

Sum

data on air- tasks by

proofreading

borne input experts

& publishing

(EMEP)

WP0

WP1

WP2

WP3

Project management

Monitoring and reporting of national

annual/periodical data

Updating PLC database and data on

atmospheric inputs

Establishing of the periodic

assessment data set (DCE and BNI)

Assessment of sources of nutrients

Assessment of the effectiveness of

measures

Assessment of inputs of selected

hazardous substances

Compilation of the executive

summary and policy messages

(a drafting team)

Updating guidelines and statistical

methodology report

Intercalibration on heavy metals and

nutrients

4.5

10000

4,5

27000

2.5

***

2.5

***

6,5

2,5

25000*

1,5***

3,5

Sum

4.5

12,5

* price for la oratories participating in the intercali ration.

€ for la s . The

cost for national laboratories are not included.

** maximal number of man month calculated according to the Procedures for releasing the reported PLC water data.

*** Lead countries to be responsible for implementation of the assessment tasks including preparation of thematic reports which require specific expertise.

Page 38 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

Annex 5 HELCOM Project for Quality assurance of phytoplankton monitoring in the

Baltic Sea (HELCOM PEG QA)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PROJECT NO. 11.57)

1. Title of the project:

Quality assurance of phytoplankton monitoring in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM PEG QA)

2. Project Manager(s):

Ms. Iveta Jurgensone, Latvia, 2017-2019

3. Proposing party:

Contracting parties: Latvia

4. The body supervising the project:

HELCOM State and Conservation

5. Target and activities:



The main target of the project is to ensure and maintain high quality standard of the international Baltic

Sea regional phytoplankton monitoring within the HELCOM COMBINE Programme. This should be achieved

by:

Maintaining annual training courses (workshop)

Maintaining the phytoplankton biovolume list

Intercalibrations



Maintaining the HELCOM Monitoring guidelines for Phytoplankton - Species composition, abundance

and biomass (currently Combine manual Annex C-6).



HELCOM PEG will serve as a forum for:

discussion and review of phytoplankton indicators developed by Lead Countries and to dedicate

part of annual meetings to this objective,

commenting the HELCOM phytoplankton indicator reports and indicator evaluations for use in

HELCOM assessments,

supporting the definition of data requirements for phytoplankton indicators and an appropriate

data reporting format to ensure that the COMBINE database hosted by ICES provides the data

needs for HELCOM phytoplankton indicators,

comparing the HELCOM core indicators with OSPAR indicator work after HOLAS II.



Page 39 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

The main activities within the project will be carried out at the annual workshops. Intersessional activities

will be organized if needed. The following types of activities are planned:

Activity:

Training courses

Aim:

To maintain continuity and high quality in phytoplankton

identification and quantification, in particular because a new

generation of phytoplankton researchers and analysts are

currently joining the PEG;

To follow recent changes in taxonomy of problematic and

important phytoplankton groups in order to keep the PEG

Phytoplankton list up to date.

To keep the high standard of phytoplankton monitoring in the

Baltic Sea, to assure the comparability of results.

To continuously update the HELCOM monitoring manual for

phytoplankton species composition, abundance and biomass.

Intercalibrations

Further unifying the counting

method

Revision of the biovolume file

To add new species and size classes when necessary; to update

the biovolume file according to recent taxonomical changes in co-

operation with ICES Data Centre.

Updating and production of environmental fact sheets to track

changes in phytoplankton community structure.

The project will serve as a forum for discussion of phytoplankton

indicators being developed in HELCOM and review the results of

the indicator evaluations of the HELCOM holistic assessment

(HOLAS II) to be finalized 2017-2018.

Production of environmental

fact sheets

Platform for phytoplankton

indicators

At the training courses it is planned to consider:

a) Identification of phytoplankton species;

b) Maintaining and upgrading of the expertise for identification of alien species;

c) Making representative and validated images of the Baltic Sea phytoplankton species public in the

HELCOM PEG image gallery at,

www.Nordicmicroalgae.org.

Intercalibrations and further unifying the counting method includes:

a) Interlaboratory intercalibration and checking the general methodology, species identification,

counting strategy, biovolume estimation etc.

b) For the professional planning and statistical evaluation of the intercalibration, an expert with a short-

term contract has to be employed (approximately 3 months)

The venue of the workshops will be circulated between the Contracting Parties and their marine

laboratories. Suggested host countries are: Russia in 2017, Sweden in 2018 and Latvia in 2019.

The project period is three years. Ms. Iveta Jurgensone, Latvia, will be the convener during 2017-2019.

Page 40 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

6. Expected results

The outcome of the project will be:

a) Annual reports from the 3 workshops to HELCOM State and Conservation;

b) Annually revised species/biovolume list of Baltic Sea phytoplankton species;

c) Updated HELCOM Monitoring manual for Phytoplankton - Species composition, abundance and

biomass;

d) Review the indicator evaluations for phytoplankton

e) Intercalibration report to HELCOM/ICES;

f) Updated environmental fact sheet;

g) Continuation of contribution of quality-checked images to the HELCOM PEG image gallery at,

www.Nordicmicroalgae.org;

h) Final report (2017-2019).

7. Consistency with HELCOM priorities __X__yes____no

8. Timetable

The project will be carried out in 2017-2019 as a continuation to the ongoing HELCOM PEG project for 2014-

2016. More specific timetable:



Regular tasks will be discussed during all workshops, especially:

discussion on new species and size classes that have occurred in the previous year's samples including

non-indigenous species

discussion of new environmental fact sheets and updating of the existing one

harmonization of species identification by common microscoping of samples from the Baltic Sea

harmonization of analyzing methods by discussing the methodology and committing intercalibrations

information on recent changes in taxonomy of planktonic microalgae

new images to add to the phytoplankton image gallery

information on new relevant literature, projects about e.g. the development of phytoplankton indicators,

meetings and conferences.

review of phytoplankton indicators being developed by Lead Countries.



Specific tasks for the separate workshops are:

Workshop 2017

a) A training course on cyanobacteria, teacher will be decided in 2017;

b) Planning of the next intercalibration;

The workshop will be held in St.Peterburg, Russia.

Workshop 2018

a) A training course on diatom resting spores and dinoflagellate cysts, Anna Godhe Sweden;

b) Planning the next project (2020-2022).

The workshop will be held in Sweden.

Page 41 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

Workshop 2019

a) Presentation of the results from the intercalibration;

b) A training course on diatoms, teacher will be decided in 2018

The workshop will be held in Latvia.

Specific tasks to support the development and evaluation of phytoplankton indicators

2017:

Comment on phytoplankton indicator analyses made for the HOLAS II report and indicator evaluations

on phytoplankton by February 2017.

2018:

Comment on phytoplankton indicator reports and indicator evaluations according to deadlines agreed

in the HOLAS II project.

9. Budget

9.1. Total costs

The total costs for HELCOM from 2017 to 2019 are estimated to be

15480

EUR.

9.2. Costs divided per financial year

Estimated costs for HELCOM

2017:

Compensation for teaching (120 EUR/h, 8 hours)

Travel and accommodation for the teacher

Administrative costs

Travel and accommodation for project manager to present the PEG

work in the HELCOM State and Conservation meeting

SUM

3660 EUR

960 EUR

1000 EUR

1100 EUR

600 EUR

2018:

Compensation for teaching (120 EUR/h, 8 hours)

Travel and accommodation for the teacher

Administrative costs

Preparation of intercalibration

Travel and accommodation for project manager to present the PEG

work in the HELCOM State and Conservation meeting

SUM

5160 EUR

960 EUR

1000 EUR

1100 EUR

1500 EUR

600 EUR

Page 42 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

2019:

Compensation for teaching (120 EUR/h, 8 hours)

Travel and accommodation for the teacher

Compensation for teaching evaluation of ringtest (intercalibration)

Administrative costs

Travel and accommodation for project manager to present the PEG

work in the HELCOM State and Conservation meeting

SUM

6660 EUR

960 EUR

1000 EUR

3000 EUR

1100 EUR

600 EUR

9.3. Sources of financing divided per financial year

In general both HELCOM and the host countries finance the workshops and activities therein:

2017: HELCOM and Russia

2018: HELCOM and Sweden

2019: HELCOM and Latvia

10. Additional requests

10.1. From the Contracting Parties

The Contracting Parties are supposed to cover the travel expenses for the participation of the national

experts in the workshops, which are not included in the project budget.

The financial contribution of the host country for each workshop is estimated to be ca. 1500 EUR annually,

which is expected cost in addition to the administrative costs listed under 9.2.

11. Procedure of nomination of the Project team members

The present phytoplankton expert group consists of the following experts:

Hans Jakobsen

Andres Jaanus

Annely Enke

Kaire Kaljurand

Marko Järvinen

Heidi Hällfors

Sirpa Lehtinen

Jeanette Göbel

Norbert Wasmund

Regina Hansen

Susanne Busch

Iveta Jurgensone

Irina Olenina

Janina Kownacka

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Page 43 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 5

Slawomira Gromisz

Wojciech Kraśniewski

Andrey Sharov

Evgenia Lange

Chatarina Karlsson

Siv Huseby

Helena Höglander

Lars Edler

Malin Mohlin

Marie Johansen

Ann-Turi Skjevik

Poland

Russia

Sweden

12. Signatures of the project managers

Ms. Iveta Jurgensone

Chair of HELCOM Phytoplankton Expert Group

13. Opinion of the chairman of the relevant body

14. Opinion of the Executive Secretary

positive

15. Decision of the heads of Delegation

HOD 51-2016 decided

_X_ __ to establish ______not to establish

the project

Page 44 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 6

Annex 6 Regional Baltic Sea plan for harmonized ratification and implementation for

the 2004 IMO Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC)

Recalling that the

International Con ention for Control and Manage ent of “hips’ Ballast Water and

Sediments (BWM Convention) will enter into force in 8 September 2017, and to ensure its coherent

implementation,

the HELCOM member states AGREE:

To encourage

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to ratify the BWM Convention as soon as possible and at

the latest before the entry into force of the BWM Convention to ensure the equal treatment of the ships (i.e.

the granting of exemptions) throughout the Baltic Sea (HELCOM area).

To continue

the work within the HELCOM-OSPAR TG BALLAST, including:



Continuing working on the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Harmonised Procedure for the Contracting Parties

of OSPAR and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under BWM Convention (JHP) and further

developing the online decision support tool.

Further studying the new concept of the sa e risk area

- which is currently being discussed at IMO

- in relation to the JHP, avoiding pre-empting any decisions at IMO MEPC or PPR.

Examining if the database on port survey results can be coupled with or linked to the data obtained

from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) monitoring for Descriptor 2 in order to

improve the current limitation of data availability on non-indigenous species (NIS).



To nominate

a national focal point to the new expert group to continuously update the target species list

(TSL) for the JHP risk assessments.

To develop and have in place

by 2018 a system to quickly disseminate information on outbreaks of ballast

water mediated invasive species which, for example, could lead to the withdrawal of A-4 exemption or

requirements on contingency measures or require notification to ship owners and administration to avoid

ballast water operations where such events occur (early warning system).

To provide, and inform

on availability, of reception facilities for sediments in ports and terminals where

cleaning and repair of ballast tanks occurs based on IMO Guidelines G1 by 2018.

To investigate

if ports as hotspots should be included as a regular part of the HELCOM Monitoring programs

on NIS keeping in mind the obligations from the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the

other EU Directives for the EU member states.

To generate

a list of surveyed ports by 2018; the list will be permanently updated.

To support and exchange experiences

on compliance control and enforcement of the BWMC.

To work

towards further harmonization of implementing regulations of the BWM Convention.

Page 45 of 48

Outcome of HOD 51-2016

Annex 7

Annex 7 Statements by the European Commission Regarding Financing and the

Implementation of EU Legislation

Statements by the European Commission Regarding Financing and the Implementation of EU Legislation