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

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

First Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Helsinki, Finland, 30-31 October 2014

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

PRESSURE 1-2014

Proposal for the overall framework and contents of the nutrient reduction scheme

follow-up system

5-1

DEC

5 - Follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

9.10.2014

Chairman of LOAD, BNI and Secretariat

Background

The first version of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system should be finalized prior to

the next meeting of the Helsinki Commission in March 2014. This implies development of assessments for

following up on the progress towards fulfilment of the new Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and Country-

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

Meeting.

This document presents:



An overview of a proposed structure and contents of the follow-up scheme

Draws attention to the challenges for implementing the follow-up scheme that need to be

addressed

A road map for completing a first version of the follow-up scheme by March 2015, and

Open issues that should be discussed and considered by the new Working Group on

Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area, including how to

operationalize the future updating of the MAI and CART assessment products.



Drafts of (1) the core pressure indication of nutrient inputs for follow-up of MAI and (2) the CART follow-up

assessment will be presented to the meeting as separate documents (documents 3-2 and 3-3

–

the latter to

be submitted later).

This document and the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs have also been submitted as meeting

documents to LOAD 8-2014 (which take place just prior to the PRESSURE* 1-2014 meeting) and comments

from LOAD 8-2014, or slightly amended versions of these documents, may be submitted at a late stage to

the Meeting.

HOD 46-2014 has requested this Working Group to prioritize

this work and come up with a proposal how

the work could be organized.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to:



consider the proposal for the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system, taking into account also

possible comments from LOAD 8-2014, and to provide guidance for its further elaboration and

implementation

discuss and recommend how to

organize the work for future development and updating of the

nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system.



Page 1 of 9

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

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Proposal for the overall framework and contents of the nutrient reduction

scheme follow-up system

The first version of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system should be finalized prior to

the next meeting of the Helsinki Commission in March 2015. This implies development of assessments for

following up on the progress towards fulfilment of the revised Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and the

new Country-wise Allocation of Reduction Targets (CART) adopted by the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen

Ministerial Meeting.

HOD 46-2014 considered information on the progress with follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme (document

4-17).

The meeting

noted 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

and inland surface water retention in countries receiving transboundary waterborne inputs, for which

dedicated expert resources and a formal arrangement, or a project will need to be established. HOD 46-

2014 requested the new Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area to

prioritize this work and come up with a proposal how the work could be organized for the HOD 47-2014

meeting in December.

This document presents:



An overview of a proposed structure and contents of the follow-up scheme

Draws attention to the challenges for implementing the follow-up scheme that need to be

addressed

A road map for completing a first version of the follow-up scheme by March 2015, and

Open issues that should be discussed and considered by the new Working Group on

Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area including how to establish an

operational, regular process for following up progress in nutrient input reductions.



Requirements of the follow-up system

Based on discussions at LOAD 7-2013 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 2)

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 3)

ii.

The follow-up of CARTs is further complicated by the principles set out by the 2013 Copenhagen Ministerial

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

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.

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

Target

Page 2 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Structure of the follow-up system

An overview of the proposed framework, workflow and content of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up

system is presented as a flow diagram in

figure 1.

The HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system consists of three main components:

1. Compilation of data on airborne and waterborne nutrient inputs including quality assurance (based

on waterborne input data reporting by Contracting Parties to the HELCOM PLC-Water database and

atmospheric deposition modeled by EMEP based on emission data provided by countries, where

the PLC-Water database is handled by the PLC-water database manager).

2. Processing of data to get the necessary figures for assessment of progress:

Filling in gaps and correcting suspicious data (so far carried out by PLC-5.5 project (already

finalized) and LOAD core group assisted by the PLC-Water database manager)

ii.

Normalization of the input data to remove effects of interannual variability caused by

meteorological conditions (so far carried out by BNI, Sweden, acting also as PLC database

Host and Application Developer)

iii.

Statistical trend analysis (so far carried out by DCE, Denmark, under PLC-5.5 project)

3. Preparation of the follow-up assessments

Making of tables, graphs, maps and text (so far carried out by Chair of LOAD, BNI and

Secretariat)

Two separate assessment products are needed to follow up on the progress of the MAI and CART:

1. Follow-up of progress towards fulfilling maximum allowable inputs (MAI) via a core pressure

indicator on nutrient inputs with the following main content:

Evaluation of whether the latest annual normalized air- and waterborne inputs of nitrogen

and phosphorus to the sub-basins are above or below the MAI using a statistical

method

developed as a part of the PLC-6 project

ii.

Evaluation of trends in air and waterborne inputs to the Baltic Sea sub-basins since 1995

iii.

Presentation of the percentage change in annual normalized inputs since the reference

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

reaching MAI

iv.

Presentation of the actual air- and waterborne inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to sub-

basins from the latest available year as indication of the actual nutrient pressure to the

Baltic Sea

Assessment of how much reduction is still needed to reach MAI

Note: No country-wise input assessment is made because core indicators are focused on the

pressure on the Baltic Sea itself

The indicator is in line with MSFD reporting requirements and follows the common core 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.

2. Follow-up of progress towards fulfilling country-wise allocation of reduction targets (CART) via a

separate CART follow-up assessment system with the following main content.

Average annual country-wise normalized net inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus of latest

years are compared to the reference period 1997-2003 and the reduction requirements

ii.

Evaluation of trends in air- and waterborne inputs from each country/source since 1995

iii.

Assessment of statistical certainty whether country-wise (Contracting Parties, non-HELCOM

countries, shipping etc.) average normalized latest years net input (i.e. taking into account

retention) is above or below CART

iv.

Assessment of how much reduction is still needed to reach CART

Page 3 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Note: No basin-wise input assessment is made as the CART follow-ups are focused on the nutrient

reductions requirements from each country/source

A simple web-based assessment product 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)

for each country/sources.

Page 4 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the proposed framework, workflow and content of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system

Page 5 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Challenges for implementing the follow-up scheme

Although HELCOM already has a fairly well-established system for compiling data on pollution inputs (PLC

data) to the Baltic Sea much work is still needed to establish an operational follow-up of progress towards

MAI and CART. There are shortcomings in the PLC data that need to be addressed, systems need to be set

up for processing the PLC data so that they can be used for making follow-up assessments, and assessment

methodologies need to be developed to meet the requirements set out be the 2013 Copenhagen

Ministerial Declaration.

1. The necessary data basis:

Complete and quality assured waterborne input (PLC) data should be reported by

Contracting Parties

ii.

Waterborne input data should be reported on time and in compliance with the

requirements set out in the PLC guidelines

iii.

Contracting Parties need to report transboundary inputs data annually and retention data

at the minimum in connection with periodic assessments

iv.

The PLUS project for modernization of the PLC-Water database will facility smoothly data

upload and quality assurance procedures

Need for better data on transboundary inputs and estimates of inland surface water

retention in receiving countries. This includes a need to define who will, and how to,

coordinate cooperation with non-Contracting Parties and international river basin

commissions to get this information

2. Data processing:

Need to agree on who will fill in gaps and correct suspicious data based on commonly

agreed principles

ii.

Find a procedure where Contracting Parties smoothly will agree on that corrected data can

be used for HELCOM assessment purposes (and included in the PLC database - marked

(flagged) as estimated/corrected values)

iii.

Need to agree on how to operationalize the normalization of the input data (at a later stage

it might be possible to include this functionality in the modernized PLC-Water database

–

but this task is not included as a highest priority functional specification of the current PLUS

project)

iv.

Need to agree on who will carry out the statistical trend analysis

Need to agree on how to cover the costs of these additional tasks, which are not included

in the current PLC data management contract

3. Follow-up assessments

Need to agree on who will update the tables, graphs, maps and text of the MAI and CART

follow-up assessments. (Until the new PLC database can handle also normalized data, it will

not be possible to produce most of the necessary data products via the web application of

the database.)

ii.

Core input indicator:



Interannual natural variability may result in contradictory results for individual years,

i.e., when inputs are close to MAI, some years may be below and others above. The

developed statistical test on MAI fulfilment should be further developed to also take

into account natural variation when inputs are close to MAI.



It is challenging to directly link between the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs

and core indicators and assessments on eutrophication status since the marine

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

reductions in nutrient inputs. Further work is needed to explore this aspect.

iii.

CART follow-up assessment:

Page 6 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1



Need to develop methodology for how to 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.



Need to improve estimates/modelling of retention for most of the catchment receiving

transboundary inputs



Need to esta lish input-ceilings for each country/source



Need to develop methodology for how to account for extra reductions in one basin for

CART in another basin requires development.

Road map for completing a first version of the follow-up scheme by March

2014

1. 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: A first complete draft of the Core Pressure Indicator of Nutrient Inputs was

presented and discussed at CORESET II 2/2014 meeting

2. October 2014: LOAD 8-2014 and the 1

meeting of the new Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area to consider and provide final comments on the draft

core indicator based on data up to 2010

3. November 2014: Final draft of the core indicator to be submitted to HOD 47-2014 for endorsement

4. January 2015: The core indicator to be updated based on data up to 2012

5. March 2015 and HELCOM 36-2015: Core indicator published and available on HELCOM website

2. CART follow-up assessment

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. October 2014: A proposal for the contents of the CART follow-up assessment (based on data up to

2010) to be presented to the meetings of LOAD 8-2014 and the 1

meeting of the new Working

Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area for consideration and

commenting.

2. November 2014: A draft of the preliminary

CART follow-up assessment to be submitted to HOD

47-2014 for endorsement

3. January 2015: The preliminary CART follow-up assessment to be updated with data up to 2012

4. March 2015 and HELCOM 36-2015: The preliminary CART follow-up assessment to be published

and available via the HELCOM website.

5. 2015: A working arrangement and/or project to take care of different components of the data

processing as well as further develop access to data and assessment methodology for the follow-up

of progress towards CART.

Due to open issues and the need for further development of assessment tools to follow-up progress towards CART,

the first version of the CART follow-up assessment should be considered preliminary, with the understanding that it

will be further developed over time as new data and methodologies become available.

Page 7 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

Open issues that should be discussed and considered by the new Working

Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

A. How to organize the follow-up process of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme:

1. There should be some guidance/agreement on the updating frequency of the MAI and CART

assessment products. Based on the availability of data, it could be feasibly to update the:



MAI follow-up assessment on an annual basis (if Contracting Parties submit complete

datasets on time)



CART follow-up assessment every three years, taking into account also reporting

requirements under the WFD and MSFD. This is to reflect the fact that additional data are

required (especially on transboundary inputs and retention) and assessment methods need

further development.

2. How do we operationalize the updating of the MAI and CART assessment products?

In what framework should further development of CART assessment methodology be carried out?

B. Main technical questions/issues to consider/solved in the follow-up process of the HELCOM nutrient

reduction scheme

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

between Contracting Parties in the 2013 CART (i.e., Finland and Germany) or should this be done at

the national level?

2. How do we get improved data on transboundary inputs and retention from non-Contracting

Parties?

3. 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.

4. Should the follow-up of CART also include evaluation of air and waterborne inputs separately?

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

to adjacent basins (see footnote 1)?

C. Initial ideas for a way forward

1. A liaising group (between technical PLC work and the new Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area): The work carried out so far by the LOAD core group

could continue also in the future, especially for coordinating the work carried out by the projects

related to monitoring and assessment of pollution inputs and the further development of the

nutrient reduction scheme follow-up. The core group would be in position to evaluate the progress

in PLC related work and address the Pressure Working Group with any challenges. It would also

coordinate PLC work not specifically covered by a separate project such as airborne inputs and

further development and regular updating of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up. It is

therefore suggested that the current LOAD core group would continue its work (probably with a

new name), and would consist at least of the Chair of former LOAD expert group, relevant project

managers, data consultants and database managers, including BNI, as well as the Secretariat. The

core group would be open to any other representatives from the Contracting Parties wishing to

participate in the work. The core group would report to the Pressure Group and work according to

a mandate given in the ToR to be developed.

2. Improving transboundary inputs and retention data. This work should preferably be carried out

within the framework of a project.

3. Resources needed for operationalization and maintenance of the MAI-CART follow-up system. As

far as possible, resources and budgetary implications of the data processing and assessment work

Page 8 of 9

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-1

could be included in PLC related contracts (the calculation of normalized inputs, elaboration of the

assessments). For this purpose the contents of the future contracts would need to be revised,

which should also take into account the change of the tasks due to the new PLC database and PLUS

web application being put in place. Calculation of statistical methods, however, might require

additional funding. The Secretariat would be responsible for initiating the new content of the

contracts.

Page 9 of 9

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

First Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Helsinki, Finland, 30-31 October 2014

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Proposal for a CART follow-up system

5-3

CMNT

5 - Follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

29.10.2014

LOAD Chair, BNI and Secretariat

Background

The attached document contains a draft of the preliminary follow-up assessment of the country-wise

allocated reduction targets on nutrients (CART) decided by the 2013 Copenhagen HELCOM Ministerial

Declaration. Document 5-1, submitted to HELCOM LOAD 8-2014, includes a discussion of the overall

framework and content of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up assessment including challenges for

implementing the follow-up scheme that need to be addressed and the process on how to developed and

maintain the follow-up system.

The attached draft presents initial figures and table that are proposed to be included in the CART follow-up

assessment. It also raises some technical and scientifically issues that need further consideration:

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

double work by first elaborating an assessment on 1994-2010 data and within few weeks repeating the

assessment with updated data. As the complete dataset including both water- and airborne inputs and the

normalized airborne data were only available by mid-October 2014, and the normalization, statistical

analysis, calculation and assessments are based on voluntary work, the statistical analysis was not ready for

this version of the CART follow-up system. Therefore, some tables and figures are not finalized yet, and

only an example for one sub-basin is shown for some other figures. Further, part of the text is provisional

and should be further developed, and the annex is only partly developed. This draft will be updated based

on the discussions at the LOAD 8/2014 meeting and with inclusion of the results of the statistical trends

analysis and test for progresses in fulfilling CART and send to HOD 47-2014. Afterwards it will be finalized in

January 2015 before submission for HELCOM 2015.

The meeting of LOAD 8-2014 consider the attached draft CART follow-up assessment and provided the

following feedback:

1. Suggested to make it more user-friendly by splitting it into two separate products:



a simplified version directed at policy makers showing tables 6a and 6b and a short

message per country on how many tonnes still remain to be reduced overall. In this

short summary, the progress of other pollution sources (non-contracting CPs, shipping)

towards the targets set out in the 2013 ministerial declaration should also be explicitly

shown

a background report with the details (could be a separate publication)



Page 1 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

2. Include an annex with just the national input ceilings (as these are probably of most

interest to the Contracting Parties)

3. Sort some of the tables according to Contracting Party rather than by basin.

4. The example illustrating the importance of retention for CART should be moved to an

annex

5. It would be helpful to have arrows showing the direction of the trend in tables 6a and 6b.

LOAD 8-2104 discussed how to proceed with the further elaboration of the CART follow-up assessment,

bearing in mind that BNI, Stockholm University and DCE, Aarhus University who developed the draft have

received an updated MAI-CART follow-up dataset with errors that will require substantial additional work

(new flow normalization and repeating the statistical analysis) and affects the original proposed time table.

The meeting recognized that the updated CART follow-up assessment will be submitted to HOD 47-2014 as

a late document and agreed that HOD 47-2014 should be requested to approve the content of the

assessment in principle and that the next PLC-6 workshop (to be held on 15-17 December 2014) should be

used partly to discuss and resolve remaining technical issues and to further elaborate the CART follow-up

assessment. In January 2015 the preliminary CART follow-up assessment will be finalized by internal

working procedures before it is send to HELCOM 36-2015.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to:



consider and discuss the draft of the proposal for a CART follow-up assessment

provide advice for finalizing a draft of the CART follow-up assessment before it is submitted to

HOD 47-2014 for endorsement, and

support the road map for finalizing the preliminary CART follow-up assessment for HELCOM 36-

2015.

Page 2 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Proposal for a CART follow-up system

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

Summary/main conclusion

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 average normalized inputs in 2010-2012 the following ceilings have been fulfilled:

Denmark and Germany is fulfilling nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM sub-basins

Baltic Sea shipping exceeds nitrogen ceiling to all sub-basins

….

All countries exceeds their phosphorus ceilings to Baltic Proper

Xx countries reduced significantly their air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea in 2010-

2012 compared with the reference period (1997-2003)

yy countries reduced significantly their air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea in 2010-

2012 compared with the reference period (1997-2003)

Nitrogen input from Baltic Sea shipping has increased significantly since the reference period

…

Commented [LMS1]:

These conclusion will be extended

and completed, when we have the results of the statistical

analyses

Page 3 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure 1a:

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. Yello colour: it can’t e judged ith statistical certainty if average

input in

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

Commented [LMS2]:

We are aware to it might be difficult

to see all details. Figures to be updated when statistical

analysis are ready

–

the colours are provisional The intention

is to also to clor the catchment according to fulfilment of

CART. The figure is elaborated to follow same concept as for

MAI-follow up

–

we can discuss hos to make it more

readable.. In annex figure A1 the figures regarding BP is

shown with a higher resolution

Page 4 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure 1b

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

can’t e judged ith 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 5 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure 2a

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

Red: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yello colour: it can’t e judged ith statistical certainty if average input in

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

Commented [LMS3]:

Colours will be updated when

statistical analysis are ready

Page 6 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure 2b:

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

2010-

. Red: nitrogen ceilings are not fulfilled. Yello colour: it can’t e judged ith statistical certainty if average

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

uncertainty.

Page 7 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Introduction

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 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). 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

Nitrogen

tonnes

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Waterborne transboundary

Airborne non-Contracting Parties

Shipping

Total

2,890

1,800

2,430+600

7,170+500

1,670

8,970

43,610

10,380

9,240

3,230

18,720

6,930

118,134

15,178

Phosphorus

tonnes

320

330+26

110+60

220

1,470

7,480

3,790

530

800

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 to solve it

Page 8 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

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 (HELCOM LOAD document 3/2).

Evaluating progress fulfilling new CART

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 2-3, the national input ceilings are shown together with the achieved

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 4-5, 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 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 2a:

Country by basin wise total nitrogen input ceilings, achieved reductions in 2010-2012 compared to the

reference inputs (1997-2003), and the percentage of reduction compared to CART. Negative reductions indicate

increased inputs.

BAP

Sum

Ceiling

7910

1413

1569

27473

6091

33093

160857

9253

30942

33002

1434

7322

2693

1948

325001

Reduction

2628

381

504

5857

-1638

-8660

29568

-515

6817

9859

-1133

-1337

465

337

43132

% of CART

123

100

119

-100

-97

-21

-20

-68

GUF

Sum

KAT

Sum

Ceiling

29319

3285

1106

174

34206

5579

149

74001

Ceiling

334

11265

20653

1312

183

261

1166

62522

502

3455

147

101800

Reduction

116

-396

614

324

-18

122

-11777

117

1137

-146

-9888

Reduction

6091

535

134

-17

7055

1444

-124

15155

% of CART

275

-28

197

-80

-149

186

-25

-68

% of CART

860

n/a

1223

677

107

730

498

-417

854

-21

318

Commented [LMS4]:

In the final version of table 2-5

statistical significant reductions will be indicated with bold

Table 2b:

Country by basin wise total nitrogen input ceilings, achieved reductions in 2010-2012 compared to the

reference inputs for the sub-basins with zero CART

BOB

Sum

BOS

Ceiling

226

34389

801

108

631

696

17571

2685

361

57622

Ceiling

Reduction

-2081

164

-1

-205

2203

571

-79

712

Reduction

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

GUR

Sum

Ceiling

374

12777

250

1437

52853

5682

1335

2467

440

4013

561

6228

88418

Ceiling

Reduction

110

1909

317

-4651

-382

122

-265

866

-106

-501

-2435

Reduction

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

Page 10 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Sum

854

299

27978

2994

258

464

2647

1465

31501

9451

1461

79372

253

1596

649

-12

256

-386

2403

2105

-286

6621

n/a

Sum

28588

20708

1061

164

5869

8631

826

65998

7271

2339

132

-9

1134

1768

-122

12541

n/a

Table 3a:

Country by basin wise total phosphorus input ceilings, achieved reductions in 2010-2012 compared to the

reference inputs, and the percentage of reduction compared to CART. Negative reductions indicate increased inputs.

Sum

Ceiling

101

831

4309

277

308

1046

244

108

7360

Ceiling

236

322

2892

150

3600

Ceiling

239

541

166

185

797

2020

Reduction

-34

-8

-9

-39

Reduction

-9

-90

582

2710

112

169

3571

Reduction

773

828

% of CART

-5

-70

n/a

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

252

-39

-32

-31

n/a

-31

Sum

Ceiling

829

740

118

1687

Ceiling

1040

351

105

1601

Reduction

143

Ceiling

1255

1125

394

2773

Reduction

Ceiling

1668

826

181

2675

Reduction

110

143

253

Reduction

-24

-118

-142

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

n/a

% of CART

n/a

Page 11 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 4a:

Summary of country-wise total nitrogen inputs to Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea and Baltic Proper in the

reference period compared to 2010-2012 averaged.

Reference 1997-2003

BOB

Sum

BOS

Sum

BAP

Sum

Water

32625

16813

49437

Water

25641

28964

54605

Water

1864

1134

6847

10134

42536

192832

10950

31382

297679

Air

226

1764

801

108

631

696

758

2685

361

8185

Air

854

299

2337

2994

258

464

2647

1465

2537

9451

1461

24767

Air

8182

661

1993

25708

967

2384

19655

3881

7916

47727

7169

126243

Transb.

2337

-3365

-2891

-8194

-3080

9299

3420

2474

Net

226

34389

801

108

631

696

17571

2685

361

57622

Net

854

299

27978

2994

258

464

2647

1465

31501

9451

1461

79372

Net

10046

1795

1993

34892

7736

42028

204293

11751

39298

47727

7169

9299

3420

2474

423922

Water

34822

14748

49570

Water

24319

27025

51344

Water

1499

788

6086

12441

52503

163867

10751

25881

273816

2010 - 2012

Air

159

1648

637

569

901

620

2114

440

7341

Air

601

298

2063

2345

270

423

2391

1851

2073

7346

1747

21407

Air

5919

627

1489

20930

1027

2099

17481

4633

6601

37868

8302

106975

Transb.

2019

-4094

-3913

-6623

-3118

10636

2955

2138

Net

159

36469

637

569

901

15368

2114

440

56910

Net

601

298

26381

2345

270

423

2391

1851

29098

7346

1747

72751

Net

7418

1414

1489

29035

9374

50689

174725

12266

32482

37868

8302

10636

2955

2138

380790

Reduction

-2081

164

-1

-205

2203

571

-79

712

Reduction

253

1596

649

-12

256

-386

2403

2105

-286

6621

Reduction

2628

381

504

5857

-1638

-8660

29568

-515

6817

9859

-1133

-1337

465

337

43132

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Page 12 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 4b:

Summary of country-wise total nitrogen inputs to Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga and the Danish Straits in the

reference period compared to 2010-2012 averaged.

Reference 1997-2003

GUF

Sum

GUR

Sum

Water

12004

16909

74006

102919

Water

12530

65843

78373

Water

23277

12843

5485

41605

Air

376

680

994

1477

206

294

1313

1748

565

4941

739

13333

Air

374

247

250

1437

441

437

1335

510

440

4013

561

10045

Air

5311

7865

1061

164

384

8631

826

24393

Transb.

5353

-5353

Transb.

-13431

5245

1957

6228

Transb.

Net

376

12684

23256

1477

206

294

1313

70401

565

4941

739

116252

Net

374

12777

250

1437

52853

5682

1335

2467

440

4013

561

6228

88418

Net

28588

20708

1061

164

5869

8631

826

65998

Water

12365

16353

85426

114144

Water

10614

71502

82117

Water

17356

11691

4432

33479

2010 - 2012

Air

260

715

816

1153

224

275

1191

2226

448

3804

885

11997

Air

264

253

188

1120

513

397

1213

618

356

3147

667

8736

Air

3961

6678

929

173

303

6863

948

19978

Transb.

5474

-5474

Transb.

-14510

5667

2114

6729

Transb.

Net

260

13080

22643

1153

224

275

1191

82178

448

3804

885

126141

Net

264

10868

188

1120

57504

6064

1213

2732

356

3147

667

6729

90852

Net

21317

18368

929

173

4735

6863

948

53457

Reduction

116

-396

614

324

-18

122

-11777

117

1137

-146

-9888

Reduction

110

1909

317

-4651

-382

122

-265

866

-106

-501

-2435

Reduction

7271

2339

132

-9

1134

1768

-122

12541

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Page 13 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 4c:

Summary of country-wise total nitrogen inputs to Kattegat and the whole Baltic Sea in the reference period

compared to 2010-2012 averaged.

Reference 1997-2003

KAT

Sum

BAS

Sum

Water

24392

34091

58484

Water

49533

25667

75175

19690

75977

42536

192832

84956

116736

683102

Air

5635

3364

1133

178

941

8090

751

20278

Air

20958

2017

7477

43646

1983

3799

27775

8642

13541

85538

11868

227244

Transb.

5353

2337

-16795

2354

-8194

-6476

15527

3420

2474

Net

30027

3364

1133

178

35032

8090

751

78762

Net

70491

27684

88005

65673

61164

48689

212413

87123

130277

85538

11868

15527

3420

2474

910346

Water

19623

27197

46821

Water

38478

23767

75494

17777

83943

52503

163867

96176

99284

651289

2010 - 2012

Air

4313

2829

999

195

780

6646

875

16786

Air

15478

2017

6299

35691

2143

3391

24773

10597

11179

67788

13864

193220

Transb.

5474

2019

-18604

1754

-6623

-6477

17365

2955

2138

Net

23936

2829

999

195

27977

6646

875

63607

Net

53956

25784

87266

55487

67482

57648

182016

100296

110463

67788

13864

17365

2955

2138

844508

Reduction

6091

535

134

-17

7055

1444

-124

15155

Reduction

16536

1900

738

10185

-6318

-8959

30397

-13174

19814

17750

-1996

-1838

465

337

65838

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Page 14 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 5a:

Summary of country-wise total phosphorus inputs to Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, Baltic Proper, Gulf of

Finland and Gulf of Riga in the reference period compared to 2010-2012 averaged.

Reference 1997-2003

BOB

Sum

BOS

Sum

BAP

Sum

GUF

Sum

GUR

Sum

Water

1668

826

2494

Water

1255

1125

2379

Water

175

269

2635

12310

960

843

17274

Water

504

637

6218

7359

Water

277

1959

2235

Air

181

Air

394

Air

1046

Air

150

Air

Transb.

101

-66

-363

-524

-202

668

295

Transb.

-49

Transb.

-1331

192

215

925

Net

1668

826

181

2675

Net

1255

1125

394

2773

Net

276

203

2272

11786

758

843

1046

668

295

18320

Net

504

686

6169

150

7509

Net

277

627

192

215

925

2328

Water

1692

944

2636

Water

1145

982

2127

Water

206

386

1910

9437

960

731

13703

Water

468

634

5430

6532

Water

181

2049

2231

2010 - 2012

Air

181

Air

394

Air

1046

Air

150

Air

Transb.

-94

-220

-361

-202

499

229

Transb.

-34

Transb.

-1388

200

224

964

Net

1692

944

181

2817

Net

1145

982

394

2521

Net

285

292

1690

9076

758

731

1046

499

229

14749

Net

468

668

5396

150

6682

Net

181

661

200

224

964

2324

Reduction

-24

-118

-142

Reduction

110

143

253

Reduction

-9

-90

582

2710

112

169

3571

Reduction

773

828

Reduction

-34

-8

-9

-39

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Page 15 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 5b:

Summary of country-wise total phosphorus inputs to Danish Straits, Kattegat and the whole Baltic Sea in the

reference period compared to 2010-2012 averaged.

Reference 1997-2003

Sum

KAT

Sum

BAS

Sum

Water

1040

351

105

1496

Water

829

740

1569

Water

1928

804

3560

525

2228

2635

12310

7178

3639

34807

Air

105

Air

118

Air

2087

Transb.

101

-1398

-171

-524

-36

1593

295

Net

1040

351

105

1601

Net

829

740

118

1687

Net

1928

804

3609

626

830

2463

11786

7142

3639

2087

1593

295

36894

Water

981

339

1408

Water

732

694

1426

Water

1766

669

3470

546

2435

1910

9437

6390

3439

30062

2010 - 2012

Air

105

Air

118

Air

2087

Transb.

-1482

-20

-361

-12

1463

229

Net

981

339

105

1513

Net

732

694

118

1544

Net

1766

669

3505

624

954

1890

9076

6378

3439

2087

1463

229

32149

Reduction

143

Reduction

163

135

104

-124

573

2710

764

200

130

4745

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)



Average normalised nitrogen and phosphorus air- and waterborne inputs in 2010-2012 country by basin is

shown in figure 1.a and b and compared with the corresponding ceilings in figure 2.a and b. With colours

(red, yellow and green) are indicated whether the input ceilings are fulfilled using statistical methods as

shortly summarized in Annex A and which is further described in Larsen & Svendsen (2013). The main

results from figure 1a and b and 2 a and b are:

Denmark and Germany is fulfilling nitrogen ceilings to all HELCOM sub-basins

Baltic Sea shipping exceeds nitrogen ceiling to all sub-basins

….

All countries exceeds their phosphorus ceilings to Baltic Proper

Xx countries reduced significantly their air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea in 2010-

2012 compared with the reference period (1997-2003)

yy countries reduced significantly their air- and waterborne nitrogen inputs to the Baltic Sea in 2010-

2012 compared with the reference period (1997-2003)

Nitrogen input from Baltic Sea shipping has increased significantly since the reference period

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Commented [LMS5]:

To be further developed when the

statistical analysis are ready

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

......

Page 16 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

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

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

progress in fulfilling nutirent reduction requirements (Tables 6a and 6b). Denmark fulfill its nitrogen ceilings

to the seven HELCOM sub-basins. For Baltic Proper al countries except Finland (have no waterborne inputs

to this basin) have phosphorus inputs above their ceilings. .......

Table 6a:

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 can’t 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. 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

Sum

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Commented [LMS6]:

Text further elaborated when

statistical analysis are ready

Commented [LMS7]:

The evaluation for country per basin

is a qualified guess to show a possible result. Will be updated

when the statistical analysis are finalized.

Table 6b:

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 can’t 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. 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

Sum

Commented [LMS8]:

The classification country per basin

is a qualified guess to show a possible result. Will be updated

when the statistical analysis are finalized.

Page 17 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Sum

An example illustrating the importance of changing retention for CART

[Some lines of text will be included together with a table/tables (7..x) to illustrate the importance of

changing retention for the resulting CART]

Impact of reducing nutrient inputs in one sub-basin for neighbouring basins

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

[Text will be added to introduce table 8.a and 8.b]

Table 8.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 tons/yr reductions to DS

gives the same effect in KAT as 1 ton/yr reductions of the external inputs to KAT.

Gives the equivalent effect of 1 ton 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

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

A reduction of this

magnitude in these

basins

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

Table 8.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

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

A reduction of this

magnitude in these

basins

BAP

BOS

BOB

GUR

GUF

3.6

4.2

1.3

4.1

Page 18 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Evaluation of how much input 2010-12 are below input ceilings

[When

statistical analysis are ready a table 9a and 9b to be including which for all basins where a statistical

test show that input ceilings are not exceeded estimates

the” margin

of fulfilment” to indicate how many

tons of nitrogen and/or phosphorus that we are below the ceiling taking into account statistical

uncertainty. This would be an estimate of how much inputs could increase without exceeding the input

ceilings/not fulfilling CARTs]

Table 9a:

The bold numbers is an estimate of how many tons the total normalized water + airborne nitrogen inputs

during 2008-2010 was below the inputs ceiling taking into account statistical uncertainty.

no : Inputs

-12 are

nu erically elo the ceiling ut taking into statistical uncertainty it can’t e evaluated if the ceilings are fulfilled.

Input ceiling no fulfilled.

Input ceiling

Input 2010-12

Input2010-12 minus input ceiling

Uncertainty

Fulfilment margin

57,622

56,910

-712

1,581

79,372

72,751

-6,621

2,909

325,001

380,790

55,789

16,803

101,800

126,141

24,341

2,372

88,418

90,852

2,434

6,388

65,998

53,457

-12,541

5,621

6,920

74,001

63,607

-10,394

6,215

4,179

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Commented [LMS9]:

This table will be updated when

statistical analysis of 1994-2012 data are ready

–

the used

uncertainties is from the 1994-2010 data. Further the latest

year will be used (2012) (not 2010-12)

Table 9b:

The bold numbers is an estimate of how many tons the total normalized water + airborne nitrogen inputs

during 2008-

as elo the inputs ceiling taking into account statistical uncertainty. no : Inputs

-12 are

numerically

elo the ceiling ut taking into statistical uncertainty it can’t e evaluated if the ceilings are fulfilled.

Input ceiling no fulfilled.

Input ceiling

Input 2010-12

Input2010-12 minus input ceiling

Uncertainty

Fulfilment margin

2,675

2,817

142

130

2,773

2,521

-252

161

7,360

14,749

7,389

544

3,600

6,682

3,082

237

2,020

2,324

304

281

1,601

1,513

-83

100

1,687

1,544

-143

Commented [LMS10]:

This table will be updated when

statistical analysis of 1994-2012 data are ready

–

the used

uncertainties is from the 1994-2010 data .Further the latest

year will be used (2012) (not 2010-12)

[For

discussion:

Tables 9a and 9b above can be further broken down for sub-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 10 is

an example on how this could be calculated and presented

–

this example is for nitrogen inputs to Kattegat

where the table below includes proposals for discussion. It is based on the estimate from table 9a and b on

how much it would be possible to increase nitrogen inputs compared with inputs in 2010-12 and still 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 10:

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 9a is estimate that nitrogen inputs to Kattegat could be increased with 4.179 tonnes compared with

2010-2012 inputs and still with high statistical certainty fulfilling the nitrogen ceiling to Kattegat.

Page 19 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Country

CART

(Tonnes)

CART

(% of total

CART)

Potential

increase in

inputs (1)

(tonnes)

623

723

531

2,202

4,179

Reduction since

reference

period (tons)

Proportion

reduction

(%)

39,9

0,2

3,5

0,9

46,1

9,4

100

Potential

increase in

inputs (2)

(tonnes)

1668

146

1927

393

4,179

Total

708

826

602

2,511

4,761

14,9

1,7

0,6

0,1

17,3

12,7

52,7

100

6091

535

134

-17

7055

-124

1444

15155

Changes in inputs since reference period

Changes in normalized net nitrogen and phosphorus water—and airborne inputs compared with the

corresponding inputs in the reference period have been calculated (Tables 11 and 12). Further it have been

tested if the changes are significant.

[more text to be added when statistical analysis are ready]

Table 11a:

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 BY, CZ and

UA, North Sea shipping etc. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 4a, b and c.

Country/Basin

22,0

19,5

15,8

19,7

19,0

14,8

16,5

16,8

-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

Commented [LMS11]:

When the statistical tests have

been performed significant changes will be shown in bold

Page 20 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

ALL

-26,9

-13,1

-10,3

-26,8

-15,5

-13,6

-26,0

-9,3

-15,3

-26,7

-18,3

-10,0

-26,2

-14,5

-13,0

-28,4

6,4

-18,1

-26,9

7,1

-17,2

-26,5

-8,9

-15,0

Table 11b:

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 4a, b

and c.

Country/Basin

ALL

0,3

-6,0

-8,0

10,9

4,8

-19,5

-19,9

-4,7

-12,3

-6,7

6,7

-5,2

-11,7

23,3

22,6

-14,8

-3,0

-17,5

14,4

-13,6

8,0

16,5

8,0

-19,2

-20,2

8,7

8,0

-19,6

-30,5

3,0

-2,0

-9,0

-15,3

-25,4

-19,6

ALL

-22,3

-7,4

0,5

-10,1

10,4

20,9

-14,8

14,3

-15,0

11,8

-13,6

Commented [LMS12]:

When the statistical tests have

been performed significant changes will be shown in bold

Table11c:

Changes (%) in normalized net water and airborne nitrogen inputs from the reference period (1997-2003) to

the average 2010-2012. 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. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 4a, b and c.

Country/Basin

-29,4

-1,8

6,1

-20,5

2,2

-8,8

-9,9

29,4

-12,5

-29,6

-0,5

-5,7

-21,7

4,6

-8,8

-9,7

26,4

-7,6

-26,2

-21,2

-25,3

-16,8

21,2

20,6

-14,5

4,4

-17,3

14,4

-13,6

-30,7

3,1

-2,6

-22,0

9,0

-6,3

-9,3

16,7

-20,8

-29,4

-14,9

-24,8

-22,0

8,8

6,7

-9,1

10,7

-19,1

8,0

-25,4

-13,0

-30,3

-11,3

-5,7

-12,9

-12,4

5,7

-19,3

-20,3

-12,4

-30,6

-15,9

-4,1

-12,0

-11,9

9,1

-20,1

ALL

-23,5

-6,9

-0,8

-15,5

10,3

18,4

-14,3

15,1

-15,2

11,8

-13,6

Commented [LMS13]:

When the statistical tests have

been performed significant changes will be shown in bold

Page 21 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

ALL

22,0

-26,9

-13,1

-1,2

19,5

-26,8

-15,5

-8,3

15,8

-26,0

-9,3

-10,2

19,7

-26,7

-18,3

8,5

19,0

-26,2

-14,5

2,8

14,8

-28,4

6,4

-19,0

16,5

-26,9

7,1

-19,2

16,8

-26,5

-8,9

-7,2

Table 12:

Changes (%) in normalized total water and airborne 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

BY, CZ and UA, North Sea shipping etc. The changes in tonnes can be seen in table 5a and b.

Country/Basin

ALL

0,0

5,3

0,0

-9,1

0,0

-19,5

0,0

-11,0

0,0

-0,2

0,0

-5,5

0,0

-8,5

0,0

-12,9

14,3

-12,7

1,4

-8,8

3,2

44,1

-25,6

-23,0

0,0

-13,2

-25,3

-22,3

41,9

-12,5

4,2

-17,4

-6,2

5,3

4,2

-11,9

-13,2

-7,1

-2,7

-3,2

-34,5

-5,6

-11,7

ALL

-8,4

-16,7

-2,9

-0,4

14,8

-23,3

-23,0

-10,7

-5,5

-8,2

-22,3

Commented [LMS14]:

When the statistical tests have

been performed significant changes will be shown in bold.

Trends and change in nutrient inputs 1994 to 2012

In figure A.1-14 in Annex 1 is shown time series of normalized water- and airborne nitrogen (Figures A1-7)

and phosphorus (Figures A8-14) during 1995 to 2012 country per basin including figures for the

transboundary air- and waterborne inputs.

[more text on main results when statistical analysis are ready]

Commented [LMS15]:

When statistical analysis are ready

a trend line will be added to all figures (full line with

statistical trend, dotted lines with no trend)

[This following section will include Tables corresponding to tables 5.5a,b,c d and e (airborne, waterborne

and total N and P inputs respectively) in the PLC-5.5 report with the matrix country/sources per basin

showing % changes 1995-2012 for all country pr. basin combinations with significant trends

–

but compared

with the PLC-5.5 tables they will present the net waterborne inputs country per basin and the net

transboundary inputs per country/source

–

further text to be added].

Table 5.5a

Significant changes in

total (air- + waterborne)

normalized nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Baltic

Sea by country and by sub-basin from 1994 to 2010. 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. See note to Table 4.1a regarding the pre-conditions on the PLC-

5.5 data set.

Page 22 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

EU20

BOB

-29

n.i.

-42

n.i.

-11

n.i.

-18

n.i.

-28

n.i.

-34

-21

BOS

-29

n.i.

-42

n.i.

-11

n.i.

(-19)

n.i.

-29

n.i.

-28

-33

-23

BAP

-19

-40

(-18)

-32

-19

-34

-16

-27

n.i.

(-33)

-24

-20

-29

-42

-20

-28

-37

-33

-28

GUF

n.i.

n.i

n.i.

GUR

-29

n.i.

-42

n.i.

-33

n.i.

-29

n.i.

-39

n.i.

-33

-24

-26

-38

-11

-37

-27

-38

-33

-23

-32

n.i.

-26

KAT

-26

-29

-7.7

-37

-28

-18

-36

8.8

n.i.

-23

n.i.

n.i

n.i.

Formatted:

English (United Kingdom)

Table 5.5b.

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. See note to Table 4.1a regarding the pre-

conditions on the PLC-5.5 data set.

BOB

EU20

-29

-42

-11

-14

-28

-36

-34

-21

-29

-42

-11

-19

-29

-35

-33

-23

BOS

BAP

-26

-41

-10

-32

-29

-33

-16

GUF

-29

-42

-9.1

-27

-28

-37

-33

-28

GUR

-29

-42

-8.9

-33

-29

-36

-33

-24

-21

-37

-11

-37

-27

-32

-36

KAT

-26

-37

-7.8

-37

-28

-36

8.8

Page 23 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Table 5.5c.

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. See note to Table 4.1a regarding the pre-conditions on the PLC-5.5 data

set.

BOB

n.i.

-24

n.i.

-21

n.i.

BOS

n.i.

-16

n.i.

-33

n.i.

(-39)

-26

-20

BAP

-16

-33

-26

n.i.

105

-38

-25

-24

n.i.

-15

n.i.

GUF

n.i.

-11

-16

n.i.

-7.7

n.i.

GUR

n.i.

-38

n.i.

-33

-42

n.i.

-37

-27

-41

n.i.

-28

n.i.

-29

n.i.

-20

KAT

n.i.

-26

n.i.

(-16)

Table 5.5d.

Significant changes in total flow normalized

riverine

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. See note to Table 4.1a regarding the pre-conditions on the PLC-5.5 data set.

BOB

n.i.

-21

n.i.

BOS

n.i.

-34

-31

n.i.

(-39)

-26

-19

BAP

-12

106

-36

-25

-20

GUF

n.i.

(22)

n.i.

(-24)

n.i.

GUR

n.i.

(-37)

n.i.

(-16)

-36

n.i.

-28

(-16)

-26

n.i.

-20

n.i.

-28

n.i.

-18

KAT

n.i.

-18

n.i.

Table 5.5e

Significant changes in total

direct inputs

(point sources discharging directly to the sea) of nitrogen and

phosphorus 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. See note to Table 4.1a regarding

the pre-conditions on the PLC-5.5 data set.

BOB

n.i.

-36

n.i.

-48

n.i.

-29

n.i.

-38

n.i.

BOS

n.i.

-53

n.i.

-32

BAP

-92

-88

-19

n.i.

-56

-77

(-44)

-51

-82

-94

-41

n.i.

-73

-91

-42

n.i.

-60

n.i.

-27

n.i.

GUF

n.i.

-49

n.i.

(-69)

n.i.

-2

n.i.

GUR

n.i.

(-31)

n.i.

-92

n.i.

-83

-75

n.i.

-57

-83

-78

n.i.

-57

n.i.

-60

n.i.

-43

KAT

n.i.

-79

n.i.

-48

Page 24 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

]

Commented [LMS16]:

Data replace with result of the

statistical analysis of 1995-2012 when available

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

Czech Republic

Ukraine

Baltic Shipping

EU20

Other atm. sources

Atm. P sources

Total

15,715

17,990

185,778

628,730

814,508

14,081

41,366

25,666

283

413

2,528

128

1,070

636

1,967

2,891

5,799

Flow

2012

281

497

3,509

150

1,249

514

1,548

3,191

7,051

Nitrogen (t)

Phosphorus (t)

Airborne

15,513

1,984

6,098

32,813

2,397

3,824

24,111

7,149

10,778

Waterborne

38,448

24,437

79,939

15,845

61,702

63,967

137,148

88,195

96,354

18,266

2,570

1,859

Total

53,961

26,421

86,038

48,658

64,098

67,791

161,259

95,343

107,132

18,266

2,570

1,859

14,081

41,366

25,666

Airborne

Waterborne

1,810

621

3,359

557

1,030

1,783

8,609

5,112

3,358

1,561

217

Total

1,810

621

3,359

557

1,030

1,783

8,609

5,112

3,358

1,561

217

2,087

28,083

2,087

30,171

Challenges and need for further development:

This section includes issues for discussion at the LOAD 8/2014 meeting and it in a final draft of the CART

follow-up it should be included as proposals or issues to 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

Page 25 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3



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 example to show what will happen if retention coefficient are change for CART

et een CP’s

How should we follow up CART for FI and GE regarding the division of their CART?

We will show waterborne inputs from non-CP to sub-basins as sums or separately for Belarus, Czech

Republic and Ukraine?

It 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 in inputs in 2010-2012

–

but scientifically speaking this is not 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

–

so 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 ho could this free input e divided

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



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.

Commented [LMS17]:

To be finalized later

Field Code Changed

Page 26 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

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.

Field Code Changed

Page 27 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

ANNEX



[These

annexes are not ready yet but will include the following issues:]

Explain that CART is based on flow normalized data only

How transboundary inputs are updated and net input are calculated

How ceilings are calculated (if not covered in the main part of the document)

Summarize which statistical methods that are used to test for trends, changes in inputs 1994 to 2012, if

changes 2010-12 compared with reference period are significant, the test for fulfilment of CART and

how far the inputs are below the ceilings. Where changed methodology has been used compared with

what was included in Larsen & Svendsen (2013) that is added in this appendix]

Page 28 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure x:

Alternative presentation of figure 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.]

Commented [LMS18]:

If this version is prefer, one figure

for each sub-basin is needed.

Page 29 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Page 30 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Page 31 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Page 32 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Figure A.1

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.

Commented [LMS19]:

14 figure will be include 7 for

nitrogen and 7 for phosphorus, representing each sub-basin

Commented [LMS20]:

This trend lines will be added when

the statistical analysis are ready

Page 33 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Annex 2 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

A statistical method that adjusts a data time series by removing the

influence of variations imposed by river flow, e.g. to facilitate assessment

Page 34 of 36

Commented [LMS21]:

Revised from PLC-5.5 report

–

be reviewed

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

Flow normalization

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

of development in e.g. nitrogen or phosphorus inputs.

GUF (or GF)

GUR (or GR)

Input ceiling

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 jectives 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

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.

The amount of a substance lost/retained during transport in soil and/or

water including groundwater from the source to a recipient water body.

Reference period

Reference input

Retention

Page 35 of 36

PRESSURE 1-2014, 5-3

Often retention is only related to inland surface waters in these

guidelines.

Riverine inputs

Statistically significant

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

Sub-basins

Transboundary input

TN and TP

Unmonitored area

Waterborne

WFD

Page 36 of 36

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

First Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Helsinki, Finland, 30-31 October 2014

PRESSURE 1-2014

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

........................................................................................................................................... 2

Adoption of the Agenda .................................................................................................... 2

Outcome of HELCOM modernization ................................................................................ 2

Other HELCOM work and cross-cutting issues .................................................................. 3

Progress with pollution load compilation.......................................................................... 4

Follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme ..................................................... 4

Other joint measures to address nutrients ....................................................................... 6

Joint measures to address hazardous substances............................................................. 7

Joint measures to address marine litter ............................................................................ 8

Joint measures to address underwater noise ................................................................... 8

Agenda Item 10 Any other business........................................................................................................... 8

Agenda Item 11 Future work and meetings ............................................................................................... 8

Agenda Item 12 Outcome of the Meeting ................................................................................................. 9

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

Annex 4

List of Participants ................................................................................................................... 10

Draft Terms of Reference for [Reduction Scheme Core Expert Group, RedCor] .................... 11

List of PRESSURE Contacts ....................................................................................................... 14

Proposed Work Plan of PRESSURE .......................................................................................... 15

Page 1 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Outcome of the First Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Introduction

0.1

The First Meeting of the new HELCOM Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the

Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 1

-2014) was held on 30-31 October 2014 at the premises of the

Finnish Meteorological Institute and Finnish Environment Institute in Helsinki, Finland.

0.2

The Meeting was attended by all Contracting Parties except for Denmark, European Union, and

Latvia. Observers from BFFE, EurEau, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme, as well as the Data Consultant

(Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE) and invited guests from Baltic Nest Institute (BNI), Sweden, Danish

Center for Environment and Energy, coordinator of EUSBSR PA Hazards and John Nurminen Foundation,

Finland also attended the Meeting. The List of Participants is contained in

Annex 1.

0.3

The Meeting was chaired by Mr. Lars Sonesten, Sweden. Ms. Minna Pyhälä and Mr. Dmitry

Frank-Kamenetsky of the HELCOM Secretariat acted as secretaries of the Meeting.

Agenda Item 1

Documents: 1-1

1.1

Adoption of the Agenda

The Meeting adopted the provisional agenda as contained in document 1-1.

1.2

The Meeting elected Mr. Lars Sonesten, Sweden, as chair of the Working Group on Reduction

of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area for the next two year period (2014-2016) and agreed to

elect a vice-chair at the next meeting of the group.

Agenda Item 2

Documents: 2-1, 2-2

Outcome of HELCOM modernization

2.1.

The Meeting took note of the outcome of the recent HELCOM streamlining process as agreed on by

HELCOM 35-2014 and HOD 46-2014, including the new working structure, as presented by the Executive

Secretary Ms. Monika Stankiewicz (Presentation 1). The Meeting noted that Pressure Working Group and

State Working Group are tentative names which are expected to be concluded by HELCOM HOD 47-2014 at

the latest.

2.2.

The Meeting took note of the Terms of Reference of the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures

from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (document 2-1) and agreed to make use of it as appropriate when

developing the Work Plan for the Group.

2.3.

The Meeting took note of the draft Work Plan prepared by the Secretariat as contained in

document 2-2 and agreed to develop it further based on the discussions during the meeting and under

Agenda Item 11 on Future Work. Finland noted that it would be useful if the Work Plan has a clear link to

the respective tasks in the ToR in order to ensure that all the tasks are reflected.

Tentative name, study reservation on the name ”PRESSURE”

by Germany

Page 2 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Agenda Item 3

Documents: 3-1, 3-2

Other HELCOM work and cross-cutting issues

3.1

The Meeting took note of information presented by Estonia about the priorities of Estonian

Chairmanship in HELCOM.

3.2

The Meeting took note of information by the Secretariat on relevant outcomes from the

meetings of HELCOM HOD-46 and GEAR 8-2014 as contained in document 3-2 and the outcome of the last

LOAD 8-2014, as presented by the Chair of LOAD, Mr. Lars M. Svendsen, Denmark (Presentation 2).

3.3

The Meeting took note of information by the Executive Secretary of the intersessional activity

under HELCOM GEAR on development of joint documentation for programmes of measures (Presentation

3). The Meeting noted that one of the tasks of the WG will be to support, in cooperation with the

appointed lead countries, the coordination on joint/coordinated measures and completion of the

documentation during next year for the following four teams: Inputs of nutrients and organic matter,

Inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants and systematic and/or intentional release of

substances, Input of litter, and Input of energy, including underwater noise.

3.4

The Meeting took note that, for example for Inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic

contaminants, based on the stocktaking of planned national measures and other information (e.g. core

indicators), it will be possible to decide whether there are grounds for proposing joint regional actions in

particular to address transboundary input.

3.5

The Meeting took note of the description of the HOLAS II project for elaboration of a second

holistic assessment of ecosystem health status of the Baltic Sea as well as information about activities of

the CORESET II project on development of core indicators as presented by Ms. Lena Avellan, CORESET II

Project Manager (Presentation 4, document 3-1).

3.6

The Meeting noted that the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs has been almost

finalized and will be ready for use for the HOLAS assessment and that there are three draft indicators on

marine litter being developed within CORESET II.

3.7

The Meeting noted that the development of core pressure indicators on underwater noise is

on-going within CORESET II but still at an early stage.

3.8

The Meeting took note that HOLAS II is to be based on core indicators and that PRESSURE is

expected to support development and operationalization of relevant core pressure indicators as well as

provision of supporting parameters for the second integrated assessment as well as for the following

assessment cycle.

3.9

The Meeting noted that although there exists data on atmospheric and waterborne inputs of

three heavy metals and atmospheric inputs of dioxins/furans, there has been no discussion of

environmental targets defining an acceptable level of activity which still allows good environmental status

GES

–

which is a requirement for qualifying as a core indicator. The quality of waterborne heavy metal input

data also needs to be improved.

3.10

Recognizing that it is not feasible to develop hazardous substances core pressure indicators in

time for use in HOLAS II, the Meeting invited the HOLAS II project to consider how they could make use of

existing data on atmospheric inputs of hazardous substances available via the Baltic Sea Environment Fact

Sheets (BSEFS) and annual reports provided by EMEP and waterborne input data available via pollution load

compilation (PLC) assessments and the PLC-Water database.

3.11

The Meeting stressed the need for stronger expertise in the field of hazardous substances in

the frame of the PRESSURE Working Group, to e.g. support the future development and subsequent up-

keeping of hazardous substances indicators.

3.12

The Meeting recommended that the HOLAS Core Team should work closely with experts in the

countries working with implementation of the MSFD.

Page 3 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Agenda Item 4

Documents: 4-1, 4-2

Progress with pollution load compilation

4.1

The Meeting welcomed the information on the phase II results of the RusNIP project as

contained in document 4-2 and that the final report will be available by the end of November 2014. The

Meeting encouraged Russia to implement the draft recommendations contributing in particular to

improvement of the national PLC reporting and invited Russia to submit information regarding progress

with implementation of the recommendations the further PRESSURE group meetings.

4.2

The Meeting took note of on-going activities related to monitoring and assessment of inputs of

nutrients and hazardous substances, which are supported by a number of HELCOM projects and until now

have been supported by LOAD Expert Group and LOAD Core Group, as presented by Ms. Minna Pyhälä,

HELCOM Secretariat (Presentation 5, document 4-1).

4.3

The Meeting welcomed the information that in autumn 2015 EMEP will present an assessment

of atmospheric inputs of PCB-153 on a test basis. The Meeting pointed out that it is relevant to get

estimates of inputs of EU priority substances for the upcoming revision of the list of substances and was of

the view that the cooperation with EMEP could be made use of for this.

4.4

The Meeting discussed how the activities related to monitoring and assessing of water and

airborne pollution inputs should be carried out in the future, taking into account the suggestions by LOAD

8-2014 (cf. Presentation 2) and agreed to discuss these together with how to organize future work related

to follow-up of the nutrient reduction scheme under Agenda Item 5.

Agenda Item 5

Follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

Documents: 5-1, 5-2, 5-2-Rev1, 5-3, WP.1

5.1

The Meeting considered and supported the proposal for the overall framework and contents

of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up system presented by the Chair of LOAD, Mr. Lars M. Svendsen

(Presentation 6, document 5-1).

5.2

The Meeting highlighted that PLC is core work of the group however recognized that to enable

more policy discussions in the meetings a core expert group needs to be established to coordinate the

technical PLC activities, building on the former LOAD expert group and LOAD Core Group.

5.3

The Meeting emphasised the need of adequate monitoring for avoiding filling in the data gaps

and stressed the importance of making the data publicly available and easily accessible.

5.4

The Meeting reviewed the final draft of the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs for

assessing progress towards the maximum allowable inputs (MAI) of the HELCOM nutrient reduction

scheme (Presentation 7, documents 5-2 and 5-2-Rev1).

5.5

The Meeting noted the comment by the CORESET II Project Manager that the intention is that

maps on the key message page of core indicators are based on the agreed assessment units and are unified

as much as possible and invited the Project Manager and Chair of former LOAD expert group to discuss how

this could be accommodated also in the core pressure indicator on nutrients bearing in mind the need to

avoid misleading information that coastal areas are assessed against nutrient inputs.

5.6

The Meeting endorsed the core pressure indicator and agreed that it should be submitted to

HELCOM HOD 47-2014 for approval. The Meeting noted that the indicator will be updated with data up to

2012 once the input data has finalized and that a final version will be presented to the meeting of HELCOM

36-2014 in March 2015.

5.7

The Meeting supported the suggestion that the core pressure indicator could be updated

annually once the data flow and updating procedure has been made operational.

Page 4 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

5.8

The Meeting considered the draft proposal for content of an assessment for following-up on

progress towards the country-wise allocation of nutrient reduction targets (CART), taking into account also

the suggestions from LOAD 8-2014 (Presentation 8, document 5-3).

5.9

The Meeting noted that so far the development of the CART follow-up assessment has been

carried out by the LOAD Core Group with no formal arrangement for the substantial work input by Mr. Lars

M. Svendsen as well as BNI Sweden. The Meeting appreciated the work done so far by these LOAD core

group members.

5.10

The Meeting noted that the figures presented in the draft CART follow-up assessment will

need to be changed and new statistical analyses performed as some incorrect updating of the PLC dataset

has been discovered, and regretted that this will cause an additional workload and a delay in the

submission of the document to HOD 47-2014. Following the meeting on 10 November 2014 (cf. paragraph

5.15), the final dataset will be redone and the relevant countries will be approached to check/confirm the

used datasets.

5.11

The Meeting agreed on the need to establish a procedure for filling in data gaps and agreeing

on datasets for the use for pressure core indicator and CART assessment system.

5.12

The Meeting noted the intention by some Contracting Parties to make their own national

CART follow-up assessments and recognized that their results may differ from the HELCOM results if they

use different data (e.g. retention coefficients and transboundary input data). The Meeting stressed the

importance to document the HELCOM assessment methodology for also national use and for countries to

share their experiences (and new data) in order to use these to improve future CART calculations.

5.13

Further, the Meeting suggested organizing a workshop devoted to the updating knowledge

on retention coefficient and transboundary inputs in spring 2015.

5.14

The Meeting noted that the assessment could potentially include a massive amount of

information, and that there is a need to discuss how much of the follow-up assessment should be carried

out within the HELCOM framework and how much could be carried out by the Contracting Parties

themselves to serve their specific purposes. The Meeting invited Contracting Parties to provide feedback on

which information they would like to see included in the CART follow-up assessment to Mr. Lars M.

Svendsen ([email protected])

by Friday 7 November 2014.

5.15

The Meeting supported the road map for finalizing the preliminary CART follow-up

assessment for HELCOM 36-2015 and agreed that a further developed draft CART follow-up assessment

(taking into account the feedback from Contracting Parties) should be submitted to HOD 47-2014 for

approval. The Meeting welcomed that the members of the former LOAD Core Group can support the work

until a new working arrangement has been decided by HOD 47-2014, including that they will meet on 10

November 2014 to make the preparations for the submission of the draft CART assessment to HOD 47-

2014.

5.16

The Meeting noted that while the intention is to have the initial assessment developed by

HELCOM 37-2015, the further development of the assessment cannot be secured without funding since the

carrying out of the follow-up assessment is time- and resource consuming.

5.17

The Meeting considered the possibility to carry out part of the assessment development

work in a project and requested core expert group (cf. paragraph 5.22) to propose which parts of the work

needs to be supported by the project/funding and the Secretariat to start investigating possible sources of

funding.

5.18

The Meeting supported the suggestion that it could be more reasonable to update the CART

follow-up assessment every three years since it requires more data than is available on an annual basis as

well as further development of assessment methodology. However, the Meeting agreed to have a closer

look at the assessment and PLC schedule at a later stage and that it should take into account the timetable

for with EU WFD and MSFD reporting requirements.

5.19

The Meeting discussed the principal agreed on in the 2013 Ministerial Declaration that some

Contracting Parties may wish to account for extra reductions in one basin to CART in another basin and

Page 5 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

noted that no detail consideration on how this could be carried out has been given so far and agreed that

this could be a task for the future, possibly to be carried out within a project.

5.20

The Meeting noted that HOD 46-2014 requested PRESSURE to consider how to start

cooperating more closely with transboundary river basin commissions in order to engage them in the work

on CART and PLC.

5.21

The Meeting took note that the Chair of former LOAD, Mr. Lars M. Svendsen attended the

Odra Commission meeting in August 2014 to present HELCOM work and the information that the river

basin management commissions hold data that could be of use for calculating retention, transboundary

inputs etc. The Meeting recognized the need to establish cooperation and reflected it in its Work Plan

accordingly (cf. paragraph 11.1). The Meeting agreed to come back to this issue and suggested discussing

possible ways of cooperation with river basin commissions at the next meeting of Pressure WG.

5.22

The Meeting established a drafting group, consisting of the Chair, Finland, Germany,

Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Chair of former LOAD EG, Data Consultant SYKE and the Secretariat to

develop a Terms of Reference for a Reduction Scheme Core Expert Group (RedCor)

to carry out the future

work in relation to monitoring and assessment of pollution inputs and follow-up of MAI and CART. The

Meeting considered the proposal by the drafting group for the ToR contained in document WP.1 and

further amended and agreed on the ToR as contained in

Annex 2.

The Meeting agreed to forward the ToR

along with the Work Plan to HOD 47-2014 for approval.

5.23

The Meeting invited interested Contracting Parties to consider nominating national members

to the Reduction Scheme Core Expert Group, including participation in the upcoming meeting on 10

November 2014 and to inform the Secretariat ([email protected]) by

7 November 2014

accordingly.

5.24

The Meeting elected Mr. Lars M. Svendsen, the former Chair of LOAD, as Chair for the

Reduction Scheme Core Expert Group to take up the position once the establishment of the group is

approved by HOD.

Agenda Item 6

Documents: 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4

Other joint measures to address nutrients

6.1

The Meeting considered the draft HELCOM Recommendation on sustainable handling of

sewage sludge (document 6-3) and appreciated work done by the lead countries Germany and Sweden so

far.

6.2

The Meeting was of the view that the draft recommendation requires further work i.a. to take

into account the upcoming proposal for EU regulation for fertilizers as well as comments by the Contracting

Parties and Observers. The Meeting suggested that a workshop gathering relevant national experts should

be arranged during spring 2015 to further review and elaborate the recommendation.

6.3

The Meeting took note of outcomes of the BASE project related to improvement of waste

water treatment in small settlements (document 6-1) and proposed that the information should be used as

a basis for development of national measures aimed at nutrient input reduction.

6.4

The Meeting took note of information on recent and ongoing research and field activities in

Sweden on selected potential measures to reduce internal loads of plant nutrients in the Baltic Sea, and the

plan to arrange a workshop on the topic in Stockholm on 12 February 2015. The Meeting took note that the

aim is to prepare background material for the workshop which will integrate different scientific views and

provide the basis for the discussions on pros and cons of such measures. The Meeting invited Contracting

Parties to also share their national experiences at the workshop and to contact the organizers

([email protected] or

[email protected])

accordingly.

Tentative name

Page 6 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

6.5

The Meeting took note of the information by Finland on recent and planned measures to

further reduce phosphorus loading into the Bothnian Sea from Yara Finland's Uusikaupunki site as

presented by Mr. Seppo Knuuttila, Finland (Presentation 9, document 6-4).

Agenda Item 7

Documents: 7-1, 7-2, 7-3

Joint measures to address hazardous substances

7.1

The Meeting took note of the outcomes of the BASE project related to assessment of inputs of

pharmaceuticals with treated waste water discharge in St. Petersburg (document 7-1) and considered

information by Contracting Parties of national studies, inventories and assessments of inputs of

pharmaceuticals to the marine environment.

7.2

The Meeting expressed general concern for the issue and agreed that measures should be

taken to address the handling of pharmaceuticals throughout the process chain (production to disposal) at

the regional level. The Meeting acknowledged the on-going work at EU level and agreed that in order to

avoid double work there is a need to identify the additional regional needs.

7.3

The Meeting welcomed the information about the possibility to establish relevant projects

under the framework of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) and the offer of the lead of PA

Hazards (Sweden) to help with coordination.

7.4

The Meeting welcomed the initiative by Germany to come up with an initial list of possible

measures for action to prevent pharmaceuticals reaching the Baltic Sea (document 7-3).

7.5

The Meeting recommended the arranging of a workshop in spring 2015 for further

development of the recommendation and welcomed the offer of Germany to investigate the possibility to

hosting such a workshop as well as lead the activity on pharmaceutical in HELCOM in cooperation with

Sweden in their coordinating role for PA Hazards of the EU SBSR. The Meeting invited Germany to submit a

draft recommendation, developed by the workshop, for consideration by one of the next meetings of

PRESSURE.

7.6

The Meeting welcomed the information about the activities of PA Hazards as presented by the

coordinator of PA Hazards, Ms. Jenny Hedman, Sweden (Presentation 10).

7.7

The Meeting discussed how to coordinate the work between PA Hazards and HELCOM. The

Meeting was of the view that HELCOM provides a forum for policy considerations while the EUSBSR

provides possibilities for projects. PA Hazard could serve as the tool to facilitate implementation of the

HELCOM recommendations in field of hazardous substances.

7.8

The Meeting discussed possible measures aimed at HELCOM Recommendation 28E/8 on

environmentally friendly practices for the reduction and prevention of emissions of dioxins and other

hazardous substances from small-scale combustion, in particular setting up emission limit values for small-

scale combustion appliances. The Meeting acknowledged that the most countries already have strict dioxin

emissions regulation or are implementing EU level requirements and was of the opinion that it would be

difficult to set such regional emission limit values.

7.9

The Meeting took note of information by the Contracting Parties national progress in

ratification of the UNEP 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury. Poland has recently signed the convention

and Russia is in the process of ratifying it. The other EU member states are in the process of ratifying it in

connection with EU processes.

7.10

The Meeting considered the proposal to

revise HELCOM Reco

endation 6/4 Concerning

Measures Ai ed at the Reduction of Mercury Resulting fro Dentistry

as contained in document 7-2 and

was of the opinion that it is not necessary to update the Recommendation as most countries no longer use

mercury in dentistry. The Meeting acknowledged that there is a phase-out stage at the moment, including

how to deal with amalgam in connection with removal of teeth.

Page 7 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

7.11

The Meeting decided to discuss possible joint actions aimed at reductions of emissions and

discharges of mercury in the Baltic Sea Region at one of the future meetings of the group.

Agenda Item 8

Documents: None

Joint measures to address marine litter

8.1

The Meeting took note of information on progress with the development of the HELCOM

Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter, RAP ML (document 7-1).

8.2

The Meeting noted that PRESSURE is expected to be responsible for overall coordination and

facilitation of the implementation of the RAP ML at regional and national level once it has been adopted,

even though monitoring in the marine environment will be coordinated by STATE, indicators are being

developed by CORESET II and measures should be defined by PRESSURE and MARITIME groups.

8.3

The Meeting discussed how to organize the overall coordination and agreed to come back to

this after the adoption of the plan in March 2015. The Meeting welcomed the offer of Germany to continue

overall coordination of regional implementation of the RAP ML within the HELCOM framework.

8.4

The Meeting also took note of the comment by the chair that in the future there may be a

need to consider monitoring of waterborne inputs of litter within the PLC framework.

Agenda Item 9

Documents: None

Joint measures to address underwater noise

9.1

The Meeting took note of information of on-going activities related to development of joint

monitoring of underwater noise and indicators within the framework of STATE in coordination with the

project Baltic Sea Information on the Acoustic Soundscape,

BIAS

as presented by Mr. Dmitry Frank-

Kamenetsky, HELCOM Secretariat (Presentation 11).

9.2

The Meeting considered the issue and invited Contracting Parties to investigate nationally on-

going activities and report on these at the next meeting of PRESSURE.

9.3

The Meeting acknowledged that PRESSURE does not have the contacts to the competent

authorities dealing with measures to address underwater noise and was of the view that these activities are

more related to activities dealt with by other HELCOM groups, i.e. monitoring (STATE) and maritime

activities (MARITIME). The Meeting agreed to address HODs with this issue.

Agenda Item 10

Documents: None

Any other business

10.1

The Meeting compiled a list of contact of the Working Group based on nominations by the

Heads of Delegation and HELCOM Observers as contained in

Annex 3.

10.2

The Meeting emphasized the need for timely submission of documents in the future.

Agenda Item 11

Documents: None

Future work and meetings

11.1

The Meeting further developed and agreed on the draft Work Plan (cf. document 2-2) as

contained in

Annex 4,

pending clarification of a study reservation by Finland on hazardous substances

actions

by 7 November 2014

to be sent to the Secretariat and Chair.

Page 8 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

11.2

The Meeting was of the opinion that there should be two meetings a year to get things going

and proposed that the upcoming meeting in spring should be three days, even though in the future the

group should strive for two day meetings.

11.3

The Meeting agreed to hold

the group’s

next meeting (PRESSURE 2-2014) on 6-8 May 2015

starting at 13:00 on the first day and ending in the afternoon on the last day. The Meeting welcomed the

offer of Estonia to host the meeting in May 2015 and invited Contracting Parties to consider their

possibilities to host the meeting in October 2015.

11.4

The Meeting proposed reserving two days during the week of 5-9 October 2015 for the third

meeting of PRESSURE.

11.5

The Meeting supported the idea proposed by the chair that meetings should have a thematic

focus with PRESSURE 2-2015 dealing mostly with nutrient and PRESSURE 3-2015 on hazardous substances.

The Meeting requested Contracting Parties to nominate experts for the different themes and asked the

Secretariat to approach Contracting Parties accordingly.

Agenda Item 12

Documents: 12-1

Outcome of the Meeting

12.1

The Meeting adopted the draft Outcome of the Meeting. The final Outcome of the Meeting

will be made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal, together with the documents and presentations

considered by the Meeting.

Page 9 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Annex 1

List of Participants

E-mail

[email protected]

Name

Delegation

Organization

CONTRACTING PARTIES

Reet Ulm

Estonia

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia

Agnes Villmann

Estonia

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia

Airi Karvonen

Finland

Ministry of the Environment

Seppo Knuuttila

Finland

SYKE

Tuija Ruoho-Airola

Finland

Finnish Meteorological Institute

Antti Räike

Finland

Finnish Environment Institute

Laura Saijonmaa

Finland

Ministry of the Environment

Dietmar Koch

Germany

Federal Environment Agency (UBA)

Svajunas Plunge

Lithuania

Environmental Protection Agency

Adriana Dembowska

Poland

National Water Management Authority

Jolanta Wikalinska

Poland

Ministry of Economy

Natalia Oblomkova

Russian Federation SPb PO "Ecology&business"

Philip Axe

Sweden

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Lars Sonesten

Sweden

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

OBSERVERS AND DATA CONSULTANTS AND INVITED GUESTS

Marta Kalinowska

Observer

WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme

Rikard Korkman

Observer

BFFE

Saijariina Toivikko

Observer

EurEau

Hannamaria Yliruusi

Observer

Union of the Baltic Cities, Commission on Environment

Pekka Kotilainen

Data Consultant

SYKE/Marine Research Centre

Bo Gustafsson

Invited Guest

BNI

Jenny Hedman

Invited Guest

PA Hazard Coordinator, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Marjukka Porvari

Invited Guest

John Nurminen Foundation

Lars M. Svendsen

Chair of LOAD

Danish Center for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University

SECRETARIAT

Dmitry Frank-

Kamenetsky

Secretariat

HELCOM Secretariat

Monika Stankiewicz

Secretariat

HELCOM Secretariat

Minna Pyhälä

Secretariat

HELCOM Secretariat

Page 10 of 20

[email protected]

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Annex 2

Background

Draft Terms of Reference for [Reduction Scheme Core Expert Group, RedCor]

The 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting adopted a revised nutrient reduction scheme with new

Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and Country-wise Allocation of Reduction Targets (CART).

The establishment of an operational system to follow-up

on progress towards the MAI and CART requires

development of assessment methodology, filling in knowledge gaps as well as a working procedure for

establishing assessment datasets and regularly updating the follow-up assessments.

The Terms of Reference of PRESSURE include duties to:

Develop and maintain a system to evaluate progress by the HELCOM countries in meeting their country-

allocated nutrient reduction targets of the HELCOM nutrient reductions scheme, follow-up on the progress

and prepare reports and recommendations for improved implementation;

Guide Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) (Water, and Air in cooperation with EMEP) and continuous work

on improving data reporting and quality, as well as prepare assessment reports meeting policy needs, and

in relation to PLC be responsible for that:

HELCOM core indicators for pressures on marine environment are developed and operationalized

(in cooperation with EMEP) to serve e.g. holistic assessments according to the goals and objectives

of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Ministerial Declarations, and the EU Marine Strategy

Framework Directive for those Contracting Parties also being EU Member States;

PLC associated technical guidelines for quality assurance are developed and updated to ensure

confident monitoring and assessment results for inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances,

taking into account the existing international guidance documents;

PLC database is developed and maintained;

HOD 46-2014 requested PRESSURE to prioritize work on further development and implementation of the

MAI-CART follow-up system and make a proposal how the work could be organized.

HELCOM LOAD 8-2014:



Was of the view that future work related to PLC data can be taken care of under PLC related

projects (e.g. PLC-6) but stressed that there is need for an expert group/forum for discussion of

other technical matters that have previously been handled by LOAD, such as to development of

MAI-CART, indicators and atmospheric issues/EMEP deliverables.

Proposed that the additional tasks could be coordinated by a small expert group such as the LOAD

core group and the broader discussions could take place in thematic workshops. One possibility

might be to hold thematic workshops back-to-back with PLC or PRESSURE meetings.

Supported proposal to carry out the work related to transboundary inputs and retention within a

project.



PRESSURE 1-2014:



Highlighted that PLC is core work of the group, however, recognized that to enable more policy

discussions in the meetings a core expert group needs to be established to coordinate the technical

PLC activities, building on the former LOAD expert group and LOAD Core Group.

Agreed on these terms of reference.

PRESSURE proposes to establish a [core expert group] that carries out technical work related to

development of the nutrient reduction scheme follow-up and PLC activities as well as other activities

as requested by PRESSURE.

Tentative name

Page 11 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Objectives for the establishment of [core expert group]

The purpose of the establishment of [name] is to support the work of the Pressure Working Group by

liaising between PRESSURE and the scientific work related to the follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient

reduction scheme and PLC related activities.

It is also to provide a forum for technical discussions and elaboration of proposals as support for more

policy oriented discussion at PRESSURE meetings.

Further, [group] will ensure a robust scientific basis for the work of PRESSURE.

And lastly, it is to ensure timely delivery of policy relevant quality assured products from PLC related

activities for the consideration of PRESSURE.

Composition of the [core expert group]

The [expert group] should be kept small to enable an efficient and flexible structure that can adapt to the

quick working pace.

The [core expert group] should have a Chair.

It should consist of the Chair, PLC-6 project manager, PLC data manager, BNI-Sweden, Chair of PRESSURE,

representatives from Contracting Parties as appropriate, invited guests and the Secretariat.

Suggested tasks for the [core expert group]



Maintain a forum for technical discussions and elaboration of proposals

Further develop the CART follow-up assessment and propose how to operationalize regular

updating

Make regular assessments (MAI/CART) based on inputs from data consultants

Establish procedures for making a complete, quality assured dataset suitable for follow-up of MAI

and CART, including a mechanism for quick approval by Contracting Parties

Coordinate and guide technical work and projects within PLC related activities (currently PLC-6 and

PLUS) and follow-up on their progress

Prepare a road map of future activities for improving PLC data and operationalizing the follow-up of

MAI and CART

Guide the timely elaboration of technical assessments

Make proposals, as needed, to PRESSURE based on the outcomes of projects, assessments, and

workshops

Quality assurance of PLC related products

Ad hoc

thematic workshops will be held as needed (e.g. back to back with PLC-6 project or PRESSURE

meetings) where experts from Contracting Parties and HELCOM data consultants will be invited to

participate.

The ad hoc workshops/seminars could cover the following technical cross cutting issues:



Data reporting, quality assurance, guidelines, statistical methods, uncertainty on dataset, filling in

data gaps

Further development of the follow-up assessments of MAI and CART

How to revise the nutrient reduction scheme (MAI/CART)

Discussion of the results of the annual reports from EMEP, including methodologies related to

improvement of atmospheric input data, parameters, modelling etc.

The work will be support by data consultants and project. The [core expert group] is invited to propose

how the tasks of the data consultants and project delivers should be amended in the future to reflect the

upcoming needs.

Page 12 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Working procedures and timeline

The [group] will report to PRESSURE and will assist other subsidiary bodies and projects of HELCOM with

requested information.

The [group] will meet as often as necessary and in addition to physical meetings will utilize video-

/teleconferencing when appropriate.

The Secretariat will provide administrative support during the meetings. The [group] will focus on

elaboration of proposals, documents and products, and will record the outcomes of the meetings in the

form of short memos.

The [core expert group] will identify tasks that may require additional resources and may come up with

proposals for projects.

The [group] is established for the period of 2014

–

[2017] and its mandate can be renewed for additional

years.

Page 13 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Annex 3

Estonia

List of PRESSURE Contacts

Rene Reisner, Estonia

Reet Ulm, Estonia

Enn Liivee, Estonia

Finland

Airi Karvonen

Seppo Knuuttila

Tuija Ruoho-Airola

Antti Räike

Laura Saijonmaa

Germany

Dietmar Koch

Observers

Hannamaria Yliruusi, EurEau

Jan Wärnbäck, WWF-Sweden

Marta Kalinowska, WWF-Poland

Rikard Korkman and Liisa Pietola, BFFE

Data Consultants

Jerzy Barnicki, EMEP

Alexey Gusev, EMEP

Pekka Kotilainen, SYKE

Bo Gustafssone, BNI-Sweden

Others (not officially nominated but to be kept informed)

Anna Sosnowska, Poland

Jenny Hedman, PA Hazards Coordinator

Joanna Charytonowicz, PA Nutri Coordinator

Kristiina Isokallio, Finland

Ludmila Filatova, Russia

[Tonny Niilonen], Denmarn

Lars M. Svendsen, Denmark

Korsjukov, Estonia

Stefanie Werner, UBA, Germany (marine litter)

Ms Galander, UBA (mercury in dentistry)

Philip Axe, Sweden

Natalia Oblomkova, Russia

Larisa Marakova, Russia

Leonid Korovin, Russia

Page 14 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Annex 4

Draft Work plan of the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

TIME FRAME

ACTION

LEAD /RESPONSIBLE INTERLINKED ACTIVITIES

Action 1 Guide Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) and prepare related reports meeting policy needs, including core indicators

Annual compilation of Atmospheric inputs of nitrogen, cadmium, lead,

mercury and dioxins and furans to the Baltic Sea:

Produce annual report and BSEFS

Guide development of possible core pressure indicators/ supporting

parameters on hazardous substances (nutrients covered in No. 6) and

subsequent operationalization of indicators within PRESSURE

Consider inclusion of new and/or rotation of already covered

substances

Annual compilation of waterborne inputs of nutrients and selected

hazardous substances

Establish procedure to fill in gaps and approve datasets

Produce annual dataset

Guide development of possible core pressure indicators /supporting

parameters on hazardous substances (nutrients covered in No. 6) and

subsequent operationalization of indicators within PRESSURE

Compilation of PLC 6 data (monitoring in 2012/2014), incl. quantification

of waterborne point, diffuse and natural sources:

updated and extended PLC-Water Guidelines

production of an assessment report

Data reporting by

CPs

PLC-Air Consultant

EMEP

[RedCor]

Input to HOLAS II

CORESET II is developing a common set of core

indicators, including pressure indicators by mid-

2015, with a help of an network of hazardous

substances experts

- Annually

- by mid-2016

and thereafter

- continuously

Data reporting by

CPs

BNI Sweden

PLC-Water

Consultant SYKE

[RedCor]

PLC-6 project

Input to HOLAS II

CORESET II is developing a common set of core

indicators, including pressure indicators by mid-

2015, with a help of an network of hazardous

substances experts

Annually

- by mid-2016

and thereafter

- continuously

Making essential data available in 2016 for national

use and HOLAS II

- 2014

- 2017 report

Coordinate and organize the monitoring and assessment activities of HELCOM related to waterborne and airborne discharges, emissions and inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances:

Guide Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) (Water, and Air in cooperation with EMEP) and continuous work on improving data reporting and quality, as well as prepare assessment reports

meeting policy needs, and in relation to PLC be responsible for that:

HELCOM core indicators for pressures on marine environment are developed and operationalized (in cooperation with EMEP) to serve e.g. holistic assessments according to the goals

and objectives of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Ministerial Declarations, and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive for those Contracting Parties also being EU Member

States;

PLC associated technical guidelines for quality assurance are developed and updated to ensure confident monitoring and assessment results for inputs of nutrients and hazardous

substances, taking into account the existing international guidance documents;

PLC database is developed and maintained;

Further develop and maintain additional pressure indicators, e.g. concerning inputs to the marine environment of noise, litter and hazardous substances and other emerging issues

Baltic Sea Environment Fact Sheet

Page 15 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Establish new modernized PLC-Water database, incl. web application and

establish links to HELCOM GIS map services

PLUS project

BNI (Database Host)

in cooperation with

Secretariat

[RedCor]

Cooperation with OSPAR ongoing to look into

synergies

2015

(database)

2016 (web

interface)

2015 and

onwards

workshop on

retention

spring 2015

Improve PLC data on nutrient inputs from upstream sources incl.

transboundary watercourses, retention co-efficient, as well as municipal

and industrial point sources in the whole catchment e.g. via cooperation

with relevant river basin commissions and non-CPs

Reliable nutrient load data of the Baltic Sea

Catchment Project proposal coordinated by BNI

Sweden under EUSBSR PA Nutri

Action 2 Follow-up of HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

Develop and update the core pressure indicator on nutrient inputs for

assessing progress towards the maximum allowable inputs (MAI)

[RedCor]

[a possible project to

support activities]

CORESET II Project and link to the national work on

MSFD for EU countries

- HOD 47-

2014 /

HELCOM 36-

2015

annually

version

HOD 47-2014

/ HELCOM 36-

2015, to be

further

developed

[Every third

year]

Develop and update the system for following up on progress towards

country-wise allocated nutrient reduction targets (CART)

[RedCor]

[a possible project to

support activities]

Cooperation with BNI Sweden

Input to joint documentation on Programmes of

Measures under GEAR (eutrophication component

led by Finland) (draft by December 2014 and

completed by the end of 2015)

Monitor and assess the implementation of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme, as well as support the review of the scheme based on the best available scientific knowledge in

cooperation with other relevant subsidiary bodies and institutes and modeling centres, as may be necessary: Develop and maintain a system to evaluate progress by the HELCOM countries in

meeting their country-allocated nutrient reduction targets of the HELCOM nutrient reductions scheme, follow-up on the progress and prepare reports and recommendations for improved

implementation; Cooperate to address nutrient emissions and inputs from non-Contracting Parties to meet the expected reductions according to the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme, e.g.

in relation to the Gothenburg Protocol under the UN ECE CLRTAP as well as EU NECD, the work of river basin management commissions/bodies; Identify and prioritize needs for further

reduction of nutrients, with the aim to bridge the gap in translating the nutrient reduction scheme into area or site-specific implementation, with a view to, among others, pointing to

investment needs

Page 16 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Identify how to cooperate more closely with relevant river basin

commissions in order to engage them in the work on CART and PLC and

address nutrients inputs and emissions in transboundary context

Assess the effects of implementation of the Gothenburg Protocol and

upcoming NEC II directive on atmospheric deposition on the Baltic Sea

[lead countries(s) to

be identified]

Meeting of

RedCor in

2015

to be

investigated

a study to be

initiated in

cooperation with

EMEP

[RedCor]

Input to the Recommendation of any regional

measures or concerted actions needed to achieve

the remaining reduction requirements (led by

Finland, under GEAR)

Based on e.g. stock-taking of national measures

envisaged under Art. 13 MSFD for coordination for

HELCOM countries being EU Member States, and

under Maritime Doctrine and SKIOVO for Russia,

including reduction potential for measures to be

implemented (led by Finland, under GEAR)

Action 3 Pollution prevention from waste water treatment, including sustainable handling of sewage sludge

Finalize HELCOM recommendation on sustainable handling of sewage

sludge

Follow-up on full implementation of HELCOM Rec. 28E/5 and 28E/6 on

sewage treatment

Consider policy relevant proposals raised by PA NUTRI EUSBSR

Finland leading in

their capacity as

Coordinator for PA

NUTRI

Lead: Germany,

Sweden

Identify and prioritize needs for further reduction of nutrients (based on

gaps in implementation and reduction potential), incl. prepare

recommendations for improved implementation of country-allocated

nutrient reduction targets

PRESSURE 2-

2015

continuous

Cooperate on pollution prevention from waste water treatment, including sustainable handling of sewage sludge

Page 17 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Action 4 Solutions for limiting emissions and losses of hazardous substances

Identify substances and scope areas for which joint actions might be

needed, such as atmospheric inputs of e.g. mercury and dioxins and input

of pharmaceuticals

Based e.g. stock-taking of national measures planned

under Art. 13 MSFD for HELCOM countries being EU

Member States, and under relevant legislation for

Russia (under GEAR, led by Poland)

Work on core indicators on hazardous-substances

Planning for assessment of the state of

contamination with pharmaceuticals by STATE

Ongoing development of EU Strategy for

pharmaceuticals

Cluster projects on pharmaceuticals within PA

Hazards of EU SBSR

2015

[Poland]

Knowledge gathering and actions to prevent

pharmaceuticals

from

reaching the sea starting from identification and prioritization of sources

[Germany to lead]

[workshop

spring 2015 in

Germany]

Early ratification of the UNEP 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury and

subsequently identification of possible joint actions for harmonized

implementation

Consider policy relevant proposals raised by PA Hazards of EUSBSR

Sweden leading in

their capacity as

Coordinator for PA

Hazards

Lead: Lithuania,

Sweden

Harmonized with OSPAR

Input to the 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 under SUBMERGED expert group

continuous

18-

Follow up on progress with implementing the Guidelines for Management

of Dredged Material at Sea

On-going

2015

Share best practices and solutions for limiting emissions and losses of hazardous substances from existing sources and exchange information of EU BAT, BEP, REACH and other legislation and

of activities concerning new and emerging substances (e.g. pharmaceuticals)

Page 18 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Action 5 Coordinate implementation of Regional Marine Litter Action Plan

Develop the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter, and development of

core indicator(s)

Lead: Germany with

assistance of

Secretariat

In cooperation with OSPAR and Barcelona

Conventions

Work under CORESET II (by mid-2015) and STATE

related to development of core indicators and joint

monitoring

2015

(HELCOM 36-

2014)

Coordinate and follow up on implementation of the Regional Action Plan

on Marine Litter

Lead by Germany, in

cooperation with

STATE, MARITIME

[RedCor]

Continuous

after 2015

Action 6 Lead the work on underwater noise

Identify initial issues for consideration in a Regional Action Plan (RAP) for

underwater noise and provide practical arrangements and timelines for

developing the RAP

In coordination with

STATE and

MARITIME

[a project]

BIAS project

Based on e.g. stock-taking of national mitigation

measures planned under Art. 13 MSFD for HELCOM

countries being EU Member States, and under

relevant legislation for Russia (under GEAR, led by

Sweden)

OSPAR Intersessional group on noise

Work under CORESET II and STATE (tentative name)

on development of core indicators and joint

monitoring

2015/16

Contribute to development of core pressure indicator on underwater

noise

In coordination with

STATE

[a project]

2015

Lead regional implementation of the Regional Marine Litter Action Plan and coordinate its implementation with relevant subsidiary bodies to enable their substantial contribution

Lead the work on underwater noise, including evaluating inputs of noise to the marine environment with the view to developing regional action on underwater noise as far as necessary, in

coordination with relevant subsidiary bodies.

Page 19 of 20

PRESSURE 1-2014, Outcome

Action 7 Assess individual or newly identified point sources of pollution

Consider, and where applicable agree on, the elimination of remaining hot

spots on the JCP list

Municipal and

industrial hot

spots should

be removed

by 2016;

possible

remaining JCP

Hot Spots

should then

be included in

the BSAP NIPs

and removed

by 2018

On-going

Identify current and emerging issues related to point sources of land

based pollution and assess the effectiveness of the measures being

adopted and the need for any additional or different measures

Action 8 Reporting on implementation of BSAP and HELCOM recommendations in the remit of PRESSURE

Contribute to indicator-based follow up system for BSAP

New indicator-based BSAP follow up system initiated

under GEAR, to complement the joint

documentation on Programmes of Measures

2015

Establish longer-term planning for the reporting of Recommendations,

organized theme-wise in response to policy needs

PRESSURE 2-

2015 to start

discussion

Respond to the requests to assess individual or newly identified point sources of pollution as may be needed; Identify current and emerging issues related to point sources of land based

pollution and assess the effectiveness of the measures being adopted and the need for any additional or different measures, including in relation to remaining hot spots from the list of the

Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme

Page 20 of 20

Account ing for Ext ra

reduct ion

Bo Gust afsson

RECOGN I ZI N G t h a t r e du ct ion s in n u t r ie n t in pu t s in

su b- ba sin s m a y h a ve w ide - spr e a d e ffe ct s, W E

AGREE t h a t e x t r a r e du ct ion s ca n be a ccou n t e d for ,

in pr opor t ion t o t h e e ffe ct on a n e igh bor in g ba sin

w it h r e du ct ion t a r ge t s, by t h e cou n t r ie s in r e a ch in g

t h e ir Cou n t r y Alloca t e d Re du ct ion Ta r ge t s

From Copenhagen Ministerial

declaration, 2013

H ow M AI w a s de t e r m ine d!

●

Maxim ize t he load of nit rogen (

) and

phosphorus (

) given t he const raint t hat t he

t arget s are fulfilled everywhere

●

Lim it at ions:

–

and

should not be larger t han reference

input s

●

Calculat ions were done t aking int o account

nut rient fluxes bet ween basins

Ph osph or us flu x e s be t w e e n ba sin s

( in k t on / yr )

D e fin it ion s 1

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.

Ph osphor us flu x e s be t w e e n ba sin s

●

Ext ra reduct ions give im provem ent t o t he ot her

basins

●

Missing reduct ions give det eriorat ion t o t he ot her

basins

Thus, the sum of the two effects need to be

considered

D e fin it ion s 2

Equivalent reduction

is input reduction to basin A that leads to the equivalent

environmental benefit in basin B as 1ton reduction to basin B.

NB!

prerequisite is that

inputs to all other basins fulfill MAI.

Effective reduction

is the apparent input reduction in a basin resulting from extra

reductions in another basin, in practice: the

extra reduction

divided by

equivalent

reduction. NB!

Missing reductions will lead to “negative” effective reductions because

lateral nutrient transports were taken into account when MAI-CART was calculated.

Pr in ciple s

Accou n t in g sh ou ld be ba se d on cou n t r ie s in dividu a lly

This im plies t hat count ries can plan and im plem ent m easures across basins at t heir own discret ion as long as it

result s in conform ing t o CART aft er account ing of ext ra reduct ion is perform ed.

Cou n t r ie s cou ld cla im a ccou n t in g for m issin g r e du ct ion s e ve n if M AI is e x ce e de d du e t o

in pu t s fr om ot h e r cou n t r ie s

No count ry should need t o wait for any ot her count ry before claim ing t hem selves fulfilm ent of CART.

An y r e loca t ion of m e a su r e s sh ou ld le a d t o a t le a st t h e sa m e e n vir on m e nt a l im pr ove m e n t a s

if CART w e r e im ple m e n t e d

This is im perat ive for t he GES t o be achieved event ually. I nevit ably, using ext ra reduct ions will lead t o less input s

t han MAI as seen as a t ot al for t he Balt ic Sea, but it s dist ribut ion need t o be such t hat GES will be achieved

everywhere.

Th e e ffe ct of e x t r a r e du ct ion s on n e igh bor in g ba sin s w it h m issin g r e du ct ion s sh ou ld be

e st im a t e d give n t h a t t h e se a r e m in or de via t ion s fr om M AI

The Balt ic Sea is a st rongly pert urbed syst em and hence, funct ioning quit e different t oday com pared t o how it will

funct ion when m easures been im plem ent ed and st at us approach GES. The whole calculat ion of MAI is t aking t his

int o account and when deviat ions t o MAI are t o be analysed, it should be done assum ing t hat we are close t o

GES.

Pr in ciple s

Accou n t ing for e x t r a r e du ct ion s in con n e ct ion w it h CART follow - u p a sse ssm e n t s a r e t o be

pe r for m e d in a u n ifor m w a y su pe r vise d by Re dCor e D G

Account ing for ext ra reduct ions should be included in t he regular CART assessm ent using a com m on and harm onized

m et hodology. RedCore DG is t he forum t hat supervises developm ent of m et hodology and, aft er appropriat e approval,

im plem ent at ion of t his in t he assessm ent .

Th e Ar ch ipe la go Se a ph osph or u s in pu t r e du ct ion s sh ou ld be a ccou n t e d in t h e Fin n ish CART for

Gu lf of Fin la n d ( cf. BSAP 2 0 0 7 )

I n BSAP 2007 and 2013, Finland point ed out t hat m odels failed t o separat e t he Archipelago Sea from Bot hnian Sea and t hat t his

should be t aken int o account at a lat er st age and wit hin t he cont ext of account ing for ext ra reduct ion can be an opport unit y t o

t ake int o account separat ely t he nut rient input s t o Archipelago Sea from t he rem aining Bot hnian Sea input s.

I n t h e con t e x t of e x t r a r e du ct ion a ccou n t in g, r e du ct ion s of ph osph or u s t o Ba lt ic Pr ope r cou ld be

a ccou n t e d a s in pu t r e du ct ion in Gu lf of Fin la n d

The obt ained MAI result s in conform ing t o phosphorus t arget in Balt ic Proper, but in Gulf of Finland t he result ing phosphorus

concent rat ions will be significant ly less t han t arget . I n line wit h t his, it could be argued for st at es having phosphorus input s bot h

t o Balt ic Proper and Gulf of Finland, t hat ext ra reduct ions t o Balt ic Proper could be deduct ed from m issing reduct ions in Gulf of

Finland wit h 100% efficiency. However, one should bear in m ind t hat t he MAI for nit rogen t o Gulf of Finland was det erm ined

from applying t he HEAT approach, balancing nit rogen and phosphorus concent rat ions, so if MAI for phosphorus t o Gulf of Finland

is not achieved fully addit ional reduct ions on nit rogen input s m ight be necessary.

Pr in ciple s

Follow in g t h e pr e ca u t ion a r y pr in ciple , e x t r a r e du ct ion a ccou n t in g ca n n ot be

u se d t o pu r pose ly in cr e a se in pu t s t o a ba sin

Alt hough account ing of ext ra reduct ions is based current scient ific knowledge and m odelling, it

com es wit h significant uncert aint y and will sooner or lat er be subj ect of im provem ent .

Therefore, it would be a risk for t he environm ent t o increase input s t o basins based on t his

m et hodology. I n addit ion, a prerequisit e for t he calculat ions here is an environm ent close t o

GES and addit ional input s t oday m ay cause significant det eriorat ion of t he present st at e.

Equivalent reductions of phosphorus

Equ iva le nt r e du ct ions on N it r oge n

−

1.7

−

7.3

−

4.6

−

1.3

4.0

−

7.8

−

1.1

−

Ex a m ple , Sw e de n

Focu s on t h e Bot h n ia n Se a e x t r a

r e du ct ion

Focus on using the 117 tons for the Baltic Proper

This means that it remains 430 – 117 = 313 tons for

Sweden to reduce to BP

H ow a bou t t h e ot h e r ba sin s?

●

I n t his case, t he Ext ra reduct ion in BS can not be used in DS

and KT, because t he effect is “ rem oved” by t he m issing

reduct ion in BP

●

For Bot hnian Bay t here will be:

– I m provem ent because of t he ext ra reduct ion in Bot hnian

Sea alt hough t han given in t he t able because Balt ic

Proper loads are higher t han MAI and com pensat ed by

flux of nut rient s t o Gulf of Bot hnia

68 t ons from BS ext ra reduct ion – ( 117/ 7.7 = ) 15 t ons = 53

t ons

Con clu ding r e m a r k s

●

I t is not so st raight forward t o do t he calculat ions

in pract ice

●

When evaluat ing rem aining reduct ions needed

one have t o m ake a select ion on what basins

t hat ext ra reduct ions should be used on in order

t o com plet e t he calculat ion

●

The analysis will be done as exam ples for all

relevant count ries following t he principles

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Gothenburg, Sweden, 19-21 April 2016

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Reference

Accounting an extra reduction in CART follow-up

7-4

DEC

7 - Thematic session on input of nutrients

29.3.2016

BNI

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration, HOD 49-2015

PRESSURE 4-2016

Background

In the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration the Contracting Parties 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.

HOD 49-2015 requested PRESSURE 4-2016 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.

This document contains a suggestion by BNI on the methodology based on considerations within the RedCore

Drafting Group.

Action requested

The Meeting is invited to discuss the suggested approach and agree on its possible use to follow up the

progress towards the reduction targets.

Page 1 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

Accounting for extra reductions

Bo Gustafsson, Baltic Nest Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden, (

March 28, 2016)

Background

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 lead 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. The aim of this paper is to bring some clarity to the open questions and provide a

brief overview BNIs work and viewpoints on the matter.

Understanding extra reductions

Definitions:

Extra reduction

is the margin to CART (or input ceiling) including the statistical uncertainty for a given country

and basin combination.

Page 2 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

Equivalent reduction

is input reduction to basin A that leads to the equivalent environmental benefit in basin

B as 1 ton reduction to basin B.

NB!

that prerequisite is that all other basins fulfill MAI

and

Missing reduction

to basin leads to environmental cost in the adjacent basins.

Effective reduction

is the apparent input reduction in a basin resulting from extra reductions in another

basin, in practice: the

extra reduction

divided by

equivalent reduction. NB!

Missing reductions will lead to

“negative” effective reductions because lateral nutrient transports were taken into account when MAI-CART

was calculated.

Equivalent 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. The same model was used to

estimate the equivalent reductions for different extra reductions.

The methodology was to take 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 where performed where N and P inputs were systematically perturbed from MAI,

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 a single nutrient and basin input deviation

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. Details of the calculations are given in an annex to

this document. Given the assumptions the equivalent reductions are presented in tables 1 and 2. All values

above 10 are considered insignificant.

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 fulfill MAI.

4.0

−

0.8

3.2

−

2.4

2.8

3.3

7.7

−

3.8

4.6

1.5

2.6

−

5.8

−

9.0

8.3

−

3.6

4.3

1.6

4.8

−

6.5

3.6

4.2

1.3

4.1

−

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 fulfill MAI.

7.3

−

Page 3 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

1.7

−

4.6

−

1.3

4.0

−

1.1

−

7.8

−

How to use the equivalent reductions tables

Below in Annex B to this document there is an example 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 B.

BNI’s views as points for discussion

1. Using equivalent reduction from extra reduction should be done on single country basis, i.e., the

equivalent reduction should not be shared between all countries.

2. Although MAI is exceeded it would be fair that a country that has extra reductions made could

make use of this for deducting equivalent reduction in another basin.

3. Evaluation of extra reductions should be made using a common approach and not by individual

national studies.

4. For the upcoming assessment, Tables 1 and 2 should be used and a complete analysis for all

affected countries should be made. However, it may be that several options will be described and

they may not confirm with national plans.

http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/progress-towards-reduction-targets/in-depth-

information/data-on-fulfillment-of-nutrient-input-ceilings/

Page 4 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

Annex A: Calculation of equivalent reduction

∆��

��,��

��

��,��

∆��

��

Given the two assumptions, we could analyze the model results in the terms of a linear response so that

the environmental change in basin

(denoted

∆��

��,��

) due to a given input change in basin

(denoted

∆��

��

)

can be described by the following equation:

(1)

We now want to analyze how much do we need to decrease the input in the basin with extra reduction (say

basin

to get the same change in the environment in another basin (say basin

as a given reduction in

that basin (which then is given by

∆��

��

The effect in basin

from load reduction in basin

∆��

��,��

��

��,��

∆��

��

(2)

and the effect from the extra reduction in basin n on the environment in basin m is by the expression

above, i.e.,

∆��

��,��

��

��,��

∆��

��

∆��

��

��,��

��

��,��

When it is required that the environmental change

∆��

��,��

is equal to

∆��

��,��

, the relationship between the

input reduction is given by

(3)

∆��

��

��,��

∆��

��

(4)

Thus, an input reduction in basin

needs to be a factor of

n,m

higher than if made on the inputs directly to

basin

This is exactly what we defined above as

equivalent reduction

although expressed without

dimension.

The factors,

n,m

, were calculated from the model results for nitrogen and phosphorus separately, using

winter nutrient concentration as indication for environmental change. It is done by first calculating the

coefficients,

m,m

and

n,m

, and get

n,m

from the ratio (

is very small, resulting in a small

n,m

(and consequently large

n,m

). These cases are quite uncertain in that a

small error in

n,m

leads to a major change in

n,m

, and should therefore not be used. A formal quantification

of uncertainty is not done, but in the results

n,m

> 10 are not shown in the results.

��

��,��

��

��,��

). In many cases the effect of the extra reduction

Page 5 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

Annex B: Example of follow-up calculation

As mentioned above, extra reductions were calculated and presented in the CART follow-up

. Here we use

the example of the extra reductions and missing reductions presented for 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.

However, one cannot simply use 117 tons to Baltic Proper and then in addition 46 tons to Kattegat, because

the effect of 46 tons to Kattegat depends on that the full reduction is done in Baltic Proper. One can do the

full calculation on how much is remaining to reduce to the different basins, but the calculations involves

analyzing also how missing reductions spread between basins. Further, it mathematical problem is not fully

determined so there exists multiple solutions. Nevertheless one example of results from a full calculation of

remaining reductions for Sweden is 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

Missing reduction

430

176

100

Table 4: Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Sweden to Bothnian Sea.

Basin

Equivalent reduction

Calculation

Effective reduction

3.8

176/3.8

4.6

176/4.6

1.5

176/1.5

117

2.6

176/2.6

Table 5: Calculation of effective reductions for the extra reduction from Sweden to Bothnian Sea.

Basin

Equivalent factor

Calculation

Effective reduction

0.8

16/0.8

3.2

16/3.2

Page 6 of 7

PRESSURE 4-2016, 7-4

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

Extra reduction

Remaining reduction

313

176

Page 7 of 7

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Forth Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Gothenburg, Sweden, 19-21 April 2016

PRESSURE 4-2016

Outcome of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on

Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

(PRESSURE 4-2016)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Outcome of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea

Catchment Area (PRESSURE 4-2016) ................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

Adoption of the Agenda ........................................................................................................ 2

Matters arising from other HELCOM work ............................................................................ 2

Follow up on marine litter and underwater noise ................................................................ 2

Dredging activities and extraction of mineral resources....................................................... 6

Draft HELCOM Recommendation on sewage sludge handling ............................................. 7

Hazardous substances ........................................................................................................... 8

Thematic session on input of nutrients ............................................................................... 10

Any other business .............................................................................................................. 12

Future work and meetings .................................................................................................. 13

Outcome and closing of the Meeting .............................................................................. 13

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

Annex 4

Annex 5

List of Participants ......................................................................................................................... 14

Draft HELCOM Recommendation on Sewage Sludge Handling .................................................... 16

Estonian statement on HELCOM PRESSURE 4-2016 in regard of State Unitary Environmental

Enterprise Polygon Krasny Bor, Russia .......................................................................................... 23

Procedures for releasing the reported PLC water data and accepting the filled-in and

consolidated dataset as part of the steps to elaborate PLC products ......................................... 24

Contact Lists .................................................................................................................................. 31

Page 1 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Outcome of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on

Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

(PRESSURE 4-2016)

Introduction

0.1

The Fourth Meeting of the HELCOM Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic

Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 4-2016) was held by invitation from the Swedish Agency for Marine and

Water Management, in Gothenburg, Sweden, on 19-21 April 2016.

0.2

The Meeting was attended by the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention, except for

European Union and Latvia. Observers from Coalition Clean Baltic and EurEau, as well as invited guests from

Baltic Nest Institute (BNI) and EUSBSR-PA Hazards. The List of Participants is contained in

Annex 1.

0.3

Mr. Björn Sjöberg, Director of the Department for Marine and Water Management at the

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, welcomed the Meeting on behalf of the host, the

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.

0.4

The Meeting was chaired by Mr. Lars Sonesten, Chair of the Pressure Group. Mr. Dmitry Frank-

Kamenetsky, assisted by Ms. Marta Ruiz and Ms. Leena Heikkilä, from the HELCOM Secretariat acted as

secretary of the Meeting.

Agenda Item 1

Documents: 1-1, 1-1-Rev.1, 1-2

The Meeting took note of the request from Finland to inform under ‘Any other business’ (AI 8),

on update on the Policy Area Nutri as well as information on the EU SBSR annual forum to be held in

November 2016 in Stockholm, Sweden.

The Meeting agreed on the proposals. The Meeting adopted the agenda of the Meeting as

contained in document 1-1-Rev.1.

Agenda Item 2

Documents: 2-1

The Meeting took note of the outcomes of Heads of Delegation meeting (HOD 49-2015),

HELCOM meeting (HELCOM 37-2016), State&Conservation 3-2015 and AGRI 3-2016, as well as a of number

of workshops and project meetings that have taken place since the PRESSURE 3-2015 meeting.

Agenda Item 3

Follow up on marine litter and underwater noise

Matters arising from other HELCOM work

Adoption of the Agenda

Documents: 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6

Marine litter

The Meeting took note of the key messages of the HELCOM Stakeholder Conference on Marine

Litter held in Helsinki on 9 March 2016 (doc. 3-1) as presented by the Secretariat.

The Meeting discussed the request by HELCOM 37-2016 to take the key messages into account

in the future work of the Pressure Working Group, and considered opportunities, scope and timeframe for

possible regional roundtable on marine litter.

The Meeting took note of the information by Germany regarding the recently organized national

roundtable which involved various stakeholders and covered all the themes included into Regional Action

Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML). The Meeting also noted that Germany is planning 2-3 meetings to be held

this year and a high level event next year.

Page 2 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

The Meeting emphasised the need to set up regional dialog especially for the task leads and co-

leads of the different actions to follow up the implementation of the RAP ML and address the issues to the

relevant audience, e.g. HELCOM Working Groups and stakeholders outside the immediate HELCOM

structure.

The Meeting also stressed the importance of cooperation between European Regional Sea

Conventions to exchange experience and to discuss progress in the implementation of regional action plans

and identify areas for joined action.

The Meeting agreed to arrange the workshop back-to-back with PRESSURE 5-2016 and invite

national coordinators, experts from EN-Marine Litter, experts who are task leads and co-leads of actions, and

authorities and other stakeholders to discuss practical aspects of the RAP ML implementation and to identify

fora to follow up the implementation of the particular actions. The Meeting noted the link between

discussion on implementation of the national programmes of measures in the frame of the MSFD and the

RAP ML. The Meeting also invited PA Hazards to cooperate with HELCOM in the organization of the regional

dialog on implementation of the RAP ML in particular with regard in microplastics.

The Meeting took note of the current status of the actions of the RAP ML, including details of

Lead and Co-Lead Countries and on-going regional and national activities (doc. 3-3).

The Meeting agreed that the table in document 3-3 is the appropriate tool to follow the request

by HELCOM 37-2016 (cf. para 3.2). The Meeting also agreed to update this document for upcoming PRESSURE

meetings.

The Meeting took note of the updated information on activities linked to the RAP on Marine

Litter as follows:

−

Estonia informed on the feedback received on the questionnaire on landfills circulated by e-mail in

relation to action RL14 of the RAP ML. Information has been provided by all HELCOM members

except Russia. The received feedback indicated that all the landfills are under control in the region

and cannot be considered as sources of marine litter. There is no updated information regarding

RL11.

With regard to actions RL3 and RL5, Germany informed that two studies will be carried out in 2016

to establish an overview on best waste management practices and potential loopholes , as well as

on the development of possible design improvements to reduce the negative impacts of products on

the marine environment. For RL6 the national report on sources of microplastics is already available.

For RS 2 an advanced draft of a background document is available. A questionnaire has also been

sent to Maritime Group but only three countries have provided their answers so far, with the

deadline for replies by 6 May 2016. Germany also informed the Meeting on the general expectations

to be able to fulfil the deadlines of the actions under their leadership.

Sweden informed on a report prepared by the Commission set up by the Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to identify significant sources of microplastics in Sweden

(http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-

sverige/regeringsuppdrag/2016/mikroplaster/swedish-sources-and-pathways-for-microplastics-to-

marine%20environment-ivl-c183.pdf)

and to act to reduce the origination and release of

microplastics from these sources to the marine environment. Sweden also informed on the report

on possibility to ban the use of microplastics in cosmetics. Sweden expect to be able to fulfil the

deadlines of the actions under their leadership.

−

The Meeting took note that Sweden will not be able to lead action RL1, but to contribute to it.

Regarding this action, the Meeting took note of the Swedish proposal to change the deadline to 2019 in order

to be able to benefit from the guidelines produced by the BLASTIC project in 2018. The Meeting also took

note of the Swedish proposal to proceed likewise with actions RS6 and RS7, under the leadership of Poland,

in view of the expected outcomes in the frame of the MARELITT Baltic project to be available in 2018.

The Meeting agreed that relevant Questionnaires for the implementation of the RAP will also be

circulated to the Marine Litter Expert Network and PRESSURE contacts. For action RS2, where Germany is in

Page 3 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

lead the Questionnaire as mentioned above should be send out again by the Secretariat via MARITIME, the

Expert Network and PRESSURE with a final deadline of 6 May 6 2016.

The Meeting took note of the suggestion by Germany to cooperate closer with professional

societies and other political units developing sectoral regulations in order to include considerations of

environmental issues into those regulations.

The Meeting also welcomed the suggestion by Germany to involve HELCOM into the ongoing

OSPAR activity aimed at establishing a dialogue with the industries regarding microplastics in products.

The Meeting took note of the Finnish offer to co-lead action RL7 ‘Investigate and promote best

available techniques‘ as well as research and develop additional techniques in waste water treatment plants

to prevent microparticles from entering the marine environment. The Meeting agreed that the term ‘best

available techniques’ in the frame of RL7 can be rephrased as compilation of ‘available techniques’.

The Meeting took note of the suggestion by Estonia for early revision of the RAP ML based on

the prioritisation of measures and that it could be a topic to discuss at the workshop in autumn. The Meeting

welcomed a suggestion by Germany that an overview of implementation of the actions of the RAP ML should

be prepared in advance for the workshop.

The Meeting took note of the information by CCB (doc. 3-6) on the ongoing activities on

mitigation of littering the marine environment and future plans to address microparticles.

The Meeting agreed to set up a 3-week written procedure (12

May 2016)

to update information

on implementation of the RAP ML ([email protected]).

The Meeting took note of the information provided by Germany on the European Conference

on Plastics in Freshwater Environments to be held in Berlin on 21-22 June 2016. The Meeting invited national

experts to attend the conference (link to the conference website).

Underwater noise

The Meeting took note that the study reservation by Russia was lifted at HELCOM 37-2016 where

the roadmap, containing an additional reference to IMO as proposed by Russia (HELCOM 37 document 4-17),

was adopted (Annex

3 of the Outcome of HELCOM 37-2016).

The Meeting took note of the present plans and timetable for the further development of the

underwater noise indicators as follows:

Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound:

•

Lead Country: Poland, co-Lead Countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden

Indicator with GES-boundaries/GES-criteria anticipated as ready for use in HOLAS II: YES. The

indicator development aims to proceed according to HOLAS II time-table. Should not be

possible to propose a GES-boundary for the integration of the continuous noise indicator into

HOLAS, an interim GES-boundary condition will be proposed.

Plan 2016:

Q2 2016: proposal for a monitoring programme based on ongoing efforts (i.e. BIAS

project) for submitted to STATE&CONSERVATION 4-2016 for consideration.

Q3 2016:



develop a proposal for assessment protocol;

tentatively June 2016: identify needs for long-term data arrangements for

ambient noise monitoring data, i.a. BIAS calculated data (not raw data) to be

brought to HELCOM members;

June 2016: workshop on GES on underwater noise envisaged in Germany.

•

Q4 2016:

Page 4 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016



5-6 October 2016: BalticBOOST workshop on GES on underwater noise;

propose an interim GES-boundary condition to relevant Working Group for

a core indicator integration into HOLAS II based on the work conducted in

the two workshops previously mentioned;

finalisation of the continuous noise indicator report.

Q1 2017: Completing indicator evaluation for the first version of the 2nd holistic

assessment to be prepared by mid-2017.

Distribution in time and space of low- and mid- frequency impulsive sounds:

•

Lead Country: Germany, co-Lead Countries: Denmark, Finland and Sweden

Indicator with GES-boundaries/GES-criteria anticipated as ready for use in HOLAS II: YES. The

indicator development aims to proceed according to HOLAS II time-table. Should not be

possible to propose a GES-boundary for the integration of the impulsive noise indicator into

HOLAS, an interim GES-boundary condition will be proposed.

Plan 2016:

Q2 2016: HELCOM members have been invited to inform of their national

arrangements in order to deliver data to the registry for the use in HOLAS II in the

upcoming PRESSURE 4-2016 (19-21 April 2016).

Q3 2016:



June 2016: workshop on GES on underwater noise envisaged in Germany.

follow up on the needs on the regional registry of impulsive activities as part

of the joint HELCOM/OSPAR registry hosted by ICES;

initiate testing the registry with available project/national.

•

Q4 2016:



5-6 October 2016: BalticBOOST workshop on GES on underwater noise;

develop a proposal for assessment protocol;

propose an interim GES-boundary condition to relevant Working Group for

a core indicator integration into HOLAS II based on the work conducted in

the two workshops previously mentioned;

finalisation of the impulsive noise indicator report.



Q1 2017: Completing indicator evaluation for the first version of the 2nd holistic

assessment to be prepared by mid-2017.

The Meeting took note of the progress in setting up the OSPAR-HELCOM registry of underwater

noise (doc. 3-2,

Presentation 1).The

Meeting also took note that the reporting format for reporting data to

the OSPAR-HELCOM impulsive noise events registry had been evaluated by EN-Network. Reporting has been

tested by some countries and the Meeting approved the reporting format (Annex of doc. 3-2), noting that it

was coordinated with that developed within OSPAR and TG-Noise.

The Meeting took note of the national arrangements planned/undertaken in order to deliver

data to the regional registry by September 2016 for the use in the Second Holistic assessment (HOLAS II) as

follows:

−

Lithuania informed that the data cannot be collected earlier than 2018;

Finland will be able to supply data for the HOLAS II assessment;

Page 5 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

−

Sweden informed on the existence of a national registry with reporting format to collect the data

but the data from some sources are reported on a voluntary, not obligatory basis. It is expected

that data are available before the summer;

Poland needs written procedure after the Meeting to clarify national arrangements and possibility

to report national data;

Denmark will be able to deliver data on seismic activities from 2015. Denmark has started collecting

data on naval events and other sources of impulsive noise in 2016. No data can be reported before

that time;

Germany informed that the export functions to fulfil international commitments for data from pile

driving, naval events and seismic activities are completed. Data for the Baltic noise registry will be

provided to ICES by September 2016, but only from one windpark as this the only available dataset

so far. The Meeting also took note that Germany will consider GES as part of an indicator workshop

to take place in June 2016 together with TG Noise;

Russia has not any arrangements.

−

The Meeting took note of the dates 5-6 October 2016 for the HELCOM workshop on underwater

noise and agreed that comments to the provisional draft programme are forwarded to the Secretariat

([email protected]) by 6 May 2016. The Meeting welcomed the offer by Denmark and Germany to

consider hosting the workshop.

The Meeting took note of the compilation of the internationally available reviews on underwater

noise mitigation measures and of the questionnaire prepared by BalticBOOST, to be filled in by HELCOM

countries in order to identify which of the listed measures are nationally implemented, planned to be, or

have the potential to be implemented in the future as contained in document 3-5 (Presentation

2).

The Meeting considered the procedure to refine and then fill in the questionnaire. The Meeting

agreed to provide comments on the questionnaire from both and Pressure and Maritime delegates to the

Secretariat ([email protected]) by 6 May 2016. The Secretariat will need to collate the comments and

post the questionnaire at the HELCOM website by 20 May 2016. The Contracting Parties will fill in

questionnaire in by 10 June 2016.

Agenda Item 4

Dredging activities and extraction of mineral resources

Documents: 4-1, 4-1-Rev.1, 4-2, 4-2-Rev.2, 4-3, 4-4

The Meeting took note of the information on the state of data reporting in accordance with the

new reporting format and discussed the obstacles to provide complete national data sets (Presentation

3).

−

The Meeting took note of the following clarification by the countries:

Estonia reported data in 2013 but there was no dredging activities during that year. Contaminants

were not reported in year 2014, due to their concentration on the dredging material at the level of

natural background;

Russia informed that data from 2007 and 2008 had been reported;

Finland: information on reporting data as contained in Table 1 in document 4-1 is misleading;

Denmark indicated that summing-up the depositing sites reported in different years is not correct.

The data from 2013 and 2014 to be further clarified. Denmark informed that it will unfortunately not

be able to deliver data on dredging activities.

−

The Meeting also took note of the information required for HOLAS II assessment of pressures

caused by human activities and identified issues in the reporting template which should be modified to cater

for the assessment.

The Meeting discussed the suggested updates to the reporting guideline and format, listed in

the Conclusions chapter of document 4-1, and decided to organize an expert skype meeting to discuss it.

Page 6 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties to nominate experts by 3 May (dmitry.frank-

[email protected])

for a skype meeting on dredged material reporting format to be held during May.

The Meeting agreed to submit the suggested changes to the reporting guideline and format,

based on outcomes of the Skype meeting, to HODs for approval via correspondence.

The Meeting took note of the study reservations by Denmark and Germany on the document

until after the discussion at the Skype meeting.

The Meeting took note of the initial ideas on how to improve the assessment of impact of the

activities on dredging and depositing dredged material into the Sea utilizing newly reported data. The

Meeting also noted that the methodology has to be elaborated and agreed by the Contracting Parties by the

end of 2016 to be used for HOLLAS II assessments.

The Meeting agreed that the assessment methodology and the procedure of its elaboration

should be discussed at the expert meeting.

The Meeting took note of the information by CCB on the physical loss and damage to the sea

floor: marine sediment extraction in the Baltic Sea (doc. 4-4), including the call for better coordination in this

respect by HELCOM Subsidiary bodies and a proposal for revision of relevant HELCOM assessment products

and requirements.

The Meeting also took note of the information provided by CCB to consider available

information, i.a., the ICES report “Effects of extraction of marine sediments on the marine environment

2005-2011” published in 2016

(http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/crr3

30/CRR%20330.pdf.

The Meeting took note of the information by the countries that some data on extraction of sand

and gravel at the sea floor are available in the countries, but that the data set is not complete against the

requirements of HELCOM Recommendation 19/1.

The Meeting agreed on the need to update HELCOM Status Report on Marine sediment

extraction in the Baltic Sea (1999), based on reliable, comprehensive, geo-referenced national data and

agreed to conduct the reporting on marine sediment extraction in the Baltic Sea according to HOLAS II needs,

and, subsequently, consider the need of regular reporting and revision of Recommendation 19/1. Denmark

informed that they will inform the Secretariat on the data which are available for this assessment.

Agenda Item 5

Documents: 5-1

The Meeting took note of the Draft HELCOM Recommendation on Sewage Sludge Handling as

presented by the Secretariat (doc. 5-1).

The Meeting took note of the study reservation by Germany and Poland on the draft HELCOM

Recommendation on sewage sludge handling.

The Meeting agreed on the new version of the draft Recommendation for further submission to

the upcoming meeting of the Heads of Delegation.

The Meeting agreed to withdraw Annex 2 “Tentative limit values” from the draft, due to existing

various national regulations identifying the limit values and taking into account regional chemical parameters

of soils. The Meeting also encouraged the Contracting Parties to work further on the development of the

national limit values for concentrations of unwanted substances in sewage sludge and to exchange this

information within the HELCOM group.

The Meeting agreed on the draft HELCOM Recommendation as contained in

Annex 2

to this

Outcome. The Meeting also agreed that the Contracting Parties will make a final check of the agreed draft

Recommendation and inform the Secretariat ([email protected]) by 2 May 2016, whether

Draft HELCOM Recommendation on sewage sludge handling

Page 7 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

any minor corrections are needed, though bearing in mind that the document will be proofread before its

submission to HOD 50-2016.

Agenda Item 6

Hazardous substances

Documents: 6-1, 6-1-Rev.1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5

The Meeting took note the draft Status report on pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea environment

and welcomed the effort by the Secretariat and PA Hazards to preparation the report (doc. 6-1-Rev.1)

The Meeting agreed that the report is the starting point for further development of the regional

strategy.

The Meeting agreed in principle on publication of the report, taking into account the comments

by State&Conservation and Pressure Groups, and decided to establish a group to work further in order to

suggest further actions on pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea region.

The Meeting agreed to withdraw Chapters 4.1 and 6.3 from the report and move them to the

annex. The Meeting also agreed to use the term “potential measures for further consideration” instead of

“recommendation” in Chapter 8.4.

The Meeting agreed on the following procedure to finalize the Status report:

all corrections will be incorporated into the document by the Secretariat with the assistance of PA

Hazard Coordinator and experts by 7 May 2016 and the draft Status report will be circulated to the

Contracting Parties for reviewing;

all the replies by the national experts should be sent to the Secretariat (dmirty.frank-

[email protected])

by 17 May 2016 in order to submit the draft Status report to HOD 50-2016 for

approval for publication.

The Meeting considered how the results of the Status report can be used for the revision of

HELCOM Recommendation 31E/1 “Implementing HELCOM’s objective for hazardous substances” with regard

to the list of priority substances and substances of concern as well as implementation of the new HELCOM

action “Micropollutants in effluents from wastewater treatment plants” (cf. doc. 6-2).

The Meeting noted that HELCOM 37-2016 had agreed on 13 future HELCOM actions as a result

of the coordination efforts relating to national PoMs. The Meeting took note of the actions falling under the

Pressure WG and agreed to incorporate the actions into its future work.

The Meeting took note of the results of a questionnaire on the input of organic compounds (doc.

7-9 and

Presentation 4)

and discussed how the information can be utilized for implementation of the action

on micropollutants in effluents from WWTP and for reviewing the existing list of HELCOM priorities (HELCOM

Recommendation 31E/1).

The Meeting welcomed the results of the questionnaire noting that the collected information is

a good starting point to identify the pollutants of high concern for the Baltic Sea region, containing also an

overview of the availability of information on input of these substances into the Sea.

The Meeting was of the opinion that the information should be coupled and correlated with the

work on HELCOM core indicators in order to identify any discrepancy between the major concern in fresh

water or coastal water and indicators of the ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea. The result should be a starting

point to revise the list of priority substances of HELCOM Recommendation 31E/1.

The Meeting discussed further ways to use the outcomes of the questionnaire, particularly in

the preparation of the PLC reports. The Meeting agreed to include a summary into PLC-6 report. The Meeting

suggested to inform State&Conservation Group on the results of the questionnaire to coordinate activities

on identification of the priority pollutants in the Baltic Sea region.

The Meeting took note of the position of Finland regarding the revision of HELCOM

Recommendation 31E/1 (doc. 6-3). The Meeting noted that there are several ongoing processes gathering

Page 8 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

information on the hazardous substances at HELCOM, EU or at national levels, e.g. revision of HOLLAS II,

WFD, etc. The revision should integrate all the collected information. Sweden informed on the ongoing

national investigation and suggested to postpone the revision of the Recommendation 31E/1 at least till

spring 2017.

The Meeting agreed with the suggestion by Finland, Poland and Sweden to postpone the review

of Recommendation 31E/1, the definitions and the purpose of its attachments, until the latter part of year

2017 and in the meantime continue the work on collecting information on hazardous substances.

The Meeting suggested that the future PLC reporting should pay more attention to the

hazardous substances. The Meeting requested the RedCore Drafting Group to consider the results of the

questionnaire and elaborate a proposal for the Contracting Parties to compile more detailed national

information on the substances which were prioritized.

The Meeting encouraged Poland to provide the information for the questionnaire.

The Meeting took note of the updated information by CCB on the situation around the landfill

of toxic wastes Krasnyi Bor and the suggestions for the way forward for resolving the situation.

The Meeting took note of the information on the current conditions and the state of

environmental measures at the toxic waste landfill provided by the director of the enterprise Polygon Krasnyi

Bor (Presentation

and an expert from LLC "Tehnoterra"(Presentation

6).

The Meeting discussed the

current state of wastewater treatment facilities and maintenance of embankments or walls and construction

of landfill and the drainage system.

The Meeting expressed the concern regarding the efficiency of the WWTP, current emissions to

air, surface and ground water, the current environmental monitoring at the surroundings of the landfill and

the fate of the hazardous wastes generated by the enterprises after the landfill has been closed. The Russian

delegation presented information on the efficiency of WWTP and clarified that the monitoring is organized

on weekly basis and involves regular sampling of surface and ground water. The Meeting was also informed

that the current amount of the toxic waste generated at the industrial facilities of St. Petersburg and nearby

regions is considerably lower than in the past, and that other locations and options for environmentally safe

waste management and for landfilling are to be found in the region.

The Meeting took note of the statement by Estonia regarding readiness for cooperation to

prepare an appropriate project proposal for the remediation of the Polygon (Annex

3).

The Meeting took note the statement by Finland on its preparedness to cooperate and share

experience and expertise on handling hazardous waste.

The Meeting welcomed the preparedness of the Russia for an open and transparent dialogue on

the current situation around the landfill and on sustainable and cost-efficient ways of resolving the problem.

The Meeting also noted the intention of the Russian Federation to involve international experience as well

as international financial tools into the remediation work of the area and deletion of the hot spot from the

HELCOM list.

The Meeting took note of the information on the national funds allocated in the Regional and

Federal budgets to mitigate the most acute environmental risks posed by the landfill and the plan to

remediate the area.

The Meeting thanked the Russian delegation for the transparency in presenting the current

situation and expressed the preparedness for cooperation and assisting Russia to identify potential external

funding sources to mitigate environmental risks and to eliminate environmental damage caused by the

landfill.

The Meeting suggested arranging a study visit of international experts to the landfill in

cooperation with HELCOM in order to evaluate the current situation at the polygon and to outline the ways

towards elimination of the hot spot. The Meeting agreed that the study visit would boost international

cooperation aimed at elimination of the HELCOM hot spot.

Page 9 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

The Meeting requested the Secretariat together with Russia to prepare appropriate suggestions

for the study visit and inform the Pressure Group contacts on the suggested dates. The Meeting also

requested the Secretariat to facilitate communication between the Russian authorities and international

organizations, experts, and financial institutions.

Agenda Item 7

Thematic session on input of nutrients

Documents: 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-3-Corr.1, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13

Overall planning of PLC-based assessment products

The Meeting considered document 7-3, Proposal for procedures for releasing the reported PLC

water data and accepting the filled-in and consolidated dataset as part of the steps to elaborate PLC products.

The Meeting took note the statement by Poland regarding mandatory approval of the results of

processing of national data and they further use in assessment procedures. Thus the last bullet point of the

document was rephrased accordingly. The Meeting agreed on the revised version of the document as

presented in the

Annex 4.

The Meeting emphasized the importance of the involvement of the Pressure group in the

process of approval of the assessment results.

The Meeting took note of the German position that the CART assessment should not be

performed annually, but due to the fact that the assessment is based on the annually reported data, this

product is included into the annual workflow.

The Meeting considered the suggestion on the roadmap for PLC-7 and PLC-8 assessments (doc.

7-7) and tasked the RedCore DG to update the Roadmap.

The Meeting discussed the timeframe for the PLC-8 assessment and was of the opinion that the

results should cater for the reporting under the EU regulations for the EU member states. From this point of

view, the suggestion for the timeframe of the PLC-8 assessment can also be discussed by GEAR 14-2016 (10-

11 May). The Meeting also noted that Germany needs the assessment data latest in summer 2023. The

Meeting agreed on a preliminary timeframe for the PLC-8 assessment, proposed by Germany at HOD 49-

2015, as 2021 for monitoring and the assessment in 2023.

The Meeting also noted that the position of Germany regarding the contents of the PLC-7 and

the timeframe and contents of PLC-8 will be clarified at HOD 50-2016, due to ongoing national consultation.

The Meeting decided to include a pilot exercise on assessment of inputs of nitrogen and

phosphorus from seven major rivers into the PLC-6 periodical assessment and, consequently, to include this

assessment product into both PLC-7 and PLC-8. The Meeting noted that the input by these rivers contribute

about 50% of the total input of nutrients and might be used for an assessment on the effectiveness of

measures in the long-term perspective.

The Meeting took note of the information on harmonizing source apportionment methodology

and agreed that PLC-6 will contain a compilation of the methodologies used for source apportionment in the

countries. The compilation will be ready by spring 2017. PRESSURE 6-2017 will discuss the overview of the

methodologies and agree on further steps towards its harmonization, including a proposal for the project.

Thus, the Meeting was of the opinion that the better harmonized approach to application of the national

methodologies would be applied for PLC-8 at the earliest.

The Meeting pointed out that all the countries use national models taking into account specific

natural parameters and conditions. Hence there is no intention to unify the models but make modelling

results comparable. The Meeting also noted the importance of cooperation with OSPAR regarding

methodological aspects of catchment modelling and source apportionment.

The Meeting also noted that it is not essential that intercalibration be done in 2017. Early 2018

is also acceptable if analysis methodology remains unchanged.

Page 10 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

The Meeting agreed that the project proposal for PLC-7 can be submitted to HOD 50-2016. The

Meeting requested RedCore to elaborate the project proposal.

PLC-6 assessment

An outline of the PLC - 6 assessment and the project implementation

The Meeting considered the updated roadmap for implementation of the PLC-6 project (doc.7-

1) and approved it, as presented by the Project Coordinator. The Meeting considered the overall structure of

the PLC-6 assessment (doc. 7-2) and provided guidance on the contents. In particular, the Meeting expressed

concern regarding the overlapping of information in some chapters with the existing HELCOM documents,

e.g. PoM, and recommended to avoid this in the future. The Meeting also recommended to keep balance in

selecting good examples of effective measures between the countries.

The Meeting was of the opinion that the PLC-6 team has an ambitious plan and probably will

need support from the Contracting Parties. The Meeting also expressed concern in the feasibility of compiling

reliable information on the measures and consequently in the evaluation of their effectiveness.

The Meeting agreed in general on the contents of the PLC-6 report, which had been prepared

by the RedCore DG and the PLC-6 project team.

The Meeting took note of and discussed the implementation of the tasks on assessment of

effectiveness of measures and potential reduction in nutrient inputs of the PLC-6 project. The Meeting

pointed out difficulties with the assessment of effectiveness of the measures addressing diffuse sources. The

Meeting also emphasized that assessment of effectiveness of measures is an important but a rather

challenging task, noting that the questionnaire which had been circulated by the Project Team was the first

attempt to collect information. The Meeting recommended to the PLC-6 team to consider revising and

simplifying the document taking into account the feedback by PRESSURE 4-2016 and replies by countries.

The Meeting took note of the progress in the compilation of background and supporting data

for the assessment report of the Sixth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-6), presented by Sweden

(doc. 7-5).

The Meeting took note of the status of the 2013-2014 annual PLC data reporting (doc. 7-11) and

the status of the 2014 periodic PLC data reporting (doc. 7-13), provided by the PLC Data Manager. The

Meeting was informed on the state of play of the reporting by all the countries.

The Meeting expressed great concern on the feasibility of elaboration of the assessment

products due to the delay of the data reporting.

Follow-up of the HELCOM nutrient reduction scheme

Preparation of policy message product

on CART

The Meeting considered the initial suggestions for the CART assessment 2016, collected views

from the Contracting Parties on the contents of the policy message product, and discussed the scope of the

assessment and the approaches to elaborate its results.

The Meeting exchanged views on the various aspects of the final products of the CART

assessment and in general supported the current structure of the scientific report. Nonetheless, the Meeting

was of the opinion that the scientific report should recommend a unified assessment methodology to avoid

deviation in interpretation of the assessment data.

The Meeting suggested several methods to assess the progress towards national reduction

targets, e.g. using a 3- or 5-year averaging period or statistically adjusted data on the last year of the

assessment. The Meeting noted that the Contracting Parties are not fully satisfied with the clarity of the

policy message of the assessment 2015.

The Meeting noted that countries are in favour of different averaging periods but agreed that

the HELCOM policy message should be based on one agreed methodological approach.

The Meeting agreed that the following questions should be included into the policy message:

Page 11 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

•

Whether the reduction target is achieved?

What is the distance from the target, e.g. in tons?

What is the trend in inputs?

•

The Meeting agreed to arrange a workshop dedicated to MAI/CART assessment methodologies

in autumn 2016. The Meeting pointed out that the workshop should be organized when the recent

assessment results are as ready as possible in order to use its outcomes for e.g. MSFD reporting. The

workshop will outline the policy message.

The Meeting requested the RedCore DG to prepare the agenda for the workshop and invited the

Contracting Parties to provide input to the agenda of the workshop.

The Meeting also encouraged the Contracting Parties to attend the workshop.

Accounting for extra reductions

The Meeting took note the information on a methodology for accounting an extra reduction in

CART follow-up (Presentation

7).

The Meeting discussed how the approach can be used for the MAI/CART assessment and the

constraints involved in applying this approach.

The Meeting took note of the information by Finland on an example of using extra reduction in

the Archipelago Sea. The use of extra reduction is also important for several Contracting Parties to reach the

reduction targets.

The Meeting also noted that restoration measures in coastal waters could be considered as

measures to reduce inputs to the offshore Baltic Sea and this could be taken into account in future work.

The Meeting requested RedCore to elaborate more detailed documentation describing the

methodology and limits for its application as well as provide examples. The Meeting also suggested to include

the theme into the agenda of the workshop in the autumn 2016.

Technical solutions for improving reporting and assessment procedures

The Meeting took note of the information on the major products of the PLUS Project which was

completed in the end of 2015.

The Meeting agreed that the tools are helpful for the PLC reporting procedures and agreed that the

targets of the Project were achieved and the tasks were accomplished.

The Meeting was of the opinion that there is a need to organize a sufficient maintenance of the project

products in the future.

The Meeting thanked the Project Team, the Project Coordinator Sriram Sethuraman and the

Secretariat for the successful implementation of the Project.

The Meeting took note of the progress in implementation of the HELCOM Project MAI-CART OPER

2015-2017. The Meeting agreed that the implementation of the Project is in line with the recommendations

of the kick-off workshop and the agreed timeframe (Presentation

8).

The Meeting expressed the concern that the funding of the Project has still not been completely

secured. The Meeting encouraged the Contracting Parties to consider funding the remaining 30% (20

thousand euros) of the Project.

Agenda Item 8

Documents: 8-1, 8-2

The Meeting checked and updated the Contact Lists of the Pressure Working Group (document

9-1), attached as

Annex 5

to this Outcome.

Any other business

Page 12 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

The Meeting took note of the information by Germany on the activities at Leibniz Science

Campus Phosphorus Research Rostock and encouraged countries to take part in the workshop.

The Meeting took note of the information by PA NUTRI on the outcomes of stakeholder’s

seminar organized in Gdansk on 14 April 2016 and the suggestion for a joint seminar (PA Hazards, PA Nutri,

PA Bioeconomy) at the EUSBSR Forum in Stockholm, 8-9 November 2016.

The Meeting also took note of the information on an activity on taking a stock of the national

policies related to recycling of phosphorus, launched by the Agri Group, and that the first results are expected

to be obtained by the autumn 2016. The Meeting supported the initiative of Agri group and invited national

experts to cooperate with the drafting group.

The Meeting noted that PA Nutri had encouraged national representatives to attend the PA

Nutri Steering Committee meeting on 26 April 2016.

The Meeting took note of the information by Russia on the need to revise some of the

HELCOM Recommendations falling under the Pressure group ToR, and that Russia is ready to prepare a

relevant overview. The Meeting agreed to include the issue into the agenda for PRESSURE 5-2016.

Agenda Item 9

Documents: 9-1

The Meeting welcomed the offer by Poland to host PRESSURE 5-2016 in Warsaw on 25-27

October 2016 in the premising of the National Water Management Authority.

The Meeting emphasized that the PRESSURE 4-2016 was well structured and organized but

pointed out that the preliminary timetable should be circulated at least three weeks in advance in order to

enable participants to plan their attendance and take part in the relevant discussions.

The Meeting took note of the suggestion by Germany to arrange the Pressure and

State&Conservation Groups’ meetings having at least two weeks between them, if feasible, allowing

sufficient time for national preparations.

The Meeting suggested that PRESSURE 6-2017 will take place during the week 24-28 April 2017.

The Meeting thanked the host, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, for the

excellent arrangements and generous and hospitality during the Meeting.

Agenda Item 10

Documents: 10-1

The Meeting adopted the draft Outcome of the Meeting (document 10-1).

The Outcome of the Meeting will be finalized by the Secretariat in cooperation with the Chair

and made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal together with the documents and presentations given

during the Meeting.

Outcome and closing of the Meeting

Future work and meetings

Page 13 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 1

List of Participants

Delegation

Name

Organization

E-Mail

CHAIR

Chair of Pressure

Lars Sonesten

Group

CONTRACTING PARTIES

Denmark

Signe Jung-Madsen

Lars M. Svendsen

Estonia

Silver Vahtra

Aleksander Klauson

Laura Saijonmaa

Sanni Turunen *)

Seppo Knuuttila

Jukka Mehtonen

Dietmar Koch

Wera Leujak

Ulrike Pirntke

Stefanie Werner

Mindaugas Gudas

Adriana Dembowska

also EUSBSR/PA Nutri

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

[email protected]

The Danish Nature Agency

DCE - National Centre for Environment and Energy

Estonian Ministry of the Environment

Tallinn University of Technology

Ministry of the Environment

Finnish Environment Institute

Federal Environment Agency

German Environment Agency

Federal Environment Agency

Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency

National Water Management Authority

[email protected]

Finland

Germany

Lithuania

Poland

Page 14 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 1

Russia

Natalia Oblomkova

Olga Rublevskaya

Igor Grigorev

Daria Golovinova

Alexei Trutnev

Vladimir Reshetov

Sweden

Philip Axe

Johanna Eriksson

Emilia Lalander

SPb PO "Ecology&Business"

SUE “Vodokanal of Saint-Petersburg”

Committee for Nature Use, Environmental Protection and

Ecological Safety, St.Petersburg

Committee for Nature Use, Environmental Protection and

Ecological Safety, St.Petersburg

SUEE "Poligon "Krasny Bor"

LLC "Tehnoterra"

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

FOI

[email protected]

OBSERVERS

CCB

EUREAU

INVITED GUESTS

BNI

EUSBSR-PA Hazards

HELCOM SECRETARIAT

Mikhail Durkin

Saijariina Toivikko

Coalition Clean Baltic

EurEau

[email protected]

Bo Gustafsson

Jenny Hedman

Baltic Nest Institute

Policy Area Hazards of the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region

[email protected]

Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky

Marta Ruiz

Henriette Schack

Leena Heikkilä

HELCOM Secretariat

[email protected]

Page 15 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

Draft HELCOM Recommendation on Sewage Sludge Handling

HELCOM Recommendation xx/yy

[Adopted XXXXX]

having regard to Article 20, Paragraph 1 b) of the Helsinki Convention

SEWAGE SLUDGE HANDLING

THE COMMISSION,

RECALLING

Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the

Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention), in which the Contracting Parties undertake to prevent and

eliminate pollution of the Baltic Sea Area from land-based sources,

HAVING REGARD

also to Article 3 of the Helsinki Convention, in which the Contracting Parties shall

individually or jointly take all appropriate legislative, administrative or other relevant measures to prevent

and abate pollution in order to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea Area,

RECALLING

Article 5 of the

Helsinki Convention, in which the Contracting Parties undertake to prevent and

eliminate pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea caused by harmful substances,

RECALLING ALSO

the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) adopted at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

(Krakow) that calls for urgent actions to reduce the discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances to the

Baltic Sea Area,

RECALLING FURTHER

that the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2010 (Moscow) and the high-level segment of

the Helsinki Commission meeting in 2011 highlighted the need to improve resource efficiency and recycling

of nutrients through utilization of sewage sludge,

RECALLING AS WELL

that the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting called for sustainable use of nutrients,

enhancement of phosphorus recycling (especially in agriculture and waste water treatment) and promoting

development of appropriate methodologies;

RECOGNISING

that phosphorus as a limited resource was included into the list of critical raw materials by the

European Commission, thus its economically feasible recycling from sewage sludge is of particular

importance,

RECOGNISING FURTHER

the Circular Economy Package adopted by the European Commission on

2 December 2015 and the potential contribution of sustainable utilization of the energetic potential of

sewage sludge into the development of alternative sources of energy,

RECOGNISING ALSO

that sewage sludge may be a sink for unwanted and hazardous substances including

new substances – and that sewage sludge, thus, can be harmful for plants, animals and humans, and that

there is concern in contracting parties about this resource, and that reuse and disposal of sewage sludge shall

not cause any harmful effects, including accumulation and interactions of harmful substances and its

degradation products, on humans, animals, vegetation, soil and waters in either the short or longer term,

RECOGNISING FURTHER

that addition of sewage sludge to agriculture may often have a positive effect on

microorganisms in the soil, and that treatment of sewage sludge has found to be necessary before it is used

in agriculture,

Page 16 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

RECOGNISING ALSO

that measures to reduce content of unwanted substances in incoming wastewater to

wastewater treatment plants at the source are necessary in order to obtain i.e. the best possible quality of

the sewage sludge,

TAKING NOTE

of that recirculating sludge to agricultural land is a strong driving force raising awareness of

the society on control of waste water quality at the source, resulting in both a better sludge quality and a

better quality of the treated wastewater discharged into the environment,

NOTING

that for the purpose of this Recommendation, the definition of sewage sludge should be the same

as in the Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular

of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture,

NOTING

that the waste management hierarchy set in the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC is

applicable also for sewage sludge management and contains the following steps: prevention; preparing for

re-use; recycling; recovery (including energy recovery); and disposal,

DESIRING

to recycle the nutrients, especially plant available phosphorus, in the sludge; to make use of its

valuable properties and energetic potential and to dispose of it safely, efficiently and sustainably,

RECOMMENDS

to the Governments of the Contracting States to the Helsinki Convention to apply the

Guidance (Annex 1) for sustainable sewage sludge handling in the Baltic Sea region,

RECOMMENDS ALSO

that the Contracting Parties establish a programme, or any other appropriate

instrument, for the implementation of this Recommendation and that they provide the Helsinki Commission

with information on the programme at the latest by [30 June 2017],

RECOMMENDS

to the Governments of the Contracting States to the Helsinki Convention to encourage

development of innovative “green” power industry based on production of solid, liquid or gas fuel as a result

of sewage sludge treatment processes,

RECOMMENDS ALSO

to the Governments of the Contracting Parties to promote research and development

of the sustainable cost-effective solutions, especially for phosphorus recovery from the sewage sludge and

products of its treatment.

RECOMMENDS FURTHER

that the Contracting States report to the Helsinki Commission every three years

starting at the end of [2016] with data from [2015], according to Annex 2 and measured parameters as stated

in Annex 1,

RECOMMENDS FURTHER

that the Contracting Parties review the present Recommendation and reconsider

it in [2021] taking into account the implementation and review of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan as well

as new developments on national or international and EU level for Member States or earlier if it is needed.

Page 17 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

Annex 1

Guidance for sustainable sewage sludge handling in the Baltic Sea region

This document provides guidance to promote the application of sustainable and ecologically sound

techniques and handling practices for sewage sludge with the aim to ensure maximum effective sustainably

managed use of valuable substances and energy potential, while taking into account that the Baltic Sea is a

vulnerable ecosystem which environmental status requires intensive efforts towards improvement.

Furthermore, this guidance is supposed to enhance cooperation and provision of economic incentives while

aiming at limiting potential environmental impacts of sewage sludge. As untreated sewage sludge is not to

be applied at any kind of land, application of sewage sludge treatment, in the context of this

Recommendation always refer to treated sewage sludge.

Overall recommendations regarding sewage sludge handling

Endeavour, when applying techniques and practices for sustainable handling of sewage sludge to

ensure maximum recycling or recovery of phosphorus and other useful substances and compounds, if

possible competitively, as well as utilization of its energetic potential and avoidance of the negative impact

on the environment.

In the case when sewage sludge is used for mixing with other raw materials (organic material of plant

or animal origin or clay, sand, etc.) to produce fertilizing materials, the amount of unwanted substances in

the mixed product should not exceed the limits established by international or national legislation. The fact

that sewage sludge may contain other harmful substances than those falling under international or national

legislation should be taken into consideration when determining the mixing ratio.

Landfilling of untreated sewage sludge should be avoided; in case of landfilling sewage sludge, it has

to be pre-treated in accordance, for instance, with the regulations of Directive 1999/31/EC (landfill directive)

for EU Member States, bearing in mind that sewage sludge may contain harmful substances not falling under

this legislation.

Ensure also that leaching of the nutrients to the environment as well as emissions and leakages of

substances polluting the environment are prevented when the sewage sludge handling procedure includes

temporary storage of the sewage sludge or products of sewage sludge treatment.

Ensure that possible negative impacts from sewage sludge handling processes will not hinder the

achievement of a good environmental/ecological/chemical status of the Baltic Sea, as agreed upon in the

HELCOM BSAP and relevant national and international legislation.

Reuse or recycling of nutrients, especially phosphorus, from the sewage sludge as well as utilisation

of its energetic potential should also be considered in the perspective of designing new facilities or

reconstruction of waste water treatment plants (WWTP). However, waste water treatment, sludge treatment

and recycling of sludge should ideally be looked in an integrative manner.

Incineration of sewage sludge could serve as final solution in cases where Contracting Parties

consider the hazardous potential of sewage sludge even after treatment as being too high for application on

land as fertilizer. In this case, phosphorus should be recovered from the incinerated material as far as viable

technical are available.

Page 18 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

The principle of substitution to decrease, whenever possible, loads of pollutants i.e. heavy metals,

pharmaceuticals or organic micropollutants entering the WWTP should be applied to ensure high quality of

resulting sewage sludge.

Whenever possible, loads of pollutants, i.e. heavy metals, organic micropollutants and

pharmaceuticals entering the WWTP should be decreased,

inter alia,

through mandatory pre-treatment of

the waste water released into the sewage system to ensure quality of sewage sludge and prevent release of

pollutants to the aquatic environment.

10.

If unwanted substances are identified, sufficient source control measures should be established by

polluters. Environmental authorities and/or waste water operators should establish a plan on how to prevent

the unwanted substances to enter the sewage network.

11.

Techniques and practices of sewage sludge handling should prevent or, at least, minimize all kinds of

emissions to the air, in accordance with national and international legislation, especially in case of thermal

treatment. If possible, gas produced via anaerobic sludge digestion should be collected and used for energy

production.

12.

An effective and transparent permitting and reporting system should be established in the cases

when the application of sewage sludge or products containing sewage sludge needs permits.

14.

International dialog and cooperation, exchange of scientific and knowledge experience up to transfer

of especially new environmentally friendly technologies and practices as well as information on

concentration of the unwanted substances in the sludge, should be facilitated, as mutually agreed, while

considering comparable, possibly compatible harmonized action for the benefit of the Baltic Sea region

including effective monitoring and control mechanisms.

Overall restrictions regarding handling of sewage sludge

1. Sewage sludge from other WWTPs than those for treatment of domestic waste water or waste water

which does not have similar composition as domestic waste water should not be applied on or used in

soils.

2. Avoid any sewage sludge application in drinking water protection areas in order to prevent

contamination with harmful substances such as pathologic components, pharmaceuticals, endocrine

disrupters and other anthropogenic micropollutants, unless otherwise provided in the national

legislation.

3. Sewage sludge must not be applied on land during the cultivation of fruits and vegetables nor on land

intended for cultivation of fruits and vegetables within one year before harvest.

4. Sewage sludge must not be applied on permanent grassland or crops which are used as animal feed and

could be contaminated with pathogenic components and/or harmful substances, such as e.g.

micropollutants, unless safe application is ensured by national legislation.

5. Sewage sludge application in forestry has to follow national legislation. Sewage sludge must not be

applied on agriculturally or horticulturally used soils in nature reserves, nature benchmarks, national

parks, protected parts of the landscape and other areas of special interest, or according to national

legislation.

6. Sewage sludge must not be applied in wetlands, potential flooded areas, water protected zones or closer

than 10 meters from water bodies or according to national legislation.

Page 19 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

Recommendations regarding agricultural and horticultural use

1. Before treated sewage sludge is applied for the first time the soil has to be analyzed on at least the

following parameters:

−

Heavy metals: Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg, Cr

Nutrients: P, N, K

pH and other parameter as required according to national legislation

−

2. Analysis of the soil should be repeated whenever necessary or according to national legislation.

3. The application of treated sewage sludge on/in soil has to be critically considered if the soil

analyses show that the content of the above listed parameters exceed, at least, one of the limit

values established by national legislation.

4. Treated sewage sludge or its products like other fertilizers should not be applied on soil if the

phosphorus and nitrogen content in the soil is sufficient for crop cultivation.

5. On arable land used for growing feed or sugar beet, insofar as the sugar beet foliage is used as

feed, it shall only be allowed to apply treated sewage sludge before sowing and with subsequent

deep-turn tillage. On arable land used for growing silo and green maize, the sewage sludge must

be worked into the soil before sowing.

6. If the treated sewage sludge is to be used in agriculture or horticulture, it has to be hygienized

according to national legislation

7. Representative samples should be taken from treated sewage sludge or the product containing

sewage sludge that will be used on arable land and analysis of the sewage sludge should be made.

8. The application of treated sewage sludge on/in soil has to be critically considered if the sludge

analysis show that theconcentration of heavy metals or other unwanted substances exceedthe

limit values established by the national legislation.

9. The quantity of treated sewage sludge should be regulated in such a way that the accumulation of

unwanted substances are limited by the following parameters:

−

the average amount of five tons dry sewage sludge added per hectare in three years or

according to national legislation;

the limit values for the particular substances according to international, EU and national

legislation, if they are established;

exemptions should be possible, if a lack of special nutrients e.g. copper or zinc is proven in

the soil. Contracting Parties may also decide to set stricter limits or to ban the use of sewage

sludge in agriculture, horticulture and home gardening, if they consider the hazardous

potential of sewage sludge as too high even after treatment.

−

Page 20 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

Recommendations regarding use in forestry, green areas, landscaping and land reclamation

1. Application of sewage sludge or mixed products containing sewage sludge at the lands used for

forestry is a matter of competent authority.

2. The sewage sludge or mixed products containing sewage sludge can be used in construction and

maintaining urban green areas, landscaping including rail and road slopes as well as other elements

of road infrastructure to prevent their erosion and land reclamation, if concentration of unwanted

substances in the applied materials do not exceed limit values established by national legislation

for these types of land.

3. If the treated sewage sludge is to be used in landscaping, land reclamation and green areas it has

to be hygienized to assure that no problematic pathogens exist in the product and it satisfies the

same criteria as item C6.

4. Other recommendation regarding using treated sewage sludge or sewage sludge products green

areas, landscaping and land reclamation is a matter of competent authority.

Recommendations regarding incineration, construction and other applications

1. If sewage sludge is incinerated after removal of phosphorus and other valuable components, in

line with requirements for their potential application the produced energy has to be collected and

used.

If it is not possible to remove phosphorus from the sludge or ashes directly and the content of

phosphorus is considerably high, the ashes should be stored temporarily in mono-landfills to

remove phosphorus later when viable techniques are available. The use of best available

techniques and best environmental practices for mono-landfills should be applied.

2. Ash after sewage sludge incineration can be considered as material for production of construction

materials e.g. additive for pavement, ceramic tile, border stone, building mixes etc.

3. If sewage sludge is used as a part of construction material for industry, valuable substances,

especially phosphorus, should be recovered from the sewage sludge before application when

viable techniques are available, if the substances are not needed in the construction material and

are lost for further reuse.

Page 21 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 2

Reporting Format for HELCOM Recommendation x/y on Sewage Sludge Handling

REPORTING FORMAT FOR

HELCOM R

ECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING

SEWAGE SLUDGE HANDLING

Lead Country: Germany/ Sweden

Country:

A. Waste water from origins

1. Have actions been taken to improve the waste water

quality from origins before it reach WWTP (source

reduction)?

2. Is improved waste water quality from origins a matter

for the central, regional or local governments?

Yes

Unknown/ comments

Year:

Yes

Unknown/ comments

B. Sewage sludge handling

1. Generated sewage sludge, dry mass, t/a

2 Used for biogas generation dry mass, t/a

2. Usage of sewage sludge

a) incineration, co-combustion

b) incineration, mono

c) landfilling

d) landfilling, mono

e) landscaping/green areas/land reclamation

f) agriculture/horticulture

g) forestry

h) other usages

5. Have actions been taken to reduce the leakage of

nutrients from sludge handling?

6. Describe how the Recommendation concerning sewage

sludge handling has been implemented; new legislation,

amendment to existing legislation or other means.

7. Do your country technically recover phosphorus from

waste water,

sewage sludge or

sewage sludge ashes?

Yes

Unknown/ comments

Amount, dry mass, t/a

Number of installations

Yes

Percentage of total amount

Information on national limit values for hazardous substances, pathogens and other relevant parameters in

sewage sludge and soil.

Information on the amount of phosphorus recovered from the sewage sludge or products of its treatment.

Page 22 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 3

Estonian statement on HELCOM PRESSURE 4-2016 in regard of State

Unitary Environmental Enterprise Polygon Krasny Bor, Russia

We received the documents presenting information on the status of the State Unitary Environmental Enterprise

Polygon Krasny Bor, Russia, which indicates poor status of the facilities and urgent need for actions in order to

guarantee the environmental safety.

We herewith express our readiness for cooperation to work with interested partners such as NEFCO or other

contributing institution to prepare needed project and implement necessary measures for State Unitary

Environmental Enterprise Polygon Krasny Bor.

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia has during the last decade managed a number of environmental projects

of similar nature in Estonia. Sillamäe radioactive waste depository project included investigations, preparation

of design and implementation of reshaping, covering and water management of 50 hectares area. Closure of

two semicoke waste depositories in Kohtla-Järve and Kiviõli included the same measures in the area of 114

hectares. In addition to that, a new modern seepage water treatment plant project has been implemented in

hazardous waste collection center in Vaivara. There are also new complex projects under preparation, e.g.

cleaning up the past pollution of Purtse river basin and rehabilitation of Kukruse mining waste facility.

There are relevant experts available in Estonia for implementation of Krasny Bor project. Ministry of the

Environment of Estonia has besides international cooperation experience in implementation of the

environmental projects.

On behalf of Estonian Delegation,

Silver Vahtra,

Head of Estonian Delegation

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia

Page 23 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

Procedures for releasing the reported PLC water data and accepting the fillediin and consolidated dataset as

part of the steps to elaborate PLC products

Color categories:

−

Red color indicates CPs to report;

−

Blue color indicates data processing;

−

Green color indicates data/product approval by CPs;

−

Yellow color indicates procedure of input assessment based on reported data.

Figure 1: Annual dataset. Deadlines are set for the year following the year of data collection.

1) By 31 August

2) By 21

September

•CPs to check and amend

the pre-filled in templates

3) By 10 October

4) By 31 October

5) By 16

November

•PLC

Water Data Manager

to report on any missing

data to

REDCORE DG

and

the Secretariat to keep

HELCOM HODs updated

with the state of national

reporting

6) By 15

December

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

to forward

prefilled annual

reporting (with

metadata) templates

to the CPs

•PLC

Water Data Manager

to include corrections and

amendments in the

database

•CPs

upload and insert

annual PLC data into the

database following the

year of data collection

and to notify the

Secretariat on the

completed reporting

•Reporting

closes;

any missing

reporting by CPs is to be

completed

By 15 December

•

PLC Water Data Manager

complete initial follow-up on

reported data, notifying on any

missing data and checking if

data are inserted into the

database etc. and to forward

the updated status to the

Secretariat and REDCORE DG

Page 24 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

7) By 1 March

8) PRESSURE WG

9) By 20 April

10) by 15 of May

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

to conduct

follow up clarification

with the CPs and to

finalize quality

assurance and inform

REDCORE DG

accordingly

•REDCORE

to report

on status of data

reporting and quality

assurance

•REDCORE

to assess data, fill in

data gaps, follow-up on

suspicious data, and make a

report based on a common

protocol on how missing data

have been filled in and suspicious

data been corrected/replaced

•The assessment dataset is made

available for CPs to approve

•National approvals of the

assessment dataset by

CPs (HODs are kept

informed)

Page 25 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

11) By 15 June

12) By 30 June

13) By 30 August

14) By 30 September

15) PRESSURE WG

•

Responsible

institutes

(contracted

work)

prepare an updated

annual report on

actual waterborne

inputs (Baltic Sea

Environment Fact

Sheet) based on the

assessment dataset

•PRESSURE

to approve the BSEFS and

its publishing

•PLC

Database Manager to

make data in

the new PLC database public avaible.

•Contracted

work to

make assessment

dataset publicly available

By 30 June

•EMEP to deliver

dataset on actual

and normalized

atmospheric inputs

By 30 August

•EMEP to deliver

report on annual

atmospheric inputs

Contracted work

to make a first flow

normalization and trend analysis iteration

on PLC data. In cooperation with the

Database Manager to make any needed

follow up and clarification on suspicious

data and need for minor adjustments in

the dataset

A revised normalization

and trend analysis of

waterborne data are

completed (contracted

work)

•PRESSURE

approve the report

on atmospheric

inputs and its

publishing [as Baltic

Sea Environment

Fact Sheet]

Page 26 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

16) By 16 October

18) PRESSURE WG

19) By 15 November

20) by end of December

•Contracted

work

to make further

calculations and statistical

analysis for MAI /CART follow-up

assessments together with draft

text, figures and tables

•

PRESSURE WG

consider results of the

draft MAI / CART follow-

up assessments

•Contracted

work

to fine-

tune the MAI/CART

follow-up assessments

and prepare the final

assessment dataset

•PRESSURE

to endorse

the MAI/CART follow up

assessments

•CPs

(HODs)

to approve

the MAI/CART follow-up

assessments and its

publishing (including the

assessment results)

Page 27 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

Figure 2. Periodical dataset (data not included in the annual dataset). Deadlines are set for the year following the year of data collection.

1) By 1 September

2) By 1 October

4) By the end of

December

•CPs to report

(upload and insert)

periodical PLC data

following the year

of data collection

5) By 1 February

7) By 15 March

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

conduct initial

follow-up on

reported data,

reminding on

missing reporting

and checking if data

are entered in the

database etc.

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

forward prefilled

(with metadata)

periodic reporting

templates to the

CPs

•CPs to check and amend

the pre-filled in

templates

3) By 1 November

•

PLC Water Data Manager

include corrections and

amendments in the

database

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

to report on

any missing data to

REDCORE DG and the

Secretariat to keep

HOD updated with the

state of national

reporting

6) By 15 February

•

Reporting closes;

any

missing reporting by CPs

is to be completed

8) PRESSURE WG

•REDCORE

DG to

report on status

for reporting

9) By 15 May

10) By the end of June

•PLC

Water Data

Manager

to compile

data set with some

basic figures to the PLC

project for evaluating

data

11) By 8 September

•PLC

Project/REDCORE DG

to assess data, fill

in data gaps, follow-up on suspicious data,

get missing data from CP’s/other sources

and make a report pr. CP based on a

common protocol on how missing data

have been filled in and suspicious data

been corrected/replaced

By 8 September

•

PLC Project

to send dataset with

periodical data to CPs together with a

short report

•PLC

Water Data Manager

conduct quality assurance

and follow up clarifications

with CPs and follow up on

missing data/metadaa

Page 28 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

12) By 1 October

•National aprovals

of the assessment

dataset by CPs

(HODs are kept

informed)

13) 1 November

14) By 20 January

15) By 16 March

•PLC

Data Manager:

Data

in the new PLC data base

will further be available

for CPs

•PLC

Project and REDCORE DG

make assessment including

normalization and statistical

analysis, tables and figures on

periodic PLC data

•PLC

project/REDCORE DG and

Secretariat

update/make

text/reporting

By 8 September

PLC Project

to send dataset

with periodical data to CPs

together with a short report

16) By mid-April

17) 16 May

19) August

•PRESSURE

WG to

scrutinize

and endorse the draft

periodic PLC assessment

•PLC

Project/RECORE DG and

Secretariat

to make final draft PLC

report and to forward it for HOD

approval

18) June

•CPs

(HODs)

to approve periodic PLC

assessment

•PLC

Project and Secretariat to

make final edits to

the assessment, and publishing of the periodic

PLC assessment on HELCOM website

•PLC

Project and Secretariat

to make the periodic

PLC dataset available

Page 29 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 4

•

How the Contracting Parties approve the assessment data set

The data set for the assessment is based on the data uploaded and reported by the CP’s.

The PLC database contains quality assurance procedures which request CP’s to correct data/metadata

and provide necessary information to enter the data in the PLC database.

Further the quality procedures will check data against former reported data and make other automatic

quality control forcing CP’s to consider questionable/suspicious data and decide if they are valid or should

be changed.

PLC Water Data Manager will also check the data and discuss the reported data with the CPs including

following up on missing data and metadata.

RedCore DG will afterwards make quality assurance of the data, fill in data gaps and correct suspicious

data to ensure a consistent and complete data set. The procedures for correcting and filling in data gaps

will follow written protocols developed RedCore DG/PLC project and agreed by the CP, and RedCore DG

will elaborate a short report on possible changes in reported data to each Contracting Party.

Therefore CP’s should be able to accept the assessment dataset for annual reports, PLC assessment and

the MAI and CART follow-up assessment within 2-3 weeks. If a Contracting Party cannot agree on some

corrections or filled in data gaps, it is obliged within the deadline to provide reliable data or the missing

data, which can pass and fulfil the quality assurance check for entering data in the PLC database and

which can be agreed upon by the RedCore DG for the assessments.

If no agreement can be reached with the given timeframe, RedCore DG will evaluate if it is anyway

possible to finalize the assessment. PRESSURE and HOD will be notified on the lacking agreements and

on how it will affect the elaboration of a complete assessment. The data not agreed upon from the CP’s

will not be inserted in the PLC database.

The assessment dataset will be available on HELCOM website after HOD approval of the assessment

product.

There is a need to clarify how and where to store the PLC assessment dataset filled in and/or changed by

RedCore DG and “lock it” to allow future use. Contracting Parties should also agree on how to mark the filled

in and changed data, and data with lacking agreements.

Page 30 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

Contact Lists

Contacts and Observers of Pressure group

Representing

Chair

Contracting Parties

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Name

Lars Sonesten

Anne-Mette Hjortebjerg Lund

Signe Jung-Madsen

Lars M. Svendsen

Taimar Ala **

Peeter Ennet

Enn Liive

Rene Reisner

Agnes Villmann

Kristiina Isokallio*

Seppo Knuuttila

Virpi Tarvainen

Antti Räike

Laura Saijonmaa

Sanni Turunen

Marina Carstens

Dietmar Koch

Wera Leujak

Ulrike Pirntke

Stefanie Werner

Andreas Röpke

Organization

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Danish Nature Agency

Danish Center for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University

Estonian Environment Board

Estonian Environment Agency

Ministry of the Environment

Finnish Environment Institute

Finnish Meteorological Institute

Finnish Environment Institute

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry of the Environment / PA Nutri

State Agency for Environment, Nature Protection and Geology

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

German Federal Environment Agency

Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Consumer

Protection Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

E-mail address

[email protected]

Page 31 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Observers

Observer

Inga Plocina

Atis Treijs

Mindaugas Gudas

Aiste Kubiliute

Paulius Petrošius**

Audrius Sepikas**

Magda Chreptowicz-Liszewska

Adriana Dembowska

Karina Makarewicz

Jolanta Wikalinska

Ludmila Filatova **

Leonid Korovin

Natalia Oblomkova

Philip Axe

Mikhail Durkin

Nils Höglund

Marta Kalinowska

Rikard Korkman

Mona Olsson Öberg

Jan Wärnbäck

Marjukka Porvari

Miina Mäki

Sebastian Valanko

Arabelle Bentley

Daugavpils Regional Environmental Board

Environment Protection Agency

National Water Management Authority

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Ministry of Economy

Department of Rosprirodnadzor in the NWFD

SPb PO "Ecology & Business"

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

CCB

WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme

BFFE

EurAQUA c/o IVL

WWF Sweden

John Nurminen Foundation

ICES

KIMO International

EurEau

Baltic Nest Institute, Sweden

[email protected]

magda.chreptowicz-

[email protected]

Observer

Saijariina Toivikko

Consultants and other contacts

RedCore DG member Bo Gustafsson

Page 32 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

Data Consultant

PA Hazards

Coordinator

PA Nutri

Coordinator

Jerzy Bartnicki

Alexey Gusev

Pekka Kotilainen

Semeena Valiyaveetil

Shamsudheen

Jenny Hedman

Andrzej Podscianski

EMEP MSC-W

EMEP MSC-E

Finnish Environment Institute

EMEP MSC-W

Swedish EPA

National Water Management Authority, Poland

[email protected]

[email protected]*

* not officially nominated, but kept informed (on mailing list)

** not in Meeting Portal

Page 33 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

List of nominated experts to the HELCOM Expert Network on Underwater Noise (HELCOM EN-Noise)

Representing

Name

Organisation

Contracting Parties

Denmark

Mr. Jakob Tougaard

DCE/Aarhus University

Estonia

Mr. Janek Laanearu

Tallinn University of Technology. Department of Mechanics

Marine Systems Institute

Estonia

Mr Urmas Lips

Tallinn University of Technology

Estonia

Mr. Aleksander Klauson

Tallinn University of Technology. Department of Mechanics

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia

Estonia

Ms. Agnes Villmann*

Marine Environment Department

Ms. Lydia Martin-Roumegas

European Commission

Finland

Ms. Anne Mansikkasalo

Finnish Transport Agency

Finland

Mr. Jukka Pajala

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Germany

Lithuania

Poland

Sweden

Mr. Jens-Georg Fischer

Ms. Maria Boethling

Ms. Ilona Buescher

Ms. Stefanie Werner*

Mr. Donatas Bagocius

Ms. Aiste Kubiliute

Mr. Zygmunt Klusek

Mr. Aliaksandr Lisimenka

Mr. Sergio Nogueira das Neves

Mr. Peter Sigray

Mr. Mathias Andersson

Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH)

Federal Environment Agency (UBA)

Klaipeda University, Marine Research and Technology

Centre

Environmental Protection Agency

Institute of Oceanology of Polish Academy of Sciences,

Marine Acoustics Laboratory

Maritime Institute in Gdansk

Institute of Meteorology and Water Management

Swedish Defence Research Agency

(

*for information only)

Email address

[email protected]

Page 34 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

List of nominated experts to the HELCOM Expert Network on Marine Litter (HELCOM EN-Marine Litter)

Contracting Parties

Representing

Name

Denmark

Jakob Strand

Denmark

Lone Munk Søderberg

Estonia

Kaspar Anderson

Estonia

Kati Lind

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Lithuania

Poland

Inga Lips

Urmas Lips

Marek Press

Agnes Villmann

Michail Papadoyannakis

Päivi Munne

Outi Setälä

Outi Setälä/BLASTIC

Sara Viljanen

Gabriele Dederer

Elke Fischer

Dennis Gräwe

Stefanie Werner

Arunas Balciunas

Aiste Kubiliute

Eugeniusz Andrulewicz

Organisation

Aarhus University, Department of Bioscience

Danish Nature Agency

Ministry of the environment

Marine Systems Institute

Tallinn University of Technology

Marine Systems Institute

Tallinn University of Technology

Marine Systems Institute

Tallinn University of Technology

Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy Association

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia

Marine Environment Department

European Commission

Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE

Ministry of the Environment of Finland

datadiving G,bH & Co. KG

University of Hamburg

State Agency for Environment, Nature Conservation and

Geology of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (LUNG M-V)

Federal Environment Agency

Open Access Centre for Marine Research, Klaipeda University

Environmental Protection Agency, Marine Research

Department

Sea Fisheries Institute

Email address

[email protected]

Page 35 of 36

Outcome of PRESSURE 4-2016

Annex 5

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Stanislaw Kasperek

Wlodziemierz Kryminski

Barbara Urban-Malinga

Tamara Zalewska

Ludmila Filatova

Eva Blidberg

Pontus Cronholm

Okręgowy Inspektorat Rybołówstwa Morskiego w Szczecinie

Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, National

Research Institute

National Marine Fisheries Institute

Institute of Meteorology and Water Management - National

Research Institute, Maritime Branch

Department of Rosprirodnadzor for the Norh-West Federal

District

Keep Sweden Tidy

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Swedish Transport Agency

Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment

Name

Hildur Hardardottir

Saijariina Toivikko

Marta Kalinowska

[email protected].

[email protected]

Email address

[email protected]

Sweden

Johanna Eriksson

Sweden

Karin Fransson

Sweden

Per Nilsson

HELCOM Observers

Representing

CCB

EurEau

WWF Poland

Page 36 of 36

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of

Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area

Warsaw, Poland, 25-27 October 2016

Document title

Code

Category

Agenda Item

Submission date

Submitted by

Reference

Accounting for extra reductions to follow up CART assessment

8-3

DEC

8 - Pollution load compilation

4.10.2016

RedCore DG

PRESSURE 5-2016

Background

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. That is why the HELCOM nutrient

reduction scheme, updated by the Ministerial declaration 2013, implies an option to account in proportion

the effect of extra reductions on a neighboring basin with reduction targets. This methodology can be applied

for the assessment of the progress towards implementation of the country wise allocated reduction targets.

PRESSURE 4-2016 discussed a methodology for accounting an extra reduction as well as approaches and

constrains for its application in CART follow-up. The meeting emphasized that accounting of extra reduction

is important for several Contracting Parties to reach the reduction targets.

PRESSURE 4-2016 requested the RedCore DG to elaborate more detailed documentation describing the

methodology and limits for its application as well as provide examples.

This document contains a description of the methodology to account extra reduction for CART assessment.

It provides a scientific background, an overview of the main principles to account the effect of extra reduction

for neighboring basins, and tables with the co-efficients used to calculate the effect of extra reduction. The

document also contains examples calculated for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany and Sweden.

Action requested

The Meeting is invited to consider the methodology, provide feedback on the document, including the

parameters for equivalent reduction, and endorse testing the methodology in the assessment of progress

towards CART in the frame of PLC-7 project.

Page 1 of 13

PRESSURE 5-2016, 8-3

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.