Author: Eeva Nyyssönen

A hydrobiologist by training and a scientist interested in functioning of aquatic systems, Andris Andrusaitis joined the BONUS Secretariat in 2008 and currently serves as its Acting Executive Director. His responsibilities include the oversight and leading of BONUS’ strategic development. He also leads the implementation of the coordination and support action BANOS CSA “Towards the joint Baltic and North Sea research and innovation programme”.

A biogeologist by training with international research experience in wide range of marine environments, Karoliina Koho joined the BONUS Secretariat in January 2019 as a project officer and is the first point of contact in the coordination of BANOS CSA. 

Q: BONUS is wrapping up: The good, the bad and the ugly – what are your reflections on achievements, challenges…

Andris Andrusaitis: Looking back, I am quite proud of BONUS’ achievements, which has established itself as a transnational strategist and funder of research and innovation in the Baltic Sea region. With BONUS, we created a regional platform for synthesis of regional scientific knowledge and research that wouldn’t be possible at a national level alone.

When we started, in the Baltic Sea region, the scientific sector was already consolidated. Scientists knew each other well and were widely working together. But what was missing was cooperation on the funding of research. Funding was a major challenge, and still is today. In total, BONUS has covered 19 themes with about 100 million euros of funding over the past 16 years. That might seem like a lot at first glance, but it really isn’t. 

On research funding, we need to get better at involving private capital. We haven’t found a straight forward answer yet, but we eventually will need to address this issue. In general, we all would benefit from stronger linkages between academia and the private sector, not just for funding, but also for innovation and advancing science.

Establishing a well-functioning science funding organisation like BONUS takes time, as well as some trial and error. One really needs to be patient and in it for the long run. But with hindsight, we took all the right steps. Of course, we are now much cleverer than we were when we started with BONUS, which is good news for BANOS… 

Speaking of: BANOS. Who, what, where, when, why!

Karoliina Koho: BANOS CSA – the consortium of the Baltic and North Sea Support and Coordination Action – will take BONUS a step further, namely towards the North Sea. Under what we like to call the “sister sea approach”, BANOS CSA is preparing to launch a joint Baltic and North Sea research and innovation programme by 2021. 

Despite both seas having different biochemical characteristics, with the Baltic Sea being a semi-enclosed brackish water body as opposed to a saltier and open North Sea, the similarities are numerous. Both seas are located in the same biogeographic region. Their waters are connected, leading to a natural migration of biota between them. 

Then, there are the pressures that are similar for both, such as climate change, eutrophication, acidification, or oil spills. It therefore makes a lot of sense to jointly address the Baltic Sea and the North Sea when it comes to research.

With BANOS, we want to create a joint strategic research agenda across the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Scoping tasks are already well underway, and so is the mapping of the national and transnational cooperation agenda and key priorities. Now, we are currently moving towards finalising the tasks within the drafting team. 

The planned programme will strongly focus on sustainable blue growth, underpinning EU and national policies and strategies on that topic within the region.

All in all, BANOS CSA should lead to a well-funded platform for the new joint research funding programme to take off. And just like BONUS, the new platform will be an enabler for policy-science interaction in northern Europe.

How can science be more relevant for policy making (and the other way around)?

Andris Andrusaitis: Policy-science interaction is paramount, as research and projects that we are funding need to have some sort of effect. At BONUS, we are tuning all our calls towards practical impacts and evidence-based policy. I believe that our projects have all delivered on that, with many BONUS projects influencing policy processes within the region.  

A good example is the collaboration between BONUS and HELCOM, with the Joint BONUS-HELCOM Conference: Research and Innovation for Sustainabilityheld earlier in November 2018 or the presentation of BONUS projects at HELCOM’s Annual Meeting in March 2019.

But policy-science interaction is not a one-way flow. There is also a top-down direction, where policy has to set its own agenda on science, research and innovation. Decision-makers need to express their own requirements for making better policies and taking informed decisions. 

Even if policy is often running on short-term election cycles, we must not forget the long-term perspective on the mitigation of pressures. For instance, environmental challenges such as climate change or eutrophication might take decades if not centuries to be fully resolved. Science clearly has its role in building a long-term understanding on how to best address the current environmental challenges. Without science, the current pressures on the environment won’t be resolved.

Do you have more examples of good interaction between policy and science?

Andris Andrusaitis: The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is a prime example of good policy-science interaction. The BSAP spans over several years, over several election cycles, and has been developed with the long-term in mind. Even its current update allows to fathom in new challenges. The update offers an opportunity to adjust the measures and actions to be fit for purpose, and to incorporate the latest scientific findings. 

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) is another good example of longer-term vision. It has a cross-sectoral and systemic approach to solving issues. It includes a variety of sectors and stakeholders, such as from maritime spatial planning, transport or fisheries. Working across and with all sectors involved in the marine environment will be a key to success. And so is working at the regional level, which we are now addressing with BANOS CSA.

Then, in our own house, it is worthwhile mentioning the BONUS COCOA project on coastal processes of biochemical transformation, that is looking into utilizing our coasts as natural filters to prevent nutrients and hazardous substances from entering the sea. BONUS COCOA had a substantial impact on environmental policies, such as the BSAP, by ensuring that management decisions are informed by science. It also triggered a strong engagement in policy discussions on geoengineering approaches to mitigate coastal hypoxia. 

Another good example is the BONUS BAMBI project on genetics and biodiversity. The project collects evidence on the capacity of species to adapt, notably to climate change. But what is interesting in BAMBI is that the project also includes a social science researcher, to ensure higher relevance for the policy sector and maximise concrete usability of the findings. 

Baltic Sea/Seas of Norden: what will be the hot topics in the years to come?

Andris Andrusaitis: In our line of work, we foresee a major interest on advancing the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), with the thematic priorities on healthy seas, sustainable blue economy, and human well-being. The question is: what should we know to get there? What are the knowledge needs? The answers to this will surely guide the future research agenda in the Baltic and North Sea region. To connect these priorities, the ecosystem-based approach will highly feature on our agenda. Here, the considerations will be on how to connect us humans to the sea, for us to take advantage of its resources without disrupting its ecological balance.

Also, we need to refocus on sustainability. As much as we have been talking about sustainable blue growth, there is a risk that “sustainable” part could be largely forgotten. Furthermore, we also need to address multi-stressor and cumulative impacts stemming from the combination of pressures such as excessive nutrient inputs, hazardous substances and climate change.

Currently, the centre of attention is on plastic pollution, which is good, but not necessarily the most pressing issue. On the other hand, if we manage to solve plastic pollution, we can start to look into more complex issues such as impacts of climate change, eutrophication and acidification. These really are the crucial questions, which will require massive efforts on modelling and projection, for us to understand the underlying mechanisms and develop solutions. Our focus should clearly be there.

The project had its mid-term meeting in Gdańsk, Poland from 8 to 9 May
2019, looking at achievements so far and the next steps to be taken.  “Work is progressing according to plans,
although some challenges need to be tackled to reach the final goals by the end
of the project in fall 2020,” said Håkan Häggström, the RETROUT from the County Administrative
Board of Stockholm, Sweden. With special focus on sea trout, RETROUT
seeks to promote and develop sustainable coastal fishing tourism in the Baltic
Sea region. Fostering thriving fish populations is a key approach of the
project, through enabling healthy and accessible river habitats for the natural
reproduction of sea trout that will eventually lead to a larger stock size. In the countries where it operates, the
project also carries out a number of river restoration initiatives to improve the
condition of sea trout populations. For example, one case study will focus on
the renewal of the riverbed to increase nursery areas, while another project is
working on building a new fish pass to facilitate the free movement of fish
past migration obstacles.  “For healthy trout populations, rivers need
to be protected and restored, for instance by removing migration hindrances and
improving spawning grounds. We need to increase the efforts for securing
self-sustaining and viable populations of migratory fish in the Baltic Sea”,
said Henri Jokinen, the RETROUT Project manager at HELCOM. In Gdańsk, HELCOM chaired the second day
work group session for the RETROUT work package on ‘Assessment of status and
management of sea trout rivers and stocks.’ This  focuses mainly on the ecological
aspect of trout fishing, notably through assessing fish stock and river habitat
status, and by evaluating river restoration practices to improve trout
populations. The main results will be published as an assessment report and as
a toolbox of best practices for river restoration in the Baltic Sea.  “So far, we have had a very useful workshop
about sea trout assessment and monitoring methods last year, we have collected
a nice data set of past river restoration cases and conducted a valuable amount
of stakeholder interviews to learn about factors of success and failure in
river restoration projects, and we advanced with the river restoration
demonstration projects carried out in the project countries, to mention some of
the achievements. We are in a good place to start on the next half of the
project,” said Jokinen. The HELCOM-led work in RETROUT is in line
with the  on salmon and
sea trout, and supports the  ‘Conservation of
Baltic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Sea Trout (Salmo trutta)
populations by the restoration of their river habitats and management of river
fisheries’. In essence, the RETROUT project aims to
stimulate sustainable economic and social development based on healthy
ecosystems, reflecting the general HELCOM priorities.With 14 partners from Sweden, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and including HELCOM, RETROUT is a three-year Interreg
project running until September 2020. RETROUT is a flagship project of the EU
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region . It is co-financed by the  under the Natural resources
priority field. –For
more information:Henri
Jokinen
RETROUT Project manager
henri.jokinen@helcom.fi 

The RETROUT project had its mid-term meeting in Gdańsk, Poland from 8 to 9 May 2019, looking at achievements so far and the next steps to be taken.

The central role of Regional Seas Conventions such as HELCOM in the fight against the global pressure of marine litter was underscored at a key G7 workshop on marine litter that took place in Metz, France from 5 to 6 May 2019. The workshop is part of the implementation process of the . It was organised by France who currently holds the G7 presidency, together with the (UNEP/MAP –  Barcelona Convention) and with support of Italy.”Workshops like the one in Metz give us a good opportunity to articulate regional actions on marine litter and to identify the next common implementation priorities,” said Monika Stankiewicz, the HELCOM Executive Secretary. “There are clear synergies between the various frameworks – national, G7, EU, HELCOM and other regional sea conventions, and the UN. By joining forces, we can efficiently deal with the global and cross-sectoral issue of marine litter.”The ‘G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter in Synergy with the Regional Seas Conventions Workshop’, the full name of the event, resulted in a list of issues that was commonly seen as needed to accelerate the implementation of the plan at national and regional levels. The outcome of the workshop was presented by the Coordinator of UN Environment/Mediterranean Action Plan, Mr Gaetano Leone, to the meeting of the G7 Ministers of the Environment on 6 May 2019.At the workshop, increased cooperation with regional fisheries organisations to address marine litter was also considered as essential. “We need to cooperate more with fisheries organisations, especially on the issue of ghost fishing gear,” said Marta Ruiz, the HELCOM expert on marine litter. Ghost fishing gear, or so-called “abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear” (ALDFG), still is a major source of marine pollution and poses a direct threat to marine life. Knowledge sharing and outreach campaigns on marine litter also came into the focus of the workshop, seeking to share best practices and improving stakeholder involvement from both civil society and economic sector. In Metz, the rising number of global awareness campaigns since the inception of the Action Plan was particularly lauded.In 2015, the G7 signed the Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter in Schloss Elmau, Germany. Since then, the Action Plan has been constantly reviewed in subsequent G7 meetings. The first Workshop on Marine Litter – that focused on the implementation of the Action Plan – was held in Rome, Italy in 2017. The workshop was attended by four G7 countries, the EU, the four European regional seas organisations – HELCOM, OSPAR, UNEP/MAP (Barcelona Convention), and the Black Sea Commission. Others were the Nairobi Convention and the Caribbean Environment Programme of the Cartagena Convention. All these regional seas organisations include at least one G7 member if not more. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection of the United Nations) as well as a number of NGOs and associations from the private sector also participated. For its part, to address marine litter in the Baltic Sea, HELCOM has adopted its own in 2015. Comprised of a recommendation and a set of regional and national actions, the HELCOM plan seeks to prevent and reduce marine litter already at its main sources, before it enters the sea. The plan also pushes for the development of common indicators and associated targets related to quantities, composition, sources and pathways of marine litter. The main focus areas of the plan are waste prevention and management, plastic litter, micro particles including microplastics, sewage related litter such as sanitary waste and lost fishing gear. ​

The central role of Regional Seas Conventions such as HELCOM in the fight against the global pressure of marine litter was underscored at a key G7 workshop on marine litter that took place in Metz, France from 5 to 6 May 2019.

What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity refers to the variety and variability of all life on Earth, and, contrary to common perception, it is a measure of variation at both the genetic, species, community and ecosystem level. Thus, it doesn’t only deal with species. It refers to anything alive on the planet. And it can be scaled up or down as needed, for instance, “biodiversity of the Baltic Sea”, or “biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk”. 

To simplify, you can think of biodiversity as building blocks. Each individual gene, each individual species, each community of species is a building block. The more different building blocks you have, the more different things you can build. And the bigger you build, the more difficult it will be to get knocked down. This also applies to the Baltic Sea, where the building blocks of biodiversity create and maintain the ecosystem.

What is the current state of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea?

The Baltic Sea is unique, there is no other sea like it in the world. This is true for its biodiversity as well. Thousands of species and millions of genes create its distinctive underwater biodiversity. This might sound like a lot, but in reality, these are only a few building blocks compared to most other areas around the world. Due to its relatively low biodiversity, the Baltic Sea is very vulnerable. 

We believe that the Baltic Sea contains around 5000 species, out of which over 2700 are macro species – species you can see with the naked eye. The majority of these species, a total of 1898, belong to the benthic invertebrate group. These are species of animals living around, on or in the bottom of the sea, such as mussels, worms and crustaceans. Of the remaining 832 species, the “plants” of the sea (multicellular algae, vascular plants and bryophytes), make up a substantial proportion, followed by the fish and lamprey group. 

Species diversity is rather low in the Baltic Sea compared to many other marine environments, as the low-salinity, brackish water environment is physiologically demanding to most organisms. 

A clear trend in biodiversity is evident for all groups, with the number of species in an area decreasing along a south to north gradient. This trend is natural and a result of the Baltics unique salinity gradient and high variability in habitat type. These two aspects area also what gives the Baltic Sea a greater biodiversity and variety of plant and animal life than might be expected under more classic conditions.

The brackish water imposes physiological stress on both marine and freshwater organisms, but there are also several examples of genetic adaptation and diversification. Most of the marine species that are present in the Baltic Sea originate from a time when the sea was saltier, and since then only had limited genetic exchange with their counterparts in fully marine waters. On a Baltic-wide scale, marine species live side by side with freshwater species. 

However, the species that have adapted to the Baltic Sea conditions often appear in great abundance. In other words, we have relatively few different species, but the Baltic Sea is quite crowded. 

As many of the species in the Baltic Sea live on the edge of their tolerance to habitat variations, any change to their living environment can lead to radical fluctuations of their abundance. The structure of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea can change significantly with even the smallest modification in environmental conditions. 

Although marine species are generally more common in the southern parts, and freshwater species dominate in the inner and less saline areas, the two groups of species create a unique food web where marine and freshwater species coexist and interact. Because the sea in its current form is quite young, the Baltic Sea still offers several ecological niches available for immigration.

This second HELCOM holistic assessment shows that most fish, birds and marine mammals, as well as benthic and pelagic habitats of the Baltic Sea are not in a healthy state. A deteriorated status is seen in different parts of the system, comprising species which live in the open water column, in coastal areas, as well as those close to the sea floor. The impact is likely to influence the ecosystem’s functioning, the resilience of the system against further environmental changes, and the services the ecosystem provides.

What are the greatest threats and pressures on Baltic Sea biodiversity?

We put pressure on the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea through our actions. Using the building block analogy: everything we do – the pressures we exert – pushes the building blocks further out of place. Depending on the pressure, the blocks get pushed a little or a lot, and it can be only a few blocks or all of them at once. Push too hard and the structure starts to topple. 

Natural systems are complex, and each building block is connected to hundreds of others. We therefore can’t always be sure what impacts we are causing through our activities. But we do know that the more things we do at the same time, the more pressure we put on the system, pushing simultaneously from different sides. And we also know that, like a tower of building blocks, once the first blocks start falling, they can take other blocks with them in their fall. When we start losing genes or species, there is a risk of a domino effect for other species and biodiversity elements.

In order to ensure that the entire system doesn’t collapse, that we don’t lose biodiversity, and that we keep the ecosystem functioning, we need to limit the amount and intensity of the pressure that we cause through our actions. This is done through better managing human activities.

For improving the management of our activities, we need to know which are the ones causing the most pressure, and which can be considered the greatest threat. These need to be targeted first. This is more complex than it seems: Getting the answer right is vital to ensure that we cause the least damage through our activities, and that our conservation efforts yield maximum results.

Due to the comparatively large amount of data that we have on pressures in the Baltic Sea, such as through the Baltic Sea Pressure Index, we have a fairly good idea of what the main pressures in the Baltic Sea are, where they occur, if they are widespread or local, etc. 

Theoretically, the more widespread and the stronger a pressure is, the worse it is from a biodiversity perspective. Major pressures on the Baltic Sea – eutrophication, hazardous substances, introduction of non-indigenous species, and effects of commercial fishing – are all at higher than sustainable levels. 

To understand which human pressures have the greatest impact on biodiversity, we need to know where the pressures and the biodiversity intersect, and how they interact. Unfortunately, we have far less information about these interactions than on the pressures themselves. 

While we are used to looking at the pressures individually, when it comes to the actual effect they have on the living environment – us humans included – we need to understand how pressures act and affect a biodiversity component together. This is what we refer to as cumulative impacts. HELCOM has been working on a cumulative impacts index to get a better idea of this. Each gene, species or community in the Baltic Sea is affected by several pressures at once. Sometimes, the effects of the combined pressures add up to more than the sum of the parts. 

When talking about threats, this might be viewed differently. There can be very strong, and even widespread pressures, that in reality are less of a threat because they are direct. This means that we know their source, and that we know what to do to fix them. So, although the need for action is acute, the long-term threat to biodiversity can be considered less significant –  provided we do something about it now.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have diffuse – or indirect – pressures. These are pressures for which the source is either not known, difficult to manage, or we might not yet know how to manage them. A good example for this is climate change: In the long term, it might be a much bigger threat because we don’t know how to fix it.

What about the HELCOM indicators on biodiversity? What is their use? 

HELCOM uses core indicators as a way of measuring how the sea is doing. It’s like a fever thermometer. Scientist have come together to agree on a threshold, above which we think that biodiversity is doing ok, and below which it shows that something is wrong. We can use these to “take the temperature” of a given biodiversity component and get an idea of what the current state is as well as see if the sea is getting healthier or not, or if we are getting closer to the threshold.

HELCOM biodiversity core indicators currently look at the status of the Baltic Sea as reflected by marine mammals, seabirds, fish, benthic biotopes and pelagic plankton communities. 

What are the trends in regards to biodiversity in the Baltic Sea? 

So what trends are we seeing for biodiversity? Unfortunately, it is not so positive. For the biodiversity core indicators there are cases of inadequate status in all levels of the food web; only a few core indicators have acceptable levels in part of the Baltic Sea, and none of them in all assessed areas. The overall results suggest that the environmental impact on species in the Baltic Sea are far-reaching and not restricted to certain geographic areas or certain parts of the food web. 

However, we should also recall what the state the Baltic Sea environment could have looked like without the work that has been done so far. We know that pressures such as inputs of nutrients and several hazardous substances are decreasing, and that several former pollution hot spots have been removed.

Many pressures have been acting on the Baltic Sea for a long time. Legacies such as nutrients and contaminants will still show unacceptable levels in the marine environment long after their inputs have ceased. Ecosystem models show that responses to nutrient reductions act on the time scale of decades.

So, recovery might take time. But if we limit the amount of pressure we put on the environment it is anticipated that biodiversity will show signs of improvement in the coming years. For this, continued efforts to improve the environmental status of biodiversity are of key importance.

Baltic Sea and ecosystem services as a life-support system in the region: how important is it? 

Let’s get back to the idea of biodiversity as building blocks. Now imagine that every structure you build with your blocks has a function: one cleans the air, one cleans the water, one makes food, etc. This is of course simplified but it is illustrative.

If you only have a few blocks, you can only build one copy of each of the structures, so if one of them is knocked down, for instance the air one, you won’t be able to breathe anymore.

But the more copies you have, the less likely it is that if something gets knocked down, you will lose that function. This is why high biodiversity is considered important. Each unit and each level of biodiversity fulfils a multitude of functions we need to survive, and the more complex the system, the more difficult it is to topple it.

These functions are called ecosystem services and are a natural effect of all the interactions going on in an ecosystem and its biodiversity. Ecosystem services are defined as “the benefits people derive from ecosystems”. Besides provisioning services or goods like food and raw materials, plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms provide essential regulating services such as pollination of crops, prevention of soil erosion and water purification, and a vast array of cultural services, like recreation and a sense of place.

In spite of the ecological, cultural and economic importance of these services, ecosystems (and the biodiversity that underpins them) are still being degraded and lost as we put more pressures on the ecosystem then it can take. One major reason for this is that the importance of ecosystems to human welfare is still underestimated and not fully recognized or incorporated into every day planning and decision-making.

To what extend does the Baltic Sea’s biodiversity have effects on us humans? 

We humans are part of this world. There is no humans versus the rest of nature, and this is also true for biodiversity. People depend on biodiversity in their daily lives, in ways that are not always obvious or appreciated. If we go back to the idea of toppling the blocks: when a structure crumbles, it affects us as much as all the other parts of the ecosystem. 

The World Health Organisation (WHO) acknowledges that human health ultimately depends on ecosystem products and services, and that these are necessary for good human health and productive livelihoods. Biodiversity loss can have significant direct human health impacts if ecosystem services are no longer adequate to meet social needs. Indirectly, changes in ecosystem services also affect livelihoods, income, local migration, and, in some occasions, may even cause political conflict.

What is HELCOM currently doing on biodiversity? 

HELCOM is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. This means that HELCOM works to improve the state of the sea as a whole, which intrinsically means improving the situation for biodiversity. The Helsinki Commission provides a platform for the states around the Baltic Sea and the EU to agree on policies, plans and develop guidelines, recommendations, etc. that the countries can use to manage human activities. 

HELCOM’s vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities. 

The HELCOM Contracting Parties have declared their firm determination to assure the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea, ensuring the possibility of self-regeneration of the marine environment and preservation of its ecological balance. They have agreed that each country individually, as well as where needed jointly, take all appropriate measures to conserve natural habitats and biological diversity and to protect the ecological processes of the Baltic Sea.

This will all be incorporated or maintained in the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, which will guide HELCOMs work in the coming years.

HELCOM has a number of Recommendations that deal with biodiversity and conservation, the newest of which was approved as recently as March this year.

HELCOM also works to improve and extend the system of marine protected areas in the Baltic, creating spaces were pressures are limited and biodiversity can be maintained, in the efforts to achieve HELCOMs ultimate aim: to Protect the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea.

Nutrient reduction is central point of discussion at PRESSURE 10-2019.Kaliningrad city gets recommendation to be removed from HELCOM hotspot list because of reduction of nutrient inputs.

Expanded polystyrene will receive special attention from HELCOM. Nutrients, stormwater and microlitter were headlining the Tenth Meeting of HELCOM Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 10-2019) that was held in Tallinn from 9 to 12 April 2019.

High nutrient load from land-based sources – the central discussion point of PRESSURE 10-2019 – remains one of the largest pressures on the Baltic Sea, leading to eutrophication that causes growth of toxic algae and oxygen depletion.

At PRESSURE 10-2019, the delegates proposed to advance regional policy instruments to inspire additional efforts for minimizing this environmental pressure on the marine ecosystem. The proposals include further development of the and its follow up system, and of the HELCOM nutrient recycling strategy. will be key for curbing eutrophication.

Specifically, attention was directed to the effectiveness of implemented or planned measures to reduce nutrient load on the marine environment, as well as their sufficiency to achieve targets set by the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The delegates also agreed to intensify cooperation on nutrient reduction with river basin management authorities, for instance through workshops.

The alignment of nutrient reduction targets for river basins with the ones set for the marine environment was also foreseen as a tool for targeted measures to effectively decrease the nutrient load in the Baltic Sea.

The HELCOM delegates also welcomed the first official results from the newly commissioned waste water treatment plant in Kaliningrad. Two years of constant environmental monitoring showed that nutrient input to the Baltic Sea from the city of Kaliningrad was reduced by about 200 tonnes of phosphorus and 1200 tonnes of nitrogen annually.

Because of the improvement, the delegates of PRESSURE 10-2019 recommended to remove the Kaliningrad municipality from the HELCOM Hotspot list where it is currently listed.

“The HELCOM list of hot spots now stands a good chance to become shorter,” said Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky, the Professional Secretary handling nutrient related issues at HELCOM. On stormwater, PRESSURE 10-2019 agreed to revise the related HELCOM Recommendation and to open it to reflections on microlitter and resilience to climate change.

Further on marine litter, Denmark presented a comprehensive study on expanded polystyrene (EPS) which is a widespread litter item found in the Baltic Sea. The delegates subsequently agreed to start work on regional measures to deal with EPS litter.

On underwater noise, PRESSURE 10-2019 agreed on the structure of the Action Plan on Underwater Noise which will be elaborated by 2020. The plan will specifically look into keeping marine habitats undisturbed by underwater noise.PRESSURE 10-2019 was hosted by the Ministry of the Environment of Estonia in Tallinn, and was chaired by Lars Sonesten, Chair of the .

Nutrients, stormwater and microlitter were headlining the Tenth Meeting of HELCOM Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 10-2019) that was held in Tallinn from 9 to 12 April 2019.

 With the now publicly available, insight is given into one of the world’s largest response exercises at sea dealing with oil and chemical spills that took place earlier in 2018 in Swedish waters .According to the report, the confirmed the ability of the Baltic Sea countries to carry out a joint maritime response operation of large scope and dealing with maritime incidents of high complexity.The BALEX DELTA 2018 was particularly challenging, testing capabilities such as chemical diving, night-time oil recovery operations directed by a reconnaissance aircraft, and vessel-to-vessel lightering. It was the largest exercise ever held in the Baltic Sea, mobilizing 18 maritime vessels and about 500 personnel from eight countries and the EU.The findings of the report may also be used to develop proposals to update the , as well as providing recommendations for the design of future exercises.The HELCOM Manual is recommended to be used as guidance when two or more – all Baltic Sea countries and the EU – participate in a joint action responding to spillages of oil and other harmful substances such as chemicals.Held every year since 1989, the BALEX DELTA exercises are conducted under the framework of the  that calls for its signatories – all Baltic Sea nations – to have the necessary operational capacity and skills to respond to any maritime incident at sea and affecting the shore.The BALEX DELTA 2018 edition was held off the coast of Karlskrona, Sweden in August 2018. It simulated a  in harsh weather, with chemicals and oil leaking into the sea and reaching the shore.The final evolution report was written by the Swedish Defence Research agency (FOI). It was published ahead of the final conference on lessons learnt of the exercise that was held in Helsinki earlier in April.BALEX DELTA 2018 was supported by funds from the European Union through its .The next BALEX DELTA edition will be hosted by Denmark in 2019, under the lead of the Defence Command of Denmark. It will also mark the 30-year anniversary of the exercises. 

With the Main Exercise Evaluation report on the BALEX DELTA 2018 exercise now publicly available, insight is given into one of the world’s largest response exercises at sea dealing with oil and chemical spills.

HELCOM shared its views on environmental policy making, nutrient recycling and clean shipping at the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme Conference that was held in Lübeck from 9 to 10 April 2019.Under the theme of , the conference presented the current accomplishments of the Interreg programme’s platforms and projects currently operating in the Baltic Sea region.The Interreg platforms and projects provide valuable scientific and technical underpinnings for HELCOM work. They also facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration, linking HELCOM to the private sector, local authorities and other Baltic Sea stakeholders.The outcomes of the platforms and projects will notably feed the beyond 2021, support the elaboration of the Baltic Sea Regional Nutrient Recycling Strategy by 2020, and contribute to overall policy making at HELCOM.HELCOM is involved in three Interreg platforms where it leads work packages related to policy implementation of the findings:: platform on nutrient recycling, where HELCOM is leading the work package “Policy recommendations for sustainable nutrient management and recycling”: platform management of smart sludge, storm and waste water, manure and energy efficiency, where HELCOM is leading the work package “Facilitation of the regional policy dialog on sustainable water management”, focussing on developing regional policy recommendations on nutrient recycling and hazardous substances.: platform on clean shipping in the Baltic Sea region, where HELCOM is leading the work related to drafting policy recommendations from the outputs of the different projects involved in the platform as well as developing an online dissemination tool to share information related to shipping in the BSRThe Interreg platforms group several Interreg projects with similar topics and objectives. Based on wider scope than the individual projects, the aim of the platforms is to facilitate the development of joint policy recommendations.In addition to the three platforms, HELCOM is also involved in seven Interreg projects.  The has four priorities, namely “Capacity for Innovation”, “Management of natural resources”, “Sustainable transport”, and “EU Strategy support”. Funded by the European Union, the programme backs integrated territorial development and cooperation, and is an agreement between EU member states Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and the northern parts of Germany, as well as partner countries Norway, Belarus and the northwest regions of Russia.Over 300 participants from all around the Baltic Sea and beyond attended the conference that was held in Lübeck, Germany.

HELCOM shared its views on environmental policy making, nutrient recycling and clean shipping at the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme Conference that was held in Lübeck from 9 to 10 April 2019.

To boost coherence in maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea region, the 18th Meeting of the joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG 18-2019) was convened in Hamburg, Germany from on 27 to 28 March 2019.The ecosystem approach and cross-border consultations were identified as some of the key elements for improved regional coherence in maritime spatial planning (MSP).In maritime spatial planning (MSP), the ecosystem-based approach assures sustainable use of marine resources through correlating the impact our activities may have on the environment, taking into account the full array of interactions occurring in the marine ecosystem.At the meeting, it was also advised to consider the forthcoming recommendations of the Pan Baltic Scope project that are due by end of 2019. is a two-year EU-funded project on MSP in the Baltic Sea region that seeks to support national MSP processes in advancing the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach at the Baltic Sea regional level.The meeting was hosted by the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency in Hamburg, Germany. It was chaired by the Co-Chairs of the Working Group, Ms Katarzyna Krzywda from Poland and Mr Joacim Johannesson from Sweden.

To boost coherence in maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea region, the 18th Meeting of the joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG 18-2019) was convened in Hamburg, Germany from on 27 to 28 March 2019.

Why is marine litter of concern? 

Marine litter can be found everywhere, even in the world’s most remote places. It does not belong there. It is an unsolicited input from our industrialised society and consumerism to our aquatic ecosystems. We may not have all the data yet on marine litter and its effects on our seas – not to mention microplastics – but we do know that it is not all that good. Many statements are currently gripping attention, such as that there will be more plastic than fish in our seas by 2050. Personally, I do not know how accurate this figure is. But what if it is true, or only partially true? What we know for sure is that marine litter affects biota: mammals and turtles get entangled in derelict fishing gear, fish eat microplastics, turtles mistake plastic bags with jellyfish and eat them, litter items transfer non-indigenous species and chemicals, and the seabed gets smothered by mounts of trash causing disturbance to the marine habitat. It also affects our health, for instance when we go to a beach and not only find sand there but cigarette butts or sanitary waste. And: litter can also be the cause of accidents at sea. 

What about microlitter, how bad is the situation, and what do we currently know about it? 

Researchers are working hard to fill the knowledge gaps on microlitter and microplastics, such as looking for a harmonized methodology to sample them in different matrixes. Which method is more representative and provides results with less error? Should we analyse water, sediment, biota, or both? Microplastics are not simple to analyse. It can take up to three weeks to examine a water sample in a laboratory, not to mention the required investment in laboratory equipment. In the meantime, while researchers do their work, we should use the knowledge that we already have. We can adjust our consumption patterns, for instance avoiding personal care products that contain microplastics such as certain tooth pastes or facing scrubbers, or avoid abrasive blasting. We should also minimise the use of single use plastic items, since they are a source of so-called secondary microplastics once decomposing in the environment. What is the general situation in the Baltic in regards to microplastics?In the Baltic Sea, when it comes to microplastics, we are still at the early stage. We have just started to gather supporting data. The recently concluded contains a descriptive section on marine litter, a first for this kind for the Baltic Sea. What we know today is in relation to marine litter in general. But since plastics are the main component of litter – accounting to over 70% of the beach litter –  and bearing in mind that part of the microlitter are secondary microplastics originating from the decomposition of larger plastic items, we can expect similar findings on microlitter.  

What are the HELCOM actions on marine litter in general? 

Currently, the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter addresses what we thought, in 2015, to be the most relevant sources of input of marine litter: waste management including sanitary waste, plastic bags, microplastics, as well as abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), historic landfills closed to coastal areas, expanded polystyrene (EPS), bottles and containers, and waste related to fishing and aquaculture. Last but not least, the plan also includes actions on education and outreach. On microplastics, the plan identifies several actions, notably on stormwater management and removal of micro particles in waste water treatment plants. HELCOM recently also joined an EU-financed Interreg project on microplastics, FanpLesstic-sea. The project will tell us more about microplastic in the region: what is its composition, and where does it come from, through which pathways does it enter the Baltic. Also, the project will show us if technology can help to minimise the amount of microplastics that enter the sea, for instance through wastewater treatment plants. 

What are the expected outcomes of the FanpLESStic-sea project?

The FanpLesstic-sea project is quite ambitious, but, at the same time, quite realistic. It has managed to mobilize experts who know how to monitor microplastics and model their pathways, as well as experts from the wastewater treatment sector with hands on experience on eliminating microplastics from their effluents. HELCOM, for its part, will provide its regional perspective on the topic, sharing already gained and on-going experience through the implementation of the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter and translating the outputs of the project to policy messages to be shared with the HELCOM countries. Specifically, the main outputs of the project will be to map microplastic pathways, understand new technology for microplastics removal, and defining frameworks that will enable cost-efficient and implementable measures. 

What else is HELCOM doing in regards to microplastics?

HELCOM is currently working on an indicator on microlitter in the water column. Although there is currently no coordinated monitoring of microlitter in the region, some national monitoring programmes in certain Baltic Sea countries already address microlitter in the surface water or sediments, or both. It is now up to HELCOM to propose a harmonized method for monitoring microliter in the water column at the regional level. In any case, the foundation for durable solutions on microplastics has already been laid with the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter, where the HELCOM countries committed to address the Baltic Sea’s marine litter problem – including microplastics.

HELCOM in April 2019 published its “” report, as part of the EnviSuM project that looks into clean shipping solutions from both a technical and socio-economic viewpoint.The objective of the report is to provide an overview of the recent developments on alternative fuels in the Baltic Sea, with the focus on liquefied natural gas (LNG). The particular attention on LNG also allows to highlight long-term trends on the adoption of cleaner shipping practices by Baltic Sea countries. With new IMO regulations on sulphur exhaust emissions in place, ship owners have to implement new technology to meet the current requirements, such as scrubber system to “wash” the sulphur from the exhaust gas, shift to low-sulphur marine gas oil (MGO), or switch to alternative types of fuels altogether.Since 2015, all the ships navigating the – comprised of Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel – are obliged to comply with the limit of maximum sulphur content of 0.1% in ship fuels. This is five years ahead of the global entry into force of the sulphur regulation in 2020.The report on alternative fuels has been prepared as part of the (Environmental Impact of Low Emission Shipping: Measurements and Modelling Strategies). EnviSuM project addresses both present and future cost of cleaner shipping, as well as the health and environmental effects of ship emissions.In EnviSuM, HELCOM’s role is to provide a policy linkage to the project, to promote the project outcomes, and to facilitate the involvement of the competent authorities from the Baltic Sea region. 

HELCOM in April 2019 published its “Alternative fuels for shipping in the Baltic Sea region” report, as part of the EnviSuM project that looks into clean shipping solutions from both a technical and socio-economic viewpoint.