Category: Uncategorized

By Rüdiger Strempel, HELCOM Executive Secretary

Polaris is an impressive vessel. Built in 2016, she is the most recent addition to the sizeable fleet of ice breakers based a mere ten-minute walk away from the HELCOM Secretariat in Helsinki. But does the fact that Finland maintains a fleet of heavy-duty ships to break the sea ice in her waters mean that climate change has not reached the Baltic Sea? Unfortunately not. In fact, this region is warming faster than Earth as a whole, and the sea ice cover has decreased dramatically since the middle of the 20^th century. And there is more to come. Over the next 100 years, precipitation is expected to increase, but the snow season will likely become shorter and the sea ice cover could decline even further. Other effects of climate change in the Baltic Sea could include higher air and water temperatures, lower salinity, decreased oxygen levels and shifts in habitats and species distribution.

In other words, climate change is adding more pressure to a fragile ecosystem already affected by a wide variety of anthropogenic impacts, such as eutrophication, pollution, overfishing and habitat loss. But HELCOM is working to tackle this issue. A priority of the current Finnish presidency of HELCOM, climate change has long been on the agenda of our organization. Since 2007, HELCOM Ministerial Meetings have stressed that climate change will impact on the region’s marine environment and should therefore be reflected in HELCOM policies. In 2007, HELCOM published its first thematic assessment of climate change, jointly with BALTEX. More recently, in the Declaration of the Ministerial Meeting held in Brussels, Belgium in 2018, HELCOM Ministers not only reiterated their concern about the impacts of climate change but also stressed “the need for research and adaptive management to strengthen the resilience of the Baltic Sea in the face of climate change impacts”. They also agreed “to increase HELCOM’s preparedness to respond to climate change impacts, by taking foreseen climate change impacts into account when updating the Baltic Sea Action Plan and by exploring the needs and possibilities to further adapt HELCOM’s policies and recommendations 1) in line with existing objectives of protection of the marine environment and sustainable use of marine resources, also under the changing climate, and 2) to maximise the capacity of the Baltic Sea ecosystem to contribute to mitigation of climate change through blue carbon storage.”    

In plain language: The Contracting Parties to HELCOM share the view that the ultimate aim of HELCOM’s work on climate change should be increased resilience of the Baltic Sea system to the impacts of climate change and that a long-term, multidisciplinary approach to understanding and communicating its implications for the region’s marine and coastal environment is needed. We are therefore working to establish HELCOM as a regional platform for policy-science dialogue on climate change, to provide robust, policy-relevant and research-based knowledge on the state, impacts and vulnerabilities of the Baltic Sea with respect to climate change and we are reviewing our policies with a view to promoting climate change adaptation.

While HELCOM’s various Expert Groups and networks already strive to take account of climate change, HELCOM has now taken the topic to the next level by establishing a dedicated Network on Climate Change (EN-CLIME), jointly with Baltic Earth, a focal point for technical marine climate change information and expertise in the region. Working in the context of our State and Conservation Working Group and consisting of experts from both organizations, EN-CLIME cooperates closely with both other HELCOM Groups and networks and external partners. One of EN-CLIME’s deliverables will be a climate change fact sheet. As a science driven exercise, the fact sheet is intended to offer policy makers a concise and easily accessible resource providing a consensus view by the region’s experts regarding relevant abiotic and biotic parameters, thus helping to bridge the science-policy gap. The fact sheet will then continually be updated to reflect advances in science and understanding of climate change as it relates to our region. Based on the best available science, we will also broaden the scope of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM’s ambitious program of action for a healthier Baltic Sea, to encompass climate change when updating the plan for the post-2021 period.

Whether Polaris and her fellow icebreakers will still be needed 50 or 100 years from now is difficult to predict. But as we gain a better understanding of the dynamics and implications of climate change for the Baltic Sea, a clearer picture will emerge of what needs to be done to ensure a sustainable and liveable future for the Sea that defines our region and for the region as a whole.     

This article was originally published in Open Access Government (October 2019). View the publication (article is on page 340).

Prof. Dr. Markus Meier is the Head of Department of Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation at the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research in Warnemünde, Germany. He also is the co-Chair of the HELCOM Expert Network on Climate Change (EN CLIME) and the Chair of the Baltic Earth Science Steering Group (BESSG).

1. Q: Climate change and the Baltic Sea: what are the facts and trends, what do we know?

Markus Meier (MM): According to the conclusions of the BACC II Author Team (2015), water temperatures of the Baltic Sea have been increasing during the past 100 years and are projected to further increase during the 21st century. According to recent future scenario simulations, ensemble mean changes in sea surface temperature averaged over the Baltic Sea between 1978-2007 and 2069-2098 range between 1.8 and 3.1°C depending on the underlying greenhouse gas emission scenario. Correspondingly, the annual maximum sea-ice extent has significantly declined during the past decades and will further decline in the future. Projections suggest that at the end of the century the Bothnian Sea and large areas of the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga will become ice-free during normal winters. Past salt water inflows and observed salinities in the Baltic Sea do not show statistically significant trends but large multi-decadal variations on the time scale of about 30 years. According to the BACC II Author Team (2015), it is still unclear whether Baltic Sea salinity will increase or decrease as climate models have severe biases with regard to the freshwater balance. Since the beginning of Baltic tide gauge measurements in 1886, the mean sea level in the Baltic Sea has increased by more than 0.2 m and, for the 21st century, an accelerated sea-level rise is projected. However, the projections are highly uncertain and in the northern Baltic Sea glacial isostatic adjustment may counteract also the accelerated sea-level rise in the future.

1. Q: What are the implications on biodiversity?

MM: Changing temperature and salinity in future climate may have large impacts on species distributions and food web interactions. According to the BACC II Author Team (2015), species distributions and biodiversity of the Baltic Sea are particularly sensitive to changes in salinity due to the large salinity gradients and due to the fact that salinities of large areas are in a critical range of approximately 5 to 7 g kg-1. In this range, the numbers of both freshwater and marine species are at their minima. Hence, any systematic changes in salinity would considerably affect the habitats of marine and freshwater ecosystems. Further, the projected increase in water temperatures would enable the invasions of warm water species which have already been observed, but also the decline of other species. An example for the latter might be the potentially vulnerable, ice-breeding Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica). Climate change might be a major threat to all southern populations in the Archipelago Sea, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga and only the fairly good winter sea-ice habitat in the Bothnian Bay might guarantee the survival of the northern populations.

1. Q: What needs to be done, both short and long term?

MM: Today, the largest environmental threat of the Baltic Sea as a whole might probably be anthropogenic eutrophication. Hypoxic sea bottoms in the Baltic without higher forms of life have today approximately the size of the Republic of Ireland. According to the BACC II Author Team (2015), climate change is likely to exacerbate eutrophication effects in the Baltic Sea because of (1) increased external nutrient loads due to increased runoff, (2) reduced oxygen flux from the atmosphere to the ocean and (3) intensified internal nutrient cycling due to increased water temperatures. Hence, nutrient load abatement strategies as already agreed within the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) should rigorously be implemented. With the help of large coupled environment-climate model ensembles that allow us to estimate uncertainties, management questions can today successfully be addressed. Despite the large spread in future projections, the realization of the BSAP will lead to a significant improvement of the environmental status of the Baltic Sea. This result is independent of the applied climate model or the greenhouse gas emission scenario. Assuming an optimistic scenario with perfect implementation of the BSAP, projections suggest that the achievement of a Good Environmental Status will take at least a few more decades. To assess the status of the Baltic Sea environment and its changes and to further improve and evaluate Baltic Sea models, coordinated long-term measurement programs are indispensable.

About climate change assessments within Baltic Earth

Within the Baltic Earth programme, regular assessments of our knowledge about climate change in the Baltic Sea region are performed in order to synthesize scientifically legitimate literature. So far, two comprehensive books have been published (BACC Author Team, 2008 and BACC II Author Team, 2015) and, currently, a third assessment is underway. These sources of condensed information on climate change have previously been used by HELCOM for own climate reports and will also be used for the fact sheet on climate change that is currently under development by experts from HELCOM and Baltic Earth networks (EN CLIME).

References

BACC Author Team (2008). Assessment of climate change for the Baltic Sea basin. Regional Climate Studies, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 474 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72786-6.

BACC II Author Team (2015). Second assessment of climate change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Regional Climate Studies. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16006-1.

  

Q: WHAT’S IN THE IPCC REPORT?

Jannica Haldin: The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) assesses the latest scientific knowledge about the impacts of climate change on ocean, coastal, polar and mountain ecosystems, as well as on us humans who depend on them. It is a mirror, with which we can look back to see what has changed from past to present. However, it also lets us look into the future, projecting what changes we can expect in the sea, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases we continue producing.

When looking at what has already changed, we can see that the rate of ocean warming – the sea taking in and storing heat – has more than doubled, as has global mean sea level rise. In fact, to date, the ocean has taken up more than 90 percent of the excess heat in the climate system. It is also clear that over the last decades, global warming has led to mass loss of ice sheets and glaciers, reductions in snow cover, and Arctic sea ice extent and thickness. In response to ocean warming, sea ice and biogeochemical changes such as oxygen loss, marine species have undergone shifts in geographical range and seasonal activities. This has already resulted in changes in species composition, abundance and biomass production of ecosystems and altered interactions between species, causing cascading impacts on ecosystem structure and functioning.

But the report also looks forward, up to 80 years into the future. Our future ocean is projected to transition to unprecedented conditions, a combination of increased temperatures, greater upper ocean stratification, further acidification, oxygen decline, and altered net primary production – for instance linked to algal blooms – as well as reduced sea ice extent. As a consequence, over the 21st century, we can expect a further decrease in global biomass of marine animal communities and in their production, a shift in species composition, and a decline in fisheries catch potential. In turn, this is projected to affect income, livelihoods, and food security. Projected ecosystem responses include further losses of species habitat and diversity, and degradation of ecosystem functions.

The SROCC report also makes clear that impacts of climate change are already a reality, and when the pressures exerted by climate change are combined with pressures stemming from other human activities, the latter have the potential to intensify the warming-induced ecosystem impacts. The capacity of organisms and ecosystems to adjust and adapt to change is better the lower the total pressure on the system is. This means that the sea has a better chance to handle the changes under lower emissions but it also means that we need to work to manage other human activities to limit their negative effects, to give the ecosystem a fighting chance.

HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE BALTIC SEA?

Although the report looks at the global situation, it is highly relevant for our own sea. The Baltic Sea is a shallow, Northern sea, partially covered by sea ice and with a high coast to sea ratio. If they changes outlined in the report come to pass, they will impact a significant proportion of the approximately 85 million people living in the catchment. The report directly states that the effects of warming will be more pronounced on high latitudes and for temperate shallow estuaries with limited exchange with the open ocean, of which the Baltic is used as prime example. This translates into that the changes outlined globally will occur faster and with more impact here than in other places.

In addition to the changes which affect larger areas, the report outlines some changes where Baltic Sea specific information is available. This includes increased risk of water-borne disease in the Baltic Sea, with a nearly two-fold predicted increase in suitable conditions for Vibrio bacteria which can cause cholera. Wave height in the Baltic is also predicted to increase, and extreme sea level projections show a rise of up to 0.35 m towards the end of the century along the Baltic Sea coast. Long-term loss and degradation of marine ecosystems compromise the sea’s role in cultural, recreational, and intrinsic values important for our identity and well-being.

WHAT IS HELCOM DOING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?

Overall, HELCOM aims at strengthening the sea’s resilience and own coping mechanisms, by improving the capacity of the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem to recover from stress and disturbance resulting from climate change impacts. HELCOM is a regional environmental policy maker, working on developing common environmental objectives and actions for the whole region, as well as providing information about the state of and trends in the marine environment. Both the objectives and the trend information can then form the basis for decision-making in the Baltic Sea countries and in other international fora. HELCOM strives to make climate change increasingly visible in marine policy making, as well as incorporate it into the day to day work of the Commission.

In practice, climate change work within HELCOM is focusing on understanding and communicating what climate change means for the marine and coastal environment. Climate change has a multitude of effects so it needs to be approached in that way, not from one single topic, but from every angle of possible importance to the sea.

To compile the available climate change information, HELCOM, together with Baltic Earth, earlier this year established a Joint Climate Change expert network (EN CLIME), currently consisting of over 60 experts from the entire region. Right now, EN CLIME is working on a Baltic Sea climate change fact sheet, to make sure that decision makers have the latest science on climate change and its impacts. Similarly to the IPCC report, the fact sheet will provide key messages on what has already happened and what we can expect in the future. However, the fact sheet will look specifically at our own region, covering a large number of topics, from how much it might rain, to what we can expect for seabirds, to possible impacts on maritime traffic.

What the IPCC report did on a global scale, the fact sheet will do at the regional level – empowering decision makers to tackle the transition facing the region and help underpin timely, ambitious and coordinated action. The statement from the IPCC report is as valid for the Baltic Sea as it is globally:

“The more decisively and earlier we act, the more able we will be to address unavoidable changes, manage risks, improve our lives and achieve sustainability for ecosystems and people – today and in the future.”

The high-level delegation from the Red Sea at the HELCOM premises on 28 August 2019.
© Riku Isohella 

What can the Red Sea learn from its sister sea, the Baltic, and vice-versa? A high-level delegation from the Red Sea countries came to HELCOM on 28 August 2019 to exchange views on regional cooperation relating to marine environmental matters.

Like the Baltic, the Red Sea faces a multitude of pressures affecting a fragile ecosystem, demanding a concerted response from the coastal countries.  

CMI (Crisis Management Initiative), an independent Finnish conflict resolution organization, facilitated the study visit. The Baltic Sea region provides a number of examples of demand driven interstate cooperation, developed over 45 years of collective efforts. CMI deals with similar interstate cooperation issues in various places around the world, for example in the Red Sea region.

Since its inception in 1974 with the signing of the Helsinki Convention, HELCOM has been widely recognised as a platform for successful regional cooperation on improving the environmental state of the Baltic Sea.

The study visit also included visits to the Mandatory Ship Reporting System in the Gulf of Finland (GOFREP), as well as briefing sessions by the Arctic Council and the Council of the Baltic States (CBSS).

On 1 August 2019 I assumed the position of Executive Secretary of HELCOM. I am very pleased to join such a well-established and mature organization that is based on solid foundations – the excellent work and in-depth knowledge of all things Baltic pooled in the various HELCOM working groups and expert networks, and the expertise and commitment of the HELCOM Secretariat staff need no further introduction here.

While much has undoubtedly been achieved, there is a consensus across the region that continued relentless efforts are required to improve the ecological and environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Issues such as eutrophication, nutrient management, marine litter and addressing the effects of climate change will therefore remain high on our common Baltic Sea agenda.

The Baltic Sea Action Plan has proven to be a good tool for responding to the challenges faced by the Baltic Sea. Its update by 2021 as agreed by the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting of 2018 will certainly continue to guide our current itinerary, as will its implementation. 

HELCOM also remains committed to the regional and global efforts on oceans and seas. We will continue to strive for enhanced cooperation with our sister regional seas conventions, work towards the attainment of the Aichi targets on biodiversity, the ocean and sea related SDGs and, more broadly, enhanced synergies between our work and the Agenda 2030 process. Moreover, the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, which will run from 2021 to 2030, will also provide us with new opportunities to link our regional actions to the global processes.  

Last but not least, I wish to acknowledge the excellent work done by my predecessor, Monika Stankiewicz. Her inspirational achievements during her tenure as Executive Secretary of HELCOM make it all the easier for me to continue the journey towards fulfilling our HELCOM vision: a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse ecological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good environmental and ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities.

Rüdiger Strempel

HELCOM Executive Secretary

​

On 1 August 2019, Rüdiger Strempel assumed the position of HELCOM Executive Secretary, after serving as  Executive Secretary of the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (CWSS) from January 2015 through July of this year.

An international lawyer by training, Rüdiger Strempel looks back on many years of experience of environmental law, policy, and diplomacy at the national and international levels, with a particular focus on international marine conservation. 

“The Baltic Sea has always been of particular interest to me,” said Strempel, whose Baltic credentials include the appointment as Executive Secretary of the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North-East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (UNEP/ASCOBANS) from 1999 to 2007 and chairing the ASCOBANS Baltic Sea Steering Group (“Jastarnia Group”) from 2009 to 2017. 

He also was a member of the Advisory Board of the Baltic Centre of Excellence for Development, Education and Research (BALTDER), University of Gdańsk, Poland from 2003 to 2005.

“While much has undoubtedly been achieved, there is a consensus across the region that continued relentless efforts are required to improve the ecological and environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Issues such as eutrophication, nutrient management, marine litter and addressing the effects of climate change will therefore remain high on our common Baltic Sea agenda,” said Strempel who, during his tenure, will oversee see the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

“The Baltic Sea Action Plan has proven to be a good tool for responding to the challenges faced by the Baltic Sea,” said Strempel in his welcome remarks, adding that the update of the plan as agreed by the HELCOM Ministers in 2018 “will certainly continue to guide our current itinerary.” 

Further priorities will include honouring the global commitments such as those related to the UN Agenda 2030, the ocean-related SDGs and the Aichi Biodiversity targets, as well as strengthening cooperation with other regional sea conventions.

Strempel, a German national, has also worked as a consultant for a number of United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme and the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

In addition, he has a background as a journalist and professional communicator and he is the author or co-author of numerous articles and several books. 

Strempel has taken over from Monika Stankiewicz who led the HELCOM Secretariat from 2012 to 2019.

• Read Rüdiger Strempel’s biography
  
• Read Rüdiger Strempel’s welcome remarks

​Two former pollution sites located in the Kaliningrad region in Russia were approved for removal from the HELCOM Hot Spot list by the HELCOM Heads of Delegation, one of the decision-making instances, during their last meeting held in Helsinki from 18 to 19 June 2019 – the 56th Meeting of the HELCOM Heads of Delegation(HOD 56-2019).

The first site to be removed from the list is the Kaliningrad wastewater treatment plant, or HELCOM Hot Spot No. 67. Newly constructed in December 2015, the upgraded wastewater treatment plant of Kaliningrad started to be fully operational by the end of 2016, with all of Kaliningrad’s sewage water redirected to the new plant. 

“The new treatment plant fully complies with the HELCOM recommendation on municipal wastewater,” said Natalia Tretiakova, the Russian Head of Delegation to HELCOM. With its population of 574,000 people, the city of Kaliningrad was the biggest source of untreated wastewater input to the Baltic Sea in the Kaliningrad region until the launch of the new plant. 

In the same meeting, the deletion of HELCOM Hot Spot No. 69, the Cepruss pulp and paper mill in Kaliningrad, Russia, was also approved. Cepruss was added to the list because of significant discharges of pollutants stemming from the processing of pulp and paper into the Pregolya river. The site ceased all production in 2011.  

Since 1992, HELCOM maintains a list of significant pollution sites around the Baltic Sea – the HELCOM Hot Spots. Today, about three quarters of all hotspots have been cleaned up. The most notorious Hot Spots are point sources such as municipal facilities and industrial plants, but the programme also covers pollution from agricultural areas and rural settlements, and sensitive areas such as coastal lagoons and wetlands where special environmental measures are needed. 

Furthermore, in Helsinki, the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan(BSAP) featured prominently on the meeting’s agenda, with the Heads of Delegation moving forward on the structure of the updated plan. Maintaining the same level of ambition for the updated BSAP was a particular point of emphasis.

HOD 56-2019 also adopted the revised HELCOM Recommendation 28E/13 on Introducing Economic Incentives as a Complement to Existing Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Ships. Where implemented already, economic instruments have proven to increase environmentally friendly shipping practices beyond the existing legislation. Some of these methods include differentiated port fees and fairway dues, differentiated taxation of marine fuels and on-shore power supply. 

The creation of an expert network on marine protected areas (MPAs) – HELCOM Network for Marine Protected Area Management (EN MPA MANET) – was also approved during the meeting in Helsinki. The new network will respond to the need for a concerted approach on the management of MPAs across the Baltic Sea region, especially for transboundary areas. It will provide expert input to HELCOM work related to MPA management, as well as conservation of habitats, biotopes and species in general, the relevant Ecological Objectives in the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Bidding farewell to the current HELCOM Executive Secretary, Ms Monika Stankiewicz, who is due to leave the organization in July 2019, the Heads of Delegation singled out her excellent performance and acknowledged her instrumental role in lifting HELCOM to where it is today.

Stankiewicz has been at the HELCOM Secretariat since 2006 when she started as Professional Secretary for Maritime Affairs. She assumed the position of Executive Secretary in 2012 until 2019. She will be succeeded by Mr Rüdiger Strempel.

Rüdiger Strempel and Monika Stankiewicz, HELCOM Secretariat, Helsinki, 19 July 2019. © HELCOM 

The current Executive Secretary of HELCOM, Ms Monika Stankiewicz, will step down from her position and hand over to her successor, Mr Rüdiger Strempel, on 1 August 2019. Strempel was appointed during the HELCOM Annual Meeting held in March 2019. 

Stankiewicz has been at the HELCOM Secretariat since 2006 when she started as Professional Secretary for Maritime Affairs. She assumed the position of Executive Secretary in 2012 until 2019, for three terms. 

Under her tenure, HELCOM not only consolidated itself as a champion of the environmental protection of the Baltic Sea but also as a heard and sought-after voice in the international debate on oceans and seas.

Already involved in the making and implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, she was instrumental in setting off the update processof the plan beyond 2021, its initial due date. The mandate for the update was given by the HELCOM Ministers during their meeting in Brussels in 2018.

With the Second Holistic Assessment of the Baltic Sea(HOLAS II), Stankiewicz also oversaw the largest assessment of the Baltic Sea so far. Providing the most comprehensive insight of the Baltic Sea, the results are expected to underpin HELCOM work for a substantial period of time. 

More recently, among other work, she introduced social and economic analysis to HELCOM, to closer link the state of the Baltic Sea’s environment with human wellbeing. This ecosystem-based approach acknowledges that we humans are an intrinsic part of the Baltic Sea environment and seeks to correlate our activities with the impacts they may have on the environment.

Her successor, Mr Rüdiger Strempel, a German national, currently heads the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat(CWSS) as its Executive Secretary. The CWSS was established in 1987 to service the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation(TWSC) between the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark on the protection of the Wadden Sea.

Strempel is a lawyer by training, specialising in international law. He has extensive experience on environmental matters including in the Baltic Sea, having also headed the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas(ASCOBANS) from 1999 to 2006, as well as chaired the ASCOBANS Baltic Sea Steering Group(Jastarnia Group) from 2009 to 2017. 

Stankiewicz’ tenure and achievements were acknowledged during the recently held HELCOM Head of Delegation meeting, where Strempel, who was also present, was warmly welcomed.

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.

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.