Baltic Marine Environment
Protection Commission


Baltic Marine Environment
Protection Commission

HELCOM Explorer gives easy online access to follow implementing the Baltic Sea Action Plan

The recently updated online tool HELCOM Explorer allows to easily see how HELCOM cooperation bears fruit, and how the countries’ actions are being fulfilled when reaching the majority of their ambitious HELCOM targets and the ultimate goal: Baltic Sea in good ecological state.

The actions listed in the Explorer include the entire updated Baltic Sea Action Plan (2021), HELCOM Ministerial Meeting commitments from 2010 onwards as well as selected HELCOM Recommendations. The updated BSAP contains 199 concrete actions and measures addressing biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances, and sea-based activities such as shipping and fisheries. In addition, it includes new actions on emerging or previously less highlighted pressures such as climate change, marine litter, pharmaceuticals, underwater noise, and seabed disturbance.

As most actions of the 2021 Baltic Sea Action Plan have a deadline years ahead, they now show red, Not accomplished, in the HELCOM Explorer.

The updated BSAP is also closely aligned with international and regional objectives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), or, for those of our Contracting Parties that are also EU members, the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).  All actions are to be implemented by 2030 at the latest.

“As the HELCOM Explorer provides a comprehensive overview and a great amount of information on both joint and national actions, with easy filtering tools, it is quite a unique system in regional marine governance. Moreover, it is a very concrete indicator  of transparency for our stakeholders and to the broader audiences”, says Rüdiger Strempel, Executive Secretary of HELCOM.

Joint actions are carried out together by all HELCOM Contracting Parties, for example creating a new Recommendation, joint management guidelines, or assessments of environmental status. National actions are implemented at the country level, and they include e.g. incorporating the provisions of a HELCOM Recommendation into relevant national legislation or guidelines.

The Explorer allows for easy overview browsing, but also for more detailed filtering, according to the details of the actions in the Baltic Sea Action Plan such as segment, theme, or target year. The tool further provides information on why the action is needed (rationale), what pressures or activities are addressed by the action in question, and, for some, what is the potential effect of the measure to reduce pressures or improve the state of the Baltic Sea. All data is available for download.

The HELCOM Explorer tool to track the progress on the implementation of HELCOM commitments was first launched in 2016, and the interface was updated in 2020.

The reporting on the implementation of the joint actions is done by relevant HELCOM Working Groups and the reporting on the national actions by the countries. The first reporting on the implementation of actions in the 2021 BSAP is planned to take place in 2025, followed by the second reporting round in 2029.


Mock Employee
Laura Kaikkonen

Project Researcher

Mock Employee
Susanna Kaasinen

Associate Professional Secretary

About the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)

The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is HELCOM’s strategic programme of measures and actions for achieving good environmental status of the sea, ultimately leading to a Baltic Sea in a healthy state.

Initially adopted by the HELCOM Contracting Parties in 2007, the 2021 BSAP is based on the original plan and maintains the same level of ambition. It also retains all actions previously agreed on that are still to be implemented, while, in addition, includes new actions to strengthen the existing efforts and tackle emerging concerns.

Guided by the HELCOM vision of “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 updated BSAP is divided into four segments with specific goals: biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances and sea-based activities.

About HELCOM Recommendations

One of the most important duties of the Helsinki Commission is to make Recommendations on measures to address certain pollution sources or areas of concern. Since the beginning of the 1980s HELCOM has adopted some 260 HELCOM Recommendations for the protection of the Baltic Sea. The implementation of various HELCOM recommendations by the HELCOM Contracting Parties plays an important role in achieving the objectives of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The HELCOM Explorer covers the reporting on the implementation status of selected HELCOM Recommendations.


The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – also known as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) – is an intergovernmental organization (IGO) and a regional sea convention in the Baltic Sea area, consisting of ten members: the nine Baltic Sea countries Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden, plus the European Union. A platform for environmental policy making at the regional level, HELCOM works for a healthy Baltic Sea. Its mandate stems from a regional treaty, the Helsinki Convention, whose implementation it oversees. The HELCOM Secretariat is located in Helsinki, Finland.

OECMs: HELCOM investigates alternative marine protection measures

To investigate the potential of protective measures in the Baltic Sea beside marine protected areas (MPAs), HELCOM, in cooperation with the FAO and IUCN WCPA, held a workshop on other effective area-based conservation measures, or OECMs, on 1-3 February 2022.

“OECMs, a relatively novel conservation approach, are an important part of the HELCOM agenda as well, as reflected by the 2021 Baltic Sea Action Plan, which contains no fewer than seven actions related to spatial conservation measures, and which explicitly refers to OECMs in several places,” said Rüdiger Strempel, the Executive Secretary of HELCOM, adding that OECMs could, among other things, contribute to strengthening the overall coherence of the HELCOM MPA network.

The workshop contributed to developing a common understanding of the applicability of the OECM criteria to the specific situation in the Baltic Sea, as well as a better comprehension of the potential of OECMs for supporting the attainment of the HELCOM objectives on marine conservation, including their interplay with existing MPAs.

“OECMs should have a spatial component, bring clear biodiversity benefits that are long lasting, and should not cause any significant harm to other biodiversity attributes as a consequence of their implementation,” explained Jannica Haldin, the Deputy Executive Secretary of HELCOM.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the distinguishing criterion between MPAs and OECMs is that the former have a primary conservation objective, whereas OECMs deliver effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity regardless of their primary objectives.

“From the perspective of biodiversity in the sea, labels do not matter – what matters is the effect a measure has on the environment,” said Haldin. “The main principle of OECMs is that they must provide a positive outcome for biodiversity.” 

“Using a measure as a starting point is what differentiates the OECM process from traditional conservation approaches, and enables us to consider the effect of measures that weren’t initially put in place for conservation purposes,” added Haldin. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines other effective area-based conservation measures as areas other than protected areas including MPAs that “achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity”, which in turn contributes to preserving “ecosystem functions and services” and in some cases “cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values”.

The workshop was attended by a broad range of stakeholders dealing with issues related to the marine environment, bringing together representatives of government agencies, non-governmental organization and academia.  

“Break down the silos” and “We know enough to act”: HELCOM holds its stakeholder conference on ecosystem-based management

Screenshots of the digital whiteboards used by the HSC2021 participants

In an effort to advance the implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) in the Baltic Sea region, HELCOM held its Stakeholder Conference 2021 (HSC2021) “Practically Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management” on 11 March 2021 as an online workshop. 

“It is acceptable for us to benefit from the Baltic Sea as we too are part of the ecosystem, but this also comes with the responsibility to maintain our sea in a healthy state,” said Rüdiger Strempel, the Executive Secretary of HELCOM during his opening remarks.

Ecosystem-based management addresses the management of human activities in a holistic manner and in relation with the marine environment, correlating our doings with the pressures they may cause on habitats and species. The aim is to maintain our sea in a healthy state so that it can continue to provide valuable ecosystem-services.

Attracting about 100 participants from all over the Baltic Sea region and organized in collaboration with Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM), the HSC2021 touched on the policy, science and society-related aspects of EBM. The stakeholders particularly focussed on the challenges related to EBM implementation and possible solutions to overcoming these.

“Thinking and working in silos” was frequently mentioned throughout the workshop as a main barrier to sound EBM implementation in the Baltic Sea region, with participants calling for better cross-sectoral integration, cooperation and coherence, including across the various regional to local government levels. 

According to the participants, good EBM implementation further requires better communication and knowledge on the matter at all levels, to increase a shared understanding of the issues at hand. One recommendation was to improve the dialogue between science and those tasked with implementing EBM in practice. Increased stakeholder involvement across the board could also foster ownership of the EBM process and drive its implementation.

Also, starting with small, easy-to-manage pilot projects could help gather valuable insights on EBM processes in order to replicate them in other regions or to scale them up once more knowledge on implementation processes has been gained. 

“We know enough to act” was another view widely shared by the HSC2021 participants, highlighting that the main bottlenecks impeding a wider EBM roll-out weren’t so much due to the lack of policies and science but to their concrete application. 

In addition to being one of the HELCOM Voluntary Commitments to the UN Ocean Conference 2021, the workshop also offered the possibility to gather considerations on Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) from stakeholders as possible input for the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) update process, the HELCOM Science Agenda and HELCOM’s future work on implementation on the ecosystem approach, including the update of the Roadmap on HELCOM activities on the ecosystem approach.

The results were presented to the members of the Helsinki Commission at their most recent meeting (HELCOM 42-2021), which was held from 17 to 18 March 2021. The outcomes of the HSC2021 will now be forwarded to the relevant HELCOM bodies dealing with the update of the BSAP, the HELCOM Science Agenda and the HELCOM Roadmap on EA, among other processes.

HELCOM expert interview: Andris Andrusaitis and Karoliina Koho on BONUS, BANOS and research funding

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.