Baltic 21 Series No 12/98:
Environmental Citizen Organisation's (ECO's) Vision of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region

---

List of content

• Introduction
• Foreword
  • Still a vision impossible to ignore
  • Basic principles that still stand
  • Some important steps
  • Agenda 21 - a breakthrough with shortcomings
  • Sustainability and security
  • A change of perspective
  • Concepts for change
  • Liberating limits
  • Making much more with much less
• Sectors
  • Agriculture
  • Energy
  • Fisheries
  • Forestry
  • Industry
  • Tourism
  • Transport
• Issue areas of special concern
  • Biodiversity and nature conservation
  • Oil and oil handling
  • Eco-technologies for sustainable water and wastewater management
  • Promotion of Local Agenda 21
  • Public awareness, participation, and environmental education
  • Implementation-the path towards sustainability

---

The publication of this report in the Baltic 21 Series does not imply an endorsement of the report by the Senior Officials Group. The responsibility for the contents and opinions expressed in this report lies solely with the authors.

Introduction

The mandate to develop an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, with the objective Sustainable Development, stems from the Heads of Government of the region and the meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Baltic Sea Region, within the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States, including the European Union. Because of this, Baltic 21 comprises all Nordic countries and all other countries around the Baltic Sea. For the Russian Federation only the north-western part is included. The European Union is also a participant in the elaboration of Baltic 21.

Baltic 21 was officially launched by the Ministers of Environment in October 1996 in Saltsjöbaden and the Saltsjöbaden Declaration provides the terms of reference for the Baltic 21 set-up and process. In their back-to back meeting, the Ministers responsible for spatial planning in the BSR also decided to concentrate work on sustainable development, and in particular to integrate relevant activities with the Baltic 21 process.

Baltic 21 is a democratic, open and transparent process. It is steered by the Senior Officials Group (SOG), with members from the Governments of CBSS and the European Commission, and intergovernmental organisations like HELCOM, VASAB, International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC), Nordic Council of Ministers and the international development banks (World Bank, EBRD, EIB, NIB, Nefco). NGOs and ECO’s (Environmental Citizen Organisations) have also participated and have tried to influence the elaborated proposals and documents of Baltic 21 as much as possible from their views and perspectives on sustainable development. However, since the Sector reports do not necessarily reflect the standpoints of these ECO’s, some of their proposals for sustainable development have instead been presented in the report ECO Vision of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region. (Available from the Baltic Agenda 21 homepage).

All Baltic 21 documentation; back ground documents, SOG meeting reports, workshop reports, draft texts, ECO’s report, are published on the Baltic 21 website (http://www.ee/baltic21).

The emphasis of Baltic 21 is on regional co-operation and on the environment and its bearing on economic and social aspects of sustainable development. The work focuses on seven sectors of crucial economic and environmental importance in the region. For each sector, goals and scenarios for sustainable development have been elaborated, as well as a sector action programmes including time frames, actors and financing. The responsibility for the sector work is distributed among the SOG members. The seven sectors and their lead parties are: Agriculture (HELCOM and Sweden), Energy (Denmark and Estonia), Fisheries (IBSFC), Forestry (Finland and Lithuania), Industry (Russia and Sweden), Tourism (Estonia, Finland Baltic Sea Tourism Commission) and Transports (Germany and Latvia). Work on the Baltic 21 initiative has involved some 300 persons in the region.

This report is a result of the work carried out by ECO’s (Environmental Citizen Organisations) participating in the Baltic 21 process.

---

This report is the Environmental Citizen Organisation's (ECO's) contribution to the Baltic 21 process. It has been elaborated in co-operation between Coalition Clean Baltic, Taiga Rescue Network and the Baltic-Nordic NGO-network for Sustainable Energy. This report reflects some of the more important concepts for change that needs to be used as a base for a sustainable development. It also brings up the ECO's views on goals and needed actions in the different sectors in the Baltic 21 as well as some areas of special concerns.

Foreword

In 1996, the ECO’s, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) and the Nordic-Baltic NGO Network for Sustainable Energy published the document An NGO Vision of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, which was presented, i.a., to the informal meeting of the Environment Ministers from the countries in the Baltic Sea Region held at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden in late October 1996.

Since its publication, the NGO Vision has been extensively used by the CCB member organisations, as well as within the broader ECO community (ECO - Environmental Citizen Organisation). It has been translated in its entirety, or in parts, to a number of the languages of the region. It has also been used as a strategic document for providing input to the intergovernmental Baltic Agenda 21 process.

The present updated version of the NGO Vision should not be regarded as a final document. It should, rather, be viewed as a further step and as a result of a continuous process of dialogue among the ECO’s organised in CCB, Taiga Rescue Network and the Nordic-Baltic NGO Network for Sustainable Energy. It includes most of the basic objectives, principles and proposals for actions presented in 1996, but at the same time it reflects the experience gained since then by the ECO’s from various programmes and projects of relevance to an ecologically sustainable development and the development of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region. This includes:

• ECO’s participation in the Senior Officials Group (SOG) and in the Baltic Agenda 21 sector working groups;
• implementation of field and demonstration projects related to the use of eco-technologies for treating waste water; restoration of valuable nature areas;
• public awareness and education campaigns; and

• the development of Local Agendas 21 in some of the countries in the region.

Based on this experience, a number of new goals and proposals for actions have been formulated through a process of extensive consultations among the ECO’s and, subsequently, included in the updated NGO Vision. The revised document will be used in an ongoing ECO process in the Baltic Sea Region to further develop the conceptual framework for a regional Baltic Agenda 21. It will also form the basis for the concrete actions necessary at the regional, national and, particularly, local level to achieve the common goal of an ecologically sustainable development for the region as a whole. Furthermore, the document will be used in a continued interactive dialogue during the implementation phase of the intergovernmental Baltic Agenda 21.

Still ”a vision impossible to ignore”

• When the process for developing an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region was initiated in the spring of 1996, the ECO’s welcomed the initiative and referred to it as a new and promising approach in a region characterised by many environmental, social and economic differences and paradoxes. The ECO’s pointed out that if addressed wisely these differences and paradoxes could imply great opportunities for the future - as well as great risks if handled without due considerations.
• In the 1996 NGO Vision of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, the ECO’s also very clearly underlined that the Baltic Agenda 21 process would be the first attempt to create a regional Agenda 21, and would go beyond the recommendations made in the global Agenda 21 on national and local implementation. With a limited number of co-operating countries and an already established tradition of co-operation, coupled with the fact that a majority of the population within the drainage area still has a good chance to adjust their societies in accordance with the principles of sustainability, while reconstructing their economies, the Baltic Sea Region is in a favourable position which should be taken advantage of.
• Indeed, it was readily acknowledged by the ECO’s that a Baltic Agenda 21, if properly elaborated, could serve as an important pilot case and an inspiration to other regions. It was also pointed out that such an initiative could be seen as a blueprint for action to be taken regionally by the Baltic community - jointly and individually by the countries concerned- to induce the very basic changes necessary to move towards the ultimate goal of achieving an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development throughout the region.
• The ECO’s also stressed the fact that concerted efforts must be made jointly by governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and independent sector groups (including business) and, not least, individually by every single citizen in the region. The goal of sustainability must be included in every area in which human activities have an impact on environment and development.
• Considering that a Baltic Agenda 21 must be of an interdisciplinary character, clearly emphasising the need for integration and ability to think along new lines, the ECO’s also expressed a strong belief that the work programme for the elaboration of a Baltic Agenda 21 - and most certainly its further implementation - must be co-ordinated at the very central level of government, preferably in the offices of the Prime Ministers in the countries concerned.
• The ECO’s strongly emphasised the urgent need to apply a new thinking and to break away from traditional systems, structures and policy-making in the Baltic Sea Region. Unless this need was fully recognised by everyone involved in the Baltic Agenda 21 process, including by those politically responsible, the initiative would not fulfil the purposes intended.
• The ECO’s warned against making a Baltic Agenda 21 into merely a greener version of business-as-usual. Instead, new ethics, new lifestyles, new attitudes and new practices are required in the Baltic Sea Region to bring about real change. For that, not only political courage would be required, but also wide public participation of considerable dimensions.
• In the NGO Vision, a fundamental paradigm shift and a far-reaching change of perspective was called for. The constructive and rewarding need to re-define traditional concepts such as “development”, ”wealth”, ”prosperity”, ”standard of living” and “quality of life“ was underlined - these concepts must comprise an essential understanding of the need of sustainable co-existence and co-evolution of society and nature.
• Thus, the need for a fresh, comprehensive and truly integrated approach to the many and complicated environmental and development issues facing the region was argued for in the 1996 NGO Vision. Special emphasis was placed on the importance of influencing effectively the value basis, lifestyles and behaviours, and thereby influencing the consumption and production patterns, of the populations in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden, as well as those emerging among the populations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia, in order to create and steer the necessary driving forces in the direction of sustainability.
• In the NGO Vision it was assumed that high demands must be placed on active and encouraged public participation, and on the ability of people in different societies to look further ahead and to imagine new, unfamiliar elements in life without immediately rejecting them because they are unfamiliar. The potential of people all over the region to make a real difference and to contribute actively to safeguard their own future and that of their children, grandchildren, and future generations to come must still be strongly emphasised. Indeed, in the Vision the NGO community demonstrated its firm belief that individuals and groups are capable of understanding, taking responsibility and making informed and sensible choices.

• The 1996 NGO Vision challenged the entire Baltic community to face the opportunities, to appreciate and value the options still available, to join together on a new and more sensible road to a regional future, and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that when people work together in such responsible, respectful co-existence with the natural environment and the natural limitations set by nature, mountains of prior mistakes can be moved for the benefit of both present and future generations.

Basic principles that still stand

The 1996 NGO Vision was based on six basic principles or points of departure for the creation of an ecologically, socially and economically sustainable future of the Baltic Sea Region. These principles still stand.

Sustainability must be accepted as the overriding principle and guideline in politics as well as in all other forms of decision-making.

A long-term, ecologically based perspective must be applied in all decision-making. All activities should be guided by the precautionary principle. A critical analysis of the possible long-term environmental and natural resource management consequences of decisions and activities must be the rule, not the exception. Securing ecological sustainability must be at the heart of all political and economic decisions, as well as all everyday activities in the region. Ecological sustainability is a matter of common security in every sense of the word. Ecological, economic and social sustainability goes hand in hand - you cannot have one without the others.

• The natural environment, and the resources and services that it provides, represents a given and necessary restriction not to be exceeded by human activity.
  Perception of the real value of the life-supporting environment, and maintenance of its capability to sustain human systems, constitutes the true basis for sustainability. Economic activity must be subordinate to ecological concerns, not the other way around. The economic system is an open sub-system of the overall ecosystem. The man-made economic system cannot exist by itself, separate from the ecosystem, and economic growth in the traditional sense is not possible or desirable if sustainability is to be the goal of society. Consequently, the production and consumption patterns in the Baltic Sea Region must be governed by concerns for the long-term carrying capacity of regional ecosystems. Improved efficiency in the use of energy and materials must be a key concept, allowing for a considerable dematerialization of society. Natural capital - intact ecosystems and natural environments - must be fully recognised as an asset that cannot be replaced by man-made capital and which must, therefore, not be wasted or destroyed.

• The Baltic Sea Region must not draw unduly upon the natural resources and health of ecosystems or people of other regions. As far as possible, the Baltic Sea Region must become more self-sufficient in supply of food, forage, wood, energy, and raw materials for industry. Similarly, the region must not export its waste products to other regions of the world.
  The task to make the Baltic Sea Region sustainable must not be accomplished at the expense of the sustainability of other regions in the world. Trade in various commodities is not acceptable if it presumes that the environment and the natural resource base in other countries or regions is seriously affected, or if these commodities are produced under circumstances that are harmful or degrading to the people of the region. A region is not ecologically sustainable if it draws heavily on the resources of others and relies on large “shadow areas“ of supply in other regions to satisfy its demand for products that cannot be supplied nearby. The Baltic Sea Region should either pay the real (and high) price for a commodity produced by ecosystems in other parts of the world - including the environmental costs of transport and others sources of pollution to bring it here - or refrain from using it. The Baltic responsibility for the ecological sustainability of the world at large does not end at the borders of the Baltic Sea Region.

• It is imperative to get the prices right - resource use and environmentally destructive activities must be made to carry their real ecological costs.
  Today’s markets and structures reflect yesterday’s prices. Similarly, today’s prices will shape the market and the structures of tomorrow. Since subsidised prices lead to distorted structures, we must get the prices right in order to be able to shape a sustainable future. Prices as they are expressed on the market are not telling the truth about the ecological costs involved. The environmental costs must be internalised and made visible, i.e., the consumer of natural resources and the polluter of the environment must pay the real price for that consumption. In order to steer the economies in that direction, an ecological tax reform - a shift from taxes on labour to taxes on resource use and pollution - should be introduced in all countries around the Baltic Sea.
  Only a holistic, cross-sector approach is possible and viable to shape sustainable nations and a sustainable Baltic Sea Region.
  People ask for products and services, not for societal sectors. The open market is based on supplying demands for various functions - the fact that people eat, work, need a place to live, need clothes and shelter, communicate (physical transport, electronic communication), have holidays and leisure time, and produce waste products. Thus, policies and measures for sustainability should be aimed at functions and lifestyles, not at individual sectors. The choices of lifestyles cut into all sectors, and consumer demands - the market - will, therefore, influence the operation of the sectors which are, in turn, heavily inter-linked and interdependent.

• Public awareness, acceptance and participation are essential in a process to shape a sustainable Baltic Sea Region. For the sake of democracy and equity, every effort must be made to provide the inhabitants of the region with education, information, incentives and practical means of participation to motivate and encourage them in that process.
  The potential power of the large (85 million), multinational population of the Baltic Sea Region to attain ecological, economic and social sustainability is enormous if all forces are joined. Although a formidable task, every effort must be made since the alternative is unacceptable. Nothing will, however, be accomplished unless people agree upon common goals, common ideas of what could and should be achieved, and a common conviction that achieving the goals is a priority. Real change will only come when people experience that living within their environmental space brings them equity, equality, freedom and security, allows planning for a safer and more stable future for their children, and makes more sense and feels more right. The implementation of that understanding includes heavy emphasis on public participation and involvement in policy making, and on broad measures to raise public awareness and provide education on all levels in society in order to secure public understanding and support for the elements needed in the creation of a sustainable future for the Baltic Sea Region, Europe and the world as a whole.

Some important steps

Based on the concepts and principles put forward in the 1996 NGO Vision, the following basic first steps towards sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region and the elaboration of a regional Agenda 21 were summarised:

A common understanding of the concept of sustainability should be developed and agreed upon by all parties involved. New means of measuring wealth and new directional indicators for sustainable development to replace the conventional GNP as the sole indicator of progress should be elaborated and agreed upon. Targets for economic, social and ecological development based on these indicators should be developed. Existing plans and infrastructure development should be revised and plans and infrastructure created that are compatible with sustainable development. Strategic environment impact assessment procedures should be introduced and used to evaluate whether major government and other policies, strategies and decisions are compatible with the basic principles of sustainable development.

• Dematerialization by a Factor 10 increase in energy and resource productivity should be accepted as a strategic goal for the new Millennium. Understandable and internationally compatible information about the ecological costs of products, infrastructures and services on the market should be provided in the form of eco-labelling to identify material and energy intensity and, thus, promote more sustainable production and consumption patterns.
• Green taxes should be introduced in order to internalise environmental and social costs. Full cost pricing must be accepted and measures to internalise environmental costs of products, processes and services elaborated, agreed upon and implemented.
• Subsidies that distort the real effects of pollution and resource use should be banned. Tax and fiscal incentives, pricing and marketing policies all influence the energy and resource content of growth and the extent to which growth enhances or depletes stocks of ecological capital. The same is true of certain kinds of sector policies, where subsidies act as barriers to a more environmentally adapted practices and use of resources. Subsidies place a heavy burden on public budgets, only to influence the environment and resource contents of growth in the wrong way. There is an urgent need to transform such blocking policies into instruments that promote dematerialization and sound resource use.

• Ecological tax reform should be promoted. Today, we are taxing the wrong things. Taxes should gradually be reduced on income, savings and job creating investments and gradually increased on energy, resource extraction, pollution and products with a high environmental impact. An ecological tax shift would enable governments to make sound use of market forces in support of a more rapid transition to a new, energy and resource efficient economy. It would also reduce the need for command-and-control legislation in support of end-of-pipe environmental protection. A tax shift would give clear signals to producers and consumers alike where the real scarcity of resources lies and how society values violations of the rules set up to prevent environmental destruction. More ecologically sustainable lifestyles will be encouraged and the economically invisible made perceptible: natural resources are not there for the taking, they command a high price; and environmental degradation is not for free, it will be painfully costly.

Agenda 21 - a breakthrough with shortcomings

Agenda 21, adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, is the first international action programme to firmly establish the connection between concern for the environment and realisation that sustainability is impossible as long as people are trapped in ill health, poverty, hunger, thirst, lack of knowledge and lack of power to improve their situation without destroying their own resource base.

Thus, the importance of the globally agreed Agenda 21 to act as a vehicle for the promotion of a new thinking cannot be underestimated. In Agenda 21 it is stated that:

“humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own, but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.“

Sustainable development? With Agenda 21, the concept of sustainable development gained great impact on people and governments world-wide, and much is being done to implement the programme, nationally and locally. However, “sustainable development“ is used as if it was a concept with one agreed and operational definition, but it is not. The definition formulated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) is generally used but by no means undisputed. Thus, sustainable development can be and is interpreted and used (or misused) in many ways. There are, unfortunately, many examples of unsustainable policies and activities being marketed with a thin verbal coat of the politically correct term “sustainability“. Several such examples can also be found in the Baltic Sea Region.

“Sustainability requires a careful balance between long-term and short-term goals and an emphasis on sufficiency, equity and quality of life.“ Maybe this interpretation included in the statement to government and business leaders made in 1997 by the Factor 10 Club, could be a starting point in the Baltic Sea Region? “Sustainability, thus, emerges as a key component of any successful paradigm to guide development in the new Millennium. Sustainability requires new emphasis on the nature and size of inputs to development, especially energy, resource, chemical and other material input. It requires that environment and development be made mutually supportive at the front-end of the cycle when the goals and policies of society are being set, not at the tail-end after society and the economy has already incurred the damage costs of unsustainable development.“

Sectors, not integration? In Agenda 21, problems are largely addressed sector by sector (with some emphasis on sector integration), although a holistic approach is necessary. By avoiding the complexity of the problems and what is needed for their long-term solutions, Agenda 21 could be perceived as rather legitimising the current governmental, organisational and scientific structures instead of promoting an interdisciplinary and cross-sector thinking.

Nor is Agenda 21 based on a comprehensive analysis of the restrictions set up by nature and its ecosystems, the restrictions that must not be exceeded by human “development“ if ecolo-gical sustainability is to be attained.

Traditional growth? Based on the work and conclusions of the WCED, it is claimed both in the Rio Declaration and in Agenda 21 that increased economic growth is a prerequisite for sustainable development and that international trade must not be distorted. Continuous and ever increasing economic growth is, however, by no means an uncontested condition for development. Furthermore, it is implicit that an internalisation of environmental costs - which is a step in the right direction but no final solution - will lead to considerable change in production and consumption patterns and, consequently, affect both trade and investments. The very purpose of letting environmental costs become visible and to let them have an obvious impact is to enhance better resource use in society, i.e. to make the market realise the real scope of revenues and costs.

Government responsibility? Finally, already in the preamble of Agenda 21 the assumption is established that the successful implementation of the programme is “first and foremost the responsibility of Governments“. It is pointed out that national strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this and that international, regional and subregional organisations are called upon to contribute to this effort, and that the broadest possible public participation and the active involvement of the nongovernmental organisations and other groups should be encouraged.

By relying so heavily on the capacity and power of governments, Agenda 21 overlooks the power - be it destructive or constructive - of all of us (producers, consumers, our choices and relations) and the informal networks of people and organisations sharing different beliefs and views. It is a misconception that constructive change that is beneficial to the majority in society can only, or principally, be brought about by formal governmental or even intergovernmental decisions. More often than not, political decisions rather tend to reflect movements that are already underway among citizens. More often than not, ideas that fundamentally change people’s thinking and the course of society originate from below, not from above. Change is a social thing, in the truly human meaning of the word.

When it comes to financing for sustainable development the Western financing has a key role in the Baltic Sea Region. New mechanisms and a shift to secure financing for long-term sustainable development is needed. It is particularly urgent that public funds (EIB, EBRD and other international financial institutions, EU funds, bilateral aid, export credit guaranties etc.) do not go to harmful installations and unsustainable investments.

Sustainability and security

As in most (if not all) other regions of the world, the global commitment to sustainable development as defined by the WCED, let alone a commitment to ecological sustainability, still remains to be translated into practical action to change policies in the Baltic Sea Region. Such a translation will have to include a radical change of the political and economic driving forces still promoting unsustainability. It will also require substantial changes - not the same in all societies but governed by the same basic principles and goals - in the day-to-day lifestyles of the people living in the Baltic Sea Region.

Sustainability will not be achieved anywhere, including the Baltic Sea Region, unless people feel safe and confident enough to believe that there is a future to care about and plan for. Thus, ecological, economic and social sustainability goes hand in hand - you cannot have one without the others. Ecological sustainability brings a benefit that extends much further than securing the long-term services of the ecosystems; it is a matter of common security in every sense of the word.

The Baltic Sea Region population comprises about 85 million people who could all make a difference. Their potential power is enormous if all forces are joined, but agreements must be reached upon common goals, common ideas of what could and should be achieved, and a common conviction that achieving these goals is the first and foremost priority. The fact that people do what they believe in should neither be denied nor underestimated.

Indifference, feelings of powerlessness, the overriding concern for the health of yourself and your children, for everyday subsistence and maybe even survival, and lack of awareness of the connections between causes and cures, are more serious threats to ecological sustainability, social stability and sound economic management of the Baltic Sea Region than anything else. Real change will be possible only when a majority of the large Baltic Sea Region population agree that a redefinition of the traditional concepts of development, wealth, prosperity, standard of living, and quality of life, instead to be based on sustainable co-existence and co-evolution of society and nature, is constructive, rewarding and in the best interest of each and everyone and all of us as a regional community.

A change of perspective

Thus, the challenging task to attain a fundamental paradigm shift, a complete change of perspective, in the Baltic Sea Region must be the very basis for a new model for development. Economic activity must be subordinate to ecological concerns, not the other way around.

A new way of thinking is required to solve the problems caused by the old way of thinking“. Albert Einstein made that conclusion already half a century ago. Although not referring to environmental problems or unsustainable use of natural resources, but to scientific thinking in general, he formulated a principle that holds true for any individual and society: Unless we have the courage to admit that things have gone wrong, realise that established patterns of thinking and acting cannot make it right again (since they lead us wrong in the first place), and finally the courage to change accordingly, no problems will be solved and the same mistakes will only be repeated over and over again.

The ECO’s have previously emphasised the need for a genuinely new thinking in the Baltic Sea Region: “Short-term plans are needed to solve the most acute problems. However, long-term plans, which have a cross-sector, holistic approach and are based on ecological sustainability should be preferred when defining policies for the protection of the Baltic Sea. Ecological sustainability should be the consistent guideline in all decision-making. The serious and effective realisation of such plans includes a new and often radical challenge that we have to face: ecological sustainability requires a real change in our attitudes and practices. Disastrous exploitative attitudes to nature have to be abandoned if we wish to assure the ecological restoration and protection of the various ecosystems of the Baltic Sea.“

Clinging to traditional thinking and policy-making stands in sharp contrast to the political commitment to sustainable development made in a number of declarations adopted in the Baltic Sea Region - some of them at the highest political level - during recent years.

However, a number of the political initiatives actually taken in the 1990’s in Baltic Sea Region do not reflect any deeper understanding of the commitments made in those declarations. On the contrary, the rapid region-wide adaptation to EU policies and EU programmes, the guiding principles for the EU enlargement, as well as VASAB and various other pan-Baltic political initiatives in the fields of transports and energy, point in quite another direction than what is proudly declared in these statements.

The lack of integration between sector policies is evident - although genuine integration could be a first step in the right direction. The lack of willingness to fundamentally change existing models to meet the basic objectives of sustainable development is more than evident, it is sadly flagrant. It is difficult to vision how a sustainable future for the Baltic Sea Region could be paved way for when only old methods are used. Indeed, Einstein’s words are very relevant and should be included in the next major joint political declarations by Baltic Head of State or other highlevel gatherings in the region: “A new way of thinking is required to solve the problems caused by the old way of thinking“.

Concepts for change

A number of concepts have in recent years been coined to define natural limits that we must keep within, and the needs for changes in lifestyles (consumption and production patterns) and organisation of our societies in order to manage this without compromising development today or survival tomorrow.

Carrying capacity is the maximum number of people that an area of land can support.

• Ecological footprints is the size of the “shadow areas“ required to produce and supply u products that cannot be produced in a region, for climatic or other reasons, but which are nevertheless demanded in everyday life. An example is that the 29 largest Baltic cities are dependent on an area 200 times larger than their own for the supply of food, fibres, etc., for their citizens.
• Environmental space is the total amount of energy, non-renewable resources, land, water, wood and other resources which can be used globally or regionally without environmental damage; without impinging on the rights of future generations; within the context of equal rights to resource consumption and concern for the quality of life of all people of the world.
• Dematerialization means providing the same services at the same time as the use of raw materials and pollution is reduced by at least a factor 10.
• Ecological rucksack. As an example, to produce a computer weighing about 20 kg, the movement of 14 tonnes of solid materials (not including the use of water) from nature into the technosphere is required. This is the ecological rucksack of the computer, a rucksack that increases the environmental “cost“ of the computer.
• Eco-efficiency is used to describe the lifecycle-wide environmental impact intensity of a product, service or infrastructure, i.e., the degree of environmental impact during its entire life cycle. The less a product, service or infrastructure “costs“ in terms of environmental impact “from cradle to grave“, the higher its total eco-efficiency.
• Factor 4 and Factor 10 means production of goods or services with only one fourth or one tenth of the present amount of resources (materials and energy).

• Resource productivity is a measurement of how many service units one can get from a given amount of material. With increased resource productivity one increases the benefit per given unit of resource use, and the increase of resource productivity is an important goal in a dematerialised society

These concepts are closely inter-linked and all, basically, reflect a similar and new way of thinking. Maybe most importantly, they all presume a paradigm shift, a far-reaching change of perspective, a clean break with old development models. They do not envisage solving problems through minor changes within existing structures or a nice greening of the existing systems, but through a radical and fundamental change in attitude and approach.

Liberating limits

For a long time, natural resources have been perceived as free commodities, there for the taking and without any price tags attached. Increasing flows of products and materials have been considered as signs of success, freedom of choice and progress. There has been no or little understanding of the environmental consequences of an unlimited and linear flow of energy and materials. Massive and constantly increasing flows of energy and materials - consumption reaching higher and higher levels - has also been, and still is, assumed as an indispensable prerequisite for labour and employment.

If the definition of wealth (richness) is based on a high GNP (gross national product), dematerialization is a sign of poverty. However, if one takes the limits set up by ecosystems as the point of departure, a society achieves a higher level of richness if it refrains from an excess utilisation of its resources. New thinking demands new criteria for measuring the welfare of the states and individuals.

It is becoming obvious that the world is a far more integrated system where economy, ecology, anthropology and technology are interwoven in dynamic and complex interactions. The consequences of the deliberate separation of society from nature and its restrictions now hits us like a boomerang, and we are left with two choices. Either we continue on the path of separation, which will eventually lead to ecological, social and economic collapse, or we start entering upon a course towards re-establishing the connections between society and nature, thereby gaining a late but still available opportunity to build a sustainable future.

Today, the discussion is conducted in terms of putting a price on the environment, of internalising environmental costs, of adjusting society to what the environment can put up with. Although a better approach than not taking any account at all of the carrying capacity of the ecosystems, it is nevertheless far from sufficient.

The natural resource base is an essential prerequisite for our possibilities to obtain welfare and freedom of choice, regardless of how we define those concepts. In our lives we are completely dependent on the services provided by the ecosystems, but we tend to take them for granted as if they were just there and free of charge. The life-supporting environment has been defined as that part of the earth providing the “physiological necessities of life: food and other energies, mineral nutrients, air, and water“. The life-supporting ecosystem is the functional term for the environment, organisms, processes, and resources interacting to provide these necessities.

One of the results of an assessment made of the resource use and life-support value of ecosystems within the drainage area of the Baltic Sea is that the 29 largest Baltic cities are dependent on an area 200 times larger than their own for the supply of food, fibres, etc., for their citizens. In order to cover the urban needs for wood products (fibres), an area 17 times the size of the city itself is required. The corresponding figures for arable lands are 50 times the area of the city, and for fishes a sea area 133 times larger than the area of the city. This dependence has been referred to as the ecological “footprints“ of the cities. Or more directly: cities are like parasites feeding off the natural and domesticated environments. Without the surrounding “tissue“ to nourish them, they would die instantly.

The same holds true for the import to the Baltic Sea Region of many commodities from other parts of the world. Large “shadow areas“ are required to produce and supply us with products that cannot be produced in this region, for climatic or other reasons, but which are nevertheless demanded in everyday life.

Another conclusion of the project is that these Baltic cities require natural or domesticated environments corresponding to an area somewhere between 700 and 1,600 times larger than their own to assimilate their emissions of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon dioxide. The forests can assimilate only about 15 per cent of the present emissions of carbon dioxide. Remaining wetlands can take care of a mere tenth of the total amounts of nitrogen emitted and discharged from land-based sources.

Almost 70 per cent of the population within the Baltic Sea drainage basin lives in cities, 26 per cent in large cities (> 250,000 inhabitants) and 44 per cent in smaller cities or towns (200,00-250,000 inhabitants). Around 43 per cent of the populated area of the drainage basin as a whole, with over one third of the total population (26 million people, 83 per cent of which living in cities or towns), is located within 50 km from the Baltic coast. About 15 million people, 18 per cent of the whole population, is found within a 10 km distance from the coast.

A vast majority (64 per cent) of the Baltic population lives in the drainage areas of the Baltic Proper, i.e., in the southern and southeastern parts of the region. Poland accounts for 45 per cent of the entire Baltic population, on an area corresponding to 18 per cent of the total drainage area, followed by Russia (12 per cent of the population, 18 per cent of the drainage area), and Sweden (10 per cent of the population, 24 per cent of the drainage area). Finland, also with almost 18 per cent of the drainage area, has about six per cent of the total Baltic population.

Nearly half of the drainage area is covered by forest, most of which in Finland and Sweden, whereas 20 per cent is arable land, the single largest part of which in Poland. Almost one fourth of the arable land and one fifth of the forests are found within 50 km from the coast.

One important finding in the study of the Baltic resource use is that the region is still, basically, self-sufficient in terms of supplying agricultural and forest products to the population within the drainage basin (at the present total levels of consumption). That is, however, not the case for fish. In order to meet the demands for fish on the present consumption level, we would need another six Baltic Seas.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the regional resource base for agricultural and forest products is still sufficient, the Baltic Sea Region draws heavily on resources from ecosystems in other parts of the world at prices that are far too low to reflect the real ecological costs inflicted upon those ecosystems. Our import of food, forage, fibres, and minerals from other regions, many of them in the Third World, is not ecologically sustainable.

The environmental space is the total amount of energy, non-renewable resources, land, water, wood and other resources, which can be used globally or regionally:

• without environmental damage;
• without impinging on the rights of future generations; and

• within the context of equal rights to resource consumption and concern for the quality of life of all people of the world.

The environmental space approach is based on a qualitative and quantitative assessment of sustainable resource use at the national level compared to the national “fair share“ calculated on a global or regional basis, and policies and value changes to accommodate development based on that fair share without loss of quality of life.

The first of the above mentioned principles of the environmental space approach tells that global and national sustainability can only be achieved if the throughput of natural resources in modern economic processes is reduced to manageable, ecologically sound levels. These are dictated by the earth’s carrying capacity, the availability and renewability of resources and the recuperative power of natural systems. This principle implies that environmental space is limited. Environmental space analysis helps us understand the magnitude of those limits, and it is sufficiently quantifiable to provide valuable policy guidance.

The second principle is that there is a need for equitable global development, as opposed to selfish, greedy development. This means that all countries should have equal access to the world’s resources, but also equal responsibility for the management of these resources. This equity principle means a lower resource per capita than is currently the case in developed countries, and the opportunity for a rise in consumption of resources to a sustainable level for developing countries, to give a balanced pattern by the middle of the 21st century. Although there are good moral reasons for taking this approach, it is also a matter of increasing political urgency.

The third principle is that production and consumption should serve to enhance quality of life rather than degrade it. There is therefore a need to redefine the objectives of development North and South so that vital aspects of living, such as the need for health, work, family and community, and cultural and spiritual life, are balanced against short-term benefits of material consumption. The benefits and costs of consumption beyond basic needs are considered in a broader perspective of the objectives of development. The world’s environmental space can support many different sustainable lifestyles.

The Friends of the Earth have elaborated the environment space approach. The above presentation derives from the book “Sharing the World“ by Michael Carley&Philippe Spapens, Earthscan 1998.

Environmental space analyses show that CO2-emissions and consumption of non-renewable raw materials in developed countries must be reduced by 80-90 per cent or approximately by a factor 10.

Making much more with much less

In many countries and groups of decision-makers it is now recognised, at the highest level in government and business, that the current lifestyles in Western and Northern Europe must be replaced by completely new production and consumption patterns.

In the words of the Factor 10 Club:

Most governments, corporations, and voters continue to assume that a healthy economy is one that uses increasing amounts of energy, materials and resources to produce more goods, more jobs and more income. This assumption is a holdover from the mass economy of a dying age, an age in which growth was marked by a steady expansion in the productions of energy, the depletion of resources and the degradation of the environment. Although passé, this assumption still dominates public policies in finance, energy, agriculture, forest and other sectors, slowing and sometimes stopping and even reversing the transition to a new, efficient and more sustainable economy. This assumption also dominates environmental policies. They continue to focus on the tail end rather than the front-end of the economy. They encourage end-of-pipe solutions and treating or recycling resources, rather than increasing the productivity with which they are used. The result is a steady increase in environmental protection costs. For the last 25 years, industrialised countries have pursued expensive environmental policies focusing upon the output side of the economy. Despite this, the ecological situation is still deteriorating.“

It is believed, however, that within one generation, nations can achieve a tenfold increase in the efficiency with which they use energy, natural resources and other materials. Such a shift will, however, demand fundamental policy and institutional changes. The reward would be a steady improvement in the quality of life of communities, new opportunities and improved competitiveness for business, expanded possibilities for employment and an increased potential for creation of wealth and its more equitable distribution.

Dematerialization, eco efficiency, ecological “rucksacks“, Factor 4/Factor 10, and increased resource productivity all deal with the same thing: How to do much more with considerably less and at a considerably lower ecological cost.

According to those advocating dematerialization, the evolution of the ecosphere is conti-nuously altered by the massive movement of natural materials. Today, 4-5 times as much solid material are moved by man every year as by the natural geological forces. Environmental damage is caused not only by pollution but also by the process involved in extracting resources. Resource extraction is the more significant cause, since all materials taken into an economy end up, sooner or later, as emissions and wastes. Thus, reducing the cost of environmental damage requires both bringing down emissions and reducing the flow of resources drawn from nature in the first place. On average, more than 90 per cent of the natural resources we extract or harvest are wasted in the process of getting the 10 per cent of resources we want.

Thus, dematerialization “means” providing the same services at the same time as the use of raw materials and pollution is reduced by at least a factor 10.

Dematerialization is a matter of slowing down and reducing this grossly wasteful movement and misuse - or rather, abuse - of materials and use of energy. The objective is to stop the waste and reduce the burdens we now impose on the environment. For example, to produce a computer weighing about 20 kg, the movement of 14 tonnes of solid materials (not including the use of water) from nature into the technosphere is required. That is the ecological rucksack of the computer, a rucksack that increases the environmental “cost“ of the computer with a Factor 700. The ecological rucksacks of materials differ, but few materials used today can be categorised as “light weight“ in that respect.

Industrialised countries have until now only focused upon the output side of the economy instead of concentrating on reducing the flow of resources going into the economy. In the output-centred economy one must, sooner or later, invest heavily in end-of-pipe solutions, in environmental technology to make existing technology greener, and in control-and-command legislation to enforce regulations for cleaning up pollution and waste following traditional patterns of production and consumption.

In a dematerialised society, the flows of materials and energy to produce goods and services have been radically reduced. The focus shifts from producing things in a production-centred economy to producing and providing services and system maintenance. You make the efforts already in the very beginning to avoid excess materials and energy flowing into the economy, instead of having to take care of the consequences once an unrestricted flow has been allowed.

According to the Factor 10 Club, the appropriate dematerialization in the industrialised countries amounts to an average Factor of 10 or more to make sufficient room for an adequate technical development of the rest of the world. Anything less than a Factor 10 cannot be considered sufficient from an ecological point of view.

Factor 4 or Factor 10 means production of goods or services with only one fourth or one tenth of the present amount of resources (materials and energy). New technology and new smart materials - sometimes referred to as “eco intelligent“ or “lean technology“ - will naturally be a prerequisite, but there is also a need for a new way of looking upon production and consumption.

Certain advanced companies have found that they could invent products that use light and more durable materials and require less energy to produce. They also found that they could redesign production processes to require less and more flexible capital plant and to recycle and reuse by-products internally - with benefit to their bottom line. In fact, they discovered that front-end investments to enhance energy, resource and environmental efficiency, and front-end measures to design eco-intelligent goods and services could be recovered and transformed into new business, new markets and new profit centres. Studies show that the environmental benefits of dematerialization of the economy extend back to the beginning in the production cycle. They manifest themselves in decreased mining and mining wastes, decreased water consumption and water pollution, and decreased air pollution, deforestation and erosion.“

To reach Factor 4 or Factor 10 (or an even higher degree of dematerialization) in resource use is an eco efficiency goal: one can increase the eco efficiency by a Factor 4, 10 or more. The term eco-efficiency is used to describe the lifecycle-wide environmental impact intensity of a product, service or infrastructure, i.e., the degree of environmental impact during its entire life cycle. The less a product, service or infrastructure “costs“ in terms of environmental impact “from cradle to grave“, the higher its total eco-efficiency.

It is important to realise, though, that eco-efficiency does not mean making existing technology more efficient, but rather to invent new technology using a minimum of resources. Considering that efficiency gains in existing, established technology is calculated at some 0.6 per cent per year, it is easy to realise how long it would take to achieve a 90 per cent increase in efficiency the traditional way. Instead, eco efficiency is a question of increasing resource productivity.

One can use quite simple measures to assess the ecological intensity of material flows - the use and flows of materials and energy in a given product or service - with Material Inputs Per Unit Service, MIPS and Cost Per Unit Service, COPS. Calculations are made per unit of delivered “service“ or function in the product during its entire lifecycle (manufacturing, transport, package, use, reuse, recycling, new manufacturing from recycled material, and final disposal as waste). In a dematerialised society you strive for reduced MIPS and COPS by using increasingly smaller amounts of resources per unit of service or function.

Decision-makers in politics and business, as well as consumers, need valid, understandable and internationally compatible information about the ecological rucksacks of goods on the market. Eco-labelling can, thus, be used to identify the material and energy intensity per unit delivery of service or use (MIPS or COPS) during the life cycle of a product, infrastructure or service.

The rise in labour productivity and industrial inputs need to be slowed down in favour of increasing resource productivity. To design sustainable products, services and infrastructures means to select the route of the highest possible resource productivity, from “cradle to grave“ or “cradle to cradle“. Resource productivity is a measurement of how many service units one can get from a given amount of material, i.e., it is the inverse of MIPS. With increased resource productivity one increases the benefit per given unit of resource use, and the increase of resource productivity is an important goal in a dematerialised society.

SECTORS

A holistic, cross-sector and integrated approach must be the overriding principle in the process of developing and implementing an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region. Thus, activities for the development and implementation of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region must involve actions by all relevant actors at all levels. Without actions taken to change the level of pricing, markets, behaviours and consumption etc., the ultimate goal of a sustainable Baltic Sea Region will never be reached. Sustainability goals must be developed in all sectors of society, to clarify what sector responsibilities and commitments are needed. The development of regional sector programmes for sustainable development, such as “sustainable Baltic agriculture“ and “sustainable Baltic shipping“, could be one option to achieve this.

The sectors reviewed in the following sections have been included because they have been identified as being of particular importance in the development of a regional Agenda 21. However, it should be emphasised that there are a number of additional areas and sectors in societies, which are of significant importance to environment and sustainable development, which must also be involved in the process of reaching sustainability.

The proposals and demands listed in the following sections should be regarded as important first steps and concrete actions to be taken on a path towards sustainability. However, it should be clearly stated that it is far from a complete list of all those wide-ranging actions that will be required to reach the final goal of sustainability.

Thus, the proposals and demands presented in this chapter should be regarded as prerequisites and essential steps for the successful implementation of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region.

AGRICULTURE

BackgroundThe agricultural sector is of economic as well as social importance in all countries in the Baltic Sea region. However, the structure of the agricultural sector varies to a large degree between the countries in the Region. In the countries in transition a relatively large proportion of the popula-tion is still employed within the sector and lives in rural areas.

An ecologically sustainable agricultural sector will be an essential component of sustainable societies by e.g. guaranteeing basic supplies of food, contributing to the conservation of the rich biodiversity of the Region and through the re-circulation of essential plant nutrients and organic matter between urban and rural areas.

Agriculture is presently a major contributor to the nutrient (mainly nitrogen and phosphorous) load causing extensive eutrophication of fresh waters as well as coastal and marine environments of the Baltic Sea Region. Agriculture is also an important source of toxic and hazardous sub-stances, inter alia, through leakage of pesticides to the aquatic environment.

The most important sources of nutrients and hazardous substances related to agriculture are:

• Leaching of nitrogen and phosphorous from arable land;
• Leaching of nitrogen and phosphorous caused by inappropriate storage of manure from animal production;
• Atmospheric emissions of ammonia from animal production and field application of manure;
• Leaching of pesticides due to inappropriate application techniques and storage facilities;

• Inadequate treatment of waste water in rural areas.

The development within the agricultural sector will, thus, be of crucial importance for the future environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea Region, including the coastal and marine environments of the Baltic Sea Area.

The ECO's firmly believe that the problems within the agricultural sector in the context of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, i.e. the process towards an ecologically sustainable development, should be addressed from the perspective of the sector’s contribution to the pollution of the Baltic Sea Area. Highest priority should be given to nitrogen and second priority to phosphorous and pesticides.

The Governments have at several occasions recognised the urgent need to reduce the pollution load from the agricultural sector. Already in 1988, the Environment ministers at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting agreed on a 50 per cent reduction of the total nutrient load to the Baltic Sea from 1986 to 1995. In addition, pollution from the agricultural sector (diffuse sources as well as large point sources) was included as a component in the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme (HELCOM JCP) adopted in 1992.

The 50 per cent goal has not been reached. Data clearly indicate that the agricultural sector is still a major pollution source contributing large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous to the Baltic annually.

Extensive and prolonged algal blooms in coastal waters as well as in the open sea, oxygen deficiency over large areas are all clear indicators that the present agricultural sector is not ecologically sustainable. This holds true for agriculture in all of the countries in the Baltic Sea Region.

Four of the countries around the Baltic (Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden) are presently members of the EU, while Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are seeking to become members as soon as possible.

The EU Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, has so far focused mainly on area and production support. This has resulted in overproduction and intensive use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides with accompanying negative effects on the environment over large areas in Europe. Thus, an “environmental“ restructuring of the CAP would be an essential step (perhaps even the most important step that could be taken at this time) towards reducing the environmental impact and moving the agricultural sector in the Baltic Sea Region towards sustainability.

Drastic reductions in the use of mineral fertilisers as well as pesticides in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia as a result of economic recession and reduced intensity within agriculture have resulted in very significant reductions in fertiliser and pesticide inputs. However, probably due to the large amounts of nutrients available in soils, which earlier received excessive amounts of fertilisers, which are now leaking, the concentrations of nutrients in the recipient water bodies have not decreased correspondingly.

At the same time, it should be recognised that the development of an ecologically sustainable agriculture throughout the Region is a prerequisite for the protection of the rich biodiversity (species and habitats) connected to the agricultural landscape, not least in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic regions of Russia. In these countries large areas have not been used for intense agriculture and have as a consequence retained species that have disappeared from the intensively farmed landscapes in the western parts of the region.

An enlargement of the EU resulting in the extension of the present CAP to the new members would jeopardise the environmental benefits gained within the agricultural sector in the candidate countries as mentioned above. Thus, an “environmental“ restructuring of the CAP will be an essential step towards reducing the environmental impact of the agricultural sector.

At present, “the dumping“ of agricultural products from the EU in the countries in transition constitutes a serious obstacle to the restructuring and revitalisation of the agricultural sector in these countries and especially the development of a sustainable agricultural sector

Definition

Sustainable agriculture is an agriculture which secures the fertility of the soils for coming generations by sustaining or rebuilding a pool of organic matter in the soil, clean groundwater and a rich biodiversity in the agricultural landscape (field). This can only be achieved by basing agricultural production on varied crop rotation, closed re-circulation of nutrients and biological control.

At present, organic agriculture is the mode of production that comes closest to fulfilling this definition.

Approaches

The ECO's believe that the development within the agricultural sector should be seen in a broader context and be an integral as part of a comprehensive and integrated set of policies for sustainable rural development.

The overall approach should be to reduce the use of nitrogen in agriculture. Especially in Denmark and Germany the input of nitrogen has by far exceeded the limit of biological efficiency. At the same time, an increase in the use of nitrogen beyond what is needed to achieve a balanced fertilisation within a restructured agricultural sector in the countries in transition must be avoided.

In legislation and through education and extension programmes it must be made clear that the optimal yields in sustainable agriculture in most cases do not correspond to what is regarded as an optimal economic yield in present highly specialised and intensive agriculture in the Region (and e.g. within the EU). Proposals for changes in the present agricultural policies focusing in stead on environmental optimal yield have, however, recently been adopted in Denmark and Germany.

The principle guiding the use of fertilisers should be that of balanced fertilisation. This means that at field level, no more nutrients should be introduced than are removed by the crop. Inevitable losses must not affect the environment negatively and agricultural practices must be improved to minimise these losses. Demands for re-circulation of nutrients must be fulfilled at the local level. The principle of balanced fertilisation does not necessarily imply the use of specialised satellite computer systems, which have the capacity to calculate the exact amount of fertiliser to be spread on a certain field spot. On small farms, the principle could be based on unsophisticated calculations made from normal yields.

Organic farming is one way of achieving sustainable agriculture. Concerted efforts should be made to promote organic farming throughout the Baltic Sea Region. Several of the countries in the Region have already set national goals for a certain area or per cent of their arable land to be grown by organic farming methods. Such methods will contribute to the reduction of nitrogen leakage by:

• Balancing farmed land area and number of livestock through criteria for on-farm produced fodder;
• Reduction of access to nitrogen in plant production;
• High variation in crop rotation, including having large shares of crops which constitute effective green covers during winter time;

• Providing a strong incentive for efficient use of nitrogen in manure.

Goals

• The nitrogen load from agriculture to the Baltic Sea should be reduced to levels, which ensure that there are no adverse effects in the coastal and marine environments. As a first step, nitrogen runoff should be reduced by 50 per cent until the year 2000 compared to the runoff in 1986;
• Drinking water resources must be protected from leakage of nutrients and pesticides;
• Organic farming or comparable agricultural practices should, by the year 2010, be in use on at least 30 per cent of all arable land within the Region;
• As long as agricultural production is dominated by non-sustainable agricultural methods, organically grown products should not be subject to quotas and taxes in the Baltic Sea Region. All EU member countries should work in favour of such exemptions from the EU market regime;
• All animal farms should, to at least 80 per cent, be self-supporting (self-sufficient) with fodder by the year 2020. A third of the farms should have reached this goal by 2010. Self-sufficiency should be allowed to include fodder produced on land in close vicinity to the farm;
• Agriculture in the Baltic Sea Region should become independent of mineral fertilisers, as well as of pesticides, by the year 2020. This goal includes a phasing out of mineral fertilisers within a 30 year period;
• All meals served by public authorities and organisations (schools, hospitals etc.) should, by the year 2010, be fully based on products produced within organic farming;
• Environmental criteria should be an integral part of all financial support schemes within the agricultural sector;

• Organisations for the promotion and control of products from organic farming should be established in each country. In this process the EU should accept all organisations which have been approved by IFOAM, thereby facilitating the trade in organically produced food products.

Actions

• All countries in the region should review and revise their agricultural legislation with the purpose to integrate the principles and objectives of sustainable agriculture and introduce the legislative and economic measures necessary to implement these principles and objectives in practice;
• All countries should sign, ratify and implement, as a matter of high priority, the new HELCOM Annex on prevention of pollution from agriculture;
• The EU member countries in the Region, as well as those countries which have applied for membership, should work together to ensure that the restructuring of the EU CAP focuses on rural development and environmental policy and includes the integration of clear environmental goals and introduces environmental conditionality on all agricultural subsidies;
• Non-EU member countries which have national support programmes within the agricultural sector should make all subsidies subject to environmental conditionality;
• Control and labelling systems for food products which have been produced organically, based on the IFOAM's rules adjusted to site specific conditions, should be promoted in countries where they are presently non-existing;
• In order to facilitate the export of organically produced food products from non-member countries, EU member countries should encourage the EU Commission to approve national organic farming control organisations which have been accredited by IFOAM;
• National action plans and programmes to phase out the use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides during a 30-year period should be elaborated. As a first step, all cadmium containing products should be banned from the market;
• Substantial taxes should be put on mineral fertilisers and the resources that become available through such taxes should be used to finance different programmes to promote sustainable agriculture including organic farming;
• Strict national guidelines for the storing and spreading of manure should be elaborated;
• No arable land should be left open or newly ploughed in coastal regions during wintertime. Efficient catch crops should be sown;
• Limits should be put on the number of livestock units per hectare;
• The use of genetically engineered plant and animal species and strains should not be allowed.

• All countries should encourage the establishment of watershed groups at the local level. Farmers, local authorities, consumers and environmentalists should be members of these groups

ENERGY

The present trends of energy use in industrial societies are unsustainable. The use of fossil fuels and nuclear power has short and long-term effects, which are in contradiction with basic sustainability requirements.The most threatening ecological global problem is the increasing greenhouse effect where about half of the man made greenhouse gases are estimated to come from the energy sector. In addition, local and regional problems are created by emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels. In the Baltic Sea Region, acidification of soils and waters, and eutrophication of fresh waters and marine waters are examples of serious regional effects. At the local level, high concentrations of air pollutants from fossil fuel combustion (including traffic) constitute serious risks to human health in many urban areas throughout the region.

Nuclear power is also an unsustainable source of energy causing a series of problems in the whole nuclear chain, from uranium mining to the disposal of nuclear wastes - and the possible disastrous consequences of a major accident at a nuclear power plant, irrespective of its location in the region. Additional problems are created because it is not possible to completely separate civil nuclear power production from the use of nuclear weapons in the military sector and among criminals.

The ECO's noted with concern that neither the Precidency Declaration from the Baltic Sea States Summits in 1996 and 1998, nor the Action Programmes adopted within the CBSS in 1966, contain any clear com­mitment to phase out nuclear power in the Baltic Sea Region. On the contrary, these documents open up for the construction of new such power plants by just noting that nuclear plants should be constructed and operated, and nuclear waste handled in a manner, which minimises risks to the population and the environment.

The ECO's do not believe that nuclear hazards can be eliminated through the introduction of certain technologies. Technological solutions may contribute to the reduction of some of the hazards connected with nuclear waste, but the whole complex of problems related to nuclear energy production and nuclear waste management can only be solved by taking concerted action (incl. legislative and administrative measures and economic incentives etc.) to totally phase out nuclear energy production.

The negotiations within the global Climate Convention has opened up for Joint Implementation of CO2 reductions and recently so-called flexible market based instruments became a part of outcome of the Kyoto meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention. However, it should be emphasised that according to the Kyoto protocol these approaches are just identified as available options and must not in any way be construed as demands.

The ECO's firmly believe that Joint Implementation is not an acceptable approach for reducing the region's contribution to climate change. Joint Implementation and Tradable Permits are unjust to less wealthy states and confusing to citizens. They constitute short-sighted solutions which give polluting industries (and western democracies) the right to deprive the countries in transition of their cheapest and best options to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and use these emission reductions for their own benefits (i.e. to show that they comply with their international obligations concerning CO2 reductions). In a few years the countries in transition will need these options to control their own CO2 emissions. In contrast, industries with high emissions will be able to continue their inefficient production in the western countries. As a consequence, important incentives for innovative eco-efficient developments within the energy, transport and industry sectors are drastically reduced or eliminated.

Promotion of renewable energy sources, energy savings and efficiency

A sustainable energy sector in the Baltic Sea region must be based on renewable energy sources. The Baltic Sea Region has great potential for the use of renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar and biofuels. The development and rapid introduc­tion of these energy sources should be strongly supported and promoted. Several studies have shown that the potential for renewable energy is much greater than has been estimated e.g. with the energy sector study of the Baltic Agenda 21. It is for instance reasonable to expect a significant technological improvement in this field.

In Finland, Sweden and the Carelian region of Russia biofuels seem to offer great potentials which could be harnessed without serious negative effects on the rich biological diversity of these areas. Studies from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Murmansk area of Russia, clearly indicate that the potential to use wind energy has been largely underestimated. On the other hand, however, large-scale hydropower as well as small-scale hydropower projects in sensitive areas must not be further developed.

A comprehensive re-evaluation of the potential contribution of various renewable resources to a sustainable energy sector in the Baltic Sea Region should thus, be urgently made.

As part of a transition to a sustainable energy future in the Baltic Sea Region concerted efforts are also needed in the fields of energy savings and energy efficiency, and favouring low-CO2 gaseous fuels rich in hydrogen in stead of coal.

The potential for energy savings in the countries in the Baltic Sea Region has been estimated to be between 20 and 40 per cent. These possibilities should be fully utilised.

However, experience from recent years does not give rise to optimism about the political will to go beyond general declarations of good intent. Despite many promises from western govern-ments, the assistance to projects aimed at promot­ing energy efficiency and renewables in the countries in Central and Eastern Europe has been very low and slow. For example, the Nordic countries have given more money to the maintenance of the nuclear power plants in Lithuania and Russia than to projects promoting alternative energy sources.

The Baltic Ring

The purpose of the so-called Baltic Ring project is to develop a common electricity market, including a common electricity transmission grid, for the Baltic Sea Region. The Baltic Ring project is often promoted as being environmentally beneficial.

The ECO's do not agree with the conclusion of the Baltic Ring study, that the implementation of the Baltic Ring would have a positive impact on the environment. In order for the Baltic Ring to be economically feasible the energy consumption of the Baltic Sea Region needs to remain high or even increase. This is quite contrary to one of the basic requirements for sustainability within the energy sector i.e. a radical reduction of the electricity consumption.

The ECO's believe that there is a serious risk that investments in creating the Baltic Ring will compete in a negative way with the urgent investments needed in projects related to the development of renewable energy sources. The Baltic Ring would thus seriously delay and hamper the transition to a sustainable energy future in the Baltic Sea Region.

The ECO's do not accept the wide scale regional introduction and expansion of the use of natural gas. However, slightly expanded use of natural gas (e.g. making hydrogen fuel from natural gas) could serve the purpose of moving quickly towards a fossil fuel free era

In addition, the building of a new or an expansion of the existing grid system may also lead to serious fragmentation of landscapes in all countries concerned, including many valuable natural areas.

Definitions

Sustainable development within the energy sector is an open process characterised by:

• Making adequate basic energy services available for all with minimum environmental impact;
• Setting up legally binding goals for the energy supply systems as regards the carrying capacity of the environment, equal right for all world citizens to pollute, resource depletion, economy and safety;
• The development of a sustainable, 100 per cent renewable, energy supply system without the use of nuclear power;
• Ensuring that biological diversity is not negatively affected through changed land use, the construction of new hydro-electric power plants, power transmission lines, pipelines or other infrastructure
• Ensuring that decision-makers and citizens have incentives and opportunities to pursue these goals;
• Frequently revising goals and incentives according to increased knowledge and proper monitoring; and

• Citizens’ full access to environmental statistics and information of all levels of decision.

Goals

• Emissions and deposition of acidifying substances are reduced to below critical loads/levels;
• Reduction by 80 per cent of CO2 emissions until the year 2050, with an interim minimum reduction by 50 per cent until 2030;
• By the year 2010, renewable energy sources should constitute at least 15 per cent of the total energy production (excluding hydropower);
• An annual decrease in the final energy consumption by a least 1 per cent to be reached by the year 2030 for the Region as a whole;
• A complete phase out of nuclear power by the year 2010; and

• Harmonisation of energy and emission statistics before the year 2005.

Actions

• In order to achieve these goals a wide range of measures should be adopted by the countries in the Baltic Sea Region, including:

• Increasing the conservation of energy;

• A major shift towards using renewable sources of energy;
• Increasing the efficiency of energy production, distribution and use;
• Switching to less polluting fuels;
• A phase-out of nuclear power and as a first step in this process the closing of the most dangerous nuclear reactors;

• Applying the best available techniques in the energy sector.

As part of this:

• A regional programme for assessing and promoting renewable energy sources, including demonstration and information activities, should be developed and implemented. The programme should include efforts to establish favourable market conditions for renewable energy sources. National programmes should supplement the regional programme.
• Legislation/regulations should be introduced to ensure that the price of fuels and electricity fully reflects the real environ­mental and social costs to society, as well as the inefficient use of energy and other resources. As part of this full pricing policy, all government subsidies of nuclear power and fossil fuel energy sources, as well as for the maintenance of such power plants, should be stopped;
• Taxes on energy, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides should be introduced in all countries in the Baltic Sea region;
• Assistance to project aimed at promoting energy efficiency in Central and East European countries, as well as in the western parts of the Baltic Sea, should be increased substantially.
• Nuclear power should be phased out in the Baltic Sea Region as soon as possible and not later than the year 2010. As part of this process, the Chernobyl- RBMK-type nuclear reactors in Ignalina and Sosnovy Bor, and the VVER-type reactors on the Kola Peninsula should be closed as well as all western reactors. This means that the Baltic Countries must radically increase their co-operation on energy matters;
• Legislation should be developed in those countries which have nuclear reactors to ensure that the nuclear power plant operators are charged with unlimited responsibility and liability for the effects caused by their plants during the normal operation as well as in case of accidents;
• Permissions should not be given for the building of new nuclear power plants;
• Assistance schemes that prolong the use of nuclear power should be stopped. Assistance should only be accepted in case of extremely urgent safety measures;
• In order to facilitate the phasing out of the environmentally worst energy sources - oil, coal, oil shale and nuclear power - natural gas could be used as a contemporary transition fuel. However, risks associated with submarine gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea must be carefully evaluated. Biogas and hydrogen technologies are already well developed. Research and development of gaseous biofuels must be encouraged and the use of gaseous fuels should be favoured in taxation and pricing policies;
• Measures should be taken to prohibit that Joint Implementation Projects are implemented for credit of the emissions. Projects involving nuclear power must not be part of Joint Implementation Schemes and assistance money should not be used for this purpose.

• Risks associated with oil transports in the Baltic Sea Area are increasing, one reason being that one of the world’s largest oil terminals is being constructed in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. One serious accident may destroy sensitive ecosystems in the Baltic Sea as a whole. Strict rules must be adopted concerning oil transports and regarding the construction of ships as well as the capacity to combat oil at sea and ashore.

FISHERIES

(A comprehensive position paper on sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Sea Region was submitted by the ECO's to the IBSFC open meeting in February 1998. The following chapter is an abbreviation of the position paper)

Fisheries involve complex interactions between man and the natural world, as both an economic sector (industry) and a socio-economic-cultural foundation for people and communities. Decisions on fisheries must be made by balancing risks - the risk of stock and ecological collapse versus the risk of lost economic benefits. The fundamental question in considering the risks is does the burden of proof favour exploitation or conservation?

The ECO's strongly advocate that a programme for sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Sea Region must in principle include all fish resources within the catchment area. Only such an approach will allow for the integrated, ecological approach that is necessary if fisheries in the Baltic Sea Region are to become truly sustainable. In addition, a sustainable fisheries policy for the Baltic Sea Region must fully integrate environment, fishery and socio-economic aspects.

Consequently, major changes of the international fisheries management will be necessary to allow for the comprehensive ecological approach.

Goals for sustainable fisheries

The ECO's firmly believe that natural aquatic ecosystems have an intrinsic value, that is a value apart from, in this case, the economic value of the fish caught in the Baltic Sea region.

Taking this into account, the ECO's proposal for an overall goal for sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Sea Region is that it should promote responsible, environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable fisheries practices, while at the same time maintaining the biodiversity, productivity and ecological processes of the aquatic environments.

Even though the ECO's believe that protection of the ecological integrity of the ecosystems must be the primary goal of any sustainable fisheries policy, the ECO's accept that socio-economic considerations must be included among the sub-goals.

New approaches

When assessing present Baltic fisheries against these objectives and goals, it is quite clear that there is a strong need for new approaches in general, as well as on the individual species level. This is particularly the case concerning the two major commercial species in the Baltic i.e. salmon and cod.

The need for a holistic ecosystem approach to the management of marine resources has become globally accepted when development of sustainable fisheries is discussed. The overall objective is to ensure that fisheries and environmental management are consistent with maintaining the characteristic structure, functioning, productivity and diversity of the ecosystems, and with a high level of protection. In addition, it should be consistent with the needs of food production.

The integration of environmental objectives will be a prerequisite to ensure that the fishery sector assumes its sector responsibility in accordance with, inter alia, the principles of Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity.

Sustainability in fishery systems requires changed attitudes amongst fisheries interests in favour of a “conservation ethics“. However, “conservation first“ attitudes are required not just on the part of the individual fisherman, but throughout the whole system/chain, in the scientific process, in the design of management measures, in the operation of the fishery, and within the decision-making bodies.

In the Baltic, as in other parts of the world, it is important that a real move is now made towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The ecological knowledge must be reflected in a better understanding of the whole system. A much closer integration between the work programmes of the Helsinki Commission and the Gdansk Commission (the IBSFC) will be essential to reach the common objective of sustainable development, including sustainable fisheries.

The development of new management strategies for sustainable Baltic fisheries should include the development, in advance, and implementation, when necessary, of strategies for dealing with unwanted events. New approaches are also needed for the management of some fish species of special importance and in fisheries where there are special problems and/or where conflicts presently occur.

Goals and Actions

A. The Precautionary Approach

A major tool of sustainable fisheries management, applying the ecosystem approach, is the application of the precautionary approach. To be fully effective, the precautionary approach must be applied and implemented within all parts of the fisheries sector. The absence of adequate scientific knowledge must not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation management actions.

Overall Goals:

• A Precautionary Approach is applied to all Baltic Fisheries, which ensures that all fishing activities within the Region are kept within long-term safe ecological limits.

Actions:

• Target stock levels and target reference points should be developed for all commercial fish species in the Baltic Sea Region, to reduce, to a minimum, the risks of stock collapses and/or negative effects in a wider ecosystem perspective.
• An Action Plan to achieve a fishing fleet with a balanced capacity should be developed and implemented together with a system of licenses, to allocate “rights to fish“;

• Regulations and management practices that do not allow discarding should be elaborated. All by-catches should be landed.

B. Damaging fishing techniques

Goals:

• Damaging fishing techniques to be phased out and new fishing techniques developed to keep by-catches of sea birds and marine mammals, and negative effects on benthic ecosystems at an absolute minimum.

Actions:

• The use of driftnets as well as beamtrawling in the Baltic Sea Area should be prohibited;
• Substantial financial resources should be allocated to the development of new or improved fishing techniques that minimise by-catches;

• Discards should not be allowed and all by-catches should be landed.

C. Conservation of marine, coastal and inland lake and river systems biodiversity in the Baltic Sea Region

Goal

• To safeguard the natural biodiversity and the long-term sustainable use of the fish resources of fresh waters, and coastal and marine areas in the Baltic Sea Region.

Actions

• Develop a Joint Action Programme for the protection of rare and/or endangered fish species in the Baltic Sea catchment area;
• Develop management measures to protect coastal and marine areas of importance to marine biodiversity from unsustainable fishing activities;

• Implementation of measures that protect important rivers, river mouth areas and shallow water areas from exploitation projects with the purpose to safeguard spawning and breeding areas.

D. Protection of fisheries resources

Goal

• The long-term sustainable use of fisheries resources in the Baltic Sea catchment area should be safeguarded.

• Joint management practices and regulations i.e. co-management between coastal and open sea fisheries should be developed to ensure that substantial stocks of cod are maintained in the coastal areas of the Baltic Sea;

Actions

• · Exploration of the wider use of, inter alia, fisheries refuges, including permanently or temporarily closed areas or seasons to protect spawning grounds, nursing grounds and juvenile fish.

E. Regional economic and social development

Goal

• To implement an action programme for sustainable socio-economic development of coastal communities in the Baltic Sea Area, using the fishery resources as an important component of the local economies.

Actions

• Integration of regional development policies, including sustainable tourism and fisheries policies with the purpose to optimise the benefits and enhance the development options for local communities;
• Develop local small-scale fisheries for coastal communities that can have such fisheries as an important part of their local economies (in combination with e.g. sustainable small scale agriculture and tourism);
• Introduce market and support measures which will promote the development and use of fishery resources;
• Guidelines should be introduced which encourage fish caught in the Baltic Sea to be landed in ports close to where it has been fished;

• Market measures, economic incentives and support which will promote local use (human consumption) of fishery resources should be developed.

F. Aquaculture

Goal

• To minimise environmental impact of aquaculture (pollution and introduction of alien species) on the aquatic environments of the Baltic Sea Region.

Actions

• Introduce legislation/regulations and management practices to avoid uncontrolled releases of cultivated fish species and genetically modified organisms from aquaculture;

• Prohibit the establishment of new cage fish farms in the Baltic Sea Area (and as an alternative develop land-based fish farms with closed systems).

G. Inland waters fisheries

Goals

• See point 4.1 Precautionary approach to all fisheries in the Baltic Sea Region.

• Integrated cross-sector management of inland waters and their resources within the Region.

Action

• Measures should be taken to integrate management of fresh water fish species in lakes, rivers and coastal waters with policies within other sectors e.g. agriculture, forestry, energy, waste water treatment and spatial planning.

H. Education, information and awareness

Goal

• To raise awareness and understanding within the fisheries sector as well as among the general public about sustainable fisheries and what it means for the Baltic Sea Region.

Actions

• Allocate substantial resources to the development of education and information programmes to raise awareness and understanding of sustainable fisheries within the fisheries sector as well as among the general public.

I. Other issues of concern

a. Toxic substances

Goal

• Ensure that the use of all toxic substances within the fisheries sector is prohibited.

Action

• The use of toxic substances within the fisheries sector should be phased out according to an agreed timetable. As part of this, the use of antifouling paints containing toxic and/or persistent substances should be prohibited. The use of paints containing TBT (tributyltin) on fishing vessels should be phased out no later than by the year 2000.

b. Introduction of alien (non-indigenous) species

Goal

• The risks of introduction of alien species into the waters of the Baltic Sea catchment area should be kept at an absolute minimum.

Actions

• Legislation and management practices to avoid uncontrolled introductions of reared fish, e.g. salmonids non-native to the Baltic Sea Region, from fishfarming should be introduced. Such fish should not be allowed to survive, reproduce and/or hybridise in the natural environment;

• Management practices and regulations should be adopted with the purpose to avoid introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens via ballast water and sediment discharges from fishing vessels as well as via fishing equipment or as live bait.

c. Industrial fisheries

Goal

• Fish caught in the Baltic Sea Region should, as far as possible, be used for human consumption.

Action

• Licenses for industrial fisheries in the Baltic should only be issued on a case-by-case basis and be regularly reviewed.

d. Health hazards

Goal

• Ensure that all fish caught in the Baltic Sea Region may be consumed without causing risks to human health.

Actions

• Measures should be taken to ensure that fish caught within Baltic sustainable fisheries can be marketed for consumption without risks to human health;

J. Proposals concerning specific species

Baltic Wild Salmon

The state of the populations of the endangered wild Baltic salmon is, since several years, an issue of major and serious concern.

The ECO's believe that only safe course to steer if the long term survival of the wild Baltic salmon is to be guaranteed and the only one which can be said to be fully consistent with the precautionary approach to fisheries is a complete stop on offshore and coastal salmon fishery.

Overall Goal

• To ensure the long-term survival of the wild spawning salmon populations in the remaining rivers and streams suitable for salmon spawning in the Baltic Sea catchment area.

Actions

• Development of an Emergency Management Plan for Baltic wild salmon

  Such an emergency plan should include the following elements:

• Immediate stop for off-shore and coastal salmon fisheries

  The ECO's firmly believe that a temporary moratorium on all fisheries that exploit wild Baltic salmon is the single most important action that can be taken to save the few remaining populations of wild Baltic salmon from extinction and start the rebuilding of viable stocks that can be sustainable managed in the future.

• Development of alternative management models

The ECO's believe that the only management practice that can be sustainable in a long- term perspective is selective fisheries in the rivers or their mouth area.

Supplementary measures to save the wild Baltic salmon

• Phase out of the use of long drift nets in salmon fisheries in the Baltic.
  - As a first step, EU-regulations for Baltic driftnet fisheries should comply with the same regulations as for e.g. North Atlantic driftnet fisheries where the maximum net length allowed is 2,5 kilometres.
• Stop delayed release of reared salmon.
  - Such releases has resulted in unwanted migrations of such salmon into rivers along the Swedish west coast with risks for genetic disturbances and the spread of diseases;

• Elaboration of an action programme to eliminate poaching/illegal fishing of wild salmon in the Baltic Sea Region, primarily in the Baltic river systems;
  - The IBSFC Salmon Action Plan

ECO’s welcomes the development and adoption of the IBSFC Baltic Salmon Action Plan as a first step towards rebuilding the populations of wild Baltic salmon. As important element of the implementations of the Action Plan, ECO’s suggests that National Management Programmes for Baltic salmon be developed and implemented by all countries around the Baltic as part of their international responsibility and commitment.

The ECO´s are, independently from the IBSFC Salmon Action Plan, actively contributing to the restoration of the wild Baltic salmon through a number of field projects (e.g. inventories, construction of fish-ladders) in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia (St Petersburg).

• National Management Programmes for Baltic salmon should be developed.

Baltic cod

The Baltic cod is a typical example of fish populations/stocks where there is an urgent need for a management system that is flexible enough to take full account of the high risk of poor recruitment due to environmental conditions.

Goal

• To ensure that the stocks of cod in the Baltic Sea are kept within safe biological limits.

Actions:

• Catches (TAC's) for cod must be adjusted so as to ensure that the eastern stock of Baltic cod is brought and kept within safe biological limits as soon as possible;
• Target stock levels and TAC's must be set using a very precautionary approach considering that no salt water inflow may occur for a very long time period;
• The TAC’s set must in no case be set above what is recommend by ICES;

• Measures should be taken to redirect cod fisheries from open sea to coastal fisheries.

Trout

There are great uncertainties about the status and interrelationship between the various populations/stocks of trout in the Baltic Sea Region. Some stocks may be as endangered as some of the stocks of wild Baltic salmon.

Goal

• To ensure the long-term survival of the wild spawning stocks of trout in the Baltic Sea catchment area.

Action

• A joint Management Plan and Action Programme for the wild trout populations in the Baltic Sea catchment area should be prepared and be ready for adoption by the year 2000.

White-fish

There are strong indications that some of the stocks of whitefish in the Baltic Sea Region are overexploited.

Goal

• To ensure that the stocks of whitefish in all parts of the Baltic are sustainably managed.

Actions

• A joint report on the status of the stocks of white-fish in different parts of the Baltic Sea Region, including an Action Programme for sustainable management of the stocks. The report should be prepared and ready for adoption by the year 2000.

Eel

Goal

• To ensure that all stocks of eel in the Baltic Sea Region are sustainably managed.

Action

• Save the natural spawning of eel, in a European context, by increased research and compensatory stocking.

FORESTRY

The Forest Principles adopted by UNCED and included in the Agenda 21 highlights the vital role of forests in maintaining the ecological processes and balances at the local, national, regional and global levels through their role in protecting fragile ecosystems, watersheds and fresh water resources and as habitats rich in biodiversity and biological resources. It is also emphasised that all aspects of environmental protection and social and economic development related to forests and forestlands should be integrated and comprehensive. Accordingly, forests should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological and cultural needs of present and future generations.

The large Scandinavian coniferous forests (mainly pine and spruce) have been heavily affected by the introduction of modern forestry methods and have been almost completely transformed from natural into planted forests subject to mechanised forestry practices (industrial forestry). This development is causing a continuous degradation of the biological diversity of the forest ecosystems. For example, 1,700 redlisted species have their main habitats in Swedish forests.

Intense forestry has also caused other negative environmental effects, such as leakage of nutrients in conjunction with forest ditching. At the same time, forest biodiversity is threatened by other external forces, above all by the deposition of acidifying substances that are expected to continue at levels above critical loads for at least another 10-15 years.

Forests in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the western parts of Russia, exhibit quite another picture. In comparison to Scandinavia, less intensive forestry during the past 50 years have resulted in relatively large areas of intact old-growth forests and/or well-developed secondary forests. Very rich in biodiversity, they are in many respects unique not only in a Baltic Region context but also in a wider European perspective. This makes their conservation and possible sustainable management an issue of international concern and responsibility.

However, during the last years, the pressure to exploit these valuable forests has been mounting. The transformation of the societies into free market economies has opened up for large private, semi-private and governmental (local and regional) forest projects. Large, mainly Scandinavian forests companies regard these forests as legitimate resources. In 1995, for example, Latvia exported 3,1 million m3 of pulpwood, 70 per cent of which to Sweden. At the same time, Estonian forests primarily feeds Finnish pulp mills, which also exploit the largely untouched forests across the border in the Russian parts of Karelia.

To the Scandinavian companies, cheap forest resources are thus, provided when demands at home and internationally for environmental considerations and biodiversity conservation in forestry, coupled with lack of sufficient additional domestic forest resources, are beginning to put a strong hold on possibilities to further increase production.

Conservation and sustainable management of forests has so far not been dealt with to any large extent in the Baltic regional co-operation. Efforts within HELCOM have mainly focused on the many and large pulp and paper industries in the region and their environmental impact (discharges of organic matter, nutrients, metals and chlorinated organic substances).

All countries in the region have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Several are also Contracting Parties to the Bern and Ramsar Conventions. Thus, the Baltic Sea States have made several binding international commitments to conserve biological diversity, including forest biodiversity. Sector responsibility will be a key issue in future efforts to protect and sustainably manage biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity specifically obliges countries to integrate, as far as possible, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sector and/or cross-sector plans, programmes and policies.

Meeting this sector responsibility will be a major challenge to the forestry sector in a process towards sustainable forestry in the Baltic Sea region.

Goals

• Development of independent, performance based certification systems which includes clear environmental and social standards;
• Establishment of a network of ecologically representative protected forest areas;
• Protection of at least 10 per cent of every stage of succession of each major forest biotope in self-growing forests within the Baltic Sea catchment area by the year 2002;
• Protection of all remaining natural old growth forests.
• Stop for unsustainable consumption of pulp and paper products; and

• Increased recycling of pulp and paper products.

Actions

• An Action Plan on conservation and sustainable management of the forests of the Baltic Sea Region should be developed. The plan should include, inter alia, the following components:
  - Immediate protection of all remaining natural old growth forests;
  - Protection of at least 10 per cent of productive national forest area;
  - Protection of 10 per cent of each major forest biotope within the Baltic catchment area
  - Protection of all riverine and riparian forests situated within a 150-meter zone along watercourses and coastal water areas;
  - Abandonment of large scale clear cutting logging practices;
  - Establishment of en extensive ecological network of protected forest areas in line with the European Union Habitats Directive;
  - Production of annual reports on the state of the forests and concrete plans on how to halt further deterioration of the forests;
• Promotion of the establishment of independent, performance based certification systems, such as the FSC;
• Companies purchasing wood from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia should develop proper mechanisms to be able to control the origin and production of the wood. They should also keep themselves informed of the conservation values and potentially valuable areas in the regions concerned, develop clear policies for wood purchases and systems to trace the origin of the wood, reduce trade with trade companies and establish direct and long term relations with reliable producers;
• Legislation to prohibit forest practices that are likely to increase the leaching of nitrogen and other polluting substances from forest land should be introduced;
• A regional network of protected forests representing all major forest ecosystems in the Baltic Sea Region should be established;
• Education programmes should be elaborated with the purpose to raise public awareness about the environmental and social values of forests. School and university educational material must be balanced so as to present not only the economic values of forests, but also the ecological, recreational and cultural values;

• Within the forestry sector action should be taken to enhance the education and training of forest owners and managers to promote environmentally, socially beneficial and economically viable forest management as defined by independent certification bodies such as the FSC and in those countries where these does not exist, by a majority of stakeholders, including indigenous people, local communities and ECO's.

INDUSTRY

Industry has a great responsibility in the process towards shaping a sustainable development. Technical development and design of new products must be adapted to the principles of a sustainable society - reduced consumption and reduced dilution of natural resources.

The long-term objective of a sustainable society must be to combine the demands for maintained/improved quality of life with closed cycles of energy and materials and minimised impact on the environment. So far, environmental issues and concern have often been treated separately with focus largely being on environmental improvements of existing technologies - i.e., end-of-pipe solutions.

Development of environmentally adapted technology and products can have different levels of ambition:

• To eliminate the effects of existing and past harmful emissions and deposits (cleaning up);
• To reduce the impact on the environment from processes and products in use (end-of-pipe solutions);
• To reduce the environmental impact of new processes and products by closing the cycles (recycling and reuse of materials, energy recovery, use of renewable energy resources);

• To integrate the development of processes and products for a sustainable society (life-cycle design, and dematerialization, considering technology, infrastructure, societal and economic structures etc.)

The driving forces in product development and design are the market, technical development, and to an increasing extent, laws and similar demands. Technology as a driving force towards environmentally sound products comprises design solutions for “cleaner and leaner products“, as well as design of products possible to design for reuse and recycling. During recent years, societal demands as well as market awareness concerning the environmental impact of products have become more evident. Active involvement of the consumers is essential to promote the necessary changes in lifestyles and consumption patterns.

A change of priorities will be required for product development in a sustainable society, and much of the environmental impact will be set - implicitly or explicitly - during the early phases of design, when requirements and concept solutions are established. If significant improvements are to be achieved, environmental and recycling issues must be considered from the very outset when new products are being developed. Products should, already from the beginning, be prepared for future disassembly and recovery procedures. The new catch word and governing concept in industry should be “from-cradle-to-cradle“, not only “from-cradle-to-grave“.

All countries around the Baltic Sea can be characterised as industrialised. There are, however, big differences between their industrial sectors. Industries in the northern and western countries of the region have undergone gradual and sometimes drastic changes necessary to maintain their market economy competitiveness. The latest technological developments have been adapted to comply with progressively stricter environmental standards. In contrast to this, industries in the countries in transition are still using technologies originally installed when the plants were constructed, in some cases as early as in the 1930’s.

Irrespective of these differences, the industrial sector as a whole has a significant impact on the environment throughout the Baltic Sea Region and could play an essential role in the shaping of a regional sustainable future. In that context, it is unacceptable that western industries export old technology to the countries in transition, technology that have in several ways been responsible for many of the environmental problems experienced in the western and northern parts of the Baltic Sea Region.

Regrettably, there is slow progress in implementing the industrial pollution component of the HELCOM JCP. This has been recently confirmed in the Report on Recommendations for Updating and Strengthening of the JCP which was submitted to the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in March 1998. So far, progress in addressing industrial hot spots, particularly in the countries in transition, has been considerably slow compared to the progress made with the municipal hot spots.

The traditional approach to the industry sector is also reflected in much of the work of HELCOM and its Technological Committee. Attempts by Denmark to have the concept of clean technology and production introduced in the revised 1992 Helsinki Convention was met with scepticism. The Danish effort was finally concealed in the non-binding Resolution 4 in the Final Act and Its Attachments from the Diplomatic Conference held in April 1992. In the same Resolution, the countries agreed to the need wherever possible to integrate environmental considerations in all stages of a product from design and production, through consumption and use, to the final disposal or reuse. However, the commitment “disappeared“ already at the HELCOM session in 1993, where it was silently swept under the traditional HELCOM maintain business-as-usual carpet.

HELCOM Recommendations concerning industrial emission standards have often been a reflection of demands that can be met by existing western technology or by new technology already being introduced. Only in a few cases have the standards set been strict enough to function as a driving force for change, to stimulate environmentally sound technological developments and innovations, and contribute to the process of sustainable development and to the creation of new jobs throughout the region.

Goals

• Introduction and implementation of the cleaner production concept as the bearing principle within the industrial sector, including among others methods of process modification, raw material substitution, product and administrative development, in order to minimise the resource use, the quantity of wastes generated, and their content of environmentally harmful substances, as well as to adapt the products and wastes for increased re-circulation;

• Phase-out, within a 15 year period, of all discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances to the environment of the Baltic Sea region. The ultimate goal is concentrations in the environment near the background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero concentrations for man-made synthetic substances;

Actions

• A regional action programme, to be supplemented by corresponding national programmes, should be elaborated and implemented to achieve a total phase-out of discharges, emissions and other losses of hazardous substances and substances by no later than by the year 2010. This Action Programme should comprise, inter alia, the following elements:
  - an immediate ban on the issuing of new permits to discharge hazardous substances, a phase out by the year 2000 of current permits allowing the discharge of the most hazardous substances, and the phase-out by the year 2010 of permits allowing discharge of the remaining hazardous substances;
  - the immediate creation of input elimination programmes, with concrete time tables for all hazardous substances - this to include, inter alia, conversion subsidies, phase-out levies, and phase-out target dates of the year 2000 for the most hazardous substances and the year 2010 for all remaining hazardous substances;
  - provisions to ensure that all programmes for the reduction and subsequent elimination of hazardous substances are prioritised by substance group and not by individual pollutants, and cover all industrial processes and sectors;
• Measures, including taxes and other economic incentives, should be introduced to support the development and introduction of cleaner technologies;
• Procedures for Environment Impact Assessments concerning industrial developments should be improved nationally and the obligations of the Espoo Convention should be fully observed with regard to projects having transboundary effects. Openness and transparency should be guaranteed by law;
• When wasteful and polluting industries are privatised sufficient resources should be set aside from the revenues from privatisation, to ensure that the environment of the industrial sites is thoroughly cleaned up;
• An obligation to establish Environmental Management Systems for all relevant industrial sectors should also be imposed;
• Legislation on producer responsibility for the environmental impacts of industrial products during their complete life-cycle should be adopted by all countries in the Region;
• Registers containing information about the composition of chemical products should be set up in all countries and should be open for access by the general public and ECO's.

• Regional system(s) for Joint Research and Development of environmentally and socially sustainable technologies should be established. Such a system might be co-ordinated by a Regional Research and Training Centre for Sustainable Development.

TOURISM

Tourism is the world’s largest and fastest growing industry. Diversity underpins much of the tourism industry, whether landscape, wildlife or culture. A rich, unexploited and varied environment, different from the one at home is often a very important factor in determining the tourists’ choice of destination. Cultural diversity forms part of the tourism industry’s primary assets and is often what many tourists travel to find. The tourism industry has a strong tendency to be concentrated in coastal areas, and therefore has a direct impact on the marine and coastal environment.

However, rapid and uncontrolled overdevelopment of tourism has in many cases endangered and ultimately destroyed those very assets on which it is so dependent.

A positive effect of tourism could be to function as a powerful tool for maintaining natural diversity. National parks, nature reserves and other types of protected areas supported by incomes from tourism, contribute to the conservation of diversity. Spreading the knowledge and understanding of biodiversity both to tourists and to local people will also enhance conservation and give local people an incentive for such measures. Tourism can, furthermore, provide employment at local level and give an incentive for young people to stay there.

Negative effects of tourism include that diversity can be threatened and/or deteriorate as a result of the construction of extensive facilities for tourism, especially when development is allowed to proceed without prior regard and assessment of an area’s special features or its capacity to withstand various forms of exploitation without being degraded. Special problems are habitat degradation - including waste and sewage disposal, constructions, and land use changes - as well as problems with drinking water (lower ground water levels and risk of seawater intrusions).

Rapid and uncontrolled development of large tourism projects can also destroy the diversity of local and regional social structures and cultural features.

Special tourist development projects may also damage the environment. The boom in golfing holidays, although promoted as environmentally friendly, often destroys natural grasslands and coastal wetlands. Millions of cubic metres of soil may be removed, forests destroyed, coastal areas bulldozed and valuable wetlands drained, in the process of laying a golf course.

Tourism is often promoted as a possible important sector for economic development in rural area, particularly in coastal regions, where tourism is seen as an attractive alternative to decreasing employment opportunities in dominating traditional activities like fisheries and agriculture.

The Baltic Sea Region includes many areas where the development of sustainable tourism projects (eco-tourism projects) could provide unique opportunities for both income and employment generation, while at the same time making an important contribution towards the conservation and protection of valuable habitats and species. Prognoses by the World Tourism Organization for the period until the year 2020 indicate that tourism in the Baltic Sea Region is likely to grow faster than in other parts of Europe.

The promotion and full implementation of sustainable policies and practices within the tourism sector is therefore critically important for achieving sustainable development in many rural areas of the Baltic Sea Region.

Voices of concern have, however, already been raised with regard to future tourism development in Central and Eastern Europe, where there is growing evidence that tourism is seen as a quick profit option at the expense of some of the last undisturbed habitats in Europe. This is certainly also the case in the Baltic Sea Region. According to VASAB 2010, the option for expanding tourism is most obvious in some areas in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Germany. The potential for high quality tourism on the Baltic islands Åland, Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, Gotland, Öland, Bornholm and Rügen is also emphasised. However, the VASAB approach is mostly contradictory to the principles of sustainable development.

The countries in the eastern and south-eastern parts of the Baltic Sea Region have maintained a greater wealth of undisturbed or less affected habitats, including natural forests, wetlands, traditional agricultural landscapes, and large stretches of undisturbed coast with sandy beaches and dune landscapes. At the same time, uncontrolled discharges of untreated sewage have caused heavy eutrophication and very high levels of bacteria in the coastal waters. Improved environmental conditions in the coastal regions following the construction of sewage treatment plants and control of industrial pollution, etc., will increase the interest to exploit these areas for tourist purposes.

The potential for tourism development is also highlighted in the integrated coastal zone management plans elaborated for six major coastal regions, as part of the HELCOM PITF MLW work programme. Most of the presented projects can be classified as clearly unsustainable, favouring motor tourism and construction of minicities with huge blocks of hotels for thousands of guests.

Considering the lack of infrastructure in many of the rural areas where tourism development has been suggested, development should always start on a small scale, in the first place by supplementing ongoing activities. Emphasis should, at least initially, be on home based bed-and-breakfast accommodation or farmhouse holidays. In a second stage, small-scale community led projects should be developed that could contribute significantly to raising living standards in the areas concerned.

Examples of projects designed to take the principles of sustainable tourism into account include, for instance, the development of sustainable tourism in the Matsalu Bay and Käina Bay regions in Estonia. The implementation of these plans could provide local people with more income opportunities, but the plans have been drawn up realising that tourism cannot become the main income source but only be a supplement to everyday life.

Definition

In accordance with Agenda 21, all forms tourism, mass tourism and small-scale travel, in cities and rural areas, should be guided by the concept of sustainability. Today, only a small proportion of the tourism industry as a whole comprises “nature-based“ tourism (nature tourism and eco-tourism). Tourism is defined as sustainable when:

• operated within the natural capacities for the regeneration and future productivity of natural resources;
• recognising the contribution that people and communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience;
• accepting that these people must have an equitable share in the economic benefits of tourism;

• guided by the wishes of local people and communities in the host areas.

Goals

• Quality tourism under optimal social conditions, safeguarding regional qualities and benefiting local populations and communities in a long term perspective;
• Maintaining of the natural diversity of the Baltic Sea Region while at the same time spreading knowledge and understanding of biodiversity and the beauty of nature, to tourists as well as local people;
• Enhance conservation and give local people an incentive to implement such measures;
• Provide employment at the local level and provide an incentive for young people to stay in the area;

• To have tourism that is profitable and that is developed within the carrying capacity of the areas exploited and which external costs are internalised.

Actions

• Establishment of regional Agenda 21 tourist agencies to support the development of sustainable tourism activities in different regions. Such agencies should provide support to local actors to develop their tourism projects in a sustainable manner and in the marketing of sustainable tourism products;
• Support should be given to the development and marketing of sustainable tourism products. There is a strong need for developing alternative and more attractive ways of travelling and more sustainable tourist products;
• Integration of tourism into the planning process. This should include identification of limits and possibilities for sustainable growth of tourism, e.g. with respect to fresh water supplies, breeding areas for fish, endangered species, silent areas etc. As part of this, sensitive areas should be identified and pressures regulated in order to prevent environmental degradation;
• Projects associated with the coastal zone should be integrated into Integrated Coastal Area Management Plans backed by strong legislative controls. Where appropriate, multiple-use areas based on sound ecological criteria and involving all stakeholders in a meaningful way, should be established;
• Before tourism projects are licensed, the carrying capacity for tourism in an area (water supply, food supply, impact on biodiversity, etc.) should be assessed. Tourism should not be allowed to exceed those limits;
• Resources generated within sustainable tourism projects must, in the first instance, be used to provide economic opportunities and social benefits for local resource providers and communities.
• Guidelines for ecologically sustainable recreational boating activities in coastal and archi-pelago areas of the Baltic Sea should be developed, including components such as: maximum speed limits for leisure boats, installation of facilities for waste and wastewater collection, restrictions on noise and exhaust gas emissions, and a ban on the use of water scooters.
• Implementation of the HELCOM Recommendation on Baltic Sea Protected Areas, BSPAs. The concept behind the establishment of the BSPA network fits very well with the develop-ment of sustainable tourism activities. The proposed BSPAs are supposed to be managed in accordance with area specific Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plans. These plans should take into account the possibilities for tourists to experience nature in an attractive but still controlled way;
• Efforts should be made to develop clear indicators for the tourism sector in the Baltic Sea Region;

• Education and information programmes targeting the tourist sector, the local communities concerned, as well as the general public to increase the awareness and understanding of the concept, possibilities and requirements of sustainable tourism;

TRANSPORT

Traffic and transports are essential components of modern welfare societies. However, the transport systems which are of such great benefit are at the same time perhaps the greatest threat to the environment and thus, to the welfare of the people of the Baltic Region.

The transport system of today is dangerous, energy consuming, polluting and noise creating. It has major impacts on the development of societies, claims large land areas (incl. vulnerable coastal areas), and leads to fragmentation or destruction of valuable natural and cultural areas. Ever increasing amounts of energy, metals, sand, gravel and rocky materials are used for vehicles and infrastructure.

The transport sector is a major pollution source in the Baltic Sea Region. The burning of fossil fuels in vehicles as well as in ships contributes to high levels of air pollutants in urban areas, acidification of sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and eutrophication of marine and fresh water areas. In addition, shipping is a source of hundreds of oil spills every year which, among others, kill thousands of sea birds in the Baltic Sea Area and may cause to long term negative effects on the coastal and marine ecosystems of the Region. These are all indicators of the obvious unsustainability of the whole transport sector in the Baltic Sea region.

The development of the transport sector (land as well as sea transports) will be of great importance for the environment and health situation in the Baltic Sea Region as a whole. Serious concern has been expressed that future growth, opening of markets, economic integration and not least the EU enlargement will result in increased transports. This may lead to further deterioration of the environment and health conditions if vigorous measures to counteract these trends are not taken nationally as well as internationally.

According to the Swedish Government Committee that analysed the environmental and associated consequences of the EU enlargement, there are serious risks that the enlargement, at least in the short term, will result in increased emissions, particularly of nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons from the transport sector.

As examples of the EU approach to the transport sector could be mentioned that the EU Baltic initiative presented at the Visby Summit in 1996 emphasised that transport systems in the Region should be improved and integrated into the Trans-European Networks and that particular attention should be devoted to developing transport corridors. The Via Baltica and Via Hanseatica were high-lighted as projects to be particularly promoted in this context, projects which if implemented will increase traffic in the region and between the Baltic region and Western Europe. Other planned projects, which in their presently proposed design are clearly unsustainable, include projects such as the Scanlink and the Northern Triangle.

Goals

General

• Significant reduction (e.g. in the range of 50 per cent) in the individual use of cars in the Baltic Sea Region no later than by the year 2030;

• Substantial increase in the use of public transportation systems in relation to private cars, new roads and road transport;

Pollution, human health

• Standards for air pollutants should be set so as to protect the most sensitive parts of the population and should be 2-3 times lower than the concentration at which this sector of the population may be negatively affected;
• Standards for cancerogenic substances should be reduced to levels which ensure that the life time risk at continuous exposure is less than one per million;
• Emissions that will affect the climate should be accepted only if they are below the natural variation;
• Significant reductions (90 per cent) of the emissions of pollutants (NOx etc.) from the transport sector;

• The recipient most sensitive to a specific pollutant should be the one that determines how large emissions are acceptable. If there are separate standards for health and the environment the lowest limit value should be enforced;

Noise

• Elimination of out door noise disturbances by the year 2050. As a first step, the number of persons who are disturbed by noise should be reduced by 50 per cent by the year 2020;
• Landscapes/nature conservation/biodiversity
• The possibilities to use soil and water as production resources must not be allowed to be further deteriorated by traffic and transport installations;
• Traffic should not contribute to the further reduction of biologically valuable natural areas. If valuable areas are exploited corresponding areas should be protected at other places;
• Natural areas/values which have been destroyed by infrastructure developments should, as far as possible, be recreated at other sites;
• The area covered by infrastructural installations in cities should not be allowed to increase and should, after the year 2000, be gradually reduced. The long term goal should be that infrastructure should not cover more than 15 per cent of the area of a city/society;

• Motor free zones should be established in mountain, archipelago and large forest areas;

Actions

General

In order to make the transport systems in the Baltic Sea Region sustainable, the impact from the various parts of the transport sector must be drastically reduced. Urgent measures to reach the goal include:

• Integration of environmental criteria and concerns in the transport policies and planning;
• Giving priority to the development and introduction of modes of transport that have the least effects on the environment. As part of this, efforts should be made to transfer, particularly long distance transport of goods and passengers, from roads to railways and environmentally friendly ships;
• Implementation of volume control, for example no building of new major roads, improved land-use planning to prevent urban expansion, and increased investments in public transportation, railway and sea freight systems;
• Adoption of plans and timetables to significantly reduce the total European volume of road and air traffic;
• Adoption of standards or other mechanisms to increase the fuel efficiency of all new motor vehicles, as well as of aircraft and ships;
• Adoption of proper emission standards for all new motor vehicles, including off-road vehicles, as well as for aircraft and ships; and
• Adoption of a general maximum speed limit on road traffic of 100 kph;
• Modernisation and extension of existing public transport systems (trams, trains and buses);

• Efforts to modernise and connect the railway systems around the Baltic should have priority over the building of new motorways;

It is recommended that actions be taken particularly within the following areas:

• New economic and other subsidies of investments in and operation of projects within the transport sector which are uneconomic in a national economic perspective and unsustainable should be prohibited and existing subsidies phased out;
• Carbon dioxide taxes should be introduced on gasoline and diesel and/or gradually increased to those levels recommended by IPCC which are required to reduce the emissions sufficiently to avoid unnatural variations;

• Efforts should be made to promote the introduction of biofuels within the transport sector. As a first step, a time limited reduction of energy taxes on such fuels with low emissions should be introduced;

Land and air transport

• Programmes to actively promote public transportation systems should be elaborated. As part of this, the countries in transition should be given substantial support to renew and renovate public transportation systems in urban areas;
• Road taxes should be introduced in all major cities. The revenues should be used for investments in public transportation systems and environmental improvements;
• Taxes on vehicles should be set so as to promote low emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons;
• Air port landing fees should be differentiated so as to promote lower emissions and noise;
• Noise levels should be reduced to below agreed standards;
• Legislation to phase-out leaded petrol should be developed and fully implemented no later than by the year 2003 throughout the whole Baltic Sea Region;

• Legislation that stops fragmentation of landscapes (incl. coasts) and exploitation of sensitive environments by motorways and other transport infrastructure projects should be introduced. If projects such as Via Baltica and Via Hanseatica are to be implemented, only existing transport corridors must be used and no new areas exploited or fragmented.

Shipping

• Legislation concerning environmentally differentiated harbour and fairway dues should be introduced to promote:
  - lower emissions of air pollutants;
  - reduction of heavy traffic in fairways passing through sensitive areas e.g. archipelagos;
  - transport of oil and other hazardous substances in safer ships e.g. ships with double hulls;
  - reductions of discharges of waste and waste water
• All countries should ratify the new Annex VI on air pollution from shipping to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention and particularly ensure the rapid implementation of the Special Area requirements of the Annex. As part of this, all ships plying Baltic waters should use low-sulphur fuels i.e. 1 per cent sulphur on the open and 0,1 per cent in inshore and coastal traffic;
• Economic incentives to promote the use of low-sulphur fuels and low-NOx-emitting engines in ships should be introduced.
• Emission standards requiring state-of-the-art combustion and NOx removal technology should be made mandatory for all new ships and, where possible, also for existing ships. Emissions of NOx should be reduced by 90 per cent;
• Implementation of the Baltic Strategy on Reception Facilities for Ship-Generated Wastes and Associated Issues should be speeded up. Special efforts should be made to further support the countries in transition to build up the necessary capacity to receive ships’ waste. The no-special-fee system for the delivery of ship-generated wastes to reception facilities ashore should be extended to include all types of waste no later than by the year 2000;
• Regulations to phase-out of anti-fouling paints containing toxic and/or persistent substances should be introduced. As part of this, the use of TBT should be prohibited by no later than the year 2000;
• Decisive action should be taken to prohibit sub-standard ships from operating in the Baltic Sea Area.
• Economic incentives to promote the development of ECO-ships should be introduced;
• Routing measures should be implemented to have major shipping lanes (and particularly those used by ships carrying hazardous cargoes) located as far as possible away from sensitive coastal and marine areas.

• Action should be elaborated to prevent the introduction of alien species in the Baltic Sea Area. Such actions could include legal and administrative regulations concerning ballast management for ships entering the Baltic as well as in Baltic harbours according to IMO Resolution A.774(18)

ISSUE AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERNBIODIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION (incl. the introduction of alien species)

The Baltic Sea Region contains a number of biotopes and species of great value in a regional, European as well as a global perspective. These values are presently being threatened by a wide range of human activities, inter alia, eutrophication which may lead to changes of marine and fresh water ecosystems, unsustainable fisheries, fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats due to urban and infrastructure developments, and the introduction of alien species.

Biodiversity cannot be properly protected solely through the creation of various kinds of protected areas. The main responsibility must rest with all actors within agriculture, forestry, fisheries, etc., which have an impact on biodiversity. Sector responsibility is one of the major principles laid down in the Convention on Biological Diversity.

All countries in the Baltic Sea Region are either Signatories or Contracting Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The responsibility of each sector of society that has an impact on biodiversity (species as well as ecosystems) to take appropriate measures for the proper management and conservation of species and habitats is thus, clearly established.

The full implementation of this sector responsibility will be an essential element in an overall strategy for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. However, even if this approach is successful there will also be a need in the future to take special action to protect particularly valuable or sensitive areas and species. The establishment and effective management of networks of protected terrestrial, coastal and marine areas, as well as the protection of threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna, will be called for.

An important step towards the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea region was taken when the HELCOM Recommendation on the establishment of a system of Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs) was adopted and 62 areas identified to be included, in a first phase, in this system. However, progress has since then been slow in most of the countries with regard to the actual establishment and protection of the areas identified, and even slower concerning the development and implementation of area specific management plans.

Goals:

• Conservation and sustainable management of the full spectrum of biodiversity (ecosystems, species and genetic variation within species) in the Baltic Sea Region;
• Implementation of the sector responsibility within all relevant sectors for the conservation of terrestrial and marine biodiversity of the Baltic Sea Region;
• Protection and sustainable management of at least 10 per cent of each major biotop within the Baltic Sea Catchment area;

• Minimising the risks for introduction of alien species in the Baltic Sea Region.

Actions

General measures and habitat protection

• All countries in the Baltic Sea Region should make a commitment to fulfil the general objective of conserving the biological diversity of the Region. The goal should be that at least 10 per cent of each major biotop within the Baltic Sea catchment area should be protected and properly managed to conserve the biodiversity;
• Article 15 of the 1992 Helsinki Convention should be revised so as to reflect the fact that the international co-operation on nature conservation and biodiversity should have the same drainage area approach as is applied to other issues in the Baltic co-operation;

• An Annex on Nature Conservation and Biodiversity to the 1992 Helsinki Convention should be elaborated, adopted and implemented. Such an annex would fulfil the dual purposes of codifying what has already been achieved in the field of nature conservation, biodiversity protection and sustainable resource management, and provide a comprehensive framework for future action.

Marine environment

• Implementation, through, inter alia, national legislation and area specific management plans, of the HELCOM BSPA network of coastal and marine protected areas no later than by the year 2000;
• Inclusion of a selected number of important offshore marine areas representing different sub-regions or sub-basins of the Baltic Sea Area in the HELCOM BSPA network;

• Development of legislation which prohibit the licensing of sand, gravel and stone extraction in ecologically sensitive areas such as spawning and nursing areas. Mining operations should not be allowed in shallow areas;

Terrestrial environment

• Strict application of HELCOM Recommendation 15/1 on the protection of the coastal strip in order to protect important coastal areas within the Region. No exemptions should be allowed;

• Prohibition through national legislation and guidelines of further ditching of wetlands and wet forests;

Fresh water

• No new large-scale hydropower developments should be permitted.

• The few remaining rivers which have not be exploited by hydropower project are of key importance for the general protection of aquatic biodiversity and particularly for the conservation of the highly endangered stocks of Baltic and Atlantic salmon.

Threatened marine species

Special attention should be given to the protection of Baltic seals and the small population of harbour porpoises.

The Baltic grey seals, ringed seals and common seals have suffered heavily from pollution and hunting. As a result of measures taken to reduce the input of hazardous substances to the marine environment, the reproductive ability of the seals has improved in recent years. The number of grey seals is now increasing (from very low levels) in the northern parts of the Baltic Proper, while the population in the southern part of the area is still very weak.

The combination of growing numbers of grey seals and their possibly changed behaviour is causing conflicts between seals and those fishermen who are dependent on coastal fisheries for their livelihood. Demands are being raised to allow seal hunting to be resumed.

Actions

• No general hunting of seals should be allowed;
• Efforts should be made to speed up the development of new fishing methods and equipment with the purpose to minimise conflicts between fishermen and seals.
• Countries should introduce systems for economic compensation to fishermen for damage caused by seals as part of an overall management policy;

• An action programme to protect and restore the remaining small population of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea Area should be elaborated and implemented.

Alien species

Introduction of non-indigenous species (alien species) is a relatively new threat to marine ecosystems and to marine biological diversity. The serious effects of the American native combjelly Mnemiopsis leydyii on the fisheries of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have caused serious concern and amply illustrates the devastating ecological and economic effects of the transfer of organisms from one marine environment to another.

Some 60 species of plants and animals are known to have been introduced, intentionally or unintentionally, into the Baltic Sea through human activities, but so far the effects from such introductions have not been dramatic. However, scientists warn that brackish water areas like the Baltic Sea may be more susceptible to such introductions than marine areas, one reason being that they are naturally poor in species.

Transport of organisms in ballast water in ships (or attached to ship hulls) is thought to be some of the main routes for the transfer of organisms between various sea areas. In a Baltic perspec-tive, the risks for introduction of species via ships travelling on the river/canal systems connecting the Baltic Sea with the Black and Caspian Seas are regarded as being the most serious and imminent.

ICES and FAO have expressed serious concern about risks that Mnemiopsis might spread further to other European sea areas. IMO has adopted guidelines on the handling of ballast water to prevent the transfer of species. Despite these warnings, the international response to this new threat to the marine and brackish water ecosystems has been weak and insufficient, particularly when it comes to introducing effective measures to control the introduction of non-indigenous species.

National and international action is urgently needed to address the emerging and serious threat of introduction of non-indigenous species into the Baltic Sea. Priorities should be given to possible introductions from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

Actions

• Effective barriers of control and treatment should be established in order to prevent unintentional introductions of alien species to the Baltic Sea;
• An action programme should be elaborated and put in action before the end of 1999, making it mandatory for all ships travelling from the Black Sea and/or Caspian Sea to the Baltic Sea, to shift ballast water (e.g., to replace existing ballast water with sterilised water) before entering the Baltic Sea catchment area;

• A financial assistance programme should be set up to support the countries with economies in transition to effectively implement the action programme.

OIL AND OIL HANDLING

Due to its special hydrographic conditions, the Baltic Sea Area comprises a unique spectrum of coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats each with its specific set of organisms. Some of these areas are of particular importance to the Baltic Sea as a whole, or even in a wider European context. Oil pollution and resulting negative effects on the marine and coastal ecosystems of these important areas could thus, be a major threat not only to the areas as such but also to the Baltic as a whole or even wider.

In spite of measures taken, including the designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area within the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, a great number of oil spills - mainly illegal operational discharges but also accidental pollution - occur in the Baltic every year. It should be emphasised, however, that although not fully known, the oil pollution load from land-based sources and offshore activities is believed to constitute as much as 90 per cent of the total load to the Baltic Sea.

The large number of operational oil spills at sea is caused by, inter alia, the increasing ship’s traffic in general, the increasing number of substandard ships travelling in the Baltic, insufficient systems for prosecuting the offenders of antipollution regulations in the Baltic Sea States, lack of good reception facilities in some countries in the region, as well as inadequate fee systems for waste handling services provided by ports in the whole Baltic Sea Region.

The Baltic has been spared major shipping accidents involving oil tankers for the last 15 years. However, the risk of such an accident must not be ignored and could even be increasing during coming years if the plans for new oil terminals, expanded offshore oil and gas exploitation and increased shipping of oil are realised. Should all these plans materialise it could mean that the volumes of oil and oil products transported through the Baltic annually would increase 3-4 times.

Considering the present situation - including the insufficient capacity to combat oil spills effectively, lack of surveillance capacity to detect spills and offenders, and shortage of reception facilities for oily wastes - an increase in the handling of oil implies considerable risks for oil spills. Governments in the Baltic Sea Region have expressed great concern over this situation. However, expansion of oilrelated activities are at the same time supported by international programmes, e.g. the EU Baltic Region Initiative which supports the development of oil import/export related activities which would add significant pressure and risk to the environment. This is, obviously, not an acceptable development.

According to the view of the ECO's, a comprehensive approach to the issues involved in the handling of oil in the Baltic Sea Region is essential. Thus, the ECO's welcomed the initiative of the Heads of Government in 1996 to mandate HELCOM to make an overall assessment of the risks to the environment from the expected increase in handling of oil in the Baltic Sea Region. The ECO's emphasised that in such an assessment, the possibilities for expanded co-operation between the countries concerned - including the possibilities to share terminals, pipelines, etc. - should be thoroughly considered. The assessment was expected to be ready no later than 1998, but unfortunately it seems to have been delayed.

Goals

• Minimisation of the negative effects of oil and oil handling on the coastal and marine environments of the Baltic Sea Area;

• Elimination of illegal discharges of oil in the Baltic Sea Area.

Actions

• Revisions should be made of national energy and trade policies and strategies with the objective to minimise sea transport of oil, oil products and noxious substances in the Baltic Sea Area;
• Efforts should be made to ensure that all the planned oil-related projects are subject to in-depth environmental impact assessments - including the consequences of adopting a zero solution - and that the EIAs will be submitted for international review and comments before any permits are granted;
• Legislation should be elaborated and implemented to ensure that no permits for oil terminals or offshore operations are granted before sufficient combating capacity has been built up at the sites. The costs for the build up of these resources should be born by the companies in accordance with the polluter-pays-principle (one option would be to introduce a tax on oil handling);
• Every effort should be made to support the rapid implementation of the Baltic Strategy for Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Wastes for all ports and harbours in the Region. The no-special-fee system for oily waste from machinery spaces which will be enforced by 1 January 2000, should be expanded to include garbage and sewage from that same date;

• Decisive action should be taken to prohibit substandard ships from operating in the Baltic Sea Region;

ECO-TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Extensive eutrophication of fresh waters as well the coastal and marine environment is generally recognised as one of the most serious environmental problems in the Baltic Sea Region. The nutrient load to the Baltic Sea originates to a very large extent (as much as 70-80 per cent) from small and diffuse pollution sources.

The identification and implementation of cost-effective technologies for the reduction of the nutrient load (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous reduction) would be an important strategy for solving the eutrophication problems of the region.

During recent years, a number of eco-technologies and measures, particularly suitable to be used for the treatment of wastewater from small to medium sized sources, have been developed and successfully implemented. These technologies include toilet systems for direct recycling to agricultural land, and the use of natural systems, such as natural or constructed wetlands, soil filters, reed beds and other often low cost construction technologies.

In a sustainability perspective, such solutions to wastewater problems may be more sustainable and more cost-effective than conventional systems as they do not require investments in high technology equipment. In addition, running costs tend to be lower. Conventional methods can often be improved by including an ecological engineering component in the treatment process.

The possible role of various ecological engineering techniques in controlling pollution from diffuse sources and smaller point sources has been confirmed by two international seminars held in the Baltic Sea Region.

Ecological engineering approaches have also been recognised in a wider international context. The World Conservation Congress (IUCN, 1996) adopted a resolution supporting the use of ecological engineering solutions for wastewater treatment and management, and urged governments to take action to further develop such technologies and solutions.

The Baltic Sea Region could use many of the ideas and approaches from the eco-technological field to achieve an ecologically sustainable management of water and wastewater. Many of the countries of the Baltic Sea Region have already considerable experiences in the use of eco-technological solutions in the field of wastewater treatment. Methods such as infiltration systems, wetlands and others have been developed and have proved to function satisfactorily also under cold climate conditions i.e. providing the same level of removal of pollutants at favourable costs. In addition, systems for urine separation have been developed and many toilet models are now commercially available on the market.

The ECO's have for a number of years been actively promoting the introduction and wider use of eco-technologies in the Baltic Sea Region. The ECO's activities have included a number of projects within a wide range of interrelated fields such as information, education, catchment area studies of nutrient runoff, prefeasibility studies on waste water treatment using eco-technologies, and the actual construction and operation of treatment facilities using various technologies.

As of today, many projects involving ecotechnologies are either under construction or planned throughout the Baltic Sea Region. These projects will, together with those already in operation, provide a solid basis for the further development of the eco-engineering options to become even more effective ecologically as well as economically.

The overall conclusion that can be drawn from a review of the present state of development within the field of eco-technological solutions is that there is a wide range of such technologies available and suitable for regionwide, full-scale application in the Baltic Sea Region. The choice of the most appropriate solution has, however, to be made, on a case-by-case basis, following a careful evaluation (e.g. through prefeasibility studies) of each individual project.

The introduction and wider use of eco-technologies would also complement the efforts urgently needed to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture in the Baltic Sea Region. Using ecotechnologies to re-establish the links between urban areas and agricultural land through the recycling of nutrients would be one important step in this process, and an essential contribution towards achieving the overall objective of a long-term ecologically sustainable Baltic Sea Region.

The ECO's believe that it is important to proceed with the implementation of a number of demonstration projects, which could further confirm that these technologies are very cost-effective, and, from an environmental point of view, fully acceptable alternatives to conventional systems. The implementation of a number of such projects would also be in line with the objectives of the HELCOM JCP, as the Programme is expected to support the development of demonstration projects for the use of natural, constructed, or recon­structed wetlands for waste water treatment, storm water retention and as traps for nutrients and other pollutants.

It is particularly important that such technologies are seriously considered when investments are made in new infrastructure for water and wastewater management. This is the case, not least in the countries in transition, where resources available for investments in the water and waste water sectors are limited and have to compete with investment needs in other urgent areas such as air pollution control, waste management and chemicals control.

Goals

• The introduction of source separation and recycling of material and substances as important principles in all actions concerning waste and wastewater from households;
• The sustainability of municipalities and households should be guided, inter alia, by focusing on the development of sustainable waste and wastewater recycling concepts, e.g. the use of ecological engineering approaches;

• Significant increase in the application, development and funding of ecologically oriented solutions to waste water treatment as alternatives to conventional systems during Phase II of the implementation of the HELCOM JCP.

Actions

• Guidelines which ensure that the options to use eco-technologies are fully evaluated in all water and waste water projects of appropriate size and location should be elaborated;
• The international financial institutions as well as all bilateral donors should consider the use of eco-technologies in all projects of appropriate size and location within the water and waste water sectors in which they are involved;
• Economic incentives to promote the use of eco-technologies for wastewater treatment should be introduced;
• Significant resources should be allocated during Phase II of the JCP to the funding of full scale demonstration and pilot projects using ecological engineering solutions for toilet and household waste and wastewater;
• Resources should be allocated within the Applied Research component of the JCP to research projects aiming at the further development and demonstration of cost-effective eco-technologies for the recycling of nutrients between urban areas and agricultural lands;
• Measures should be taken to ensure that experts in ecological engineering technologies are always involved in the planning pro­cess and in feasibility studies on how to solve pollution problems from diffuse sources and household waste and wastewater. The availability of expertise with extensive experience in eco-technological approaches has to be secured;
• Special programmes for saving water, which is still the most effective way to avoid water pollution problems, should be elaborated and supported by know-how and best available technology (BAT) from the West, including financial resources;

• The countries around the Baltic Sea should present proposals to the EU to change the present regulations so as to allow eco-farmers to use urine as a fertiliser. An appropriate time for such an initiative would be in conjunction with the revision of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which is expected to take place during the process of the EU enlargement.

PROMOTION OF LOCAL AGENDA 21

Local Agenda 21 is a framework for action designed to help human society move in very practical ways at the local level towards an environmentally sustainable pattern of life. It is given prominence in Chapter 28 of Agenda 21í - the strategic statement on sustainable development agreed by the world’s leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. However, we believe it needs to be more widely recognised as a crucial means of making progress towards sustainability. We therefore reaffirm the important role of Local Agenda 21.

Local Agenda 21 plans and activities are in a fast development and is, among some other ”buzzword”, part of the latest fashion in the environmental movement. For international and national policies and discussions on sustainable development it has, for the last years, been an important part when discussing how to implement the talks about sustainable development. Because once all the declarations have been adopted and the agreements signed the time for doing the work has come. And it will mostly have to be done locally, with or without a local, regional, national and/or regional, global perspective or governance.

As viewed by ECO’s, local Agendas 21 are important to promote, but do not substitute the need for subnational, national and regional as well as global plans and activities to promote sustainable development. It is rather the opposite, for a local work to be successful the obstacles created by national and international agreements, legislation etc. must be changed in many parts. Many of these demands are covered in the other chapters of this vision.

Focusing on the national requirements for a successful local Agenda 21 the following parts can be seen as examples on what is needed.

The removal of obstacles and introduction of support to local actions are needed. Many regulations, taxes and subsidies can have destructive effects on the development. Demands must be made on governments and parliaments; it should be easier for local work to be carried out by delegating power and responsibility. One clear example is the EU regulation on public procurement that makes it difficult for municipalities to include environmental demands in the procurement contracts.

Taking one important base for the Local Agenda 21 work to be successful is the need of local self governance, the ability and responsibility for local communities to decide on planning of landuse, collect taxes and thus also get the financial means for the investments and projects needed. The national plans and decisions taken need to be complemented with a local veto concerning environmentally damaging activities such as the location of large power plants and highways.

The national level should also take the responsibility to spread the best practice emerging in local communities as well as spread knowledge from the scientific society. New knowledge and techniques need to be gained and widely disseminated. Support for introducing sustainable solutions on the local level are needed as well as the removal of subsidies and taxes that discriminates new and better practices within e.g. the transport, agriculture, fishery, energy sectors.

In developing a successful local Agenda 21, the following characteristics have been outlined by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation when considering the recommendations listed in Agenda 21, together with experience gained from work done within the European Agenda 21 project.

1. Overall views and clear goals have been formulated
2. A global perspective has been taken into consideration
3. A realistic time perspective has been kept in mind
4. Plan on how to initiate the work have been developed and documentation has been provided for

5. Participation and co-operation possibilities have been provided for

ACTIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

• key people involved in addressing social, economic, cultural or environmental issues within a municipality should come together to design a process through which a long term sustainable development strategy for the area can be drawn up, and appropriate practical action begun;

• the process of drafting and agreeing a Local Agenda 21 should be done in a way that enables all citizens within the municipality to contribute their ideas, and to get actively involved in practical Local Agenda 21 projects;
• the local council should recognise the value of Local Agenda 21 as a means of integrating all areas of policy and practice in a coherent strategy for a sustainable future, using it as a tool to reinforce the implementation of national and EU legislation at local level;
• it should put its own house in order by undertaking an Environmental Audit and by adopting an Environmental Management System, such as EMAS;
• practical action should be based on a partnership approach reflecting a shared responsibility for the creation of a more environmentally sustainable society that meets the needs of its citizens (e.g. the formalised contract between the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the City Council of Växjö);

• people should have more influence over the way EU funds are applied in their municipality, and should be given more information on the existence of these funds,

  The local communities are urged to join the initiative taken in the form of the Baltic Local Agenda 21 Forum. The Forum needs to be developed and given a clear base via the national committees.

Objectives of the Forum are at present to:

• give concrete examples;
• disseminate results of local Agenda 21 work;
• share human resources and make co-operation more effective;
• take joint actions;
• find external funding for local work;

• improve the environment of the BSR through the local initiatives taken;

ACTIONS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

• national governments should give status to Local Agenda 21 by requiring all their municipalities to draft a Local Agenda 21 based on the principles of participation, partnership, integration and the long term protection of the environment, with financial incentives and clear deadlines;
• they should display leadership through their own actions, and ensure that all their policies and practices support (rather than hinder) the implementation of Local Agenda 21;
• they should ensure strict adherence to EU Regulations and Directives on the environment and provide better information on EU legislation at a local level;
• national associations of local councils and non-governmental organisations (including those in the business and voluntary sectors) should actively participate in national platforms, and facilitate the exchange of experience in the application of Local Agenda 21;

• Create national committees governed by the government, business, ECO’s and other important stakeholders that disseminates knowledge and provides financial support to the local Agenda 21 activities. The national committees should co-ordinate and take on joint initiatives needed for developing the local Agenda 21, such as removing obstacles on national level and in existing EU regulations and programmes, other joint programmes already existing and improve the exchange of information on best practice and new knowledge.

ACTIONS AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL

• the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament should make their support for Local Agenda 21 much more widely known;
• they must ensure that all their policies and practices support Local Agenda 21;
• in particular:
• the Public Procurement Directive should be clarified to encourage local economic and trading practices that help reduce the damaging environmental impacts of unnecessary long-distance trade;
• the Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic EIA should be clarified to ensure fuller public participation and access to expertise;
• the EU 5th Environmental Action Programme should include specific targets and timetables for implementation;
• in addition, the European Commission should:
• evaluate pilot projects and promote best practice on Local Agenda 21;
• use its support for the European Sustainable Cities & Towns Campaign to involve representatives of all sectors involved in Local Agenda 21 activities (i.e. local councils and non-governmental organisations including those in the business and voluntary sectors);
• link its promotion of European citizenship with Local Agenda 21 via the media and other means of public communication (e.g. TV coverage of EU policy and EU-funded projects);
• simplify funding application procedures and make public participation in project planning an essential requirement;

• follow the example of local authorities by undertaking an Environmental Audit of its institutional practices and the impact of is policies;

PUBLIC AWARENESS, PARTICIPATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

Sustainability is by nature local as a sustainable society can most readily be realised in our neighbourhoods and in the daily lives of every single person. Solemn declarations adopted at international conferences do not necessarily bring about the essential changes in reality. The good intentions outlined in the global Agenda 21 and in the BA 21 will only be realised if people in all countries, regions and local communities of the Baltic Sea Region are prepared to accept the principles of sustainability and consequently are prepared to change their attitudes, patterns of consumption and lifestyles.

There is a general lack of awareness among the general public in all the countries in the Baltic Sea Region about what a process towards sustainable development at the local, regional, national and Baltic Sea Region rely implies. What challenges and great opportunities are really involved?

Consequently, massive efforts to raise public awareness and to get acceptance and participation will be of crucial importance to shape a sustainable Baltic Sea Region. Every effort must be made, for democracy and equity, to provide the people of the region with relevant information, education, incentives and practical means of participation to motivate them and develop a feeling of joint ownership of the process.

At the international level the new UN ECE Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to be adopted at the Pan-European Environment Ministers Meeting in Aarhus in June 1998, will hopefully be an important tool for ensuring increased public participation in the development of the Baltic Sea Region.

The three parts, access to information, public participation and access to justice, of the Convention forms a base, but will however, probably not be sufficient to ensure a wide public participation and guaranteed access to environmental information and justice. Despite the shortcomings of the Convention its immediate implementation is of vital importance, and additional measures to be haven have been presented by the ECO representatives during the negotiating process.

A list of such measures was developed and adopted at the European ECO Forum held at Bled, Slovenia in November 1997. ECO's from thirty-eight countries in the ECE Region participated in that conference.

The ECO's views are based on the principle that governments exist to serve the people and are funded by the people, that the information they hold is public information, held on behalf of the people, and that the decisions they take are taken on behalf of their people.

Access to information:

The time limits for the supply of information to the public in some countries are excessively long, particularly when an information request is refused. The value and relevance of information often depends upon it being provided to the requester in a timely manner. A reasonable time limit would be two weeks.

Information must be made available and actively disseminated to the public in a usable, comprehensible form. Public authorities should have an unequivocal obligation to provide information in the form specified by the requester (such as electronic or paper form, etc.) where it is held in that form.

Under no circumstance should information be withheld unless it can be established that the harm that may result from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. The burden of proof should rest with those seeking to withhold the information.

Public Participation

Adequate public participation in environmental decision-making involves many important components, ranging from early notification about a proposal to complete citizen involvement in post-decision implementation and monitoring.

It is critical that there are national regulations on public participation that will provide an opportunity for the public to participate fully in the development of general rules, policies, strategies, plans and programs affecting the environment. These instruments define the context in which activities affecting the environment are undertaken, and must therefore developed in a participatory manner. Information must be widely disseminated (including through the media) to alert citizens and communities.

It is important that the concept of active identification of interested parties and elements are included in the public participation process (scoping). Thorough scoping at an early stage, conducted with thorough public participation, fundamentally shapes the further progress of any public participation process. Therefore, scoping should be regarded as a priority issue that is essential to effective public participation.

Access to Justice

Both citizens and ECO's must be able to practically exercise their rights to access to justice. As a priority, this requires the removal of legal and financial obstacles that prevent citizens and ECO's from exercising such rights. In particular, it is unacceptable for citizens or organisations that have exercised their rights to participate in environmental decision-making to be denied access to administrative or judicial appeal mechanisms.

Other Provisions

There is a strong need to protect persons exercising their rights to information, participation and justice from penalisation, harassment or persecution.

Furthermore, there is a great need to include strong legal protection for "whistle-blowers" (including environmental journalists) in order to not hamper public participation and access to information.

National governments are urged to adopt and comply with the following general criteria for assessing Good Practice in Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making

• There should be adequate and effective publicity (including the use of all relevant media) as early as possible in the participation process, well before any public hearings;
• The objectives of the participation process should be clearly defined in advance. Links between local decisions and national policy (and vice versa) and any resulting implications should be identified;
• Public and interested organisations should have full access to all background documents. These should include all relevant information, should be clearly presented, and under-standable to the general public;
• All appropriate levels of government decision-making should be included in the process;
• All interested parties, including those identified or identifying themselves as stakeholders, should have a right to comment and to participate at all relevant stages of a decision-making process;
• All comments should be considered without any discrimination regarding the source of the comments;
• Full minutes of all hearings and meetings in the process should be made available promptly and freely to all those taking part;
• There should be adequate financial support for the process of citizen participation with a published budget. This should include adequate provision for funding independent expertise from ECO's;
• There should be independent facilitation of the decision-making process by qualified professionals;
• There should be adequate opportunities for civil society involvement in all stages of the process, including post-decision implementation;
• Citizens and interested parties should receive clear knowledge of final decisions and the reasons for them;

• The decision-making process should be subject to objective review after the end of the process. This review should include assessment by those who took part from all sectors. No process should be claimed as 'good practice' without such a review taking place.

Importance of the consumer

With expanded environmental awareness, the consumer will become an increasingly important player/actor in environmental management in all sectors. Green certification and labelling schemes have already had significant impact on some types of goods and industries in some of the countries around the Baltic. It should be anticipated that well-informed and active consumers will be among the major driving forces of sustainable development.

Sector responsibility for public awareness, information and education

As part of its overall sector responsibility all sectors should include an active public awareness, information and environmental education component as part of its sector action programme for sustainable development.

This part of the action programmes should target all levels, that is from decision-makers, administrators, managers, sector education and research institutions as well as in schools and the general public about the issues of sustainability within their respective sector and its relative contribution to the overall goal of sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region.

General Programmes on PP&PA&EE

However, in addition to these sector driven activities in the field of PA&EE there will be a strong need for programmes of a more general and cross-sector nature to raise the level of awareness and understanding among common people, and especially among young people, about the issues involved and actions necessary to achieve the common goal, i.e. a sustainable future throughout the region. ECO's will have an important role in this process.

Goals

• To ensure wide public participation in all decision-making of importance to sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region;

• To raise the awareness at all levels of society of what sustainable development is all about and what will be necessary (and required by everybody) to achieve this common goal

Actions

• All countries in the Baltic Sea Region should, as a matter of high priority, sign and ratify the new UN ECE Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;
• Measures should be taken nationally to improve procedures for Environment Impact Assessments to ensure wide public participation. Openness and transparency should be guaranteed by law;
• The right of justice, participation and access to information should be guaranteed by law;
• National actions programmes for public awareness, information and education on sustainable development should be elaborated and implemented in all countries;
• Significant resources should be allocated nationally as well as internationally to support the implementation of such action programmes and projects in the fields of PAⅇ
• Increased support should be given to the strengthening of the activities of national and international ECO's within the Baltic Sea Region with the purpose to increase their possibilities to effectively participate and contribute to the process of sustainable development;

• Measures should be taken to promote and support Local Agenda 21 initiatives as well as twinning arrangements and networking between local communities wanting to co-operate on such projects

IMPLEMENTATION -THE PATH TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY

Important steps towards ecologically sustainable developmentBased on the concepts and principles outlined above some of the necessary basic first steps towards sustainable development and the elaboration of an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region could be summarised as follows:

• A common understanding of sustainability should be developed and agreed upon by all parties involved;
• As a first priority, the goals set and the commitments made in already existing agreements and declarations should be fulfilled;
• Indicators for sustainable development to replace the conventional GNP as the sole indicator of progress should be elaborated and agreed upon;
• Targets for economic, social and ecological development based on these indicators should be developed;
• Green taxes should be introduced in order internalise environmental and social costs;
• Strategic environment impact assessment procedures should be introduced and used to evaluate if major government and other policies, strategies, programmes and decisions are compatible with the basic principles of sustainable development;
• Existing plans and infrastructure development should be revised and plans and infrastructure created that are compatible with sustainable development;
• Procedures and systems to ensure truly wide partnership and participation at all levels among the populations of the Baltic Sea region in the Agenda 21 process should be developed; and

• Programmes for integrated rural development should be elaborated

Implementation of already existing international agreements and commitments

It must be understood that the ultimate goal of ecologically sustainable development can only be reached by taking a number of smaller or larger steps in the form of actions within all relevant fields starting now! This is essential to also create and build the necessary broad confidence and credibility at all levels for the process.

In this process, programmes and actions included in an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region must as a first priority ensure that the goals set and commitments made in previous agreements and ministerial declarations is honoured and fully implemented within all sectors of society.

In accordance with this the ECO's believe that:

• Further measures should be taken urgently to combat particularly the emissions and dischar-ges from nonpoint sources of pollution within the Baltic Sea Region. Sector oriented action programmes should be developed and adopted as a matter of highest priority. These pro-grammes, which should be under implementation not later than in the beginning of the year 2000, should include clear commitments and responsibilities, as well as on funding, resources to be allocated, and timetables for implementation,;

• An action programme to combat pollution from small point sources should be elaborated and implemented. So far, much emphasis has been put on eliminating pollution from major point sources, such as large cities and industries. It is now high time that discharges from smaller point sources are also addressed effectively and efficiently. A wide range of cost-effective technologies - including ecological engineering techniques - are already available to provide sustainable solutions to the problems caused by emissions from these sources.

Need for political leadership

The ECO's have previously argued that the Baltic Agenda 21 should be adopted at the highest political level i.e. by the Heads of Government at one of the Summits of the Baltic Sea States. Only adoption at this level can give the BA 21 the political strength necessary to ensure that all countries (and all sectors concerned in each country) in the region are fully committed to the goals and actions set out in the BA 21.

The ECO's still holds this view.

However, when it comes to the practical “day-to-day“ implementation it might be advisable for the Prime Ministers to delegate this responsibility to one of the ministers of their cabinets who should be given a clear mandate to co-ordinate the implementation of the BA 21. At the same time, all other ministers concerned should be given clear instructions to co-operate fully with the minister in charge in implementing the various tasks that have to be undertaken in the process towards sustainability.

Having considered these matters in some detail, the ECO's believe that the Ministers of Environment would be the ones that most appropriately should be given the overall respon-sibility to co-ordinate the implementation of BA 21. However, the progress of implementation of BA 21, should be regularly reviewed (e.g. every 3 years) and when necessary be given further political guidance at the highest level at future Baltic Sea States Summits.

An open process

The ECO's should be allowed to participate in all meetings where the BA 21 process is on the agenda including relevant sections of the Baltic Sea States Summits (Prime Ministers meetings). Sufficient resources should also be allocated so as to allow the ECO's to actively participate in and contribute to the implementation of the BA 21.

Strengthening, restructuring and reorganising international co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region

Present structures of international co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region are a clear reflection of the sectored and often fragmented national structures of administration and management. As a result, there are a large number of international organisations, institutions and initiatives with partly overlapping work programmes and mandates operating and competing over the scarce resources available for international co-operation.

Despite some political signals about the need for co-operation and integration, organisations have in practice been slow to respond to these calls.

At the same time, there are a number of gaps concerning some key areas in the international network of organisations and initiatives that must be filled in order for the international co-operation to function effectively and allow for the essential integrated approach to achieve sustainable development.

The ECO's strongly believe that international co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region needs to be restructured and reorganised to effectively meet the comprehensive demands and challenges of sustainable development.

There will be a need for an efficient international mechanism or process that can function as an effective initiating, co-ordinating and review mechanism to be entrusted with the challenging tasks to ensure, inter alia, cross-sector integration and to monitor and guide the implementation of the BA 21.

According to the view of the ECO's none of the existing international organisations in the Baltic Sea Region has at present either the capacity and competence or an appropriate mandate from its Members States to be able to assume this role. Consequently, a discussion on the institutional arrangements should be initiated as soon as possible during the final negotiations of the BA 21.

One option that could be considered in this discussion could be the creation of a Baltic Commission for Sustainable Development (BCSD) to be modelled on the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UN CSD), but carefully adopted to the special conditions and needs of the Baltic Sea Region.

The existing international bodies in the Baltic Sea Region could possibly continue as (semi-) independent Commissions but with revised Terms of References (appropriate revisions of the respective Conventions might be necessary) which clearly spells out their obligations to report to the BCSD and requirements to fully integrate environmental and sustainability concerns and issues in their decisions.

If deemed more appropriate, the existing organisations could be transformed into Committees or Subcommissions of the BCSD. This would create an even stronger system for co-ordination and integration.

The BCSD should meet annually preferably at ministerial level (environment ministers). Annual meetings at the political level are necessary to keep the political momentum of the process towards sustainability and will also allow for rapid responses to emerging issues.

At each meeting of the BCSD progress within one or two of the major sectors included in the BA 21 would be reviewed in-depth, based on sector reports and reports from a Baltic Sea Region Monitoring and Assessment Programme. When necessary, new political guidance for future work will be given.

The Ministers from the sectors to be reviewed by the BCSD should be invited to join their colleagues, the environment ministers, at the BCSD meetings. Thus, all decisions will be made jointly between the sector ministers and the environment ministers who has been given responsibility (by the Prime Ministers) to guide and co-ordinate the BA 21 implementation.

However, as mentioned above the process and issues should be lifted to the level of Heads of Governments at regular intervals for review, endorsement and when necessary further political guidance.

A system such as the one outlined above would allow for the necessary holistic approach to sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region and also ensure the necessary integration and co-ordination between sectors as well as between sectors and the overall process.