Baltic 21: an agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region

A Note on Authorship and Contributions to this Report

From Rio to Visby
Introducing a Regional Agenda 21
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region: The need for a vision and conceptual guidance
Where are we now? Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region
Towards Sustainability
Policy changes required
Setting up a Baltic 21 process

Executive Summary

Baltic 21

Mandate and Scope

This executive summary and the accompanying main report, commissioned to the Stockholm Environment Institute by the Swedish Ministry of Environment, serve as background for the meeting of the Baltic Sea Region Environment Ministers on October 20-21, 1996 in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden. The mandate was to analyse the 'prerequisites and potentials' for developing an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region (Baltic 21) and help the governments develop a suitable framework for evolving a Baltic 21. Three key starting points were followed in this process:

A Baltic 21 will, by necessity, be different in structure from the UNCED Agenda 21 and will therefore have to find its own form.
Baltic 21 should build on the considerable success and momentum from environmental and other co- operation already operational within the Region.
In the initial phase, Baltic 21 should focus on regional aspects and the integration of a number of key sectors.

Baltic 21

Conclusions

The Baltic Sea Region has great opportunity. Prospects for future growth and well-being for its 80 million people are good. It is important to make this development sustainable.
At present, no organisation has the mandate to look at regional-level sustainable development and Agenda 21 issues in the Baltic Sea Region. There are vast opportunities for valuable and important work in this area. The timing is right for a new initiative in this direction.
Baltic 21 will further enhance the Region's world-wide reputation for building successful co- operation on environment, security and development matters and provide a model for other regions.
Sustainable development is far more than regional co-operation on a set of sectoral and environmental policies. Baltic 21 must therefore also include a broader scope integrating environmental issues with economic and social development.
Baltic 21 should be complementary to ongoing regional activities, such as HELCOM or VASAB. It should provide important 'value-added' to those activities by focusing on the Region as a whole, on linkages between local and national initiatives and on long-term and regional issues.
The working mode of the Baltic 21 process could include policy reviews, conferences and round- tables and provide an open and public policy forum for all stakeholders.
Baltic 21 must support access to advanced and easy-to-access information and knowledge on the Baltic Region.
The Baltic 21 process should be advanced by a small core organisation with the backing and resources commensurate with the Heads of State's mandate outlined in Visby in 1996.
Sustainable development is a long-term undertaking which needs long-term commitment. It is therefore important not to expect too much too soon from a Baltic 21 process.
The Baltic 21 process must recognize the uncertainties inherent in the Baltic system and support a close link between science, public policy and system monitoring through adaptive management.

A Note on Authorship and Contributions to this Report

This Draft Report has been prepared by SEI at the request of the Swedish Ministry of Environment. It is produced as a background report for the meeting of the Environment Ministers of the Baltic Sea Region in October 1996.

Lars Kristoferson has been the Project Manager for this project and is also main author, together with Carl Einar Sålvant. Other SEI staff that contributed with input and expertise were Nicholas Sonntag, Arno Rosemarin, Johan Kuylenstierna, Måns Nilsson, Paul Raskin, Sven Hunhammar, Tö nis Kaasik, Toomas Pallo, Gordon McGranahan, Gunilla Björklund, Semida Silveira and others.

We have also received good advise and/or written contributions from a number of colleagues outside the Institute, including Bo Löwendahl, Stephen Lintner, Armands Plate, Danielius Pivoriunas, Judyta Sukyte, Sergei Bobyliev, Wojciech Stodulski, Andrzej Kassenberg, Harro Pitkänen, Arne Mogren, Erik Terk, Linnar Viik and many others. Svante Bodin, Lena Jacobsson and Karin Sjölin of the Ministry of Environment have also given us valuable comments during the course of the work.

Arno Rosemarin and Karin Hultcrantz have been the technical editors of the report.

A regional review meeting was held in Tallinn on 16 September 1996 to review a first Draft, followed by a review and discussion of the report by a meeting of senior officials from the region´s Ministries of Environment. This Final Report was then produced by SEI in early October, together with a shortened version in the form of an Executive Summary brochure.

We acknowledge the interest, good advice and comments we have received. This has contributed much to our own thinking and improved our ideas considerably. However, the main authors take all the responsibility for the report, its analysis, conclusions and shortcomings.

Stockholm, October 1996
Lars Kristoferson, SEI

Terminology and Abbreviations

The Baltic Sea Region is defined as the nations wholly or partly belonging to the Baltic Sea watershed. In this text we use BSR as an abbreviation for the Baltic Sea Region, and EBR for East Baltic Region (Poland, Baltic States and Russia). WBR stands for West Baltic Region (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany). Sometimes CIT may be used as an abbreviation for Countries in Transition, i.e. synonomous with EBR. We also separate CEE (Baltic States of Poland, Czech and Slovak republics in certain contexts) from CIS (Russia, Belarus).

The Agenda 21 for the BSR is abbreviated as Baltic 21 or BSR 21. SD is sometimes used short for Sustainable Development.

1. From Rio to Visby

The BSR is a region of opportunity and promise, and the prospects and potential for future growth and wealth of its people are exceptional. A sustainable environment is necessary for our future prosperity and well-being and is also a vital and indispensable part of our common security. The political and economic reforms and the societal restructuring now taking place provide a unique opportunity for building environment considerations into economic growth and social development in the region as a whole, and turning this process in the direction of joint and regional sustainable development.

There is a rich tradition of successful regional co-operation in the BSR, which is generally regarded as a world model, not least in the environmental field. There is now an opportunity to develop this model further and also provide an example for building regional sustainable development. Those opportunities are further underlined by the possibilities provided by the new role of EU in the BSR.

Agenda 21, which was jointly adopted at UNCED in Rio de Janeiro 1992, is a global action programme for the environmental and development issues of today and for the future. Its aim is to prepare the world for the challenges of the next century, and it reflects a global consensus at the highest political level. Even if the momentum from Rio has shown signs of slowing down, much inspiring work has been devoted to developing such action programmes at the national and, particularly successfully, the local level. Despite the future potential of the BSR, and despite some of its countries being some of the world's most advanced industrial nations, development in the BSR is, however, nowhere on the path towards sustainable development. Profound changes are needed in the policies of all countries as well as in the level and scope of regional co-operation. Managing the transition towards sustainable development is a necessary requirement in order to safeguard the future wealth and well-being of our peoples, and to provide for a long-lasting prosperity and security in the region.

Even if the longer-term goals and aspirations of the countries and people in the BSR are the same, there are also currently considerable differences in environmental and development policies and priorities, depending on variations in economical, social and political conditions. That it is possible to overcome such differences is, however, shown by the success of HELCOM and the considerable progress made in implementing the JCP. The basis for co-operation in solving the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea has turned out to be a very stable one and provides a source of inspiration for widening the environmental scope to include the broader environmental and development concerns of the BSR.

The political commitment to develop an Agenda 21 for the BSR was made by the Prime Ministers at the Visby Summit in 1996, and since confirmed by the Foreign Ministers at the CBSS meeting in July, is an expression of a concerted and overall political will to turn a new leaf in the history of regional environment and development co-operation. While recognizing the success of current co-operation, such as HELCOM or VASAB, this pledge also shows a clear recognition of the fact that sustainable development, and therefore the development of a Baltic Agenda 21, is more than the sum of a series of sectorial policies and action plans. Only with sustained efforts and political support can this be achieved.

1.1. Looking back

There are many a good reason for the countries of the Baltic Sea Region to embark on the process of framing and establishing an indigenous Agenda 21 on a region-wide level. Once divided into different blocs the region is now set on a course henceforth shared. Agenda 21 is an instrument to overbridge disparities, spur development and to make this common future path a sustainable one.

The record of the past is compelling. It was in Stockholm that the first global meeting on the environment was held in l972. The Stockholm Conference, in turn, incited the riparians to co-operate and sign the first regional marine convention addressing all sources of pollution, the Helsinki Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea. This agreement was initialized in 1974 and was managed by an interim Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) until its ratification in l980. Then the convention went into force. The regular activities of HELCOM has since been sustained by annual meetings of the Parties, periodically also at the level of minsisters.

It was also in the Baltic Region the Brundtland Report, Our common Future, originated almost a decade ago feeding the aim and concept of sustainable development on the global agenda. The appeal won immediate support. Environmental objectives were elevated to a first rank priority. It called for a proactive, long-range policy framework.

In addition a coinciding series of environmental accidents and events that hit the Baltic Sea Region underscored the urgency of preventive and precautionary actions to sustain environment and development .The Tchernobyl nuclear powerplant accident, toxic algae blooms and a seal epidemic disclosed basinwide environmental vulnerabilities and interdependencies.

In the historically significant political changes of l989-91, care for the environment was a major component. Identifiable but misconceived projects became rallying points in the struggle for change and independence, precipitating the transition to market economy and democracy in former socialist countries. The political map was consequently redrawn in North-western Europe. At the invitation of the Swedish and Polish premiers, a Baltic Sea ministerial conference was held in Ronneby, Sweden in September l990. Representatives of all littoral states, two of the then Baltic Republics, observer countries, the Commission of the European Communities and four international banks took part in this unique initiative.

1.1.1 Ronneby and Rio

The delegates at Ronneby adopted the Baltic Sea Declaration calling for the establishment of a long-term, twenty-year action plan for the 'ecological restoration and preservation of the Baltic Sea.' The plan was two years later endorsed by the Ministers of Environment as the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme, see 4.5.1 (BSJCP, JCP). The programme focuses on environment control, municipal and industrial waste water treatment, waste management and the impact of agriculture on environment. 132 'hot spots' of pollution comprising both point source and diffuse source problems, were identified and their impacts on the environment were examined. HELCOM was entrusted with the task of co-ordinating and implementing the programme. Furthermore, the old Helsinki Convention was amended and ratified by new parties, viz. The European Community and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The 1992 Convention extends the area of application into the riparian countries territorial and internal waters. New articles dealing with the preservation of wetlands and biological diversity were inserted.

The framing of these regional instruments coincided with the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio l992. Issues raised in the Brundtland Report and scientific findings reported by the International Panel on Climate Change set new imperatives and hallmarks for environmental policy. Preparations for Rio induced governments to produce reports on environmental policies and to assess the status of their environments. The Rio Summit resulted in five documents and three tangible commitments including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention for Climate Change and the 'Forest Principles'. Last but not least the 'world leaders' agreed on a political framework of consensual guidelines for action on environment and development at the threshold of the 21st century: Agenda 21.

1.1.2 From Rio to Visby

In Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development spelled out some basic predicaments in the future management of global resources and the environment. The report suggested the criteria for sustainable development as forms of progress that 'meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.' This principle promotes a guided process of societal and economic changes adjusted to limits set by nature.

Many threads of environmental and developmental challenges are brought together in Agenda 21. The document is a strategic platform comprising reports on trends and needs, and a blueprint for lines of action. Its 40 chapters include statements of objectives, activities required, institutional changes and needs of implementation. National priorities and strategies of environmental policy have been broadly affected and inspired by the global consensus demonstrated. The two conventions Biological Diversity and Climate have won world-wide acceptance.

Agenda 21 clarifies that responsibility for sound environmental policy rests with national governments. International co-operation is vital and should support and complement national measures. It is furthermore indispensable because many problems are such that they cannot be solved by one state alone. Not the least, the agenda directly addresses and encourages initiatives and plans of action to be taken by local governments, industry and by NGOs. Chapter 28 states that most local authorities should have undertaken such consultative processes on a local Agenda 21 by 1996. Responses have been immediate, wide spread and often very concrete.

The Rio package of measures has exerted significant impacts on many levels of society. The two conventions have been ratified by the Baltic Sea States thus giving the preservation of biodiversity and the combat against greenhouse gas emissions an internationally binding form. National sustainability programmes in various guises have been introduced often prepared in interministerial discussions and consultancies with the public. Local or county level activities are also significant elements in environmental policy-making in the Baltic Sea Region. Quite a number of local or specifically targeted programmes have been drawn up by political authorities or by NGO actors, thus often preceding, complementing and sustaining national efforts. Local action plans constitute a shared pool of basic understandings of the issues at stake.

Already a number of separate plans and projects that advocate sustainability principles have seen the light of day in regional networking. A certain diversity is unavoidable as background conditions and the individual history of each effort differ. Many of the measures undertaken by cities and municipalities lend direct support to the realisation of JCP and other sub-regional undertakings. Such sectorally confined actions on a modest geographical scale are important not only on their own merits, but also because they underpin the process of sustainability-building with dynamics and building block advances.

The positive co-operative development in the Region was further strenghtened by a meeting of Heads of Governments of Baltic Sea states in Visby, Sweden on May 2-3 l996.The eleven governments and the President of the European Commission committed themselves to the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples within the framework of sustainable development, sustainable management of natural resources and protection of the environment. Sustainable development was additionally mentioned as a central objective for economic integration and prosperity.

Hence the Summit resolved to develop an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, to be initiated by the meeting of Ministers of Environment in a back to back meeting with the Ministers of Planning in October l996. The regular session of the Council of Baltic Sea States on July 2-3 endorsed the initiative. The foreign ministers called upon all other ministers concerned to support the development of such an Agenda...'in view of its interdisciplinary character'.

1.2. The Historical Coincidence

From the vantage point of sustainable development, the links between environment and economic and social conditions in BSR are particularly challenging. Not to denying that the last years also represented a negative economic development in the story of welfare economies in the WBR. Finland and Sweden have faced grave economic problems and production setbacks while Denmark and Norway have registered steady advances. Germany have oscillated between growth and stagnation. But on the whole a welfare curtain persists and the magnitude and significance of the change is different in kind.

Already in the 1970s and 1980s forums existed that could grapple with the issues that transcended different political regimes at that time- protection of the environment and in particular the Baltic sea. After systemic changes in former socialist countries environmental issues and especially awareness building remained important. Once again it should be underlined how system changes in eastern Europe coincided with the evolution of the SD concept. Thus there was an opportunity to take advantage of this concept and use it as a criterion on the path to market economy and environmental recovery.

The transition period brought home two essential messages: Firstly, despite hardships and economic turmoil, the window of opportunity enabled solutions and actions that merely a few years earlier were beyond imagination. Secondly, that the status of the environment was not the only interest shared between EBR and WBR. Internationalisation and monetary changes exposed and opened CITs for capital inflows and new markets; privatisations and new legal systems related the social and economic activities to the main stream of developments in market economies and in European integration.

Economic restructuring falls into a pattern that is common to most EBR countries, they faced stagnation and recession at first. Then a deep slump followed, when production fell dramatically, before the economic engines turned into positive directions. In EBR the Polish economy was the first to turn around noting steady growth, followed by Estonia. During the very last years inflation has been halted in all CEE and CIS countries, although some countries are falling behind in the tempo of recuperation. All countries have however in the very last years experienced a period with GDP growth.

Despite turbulent developments and spurtlike stops and starts these countries are moving towards a path of secure and rapid growth. Hence a window of opportunity is opened for a second time. But conditions have altered compared to only a few years ago, economic development and not environmental needs are the dynamic factor in regional collaboration.

What then is needed to sustain growth and to stabilise economies to the extent that environment will benefit from it? It is not the case that one can make simple and secure forecast on the likely path forward for each single country. A rapid reindustrialisation is likely to create ecological and environmental consequences different in kind from those associated with the transition to a service economy. Should a country prosper from transit location, trade and transport impacts will become dominant issues.

Overall in CITs, there are signs that a broader discussion is starting. Achievements and pitfalls under transition are assessed and increasingly related to new qualitative goals and different yardsticks adopted in the course of international participation. In this condition, SD has not lost its appeal. On the contrary, it is one of the few notions that conjure up visions and orientations that can serve the common understanding and interests in the BSR.

1.3 Beyond Visby

The real challenge still lies ahead in certain CEE and CIS countries: recession and a big economic slump have halted many polluting activities. Economic recovery and accelerating growth entails a new dilemma: If agriculture returns to intensive uses of fertilizers and chemicals while old industrial plants increase their outputs, a further deterioration of an already polluted environment is predicted. Hence a tremendous need for conversion of agricultural production and for restructuring of industrial processes. A report from the Kaliningrad district reveals a 45% down turn of industrial production 1990-1995, closely correlated with diminishing amounts of air pollution. At this stage the path of restructuring is crucial. We should of course acknowledge that environmental policies are susceptible to macro economic stabilization programs, and that there is no unanimity on the recipes. But there are already good regional examples of successful introduction of cleaner production processes and sustainable agriculture. In Poland recent economic recovery is reported not to have been associated with an equal increase in emissions and waste. Hence fundamental choices must be made when the wheels turn.

Beyond this critical juncture, and if this trend towards improvement continues then one can find some comfort in the observation that environmental problems at present are not those that were introduced five years ago; and probably that future problems will differ equally much from those we know today. This is the opportunity for Baltic 21 to reflect upon and to grasp.

It should be noted that system changes in eastern Europe coincided with the acceptance and evolution of the SD concept. Thus there was an opportunity to take advantage of this concept and use it as a criterion on the path to market economy and environmental recovery.

The real challenge lies still ahead in certain CEE and CIS countries: recession and a large economic slump halted many polluting activities. If economic growth accelerates, with agriculture returning to intensive uses of fertilizers and chemicals while old industrial plants increase their outputs, a further deterioration of an already polluted environment is predicted. Hence there is a tremendous need for conversion of agricultural production and for restructuring industrial processes. A report from the Kaliningrad district reveals a 45% decrease in industrial production during 1990-1995, causing diminishing amounts of air pollution. At this stage, the path of restructuring is crucial. We should of course acknowledge that environmental policies are susceptible to macro-economic stabilisation programmes, and that there is no unanimity as to the recipes. When the economy recovers it is decisive that managers profit from the opportunity to reduce energy inefficiencies and waste of resources. But there are already good regional examples of successful introduction of cleaner production processes and sustainable agriculture. In Poland recent economic recovery is reported not to have been associated with an equal increase in emissions and waste.

2. Introducing a Regional Agenda

The process inspired by Agenda 21 has evolved in parallel at the global, national and local and grass-root level. However, the Rio appeal also calls upon regional and sub-regional organisations to contribute, assist and complement national measures. A regional commitment of this kind is likely to open new vistas in Baltic Sea co-operation. It should also give new impetus on the road to sustainable development. Developing a regional Agenda 21 furthermore, is unprecedented and could settle an example for other transnational regions as well.

The proposal raises three sets of questions. What implications does such a platform entail for the pursuit of regional co-operation programmes in the future? Secondly, what is the significance of an Agenda 21? In chapter 3 we will discuss the concept and the underlying vision. A third aspect deals with the record of efforts in the recent past to promote sustainable development. In this context we would like to highlight some striking cases of efforts and achievements displaying factors and process characteristics that appear consistent with sustainable development.

2.1 Some implications

Creating a Baltic Sea Region Agenda 21 is a challenge. It opens up new horizons and scales of action inspired by but different from the Rio process. Why the Baltic Sea and what Region? Baltic Sea environmental co-operation has a long and impressive legacy. The main consideration up to now has involved excessive levels of pollution loads upon a natural ecosystem and its drainage basin. Experience shows this work embodies special characteristics of its own, neither duplicating global efforts nor upscaling national or local programmes. This experience is a solid foundation and a driving force for moving forward and for formulating a common Agenda 21 vision. The regional scale of application is often very practical as uncertainties are smaller and impacts more easy to identify and appraise. This argument holds solidity for the Baltic Sea Region. The boundaries of a physical, natural ecosystem and meaningful political and socio-economic interaction patterns coincide. The adoption of a regional Agenda 21 is likely to entail expanding commitments

Integration of sustainable development into the design of many other policy areas like those of economy, transport, physical planning, housing and energy is a key factor in environmental improvement. Such an emphasis is likely to redirect established forms of regional co-operation. The multi-dimensionality and interdisciplinarity of the concept has important consequences for identification of priorities, policy formulation and in choice of instruments.

Some comments on the basic dimensions affected are justified before the advantages and conceivable instruments of a new course are charted. Three aspects should be highlighted as a prelude to the work: a) justification, b) scope and substance of a Baltic 21 and c) the process/machinery.

2.2. Three dimensions affected

Justification. The basis for regional co-operation has for a few decades been the common property of the Baltic Sea marine environment. Political conditions and knowledge lacunae impeded a thorough analysis of land-water interactions and of individual land-based sources of pollution and of transboundary effects. A political shift occurred in the late 1980s. National actions and installations, in particular those located within the drainage area, embodying consequences for this internationally shared resource then provided the impetus for renewed collaboration on environment protection and for the agreement to diminish pollution loads. Quantitative targets for reduction of emissions were adopted in l988. Knowledge on the status of the sources and their impacts have constantly improved.

The Helsinki Convention epitomises a traditional legal approach to environmental co-operation between 'high contracting parties.' In Ronneby (1990) it was decided to embark on a different, action oriented and flexible course rather than to renegotiate the legal regime. A co-operative framework was created (JCP) which recognises the crucial import of influencing conditions in all countries within the drainage area. Another distinctive trait of JCP is the participation of NGOs in programme preparation and implementation. (See HELCOM 4.5.1 below) As a result of these changes in strategy, the regional dialogue transcends the requirements and instruments of the legal regime and its official purpose to preserve the international marine environment.

On their part, the ministers of physical planning and development initiated in l992 the work leading to the VASAB process and the establishment of a special co-ordination committee (CSD/BSR). The report Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea 2010 (l995) represents a first step in the formulation of an overall spatial structure. The mapping of regional properties reflects the variable density of infrastructures and the disparities in development between different parts of the region. VASAB's mandate and spatial planning domain comprise adjacent territories beyond the ecosystems identified in the HELCOM convention. In certain fields, development projections and visions also comprise Belarus, Norway and the Kola Peninsula.

The VASAB process is very much inspired by European integration processes and geopolitical changes in European economies. Different initiatives have been taken to create new instruments in spatial planning to guide developments. Improvements of trans-European transport networks and the need to assure spatial cohesion on a European scale are the main motives. A second noticeable trait of VASAB is the inclusion of certain sub-regional territories and their authorities. St Petersburg and the two German countries Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern took part from the beginning. Later, they were joined by planning authorities from the Kaliningrad and Karelia regions.

Hence a Baltic Agenda 21 could take inspiration from inter alia three sources of achievements:

The efforts and experiences already made in regional cooperation
a common platform that could benefit from prevailing national commitments for sustainable development.
all valuable acheivements and lessons learnt in international cooperation and environmental assistance programmes.

Scope and substance. The perspectives raised by a regional Agenda 21 promoting sustainability, as previously mentioned go beyond environmental protection, and rescue and clean up operations of the Baltic marine environment. The point sources identified hot spots drawn up in the JCP were mainly selected on the basis of Baltic Sea marine impacts, although the concept of environmentally critical areas was also introduced. Two possible consequences of this premise can briefly be alluded to as follows.

Water courses are the central elements used in defining the regional Baltic ecosystem, and they are also main transmitters of pollutants from land-based sources. The Helsinki Convention also covers the air and open sea media and in this respect the BSR is both an emmitter to and receiver of third country pollution. However, one can find arguments for other important delineations of environmental dynamics. The sub-arctic areas on the cap of the Baltic Sea are also most vulnerable endowments under threat connecting the region to the Barents Sea. Such re-definitions might entail consequences for the assessments of pollution problems, impact patterns and priorities.

One possible bias of the water basin perspective is a relative concentration to coastal areas and actions at the end rather than at the source. The priority of directing investments and management assistance programs to 'down stream' facilities connected to visible point sources is understandable but could also reflect a propensity not only to act on the most urgent problems but also on the easiest ones. The same money might also be used 'upstream' to reduce effluents discharged by a small group of factories, to make a larger impact on ambient water quality. The majority of big cities and settlements in the south-east parts of the region are inland areas troubled by multiple environmental problems. One particular measure could solve several kinds of pollution simultaneously rather than addressing a very specific 'end-of-pipe' problem. Although most environmental protection measures are undertaken in a national context, the local more diffuse or mobile sources that have regional impacts have not been systematically appraised.

Development plans offer a different but complementary perspective on sustainability. The VASAB report underlines not only the need for spatial cohesion but it also harbours the aim for the BSR to adopt sustainable environmentally-sound development. Development objectives and planning projections for the south-eastern part of the region have progressed very quickly and won solid support. For instance, in the ministers' recommendation for spatial planning of the coastal zone to be adopted at the fourth conference in October, 1996, it is underlined that

...'the expected expansion of cities, tourism areas, transport and technical installations especially in the southern and eastern part of the Baltic Sea Coastal zone has to be guided by regionally balanced sustainability development'

The implication is that to avoid negative environmental impacts foreseen in the rapid transformation of infrastructures, anticipatory measures must be built in. Shifting understandings among different actors and stake-holders of the contours of the Region could reflect variations in needs and interests. Which would have practical consequences for the organisation and content of a regional Agenda 21. The updating and revision of the JCP mandated by the Prime Ministers in Visby, involves countries in the drainage area who are not parties to the Helsinki Convention. A parallel process of identifying hot spots and environmentally sound investments has only recently been concluded for adjacent areas in Northern Europe beyond the drainage areas: Karelia, the Kola Peninsula and Archangel Provinces in the Barents Region. The programme is known as the NEFCO-AMAP project.

Process and machinery for a Baltic Sea Agenda 21. Indeed, already a number of separate plans and projects that advocate sustainability principles have seen the light of day. A certain diversity is unavoidable as background conditions and the individual history of each effort differ. In the Rio Agenda 21, a scheme is outlined for assuring the integration of a number of sustainability considerations into all stages of decision making. Means available to legislation, administration, research and education should be upgraded; economic instruments and economic and natural resource accounting are to be developed. A number of non-governmental national and transnational organisations were called upon to join the public effort and to assist in implementation within their respective sectors. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established to monitor the process and to prepare for a UNGA special session after five years, in 1997.

It is common experience that in drafting agendas and environment action plans, emphasis should be put on the process of working together and on producing the programme as this process has a value in itself. We can only suggest how such a course could be chartered with similar positive effects for the Baltic Region.

The realisation of a path leading to sustainable development calls not only for a process ensuring a diversity of viewpoints on priorities and content. Appropriate supervisory mechanisms must be assured for maintaining cohesion and bringing it forward. It is outside the scope of this report to suggest a specific organisation for a Baltic Agenda 21./ch. 7/ We can however, list four desirable functions and requirements, giving cohesion to the programme in relation to national authorities and ministries, and in relation to the public at large:

1. For any programme that entails linkages between different elements falling within the purview of various separate authorities, co-operation must be secured and mechanisms for harmonising the actions of interlocking institutions created. Interagency and inter-sector co-ordination will be much helped by a solid agreement on long-term goals and shared values. If environmental objectives are shared, a certain flexibility rather than uniformity is desirable at the implementation stage.

2. Such a co-ordination function could benefit from inputs delivered by a regional 'motor' propelling progress, conjuring ideas, framing independent proposals for actions and making evaluations.

3. An Agenda 21 could function as an arena for fruitful interaction between actors of different kinds, status and location, assisted by the function of a regional entrepreneur-promoting the programme and serving its purpose.'

4. Such a function is also dependent on viable support-an information service for multiple purposes containing text-based, graphical and statistical items. To maintain and increase environmental awareness of the general public is one main aim. A second one is to support educational systems. The provision of data sets and the establishment of data bases for research purposes is also needed. Such services are essential tools for communication between networks utilising existing information highways.

3. Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region:
The Need for a Vision and Conceptual Guidance

3.1 The challenges

To prepare ourselves for the future, we need visions that outline where we would like to go. But we need also improved knowledge about where we are today. We can not even assume that we know enough of what lies behind us. The path forward is set by current perspectives and decisions. But in the set-up of a future-oriented Agenda 21 for the BSR one should recognise that we cannot adequately predict what surprises and technological breakthroughs await us. We can only be assured of great changes and uncertainties.

Great challenges are related to prevailing great disparities in development and resources. Different time-horizons characterise the responses to environment problems in a national context; this is even more obvious on a regional scale. In environmental terms, a BSR Agenda 21 (Baltic 21) has to simultaneously cope with

environmental damages accumulated from the past by restoring areas or by cleaning up dangerous substances accumulated in soils, landfills or other waste sites, watercourses or basins
the monitoring and control of ongoing emissions and use of various hazardous substances and chemicals decreasing loads and harmful impacts
the introduction of preventive responses to emerging problems and the development of avoidance measures, practices and technologies ensuring a minimisation of waste and non-depletion of resources

A central message conveyed by the Rio Agenda 21 document is that development and economic progress should be reconcilable with environment protection and qualitative gains and improvements. A major task for the regional Agenda 21 is to strike the balance between the two main values and the political objectives sustaining them. This is a continuous dilemma that has to be addressed under shifting conditions.

A Baltic 21 would be tremendously helped not only by a visionary commitment but also if solid scenarios for the future of the Baltic Sea basin for a somewhat shorter time span were available. Some solid projections do already exist, and some long-term commitments have been made in the political process that facilitates the task of focusing on problems.

Some visions formulated only a few years ago have already reached a preparatory implementation phase. The fast development of countryside transport corridors, road infrastructure investments wastewater treatment plants, and large construction projects such as bridges, tunnels and ports are under way in the south-eastern part of the Baltic.

One can also foresee strong pressures for resettlement in urban areas-'urban-crawl' and rapid development of transport systems in former socialist countries due to structural changes in the economy. These projections underscore the necessity of defining indicators of sustainability and methods for environmental impact assessments of transport corridors maritime transport, large projects, and urban management in large-scale physical and social planning.

Formulating visions and translating them into an agenda that in turn provides a basis for action is a long process. It is susceptible to surprises and reappraisals. A number of factors are likely to influence the end result; spiritual, managerial and material.

What could a vision of the region in 25 years time look like? A comprehensive panorama does not exist at this stage: such a master painting would be one outcome of the Baltic 21 process. We can introduce some outlines in this report, indicating some features that hopefully could be further elaborated.

3.2 The concept

Sustainable development is a wide spread and inspiring notion, not easy to define. One consensual point of departure is the realisation that the carrying capacity of ecosystems and finite resources put constraints on human activity. The Baltic Sea, and the way it has changed due to heavy environmental stress, is a prime example of what happens when environmental barriers are crossed. The imperative that an intact resource base should be regenerated and transferred from one generation to the next is another premise widely accepted. A similar equity consideration is also accepted for intra-generation relations, i.e. the gap between developed and less developed countries should be narrowed.

An underlying assertion acknowledges a complex interrelation between economic development and care for the environment. Exploitative forms of economic development-not foreign in the Baltic Sea Region-could quickly erode the environmental resource-bases upon which they are based, while environmental degradation could undermine economic development and growth. Or, to use positive phrases, sound economic development is a precondition for society being able to afford environmental improvements. And: a sustainable environment is becoming a vital precondition for maintaining and expanding economic activity. So one should keep in mind that the key concept SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT conjures up a wider and partly different perspective than both economic growth and environment.

Moreover, the origins of the concept are traceable to forestry sciences suggesting a precise arithmetic starting point for cathcing its esence. A forest is sustainable once its resources are not being depleted and the volume of annual net regrowth matches the wood harvest. For pine trees, the period necessary for reaching maximum or desirable productivity is estimated to be 75 years in the northern parts of the Baltic Region. In the social realm one could expect approximately 16 national elections during this period! Hence sustainability objectives could be at odds with different time scales as well as with natural and anthropogenic processes working at cross purposes. In short, the concept is not only related to technical and natural conditions of the environment but it does also embrace its underlying socio-economic mechanisms.

Intuitively, there are quite a number of different socio-economic aspects to consider. For instance, the Action for Sustainable Development published by the Finnish National Commission on SD (l995) divides the concept into three slices: one ecological, one social and one ethnico-cultural. Immediate measures to combat poverty were paramount in the global negotiations for Agenda 21. Another dimension of sustainability concerns the need to mitigate effects of environmental disturbances on human health. In view of the widened scope of a regional Agenda 21, this socio-economic aspect of environmental policy should be given much attention.

3.3 The analytical process towards a Baltic 21

Baltic 21 is primarily a political process. It is about engaging people in the communities, at all different levels of decision-making. However, the political process can not be fruitful unless it is supplied with analytical information and continuous monitoring and evaluation the environmental and social systems. Therefore, to feed the political process, a parallel analytical process is necessary. Figure 1 tries to identify, in principle, the main steps involved in the analytical assessment of sustainable development. Essential assumptions, cognitions and relations between the various elements are depicted in an ordered sequence. Such a figure does not profess to capture decision making processes and decision dilemmas. Its value is heuristic - and like all models, its usefulness is derived from simplicity.

The process starts by examining current conditions and foreseeable scenarios and visions for the region into the future, assuming things continue as more or less 'business-as-usual'. Here the currently accepted principles of markets, private investments and competition are the fundamental engine for development.

These conditions determine the macro-type driving forces such as demographics, the scale and structure of economic activities, urbanisation and globalization. These simply tell us how people live and what people do.

All these driving forces will have certain implications at the micro-level, within all different sectors of society. Sectoral assessments will be carried out to identify the sectoral development trends and, in relation, the main environmental pressures that arise within each sector. Integrated tools are needed to identify pressures across sectors. The environmental pressures can relate to the input, the natural resources, such as forests, soils and minerals,or the output, the environmental loads, such as air and water pollution and changes in land use.

Environmental pressures lead to ecological and social impacts in different media. Through the pressure, different sectors have certain distinguishable impacts on ecological systems in and around the Baltic Sea, on human health, on biodiversity and so on. To describe these impacts, bio-physical and socio-economic indicators will be needed.

With the indicators, it is possible to make a sustainability evaluation. This evaluation can give a 'bird's eye' view of whether certain ecological thresholds have been surpassed and in what respects we are moving in a sustainable or a non-sustainable direction. The evaluation will then be used as an input for the political process, with subsequent policy revisions of a legal or non-legal nature, and in turn reflected in the adoption of an implementation plan.

Such a plan might result in proposals for policy changes, new conditions and future scenarios and the process will start over again. This way, an open analytical process can assist the political process, and continuously monitor and evaluate regional development from a sustainability perspective.

4. Where are We Now?
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region

4.1 A region at risk. An assessment of environmental issues affecting the Baltic Region

There are many issues facing the Baltic Region with global, regional and local impacts. The Baltic drainage basin encompasses 14 countries and about 80 million people and ranges from arctic to boreal to temperate ecosystems with a wide range of population density across the region. The region is characterised by a large belt of boreal forest in the Nordic countries and a large number of lakes in the Scandinavian Shield region. In addition, the Region includes some of the largest lakes in Europe.

4.1.1 Global issues

The global issues are related to global climate change and the destruction of stratospheric ozone altering the influx of ultra-violet radiation to the Earth's surface. The destruction of stratospheric ozone is correlated to the release of chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs). The emissions from the region have decreased through initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol and the switch to new technology. With regard to the Baltic Region, global climate change is influenced by emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly comprising emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel use and from other gases such as methane and CFCs. Emissions of greenhouse gases continue as a problem in the Region due to the increases in road traffic and continued release from fossil fuel use. Governments in the Region have pledged restrictions in greenhouse gas emissions, although it has not always been clear how these commitments will be met.

4.1.2 Regional Issues

The truly regional issues are those which are transboundary in nature where a common resource is impacted or when the problem is due to the transport of pollutants across national boundaries. The status of the Baltic Sea is one such issue where both the resource is common to the countries abutting the Baltic and the source of the pollution derives from the whole drainage basin covered by fourteen countries. Another regional issue relates to the impacts associated with air pollution. Emissions are transported over long distances and fall on to the Baltic Sea itself and also on to land and lakes within the catchment.

Baltic Sea-marine environment
The Baltic is a very special regional sea. More than two hundred rivers transport fresh water to the sea and because of the very limited openings to the North Sea the salt content of the surface waters is very low. For this reason species found in both freshwater and salt water ecosystems exist side by side in a fashion typical of brackish waters, but not found at such a scale anywhere else on earth. As the Baltic Sea is a brackish sea, and the salinity of the water varies considerably between its southern and northern parts, within it organisms are living at the limits for their range and tolerance, and for this reason are very sensitive to changes.

The slow exchange of water in the Baltic Sea is one of the reasons for the high sensitivity to pollutants. Pollutants emitted into the water remain in the Baltic for a relatively long period of time. The pollutants concentrate in the water, in sediments and in living organisms. A relatively low species diversity means that the pollutants will concentrate in a small number of top predators. Low temperature of the water implies that the degradation of pollutants occurs at a slow rate.

Another reason for the high sensitivity is the distinct layering of the water column. The salt water at greater depths can remain stagnant for long periods (years) and the oxygen is depleted until the water is replaced by periodic influxes through the straits of Denmark. Depending on the occurrence of autumn and winter storms, influxes of large water volumes occur decades rather than years apart. The last major ones ocurred in 1972-73. There was a recent influx in 1992 which partially recharged the deoxygenated deep waters. However, increased eutrophication still poses a threat as the increased algae growth and subsequent decomposition consumes oxygen at an accelerated rate which has led to essentially 'dead' sea floors in certain parts of the Sea.. Sensitivity to anthropogenically induced stresses explains one reason for the environmental degradation experienced in the Baltic Sea: the other is the fact that some 80 million people live within the Baltic Sea drainage basin and their activities produce a high pollutant load relative to the capacity to deal with these pollutants.

The stresses that are placed upon the Baltic Sea are apparent at several trophic levels. At the top of the food chain the populations of predators have crashed or been reduced in many cases. Two examples are well known-the decrease in the white-tailed sea eagle and seal populations. For the sea eagles the decline was linked to high levels of PCBs and DDT. For seals, the problems have been related to high PCB levels and a virus which has had devastating effects, where there could have been synergies between the disease and a lowering of the resistance to disease caused by the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Some recovery may however be within sight, if current positive trends can be maintained. At the lower trophic levels there have been equally dramatic effects. Algal blooms have become more common and when these algae decompose, deoxygenation results. These blooms are linked to the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea by nitrogen and phosphorous inputs. The biggest problem is considered to be caused by nitrogen, especially in the coastal zone, but in different parts of the Baltic the relative importance of phosphorous versus nitrogen changes. Phosphorous inputs to the Baltic stem mainly from rivers, arising from agriculture and sewage sources. Nitrogen enters the Baltic in rivers and directly from the atmosphere. The main sources are fossil fuel combustion, process emissions and agricultural uses and sewage.

Heavy metals also impact upon Baltic Sea ecosystems. Mercury was identified as a particular problem in the 1960s but levels were reduced in the 1970s as a result of bans on its use recommended by HELCOM. Although the levels of many of these pollutants have decreased in recent years, cadmium continues to increase. The heavy metals enter the Baltic Sea via rivers and the atmosphere and derive from industrial and urban sources. The concentrations of heavy metals in the Baltic are much higher than for other polluted seas. For example, the levels of copper are three times as high as in the North Sea. The high heavy metal concentrations in parts of the Baltic close to point sources have resulted in effects on fish stocks. In laboratory studies the heavy metals have resulted in reduced growth rates, changes in reproduction and also growth deformities. The numerous fish diseases in the Baltic have been linked to increased heavy metal concentrations.

Changes in the Baltic Sea water quality have led to changes in species composition. Certain species have been encouraged by the eutrophication and others have decreased. The number of blue mussels have increased dramatically as have the populations of Baltic herring. Cod stocks, however, have decreased. Therefore the changes that have occurred in the water and sediments have led to a change in the structure and function of the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem.

The Baltic Sea is particularly sensitive to oil pollution with a very low recovery rate from such damage. Low temperatures give rise to low evaporation and degradation rates, which are also slow due to the low oxygen availability. The low exchange rate of water in the sea entails that there is a low dilution of oil released into the sea and a high potential for accumulation of the oil. Organisms are sensitive to oil and particularly to refined products and processes such as reproduction are disrupted. Most of the oil emitted to the sea has resulted from smaller discharges rather than large accidents, but according to HELCOM the total input between 1980 and 1985 was between 21000 and 66000 tonnes. Current oil exploration and the increased oil transportation make this an important regional concern at present.

Air pollution
Various types of regionally derived air pollution affect the Baltic Region. One of the most dramatic has been the impact of acidic deposition on lakes, streams and rivers in the region and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystems.

Sulphur and nitrogen deposition
Emissions of sulphur and nitrogen are transported over hundreds of kilometres from their source of origin. Emissions of sulphur are caused by burning fossil fuel (particularly from the power sector) and from industrial processes and nitrogen oxide emissions derive from all high temperature combustion (where emissions from road transport are an important and increasing source). Ammonia emissions are mainly related to agricultural emissions and as ammonium is also transported over large distances. The deposition of these compounds form what is commonly termed 'acid rain' and has two main effects: acidification and eutrophication. Acidification has had severe impacts on the surface waters of countries in the Baltic Region. This is related to the fact that a large portion of the area is highly sensitive to acidification due to a combination of low buffering ability bedrock and soils covering the Scandinavian shield and other areas such as in parts of Poland. The damage seen is concentrated within these sensitive sites and so within the region the impact differs depending on the total load and the sensitivity of the receptor.

Many thousands of lakes have been acidified and many are entirely fishless and devoid of most higher forms of life. Acidification of soils has been documented in the region although linkages to vegetation damage are not so clear as with surface waters. There is worry over the potential impact of acidification on long-term forest growth due to reduction in soil fertility. Forest growth rates have continued to increase in the past decades and this has been related to changes in forest practice, but also to increases in nitrogen deposition. This has increased yields since growth in these ecosystems is generally limited by nitrogen. However, this has led to further increases in nutrient removal rates and the implications for long-term sustainable forestry are not yet understood. The acidification of lakes has mainly been attributed to sulphur deposition, but as the agreements within the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) come into force the sulphur depositions are expected to fall and nitrogen deposition will be responsible for a larger proportion of the impact.

Nitrogen deposition also eutrophies the terrestrial and marine environments. Changes in the ground flora of Swedish forests have been observed in the areas of highest nitrogen deposition with an increase in nitrogen-loving grass species at the expense of species such as bilberry and cowberry (lingon) which have a cultural as well as ecological significance. Nitrogen deposition on the land leaches from the soil and is transported via the rivers to the Baltic Sea where the eutrophication is related to the inputs of nitrogen. It is calculated that the atmospheric deposition over the whole Baltic Region accounts for approximately one third of the total nitrogen input to the Baltic Sea.

One aspect of the air pollution to the Baltic Region is that for many compounds the emission within a given country only accounts for a fraction of the total deposition within that country. This entails that it is, for example, impossible for a country like Sweden to solve its acid rain problem alone and that this has to be done on a regional basis. For this reason the Scandinavian countries have been very active in the pan-European negotiations towards the Sulphur and Nitrogen Protocols on co-ordinated reductions in emissions.

Tropospheric ozone
Tropospheric ozone pollution represents the most important gaseous pollutant affecting crops, forests and natural vegetation in the Baltic Region. Other gases such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides may be locally or nationally important, such as in parts of industrialised Poland, but ozone pollution is considered to have more regional implications. Ozone is formed from the precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) under the action of sunlight. Once formed it has a regional impact and regional agreements are required that both limit the emissions of NOx and VOCs.

Heavy metals
Heavy metal pollution to the region may be from point sources releasing into water bodies or to soil or by atmospheric inputs from long-range transport of industrial emissions from both within and outside the region. Heavy metals may disrupt certain ecological functions, such as decomposition rates, and also bio-accumulate in plants and animals used for human consumption, to the point where levels are considered to form a health risk. Heavy metals are stored in the soil and their solubility is affected by soil acidity. Acidification of soils is therefore responsible for the release of stored heavy metals, which may have been the result of previous pollutant loads.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
Persistent organic pollutants form part of the long-range transport of air pollutants and there are concerns for two main reasons: one is that there are an ever increasing number of POPs being produced where the individual effects are uncertain and the combined effects are unknown; the other is that the acid soils and low temperatures in parts of the Baltic area could act as net sinks for POPs transported from within the region and from other parts of Europe. This means that the Baltic Region could be crucial for the development of a regional action plan for POPs.

Radioactivity
The unsafe state of former USSR reactors was exemplified by the Chernobyl disaster, which affected the Baltic Region and resulted in ecosystem and social impacts. It also emphasised the regional nature of the problem due to atmospheric transport of radioactive materials over large distances. Bio-accumulation in game animals resulted in restrictions in the sales and consumption of meat from animals such as reindeer and moose. High levels of radioactivity were also measured in seaweed in the Baltic. The presence of nuclear reactors in the region and problems associated with their safety and with disposal of nuclear waste entails that the nuclear issue is an important regional consideration.

Nature conservation and biodiversity
It is necessary to consider biodiversity and nature conservation issues at a regional level. There are the issues of shared diversity where organisms such as birds and marine animals move between countries, but also large mammals such as wolves, bears and reindeer that may travel large distances often over national boundaries. With regard to these populations there is the issue of fragmentation of suitable habitats and populations, and a regional view is required to co-ordinate conservation policies. An example of this need is related to wetland management in the region, important for migratory birds that are a shared resource for the Baltic Region. It may be necessary for concerted regional actions to combat introduced exotic species for the protection of indigenous species. In addition nature conservation and biodiversity are very related to land use practices, with a marked decline in species occurring in cultural landscapes. It is therefore also necessary to encourage regional co-operation in the development of sustainable land use systems. It is also necessary to maintain the biodiversity of cultivated and farmed species, cultivars and varieties in the region (such as through the development of regional gene banks).

context external indigenous subgroupings

PUBLIC

global, UN WORLD BANK/GEF
UNDP
UNEP Office for Baltic states

transatlantic AMAP

European UN/ECE
Environment for Europe/
PPC
EBRD

OECD / G-24
Council of Europe

Restructuring Fund for Baltic states

Baltic area CBSS Baltic Sea states
ministerial meetings
Yearly parliamentary
conference sessions
HELCOM
VASAB
IBSFC

Fishery Commitee

West european EU Baltic Sea Initiave
Cross-Border-Cooperation Baltic Steering Committee of
members + applicants

Interreg/Phare/Tacis

Nordic NEFCO/NIB
Nordic Baltic sessions(3+5)
Level of ministers and
parliamentarians

NON STATE

Unions of
European Cities Union of Baltic Cities Helsinki Tallin Cities
Co-operation / Other Twinnings

ICLEI ECAT-Environmental Centre for
Administration and Technology
Baltic Environment
Forum/BEF

EU / Regional Committee
CMER/ Council of
European Municipalities
and Regions Conference of Baltic
Sea States´ Subregions Euroregion
Pomerania and other new
transnational regions

Conference of Region Islands of the Baltic

NON GOVERNMENTAL

IUCN Coalition Clean Baltic INEM, Baltic University, CRE/
Copernicus
CBUR and other networks

WWF WWF Baltic Sea program

Table 1. Baltic Sea Sustainability processes and decision-making locus: A map of core institutions.

4.1.3 Local Issues

There are many local environmental issues in the Baltic Region. Various local and subregional efforts are underway to tackle these problems. HELCOM projects on the clean up of 'hotspots' in the region forms one attempt to tackle this problem. Eutrophication of lakes, mainly from inputs of phosphorous from agriculture and sewage is a local problem in many areas, as is the existence of degraded land from activities such as mining and intense industrial activity. Many problems of the coastal zones have been linked with local pollution sources such as pulp mills which have led to increased concentrations of organochlorines and nutrients. Other problems have become apparent at the discharge zones for major Baltic rivers, some of which flow across country boundaries. Urban issues are very relevant local problems, especially with linkages to human health. These aspects are mainly dealt with on a national basis.

title adopted/ character other remarks

Denmark Whitebook on
environment and
natural resources 1995 government has framed
guidelines for local agendas

Estonia National env.
policy plan Instrument for
prioritization law on SD enacted in l994

European Union TEA art 2 1992 treaty
integrate environment
into other sectors Vth action programme
towards sustainability

Finland Action for SD 1995 government
committee report comprehensive
national report incl.
private sector, NGOs

Germany Environment
policy
for SD ministerial report
outlining strategy 1996 paper for broad national
dialogue 'Steps Towards SD';
env. quality objectives

Iceland Towards SD 1993 government
report

Latvia National env
policy plan 1995 government
decision action programme in
preparation; build-up
of new management system

Lithuania National env.
Strategy plan 1996, adopted by
government action programme for short and
intermediate terms, related to
national needs and requirements
of international conventions and
EU accession

Norway Whitebook on
SD autumn '97 ministerial
sector programs SD aims promoted in East Europe
assistance programme
local agendas

Poland National env
policy 1991 interim commission
for SD 1991 innovative financial fund
for env protection

Russia State of
Environment
yearly overviews ministerial
report law on SD enacted in l996

Sweden Strategy for
sustainable
development agency programme
in 1993 policy comprehensive
review, ecocycle society

Table 2. Sustainable Baltic Sea countries: comprehensive SD programmes.

4.1.4 Conclusions

It is clear that there are many regional environmental issues in the Baltic Region which cannot be solved by any one nation alone. This calls for combined action for problem solving. There are regional problems caused by transboundary transfers of polluting substances which can only be solved regionally. There are common resources which can only be properly managed through regional co-operation. There are linkages between regional and global concerns. Regional fora are obviously needed to be able to pledge emission reductions on a regional basis which give the opportunity to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner across the whole region. This gives the opportunity for greater emission reductions by using resources to the maximum effect within a larger area rather than on a national basis alone. The Baltic Region is a net receiver of certain types of pollution and a regional voice may provide a more effective negotiating position with regard to other constellations of parties in Europe. In addition to existing fora and institutions, there is also a need to focus more on the longer term and on integrating sector policies.

There are linkages between pollutant effects, so that a regional pollution problem may influence and exacerbate local pollution problems. Therefore, local issues must be seen within the regional context. In addition, emission sources may give rise to a number of different pollutants. For example, combustion of fossil fuels gives rise to sulphur emissions related to acidification, nitrogen oxide emissions causing eutrophication and also carbon dioxide, responsible for global climate change. Therefore, abating one of these pollutants for local reasons may well influence the emission of another causing regional or global impacts. Furthermore the same pollutant, such as nitrogen, not only influences the terrestrial ecosystems but also the status of the Baltic Sea and an abatement plan must be seen in relation to the total effect in the region. This emphasises the need for comprehensive regional action on the issues faced by the Baltic Region.

The nature of issues which face the Baltic Region leads to the conclusion that additional regional efforts, such as the creation of a Baltic Agenda 21 may be able to play a positive role in the effective management of the environmental problems. In addition, local concerns are often voiced in local Agenda 21 studies. A Baltic Agenda 21 would improve the possibilities of such efforts to be put into a much wider context and act as a focus for these efforts. A Baltic Agenda 21 would also provide the facility to consider regional problems that are not confined to specific receptors and so allow the development of a comprehensive view of the issues being tackled.

4.2 Institutional aspects of recent developments

In only a few years time Baltic Sea co-operation at large has made a big leap forward. Different functional government ministries have established frames of reference for their work. Guidelines have been proposed and concrete co-operative projects initiated, often on the basis of shifting understandings of partners and of geographical scope. Co-operation for environmental protection tends to proceed on the basis of an ecologically derived definition of the drainage area. Areas in five additional adjacent countries are thereby drawn into the region's affairs. (Belarus, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and Norway).

The centrality of the Helsinki Convention and the process centred on HELCOM has already been alluded to. The drainage area framework and the JCP have profoundly influenced the design of bilateral environmental aid and region wide initiatives or actions addressed to a group of neighbouring countries sponsored by a single country. We foresee a similar impact of VASAB on initiatives in physical planning.

Bilateralism is the bedrock in relations between the EU and individual CEE and CIS countries in the Baltic. Regardless of forms of affiliation these accords contain an environmental component. National assistance programme and transborder co-operation have also evolved on the basis of bilateral contacts. This pattern of interstate contacts is not a constant feature, however. It is affected by development both at the supranational and sub national levels. Legislative and institutional reforms have led to reappraisals of the adequate level of management. Shifts and adjustments of this kind are normal features in public administration. It is of importance that in this reshuffling of competencies, environmental considerations are included.

Emerging new priorities, not the least in the field of economic reforms, have additionally given birth to new concepts of neighbourhood areas and partnerships. Some of these formations transcend pre-existing administrative borders and mix national and subnational levels and authorities. Some of them are transboundary, such as a proposed number of river management bodies (Odra, Daugava, Nemunas) or derived from identification of transboundary environmental problems.(Kola-Lapland-Northern Norway; Northern Bohemia Southern Poland; Gulf of Finland). Such overlapping circles of are widespread in environmental co-operation and a hallmark of contemporary Europe.

Institutionalisation of the Council of the Baltic Sea States as a forum for general co-ordination implies that Norway and Iceland should be associated with the work on Agenda 21 as well, and that the Commission of the European Community is expected to exert a particular role besides that of the member states of the European Union. (see 4.6).

A Baltic 21 will be much conditioned by specific regional, transnational and international aspects. These institutional elements are heterogeneous. Existing patterns of variable geometry in individual bilateral and multilateral programmes and projects suggest that a range of flexible means and formulas must be created for the realisation of a Baltic 21.

In table 1 an effort is made to map the institutional 'overlay' of Baltic sea regional policies. At a glance the overview might appear bewildering as there are a multitude of actors present. despite our effort to concentrate only on institutions and actors with relevance for sustainable development. The overwhelming impression is region that is composed of many meeting points, between governments within a wider web of relations or between actors of different status. Yet one can discern certain patterns of institutions that belong to the same political family are similar in kind.

Some distinctions are necessary. It makes sense to separate public and non-governmental agencies. However, due to the fact that the basis of political authority is shifting in Baltic sea affairs, we divide public and territorial actors into states and non states, i. e. regions and municipalities. Multilateral bodies refer to those global, pan-European or dominantly west European organisations in which all or a majority of Baltic Sea states are members. By Baltic Sea indigenous institutions we refer to those organisations that are of an exclusive regional character. Subgroupings are actors with less than all regional members.

Some co-ordination centres are definitely located outside of the area (external), in wider multilateral fora. This observation have a bearing both for the overall political context and the site. Most such organisations have support services and decision making machinery located in major international centres. Characteristic traits for many indigenous institutions are young in age, rotation between parties and transient session appearance; only a few institutions - like HELCOM and the Gdánk Commission - have materialized in separate offices and organisations.

International financial institutions (IFIs ) are weighty actors in regional environmental co-operation. This fact is reflected in their internal structure and in the establishment of field offices in recipient countries. Nuclear safety is co-ordinated by EBRD while agriculture in countries in transition is supported by the unit on CEE in OECD. World Bank and UNDP controls the financial mechanism GEF for the benefit of Biodiversity investments, for instance in Poland. A Project Preparatory Committee (PPC) established by European Ministers of Environment in the pan European Environment for Europe process occupies a linking pin position among IFIs. The committee ha been instrumental in co-ordinating various projects in the Baltic Sea region.

Baltic Sea States are parties to a considerable number of international conventions and other instruments. A few international conventions and agreements have accepted the insertion of relevant Baltic sea regional protocols. This state of affairs could have consequences for the potential of 'regionalizing' an original commitment or for forming a Baltic sea caucus within a wider structure.

Baltic sea regional endeavours are sometimes propelled by the converging interests of a few but not all states. Baltic and Nordic politicians appearing within the Nordic and Baltic Councils, respectively, meet frequently, mirroring the privileged character the Baltic states enjoy in programs for co-operation and technical assistance established by the Nordic Council and by Nordic national authorities. One can also discern other privileged links and ad hoc groupings; German environmental aid is often managed jointly with the three Baltic states. Conversely, incentive and support programmes run by international organisations incite CEE countries to concert their interests.

A plethora of initiatives in regional environmental policies have been launched by NGOs, firms, industrial and labour organisations, local and regional auhorities. Regional and local authorities and politicians have been particularly active. These actor have also mobilised much financial support for environmental projects. National administrative changes and devolution of foreign policy competence, in particular concerning 'foreign environmental policies' is a noticeable trait. Such para-diplomatic actions on part of regions and communes has won recognition as a stabilising element in regional affairs and a useful mechanism for the transfer of knowledge, practice and institutions.

New interregional partnerships have seen the day during the six years of transition .These networks foster co-operation in a dynamic way; create new patterns of partnership constellations and reorganise spatial interconnections. Such networks and projects have contributed greatly to the cumulative record of transfer of knowledge, training courses, diffusion of good practice and of demonstration projects not the least within the field of environment

When framing objectives and designing implementation structures and procedures the contributions of such private and non- state actors should be acknowledged. They supplement co-operation between the traditional, hierarchically organised national institutions. To the extent that environmental management plans or similar instruments have been agreed upon in the management of transboundary problems responsible authorities should be assured a voice in the evolving process. One example is the incipient management body for the Odra. In the JCP process management plans are under way for lagoons and wetlands, some of which, like the Curonian lagoon, is transnational.

4.3 National agendas and priorities

In the preparations for UNCED in l992, national overviews of changing conditions, problems, and priorities were summoned. For the Baltic states, the event provided a first opportunity to embark on a comprehensive appraisal of the national situation. Regional member countries have since drafted different kinds of national objectives based on Agenda 21 and outlined various strategies for implementing them. National profiles and priorities do nevertheless reveal a certain heterogeneity and variability in local and national conditions. Progress reports and national overviews are in preparation in view of the forthcoming UNGA session in l997.

In the Environment for Europe Programme (Lucerne-Sofia process) the improvement of human health is mentioned as a primary motive and a benchmark for assessing the efficiency of various measures. Such a priority was paramount in the programmes for environmental recovery issued by the Czech Republic and Poland in the early 1990s. A similar priority is expressed in the first national ecological plan on sustainable development, published by the Russian Federation in l993. Statistics reveal that average life expectancy has decreased and infant mortality rates increased. Various diseases correlated with hazards in the physical and work place environment are widespread in certain areas.

In l992 the European Union adopted its fifth Environmental Programme Towards Sustainability. It states that action taken by the Community shall have the following objectives:

to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment,
to contribute towards protecting human health,
to ensure a prudent and rational utilization of natural resources.

In the Baltic Sea action programme (JCP), care for the status of the natural environment at large appears to dominate. Environmental health issues are only dealt with in the passing except for the programme element applied research. An analysis of impacts of improved environmental conditions and investment activities on health is suggested.

On the pan-European level one can find explicit linkages between the two sectors. Two joint meetings between the respective ministers of environment and human health (Frankfurt l998, Helsinki l995) have yielded an action programme and a stock-taking report (Concern for Europe's Tomorrow). National authorities and the WHO regional office for Europe have jointly promoted research projects and a series of workshops and research programmes. Within the Baltic Region, university training courses for educational purposes have been held within the Copernicus Baltic programme. A working group on the subject has been established in the Barents Sea programme.

The BSR countries differ in their assessments of the role of human health in Agenda 21 policies. In short the pollution levels on the western side are relatively low with regard to air quality and toxic and metal substances in food. Main preoccupations appear to be preventive strategies and indoor illnesses like allergies. Curative actions and measures to reduce outdoor or workplace exposures of hazards are urgent in the south-eastern parts of the region.

Some essential traits of the problems recognized and policies undertaken in individual countries are summarized in Table 2.

4.4 Sustainable development: four country profiles

The aim of this overview is to briefly review some central issues for SD as they have been identified in three commissioned but independent contributions.1 The nature and scope of the identified challenges are similar in some respects, but the overriding impression is one of variability. A similar observation is valid for government statements, policy instruments and institutional conditions. Rather than comparing all the countries in the area, we have chosen to illustrate two significant dimensions of regional contrasts that a regional SD-strategy must cope with.

The first aspect comes out in a juxtaposition of Latvian and Swedish problems and policies viz. the persistent impact of economic disparities and traditions in environmental policies. The second aspect demonstrates how dependent environmental recovery is on economic and political restructuring consciously seeking new directions. Apart from being the Region's largest respectively in terms of territory and population, Russia and Poland, respectively, at this juncture represent different stages in the path to a better environment.

Only a few years ago there was no lack of apocalyptic forecasts on the dire consequences of environmental damage. Happily enough some of the socio-economic disasters have been avoided. This fact should not hide the gravity of the situation: some countries, but also many areas beyond the main centres of gravity are fighting an upward struggle on an ever-steeper slope.

4.4.1 Latvia

Administrative structures and policy land marks

The Latvian Government signed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992. UNCED gave the Latvian Government impetus to establish in 1993 a new integrated governmental institution, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development. The Ministry supervises environment, housing, building, planning, regional development and resource management. The work of the Ministry reflects a political commitment at the highest level on development and environment co-operation. Soon 11 national programmes developed (BOX 1).

BOX 1
Major Latvian national programmes related to the environment

transport development,
Baltic Sea environment protection
regional development
energy development
health and social security
biofuel production and usage

In l995, The Government accepted a National Environmental Policy Plan for Latvia (BOX 2). It sets out environmental policy goals and lists environmental policy instruments to be developed further. During the course of policy development, priority environmental problems were analysed and measures for their resolution suggested. The plan lays the foundation for a supporting management system and an action programme. This document is currently under finalization in co-operation with provincial authorities. It lists priority short-term actions, investments, development of monitoring, environmental science, and public awareness.

BOX 2
The Latvian National Environmental Policy Plan (in pursuit of SD).

Local Agenda 21 / Law on Local Municipalities giving municipalities rights to implement it
improvement of environmental quality and ecosystem stability in areas where it presents increased risk to human health
to maintain and protect the current level of biodiversity and landscape characteristics of Latvia; the sustainable use of natural resources;
the integration of environmental policy into all branches and fields of life

The terms 'sustainable development' and 'environmentally sound' are used at all levels. The principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development are respected in governmental programmes, policies and plans. Local Agenda 21 is receiving growing interest by Latvian local municipalities. At the same time it should be mentioned that the concept of sustainable development is not familiar to Latvian society as a whole and unfortunately, for the majority of decision makers as well.

Energy production
Today, the electrical energy produced in Latvia supplies 50% of the total demand. While industry is working at reduced capacity this can be pushed to 60% of total use. Electrical energy is produced by three hydro power plants and two thermo electric power plants. It is stated that in order to connect the Latvian electrical network to the European (Baltic belt or ring), the country should be self-sufficient to 80%. To satisfy such a condition a new thermo electric power plant is needed, as well as reconstruction of the power plants in compliance with environmental protection and modern technologies reducing emissions. The energy policy plan emphasises the necessity to develop alternative energy, in particular by renovating small hydro power plants. It is possible to renovate at least 200 small hydro electric power plants with a capacity from 0.2 to 1 MW.

Currently under renovation are 10 small hydro electric plants. For the production of heat energy the use of renewable energy resources, such as wood is promoted. Heat supply systems with a capacity of 4-5 MW should be converted for wood burning, if it is economically profitable. Several ongoing projects by Swedish NUTEK and in bilateral co-operation with Denmark and Germany deal with the conversion of boilers in houses. In co-operation with the Finnish company Jaakko Poyry a special programme for Complex Exploitation of Wood Resources in Latvia is under elaboration. In this programme the sustainable wood exploitation potential would be evaluated, as well as the economic profitability and feasibility of the use of wood for production of heat energy. It is estimated that use of wood for production of heat energy is profitable if heat energy production plants are located within the distance of 30 kilometres from consumption. For Latvia it means that wood as a heat energy source is profitable for use at the municipal level but not for so called large energy producing purposes. Today the main fuels for large energy production are heavy oil, natural gas, coal and peat. It has been decided to exclude peat after the renovation of one of thermo Electric power plants. However, it should be mentioned that large power plants still use heavy oil and coal, emitting high amounts of sulphur.

With the assistance of the German company Preussen Electra the first Ainazi wind garden has been constructed (north part of Latvia). Two wind generators with a capacity of 600 kW each were installed. The effectiveness of wind energy production will be evaluated further. To assess the perspectives of wind energy production in Liepaja (southwest part of Latvia) a wind generator with acapacity of 150 kW will be installed in co-operation with the Danish company Genwind. For the purpose of developing wind energy production in Latvia a wind map for the whole territory of country is being prepared. Currently the wind map is appraised in comparison to a map showing the migration routes of birds.

To support small-scale energy production, corresponding to sustainable energy production, the Cabinet of Ministers has adopted an order regulating activities in energy production which promotes the development of small hydro, cogeneration and wind plants.

Sustainability of agriculture (organic agriculture)
The conversion to organic agriculture could successfully solve high productivity and environmental protection questions and accordingly provide favorable preconditions for sustainable use of land resources. In Latvia there are advantageous conditions for development of organic agriculture. The landscape is rich in pure, unpolluted soils and biodiversity is preserved. Environmentally-friendly agricultural methods are highly supported by the public and the concept is included in the National Environmental Policy Plan.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development has worked out the 'Regulation on the Certification of the Process and Production of Organic Agriculture.' However, due to lack of a financial mechanism Government could not support the organic agriculture using economic tools. The branch is nevertheless promoted as production could find a wide market in Western Europe, where there is a high demand for products of this kind. Agriculture in Latvia receives practical and moral support, from different international organizations such as Avalon Foundation (The Netherlands), and IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and others. Research projects are carried out on the effectiveness of organic agriculture at the Institute of Agriculture. More than 200 farms, occupying an area of 0.3% of the territory have converted to environmentally benign methods. It is expected that this number of farms will grow in the near future.

Sustainability of forestry
Forests are the main nature resource in Latvia. They cover almost 30000 km2 or 44.6% of all Latvian territory. The basic principle for management of forestry is to use forests in a sustainable way. This means managing forest resources to preserve biodiversity, maintain productivity and sustain the ability to recover. To fulfil these tasks and objectives four related laws have been adopted since 1991. Another important instrument is the decree of the Cabinet of Ministers on Specially Protected Forest Areas (1994), dividing resources into three different categories of protection (BOX 3). In 1995, the Government adopted a Forestry Industry Development Programme. Several new activities are going on to improve management and to bolster green certification of forestry. In accordance to the legislation, there are three forest categories.

BOX 3
Protected forests in Latvia

Strict nature reserves comprises inter alia national parks, nature reserves and suburban parks, in all 9,6% of all forests. In these forests total felling are prohibited and very strict rules are applied for other kinds of the forest using.
Restricted management forests cover 16,3% of the forest area and include protected landscape forests and suburban forests
Commercial forests, amount to 74.1% of forested areas

The Institute of Forest Inventory develops binding forest management plans. In these plans cutting areas, volume and kind of cutting, kind of reforestation, protection category and other important aspects are regulated .The total current annual incremental growth is 16.5 million m3 while the sustainable cut is estimated at 11 mill m3.

All cutting areas should be reforested artificially or naturally within a five year period. Two complex forest health assessment programmes have been running since l990: European International Co-operation Programme for Monitoring of Air Pollution Impact to Forests; and the US Forest Health Monitoring Programme. High attention is paid to forests in the coastal zone and on river banks.

Sustainable natural resources management (protected areas)

Protection of coastal zones
The coastal zones are key areas for integrated management in Latvia, because in this narrow zone the interests of many sectors and actors like tourism, industry, fisheries and harbour development intersect. Latvia has about 500 km long coastlines along the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Riga. Wide sandy beaches and pine forests on the sand dunes are the most valuable feature of the Latvian sea coast and are unique in the whole Baltic area. To save these resources it is necessary to make integrated management plans for municipalities along the coast with due regard to sustainability, especially in those cases of harbours and large towns (Three of the biggest cities are situated at the coast, i.e. Riga, Liepaja and Ventspils). Such a plan comprise land use, natural characteristics, economics, requirements for environmental protection, as well as environmental impacts of planned activities within the territory.

Territorial planning is of particular significance as a means to address and halt certain negative trends. Priority environmental problems are the reduction of biodiversity, landscape degradation and (un)sustainable use of natural resources. At present, only some municipalities have elaborated new territorial plans. In many cases local authorities are lacking such plans or they are outdated. Elaboration and implementation of territorial planning systems and framing of such plans are the necessary first steps towards sustainability. This has particular value for such unstable ecosystems as coastal sand dunes where human impacts are very high. A first good example is the Pape Jurkalne project on coastal zone management carried out by the WWF, financed by the World Bank and Government of Denmark.

Nature protection areas
About 7% of the territory of Latvia presently consists of protected territories in different categories, established since nearly half a century. These state protection regimes have different aims and are addressed to different objects. The main aim is to save biodiversity. Many of the protected areas are unique for the Baltic Region, for example, coastal lakes (Engure, Kanieris, Liepajas, Papes), bogs and other kind of wetlands. Around 10% of Latvian territory is covered with bogs, a high share in comparison with many other countries around the Baltic Sea.

In these areas one can find very high concentrations of rare and threatened species of plants, wild life and birds. It is necessary to improve the network of protected territories due to drastic social and economic changes in Latvia in the last few years. Due to these changes it is necessary to make an inventory of protected areas, map them, specify their borders and to work out management plans. At present only few protected areas have such plans. Some of these areas are open for limited economic activities, for example, environment friendly agriculture and forestry, tourism and recreation. Such areas can be used as examples for education in sustainable management and for proper use of natural resources. Co-operation with different supporting organizations such as WWF, IUCN, and project grants by EBRD and PHARE facilitate successful protection.

4.4.2 Sweden

This brief exposition of Swedish policies and problems is organised in the same categories as the Latvian profile.

Administrative structures and policy landmarks
Local environmental disturbances caused by industrialisation and modernisation of agriculture were debated and criticised already at the turn of the century. It took time before recognition of problems at hand were translated into conscious public policies. The main principle was expressed in a 'green' line of action implying protection of valuable natural parks, reserves,unique species and in due course also for shorelines and other recreation sites. By long standing tradition, a peculiar cornerblock in Swedish public law, the right to public access (allemansrätten) has also been regarded as a complementary safeguard. The right to move freely, to harvest wild berries, etc. is thought to be matched by the public's duties not to spoil or harm the environment.

In the 1960s, a more comprehensive understanding of the manifold threats emerged. It paved way for a number of environmental protection measures. An Environmental Protection Act was adopted, regulating emissions into the air and various discharges into water and rivers, and limiting noise levels in industries. The management structure was accordingly streamlined with the creation of a National Environment Protection Agency. New responsibilities were assigned to authorities at the county board and local levels. Protection measures were primarily taken against polluting industries and effluents from urban areas, i e point sources. Reduction of emission levels yielded immediate and visible impacts on a local level.

These recoveries incited a change of focus to diffuse problems, distant sources and effects mediated via many layers. The significance of long range transboundary pollution was first appraised with acidification and eutrophication. Horizons expanded during the 1970s; environmental problems and their cures were located to a more complex and internationally interdependent context. Environmental policy-making turned international. Co-operation with other countries evolved almost in chronological order across the three concentric frameworks of Swedish foreign policy : Nordic neighbours, Europe, and in the mid 1980s the global level.

A substantial number of different regulations and laws adopted by Parliament constitute the formal Swedish framework for environmental care and the furthering of SD. The Natural Resources Management Act, Environment Protection Act, Fisheries Act, Water act and Planning and Building Act can be mentioned. The Planning Act prescribes that every municipality should prepare a physical plan of land and water area uses. Certain legal acts and management directives from the co-ordinating national agency provide additional guide lines for decision-making on permits for potentially harmful industrial and agricultural activities. Economic instruments are increasingly used, i.e. to discourage the use of leaded petrol and carbon dioxide emissions. A characteristic feature of environmental policy is the rule that all sectors should take responsibility for their own environmental problems.

Another important development and characteristic of the Swedish system is the decentralisation of responsibility. Waste management, and implementation and control of the Environment Protection Act are assigned to local authorities. Decentralisation is facilitated by the comparatively large share of public resources which are taxed directly by Swedish municipalities. A proposal has been forwarded to redraft the various pieces of legislation into a comprehensive legal framework for the environment.

Agenda 21 has received a positive response among the public at large and in local politics. Practically all of Sweden´s 284 municipalities have adapted local programmes for sustainable development.

Since Sweden obtained membership in the EU, it is subject to union-wide harmonized rules with a few temporary derogations in areas where Swedish rules of protection are more stringent. The Swedish ambition is to exploit its position inside EU to link as close as possible the integration processes with Baltic Sea Regional co-operation.

Sustainability of agriculture
About 7% of Sweden's land area consists of agricultural land. Almost two thirds of the farms have livestock. Modern agricultural methods have yielded a productive agricultural sector that makes the country almost self-sufficient in supply. One explanation for the increased crop yield per surface area was an extensive price subsidy system maintained until a few years ago.

The support system has also encouraged extensive uses of pesticides and fertilizers which have had detrimental impacts on the environment. Leaching of nitrogen into rivers and lakes per year is estimated to close to 50 000 tonnes. The government has set targets for substantial reductions of nitrogen by the year 2000, in relation to soil characteristics and location. Run-off of nutrients from intensive agriculture is assumed to have caused eutrophication and fish deaths by critically depleting oxygen in local inland seas and coastal bays and bights. Ammonia evaporation from manure is another impact of land-use and agriculture. Manure handling has increasingly been subject to strict regulations.

Environmental problems St.Petersburg Kaliningrad

1. Waste water discharge + -

2. Water quality + -

3. Air pollution from a
mobile source + -

4. Atmospheric
air pollution + -

5. Toxic waste - +

6. Land degradation - -

7. Radioactive security + -

Table 3. Environmental problems of St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad oblasts.
(+)-problem is important
(-)-problem is not very vital

The environmental costs of agriculture can also be evaluated in other dimensions. The Swedish landscape has undergone far-reaching changes. A rich variegated cultural landscape has been transformed into a more large-scale and monotonous one, with consequent depletion of species. 300 species, two thirds of which live in the cultivated landscape sites are threatened by extinction. In a policy decision of l991, it was decided to enhance the environmental objectives of agriculture, safeguarding natural and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of biodiversity. A system of incentives and payments has been introduced to the benefit of conversion of individual farms. Alternative production methods or ecological agriculture have also made inroads among Swedish farmers and leisure time producers. Certain subsidies are available. Such eco-labelled products grown without fertilizers or pesticides, are slowly gaining a foothold on the market but it will be a long way to go before non-intensive agricultural products are competitive.

Country Sulphur Nitrogen

Sweden 8 23.8

Finland 39 32.1

Norway 0 9.5

Germany 129 68.6

Poland 128 56.5

Estonia 46 7.9

Lithuania 9 4.3

Latvia 4 3.3

Table 4. Exports of air pollutants to Russia in the Baltic Sea Region
(sulphur and nitrogen oxides, thousand tons per year)
(1994).

Country Sulphur Nitrogen

Sweden 6 1.4

Finland 28 3.5

Norway 10 0.7

Germany 0 0.3

Poland 5 1.9

Estonia 2 0.6

Lithuania 4 1.2

Latvia 2 1.1

Table 5. Impact of Russian air pollution on other countries in the Baltic Sea Region
(sulphur and nitrogen oxides, thousand tons per year)
(1994).

Sweden´s entry into the EU and the adaptation of CAP to Swedish agricultural conditions has made a phasing out of the support system contingent on European price and production policy changes.

Sustainability of forestry
Roughly 70% of the total land area of Sweden is woodland; and forestry is carried out on about 55% of this area. A smaller part of this area consists of high-grade deciduous forests and enjoys protection in form of nature reserves. Certain mountain forests in the North are also protected. Historically, forestry is associated with the rise of industrial Sweden and its leading export industries. The branch is of major importance for employment, not the least in certain peripheral parts of the country. A shift in consumer taste is therefore of decisive importance for demand-driven forest companies. There are many tokens that such firms used to bolster their image as caring managers of renewable resources by changing their methods of production and products, thereby increasing competitiveness.

Sustainable forestry has to cope with different kinds of threats. Clear-cutting has caused considerable damage in certain areas, although legislation has required regeneration and reforestation. Foreign species have sometimes been introduced in replanting; experiments that have caused much concern about possible genetic side effects. Air pollution, over fertilization and extensive acidification have damaged many trees and forests in Sweden as elsewhere, although the situation is not as alarming as in Central Europe. Large-scale efforts to combat soil acidification by liming have yielded good results but are costly and a disputed form of subsidy in governmental policy.

Recent policy changes introduce more stringent rules for forestry activities. As a matter of fact the l993 Forestry Act put environmental objectives on par with traditional exploitation goals. Varying natural conditions of forest areas should be respected when felling and regenerating forests. Biodiversity and genetic variation should be ensured. Soft instruments such as information and education are widely used by forestry authorities.

Sustainable natural resources management (protected areas)

Protection of coastal zones
The idea to take special measures for the protection of coastal areas is both old and new. It is old in the sense that uses of the shoreline were regulated already forty years ago. In the 1970s guidelines for physical planning were adopted as a result of extensive mapping of coastal configurations and landscape types. The dual purposes of exploitation and protection were contained in the proposal. A delegation for marine resources was created a decade later but it was dissolved after some years.

It is new in the sense that policies for comprehensive integrated management in the coastal zone have been positively reappraised during the last few years. Sweden's 7000 kilometre long winding coast-line is an enduring characteristic. It is managed by actions taken and dispositions displayed by no less than 85 coastal municipalities. On a higher level of aggregation these administrative units are represented in 15 regional counties. The new planning law requires that these local authorities should draft plans on the bases of coast-land interaction premises. This development is mirroring the international debate and the promotion of Integrated Sustainable Coastal Zone Management as a tool for coping with increasing amounts of conflicting demands.

Developments in the Baltic Sea Region both concerning evolving political institutions and incidents of environmental pollution have also mattered. Alga bloom have become a recurrent phenomenon; previously, it was mainly a coastal phenomenon caused by land sources and eutrophication. Now it appears that blooms start in the open Baltic only to penetrate archipelago areas from outside. Other reasons for policy changes are domestic: for fisheries it has been declared that the productivity of coastal areas is currently under-exploited. Coastal zone management stands for a proactive stance considering such emerging needs.

Nature protection areas
The global biodiversity convention has affected Swedish nature protection policies in a number of ways. It has enhanced the value of preserving threatened fauna and flora. Protection of species and their habitats is an important objectives of the Nature Conservation Act. The biological functions of wetlands in old landscape types have been reappraised. The demonstrated ability and possibility of using and restoring wetlands for the purpose of absorbing nutrients represents a trendshift. A few demonstration wetland parks have been developed with the support of local authorities.

A plan has been drafted by the Environment Protection Agency, outlining considerable agricultural and forest areas that could be subject to landscape protection measures or be converted into nature reserves. 600000 hectares of agriculture landscapes and 15% of forests are said to be most valuable biotopes necessary for biodiversity protection.

Latvia and Sweden compared: Conclusion
On the nominal level, the two countries display many shared priorities. Thanks to international influences, there is an interest in using similar concepts and policy instruments. Legal harmonization has started with Latvia's adaptation of European Union rules and standards.

Without going into concrete measurements of economic disparities, it is nevertheless the case that the difference in wealth colours the comparison. Swedish possibilities to translate ambitions into practice benefit from available technologies and management resources and a great portion of public support. With the exception of nature conservation, these polices have evolved over a long period, while Latvia's recovery implies a break with the past.

The points of departure are reversed with respect to biodiversity: Latvia must catch up with its past and take care not to lose its natural treasures in the transition; Sweden is set on a retrospective course of restoration.

Two factors conducive to the creation of such differences can be mentioned. Competence and fiscal resources in the hands of Swedish local authorities is one. Another significant element conditioning many dynamic changes in environmental management is market signals and responsiveness in the business sector. Swedish forestry companies but also certain agricultural firms are sensitive to demands to introduce environment friendly processes and to market such products. The consumer's movement will be a force to reckon with also for countries in transition once a number of hurdles are overcome.

4.4.3 Russia: key issues for sustainable development

Institutional disarray and economic descendency on the agenda

For all practical purposes, sustainable development is currently not in central focus in Russia. The Russian President has adopted a special Ukaz prescribing a sustainable development concept for Russia (1996). But this document is rather theoretical. The drafting and development of many additional background legislative documents are required for SD to be developed.

Environmental protection is a very weak interest when confronted with strong energy, agrarian and military lobbies in executive and legislative structures/institutions. The latest example of this competition for influence is the new structure of Russian government (August, 1996). The former environmental ministry was abolished and replaced by an Environmental Committee within the Ministry for Natural Resources. This means an impairment to the status and possibility of environmental protection. Above all, in Russia, sustainable development still appears to exotic theory, poorly connected with economic practice.

Main causes of environmental degradation: traditionalism, misconceived abundance of resources and inefficiency.

In Russia, a typical environmental approach is traditionally ecocentric and protective in nature. It focuses on economic activity limitation, construction of various clean up facilities, increase of protected areas, extension of preserved habitats, etc. This approach need neither be environmentally good nor the most cost-effective. The goal to increase the use of direct protection measures per se, 'to preserve nature inside nature' do not always generate the necessary outcome and reach the desired goal. Taking the present economic situation into account, this restricted approach can not stave off further environmental degradation. It may additionally lead to ineffective use of finances, and wrong allocations of investments.

It is very important to recognise how stereotypes remain in thinking and decision making and how such cognitions influence and allow production patterns to persist. Traditional approaches to economic development are based upon the quantity of resources used. The more resources used - the better for the country. However, it is obvious that this policy led Soviet society to a deadlock which persists. Russia is one of the largest oil, gas, and mineral producers in the world; it has vast areas of fertile land, called black earth, and extensive forests. Nevertheless, there is a paradoxical constant shortage of these resource-based goods and services. Unmanageable resource-product chains, linking natural resources and final products, are typical for the Russian economy.

The situation is similar for the main sectors extracting and manufacturing natural resources. Typical examples are energy and fuel producing industries, the processes of which are strongly damaging for the environment. Their record is still poor in terms of efficiency. To ensure normal economic development per unit of final product, Russia in many cases uses eight times more energy than Western European countries. Conversely, what potentials are hidden in this production of oil, gas, coal and electric power if this ratio could be improved?

A similar pattern is discernible in agriculture. Russian agrarian sector uses 6-7 times more agricultural land per unit of final harvest for consumption than, for example, Sweden because of low yield, and underdeveloped roads and storage facilities in the food industry system. The forest sector is also in a troubled state, despite an abundant resource base. A huge overuse of timber is compensating for underdeveloped processing industries causing much waste and losses. The most typical example is timber overuse for paper and cardboard production. Russia uses 5-6 times more timber per ton of paper and cardboard than modern technologies require in countries like Finland, Sweden, and USA.

Underdevelopment of process industries, of infrastructures and in the redistribution sphere causes huge losses of natural resources and raw materials. Striving for increased resource extraction to compensate for the losses may only accelerate the processes of environmental degradation in a vicious circle of wasteful resource use, adding environmental impacts and pollution loads.

It is necessary to understand the causes for the present natural resource-intensity in the Russian economy and production system in order to evaluate their consequences and efforts to overcome this syndrome. Principally new approaches are needed.

The ways to sustainable development
It is obvious that the troubled environmental situation will only improve as a consequence of improved resource use and less intensive exploitation patterns in the country. It is equally obvious that such a changed course mainly would be the result of effective macro-economic policy. Within the framework of the whole economy and on the macro level, a number of important directions for achieving sustainable development can be singled out (BOX 4).

BOX 4
Necessary policy changes in Russia to reach SD

ecologically oriented structural and technological changes
change of investment policy towards ecologically balanced priorities; improvement of privatisation mechanism; reform of property rights; demonopolisation
creation of ecologically non-contradicting systems of taxation, credit subsidies, trading tariffs and duties, etc.

Conservation and management of resources help redirect economic reforms and to restructure the national economy. This is a necessary condition for starting the transition to sustainable development in Russia. If the current practice of intensive approaches is continued, the existing path of development may even strongly increase the exploitation of natural resources within a middle-term period. This would ultimately lead to a major environmental crise in many Russian regions. For example, many agrarian areas may be devastated already within the next 7-10 years.

Unfortunately, most economic projects for Russia proposed by national and foreign companies ignore this aspect. The realization of many projects in the pipe-line will place a heavy burden on nature in the coming years.

Ecologically-oriented restructuring means a halt or stabilization to the growth of industries using excessive amounts of natural resources. Rapid development of modern technologies is required in all industries in the resource-product chain. A global redistribution of labour force, material and financial resources in the national economy in favour of resource conservation and technologically developed industries and activities is called for. Redistribution will furthermore depend on whether market mechanisms can play a leading role.

To decrease the natural resource-intensity of final products and total demand for natural resources environmentally and ecologically sound economic restructuring is necessary. The most modest estimates reveal that such a restructuring will release 20-30% of inefficiently used resources without impairing economic growth.

Unfortunately, the tendencies of technogenic and resource consumptive development persist. They impose a burden on the future of sustainable development.

The current tendency entails a variety of anti-sustainable elements of development (BOX 5). Thus, the main reform objectives, the transition to market economy, aimed at creation of more effective and progressive economic structures have yet to be realized.

BOX 5
Current symptoms of unsustainability in Russian development

an increased share for those industries intensely using natural resources (mostly energy and fuel-producing industries) in the total production and investment measures
a reversed negative trend and a more than 50% decline in production for those progressive science-intensive industries that harbour the transition to sustainable development
deteriorating energy-intensity of GNP in terms of resource input per unit of final product
modern investment structure consolidates the natural resource intensive type of economic development by giving enormous short-term profits to sellers and exporters of competitive natural resources and goods such as oil, gas, timber and ores.
few incentives have developed for long-term care of resources as environmental externalities do not restrain current exploitation tempo.
no system exists to account for the potential benefits of sustainable resource use; the annual losses of oil and mineral resources, and degraded lands and forests are estimated at to many billions of USD.

Environmental situation in the Baltic Sea Region
The environmental impacts stemming from sources within two sub-regions (Leningrad and Kaliningrad oblasts) are the most serious problems in the Russian part of the Baltic Sea Region. According to the Russian Environment Ministry, a classification of these regions yield the following profiles (Table 3).

From a Russian point of view the St. Peterburg region constitutes the most dangerous environmental threat in Baltic Sea area. Kaliningrad is characterised by a better environmental situation with the exception of toxic waste problems.

Atmospheric depositions and waterborne pollutants are very urgent issues in the city St. Petersburg and its region. Many pollutants from the Neva river are flowing into Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea. According to Russian quality classification, water in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland is classified as 'moderately polluted' (3rd class). Water pollution is dominated by NOx, oil products and phenols.

Also transboundary air pollution is a problem in the Baltic Sea Region. With some countries Russia has a 'positive' balance of transboundary pollution (supplying more pollutants to its neighbours than it receives), and with some it has a 'negative' balance (Table 4 and 5). For instance, it receives tremendous amounts of sulphur and nitrogen oxides from Germany and Poland.

The most adversely affected countries from Russian pollution are Finland, Sweden and Norway (Table 5).

To mitigate environmental problems in the western parts of the country and to decrease the Russian impact on the water basin and the region, it would be useful to pursue new objectives implying: -deep structural and technological changes in the Russian Baltic region (first of all, in Leningrad oblast). Many military and fuel-energy complexes are located there, consuming large amounts of the production of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, power, fuel and chemical industries. These activities cause tremendous atmospheric, water pollution and environmental damage. It will be impossible to improve environmental protection without their fundamental modernisation and restructuring.

- Conversion of the military complex in St. Petersburg. This complex has great scientific and technical potential, highly skilled manpower and use advanced technologies. Therefore, conversion to the production of environment-friendly equipment, recycling technologies and so on, may play an important role for stabilizing the environmental situation.

- Substantial foreign aid is needed for the Russian Baltic Region aimed at solving environmental problems and introducing nature-protection technologies, provision of training courses and investments for economic restructuring.

4.4.4 Poland-economy and Sustainable development: the key sectors

Among the 'countries in transition', Poland is one of the most advanced. The environmental situation is gradually improving and pollution has not increased as the economy and production has lately started to increase. Poland is thus gradually becoming 'westernized', which in environmental terms means that one set of problems and issues (the 'old' point-source focus) is replaced by another (the 'new', western one, more efficient but not sustainable). This section reviews the situation in five key sectors with respect to sustainable development.

Agriculture
At the beginning of the 1990s, Polish agriculture consisted of 2,5 million mainly small and very small economically unstable private farms and 6500 declining state-owned farms and enterprises, the so called 'dinosaurs' of the planned economy. After six years of transition, most of state-owned farms have been economically collapsed and the agricultural real estate have partly been sold. Remaining parts are managed by the State Treasury Agricultural Property Agency. Transformation state agriculture comprise over 1500 large former state-owned farms and some 4.5 million ha. i. e. about 23% of the arable land. Management and transformation activities of the Agency have also included over 300 000 lakes and ponds, approximately 120 000 ha. of forests and afforested areas, 20 000 ha of nature reserves, as well as hundreds of thousands of hectares of land situated in different kind protected areas. Thus, conducting transformation processes within this area is not only of importance to the agriculture economy, but also to the whole mechanism of environmental protection of the country.

The changes in ownership of former state-owned agricultural enterprises and in the economic stabilization of private farms (not as rapid as expected by government) to only a limited extent decreased contaminants within agriculture. The main reduction in agriculture sector pollution was caused by diminishing overall activity.

The sustainable development concept only to a very small extent has decreased pollution from agriculture thus far. As in the past, typical environmental and economic issues remain:

lack of competitiveness and inefficiency of agriculture production and technologies,
over use of chemicals relative to the volume of production,
inadequate soil improvement,
contamination of land and ground water by unused and dumped pesticides and herbicides,
disregard of environmental laws by many private or privatised chicken, pig and cattle farms
lack of firm support for organic biodynamic agriculture,
unsustainable approach to agriculture policy and to nature conservation (e.g. small and very small farms support biodiversity much more than large farms economically supported by the government).

Forestry
The main problem within the Polish forestry sector during the transformation period was increased logging under the guise of 'increasing competitiveness'. As in other sectors of Polish economy social requirements of employees in the forestry sector and anxiety of increased unemployment compelled the administration to sanction this situation. Another reason for exploitation of forests was that timber and wood and many manufactured goods such as furniture or paper were important export items during the transition period. Polish timber, woods, pulp and paper, and furniture industries drew foreign investments. There were also institutional and systemic transformation reasons for the enormous exploitation of Polish forest assets: privatisation of forest ecosystems.. The government was unable to effectively prevent these practices because lack of funds. First, some projects supported by IBRD loans have been directed to strengthen forest exploitation. However preliminary assumptions of the project had been changed after intervention by Polish NGOs (Polish Ecological Club) in 1994. There are many parties interested in the further exploitation of Polish forests.

The official statistics give some relevant information about the environmental status of Polish forests:

low level of species composition,
domination by young trees in forest stands
poor general health of forests,
highest levels in Europe of acid (and biological as well) damage to forests.

Since 1993, the 'Wood Recovery Program' has been mitigated by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. The positive effects of these efforts have been modest thus far (as assessed by the Inst. Of Sust. Dev.).

Transport
During the transition period, a significant decrease in cargo and passenger volumes occurred. A remarkable change in transportation structure affected the railroads - with decreases by about one-half, and municipal public transport-by approximately one-third. Characteristic elements of this period were the fall in share of public transport-including the railways - in passenger movement, and of the railways and inland navigation in freight transportation. The share of railway transportation in tonnage goods fell from 22.0 to 14.4% over the 1985-1992 period. The road transportation share over this period increased from 73.4 to 80.8%. Over the transition period, the process of choosing the automobile in favour of public transport accelerated. This resulted because of:

an unfavourable price relationship between the cost of fuel and passenger tickets,
cut back of subsidies to transport companies, enormous growth in the number of automobiles in Poland, partly by the import of old cars from the West.

The present Polish transport policies have potential negative environmental effects:

priority for the programme of mass building of highways,
promotion of road transport but not railway transport or water transport,
support for development of individual means of transportation and not for public transport,
negligence of local transport problems, poor awareness of environmental issues connected with massive development of motor transport

These processes resulted in hindering the sustainable development of Polish transport sector in the nineteen-nineties.

Energy
Following six years of transition to the market economy Poland still depends on non-renewable fossil fuels as the main source of energy. However, increase in the devastating impact of this sector on the environment has been stopped partly by reduction in of activity of energy power enterprises (caused by diminishing of demand for energy from part of industry and individual users) and partly by undertakings of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the enterprises themselves. A package of undertakings foreseen by the 'National Environmental Policy' in 1991 has been introduced. It consists of:

improvement of coal quality,
modernisation of combustion techniques in coal-fuelled power plants,
application of environmentally safer firing systems,
change (very modest thus far) in current structure of prime energy carriers,
installation and proper use of dust and gas reduction equipment.

Certain specific institutional tools have been used by the environmental administration to strengthen pro-ecological restructurisation of the energy sector: A 'list 80' of the most polluting enterprise on a national scale and 'list 800' of the most polluting enterprises on a county scale. In those lists many energy sector enterprises have been included. The enterprises included in these lists are under special control of the State Inspectorate of Environmental Protection and they benefit from the environmental funds aimed to solve the most important environmental issues. However because of lack of domestic funds and foreign investments (lack of privatisation of the energy sector) improvement in ecological status of the energy sector is slow. The other reason is lack of pro-efficiency and pro-ecological energy policies as a result of the very low level of demonopolisation and competition within the sector. This also prevents progress in introducing energy-saving undertaking by the energy users (Demand Side Management undertakings). In Poland, there exists practically no local energy markets and there are only few renewable energy power plants and installations. There are no gasturbine power plants. However, it is worth remarking that Poland has no nuclear energy power plants. The sustainable development concept in the energy sector in Poland has been conceived but not enforced yet.

Industry
During the time of planned economy industry was the main cause of environmental degradation. Industry degraded the environment by discharging and dumping solid and liquid waste and by emitting dust and exhaust gases into the atmosphere. The keys for reduction of environmental contamination in the Polish industry sector are:

structural inter-branch shifts in production of goods at a country scale,
pro-ecological restructurisation of enterprises (reduction of energy, material and water demand by production processes, implementation of cleaner production technologies, systems of water recirculation, hermetic closures of production processes and so on,
introducing technological process innovations and environment-friendly product innovations,
installation and management of equipment for environmental protection and reduction emissions,
rapid progress in privatisation and demonopolisation of major industry branches traditionally very destructive to the environment,
further dynamically growth of foreign investment in the industrial sector.

The aims and benefits have been known from the very beginning of the transition period but enforcement of the concept of sustainable development within Polish industry has been very slow.

General conclusion
Poland has achieved a significant decrease in the emissions of many types of pollution; the efficiency of using natural resources is increasing; many environment-friendly solution have been introduced but development generally is following the western model i.e. more environmentally friendly but it still isn't sustainable development. The other critical issue in many subregions in Poland are past contamination and degradation of nature, and the need for restoration.

4.5 Institutions: An overview of single co-ordination centres

4.5.1 HELCOM

The HELCOM process is central in Baltic Sea environmental co-operation. Created already in l974 the Helsinki Commission has a long record of basinwide intergovernmental co-operation supported by technical-scientific experts. Since 1 August 1996, the Commission is chaired by a representative of the European Union.

The Helsinki Convention defines shared legal obligations. HELCOM monitors the status of the marine environment, publishes scientific findings, investigations and seminar reports and gives recommendations to the governments. The action plan (JCP) is in many ways a dynamic element in Baltic Sea co-operation. Six programme elements outline the context by emphasising the role of national capacity building, policy and legal reforms and financial investments (BOX 6).

BOX 6
The Baltic Sea joint comprehensive environmental action programme (jcp) consists of six components:

policy, legal and regulatory reforms to establish a long-term environmental management framework in each country bordering the Baltic Sea
institutional strengthening and human resources development to plan, design and implement environmental management systems
infrastructure investment to control both point and non-point sources of pollution to the Baltic Sea
management of coastal lagoons and wetlands, considered to be particularly sensitive
applied research, required to develop the knowledge on which solutions to the existing pollution problems can be based
public awareness and environmental education, needed to develop a base of support for the implementation of the programme

JCP is a long-term twenty year program estimated to cost about 28 billion ECU. It links national development plans, bilateral environmental aid programmes, and actions taken by multilateral and international financial organisations. The plan can be divided into 'soft' and 'hard' programme elements. The hard ones are represented by investments. Seven major categories are targeted:

emergency support and systems
municipal wastewater treatment
combined municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
pulp and paper industry environmental control
environmental control at other industries
solid and hazardous waste management
air quality management

A cornerstone of the activities of the Programme Implementation Task Force (PITF) is to follow how environmental considerations are integrated in the framing of national policies and not the least in countries in transition; an objective also endorsed by the Rio charter. It provides information on investments and other measures taken at the selected pollution sources. It is a highly appreciated example of regional co-operation. In the Lucerne-Sofia process, the innovative, precedence setting character of the programme is often referred to. The presence of IFIs has facilitated steadiness in implementation and in investment preparations. The assignment of lead party responsibilities to NGOs (e.g. WWF) for the programme element management of coastal lagoons and wetlands is unprecedented in other inter-governmental action plans.

In short, much collaboration on the Baltic Sea proper has in recent years gone on-shore to cope with the sources of degradation. This is a valuable experience and an achievement to reckon with. The prime ministers in their Visby meeting in 1996 acknowledged such results and mandated a separate process to update and review the terms of reference of JCP/PITF.

4.5.2 Vasab vision and strategies for the Baltic Sea Region 20102

On 21 August 1992, representatives from the ministries responsible for spatial planning of countries around the Baltic Sea agreed to jointly prepare a spatial development concept, 'Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010'. Despite the fact that the Baltic Sea Region is not clearly distinguished by natural borders, the participating countries belong totally or partially to the Baltic Sea drainage area (Belarus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway Poland, Russia and Sweden).

In this extension, the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) represents a total population of more than 100 million, producing a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approx. USD 1000 billion (1991). Historically, this powerful region was characterised by a high degree of spatial cohesion. This cohesion needs to be reenhanced after decades of political division. But still, there is a feeling of belonging together which is reflected by a remarkable number of co-operation initiatives emerging since the collapse of the iron curtain.

Nordic, western and transition countries have an interest to promote mutual links. Though formal integration within the framework of the European Union (EU) will not be achieved for all countries in the near future, functional integration in a number of fields can be intensified. Improved transport links for goods, persons and information will be needed. The growing concern about the environment is no longer a local or national affair alone. This is also true for the region around the Baltic Sea.

Integration can be hampered by inadequate urban networks and infrastructure, growing border control, trade restrictions, etc. Planning cannot avoid or remove all such barriers. But environment rehabilitation, urban restructuring and functioning urban centres can be important elements for balanced economic growth and inter-regional cohesion.

The restructuring of eastern agriculture will in many regions be coupled by a decrease of rural employment. People will seek new opportunities in cities. It is imperative that medium-sized cities will be in the position-which they are not in most of the eastern parts of the Baltic Region-to offer such opportunities. Strong migration to major cities would deplete rural areas of opportunities to get their share in public and private services supply, and high infrastructure loads in the major centres would go parallel with uneconomic infrastructure supply in others.

In some countries, e.g. Belarus, and East German states, urban systems were significantly modified during the socialist era through the creation of new heavy industry centres. This sometimes helped to achieve a more balanced urban settlement system. But these new centres are now particularly affected by the far-reaching economic structural changes where large industries lose their former control.

New economic structures favour medium-scale industries and service functions for consumers and for the business sector. These growing sectors tend to concentrate on major cities, where communication and transportation infrastructure are well developed and where a variety of support services can be found. Such processes are further strengthened by the increasing international orientation even of smaller enterprises, of public institutions and of research institutes: in BSR. transition countries, at present, only major cities normally offer adequate long-distance telecommunication and travel opportunities. Once such concentration has taken place it is difficult to modify.

The Tallinn Conference, December 7-8, 1994
The Ministers adopted the report 'Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the Baltic Sea Region' (as a spatial development perspective for the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) and a useful basis for further strengthening and harmonization of the national and regional spatial planning policies.

The report is a starting point for coming years of more concrete co-operation in the field of spatial planning with other transnational institutions operating in the BSR and with the ongoing activities on a wider European scale.

The result of the joint work of the VASAB 2010 initiative is a spatial development long-term perspective compatible with the efforts of European Union, Central European Initiative and the Barents Sea Council. The member states of EU are urged by the BSR Ministers to take the VASAB 2010 into consideration when preparing the European Spatial Development Perspective.

For the further co-ordination of the proposed common actions, the Ministers appointed a Committee on Spatial Development for the Baltic Sea Region (CSD/BSR) to co-ordinate the continuing joint work with circulating chairmanship, following the chairmanship of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS).

The CSD/BSR has a very important task to prepare proposals for continuation of the VASAB 2010 beyond 1995, with emphasis on future institutional arrangements and co-operation with other regional organisations and particularly the EU, the Council of Europe and the CBSS.

The Baltic Sea Region comprises large areas of unique and unspoiled natural value due to long-standing environment protection or to simplistic agricultural practices. But it is also characterised by severe environmental damage through uncontrolled industrial pollution and careless disposal of urban and industrial wastes. A healthy environment, coupled with a functioning system of urban centres, is important for economic development. Based on the values of development, environmental sustainability, freedom and solidarity, the 'Baltic Vision' consists of four spatial elements

The Pearls: Cities and urban networks promoting spatial cohesion, reducing spatial discrepancies in living standards, providing conditions for efficient use of development potentials, are environment-friendly. The urban system consists of a Baltic ring of European cities, a network of Baltic cities, playing an important role in cross-Baltic integration, national cities, complementing the Baltic Cities network, and a number of regional cities.

The Strings: A mobility network and energy supply system that promotes the integration and spatial cohesion within the Baltic Sea Region, is environment-friendly and improves accessibility to services and job opportunities.

The Patches: Areas supporting dynamism and quality of life, such as border areas that are instrumental to exchange between nations, areas of tourist importance, coastal zones with special needs for consideration and natural and cultural areas of special importance.

The System: Comprehensive spatial planning in function, contributing to harmonisation and spatial cohesion across borders, based on principles of subsidiarity, participation and transparency and contributing to the co-ordination of sectoral and regional planning.

During 1995/96 the main work of the CSD/BSR has been focused on elaboration of a number of priority actions, approved in Vilnius in April 1995. Pilot projects and some common actions have been carried out with a division of responsibility among the participating countries.

Among the challenges which have emerged after the third Ministerial Conference; the most important from the VASAB 2010 point of view are the following:

Baltic Sea co-operation becomes more active at all levels. Baltic Prime Ministers met at Visby in May 1996. The CBSS work has intensified and strengthened. Sub-regional co-operation has also produced substantial and concrete results. All these various forms of co-operation usually also tackle spatial problems which call for spatial sectoral integration. Therefore the strategy of BSR spatial development adopted by the third Ministerial Conference in Tallinn has became more and more relevant and important. These particular reasons have also urged the VASAB 2010 countries to create a spatial development framework for the Baltic Action Programme by adopting the document 'From Vision to Action'.

Spatial planning is becoming a more important factor in Baltic international co-operation. The main objective of such co-operation is promotion of balanced and sustainable (economic, environmental and social) development and assurance of spatial, economic and social cohesion of the BSR. The work in this direction is also very important from the point of view of the expected enlargement of the EU to the East. Spatial planning encompassing the whole BSR will help prepare the associated countries in future integration with EU. Common spatial planning in the BSR should also be treated as an important learning process, where different countries' co-operation results in exchange of knowledge, synergy effects, human capital formation and mutual understanding.

The Baltic Sea Region is becoming an internal European Union territory since the access of Sweden and Finland to the EU. This has resulted in a more active attitude on the part of the European Commission towards the BSR. This message was clearly present in the new EU Baltic Sea Initiative announced during the Visby Summit. Also the INTERREG II C programme, specially tailored to the needs of multilateral co-operation networks active in the field of spatial planning, has just been announced. The BSR is considered as a separate unit within the INTERREG II C framework. However there is still an urgent need for integration of INTERREG II C, PHARE and TACIS procedures to facilitate the financing of multilateral spatial projects in the BSR, in particular those executed within a VASAB 2010 framework. Such an integration would raise considerably the efficiency of co-operation between EU and non EU countries.

Work on regional Agenda 21 for the BSR has been started simultaneously by the Ministers of Spatial Planning and the Ministers of Environment. Sustainable development is a fundamental concept for the BSR Agenda 21. It implies not only economic development, but also balanced spatial development. Therefore the Agenda 21 for the BSR can only be prepared in a concerted action of environmentalists, spatial planners and regional economists.

BSR integration means growing spatial interdependence of sub-regions which cannot develop separately. This creates a new field of activity for spatial planning in execution of cross-border projects with important spatial dimension. It also calls for more sub-regional oriented approach of the spatial planning. One of the most important questions concerning development in the BSR is (sub)regional co-operation and competition in the BSR.

Strengthening of strategic spatial planning in northern Europe is still going on. A strategy of the Northern Seas Region is under development. The ESDP work is progressing towards a policy oriented concept. The strategy of spatial development of the larger Baltic Islands prepared according to VASAB 2010 methodology was presented during the Visby meeting.

4.5.3 Union of Baltic Cities - UBC

Cities from all Baltic Sea States take part in the Union which was founded in l991. The membership last May included 59 cities. The Union is a frequent co-convenor of arrangements, fairs and events in member cities. As a city network it has established mechanisms for transfer of knowledge, good practice demonstrations and provision of advice on concrete planning matters and technical tasks. Specific commssions chaired by individual cities, have been established for different reasons. Environment is a central preoccupation of members and UBC is responsible for JCP implementation at the municipal level (see BOX 7). Turku is chairing the Commission on Environmental Protection. A subgroup of members has formed a 'sustainable cities' network.

BOX 7
Local and Regional Agendas: selected examples
SWEDEN: building SD from the bottom up
All of Sweden's 286 local authorities are reported to have initiated work related to the preparation of a local Agenda 21. Two thirds have allocated means to the purpose and approximately half of them have employed special co-ordinators. About 62 municipalities have asked for eco-audits to be performed. Encouraged by the government, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and the Ministry of Environment addressed all of the municipalities with a summary of the Agenda 21 from Rio eventually distributed in 25 000 copies.
ESTONIA: Developing an island community
Hiumaa is the second largest island in Estonia ( area 1023 km2; 11 800 inh; 7 600 in rural areas and 4 200 in the one town) In 1983 a SD strategy for Hiumaa was prepared outlining development plans until year 2010. The main aim is to create an open and participatory process mobilising resources in all walks of life. For a previously less developed periphery of Estonia, SD is a means for Hiumaa to independently organise an integral development strategy to mobilize resources to this end.
Union of Baltic Cities: Implementing SD and transferring knowledge
UBC has launched a Sustainable Baltic Cities programme.
The Main activities aim at:

Implementing the JCP by taking lead party role in promoting SD in cities
Institutional strengthening,
transfer of knowledge and diffusion of good practice.
Seminars and training courses on physical planning and the environment
Seminars and training courses on recycling as an element of solid waste management.

Recently, UBC started a project to develop a model for municipal environmental audits in Baltic cities. The first case is Tallinn, Estonia in co-operation with Turku and Helsinki. It is expected that the project will result in a handbook for environmental auditing.
Bilateral regional co-operation: Finland and Russia
In l992, Finland and Russia signed an agreement on cooperation between border regions along the 1 340 km frontier. The boundary is a divide of contrasts between the fringe areas of the European Union and those of neighbouring Russia. One goal is to:

Create a sustainable economic and social development with particular attention to appropriately conducted exploitation of natural resources, by giving border areas a direct responsibility to stimulate across national borders.

More open and direct interaction has been accompanied by awareness of widespread serious environmental problems, affecting health conditions due to harmful emissions and poor quality drinking water. In addition, the wide spread recognition of safety risks in nuclear installations and the poor state of certain process industries and road infrastructure are major items that must be tackled internationally.

4.5.4 The sub-regions

Local authorities, be it on the county or sub-regional level of the state or municipalities or communes of the Baltic area, are quite active in various organised forms and in different partnership constellations. Co-operation on these levels and the new structures created are central in Baltic Sea affairs including activities related to SD. Both Sweden and Denmark have allocated public funds via their Association of Municipalities to support the transfer of Agenda 21 experiences between a considerable number of municipalities and their Polish twin cities or partners.

The Baltic Sea Conference for local and regional government
The Baltic Sea conference for local and regional government is an activity sponsored by the Council of Europe/ Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, CLRAE. About 300 representatives from 16 Baltic Sea and other European states' local authorities and municipalities met in l993 and 1995. The purpose is to improve co-operation between local governments in order to contribute to ecologically sustainable development and management of municipalities.

Conference on Baltic Sea states sub-regional co-operation
This Conference was established in 1993 in Stavanger and has since then met three times. The Conference is open to sub-regions immediately below the level of central government, i.e. Amt, Län, Fylke, Provinz, Vojevodship, Region, Distrikte, Bezirke, Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Länder.

The Conference has adopted a document, defining the main fields of co-operation and projects of sub-regional interest. Workshops are held on topical issues like transport, regional planning, trade, industry and education. The conference liase with CBSS and the parliamentarian meetings. One declared aim is to influence EU Baltic Sea policies. A great interest has been expressed for supporting and taking part in the VASAB process. VASAB and HELCOM have been encouraged to 'intensify their co-operation in order to ensure that environmental concerns are integrated in a planning process designed to achieve sustainable development.'

The possibilities for sub-regional Agenda 21 initiatives
Useful building-blocks for regional sustainable development can also be provided by working at sub-regional and local levels. In fact, much of the present momentum for sustainable development and Agenda 21 is created on the local community level where environment and development issues are often practical, decision-making mechanisms transparent and feedback more direct. Sub-regional Agendas 21, for example covering a riverbasin (e.g. Dalälven, Narva-Peipsi or Daugava) might provide very useful links between sustainable development work at the local and regional levels. Agenda 21 work at the national and BSR level requires the experience, enthusiasm and vitality generated from the local level, not least with respect to the participatory and democratic aspects.

4.5.5 NGOs

The world wildlife fund (WWF)
A Baltic programme has been created to develop and implement nature conservation and biodiversity in the region. WWF has also arranged a number of important seminars and conferences. In June l993 and within the context of JCP a conference was held on the Establishment, Protection and Effective Management of Coastal and Marine Protected areas in the Baltic Sea Region; in September the same year on co-operation between National Parks and Protected Areas in the Southern parts of the Baltic. 'The Klaipeda Charter' was launched on sustainable coastal zone management. WWF is a main co-ordinator and lead party for programme element 4 in JCP, management of coastal lagoons and wetlands (since l992).

Coalition Clean Baltic
Created in 1989, CCB has an established record of actions and opinion campaigns for the benefit of Baltic Sea environmental protection and the preservation of natural resources. CCB is the umbrella organisation co-ordinating 26 different national and international NGOs and is active within different fields of environmental education and public awareness. CCB is member of IUCN and observer to HELCOM.

4.6 The Role of the European union and impact of the preaccession strategy

The Union challenge
Baltic Sea Regional developments are increasingly related to the twists and turns of European integration. Poland became an associate member of the Union in February l994; while Sweden and Finland left EFTA/EEA and joined the Union as members in l995. Four of EU member states are littorals in the region. European association agreements with the three Baltic countries are in force since January 1 l996. Together with Poland and other CEE countries, they have applied for membership; an objective endorsed by all regional states including Russia. The Russian Federation has recently initialled its partnership and co-operation agreement with the Union.

Union membership on the part of Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden and the active Europeanisation policies of other regional states, have created a new dimension in Brussel's world view. Within only a short time, representatives of the Union have acquired position in almost all public regional actor-organisations mentioned. Goals and instruments have been overviewed with the purpose of streamlining a 'union approach towards the region'. With a new enlargement, the basin will practically become an internal EU sea. A situation where one can envisage that eight of the littoral countries have accepted identical principles for legislation and incorporated similar legal acts, is unprecedented in history, and represents altered preconditions for regional co-operation. At this moment, however, we are far from such a condition.

These developments are of overriding political significance. They are in all circumstances likely to entail many consequences for the conduct of SD policies. The countries have established structures within their respective governments for the co-ordination of the approximation process. Within the field of environment, the ministries of environment have been given overall responsibility. Four aspects are central and should be mentioned: 1) the level and scope of SD actions; 2) the process of preaccession and approximation of laws, funds and incentives and; 3) the framing and uses of EU cross-national instruments ; 4) cross-border instruments.

Level and scope of SD policies
Integration of environmental aspects into other sector policies is a fundamental principle for EU policy making. The targeted sectors for specific Community measures are industry, energy, transport, agriculture and tourism. However, the Community has been less successful in defining a collective stance on certain environmental global issues such as climate change.

In the 5th Environmental Programme towards sustainability the question of finding an appropriate level of implementation has been raised.

In conformity with the subsidiary principle, many policy aspects and specific actions which the Programme will give rise to, are to be carried out at levels other than those involving the powers, duties and competencies of the European Communities. The conclusion, nevertheless, is that the Community is instrumental in adopting and co-ordinating measures for enforcement and implementation by member states.

The general implication of membership application and the process of preaccession is that in the process of drafting new laws, there should be an attempt to harmonise all environmental legislation with corresponding legal acts issued by the EU.

Preaccession
The adaptation of EU rules and law and the creation of adequate institutional underpinnings for co-operation are demanding tasks. The preaccession strategy presupposes a gradual approach. Main components are the four freedoms of the internal market, trade, macro economic and structural change. The role of agriculture falls outside the scope of this process although trade concessions have been granted in bilateral negotiations. A major element of the process is the harmonisation of laws, i.e. the adaptation of EU legislation or rather the approximation of domestic legislation to EU standards. A mixture of structured dialogue, intergovernmental negotiations, parallel actions, unilateral adaptation and harmonisation of laws creates the framework for deepened relations between the Union and each of the would-be members.

The pursuit of SD policies in applicant Baltic Sea countries is likely to benefit from the preaccession strategy in many respects. The EU is likely to strengthen their economies in comparison to other conceivable international alternatives. This would allow them to set aside more resources for environment. Secondly, the need to approximate legislation might speed up the tempo of reforms. Poland has set the target date for full harmonisation of laws by the year 2010; Lithuania by 2005. Thirdly, the binding nature of many EU legal acts are likely to bolster the status of environmental rules in the reform process in general.

Benefits
A study by Bertil Hägerhäll et al. (SEI, l996) on environmental implications of EU membership of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland concentrated on five dimensions: biodiversity, water pollution, air pollution, waste and chemicals. All main EC directives and decisions were identified and related to the stock of national laws and regulations. Some but not all of these EU directives and rules were found to be more stringent than current legislation. Where the applicant has more stringent regulations, as was the case in biodiversity, exemptions should preferably be granted in negotiation, allowing existing legislation to prevail until the EU has reappraised its policies at a higher level of protection. It was also found that certain HELCOM recommendations were more strict than corresponding EU directives.

Political conditionalities
EU has made it clear that preaccession represents an interim period for a country to merit itself; i.e. in kind, very different from membership negotiations. Despite the pledge made in Copenhagen in 1993 that all CEE countries that so desire could become members, there are hurdles ahead which are likely to retroact on the region:

A first condition has to do with the domestic maturation of all necessary economic and political conditions for entry. It is up to each individual country to choose priorities and timetables of suggested measures. The final verdict will depend on achievements in each individual case. The crux of the matter has little to do with approximation of legal texts, but in the associated country's adapting of its administrative machinery and of its society necessary to make the legislation work.
The outcome is also much dependent on the evolution of international European policies in general. At the moment there seems to be little agreement on timing and conditions. Should EU opt for a selective approach to enlargement, based on economic performance criteria only, new divisions could be created within the region.

These prospects are important. They strengthen the arguments for a separate BSR Agenda 21 process regardless of the length of the preaccession period and final outcome of the EU applications.

Funds
EU contributions are broad and allocated via the main funds. The union's Baltic Sea initiative is an attempt to formulate a region wide policy. This attempt has led to a number of adaptations of ongoing programmes in terms of goals and criteria of support taking the Region's special features into account.A co-ordination mechanism of members and applicants has been created. EU is the single most important source of finance and assistance to the region (Appendix, Table 5).

Cross-border co-operation
Of special significance for attaining regional co-operation goals, are national and international attempts to enhance cross border co-operation. This aspect is central in evolving projects on physical planning and in trans boundary environmental protection. Improved cross-border contacts enhance stability and are conducive for economic improvements.

4.7 The role of IFIs

Agenda 21 is not an investment programme. For this reason we would only like to underline and introduce a discussion on the important contributions that IFIs have made in environmental assistance and co-operation programmes. These contributions are indispensable when one evaluates strategies for SD in the Baltic Sea Region.

In the Appendix a set of statistical tables (Tables 1-4) are presented on resource flows into the Region. They have been compiled by a working group in the Nordic Council of Ministers (l995). Both donor and recipient perspectives are clarified. The EU instruments and financial activities, representing the single most important source of assistance, are shown in Tale 5.

The mobilisation of financial resources for environmental investments, particularly in the CEE countries, has repeatedly been singled out as one of the major constraints for concrete action to improve the environment. International fora have been focusing on this, i.e. the Resource Mobilization Conference in Gdansk, the Soft Loan Conference in Copenhagen and the Environment for Europe Conferences in Lucerne and Sofia.

Doubtless capital flows are essential for industrial as well as infrastructural investments to materialise. Financial resources are, of course, also needed for various other, more general or sectoral, measures related to e.g. agriculture and transport. The discussion on the instruments for resource mobilisation is therefore one of continued relevance and the emphasis given to it, most recently at the Sofia Conference, should be kept alive. Various bodies, such as PITF and PPC should play an increasingly active role, and the proposals for new instruments such as green equity should be explored. In this context the recent initiatives by the Nordic countries to establish a Soft Financing Facility in connection with NEFCO and to launch a new environmental lending programme for NIB can be mentioned.

The broader issues of sustainable development which is the purpose of Baltic 21, however, also calls for a discussion on the role of the financial sector. Banks and other institutions in charge of the financial mechanisms, have a formidable responsibility in allocating the financial resources of society. Only if this allocation process is based on values and principles which harmonize with and support a sustainable development, will the financial sector contribute to this end. If not, the priorities, suboptimization of targets and misguided resource allocations. Ways and means to environmental concerns into financial decision making should therefore form a part of a programme for sustainable development. This discussion is not only related to broad issues such as environmental accounting or life cycle assessment of products etc. Baltic 21 could in this context also focus on very concrete steps for example linked to training of bank staff to raise their awareness of the consequences of financial intermediaries from environmentally detrimental activities.

Some of the conclusions drawn in this Nordic study are substantiated by the tables. They are worth quoting:

Technical assistance projects are geared to environment protection (protection and decrease of pollution loads and emissions into air or water ) and nature conservation issues. Substantial amounts of TA means have been allocated to enhance nuclear safety and manage radioactive waste TA comprise project preparation and pre- feasibility studies, transfer of competence and institutional strenghtening.
Investments via IFIs cover loans, investments guarantees, gifts and direct contribution of capital. IFIs often link activities of the private sector to public environmental objectives.
Investments have been concentrated to the restructuring of energy, transport and in- dustrial sectors.
The lion's share of resources for environment stems from domestic sources, also in CIT countries and from various trust funds supported by the IFIs
The Nordic countries and various EU funds are the most important donors of technical bilateral assistance. IFIs is the major source of risk capital and financing of investments.
Poland has received about 40% of combined investments and technical assistance resources within the region. A comparatively large share (25%) has benefited Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania while actions in North-western Russia and Kaliningrad area are almost marginal.
The Nordic share is quite modest in relation both to the investments granted by IFIs and to assistance flows rendered by TACIS and PHARE. Nordic countries are most often in agreement on substantial priorities although they differ somewhat regarding preferred recipient areas. Baltic states and Poland are favoured by all ; Finland and Norway are developing relations with Russia in the east and in the north; Denmark in particular, but also Sweden are following actions against pollution and air emissions in CEE countries closely.

5. Towards Sustainability

5.1 An analysis of key sectors-the role of Baltic 21

The environmental problems and impacts in the BSR are dominated by the effects and consequences of a number of key economic sectors, primarily energy, agriculture, forestry, transport and industry. In addition, a number of other issues are also of prime importance for environment and sustainable development in the region, e.g. biodiversity and nature conservation, climate change and ozone depletion, urban issues and freshwater resources.

Together, these issues have a key role to play in the transition to sustainable development in the Region.

In the BSR, energy is usually regarded as the most polluting sector and the problems are dominated by a few easily identified factors, including a number of specific power plants. Limited regional co-operation is on the way, but this needs to be much strengthened. Being the two dominating sources of diffuse pollution, agriculture and transport represent areas which are subject to attention from HELCOM and JCP, but action is yet far from the level corresponding to the seriousness of the problems. Particularly with respect to agriculture, a number of regional co-operative programmes have been started, for example the BAAP, but the complex mix of technical, economic and social issues involved calls for urgent additional efforts. Modernising the Region´s transport infrastructure is an urgent priority requiring heavy investment in particularly the EBR, one main reason being that a good transportation infrastructure has a key role to play in the integration of the BSR. The environmental implications of this development, however, need to be closely watched, and regional co-operation intensified. Development in both those sectors in the WBR has been intensive during the last decades, but this has also involved making a number of mistakes and learning lessons which could be thus hopefully avoided by the new development in the EBR. Finally, being a heavily industrialised area with rich natural resources, industry is the back-bone of present and future economies in the BSR. Particularly in the EBR, industry and business are presently in a rapid transition period, requiring large investments in environment and infrastructure and in modernising technologies and management. Regional co-operation and economic integration are two of the major keys to unlocking the future potential.

To achieve sustainable development in the BSR, however, requires more than a single sector approach. On the other hand, sustainable development can never be achieved anywhere if key sectors are not each sustainable. Turning the attention of the Baltic 21 process towards sectoral development is therefore necessary, in the first phase, for a number of reasons. And it is here that some of the major challenges for a Baltic 21 process can be found.

First, environment needs to be fully integrated into sectoral policy development, which is also the most common decision-making level in government. Second, there are strong interlinkages between sectors and their environmental and sustainability implications, which need to be better understood and more effectively addressed. Third, regional co-operation needs to be strengthened with respect to all sectoral development. Sustainable development and economic and social development in the BSR calls for joint solutions and more regional integration, not less. Fourth, much successful regional co-operation already exists concerning certain sectors and other specific issues, and much could be learnt from those experiences in building the broader partnerships required for sustainable development co-operation. And, finally, sustainable development policy development in the BSR requires the underpinning of jointly developed, discussed and accepted goals and criteria, both for sectors and in a more general perspective. This, in turn, is something that requires an adequate co-operative process to be established. Obviously, a Baltic 21 process can not be expected to resolve all those problems, but it can contribute to the learning process and open forum needed to address them effectively.

5.1.1 Energy

Today´s situation
Energy is one of the most important areas with respect to SD in the BSR, and holds a number of keys to the future, both in its own right and how it is used in different sectors. Problems and issues in the energy sector are social, environmental, political, economic and they also involve trade, security and other aspects. It is clear that many of these can only be tackled successfully with full regional support and co-operation. Energy is one of the most dynamic areas and a number of far-reaching changes are underway or planned, particularly in the EBR, involving new investments, institutional changes and trade.

With respect to energy resources, the situation in the Region is rather favourable, even if fossil fuels (oil and gas) are import items in most countries. Fossil resources are significant, particularly coal and shale, hydropower is well developed but other renewable energy is yet little exploited with the exception of bioenergy in some countries. The renewable energy growth potential is significant and provides a key element in building a sustainable energy system in the BSR. The energy supply system is presently over-sized, particularly in the EBR, carries with it a number of serious problems, and it is clearly not sustainable. Major investments are necessary to upgrade the EBR system to acceptable standards-regarding efficiency, cost-effectiveness, reliability and environment-since it is still dominated by outdated technologies, low safety standards and low overall efficiency. The distribution system needs to be upgraded, again particularly in the EBR, and also more integrated. This integration is needed both within the BSR and with European power and gas networks-and the process towards such integration is partially underway. To rationalize and improve energy demand is presently a significant issue, and is a particularly urgent problem in the EBR. Some work has begun in the residential sector, and overall improvements in this and other sectors are highly significant. Legal and institutional issues, including resolution of ownership, etc., are still slowing down progress. Increasing efficiency is however definitely also a major issue in the WBR, where the potential is far from exhausted.

On the environmental side, the energy situation is largely characterised by large environmental problems in the EBR as opposed to relatively small ones in the WBR. An environmental rehabilitation of the energy sector in the EBR is therefore an urgent objective, but is also costly and only affordable in the longer run. The use of coal in Poland and Germany is a major source of pollution, as is the oil shale use in Estonia and oil use in the Baltic States as a whole. Uncertain nuclear installations are anoth

6. Policy Changes Required

6.1 A guiding notion and its application

In general, present values, knowledge systems, technlologies, policies and instituions make it much easier to live unsustainably than sustainably. It is an enourmous challenge to change them, and this can only be achieved over time, particularly as viable alternatives ar not yet clear. For a baltic 21 we would like to propose the following.

First, to treat sustainable development as an open and probing instrument. It is striking how the best strategies for sustainable development have been based on participation, building on good existing plans and processes, with clear attention to environment and development priorities. conversely, failed strategies have tended to be prepared without consultation, neglecting existing initiatives, and have been too limited in scope. Experience shows you cannot deal with environmental issues without getting to the heart of development needs. National policy processes need to be liked with local and regional planning and action. It is often at the community level where many traditional and experimental participatory resource management approaches have borne fruit; but their sustainability remains constrained by poor policy environments. Sustainable development means improving and maintaining the well-being of people and ecosystems. It is much easier to define what is not sustainable than to identify what is sustainable. It conveys an invitation to join a process gradually filling in missing details. We do not know the exact constraints and conditions for sustainability, and even if we know this, we are far away from such a state of affairs today. Baltic 21 should therefore be an open, participartory and adaptive process.

Somewhere ahead is a profound transition. What one can do is to respect the equity consideration and to strive to live and direct our societies in ways that do not erode the material and social base for the future generations. We should strive to live 'off the rent, not the capital'. And furthermore, our present conditions, constraints and priorities for the future should not be pressed on the future generation. They must also have the opportunity to make their own choices.

Second, that it should be possible to formulate a set of sustainability criteria which can be used to indicate whether a certain path is sustainable i.e. if it carries us in the right direction. Such criteria, however have a tendency to become very general in dealing with broad areas and concepts. When derived for more narrow and specific issues, such as individual sectors or limited areas, they can become more focused and operational. For example, in an environmental and natural resource focused perspective, development paths that build on rapid depletion of limited resources and/or result in long-term increased emissions, pollution or toxic waste generation cannot be sustainable.

Third, that it is fruitful to elaborate the concepts of local and sector sustainability further. In a sense the SD concept can only be really meaningful if applied on a global level at least for those global aspects which are indivisible and collective. No nation, state or individual has its own atmosphere. It is equally clear that SD cannot be achieved without its components also being sustainable, even if there may exist trade-offs in certain sectoral policies or development strategies that make it possible to accept short term deviation for the sake of creating more favourable conditions for the longer term. In a general sense, the amount of resources available is not a net constant, existing resources can be rapidly depleted and new resources can be 'created' only as new knowledge is discovered. Increased efficiency does not necessarily imply more sustainability, as the fate of fisheries indicate. Sectoral development strategies cannot in the longer run violate global sustainability criteria.

There are other urgent problems of a sectoral or regional/local nature which call for responsible action. It is also on these levels where 'problem discovery and perception' are close to decision-makers, or where discussions and proposals make common and political sense calling for participation. Obviously scale is an issue in this respect. It might be easier to formulate operational SD strategies for limited regions than for larger ones.

It is usually possible to formulate meaningful local and sectoral sustainability criteria and indicators with which one can evaluate developments and strategies. Such criteria are essential tools and create useful building blocks in the work towards general SD. It is not necessary to start from a blank sheet. The regional agenda can integrate and profit from the definitional substance found in various national, regional, local and sectoral policies and initiatives. Such programmes are sometimes very concrete, prescribing actions and linking sector developments to specific criteria of sustainability and to necessary policy changes. They are also tied to SD strategies with a view to rather unique conditions like the ones prevailing in certain Baltic Sea lagoons and specific watersheds.

Fourth, we suggest that sustainability indicators initially should be probed in relation to four broad categories: impacts on society and the natural environment, impacts on human health and sector specific indicators.

So, to conclude: the sectoral approach to sustainability is important and has the advantage of being supported by institutions and programmes. In addition, much attention should be paid to decentralised activities and local solutions. But partial measures should be supplemented by an integrated and holistic approach which does not isolate the pursuit of sustainability from the complexity of underlying social and economic issues.

6.2 Strategic guidelines

It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Baltic Sea Region is a region at risk (Chapter 4). Many environmental trends point in the wrong direction, and current levels of exposure and resource degradation are not tenable in the long run without deliberate actions to reduce them by various measures. The state of the Baltic Sea itself is a prime example of exceedence of environmental barriers. The warning flag has thus been hoisted, but there may also be several other flags on their way up. A Baltic Region Agenda 21 is proposed to be conceived as a process cogently mixing vision with pragmatism. Sustainability is dependent on an overriding holistic view that relates parts and the whole. It is a journey along parallel but interdependent tracks. The overriding commitment is dependent on improvements in abstract knowledge. But its realisation has to be adatptive to new knowledege, to a democratic vision and process, and is very much conditioned by political commitment, open discussion, sectoral advances and practical matters in everyday life.

It is not the purpose of this report to establish collective goals. It should suffice to outline the political importance of assuring regional stability and a commitment to policies for economic progress that creates jobs and improving the quality of human life while also improving the environment. Environmental security is also an aspect of co-operation at large in the Region and also an aspect of the aim of realising civic security. It is directly addressed in the clean-up of contaminated military sites and in actions to enhance nuclear safety and to reduce radiation. In case of strained relations one should acknowledge the confidence-building potentials of local transboundary co-operation. The Lake Peipsi project on the Estonian-Russian border is a current case in point.

Environmental goal-setting is not an entirely closed loop but at least the main elements of environmental concerns and influences are discernible in the diagram on the management cycle in chapter 3. For example, the Baltic Sea environment is also driven by natural factors such as the irregular pulse transporting saline waters into the basin, and the synergetic effects of human activities. Our vision is confined to the latter aspect and the changes required (we do not propose grandiose plans to modify nature). The following elements could serve as specific regional examples of themes in an articulated vision for improved environment:

Move forwards to tomorrow, while, where appropriate, aiming at restoring the marine environment of yesterday.
Change the paradigm. Environmental treatment should be addressed at the source rather than at the end, by prevention rather than by cure, by expanding the circle of environmental responsibility across the life cycle of products, from extraction to production and consumption.
Do more with less. The objective is to minimise waste and to maximise the use or reuse of recycled products while producing goods and services with less energy.
Changing focus from point to diffuse sources. Air emissions and point discharges into water and rivers are thought gradually to be brought under control while the water situation might deserve more attention.
Preserve and restore biodiversity by preserving the untouched parts of nature in eastern parts of the Region while creating a regime for halting further losses in the western parts.

In a wider sense, sustainable development strategies should be participatory and adaptive processes of planning and action to achieve common economic, environmental and social objectives in a balanced and interpreted manner. They are needed to:

Mobilize and focus efforts to achieve sustainable development
Provide a forum and a context for the debate on sustainable development and the articulation of a collective vision of the future;provide a framework for processes of negotiations, mediation, and consensus building; and to focus them on a common set of priority issues;
Plan and carry out actions to change or strengthen values, knowledge, technologies and institutions with respect to the priority issues; and
Develop organisational capacities and other institutions required for sustainable development

7. Setting up a Baltic 21 Process

7.1 The structure of elements in Baltic Agenda 21

To whom is Agenda 21 addressed? One simple anser is of course 'to everyone'. But in order to structure the problem and to focus action, we would like to outline a three legged approach. These legs are tools for organising an overview of policies affected and for defining the substance of a Baltic 21.

The first leg addresses intergovernmental processes and legal aspects of co-operation. In short, a 'concerted stock taking of conventions' might be a first step in order to evaluate the regional possibilities and drawbacks. A series of commitments have been enshrined in European and global conventions e.g. the Montreal Protocol, the Espoo Convention, the Basel Convention, etc. It appears feasible to evaluate these conventions in a regional perspective. In the perspective of Baltic 21, it is not illogical that some global concerns or commitments undertaken in pan -European conventions are monitored or even integrated into parallel implementation schemes at the regional level. The term parallel national implementation is preferred to joint implementation strategy as the latter has a precise legal connotation, for example in the Biological Diversity Convention. The Oslo protocol on reducitons of sulphur emissions of a long range transboundary nature calls for joint implementaion as well. Measures taken on the basis of the ozone layer, biodiversity and climate change conventions could exert additional impacts.

There are already good precedents: Alredy in the 1980s teh riparians redefined their interests and agreed to concert their actions by designing the Baltic Sea a specially protected area within IMO.

The second leg is comprised of actions to implement and enhance sustainability criteria. A number of knowl edge-producing institutions and universities could support such an effort. Problems connected with main sectors are central in this respect. A large number of stake holders should be involved in a broad dialogue. To have a better focus an action programme should possibly be drawn up. There are some lessons one could draw from other efforts to promote environment co-operation and sustainability.

To our minds the concept of an 'Action Programme' approach is a fruitful course. Without going into any details it seems that JPC and other European programmes have certain traits in common (BOX 8). The uses and programming of the Rio Agenda 21 document could also give some guidance as to what kind of requirements should be observed in initiating a BSR Agenda 21.

BOX 8

Characteristics of an environmental action programme

is based on open-ended commitments

comprises a broad understanding of the significance of both 'soft' and

'hard' elements in environmental transition,

identifies priority and concrete actions

specifies time horizons

incorporates financial aspects of environmental co-operation and implementation

ensures the participation of a mixed set of actors with different status

The third leg could consist of increasedand focused effort to further local Agendas in the regional context sponsoring a mosaic of networks and local initiatives for sustainability.

Incentives are important to stimulate and direct such popular actions. Experience shows that the considerable number of twin city arrangements and co-operation programmes between local communities, regions and NGO

are important vehicles for transferring knowledge and for influencing misguided local practices. There are already a number of useful funds and support programmes, such as the co-operation programmes developed by the Asso ciation of Swedish Municipalities, the Danish democracy fund, the EU Ecos-Ouverture Programme and LIFE. What we suggest is an overview of these instruments as to how they could be related to a Baltic 21. The twin city pattern and possibly other related 'twinning' arrangements could be channels for diffusion of a Baltic 21.

7.2 Background, goal and approach.

7.2.1 Starting points

In it first phase, a Baltic 21-might focus on regional co-operation and a few key sectors, fully reflecting the priori ties and varying development needs in the Region. As a first step, environmental considerations would be fully integrated into sector policies and, even more important, sector policies would be integrated with economic and social development concerns.

It is important not to expect too much too soon from a Baltic 21 process. Much new ground needs to be broken and new forms of collaboration tried and evaluated. Whether or not a Baltic 21 will provide the 'value added' that motivates its existence can only be assessed after some time.

7.2.2 The Goals

The operational goal is to prepare a Baltic Agenda 21 document-a Baltic 21 -, the first version of which should be ready after about 18 months of work. Baltic 21, being the world´s first regional Agenda 21, should also be able to present an interesting progress report to CSD and UNGA in 1997, providing an example for other regional initiatives to follow.

The Baltic 21 should be complementary and build on the successful environmental co-operation to date, particu larly the work and achievements of HELCOM, VASAB and other existing structures for regional co-operation. In working together with those and others, the Baltic 21 process should provide 'added value' to those initiatives, in particular by introducing the 'classic Agenda 21 approach' of being long-term, holistic and based on public participa tion at all levels-for example building on the experience of local Agenda 21 work at the city or community level.

Baltic 21 should try to build a shared vision of the Region´s future based on the concept of sustainable develop ment, and utilise this vision to strengthen and integrate sector policy development and re-vitalize regional develop ment and environmental co-operation.

7.2.3 The Approach

The basic approach for developing a Baltic 21 is to create a co-operative process resulting in a joint product, making sure that all relevant actors both are part of the process and have a stake in the result. Baltic 21 should therefore be built up using a network structure with several nodes in the Region and provide a vigorous and lively forum for different actors. Agenda 21 work, by its very nature, is multi-disciplinary and involves actors at different levels. This would have to be reflected in the set-up of the network and its nodes.

In general, Baltic 21 would seek to build vigorous partnerships in carrying out its tasks. As part of this it would also draw on and seek co-operation with relevant government structures on the local, national, regional and international levels (including CBSS, IBSFC, EU, UN Nefco and other IFIs) and with existing networks (e.g. CCB and other NGOs, Baltic University, Baltic Basin Case Study and other research networks, UBC, etc.) as well as other regional and international institutions, organisations and-last but not least-with business and industry.

In the three-legged approach outlined above, one of the first steps for the Baltic 21 process should be to develop a methodology and develop its own structure and characteristics, built on a collaborative assessment of the Region´s prospects, conditions and needs. To begin with, the focus could be on the potential and need for regional co-opera tion, on the need for integration of environment into key sectors and on supporting relevant national endeavours, such as the development of local Agenda 21 initiatives. The further development of the Baltic 21 process and its scope would depend on the success of its early phases.

Policy analysis and development would be important elements in the work programme of the Baltic 21 process. One element in this activity would be to take the initiative to review a series of key sectoral policies in a long-term and regional sustainable development perspective, assessing their interlinkages and suggesting policy changes required (An interesting example already mentioned is the 'Royal Colloquium on Sustainable Agriculture in the BSR' in October 1996).

Although support for Baltic 21 would be supplied by government funds, and its success would depend on guidance and a long-term political commitment the Baltic 21 process would still have to retain a high level of independence and integrity in order to be able to fulfil its mandate.

7.3 Tools for the process

Access to and efficient distribution of information is an important element in building a Baltic 21. a strong coupling to the Internet-based BALLERINA system now being developed is therefore an attractive possibility. Integrating BALLERINA with the Baltic 21 process would greatly facilitate the networked structure of the Baltic 21 process and provide for a broad and efficient sharing of information generated, as well as facilitate input from a wide range of actors.

Policy review, methodology development and other analytical work necessary within the Baltic 21 process, such as scenario generation and analysis, process would generate a need for computer-based tools to be used and/or adapted to the specific need of the BSR. Such tools can, for example, be generated within a GIS framework or drawn from existing work in sectors such as energy or agriculture.

A Baltic 21 function should make tools available for the counterparts that wish to undertake studies. First, there will have to be sectoral assessment tools. Sectoral tools will answer in what way the energy, industry, agricultural and forestry sectors relate to issues of sustainable development.

But to get a holistic view of the sustainability issues, the analytical process must also have access to integrated tools. The process will need tools that can study the linkages between different sectors and this is something that sectoral studies cannot do. A Baltic 21 could also pay attention to and probe the usefulness of emerging concepts and meth ods, i.e. environmental space and ecological footprints. At the aggregate level, information must be compatible. It must be possible to compare the environmental pressures and impacts from different sectors in a common framework.

An integrated tool is crucial for the analytical process in the following ways:

There is a need for an accounting framework that allows to organise and manage sustainability information in a harmonised way across sectors as well as across countries. This would provide a basis for discussion, co-ordination and open communication in the Region.
Looking into the future, there has to be a common framework that can make harmonised macro-economic projec tions to be used for all different sectors. The sectoral assessments cannot make projections about for instance population sizes or the scale of economic activities in the future.
It can establish the nature, timing and severity of different sustainability problems. Through an integrated tool in which we can establish a reference scenario, emerging issues of concern and future environmental hot-spots, as a result of the current development path, can be identified.

With the appropriate tool, we can evaluate alternative scenarios, visions and strategic options for a sustainable Baltic in the long run. As an environmental issue may result from many different sectors, it is not possible to identify the most feasible or most cost-effective way of dealing with it at the sectoral level. For instance, an integrated tool is needed to deal with nutrient flows into the Baltic Sea, as these flows are caused by many different sectors such as the energy-, households, waste treatment and agricultural sectors.

One step towards setting up a Baltic 21 might thus be to make an assessment of existing tools that can be applied in the Region and evaluate their usefulness in terms of the criteria stated above. This process should come up with sectoral as well as integrated tools to be used both by A Baltic 21 Secretariat and the country partners.

Appendix

Table 1. Technical assistance. Sources and recipients (m DKR, 1992-1994) I

Table 2. Financing of investments, sources and recipients ( m DKR 1992-1994) II

Table 3. Technical assistance, targets and recipients (m DKR, 1992-1994) III

Table 4. Financing of investments. Distributions of recipients and sectors. 1992-1994 IV

Table 5.1 EU activities in the Baltic Sea Region V

Table 5.2 A Comprehensive overview of financial flows VI

Baltic 21: an agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Baltic 21

Mandate and Scope

Baltic 21

Conclusions

A Note on Authorship and Contributions to this Report

Terminology and Abbreviations

1. From Rio to Visby

1.1. Looking back

1.2. The Historical Coincidence

1.3 Beyond Visby

2. Introducing a Regional Agenda

2.1 Some implications

2.2. Three dimensions affected

3. Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region:The Need for a Vision and Conceptual Guidance

3.1 The challenges

3.2 The concept

3.3 The analytical process towards a Baltic 21

4. Where are We Now?Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region

4.1 A region at risk. An assessment of environmental issues affecting the Baltic Region

4.2 Institutional aspects of recent developments

4.3 National agendas and priorities

4.4 Sustainable development: four country profiles

4.5 Institutions: An overview of single co-ordination centres

4.6 The Role of the European union and impact of the preaccession strategy

4.7 The role of IFIs

5. Towards Sustainability

5.1 An analysis of key sectors-the role of Baltic 21

6. Policy Changes Required

6.1 A guiding notion and its application

7. Setting up a Baltic 21 Process

7.1 The structure of elements in Baltic Agenda 21

7.2 Background, goal and approach.

7.3 Tools for the process

Appendix

3. Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region:
The Need for a Vision and Conceptual Guidance

4. Where are We Now?
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region