Arno Rosemarin
Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
Stockholm Environment Institute
Sweden
arno.rosemarin@sei.org
Nelson Ekane
Ph.D., Research Fellow
Stockholm Environment Institute
Sweden
Karina Barquet
Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
Stockholm Environment Institute
Sweden
The Baltic Sea is an interesting case that reveals the complexity of effectively regulating nutrient loss to water bodies. This is especially apparent since the entry of the EU into the Baltic scene. The Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), set up in 1974 to protect the Baltic Sea from pollution, has been essentially advisory since its start, which has resulted in varied levels of positive impact. The recent addition of complex and competing directives by the EU is making compliance and enforcement even more difficult.
The Baltic Sea has a residence time of 25 to 40 years, making it particularly sensitive to environmental changes. As a large transitional inland brackish water body, it supports only a limited mix of marine and freshwater species. Its deeper layers are saltier and separated from surface waters by halocline, resulting in anoxic conditions in the deeper zones. Oxygen renewal at these depths only occurs during rare major North Sea storms that push oxygenated seawater over the shallow sill in the Danish and Oresund Straits. The surrounding population of over 85 million people has significantly impacted the Baltic Sea through overfishing, especially of cod, sprat, and herring, along with fertilizer pollution especially between the 1950s and 1980s, sewage and industrial effluents, ammonia and nitrate from the atmosphere, heavy shipping activity, and remnants from many military operations.
The Baltic coastal waters are phosphorus (P)-limited, while the open sea is nitrogen (N)-limited for most of the year. Each summer, blooms of P-limited cyanobacteria (mainly Nodularia and Aphanizomenon) occur, which can fix atmospheric N—adding upwards of 400,000 tons of N annually, close to the riverine load from farms and cities. Despite reductions in N and P emissions since the 1980s, legacy P (stored P from historic overloading) derived from bottom sediments and the drainage basin continues to feed eutrophication. Combined with the sea’s long water residence time, this sustains poor water quality. Coastal hotspots, especially in the south, still receive high nutrient loads from agriculture and urban areas.
HELCOM produces a nutrient management action plan specifying annual discharge quotas for each member country to prevent eutrophication. But HELCOM remains only an advisory body to the 8 EU member states plus Russia. Enforcement is dependent on national legislation. Compliance with the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment and the Nitrates Directives (stipulating a maximum of 170 kg N/ha/yr in N-sensitive zones) have reduced some of the N and P discharges from point sources and N from diffuse agricultural sources. Since 2009, the EU has taken a regional approach to nutrient management based on drainage basin nutrient inputs, governed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is an impressive blueprint for action but has had major implementation challenges across the EU regarding access and costs to obtain the necessary comprehensive data, let alone the ensuing measures required. The deadline for the individual drainage basin action plans was 2015. This was extended to 2027 due to slow compliance.
Other recent interventions are the EU Green Deal, Farm to Fork (F2F) and Mission Starfish (MS) strategies. MS, aims to protect ocean and water bodies by 2030 (base year 2012-2015), reducing total water abstraction by 50%, including groundwater by 20%, undamming 30% of Europe's rivers, reducing nutrient losses by 50%, and 100% of urban wastewater receiving tertiary treatment (ie P removal). F2F as part of the Green Deal lays up agricultural targets by 2030 to reduce nutrient losses by 50% resulting in at least 20% reduction in fertilizer use. To implement the F2F strategy the reformed Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is the vehicle of choice. With a budget of around 1 billion Euros per week, the CAP is an instrument that has the potential to accomplish most agricultural reforms. But there is little evidence that this edifice of farm subsidies will be taking on these ambitious targets to protect drainage basins from nutrient overloading. The Nitrates Directive regulates application of N from animal manure to fields but completely ignores P which enters water bodies as runoff. To manage the Baltic Sea, both N and P need to be regulated in an integrated and ratio-based approach.
EU Investments have been made in upgrading Baltic region urban wastewater treatment plants in the new EU member states. But all in all, the improvements in nutrient emissions have been limited, mainly because the diffuse agricultural emissions have not been monitored and reduction in runoff not enforced. The need to sustainably recycle nutrient flows from plant and animal production systems is still waning. In addition, the EU is not self-sufficient due to its 90% dependence on imported P fertilizers. As a result, the EU has placed P on the Critical Raw Materials List demanding better management and recycling. But how optimistic can we be with the 2027-extended WFD, and the 2030 Mission Starfish and F2F strategies on the horizon, all without adequate monitoring and compliance?
The Baltic Sea will remain a major challenge for the EU to manage. Ideally there is a need to reform HELCOM with its long track record and make the Baltic Sea a special protected area requiring special governance treatment, with implementation and enforcement funding made available from within the EU. This would provide an element of cohesion and inclusiveness, something that is clearly missing at present.