Part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

Sustainable resource managementfor a healthy Baltic Sea

A synthesis report of the work done under Baltic Impulse –Baltic Sea Region Programme Water Cluster

3

Editors Pia Frederiksen, (Aarhus University, Waterpraxis) PaulaBiveson(BalticSeaActionGroup,BalticCompass) KnudTybirk(AgroBusinessParkA/S,BalticManure) IreneWiborg(DanishKnowledgeCentreforAgriculture,BalticDeal)

Contributors to the sections Sustainable biomass resource practices and management Nutrient management in the bio-based future BSR society

LenaRodhe(JTI,BalticManure) MarkkuJärvenpää(MTT,BalticManure) SariLuostarinen(MTT,BalticManure) JohannaLogrén(MTT,BalticManure) EilaTurtola(MTT,BalticManure) KariYlivainio(MTT,BalticManure)

OlaPalm(JTI,BalticCompass) SirkkaTattari(SYKE,BalticCompass) HansvonEssen(Södertäljemunicipality,BerasImplementation) KnudTybirk(ABP,BalticManure) IreneWiborg(KCA,BalticDeal)

Contributors to the section Improved assessment and monitoring of contaminants

WolfgangAhlf(TUHH,SMOCS) AnsaPilke(SYKE,COHIBA)

Contributors to the section Good governance frameworks for water planning and management

Pia Frederiksen (AU, Waterpraxis) Anne-MariRytkönen(SYKE,Waterpraxis) HannamariaYliruusi(UBC,PURE/PRESTO) TeemuUlvi(SYKE,Waterpraxis) AleksandraZieminska-Stolarska(TULodz,Waterpraxis) HansvonEssen(Södertäljemunicipality,BerasImplementation) All the cluster partners have contributed to this report by participating in the two cluster workshops.

BalticImpulseisaclusterofnineenvironmentalprojectsrunningundertheBalticSeaRegionProgramme2007-2013,operationalbetweenSeptember2012andSeptember2013.TheprojectsinvolvedintheclusterareBalticCompass,BalticDeal,BalticManure,BERASImplementation,COHIBA,PURE,PRESTO,SMOCSandWaterpraxis(seeasummarylist inpage30).Theprogrammeenvisagestheprojects–allconcernedwiththequalityoftheBalticSeawaters–formingaclustertosatisfytheneedformorevisibilityforindividualprojectresultsandtoensureclosercooperationastheproblemsandalsotheirsolutionsareintertwined.BalticImpulseaimstogathertheexistingprojectsresults,findsynergiesbetweenthemandhighlightthebridgingelementsandthemesbetweentheprojectfields.

4

ContentSummary and recommendations/next steps...................................................................................................................... 5

Sustainable resource management in the Baltic Sea Region ............................................................................................... 6

Sustainable biomass resource practices and management ................................................................................................ 7

Resourcemapping......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Biogasproductionandco-substrates.............................................................................................................................. 8

Nutrient management in the bio-based future BSR society ............................................................................................. 11

Farmpractices–measurestoreduceplantnutrientlosses......................................................................................... 11

Soundfertilizingpractices............................................................................................................................................. 14

IdentificationofPriskareas.......................................................................................................................................... 15

Managementofsludgeinvolvingre-use....................................................................................................................... 16

Improved assessment and monitoring of contaminants .................................................................................................. 17

Controlofcontaminatedmarinesediments................................................................................................................. 17

Wastewaters................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Good governance frameworks for water planning and management ............................................................................... 20

Towardssustainablewastewatermanagement........................................................................................................... 20

GovernancefortheWaterFrameworkDirectiveplanningprocess.............................................................................. 22

Experiencesofstakeholderparticipationinriverbasinmanagement......................................................................... 24

Watermanagementandfarmerparticipation.............................................................................................................. 26

Farmself-sufficiencyasanenvironmentalgovernancemodel(ERA)........................................................................... 27

Aparticipatoryapproachwithregardtocontaminatedsediments............................................................................. 28

Cluster partnership ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

Project presentations and links ........................................................................................................................................ 30

5

Summary and recommendations/next stepsRecommendationsonhowtoimprovetheenvironmentalconditionsfortheBalticSeabyactingonland: Take steps to the biobased society by improving the use of waste biomasses for integrated bioenergy production and improved nutrient management, e.g. by retrieving and recirculating nutrients from manure and waste water in biogas plants.

Resource management on catchment level and the focus on the possibilities in producing multiple products creates optimal use of resources and reduce risks for runoff.

Improved mapping of crucial parameters for improved farm - and public management. It is important to give the decision makers (farmers and planners) knowledge on where, how and when to act in the long term. Examples of useful maps are N and P risk areas.

Good farming practices can contribute to improved water quality and quantity. These include improved handling of fodder, fertilizer and especially handling of manure. Farming practices can relate to structural aspects, (especially distribution of animals and correlation to fodder production and logistics of recycling manure), technical aspects such as stable systems, storage and spreading equipment and improved practices such as manure spreading at the time of crops needs, correct dosages, etc.

Involvement of the farmers is of crucial importance. It is important that farmers have the proper knowledge on possible effects of their practices. Having this knowledge they can contribute towards finding good solutions for the benefit of the farmer and for the benefit of the aquatic environment. It is also important that the farmers be rewarded for good environmental practices through the price of their products or in other ways that recognizes the ecosystem services provided by farms.

Support for the farm advisory system. The farm advisory systems employ persons who are knowledgeable on local contexts and who are trusted by farmers. They have the potential to be involved in discussions over and processes for innovative local solutions in sustainable water management on agricultural land.

Improved management of waste water. Dissemination and use of improved methods for elimination of hazardous substances in the effluent and for monitoring chemicals.

Adequate risk assessment procedures using multiple lines of evidence in a systematic analysis of risks, should be made widely known.

Improvements to governance frameworks are needed. The focus should be on harmonization of national practises and HELCOM requirements. Moreover, the emphasis should be on improving multilevel and horizontal coordination mechanisms, communication and active involvement for bottom-up initiatives.

Detailed recommendations are found in the sections below.

6

Sustainable resource management in the Baltic Sea RegionThe Baltic Sea is a common basis for prosperity in theregion,but its ecological condition is deteriorating.On theonehand,theBalticSeahasbeenexposedtoextensiveuseof chemicals since thebeginningof the industrialisation inthe region in the late 19th century, and its environmenthas a long history of contamination. On the other hand,eutrophication suffocates the life in the seabedsofwhichare the largest dead areas in Europe. Having realised this,theEUBalticSeaRegionProgramme2007-2013hasfinancedseveralenvironmentalprojectswhichtrytodefineandfindsolutions tomitigatetheenvironmental impactofdifferentanthropogenic processes on theBaltic Sea and to improvecommonmanagementactions.

Theprojectshave,toalargeextent,succeededinconnectingtheoverridingconceptofsustainabledevelopmentwiththecurrentofresourceefficiency,restorationandmaintenanceof ecosystem services and innovative approaches tomanagementofwater.Thefinalisationoftheprojectsgettingcloser, the EUBaltic SeaRegion Programmehas facilitatedcluster projects to discuss and disseminate results fromtheseprojects.OnesuchclusterisBalticImpulse,gathering15partnersfrom9projects,andfocussingoneutrophicationfromnutrientleachingandpollutionofhazardoussubstances.Thissynthesisisoneofthedeliverablesfromthiscluster.

Thesectionsbelowsummarisessomeoftheresultsderivedfromtheclusterpartners’participationintheprojectsfundedby the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013, in areasof nutrient eutrophication and hazardous substances. Thepartners entered the cluster as institutions, not as project

representatives,andduringtheworkshopsheld,theclusterdecidedtopresenttheresults,asfaraspossibleascoherent,cross-project summaries. Consequently, at the back pageof this report the readerwill find the projects fromwhichthedifferentpartsofthereportarederivedandsubstantialbackground information for the small glimpse presentedhere. This also implies that authors are notmentioned forspecific sections, but as a list of contributors in the initialpages,aswellasparticipantstoprojects inthebackofthereport.

Thebio-basedsocietieskeeptrackof thebiomass.Manureandstrawarenolongerconsideredwastebutresources,andtheways touse these resources forupkeepof soil quality,substitution of scarce resources and renewable energy areconstantlybeingproposed.

Hazardous substances that have already ended up in theenvironment also need to be controlled and managedto reduce their effects on food-webs and human health,as described in the section on improved assessment andmonitoringofcontaminants.

Governanceframeworksneedtosupportimprovedplanningandmanagementbymakingsurethatrelevantstakeholdersare includedand theirknowledgeused,while coordinationmechanismsmust ensure that implementation of differentpolicies will not result in contradictory processes. Theseissues are reported in the section on Good governanceframeworksforwaterplanningandmanagement.

7

Sustainable biomass resource practices and management

Any sustainable future landscape/watershed/ecosystemshouldbeable toproducemultipleproductsbasedon theavailabletypesofbiomass,i.e.food,fodder,fertilizer,fibresandfuels. Inthefuturesociety,thiswillbereflected inthedifferent handling chains of the biomass before and afterfeedingtheanimalfeedingandhumanfoodconsumption.

The integration of nutrient management and bioenergyproductionforimproveduseofthefarmer’scarbonreserve(alltypesofbiomasses)isanimportantaspectofsustainableresource management and should be appreciated andtreated as ‘gold’ in a future bio-based society in the BSR.Thisincludestraditionalfarmingproducts(food),agriculturalwaste, and in the end different societal waste of variousquality that should ideally be used to recover the energy,nutrients and possibly other substances used to close thecirclesforsustainableagriculture.

Resource mapping Mapping (local/regional distribution) of the landscaperesources and landscape vulnerability is essential;consequently,theseresourcescanbefoundpartiallyandwithvarying detailmapped in some BSR-countries. Incinerationor thermal gasification mainly extracts the energy of theresources and at the same time reduces the potential fornutrient recovery from resources. Biogas extracts energyand leaves some carbon and all nutrients for the soil andwhencombinedwithgoodmanagementwiththedigestateisenvironmentallythebestsolutioninmostcases.

Someofthemajorcategoriesthatshouldbeusedforbothenergyandnutrientrecoveryinclude:

• Manureshouldbeusedforbiogas(notallofthetheoreticalpotentialisusable,astheresourceisdispersedonmanyfarms).Infact,today,biogasistheonlysolutionhere.Wastefromlocalfoodprocessingcanbeimportanttomakefarmbiogaseconomicallyviable.

• Food waste from industries and source-separated organic household wastes from municipalities shouldbemadeavailableforbiogasproductionandnutrientrecycling.

• Agricultural biomass(e.g.energycrops,catchcrops,straw,anysilage)forbiogasand/orthermalgasificationor2ndgenerationbioethanol/methanol(sustainableproductiontobedeveloped).

• Biomass from harvesting grass or scrubsforthepurposeofnatureconservationforbiogasand/orthermalgasification.

• Sewage sludgeenergyandnutrientrecoverythroughanaerobicdigestionforbiogasisapotentialsource.However,sewagesludgequalityvariesconsiderablyandtheutilizationofthisresourceisratherchallenging.TheregulationisbasedontheSewageSludgeDirective.InsomeBSRcountries,qualitycriteriatousethesewagesludgeasfertilizerisbeingdeveloped.Itmaybelessproblematictouseittofertilizeperennialenergycropsratherthanfoodcrops.

This peaceful landscape can produce biomass like food and fodder, but also other ecosystem services like increase in biodiversity and recreational opportunities. Photo: Eija Hagelberg

8

Barriers to overcomeThe classification of various types of biomass into eitherresourceorwaste(e.g.manure)shouldbealteredtoprovidealegaldefinitionforallbiomassasaresource.Theconceptof ‘end-of-waste products’ will soon show some of theoptions to change the status of composted or digestatedmanure/waste intomarketable products and thus improvethepotentialformorewidespreaduseofthenutrient(andremainingcarbon)resourceforthesoil.

However, we should continue to improve the quality ofwastefractionsandtoreducewasteproductioningeneral.Biomass with hygienic risks or other contamination (e.g.sewage sludge) shouldbe remediatedand/orprocessed inawaywhichensurescontrolovertherisksandthusenablesutilizationofallbiomassasrenewableenergyfuelsinsteadoftreatingitunderthewasteincinerationdirective.

Recommendations

• Manureshouldbeusedforbiogas,includingseparatedmanuresolidswhereappropriateand thedigestateshouldbemanagedinaproperway.

• Wastefromfoodindustriesandproperlysource-separatedorganichouseholdwastesfrom municipalitiesshouldbemadeavailableforbiogasproductionandnutrientrecycling.

• Qualitycriteriashouldbeenforcedtousethesewagesludgeasfertilizer.

• Thestatusofcompostedordigestedmanure/wastesshouldbeconvertedintomarketableproducts.

Biogas production and co-substratesManure has traditionally been used for crop fertilization,butorganicallyboundnutrientsinrawmanurearereleasedslowly (in 1-2 years) with relatively poor plant uptake ofthe nutrients found in the manure. The result has beenconsiderable nutrient losses, especially from solid manureand deep litter. Anaerobic digestion of the manure hasproventobeanappropriatesolutionforseveralreasons.Theanaerobicdigestionconvertsmuchoftheorganicallyboundnitrogenintomorereadilyavailablenitrogenforplants,andat the sametimeproducesmethane - a renewableenergysource.Inaddition,biogastechnologycanrecyclenutrientsfromagriculturalandsocietalwastesaswellasdecreasetheneedsformineralfertilizers.

Sewagesludgeshouldalsobe treated inbiogasplants,butstrictqualitystandardsareneededifmixedwithagriculturalwastes/manureandusedasafertilizeronthefields.

Biogas is in technological and environmental terms verysuitable technologyas it increases theenergyandnutrientrecovery of the agricultural system. However, under thepresentsupportschemesinmostBSRcountries,slurry-basedbiogasneedsco-substratestoincreasethedrymattercontentoftheinputbeforeitcanbecomeeconomicallyattractive.

Biogas co-substrates Anaerobicdigestionproducingbiogas isbasedonavarietyof substances. At the European level, a substantial part

Baltic Compass visited a biogas plant in connection with a big scale piggery in Brest, Belarus. Photo: Sirkka Tattari

9

(almosthalf)islandfillgas,anotherpartisbiogasproducedat wastewater treatment plants digesting sewage sludge,andthethird-andfastgrowing-partisagriculturallybasedbiogas.

Theagriculturallybasedbiogasismostlyamixtureofslurryandavarietyofco-substrates,withahugevariationbetweencountriesandregions.Quantitatively,intermsofbiogasbeingproduced,maize-basedfarm-scalebiogasplantsresemblingthoseinGermanyarethemostimportant,whereasmanure-basedbiogasisclearlytheenvironmentallymostoptimalwaytoproducebiogasoutofagriculturalresidues.

Thefollowingwillgiveabriefoverviewofthedifferenttypesandavailabilityofsustainableco-substratesforslurrybasedbiogas.

Manure types/fractionsMostanimalhusbandryintheBSRregionisbasedonslurrysystems,andjustthereductionofwaterdilutionbydifferentmeasures in stable systems can reduce thewaterdilutionsandthusincreasethedrymattercontent.Still,slurryrarelyexceeds8-10% indrymatterandmoredrymatter shouldbeadded.

Firstly, separated manure fibreshaveasubstantialpotentialin animal-dense regions, where stationary and/or mobileslurry separators can createa valuableand sustainable co-substrate forbiogasplants. The solid fractioncarriesmuchof the important P-content, and thiswill also increase theP-valueofthedigestate.

In addition to manure fibres, various solid manure types, suchasdeeplitter,aresuitableforbiogas.However,forsomebiogasplanttypes,deeplitterneedspre-treatment(cutting,extrusion) to physically mix it with the slurry for biogasreactorsthatarecontinuouslystirred.Thismaycausesomechallenges,buttechnicalsolutionsareavailable.

Manure fibres and solid manure types are very suitableand sustainable co-substrates for slurry and improve thequalityandrecirculationofthemanure’snutrientcontentasfertilizerforcrops.

Other agricultural residuesAgricultural residues, such as straw, catch crops, etc., arepotentially interesting, but require pre-treatment that stillhas to be improved and refined for optimal balance andeconomyandenvironmentalbenefits.Agricultural residuesdo not imply what Life Cycle Assessment analysts’ havetermedinducelandusechanges(ILUC1).ILUCassumesthatenergycropstakeuplandfromfoodproductioninfluencinglanduseandtherebypricesoffoodontheworldmarket.

1 ILUCdescribese.g. theneed for replacementfieldselsewhere toproducethefoodthatcouldhavebeenproducedonahectareusedforenergycrops.

Therefore, agricultural residues should be explored beforeturningtosomeeasieravailableenergycropspredominantinsomeBSRregions.

Energy crops Maizeisthemostprominentenergycropforbiogas,asitiseasy to grow, ensile and handle during the transport to the biogasplant.However,manyenvironmentalconcernsarelinkedtothis–besidestheIndirectLandUseChanges(ILUC)–suchashighdemandforpesticides,nutrientleaching,landscapeissues(largerlandscapeswithtallplants),soilcarbon,GreenHouseGasbalance,etc.Sugarbeetisgainingterrain,limitingtheconcernsforthelandscapeissuebutotherwisefacingthesamechallengesasmaize.Perennialenergycrops,suchasgrassley/clovermaybepartofasolution,withpositiveeffectsonsoilcarbon.

Nature conservation meadows grassNature conservation requires harvesting of biomass formeadownature types, and this harvested grass is suitableasco-substrateforbiogas.Natureconservationaspectsaddto the sustainability of this particular biomass for biogas.Meadowgrassaddsdrymatter(withproperpre-treatment)anddoesnotcompetewithfoodproduction,andmoreoveritretainsnutrientsotherwiselostfromtheagriculturalsystemandmakestheseavailableforfarmingasaformofdigestate.

Industrial wastes Industrial wastes (e.g. those produced by food industryincludingmeatindustry,starchproduction,dairies,bakeriesandbreweries,etc.)are importantco-substrates,andmostare already in use for the purpose or for animal feeding.Their safety with respect to pathogens must be carefullyconsidered.The resource isdifficult toquantify statisticallyandisratherheterogeneous.ItneedstobenoticedthatallwastewithanimaloriginhastoapplytotheEU’sanimalby-productsregulation.

Sewage sludgeSewage sludge is also converted in many countries tobiogas–andmostlykeptseparatefrombiogasplantsbasedon agriculture. This is partly due to potential hazardoussubstances in thesewagesludge–an issue that shouldbedealtwith.

Municipal solid wastes (organic fraction)In some countries, a good system to separate the organicfractions inmunicipalsolidwastehasbeendeveloped,andthustheorganicfractionisaverygoodco-substratesourcefor biogas plants. However, the sorting must be efficientandtheinput‘clean’ofmetals,glass,etc.,andalsoherethepathogenandhazardoussubstancesrisksmustbedealtwith.TherecyclingofPfromthewastebacktothefarmingsystemis a strategic goal for the sustainability of the agriculturalsystemintheBSR.

10

Newsolutionsarebeingdevelopedtoboilandenzymaticallyseparate the organic fractions of unsortedmunicipal solidwaste, the resulting pulp being a very good substrate forbiogas. Further studies on this technology are required,especially regarding heavy metals and organic micro-pollutants

Based on Birkmose, T., Hjorth-Gregersen, K & Stefanek, K. 2013: Biomasse til biogasanlæg i Danmark - på kort og langt sigt. Agrotech, Skejby).

Other optionsManystakeholdersenthusiasticallypromotealgae,roadsideverges, gardenwastes, etc., forbiogas, and these fractionshave somepotential.A recentDanish inventory shows theproportionsofthemethanepotentialofvariousco-substrates(see thefigure) in 2012 and the extrapolatedpotential for2020inDenmark.

11

Nutrient management in the bio-based future BSR society

The farming system is a key to a sustainable future in theBSRregion.Forthesustainabilityofthefarmingsystem,thefarmpracticesandtheconsumersrequirementshavestrongimpactontheBalticSeastatusandcondition.Basically,thefutureagricultureoftheBalticSeaRegionhastwooptionalparadigmstofollow:

• the‘conventionalparadigm’,withcontinuedfocusonintensifyingtheagriculturethathashighanimaldensity,respondingtotheglobalmarketneeds,whileatthesametimetighteningthenutrientcyclesandreducinglosses

• the‘systemic/organicparadigm’,whereagricultureisamultifunctionalfarmingsystemlikeEcologicalRecyclingAgricultureandlessanimalintense,focusingonlocalself-sufficiencyandhighquality/lowproductionwithlowenvironmentalimpact

The following recommendations on farming practises arebased mainly on the ‘conventional’ paradigm, where thefocus isonminimizing thenegative impactsand improvingnutrientrecyclinginintensivefarmingsystems.AnexamplebasedonthesystemicparadigmisdescribedinasectiononEcologicallyRecyclingAgriculture(ERA)below.

Farm practices – measures to reduce plant nutrient lossesIntheBalticSeaRegion,anumberofimportantagriculturalmeasuresthatcanbeusedtoreducenitrogenandphosphorusleakagehavebeenidentified.Theimplementationandstatusof each one of these measures in all Baltic Sea countrieshavebeendescribedwithinformationone.g.officialgoals,legislation and economic subsidy rules for each of 25 themeasuresfoundinBalticCompass.InAddition,BalticManureareworkingonrecommendationsformanurehandling.

BERAS Implementation has produced guidelines forconversiontoEcologicalRecyclingAgriculture,includingrealfarmexamples from9countriesaround theBalticSeaandfromdifferentfarmtypes.

Measures regarding fertilizer management and animalfeeding are in focus in the Baltic Impulse cluster as theystronglyrelatetomanuremanagement.

Animal feedingUnderthisheading,differentmeasurescouldbe identified.However,normallytheyarenotregardedasenvironmentalmeasures,andforthatreasontheyarenotevaluated.

Adopting phase feeding for livestock means grouping oflivestockonthebasisoftheirfeedrequirementsallowingamorepreciseformulationofindividualrations.Thisincreasesthe animal’s nutrient use efficiency and results in reducedexcretionofnitrogenandphosphorus inanimal faecesandurine.

Ruminants can digest plan-based food as no-one else can. However, animal diet need to be adjusted as surplus intake of N and P just leads to high N and P content in manure. Photo: Anu Suono

12

FEEDING HOUSING PROCESSING STORAGE APPLICATION

Feeding strategies

Controlling water use

Energyrecovery(i.e.biogasproduction)

Sufficientstoragevolume

Knowing the nutrients

Phasefeeding RemovingfrequentlySeparationofliquid-fromsolids

Coveringthestorage

Makingafertilizerplan

Nutrient-balancedfeeding

CoolingthechannelsFurtherprocessing(fertilizerproduct)

Checkingforleaks

Timingandprecisionapplication

PandNoptimisationand Phytase use

Keeping urine and fecesapart

Lowemissiontechnologies(injection,acidification)

In ERA farming, the idea is to feed animals according torespective species specialization (for example roughageandgrazing for ruminants)andnot let themcompetewithhumansforfood.

Roughage production has positive side effects on humuscontent and soil structure, and higher humus content alsoentailsincreasedcapacitytoholdplantnutrientsinthesoil.

Farm animals are often fed diets with higher thanrecommended contents of nitrogen and phosphorus as asafeguard against loss of production arising from a deficitof these nutrients. The surplus intake of nitrogen and

Recommendations

• Adoptphasefeeding.

• Usesyntheticphytaseinpigfeed.

• Feedanimalsaccordingtotheirrequirements–balancetheirnutrientintakewithproduction.

• Increasetheproportionofroughageinthefeed

phosphorus is not utilised by the animal; it is excretedwith faeces and urine, leading to a higher nitrogenand phosphorus content in the manure. Therefore aproportional balancing of nutrients in feed is a key factorto ensure animal health and production requirementsand to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Supplementationofsyntheticphytasetopigfeedreducestheneed for addition ofmineral phosphate. Phytase increasesthe availability of phosphorus in the feed and allows totalphosphorus content to be reduced without affectingproductivity.

Manure management Manuremanagementonfarmsisonlyonepartoflivestockfarmmanagement,anditisstronglyrelatedtofarm-specificconditions: availability of land, feed and feeding practices,animals, housing technology, manure processing, storagetechnologyand,finally,usageofthemanureoncropswithin

or outside the farm. Therefore, there are no “one-sizesolutions”fittoeverysituation,therecommendedactivitiesinindividualfarmsbeingdifferent.Itissuggested,thatlargefarms should have a clear strategy and plan for manuremanagement.Inthefollowing,majormanurehandlingstepswillbedescribed,fromanimalfeedingtofieldapplication.

An example chain and list of partial solutions is illustrated in the figure

13

Adequate collection and covered storage facilities allowchoosingthetimetoapplymanuretofieldswhenthecropscanutilizenitrogenandphosphorus.Thisbasicrequirementmightbeneglectedinthesearchformoreadvancedmanure

Recommendations for manure handling techniques on farms

• Minimizewateradditiontomanureinstableandstoragebyreducedspillage,choiceof drinkingandfeedingtechnology,sourceseparationofdirtywater.

• Ensurecoveredstoragecapacityforslurry.

• Increasetheuseofslurryinjectortechniques.

• Usespreadingtechnologythathasahighprecisionindosageandspreadingevenness,based onactualnutrientcontentsofthemanureandsite-specificconditionsinfield.

Farmers,advisors,researchers,policymakersandindustrymustjointlytaketheresponsibilityandco- operateforamoreenvironmentallyfriendlyend-useofmanure,forexamplethroughthesemethods:

• freeorlow-cost,skilledadvisoryserviceformanuremanagement,

• compliancewiththelegislation,

• fuseofplanningtoolsforcropfertilization,

• fuseofreliable,verifiedtechnologyonthemarket.

Recommendations for manure processing technology

• Makeafarm-specificbusinessplanforinvestmentinprocessingequipment(realistic,accurate).

• Rememberthatexternalincomescouldbethedriverforgoodeconomyforinmanure processing.

• Lookatthewholehandlingchain;allcomponentsshouldbeunderstood(forinstance,howto spread,plantnutrientavailabilityfornewfertilizerproducts,etc.).

Recommendations for manure processing economy Thefollowingrequirementsforeconomicsustainabilitywithmanureseparationtechnologyin

Finlandhavebeenadopted:

• RestrictionsonPapplicationonfields

• PositivePbalanceonwholefarmlevel

• Longmanuretransportationdistances(=sparsefieldplotstructure)

• Mediumorhigh,Pseparationefficiencyisrecommendedatswinefarms

• Theremustbeenoughslurrytobetreated(tomaketheinvestmentprofitable>3000m3)

Largeswinefarms,eventhosewithfieldsinashortdistance,thatimportasubstantialshareofthe feedusedinlivestockproductionaremostlikelytoinvestinseparationtechnology.

treatment methods. Sufficient storage capacity enablesthe farmer to spreadmanureatoptimaltimes to fulfil thenutrientrequirementsofthecrops.

14

Sound fertilizing practicesAdapting the amounts of chemical and organic fertilizers applied. Animal density is ameasure relating the numberand type of animals kept on the farm to the arable areaavailableforspreadingtheirmanure.Animaldensityisusedasatooltobalancetheamountsofnitrogenandphosphoruswhicharespreadonthefarm.ThistoolisneededinordertoavoidexcessapplicationofNandPwithmanure.

Considering crop requirements of N and P in the fertilization plan is essential in order to avoid excessive applications.The N and P content of manure must be considered inthe fertilizer plan in order to adjust theneed for chemicalfertilizers and avoid excessive applications. Sampling andanalyzing nitrogen and phosphorus in manure providesinformation on their concentrations and the distributionof plant-available nitrogen (NH4-N + NH3-N) and organicnitrogen. The effect of themanure can then be evaluatedin the fertilizationplan, asmanure characteristics can varywidelydependingone.g.typeofproductionanditsintensity.Thismeasureisregulated,ononewayoranother,bylaw,inallBalticSeacountries.

Calculating nutrient balances on farm and/or field level.Calculating nitrogen and phosphorus inputs/outputs andbalancesonafarmand/orfieldlevelisaperformance-andpolicy tool for assessing the environmental impact. Thetoolcanalsobeusedtomonitorandevaluatethe impactsof alternativemanure and chemical fertilizermanagementpracticesandtechnologiesonnitrogenandphosphorususeonthefarm.Whenfarmnitrogenandphosphorusbalancescan be linked towithin-farm sources and flows, there is agoodpossibilityofidentifyingtheweakestlinkandpossibleimprovements for the farm. The tool can also be used toassesstheriskofammonialossesfrommanuremanagementandtheriskofnitrogenleachinglossestowater.FiveofthenineBalticSea-countrieshaveregulatedthismeasureintheirnationallegislation.

Avoiding the spreading of chemical fertilizers and manure during high-risk period. The timing of chemical fertilizerand manure application is a key factor in achieving highefficiency in plant nutrient use. Poor timing is one of themostimportantsourcesoflargenitrogenleachingloads.ThismeasureislegallyregulatedinallBalticSeacountries.

Avoiding the application of chemical fertilizers and manure to high-risk areas. High risk areas on arable land includethe areaswith significant slope,with flushes draining to anearbywatercourse,soilswithcracksoverfielddrains,fieldsadjacenttowaterorfieldswithphosphorusvaluesbeyondtheagronomicoptimumrange.ThismeasureisregulatedbylawinallBalticSeacountries.

FieldsdifferduetotheirinherentproductivityandduetopastinputsofPfertilizer.No application of phosphorus fertilizer or its reduced application on fields or parts of fields with

high soil phosphorus content. When the soil phosphorus valuesincreasebeyondtheagronomicoptimumrange,thereis a reasonably consistent pattern whereby phosphorusleaching increases significantly. However, phosphorusleachinghaslargespatialandtemporalvariationsandcanbeinfluencedbyseveralfactorsinteractingwitheachother.Itisthereforeimportanttoconsidersite-specificfactorsinordertoidentifymeasurestoreducephosphorusleaching.FiveofthenineBalticSeacountrieshaveregulatedthismeasureintheirnationallegislation(seesectionbelowonriskyareasforPapplication).AnalyzingsoiltestPvalues(STP)isatoolforfarmerplanningoffertilisationneeds.

Improved spreading technology for manure and chemical fertilizers. Therearedifferentways todealwith this issue.Site-specificdosage,oftenwiththeuseofGPSanddifferentsteeringaidsystemsfortheapplicationofmanureorchemicalfertilizer is one way. Equipment for uniform distributionof liquid manure helps to avoid manure overloading insomeplacesandinotherplacesmanuremaynotbemadeavailable at all. Combi-drilling involves placing seed andfertilizer in the soil, using a single machine in one workoperation. In addition to saving time and providing betternutrient use efficiency, combi-drilling reduces competitionforplantnutrientsbyweedsandreducestheriskofnutrientsurface runoff. Incorporation of manure and chemicalfertilizershelpstopreventtheexposureofmanuretosurfacerunoffanddrain-flowlosses.Italsoincreasestheutilizationof manure nutrients compared with surface application. Forthehandlingofsolidmanure,disintegrationequipmenthas been developed to break up the manure better andto give greater working width and facilitatemore uniformlateralspreading.

Although most of the measures related to fertilizermanagement arewell known and regulated inmost BalticSea countries, they are not fully implemented and whenimplemented,itisdoneinmanydifferentways.Thismeansthat there is still muchmore nutrient reduction potential,both inquantityandinquality,whichcanbeputtousebybetterimplementation.

Application of fertilizers near watercourses should be avoided. Photo: Martin Sundberg

15

Recommendations

• Animaldensityshouldbalancetheamountsofnitrogenandphosphorusprovidedfortheavailable spreadingareaonthefarm(InERAfarms,theanimaldensitybalancesthefarm’sowncapaci-tyforfodder production).

• Farm-specificfertilizerplansareneeded.

• Nitrogenandphosphorusinputs/outputsandbalancesonafarmand/orfieldlevelshouldbeseenasa performancetool.

• Avoidspreadingchemicalfertilizersandmanureduringhigh-riskperiods.

• Avoidapplyingchemicalfertilizersandmanuretohigh-riskareas.

• Nophosphorusfertilizeroronlyareducedamountofitshouldbeappliedonfieldsorpartsoffieldswith highsoilphosphorus.

• Useimprovedspreadingtechnologyformanureandchemicalfertilizers.

• ImprovePrecommendationsbyintercalibratingSTPmethods.

Identification of P risk areasTheriskoflosingPfromtheagriculturalsystembyleachingto the Baltic Sea, which increases eutrophication, stressestheneedtoidentifyandmapthePvulnerableareas.

Pvulnerableareasareareasfromwhichsubstantialquantitiesofphosphoruscanleach.Phosphorusriskisoftenpresentinareas vulnerable to the riskof erosion. Theseerosion riskareasaremappedmostlywiththeUSLE(UniversalSoilLossEquation)basedmethods.Inthesemaps,theriskareasaremainly locatedon steeply slopedfields.When topographicmapping is used as the indexcalculation methodology, flat areasareclassifiedasriskareasbecausethismethod putweight on gentle slopeswith fairly large catchment areasabovethem.AthirdmappingoptionisbasedonphysicalGIS-basedmodels,which can simultaneously modelhydrologyandnutrienttransport.

Drainagesystems,suchassubsurfaceandopendrainage,effectivelylinkthecultivated fields to water, allowingrapid movements of water andnutrients into the surface waters.Subsurface drainage has manybenefits in cultivation and is morecommonlyused thanopendrainage.Unfortunately, the ability of themodels to describe the distributionof runoff into these two flow paths isinadequateduetothelackofinputdata.

USLEdescribeshighriskareasmostlybysurfaceprocesses,generallyignoringthetransportofPandsolidsthroughsoilmatrixandviamacro-pores.Therefore,amethodologythat

accounts for both surface runoff and subsurface drainage,includingmacro-poreflow,isrecommendedasitallowsriskareasbemappedmorediverselyandreliably.

TheP-indexisoftenconsideredtobeacost-effectivetooltoreducePleaching.Thisempiricalmodelemphasizesdifferentriskparameterstoformacombinedriskfactornumber,whichcanbeusedasaguidingfactorwhenselectingpracticesandpoliciesthatreducePleachingbothatafieldandcatchmentlevel.ThemajorchallengesincludelackofdatasuchassoilPstatus.

Majorriskareasinagriculture:

•steepslopefields

•fieldsthatfloodrepeatedly

•fieldswithhighsoilP

• peat soils

•erodiblesoilsandpoorvegetationcover

•historyofhighfertilizationlevels

•highanimaldensity.

The possibilities of the Baltic Sea regioncountries to identify nutrient vulnerableareavarywidely,mainlyduetodifferencesin basic background data required forinventories. Risk assessments are usually

madeatthemunicipalityorcatchmentlevel.Thedifferencesinsoilclassificationsystemsandaccuracyofthedataneededformappingpreventuniformassessmentsandcomparisonsbetweenthecountries.

Sediment and nutrient leaching from a high risk field. Photo: Pasi Valkama

16

Barriers to overcomeWithmoreaccuratemap-basedmaterial,itispossibleinthefuturetoidentifythefieldparcelsthatposethehighestloadingrisk.Amoreaccurateelevationmodel,goodinformationonthesoilPstatus,onthemanurespreadingareas,andonthevegetativecoveroutsidethegrowingseasonwouldimprovethe reliabilityof riskassessment.Therefore, it is important

to increase resources that would improve the availabilityandqualityofthematerialsand,atthesametime,producemapswithcurrentlyavailablema-terial toserveasabasisforawide-rangingdebate. Riskmapscouldbepresentedtovariousstakeholdersand,inaddition,theaccuracyofthemapscouldbeexaminedbymeanssuchasquestionnaires.

Recommendations

• Usemappingofnutrientleachingrisktotargetthefarmmanagementefforts.

• Improvetheaccuracyandscaleofeutrophicationriskmaps.

• Supportthedevelopmentofqualitymapsasdecisionsupporttoolsforfarmersandpolicymakers.

Management of sludge involving re-useOrganic materials in our society contain plenty of energy,phosphorus, nitrogen and other valuable nutri-ents and substances. These materials tend to concentrate spatially:intheformofmanurearoundinten-siveanimalproductionareasand,inhumansocieties,aroundmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplants,biogasplantsanddumps.Thesenutrient-rich spots create environmental risks. In the past, severalstepshavebeentakentodealwiththeproblem,especiallywithregardtosewagesludge:

Phase 1: Lead it away. Traditionally, municipal sewagesystemsjusttransportedthewastetoariverortosea.Thisphase has created severe environmental problems aroundtheBalticSeafromthe20thcenturyuntiltoday.

Phase 2: Clean it. Waste water treatment plants havebeen built since the 70s, and this taskwill be final-ised inmunicipalities around the BSR in the coming years. Theadvantage of this phase is that the envi-ronment will beprotected,aswastewateriscleanedtoadegreethatitcanbeled,withouttheriskofeutrophication,toariverortoasea.However,valuablenutrientsinthewastewaterareoftenremovedfromitwithmethodsnotallowingtheutilisationofthesenutrients.Forexample,phosphorusisoftenfixedandseparatedfromthewastewaterbymeansofsaltsofironandaluminium.Thesechemicalsbindtophosphorussostronglythat itwon’tbeusable for livingorganisms.Therefore, theresultingsludgewillbe rich innutrients.Practicallyuselessas fertilizer, these nutrients, which are non-renewableresources,arethusremovedfromthefoodcycleandwastedbyscatteringthemaroundtheenvironment.

Phase 3: Circulate and productize it. This is the next step to be taken in the coming years: instead of ”cleaning anddisposing”withthemotivationtoprotecttheenvironment,nutrients and part of the organ-ic material should berecoveredandreturnedtothefoodsystem.Asasideeffect,theenvironmentwillbeprotected.

This step is technically possible, but requires a systemicchangeinthebusinesslogicofwastewaterplants.Inaddition,

itrequirestechnologydevelopmenttoensuresafety,efficacyandeconomyoftheproducts.Also,itrequiresaregulatorymainframetosupportthechangeanddevelopmentofpublicatti-tudesagainsttheuseofwaste-basedfertilizerproducts.

To get to this phase and to attract adoption of the newbusiness logic, new example business models should bebuild,keepinginmind:

• techno-economicfeasibilityofphosphorusfixingtechnologieswhichkeepthePsolubleforagriculturalplants,improvingcurrenttechnologiesinthisrespect,

• technologiesformakingPthatisfixedtoanon-solubleformatavailabletoplants(suchasthermal,chemicalandthermo-chemicaltreatments),

• technologiestocontrolandinactivatetheeventualharmfulorganicandinorganiccontaminantswhichmaylimittheagriculturaluseofthesematerials,

• evaluationofthenutritionalvalueandsafetyoftheendproducts,

• improvementofthemanageabilityofthesludge-basedproducts,especiallybyreducingtheoriginalvolumeandmassoftherawmaterial,thusallowingcosteffectivetransportationofnutrientstoprimaryproductionareas,

• establishingthenecessarynetworkofactorsforanewbusinessmodel,and

• establishingthenecessarysupportiveregulatoryframework.

The ”Phase 3” technologies should have vast and growingglobalmarketsand,thus,thepotentialofthisnewapproachreachesfarbeyondtheBSR-region.Thispotentialislikelytobringmorework,welfareandprosperitytotheregion.

17

Improved assessment and monitoring of contaminants

Sustainability criteria are increasingly included inmanagement strategies. Management for environmentalsustainability can be supported by risk assessmentprocedures,e.g.ofpersistentpollutants.

Thebestwaytoassesstheenvironmentalqualityofmarineenvironment with respect to hazardous substances is touse a suite of chemical and biological measurements inan integrated approach. That includes a simultaneousmeasurement of contaminant concentrations in biota andsediments, parameters of biological effects and a range ofphysicalandotherchemicalmeasurementsforinterpretationoflocalimpacts.

One key to understand the emergence of environmentalrisksisbyaskinghowbio-availablethecontaminantsareandhowstrongtheirimpactonmarineorganismsis.Therefore,techniques dealing with biological effects have becomeincreasingly important, and management strategies havebeenmodified due to the appearance of options tomakecontaminantsunavailablebytreatmentprocesses.

Control of contaminated marine sedimentsContamination of marine sediments poses a potentialthreat tomarine resources and human healthwith regardto persistent bioaccumulative chemicals contaminatingseafood. For sustainable management of contaminatedsediments, the nature and magnitude of the sedimentpollution needs to be determined to categorize sedimentquality.Thebasicprocessofenvironmentalriskassessmentsconsistsof theanalysisofcontaminantconcentrationsanda comparisonwithSQC (SedimentQualityCriteria)derivedfromtoxicitydata.Assessmentofsedimenttoxicitybyusingbioassays has become the state of the art to complementchemicalanalysisforqualityclassification.Forsomespecificcontaminated sites, assessment of the potential effect offood chain poisoning (evaluation of bio-accumulation andbio-magnification)hastobeexplicitlyaddressed.

Essentialriskassessmentinformationincludesthesedimentconcentrationsof33prioritysubstances(accordingtoAnnexIIofDirective2008/105/EU)andtheecotoxicologicaleffectsmeasuredwith a setofbioassays. The risk-baseddecision-making to manage contaminated sediments relies uponEU legislation providing a framework for risk assessmentand on an increasing understanding of the importance ofbioavailability of pollutants. Bioavailability of contaminantsis the key issue regarding toxic effects and consequentlysediment quality, and is increasingly seen as the primaryissueinriskmanagement.

Whenconsideringacost-effectiveprocedure, the followingrecommendations will provide an assessment strategy ofsedimentqualityinmarineportsandwaterways.

ScopeIn order to formulate risk management decisions, anapproach that gathers multiple lines of evidence into asystematic analysis of risk is required. Thus we need amethodology to best integrate the data generated using avarietyofassessmenttools, includingtoxicitytests,benthiccommunity evaluations, bioaccumulation studies andsediment chemistry for accurate assessment of sedimentquality and the risks associated with various sedimentmanagementoptions.Ingeneral,theminimumprerequisiteforabasicriskassessmentisacombinationofchemicalandbiologicalanalyses.Normally,mostofthecontaminantsaremore or less strongly bound to sediment particles. Thosecontaminants are partly available for organisms. Bioassaysare used to indicate the relevance and bioavailability ofcontamination measuring toxicity. Biological investigationsprovide information about integrated short-termand long-termeffectsofsedimentmaterialthatcannotbeacquiredbychemicalanalysesalone.

Atestbatterybasedonstandardizedassaysisrecommendedto indicate the ecological hazard potential. Low cost andlittle work, as well as a standardizedmethodology (OECD,ISOorDIN-guidelines),areimportantconsiderationsforthecombination of the bioassays endorsed. An improved testset that has been established for themarine environmentincludes:

Methodsforecotoxicologicaltesting

• Marinealgaetestmodifiedforbrackish/marinewater(DINENISO10253)

• Luminescent-bacteriatestmodifiedforbrackish/marinewater(DINENISO11348-1-3) These tests are performed with sediment elutriates.

• Acuteamphipodtest(ISODIN16712) The test is performed directly in sediment

In addition a simple, rapid and low-cost test system withbacteriawasmodifiedforthetestingofsedimentsincontact,inaccordancewithaGermanstandardbio-test (DIN38412L48),usingaminiaturizedtestsystemwithV.proteolyticus.Thetestissuitableforassessingtoxiceffectsofbrackishandmarinesediments.

Important considerations No standardized and harmonized assessment method ofecotoxicological effects causedby contaminated sedimentsis currently available in Europe.Nevertheless, tomake thenecessaryassessmentsof integratedcontaminanteffectsinmarinesediments,aninterimtestsetisrecommendedbasedonthethreemethodsdescribedabove.

18

WastewatersMunicipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are animportant part of urban infrastructure system in regardto hazardous substances. They receive wastewater fromprivate households, as well as from small and medium-sized enterprises and from other indirect dischargers. Inaddition, WWTPs may receive urban run-off waters (incase of combined sewer systems) and landfill leachates.Therefore,WWTPsreceiveamyriadofchemicalsubstancesin influents. Treatment systems are challenged in termsof techniques and capacity. Besides many chemicals inthe influent, transformation products of substances, alsoproducedduringthetreatmentprocessbymicrobialactivity,may exhibit harmful properties. Some of the chemicalcompoundsortheirtransformationproductsarepersistent,bio-accumulatingandpotentiallytoxic(PBT).Themainfocusforwastewatertreatmenttechniqueshasbeentheremovalofnutrientsandorganicmatter.Themethodsmaynothavebeenoptimised to tacklehazardous compounds,especiallyat low concentrations. The existing process of wastewatertreatment is not sufficient for the treatment of persistentchemicals.Hazardoussubstancesareonlypartiallydegraded,andtheremainsaredispersedtoair,treatedwastewaterandsludge.

High-qualityanalyticalmethodsarevaluableformonitoringindividual chemicals. Since municipal wastewaters are amixtureofvarious substances,anapproachwhereeffluentqualityisevaluatedonlysubstancebysubstancecanbecomeextremely laborious and expensive. A whole effluent

assessmentapproachoffersapracticalandflexibletool forassessingtheeffluentqualitywiththeaidofeco-toxicologicalmethods. It enables the assessment of potential risks andeffects for both identified and unidentified substances. Bycombining chemical analyses with eco-toxicity tests, it ispossible to identify sources of hazardous substances andto plan preventive actions. This procedure should be aneffectivetooltoincreasethelevelofprotectionoftheBalticSeaandtoimproveitsecologicalstatus.

To eliminate hazardous substances from effluents oflarge municipal WWTPs, advanced technologies such asozonisation or activated carbon treatment are available.Thesemeasures shouldbeassessed for individualWWTPs,becauseefficiencyofaplantstronglydependsonthekindandtheloadofpollutants inwastewater.Advancedwastewatertreatmenttechnologiescanalsosimultaneouslyreducetheamountof severalhazardous substances. If oneparticularhazardous substance shows elevated levels in wastewaterduetoanindirectdischarger,measuresatthesourceofthedischargeshouldbeimplemented.Thisisusuallymorecost-effectiveandalsofollowsthe‘polluterpays’principle.

Localauthoritiesandwateradministrationsshouldintroduceprogrammestorestrictemissionsofhazardoussubstancestomunicipalwastewatersystems.Sinceurbanrun-offisahighlyrelevantsourceforsomesubstances,itisrecommendedthatanoverviewoftheurbanrun-offemissionsiselaboratedand,if necessary, sufficient control and treatment implementedonalocalorregionallevel.

Riga Daugavriga sewage treatment plant, the pilot investment site of PURE project. Photo: Lotta Ruokanen

19

Other sources and emissionsSources and pathways of hazardous substances can beassessed by substance flow analysis (SFA). The basic ideaofSFAs is tomake industrial, service-lifeandwaste-relatedas well as environmental flows of a substance visible andcomparable and to facilitate identification of the majorsources.Emissionsfromthesourceshavebeenestimatedforair, land and surfacewater for 11 substancesor substancegroupsoftheHELCOMBalticSeaActionPlan.

Chlorinatedparaffins,phenoliccompoundsandheavymetalshadthehighesttotalemissionsinthewholeBalticSeaarea.According to the results, different substances end up indifferentenvironmentalcompartments.Heavymetalsweremainlyemittedtoair,whilephenoliccompounds,especiallynonylphenolsandtheiretoxylates,wereemittedtosurfacewater. Chlorinated paraffins were mainly emitted to theterrestrialenvironment.

AlthoughtheemissiondatainSFAsmaybeassociatedwithhigh levels of uncertainty, SFA has proven to be a usefultool for finding the most important sources for emissionsof substances into the environment, a tool that can berecommended when considering counter-measures forhazardoussubstances.

Industrial sources remain relevant within the Baltic Searegion, but diffuse sources (including emissions during theservice lifeofconsumerarticles)arebecoming increasinglyimportant. Municipal WWTPs are important conveyors ofemissions, and it is therefore important to track upstreamsources. It is also important to find demolition techniqueswhich reduce emissions of hazardous substances frome.g. building materials. Combustion facilities for energy/heating(especiallyresidential)andtosomeextentwasteareimportantemissionsourcesforwhichmeasurestodecreaseemissionstoairshouldbeproposed.

20

Good governance frameworks for water planning and managementGood governance frameworks concern the establishmentof effective administrative structures and organisation,the selection of adequate and cost-efficient instrumentsand measures, and the timely and appropriate ways ofinvolvingthestakeholderstotheplanningandmanagementprocesses. Broadly speaking,watermanagement is carriedoutusingalltypesofinstruments:regulatory,market-basedand informative - i.e. by changing perceptions, values andattitudesthroughcommunicationandre-framingoftheissueof water management, while also promoting bottom-upinitiatives.WhenEUregulation is involved, italsoconcernsthe adaptation of multilevel and horizontal coordinationmechanisms necessary for implementing the regulationsin different policy and institutional cultures. Managementof common resources such as theBaltic Sea, also requiressupra-national coordinating platforms. A special challengeis tofindadequatemethods formonitoringand control ofhazardoussubstances.

Towards sustainable waste water managementSituation in the Baltic Sea RegionTheimportanceofsufficientwastewatertreatmenthasbeenrecognisedatthehighestlevelintheBalticSearegion.Oneof the three objectives, representing the key challenges intheEUStrategyfortheBalticSeaRegion(EUSBSR),issavingthe sea. Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) demands betternutrienttreatmentresultsthantheEUwastewaterdirectivesinceeutrophication, causedbyexcessivenutrient loading,isoneofthemostchallengingproblemsofthesea.Concernandstricttreatmentrequirementsarejustifiedbyalarminglypoor condition of the marine environment of the BalticSea. In general, attitudes towards municipal wastewatertreatmenthavechangedduringthepastyears.Thissectorisnolongerseenasmerelyunattractivewastedisposalsector.Ithasbeenunderstoodthatwastewatertreatmenthasanimportantroleinenvironmentalprotection.

Wastewater treatment industry has developed rapidly. Inthe northern and western parts of the Baltic Sea region,wastewater treatment plants have been upgraded andadvancedtechnologies,forexamplefornutrientremoval,arewidely applied. From the technical point of view,HELCOMrecommendations for nutrient removal (phosphorous andnitrogen)canbereachedanywhere.Duringtheresentyears,Poland has made significant investments in wastewatertreatment, and, for the most part, plants have beenmodernised.Up-gradingofplantshasbeenon-goingintheBaltic countries and in Russia as well. Major wastewatertreatment investments have been finalised for example inStPetersburg,andnowthefocusinRussiaisbeingswitchedonsuburbsandsmallervillagesaround thecity.Moreover,therenewalofsewersystemshasstarted.Currentlyalleyes

areonBelarus,whererenovationsofmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplantsarestartingandonKaliningradwhereplantswillfinallystarttheiroperationinthenearfuture.

In addition to the technical reforms, plants currentlyundergo administrative changes like privatisation.Traditionally, wastewater treatment plants have beenowned by municipalities but now, in many municipalitiesand treatment facilities, public-private partnerships areestablished. Experiences about privatisation are mixed,and the changing roles of municipalities from wastewatertreatment operators to service purchaser require support,knowledgeandnewskills. Incaseswhere thestatecentraladministration stipulates water tariffs, up-grading ofplants can be complicated. Investments, maintenance anddevelopmentofoperationprocessesneedmoney,and, if itisnotpossibletocoverthesecostsbyconsumerfees,thereareveryfewoptionsformunicipalitiesandwaterutilitiesingettingfunding.ThisproblemisaburningissueforexampleinBelarusandRussia.

Next steps - challenges in governance frameworksDespitethefactthattheimportanceofsufficienttreatmenthasbeenrecognised,therearechallenges.Harmonizingtheregulatory framework should be one of the objectives inthisfield. In several countries, includingBelarus,municipalwastewater treatment plants are responsible for treatingindustrialwastewaters,while,atthesametime,forexamplein thenorthernpartsof the region, industry is responsiblefor the quality of their wastewaters. More importantly,countriesseethevalidityoftheHELCOMrecommendations

Jurmala wastewater treatment plant in Latvia. Photo: Hannamaria Yliruusi

21

the east. Resulting from this, the dialogue concerning thelessonslearnedintheBalticSearegion,whereconditionsforwastewatertreatmentarequitespecific,shouldgohandinhandwithtechnicaldevelopment.Inadditiontoinvestmentfunding,treatmentplantsinthenearfutureneedsystematiccapacitybuildingopportunities,includingtraining,sitevisitsand exchange of experiences. Training and informationexchangewillsupportprofessionaldevelopment,but itwillalsomotivatetreatmentoperatorsoftheregiontoapplytheHELCOMrecommendations.

Privatization process and public-private-partnershipswill highlight the important role of experience exchange.For example in Belarus, establishment of public-private-partnershipsinthewastewatertreatmentsectorwillbelegallypossible in the near future. It is important that Belarusianmunicipalities and operators will have an opportunity tolearn from the experience of other stakeholders of theregion.EducationandtrainingregardingpublicprocurementisnecessarytoguaranteehighqualitytreatmentresultsandapplicationoftheHELCOMlimits.

Theinterestofthewastewatertreatmentsectoriscurrentlyfocusing on sufficient sludge management and on energyefficiencyissues.Sludgeisstillseeninmanyregionsaswasteand not as a valuable resource. Decreasing phosphorousreserves and pressure to increase renewable energyproduction is forcing us to reassess the value of sludge.Moreover,wastewater treatmentplantsneedto tunetheirprocessestobemoreenergyefficientandtheyneedtostartutilizingthepotentialenergyofwastewaterwhenstrivingtoreduceoperationalcosts.GeneralrecommendationsforbestpracticesforsludgehandlingandenergyefficiencymeasuresfromtheHELCOMwouldhelptheseplantstoimprovetheiroperation.

differently. It is encouraging that some countries, likeEstonia,areadoptingthestricterHELCOMrequirementsbylaw.However, theHELCOM recommendations are inmanycountries interpreted literally as recommendations, and toreachtheHELCOMlimitsvoluntaryactionsarenecessary.Itisobviousthatwhenthestakeholdersaredoingmorethanthelawstipulates,theseactionsneedincentivesandsupport.Tobeable to further improvepurification results,wastewatertreatment plants need motivation, inspiring examples andfunds.

Because of the current economic situation, it might bedifficultforwastewatertreatmentplantsandmunicipalitiesto find funding for investments and increased operationalcosts.Thesituationcanbeevenmoredifficultifitisagainstnational policy to raise water tariffs. However, experienceindicatesthatproblemsarenotalwaysresolvedwithmoney.Atthegrassrootlevel,itseemsthattheoriginoffundsmighthinder trans-boundary investments in cases where the EUproject funds are used, for example in Belarus. DifficultiesarisebecausetheEUandBelarusinterpretquitedifferentlythe financial agreements they have signed. Resulting fromdifferent interpretations, it can be very difficult for anindividual investing in a wastewater treatment plant toclarify, for example,what kind of tendering rules to apply.Strictimplementationschedules,stipulatedusuallybytheEUproject funding rules,might cause challengesaswell sinceinvestmentprocessesarecomplicatedanddelaysarequiteusualduetotime-consumingtenderingproceduresandlongdeliverytimes.

Ontheotherhand,theEUprojectfundinghasverypositiveaspectsaswell,asitenablesjointactionsandtrans-boundaryexperienceexchangebetweenwatertreatmentprofessionals.Advancedwater treatment technologies are spreading stillfromthenorthernandwesternpartsoftheregiontowards

Recommendations

• FundingandincentivesareneededtosupportplantstoreachtheHELCOMrecommendations.

• Technicalobstaclesthathindertrans-boundaryinvestmentsbetweentheEUandnon-membercountries shouldbeovercome.

• Lifelonglearninginthewastewatertreatmentsectorshouldbesupportedandtrainingandexperience supportprofessionalcapacityandmotivationtocomplywiththeHELCOMrecommendations.

• BSRactorsshouldagreeongeneralrecommendationsforbestpracticesforsludgehandlingandenergy efficiencymeasuresinordertohelpplantstoimprovetheiroperation-forexamplethroughHELCOM.

22

Governance for the Water Framework Directive planning processIntroductionGovernance frameworks dealing with management of theaquaticqualityinfreshwaterandcoastalwaterbodieshavechanged considerably during the last decade, due to theimplementation of theWater Framework Directive (WFD).Movingfromacommandandcontrol framework, theWFDcombines emission limits and aquatic quality standards,enforcedthroughaproceduralapproachwithawell-definedtimeline of activities and deadlines, requiring definitionof baseline, quality elements and targets, developmentof programs of measures, involvement of citizens andstakeholders, and mandatory monitoring and reporting totheCommission.TheimplementationprocessandelementsoftheWFDaredefinedatthegeneral levelbythecontentof the directive, and guidelines have been developed fordifferentelementsintheimplementationprocess.However,organisational structures or instruments are not required,leaving scope for variety in the planning andmanagementframework, to reflect cultural contexts and planningtraditions.Byfocussingontheriverbasinasamanagementunit,themanagementframeworkisecosystemoriented,andspatial planning aspects and localization ofmeasures havemoved into the water planners’ toolbox. Spatial planningis, however, a policy area under national jurisdiction, andhence, policy integration across levels of decision-makingand administration become an important issue. Policyintegration across policy areas is also crucial, as there areobvious interactions between different environmental EUpoliciessuchastheWFDandtheHabitatsDirective,aswellasbetween important sectorpolicies suchas theCommonAgriculturalPolicyandtheRenewableEnergydirective.

Adaptation of governance frameworks for the implementation of the WFDGovernance frameworks for implementing the WFDrequirements in the planning phase have been madeoperational across the Baltic Sea region countries. Thisinvolved decisions on the structure and organisation ofdecision-makingandadministrativestructures,aswellasonthemeasurestobeused.Oneoptioncouldbethecreationofanewinstitutionalstructurematchingtheriverbasinunits,anothertoadapttheexistingwatermanagementinstitutionstotherequirementsoftheWFD.AndtheRiverBasinDistrictAuthoritycouldbeacentraloramoredecentralisedsolution.

OnlySwedenhasoptedforaspatialfitbetweenriverbasinauthorityandtheterritorialunitmanagedasresponsetotheWFD implementation,while the other Baltic Sea countrieshave adapted their existing management frameworks totakecareoftheriverbasinmanagementplanning.Thishasimplied either a high degree of top-down government forproducingtheplanningdocumentsoraneedforcoordinatingbodiesandmechanismstoinvolvethoseadministrativeunitsthatoverlaptheplanningunitbutarenotadecision-makingauthorityfortheRiverBasinManagementPlans(RBMPs).

Vertical integration and coordinationHence, in countries with more centralized structures,coordinationacrosslevelsofgovernancehasbeenachievedthrough a high degree of top-down direction. Nationalguidelines for river basin planning ensure that watermanagementisappliedconsistentlyacrossalllevelsofwatermanagement. This one-size-fits-all approach potentiallyoffers economies of scale and reduces coordination costs.Government officials argue that a uniform approach towatermanagement isnecessary inordertohaveequitableconditions across regions. Moreover, they point out thatnationalsteeringisimportantforeffectivedecisionmaking,bothbecausethenational levelhasaccesstoresources (incompetitionwithotherpolicyareas)andbecausecentralizeddecision making involves fewer decision points, each ofwhichmightslowdowntheriverbasinplanningprocess.Inseveralcountries,thepressuretomeettheWFDproceduraldeadlinespushedtheprocessinthedirectionofcentralizationmorethanwasoriginallyintended.

Although centralizeddecision-makingmayoffereconomiesofscale,italsomissespotentialefficiencygainsatthelocallevel.HarmonisedRBDplanscannotadapttolocalconditionsaswellastheydowhenplanningtakesplaceatalowerscale.E.g. some local governments (Denmark) have argued thattheycouldachievemorepositivecoordinationacrosspolicyareasandmorecost-effectivesolutionsiftheRBMPsallowedmore flexibility and influence at the local level, and somelocal and regional planners (Finland) have found nationalguidelinestoobindingandtoosuperficialatthesametime,andthedivisionofresponsibilitiestoounclearforintegrateddecisionmakingtowork.

Elsewhere(Sweden)nationalcoordinationwasratherweakand required a greater effort to coordinate river basinauthoritiestoensuresimilarconditionsacrossthedistricts.Thiswas later amended in a new administrative structure,taking over planning responsibilities under the WFD. Oneplannersuggestedthatstrongernationalcoordinationmightactuallyhaveencouragedtheinvolvementofawidergroupof actors in the decision-making processes andmight alsohavegeneratedstrongerinterestandsupportatthepoliticallevel.

Multilevel structures posed other types of challenges.Integrating decisions across multiple levels of governmentwasmeanttoconsistofiterativeprocesses,butitcouldnotbe sufficiently accommodated within the deadlines of theWFD.Consequently,regionalinfluenceonnationalplanningguidelines was inadequate, according to a survey amongplanners (Finland), and a rather extensive dispersion ofcompetencies acrossmultiple levels ofwatermanagementand political-administrative structures inhibitedcomprehensivewaterplanning(Poland).

WhileexperiencesaroundtheBalticSeahavenotestablishedthe superiority of either of the structural approaches,they point out the advantages and shortcomings of both

23

centralisedandmultilevelstructures,especiallyintheinitialstagewheretheWFDistransposedintonationalpolicyintheformofRBMPsandProgramofMeasures(PoMs).Ingeneral,acleardivisionofcompetencieshasemergedasaprerequisiteforeffectivecoordination.Theexperiencesofthesecountriesindicate that thecentralgovernmentsplayacrucial role insetting up a framework for integratedmanagement acrossfunctionallylinkedpolicyareas.Butitwouldbeprematuretoconcludethatlowerlevelcoordinationmattersless.Rather,thepotential gains from locally integrateddecisionmakinghavenotyetmaterialised.

Horizontal integration and coordinationIn order to overcome sectoral divisions of policy areas,most Baltic Sea countries have charged the ministries ofenvironment with coordinating river basin planning acrossministries. Cross-sectoral implementation is complicatedby the fact that competencies are distributed acrossgovernmentallevelsinheterogeneouspatterns.Agriculturalpolicy may be decided upon primarily at the nationallevel, while spatial planning and nature conservation maybe dispersed across national, regional and local scales.Moreover, the hydrological boundaries of river basins donot follow the boundaries of local political-administrativestructuresinvolvedintheimplementationoftheRBMPsandrelatedsectorialpolicies.

Thus, conflicts may arise when spatially-based policymeasures under the PoMs interact with other claims tolanduse,and it isnotalwaysevidenthowdifferent spatialinterests are reconciled. A typical instrument for land use

coordinationwouldbeterritorialdevelopmentplans.Theseserve to ensure that different interests can be weighedagainsteachother.Somecountries(e.g.Denmark,andtoacertain extent Poland) have given RBMPs priority over theregionalorlocaldevelopmentplans.InSweden,FinlandandLatvia,referencetowaterplanningismadeindevelopmentplanningorviceversa,butnoclearhierarchyisestablishedamongtheobjectives.

Astructural responsetothechallengeofpolicy integrationand vertical interplay has been to establish coordinationforums at the level of the river basin district withrepresentativesof differentpolicy sectors, local authoritiessuch as municipalities, non-governmental organisations,private parties and others who may have a say in watermanagement.Theauthorityoftheseentitiesvaries.

Financial aspectsFinancingtheeffortsneededseemstobeacommonbarrieracrossthecountries,anditisachallengetoalignambitionsandresources,soeffortsarenotwastedontheproductionofplanswithoutopportunitiesforrealisationinpractice.ItiscommontoperceivetheEUfundingasthemainsourceforfinancingWFDmeasures.EspeciallytheRuralDevelopmentProgramme is central in limiting limit the diffuse pollutionfrom agriculture, and this programme is also increasinglytargeting the WFD. Importantly, however, the agri-environmentalschemesinthisprogramaremainlyvoluntary,highlightingtheimportanceoffacilitationofagooddialoguewithfarmersandotherstakeholdersatlocallevels-andtheresourcesforthis.

Programme of Measures can i.e include the hydrological conditions in streams such as here, where Fladså river in Denmark is re-meandered. Photo: Naestved Municipality, DK

24

Recommendations

• Governmentsshouldsecureacleardivisionanddelegationofresponsibilitiesandcompetencesinthe administrativeset-upforwaterplanningandmanagementasaprerequisiteforeffectivecoordination.

• Governmentsshouldseekarelevantbalancebetweencentralisedknowledgebuild-upandguide-lines androom-for-manoeuvreatregionalandlocallevels,creatingscopeforbothlocalknowledgeand decision-makingatonehand,andforseekingintegrationwithotherpolicyareasontheother.

• Theneedfortargetsandactionplansatsub-basinlevelsshouldberecognized.

• LocalactionplanscanbeagoodwaytofollowuponRiverBasinManagementplans,butshouldbe followedbyfinancialcommitmentscorrespondingtomeasuresadopted.

• Potentialfundingsources,e.g.environmentalsubsidies,shouldhaveincreasedvisibilityastheyare importantforbottom-upinitiatives.

• Cost-effectivenessofagri-environmentalmeasuresshouldbecalculatedfortheProgramsofMeasures, asmeasuresmayrequireconsiderableincentivestoenticeparticipation.

Experiences of stakeholder participation in river basin managementIntroductionPublic participation can generally be defined as allowingpeople to influence the outcome of plans and workingprocesses, and stakeholder involvement is increasinglyrecognized as an essential part of environmental planning.Inclusion of non-governmental actors is expected to leadto better decisions and more effective implementation ofpolicies. Different types of involvement can be conceived,from information and consultation to active involvement,according to different policy situations and differentambitions.TheWaterFrameworkDirective(WFD)guidelineonparticipationstates that thefirst twoare tobeensuredandthelattershouldbeencouraged,therebyindicatingthatoutcomes are better realised under active involvement ofthoseconcerned.RegionalRiverBasinDistrictauthoritiesinmemberstatesare,therefore,notonlyresponsibleforwatermanagementplanningbutalsoorganizingtheinvolvementofstakeholdersinproduction,reviewandupdatingoftheplans.

TheWFDsetscertainstandards forpublic involvement, forexample on publishing and making documents availablefor comments to the public. The involvement of publicbodies andNGOs ismandatory in theplanningphase, andrecommendedatanystageinthisprocess,butinwhichform(consultationoractiveinvolvement)isultimatelyamatterforthememberstates.Howstakeholdersarerepresentedintheimplementationphaseisuptotheindividualcountries.Publicparticipationpracticeshavebeenstudied insevenmemberstates around the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Finland, GermanyPoland, Latvia, LithuaniaandSweden) in theproductionofthefirstriverbasinmanagementplans(RBMPs) inselectedriver basins. The study focused on who were involved,howandwhenparticipationwas arranged andhow itwas

perceived.Goodpracticesfordown-scalingtheplanstolocallevelwerecollectedfrompilotareasinfourcountries.

Participatory experiences from member statesThere is a large scope for stakeholder involvement in theproduction of the RBMPs because of the broad scope ofthe policy, addressing all water-related activities in theriver basin. Member states have set up various types ofcoordinating bodies to facilitate the involvement. Someofthesesupportcoordinationamongauthoritiesfromdifferentadministrativeunits and sectors and someparticipationofstakeholdersandthepublicinriverbasinorsub-basinlevel.Theextenttowhichexternalstakeholdershavebeeninvitedintotheplanningandlaterimplementationprocesses,apartfrom the minimum requirements, varies from country tocountry.

Generally, stakeholders asked in the countries studied feltthat theywere given a chance to participate in theRBMPprocessesandthattherewasgoodresponsivenesstotheirviewpoints. However, involvement opportunities weremainly through informationand consultation,while accesstoactive involvementwas limitedandrestrictedtocertainparties.InFinland,forexample,regionalcooperationgroupswere closely engaged in preparing the plans and selectingthe measures. In Sweden, some interested stakeholderswereexcludedfromregionalwatercouncilsinordertokeepthesizeofthegroupmanageable.

Member states have applied several methods forcommunicating with the general public and stakeholders.In Poland, for example, surveys, thematic brochures,guidebooks, leaflets, handouts, articles in the press, filmspots, Internet branchmeetings, seminars, debates, paneldiscussions,pressconferencesandactivitiesintheNationalWater Forum were used. In Denmark, many stakeholdersand citizens used the opportunity to send in ideas to the

25

authorities during an additional “ideas stage”, while theinvolvement was in the later process almost abolished.The success of these communication efforts varied amongmemberstates.InPoland,theinvolvementwasbroad,asavarietyofmethodswereusedandmanypeopleshowedupinevents.InFinland,onthecontrary,reachingordinarycitizenswith information about river basin management planningandparticipationopportunitieswerefoundchallenging,andparticipationrateswererather low.Forsomestakeholders,usingtoomuchexpertknowledgeandorganizingevents indaytime,wereobstaclestoinvolvement.

Theexperienceshavealso shown thatpracticalapplicationofRBMPsandPoMsinvolvesverychallengingtasks.InmanyBalticSeamemberstatesitisnotcompletelyclearwhoare

Identify relevant stakeholders• Allsectorsarepartofwatermanagement:the

dialoguebetweentheauthoritiesresponsibleforsectoralpolicies,aswellasbetweennationalandlocallevelshouldbestrengthened.

• Trustedorganizations,suchasfarmers’unions,interestgroups,natureassociationsetc.,mayactasmediatorsofinformationtothegrassrootslevel.

• Ifordinarycitizens’inputiswanted,theyshouldbemotivatedandencouragedtoparticipate.

How and when to organize participation?• Usemultiplecommunicationchannels(field

excursions,thematicworkshops,eventsinlocallevel...)

• Considerthesizeofcommitteesandgroups.Groupscanbecometoolargeandalsotoosmallformeaningfuldiscussions.

• Clarifytherolesofstakeholdersandparticipants,i.e.advisoryorconsultation,toavoidfrustrationoverunfulfilledexpectations.

• Schedulethemeetingsatthosehoursthatarefeasibleforalldesiredparticipants.

• Makematerialforhearingsandconsultationsavailableintime.Uselanguageandterminologythatisunderstandabletothedesiredaudience(expertsorordinarycitizens)

in charge of implementation of the measures planned intheofficial river basinplanningprocess andhow the costsshould be divided between the public and the privatesectors. The environmental authorities have an importantrole in promoting the plans and encouraging the actorsto implement the measures required for achieving theenvironmental targets set by theWFD. Several new policymeasureshavebeendevelopedtoenforcetheprocess.Pilotstudiesfromdifferentmemberstatesshowthatthecountriesin the eastern and western part of the Baltic Region facedifferent problems in meeting the objectives of theWFD.Also traditions for public participation vary a lot betweenthe countries. However, some common recommendationscanbegiventoimproveparticipationprocessesandtoavoidsomemistakes.

From regional to grassroots level• Communicationandraisingawarenesscan

contributetotheincreasedsenseofresponsibilityforthestateofwaters,andthustotheacceptanceandlegitimacyoftheplansandmeasures.

• Itisimportanttoincreasethewillingnessoflocalstakeholderstotakeactiontoenhancethestatusofwatersintheirneighbourhood.

• Attentionshouldbepaidonprovisionofcorrectinformationonecologicalstatusandthepressureswithoutaccusingorpointingthefingeratanyindividualstakeholdergrouporsector.

• Highlightingtheimportanceofwatersasanaturalvalue,forrecreationandwell-beingofpeopleaswellaspromotingmeasuresthatservemultipleobjectives.

• Communicationshouldbeofpositivenatureandfocusonfutureeffortsandopportunitiesratherthanoncurrentproblems.

• Focusonnearbywaterbodiesthatareinterestingforlocalpopulationandsetupconcretegoals.

26

Farmers can take care of the water management i.e. by building wetlands. Here is the Rantamo-Seitteli wetland in Finland. Photo: Sirkka Tattari

Water management and farmer participationIntroductionForanumberofyearsfarmershavehadthedoubleroleofbeingproducersoffoodaswellasfibreandmanagersofthelandandtherebyoftheecosystemservicesthatagriculturallandcanandshouldmaintain.Thesuccessofthisdoubleroleisincreasinglyvalued.

Duetothe largeshareofagricultural land intheBalticSeacatchment, it iscrucialforwatermanagementthatfarmersacknowledgeandacceptthisroleandthatsocietyprovidesthe framework inwhich they can succeed. The foundationfor farmers to undertake this responsibility is improvedbythe increasing knowledge and technological innovation,including improved spatial detail of soil informationfacilitating adequate timing and proportioning of fertiliser,improved knowledge of catchment processes and run-offenabling more advanced management of farm operationsand crop rotation to prevent erosion and flooding. Thiscan be supplemented by smaller constructed wetlands atappropriatesitesinthecatchment.

Real involvement of farmers to take on the role ofenvironmental manager requires a different mind-set inthe conception of regulatory instruments where room forfindinglocalsolutionslocallyisoftenlimited.Byinvolvingthe

farmersinthesolutionsrightfromthebeginning,thewaterauthoritieswillcreateen-hancedunderstandingandsupportforthewatermanagementgoals.Andthefarmersmightfindnewbusinessopportunitiesintheirroleaswatermanagers.

Reaping the benefits of farm advisory systems for the farmers and for the water A farm advisory system is usually accessed by farmers foroptimizing their production. Most advisors are known inthefarmsectoraspeoplewhobuildtheiradviceonagoodknowledge platform. Some advisors have good skills asintermediariesandfacilitators,andmanyhaveanagronomicbackground which has given them a solid biologicalunderstanding.

Facilitating organizations/persons are important for findingsustainable solutions for thewater environ-ment, for foodproduction,etc.Inareaswherefarmingisthemostimportantfactortohandleinordertosecuregoodwatermanagement,thefarmerwillbethemostimportantstakeholder.

Asmany farmers have a lack of trust inwater authorities,knowledgeable people from the farm advisory sector canactasfacilitators.Inaddition,validationandcommunicationof alternative solutions can be an important task for farmadvisorsinimprovingtheuptakeofsustainableinnovationsforthemanagementoffarmbusiness.

27

Recommendations

Nosingletoolexistsonhowtosecurefarmerparticipation.Toinvolvestakeholdersandincludefarmers,the specificcontextandecosystemservicesmustalwaysbetakenintoconsideration,andthefollowing recommendationsshouldbeconsidered:

• Focusatthelocalproblemsandcontext.

• Involvethefarmerswhohavesomethingatstake,andbesuretomakerealprogress,e.g.byusingafacilitator.

• Makeuseofthefactthatallstakeholderscanbringindifferentknowledge.Whenthisknowledgeis takenintoaccount,thesolutionswillbecomemorevalid.

• Everybodyshouldbeflexible–meaningthattheyneedtobereadytochangeroutineswithout changingthebasicfoundationforbeingafarmer,anauthority,etc.

• Commitmentfrombackgroundorganizationsiscrucial.

• Fundingfortestingnewenvironmentalsolutionsisimportantforfarmerstorealisedifferentfuture managementoptions.

Barriers/gaps/problems to solve• Lackoftrustbetweenwaterauthorityandfarmers.

• Lackofknowledgeaboutagriculturalimpactsonwaterqualityinthewatercycle.

• Lackofknowledge,amongstdecisionmakers,oftheopportunitiesinvolvingthefarmerasawatermanager.

• Lackofwaterboardsorsimilarinstitutionswhere,incooperationbetweenwaterauthorities,local stakeholdersandknowledgeagents,localsolutionscanbefound.

• Toolittleuseofintermediaries/facilitatorsforidentifyingsolutionsadaptedtothelocalcontext.

• Toolittleacknowledgementoffarmadvisors’potentialforfacilitatingsustainablesolutions.

Farm self-sufficiency as an environmental governance model (ERA)The Ecological Recycling Agriculture (ERA) farming systembuilds on the combination of farm self-sufficiency, croprotationandorganicfarming.TheeconomicsustainabilityofERAfarmingbuildsoncooperationinthewholefoodchainandthusrequiresanewkindofparticipatoryapproach.

ERA farming has several environmental benefits: itsignificantlylowerstheleachingofnitrogenandphosphoroustotheBalticSea;italsorebuildsthesoil,enhancingfertility,increasingwaterholdingcapacityandpreservingbiodiversityof the soil. Building up soil organic matter with the helpof nitrogen fixating plants (such as clover), crop rotationand balanced animal stock also has the positive effect ofremoving large amount of carbon from the atmosphere.Another benefit is a reduction in energy-consumingproduction and in transport of fodder and fertilizers.

Aswithorganicfarming,nopesticidesorartificialfertilizersareemployedinecologicalrecyclingagriculture.InadditionthefollowingprinciplesarerequiredbyERA:

• crop rotation, includingleyswithlegumesetc

• balanced animal stock, 0.5–1.0animallivestockunitsperhectare.1livestockunitisapproximatelyequivalenttotheenergyrequirementsofacowweighing550kgandproviding6000kgmilk/year

• self sufficiency in resources, morethan80%self-sufficiencywithfodderandmanure

ERA creates opportunities for rural development. HighqualityproductsofERAfarmsareinseveralcasesthebasisforlocalorregionalclusters,i.e.SustainableFoodSocieties.However, stretching the scope from agricultural producerstoconsumersrequiresnewskills.ConversionofafarmtoanERAfarmmeansgoingintodepthwiththewholestructureandbusinessideaofthefarm,includingtheartofengagingthelocalnetwork.ThebottleneckfordevelopingERAisthattherequiredskillsarebothinfarmingtechniquesandmarketmanagement.Theeducationalsystemtoprovideknowledgefor this purpose is poorly developed. The few farmerswhohave the competence for ERAneed to comeacross asupportivenetworktobuildnotonlythefarmbutalsotheinfrastructure, including food processing, distribution andmarketing.TheERAfarmshouldnotdeliveritsproductstoananonymousprice-dampening foodmarket,but toamarketthat appreciates both the quality of the products and thepositiveeffectsonwaters,carbonbalanceandbiodiversity.

ThereforethestrategyintheBERASImplementationprojecthasbeentobuildupfullscalelearningcentersinallcountriesaroundtheBalticSea.ThesecentersbothdemonstratethepotentialoftheERAsystemandspreadthelearning.Therearenow18learningcentersinthe9countriesoftheBalticSeaBasin.

28

A participatory approach with regard to contaminated sediments A participatory approach to a sustainable managementof contaminated dredged materials (sediments) has beendeveloped. In all phases of the management procedure,interaction with several stakeholders is a key issue fora successful project and a requirement based on law,especiallywhenperformingsocalledEnvironmentalImpact Assessments (EIA). Insufficient information policy and riskcommunication may lead to project changes (e.g. projectrelocation, dropping of favored management options) resultingintimedelaysandadditionalcostsfortheprojectowner.

Thestakeholdersinsedimentaryissuescouldbe(norankingimplied):

• Portauthorities,environmentalauthorities

• Public,media,localorganizations, non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)

• Municipalitiesandregional/federalbodies

• Constructionindustry,contractorsandconsultants

Dredging companies, government officials and localauthoritiesoftenfailtoinformandinvolvethepublicduringtheearlystagesofdredginganddisposaloperations,oftengenerating unfounded concerns and even widespreadprotests among the local population. The approach andknowledgedevelopedentailthefollowingprocesses:

− Initiallyanassessmentof concernsusingquestionnairesorpublicmeetingscanbecarriedout.Suchanassessmentrepresents an important part of risk management andrisk communication because it collects and summarizesinformation on public concerns. The resultingcommunication can be more targeted, and publicreservationsondredgedmaterialhandlingcanbereduced.

However,thepublicriskperceptiondoesnotnecessarilymatch with the scientific outcome of risk assessment.Peopleareinfluencedbytheirpersonalbeliefsandvalues.It must be explained that potential adverse effects onhumanhealthorenvironmentalresourcesareminimizedasfaraspossible.

− The second step is to interview individual experts andstakeholdersindetail.Theobjectiveofthistypeofsurveyis to examine different opinions on future visions andalternative solutions for management of contaminatedsedimentsintheBalticSeaRegion.

The overall aim is to find a shared interpretation of thesustainabilityconceptintheBalticSearegionfortheproblemin question; i.e. to identify important environmental,economicandsocialcriteriaformanagementofcontaminatedsediments.

SMOCS project developed participatory approach for the management of contaminated sediments. Here is an information meeting for stakeholders in Gävle Port, Sweden. Photo: Bo Svedberg

29

Photo: Helena von Limburg Stirum

Cluster partnership Baltic Sea Action Group, Finland (BalticCompass)Paula BivesonMarjaKoljonen

SYKE - Finnish Environment Institute (BalticCompass,COHIBA,Waterpraxis,BalticManure,BerasImplementation)SeppoHellstenJukkaMehtonenPäiviMunneAnsa PilkeAnne-MariRytkönenSirkkaTattariTeemuUlvi

HELCOM(PURE,BalticCompass,COHIBA,[SMOCS])MikhailDurkinJohanna LaurilaKingaPolynzcuk

Aarhus University/ENVS (Waterpraxis)Pia Frederiksen

Agro Business Park, Denmark (BalticManure,BalticCompass)Knud Tybirk

Baltic Environmental Forum, Lithuania (BalticCompass,COHIBA)JusteBuzelyteZymantasMorkvenas

JTI – Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering(BalticCompass)OlaPalmLena Rodhe

Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark (BalticDeal)Irene Asta Wiborg

MTT - AgriFood Finland (BalticManure,BalticCompass,BerasImplementation)MarkkuJärvenpääJohanna LogrénSariLuostarinenEila TurtolaKari Ylivainio

Södertälje Municipality (BerasImplementation)Hans von Essen

Tallinn University of Technology (BalticCompass,COHIBA)Arvo Iital

Technical University of Hamburg(SMOCS)WolfgangAhlf

Technical University of Lodz (Waterpraxis) MiroslavImbierowiczIreneuszZbicińskiAlexandraZieminska-Stolarska

Union of the Baltic Cities, Finland (PURE, Presto)BjörnGrönholmPekkaSalminenHannamariaYliruusi

University of Rostock(BalticManure)Karola ElbergBettinaEichler

30

Project presentations and linksThereferencestoscientificresultswhichappearinthereportcanbefoundinthedeliverablesandwebsitesoftheprojectsinwhichclusterpartnershasworked.Individualprojects’websitesareavailableuntil2017.

Baltic Compass promotessustainableagricultureintheBalticSearegion.Thespecialemphasisisonreducingeutrophication.Theprojectworksinfiveareas:bestpractices,investmentfacilitation,waterassessmentandscenarios,andpolicyadaptation. www.balticcompass.org

Baltic Dealgathersfarmersandfarmers’advisoryorganisationsaroundtheBalticSeainauniqueefforttoraisethecompetenceconcerningagri-environmentalpracticesandmeasures. www.balticdeal.eu

Baltic Manure aimstochangethegeneralperceptionofmanureasawasteproducttothatofaresource.Withthehelpofthebestavailablemanurehandlingtechnologiesandadevelopedpolicyframework,theprojectwillidentifytheinherentbusinessopportunitiesofmanure. www.balticmanure.eu

Beras Implementation promotesagoodenvironmentalstatusoftheBalticSeaasagenuineecologicalalternativethatmitigatesadverseclimateeffectsfromagricultureandsecuresasustainableandprosperousdevelopmentintheregion. www.beras.eu

COHIBA –ControlofhazardoussubstancesintheBalticSearegion.TheCOHIBAprojectsupportstheimplementationoftheBSAPwithregardtohazardoussubstancesbydevelopingjointactionstoreachthatgoal.COHIBAhasidentifiedthesourcesandinputsofelevenhazardoussubstancesanddevelopedmeasurestoreducethem. www.cohiba-project.net

PUREisaprojectonurbanreductionofeutrophication.PUREpromotesbettertreatmentofurbanwastewatersintheBalticSearegionandcombatseutrophicationbyenhancingphosphorusremovalatselectedmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplantsintheregion. www.purebalticsea.eu

PRESTOisaprojectonreductionoftheeutrophicationoftheBalticSeatoday.PrestoimprovesthequalityoflocalwatersandtheBalticSeabyreducingnutrientloadthroughtransnationalinvestments,educationandbyraisingawareness. www.prestobalticsea.eu

SMOCS-Sustainablemanagementofcontaminatedsediments.TheSMOCSproject,incooperationwithports,authoritiesandindustry,willproduceaguidelineontreatmentofcontaminatedsediments. www.smocs.eu

Waterpraxis – Fromtheoryandplanstoeco-efficientandsustainablepracticestoimprovethestatusoftheBalticSea.WaterpraxisaimstoimprovethestatusoftheBalticSeabyassistingtheimplementationofriverbasinmanagementplansintopracticeintheregion. www.waterpraxis.net

Baltic Impulse – Saving the Baltic Sea Waters is a cluster of 15 partners who represent 9 environmental projects running under the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007 – 2013. All projects were concerned with the quality of the Baltic Sea waters. The cluster is

operational between September 2012 and September 2013.

Baltic Impulse partnership

Cluster coordinationPaula Biveson, Baltic Sea Action Group, Finland

Cluster Steering Group

SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute, FinlandAarhus University/ENVS, Denmark

The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission HELCOM

Cluster partners Agro Business Park, Denmark

Baltic Environmental Forum, Lithuania JTI – Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Sweden

Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark MTT - AgriFood, Finland

Södertälje Municipality, Sweden Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

More information about Baltic Impulse:

www.helcom.fi/projects