From: pellinen@vipunen.hut.fi (Matti Pellinen)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Coalition Clean Baltic Statement 92
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:16:02 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Originator: pellinen@vipunen.hut.fi




								1992-04-06



NGO statement
on the Protection of the Environment
of the Baltic Sea Region




We, the representatives of 23 non-governmental organisations from all 
the Baltic countries, having met at the Baltic -92 Conference held in 
Helsinki 5.-6. April, 1992, wish to convey the following message and 
demands to the Ministers for the Governments of the Baltic countries:


1.

The Baltic Sea Area is facing a number of very serious environmental 
and nature conservation problems. The disasterous conditions in the 
Baltic Sea Region is a reflection of serious policy failures in the 
1970s and 1980s, in the market economies as well as in the centrally 
planned economies of all countries affecting the Baltic in one way or 
the other. This holds true for specific environmental policies as 
well as various sectorial policies, so far implementated in isolation 
from each other.


2.

The marine ecosystem and environment cannot be looked upon or dealt 
with as an isolated issue. Instead, a holistic, integrated, cross-
sectorial approach is absolutely crucial if any plan for the 
protection and sustainable development of the environment and natural 
resources of the Baltic Sea Region is to be succesfull. Fundamental 
changes in attitudes and practices within the entire water and air 
catchment areas of the Baltic are necessary if there is to be a 
sustainable future for the Baltic Region as a whole.



3.

A wide range of measures and changes must be implemented in all 
sectors of society to control, minimize or completely prevent all 
kinds of direct and indirect water and air pollution and all kinds of 
destruction of the natural environment having a detrimental effect on 
the environment and living conditions of the Baltic Region. 
Ecological sustainability must be the guideline for all human 
activities in every sector of modern society that has, or is likely 
to have, an impact on the environment of the Baltic Sea Area and the 
Region as a whole. Action must always be taken in a truly 
precautionary, ecologically and economically sound way.



4.

Water and air pollution recognize no frontiers; nor should measures 
to combat such pollution. The countries surrounding the Baltic must, 
of course, carry the heaviest responsibility for the protection of 
the environment and natural resources of the Baltic Sea region. 
However, considering the impact of air pollution the holistic, 
integrated and cross-sectorial approach must also apply to activities 
in other countries within the wider air catchment area (e.g. Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The Baltic environment can 
not be protected merely by measures taken within the Baltic Sea 
drainage area. 


5.

The reconstruction of the economies and societies in the previously 
centrally planned economies provides a historical opportunity and 
challenge for radical changes leading to sustainable economies, the 
transfer of clean and environmentally well-adapted technologies and 
production methods in many sectors of society and the application of 
the best environmental practices. We welcome this and urge all 
countries around the Baltic to recognize this option in a truly 
constructive way and with the good of the entire Baltic region at 
heart. We also recognize the threats posed to the environment by the 
weak economic situation in the new democracies. This must not be 
exploited for short term economic as well as political gains at the 
expence of a long term sustainable development.


6.

In view of the new Helsinki Convention, to be signed at the 
Diplomatic Conference in Helsinki, on 8-9 April 1992, and the Baltic 
Sea Environmental Declaration, to be adopted at the same time 
endorsing the strategic approach and principles of the Joint 
Comprehensive Action Programme, we wish to remind the Goverments of 
all Baltic countries of the agreements already made for the 
protection of the Baltic environment. We urge the Baltic countries to 
live up to the commitments made at the Ministerial Conference in 1988 
to accomplish before 1995 substantial reductions in the order of 50 
per cent of the input of nutrients (nitrogen as well as phosphorous), 
heavy metals and persistent organic compounds to the Baltic Sea. At 
the same time we recognize that this can only be regarded as a first 
step towards the restoration of the ecological balance of the Baltic 
Sea. We also urge Governments to live up the commitments made and the 
goals set in the Baltic Sea Declaration adopted at the Ronneby 
Conference in 1990. 


7.

We welcome the new Helsinki Convention, including the expansion to 
include the important issues of nature conservation and biodiversity. 
We also welcome the Joint Comprehensive Action Programme elaborated 
by the HELCOM ad hoc High Level Task Force. We recognize them as 
essential and urgently needed steps in the right direction and as 
hopeful signs of the new and widened opportunities in the Baltic 
Region. However, we also recognize their shortcomings and wish to 
point out important issues and areas that must be included for the 
rapid, succesfull and long-term sustainable protection of the Baltic 
Sea Region as a whole.


8.
The Convention

% Despite efforts made within the framework of the Helsinki 
Convention of 1974 conditions in the Baltic Sea Area have continued 
to deteriorate;

% We regret that the new Helsinki Convention still does not 
explicitly recognize that the Baltic "air catchment area" provides 
the most appropriate coverage to deal with the environmental problems 
and issues of nature conservation and biodiversity in a comprehensive 
way.

% We welcome that such basic environmental principles as the 
precautionary principle, the polluter-pays-principle, the user-pays-
principle, and the use of clean technology and best environmental 
practice, are now to be included in the Convention.

% We strongly urge the Ministers to adopt the most stringent 
definition of the precautionary principle (alternative 2 of annex2 of 
the new Convention).
	-  Hence we strongly urge the Ministers to adopt the concept of 
clean technology as a means of preventing and eliminating pollution 
from land-based sources. Such an approach would particulary help to 
enhance the application of the precautionary principle in the 
reconstruction in the countries in the southern and eastern parts of 
the Baltic Basin. The holistic approach implicit in the concept of 
clean technology is, however, needeed also in the other countries 
around the Baltic Sea. Various economic incentives should be 
introduced to stimulate the shift to clean technology applications in 
all countries.
	- In order to stimulate the production of environmentally 
friendly products, producers should be made responsible for their 
products 'from cradle to the grave' (the life-cycle approach).

% The legal status of the decisions to be made within the framework 
of the new Convention is not clear (recommendations or decisions that 
are legally binding for the countries). We urge the Ministers to make 
sure that decisions made within the framework of the Convention are 
legally binding, and implemented through national legislation, 
thereby enhancing the development towards an improved Baltic Sea 
environment.

% Recognising the new Article 15, we urge all countries around the 
Baltic to commit themselves to the general objective of conserving 
the habitats and biodiversity of the Baltic region as a whole. The 
goal should be that at least 10 percent of each major biotope within 
the catchment area should be protected. An international network of 
protected coastal and marine areas in the Baltic Sea should be 
established with special attention given to wetlands, coastal 
lagoons, estuaries, archipelagos, and other habitats for endangered 
species. Special attention should also be given to conservation and 
protection of considerable parts of the unexploited coastal areas in 
the southern and eastern parts of the Baltic.

% All Baltic countries have in February 1991 signed the UN Convention 
on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the 
so-called Espoo Convention). It states, a.o., that an Environmental 
Impact Assessment should be made before deciding on pojects that 
might have transboundary environmental impact, and that the parties 
likely to be affected should be notified no later than when informing 
the public of the concerned country.
	- The ideas of Espoo Convention are reflected in the new 
Article 7 of the the Helsinki Convention, on Environmental Impact 
Assessment, and we therefore urge all Baltic countries to start 
honouring both the Espoo Convention and Article 7 of Helsinki 
Convention. This has not been the case when deciding about the 
resund Bridge (Danmark and Sweden), the Great Belt Bridge (Denmark) 
or the Neva Estuary Dam (Russia). Nor is it taken account into the 
proposals for the construction of the Fehmarn Belt Connection 
(Germany and Denmark), or the large-scale motorway projects Baltic 
Link, Scan Link and the Lbeck-Rostock-Sczcezin motorway, affecting 
several countries.
	- We urge the Ministers to decide that comprehensive and open 
EIAs should be a mandatory part of any decision-making process or 
investment plan concerning the Baltic.


9.
The Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme


% We recognise the fact that restoration of the Baltic environment 
will take time, propably decades, even after consequent 
implementation of preventive and remedial measures. This makes it 
even more urgent not to delay action any longer, but to take all 
possible measures immediately and to plan and implement long-term 
measures as soon as possible.

% We recognize that the Joint Comprehensive Action Programme, after 
number of revisions, could be an important tool for the restoration 
of the environment of the Baltic Region. The Programme must be 
finalized as a matter of highest priority.

% We believe that too much emphasis is now being put on the 132 'hot 
spots' defined in the Programme. Although of local importance, these 
point sources - coastal municipal treatment plants, industries etc. - 
do, for instance, cause less than 25 per cent of the total load of 
nutrients. More than 50 per cent of nitrogen and phosphorus originate 
from diffuse sources and enters the Baltic Sea - via rivers draining 
an area about four times size the sea. More than a third of the total 
load of nitrogen enters the Baltic Sea through atmospheric 
deposition. In the Programme, investments in measures to combat 
pollution from diffuse sources have, regrettably, been largely 
postponed.
	- We urge the Ministers to recognize, as part of the holistic 
approach called for, the importance of the many non-point (diffuse) 
sources of pollution around the Baltic and within the entire drainage 
and air catchment area. Stringent measures to combat air pollution 
mainly from the transportation and energy production sectors, as well 
as run-off from agriculture, forestry and leakage from waste deposits 
and other sources, are urgently needed.

% HELCOM recommendations regarding e.g. changing of agricultural 
practices including the use of catch crops and winter green land 
should be implemented immediately. These measures do not require any 
significant investments. 

% We also believe that the Programme puts too much emphasis on large-
scale, technically advanced and expensive projects. A number of 
small-scale and medium-scale projects, may together have a greater 
total positive effect and may often be more cost-effective than large 
projects. Such small- and medium-scale projects, concerning, e.g. 
diffuse sources of pollution, are often suitable for ecotechnology. 
There is a need for a whole mosaic of new eco-technical measures for 
the reconstruction and conservation of wetlands, alternative 
agricultural practises, low-tech sewage treatment facilities, etc. 
Such projects should be implemented in the entire drainage area to 
minimize input from diffuse sources.

% We particularly wish to draw the attention to the fact that the 
environmental effect of modern forestry is not explicitly elaborated 
upon in the programme. Extensive drainage of forest land as well as 
clear cuttings are major environmental and nature conservation 
problems in the Baltic Region and must be duly and promptly 
addressed. The contribution of air-borne nitrogen deposition on 
forest land, in relation to the total nitrogen run-off should be 
assessed.

% The Programme also fails to recognize the environmental impact of 
emissions from the transport sector. Catalytic converters should be 
mandatory on all private and commercial vehicles in the Baltic 
countries. However catalytic converters alone cannot solve this 
problem. There is an urgent need for environmental fees as a means to 
curb the continuous expansion of the road traffic. The active 
transfer of transports to less polluting systems should be encouraged 
by various economic and other incentives. In this context we also 
wish to emphasise the need for emission standards on boats and ships.

% We also wish to point out that constructive ways of reducing the 
emissions from energy production facilities are lacking in the 
Programme. Mandatory schemes to improve energy conservation should be 
developed in municipalities and industrial plants around the Baltic. 
The long-term goal for the region must be an energy supply based more 
widely on renewable energy sources.

% We regret that little reference is made in the Programme to the 
living resources of the Baltic Sea. In this context we urge the 
Ministers to recognize the threats to both the stocks of cod and wild 
Baltic salmon in the area, and demand that fishing of cod be 
prohibited until the population has recovered and that open-sea 
fishing of wild Baltic salmon be prohibited altogether.

% We also lack references in the Programme to the environmental 
impact of various recreational activites. From both pollution and 
nature conservation point of view the extensive use of private boats 
has become a major problem. Valuable parts of the coastal areas have 
already been destroyed by marinas and other recreational facilities 
in the northern and western parts of the Baltic. Vital wetland areas 
and other extremely important biotopes e.g. sandy shores and dune 
areas are now acutely threatened by the same development in the 
southern and eastern parts of the sea. This serious problem must be 
addressed and measures must be taken with high priority to prevent 
further destruction of the Baltic environment from recreational 
activities of all kinds.

% The role of NGOs and grassroot activities should be given higher 
priority in the Programme. More financial resources should be 
allocated to environmental education and increasing public awareness 
in the early stages of the implementation period as these are truly 
cost effective measures in the long term perspective. It is very 
important to integrate environmental education with human resources 
strengthening programmes. We urge the Ministers to find financial 
resources for cross-sectorial environment education programmes in 
formal and informal education at all levels, including 
interdisciplinary in-service training for decision makers.

% The possible future contribution from NGOs in the structures 
responsible for the implemention of actual projects should also be 
recognized. NGOs like the WWF and CCB are already involved in 
concrete field projects concerning wetlands, environmental monitoring 
and mapping, mapping of key ecosystems, and coastal planning and 
management. Especially the development of coastal management 
programmes and management schemes for coastal lagoons and wetlands, 
will be crucially important for the implementation of the programme. 
The role of local communities, scientists and authorities cannot be 
enough emphasized, because implementation will not be possible 
without active local participation. The experience of the pre-
feasability studies have shown that there can be fruitful co-
operation between NGOs, authorities and scientists.

% The public awareness can be increased only through free access to 
all relevant information, therefore we urge the Ministers to 
recognize and support the efforts to create an open and effective 
information exchange and dissemination system.

% The role of the proposed Implementing Task Force, and its mandate, 
is unclear from the documents presented so far by the Task Force. We 
call for clearer quidance as to how, and on what grounds priorities 
will be made and we strongly emphasize the need for ecological 
expertise in the future implementation of the Programme.

% We regret that the new Helsinki Convention is still very cautious 
about poiting out the environmental threats caused by military 
activities in the Baltic Sea Area. Military activities should comply 
with the same environmental regulations and considerations which 
apply to civil activities. Concrete measures should be taken for 
diminishing threats from the dumping sites of hazardous war material 
in the Baltic Sea. Military maneuvres and exercises should be reduced 
and totally stopped in ecologically sensitive areas.  

% We recognize the various sources of financing proposed for the 
implementation of the Programme. We share the concern expressed by 
the Task Force regarding the crucial point of raising at least 18 
billion ECU needed over a 20-year period. We therefore urge the 
Ministers to take this historical opportunity of reallocating major 
financial resources from the military sector to the large-scale 
protection of the environment of the Baltic Region. We suggest that 
all Baltic countries reduce their military spendings by at least 1% 
and transfer that money to a joint fund for the ecological security 
of the Baltic Region. This fund could finance the construction of 
sewage treatment plants, the conservation of wetlands, security-
enhancing measures taken in remaining nuclear plants, and joint 
reserch projects as well as educational prjojects. The Baltic Region 
could thus be a model to the rest of the world in realoocating 
military resources to urgent civil needs ( a necessity emphasized by, 
a.o., the IMF).

% As a way of financing necessary environmental investments we also 
urge the ministers to accept Poland's Debt-For-Environment-Swap 
proposal. By doing so countries like Denmark, Finland, Germany, 
Norway and Sweden could help Poland reduce its foreign debt by 10 per 
cent while at the same time implementing measures for the reduction 
of discharges to the Baltic Sea, protecting important wetland areas. 
etc. If such an arrangement  proves successful, it could provide a 
useful model also for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia.