Resolution on the ecological problem of the Baltic Sea
Date: 1997-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Baltic Sea, algae, marine pollution













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0757 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0757

Resolution on the ecological problem of the Baltic Sea  


Official Journal C 304 , 06/10/1997 P. 0147 





B4-0757, 0772, 0781 and 0799/97Resolution on the ecological problem of the Baltic SeaThe European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission Communication on the Baltic Sea Region Initiative, tabled at the Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) at the Visby summit, 3-4 May 1996 (SEC(96)0608-C4-0362/96), and its resolution of 12 June 1997 thereon ((nutes of that Sitting, Part II, Item 11.)),- having regard to the Commission report on the current state of and the prospects for cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, and its resolution of 20 September 1996 thereon ((OJ C 320, 28.10.1996, p. 248.)),- having regard to the objectives of the UNCED, especially in marine matters, and in particular chapter 17 of Agenda 21,- having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, parts IX and XII,A. whereas the Baltic Sea is a highly eutrophic sea, affected by a very large area with approximately 80 million inhabitants, although also other areas further away have their effect on the state of the Baltic Sea; whereas during hot summers the extensive growth of toxin producing blue-green algae covers up to 60,000 km2, about one sixth of the Baltic Sea area,B. whereas the severe toxins produced by the algae can be indicated by the deaths of dogs drinking from the water, as well as deaths of grazing animals along the shoreline; whereas this summer the Baltic reached its environmental tolerance threshold,C. whereas the Baltic waters are renewed at a very slow pace and are therefore quite sensitive to pollution,D. whereas emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus have raised the nutrient content of sea water as well as multiplying the plankton production of the Baltic Sea from the level of the 1950s; whereas this development has exceeded the tolerance of the ecosystem on many coastal areas; whereas low waters close to the shore especially suffer from a high nutrient content, like for example southern lagoons, the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga,E. whereas the most eutrophic area of the Baltic Sea is the Gulf of Finland, especially its eastern part, which is affected by the St. Petersburg area (5 million inhabitants) and the River Neva; whereas in the Gulf of Finland the average phytoplankton biomass in summer is 50 to 100 % higher than in the main basin of the Baltic Sea,F. whereas the major ecological problem of the whole Baltic sea is the increased trophic status of both the off-shore and coastal waters, caused by the anthropogenic loading of nitrogen and phosphorus from municipalities, traffic, industry and agriculture,G. whereas there are regular discharges of oil into the Baltic which go frequently unreported but which nevertheless constitute a considerable environmental hazard,H. whereas environmental protection measures and investment programmes should be built on the basis of treating the entire Baltic Sea drainage area as a single entity from an ecological point of view; underlining that nearly all water protection measures, and at least some air protection measures can also be regarded as sea protection;1. Therefore insists, in order to stop eutrophication, that the whole Baltic Sea area needs long-term measures such as:- the adoption of binding minimal environmental standards for the Baltic Sea - Helsinki Commission by the Commission and the Member States in the Helcom;- the reduction of all kinds of nutrient emissions from various sources (including traffic emissions);- the reduction of agricultural emissions both at national level and internationally according to the goals and recommendations set at HELCOM;- more efficient purification of Community waste waters in order to diminish nitrogenic emissions in the area;2. Calls for the Baltic Sea Region initiative as presented by the European Commission at the Visby Summit in May 1996 to be taken as a guiding instrument for all actions in the Baltic Sea region, especially in the light of the future enlargement of the European Union in this region;3. Welcomes the efforts by Central and Eastern European countries to harmonize their environmental policies and legislation with the EU and stresses that the aspect of environmental protection and the principles of sustainable development have to be guaranteed in this process; insists that priority should be given to the Baltic environmental problem in forthcoming negotiations with the applicant countries and in their national preparation strategies;4. Urges that EU cooperation be focused more clearly on the Helsinki Commission?s Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme 'hot spots¨ concerning municipal and industrial waste water treatment, the paper and pulp industry and pollution from energy production;5. Considers that the EU's PHARE programme is relevant to the environmental projects which are already being, or will be, realized in most of the Baltic countries; is of the opinion, however, that the TACIS programme has not been able to fulfil its targets and therefore urges that the financial aid given by the TACIS programme be accelerated and targeted at concrete projects given the fact that Russian environmental problems have a significant impact on the Baltic Sea;6. Calls on all port services to include waste disposal and tank cleaning facilities in their normal fee, instead of asking different fees, in order to minimize eutrophication by illegal dumping into the sea;7. Calls on the bordering countries to draw up lists of all instances of dumping of dangerous waste which have occurred in the last 50 years and to make these lists public;8. Calls for better coordination between the various DGs of the Commission dealing with aspects of the protection of the Baltic Sea;9. Is of the opinion that the agricultural policy of the EU should be targeted more effectively at measures which are most important for water protection, for example stopping water eutrophication;10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Central and Eastern European countries and Russia.