Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea
- Characteristics and challenges
Chen, Qiuzhen; Kozar, Oxana; Li, Fangzhou; Pekonen, Assia;
Saarman, Pauliina. HENVI workshop 2014. University of
Helsinki.
Abstract
Eutrophication is among the most severe environmental problems threatening the
Baltic Sea ecosystem and the ecosystem services it provides. Countries around the
sea began their cooperation already in 1974. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan,
the most recent step to reduce nutrient loads to a sustainable level, identified
maximum allowable inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus for the sub-regions of the
Baltic Sea and nutrient reduction allocations for each contracting country. However,
the implementation of the BSAP may face obstacles and there is a risk that the target,
the good environmental status of the Baltic Sea, will not be met by 2021. In this
report we characterize eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and identify the most
important challenges in reducing eutrophication.
Managing the complex marine ecosystem of the Baltic Sea is in itself challenging,
and decision makers will always face uncertainty. The net benefits from fulfilling the
targets of the Action Plan are estimated to be unevenly distributed among the littoral
countries. Countries such as Belarus and Czech Republic contribute to nutrient
emission but as they do not have access to the coast, they do not necessarily obtain
benefits from reducing eutrophication. Furthermore, a key challenge is to determine
how to distribute the cost burden between the countries, and to find instruments for
implementing such international policies that resources are used efficiently, while
taking into account fairness and acceptability for all contracting countries.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.
EUTROPHICATION IN THE BALTIC SEA ............................................................................. 5
3.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICIES FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION IN
BALTIC SEA ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1
THE INTERNATIONAL POLICIES RELATED TO REDUCING EUTROPHICATION IN BALTIC SEA ..... 7
3.2
THE NATIONAL POLICIES IN FINLAND ................................................................................... 10
3.3
THE REGIONAL COOPERATION AND THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS) ... 11
4.
COST-EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS RELATED TO REDUCING
EUTROPHICATION IN THE BALTIC SEA ................................................................................... 11
4.1
FAIRNESS IN COST-EFFICIENCY FRAMEWORK........................................................................ 12
4.2
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PRACTICES.............................................................. 13
4.3
ABATEMENT COST FOR AGRICULTURE .................................................................................. 13
5.
THE BENEFITS OF EUTROPHICATION REDUCTION ....................................................... 14
5.1
METHODS FOR ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BENEFITS FROM ECOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT ...... 15
5.2
THE RESULTS OF ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BENEFITS FROM EUTROPHICATION REDUCTION IN
THE BALTIC SEA
5.3
6.
................................................................................................................................. 15
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN IMPROVING THE STATE OF THE BALTIC SEA ............................. 16
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 18
QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 19
3
1. Introduction
The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed and brackish sea, one of the few of its kind in the world. The
marine ecosystem is unique due to the low salinity of the sea, which is caused by large riverine
freshwater inflow, and limited water exchange with the North Sea. The sea is shallow and in
relation to the size of the water body it has a vast watershed with a large population: more than 85
million inhabitants in 14 countries live in its catchment. The marine environment and its
biodiversity are threatened by human activities, namely high level of nutrients from agriculture,
industry, overfishing, oil spills and land-based pollution. All this causes a complex problem that has
become the common concern of countries around the sea. Eutrophication, that is, accumulation of
nutrients to the sea, is considered as one of the most important environmental problems in the Baltic
(HELCOM, 2009).
Although a set of regional intergovernmental agreements between the littoral countries of the Baltic
Sea have been signed since 1974, along with long-term monitoring of nutrients and overall political
concern, degradation of the sea still continues. The agreed level of nutrient reductions in 1988 was
far from the targets after 20 years (HELCOM, 2009). What are main reasons for the failure to
reduce nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea, and how a successful implementation of an international
agreement can be realized? Those questions still remain partly unresolved. The countries around
the Baltic need to seek for the solutions actively and contribute in striving towards a brighter future.
In politics and intergovernmental decision-making the main painstaking obstacle is usually money
and, moreover, the way we want to use it. In order to avoid wasting resources, countries should try
to aim at cost-efficiency, which is meeting the environmental targets at minimum cost. How to be
fair and assess fairness and how to balance, for example, the agricultural reduction and the farmers’
benefit?
There are numerous benefits associated with eutrophication reduction: improved water quality,
which increases opportunities for recreation, larger fish stocks and preservation of biodiversity. In
order to assess the efficiency of ecological management it is helpful to value the benefits of
ecological improvement in monetary terms. By putting a price tag on our sea and what it has to
offer we might realize what we have at stake, notice that reducing nutrient loads can increase the
societal welfare despite its costs, and find ways to work together.
4
2. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea
The amounts of nutrients in the brackish waters of the Baltic Sea have increased during the last
century. It has caused ecological effects and affected people's health and livelihoods. The Baltic Sea
is not a uniform sea and nutrients do not disperse uniformly, but instead they cause area-specific
ecological problems. Bonsdorff et al. (2002) describe eutrophication and both trophic and
ecosystem-responses to it in the different sub-regions of the Baltic Sea.
Leppäkoski and Bonsdorff (1989) found out that the area of Baltic Sea has variances and gradients
in topography, geology, hydrography, salinity and climate. Some parts of Baltic Sea are the coastal
areas, some open sea, deeper and shallower areas or sills.
These sub-regions face different
environmental problems depending on their physical characteristics and anthropogenic impacts.
Common problems in many regions are hypoxia and secondary effects on the benthic ecosystem.
The Gulf of Bothnia does not suffer from hypoxia.
In order to get information from different areas of the sea, the scientists have divided the area into 9
subregions, depending on topographical, hydrographical and ecological considerations. (Bonsdorff
at al., 2002) These sub-regions are shown in Figure 1.
1). The Gulf of Bothnia does not suffer from eutrophication yet, salinity is 1–6 psu (practical
salinity units).
2). Archipelago region suffers from changes in ecosystems, community composition, in zoobenthic
and fish populations, because of nutrient over-enrichment. Salinity is 5–7 psu.
3). The Gulf of Finland is one of the most heavily polluted areas, mainly because of emissions from
Neva River. Also the nutrients from Baltic Proper flow to the Gulf of Finland due to the
anticlockwise circulation of water. The Gulf has problems with hypoxia because of harmful algal
blooms. Salinity is 3–6 psu (Rönnberg and Bonsdorf, 2004).
4). Gulf of Riga is sensitive to pollution because of small size and absence of water exchange. The
Daugava River drains fresh water and nutrients into the gulf; salinity is 5 psu. (HELCOM. 1993)
5). The Gulf of Gdansk had pollution problems because of large amount of nutrients and toxic
substances that alter the environment and affects the diversity of macrophytes. The Vistula River
brings fresh water and nutrients to the gulf; salinity in the Gulf is only 5–7 psu.
6). Swedish east-coast mostly has changes in the biomass of macrovegetation, mainly increases in
the amounts of filamentous algae; salinity is 5–11 psu.
5
7). Central Baltic suffers from increased occurrences of cyanobacterial blooms since the 1960s.
Because of the typically warm and calm climate in July and August, cyanobacteria bloom in the
surface water. Salinity is 6–16 psu. (Rönnberg and Bonsdorf, 2004)
8). Belt Sea region has faces hypoxia, reduction in geographic and depth distribution of
macrovegetation and formation of hydrogen sulphide. Also on some areas, e.g. in the Pomeranian
Bight, there is reduction of brown and red algae species. Salinity is 9–20 psu
(Rönnberg and Bonsdorf, 2004)
9). Kattegat is characterised by hypoxia that decreases the level of zoobenthos and the ichthyofauna.
The level of filamentous algae (primarily green algae) increases and the algae forms mats. There is
strong vertical salinity gradient, halocline, in Kattegat: salinity is 12–30 psu in the surface and
increases till 32–34 psu in bottom. (Rönnberg and Bonsdorf, 2004).
Figure1. The Baltic Sea and its catchment area The nine sub-regions are: (1) Gulf of Bothnia, (2)
Archipelago region, (3) Gulf of Finland, (4) Gulf of Riga, (5) Gulf of Gdansk, (6) Swedish Eastcoast, (7) Central Baltic, (8) Belt Sea region, (9) Kattegat. (Bonsdorff at al., 2002)
6
Regions have different environmental and ecological features, such as size, salinity, depth and the
input of nitrogen and phosphorus. The water from Daugava and Vistula Rivers cause lower salinity
near the Gulf of Gdansk and the Gulf of Riga (Bonsdorff et al., 2002). Salinity levels vary between
1 and 9 psu, the highest salinity being in Kattegat and the lowest being in the Gulf of Bothnia.
Inputs of nutrients affect aquatic ecosystems in both coastal and open-sea areas. Rönnberg and
Bonsdorff (2004) measured the oxygen concentration, inputs of nutrients, chlorophyll a and the
occurrences of harmful algal blooms (HAB). The data reveals different changes between different
regions and in different seasons. The input of nutrients mostly comes from agriculture, municipal
sewage, industry, transports and airborne nitrogen deposition.
Several parameters, namely transparency, oxygen/hypoxia, nutrients, primary production, algal
mats, macroalgae, zoobenthos and fish (Bonsdorff et al., 2002) were studied with their relation to
eutrophication. Most commonly studied biological and ecological parameters are chlorophyll,
zoobenthos and fish. The results show the importance of a common remedy for the Baltic Sea and
regional ecological assessment in relation to basin-wide eutrophication.
Savchuk (2004) admits that conditions of the Baltic Sea depend on anthropogenic, climatic, and
natural impacts. Natural impact could be seasonal and annual changes in water flows, rain, saline
water coming from North Sea, mixing of water and movements caused by winds. Every year the
salinity and amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus can differ inside regions and between different
regions. Therefore, the conditions of the Baltic Sea depend on many factors in a complex system.
3. National and international policies for nutrient reduction in Baltic Sea
3.1 The international policies related to reducing eutrophication in Baltic Sea
Of the many environmental challenges the Baltic Sea faces, the most important issue highlighted is
eutrophication with large-scale nutrient pollution due to diffuse pollution from agriculture, internal
loading processes in the sea, and point source pollution (Backer. et al. 2010).
In 1974, the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM, 1974) was signed. It is a regional intergovernmental
agreement among the littoral countries of the Baltic Sea as a response to varying environmental
governances. Afterwards, a number of targeted rounds of joint national actions, initiated by e.g. the
1988 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (HELCOM, 1988), the 1992 Helsinki Revised Convention
(HELCOM, 1992), and the 2003 HELCOM and the joint HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial
Declarations, have been carried out.
7
Since the 2003 Bremen Ministerial Declarations, the HELCOM Contracting Parties (Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and the European Union)
have adopted a set of ecological and management objectives (HELCOM, 2003). They developed a
tailor-made regional implementation of the Ecosystem Approach through a quantitatively
measurable ‘‘good status” of the Baltic ecosystem with concrete steps.
Building upon the agreement on the ecological objectives, a number of operational targets and
management actions were developed during 2005–2007. Since 2006 most activities focused on how
to implement the Ecosystem Approach in the Baltic Sea. That led to formation of the HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), adopted in Krakow, Poland, November 2007. It is a multilateral
Ministerial Declaration in which the purpose is to carry out specific actions for achieving the agreed
ecological objectives and eventually a Good Environmental Status of the Baltic Sea by 2021.
The Action Plan included a number of initial targets and indicators to measure progress towards the
commitment’s goals. The eutrophication segment of the BSAP (HELCOM, 2007) identified
maximum allowable inputs of nutrients as well as corresponding nutrient reductions in each subregion of the Baltic Sea. These were based on national data gathered in 1997-2003, shown in the
Table 1 below.
Table 1 the nutrient reduction targets agreed in the Baltic Sea Action Plan (tones / year)
Sub-region
Maximum allowable
nutrient input
Inputs in 1997-2003
(normalized by hydrological
factors)
Needed reductions
Bothnian Bay
Phosphor
us
2580
Bothnian Sea
2460
56790
2460
56790
0
0
Gulf ofFinland
4860
106680
6860
112680
2000
6000
Baltic Proper
6750
233250
19250
327260
12500
94000
Gulf of Riga
Danish straits
1430
1410
78400
30890
2180
1410
78400
45890
750
0
0
15000
Kattegat
1570
44260
1570
64260
0
20000
Total
21060
601720
Source: the HELCOM 2007 BSAP
36310
736720
15250
135000
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
51440
2580
51440
0
0
Meanwhile, country-specific provisional nutrient reduction requirements were presented. The
overall allocation principles for calculating updated country-allocated reduction targets were based
8
on the polluter pays -principle according to Article 3 in the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM, 1992).
The following figures in Table 2 are country-allocated reduction targets (CART), which were
nutrient reduction requirements for the nine contracting nations in the BSAP, updated in HELCOM
ministerial meeting in 2013.
Table 2 Country-allocated reduction targets in the revised Baltic Sea Action Plan
Phosphorus reduction
Nitrogen reduction
Country
% Reference period
1997-2003
Denmark
38
35
Estonia
320
22
Finland
330+26
25
Germany
110+60
41
Latvia
220
34
Lithuania
1470
65
Poland
7480
68
Russia
3790
38
Sweden
530
39
Source: HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2013
tones
tones
2890
1800
2430+600
7170+500
1670
8970
43610
10380
9240
% Reference
period 1997-2003
31
5
8
29
25
27
30
8
29
Due to agriculture as the main source of nutrient input to the Baltic Sea, the HELCOM Contracting
states proposed to make a joint submission. It stressed the need to adopt additional and targeted
agricultural measures for the EU Common Agricultural Policy, in particular to reduce
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea to the European Community (HELCOM, 2007).
In addition to the BSAP, a set of directives were adopted by the EU, such as the Urban Waste Water
Directive (1991), the Nitrates Directive (1991), the Water Framework Directive (2000), and the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008). They further strengthened the aim to reduce
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea to achieve a good environmental status through parallel works. In
this respect the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EU MSFD) has an identical goal with
the BSAP, and the Baltic EU member countries have proactively stepped towards implementing the
EU MSFD (Backer et al. 2010).
However, the implementation of the BSAP may face obstacles, especially in countries which
currently have high nutrient loads. The net benefits from the BSAP are very unevenly distributed
among the littoral countries of the Baltic Sea, according to the studies by Markowska and Zylicz
(1999) and Hyytiäinen et al. (2013). Although co-operation and negotiation are usually applicable
to reach an agreement for an international common property, in the absence of supranational
9
institutions, there is no authority that can enforce co-operation. Previous attempts to work together
coordinated by the intergovernmental HELCOM have failed to yield the desired results. Based on
the study by Ahlvik and Pavlova (2013), full cooperation with modest abatement targets in the
BSAP is more efficient than ambitious targets. Moreover, side payments play a crucial role in
reaching a binding agreement. Negotiations could be deadlocked for decades even if the pollution
sources and the abatement measures are relatively well known, but the participants cannot agree on
how to share the costs. Since direct monetary side payments are violations of the polluter pays
principle, non-monetary payments or indirect payment mechanisms such as European Union funds
(Ahlvik and Pavlova, 2013), joint implementation mechanism (Ollikainen and Honkatukia, 2001),
and nutrient trading (Hautakangas and Ollikainen 2011) may be used.
3.2 The national policies in Finland
Finland has been proactive in the protection of the Baltic Sea, especially in HELCOM activities and
EU initiatives of the Northern Dimension of the EU. The severity and extent of eutrophication
varies along the long Finnish coastline, where the Gulf of Finland, especially the Archipelago Sea,
suffers the most, while the Gulf of Bothnia remains marginal (Pihlajamaki, 2011).
Finnish national legislation and regulations have contributed to reduce nutrient loads from the
municipalities, industry, forestry and fisheries, whereas agriculture remains the biggest source of
nutrients. The first principle of water pollution control in 1974 was adopted due to deterioration in
the quality of lakes, rivers and coastal areas. The Water Protection Targets to 2005, adopted in
1995, was the first national program to set nutrient reduction targets. Finland’s Program of the
Protection of the Baltic Sea was adopted in 2002, and the related action plan in 2005. More recent
national programs include Water Protection Policy Outlines to 2015 and the Government Report on
Challenges of the Baltic Sea and Baltic Sea Policy. In 2000, the Environmental Protection Act
(EPA) was adopted. Since 2004, the Government Onsite Wastewater System Decree has set
minimum standards for wastewater treatment, which, as an integral part of the implementation of
the EU WFD, were adopted by the Finnish Council of State in 2009.
The EU Nitrate Directive and the agri-environmental payment scheme of the EU Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) attempted to integrate environmental concerns into Finnish agricultural
policy. The Finnish agri-environmental payment scheme is considered to be the main instrument for
agricultural nutrient abatement. It includes three different types of measures: basic measures are
compulsory, additional measures and special support contracts are optional for certain field and
10
farm types in order to achieve more specifically targeted objectives. However, it was argued that the
agri-environmental policy, to some extent, failed to meet the nutrient reduction targets (Herzon et al.
2010). The first reason was due to the structural change in agriculture, animal husbandry
concentrated on certain areas, which resulted in increased amount of manure, as well as nutrient
leaks. The second reason was that the payments from the CAP and the Finnish agri-environmental
scheme encouraged farmers to increase their cultivated land area and farm size, and to intensify
production, which further increased nutrient discharge (Koundouri et al. 2009, Pihlajamaki, 2011,
Laukkanen and Naughes 2013 ).
3.3 The regional cooperation and the Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Besides national legislation, regulations, and policies mentioned above, regional cooperation and
the Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have an important role in decreasing nutrient loads.
For example the Northern Dimension of the EU is an important platform for regional cooperation,
where the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Fund pressed on the development of the
St. Petersburg water sector in 2001. It is the fast and cost-effective way to prevent eutrophication in
the Gulf of Finland in the Finnish perspective (Laukkanen and Huhtala 2008). The John Nurminen
Foundation, as an NGO, has carried out projects in various Baltic Sea cities in order to implement
chemical phosphorus removal from wastewater in local waste water treatment plants. Another
Finnish NGO, the Baltic Sea Action Group (BSAG) brought together heads of states, companies
and the NGOs to present their commitments to save the Baltic Sea.
4. Cost-effective management options related to reducing eutrophication in the
Baltic Sea
The Baltic Sea ecosystem has been damaged from eutrophication, as it is especially vulnerable to
nutrient pollution. Blooms of toxic algae cover the seabed in coastal areas and oxygen deficits
reduce value of fisheries (Wulff et al., 2001). High nutrient concentrations are built up from landbased sources and atmosphere. Reducing nutrient loads from inland sources, which include
agriculture, municipalities, and industry, can improve the condition of eutrophic water bodies
(Shortle and Abler 2001). Therefore, as an administrative body, HELCOM has taken the
responsibility for overseeing the protection of the Baltic Sea environment, but municipal and
industrial nutrient loads have been reduced significantly during the last decades, while agricultural
nutrient loads remain substantial (HELCOM 2005). The following nutrient related ecological
objectives have therefore been required in the BSAP (HELCOM 2007):
11
– Concentration of nutrients close to natural levels,
– Clear water,
– Natural level of algal blooms,
– Natural distribution and occurrence of plants and animals,
– Natural oxygen level.
The BSAP required nutrient load reductions for riparian countries as phosphorus reductions for the
Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga, and nitrogen reductions to the Baltic Proper,
Danish straits and Kattegat (Table 1 ). The predictions expect that the extent of hypoxic sea bottoms
in the Baltic Proper will be decreased approximately 1/3, as well as a 2/3 reduction of nitrogen
fixation which is an indicator of the intensity of cyanobacterial blooms (see percentage allocation
details in Table 2).
Cost-efficiency means achieving given targets with a minimum cost to society, or maximizing the
environmental impact of some limited budget. In a large scale study of Gren (1997a), the costefficient solution to meet the 50% load reduction target was found to cost 25% of the uniform and
proportional reduction targets. Gren (2008) estimated that achieving the BSAP targets would cost
annually almost 40% more than the cost-efficient allocation. However, many countries prefer to
resist a cost-efficient distribution of the abatement burden for the reason that countries with low
marginal abatement costs have higher cost burden in the cost-efficient solution unless they are
somehow compensated for their efforts. Grasso (2007) indicated that the costs of abatement
measures differ between countries because the price of labor and land are relatively low in countries
such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Russia. In the cost-effective solution the cleaning
cost burden will be high in those countries where the cost of abatement measures is low and the
impact of the nutrient abatement on the state of the sea is large.
4.1 Fairness in cost-efficiency framework
Based on the situation mentioned above, the main approach to eliminate the divergence of the
BSAP allocation from cost-efficiency solution is the fairness guarantee. Gren (2008) focused on
fairness with two distinguished principles: egalitarianism and equity. The costs of meeting the
BSAP country targets and cost-efficient reductions of total nitrogen and phosphorus loads to coastal
waters were compared (Gren 2008) under four different criteria:
– loads of nitrogen and phosphorus per capita;
12
– cleaning cost per capita;
– loads of nitrogen and phosphorous in relation to gross domestic product (GDP);
– Cleaning cost in relation to GDP.
The results implied that in evaluating fairness it is important to take into account the distribution of
efforts per capita or distribution of efforts that is determined by ability to pay. Moreover, economic
instruments, such as side payments between HELCOM members, can be used to guarantee fairness
between countries (Carraro, 2000). The previously mentioned polluter pays principle is likely to
violate the fairness guarantee but it could be applied in some cases. For example, the carbon dioxide
trading market is regarded a success and thus it could be an attempt to meet the targets of cost
effectiveness and fairness. Nutrient trading may increase the probability of successful
implementation of the agreement; thereby the HELCOM BSAP could be extended to be more
operational (Gren 2008).
4.2 Nitrogen and phosphorus control practices
HELCOM has set about a economic analysis of different policies suggested in BSAP (COWI 2007),
such as phosphorus-free detergents and wastewater treatment. Due to the different effects of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment it depends on the sub-region whether nitrogen or
phosphorus abatement is more essential. For nitrogen reduction, wetland construction, fertilizer
reductions, manure management promotion, catalytic cleaning of NOx-emissions from ship and
wastewater treatment are recommended, whereas wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and the
use of phosphate-free detergents for phosphorus reduction. (Gren et al. 1997a; COWI 2007; Gren
2008). These have different marginal costs and this can result the countries to prefer one over
another.
There is an interaction between nitrogen and phosphorus control practices. Wulff et al. (2007)
implied that a massive phosphorus control will decrease nitrogen fixation, primary production, and
the extent of hypoxic bottoms. Based on this, controlling nitrogen loads will substantially further
reduce primary production and the extent of hypoxic bottoms in the Baltic Proper. On the contrary,
unbalanced nitrogen loads reduction will stimulate cyanobacterial blooms and consequently
nitrogen fixation.
4.3 Abatement cost for agriculture
13
For the Baltic region, Wulff et al. (2007) indicated that phosphorus loads originate mainly from
human emissions, whereas nitrogen mainly comes from land runoff, primarily from agriculture.
Agriculture contributes 60% to the waterborne load, while point sources and natural background
emissions contribute 16% and 28% respectively. For phosphorus, 50% of the waterborne load
originates from agriculture and forestry, and point sources and natural background contribute both
with about 25% (HELCOM 2003).
As for non-point pollution, changes in agricultural practices such as crop residue cover, timing of
fertilization application, proper manure handling, reduced tillages, and abatement measures that
filter runoff (e.g. wetlands) result in agricultural nutrient abatement. In Finland, agricultural nutrient
abatement is the single investment under the Water Protection Target Programme (HELCOM 2004).
Furthermore, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) replaced price and production supports by
area-based flat-rate direct payments, to some extents, with a view to decrease nutrient loads on the
environment. Helin et al. (2006) evaluated the effect of CAP reform, underway at the time, on
nutrient abatement costs and found out slight decreases in farmers’ variable profits and the
unconstrained nitrogen loads and the abatement costs. Therefore, excessive costs or income
transfers from taxpayers to farmers should be taken seriously when assessing ways to reach load
reductions.
5. The benefits of eutrophication reduction
Researching the effects of positive environmental change is important to determining policies for
decision-making. The consequences of reduced eutrophication level mainly include improved water
quality, increased fish stocks in coastal areas and preservation of biodiversity. However, the
complexity and difference of ecological systems in different sub-basins of the Baltic Sea result in
different level of nutrient emission reduction required to achieve the same level of environmental
improvement. In addition to this, a decrease in nutrient concentrations in one sub-basin can affect
the situation in other basins, which makes the ecological modeling very complicated.
Positive ecological change would affect recreational use of the coastline, e.g. the conditions for
bathing and recreational fishing would improve. The indicators used to characterize this change
could be, for example, water clarity, abundance of fish, status of seaweed and occurrences of blue–
green algae blooms (Kosenius, 2010), although the quantitative interrelations between habitat
quality and quantity, fish recruitment and fish stocks is not yet exactly defined. Nevetheless,
14
Söderqvist et al. (2005) claim that the effects on population of relatively stationary species, such as
perch and pike, can be predicted with sufficient accuracy.
Evaluating the different viewpoints and the benefits of improving the state of the Baltic Sea can be
done in monetary terms. The economic approach of estimating the value of nature conservation has
its challenges and possible biases, but it brings a level of concreteness to a subject that appears quite
abstract to citizens. The benefit assessment is usually based on studies of people's willingness to pay
(WTP) for environmental change, though there are other methods.
5.1 Methods for economic valuation of benefits from ecological improvement
Though environmental change doesn't have a price in the market, when ecological goods or services
not traded at the market are connected with some market goods, it is possible to use the data on
observed market behaviour. For example, the travel cost method (TCM) estimates the value of
benefits through the costs of travelling for recreational purposes, i.e. people might be ready to spend
more money on travelling to the places with better water quality.
However, it is not always easy to define the correlation between goods and services not sold at
market and market goods. In this case it is possible to use methods based on hypothetical market
behavior. One of them, the most used in research, is the contingent valuation method (CVM). It is
applied by making a questionnaire describing particular environmental change. The respondents are
asked how much money they are willing to pay to achieve this change (for example, how much do
they want to pay in order to have the water transparency along the coastline increased by one meter).
The hypothetical nature of the method makes it possible to estimate potential economic benefits
associated with non-use of the environment (Söderqvist et al, 2005).
Another method called replacement cost method (RCM) is not based on individual's market
behavior. It assesses the costs of artificially created substitutes of functions of ecosystems. For
example, in case of drying the wetlands, it evaluates the cost of the flood protection constructions.
However, this method is applicable only if the effects of the man-made projects fully copy the
functions of the destroyed ecosystem, the human engineered system is the least cost alternative way
of replacing the ecosystem service; and individuals in aggregate would be willing to incur the
replacement costs if the ecosystem service was no longer available (Söderqvist et al, 2005).
5.2 The results of economic valuation of benefits from eutrophication reduction in the Baltic Sea
15
The economic valuation of benefits associated with reduction of eutrophication level in the Baltic
Sea (Ahtiainen et al, 2014) showed that, on average, WTP is the highest in Sweden, Finland,
Denmark and the lowest in Latvia. The survey showed that the Baltic Sea is an important
recreational area for the respondents from majority of the countries, except Russia, where 51% of
the respondents had not visited the Baltic Sea. The respondents in general were worried about the
condition of the Baltic Sea. The highest degree of concern was shown in Sweden, Finland,
Lithuania and Estonia, while the lowest was in Germany. The highest level of familiarity with
eutrophication and its effects was in Sweden and Finland, while the lowest was in Russia and
Germany. For respondents in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden it is less easy to find substitute
for the Baltic Sea, while all respondents in Estonia can easily substitute it.
The research has also shown that WTP varies not only from country to country, but also from one
social group to another. One of the trends is that the closer the respondent lives to the Baltic Sea,
the higher is the awareness of the problem of eutrophication (Gren et al., 1997b, Ahtiainen et al.
2013). Besides that, in communities situated closer to the seashore and utilizing the sea more, the
concerns about the problem are higher and, as a consequence, the WTP to reduce eutrophication is
higher.
The gender and age can correlate with WTP, though in Denmark people from older age group have
higher WTP, while in Latvia, Lithuania and Russia younger people are willing to pay more. In
addition, since income elasticity of WTP is lower than 1 for all of the coastal countries (though the
actual figures differ from country to country), the benefits of environmental improvements for
people with low income are relatively higher than those for people with high income. Personal
attitudes and level of familiarity with the phenomenon are also affecting WTP, however, the pattern
may differ from country to country (Ahtiainen et al, 2014).
5.3 Cost-benefit analysis in improving the state of the Baltic Sea
To make the policies and measures for reducing eutrophication level socially optimal and
acceptable to most, both the costs and benefits must be assessed, as well as the country-specific
urgency of actions. However, there is a range of problems connected with comparing costs and
benefits of eutrophication reduction in the Baltic Sea and searching for international solutions.
The costs in reducing eutrophication come from nutrient abatement, that is, reducing the flow of
phosphorus and nitrogen to the Baltic Sea. Reducing nitrogen is more costly but, because of the way
the nutrients act in the sea, it is also more urgent (Markowska and Zylicz 1999). The needed actions
16
are known but it is also necessary to assess how much they are worth. The actual costs are assessed
to be only a fraction of the GDP of the respective countries (Hyytiäinen et al. 2013) but still it can
be too much if the people are not willing to pay and the measures are not taken in a way that is
reasonable according to the effect. Actions taken in different locations in the catchment area of the
Baltic Sea have different effects in both ecosystem and welfare, as discussed earlier in Section 2
and thus the related countries need to discuss the policies. Here, HELCOM can be the platform for
discussion and evaluation.
There are a few basic problems in bringing the good thoughts into action. First, the Baltic Sea is
both common and local good (Markowska and Zylicz 1999). This means that theoretically everyone
has the same access to it and one user, a country for example, polluting or otherwise misusing the
good causes other users to suffer. However, in reality this is not the case in most situations. Take,
for example, an estuary that is semi-closed from the main pool. It suffers heavily from even a
relatively little polluting because of limited water exchange with the main pool. On the other hand,
only those people living close to it are likely to make use of it. In such a situation one cannot take
the estuary as a common good, but it is still affected by the actions of more people than the actual
users.
The second problem is the time scale of changes to happen in nature. Politicians have relatively
short time to them to work in their respective parliaments and this makes it more difficult to make
decisions that have long-term impact. This is why the heads of the countries need to know as
accurately as possible the urgency of actions and also people’s wills. In taking actions to cut the
eutrophication development the politicians have to believe that their citizens have broader views
than those in the immediate future.
Third, because of the complexity of the ecosystem, even the scientists cannot always know for sure
what effect a given measure has. The way the nutrients behave is connected to weather and water
currents and so it is very difficult to forecast the big picture. Also pointing the causality between
two things happening in nature is hardly straight-forward. This brings a certain level of uncertainty
that is likely to reduce people’s willingness to contribute (that is, usually, pay): one doesn’t know
whether the money buys the improvement or not.
The HELCOM BSAP targets, shown in Table 1, were taken a guideline in a sub-region specific
cost-benefit analysis (Hyytiäinen et al. 2013) and it was found that the targets are higher that would
be socially optimal. This conclusion was drawn from a WTP study covering all the coastline
17
countries of the Sea (Ahtiainen et al. 2014). Based on that, the assessed costs were compared to the
benefits. The result was that in total the benefits outweigh the costs but it varies depending on the
country: some are net gainers and some net losers (Hyytiäinen et al. 2013). A noteworthy issue here
is that the countries that had the least will to pay per person (Latvia and Poland) were also
responsible for relatively big nutrient reduction (see Table 2). This factor probably influences the
countries’ willingness to co-operate to put their efforts together in streamlining the existing policies
and elaborating them, since it could be a big cost and relatively little positive effect for the
country’s residents.
Drawing conclusions on the benefits of eutrophication reduction based on WTP has its loopholes.
An unsolved problem, called the hypothetical bias, eats the trustworthiness of these surveys. This
means that people overestimate their willingness to pay, compared to a situation of actual purchase,
significantly (Murphy et al. 2005). As long as one cannot actually purchase a piece of beautiful
coast free of cyanobacteria or a certainty of a healthy fish stock, these surveys have to be developed
to give as concrete choices as possible. Still the surveys justify themselves because the only way to
have an understanding of the people living in the catchment area of the Baltic Sea is to question
them and assess the country-specific needs as well as have them to see and understand the state of
the Sea and what it means, now and in the future.
6. Conclusions
The Baltic Sea has nine sub-regions that have different environmental and ecological features.
There is a need for a common remedy for the Baltic Sea in relation to basin-wide eutrophication.
The condition of the Baltic Sea depends on anthropogenic, climatic, and natural impacts. The large
catchment area of the Baltic Sea, with countries such as Belarus that do not have access to the coast
of the Baltic Sea, causes additional obstacles for policymaking and the implementation of
international agreements.
There are many challenges in reducing eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. The following were
identified based on the topics discussed in this report:
 How to manage a complex ecosystem of the Baltic Sea and appropriately consider the
differences between the sub-regions?
 How to improve understanding of the different effects of nutrient abatement on
eutrophication indicators?
18
 Helsinki Commission does not have power to enforce the agreement in contracting parties.
How to implement and enforce international policies aimed at reducing eutrophication? Can
EU have a significant role here in having the countries work together?
 How to improve the efficiency of environmental policies?
 How to distribute the nutrient abatement burden between the countries? In proportion to
current loads or GDP, according to the cost-efficiency principle or based on the benefits?
 How to balance between cost-efficiency and fairness?
 The net benefits of reducing eutrophication are not evenly distributed. The benefits are not
correlated with the cost or the nutrient loads.
 Some people or countries do not care about the sea and how much they pollute. They either
do not have access to the sea or they can substitute it. How to motivate these countries to
contribute? With stronger control or side payments?
Questions
Is there going back to a good state of the Baltic Sea anymore?
In what framework should the cooperation be done in the future? Why do we need HELCOM?
References
Aakkula, J., Kuussaari, M., Rankinen, K. et al.(2011) Follow-up Study on the Impacts of Agrienvironmental Measures in Finland (MYTVAS 3), OECD Workshop on the Evaluation of Agrienvironmental Policies 20-22 June 2011
Ahlvik, L. and Pavlova, Y. (2013). A strategic analysis of eutrophication abatement in the Baltic
Sea. Environmental and Resource Economics 56: 353-378
Ahtiainen, H. et al. 2013. Public preferences regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea—An
international comparison informing marine policy. Marine Policy 42: 20-30
Ahtiainen H et al. 2014. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea – results
from a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Policy, forthcoming. DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2014.901923
19
Backer, H. et al. 2010. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan – A regional program of measures for the
marine environment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 642-649
Bonsdorff E., Rönnberg C.; Aarnio K. 2002. Some ecological properties in relation to
eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Hydrobiologia 475/476: 371-377.
Carraro, C. K. (ed.) 2000. Efficiency and equity in climate change policy. Kluwer Academic
Publisher, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
COWI. 2007. Economic analysis of the BSAP with focus on eutrophication. Final report. April
2007, 112 pp.
Grasso, M., 2007. A normative ethical framework in climate change. Climatic Change 81: 223–246.
Gren, I. M.; Elofsson, K.; Jannke, P. 1997a. Cost effective nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea.
Environmental & resource economics 10: 341–362.
Gren I. M., Söderqvist T., Wulff F. 1997b. Nutrient Reductions to the Baltic Sea: Ecology, Costs
and Benefits. Journal of Environmental Management 51(2): 123-143
Gren, I.M. 2008. Cost effectiveness and fairness of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan against
eutrophication. Vatten 64: 273–281.
Hautakangas, S.; Ollikainen, M. 2011. Making the Baltic Sea Action Plan workable: a nutrient
trading scheme. In Governing the blue-green Baltic Sea, chapter 10.
HELCOM, 1974. Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area.
HELCOM, 1988. Declaration on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area.
Adopted on 15th February 1988 in Helsinki.
HELCOM, 1992. Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area,
1992. Entered into force on 17 January 2000
20
HELCOM. 1993 The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme. (Balt. Sea
Environ. Proc. No. 48), pp. 2-1 - 3-20 http://www.baltic.vtt.fi/demo/balful.html
HELCOM, 2003. HELCOM Bremen Ministerial declaration.
HELCOM 2004. The fourth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-4). Helsinki Commission.
Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM, 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan. Adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial meeting,
Krakow, Poland, 15th November 2007.
HELCOM. 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: an integrated thematic assessment of the effects
of nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 115B.
Helin, J., Laukkanen, M., Koikkalainen, K., 2006. Abatement costs for agricultural nitrogen and
phosphorus loads: a case study of crop farming in south-western Finland. Agricultural and Food
Science 15, 351–374
Herzon, I.; Helenius, J.; Kuussaari, M.; Makinen, T.; Tiainen, T. 2010. Agri-environmental
programme in Finland serving biodiversity: working forward. Association of applied biologists,
aspects of applied biology 100, Agri-environment Schemes - What have they achieved and where
do we go from here? in conjunction with the British Ecology Society Agricultural Ecology Group
University of Leicester, Oadby, UK 27-29 April 2010.
Hyytiäinen, K.; Ahlvik, L.; Ahtiainen, H.; Artell, J.; Dahlbo, K.; Huhtala, A. 2013. Spatially
explicit bio-economic modelling for the Baltic Sea: Do the benefits of nutrient abatement outweigh
the costs? MTT Discussion Papers 2.
Koundouri, P,; Laukkanen, M.; Myyra, S.; Nauges, C. 2009. The effects of EU agricultural policy
changes on farmers’ risk attitudes. European Review of Agricultural Economics Vol 36 (1) (2009)
pp. 53–77.
Kosenius, A-K. 2010. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The case of
eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 69:528-538.
21
Kroger L. 2005. Development of the Finnish Agri-environmental Policy as a Learning Process.
European Environment 15:13-26.
Kuussaari M, Heliola J, Luoto M. 2004. Farmland biodiversity indicators and monitoring in Finland.
In Developments in Strategic Landscape Monitoring for the Nordic Countries, pp. 24- 34. Ed. G
Groom. Nordic Council of Ministers, Diverse Series Report, 705.
Laukkanen, M.; Huhtala, A. 2008. Optimal management of a eutrophicated coastal system:
balancing agricultural and municipal abatement. Environmental and Resource Economics 39:193159.
Laukkanen, M.; Naughes, C. 2013. Evaluating greening farm policies: a structural model for
assessing agri‐environmental subsidies. Working paper.
Leppäkoski, E.; Bonsdorff, E. 1989. Ecosystem variability and gradients. Examples from the Baltic
Sea as a background for hazard assessment. In Landner, L. (ed.), Chemicals in the Aquatic
Environment. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 6–58.
Markowska, A.; Zylicz, T. 1999. Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea.
Ecological Economics 30: 301–316.
Murphy, James J.; Allen, P. Geoffrey; Stevens, Thomas H.; Weatherhead, Darryll. 2005. A MetaAnalysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental and Resource
Economics 30: 313–325.
Ollikainen, M.; Honkatukia, J. 2001. Towards Efficient Pollution Control in the Baltic Sea: An
Anatomy of Current Failure with Suggestions for Change. Ambio 30(4):245-253.
Pihlajamaki, M. 2011. Finland – no easy solution left. In governing the blue-green Baltic Sea,
chapter 9.
22
Rönnberg, C.; Bonsdorff, E. 2004. Baltic Sea eutrophication: area-specific ecological consequences.
Hydrobiologia 514: 227-241.
Savchuk, O. 2005. Resolving Baltic Sea into seven subbasins: N and P budgets for 1991-1999.
Journal of Marine Systems 56: 1-15.
Söderqvist et al. 2005. Economic Valuation for Sustainable Development in the Swedish Coastal
Zone. Ambio 34(2): 169-175.
Wulff, F.; Savchuk, O. P.; Solokov, A.; Humborg, C.; Mörth, C.-M. Management options and the
effects on a marine ecosystem: Assessing the future of the Baltic Sea Ambio 2007,36, 243– 249
23