Baltic Lessons Learned: Marine protection as a driving force for trans-boundary

1. The future of the Baltic Sea is at stake - the Sea is choking on a too rich diet … will trans-boundary co-operation help “cure” the patient? Baltic Lessons Learned: Marine protection as a driving force for trans-boundary river basin planning and management

2. Baltic Sea Ecological Status 9 riparian countries, 80 million people • Increase in N (x8) and P (x4) during 1950-2000 • Coastal fisheries severely impacted • Widespread oxygen deficits (1/3) and algae bloom • P deposit in deep basins, cod spawning impacted • Serious concerns regarding toxics in fish

3. How to “cure” the Baltic Sea • Regional, coherent co-operation • Goals for the entire ecosystem, divide “tasks” • Decrease N & P input, 50% reduction goal (1995) • Focus: CAP reform, households, industry, transport pollution, hazardous chemicals • Prioritise wetlands’ functions and natural rivers • Linking marine, coastal and terrestrial waters • Ultimately: sustainable development

4. Wetland and River Management New times - new needs Traditional/top-down: Elimination of point sources; establishment of protected areas; co-operation at political level; institutionalised systems, regulations and legislation; technical solutions; experts work; Upcoming/bottom-up: Non-point sources; planning for sustainable development; Public Participation Programs; implementation at ground level; integrated approaches needed; process-oriented work and planning; feed-back mechanisms between levels of operation: political and ground-level The Water Framework Directive - enormous potential - will we achieve by 2015?

5. Political initiatives and changes • International initiatives: Ramsar, UN-ECE • EU: Nitrate-, Habitat- and Water Framework Directives, Rural Development programs and agri-environmental schemes - compliance! ... coherence? • Helcom - main environment platform at regional level, including the Baltic Sea Regional Project (BSRP) • Other regional initiatives; sustainable development (Baltic Agenda 21), spatial planning (Vasab) • National level; (de)centralisation processes, new social, democratic and economic context

6. Helcom PITF MLW • The MLW Group: Component 4 of the JCP • Task: implementing ICZM demonstration projects in 5 large - and different - coastal areas: • Matsalu Bay and Käina Bay, Estonia • Lake Engure and Kemeri NP, Latvia • Curonian Lagoon, Russia and Lithuania • Vistula Lagoon, Russia and Poland • Odra Lagoon, Germany and Poland • Phase 1 (1993-97), Phase 1b - the Interim Phase (1998-99), Phase 2 (2000 ) … BSRP (2002- )

7. ICZM - a short introduction • ICZM: an ongoing, cyclic process • Promoting sustainable development • Providing a long-term vision • Integration of economy and ecology • Cross-sector, participatory approach • aimed at preventing conflicts  Advanced approach, require a strongcommitment and organisational follow-up Integrated planning is imperative to ensure sustainable development and long-term protection of ecosystem functions and values

8. MLW objectives and challenges • The long term goal: Contribution to secure the environmental balance of the Baltic Sea through elaboration and implementation of ICZM plans for sustainable development in key coastal areas in the South-east Baltic Region • The challenge: to initiate an integrated, participatory process aiming at creating a trade-off between the environmental interests of the international community and the development interests of the local communities Wetlands are highly dynamic areas with many interests and potential conflicts Coastal wetlands and lagoons are of significant importance to the Baltic Sea

9. MLW results # 1 • Best results achieved in Estonia and Latvia: smallest areas, local and national support • Wetlands and coastal lagoons are receiving higher attention and priority • The process towards an environmentally sound development has started • Management of the natural resources strengthened • Priority sites for biodiversity described, protection and management needs analysed

10. MLW results # 2 • Natural values are gradually seen as a development asset for the local community • Increased analytical understanding regarding relations between development trends, environmental concerns, social problems, public participation and institutional capacity established • International environmental concerns included at the local “agenda” as a priority issue • Basis for the coastal component of the BSRP

11. MLW/ICZM constraints # 1 Governance - structures • Structural and institutional follow-up lacking • Based on experts, public not always involved • Most administrative bodies are not experienced in using cross-sectoral and cross-border approach • Public structures more used to “tell it” than “show it” • Local pragmatism giving way to national formalities: EU legislation and enlargement process  Segmentation > integration

12. MLW/ICZM constraints # 2 Capacity • Ministries did not always take active part in the project • Local and regional levels do not have enough capacity • Tendency to focus on the planning rather than management - and to avoid participation • Technical, resources, political constraints regarding trans-boundary co-operation  System > results

13. MLW/ICZM constraints # 3 Financing & commitment • Financial support from countries limited • No long term financial support • Only short-term donor support available • Difficult to add compensation schemes and alternative income sources to restrictions  Central power > decentralisation

14. Discussion # 1 • Sectoral approaches needs strong “end receivers” to provide holistic situation • Local actors have to be involved, their immediate interests addressed - and feel as beneficiaries • Results at local level requires decentral structures with adequate mandate and power  Who can lead the process at local level?  How to handle the “trade-off”: is CAP 2nd pillar the solution?

15. Discussion # 2 • The EU process tends to strengthen sectoral approach • EU directives and programs will determine the money flow - through sector systems, and WFD plus Kyoto will take it all  Will the WFD deliver?  Which role for trans-boundary co-op?

16. Discussion # 3 • Participatory approach plus regional obligations could be the way forward • Regional co-operation is highly needed regarding wetlands management and WFD experiences • The BSRP will provide useful outputs  Will Helcom be able to deliver the coherence?  Renewed support for “BaltWet” under Helcom?

17. Further information • www.panda.org/europe/ freshwater/publications