102
important to point out that the EU has the power to enforce various stipulations if
not followed by Member States , something that is not the case under the Helsinki
Convention despite its binding character. In fact, the European Court of Justice can
in some cases even decide to impose economic sanctions on Member States that do
not comply with legislation agreed upon in common.
Ten years later in 2004 when the EU was enlarged, Russia was the only Baltic
country that remained outside the EU (i.e. Poland and the three Baltic States became
EU members). Since then, the EU has steadily introduced more policies that apply
to the presence of chemicals in the marine environment of BSR. These include laws
such as the environment-oriented Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy
Framework Directive, and the polluter-oriented REACH regulation for industrial
chemicals, as well as the EU Strategy for BSR (European Commission 2009 ).
Similar developments also took place under HELCOM, which, besides further recommendations relating to chemicals, adopted the Baltic Sea Action Plan in 2007
(HELCOM 2007 ). The plan has several objectives, including that life in the Baltic
Sea should be ‘undisturbed by hazardous substances’. It also underlines the need to
apply the EAM . In the hazardous substance segment of BSAP , four ‘ ecological
objectives’ are set: concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels,
all fi sh safe to eat, healthy wildlife and radioactivity at pre-Chernobyl level. These
targets are then further operationalised by, for instance, various indicators.
In addition to formal governance under HELCOM and the EU, a wide array of
actors and networks has strived since decades to protect the Baltic Sea environment.
Among these are a number of national and international NGOs, as well as various
business, city and university networks, which collaborate on marine and other governance issues.
In summary, the governance structures have shifted substantially over time in
BSR both under the Helsinki Convention and within the EU, with increasingly more
attention being given to an environment-oriented perspective. The geopolitical
changes of the last few decades have allowed for improved collaboration and international governance structures that potentially are more capable than in the past of
coping with environmental problems and risks in the Baltic Sea at an international
level. In what follows, the selected three sub-cases and generations (with respect to
broader societal recognition, debate and policy-making
1
) of hazardous chemicals
that occur in the region, and how they are governed, will be described and analysed.
5.3 The First Generation, Chlorinated Organic
Substances: PCBs
Halogenated organic substances are in general particularly problematic man-made
chemicals. They are released and can be found in living organisms all around the
globe, from Alaska in the North to the summits of European mountains to
1 As will be shown, scientifi c studies showing or indicating problems often came earlier (see also
EEA 2001 , 2013 ).
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek
important to point out that the EU has the power to enforce various stipulations if
not followed by Member States , something that is not the case under the Helsinki
Convention despite its binding character. In fact, the European Court of Justice can
in some cases even decide to impose economic sanctions on Member States that do
not comply with legislation agreed upon in common.
Ten years later in 2004 when the EU was enlarged, Russia was the only Baltic
country that remained outside the EU (i.e. Poland and the three Baltic States became
EU members). Since then, the EU has steadily introduced more policies that apply
to the presence of chemicals in the marine environment of BSR. These include laws
such as the environment-oriented Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy
Framework Directive, and the polluter-oriented REACH regulation for industrial
chemicals, as well as the EU Strategy for BSR (European Commission 2009 ).
Similar developments also took place under HELCOM, which, besides further recommendations relating to chemicals, adopted the Baltic Sea Action Plan in 2007
(HELCOM 2007 ). The plan has several objectives, including that life in the Baltic
Sea should be ‘undisturbed by hazardous substances’. It also underlines the need to
apply the EAM . In the hazardous substance segment of BSAP , four ‘ ecological
objectives’ are set: concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels,
all fi sh safe to eat, healthy wildlife and radioactivity at pre-Chernobyl level. These
targets are then further operationalised by, for instance, various indicators.
In addition to formal governance under HELCOM and the EU, a wide array of
actors and networks has strived since decades to protect the Baltic Sea environment.
Among these are a number of national and international NGOs, as well as various
business, city and university networks, which collaborate on marine and other governance issues.
In summary, the governance structures have shifted substantially over time in
BSR both under the Helsinki Convention and within the EU, with increasingly more
attention being given to an environment-oriented perspective. The geopolitical
changes of the last few decades have allowed for improved collaboration and international governance structures that potentially are more capable than in the past of
coping with environmental problems and risks in the Baltic Sea at an international
level. In what follows, the selected three sub-cases and generations (with respect to
broader societal recognition, debate and policy-making
1
) of hazardous chemicals
that occur in the region, and how they are governed, will be described and analysed.
5.3 The First Generation, Chlorinated Organic
Substances: PCBs
Halogenated organic substances are in general particularly problematic man-made
chemicals. They are released and can be found in living organisms all around the
globe, from Alaska in the North to the summits of European mountains to
1 As will be shown, scientifi c studies showing or indicating problems often came earlier (see also
EEA 2001 , 2013 ).
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek