114
5.5.3 Analysis of Measures Taken and Approaches Applied
When it comes to PFOS , the concentrations in the Baltic Sea have increased since
the 1960s, in some case exponentially (Holmström et al. 2005 ). Even if there are a
few recent signs of decline, PFOS levels exceed the thresholds in many monitoring
sites, ‘indicating moderate or even bad environmental status’, with the highest
PFOS levels in biota found in top consumers such as grey, harbour and ringed seals
(Nyberg et al. 2013b ). Much data on temporal trends is missing, and to what extent
PFOS levels really have started to decline in, for example, the Baltic Sea is therefore far from certain. Decreased levels in human blood have, however, been reported
in the USA in the 2000s, allegedly following the dominating producer 3
M-Corporations voluntary measure started in 2000 to phase out PFOS and related
chemicals (Renner 2008 ). Less is known about temporal development of PFOA in
the Baltic Sea, and trends can of course point in different directions depending on if
emissions, water concentrations or levels in biota are studied, with variations
between regions and species. Nevertheless, despite a downturn in emissions, also
due to a voluntary phase-out by large producers (‘the PFOA Stewardship programme’), levels of PFOA in the Arctic sea water have been predicted to continue
to increase until around 2030, whereas the situation has been predicted to improve
in the Northern Temperate zone in the 2010s (Butt et al. 2010 ).
From a regulatory point of view, the legislative process to restrict PFOS in the
EU was comparatively rapid, even if it – as so often otherwise – was initiated long
after science indicated problems existed. Here, the EU has been the dominating
phase-out force, whereas HELCOM has focused more on principal policy advice
and assessment , seemingly in the aftermath of the EU legislative process (whereas
HELCOM policy and assessments were ahead of legislation when it comes to
PCBs ). Moreover, regulatory action took place in particular in the sphere of chemicals policy and was not based on environment-oriented legislation. Partly, the rapid
regulatory process can of course be attributed to the fact that many industries had
beforehand already promised a voluntary phase-out. Given that production-related
emissions for these reasons will cease or at least continue to decline, it is diffi cult to
predict which roles MSFD and PSD will play in this particular case in the future.
Perhaps, MSFD’s focus on environmental quality might speed up the upstream
work so that increased focus on disposal and sanitation might follow, in order to try
to cope with still existing products in use.
Public policy has not focused on PFOA as it has on PFOS , and despite sciencebased identifi cation of problems with PFOA, restrictions are still not in place. Here,
HELCOM has taken a more pioneering role in terms of policy direction, but it
remains to be seen what that will lead to; HELCOM parties are not taking countrybased measures to the same extent after EU enlargement and the REACH regulation
as they (at least some of them) did before.
16 In many ways, PFOA seems to have
16 Some EU Member States’ initiatives regarding BPA and decaBDE show that national measures
are not completely impossible in an EU harmonised policy arena.
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek
5.5.3 Analysis of Measures Taken and Approaches Applied
When it comes to PFOS , the concentrations in the Baltic Sea have increased since
the 1960s, in some case exponentially (Holmström et al. 2005 ). Even if there are a
few recent signs of decline, PFOS levels exceed the thresholds in many monitoring
sites, ‘indicating moderate or even bad environmental status’, with the highest
PFOS levels in biota found in top consumers such as grey, harbour and ringed seals
(Nyberg et al. 2013b ). Much data on temporal trends is missing, and to what extent
PFOS levels really have started to decline in, for example, the Baltic Sea is therefore far from certain. Decreased levels in human blood have, however, been reported
in the USA in the 2000s, allegedly following the dominating producer 3
M-Corporations voluntary measure started in 2000 to phase out PFOS and related
chemicals (Renner 2008 ). Less is known about temporal development of PFOA in
the Baltic Sea, and trends can of course point in different directions depending on if
emissions, water concentrations or levels in biota are studied, with variations
between regions and species. Nevertheless, despite a downturn in emissions, also
due to a voluntary phase-out by large producers (‘the PFOA Stewardship programme’), levels of PFOA in the Arctic sea water have been predicted to continue
to increase until around 2030, whereas the situation has been predicted to improve
in the Northern Temperate zone in the 2010s (Butt et al. 2010 ).
From a regulatory point of view, the legislative process to restrict PFOS in the
EU was comparatively rapid, even if it – as so often otherwise – was initiated long
after science indicated problems existed. Here, the EU has been the dominating
phase-out force, whereas HELCOM has focused more on principal policy advice
and assessment , seemingly in the aftermath of the EU legislative process (whereas
HELCOM policy and assessments were ahead of legislation when it comes to
PCBs ). Moreover, regulatory action took place in particular in the sphere of chemicals policy and was not based on environment-oriented legislation. Partly, the rapid
regulatory process can of course be attributed to the fact that many industries had
beforehand already promised a voluntary phase-out. Given that production-related
emissions for these reasons will cease or at least continue to decline, it is diffi cult to
predict which roles MSFD and PSD will play in this particular case in the future.
Perhaps, MSFD’s focus on environmental quality might speed up the upstream
work so that increased focus on disposal and sanitation might follow, in order to try
to cope with still existing products in use.
Public policy has not focused on PFOA as it has on PFOS , and despite sciencebased identifi cation of problems with PFOA, restrictions are still not in place. Here,
HELCOM has taken a more pioneering role in terms of policy direction, but it
remains to be seen what that will lead to; HELCOM parties are not taking countrybased measures to the same extent after EU enlargement and the REACH regulation
as they (at least some of them) did before.
16 In many ways, PFOA seems to have
16 Some EU Member States’ initiatives regarding BPA and decaBDE show that national measures
are not completely impossible in an EU harmonised policy arena.
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek