29
To operationalise the Convention, HELCOM traditionally focuses on adopting
more detailed recommendations to the parties of the Convention, specifying, e.g.
proposed measures for reaching agreed objectives in the Convention and various
declarations, for instance,
6 Recommendation n.b. 28E/4 on plant nutrients
(HELCOM 2007b ). The binding decisions following agreements within HELCOM
are therefore foremost supposed to be taken on a national level, and to be carried out
through national implementation programmes ( NIPs ) (Backer et al. 2010 ;
Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ), or at the EU level. Since the most central HELCOM agreements are adopted at the ministerial level, i.e. with strong governmental support, a
high level of implementation is generally expected, to judge from our interviewees,
even though the legislative power as such is weaker than at the EU level. On the
other hand, HELCOM, in contrast to the EU, involves all countries in the Baltic Sea
region, where the Russian Federation is an important stakeholder from an environmental point of view (Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ).
The work of HELCOM has changed over time, following the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the resultant 1992 amendment of the Helsinki Convention and the enlargement
of the EU. More recently, HELCOM has opened more broadly for participation
of non-governmental organisations, such as the Swedish and Finnish national
agricultural organisations LRF and MTK, and the NGOs WWF and CCB, which
all have observer status. Interviewees highlighted that this refl ected an important
attitude change since stakeholders such as farmers and NGOs generally are seen to
play important roles when it comes to eutrophication management.
HELCOM’s most central and precise tool at present for marine governance is the
2007 BSAP , which aims to achieve good ecological status in the Baltic Sea by
2021, much in line with WFD and MSFD (Backer and Leppänen 2008 ; Backer et al.
2010 ). The BSAP aims to take a broad and systematic approach and defi nes visions,
goals, objectives, indicators, environmental targets and concrete management
actions (Backer et al. 2010 ), which are stated explicitly to be based on EAM and
aim to guide the implementation of environmental measures (Backer and Leppänen
2008 ; Backer et al. 2010 ; European Commission 2009a ; HELCOM 2007a , 2010 ).
In BSAP, national reduction targets for nitrogen and phosphorus are specifi ed.
2.3.2 Analysis of Structural Challenges
As pointed out earlier, the number of governmental bodies and regulatory frameworks related to governance of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region is high.
Governance at the international level dominates and steers the direction of action,
with EU legislation and HELCOM action plans and recommendations as the most
6 HELCOM has adopted a number of Recommendations related to eutrophication, for instance,
regarding: wastewater (nb. 6/7), phosphorus (13/10) and nutrients in general (7/2) in agriculture,
nitrogen in sewage water (16/17) and agriculture (24/3); see http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/
recommendations
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…
To operationalise the Convention, HELCOM traditionally focuses on adopting
more detailed recommendations to the parties of the Convention, specifying, e.g.
proposed measures for reaching agreed objectives in the Convention and various
declarations, for instance,
6 Recommendation n.b. 28E/4 on plant nutrients
(HELCOM 2007b ). The binding decisions following agreements within HELCOM
are therefore foremost supposed to be taken on a national level, and to be carried out
through national implementation programmes ( NIPs ) (Backer et al. 2010 ;
Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ), or at the EU level. Since the most central HELCOM agreements are adopted at the ministerial level, i.e. with strong governmental support, a
high level of implementation is generally expected, to judge from our interviewees,
even though the legislative power as such is weaker than at the EU level. On the
other hand, HELCOM, in contrast to the EU, involves all countries in the Baltic Sea
region, where the Russian Federation is an important stakeholder from an environmental point of view (Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ).
The work of HELCOM has changed over time, following the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the resultant 1992 amendment of the Helsinki Convention and the enlargement
of the EU. More recently, HELCOM has opened more broadly for participation
of non-governmental organisations, such as the Swedish and Finnish national
agricultural organisations LRF and MTK, and the NGOs WWF and CCB, which
all have observer status. Interviewees highlighted that this refl ected an important
attitude change since stakeholders such as farmers and NGOs generally are seen to
play important roles when it comes to eutrophication management.
HELCOM’s most central and precise tool at present for marine governance is the
2007 BSAP , which aims to achieve good ecological status in the Baltic Sea by
2021, much in line with WFD and MSFD (Backer and Leppänen 2008 ; Backer et al.
2010 ). The BSAP aims to take a broad and systematic approach and defi nes visions,
goals, objectives, indicators, environmental targets and concrete management
actions (Backer et al. 2010 ), which are stated explicitly to be based on EAM and
aim to guide the implementation of environmental measures (Backer and Leppänen
2008 ; Backer et al. 2010 ; European Commission 2009a ; HELCOM 2007a , 2010 ).
In BSAP, national reduction targets for nitrogen and phosphorus are specifi ed.
2.3.2 Analysis of Structural Challenges
As pointed out earlier, the number of governmental bodies and regulatory frameworks related to governance of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region is high.
Governance at the international level dominates and steers the direction of action,
with EU legislation and HELCOM action plans and recommendations as the most
6 HELCOM has adopted a number of Recommendations related to eutrophication, for instance,
regarding: wastewater (nb. 6/7), phosphorus (13/10) and nutrients in general (7/2) in agriculture,
nitrogen in sewage water (16/17) and agriculture (24/3); see http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/
recommendations
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…