In the Spotlight 

"Primarily, what is new in the revised approach is that each piece of the puzzle is redone with greatly improved methods and data," says Bo Gustafsson. Photo: Fred Wulff

Interview with Bo Gustafsson Managing Director, Baltic Nest Institute (BNI) Sweden

Coordinating the review process of the Baltic Sea Action Plan

Bo Gustafsson is closely involved in one of the current key processes of HELCOM - the review of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. He is also responsible for overall cooperation with HELCOM, and he acts as the co-leader of the Baltic Nest Institute Sweden with Christoph Humborg. Bo Gustafsson holds a PhD in physical oceanography.  

The first step of the BSAP review process, agreed on in the last Ministerial Meeting in 2010, is to lay down the scientific foundation for the work. Negotiations between the Contracting Parties on burden sharing and whether to accept the reviewed system will fully start once the scientific basis is ready in early 2013.

The Helsinki Convention has listed the basic principles of HELCOM’s work, including the precautionary principle, urging for preventive measures of any activities which might harm the Baltic Sea as well as the polluter pays principle. These principles will also apply to the review of the BSAP.

1)      How would you summarize the main features of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) review process?

Five years have passed since the agreement on the provisional nutrient load reduction targets was signed in Krakow in 2007. These were calculated with the very first version of the Baltic Nest Institute’s (BNI) decision support system. Since then, tremendous work has been invested in improving tools and data sets - as well as the scientific justification for these - in order to provide the best possible advice on country-wise nutrient reduction targets to the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in October 2013.

The "precautionary principle" as well as the "polluter pays principle" will both also apply to the review of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Photo: Metsähallitus

The review is based on an ambitious scientific foundation which comprises the targets describing good environmental status of the Baltic Sea. It is based on the work by the HELCOM TARGREV project for strengthening the scientific basis of HELCOM’s eutrophication targets; the calculation of the new Maximum Allowable Inputs using the latest model developments at BNI; and the allocation of nutrient load reductions to the Baltic Sea countries with a transparent and efficient tool from the BNI that uses the latest data from the HELCOM Pollution Load Compilation. Another new feature is that atmospheric nitrogen loads will be included in the allocation, implying that countries can utilize measures on nitrogen emissions to reach their reduction targets in addition to making reductions in loads to the Baltic Sea and rivers in the catchment.

2)      What has been your involvement in this process so far?

The Baltic Nest Institute in Stockholm is primarily supporting HELCOM in obtaining the revised Maximum Allowable Inputs and for calculating the country-wise nutrient load reduction targets. It has also been involved in the HELCOM TARGREV project. Besides leading the team at BNI, I actively take part in the calculations and tool development. In particular, being a marine scientist I am very much involved in the practical calculations of the Maximum Allowable Inputs. I spend much time communicating with the HELCOM Secretariat and national experts, along with the representatives of HELCOM working groups in order to obtain a widespread understanding and acceptance of methods and results, which is as important as obtaining the results themselves.

3)      In your view, what are the main differences between the original BSAP approach and the reviewed approach?

Simply put, the general approach is the same - calculate how much nutrient loads the Baltic Sea can receive and still reach good environmental status, and distribute the necessary load reductions in a way that is fair and within the Helsinki Convention principles. Primarily, what is new is that each piece of the puzzle is redone with greatly improved methods and data. The large BONUS+ program (2009-2011) coincided with much of the preparatory work and we have greatly benefited from the scientific achievements from several projects. For example, ECOSUPPORT providing ensemble modeling of the climate change aspects; RECOCA resulting in improved models for the catchment; and the HYPER results feeding into a better understanding of the development and dynamics of hypoxia that led to a new indicator.

Besides leading the overall review process, Gustafsson says he is also very much involved in the practical calculations of the Maximum Allowable Inputs. Photo: Essi Keskinen /Metsähallitus

4)      What has been the most challenging part in it?

The work is not done yet - maybe the most challenging is still to come. So far, however, besides numerous scientific and technical issues that need to be solved as they come, I think the challenge is to describe the advanced scientific work in a way that is accurate yet comprehensible so that it can be discussed at all the levels involved in the decision process. Here I get much help from the HELCOM LOAD Core group chaired by Lars M. Svendsen and the Secretariat who provide valuable advice.

5) In your opinion, why is the review process important?

In addition to the quality of the end result being improved, I think that the relatively long period we are working on the revision provides time to securely anchor the approach, methods and results both in the scientific and public communities in the involved countries.