SUMMING UP THE RESULTS OF THE YEAR 2004
Interview with Gunnar Noren, the Coalition Clean Baltic Executive Secretary
Taken by Alexander Fedorov

Q: What was the year 2004 for Coalition Clean Baltic?

A: I think it was a good year for CCB. It was the year when we expanded our activities, we became more recognised, we had more chances to speak and to try to influence different decision-makers at the political level.

For example, CCB had a special financing from the company COOP Sweden for the project about sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Sea. We presented a report last summer, and it received quite a lot of attention and interest about views how to manage fisheries in a more sustainable way.

We were also recognised at the political level by the Nordic countries. In 2004 the CCB received the Nordic Council Environmental Prize. This gives us of course more possibilities to address and to speak at the political level, to be more confident. And our views are more listened to and more respected.

The year 2004 was the year of the European Union expansion. Another four Baltic states became members of the EU. This gives more positive possibilities to sustainable development and protection of the Baltic Sea environment. The EU regulations, requirements, and directives give new instruments to steer towards better protection of the environment and of natural resources. Now we have Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine outside the EU, and it is very crucial how co-operation of these countries with the EU will be developed in the future.

Q.: What are presently the main environmental problems for the Baltic Sea?

A.: As the first problem, I would like to highlight the problem with fisheries and with the natural resource for fishing in the Baltic Sea. This problem has expanded very much during the last ten years. We are coming now to a very critical level. We know that the scientific advice is that no fishing for cod east of Bornholm is adviced in the Baltic Sea, because the stock is very-very small and weak there. But at the political level, under the pressure of the fishery lobby, decisions have been made that the fisheries there should go on. This raises the risk of collapse of the cod stock in the Baltic Sea. Every year fisheries take out every second cod (50 % of all cods) in the Baltic Sea. And it has been repeated for many years. Everyone can understand that this kind of management cannot last for long, that we will have a collapse sooner or later.

We have the same situation as it was ten year ago outside Newfoundland, in the North Atlantic, where cod was overfished. Now cod is extinct there, it is not coming back. If it happens to the Baltic Sea, it would be an enormous tragedy. Fishery has the most direct human impact on the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea by removing 50 % of all cods every year. This is an enormous impact on the Baltic ecosystem. Therefore, it is very important to work on this issue.

Other problems are of course very well known. Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea is one of them, and it is not solved yet. Pollution load has remained at the same level for many years. The question is how it can be solved for the future. We have a lot of algae blooms, and we have 50 thousands square kilometres of dead bottoms in the Baltic Sea.

Toxic pollution in the Baltic Sea is also one of the main problems. It was not very much focused by the media during last years. But now it is more and more obvious, for example, through EU regulations for the limits of dioxin concentrations in food products. These limits excluded the Baltic salmon from being used for human consumption. This clearly shows that we have a very serious problem of toxic substances in the Baltic Sea. We need effective actions to solve this problem.

Another problem is oil transports in the Baltic Sea. It has expanded very much recently and raises new potential risks for accidents and strong impact on the ecosystem. Export of Russian oil to the world markets through the Baltic Sea makes these risks grow now very rapidly.

Q.: Will you please point out major accomplishments by CCB in 2004?

A.: I think one of them (that we must we be very happy about) is that the Baltic Sea was appointed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSAA) in April 2004. CCB has raised this issue for four of five year already to the political level. Russia was against it, but it was decided anyway. That is of course a good step. Now we will see how this will end up, what regulations will follow with such an appointment.

We also had some success in HELCOM when we were trying to address agricultural problems, especially big industrial farms. Expansion of big pig industrial farms takes place in the Baltic Sea Region, for example, in Poland, and also in Lithuania and Latvia. We insist on fully following proper requirements for this kind of big industrial farms. We have been asking for reports and assessments to be made, so we will see how HELCOM will handle this. I think it is positive that the governments are recognising the problem and are starting to work at it.

In 2004 the CCB has expanded its interventions to the political level at high-level meetings, and used more meetings and more occasions to forward the CCB message on how to solve environmental problems and to steer up sustainable development. I think it is a positive accomplishment for CCB.

Q.: What failures could you name concerning the CCB activities in 2004?

A.: We know that CCB organisations were campaigning on "D-6" oil platform outside Kaliningrad. Nevertheless, it was opened. It can be seen as a failure. But in a way it was a success to some extend also, because it forced Russia to look more into the better techniques, best available technology for this kind of installations. So, I think the pressure through the media attention to these matters was successful.

Additionally, we can see that this "D-6" issue was raised in HELCOM. There is a recommendation in HELCOM that the new installations that can have a transboundary impact should have an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) presented to HELCOM and neighbouring countries, to give them a chance to give comments before the decision on such installation is made. It resulted in discussions that are still going on about how exactly detailed requirements on EIA should be made. But so far it is a failure because there are no clear requirements for the international EIA in such cases by now.

When we look at the Baltic 21 process, the Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region, it has been a dying process during the last year. CCB tried to put energy into it, to get governments to give commitments for the stronger support to this process. Unfortunately, such support has not been given so far. It is a failure, because this process gives a chance to work for sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region.

Among our failures is the state of coastal protection in countries around the Baltic Sea. Last year the CCB presented the report "Checking Coastal Conservation". There we can see that much of coastal activities on the national level are not environmentally friendly. So, coastal protection is still lagging behind very much in the Baltic Sea Region.

Q.: What are the main challenges CBB is facing now?

A.: I think that challenges to CCB that we have limited resources. We need to focus to be more effective, more efficient, to get more and clear results at the political level, at lobby work, to focus on some issues where we see some possibilities to make a change. This was always a challenge for environmental NGOs.

In fishery management, we have one challenge in the coming year 2005. Now will be the year when the Baltic Regional Advisory Council for Fishery will be started. This has been decided by the EU that such Regional Advisory Councils will be established for different European Seas, and Baltic Sea is one of them.

That means that we have a challenge for CCB to improve co-operation between different environmental NGOs at the European level, to influence European environmental policy. This also means working with the European Environmental Bureau.

Another challenge is to make next steps for protection of the wild Baltic salmon (not for fish-farmed and released salmon). Many rivers have very small populations of such salmon, may be some 50 - 500 salmons returning to spawns every year in some rivers. And they may easily be wiped out with open-sea fishery, with mixed fishery for salmon. We are trying to make this things not happen, to raise awareness of this.

In the new and expanded EU the challenge is how we involve other countries, like Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in the Baltic co-operation. It is important, of course, how these things can be worked on and solved within CCB, how these different aspects can be taken into account inside and outside the EU.

Q.: How you can comment relations between the European Union and Russia in the sphere of protection of the Baltic Sea environment?

A.: When it comes to relations between Russia and EU, I would say there are some positive signs. Russia is willing to respond to some of the discussions at the international level, at the European level. The example is the discussion about shipping in the Baltic Sea. The Russian prime-minister Fradkov told in June last year that Russia will use only double-hull tankers to oil transportation in the Baltic Sea from April 2005. I think it is a positive sign, but of course not only political declarations but legally binding commitments are needed from Russia.

Q.: What would you like to wish CCB member organisation for the year 2005?

A.: We wish CCB organisations successes in their work, especially in their work within CCB Priority Activities. I also hope that more CCB organisations can see possibilities to use the strength and capacity of the CCB network to change the non-sustainable development on the national level, on the Baltic Sea level, and on the European level, for the coming year. So we can join resources in our efforts to make better world for the people and for the environment in the modern Europe.