Diverging views between governments put the future of the Baltic Sea in jeopardy

CCB • September 6, 2013
Baltic Sea Environment Ministers will put pen to paper and sign the review of the Baltic Sea Action Plan in less than a month. Surprisingly, Sweden seems to be blocking any real progress, changing positions on a number of key issues.This week, representatives from the Baltic Sea countries met in Copenhagen to review environmental targets for the Baltic Sea. Sadly, marine conservation NGOs, including  Oceana ,  FISHCoalition Clean Baltic (CCB) , and the  Swedish Society for Nature Conservation , witnessed the squandering of a chance to reach a strong agreement in time for the upcoming Ministerial meeting.

“If this watered down agreement is adopted at the upcoming Ministerial meeting in Copenhagen 3rd October, the future of the Baltic Sea looks grim,” stated Hanna Paulomäki, Oceana’s Baltic Sea project manager.

Surprisingly Sweden, which was among the forerunners in 2007 when the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) was adopted, has now changed its mind on a number of key issues. The Swedish delegation tabled a controversial proposal on agricultural run-off applauded by the industry, which severely waters down the proposal to control over-fertilisation, a big factor behind the yearly algae blooms in the Baltic Sea. Sweden’s proposal goes so far as to make the fulfilment of already agreed targets in the BSAP voluntary for the member states – something that has rarely worked in the past

“This proposal is a catastrophe. Sweden has changed its position from the most environmentally friendly country to worst of the bunch, and now has the lowest ambition when it comes to agricultural runoff from farming. It’s embarrassing for Sweden,” added Gunnar Norén, Executive Secretary of Coalition Clean Baltic. The proposal received little support from the countries present and Germany issued some harsh criticism, but the issue remains unsolved for the moment.

The new Ministerial agreement – the reviewed HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan– is supposed to pave the way to solving the environmental challenges of the Baltic Sea and reaching good environmental status by 2020. Despite a straightforward path to reach this objective, diverging views and hesitation between different delegations are hijacking the progress.

“Even after two days of discussion, it is clear that there is a lack of willingness to proceed and stronger action is needed. Decision makers need to show courage and start implementing the targets they already agreed on”, concluded Hanna Paulomäki.

To restore the health of our sea, Baltic Sea governments need to deliver on their environmental promises.

Oceana, FISH and CCB want to see a commitment and clear actions in order to:

Restore water quality through a significant reduction of the amount of agricultural nutrient run-off; the main cause of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.
Recover the natural wealth of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea to ensure long-term sustainability and ecosystem integrity.
Revive the biological diversity by protecting important areas from destructive practices and putting in place proper management plans and measures.

The next round of discussions, ahead of the Ministerial meeting, will take place on the 23-24 September.

By CCB June 10, 2026
The poor status and decline of many Baltic Sea fish populations have been thoroughly documented over several decades, indicating that the entire ecosystem is in great distress. So far, policy interventions have not reversed, or even halted, the negative trend concerning many of these populations. The European Commission itself recently recognised in its Common Fishery Policy (CFP) evaluation report that progress on stock rebuilding is lacking and the number of stocks “ threatened by collapse due to impaired recruitment has increased during the reporting period ”. Fish populations that once formed the cornerstone of the Baltic Sea fishery, such as the eastern and western Baltic cod and the western Baltic herring, are now doing so poorly that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is advising zero catch for these stocks. Yet, even with the targeted fishery being closed for some years now, none of these three stocks are showing sufficient signs of recovery. The condition (such as size and weight-at-age) of many flatfish populations, such as plaice, also raises alarm bells. The salmon spawning migration has fallen short of the target level in the past three years5. As a result, even the healthiest salmon stocks are now unlikely to produce enough smolts corresponding to sustainable levels in the coming years. To address the crisis facing Baltic populations and the broader ecosystem, political will and ambition to improve fisheries management, alongside full implementation of the CFP provisions, are needed. The recent INI report on the Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan shows that the European Parliament recognises the importance of ecosystem-based fisheries management as well as the need for consideration of environmental legislation when making decisions on fishing opportunities.6 Fisheries managers must now act swiftly and decisively on the commitment the Commission and Baltic Sea Member States made at last year’s October Agrifish Council to rebuild Baltic Sea stocks. This document presents the joint NGO recommendations regarding Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027, prioritising long-term ecosystem health and sustainable fisheries management over short-term economic interests. The recommendations are based on the ICES advice, the objectives and requirements of the CFP8 and the Baltic Multiannual Plan (MAP), specifically to apply the precautionary approach and implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, and the objective of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Last year’s overarching joint Briefing Series on TAC-setting, co-signed by almost 30 organisations across the EU and the UK, including environmental NGOs, recreational fishers, and fishing rights owners, remains valid and provides further context, background and detailed explanations on the cross-cutting issues raised in this document. Read the Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 here .
By CCB June 2, 2026
About CCB Coalition Clean Baltic – CCB is a politically independent network, uniting 28 environmental non-profit organizations, as well as partners and experts from 11 countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. The main goal of CCB is to promote the protection and improvement of the environment and natural resources of the Baltic Sea region by encouraging new and constructive approaches and engaging people to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. CCB Secretariat is based in Uppsala, Sweden. Background The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) from 2021 includes a commitment to develop a regional action plan for habitat and biotope restoration by 2026. This plan is expected to: Define qualitative and quantitative restoration targets Establish a prioritized list of restoration actions Provide an implementation toolbox of best practices and methods The scope of the HELCOM action plan focuses exclusively on benthic habitats and biotopes , with particular emphasis on active restoration measures . Adoption of the plan is foreseen at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2026. Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) recognizes the importance of the HELCOM process but also the need to strengthen ambition, improve implementation guidance, consider a source-to-sea approach, and ensure long term ecological effectiveness . Therefore, a CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan will complement and critically assess the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan. The purpose of the CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan is to: Provide a science-based and practice-oriented complement to the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan Identify gaps, weaknesses, and missing elements in the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan Propose concrete, implementable actions, under a source-to-sea approach, to ensure effective restoration outcomes Strengthen alignment with the BSAP objectives and broader regional and EU policies Your Role You will compile the CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan with aims to: 1. Assess the proposed HELCOM restoration measures , particularly their expected ecological impact by Reviewing proposed HELCOM actions for benthic habitats Evaluating whether actions are sufficient to achieve good environmental status Identifing missing measures, insufficient ambition, or unclear guidance 2. Define recommendations on how restoration should be implemented in practice including Required scale, intensity, and geographic coverage of actions Feasibility and effectiveness of active restoration methods 3. Propose additional actions and priorities , especially where the scope of the HELCOM action plan is insufficient, such as Integration of a source-to-sea approach for better ecological coherence Passive restoration measures Including actions on riverine systems (barrier removal, flow restoration) and coastal ecosystems (dunes, wetlands, lagoons) Incorporating important fish habitats and spawning/nursery areas, as well as ecosystem connectivity 4. Align HELCOM restoration efforts with other relevant policy frameworks , including the Baltic Sea Action Plan, Marine Action Plan, EU Biodiversity Strategy, Nature Restoration Regulation, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, Water Framework Directive and Common Fisheries Policy. This is a Joint efforts with WWF Baltic Sea Programme The organisations, CCB and WWF Baltic Sea Program, will produce two separate documents with separate logos and will be presented at a joint side-event at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2026. Actions for the Consultant/Expert & products to deliver The final document of the shadow restoration implementation plan Conduct interviews with all WA Leaders and MOs of CCB working on restoration to gather concrete input Share at the end all notes of the research and transcripts of interviews with MOs Bi-weekly call of consultant + CCB to check-in on progress, problems and next steps Publications/Sources CCB Restoration Guidelines https://irp.cdn-website.com/53007095/files/uploaded/CCB+Restoration+Guidelines_Update+October+2025.pdf CCB BSAP Shadow Plan: https://www.ccb.se/publication/Shadow%20Plan Profile A college degree, preferably in marine science, political science, environmental studies, social sciences, or a comparable field Experience in political campaigning, strategic communication, or advocacy, ideally in environmental, climate, nature, or marine conservation, preferably with an NGO Knowledge about relevant political settings and frameworks in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM, BSAP, MSFD, NRRL, ...) Experience in collaborating with coalitions, initiatives and civil society actors Initiative, independence and reliability working fully remotely Excellent written and spoken English are required Contract Terms Contract Type: can be structured as a consulting contract or a fixed-term employment (for candidates based in Sweden). We are open to discuss what works best depending on your situation. Time: From 15 June until 15 Oct 2026, at 50-75% work pace. Location: Remote position. Application Process: Should you be interested in applying for this position please send your CV (max. 2 pages) together with a personal letter (max. 1 page) before 9 June 2026 to: secretariat@ccb.se *** Being an international organization, CCB’s work is carried out in English. Applications submitted in any other language will not be considered. Incomplete applications (e.g. lacking either CV or personal letter) will be also not considered. We will be reviewing applications as they come in and encourage early applications. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. *** For inquiries , contact CCB Biodiversity Officer: andrea.cervantes@ccb.se Equal Opportunities CCB is an equal opportunity employer. In the application and hiring process, CCB will not discriminate against any individual based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property, disability, age, family status, sexual orientation and gender identity, economic and social situation.