Genomförandet i Sverige - Hur återställer vi Östersjön?

2.5.1 Problemet

En nationell svensk komplikation är att de målår och reduktionsbeting för kväve och fosfor som kommer att fastställas i BSAP i oktober 2013 kommer att bli juridiskt bindande miljökvalitetsnormer i Sverige, som enda land. 2007 hanterades BSAP-beslutet som en politisk process som sedan följdes upp genom ett nationellt åtgärdsprogram vilket kunde utformas på ett politisk godtagbart och realistiskt sätt. På grund av Sveriges unika sätt att införa EU:s vatten- och havsmiljödirektiv, i kombination med hur detta, som det verkar, direkt slås samman med BSAP:s mål och beting, blir HELCOM:s beslut om målår och

reduktionsbeting inom ramen för BSAP numera juridiskt bindande miljökvalitetsnormer i Sverige. Dessa ska följas av myndigheter och kommuner i enlighet med Miljöbalken och Plan- och bygglagen. Denna ordning för genomförandet i Sverige har ifrågasatts kraftigt i en rapport beställd av Miljömålsberedningen, skriven av miljöjuristerna Bjällås och Fröberg.

LRF instämmer i den kritik som framförs i rapporten och bedömer att dagens

genomförandemetod i Sverige riskerar att leda till mycket allvarliga och politiskt icke-önskvärda konsekvenser för bland annat svensk sysselsättning, ekonomi och

livsmedelsproduktion. Den analys av de samhällsekonomiska konsekvenserna av Sveriges åtaganden inom BSAP som Naturvårdsverket och Jordbruksverket gjorde 2008, visade att de svenska reduktionsbetingen skulle leda till orimliga konsekvenser för svenskt lantbruk, med bland annat omfattande nedläggningar som enda möjlighet att uppnå betingen. Med utgångspunkt i denna analys kan man förmoda att konsekvenserna av ett svenskt genomförande av reduktionsbetingen enligt nuvarande modell med juridiskt bindande miljökvalitetsnormer riskerar att få dramatiska konsekvenser för lantbruket i Sverige.

Samtidigt måste de miljömässiga vinsterna för Östersjön betecknas som högst osäkra eftersom produktionen då kan antas flytta till länder med en lika stor eller större miljöpåverkan. LRF:s uppfattning står även i samklang med Miljö- och jordbruksutskottets betänkande i samband

med att riksdagen beslutade att reformera miljömålssystemet, där utskottet framhöll att miljökvalitetsmålen visserligen ska vara ambitiösa och utmanande men att de inte får formuleras så att de blir omöjliga att nå.

2.5.2 LRF:s förslag

Havsmiljöpolitiken måste förbli politik i Sverige. Den nuvarande svenska ordningen, där HELCOM-besluten om BSAP kommer att ingå i havsmiljödirektivet och hanteras på myndighetsnivå utan att passera den politiska nivån, uppfattar inte LRF är ett resultat av ett medvetet politiskt val av dagens regering, utan en konsekvens av tidigare regeringars sätt att införa vatten- och havsmiljödirektiven som starkt kan ifrågasättas, vilket rapporten framtagen till Miljömålsberedningen har bekräftat. Riksdagen, regeringen och myndigheterna behöver därför skyndsamt se över och justera metoden att genomföra vatten- och havsmiljödirektiven, för att säkerställa att Sverige inte ensidigt utsätter sig för politiskt oönskade och orimliga konsekvenser för svensk ekonomi, sysselsättning och livsmedelsproduktion, med osäker miljönytta. Sådana förändringar vore också nödvändiga för en allmän förbättring av ramarna för havs- och vattenpolitiken i Sverige samt för att återskapa förtroendet för miljöstyrningen.

Vidare måste regeringen säkerställa att det görs en preliminär samhällsekonomisk konsekvensanalys av de föreslagna målen och reduktionsbetingen innan de beslutas inom HELCOM.

Regeringen bör presentera en skrivelse till riksdagen i god tid inför HELCOM-mötet i oktober 2013. Den bör ha sin utgångspunkt i den senast tillgängliga kunskapen och redovisa de samhällsekonomiska konsekvenserna. Skrivelsen bör bli början på en reviderad och fortsatt ambitiös Östersjöpolitik för Sverige och hela regionen, med målet en ej övergödd Östersjö så snabbt som det är fysiskt möjligt, till så låga kostnader som möjligt och utan orimliga konsekvenser för enskilda länder, sektorer, företag eller individer inom de rättsliga och politiska ramar som ges av EU:s vatten- och havsmiljödirektiv, HELCOM-arbetet och parlamentens styrning

13 2.6 Övriga synpunkter och förslag

2.6.1 LRF:s grundsyn om Östersjöpolitiken

För att Sverige på sikt ska kunna upprätthålla en stark position i arbetet med övergödning i Östersjön är det av yttersta vikt att problematiken hanteras på ett sätt som:

• Bygger på all relevant vetenskaplig underlag, även dessa kunskapers osäkerheter.

Forskningsresultaten måste tas på allvar och ge avtryck i den förda politiken; annars undermineras principen om beslutsfattande på basis av bästa tillgängliga kunskap.

• Beaktar samtliga tänkbara kostnadseffektiva åtgärder för att motverka övergödningen, inklusive åtgärder såväl i avrinningsområdet som direkt i Östersjön.

• Lever upp till riksdagens beslut om att miljömålen inom miljömålssystemet ska vara

”ambitiösa, men möjliga att nå”.

• Är begriplig, transparent och praktiskt genomförbar.

• Belönar och stimulerar livsmedelproduktion med hög växtnäringseffektivitet och allmän hög miljöprestanda, i stället för att straffa sådana jordbruk med möjlig nedläggning som konsekvens.

2.6.2 LRF:s förslag

Sverige behöver föra en mer åtgärdsinriktad politik som bygger på all relevant kunskap, kostnadseffektivitet och konsekvensanalyser. LRF vill medverka aktivt och konstruktivt till en sådan politik och önskar därför att regeringen snarast ska ta ett helhetsgrepp och samarbeta med såväl LRF som andra intressenter för att Östersjön ska återställas på snabbast och mest kostnadseffektiva sätt. Några exempel på LRF:s förslag till regeringen, utöver de mer övergripande förslagen som redovisats ovan, är följande:

• Säkerställ en rationell och kostnadseffektiv samordning av åtgärder för att minska övergödningen i Östersjön inom Sveriges nationella åtgärdsprogram inom ramen för EU:s ramdirektiv för vatten, havsmiljödirektivet och HELCOM:s BSAP.

• Öka och samordna Östersjöländernas gemensamma insatser mot övergödning inom Landsbygdsprogrammet (Pelare 2 i EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik).

• Säkerställ att LOVA-anslaget för lokala vattenvårdsprojekt från 2014 och framåt minst höjs till tidigare nivåer och riktas mot övergödningsproblemet.

• Säkerställ fortsatt stöd till Baltic Deal, ett internationellt samarbetsprojekt för att höja bönders och rådgivares kunskap om miljöåtgärder inom jordbruket runt Östersjön med fokus på växtnäringshantering.

3 Extended summary

In October 2013, Swedish Environment Minister Lena Ek, together with the Ministers of the Environment from the other states around the Baltic will – on behalf of their governments – decide upon revised ecological objectives and reduction targets for nutrient inputs from the catchment area to mitigate the problem of eutrophication. These decisions are taken within the framework of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) and its Baltic Sea Action Plan (hereafter BSAP). BSAP was launched in 2007 with Sweden as one of the main drivers and will now in 2013 connect directly to the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), in the sense that the BSAP objectives and reduction targets also become targets in the MSFD.

However, there are some serious concerns with the BSAP process that unfortunately risk leading to delays in the restoration of the Baltic Sea and increasing costs more than necessary.

The five main concerns are described in the sections below, along with proposals from the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) for modifications of the current Baltic Sea

eutrophication policy, in order to resolve these concerns. The first four issues relate to the international process, while the fifth primarily is a domestic Swedish problem.

3.1 Internal loads of phosphorus

3.1.1 The problem

New research on eutrophication in the Baltic shows that the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus since 1980-85 has decreased significantly overall, soon approaching the desired target levels (Maximum Allowable Input; MAI) that the researchers have modelled in the framework of the BSAP. This trend is very encouraging. Load reductions are, however, not an objective in itself but means to reach an objective, namely, the restoration of the ecological status of the Baltic Sea. The significant load reductions have not yet been matched with a similar

improvement of the ecological status, even if some signs of improvement have been noted. It appears that to restore the Baltic Sea there is still much more to do and much more time required. A major reason why the decreased nutrient loads have not resulted in large-scale

improvements is the phosphorus that since long time has been stored on the Baltic Sea bed.

Under oxygen-free conditions this phosphorous is released in non-organic form to the water column – so called internal load. The BSAP governance model as currently constructed more or less entirely neglects this internal load. Even though internal load cannot be functionally directly compared to external (and new) load, it is of great significance to recognize it as a source of phosphorus loads. Presently the internal loads are five times larger than current external phosphorus supply. In some of the Baltic Sea basins it is even higher. In the Gulf of Finland the internal load of phosphorous is ten times larger than the external load. The fact that these conditions are ignored in the action plans within the BSAP process risk leading to delays in restoring the Baltic Sea eutrophication, to increase the costs considerably more than necessary for both taxpayers and economic operators, and to make this happen at the expense of other important societal goals.

3.1.2 LRF's proposal

In the light of the substantial load reductions that have taken place, the analysis and action plans need to be broadened to include measures that can take place directly in the Baltic Sea, in addition to those in the catchment area. Such an approach would mean that, wherever appropriate, measures addressing internal load should be considered and thereby ensure that the restoration is done as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible and complementing measures on land. It would seem appropriate that this new approach is used when the Baltic countries in 2015, according to the MSFD, will develop their programs of action. In this context, it should be emphasised that measures in the Baltic Sea, like measures in the catchment area, would still not lead to fast recovery, and are mostly appropriate in coastal areas.

Sweden has in recent years financed, developed and tested a series of measures that can be implemented in the Baltic as cost-effective complements to actions in the catchment area. One example is oxygenation, which can also be done with the help of offshore wind mills. Such a combined approach essentially follows the same principle as used in the international actions against long-range transported air pollution (LRTAP) and connected actions to restore affected terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. That combined approach address measures

aimed to reduce emissions at source and remedial measures, such as liming efforts in affected countries such as Sweden and Norway, for example, for faster recovery in targeted places.

3.2 Estimated time for recovery

3.2.1 The problem

According to a unanimous marine research community, the internal load of phosphorus inevitably will result in the restoration of the Baltic Sea with respect to eutrophication taking considerably longer than the current, politically set target years (2021 according to BSAP and 2020 under the EU MSFD). At least another 25-50 years after 2020 are required according to the same scientist supporting HELCOM in calculating the reduction targets. The current target year is therefore completely unrealistic. From a good governance perspective this is

counterproductive for several reasons.

(i) It may create a serious uncertainty about HELCOM as a science-based organisation – an issue of scientific legitimacy and trust.

(ii) It may lead to concerns about an unjustified driven urgency on matters that may lead to economically unsound choices are being made – an issue of whether rational decision-making is taking place.

(iii) It may lead to a strong reluctance and non-acceptance of the entire governance process among countries and sectors – an issue of governance trust.

(iv) It makes assessments of progress towards targets unjust and unfair, insofar that the assessment criteria is a physical impossibility. This will lead to, whatever

measures done and resources spent, a negative assessment of ability to meet target.

It will lead to an immeasurable governance system – an issue of reasonability and proportionality.

3.2.2 LRF's proposal

The target years in the BSAP and the EU MSFD must be adjusted according to the new knowledge on the internal phosphorous load and the resulting extended restoration time, yet still remain ambitious. The target years must at least be physically possible to achieve. This is of particular importance for Sweden as Sweden on a unilateral basis has made the

environmental targets of the EU MSFD into legally binding environmental quality standards (EQS) (see section 3.5 below).

3.3 Calculation model for the reduction targets

3.3.1 The problem

When the national reduction targets are calculated, they are based upon the total loads. There is today no difference being made between the background load from the land in the

catchment area and the inputs from various anthropogenic activities, although it is the latter that can be addressed in the first place. As far as Sweden is concerned, this implies that the first proposal for revised reduction target for phosphorus to be decided at the HELCOM ministerial meeting in October 2013 appear to exceed the total net anthropogenic inputs, which cannot be regarded as anything but unreasonable. It is unknown whether this may also be valid for other countries. In light of the reduction targets, CARTs, becoming targets even within the EU MSFD, with possibly far-reaching consequences due to the sanction power of the EU, this needs careful consideration.

3.3.2 LRF’s proposal

It would be desirable that the calculations of national reduction targets could distinguish between the background load and the anthropogenic inputs, in order for the targets to be calculated from the latter. This would be important not least to avoid that countries like Sweden, with high background load in relation to the anthropogenic load, get

disproportionately high reduction targets that won’t be possible to meet, not even if there would come to massive closures of agricultural activities. Furthermore, it would be strongly desirable to quantify uncertainties associated to the modelled country allocated reduction targets. It is known that there are considerable uncertainties associated with the CARTs for small countries, such as the three Baltic States. In this context, LRF would like to draw attention to the Swedish Board of Agriculture's proposed action to reduce nutrient losses and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, published 2010. It points out that it could foresee actions that might reduce emissions from agriculture much more than the eight percent that the proposal aim for but that this hardly makes sense as long as consumption patterns remain

the same: "Nothing is gained if production moves and operates with equal or greater impact elsewhere. " This reasoning is based on the overarching new Generational goal in the national system of environmental quality objectives: “The overall goal of Swedish environmental policy is to hand over to the next generation a society in which the major environmental problems in Sweden have been solved, without increasing environmental and health problems outside Sweden’s borders. "

3.4 Cost-effectiveness

3.4.1 The problem

The BSAP governance process does currently not take into account that the countries around the Baltic Sea have radically different marginal costs of reducing emissions of nutrients. This leads to cost-ineffectiveness. The approach and philosophy devised in the modelling of the national reduction targets assumes equal marginal costs and do not recognise that the different countries are at very different levels (starting positions) when it concerns nutrient efficiency and loss reduction levels in various sectors. Another concern is that the natural background loads of nutrients form part of the gross load basis upon which the reduction targets are calculated. This inevitably leads to countries with a high background load relative to the antropogenic load getting excessively high reduction targets to be handled by the antropogenic sources. This is very costly, as well as unfair.

3.4.2 LRF's proposal

LRF would like to stress some of the key conclusion of the international Baltic Stern Report published in March 2013. It shows that it is possible to reduce the cost of a restoration of the Baltic Sea by up to 5 billion SEK per year by investing money where it does the most good.

This highlights the need for increased focus on cost-effectiveness and joint solutions, for example by pooling of financial, knowledge and technological resources between the Baltic countries and possibly an emission trading system in order to reduce the total social costs to restore the Baltic Sea. Also, it is paramount that the background load is estimated and excluded from the load basis upon which the reduction targets are calculated. It is entirely unreasonable to include this for calculating load reductions as this may lead to unjustified and unrealistic costly reduction targets for some countries and sectors.

20 3.5 Implementation in Sweden

3.5.1 The problem

A particular Swedish complication is that the target year and reduction targets for nitrogen and phosphorus that will be decided within BSAP in October 2013 will, as it seems, be legally binding environmental quality standards (EQS) in Sweden, as the only country. In 2007 and 2010, the BSAP was entirely driven as a political process that made it possible to handle some of the imperfections described above in a political acceptable and realistic way. Because of Sweden's unique way of implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the MSFD, in which ecological quality objectives and targets are replaced with legally binding EQS and merges with the BSAP objectives and targets, the forthcoming HELCOM decisions on ecological objectives and reduction targets and the associated target years will now become legally binding in Sweden as it seems. Authorities and municipalities are obliged to follow these EQS in accordance with the Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act in their official duties. This order of execution in Sweden has recently been seriously questioned in a report commissioned by the Secretariat of the Environmental Objectives’

Council, written by the environmental lawyers Bjällås and Fröberg. LRF concur with the analysis made in this report and believes that the current method of implementation in Sweden could lead to very serious and politically undesirable consequences for Swedish employment, economy and food production. The analysis of the economic impacts of Sweden's commitments within the BSAP 2007 done by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Board of Agriculture in 2008, showed that the Swedish reduction targets then would lead to unreasonable consequences for Swedish agriculture, including large areas lay fallowed as the only opportunity to achieve the reduction targets.

Based on this analysis, it would be fair to assume that the consequences of the Swedish implementation of reduction targets under the current model with legally binding EQS probably will have dramatic consequences for Swedish agriculture. Meanwhile, the

environmental benefits to the Baltic Sea are highly uncertain because food production can be assumed to move to countries with a similar or greater environmental impact. LRF's view is also in harmony with the report of the Swedish Parliament, in connection with the reform the

national system of environmental quality objectives, in which the Parliament stated that the environmental quality objectives certainly should be ambitious and challenging but they must not be formulated so that they become impossible to achieve.

3.5.2 LRF's proposal

Marine Environmental policy indeed must remain a political matter in Sweden. The current Swedish system, in which governmental decisions are made within HELCOM BSAP and then

In document Hur återställer vi Östersjön? (Page 11-0)