ccb 2015 annual report · ccb annual report, 2015 6 introduction the main goal of ccb is to promote...

Annual Report 2015Approved by CCB General Meeting on 22 May 2016, Lviv, Ukraine

May 2016

For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as: Coalition Clean Baltic, 2016. Annual Report 2015. Uppsala, Sweden, 2016. Information included in this publication or extracts thereof are free for citation on the condition that the complete reference of the publication is given as stated above.

© Copyright 2016 by the Coalition Clean Baltic

Published in May 2016 by the Coalition Clean Baltic with a support of EU Life Programme and the Nordic Council of Ministers

Address: Östra Ågatan 53, SE-753 22 Uppsala, Sweden

+46 (0)18 71 11 70

Layout & Production: Coalition Clean Baltic

CONTENTS

Acronyms used ................................................................................................................................ 5

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6

HIGHLIGHTS .................................................................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF THE WORK PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 9

1. Objectives: ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Activities and means involved: ............................................................................................................................................... 9

3. Results and impacts: ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

4. Deviations/Unforeseen external factors ............................................................................................................................... 11

5. Effectiveness and lessons learned ........................................................................................................................................ 11

WORK PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES IN EACH POLICY AREA ................................................................ 12

1. BIODIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Salmon ................................................................................................................................. 12

1.2 Harbour Porpoise ................................................................................................................. 14

1.3 European Eel ........................................................................................................................ 16

2. MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................... 17

2.1 Coordination and support to public consultations on Programme of Measures of the MSFD ............................................................................................................................................. 17

2.2 Marine Litter ........................................................................................................................ 20

2.2.A. Micro plastics: sources, effects and prevention .............................................................. 20

2.2.B. Enabling monitoring: Training and use of existing monitoring tools to increase knowledge and data on beach litter ............................................................................................. 22

2.3 Marine gravel extraction ...................................................................................................... 23

2.4 European Seas Environmental Cooperation (ESEC) ............................................................. 24

3. FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE: COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (CFP) AND INTEGRATION WITH EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Implementation of the CFP .................................................................................................. 25

3.2 Aquaculture .......................................................................................................................... 28

4. CLIMATE CHANGE & BALTIC SEA ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 31

5. IMPROVE INTEGRATION OF CAP AND EU/BSR POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES ..................................................... 32

5.1 Baltic Sea Region policies and programmes related to environmental protection in agriculture sector .......................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 CAP‐subsidies programmes support for water protection .................................................. 33

CCB Annual Report, 2015

4

5.3 Activities specifically focused on Poland ............................................................................. 34

6. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSION DIRECTIVE (IED-IPPC) FOR INTENSIVE REARING OF POULTRY AND PIGS. IMPLEMENTATION OF EU NITRATES DIRECTIVE IN BALTIC SEA REGION. ................................... 35

6.1 Development and application of Best Practice for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (IRPP) ............................................................................................................................................. 35

6.2 Activities specifically focused on Poland ............................................................................. 36

6.3 Implementation and development of EU policies on Sustainable Use of Phosphorus (related to EU Waste Framework Directive) ................................................................................. 37

7. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 38

7.1 River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and River Watch (RW) .......................................... 38

7.1.A River Basin Management in Biała river, Poland .................................................................. 39

7.1.B River Basin Management – River Watch in Latvia .............................................................. 40

7.1.C River Basin Management – River Watch in Lithuania ......................................................... 42

7.2 Wastewater treatment ‐ Sustainable Wastewater management ....................................... 43

7.2.A Application of Sustainable Wastewater management concepts and Eco‐sanitation solutions for single‐family homes at Biala River, Poland .............................................................. 43

8. ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING ......................................................................... 44

8.1 Network capacity building ................................................................................................... 44

8.2 Network enlargement .......................................................................................................... 45

8.3 Staffing and technical competence including external experts ........................................... 45

8.4 Organisational structure ...................................................................................................... 46

8.5 Strengthened internal and external communication .......................................................... 46

8.6 Partnership / relations with other stakeholders. ................................................................. 49

8.7 Fundraising situation and plans/strategies to ensure diversification and sustainability .... 49

8.8. Administrative and Financial Management ......................................................................... 50

8.8 Evaluation and reporting ..................................................................................................... 50

Description of the financial status of the organisation, fundraising strategy for the upcoming year(s) and financial sustainability of the organisation ................................................................ 50

FINANCIAL OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................. 52

Appendix 1. CCB Calendar of internal and external events ............................................................. 53

Appendix 2. List of CCB publications (reports, documents, statements) released in 2015 ............... 56


5

Acronyms used

BALTFISH Baltic Fisheries Forum BAT Best Available Technique

BEP Best Environmental Practice BSR Baltic Sea Region

BSAC Baltic Sea Advisory Council BSAP Baltic Sea Action Plan

CAP EU Common Agricultural Policy CC Climate change

CCB Coalition Clean Baltic CFP EU Common Fisheries Policy

EUSBSR EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region M(EP) (Member) of the European Parliament

EC/EU European Commission/European Union GES Good Environmental/Ecological Status

HD EU Habitats Directive IAF Industrial Animal Farm

NIS/IAS Non-Indigenous/Invasive Alien Species ND Nitrates Directive

MO(s) Member Organization(-s) RAP ML HELCOM Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (ML)

MPA Marine Protected Area MSP (D) Maritime Spatial Planning (Directive)

MS Member State MSFD EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NCM Nordic Council of Ministers PA Policy Area

PoM Programmes of Measures RBMP River Basin Management Plan

RW River Watch UWWT (D) Urban Waste Water Treatment (Directive)

WG Working Group VASAB Visions and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea

WFD EU Water Framework Directive WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

HELCOM Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

CCB’s Working Areas

AGRI Water Protection in Agriculture NATURE Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

RIVER River Basin and Wastewater Management HAZARD Hazardous Substances and Marine Litter

FISH Fisheries and Aquaculture COAST Sustainable Development in Coastal and Marine Areas

DANGER Harmful Intsllation and Maritime Transport


6

INTRODUCTION

The main goal of CCB is to promote the protection and improvement of the Baltic Sea environment and its natural resources, using mutual basis and joint activities in the CCB network. These include seeking opportunities to encourage new and constructive approaches and engaging people to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. With wide coverage of the whole Baltic Sea catchment, CCB is able to address problems of the marine environment that originate far upstream, thus addressing the whole causal chain from pressures and impacts to effective response. Being an international network organization, CCB has the advantage of being able to work both at the international and national policy levels as well as with concrete field projects. CCB creates international public opinion about Baltic Sea issues, within and outside the region. Of central importance is the regional implementation of EU environmental legislation and the Regional Sea Convention – Helsinki Convention (HELCOM).

In the coming years, the main environmental policy efforts in the Baltic Sea Region, along with other European marine regions, will be focused on activities towards reaching Good Environmental Status (GES) of the sea, through implementation of respective Programmes of Measures under EU Marine Strategy Directive (MSFD) coupled regionally with HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). This also requires coordinated implementation of other relevant elements of the EU environmental acquis, including but not limited to Water Framework Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment and Habitats Directives, in coherence with respective sectoral policies and frameworks, e.g. EU Integrated Maritime Policy, Common Fisheries and Common Agricultural Policies. In addition to the MSFD, environmental pillar of the EU Integrated Maritime Policy, the other one – the Maritime Spatial Planning, will be addressed in CCB’s work in the coming years, ensuring that it is performed with ecosystem approach as one of its cornerstones and in coordination with relevant environmental acquis and sectoral policies, as stated above.

In order to strengthen its efforts and joint work to restore the marine environment of the Baltic Sea, the CCB has jointly decided on 7 Working Areas including three priority ones, important for all members:

− Water Protection in Agriculture (priority) − Fisheries and Aquaculture (priority) − River Basin and Wastewater Management (priority) − Biodiversity and Nature Conservation − Hazardous substances and marine litter − Sustainable development in coastal and marine areas − Harmful installations and maritime transport

Each of those working areas is coordinated across the network by one or several MOs and/or CCB Secretariat. The Working Areas will be the main instrumental in implementation of this Biannual Strat‐egy, contributing to both thematic areas and cross‐cutting issues, in parallel to the process of organi‐zational strengthening and development.The work on implementation of policy objectives under each of the working areas is coordinated with relevant bodies and working structures of the EC and/or HELCOM. EU‐Baltic coordination is foreseen to be strengthened when the EU will be chairing HELCOM from July 2016 till June 2018.At the EU policy level, CCB actively represents MOs as a joint lobby organization through − EC: regular working contacts with DG MARE/ENV; participation in Marine Strategy Coordination

Group and WG on Good Environmental Status, WG on Invasive Alien Species; − EP: regular working contacts with MEPs on marine, water and fisheries related policies, including

rapporteurs in PECH (Fisheries), ENVI (Environment), public health and food safety committees − Participation in Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), established under the EU CFPOn regional

environmental and sectoral policy level,

CCB is an Observer and active stakeholder at


7

− Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) and its subsidiary bodies: Heads of Delegation (HOD), Group on the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR), Working Group on Reduction of Pres‐sures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE), Working Group on the State of the Envi‐ronment and Nature Conservation (STATE), Group on Sustainable Agricultural Practices (AGRI), Group on Ecosystem‐Based Sustainable Fisheries (FISH), Task Force on Migratory Fish‐Species, Joint HELCOM‐VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (MSP WG)

− EUSBSR and its Policy Areas Nutri and Bioeconomy, including Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH) under PA Bioeconomy, Horizontal Area Spatial

At national level CCB MOs are participating to various stakeholder WGs in relevant ministries

Globally CCB’s engagement includes the work and participation at he IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Jastarnia Group/ASCOBANS (Agree‐ment on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas) and as a partner of the Global Water Partnership (GWP), as well as an observer at NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation), IWC (International Whaling Commission) and ICES (International Council for Exploration of the Seas).

One of the important means to address and reach out to the EU/Baltic/global policy level that CCB actively utilises is its website and social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. Using various IT‐tools, including electronic publishing media and e‐communication/meetings, also enhances CCB’s work towards carbon neutrality of its operations/activities.

During 2015 CCB received funding from the EU LIFE Programme, the nordic Council of Ministers, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Air & Climate Secretariat, the FISH secretariat, the Swedish Institute and from Member Organisations, totalling 5,295,000 SEK. All activities were carried out through MOs and with coordination under CCB Working Areas.

CCB will continue focusing its activities in 2016‐2017 on support and promotion of reaching GES by actions within its working areas both addressing state of the environment and pressures upstream, as well as at sea itself. Some issues of CCB’s work extend across Sea/Land thematic fields, such include e.g. migrating fish species, invasive alien species. With the understanding that climate change reduces even further the resilience of the sensitive Baltic Sea ecosystem to other man‐induced pressures, climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies for the Baltic Sea catchment will form another cross‐cutting element of the CCB’s work for the coming period. These three Policy Areas will drive activities across all CCB’s Working Areas, linking sea‐, coast‐ and land‐based solutions for protecting the Baltic Sea marine environment.

Within its work for the upcoming 2016‐2017 period CCB will maintain its persistent and continued approach in ensuring coherence and consistency of the EU policies implementation with relevant environmental acquis, as well as channelling grass‐root level feedback to the EC on gaps and breaches when implementing existing policies, and needs for additional instruments to address emerging issues. An adaptive management will be also applied as needed in order to adjust realization of the Biannual Strategic Plan to potential changes in policies and processes.


8

HIGHLIGHTS Topical for 2015 within CCB activities have been the following issues:

Further improving management to reduce negative impact on the threatened eel stock A new impetus of eel conservation measures was gained with European eel being listed under Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention). CCB has re-engaged into both political discussion on the need to stop completely eel fisheries in the Baltic, both acting through consumers, boycotting purchase of eel and through policy-makers at EU and HELCOM level – calling for efficient implementation of agreed measures and commitments.

Highlighting the importance of implementing and funding of the MSFD Programs of Measures CCB advocated for coherent implementation of EU MSFD in line with other parts of EU environmental acquis, i.e. Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, as well as sectorial policies, e.g. CFP and regionally agreed targets, namely HELCOM BSAP. The main aim of this action was to influence the Member States during development, consultation and adoption of the national Programmes of Measures, to avoid weakening of the PoMs and to support national environmental administrations in their work

Campaign to assess the scale of the problem with microplastics in personal care consumer products/cosmetics and further on – to ban it across the BSR

CCB has engaged itself into a marine litter field for the first time, starting with exploring possibilities for region-wide application common marine litter monitoring tools (Marine LitterWatch by EEA) and continuing with a coordinated campaign against marine litter components in personal care consumer products (cosmetics). It resulted in compilation of national lists of products containing microplastic, raising awareness among consumers, vendors and producers.

Advocating for sustainable aquaculture growth of in the BSR CCB actively participated in drafting HELCOM recommendation on sustainable aquaculture within the BSR and at the same time pursued the idea of Land-based recirculated aquaculture systems as the only viable option for development of this sector within BSR. This activity has culminated with an International Seminar on Land-based aquaculture systems with global attendance and interests from various stakeholders, including small- and large-scale fish-farming businesses.

Finalizing and presenting the report on climate change implications on the Baltic Sea biodiversity

The report’s aim was to distill and present in a popular way the issue of climate change and its impacts on the Baltic Sea nature, its habitats and species, and foreseen adverse effects for economic development, including specific sectors, e.g. fisheries. The report was released on the starting date of the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change and received a lot of positive feedback, especially through social media. This work will continue in 2016-2017 with a closer look at climate adaptation strategies.

Concluding and presenting measures addressing impacts of industrial animal farms A continuation of actions since 2006-2007 aiming at promotion of Best Available Techniques for Industrial Animal Farming (Intensive Rearing of cattle, poultry and pigs) and implementation of respective requirements of the HELCOM BSAP and the Helsinki Convention. The action consisted of several activities ranging from awareness raising workshops within EU and non-EU countries with industry to assessment of current national manure management practices and inputs to the revision of the EU-wide BAT for the sector.


9

SUMMARY OF THE WORK PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

1. Objectives: Most of the one-year environmental objectives of the 2015 CCB’s Work Programme have been implemented in full extent although with a slight delay caused by slow national processes with MSFD implementation.

1. Form joint NGO recommendations on key MSFD measures and fill the serious gaps in Member States work so far to set GES, targets and relevant indicators on biodiversity, commercial fisheries, eutrophication and marine litter

2. Support and coordinate NGOs in participating in public consultations of the Member States Programmes of Measures of the MSFD

3. Strengthen information efforts regarding the highly threatened European eel and push for increased effort to stop the IUU fishery for eel

4. Secure that strong standards are included in the new Intensive Rearing of Pigs and Poultry BREF (Ref doc on BAT) to minimize nutrient surplus on farmland and nutrient leakage from manure - The longer-term (1-year and overall) environmental objectives have been also met – in

line with the activities performed in 2015 and will continue to be relevant for 2016-2017 Strategic Work Programme, as well as later.

5. Increase the awareness about existence and problems of micro plastics in consumer products and other sources and the amounts, concentrations and effects these particles have in the environment

6. Improve management of the threatened Baltic populations of harbour porpoise by making concrete proposals for new protected areas based on new scientific data for implementation in MFSD

7. Increase knowledge of sustainable aquaculture and improve understanding of options for aquaculture among NGOs as well as among managers

8. Improvement for high environmental standards for nutrient-balanced fertilization and other measures to minimize the nutrient run-off from agriculture, within the HELCOM process for implementation of Ministerial decisions from 2013.

9. Improving cooperation within CCB by establishing new priority area coordinators as staff, and improve consistency in positions and communication between the marine regional NGO networks in EU

10. Influence Baltic EU Member States to secure cross-compliance between CAP subsidies and WFD goals to safeguard priorities on water protection.

11. Likewise, the 1-year and overall climate objective has been met in 2015 and will continue to be relevant for CCB.

12. Focus on adapting to climate change in relation to CCB priorities, underlining the need to incorporate climate change adaption into management of everything from salmon to eutrophication.

2. Activities and means involved: In 2015 CCB focused on three Priority Areas

1) Water protection in Agriculture: reduction of excessive nutrient load to the Baltic Sea through promotion of sustainable agricultural practices

2) River Basin and Waste Management: implementing the WFD; performing RiverWatch educational activities/River basin management, incl. protection of Baltic river ecosystems

3) Fisheries and Aquaculture: development of Sustainable Baltic Sea fisheries and Aquaculture; Promotion of sustainable fishing practices and Best Available Technology and best practices in


10

aquaculture; Protection of the wild Baltic salmon through international NGOs cooperation, and supporting member organisations in their actions and programmes (aiming at Baltic Sea protection)

Other Work Areas include: Biodiversity and nature conservation, Hazardous substances and marine litter, Sustainable development in coastal and marine areas, Harmful installations and maritime transport.

Majority of the planned activities in CCB’s 2015 Work Programme were implemented in full and as planned:

1. New information materials and proposals regarding eel and harbour porpoise protection were produced, presented and disseminated, linking to implementation of the MSFD, the CFP and EU Biodiversity Strategy. Targeted to regional fishery and environmental bodies, the EC as well as national authorities and NGOs.

2. EU wide NGO coordination project on MSFD implementation started aiming to jointly decide on main NGOs messages on needed measures, targets and indicators to be included in national Programmes of Measures.

3. Project on microplastics as one of most dangerous parts of marine litter has been launched with setting NGO expert network, campaigning against micro plastics in cosmetics and raising public awareness of the issue.

4. The work on promoting sustainable aquaculture practices within BSR was continued through an international seminar on land based recirculatory aquaculture systems with speakers representing national, EU-wide and global players; inputs to finalization of HELCOM recommendation were also provided.

5. Active participation in updating of HELCOM’s provisions on pollution prevention from Agriculture, and in the EC (IRPP BREF Technical WG), on revision of BAT for intensive animal farming, was ensured.

6. During the accomplished year (2015) CCB has continued working with supporting and lobbying for, when possible, the governmental actions and programmes for protection of the Baltic Sea region environment and natural resources, e.g. within HELCOM, in particular the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), and European Union, including activities related to the EU Maritime Strategy Framework Directive, Common Fisheries and Common Agricultural Policies, the Baltic Sea Advisory Council for fisheries (BSAC), and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.

3. Results and impacts: Fully accomplished results and impacts of 2015 Work Programme: - Development of aquaculture as an evolving blue economy sector within BSR and EU-wide is

directed towards more sustainable path based on exemplary BAT solutions presented by CCB, - Several websites focusing on runoff and emission reduction in agriculture were launched, e.g.

on industrial animal farming and Ecological Recycling Agriculture (ERA), providing in-depth information for farmers, decision-makers and general public.

- Widely involved public and stakeholders became more aware on MSFD, WFD and CAP issues related to the Baltic environment, and are getting engaged into seeking joint solution-finding processes and offered possible solutions for problems developed by the CCB network, including consultation and assistance for their transposition.

- Trainings, seminars and workshops increase expertise in CCB network as well as authorities and stakeholders, conveying and spreading knowledge on e.g. better wastewater management, implementation of EU and HELCOM regulations in animal farming, best available technology in aquaculture, marine litter, MSFD Programmes of Measures and others.

- Statements and expert papers bring additional knowledge and stimulation into ongoing policy processes, e.g. on marine gravel extraction, European eel, Baltic salmon and Harbour porpoise


11

(all related to MSFD and Natura 2000), implementation of EU legislation and national CAP funding (related to CAP and Nitrates Directive) and other topics.

Partly accomplished results and impacts of 2015 Work Programme: - International cooperation on MSFD implementation has advanced and strengthened through

NGOs engagement, both on national, Baltic and pan-European level. The consultations on Programmes of Measures and Descriptor indicators / criteria are brought forward by various contributions.

- Salmon, Harbour Porpoise and European Eel as species of Community interest for EU biodiversity protection, are more seriously considered by decision-makers nationally, regionally and at EU level, resulting from NGOs targeted activities, e.g. addressing the needs for reinstalling spawning areas, reducing catch and bycatch, strengthening information availability and lobbying for Marine Protected Areas.

- Environmental impacts of CAP and Rural Development Plans implementation in the BSR are monitored and mitigation measures proposed through increased knowledge and persistent lobbying at national and regional level; understanding on environmental impacts of industrial animal farming is further strengthened.

- HELCOM’s process on developing new recommendations addressing nutrient inputs was initiated, e.g. on sewage sludge handling;

4. Deviations/Unforeseen external factors - Success in achieving result on common NGOs position towards content of national

Programmes of Measures under the EU MSFD is strongly dependent on national implementation processes (only 2 out of 8 Member States adopted their Programmes of Measures by the end of 2015; This applies to many of the EU legal instruments implementation (e.g. development of Long-term management plan for salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea that has not evolved and Multi-species management plan for the Baltic Sea fisheries adoption of which contradicted with EU environmental acquis)

- The planned work on Best Practices for handling of fertilizers in ports was initiated but will be accomplished in 2016-2017 due to lack of time, capacity and expertise in 2015. Likewise, the work addressing environmental impacts of marine gravel extraction has only started, mostly at national level (Germany) and raising the issue at the regional level (HELCOM); it will continue within 2016-2017 with more focused CCB experts’ work.

5. Effectiveness and lessons learned In general, the effectiveness of CCB’s Work Programme for 2015 can be regarded as high, with few actions that have not been accomplished due to external factors and lack of capacity/expertise that will be addressed in 2016-2017. In the future, more attention needs to be given to relating actions and deliverables to policy processes.


12

WORK PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES IN EACH POLICY AREA

1. BIODIVERSITY 1.1 Salmon The activities in this area have been carried out

Fully Mainly Partially Limited

Objectives: • To initiate, under the Latvian Presidency, a restart of the process to finalize a Baltic salmon management plan

proposal in 2015. (1-year objective) • Present viable options for updating the EU Salmon management proposal (COM(2011) 470) and EP First Reading

(T7-0446/2012) plan in line with the new CFP and MSFD to Baltic Member States (1-year objective) • Strengthen the very weak wild Baltic salmonid stocks that migrate through Lithuania (Nemunas-Neris) to Belarus

to the spawning grounds in the Vilia tributaries (Belarus)

The objectives were only partly reached since the attempts from CCBs to restart the discussion, as was also the initial ambition from the EU Presidency, were not realised. The salmon management plan remains off the table but small important steps were taken by Sweden and Finland during 2015. The reason is because the multiannual plan for sprat, herring and cod has taken longer than anticipated and the regional MS as well as the Luxemburg Presidency have been reluctant to focus on anything else. CCB can conclude that for the first time at an international event held in Sweden in October 2015, there was a joint view supporting several of the earlier contested elements in the Commission salmon management plan proposal such as phasing out large scale release programs for salmon; wide support for individual management for each stock; keeping the open sea fishery to a minimum.


13

Activities and results: A non-paper was produced with the CCB proposal for changes to the salmon management proposal that passed the first reading in EU Parliament (T7-0446/2012) has been produced. The key elements in this document were:

a. to align existing proposal with the MFSD and especially the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). b. to underline conflicting and contradictory parts of the EP first reading proposal related to e.g.

current discard ban plans. c. to suggest next steps to move forward in the regional process to adapt a new management plan

(i.e. propose that Sweden/Finland take lead in forming a regional position) The document was sent and discussed with relevant actors in Sweden and Finland, and shared internally in CCB. Initial discussions has started including technical rules and what elements of the existing proposal that must be updated due to the new CFP Basic regulation. The paper is un-official and hence not published on our website, but is available at the Secretariat and at: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB%20on%20salmon%20LTMP%20in%20relation%20to%20CFP_HELCOM_TF.docx

In HELCOM, CCB demanded that the Contracting Parties must start fulfilling the BSAP requirements on migratory species and as a link to BALTFISH CCB also proposed that Sweden and Finland “volunteer” to initiate the next steps, and both countries agreed to take the lead in both HELCOM and BALTFISH. In BALTFISH these first steps are about concrete action for the management plan and in HELCOM about restauration efforts etc (upstream). The minutes from HELCOM FISH meeting 2, agenda point 5, can be found at: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%202-2015-237/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20FISH%202-2015.pdf

In the proposals from EU Commission and Parliament, it was envisaged that salmon rivers needed individual plans and technical measures in place (art 9,10 in COM(2011) 470; EP First Reading T7-0446/2012). In 2015, CCB developed a proposal for targets and measures to be included in all such individual river management plans, related to the WFD and Habitats Directive, and presented it to the Baltic MS. Unfortunately, the topic has not been at the top of the agenda as anticipated. However, CCB has, besides the internal CCB cooperation since many years, established good contacts with angler associations in Sweden and Finland and also with WWF Finland, regarding both salmon and sea trout issues. CCB has also secured cooperation with a new Swedish organisation working on behalf of several salmon rivers in Sweden (http://ostersjolaxalvar.se) and the water owners in those catchments.

To the regional BALTFISH, CCB has brought forward proposals to restart discussions on management measures needed, with limited success. However, separate meetings with representatives from both Finland and Sweden has been discussing next steps and details on implementing the landing obligation for salmon. CCB has presented the need to change parts of the existing proposals in line with CFP, HD and MSFD, and has demanded that all new data on recreational fishing impacts as well as re-examining the derogations for salmon landing obligations, is based on survival rates. CCB has been made aware that the survival rate is lower than anticipated but that a few simple gear modifications could greatly improve situation.

CCB has implemented projects with EU transboundary implications in Belarus to protect and enhance the possibilities to reach favourable conservations status for Baltic salmon and migrating sea trout in Neman river basin. The following objectives were set by CCB as a moving target accomplishment of which is highly dependant on availability of funding.

d. Restore new spawning areas for salmonids in Oshmjanka river - Vilia tributary, upstream Lithuania e. Within Belarus Vilia river move wild sea trout to former sea trout rivers in efforts to re-establish

natural reproduction and a self-sustaining stock f. Organizing of detailed river surveys, including identification of potential sites for the fish passes g. Run river patrols with volunteers during the spawning season to protect the spawning fish from

poachers h. Run regular salmon monitoring involving specialists from Vilnius University and the Academy of

Sciences of Belarus i. Running regular monitoring and removal of beaver dams


14

j. Raise public awareness about salmon conservation in Belarusian rivers – create and publish a booklet about Atlantic salmon in Belarus and all salmon habitats,

k. Initiate the construction of a fish pass-way on one of the Vilia tributary, Stracha river.

The upper part of the river Neris/Vilia basin is a natural spawning habitat for the Baltic wild salmonids. However, the populations of the Baltic salmonids in this part of the river basin in Belarus are critically low and require systematic protection and conservation measures. In the course of the last 10 years these measures have been the main focus of activities implemented by NGO Neman Environment Group (now Ecoconcept/Neman). One of the most important protection measures is protection from poaching during the spawning season in October-December. With this purpose the River Patrol base camp was established on the key location near the river Tartak. Volunteers carried out river patrols in shifts to make sure 24 hours daily presence in the field. From the base camp volunteers patrolled 4 other spawning rivers; Kemelina, Senkanka, Dudka and Gazovka. In October-December 2015 with assistance from the CCB project the base camp was significantly improved and equipped with a large warm tent and a tailor-made wood burning furnace which made fieldwork more effective. Approximately 15 people took part in the River Patrol this year, mosty volunteers from the BRIC and Perekat angling clubs and also some activists from APB. Thanks to the River Patrol action poachers did not have a chance and 30 spawning nests were recorded in the river Tartak. The results of the River Patrol action 2015 were discussed at the meeting in Minsk involving two Lituaninan salmon specialists from Vilnius – Dr Vitautas Kesminas and Dr Egidius Laliuna. They were specifically invited as guest speakers to give presentations on the latest developments in salmon conservation in Lithuania including salmon stock restoration. The meeting further strengthened cooperation between Belarus and Lithuania in salmon conservation. The meeting participants received the Salmon Conservation Calendar 2016 produced with CCB support, total 400 copies produced and disseminated among environmental activists, angling clubs, volunteers and NGOs in Belarus. 1.2 Harbour Porpoise The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Improve management of the threatened Baltic populations of harbour porpoise and suggest concrete proposals

for new marine protected areas (MPA) based on scientific data for implementation of the MFSD (1-year and overall objective)

• To increase awareness among government officials, especially in fisheries, the fishing community, NGOs and the public of recent scientific facts about Harbour Porpoise and their abundance and distribution in the Baltic Sea (1-year objective)


15

Activities and results: During 2015, CCB translated and printed the existing CCB harbour porpoise information brochure from 2013 (http://www.ccb.se/documents/CCBharbourporpoisebroshure_eng.pdf ) to Swedish, Danish, German and Polish for improved information to general public . All five language versions are available at http://www.ccb.se/publications/#p-biodiversity-nature-conservation. The CCB information materials were updated on the CCB website with new scientific facts about the Baltic porpoise population.

The total number of prints made of the brochure is: Swedish – 2000 pcs, Danish – 2500 pcs, German – 5000 pcs, Polish – 6000 pcs, (earlier English – 3500 pcs). The web version pdf is also published on CCB’s members’ websites. The updated brochure was distributed to all CCB MOs and disseminated at international meetings and seminars such as Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), HELCOM, EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) meetings and annual forum, ASCOBANS, to Baltic Members of European Parliament (MEPs), to managers in Baltic Member States and to the public through Hel Marine station, Poland and Deutsche Meeresmuseum in Stralsund, Germany. CCB has distributed the materials at most of major regional events during past year and will continue to do so. National NGOs has made use of materials towards general public as well as agencies etc. The Materials have been disseminated and presented in the Jastarnia group and ASCOBANS meetings during 2015 by CCBs representative and Chair of the Jastarnia group.

A CCB statement with proposals for continued monitoring, concrete protection measures and designating new protected areas based on new scientific data was fitted into the CCB Brochure on Harbour Porpoise and also exist as a separate statement. The statement is available at www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_statement_on_porpoise_to_fulfill_MSFD_and_HELCOM_2015.docx. The statement called upon all Baltic MS with harbour porpoise in their waters to utilize the new findings and swiftly adapt their MSFD Programme of Measures to protect the harbour porpoise (referring to activities 1 under section 2.1 MSFD and 3. CFP implementation). The statement also included special considerations needed by the MS that have porpoises in their waters during the sensitive reproduction period.

During 2015, CCB has also helped and joined (with an A8 letter of support) a new LIFE application (pending funding) on development of regional and sub regional management options and extended monitoring addressing the main threats to porpoises (MAMBO – Management Actions and Conservation Measures for the Baltic Sea Odontocete). CCB has joined the initiative as a policy expert and will, if the project is funded, utilize results as basis for reaching goals of the HELCOM BSAP, HB and MSFD.

CCB also made extra efforts to reach out on the ASCOBANS Internationa l Day of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise, which in 2015 fell on the 17th of May. on social media as well as in local Swedish media (op-ed piece) pointing to Sweden’s particular interest and responsibility to establish an MPA in Swedish waters on and around the offshore banks south of Gotland Island. The Swedish Government has reacted to this by asking for dedicated work by the expert agency as well as the regional country boards responsible for establishing MPAs. CCB will during 2016-2017 follow up on this. As the matter is very much in Swedish hands (hot spot area in Swedish EEZ) we have good hopes to be able to support and see this creation of new or enlargement of existing MPAs, done in two years’ time.

The outreach for the IDBHP can be found at: http://www.ccb.se/2015/05/international-day-of-the-baltic-harbour-porpoise/

Information in Swedish based on CCBs material at CCB Swedish member organisation: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/nyheter/tumlaren-maste-skyddas

CCB presented and disseminated printed materials to all HELCOM MS several times during 2015: − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/STATE-CONSERVATION%202-2015-232/MeetingDocuments/7J-

3%20Updated%20information%20leaflet%20on%20harbour%20porpoise.pdf − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/SEAL%208-2014-159/MeetingDocuments/7-

1%20CCB%20Harbour%20porpoise%20leaflet.pdf − CCB’s work acknowledged in IUCN and ASCOBANS: www.unep.org/eou/Portals/52/Reports/Ascobans Final Report.doc


16

1.3 European Eel The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Strengthen information efforts regarding the highly threatened European eel and push for a complete stop of

targeted and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishery for the eel as a medium term goal until stock has recovered substantially (1-year and overall objective)

• Initiate development of an agreement between Baltic States committed to combat the (IUU) fishery of eel in the short term (1-year objective)

Activities and results: An information leaflet was made describing the European eel and the situation for this highly threatened species with action proposals. The leaflet was translated to Russian, Polish, German, Latvian and Lithuanian besides the original english and is available at http://www.ccb.se/publications/the-endangered-eel/. The folder is made as a printable pdf and it is only printed on demand or in preparation for meetings etc. The target audience were consumers and general public giving reasons to avoid buying the fish, especially because of IUU fishery (key target MS are Denmark, Sweden). Also, restaurants and retailers were targeted with information and made aware that the eel is a critically endangered species and the IUU issues. Dissemination of materials were conducted by CCB’s member organisations and CCB staff and was spread through website and social media. The materials has improved both internal knowledge about eel in CCBs organisations and facilitated better outreach possibilities for the CCB network. During 2016-17 the folder will be used and distributed widely via CCB members and CCB secretariat.

A short fact sheet was compiled regarding the ongoing and substantial illegal fishery especially in Swedish and Danish waters along the eel spawning migration route with suggestions for actions and links to requirements in EU environmental legislation. Target audiences were: Fisheries and environmental managers in the MS, including MS also outside the Baltic Sea region, MEPs in EU Parliament and MPs in national parliaments, the European Commission and Interested public and media via website and social media. The fact sheet is available at www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_statement_The_Illegal_fishery_of_eel_final.docx.

CCB has had several contacts with Commission on the matter of illegal eel fishery. CCB has proposed renewed measures in HELCOM to all member states present, have sent latter to Baltic MEPs about eel and used the produced materials on social media. Also, CCB and a large number of NGOs wrote and sent a joint letter to the Commissioner Karmenu Vella urging him and the Commission to take further steps to stop active fishery and secure a future for the eel stock. The letter and information about all signees can be found at http://www.ccb.se/2015/08/demand-eu-to-stop-eel-fishing/.


17

HELCOM Contracting Parties have shown clear interest in CCBs proposals and Sweden has agreed to host the first meeting of the HELCOM FISH-Migration group in first half of 2016. DG Mare has also received the information on illegal eel fishery and is considering a response to this. Commission was also made aware of a renewed call from ICES eel experts to further reduce eel mortality, and especially the need to improve data collection (personal contacts as well as during HELCOM meetings)

During 2015, CCB disseminated and presented statements and proposals for actions to Member States in HELCOM and the high level fishery manager forum BALTFISH and demanded progressive actions to start in 2015. Agreement was sought with BALTFISH on stronger joint actions on combatting the IUU fishery, and it was requested to improve full traceability of legally caught fish until fishery is halted. Also, CCB closely followed the Commission review of the effectiveness of the national eel management plans (expected late October 2014), participated in meetings and responded to consultations and disseminated relevant outcomes to fisheries officials and practitioners in MS and CCB’s MOs.

In general, CCB was disappointed by the lack of further and intensified actions based on findings of the EU Commission review of eel management plans. CCB has brought up the issues of eel several times in both HELCOM and BALTFISH during 2015. BALTFISH has not considered it a priority but rather pushed that matter to HELCOM as it is a definite part of the BSAP as well as past two HELCOM Ministerial declarations. Partly because of this, CCB initiated a number of actions one resulting in the letter to the Commissioner mentioned above, and has had success in proposing more measures regarding eel and results from the actions will likely materialize during 2016. For example, Sweden has declared that they will host a meeting on migratory fish species and eel.

HELCOM papers and noted CCB presentation in minutes of HELCOM FISH and Heads of Delegation meetings:

− https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/7-2%20Proposal%20for%20actions%20to%20save%20European%20eel%20in%20the%20Baltic%20Sea.pdf

− https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20FISH%203-2015.pdf

− https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/4-19%20Pending%20issues%20from%20State%20and%20Conservation%203-2015_CCB.pdf

− https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/4-35%20Outcome%20of%20FISH%203-2015.pdf

2. MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Coordination and support to public consultations on Programme of Measures of the MSFD The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Support and coordinate NGOs in participating in public consultations of the MS Programmes of measures (1-year) • Form recommendations on key measures and on how to fill the serious gaps in Member States work so far to set

GES, targets and relevant indicators on biodiversity, commercial fisheries, eutrophication and marine litter (1-year) • Secure that the revision of the Commission decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on

GES is not watered down (1-year)


18

Activities and results: As follow up on the previous CCB MSFD review project in 2013-2014, CCB aimed to explicitly address the existing gaps and lack of targets as well as the Programme of Measures (PoM) adopted in late 2015, integrating the expertise from CCB’s key working areas biodiversity, fisheries, eutrophication and marine litter. A serious draw back for the original intentions was the Members states very late work on MSFD and the PoMs. CCB and the cooperating NGOs have therefore not been able to complete the assessments of the PoMs as intended. The work has been extended into 2016, and even now several MS have not produced their draft PoM.

CCB conducted an extensive MSFD NGO coordination project producing qualified, harmonized and administrable input from NGOs for the ongoing MSFD / PoM processes: A workshop was organised in May 2015 with NGO experts to extract and jointly decide on main messages from NGOs to MS. Focus was on biodiversity, eutrophication, commercial fishing and marine litter. The starting point was the joint statements on NGO demands for PoM developed by CCB (www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGO-joint-statement-on-priorities-for-MFSD-PoM-2014.pdf) in 2014. On the workshop, NGOs agreed on key measures to be addressed in all MS PoMs, included links to the recent Habitats Directive implementation reporting, highlighted and proposed GES and joint targets and indicators for PoM that were missing (following up CCB’s review 2013) especially regarding marine litter, harbour porpoise (biodiversity), and fish species both from a fishery and biodiversity point of view underlining compliance with the CFP. The workshop also prepared input/letter signed by participating NGOs to send to the competent national authorities in national languages. The meeting concluded work done so far and future steps both regarding current implementation phase and the ongoing review of the Commission decision on standards and criteria for GES. The results where creation of a NGO review survey to conclude when PoMs are delivered, a statement about lack of funding the PoMs and a joint commitment to review the documents produced by the Commission and technical subgroups regarding review of Commission Decision from 2010. The workshop was organised in Brussels, instead of in Latvia as originally planned. It was not possible to organize the event in Latvia due to clashing events and an overcrowded schedule of the Presidency. All details about the workshop held on 18th May 2015 are available at http://www.ccb.se/?event=msfd-ngo-workshop and the participants list is available at www.ccb.se/evidence2015/ParticipantList_WS_MSFD_May_2015.pdf. https://twitter.com/SeasAtRisk/status/600595483212537856

Also, a joint media outreach took place during the spring of 2015.


19

In general, CCBs members and other NGOs are more aware of the MSFD and are involved directly or indirectly in national processes more now than before 2015 and 2014. This is a direct result of the work of the CCB Secretariat to inform, share and raise capacity in the CCB member organisations. Responses to national consultations in Sweden and Finland would not have taken place if CCBs support materials etc would not have been made. CCB together with member BUND from Germany and also together with Oceana, WWF and Seas at Risk has presented the views from national NGOs to the EU level meetings and brought information back to the relevant national NGOs. Unfortunately full results of this work cannot be reported since all MS simply have not followed the timeline we anticipated and we still lack from vast part of the EU MS.

On the EU level CCB participated in the revision process of the Commission decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU) which was finalised in 2015.

This was done through the participation in several meetings during 2015, both the WG GES and MSCG meetings as well as technical working group meetings on individual descriptors, preparing for an updated Commission Decision paper. CCB has also had several written and oral proposals to make sure that fish, bycatch and fishery related effects on other Descriptors are in line with the CFP but also that CFP implementation adheres to MSFD (See also point 3.1 activities).

Meetings: ‐ WG GES workshop on crosscutting issues in Copenhagen 21st -22nd January ‐ WG GES meeting 22nd -23rd of April ‐ DG mare/DG Environment fisheries and environment WS in Brussels 21stof May ‐ MSCG 12th-13th May.

Participation lists etc can be found on Circab: https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?FormPrincipal:_idcl=FormPrincipal:_id3&FormPrincipal_SUBMIT=1&id=0f1759fb-3715-46bf-bb6a-4e8dc7c15069&javax.faces.ViewState=rO0ABXVyABNbTGphdmEubGFuZy5PYmplY3Q7kM5YnxBzKWwCAAB4cAAAAAN0AAE1cHQAKy9qc3AvZXh0ZW5zaW9uL3dhaS9uYXZpZ2F0aW9uL2NvbnRhaW5lci5qc3A

During 2015, CCB participated in, via consultations and meetings, the implementations process of the MSFD and used above mentioned joint NGO statements as main input. The meetings participated in were:

‐ the EC MSCG group meetings Feb., May and Nov ‐ the WG GES meeting March and Oct. on the EU level ‐ the HELCOM GEAR working group on regional level.

The NGO group led by CCB and collaborating NGOs has developed statements on funding the MSFD PoMs and on MPAs. Evaluations of the PoMs has not been fully implemented due to the fact that MS simply has not produced drafts or ready PoMs in time. CCB has the intention to try and finalize what we have anyway and present this during 2016.

Besides above already mentioned meetings, CCB participated in HELCOM GEAR, State and Conservation group and HoDs and brought forward our views on implementing the MSFD on a regional perspective, pushing MS or Contracting Parties to fully utilize the resources available in HELCOM and the already agreed targets and also measures. Additionally, CCB has presented our statement on the lack of utilizing available funding and poor use of the PPP in paying for measures under MSFD from the MS.

The HELCOM intersessional group on PoM 28th October, Warsaw, and the HELCOM GEAR working group: ‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/GEAR%20IG%20PoM%20WS%201-2015-272/default.aspx ‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/GEAR%2012-2015-274/MeetingDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx

HODs meeting notes: ‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-

247/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20HOD%2049-2015.pdf

Document to HODs on MSFD funding and MPAs:


20

‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/4-17%20Funding%20the%20EU%20MSFD%20Programs%20of%20Measures_CCB.pdf

‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/4-18%20Call%20for%20HELCOM%20action%20regarding%20Baltic%20MPAs%20within%20Russian%20part%20of%20the%20Gulf%20of%20Finland.pdf

2.2 Marine Litter The activities in this area have been carried out


2.2.A. Micro plastics: sources, effects and prevention

Objectives: • Increase the awareness about existence and problems of micro plastics in consumer products and other sources

and the amounts, concentrations and effects these particles have in the environment. (1-year and overall objective)

• Support and facilitate the possibility for consumers to make informed choices on which products to select to reduce pollution of micro-plastics (1-year and overall objective)

• Suggest options and improvements to address the problem at other sources such as wastewater treatment and upstream solutions in washing machines (1-year and overall objective)

• To bring NGO views and findings to relevant stakeholders and companies producing consumer products or home appliances and request commitments from them to address the problems (1-year and overall objective)

Activities and results: During 2015, CCB developed a project focusing on micro particles/micro plastics, upscaling related projects done by CCB MOs in Germany and Sweden. Project progress was monitored by a Project Leader from Germany and supervised by a Working Area Leader for Hazardous Substances and Marine Litter from the CCB Secretariat. Also, a campaign logo ‘Plastic Free Baltic’ was designed. A planning workshop was held Bremen, Germany, on July 4th 2015, with NGOs and with invited scientists as speakers, to discuss the detailed work programme, project goals and outcomes. Involved NGOs from Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Russia and Belarus took part in this workshop. Additional project


21

meetings were carried out remotely (by Skype) as well as in conjunction to other CCB events in order to avoid unnecessary travels. Based on a study by H. A. Leslie titled ‘A Review on Microplastics in Cosmetics’ published in July 2014, the following microplastic ingredients were addressed in this project: • Polyethylene • Polypropylene • Polyethylene-terephthalate • Nylon-12 • Nylon-6 • Polyurethane • Acrylates Copolymer The project also selected a basic set of personal care and cosmetic products (PCCP) containing micro-plastics which were sold in large quantities and identified in all MS in Baltic Region. Research on the listed products was either done online or in shops, and information on companies, product names, plastic types and producers was compiled. The product lists of each country are also available as web download. The lists will be regularly updated by national NGO’s. Information on other major sources of microplastics were also compiled, and the effects of microplastics on the environement were explained based on scintific findings. Specific ingredients that consumers can look for, including INCI-names (International Nomenclature for Cosmetic Ingredients) were compiled. The website www.ccb.se\plasticfreebaltic provides general information in English on the effects of microplastics in the marine environment and on functions of addressed microplastic ingredients. Information was also presented as a brochure. The brochure text was provided in English by BUND/Friends of the Earth Germany, the layout was done by a layout designer in Bremen, Germany, and the printing by a company in Vilnius, Lithuania. The brochure was translated into national languages by NGOs and is available as printed version and as web download in English, www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-eng.pdf Swedish, www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-swe2.pdf Finish, www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-fin2.pdf Russian, www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-ru.pdf Estonian, www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-est.pdf Latvian www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-let.pdf Polish www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-pol2.pdf and Lithuanian www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-lit.pdf as well as for Belarus: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Mikroplastikccb-by.pdf (also in Russian) The work performed was communicated to various national (ministries and environmental protection agencies) and international bodies (HELCOM, EUSBSR). Within HELCOM it has been addressed to HELCOM HOD and HELCOM PRESSURE Groups in June and October 2015. The final results of the 2015 campaign was presented at the HELCOM Stakeholder Conference on Marine Litter in March 2016, in relation to the annual meeting of the Helsinki Commission. CCB also participated in HELCOM’s work on a Regional Action Plan (RAP) on marine litter that started in 2014.

CCB has posted a substantial amount of information about marine litter on our social media accounts. In addition to this, NGOs made a national campaign for awareness rising and spreading information to a variable extent (see below).

Lithuania: Volunteers were briefed on product research for compiling data. Over 1000 products had been assessed; current list contains ~ 500 products. Furthermore, local producers and retailers had been addressed, a movie on visualizing microplastics in PCCP by filtration was done as well as an information text published on website. www.ccb.se/evidence2015/DraftProduct_List_Lithuania.pdf

Poland: Current list contains ~ 300 products and a national program was established to assess the scale of contamination and impact of anthropogenic waste on the Baltic Sea. www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Product_List_Poland.pdf


22

Sweden/Finland: Product list is still in progress. Articles on the topic of microplastics had been published in local newspapers.

Estonia: Current list contains ~ 200 products (www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Product_List_Estonia.pdf). Information on microplastics had been published on social media and NGO website. Furthermore, a radio interview on the topic was given in „NÕMMERAADIO“ channel.

Latvia: Schoolchildren from 18 rural schools were involved in cosmetic survey. Current list contains ~ 400 products and a movie on microplastics in PCCP was done.

Russia (St.Petersburg/Kaliningrad): Current list contains ~ 150 products. NGO made awareness rising campaign among Russian-speaking audience for the distribution of the brochure combined with a press conference involving environmentalists, water management officials and cosmetic producers. www.ccb.se/evidence2015/DraftProduct_List_Russia.pdf

Belarus: Center for Environmental Solutions started a small project on marine litter inputs and awareness in 2015, that created a lot of media and public interest; marine litter brochure wsa updated and adapted to local conditions; a mobile app on hazardous chemicals also contains information about micropalstics (http://chemicals.ecoidea.by/); infographics for school children was elaborated also raising attention to micropalstics problem www.ccb.se/evidence2015/DraftProduct_List_Belarus.pdf

2.2.B. Enabling monitoring: Training and use of existing monitoring tools to increase knowledge and data on beach litter

Objectives: • To help improve the data on occurrence of beach litter by educating “enablers” and experts in NGOs (1-year) • Increase the awareness of and engage more NGOs/civil society on the marine litter problems in the Baltic Sea (1-

year and overall)

Activities and results: A litter monitoring day was organized in the CCB network, and a workshop was organised jointly with the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen, as a start-up of the project. EEA has initiated a pan-


23

European network of NGOs working in the field of marine litter, and is mainly devoted to initiation of joint actions across Europe addressing marine litter problem, raising awareness of issue among the stakeholders, as well as utilising joint platform and a mobile tool/smartphone app to work on collection of data on marine litter occurring along the sea coasts in participating countries (MarineLitter Watch/MLW http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch). EEA contributed to the workshop with marine litter watch materials (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch) which was thus put into practical transposition in the BSR as well as covered some costs for workshop. Participants of from the CCB network (CCB Secretariat and BUND, Germany) were introduced to MLW and trained how to use it at a workshop in May 2015, hosted by the EEA. Then the information on the use and applicability of the MLW was disseminated through the CCB network mostly using electronic media, promoting the use of a tool in national marine litter monitoring and clean-ups. Some information about the MLW was also disseminated to CCB members in relation to other CCB events and campaigns, e.g. the microplastic campaign (cf. 2.2.A). However, due to already available tools that are used nationally in different countries, it was not applied evenly within 2015 through the whole network. Realising that variety of similar tools (including mobile apps) are available for public use, a complementary activity a compilation of information on such available tools was initiated through the CCB network, both addressing the monitoring apps (both for clean-up and smart product selection), as well as those for raising awareness and influencing behavioural change. A short information brochure about those apps was compiled by CCB Secretariat with a view to be presented to various pan-Baltic regional fora, e.g. HELCOM Stakeholder Conference on Marine Litter to be held in March 2016. The CCB’s work on marine litter (both monitoring and microplastics) was presented to HELCOM HOD and PRESSURE Groups in June and October 2015. Due to the need of further training and compilation of baseline data it was suggested by the EEA, as a joint platform provider, that actual pan-European coordinated clean-ups will be performed only in 2016.

2.3 Marine gravel extraction The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Provide expert input to the refinement process of MSFD Descriptor 6 criteria to make them a viable source for

ecological judgments within MSFD assessments and EIAs. (1-year objective) • Produce an overview on the current extent and possible effects of sand and gravel extraction, focusing on

Denmark and Germany, two countries strongly engaged in these activities. (1-year objective) • Engage in the planning process of the TEN-T Fehmarn Belt tunnel project to minimize negative impacts on sea

bottom, lobby for adequate MSFD and Habitats Directive consideration and propose options to integrate large scale trans-European TEN-T development and marine conservation in a model case (1-year objective).

• Raise awareness that the seafloor is an important habitat and exploitable sand/gravel areas are limited and that marine sand and gravel extraction can often conflict with EU regulations (Overall objective).


24

Activities and results: The work on marine gravel extraction was initiated by BUND/Friends of the Earth Germany since German areas are being severely affected by marine sand and gravel extraction in the BSR. This has led to development of a policy input documents communicated across the CCB network and presented to relevant HELCOM Groups (STATE & CONSERVATION, HOD in November and December 2015 respectively). The major goal for the policy advocacy was to raise awareness of the problem and address the policy-makers with appeal to undertake necessary steps in implementing requirements of Helsinki Convention with regards to dredging, dumping/relocation and marine sediment extraction. CCB also promoted the idea of the need to address marine sediment extraction issue within HELCOM from a more holistic perspective e.g. within the scope of elaboration of the 2nd Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea, as it represents a significant pressure factor and therefore a carefull assessment of the state-of-play with both dredging, relocation and sediment extraction needs to be carried out by HELCOM in the coming years. See the links to the documents submitted by CCB below:

‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/STATE-CONSERVATION%203-2015-276/MeetingDocuments/7J-5%20Physical%20loss%20and%20damage%20to%20the%20sea%20floor%20marine%20sediment%20extraction%20in%20the%20Baltic%20Sea.pdf

‐ https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/4-19%20Pending%20issues%20from%20State%20and%20Conservation%203-2015_CCB.pdf

CCB was also closely following the Refinement process for MSFD Descriptor 6 criteria led by ICES via remote participation and follow-up of the official working meetings and consultation with national experts in Germany and Sweden. Further information on the issue is compiled in a brief available online www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Marine_Gravel_Extraction_DE.pdf 2.4 European Seas Environmental Cooperation (ESEC) The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Improve cooperation, exchange of information and consistency in positions and communication between the

marine regional NGO networks as a basis for high quality input to sea related EU policies (1-year objective) • Coordinated involvement of marine NGO networks in developments relating to MSFD implementation, in

particular the PoMs (1-year)

Activities and results: CCB liaised with ESEC partners to keep better informed of developments at EU level, and coordinated input to and participation in the meetings of the MSCG group and other relevant WG such as WG GES where the ESEC partners are observers. During 2015 the ESEC group has focused almost exclusively on the MSFD implementation and review of the Commission’s Decision on GES criteria’s (in part also on Blue growth and aquaculture agenda and specifically on aquaculture). Due to lack of funding, the Mediterranean Information Office has only been able to participate in limited capacity. Continuous skype and phone conferences during 2015 has been undertaken to prepare for MSCG of WG GES meetings as well as meetings in technical subgroups organised by ICES or the JRC. CCB has in particular been engaged and responsible in the group for fisheries and eutrophication (D3 and D5). The group formed a core team developing a series of responses to DG Environment on the reports from technical expert groups during 2015 on how to best updated and change the basis in the Commission Decision paper 2010/477. Two meetings, one larger and one smaller were planned and implemented, both in Brussels and open to network members. The outcomes were two position papers on the draft programs and implementation of the PoMs, One on funding the PoMs and one an overview of NGOs views on the quality of the PoMs. The meetings


25

were also about planning for future cooperation and to increase the public awareness about the MSFD and increase the seas and marine environments visibility in public perception. A communication/campaign plan was created and discussions is ongoing on how to proceed and fund a project (see also activity 2.1)

Participant list WS November: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/WS_participants_MSFD_BUND_CCB_nov_2015.pdf

Agenda for WS November: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/MSFD_NGO_WS_2_3_November_2015_Agenda_FINAL.pdf

An annual meeting with the four ESEC partners was organised as a back to back meeting with the wider NGO meeting in May 2015 (see above). The main element for discussion was planning for MSFD work coming years, focusing on communicating the importance of marine environment health for all life on land. The agreed basic idea is a campaign for good environmental status of the EU seas.

A draft concept note can be read here: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/A%20campaign%20for%20Good%20Environmental%20Status%20across%20the%20EU%20-%20draft%20concept%20note%2017%20Nov%202015v1.docx

The work on building a coalition and campaign idea is ongoing, specifically to find funding and a core team to drive a campaign.

3. FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE: COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (CFP) AND INTEGRATION WITH EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

3.1 Implementation of the CFP The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Reach mutual fulfilment of both the CFP and the MSFD goals for commercial fish species. (Overall objective) • Support the development of a new Baltic Sea multispecies management plan linked to the goals in the MSFD. (1-

year objective) • Coordinate and secure representation of Baltic NGOs views in the BSAC and BALTFISH (1-year objective)


26

Activities and results: CCB coordinated, prepared and presented CCBs members position in BSAC continuously during 2015, participating in 2 working group meetings and 2 ExCom meetings. CCB selected and acted as lead to draft BSAC text on technical regulations in light of the landing obligation and especially regarding the new Baltic multiannual management plan for sprat, herring and cod.

‐ http://www.bsac.dk/archive/Dokumenter/JointWGs/JointWG31082015/ReportJointWG310815Final.pdf ‐ http://www.bsac.dk/archive/Dokumenter/ExecutiveCommittees/ExCom181115/18112015_ExComrepor

tFINAL.pdf

CCB proposed to the BSAC Executive Committee that a BSAC autumn conference focus in part on climate change (CC) scenarios and needed adaption of management related to fisheries. This proposal was accepted and CCBs representative in BSAC has also taken lead to create a conference concept with a wider ecosystem focus and the state of the Baltic Sea in particular in light of climate change adaption. CCB together with BSAC Chair created a proposal for Sweden to co-host and help fund a high level conference. The Swedish government was positive but could not find funding 2015, but the aim is to hold the conference in 2016 instead.

The proposal to Swedish Ministry: http://www.bsac.dk/archive/Dokumenter/General%20Assembly/07052015/DraftAgendaexCom070515_REV2.pdf

www.ccb.se/evidence2015/FIN250315ReportBackgroundnoteConference2015.doc

CCB prioritized participation in the BALTFISH forum as this is the most important arena for CFP implementation, and gives a direct contact with responsible civil servants. CCB has during 2015 participated in the BALTFISH meetings open to us. Complete focus has been given to the new management plan and the implementation of the landing obligation in the Baltic Sea. Unfortunately there are NO records usually of these meetings on account of the organising chair. CCB has brought this issue and transparency issues in general for BALTFISH to the table but no decisive steps have been taken. CCB hopes that the incoming chair of Germany will correct this. Meetings: BALTFISH Forum 11 February, Vilnius Lithuania; BALTFISH forum Warsaw 1 September February meeting devoted to Baltic MAP and CCB made separate statement also joined by other NGOs: http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NGO_briefing_BALTFISH_MAP.pdf CCB initiated and co-wrote a letter to Baltic Ministers about the Management plan in April

‐ http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Letter_to_EU_Fisheries_Ministers_2015.pdf ‐ http://www.minrol.gov.pl/eng/Ministry/News/The-first-BALTFISH-meeting-under-Poland-s-presidency

The September meeting was dedicated to discussing TAC for 2016 and CCB advocated a strict following of ICES advice. In the case of cod, CCB advocated ICES proposals to include recreational catches and reduce the TAC even more. Not only did the Member States ignore this but they also ignored ICES advice for a stock under the lowest biomass point recorded. The new Baltic Sea multispecies management plan (Baltic MAP) presented by the Commission in October 2014 was in focus, and NGO considerations already developed was presented and circulated further in 2015. Focus for 2015 was the Member States (BALTFISH) and the European Parliament. CCB upheld the views that:

a. the MSY ranges in the Multiannual multispecies plan should be in line with the CFP and the MSFD b. also biomass targets (Bmsy) should be included in the plan to link implementation to the MSFD c. a new management plan should also adhere to HELCOM and MSFD goals of a healthy size and age

distribution of fish stocks CCB invested a very large part of the efforts related to fisheries in 2015 into the new management plan. CCB initiated together with regional Baltic office of OCEANA and Birdlife to engage both MS and the European


27

Parliament in a series of meetings etc. A small coalition was formed where WWF and OCEANA Brussel offices also joined. Not only meeting CFP but also RSC and MSFD objectives has been at the heart of CCBs arguments and input when developing the new management plan. CCB has jointly with other NGOs formed a number of briefings, speaking notes, amendment proposals and has presented these at several occasions and arenas. Most frequent has the contacts been with the elected officials in the European Parliament. Much of correspondence and contacts have been undertaken in confidence or as unofficial replies to questions etc and cannot be given as evidence, but are available at the CCB secretariat. CCB also had meetings with 3 members of the PECHE committee in EU parliament and took part in hearings and specific meetings called together by the rapporteur for the file, Mr Walesa. CCB has also had separate meetings with 3 MEPs office staff and 3 political group fishery experts in EP. Open outreach: Social media has been used by the small group of NGOs active on the Baltic MAP during 2015 and CCB has engaged continuously https://www.facebook.com/coalitioncleanbaltic/?fref=nf

Briefings: To MS, EP and NGOs: http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NGO_briefing_BALTFISH_MAP.pdf http://www.ccb.se/statements/joint-ngo-priorities-on-the-multiannual-plan-for-the-baltic-sea/ To Ministers: http://www.ccb.se/statements/letter-to-eu-fisheries-ministers/ To the European Parliament: http://www.ccb.se/statements/key-ngo-priorities-for-the-baltic-multi-annual-plan-to-european-parliament/ http://www.ccb.se/statements/statement-on-ngo-priorities-for-ep-plenary-vote-on-the-baltic-map/ Official meetings: Hearing in European Parliament, two separate meetings with rapporteur and representatives in Peche Committee (MEPs present J. Walesa, W. Kuhn, O. Christensen, N.Torvalds and L. Engstrom) and one with a wider group inviting all of EP and also invited guests such as national Permanent Representatives. 7th January 2015. http://www.bsac.dk/mod_inc/?p=itemModule&id=2243&kind=4&pageId=1081 CCB also organised MEP meetings/support staff meetings: 8th January, meeting with “Baltic” MEPs in ALDE group, Greens and S&D. Several unofficial contacts (phone calls and sent emails etc) has taken place during all of 2015. Fishery measures/regulations in marine protected areas were expected to be discussed in BALTFISH but also in relation to MSFD (esp. concerning descriptor D1) and Harbour Porpoise in 2015 in HELCOM work. CCB especially demanded actions in relation to harbour porpoise and eel (see also activities in sections 1.2 and 1.3). CCB focused on MPAs and harbour porpoise, targeting Sweden specifically. CCB Secretariat has mainly acted as support and via our Swedish Members, and statements etc has been based on CCB materials. CCBs main argument is that the areas that seem to concentrate porpoises are fished very little and here conflicts are small. Sweden has accepted and started working on management measures for porpoise and deeper investigation into creating a new MPA. The Government has given a special assignment on porpoise and to consider new or enlarging existing MPAs. CCB has supported this with support also from CCBs Swedish members WWF Sweden and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Via BSAC, CCB has opened discussions with fishermen on MPAs and fisheries regulations and has volunteered to draft an agenda for a special focus group meeting on MPAs and fisheries that has never taken place in the BSAC. This meeting will take place during 2016. This can be seen in the minutes of the BSAC ExCom and WG: From the ExCom 18/11/15: ”Nils Höglund from CCB said that in line with the new CFP, ecosystem based management should in principle be part of any management decision, so there is no need to create of a separate Working Group. But on the other hand, the BSAC should take a proactive approach with regard to environmental topics. He proposed to take this idea further and produce a possible work plan/list of environmental topics such as


28

fisheries measures in Natura 2000 and the MSFD, and which could be discussed in the framework of the BSAC. He stated that the BSAC should devote the necessary time to discuss crucial issues regarding the MSFD implementation with relevance to fisheries.” http://www.bsac.dk/archive/Dokumenter/ExecutiveCommittees/ExCom181115/18112015_ExComreportFINAL.pdf Media: http://www.landetsfria.se/artikel/118728 http://www.fiskejournalen.se/rapportera-in-tumlare/

3.2 Aquaculture The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Clearly define and support development of sustainable aquaculture that meets the ambitions of the EU legislation

(e.g. WFD, MSFD, EIA Directive) and the relevant policies like the EUSBSR, emphasizing the need to further reduce the nutrient losses and nutrient input to the Baltic Sea. (1-year objective)

• That Member States fully address all environmental aspects of aquaculture and links to relevant environmental legislation in the process of developing new regional recommendations on aquaculture in HELCOM (1-year objective)

• Increase knowledge of sustainable aquaculture and improve understanding of options for fin fish aquaculture among NGOs (1-year and overall objective)

Activities and results: CCB has strengthened and coordinated Baltic NGOs views on sustainable aquaculture and options for fin fish aquaculture in the Baltic Region by:

a. Updating the CCB statement on sustainable aquaculture from 2013 b. Translating the statement to several Baltic languages (e.g. Estonian, Latvian, Polish) c. Highlighting importance of proper use of public funding via EMFF to foster sustainable aquaculture d. Underlining the emerging issue of cumulative effects and need for International Strategic

Environmental Assessments (SEA directive ) e. Encouraging, supporting and coordinating experts in CCB MOs to respond to consultations on the

national aquaculture strategies and operational programs (of the EMFF) As a result of this joint work, CCB MOs are much more equipped to handle topics related to aquaculture and several “new” volunteers have joined the work to update CCBs statement. More NGOs are also aware of the problems aquaculture represents in the Baltic Sea area. The CCB engagement in HELCOMs process to develop


29

new recommendations for aquaculture has also been helped by this statement and put further pressure on the contracting parties to ensure best use of public money and sustainable growth of the sector. The new updated paper: Statement: http://www.ccb.se/statements/ccbs-joint-statement-on-sustainable-aquaculture-update-2015/ English: http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CCB-Sustainable-Aquaculture-update-2015-final.pdf Polish: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_Sustainable_AQC_proposal_update_2015_pl.pdf Estonian: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_Sustainable_Aquaculture_update_2015_final_ee.pdf CCB paper has been referenced: by EP Green Party:

‐ https://europeangreens.eu/sites/europeangreens.eu/files/CCBSustainableAquaculturepositionpaperFINAL.pdfg

By the European Commission − http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/sustainable_aquaculture_FB11_e

n.pdf CCB also organised an international seminar on Best Available Technology (BAT) for sustainable aquaculture options in land based, re-circulatory and multi trophic operations, in November 2015. The two-day event was attended by approximately 90 participants from both the Baltic region, the wider EU and also USA. This was the first international seminar with a wide speaker range only focused on land based solutions and not on research and development but actual existing systems, their costs, problems and viability as main option and best available technology. Seminar was supported by Swedish Water and Marine Agency, Swedish Board of Agriculture and co-hosted by CCB member Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. All presentations and final program and summary of the days are available on: http://www.ccb.se/2015/11/international-seminar-on-land-based-aquaculture-systems/ Also presented at Sw. Board of Agriculture website: http://www.svensktvattenbruk.se/amnesomraden/nyheterreportage/aktuelltfranjordbruksverket.4.bf461ab14dd17b787acf158.html Participant list: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Participantlist_CCB _Aqc_semin2015.pdf CCB presented the main outcomes to the HELCOM FISH group as input and suggestion to take next steps in development of best available technology in the scope of HELCOM’s new aquaculture recommendations: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/3-1%20CCB%20event%20landbased%20aquaculture_summary%20and%20proposals%20for%20next%20steps.pdf Outcome and next steps in minutes: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20FISH%203-2015.pdf Germany has together with Chair of HELCOM FISH volunteered to draft a starting paper and the matter will return on upcoming FISH meeting in May 2016. During 2015, CCB cooperated and coordinated with other regional NGO networks and their national member organisations working on aquaculture (North Sea, Mediterranean and Black Sea) and responded jointly to consultations from the Commission on the topic as well as participated in EU-level meetings when appropriate. Actions included organising a joint workshop back-to-back with the BAT seminar in activity 2. above for both regional and national NGOs from all of EU, to form joint NGO statement, based in the previous seminar on BAT in activity 2 above, on what types of aquaculture NGOs can support. 9 NGOs participated in the meeting and the CCN network as a whole was consulted after initial draft. The statement agreed is more restrictive than the previous and does not support any further development of open sea systems in the Baltic. The meeting also discussed future steps of the Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC) and decided that CCB


30

would not engage in the ACC directly but support the NGOs based in Brussels that will become members. During 2015, CCB secretariat assisted the NGO Seas At Risk in forming proposals for new status and rules of procedure for the new AAC. The input is based on CCBs experience in the Baltic Sea Fisheries Advisory Council (BSAC) and the importance of unambiguous rules when an uneven majority/minority balance is institutionalized in the setup of the ACs. CCBs input in part here: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/AAC_Draft_Statutes_CCB_comments.docx The CCB Secretariat has made initial assessments of the existing national strategies and can conclude that the growth potential listed is highly overestimated, unrealistic and indeed in conflict with especially CFP goal to reduce all fisheries to MSY levels. There is today no alternative feed ready and fish oil is and fish meal will become a bottle neck. CCB updated Statement on sustainable aquaculture: http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CCB-Sustainable-Aquaculture-update-2015-final.pdf CCB participated in development of the new HELCOM recommendation on Aquaculture and updating the existing HELCOM Recommendation 25/4 aiming at limiting adverse environmental impacts of aquaculture activities. Based on the agreed CCB position on aquaculture from 2013 CCB proposals included:

a. Clear demand for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of all new and revised aquaculture permits

b. Adherence to Strategic Environmental Assessments Directive (SEA) and the Espoo convention on transboundary EIAs regarding marine aquaculture

c. Link to CFP goals to reach MSY targets in fisheries and problem of increased demands for fish feed. d. Optional feeds and improved feeds should be a requirements in permits e. No added nutrients and continued loss of phosphorous to the Baltic Sea f. Zero target for escapees to the wild g. Fin fish productions should have as a long term goal to become a net producer of fish protein

The work to finalize views on what Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Environmental Practise (BEP) is still ongoing. During 2015, CCB took part in 3 dedicated HELCOM meetings on aquaculture, mainly pushing for extra attention to nutrient balanced/neutral systems, CFP MSY objectives and demands to make SEA and EIA:s a basic rule in all cases of new facilities and permits for new facilities. CCB had individual contacts with MS to find allies to support CCBs position and was successful in so far as to get support from both Germany and Sweden for a more strict recommendation on EIAs. CCB has used the joint position paper mentioned above as starting point for all interventions and proposals. CCBs position is well known and the results from the work focusing on land based systems have given a clear interest in these systems that would not have been there if CCB had not done this effort. Meetings:15th April Warsaw, 18th May online meeting, 26th November Warsaw: − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%202-2015-237/MeetingDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/Fish%20online%201-2015-260/MeetingDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx CCB submitted a paper to HELCOM FISH 3 on the needed next steps to secure focus on BAT and BEP in the Baltic Region: − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/3-

1%20CCB%20event%20landbased%20aquaculture_summary%20and%20proposals%20for%20next%20steps.pdf

As a result of the discussions it was agreed to keep moving to develop BAT and BEP concepts and the Chair and Germany agreed to develop a matrix for various kinds of aquaculture systems as seen in the minutes: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/FISH%203-2015-269/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20of%20FISH%203-2015.pdf


31

4. CLIMATE CHANGE & BALTIC SEA ENVIRONMENT The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Improve knowledge about likely Climate Change (CC) effects in the Baltic Sea ecosystem by summarizing and

popularizing scientific findings (1-year and overall objective) • Show and highlight the needed adaptation of management (1-year and overall objective) • Mainstream and integrate CC considerations in the CCB work about biodiversity, fisheries management and

eutrophication. (Overall objective)

Activities and results: The knowledge and most recent scientific findings on CC effects in the Baltic Sea ecosystem were summarized and popularized in a short report by a group of CCB experts. Needed adaptation of management was highlighted in Policy Recommendations forming an integral part of the report, but also distributed separately to relevant policy fora, e.g. HELCOM and CBSS. Mainstreaming and integration of CC issues into CCB’s work on biodiversity, fisheries management and eutrophication have started with making Working Area leaders aware of the published report and development of their proposals on how those cross-cutting issues will be reflected in the 2016-2017 Strategic Work Programme (submitted to EU). The actual integration process will start in 2016 through implementation of annual work plan. The Report on “Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: Consequences of two scenarios, with a focus on biodiversity” was prepared within 2015 and published on CCB website on the occasion of launching of 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change. The printed version of the report became available by the end of 2015. Preparation of the report was coordinated by CCB Secretariat with a leading expert employed to perform this task (Lennart Nyman, former Biodiversity Programme Director at WWF Sweden). Report drafting was performed in close cooperation with the Air Pollution and Climate Change (AirClim) Secretariat, who also co-funded this activity. The report was also submitted for the consideration of the 49th Meeting of HELCOM Heads of Delegation: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2049-2015-247/MeetingDocuments/6-4%20CCB%20Report%20on%20climate%20change%20in%20the%20Baltic%20Sea%20region.pdf. This meeting took note of the CCB Report and invited the Contracting Parties to make use of those documents in national and regional work to protect the Baltic Sea marine environment. The report was advertised through CCB website and social media (gaining highest interest in Facebook campaign) and will be mainly disseminated during upcoming regional (HELCOM, EUSBSR) and EU-wide events within upcoming years. CCB has actively covered the issue of the climate change and preparations for the upcoming Paris COP during 2015 in social media (Facebook) with altogether 18 posts, reaching out to 1915 people, with 64 engagements and 46 shares. The major message behind those posts was to explain the necessity of climate mitigation and


32

adaptation actions, raising public awareness on the preparations towards Paris COP and influencing national governments in their decisions. Posts on topics related to climate change on Facebook and twitter are all available in an excel sheet can be viewed here: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Combined CCB 2015 FB and twitter stats.xlsx

5. IMPROVE INTEGRATION OF CAP AND EU/BSR POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES 5.1 Baltic Sea Region policies and programmes related to environmental protection in agriculture sector The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • “Feed the crop – not the soil”: Reach agricultural practices in the BSR that maximize the efficient use of fertilizers,

and minimize the nutrient-surplus on farmland as well as the eutrophication of Baltic region waters (Overall objective).

• Agreed high environmental standards for nutrient-balanced fertilization and other measures to minimize the nutrient run-off from agriculture. Accomplish expansion of practices in Baltic agriculture that support Low-nutrient surplus agriculture, to minimize nutrient load to the Baltic Sea. (Overall objective)

• Implementation of HELCOM agreements to effectively control agricultural nutrient run-off to Baltic waters. HELCOM will develop proposals, within the updating process of HELCOM Annex III-Prevention of pollution from agriculture, for a clear definition of “nutrient-balanced fertilization”. (Overall and 1-year objective)

Activities and results: CCB contributed to the HELCOM Working Group on Sustainable Agriculture and EUSBSR activities to “Reinforce sustainability of agriculture” to secure policies that mitigate nutrient run-off from agricultural land in BSR. CCB also participated actively in the HELCOM process on updating of Annex III – Prevention of pollution from Agriculture. The aims were to safeguard high standards for nutrient-balanced fertilization, to complement the Annex with strict rules to define nutrient-balanced fertilization and to prevent any “watering down” of the requirements in Annex III. CCB also advocated for implementation of HELCOM ministerial decision 2013

− to develop Baltic region national levels for tolerable nutrient-surplus on farmland, to limit nutrient run-off, mitigating any attempt to try to “water-down” the requirements in Annex III. Participated in HELCOM process (WG on Sustainable Agriculture practices, HOD etc).

− Monitoring of the implementation of agriculture-related nutrient pollution actions from the HELCOM Ministerial declaration in October 2013, related to agricultural sector in important farming Baltic Region countries (e.g. requesting info from national ministries)

CCB continued active advocacy at HELCOM level with participation in relevant Groups/workshops:

− Workshop on status of nutrient bookkeeping in the Baltic Sea countries, 28-29 April 2015, Oldenburg, Germany


33

− 2nd Meeting of the Group on Sustainable Agricultural Practices in May 2015 − Workshop on manure nutrient content in the Baltic Sea countries 19-20 November 2015, Vantaa,

Finland − Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea Conference in November 2015

and submitted several documents within 2015 to various HELCOM bodies (AGRI, HOD): − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/AGRI%202-2015-224/MeetingDocuments/5-

2%20Proposals%20for%20amendments%20to%20HELCOM%20Annex%20III,%20part%20II.pdf − https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/HOD%2048-2015-189/MeetingDocuments/3-

25%20Proposals%20for%20scope%20of%20review%20of%20part%20II%20Annex%20III%20of%20Helsinki%20Convention.pdf

addressing the importance of following the HELCOM BSAP and Ministerial commitments with regards to implementation of agri-environmental measures. At the Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea Conference, CCB presented the overview of the state-of-play of agricultural production in the Baltic Sea Region, its trends and challenges http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/ccb_gabbs2015_agriculture_in_the_bsr.pdf At the Workshop on manure nutrient content in the Baltic Sea countries, CCB moderated the discussion on development of manure nutrient standard and drafting respective region-wide application for a project to set up such standards. The importance of addressing agricultural issues in the context of fighting Baltic Sea eutrophication was widely covered by CCB’s social media outreach with total 21 posts across the year gaining over 2000 engagements. 5.2 CAP-subsidies programmes support for water protection The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Estimate whether the adopted Baltic national CAP-subsidies programmes related to agri-environment measures

for 2014-2020 will secure that the agreed HELCOM national nutrient reduction target can be achieved. (1-year objective)

• Influence Baltic member states secure cross-compliance between CAP subsidies and WFD goals, to reach Good ecological water qualities in EU-waters according to WFD and MSFD, and safeguard priorities on water protection, for Direct payments schemes to farmers and from Rural Development programmes (EAFRD) (Overall objective)

• Furnish an overview of most important cross-compliance requirements with EU water environmental policies and CAP-subsidies to farmers, to reach better allocation of financing of agri-environmental measures for water protection within RDPs. (1-year objective)

Activities and results: A survey report on allocation of EU CAP subsidies for agri-environmental measures and control of nutrient runoff from farmland within Baltic Sea region EU Member States was prepared through participation of national experts in compilation of national data on CAP measures in RDP, published in English (www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Survey CAP RDP.pdf), and presented throughout the preparation of the report at Baltic international and national meetings (presentation of CCB position and reports on agriculture and nutrient run-off at national meetings e.g. in Poland, and BSR events e.g. Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea 2015 Conference). The report will be further communicated to different HELCOM bodies and other region-wide fora within 2016. A CCB position paper was also developed, with summarized best examples from Baltic national CAP-subsidies programmes that effectively contribute to the solution of the Baltic Sea eutrophication problem, via reduced agricultural nutrient run-off.

Using the survey report and the position paper, CCB addressed, at the political level, Baltic ministries of Agriculture & Environment, EC, and Baltic national politicians to secure powerful measures for water protection in agriculture and prioritize high standards for water quality, in implementation of cross-compliance of CAP with WFD and MSFD, when distributing subsidies from RDPs.


34

5.3 Activities specifically focused on Poland The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Improve awareness on agriculture methods which reduce leakage nutrients and better implementation of EU,

HELCOM- and national requirements/guidelines on fertilization practices (e.g. ways to successfully transpose the Nitrates Directive) (1-year objective)

• Introduce HELCOM Annex III, Prevention of pollution from agriculture, into Polish Journal of Law (Polish legislation) (1-year and overall objective)

• Raising of knowledge and awareness on Ecological Recycling Agriculture (ERA), low-nutrient surplus agriculture, and Diet for Clean Baltic-concept can limit nutrient leakage to Baltic waters. Recycling of nutrients is a dedicated action of the EUSBSR, to be supported by various projects and actions. (Overall objective)

• Raise awareness of Polish consumers on the value of ecological food products (Overall objective)

Activities and results: On 17 April 2015, the CCB MO Polish Ecological Club together with Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering organized a seminar „Solutions for Polish and Baltic Eutrophication (problems) – Low-Nutrient Surplus Agriculture and Sustainable Waste Management” in Warsaw. The main goal of the seminar was to identify sources of pollution as well as to show the methods to effectively reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads that every year get into the Baltic Sea through basin rivers, which is in close connection to the Water Framework Directive goal to achieve good status of water till 2015. Participants in the seminar were experts, NGOs representatives and administrations, as well as farmers. Focus was on current problems connected with water pollution by nutrients and the ways to enable stakeholders into activities. During the lectures the following issues were included: the obligations resulting from Water Framework Directive, EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Nitrate Directive, which define management of nitrates and phosphorus and consequences of nutrient leaching from agriculture production, special big animal farms. Country program proposal for waste water treatment for agglomeration 2-10 thousand RLM, and below was also discussed, as well as Polish obligations resulting from Baltic Sea Action Plan and the possibilities to fulfill it. Conditions posed by the Water Framework Directive are high. Poland should achieve full compliance by the end of 2015. To introduce this conditions we need cooperation of all stakeholders. Social monitoring of implementation activities connected with these acts, the NGOs lead from many years and highlight concrete problems The most important is cooperation between different stakeholders like experts and farmers to stop nutrient leaching to the surface water. The problems which create agriculture could be solved by agriculture methods and these issues were also discussed. After the conference, workshops were held where participants discussed how to reduce nutrient runoff from agricultural land. The participants found many different causes for runoff: lack of farmers knowledge, lack of sufficient financial instruments to protect water and soil, lack sufficient support from the agricultural advisers, lack of monitoring water and soil status. All these comments will be included in the position of non-governmental organizations. The workshops were carried out by the workshops by professional trainer Danuta Bener and agriculture expert Maria Staniszewska. CCB also advocated proper nutrient balanced fertilization practices, for efficient use of fertilizer nutrients and to save nutrient resources by advocating for introduction proper legislative acts in Poland, which allow fully introducing balanced fertilization practices. Cooperated with Polish Members of Parliament and prepared an interpellation to the parliament.


35

The Polish website on Ecological Recycling Agriculture (ERA) (http://www.rolnictwodlabaltyku.pl/) was updated and maintained with NCM support. The website contains articles on ERA products for consumers. The site gains annually about 5000 visitors.

In 2015, PKE Gliwice established the ERA Information Point, which operates on Mondays and Thursdays (10:00-14:00). It has the goal of providing information to the general public, consumers and farmers on ERA, its impact on environment (surface waters and the Baltic), Baltic eutrophication, information on ERA-produced food. The average monthly number of calls was 10-15, accounting to 150 end-receivers of our information. Most frequently asked questions from the info-point were related to environmental aspects of ERA vs. conventional agriculture, nutrient recycling, as well as practicalities on how to become ERA farmer, where to get relevant advice and consultations. PKE also provided information on ERA at a farmers’ meeting on 21-22 March 2015 in Słubice (21 farmers). The Info Point was also established at Ecological Fair in Gliwice – ca. 1500 visitors were provided with materials and information by staff.

6. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSION DIRECTIVE (IED-IPPC) FOR INTENSIVE REARING OF POULTRY AND PIGS. IMPLEMENTATION OF EU NITRATES DIRECTIVE IN BALTIC SEA REGION.

6.1 Development and application of Best Practice for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (IRPP) The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Full implementation of the political ambitions of EU Nitrates directive, HELCOM BSAP (Baltic Sea Action Plan)

actions related to industrial animal farming, HELCOM Annex III-Prevention of pollution from agriculture (Overall objective)

• High standards, will be included in the new IRPP (Intensive Rearing of Pigs and Poultry) BREF (Ref doc on BAT) to minimize nutrient surplus on farmland and nutrient leakage from manure (1-year objective)

• Awareness raising and promotion of high environmental standards for industrial animal farms in the Baltic Sea region and monitoring (in Poland) of the implementation of regulations that control the nutrient run-off from industrial animal farms, (Overall objective)

• To raise the knowledge and understanding of governmental ministries/institutions and sector representatives on the environmental impact of IRPP (Overall objective)

• Improving knowledge on Industrial animal farms environmental impact, and enhanced implementation of EU-legislation and HELCOM requirements related to the sector (IED; Nitrates Directive, HELCOM BSAP) (Overall objective)

• Harmonisation of requirements for manure management in the BSR with high environmental standards (1-year and overall objective)

Activities and results: ‐ Awareness raising and promotion of high environmental standards for IAF within BSR and monitoring the

implementation of control regulations for nutrient runoff from IAF. ‐ Project thematic website in English (www.ccb-industrialanimalfarming.eu) was maintained and updated

with over 30 html pages. According to Google Analytics - more than 3500 visits. ‐ in relation to industrial emissions from IRPP, CCB participated in the EC IED Article 13 Forum, providing the

inputs for the new EC BREF document for IAF, setting up standard for this sector. CCB contributed with proposals for rewording in the BAT conclusions of the Final draft of the IRPP BREF (http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_IED_IRPP.pdf). With the understanding that the BREF sets number of new BAT provisions i.a. addressing wise nutrient management, pollution prevention, as well as resource-efficiency for water and energy use, CCB pointed to several major concerns, especially with regards to the BSR. Most of those are addressed by the Helsinki Convention (1992) and its Annexes, which the EU is a Contracting Party to, and hence it should be legally-binding for Baltic EU Member States.


36

‐ Presentation of the CCB Report on BAT for IAF within the BSR (2014) at Baltic region meetings (e.g EU SBSR; HELCOM) to reduce harmful nutrient pollution to the Baltic Sea.

The Report was presented at (1) IAF Seminar in Vitebsk, Belarus 17.12.2015; (2) The CCB’s Our Common Baltic course, Hel, Poland, 9-14.09.2015; (3) seminar on ‘Solutions for Polish and Baltic Eutrophication (problems) - Low-Nutrient Surplus Agriculture and Sustainable Waste Management’, 17.04.2015, Warsaw; (4) IAF Seminar, 31.03.2015, Vilnius, Lithuania. The report was translated into Russian (http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/IAF_Baltic_report_rus.pdf) for broader outreach and knowledge sharing in Belarus and Russia.

‐ Seminars on Best practices for industrial animal farming in St Petersburg, Russia and in Lithuania, including presentation of the CCB report on IAF within BSR and proposala for best practices for this sector.

Two international seminars were organized - (1) seminar devoted to manure management in the Baltic Sea region in the context of industrial animal farming, Vitebsk, Belarus 17.12.2015; (2) seminar on Industrial Animal Farming, 31.03.2015 in Vilnius, Lithuania. Initially planned seminar in St Petersburg was changed to Vitebsk due to higher relevance of the IAF issue for Western Dvina/Daugava catchment, where numerous new pig production facilities have been constructed within recent years on both Belarusian and Russian sides of the catchment, creating a new threat to surface and ground waters. Report of the seminars is available here: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/IAF Campaign Report.pdf

Several additional activities were conducted: ‐ online map of IAF within BSR, using the Google Maps, ‐ participation in Climate Ops documentary by ARTE TV Channel (http://info.arte.tv/en/climate-ops) about

nature and the impacts of climate change, broadcasted during COP21. ‐ Communicating CCB position on "Scope of the review and updating of HELCOM Annex III - proposals for

amendments to Annex III, part II, Prevention of pollution from agriculture" to HELCOM AGRI 2-2015 (doc 3-22) and HOD 48-2015 (doc 3-25) in order to proceed with the review process as agreed by 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting

‐ promoting and participating in the EU DG ENVI public consultation on "Streamlining monitoring and reporting obligations in environment policy",

‐ providing over 50 advisory service consultations for communities living in the IAF neighborhood, ‐ participation in EIA and permitting procedures connected with establishing of new IAF sites – Green

Federation GAJA has participated in 3 procedures and CES (Belarus) – in 1, ‐ inventory and assessment of manure management regulation in Poland, Germany, Belarus, Finland, Estonia,

Lithuania, Latvia, analysis of differences and development of proposals for harmonization of regulations and guidelines, to minimize nutrient overfertilization (report and position paper on proposals for requirements for manure management translated into English, Polish, German, Russian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian),

‐ elaboration of educational materials (in English and Polish) dedicated to agricultural schools and promoting best practices in manure management and environmental protection rules in the IAF.

6.2 Activities specifically focused on Poland The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Control if environmental regulations and permit procedures related to Industrial animal farms are implemented

correctly in Poland • Raise awareness on causes of nutrient leaking in Poland and better regulations for full application of EU Nitrates

Directive on nutrient leakage

Activities and results:

CCB MO Green Federation GAJA performed surveys in Poland of selected industrial animal farms and state administration bodies responsible for monitoring the compliance with environmental regulations by industrial animal farms. The results and report of the survey were published on the national website:


37

http://gajanet.pl/projekty/monitoring-funkcjonowania-ferm-wielkoprzemyslowych/ with summaries presented on CCB’s dedicated website http://ccb-industrialanimalfarming.eu available to the public and media. Polish CCB MO experts also prepared a statement, with involvement of organic farmers’ organisations, on how applicable law (Nitrates directive and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ, RDP) should be implemented in Poland to minimize nutrient leaching from agriculture land. The target groups were politicians, authorities, farmers and media.

6.3 Implementation and development of EU policies on Sustainable Use of Phosphorus (related to EU Waste Framework

Directive) The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Raised awareness and understanding of the resources and economic values of nutrients in manure produced in

the Baltic catchment, with an understanding of the necessity to steer fertilization practices, so major nutrient content in manure are used to fertilize the crops, in a balanced way, and not the soils. Phosphorus resources in manure will have special attention.

• HELCOM will agree to develop a new recommendation on Best Practices for handling of nutrient-fertilizers in ports, to minimize the spill and thus nutrient pollution of the Baltic Sea.

• Improved control of overfertilization of phosphorus-saturated soils with phosphorus fertilizers, to minimize leakage of phosphorus from farmland and to save phosphorus resources.

Activities and results: A report “Regulations on animal manure management in the Baltic Sea Region – main challenges and opportunities from different countries’ perspective” was compiled from national information by Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

The report made an attempt to inventorise and assess the Baltic Sea Region countries’ regulations of manure management and analyse their differences; as well as to discuss development of harmonized and more common rules, regulations and guidelines for efficient use of manure, in order to minimize overfertilization in the Baltic Sea Region and to support equal competitiveness in the sector. The report also highlighted problems, challenges and opportunities of animal fertilizers management from different countries perspective, underlining different approaches to the issue in different parts of the region. Additionally, an overview of good examples was prepared as an example of best practices in use.


38

The report is published online (www.ccb.se/evidence2015/IAF Manure Management Report.pdf) and is available as a printed version. The report will be distributed to relevant HELCOM and EU bodies within 2016.

CCB also initiated a HELCOM process to develop new recommendation to minimize fertilizer spills in Baltic Sea region harbours, to mitigate nutrient pollution to the Baltic Sea; a proposal with examples of Best Practices to reduce fertilizer spills from other parts of the world will be elaborated in 2016 and submitted to relevant HELCOM bodies. CCB addressed the fact that many Baltic Sea Region countries allow for spreading of P-fertilizers, e.g. manure, on phosphorus-saturated soils, resulting in increased P-leakage from farmland. Developed and presented CCB-proposals to phase-out P-fertilization on P-saturated farmland to HELCOM and its Working Group on Sustainable agriculture practices, as a measure to implement HELCOM Annex III- Prevention of pollution from agriculture.

7. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and River Watch (RW) The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Improve implementation, public participation and share good examples of NGO efforts to improve implantation

of the WFD for the next cycle (1-year objective)

Activities and results: During 2015, CCB has started compiling and summarizing Baltic NGO experiences with WFD development and implementation. Compilation will focus on:

a. Good examples of successful NGO involvement, b. Good examples of adapted measures and methodology for public involvement in MS c. Suggestions for focus of future work for NGOs d. Possible obstacles to watch out for and suggestions on how to avoid them

The compiled report will be presented to CCB members and board, shared in CCBs information channels etc

− CCB methodological materials on RW and RBM for NGOs were developed and updated, and are now under testing by RW NGO groups in Russia, Belarus, Latvia and Ukraine.

− An RBM working group discussion was organized within the annual CCB conference, and proposals to the CCB Work Program were elaborated and presented to the conference (April 24, Vilnius).

− The mailing list of RBM working area partners was updated. − Communication among CCB MOs, working on RBM issues, on information and experience exchange

supported via mailing list. − Youth RW activities (expeditions, investigations, camps – aimed to learning and improving river

environmental state) developed. − RBM WG leader represented CCB on RBM related issues at the events:

• Helsinki 17-19.05.2015. Gulf of Finland year conference. • Estonia 09-11.06.2015. CBSS NGO Forum, environmental session. • Latvia 16-17.06.2015. HELCOM Baltic Sea communication seminar • Helsinki 30.10.2015. SYKE Seminar on collaborative projects on the Baltic Sea education • Stockholm 15-18.12.2015. Swedish Institute international seminar on NGO cooperation and

capacity building.


39

− Personal meetings, consultations with RBM partners (from Belarus, Kaliningrad, Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine), and phone consultations were held.

− The plan of information output from RBM WG to CCB web-site was prepared. − The information from RBM partners activities/projects was requested. − The preliminary analysis of present state of EU and non-EU water regulation started. − The draft Working Group report 2015 was prepared (to be presented at CCB Board meeting), including

results of the Working Group activities, a description of main outputs, its plans, ideas for development, conducted projects, etc.

7.1.A River Basin Management in Biała river, Poland The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Establish a river management of Biała river, Poland, that safeguards high biodiversity standards and good

ecological water status according to WFD requirements and provide it into RBMP of Vistula basin. The plan will serve as a model for other forthcoming updated River Basin Management Plans in Poland (Overall objective)

• Listing of values, problems and solutions concerning the river Biała valley, which can be used for local sustainable strategy of development and to be included in the river basin management (1-year objective) (The project is planned to continue in 2016, with more detailed objectives for the future river management).

Activities and results: • Workshops for the stakeholders in the valley of the river Biała were carried out. The target group was citizens

of the valley, local governments, local businesses, water administration. In 2015 4 meetings with citizen’s groups and one meeting with local administration were planned. More than 100 citizens/stakeholders were involved. The activities will contin ue in 2016.

• A basis for a model RBMP was developed by collecting and summarizing the views from the workshop and shared with the participants and local and national administrations in particular

Many RBMP developed within the WFD have had low quality when it comes to measures to be implemented. To support a more comprehensive approach on river management, the local population, local business, organizations and administrations need to be better and deeper involved in developing a proper approach to river management. Polish Ecological Club therefore introduced a series of meetings with people who live at Biała River to discuss sustainable development in Biała River valley. The development should protect unique ecological value and bring income people who live there. The results of the discussions of PKE together with local organizations and local authorities will be used as input to the next revision of the RBMP in 2016-17.

Arranged meetings: Place Date Nr of participants 1. Pleśna 24.04.2015 22 2. Gromnik 3.12.2015 20 42

During the meetings, the following main problems were discussed:

Pleśna:

The workshops took place in the Cultural Centre and was conducted under the project "The unique qualities of the White River Valley social value and economic region." In the workshops participated 20 inhabitants of Pleśna. Commune authorities were represented by the mayor - p. Joseph Knapik and by the Deputy Mayor Richard P. Stankowski. The meeting was also attended by the councilors, representatives of the producer group "At the farmer", local leaders and other residents. Workshops were led by members of the Polish Ecological Club, coaches Danuta Bener and Marek Lord. Workshops were held in accordance with the established program. The theme of the workshop was farming in the area related to the White River with special emphasis on natural resources. The workshop began with brief information about the project, its aims and planned


40

results. Then discussed resources and conditions associated with the White River, the areas covered by the Natura 2000. Residents pointed to both the opportunities that arise from the presence of the river, already spotted and used the benefits and risks - particularly the threat of flooding. The river and its values are not the most important accent of the economy of the municipality. Income residents come mainly from agricultural production and the use of resources of agriculture - agritourism farm, processing, family tourism, which is planning to develop. They discussed the traditional uses of the river (meeting place and recreation, tourist attractions, the regulation of water in the area) as an unusual as a trademark brand of local products, development opportunities related the supply to the chain stores of good quality organic products, cooperation with the Scandinavian countries seeking suppliers of healthy products. During the workshop, participants watched two movies about water that initiate and engage the audience to thematic discussions.

Gromnik:

The meeting was conducted by Danuta Bener - facilitator and Peter Topiński ecologist who specializes in water in mountainous areas and Natura 2000. The workshops were held in accordance with the established program. The theme was the river and its resources, management capabilities in the areas of Natura 2000, local resources to the development, identification of opportunities and limitations arising from the Natura 2000 site, as well as hot spots and the possibility of reconciling the interests of different groups. The meeting was very positively received by the people who actively participated in the discussion.

7.1.B River Basin Management – River Watch in Latvia The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Promote improvement of the water quality in River Basins in the Baltic Sea catchment of Latvia, with focus on

nutrients; by introduction of requirements for sustainable wastewater management in rural areas and water protection measures in agriculture, to be included in the updated RBMPs (Overall objective)

• Ensure the proper implementation of WFD / RBMPs to reach the Good Ecological Water Status by 2015 in some river basins in Latvia (1-year objective)

Activities and results: Not only River Watch, but all activities of the Environment Club of Latvia (VAK) were addressed to all society of Latvia - citizens who care about the environment, the Latvian water quality and river pollution and the Baltic Sea. There was no restriction for any gender or minority group concerning participating in project. That means, that equal rights and opportunities were guaranteed for all. Total numbers of straight involved persons in project are 4 people (4 women and 1 man). All participants had an equal right to get involved in activities of the project. In our project majority of participants were women both in the project administration and between participants of different River Watch activities. That’s because women traditionally are more involved in social activities in Latvia. Project organizers were selected by work they performed in an organization and by skills necessary in activities, not by gender.

On a contractual basis in the project participated a project leader assistant and accountant Ilze Liepa-Balode, co-accountant Inta Andersone, on voluntary basis co-organizer of activities was Aija Caune. The project has reached quite large number of people and it isn’t possible to evaluate it. Besides indirect impact is much greater than the direct. For example: River cleanups and “Pray for the Sea” directly involved over 200 persons, etc. There weren’t any important deviations from the original plans except necessity to involve lawyer in court for Karve hydro power station.

River Watch activities already become like tradition in Latvia.

VAK cooperates with Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional development and every year participate in project tenders for different fund. Till 2015 traditionally River Watch activities got some co-financing from JSC "Latvian State Forests" foundation and from Latvian Environmental Protection Fund.


41

Through the MO VAK, CCB participated in Lielupe, Gauja and Daugava river Consultancy boards which were organized in 2015. CCB also monitored the River Basin Management Plan implementation in Latvia and the next round of River Basin Management Plans and advocated for inclusion of requirements for e.g. small-scale sustainable wastewater management measures in rural areas, in accordance with HELCOM recommendations in the updated RBMPs VAK together with consultancy board members and Latvian fund for Nature experts elaborated and submitted for Basin plans proposals for amendments and for basin plan activities regarding numerous issues, e.g. buffer zones for water bodies, amended the list of water bodies with high risk not to reach good ecological status based on information provided by voluntary monitorists. VAK also participated in the public discussions and elaborated proposals for Riga Development Plan on alternative treatment measures for individual water users in small family gardens and took part in the exchange of experience in the management of waste water resulting from the family gardens in urban areas. VAK installed one traditional toilet running according the ecological principles in the center of Riga garden area Lucavsala. In another garden area in Bolderaja on the River Daugava one toilet is installed for many gardens users with appropriate wastewater management. Since family gardens are only granted for one year with contract extension possibility in Riga only in areas which are flooded, it is especially important to install proper toilets there. Next year it is planned to discuss the idea to install one common ecotoilet also in Lucavsala garden territory which is 2km from Riga center on Daugava river bank. With the initative of VAK Ventspils local Angler's association in Venta river region organized voluntary monitoring with financial support of Ventspils city council. Public was informed on monitoring results. VAK continued to work on voluntary monitoring system of river basins and communicated with Environmental Inspectorates on better reporting systems regarding illegal poaching, etc. issues. CCB also participated in voluntary monitoring of implementation of the river management plans, organizing as well as participating in local campaigns in relation to promotion of good water status. The main element of campaigns was environmental education through personal, visual and emotional involvement. During the year VAK participated and organized several River Watch educational activities together with river clean ups in two salmon rivers:

1.1. Large river, Venta, significant salmonid spawning site in Kuldīga Venta waterfall. This activity was held in collaboration with the Nature protection management institution and their LIFE project;

1.2. Little River, Brasla, in Gauja National park, in collaboration with Anglers;

VAK continued participation in the working group for preparation of amendments on the Law of Protection Zones to change protection zone width in agriculture lands. Unfortunately, it was decided to stay on only 2 m of protective zone along the river, where no agricultural activities will take place.

VAK continued court proceedings on Karva Hydro Power Plants.

Before and after VAK's traditional public event “Pray for the Sea” in Plieņciems, two outdoor activities with lessons about water issues were held and River Watch methodology was demonstrated in action for new voluntaries.

Throughout the year, preparation of amendments to the Law on the protection zones, which would foresee to abolish clear-cut prohibition in river protection zones, took place. It was intended to push these amendments without society involvement and only after VAK involvement and initiative, a debate on the tree felling in river protection zones was launched. VAK managed to temporarily suspend these amendments and launch debate among experts and NGO representatives. 2 visiting sessions were organized to river places where potential felling was planned and carried out. Private forest owners, and other organizations, VAK, Latvian Fund for Nature, representatives from Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture participated. After these discussions the amendments were adopted, unfortunately largely ignoring environmental interests.

For information: Current Latvian legislation permits thinning in protected river forest lands. Entrepreneurs want to get permits for clear felling of gray alder in theses zones. Their rationale is that if the gray alder is left, then they are still economically unprofitable, because half of the trees just fall out.


42

The opinion of nature conservation experts is twofold: some of them consider that using heavy forest equipment cause a lot more damage to river ecosystems and argue agains clearing of trees. Expert A. Urtāns believes that white gray alder contributes to river pollution by nitrates (coming from tree leaves) and argue for the felling of gray alder.

Throughout the year, VAK participated in the working group on preparation of Guidelines for freshwater habitats management, which was part of project administered by nature protection administration. As a result of the project guidance manual will be published in 2016.

More info can be found in link: http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/fotogalerijas/zinas/saldudens_biotopu_darba_grupas_nosleguma_seminars

7.1.C River Basin Management – River Watch in Lithuania The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Provide data and lobby for implementation of the River Basin Management plans in Lithuania (1-year objective) • Create an informed public in all age groups and furnish targeted actions to integrate these people in activities (1-

year objective) • Support the goal to reach a good ecological water status (Overall objective)

Activities and results: The target groups of the activities carried out were the environmental groups working in the field of water research, and citizens. The implementation of the project involved both women and men. During the implementation of the project, equal opportunities were ensured to all entities, participating in the project, in all project activities. Both men and women were treated equally, regardless of gender, in outsourcing translation services and in the project management team.

During the project the following activities were accomplished:

− An environmental education seminar was organized for teachers and students on 20 October 2015, in Anykščiai; the seminar was attended by 500 participants, and it was funded by the Ministry of the Environment;

− During the seminar, round table discussions on public participation in the management of river basin districts were organized;

− Proposals for public participation in the management of river basins in Lithuania in 2016-2020 were submitted to national authorities; analysis of public participation in 2010-2015 was carried out. Proposals were submitted to Mr. Andrius Šepikas, the River Basin Management Department, the Environmental Status Assessment Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and Mr. Mindaugas Gudas, Director of the Environmental Status Assessment Department, the Environmental Protection Agency.

− Eight articles were published in the national press about the educational seminar for teachers and pupils that took place on 20 October, 2015 in Anykščiai. Two regional press contributions about voluntary monitoring for public; www.ccb.se/evidence2015/RBM_Latvia_Annex2_articles.pdf

− A report and recommendations for the national Environmental ministry and other authorities was prepared “Proposals for public participation in river basin management in Lithuania in 2016-2020”. www.ccb.se/evidence2015/RBM_Latvia_Annex1_proposal_for_society_participation.pdf

The main achievement is that the project promoters looked deeply into the situation, which is very bad in terms of public participation: public money is spent inefficiently, and the public participation activities in 2010 - 2015 were chaotic. The Environmental Protection Agency will have to take the analysis and proposals into


43

consideration. It would be effective to continue the activities in future, and to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and the civil society.

7.2 Wastewater treatment - Sustainable Wastewater management

7.2.A Application of Sustainable Wastewater management concepts and Eco-sanitation solutions for single-family homes at Biala River, Poland The activities in this area have been carried out


Objectives: • Implementation of UWWT directive and stronger standards in accordance with the adopted HELCOM BSAP

recommendations for wastewater management in small settlements and single-family homes (Overall objective) • Raised awareness and interest for sustainable and innovative wastewater management systems (Overall and 1-

year objectives) • Promote installations of sustainable wastewater treatment facilities in small- and medium-sized municipalities for

better river water quality and planning has started for a couple of installation of eco-sanitation in the catchment (1-year objective)

Activities and results: Many RBMP developed within the WFD have had low quality when it comes to measures to be implemented. To support a more comprehensive approach on river management, the local population, local businesses, organizations and administrations need to be better and deeper involved in developing a proper approach to river management. Polish Ecological Club therefore introduced a series of meetings with people who live at Biała River to discuss sustainable development in Biała River valley. The development should protect unique ecological values and bring income people who live there. One of discussed problem was treatment waste water. PKE proposed installations of sustainable wastewater treatment facilities for small settlements or single family houses. PKE together with local organizations and authorities would like to use the results of our common discussions as input to the revision of the RBMP in 2016-17.

Place Date Nr of participants

1. Rzuchowa 12.03.2015 23

2. Tuchów 13.03.2015 15

3. Bobowa 14.03.2015 20

Total 58

Representatives of local authorities participated in all meetings. It was a big lesson to them, because the willing of citizens was often different what they propose in development plans. During all the meetings the problem of waste water treatment was introduced and adequate materials were disseminated.

The workshops were led by Danuta Bener - trainer, facilitator, a member of PKE and Piotr Topiński, an ecologist who specializes in water on a mountain. Brief reports from the workshops:

Rzuchowa:

During the workshop were considered of natural, cultural, economic and social value of the Biała River and the possibility of their use in this small community. Discussed the traditional uses of the river (meeting place and recreation, tourist attractions, the regulation of water in the area) and unusual as a trademark, a brand of local products, etc. Participants were engaging in discussion of the various possibilities for the use of the river and its


44

basin to support community development, with great solace talked about a certain distance from the river, the water level variations of up to 8 m in the lower reaches, where this area is Rzuchów.

Tuchów:

In Tuchów the river is for the residents of the city a permanent part of the landscape, but periodically also a threat. Therefore, the workshop topics are often directed toward the prevention of flood losses and the organization of space, from which water flows to keep these losses as low as possible. The workshop was attended by 15 people. Among the participants were also young active citizens of Tuchów (members of the Youth Council of the City). Reported ideas and initiatives concerned mainly tourist development of the river (horse trail), natural value and flood protection. The film "Water in the Mountains" by Piotr Topiński was shown, showing the Slovak experience in low budget flood prevention.

Bobowa:

A large part of the participants were teachers and citizens interested in the biodiversity of the river. It is a large value for tourism, and the town is focused on the activities of cultural and tourism (famous for its lace). Residents in part of members of the local association had a lot of ideas for the development of the river (hiking trails, bike because already, the position of observation of plants and animals, examples of small retention times of the Austrian partition), are examples of ideas for the use of the river. A lot of time the discussion was about the master periodic floods local watercourses flowing into the river and a rapidly growing population of beavers.

See further information above under 7.1.A

8. ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING Regarding organisational development - how is the situation at the end of the grant year as compared with the situation at the beginning of the grant year?

Improved No significant change Worse

____________________________________________________________________________

8.1 Network capacity building

Objectives: • Further improve information flow in the network and supply it with relevant information. • Develop even better expertise among volunteers and other actors in the grassroot member organizations to

facilitate more targeted and higher quality work. • Make the environmental EU policies more tangible and better known among members and non-members of the

network and thus boost their successful implementation

Activities and results: The CCB Secretariat collected information and distributed it inside and outside CCB network through press releases, website, Twitter, emails, phone calls and various specialized mailing lists. The new communications strategy put a special emphasis on this network communication, striving to make it more efficient and suited for new and social media. The CCB secretariat has focused a lot on the website and especially on social media (FB and Twitter) to increase presence and amount of followers etc to spread information. All measurements of posts and followers etc has increased during the year and the social media channel is the main addition to CCBs normal interaction via email, phone, skype and physical meetings within the network. CCBs 3 main mailing lists have been used frequently and more targeted mails to relevant recipients working on the subject at hand (MSFD, eel, porpoise, litter etc) have been organised and used.


45

Full statistics and topics posted on Facebook and twitter is compiled in and Excel sheet with CCB working areas/themes as selectable categories can be viewed here: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Combined CCB 2015 FB and twitter stats.xlsx

The CCB 5-day summer course Our Common Baltic was organised in 2015 for new activists to get training in the CCB priority areas in the BS region. The course was held on 9-14 September 2015 at Hel Marine station, Poland. Participants from all over the Baltic region participated. All details including presentations and information materials used are available at http://www.ccb.se/?event=our-common-baltic-summer-course Final programme: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Final%20agenda%20OCB%209-14%20Sep%202015.doc Participant list: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/List_of_participants_OCB_2015.xlsx FB post and pictures: https://www.facebook.com/coalitioncleanbaltic/photos/pcb.912790432132500/912789935465883/?type=3&theater Conferences, workshops and seminars have been arranged, and are described under each respective section of the report. Of specific interest for this section we should mention the annual CCB conference held in Vilnius celebrating CCBs 25th anniversary, underscoring the relevance of CCB in past but even more so in the changing Baltic region today. Programme: http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Program-to-Baltic-2015-final.docx http://www.ccb.se/?event=ccb-annual-conference&event_date=2015-04-24

CCB has also produced and updated information and marketing materials, with more focus on online materials and information and less printed materials. Printed materials is now mostly made as print on demand and folders or leaflets are printable in normal colour printers. The main carrier of information is the website and the social media accounts to direct traffic and attention to new materials etc.

8.2 Network enlargement

Objectives: • Strengthen the representation of relevant actors of the whole BS drainage area and enable more efficient

distribution of CCB’s efforts to restore the marine environment of the Baltic Sea

Activities and results: CCB secretariat and CCB members have had contacts with several potential new members in 2015 but none has yet been accepted as only the bi-annual General meeting can approve new members. Polish and Russian NGOs have approached CCB to apply for observership but have not yet been approved. CCB procedures requires that the existing national members make the initial scoping and assessment of the NGOs in question and final decisions are taken by Board to present to the General meeting (due in May 2016)

CCB secretariat has also had contact with several NGOs in Czech Republic and made a visit to the Ostrava region with a follow-up meeting with environmental NGOS in Prague, Czech Republic, on 6-7 May 2015. CCB-representatives (Gunnar Norén and Maria Staniszewska) visited ENGOs to develop future cooperation on water management in the Baltic Sea catchment in Czech. Two organizations (Arnika and Beleco) were approached with a proposal to consider joining CCB network, as actively working with issues of relevance (pollution prevention and nature conservation) within Czech part of the Baltic Sea catchment area.

The meetings and contacts resulted in agreements to initiate joint work of joint interest regarding river basin management and nutrients mainly. It was further recommended to invite ARNIKA and BELECO to the CCB Annual Baltic conference in 2016, to discuss and develop a close cooperation. See further information in the meeting report available online: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/VisitCzechNGOs-May15.pdf

The work with further engagement of Polish NGOs has resulted in re-activating involvement of Eastern-Pomeranian branch of the Polish Ecological Club in Gdansk into CCB’s work on e.g. marine litter.

8.3 Staffing and technical competence including external experts


46

Objectives: • The professional management of CCB will be enhanced by additional specialized expertise, giving stronger

influence and more dominant expert input

Activities and results: The Secretariat hired a new staff member in March 2015 that started work as internal coordinator and communications officer (www.ccb.se/evidence2015/2015_CV_Hildur_Hardardottir.pdf) Priority Area Work Leaders for Water Protection in Agriculture (Mikhail Durkin, Executive Secretary) and River and Wastewater Management (Olga Senova) were appointed by the CCB Board at its meeting in October 2015, to be working part-time for coordination of respective activities within the network. An experienced expert from Germany, previously involved in a large German microliter project in Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND: Marijana Toben) was employed to act as coordinator for the project on Marine litter/microplastic. See separate section for all project details. A coordinator/expert was employed for the project and report on Climate change in the Baltic Sea. The circle of experts providing basic information and facts within the CCB priority areas was maintained and widened through regular contacts. Contacts in the scientific community and experts within our member organisations were maintained and used to support CCB statements, reports etc. From the CCB secretariat, the direct contact with scientific experts on fish and fisheries, marine mammals (porpoise), climate change, agriculture and aquaculture has been several and crucial for implementing the work program as planned. CCB has also participated in several expert group meetings within e.g. HELCOM, ICES furthering new contacts with experts in several countries. See evidence/meetings for example under section on MSFD. 8.4 Organisational structure

Objectives: • To fulfil the statuary organisational requirements

Activities and results: All regular statutory meetings and preparations have been implemented in accordance with CCB statutes and as listed in the work programme. Two Board Meetings were held in 2015: one on 23-24 April in connection with the Annual Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, and one on 23-25 October in Tallinn, Estonia. The CCB secretariat was responsible for preparation and management of the Board Meetings, which are crucial for direct information exchange and internal news sharing. All representatives give national reports and working area coordinators give presentations on all passed and planned activities, meetings etc.

The Annual Conference was arranged in Vilnius on 25 April 2015, with presence of all Member organisations, other interested NGOs and partners and invited experts. http://www.ccb.se/?event=ccb-annual-conference&event_date=2015-04-24 8.5 Strengthened internal and external communication

Objectives: • Improve CCB’s communication capacity, both in employed personnel and voluntary contributors

Activities and results: A workshop on “Strengthened internal and external communication within the CCB Priority Areas” was organised by the CCB secretariat back to back with the board meeting in Tallinn in October. Eight people plus CCB secretariat staff participated. To this meeting, CCB secretariat had updated and simplified the CCB


47

communication strategy and this short guide was used as a presentation and guidance for discussions. CCBs organisations are encouraged to use the joint strategy as a tool for developing their own projects etc.

Short guide: www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB Communication strategy short guide.pdf

Outcomes of the WS was in summary: participants felt that the most useful tools for direct internal contact is mail, and Skype. There is a wish for topic divided groups in Facebook to better gather people of certain interests. Such groups can be administered by working area coordinators rather than the secretariat.

A seminar and short workshop on “Communication within a Network Organisation: Introduction and implementation of the CCB communication Strategy” was organised by the CCB secretariat back to back with the annual conference in Vilnius in late April 2015. 19 people participated. The seminar introduced the concepts developed in CCBs communications strategy setting up goals for key actors and channels to use and improve 2-way communication. The second part of the meeting was a workshop. The main objectives was to evaluate current communication practices and single out the good and working structures and arrangements and agreeing on new and suitable tools that was preferred by the participants.

Results from the seminar: A general outcome was that CCB should not develop new tools but instead focus on the ones that work and that people use, mainly FB and email.

To improve our messaging and to be able to make media outreach etc it was considered useful to have a pool of experts that could be contacted and asked to comment in press releases for example. CCB secretariat was asked to make and update a list of experts that was willing to stand as commentators or be able to take questions from media. It was also confirmed that the participating NGO representatives wanted new email lists based on topics rather than one generic list (see next activity).

CCB has evaluated a few different kinds of email programs useful for internal as well as external communication. The tool selected is Mailchimp using a online administration system that all users can themselves organize and chose themes /topics, add and remove subscriptions etc.

Working area coordinators can use the tools and spread the information to get more subscribers increasing the reach of external information from CCB as a whole or from individual organisations depending on topic and relevance to subscribers.

CCBs website has been continuously developed and now has a clear link with social media channels (FB and twitter). The website can now be managed by anyone in the network regardless of physical location.

Based on the information gathered and wishes and conclusions form the two communications workshops organized during 2015, CCB secretariat has made adjustments and focus more on FB and twitter to link to news etc presented on the CCB website and other NGOs sites. A continued expansion of this work is foreseen in 2016.

Please note that CCB staff member Nils Höglund uses both personal twitter and the CCB twitter account to share information. Full statistics and topics on Facebook and twitter in excel sheet with CCB working areas as selectable separation can be viewed here: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Combined CCB 2015 FB and twitter stats.xlsx

CCB web-statistics

Due to an error in our google analytics account we miss some statistical data from the website, however building on average use during first 7 months of 2015 the numbers are as follows:

Webstats 2015 in "Views" dec-14 1107

jan 919 feb 2096 mar 2834 april 2663 may 2431


48

june 1779 july 1142 aug 312 Err* sept 106 Err* *Calculated average based on known average:

oct 88 Err* first 7 months: 13864nov 428 Err* assumed average last 5: 9902dec 261 Err* Total 2015: 23766analytics total number 16166

Facebook 2015 History 2014: 73 followers 2015: 339 followers Statistics 2015

Reach clicks Shares,

comments total 59743 3050 1576average 108,0 5,5 2,8

Month Reach clicks Shares,

comments Apr 1338 127 45Maj 8937 128 154Jun 3603 148 87Jul 8774 326 191Aug 7346 279 187Sep 11501 1087 424Okt 5647 229 170Nov 8435 451 227Dec 3841 236 79undefined 321 39 12

total 59743 3050 1576 --- Twitter 2015

Summary 2015

Tweets and retweets 185 (+)100 Followers 179 (+)104 Follow 314

(History 20141230) Followers on Twitter: 75 Tweets 85


49

Full statistics and topics on Facebook and twitter in excel sheet with CCB working areas as selectable separation can be viewed here: http://www.ccb.se/evidence2015/Combined CCB 2015 FB and twitter stats.xlsx

8.6 Partnership / relations with other stakeholders.

Objectives: • Provide CCB expertise to help partners and institutions to take favourable decisions to protect the Baltic Sea.

Activities and results: CCB participated in and provided inputs to as well as disseminated materials at various international events such as meetings, conferences and seminars on the regional and EU-wide scale. The calendar of events with indication of participation and inputs is available here www.ccb.se/evidence2015/CCB_Inputs_HELCOM_and_other_2015.pdf

8.7 Fundraising situation and plans/strategies to ensure diversification and sustainability

Objectives: • To secure financial means for continuation of the CCB work

Activities and results: CCB Secretariat has developed and presented to the Board in October 2015 its vision of the fundraising strategy, in order to gradually decrease dependency on the EU operational grant and ensure continuity and follow-up of CCB’s operations. The network will work during 2016-2017 on diversification of its funding sources based on the following 5-steps fundraising and sustainability strategy:

1. For the 2016-2017 Biannual Strategy, CCB will mobilize resources to provide 40% own funding, also through engagement of more matching funds (ongoing);

2. The CCB Secretariat will keep track of funding possibilities and will develop, with support of the Board Members, applications that are in line with the priorities agreed by the Annual Meetings;

3. Funding opportunities for MOs will be explored, respective advice and technical support will be provided by the Secretariat when asked for (annually);

4. Applications for funding will be submitted on a regular/annual basis to SIDA (support to activities in third countries), Forum Syd (support to Swedish NGOs’ international cooperation), NCM (project support to sustain matching funds), Oak Foundation (MSFD related work, work on marine litter monitoring network, public awareness and capacity building), Swedish Institute (seed money and Technical Assistance to the work related to the EUSBSR), Ålandsbanken (targeted project grant, e.g. in relation to public awareness raising with regards to pharmaceutical pollution), the International Baltic Sea Foundation for Nature Conservation (project funding related to Baltic Sea protection and environmental damage compensation);

5. CCB will explore possibilities for improvement of its fund-raising capacities in the future through targeted training of relevant staff members (2016-2017). Additionally this will be part of preparatory measures for a future staff generation shift.

Consecutive application of the above strategy within 2016-2017 and beyond will help to establish constant operational funding for CCB without compromising its abilities to respond to policy challenges and enable efficient top-down and bottom-up communication of environmental policies’ implications through the network to EU citizens within BSR.

The Board was also on a regular basis (both during the meetings and intersessionally) updated on the situation with implementation of the CCB budget (for 2015 and projections for 2016), its core and co-funding sources. The Board in general accepted the proposed way forward and endorsed the fund-raising strategy, with a view that it should be kept as a live document, with updates as needed.


50

8.8. Administrative and Financial Management

Objectives: • Improve the control of the financial management

Activities and results: CCB has applied the anticorruption policy in all its activities on the permanent basis. No cases of corruption have been identified within 2015.

Risk analyses is performed for each new beneficiary organization that is involved in CCB’s network activities prior to any contractual obligations are concluded. CCB Controller Nina Ljungquist is responsible for overseeing and coordinating this work with Member and partner organizations and performs visits to their offices and random spot checks. All the activities within CCB’s Work Programme are subject to audit – either nationally or by the Swedish auditor, in both cases – authorised to perform such audits by various donors.

Within 2015, CCB has received a monitoring visit by NEEMO team commissioned by EASME that concluded with overall assessment as follows: “Coalition Clean Baltic is a well organised and effective NGO. The structure and internal management is good and the outputs in terms of written documents, information and organisation of workshops is judged to be excellent.”

Number of recommendations provided by the monitoring team will be addressed at the first meeting of CCB Board in 2016 with a view to make necessary adjustments in the internal routines and procedures.

8.8 Evaluation and reporting

Objectives: • To implement a new report format for the input from CCB members in the priority working groups at the Annual

Meetings,

Activities and results: An evaluation form was developed and used to evaluate the CCB summer course. The experiences are used to further develop the form with the intention to implement it in 2016. The new reporting format is still being processed. The CCB Board addressed the need to undertake further steps in monitoring and evaluation of progress of the network activities and tasked the Secretariat to report on it at the first Board Meeting in 2016, based also on NEEMO Monitoring visits report.

Description of the financial status of the organisation, fundraising strategy for the upcoming year(s) and financial sustainability of the organisation CCB activities to raise the public awareness of factors that affect the environmental status of the Baltic Sea largely depend on financial means that can be raised to ensure that the knowledge base can be continuously updated, expertise and competence maintained and public campaigns carried out. The impact of CCB to support, sometimes even persuade, policy-makers to take environmentally necessary decisions depends largely upon the understanding and acceptance of the general public and decision-makers. CCB’s dependence on the NGO operating grant mainly reflects a long-term political will to reach out to the general public in order to strengthen the fundament for the EU environmental policy. The NGO operating grant has given a fundament to keep CCB’s important and far-reaching environmental work running and additional funding is raised of various amounts that mainly supports the topical projects, while the NGO operating grant is largely ensuring the long-term core funding, including basic project activities. In order to ensure that the work of CCB on implementation of this Biannual Strategic Plan within 2016-2017 is carried out in the most efficient way, responding to challenges in implementing EU and regional environmental policies, as well as reflecting the needs of MOs and strengthening the network itself, the following SWOT analysis of CCB work was performed.


51

Strengths Weaknesses

− Covers most big grassroot NGOs in the region with 850 000 individuals (ca. 1% of the BSR population)

− Transboundary geographical coverage of almost entire Baltic catchment area; strongly linking EU and non-EU countries

− Long-term commitment to environmental policies in BSR − Holistic orientation on regional, EU and Baltic policies − Contribution to shaping, developing and reviewing EU

environmental policies − Represents local and regional expertise, both in staff and

through external experts/scientists; supports with expertise to national issues

− Consistent, stable and reliable partner − Acknowledged by regional bodies like HELCOM, ICES, fishery

authorities and frameworks, as well as at EU level, e.g. MSFD where CCB actively participates

− Solid democratic structure − Outreach on valuable, broad scope environmental protection

issues, targeted and adapted to audience needs, e.g. policy relevance, translation, glossaries

− Lack of reporting on success stories, on the CCB web-site in English

− Lack of personnel in many MOs limits internal CCB net-work communication and feedback about ongoing pro-cesses and successes

− Internal communication with 9 languages create barriers that need special efforts to overcome

− Actions at local level often lack to make visible links between national, regional and EU policy objectives

− Lack of knowledge and capacity in MOs regarding infringement procedures related to EU-policy implementation

− Insufficient capacity and lack of time resulting e.g. in lack of dedicated capacity in the network to perform fund-raising tasks

− Project management suffers from lack of long-term funding − Tasks of CCB Secretariat are broad in scope and much diversified

activities − Eye to eye contacts require costly and time consuming long

distance travels

Opportunities Threats

− Improve and enable role of MOs in addressing policy implementation by training on access to environmental in-formation and justice

− More frequent representation of CCB by MOs at EU/Baltic policy level)Strengthened capacity with expert knowledge through updated list of experts and short term service con-tracts

− Possibility to extend durability of a deliverable/product through targeting and long-term campaigning

− Improve attractiveness and visibility of CCB for NGOs to become potential MOs

− Regular activity updates from the network are gathered by core staff; key messages and success stories are promoted through CCB’s communication channels

− Increase outreach and advocacy by directly communicating key messages to target audience at national, regional and EU level

− Conduct an evaluation to better understand how CCB Secretariat can support MOs

− Increase use of IT/communication tools for internal meetings/workshops/education (e.g. webinars) to reduce travel costs and minimise carbon footprint

− Improve outreach by using modern and more attractive IT-tools (e.g. mobile apps)

− Lose continuity due to short term money − Missed opportunity to involve more MOs due to statute

limitations/related to requirement for MOs to involve the grassroots as members

− Difficult political/economic implications for work in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine

− Lack of core engaged experts/dependence on knowledge turnover and “ageing” problem

− Generation shift and risk of losing knowledge, expertise and charisma, as well as interpersonal skills

− Over engagement/”tyranny of participation” (too many meetings/frameworks to attend)

− Adapting to constantly increasing external priori-ties/pressures does not cope with remaining under-capacity

Based on the SWOT analysis, CCB will continue its work in 2016-2017 with implementation of the strategic work programme.


52

FINANCIAL OUTCOMES

INCOME SEKEU LIFE NGO Operating Grant Programme 3 462 000Swedish Environment Protection Agency 795 000Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 100 000Nordic Council of Ministers 539 000FISH Secretariat 91 000Air & Climate Secretariat 50 000Swedish Institute 42 000Membership fees 216 000TOTAL income 5 295 000EXPENDITURE SEKPersonnel costs 2 716 000Travel and subsistence 427 000Activities, projects (including external staff) 1 452 000Office costs (rent, telecom, consumables, webpage) 392 000Audit 88 000Set aside to reserve fund 220 000TOTAL expenses 5 295 000Balance Income/Expenses 0


53

Appendix 1. CCB Calendar of internal and external events

This document compiles the List of completed internal and external events in which CCB took part or contributed to in 2015 (black color indicates meeting attended or contributed to, grey – meetings followed, red – CCB’s events)

The List is kept as a live document, to be utilized for planning of activities of the Working Areas in relation to general Strategic Working Programme, as well as afterwards for the reporting purposes.

Date and place Name of Meeting CCB Working Area

29.01.2015, online 3rd HELCOM Meeting on Marine Litter (MARINE LITTER 3/2015) HAZARD 29-30.01.2015, Gothenburg, SE

10th Meeting of the HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (MSP WG 10-2015)

COAST

4-5.2.2015, Berlin, DE 9th Meeting of the Group for the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR 9-2015) ALL 6.2.2015, online Fourth Meeting on the draft HELCOM Aquaculture Recommendation (AQUACULTURE 4-2015) FISH 10-12.02.2015, Copenhagen, DK

Second Meeting of the Project for Baltic-wide assessment of coastal fish communities in support of an ecosystem-based management (FISH-PRO II 2-2015)

FISH

3-4.3.2015, Helsinki, FI 36th Meeting of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM 36-2015) ALL 31.03.2015, Vilnius, LT CCB Seminar “Best practices for intensive rearing of animals” AGRI 15-16.4.2015, Warsaw, PL Second Meeting of HELCOM Group on Ecosystem-based Sustainable Fisheries (FISH 2-2015) FISH21.04.2015, online 10th Meeting of the Group for the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR 10-2015) ALL 22-23.04.2015, Bonn, DE 2nd Meeting of the HELCOM Expert Group on Environmental Risks of Hazardous Submerged

Objects (SUBMERGED 2-2015) HAZARD COAST

23.04.2015, Vilnius, LT CCB Board Meeting ALL 24.04.2015, Vilnius, LT CCB Annual Conference ALL 24.4.2015, Helsinki, FI 4th HELCOM Meeting on Marine Litter (MARINE LITTER 4-2015) HAZARD 6-8.5.2015, Tallinn, EE 2nd meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment

Area (PRESSURE 2-2015) RIVER COAST

11-15.5.2015, Helsinki, FI Second Meeting of the Group on the State of the Environment and Nature Conservation (STATE&CONSERVATION 2-2015)

NATURE

18.5.2015, online 1st online Meeting of HELCOM Group on Ecosystem-based Sustainable Fisheries (FISH online 1- FISH 19-20.05.2015, Berlin, DE 11th meeting of the Group on the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR 11-2015) ALL 19,05.2015, Brussels, BE NGO Workshop on MSFD implementation ALL19.5.2015, Uppsala, SE Workshop on transboundary inputs and retention (Transboundary inputs WS 1-2015) RIVER 28-29.05.2015, Braunschweig, DE

2nd Meeting of the Group on Sustainable Agricultural Practices (AGRI 2-2015) AGRI

10-11.06.2015 Tallinn, EE 48th Meeting of the HELCOM Heads of Delegation (HOD 48-2015) ALL 10-11.06.2015, Stockholm, SE Baltic Scope Project, SWB case, second planners meeting COAST 15-16.06.2015 Jurmala, LV

6th Annual Forum of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) Baltic communicators’ meeting

ALL

15-19.06.2015, Riga, LV 17.06.2015

10th Baltic Sea Science Congress (BSSC-2015) BONUS Forum policy day

ALL

15.06.2015 Gothenburg, SE HELCOM Workshop to support the development of a biodiversity assessment tool within HOLAS II (Biodiversity tool WS 1-2015)

NATURE

16-17.06.2015 Gothenburg, SE 3rd Meeting of the Project for the development of the second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (HOLAS II 3-2015)

ALL

4.08.2015, EE Baltic Scope project, LV-EE-SE case, second planners meeting 20.08.2015, Stockholm, SE Meeting with the SE Ministry fishery staff on TACs and the new BalticMap COAST 31 August, Warsaw PL BSAC WG meeting on technical measures FISH 01.09.2015, Warsaw, PL BALTFISH meeting focused on TAC, landing obligation and BalticMap? FISH


54


31.08-01.09.2015 Warnemunde, DE

Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) ALL

1-2.09.2015 Stockholm, SE 7th Meeting of the Reduction Scheme Core Drafting Group (RedCore DG 7-2015) RIVER 8.09.2015 Swinoujscie, PL

11th Meeting of the HELCOM Expert Working Group on Response on the Shore (EWG SHORE 11-2015)

DANGER

10-11.09.2015 Scoping/planning meeting with NGOs and Oak Foundations Tris Lewis in Brussels FISH 9-11.09.2015 Swinoujscie, PL HELCOM BALEX DELTA Exercise DANGER 9-14.09.2015 Hel, PL Our Common Baltic ALL 2nd week of September 2015 [PL]

6th Meeting of the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task Group on Ballast Water Management Convention Exemptions (HELCOM-OSPAR TG BALLAST 6-2015)

NATURE DANGER

14-18.09.2015 Stralsund, DE Conference “Progress in marine conservation in Europe (PMCE 2015)” NATURE28-29.09.2015, Riga, LV Baltic Scope partner meeting and kick-off conference COAST 1 October 2015, SE 6th Meeting of the HELCOM Group of Experts on Safety of Navigation (HELCOM SAFE NAV 6-2015) DANGER 30.09-1.10.2015 Riga, LV 11th Meeting of the joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group (HELCOM-

VASAB MSP WG 11-2015) COAST

2.10.2015 Riga, LV 1st Meeting of the Baltic Sea Region MSP Data Expert Group (BSR MSP Data EG) (under HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG)

COAST

5-6.10.2015, Brussels EU MSFD Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE) ALL 06.10.2015, Copenhagen DG MARE and Baltic development Forum’s Conference “Drivers for Blue growth in the BSR” ALL 7-9.10.2015 Copenhagen, DK

3rd Meeting of the HELCOM Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area (PRESSURE 3-2015)

HAZARD RIVER

9 October 2015 online Sixth Meeting of GEAR IG PoM ALL14-15 October 2015 Gothenburg, Sweden

Third Meeting of the HELCOM Expert Group on Environmental Risks of Hazardous Submerged Objects (SUBMERGED 3-2015)

HAZARD COAST

23.10.2015 Commission conference on fitness check of the Habitat Directive NATURE23-25.10.2015 Talinn, EE CCB Board Meeting ALL 26-28.10.2015 Istanbul, TR Meeting of the UNEP‘s Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans ALL26.10.2015 Helsinki, FI 8th Meeting of the Reduction Scheme Core Drafting Group (RedCore DG 8-2015) RIVER 27-28.10.2015 Helsinki, FI 9th Meeting of Sixth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation Project (PLC-6 9-2015) RIVER 29.10.2015 Helsinki, FI 9th Workshop of the Project on Development of a HELCOM Pollution Load User System

(PLUS 9-2015) RIVER

27-30.10.2015 Gdynia, PL 13th General Conference of the Union of the Baltic Cities “Building Smart Cities in the Baltic Sea Region”

COAST HAZARD

28-29.10.2015 Warsaw, PL CBSS Baltic Sea Region Climate Change Dialogue Platform ALL 28/29-30.10.2015 Warsaw, PL

IG PoM Workshop & 12th Meeting of the Group for the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (GEAR 12-2015)

ALL

5-6.11.2015. Brussels EU Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) ALL 5-6.11.2015 Stralsund, DE Conference Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea (GABBS) AGRI11-12.11.2015 Stockholm, SE Conference on sustainable in-land aquaculture and Best Available Techniques (BAT) FISH 9-13.11.2015 Helsinki, FI 3rd Meeting of the HELCOM Working Group on the State of the Environment and Nature

Conservation (STATE-CONSERVATION 3-2015) NATURE COAST

13.11.2015, Helsinki, FI HELCOM Workshop on the HOLAS Pressure and Impact Index ALL 19-20.11.2015 Helsinki, FI HELCOM Workshop on nutrient standards in manure AGRI 23-24.11.2015 Cologne, DE Microplastics in the Environment, Conference HAZARD23-25.11.2015, Klaipeda, LT 15th Meeting of the HELCOM Maritime Working Group (MARITIME 15-2015) DANGER 24-25.11.2015 Germany Fourth Meeting of the Project for the development of the second holistic assessment of the Baltic

Sea (HOLAS II 4-2015) ALL

25-27.11.2015 EU Water and Marine Directors meeting ALL 26-27.11.2015 Warsaw, PL 3rd Meeting of the HELCOM Group on Ecosystem-based Sustainable Fisheries (FISH 3-2015) FISH


55


2-4.12.2015 Berlin, DE Ninth Meeting of the ad hoc Seal Expert Group (SEAL 9-2015) NATURE 7.12.2015, Helsinki, FI IUCN Regional Conservation Forum NATURE 9.12.2015, Helsinki, FI Steering Group of PA NUTRI, EUSBSR RIVER 10-11.12.2015, Helsinki, FI 49th Meeting of the HELCOM Heads of Delegation (HOD 49-2015) ALL 15.12.2015, Copenhagen, DK Joint PA Hazard/HELCOM Stakeholder conference on concentrations and effects of

pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea environment HAZARD

RIVER 17.12.2015, Vitebsk, BY Seminar on Best Available Techniques to reduce impacts of Industrial Animal Farming (IAF)

within Daugava/Western Dvina river basin AGRI


56

Appendix 2. List of CCB publications (reports, documents, statements) released in 2015

1. Reports − Report on climate change in the Baltic Sea region: Consequences of two scenarios, with a focus on

biodiversity − Report on allocation of EU CAP subsidies for agri-environmental measures and control of nutrient

runoff from farmland within Baltic Sea region EU Member States − Reports from seminars on manure management − Report on survey in Poland of selected industrial animal farms and state administration bodies

responsible for monitoring the compliance with environmental regulations by industrial animal farms

− Report on Regulations on animal manure management in the Baltic Sea Region − Report on Proposals for public participation in river basin management in Lithuania in 2016-2020

2. Documents − Non-paper with CCB proposals for changes to the salmon management proposal − Joint NGO considerations for BALTFISH members on the Multiannual plan for the main Baltic

Fisheries − Letter to EU Fisheries Ministers − Proposals for the BAT reference document on Intensive Rearing of Pigs and Poultry (IRPP BREF) − Internal communication strategy short guide

3. Statements − Statement on illegal eel fisheries − Demand to EU to stop eel fisheries − Statement on harbour porpoises − Joint CCB statement on sustainable aquaculture (English, Polish, Estonian) − Joint NGO statement on priorities for the MSFD Programme of Measures − Joint NGO statement on priorities for the Baltic Multiannual Plan − Joint NGO statement on priorities for the EU Parliament Plenary vote on the Baltic Multiannual Plan − Statement on sustainable aquaculture

4. Information materials − CCB harbour porpoise information brochure (English, Swedish, Polish, German, Danish) − CCB eel folder (English, Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, German)

− Short fact sheet on illegal eel fishery − Microplastics polluting our seas (English, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish,

Lithuanian, Russian for Belarus) − National lists of personal care and cosmetic products containing microplastics, for (Lithuania,

Poland, Estonia, Russia) − Brief on marine gravel extraction in Germany

5. Inputs to HELCOM − Document on sediment extraction to STATE & CONSERVATION WG − Input on pending issues on eel and sediment extraction to Heads of Delegation meeting − Information about the updated CCB porpoise information leaflet to HELCOM STATE &

CONSERVATION − Information about the updated CCB porpoise information leaflet to HELCOM SEAL − Proposal for actions to save the European eel, submitted to HELCOM FISH − Document on funding the EU MSFD Programs of Measures to Heads of Delegation meeting − Call for HELCOM action regarding Baltic MPAs in Russian part of Gulf of Finland, (HELCOM HOD) − Input on land-based aquaculture to HELCOM FISH − Climate change report submitted to the 49th HELCOM Heads of Delegation meeting − Input to HELCOM AGRI on proposals for amendments to Annex III of the Helsinki Convention, on

prevention of pollution from agriculture − Proposals for scope of the review and updating of part II Annex III of the Helsinki Convention on

prevention of pollution from agriculture

Coalition Clean Baltic is a network of environmental NGOs: • Ecohome, Belarus • IPO Ecopartnership, Belarus • Danish Society for Nature Conservation • Estonian Green Movement • Finnish Association for Nature Conservation • Finnish Society for Nature & Environment • Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, BUND • Environmental Protection Club of Latvia, VAK • Latvian Green Movement • Lithuanian Green Movement • Lithuanian Fund for Nature • Polish Ecological Club, PKE • Green Federation - GAJA, Szczecin, Poland • Friends of the Baltic, St Petersburg, Russia • Green World, St Petersburg, Russia • Swedish Society for Nature Conservation • The Western Center of the Ukrainian Branch of the World Laboratory

CCB’s Working Areas: • Water Protection in Agriculture (AGRI)

• River Basin and Wastewater Management (RBWM)

• Fisheries and Aquaculture (F/AqC)

• Biodiversity and nature conservation (BNC)

• Hazardous substances and marine litter (HSML)

• Sustainable development in coastal and marine areas (SDCMA)

• Harmful installations and maritime transport (HIMT)