LRFrapport_20130521_ny

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Säkerställ fortsatt stöd till Baltic Deal, ett internationellt samarbetsprojekt för att höja bönders och rådgivares kunskap om miljöåtgärder inom jordbruket runt Östersjön med fokus på växtnäringshantering. 14 Remissversion, 21.05.2013
3 Extended summary In October 2013, Swedish Environment Minister Lena Ek, together with the Ministers of the Environment from the other states around the Baltic will – on behalf of their governments – decide upon revised ecological objectives and reduction targets for nutrient inputs from the catchment area to mitigate the problem of eutrophication. These decisions are taken within the framework of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) and its Baltic Sea Action Plan (hereafter BSAP). BSAP was launched in 2007 with Sweden as one of the main drivers and will now in 2013 connect directly to the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), in the sense that the BSAP objectives and reduction targets also become targets in the MSFD. However, there are some serious concerns with the BSAP process that unfortunately risk leading to delays in the restoration of the Baltic Sea and increasing costs more than necessary. The five main concerns are described in the sections below, along with proposals from the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) for modifications of the current Baltic Sea eutrophication policy, in order to resolve these concerns. The first four issues relate to the international process, while the fifth primarily is a domestic Swedish problem. 3.1 Internal loads of phosphorus 3.1.1 The problem New research on eutrophication in the Baltic shows that the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus since 1980-85 has decreased significantly overall, soon approaching the desired target levels (Maximum Allowable Input; MAI) that the researchers have modelled in the framework of the BSAP. This trend is very encouraging. Load reductions are, however, not an objective in itself but means to reach an objective, namely, the restoration of the ecological status of the Baltic Sea. The significant load reductions have not yet been matched with a similar improvement of the ecological status, even if some signs of improvement have been noted. It appears that to restore the Baltic Sea there is still much more to do and much more time required. A major reason why the decreased nutrient loads have not resulted in large-scale 15 Remissversion, 21.05.2013
Page 1 and 2: Hur återställer vi Östersjön? E
Page 3 and 4: 3.2 Estimated time for recovery ...
Page 5 and 6: 1 Förord Östersjöns miljöproble
Page 7 and 8: 2 Sammanfattning och slutsatser Mil
Page 9 and 10: målåren är därmed helt orealist
Page 11 and 12: till 5 miljarder kr per år genom a
Page 13: 2.6 Övriga synpunkter och förslag
Page 17 and 18: aimed to reduce emissions at source
Page 19 and 20: the same: "Nothing is gained if pro
Page 21 and 22: national system of environmental qu
Page 23 and 24: way. Some additional examples of pr
Page 25 and 26: 5 Introduktion och bakgrund 5.1 Sve
Page 27 and 28: 1980-85. De viktigaste orsakerna ti
Page 29 and 30: 6 LRF:s engagemang mot Östersjöns
Page 31 and 32: Havs- och vattenmyndigheten 310 Mkr
Page 33 and 34: 6.2 Gränsöverskridande samarbete
Page 35 and 36: EU-medlemmarna. Samtidigt är kostn
Page 37 and 38: 7 Miljöstyrning mot Östersjöns
Page 39 and 40: 2005 blev även Polen, Litauen, Let
Page 41 and 42: nödvändigtvis befann sig på iden
Page 43 and 44: En annan fråga kopplad till beslut
Page 45 and 46: När målen och betingen nu ska rev
Page 47 and 48: Just nu håller Östersjöländerna
Page 49 and 50: Liksom för vattendirektivet är hu
Page 51 and 52: forskarkår framhåller att minst 2
Page 53 and 54: ”Av Havs- och vattenmyndighetens
Page 55 and 56: förluster inom lantbruket beaktas
Page 57 and 58: konsekvensanalys och åtgärdsprogr
Page 59 and 60: SMED-konsortiets rapport nr 56/2011
Page 61 and 62: 8 Utsikter att klara mål och betin
Page 63 and 64: För Sveriges del visar följande f
Page 65 and 66:
Emellertid utgör minskningar i til
Page 67 and 68:
apport Sveriges åtaganden i Baltic
Page 69 and 70:
8.3 Miljömässiga konsekvenser av
show all

LRFrapport_20130521_ny

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?