SLIDE 1
Transboundary riverine inputs from HELCOM and non-HELCOM countries applied in CART calculations
bo.gustafsson@su.se www.balticnest.org
Bo Gustafsson, BNI
SLIDE 2 Clear water Nutrient concentrations close to natural levels Natural occurrences of algal blooms Natural abundances of plants and animals Oxygen concentrations close to natural levels Environmental
Politics/Policy Targets Science Maximum Allowable Inputs Science Country-wise reduction allocation
Basin Winter Summer DIN DIP Chl a Secchi KT 5.0 0.49 1.5 7.6 DS 5.0 0.56 1.9 7.8 BP 2.6 0.30 1.7 7.4 BS 2.8 0.19 1.5 6.8 BB 5.2 0.07 2.0 5.8 GR 5.2 0.41 2.7 5.0 GF 3.8 0.59 2.0 5.5
Politics/Policy
Country Phosphorus DK 38 EE 320 FI 360 (330+30) DE 170 (110+60) LV 220 LT 1470 PL 7480 RU 3790 SE 530
SLIDE 3
Resolution
The 7-basin resolution of MAI The catchment of each sub- basin is shown in colors
SLIDE 4
Maximum allowable inputs and needed reductions
Baltic Sea Sub-basin Maximum Allowable Inputs Reference inputs Needed reductions TN tons TP tons TN tons TP tons TN tons TP tons Kattegat 74,000 1,687 78,761 1,687 4,761 Danish Straits 65,998 1,601 65,998 1,601 Baltic Proper 325,000 7,360 423,921 18,320 98,921 10,960 Bothnian Sea 79,372 2,773 79,372 2,773 Bothnian Bay 57,622 2,675 57,622 2,675 Gulf of Riga 88,417 2,020 88,417 2,328 308 Gulf of Finland 101,800 3,600 116,252 7,509 14,452 3,909 Baltic Sea 792,209 21,716 910,343 36,893 118,134 15,177
SLIDE 5 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
BB BS BP GF GR DS KT
Nitrogen input (tons/yr)
Airborne Waterborne
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
BB BS BP GF GR DS KT
Phosphorus input (tons/yr)
Airborne Waterborne
Reference inputs
Atmospheric nitrogen deposition from EMEP Waterborne inputs from the PLC data base Reference period 1997- 2003 Phosphorus
Nitrogen
SLIDE 6 Total load to the basin
Needed reduction given by the difference between the total loads to the basin and the MAI plus expected reductions from non-HELCOM
Total basin load MAI
Atm dep, expected
Needed reduction
With expected reductions
SLIDE 7
Allocation principles
How the shares on inputs from different Contracting Parties to a Baltic Sea sub-basin are determined
Example Nitrogen Baltic proper
SLIDE 8
The country-wise reduction is determined by the share of the inputs (polluter pays principle) for each basin and nutrient
X =
SLIDE 9 The “Country-basin” catchments
- Inputs are primarily assigned
to the country doing the monitoring (owning the river mouth)
- Major rivers carry nutrients
from upstream countries (transboundary inputs) Reduction requirements are shared with the countries upstream
SLIDE 10 Allocation with expected reductions from non-HELCOM countries Example GUR Phosphorus
Before allocation only atmospheric P load is subtracted. CART: The reduction is shared between the coastal states, EE and LV Transboundary sharing among both CPs and BY
requirement
HELCOM 96% Other Atm 4% EE 12% LT 9% RU 10% BY 41% LV 28% LV 88%
Needed reduction 308 ton LV = 270 (88%) EE =38 (12%) The 270 on LV is shared LV = 86 (28%) LT = 26 (9%) RU = 30 (10%) BY = 128 (41%)
SLIDE 11
Waterborne transboundary inputs
The transboundary input (to the Baltic) is given by the observed input at the border between a and b, reduced by the retention in country b
SLIDE 12 Transboundary waterborne reference data from PLC 5.5 and used in CART - 2013
“ ” “B ” “ ” “ ” ö “ ” From Via To Border Retention To Baltic Share of input TN TP TN TP TN TP TN TP tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes (%) (%) From non-Contracting Parties: Czech Poland BAP 5,700 410 0.4 0.28 3,420 295 1.1 1.7 Belarus Lithuania BAP 13,600 914 0.54 0.53 6,256 430 2.1 2.5 Ukraine Poland BAP 4,124 127 0.4 0.28 2,474 91 0.8 0.5 Belarus Poland BAP 5,071 331 0.4 0.28 3,043 238 1.0 1.4 Total BAP 15,193 1,055 5.1 6.1 Belarus Latvia GUR 8,532 1,360 0.27 0.32 6,228 925 7.9 41.4 Between Contracting Parties Lithuania Latvia BAP 5,516 158 0.39 0.58 3,365 66 1.1 0.4 Poland Russia BAP 4,400 320 0.30 0.37 3,080 202 1.0 1.2 Germany Poland BAP 2.337 101 0.8 0.6 Total BAP 8,782 369 3.0 2.1 Lithuania Latvia GUR 7,185 282 0,27 0,32 5,245 192 6.7 8.6 Russia Latvia GUR 4,256 734 0,54 0,71 1,957 215 2.5 9.6 Total GUR 7,202 407 9.2 18.2 Finland Russia GUF 0.48 0.82 5,353 49 5.2 0.7
SLIDE 13 End result are tables with detailed Country by basin reduction requirements*
Example: Nitrogen Baltic proper
Nitrogen Baltic proper Country by basin reduction before deduction transboundary shares Transboundary shares CART HELCOM countries Non- HELCOM countries DK 2136
EE 382
FI 424
DE 6922 497
LV 2360
LT 9550 715
8935 PL 45178 158
RU 3153
SE 8356
Gothenburg Protocol expected reduction in non Contracting parties 14725
Expected reduction from shipping 5735
BY
1977 CZ
727 UA
526 Sum 98921 0 98921
- *Complete tables for basins with CART>0 in the
summary report to 2013 Ministerial Meeting
SLIDE 14
In the Ministerial Declaration summarized as
SLIDE 15 CART follow-up
- Follow-up of how the countries perform on
nutrient input reductions
- Have been done on data 1994(5)-2012
SLIDE 16 Definition of Net inputs
Net inputs = airborne +waterborne +transboundary to other countries
- transboundary from other countries
SLIDE 17
Evaluation against input ceilings
Ceiling = Net Reference inputs (1997-2003) – CART
SLIDE 18 Example: Nitrogen Baltic proper
Reference inputs 97-03, PLC 5.5
BAP Water Air Transb. Net CART
Ceiling
DK 1864 8182 10046 2136
7910
EE 1134 661 1795 382
1413
FI 1993 1993 424
1569
DE 6847 25708 2337 34892 7419
27473
LV 10134 967
7736 1645
6091
LT 42536 2384
42028 8935
33093
PL 192832 19655
204293 43436
160857
RU 10950 3881
11751 2498
9253
SE 31382 7916 39298 8356
30942
OC 47727 47727 14725
33002
SS 7169 7169 5735
1434
BY 9299 9299 1977
7322
CZ 3420 3420 727
2693
UA 2474 2474 526
1948
Sum 297679 126243 423922 98921
325001
SLIDE 19
Estimation of transboundary input time-series 1994-2012
Assume that transboundary inputs change in proportion to the total waterborne input from the country-basin catchment
Example: German contribution to PL is calculated from PL waterborne inputs (about 0.87% of PLs waterborne inputs)
SLIDE 20
A good example - Lithuania
SLIDE 21 Lithuania supplied time-series of inputs at borders
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 BY -> LT LT -> LV, BP LT -> LV, GR 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 BY -> LT LT -> LV, BP LT -> LV, GR
Nitrogen Phosphorus Time-series of flow-normalized transboundary nitrogen input to the Baltic Sea based on monitoring at the border taking into account retention.
SLIDE 22 Border monitoring data important
Input
BP Simple approach Using border data
TP TN TP Riverine inputs 40952 1776 41772 1781 Point 223 11 223 11 Net transboundary
Atm. Dep. 2098 2098 Net 41418 1593 39648 1409
GR
TP TN TP Net transboundary 5245 192 5156 65 Atm. Dep. 455 455 Net 5700 192 5611 65 Table 4: Comparison between 2010-2012 average normalized inputs from the Follow up assessment and the analysis
Lithuanian data time-series done here.
SLIDE 23
Effect of new data on retention
An example is to calculate input ceilings in two cases and compare with the ceilings derived from 2013 Ministerial Decl.: Scenario 1: retention increased enough to half transboundary contributions Scenario 2: retention is reduced with 50% (German and Finnish contributions are doubled)
SLIDE 24 Baltic Proper, TN
BAP Nitrogen Ceiling Scen 1 Change (%) Scen 2 Change (%) DK 7910 7910 7910 EE 1413 1413 1413 FI 1569 1569 1569 DE 27473 27722 0.9 26976
LV 6091 5734
6320 3.8 LT 33093 32785
33645 1.7 PL 160857 159986
161847 0.6 RU 9253 8925
9393 1.5 SE 30942 30942 30942 Gothenburg Protoco 33002 33002 33002 Expected reduction f 1434 1434 1434 BY 7322 8311 13.5 6325
CZ 2693 3056 13.5 2450
UA 1948 2211 13.5 1773
Sum 325001 325001 325000 Scen 1: Ret. increase Scen 2: Ret. decrease
SLIDE 25 Baltic Proper, TP
BAP Phosphorus Ceiling Scen 1 Change (%) Scen 2 Change (%) DK 21 21 21 EE 8 8 8 DE 101 133 31.7 37
LV 74 53
103 39.4 LT 831 716
956 15.0 PL 4309 4142
4412 2.4 RU 277 213
314 13.3 SE 308 308 308 BY 244 456 86.9 61
CZ 108 201 86.0 71
UA 33 62 86.7 22
Sum 7360 7359 7359
Scen 1: Ret. increase Scen 2: Ret. decrease
SLIDE 26 Gulf of Finland
GUF Nitrogen Ceiling Scen 1 Change (%) Scen 2 Change (%) DK 334 334 334 EE 11265 11265 11265 FI 20653 20952 1 20054
DE 1312 1312 1312 LV 183 183 183 LT 261 261 261 PL 1166 1166 1166 RU 62522 62223
63121 1.0 SE 502 502 502 Gothenburg Protoco 3455 3455 3455 Expected reduction f 147 147 147 Sum 101800 101800 101800 GUF Phosphorus Ceiling Scen 1 Change (%) Scen 2 Change (%) EE 236 236 236 FI 322 335 4 296
RU 2892 2879
2918 0.9 Sum 3600 3600 3600
Scen 1: Ret. increase Scen 2: Ret. decrease
SLIDE 27 GUR Phosphorus Ceiling Scen 1 Change (%) Scen 2 Change (%) EE 239 239 239 LV 541 449
613 13.3 LT 166 179 7.8 159
RU 185 200 8.1 150
BY 797 861 8.0 767
Sum 2020 2020 2020
Gulf of Riga (P)
Scen 1: Ret. increase Scen 2: Ret. decrease
SLIDE 28 Conclusions
- Good input data on border inputs is important to
assess the countries performance
- Retention is difficult, but also important for
accurate assessment
