The Great Lakes/Baltic Sea Partnership Program
     Record of Decision - November 6, 1998

Introduction

On November 5 and 6, 1998, representatives of Canada, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Sweden, and the United States met to discuss mutual cooperation in the the Great Lakes/Baltic Sea Partnership (GLBSP). This document is a record of that discussion.

A.  Background
Both the Great Lakes and the Baltic Sea have benefited from over 25 years of binational and multinational environmental cooperation. In the Great Lakes region, the U.S. and Canada have cooperated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In the Baltic Sea region, the Helsinki Commission has been the conduit for cooperation. The environmental objective of the GLBSP is to improve the water quality of the Great Lakes and the Baltic Sea by sharing information, expertise, and management approaches. It was recognized that much good work had been done on these two great bodies of water that could be shared. The two principal areas of cooperation identified are multilateral watershed management and an fellowship and exchange program. The fellowship and exchange program will focus on the common problems of the Baltic Sea and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Although the Great Lakes and the Baltic Sea differ in that the former is a freshwater ecosystem and the latter a saline one, the two water bodies have a great deal in common. Both are vast watersheds affected by large human populations and diverse use patterns, and both are controlled by a variety of different governmental entities. The two water bodies also share many of the same risks to human health and the environment. These common environmental threats include: pollution from toxic chemicals, including pesticides; eutrophication and oxygen depletion (resulting, in part, from nutrient runoff from agricultural lands); runoff from urban waste sites; deposition of atmospheric pollution; loss of habitat; and the introduction of exotic species.

B.  Fellowships and Exchanges
The Fellowship and Exchange program proposes to support the visit of scientists, government officials, NGOs and other appropriate environmental experts from the Baltic Sea countries and North America to the Great Lakes and the Baltic Sea region respectively.

The following areas of the program were discussed:

1. Topics
   The following list of topics for the Exchanges and Partnerships Program were discussed. The first five topic were rated as most important to the countries/organizations that were represented and, as such, would receive top consideration by the selection board. The remaining topics however, will also be considered as applicable.
   1. Toxics*
      1. New potentially dangerous contaminants
      2. Risk Assessments
      3. Lack of Data on human activities on heavy metals
   2. Integrated Watershed/Lake Management*
   3. Modeling, Monitoring and Surveillance
      1. Remote sensing
      2. Environmental Indicator Development
   4. Exotic Species*
   5. Eutrophication*
      1. Agricultural sources
      2. Fishery management issues

Cost Effectiveness
Governance/Institutional Mechanisms
Oil spill prevention/loss*
     Forecasting (contingency planning)
Social/Economic Impact Analysis
Ecosystem approach
Atmospheric Transport Deposition
Contaminated Sediments
     Toxics
     Phosphorus
Public Awareness
Spatial planning
     Incorporating environmental considerations into urban planning
Contaminated sites
     Remediation
     Redevelopment (Brownfields)
Climate Change
Environmental Education

2. Level of Participation
   Maximum Flexibility (based on the topic or objective of the fellowship, and expertise of participant).
3. Duration
   One to six (1-6) months.
4. Selection Criteria
   1. Ability to apply lessons learned
   2. Connection to priorities of existing organizations
   3. State-of-the-art or value-added
   4. Expertise/Experience of the applicant
   5. Product
   6. Cost Effectiveness (potential for leveraging of funds)
   7. Language -- functional in the setting of host country
   8. Bi-Regional benefits
5. Structure/Process
   1. Web site will be developed for posting of opportunities and announcements .
   2. Each participating country and institutions (e.g., HELCOM, International Joint Commission (to be consulted) will identify a contact to be on a selection board.
   3. Announcement of fellowship program will be announced by the selection board.
   4. Individuals/organizations will be requested to put forward ideas for fellows/exchange opportunities.
   5. Host organizations/countries will review ideas and put forward specific fellowship and exchange opportunities.
   6. Individuals in the Regions will apply for the hosted opportunities.
   7. Two-tier review
      1. Selection board will bring in appropriate specialists to review technical merit of application. Selection board will review applications and recommend potential Fellow to host agency.
      2. Negotiation between applicant and host agency will be conducted within a specified time.
   8.  Applicant begins fellowship.
   9. The HUB will serve as Secretariat.

6. Products
   It was felt that all Fellowship and Exchanges will result in a specific product that will document the value of the Fellowship.

A written product will be required of all fellows within a specified time after completion.

Fellows will be available for consultation with others in the Region to enhance dissemination of lessons learned.

An abstract/summary for general use will be required before completion of Fellowship.

For Fellowships/Exchanges of four months or longer, an interim written report will be submitted.

C.   Watershed Management
Watershed protection approaches in the Baltic Sea region are not new. The developing Watershed Framework Directive of the European Union (EU) and the desire of the Baltic Countries to meet the criteria of the EU Directive provide a new impetus toward watershed protection efforts. Through the Great Lakes/Baltic Sea Partnership, experiences and watershed management approaches will be shared and new projects will be proposed to enhance watershed protection and improve management techniques. U.S. EPA will work with the countries to build their capacity to implement watershed approaches. U.S. EPA anticipates working with interested countries in selected watershed demonstration projects to, among other objectives, develop effective networks to monitor pollutant loadings in both national and transboundary water bodies. Establishing communications channels that will, for example, allow national governments to rapidly notify other governments sharing the same watershed of accidental pollutant releases also will be valuable.

1. Selection of Watershed(s)
During the breakout session in the workshop, several Baltic representatives provided an overview of ongoing watershed work and challenges facing their countries. From the reports provided, several key watersheds were identified which might form the basis for pilot projects. The group identified selection criteria to preliminarily evaluate project feasibility.

The criteria were as follows:

a.  Ongoing/Planned Cooperative Projects
The group decided that the existence of ongoing/planned projects, for example, the agricultural assistance projects provided to the Baltic states by the Swedish government, would provide a strong foundation for the development of a watershed project. Consequently, watersheds where such projects exist were considered preferential.

b.  Hot Spots
The Helsinki Commission has identified over one hundred "hot spots" in the Baltic region. The group agreed that it would be desirable to focus on watersheds where such hot spots have been identified.

c.  Workable scale
Budget constraints and anticipated costs for a watershed management project necessitate projects of a modest geographic scope.

d. Transferability
Lessons learned from one project need to be transferred to other locations in the Baltic region with minimal cost and effort. Importantly, the group wanted to ensure that no project was so unique that it would preclude transferability.

e.  Diverse problems
To further promote the objective of transferability and maximize the knowledge that is gained, the group recognized that a watershed which is impacted by a diverse array of pollutant sources and environmental problems would be preferable.

2.  Number of sites
Using the above criteria, the group identified three potential watersheds for demonstration projects. They are as follows :

a. The River Parnu (Estonia)
The River Parnu watershed is a moderately sized river system located entirely within Estonia. The river system is the site of ongoing international projects, including the Rapu agricultural demonstration project. It has been identified as one of the selected watershed areas planned by Estonia pursuant to the European Union framework. It is a major source of pollution to the Bay of Parnu, suffers from diverse pollution problems and has hot spots identified by Helcom within its watershed. Finally, existing tools are available to measure the impact of watershed improvement efforts on the Bay.

b. The River Lielupe (Lithuania and Latvia)
The Lielupe watershed flows from Lithuania into Latvia and discharges at the environmentally sensitive area of Jurmala on the Baltic sea coast. Watershed management will be covered by an intergovernmental agreement between the two countries in the field of environmental protection. Both countries share an interest in pursuing European Union accession. In addition, the two countries already have an ongoing informal arrangement to share monitoring data. There have been multiple international cooperative efforts in the watershed, involving Sweden, Finland and the U.S. There may be such projects in the future and they would benefit from coordination under a watershed management framework. Although of moderate size, the watershed suffers from a diverse array of pollutant sources including municipal, industrial and agricultural.

c. The River Nemunas (Lithuania, Russia and Belarus)
This is a large watershed originating in Belarus, flowing into Lithuania and , in its downstream reach, forming the border between the Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian Federation and Lithuania. As is the case with the other projects, it suffers from a diverse array of pollutant sources and contains hot spots identified by Helcom. It benefits from an ongoing monitoring effort. Furthermore, a program of trilateral cooperation is being planned and Sweden has offered to sponsor the program. Recognizing the large size of the river system, the group agreed it would be desirable and appropriate to focus a watershed demonstration on a tributary river in Lithuania in the Nemunas basin.

3. Next Steps

a.  Establish a workgroup to coordinate information dissemination. Identify workgroup contacts - one per country and from EU and HELCOM.

b.  Each country with a demonstration watershed (identified above) will define specific needs and a possible role for the U.S. and provide a response with this information to the HUB by December 10, 1998.

c.  The HUB will compile responses from each country, seek clarification where necessary, and distribute to the workgroup for information and review by the end of the calendar year.

d.  The U.S. will review the country submittals and develop project ideas to meet the stated needs. The U.S. will distribute its proposed project ideas via the HUB to the workgroup by January 31, 1999.

e.  The HUB will arrange a follow-up conference call and other appropriate follow-up communications as needed to reach agreement on project concepts, associated workplans and schedules.

________________________________
* Indicated by HELCOM as a priority

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us