A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea

Report from conference in Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-25. October 2012 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

The conference A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea 2012 was arranged by the informal project cluster of three Interreg Baltic Sea programme projects Baltic Compass, Baltic Deal and Baltic Manure together with WWF-Sweden.

This year’s conference attracted 250 professionals from twelve countries with various backgrounds. Farmers, scientists, governments, the academic community, advisors and entrepreneurs were all represented and made vital contributions to the conference, enabling a wide-ranging program with the mutual aim to find sustainable solutions to reduce the nutrient leakage from agriculture to the Baltic Sea.

This report is written/ edited by Agro Business Park with inputs from the parallel session moderators based on the presentations. The contributors are thanked for their input and the present report is solely the responsibility of the editors.

All presentations can be found at the websites of the projects: www.balticmanure.eu www.balticcompass.org www.balticdeal.eu

To be cited as: Tybirk, K. (ed.) 2012. A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012. Conference report. www.balticmanure.eu, www.balticcompass.org; www.balticdeal.eu Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Programme day 1 - Plenary Session ...... 4 Parallel Seminars, Oct. 24th ...... 9 Parallel session 1. Actions and perspectives from farm level ...... 9 Parallel session 2. How to treat manure in a sustainable way for nutrients and energy ...... 10 Parallel session 3. Adapting Baltic Sea Region agriculture for 2020-2050 13 Poster/Mingling Session ...... 14 Programme day 2 – Plenary session ...... 15 Parallel Seminars, Oct. 25th ...... 15 Parallel session 1. Group based advisory – social learning and measures in catchments ...... 15 Parallel session 2. Promoting sustainable agriculture - economic and environmental wins for the Baltic Sea Region ...... 16 Parallel session 3. Exploring issues for regional cooperation ...... 18 Parallel session 4. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of livestock manure: Methods for efficient management and enforcement ...... 19 Final plenary session ...... 22 Conference survey ...... 23 Expectations met ...... 23 The presentations ...... 24 Annex 1 Programme ...... 27 Annex 2 Participants list ...... 30

2 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

The conference was sponsored by Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, Yara and Pellon.

Thank you to our conference sponsors!

3 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

The plenary session was moderated by Charlotta Samuelson of the Swedish Foundation Baltic Sea 2020 together with Ottilia Thoreson, WWF-Sweden.

Opening Address by Jens Ejnar Christensen, Chairman of the Board, Knowledge Center for Agriculture, Denmark and Board member of Baltic Deal.

Jens Ejnar Christensen welcomes this broad audience to Denmark – farmers, researchers, policy makers, business, advisors etc and was looking forward to become updated on knowledge. Many challenges in the Baltic Sea region need constructive cooperation to define realistic visions and find good solutions.

A Danish saying goes: Don’t cross the river to get water, which in this context means that the knowledge found in one country should be transferred to the others instead of re-inventing the wheel. This conference can definitely contribute to this! A warm thanks to the sponsors and organisers to make this event possible.

The challenges for a Greener Agriculture and Danish interpretation of the measures of Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union – CAP in the Baltic Sea Region Future by Niels Lindberg Madsen, Danish Food and Agriculture Council, Copenhagen

A major challenge for the balance between agriculture and environment is the balance between competitiveness and sustainability. Exactly this balance is why we need a strong Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU.

FAO states that by 2050 the global demand for animal protein will be two thirds higher than it is today – fuelled by rising populations and income growth in developing countries. We need a regulated market to ensure the competitiveness of the environmentally sound products. In addition, we need fair budget ceilings 2014-2020 – as agriculture has already delivered.

Concerning the Greening of the CAP, the Danish Food and Agriculture Council agrees to link support to delivering environmental and other public goods, but is concerned about the administrative burdens on farmers, and for not rewarding farmers who have already moved ahead on ”greening.” Greening should reward frontrunners.

4 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Finally, we need a new distribution of Rural Development Programme budget – to better reflect challenges of balancing competitiveness and sustainability.

New innovative agri-environmental policy instruments by Jussi Lankoski, Economics of the Baltic Sea Protection, University of Helsinki

Eutrophication is a major problem of the Baltic Sea. Despite EU Agri Environmental Policies no actual reductions in measured nutrient runoff can be observed – N runoff has even increased.

Problems of current EU Agri-Environmental policy are a poor environmental and benefit-cost targeting as well as heterogeneous compliance costs that are not reflected in payment level. As a result we have poor budgetary cost-effectiveness, i.e. environmental benefits/€ of payment. The proposal is a new innovative policy instrument as a solution: conservation auction.

The basic idea of conservation auctions is that the conservation agency sets the budget and the objectives. The farmers select the conservation measures and the compliance cost is estimated via a bid. The bids are granted according to performance/€ to achieve the best environmental benefit.

The system has been tested in Finland, where farmers reduce phosphorus runoff from field parcels to watercourses by application of gypsum through such conservation auction. The bids proved to correlate well with the environmental benefit index. Farmer’s compliance is increased by this motivation factor.

More information is needed to improve the link between the financial instruments and the Environmental benefit.

European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability by Christiane Kirketerp de Viron, DG Agriculture and Rural Development

Innovation is truly a buzzword… but innovation is indispensable to prepare EU agriculture for the future. The ‘Budget for Europe 2020’ foresees 4.5 billion Euros for research and innovation in the field of food security, bio-economy and sustainable agriculture.

The 2020 flagship initiative EU as an Innovation Union has entitled the European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) as a new tool for fostering innovation closing the innovation gap between farmers and researchers. EIP should pursue innovations across all the supply chain, interlinking all innovation relative measures and activities to achieve synergies.

Agricultural advisory services are key elements for this – between agriculture and research. The means to do this should be rural development funds and research and innovation framework (Horizon 2020).

The EIP network functions will include • Collection of relevant information (data bases, project lists, etc.) • Ensuring an effective flow of information and providing advice on opportunities provided by EU policies (helpdesk function) • Exchange on innovation topics, best practice, and accompanying research (focus groups, seminars, workshops, field days) • Systematic feedback to scientific community on practice needs

5 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

• Exchange with Technology Platforms (ETPs), Research Area Networks (ERA-NETs), Joint Programming Initiatives, etc. • Interface function of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR)

Steps for a more sustainable agriculture – experiences from Baltic COMPASS by Staffan Lund, Project Coordinator, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala

The objective of Baltic compass has been ambitious: Reduce eutrophication (nutrient over- enrichment) of the Baltic Sea through fostering win-win solutions for agriculture and environmental sectors, based on problem definitions which are relevant for stakeholders within the whole drainage area.

Navigation between agriculture and environment is not always easy. The differences between countries and farming systems are immense and the intention to combine theory and practice has been challenging.

One conflicting area has been legislation versus voluntary actions. Another conflicting area has been bottom up responsibility versus top-down control. A third conflicting issue has been hard facts versus soft assumption and finally the conflict between country and regional interests.

Conclusions are that lack of communication between agriculture- and environmental sectors is not a barrier, but the bottleneck is un-coordinated and ineffective policy instruments. Even the greenest of CAPs will not be sufficient to save the Baltic Sea, but we need to open up for collective actions and innovative entrepreneurship to go there.

6 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Being a farmer and preparing for the future by Katariina Vapola and Jyrki Ankelo, Vapola farm - the Winners of WWF Baltic Sea Farmers’ Award 2009

The Vapola farm is an organic farm with 15 km to Baltic Sea shore, 125 ha, suckler cows and sheep. The farm has biodiversity conservation in Natura 2000 areas and considers animal welfare very important.

Bedding material is peat, straw and woodchips and the deep litter is composted using a composting turner. A water tight composting area with a basin for the nutrient drainage water is under construction.

Fields are organically grown, 90% green cover, the grasslands are renewed by direct sowing. The farm has several water conservation measures, such as multifunctional wetland and extensive grassland production.

The future vision is about shared responsibility: Nutrients from agriculture are part of the environmental impacts of food production. Everyone eats, so we all are responsible for the impacts. The most effective way to farm is to hold everything in balance.

Our hope for the future is that EU should support more environmentally friendly and varied production, give simpler rules for the coming agri-environmental scheme; more effective measures are needed; more support for the research and development of organic farming and support also for the least favourable areas.

The return of agriculture as a key to sustainability - A vision for environmentally optimal manure handling in Baltic Sea Region by Henrik Wenzel and Lorie Hamelin, University of Southern Denmark

This vision is a provocation to be shot at, so that we can learn from your experiences. To define a vision, we need to define what is environmentally ideal in a renewable energy frame conditions.

Large changes are to occur in Denmark – wind based energy 50 % by year 2020, in 2050 we go for a fossil free society. Thus, carbon dependency is a key issue – agriculture has the key source of biomass carbon. The global energy platform is burning: Food, fuels, heat and electricity are all priority customers.

The vision for environmentally optimal manure handling in Baltic Sea Region has 5 key elements: 1. Housing guide: keep manure apart, cold, short, anaerobic, covered and with low surface area 2. Storage and treatment guide: Biogas on solid fraction, keep digestate covered, recover p-rich marketable solid fraction, 3. Field application: acidify and/or inject in soil, dose precisely to crop needs

4. Biogas system integration: upgrade biogas using H2 and store on natural gas grid, use biogas for power-to-gas conversion 5. Nutritional measures and feed production: optimize P-uptake using phytase, optimize amino

acid composition, produce synthetic amino acids from wind and sun plus N2 fixation; synthesize carbohydrates by electrolysis and CO2 fixation

7 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

The Baltic Sea, eutrophication and agriculture - Policy challenges and solutions drawing on OECD experience by Kevin Parris, OECD

Little change has occurred in the environmental status of the Baltic Sea in spite of reduced nutrient leaching, because it is a complex issue: Multiple countries, sectors and sources contribute to pollution, the Baltic ecosystem reacts slowly and there is considerable exchange of nutrients between different basins etc.

Most BSR countries have experiences decreasing nitrogen balances (input – outputs), that is the contribution to pollutions should be reduced from agriculture. However, these reductions have been rather costly for taxpayers.

OECD recommended policy responses towards a greener agriculture for a bluer Baltic Sea are:  Use a mix of policy instruments to address water pollution,  Enforce compliance with existing water quality regulations,  Remove perverse support in agriculture to improve water quality,  Improve the country coverage and targeting of policies,  Assess cost effectiveness of policy options to reduce water pollution,  Take a holistic approach to agricultural pollution policies,  Ensure coherence of agricultural, water, and air policies,  Enable innovation,  Invest in improved water pollution management and infrastructure,  Improve information systems –and public education.

8 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Parallel session 1. Actions and perspectives from farm level Moderator: Andreas Höll

How can 48 Polish demo farms reach 3,000 advisers and 1,600,000 farmers? by Andrzej Szymanski, Agricultural Advisory Centre (CDR), Poland

In Baltic Deal, we have established more than 100 demo farms – 48 of them in Poland. Andrzej Szymanski informed us that they have spread the project Baltic Deal to all 16 regions in Poland to help develop and educate the farmers and increase their awareness of environmental challenges. At the demo farms, they work with soil samples, precision farming, nutrient balances, fertilizer plans and measurements of nutrient leaching and exchange of experience.

In Poland the designated areas of nitrate vulnerable zones are currently increased (NVZ nitrate vulnerable zones), which also increases the challenges.

One of the questions for Andrzej Szymanski was whether farmers in the southern part of Poland also cared about the Baltic Sea. To this question, Andrzej could inform that last year’s winner of “The Baltic Sea Farmer of the Year Award”, Marian Rak, was very aware and concerned about the environmental challenges of the Baltic Sea even though he lives in the southern part of Poland.

Farmers on the B7 islands – views on farming and the Baltic Sea by Susanna Kaasinen, MTK, Finland

In 2011, we made a survey amongst farmers on the B7 islands in the Baltic Sea with the purpose of getting the farmers’ views on the Baltic Sea. We wanted their opinion on the condition of the Baltic Sea as well as how they saw the environmental challenges. There were many different opinions about this.

The most striking about the survey results was that so many farmers had stated that regulations in the environmental area are a necessity. However, opinions differed about the required level of regulation between farmers and countries.

A total of 23 farmers in the survey agreed with the following statement and 5 agreed to some extent: “The measures have to be obligatory to reduce nutrient leaching effectively”

Having the same rules makes the situation more equal and many farmers also pointed out that measures have to be obligatory in all countries around the Baltic Sea. Almost everyone thought that farmers have to be paid for the environmental benefits they produce. Just as most of them thought that there is too much conflicting information in the environmental area.

Challenges for the agriculture in Lithuania by Dijana Ruzgiene, Agricultural Advisory Service, Lithuania

The farm size in Lithuania differs a lot with a large number of small farms with average size of 17 ha – in some of the other Baltic Sea countries the average size lies between 30 – 60 ha. However, only few large farms are found in Lithuania.

9 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

The advisors main focus areas in Lithuania are: fertilizer plans, technology, group advising and exchange of experience in the project of Baltic Deal. Farmers' incentives to implement environmental requirements are illustrated below.

In Lithuania, they face many different challenges in the different regions. 15.6 % of the land is designated nitrate vulnerable (NVZ nitrate vulnerable zones). Many of the demonstration farms are situated in these areas, others in regional national parks. Some NVZ areas have major challenges with flooding. Some places large parts of the farm can be periodically flooded. Other places they have karst sinkholes.

The connection between biodiversity and eutrophication had not been part of the study but in general, the Rural Development Plans (RDP) in the country does not match the challenges they are faced with very well, said Dijana. Parallel session 2. How to treat manure in a sustainable way for nutrients and energy Moderator: Henrik Wenzel

Henrik Wenzel, University of Southern Denmark, introduced the session and opened up for more in dept illustrations of parts of the plenary session presentation on the environmentally optimal manure handling vision in intensive animal husbandry systems.

The use of crystalline amino acids in feeding changes the manure quality by Hanne D. Poulsen, University of Aarhus

Traditionally, amino acids derive from protein rich fodder, such as fish meal, soy beans, rape seed cake, peas etc. Some crystalline/synthetic/industrial amino acids have been on the market for decades and can be added to the diet o e.g. pigs replacing the – often imported – protein sources.

The optimal use of synthetic/ crystalline amino acids can significantly reduce the excretion of nitrogen from pigs – especially in the urine. This also affects the ammonia evaporation from the stables. The consequence is less N content in the produced manure after storage. In addition, crystalline amino acids also reduces P excretion relatively, because soy bean (with high N and P) will be replaced by wheat with less P when adding synthetic/ crystalline amino acids.

The conclusion is that synthetic/ crystalline amino acids significantly affects the losses of N and P from animal husbandry and consequently affects the quality of the produced manure.

Source separation of manure by Juha Gronroos, Finnish Environment Institute

Part of the environmentally ideal manure management is to keep manure and urine separate and was done before slurry systems were invented. The talk presented an existing system for cattle and potential technologies for pigs.

The results of source separation are clear:  Dairy cows: 60% N and 5% of P will be collected in the urine, giving 40% N and 95% of P in the solid part

10 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

 Fattening pigs: 70% of N and 10% of P in urine, giving 30% of N and 90% of P in the solid part.

When the fractions are kept separate the ammonia emission is reduced drastically. The research made comparisons of cattle source separation with traditional slurry system and slurry decanter separation system. The results were:

 N2O emissions is higher in source separated than in traditional slurry systems  Source separation system requires separate storage and applications equipment for both fractions and is typically more expensive, but with lower energy consumption  Source separation system is more vulnerable for malfunctioning  The farmer should beware of animal welfare using scraper systems

More complicated and expensive systems for fattening pigs were shown and could be part of the future animal housing technologies.

Innovative methods for biogas upgrading by the addition of hydrogen to anaerobic reactor by Gang Luo, Danish Technical University, Dpt. of Environmental Engineering

Biogas is 50-70% CH4 and 30-50% CO2, depending on the substrate and the biogas system. Ideally, the biogas should reach CH4 content > 95% to equal natural gases. This can be done by traditionally upgrading by removing CO2, but this technology is rather expensive.

One alternative to expensive upgrading methods is in-situ biological biogas upgrading or methanisation whereby CO2 together with H2 could be used by hydrogenotrophic methanogens for methane production in the biogas reactor. The H2 could in Denmark be obtained from excessive wind power generation during night time.

Another alternative is ex-situ biogas upgrading in a mixed hydrogenotrophic culture. For this biogas upgrading technology, thermophilic enriched culture is more effective.

Both methanisation technologies have shown potentials, but also technical challenges before entering the market. Innovative methods for biogas upgrading have been developed and pH increase and gas-liquid mass-transfer are the two main challenges for in-situ biogas upgrading. Potentially, surplus electricity from wind mill could be stored as biomethane in this process.

Environmental consequences of producing liquid N-K and solid P-fertilser from animal slurry by Jerke de Vries, University of Wageningen

Producing mineral concentrates to replace fertiliser started off in 1999 in The Netherlands involving the government and the agricultural industry. The intention is that mineral concentrates should replace mineral fertilisers. Basically, the technologies consist of separation of fibers and reverse osmosis of the liquid part into mineral concentrate and permeate. The cost for this treatment is 9-13 euro/ton (as compared to ‘getting rid of manure’ costs of 10-15 euros in the Netherlands).

The study compares the environmental impact of this production of mineral concentrate with conventional manure management of storage, transport, field application of slurry. One comparison includes anaerobic digestion.

The study concludes, that production of mineral concentrate increases environmental impact compared to conventional manure management. Including anaerobic digestion, however, reduces

11 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

climate change and fossil energy depletion. Processing only manure surplus without digestion did not show any change in environmental impact.

Generally, no additional mineral fertilizers are replaced, the study only found adjusted distribution.

SyreN+ - Reduction of odour and ammonia emission from slurry during application by Morten Toft, Biocover

SyreN is a novel technology on the market. It consists of a fronttank with sulphuric acid, a tractor with computer control and a slurry tanker with acid injection. SyreN+ is a further development where ammonia (instead of nitrate) can also be added to the manure with the acid. This gives flexible dosage rate – and individual NPKS formula pr. field / crop.

The vision is to acidify slurry with application rates based on phosphorus content of the slurry with adjustment of N, K and S values. The result can be sustainable use of slurry as a fertilizer – with no more use of mineral phosphorus in Denmark. The consequences are less odour, decreased ammonia emission and less nitrate and phosphorous leaching.

The system has shown in field test an increase in grain crop yields by 4,5 hkg/ha and with current wheat prices this makes it a good investment.

The SyreN system has in 2012 received a VERA (Verification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production) certificate and was granted the Baltic Manure Handling Award at Agromek, November 212.

Environmental consequences of different carbon alternatives for increased manure-biogas by Lorie Hamelin, Irina Naroznova and Henrik Wenzel, University of Southern Denmark

Manure-biogas is an under-exploited resource. The Danish target is that 50% of manure should be digested by 2020, and carbon rich co-substrates are necessary to ensure economical sustainability of manure based biogas.

Seven scenarios for Life Cycle Analysis have been built for different co-substrates: Maize silage (energy crop), pretreated straw, household biowaste, commercial biowaste, garden waste, source- segregated solid manure, and no co-substrate (mono-digestion).

Global warming results only were presented. These showed that source-separated solid manure followed by garden wastes are environmentally the best options. Straw also allowed GHG savings slightly greater than those obtained with mono-digestion. Biowastes (household & commercial) resulted in net GHG savings too, although in a magnitude smaller than the savings obtained with mono-digestion. But since their use as a co-substrate for manure-biogas does result to net GHG savings, and does allow the production of more energy than mono-digestion, it was mentioned that they should be considered for the Danish strategy.

Energy crops are not recommended as co-substrate as it resulted in a net increase in GHG emissions, due to the indirect land use changes created when more energy crop have to be cultivated in Denmark.

Discussion: Some discussion aspects were:

12 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Is straw-for-biogas: is this not a problem for soil C? The answer was not necessarily, as most of the easily degradable part would not have entered the soil and be emitted as CO2 anyway and the non- degradable part of the straw C is returned to soil through the digestate afterwards

What is the potential for household biowaste in DK? 0.78 Mt (wet basis) that is not already used for biogas Parallel session 3. Adapting Baltic Sea Region agriculture for 2020-2050 Moderator: Sirkka Tattari

Summary written by Sirkka Tattari & Henrik Eckersten.

The Baltic Compass scenario work evaluates the consequences of future nutrient load scenarios on the agricultural production in four catchments in the Baltic Sea Region. The inputs of the model have been categorized into two types of groups depending on disciplinary character and influence on the scenario work.

(i) Environmental conditions (climate, deposition etc.) and Ecosystem services (crop yield, land use etc.) are exogenous inputs (i.e. they are primarily assumed to be independent of the scenario output). (ii) Best available practices/ techniques (BAP) is endogenous inputs that can be modified by stakeholders which would influence the scenario outputs. Environmental directives and Policy measures might be regarded endogenous, but are mostly exogenous inputs on the catchment scale and were considered by stakeholder involvement. The purpose of the work was to present inputs and assumptions of model applications in a transparent way to allow a judgment of their reliability.

The main criteria in selecting the Baltic Compass catchments for modeling were that they have: (1) reasonable high share of agriculture land, (2) a baseline model application was already in place for the “Current situation” for the selected basin (3) reasonable amount of data available for the scenario work and (4) active stakeholder involvement in the area.

The reason for using four models was, except that they were tested at the locations, also that the implementation of the stakeholder proposed measures into the model required a deep knowledge in model function, which was achieved by having modelers with long experience of using these models.

The best measures varied from one catchment to another. According to the modeling results, the best measures in the future were a combination of measures such as reduced fertilization, increased vegetation coverage (stubble, winter cereals, direct sowing, grass), structural liming, wetlands, more catch crops and buffer zones.

Modeling studies shows that the nutrient load from agriculture will start to decrease noticeably only after different measures are implemented on a wide range. The outcome of the study also showed that climate change in some cases can overshadow the positive effects of current and future water protection measures.

13 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

22 exhibitions of projects, companies and organisations were gathered in the session. Three sponsors and one special exhibition were given 5 minutes to introduce/present their role: 1. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (kindly sponsoring 50 additional participants at the conference), 2. Yara (kindly sponsoring the snacks and drinks for the Mingling session), 3. Pellon (kindly sponsoring the dinner entertainment) and 4. ‘Win-win technologies for nutrient management’ exhibition from Baltic Compass

14 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Moderators: Lotta Samuelsson, Baltic Sea 2020 and Ottilia Thoreson, WWF Baltic Ecoregion

The moderators summed up their impression from the first full conference day. Key words had been interregional cohesion, cross-sectional and cross-institutional cooperation and innovation. The impression of the moderators is that the traditional gap between environmentalists and agriculturalists has become less over the 4 years of A greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea Conferences.

A key message that the moderators have heard is that we are all consumers, we all produce manure, and thus we all have a common responsibility for the Greener Agriculture and the Bluer Baltic Sea.

The moderators referred to tweets from day one, mainly focusing on commenting the two presentations of Kevin Parris and Staffan Lund. Parallel Seminars, Oct. 25th

Parallel session 1. Group based advisory – social learning and measures in catchments Introducing to the group session by moderator Trine Balskilde Stoltenborg was started by explaining the concept of agri-environmental practices and she defined them as:

“Agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment”

How do we encourage farmers around the Baltic Sea to apply these methods? Knowledge and advice were emphasized as two important driving forces. In particular catchment based advisory might be an effective mean to help and encourage farmers for the following reasons:

“Nature does not stop where the farmers’ fields do and more aspects/problems/interests can be dealt with simultaneously”

So this session was about how to successfully plan and carry out catchment based advisory.

To understand more about catchment based work, Katarina Vartia, County administrative Board of Halland, Sweden presented “Swedish work in catchments – involvement is a keyword”. Next Rune Hallgren, LRF, Sweden presented “Collective activities in water catchments” and finally “Experience from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea” was presented by Trine Balskilde Stoltenborg Knowledge Center of Agriculture, Denmark.

Many years of experience with catchment based work have taught Katarina Vartia that involvement is a keyword. This means that there should be an ongoing cooperation with other stakeholders outside one’s own organisation also aiming to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directives in the best way.

At the following workshop the participants was asked 3 questions –the answers follows:

What are the strengths by working in a group in a catchment?  The Water Framework Directive is a “burning platform”.

15 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

 The first step is that the farmers realize that they have influence and impact on the environment. If farmers are working in groups they all can see that they have a common challenge, they are not alone with the challenge and they all have to take their share.  Farmers to farmers work. Exchange of experience and good examples and cooperation is one of the real strengths. Groups provide more ideas, more solutions and often cheaper solutions.  Establishment of catchment based groups based on different opinion leaders in a catchments working together with farmers provide more sustainable solutions.  Important that farmers are engaged in finding the solutions - the farmers have the opportunity to influence their own future.  In a group there are more ideas, time is better spent and it saves money  In group advising advisers need really good skills, but this approach would also enable them to learn from the farmers

What are the challenges/barriers?  If there is no “burning platform” or challenges, problems etc. in the area.  The strength of working in a group is that several people looking at the same challenge often easier can define the goal and then create win-win solutions.  Right size of catchment area, right size of groups and the right person’s as stakeholders.  Some countries have no culture for group advising  Working in groups can be time consuming and can also be costly.  Different strategy points  Farmers tend to prefer the individual advice  Advisers are not skilled enough and do not know enough about this advising approach  Paperwork and the advisers needs to be well-organised  Political barriers – is there any money for group advising – maybe the politicians are not aware

How do we overcome the barriers?  Motivation for the work is most important  Politicians have to realize the problems - more information  Realize that it takes time. Let the process take the needed time.  Try to solve the problems together  In order to reach the above you need a person “in charge” of the group who is energetic, inspiring and bright. Facilitators are needed in the process.  Organisation of group advising and of interest groups  Look for good ambassadors  Help the farmers by taking away the paperwork  Make sure that there is money for group advising  Find common goals – find the way.  Show room – hands on.

Parallel session 2. Promoting sustainable agriculture - economic and environmental wins for the Baltic Sea Region The seminar opened with a welcome from Matthias Meissner from WWF Germany who moderated the morning session. Approx.60 attendees had the chance to hear the thoughts of 6 presenters.

Jan Wärnbäck, from WWF Sweden, provided background of WWF and an overview of its work to tackle the challenge of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea, specifically focused on sustainable agricultural solutions and highlighting farmers around the region who are leading the way to reduce nutrient run-off from their farms.

16 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Anders Alm, from the Nordic Investment Bank, presented a ‘road-map’ to a better Baltic Sea, highlighting the need for policy consistency and political leadership across all levels to implement the actions necessary to deliver the needed changes. Anders noted that funding is not a problem, as there is a lot of money – the issue is more the need to secure the commitment to invest in the right solutions.

Christian Danneskiold Lassen had won the Danish national competition for the WWF Baltic Farmer of the Year award in 2011. Christian showcased a number of the innovative environmental measures that had been implemented on his farm including wet meadows, the restoration of a raised bog among others. Christian noted the challenges and benefits of these types of improvements and the related cooperation and support it required with the municipality and the Danish Nature Agency.

Håkan and Terri-Lee Eriksson are the 2010 regional winners of the WWF Baltic Sea Farmer of the Year award. Håkan and Terri-Lee presented a short background of their farm, Wiggeby, and a number of agri-environmental measures that they had implemented as well as the innovations they had added ensuring that their farm works as an integrated eco-efficient operation, turning supposed organic waste into a profitable opportunity. They noted the payback time of the measures they had taken, demonstrating the ultimate profitability and environmental benefits of innovations such as the N- sensor.

Kristina Yngwe, from the Swedish Farmer’s Youth Association, highlighted in a brief presentation the perspective of young farmers noting that less than 6% of farmers in Europe are under 35. Kristina shared the high start-up costs for young farmers and therefore the importance of a stable regulatory environment to ensure that farm investments will be well spent rather than requiring constant changes to respond to shifting regulations. She also highlighted her belief that a reformed CAP ought to transition from the direct payments of pillar one, which make it more difficult for young farmers to enter this field, to focus on pillar two and ways in which young farmers could receive special support under this instrument.

The final speaker Kaspars Zurin, from the Latvian Rural Advisory and Training Centre, spoke about his experience from both the Baltic Deal and the BERAS projects and specifically about the advisory aspects of farm investments. He shared that most farms are not looking deeply into environmental investments so it is critical to demonstrate that environmental improvements are valuable. He further noted the importance of solid environmental analysis as well as the need for banks to build their capacity and understanding of the importance of environmental investments.

For the second part of the workshop Matthias invited all of the speakers to join in a panel discussion and asked the participants to share their questions for the speakers.

The first question led to a discussion amongst the panel focused on the hypothesis that all new investments in the farm benefit the environment. The panel discussed the fact that this hypothesis is largely true – but they noted that in some cases, like in over-mechanization, where this would not be the case. Furthermore they stressed the fact that public funds are often able to cover environmental measures that would be difficult to secure private funds for – especially those requiring long-term investments. This underscored the importance of public funds versus private funds and also demonstrated the point made earlier about the need to educate banks regarding the value of environmental measures.

The panellists also responded to questions related to the reform of the CAP. Håkan Eriksson suggested that there be a 50% cut in direct subsidies under pillar one and the rest of the money be reserved in an investment fund that farmers could apply to support investments that benefit the

17 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

environment and support long-term quality of the land and therefore agricultural production as we will all need every available acre in the future. He also added that 20% of these funds ought to be reserved to support young farmers. Terri-Lee complemented this statement by saying that farmers should have to DO something to receive the funds. Christian also added that farmers need support to protect public goods since at the end of the day they must be remain competitive with farmers around the world who may not have similar requirements or concerns.

Kristina stressed the point that laws and regulations (if needed) should have a long-term character in order to make sure that especially young farmers can align their holdings and investment to this legal obligations.

Further key points made through the discussion and the panellists included:  Public funds ought to be targeted in order to achieve the most benefit for farmers as well as the environment.  The public need to be more aware of the public goods that farmers are working so hard to protect. Farmers need support to protect public goods – they can’t be expected to do anything for free.  First movers should be rewarded – not punished. Innovations must be recognized and rewarded and regulations ought to be flexible and adaptable.  It is important to work towards a level playing field – that competitive rules are consistent – otherwise green improvements will not be prioritized. The unique situation of the farmers must be recognized.  Public support must also recognize market failures – the burden should not fall only on the farmers alone. This is another reason that CAP as well as banks must evolve.

Matthias’ conclusions of this very intense discussion were: Agricultural subsidies need to be more targeted. There are already impressive examples of farmers who try to create an integrated solution for their farm using existing funds. Together with farmers we all have to think about how the practices of theses avant-garde farmers can become mainstream. Governments can help by setting the right incentives, investing into advisory services for sustainable farming and not cutting the funds in the 2nd pillar of the CAP. Looking into the future of the CAP after 2020 the discussion should better reflect the different regional challenges and support progressive entrepreneurship by farmers.

Parallel session 3. Exploring issues for regional cooperation The purpose of this session organized by the Baltic COMPASS project was to raise discussion about the benefits of open dialogue on the international level and how to promote these types of dialogues. The Baltic COMPASS project has during the course of the project facilitated stakeholder dialogues around the nutrient issue from a broad range of perspectives across the Baltic Sea Region. The issues and stakeholders were identified through initial national meetings on agro-environmental challenges brought together a wide range of participants.

In the first presentation at the workshop, Maria Osbeck from the Baltic Compass project and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) summarized the experiences gained from these dialogues. The purpose of the dialogues was to bring to the surface the specific problem definitions that are meaningful for a given country or sub-region and then to analyze what is common and what is different between them.

As an example of such governance dialogues, Kim Andersson (SEI) presented a case study from the Kristianstad municipality in South West Sweden where stakeholders have looked into the

18 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

multifunctional use of wetlands as a buffer between rural and urban areas for nutrient retention and flood protection. The case study showed that opening up for this kind of broader based management planning provides a good opportunity for inter-sector coordination, but also necessitates establishment of the economic value of such ecosystem services as a basis for common action.

The third presentation by Linda Johansson of the Baltic Compass project, working on a joint mandate of HELCOM and Swedish Board of Agriculture, presented the ongoing work in mapping the diverse institutional environment and stakeholders in Baltic Sea issues and offered comments from interviews with actors in the region about what could promote a higher degree of cooperation. The exercise, proposing pathways forward in international cooperation in agri-environment issues, will be concluded in December.

In the ensuing panel discussion, the participants  Maira Dzielzkaleja (Union Farmers Parliament, Latvia),  Martin Larsson (Northern Baltic Sea Water District Authority, Sweden),  Elena Kolosova (Baltic Sea Region Programme, Latvia),  Marta Kalinowska (Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, Poland) and  Lennart Gladh (WWF Sweden) reflected on their experiences and perceived benefits from international cooperation. In particular, issues related to coordination between different policy frameworks, inclusion of non-state actors in policy processes and different forms and fora for international cooperation were discussed.

Different viewpoints were raised, but four conclusions seemed to be important to panel members and participants:  To advance more sustainable management actions in issues concerning agriculture and the environment, we need to be able to influence and generate political will. This can be done through creating strong platforms (e.g. based on existing structures, coordinating existing structures), but also through informing the public, since they elect the politicians!  There has to be funding and a responsible body with the right mandate to run the discussions.  There is a strong will to continue the cooperation and dialogue built during the three agri- environmental projects through continuous funding, not just projects, and strong reliance on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region as a common platform  Diversity in both the structure of the agricultural sector as well as in management should be embraced. Therefore a certain level of flexibility is needed in EU and national policy.

Parallel session 4. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of livestock manure: Methods for efficient management and enforcement

Henning Lyngsø Foged, Agro Business Park, Denmark introduced the workshop:

We have recognised that farms’ incentives to invest in innovative agro-environmental technologies are linked with the degree of national transposition and enforcement of EU’s agro-environmental legislation. Furthermore, we see an increase in the trade/moving of manure and manure processing by-products, which also require precise and fair methods to assess manure quantities and qualities. A considerable part of livestock farms’ economic turnover is related to the valuable nutrients in excreted manure. Still, however, this part often becomes of negative value for both the environment and the livestock production economy.

19 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Several countries in the region does not live up to EU or HELCOM requirements to have a legal normative basis for enforcement of manure related legislation, and there are differences in technologies and methods used/prescribed by companies, researchers and authorities.

The idea of the session is to make a status of needs, methods and technologies, and enable authorities, companies and research to inspire each other across borders, technologies and methods.

The need for assessment of manure qualities and quantities at farms in relation to EU’s agro- environmental legislation by Luisa Samarelli, DG Environment

Nitrates Directive objective is to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and has led to other directives, such as Water Framework Directive and is the basis for cross- compliance regulations.

The overall approach is preventing at source (i.e. through fertilization during crop growth), and thus sufficient manure storage facilities are needed. Also distance rules towards water courses, green cover and an upper limit of fertilization (total nitrogen for each crop) as a simple measure are part of the directive.

Nitrate in water hotspots is linked to regions with high animal densities in the EU and the trends are negative for water quality despite it is 20 years since the nitrates directive was issued. Reinforced actions are required by Member States to reach good environmental state of water bodies, e.g. by insisting on high nitrogen efficiency.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been designated in some countries and other countries have designated their whole territory as nitrate vulnerable. In these zones codes of good agricultural practices and action programmes are mandatory.

In the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones control of manure movements off farms are essential to avoid malpractice and there is a real need for effective control notably in highly intensive livestock regions for sustainable farming. It is realistic in future to require GPS systems for all farms with a significant manure export.

Use of NIRS for real time monitoring of slurry qualities by Christian R. Moschner, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Inst. Agr. Engineering

20 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

In order to regulate slurry as organic fertilizer detailed knowledge about slurry qualities is required. The field application should be nutrient based and site specific. Slurry quality depends on origin, feeding of animals, degrees of slurry processing and homogenisation before application.

Near InfraRed Spectroscopy (NIRS) is a technique to measure manure quality and real time monitoring of slurry qualities by NIRS has been developed in Kiel and tested under field conditions.

A real-time NIRS monitoring system has been developed and installed on field application equipment in real scale on a slurry tanker. Good results were obtained in comparison to reference calibration on ammonia and dry matter, and adaption is fast enough to realize a nutrient specific as well as site specific application of slurry. Nutrient based site specific application and documentations is possible and further improvements of calibrations based on even larger data set in order to span the complete variation in the population of slurry samples.

The Danish way of assessing manure standard to be used in fertilizing plans by Hanne Damgard Poulsen, Aarhus University, Denmark

The Danish normative system is used for definition of livestock units by flow dynamics calculating all losses in the manure ‘supply’ chain (Feeding, ex animal, housing, ex housing, storage ex storage).

The system has been developed for cattle, pigs, poultry, goats and sheep, fur animals and horses for different housing systems. The values have been determined by a combination of scientific experiments, measurements and model calculations (mass balances). Ammonia emission coefficients depend very much on housing types and is much more important compared to storage emission.

Phosphorous excretion from pigs in Denmark has been fairly constant in the last years, but the production has increased substantially during the last two decades, so the relative P excretion /kg animal produced has decreased significantly.

The system is input-output based, flexible and gives the farmers the possibility to correct default values when documented, and the system is revised yearly and used in fertilizer plans and control calculations.

Technologies and methods for ensuring traceability of livestock manure as currently used by the Dutch government by Maret Oomen, Ministry of Economy, Agriculture and Innovation, the Netherlands

There is a large manure surplus in the Netherlands, including both P and N, and a lot of transport within and between countries is taking place. Manure has a negative value for livestock farms, which gives a huge potential for fraud.

A traceability system for livestock manure has become a necessary tool to enforce application standards. Manure transports can only be undertaken by registered carriers. Each transport is weighed, sampled, analysed, GPS localised etc. and a mandatory manure transport certificate follows each transport (producer, type, carrier, weight, user, sample ID etc). Field controls are possible by digital files.

Liquid manure transports uses automated, approved and registered sampling methods at regular intervals, whereas sampling of solid manure is more complicated/less standardized.

21 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

The system is expensive, much control and administration is needed (National Service for Implementations of Regulations). Slurry sampling in the future could perhaps be NIRS.

Discussion/summing up of key questions The discussions revealed perhaps more questions than answers. Ideally, implementation of legislation should be simple, but the regulations require quite some specialized knowledge, so in reality every larger farmer needs an advisor for fertilizer planning. The session has given valuable inspiration as basis for cross-border learning and we hope that using model calculations for manure standards as well as NIRS and GPS registrations can improve the efficiency of manure management in the future manure hot-spots in the Baltic Sea region.

The moderators invited representatives of the four organizing bodies on the stage:  Staffan Lund, Baltic Compass  Sindre Langaas, Baltic Deal  Knud Tybirk, Baltic Manure  Lennart Gladh, WWW-Sweden

All four were asked about major successes and challenges in the work towards A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea. All pointed to this very event as a major forum that has developed due to common interests and effort and today is THE forum for dialogue between a very broad range of stakeholders with the same overall goal from the agricultural and environmental stakeholders.

We have reached a stage of positive and constructive dialogue gathering all the ‘moderate’ partners in the ongoing debate, which probably in the future will need to be added new ‘vitamins’ to the debate. This could be done by inviting stakeholders with very clear profiles, new speakers and new debate forms giving rise to more ‘conflicting’ themes. This could evoke the interest of the public of the work of these conferences and stimulate further reflection during the conference.

Already now a planning group for next conference is developing and we expect next year’s event to be in Helsinki – although Poland was also suggested as a potential candidate, with half of the BSR region farmers.

Finally the BSR secretariat was given the word and Elena Kolosova for the BSR Secretariat thanked the organisers and moderators for an excellent job and a fruitful conference.

All conference presentations can be found at the websites of the projects: www.balticmanure.eu www.balticcompass.org www.balticdeal.eu

22 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

After the conference in Copenhagen on 24th-25th of October 2012 the participants were invited to answer an online survey. The conference had 250 participants. 110 persons answered the survey, which makes a response rate of 44 percent.

The participants The participants came from different sectors. The result shows that there were rather few farmers and business representatives attending the conference, while there were a higher amount of government representatives. The academic community was very well represented.

Voices from participants ”Very good to have so many people from around the Baltics on one spot. More farmers would be good.” ”Lack of high-level persons such as national or EU politicians.” ”In my opinion, in the future it would be good to invite more farmers to this conference so that they could comment the presentations and they would have also the newest results. In that way, we could have very interesting discussions too.” Expectations met Most participators hoped that the conference would give them different perspectives and views on sustainable agriculture. Many also participated to expand their network. 98 percent of the participants thought that their expectations were filled to full or some extent. 93 percent replied that the conference gave them new visions, ideas or tools to use in their work.

23 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Voices from participants ”The Vapola farm was the best presentation.” ”The workshop on manure treatment techniques definitely contained some information on (Danish) research that is also relevant to the Dutch situation.” ”Thank you for organisation this kind of event. It is really important for different kind of stakeholders.” ”High scientific level of presentations, friendly and networking atmosphere.” The presentations The presentation by farmers Katariina Vapola and Jyrki Ankelo about being a farmer and preparing for the future was found most interesting and relevant by the audience. Over all, all plenary presentations were mostly found relevant or very relevant. The parallel sessions also worked out very well. People found them very interesting and well performed.

24 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

25 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Voices from participants ”All the panellists were well prepared, their presentations were clear. Participants asked interesting questions what led to a passionate discussion.” ”In some presentations it was too scientific and hard to understand all the process and words.” ”All issues were interesting and I had to choose which one to participate. I felt like I missed important info.” ”The only problem is if you want to attend 2 parallel sessions and you need to choose.” ”No debate and no hard questions asked. Perhaps it would have been more fruitful if you had a farmer, policymaker on EU-level and a scientist and asked about the core questions. Is it right for Danish pig farmers to colonize Polish agriculture? How can we change people’s mind to eat less meat instead of more and more and more. Is EU good or bad for farmers? Just some suggestions to questions there might be a debate about.”

26 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

27 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

28 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

29 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

First name Last name Email Company Country Regional Agricultural Advisory Agata Lucka [email protected] Center in Barzkowice Poland Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Agne Kuliavaite [email protected] Service Lithuania Aino Launto-Tiuttu [email protected] TEHO Plus / ELY-keskus Finland Airi Kulmala [email protected] Baltic Deal/MTK Finland Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Aiste Galnaityte [email protected] Economics Lithuania

Central Research Insitute for Aliaksandr Pakhomau [email protected] Complex Use of Water Resources Belarus Estonian University of Life Allan Kaasik [email protected] Sciences Estonia Anders Alm [email protected] Nordic investment bank Finland Andreas Höll [email protected] Agrovi Denmark ANDRZEJ SzymanskiI [email protected] AAC RADOM Poland Andrzej Tonderski [email protected] Pomcert/ Univ. Gdansk Poland Latvian Rural Advisory and Anita Diebele [email protected] Training Centre Latvia Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Anna Sosnowska [email protected] Protection Poland Anna Tofftén [email protected] Ministry for Rural Affaires Sweden Anna Näsström [email protected] The Swedish Institute Sweden Anne-liisi Mändmets [email protected] Estonian Ministry of Agriculture Estonia Anne-Luise Skov Jensen [email protected] Agro Business Park A/S Denmark LFR- Federation of Swedish Annika Sällvik [email protected] Farmers Sweden Anu Johanna Suono [email protected] BSAG/Baltic COMPASS Finland Swedish Board of Agriculture and Anuschka Heeb [email protected] Helcom Sweden Estonian University of Life Argo Normak [email protected] Sciences Estonia Ari Kultanen [email protected] ProAgria South-Karelia Finland Arto Pohto [email protected] Pellon Group Oy Finland Artur Granstedt [email protected] Södertörn University Sweden Arvo Iital [email protected] Tallinn University of Technology Estonia Athanasios Pantelopoulos [email protected] Copenhagen University Denmark Bent Ib Hansen [email protected] Videncenter for Svineprodukton Denmark Björn-Gunnar Lagström [email protected] Upplandsstiftelsen Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Brita Lundberg [email protected] Sciences Sweden Britt Hefthholm Ravn [email protected] Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Denmark Carina Heinrich [email protected] (LLUR) Schleswig-Holstein Germany Carl Wachtmeister [email protected] Federation of Swedish Farmers Sweden Carl Frerderik Bruun [email protected] Esromgaard Denmark Catharina Sørensen [email protected] European Commission Belgium Christen Duus Børgesen [email protected] Aarhus University Denmark Christer Nilsson [email protected] LRF Sweden Christian Danneskiold Lassen [email protected] Holmegaard Gods Denmark Christian Moschner [email protected] University of Kiel Germany The European Innovation Christiane Kirketerp de Viron [email protected] Partnership (EIP) Belgium

30 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

CYPRAIN ASHU [email protected] FAHP CAMEROON Cameroon Latvian Rural Advisory and Dainis Arbidans [email protected] Training centre Latvia Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Dalius Aksenavicius [email protected] Service Lithuania Daniel Rückamp [email protected] Julius Kühn-Institut Germany Pomeranian Agricultural Education Danuta Makowska [email protected] Center Poland Dennis Collentine [email protected] SLU Sweden Ministry of Agriculture Republic of Diana Laur [email protected] Estonia Estonia Didzis Neimanis [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia Dietrich Schulz [email protected] Federal Environment Agency Germany Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Dijana Ruzgiene [email protected] Service Lithuania NW Research Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Dmitry Maximov [email protected] Electrification (ZSNIIMESH) Russia Dr. Christian R. Moschner [email protected] University of Kiel Germany Dr. Reinhold Stauß [email protected] (LLUR)Schleswig-Holstein Germany Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Edvardas Makelis [email protected] Service Lithuania Eija Hagelberg [email protected] Baltic Sea Action Group Finland Elena Kolosova [email protected] Baltic Sea Region Programme, JTS Latvia Elina Erkkilä [email protected] WWF Finland Elisabeth Falk [email protected] Agriculture of Bornholm Denmark Ellinor Tjernström [email protected] Trelleborg municipality Sweden Enn Loigu [email protected] Tallinn University of Technology Estonia Enn Liive [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Estonia Lithuanian Agriculture Advisory Erika Mankute [email protected] Service Lithuania Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Esther Winterhoff [email protected] Consumer Protection Germany JTI-Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Eva Salomon [email protected] Engineering Sweden Flemming Gertz [email protected] Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Denmark

Flemming Jensen [email protected] Biokraft Bornholm Denmark Floor ten Hoopen [email protected] Det Strategiske Forskningsråd Denmark Frank Bondgaard [email protected] Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Denmark Frida Hermanson [email protected] Upplandsstiftelsen Sweden Gang Luo [email protected] Technical University of Denmark Denmark Institute of Oceanology Polish Grazyna Kowalewska [email protected] Academy of Sciences Poland Gunnar Norén [email protected] Coalition Clean Baltic Sweden Swedish Environmental Protection Gunnar Karltorp [email protected] Agency Sweden Institute of Meteorology and Water Halina Burakowska [email protected] Management Poland Hanne Damgaard Poulsen [email protected] Aarhus University Denmark Hans Roust Thysen [email protected] Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Denmark Hans Estrup Andersen [email protected] Aarhus University Denmark Heidi Öövel [email protected] Rural Development Foundation Estonia Heikki Sirviö [email protected] Yara Suomi Oy Finland Danish Environmental Protections Helga Hjort [email protected] Agency Denmark Estonian University of Life Helis Rossner [email protected] Sciences Estonia Henning Lyngsø Foged [email protected] Agro Business Park Denmark Henriette Hossy [email protected] Danish EPA Denmark Henrik Wenzel [email protected] University of Southern Denmark Denmark

31 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Swedish University of Agricultural Henrik Eckersten [email protected] Sciences Sweden Danish Agriculture and Food Henrik Bang Jensen [email protected] Council Denmark HENRYK SKÓRNICKI [email protected] AAC RADOM Poland Regional Agricultural Advisory Henryk Zamojski [email protected] Center Poland Horst Ludley [email protected] ibz Germany Håkan Eriksson [email protected] Wiggeby Jordbruk AB Sweden Håkan Alfredsson [email protected] Ministry for Rural Affairs Sweden Ilze Merzvinska [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia Institute for Baltic Sea Research Inga Krämer [email protected] Warnemünde (IOW) Germany Inga Racinska [email protected] Latvian Fund for Nature Latvia Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Irena Krisciukaitiene [email protected] Economics Lithuania Irene Wiborg [email protected] Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Denmark IRENEUSZ GRADKA [email protected] AAC RADOM Poland Irina Naroznova [email protected] DTU Denmark Iveta Grudovska [email protected] LLU MPS Vecauce Latvia Jan Wärnbäck [email protected] WWF-Sweden Sweden Latvian Rural Advisory and Janis Kazotnieks [email protected] Training centre Latvia Latvian Fund for Nature, project Janis Reihmanis [email protected] Snowbal Latvia Jarle Hagen [email protected] Yara International Norway Jens Ejner Christensen [email protected] Knowledge Center for Agriculture Denmark Jens Lund Pedersen [email protected] DLA Agro Denmark Jerke de Vries [email protected] University of Wageningen Netherlands Johan Ljungberg [email protected] Nordic Investment Bank Finland Johanna Logrén [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Jolanta Lapinskeine [email protected] The Ministry of Agriculture Lithuania Swedish Agency for Marine and Josefin Wallden [email protected] Water managment Sweden Judith Schick [email protected] JKI Germany Juha Grönroos [email protected] Finnish Environment Institute Finland Jurgita Ciuckiene [email protected] The MInistry of Agriculture Lithuania Juris Cirulis [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia Jussi Lankoski [email protected] University of Helsinki Finland JUSTYNA FILA [email protected] AAC RADOM Poland Jüri Rute [email protected] European Commission Belgium Jyrki Ankelo [email protected] Private Finland Kaisa Tolonen [email protected] Natur-och viltvårdsstiftelsen Finland Kaj Granholm [email protected] Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet Finland Kaja Peterson [email protected] SEI Tallinn Estonia Kari Ylivainio [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Swedish University of Agricultural Karin Blombäck [email protected] Sciences Sweden Karola Elberg [email protected] University of Rostock Germany Latvian Rural Advisory and Kaspars Zurins [email protected] Training Centre Latvia Katariina Vapola [email protected] Vapola Farm Finland Katariina Yli-Heikkilä [email protected] Private person Finland County Administrative Board of Katarina Vartia [email protected] Halland Sweden Institute of Oceanology Polish Katarzyna Bucholc [email protected] Academy of Sciences Poland Kati Berninger [email protected] MJ-Prosessit Ltd. Finland Katri Rankinen [email protected] Finnish Environment Institute Finland

32 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Katrin Rannik [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture Estonia Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Kaupo Heinma [email protected] Environment OÜ (ELLE) Estonia Kevin PARRIS [email protected] OECD France Kim Westerling [email protected] University of Helsinki Finland Kim Andersson [email protected] Stockholm Sweden Knud Tybirk [email protected] Agro Business Park Denmark Kristiina Isokallio [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Finland Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Kristina Narvidiene [email protected] Service Lithuania Kristina Yngwe [email protected] Chair Sw Farmers Federation Youth Sweden Ksawery Kuligowski [email protected] Pomcert/ Univ. Gdansk Poland Larisa Levchenko [email protected] SZNIIMESH Russia Laura Saijonmaa [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Finland Leena Anttila [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland Leena-Marja Kauranne [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Finland Lennart Gladh [email protected] WWF Sweden Liga Kruklite [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia

Central Union of Agricultural Liisa Pietola [email protected] Producers and Forest Owners, MTK Finland Linda Johansson linda.johansson@helcom.fi Helsinki Commission, HELCOM Finland Lorie Hamelin [email protected] University of Southern Denmark Denmark Lotta Samuelson [email protected] BalticSea2020 Sweden

Ecole Nationale d'agronomie et des Lucie Scheiwiller [email protected] industries alimentaires France Ludwig Hermann [email protected] Outotec GmbH Germany European Commission, DG Luisa Samarelli [email protected] Environment / Climate Action Belgium Institute of Technology and Life Lukasz Wojcieszak [email protected] Sciences Poland Latvian Rural Advisory and Maija Sirvide [email protected] Training centre Latvia Maira Dzelzkaleja [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia Institute of Technology and Life Malgorzata Przychodzka [email protected] Sciences Poland Marek Gielczewski [email protected] ITP Poland AGRICULTURE ADVISORY Marek Krysztoforski [email protected] CENTRE Poland

Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Maret P.Q. Oomen [email protected] Landbouw en Innovatie Netherlands Maria Staniszewska [email protected] Polish Ecological Club Poland Maria Osbeck [email protected] Stockholm Environment Institute Sweden Marianne Bechmann [email protected] Bioforsk Norway Marie Poulsen [email protected] Agro Business Park Denmark Marit Sall [email protected] SEI Tallinn Estonia Marja Koljonen [email protected] Baltic Sea Action Group Finland Marja Kaitaniemi [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Finland Marjatta Kemppainen-Mäkelä [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Marta Kalinowska [email protected] Protection Poland Martin Larsson [email protected] SLU Sweden Latvian Rural Advisory and Martinš Cimermanis [email protected] Training Centre Latvia Matthias Meissner [email protected] WWF Germany Germany Merje Põlma [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture Estonia Mia Välimäki [email protected] Baltic Compass Finland

33 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

RUE Scientific-Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences Mikalai Kapustsin [email protected] of Belarus Belarus Mikhail Durkin [email protected] Helsinki Commission, HELCOM Finland

North-West Research Institute of Mikhail Ponomarev [email protected] Agricultural Economics of RAAS Russia Mikolaj Piniewski [email protected] ITP Poland Minna Sarvi [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Mogens Nielsen [email protected] Yara Danmark Denmark Mogens Erlingson [email protected] Yara AB Sweden Morten Toft [email protected] Biocover A/S Denmark RUE Scientific-Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences Natallia Shkubel [email protected] of Belarus Belarus Niels Madsen [email protected] Landbrug & Fødevarer Denmark Niklas Bergman [email protected] Federation of Swedish Farmers Sweden Nina Geladze Ekstedt [email protected] JTI Sweden Ola Palm [email protected] JTI Sweden Ole Hansen [email protected] Østdansk Landbrugsrådgivning Denmark Latvian Rural Advisory and Oskars Balodis [email protected] Training Centre Latvia Ottilia Thoreson [email protected] WWF Sweden Paula Biveson [email protected] Baltic Sea Action Group Sweden Pauli Merriman [email protected] WWF Sweden Pelin Kocaturk [email protected] University of Copenhagen Denmark Pentti Seuri [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland

Danish Standard Foundation, the Peter Engel [email protected] International VERA Secretariat Denmark Peter Wallenberg [email protected] Swedish Board of Agriculture Sweden Petri Kapuinen [email protected] MTT Finland Piret Kuldna [email protected] SEI Tallinn Estonia Poul Erik Nielsen [email protected] PenAgro Aps Denmark State Agency for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the German Federal State Schleswig- Prof. Dr. Uwe Rammert [email protected] Holstein (LLUR) Germany Raimo Kauppila [email protected] Yara Suomi Oy Finland Raul Rosenberg [email protected] Rural Development Foundationd Estonia Rikard Korkman [email protected] SLC Finland Rune Hallgren [email protected] Federation of Swedish Farmers Sweden Regional Agricultural Advisory Ryszard Czerwinski [email protected] Center in Wrcoclaw Poland Salud Camilleri Rumbau [email protected] Southern University of Denmark Denmark Sanna Martinnen [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Latvian Rural Advisory and Santa Pavila [email protected] Training Centre Latvia Sara Stjernholm [email protected] The Federation of Swedish Farmers Sweden Sari Luostarinen [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Sari Väisänen [email protected] Finnish Environment Institute Finland Seija Luomanperä [email protected] Yara Suomi Oy Finland Seppo Knuuttila [email protected] SYKE Finland Sigitas Lazauskas [email protected] LRCAF Lithuania Signe Erdmane [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia Silva Wilander [email protected] TEHO Plus project / ELY-keskus Finland Sindre Langaas [email protected] Federation of Swedish Farmers Sweden Sirkka Tattari [email protected] Finnish Environment Institute Finland Sirli Pehme [email protected] Estonian University of Life Estonia

34 Conference report: A Greener Agriculture for a Bluer Baltic Sea, 2012

Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sofi Sundin [email protected] Sciences Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Staffan Lund [email protected] Sciences Sweden Institute of Technology and Life Stefan Pietrzak [email protected] Sciences Poland Stefan Weisner [email protected] Halmstad University Sweden Stefanie Busch [email protected] Rostock University Germany Sten Björk [email protected] City of Trelleborg Sweden Susanna Kaasinen [email protected] MTK Finland Tapio Salo [email protected] MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Tarja Haaranen [email protected] Ministry of the Environment Finland Teri Lee Eriksson [email protected] Wiggeby Jordbruk AB Sweden Swedish Agency for Marine and Thomas Johansson [email protected] Water Management Sweden Tom Axelgaard [email protected] Axzon A/S Denmark Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Tomas Balezentis [email protected] Economics Lithuania Torben Ravn Pedersen [email protected] Landbo-Limfjord Denmark Triin Luksepp [email protected] Rural Development Foundation Estonia Danish Knowledge Center for Trine Balskilde Stoltenborg [email protected] Agriculture Denmark Valters Kazulis [email protected] Latvia University of Agriculture Latvia Latvian Fund for Nature, project Viesturs Larmanis [email protected] Snowbal Latvia Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Vilma Zivatkauskiene [email protected] Service Lithuania Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Virginia Namiotko [email protected] Economics Lithuania Virmantas Povilaitis [email protected] LRCAF Lithuania Vitalija Fokiene [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture Lithuania

North-West Research Institute of Vladimir Surovtsev [email protected] Agricultural Economics of RAAS Russia Waldemar Mioduszewski [email protected] ITP Poland Institute of Meteorology and Water Wlodzimierz Krzyminski [email protected] Management Poland Zanda Kruklite [email protected] Farmers Parliament Latvia

35 Thank you to our conference sponsors!

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Yara

Pellon

50 extra participants sponsored by Swedish Agency for Marine and Drinks and snacks sponsored by Yara. Music sponsored by Pellon. Water Management.