� BONUS Newsletter May 2008

BONUS EEIG was established on April 19, 2007. Almost to the day, on April 17, 2008, BONUS EEIG celebrated its first year by organ-izing a house warming party in its still quite new premises. Several Finnish stakeholders were invited to the event, among them Markku Mattila, the president of the Academy of Finland.

As the occasion was planned as a drop-in event, there was no set programme. A constantly running PowerPoint presentation of the history and current activities of the BONUS EEIG was set up in the meeting room, and several publica-

tions and brochures were available for the guests. The menu consisted of delicious snacks, cheese and chocolate with sparkling wine and coffee and tea.

The Secretariat of BONUS EEIG moved to its current premises at Hämeentie 33, Helsinki in mid-December last year. At the moment, there are five employees work-

BONUS EEIG celebrated its first year .............................. 1

Dialogue between BONUS and MarinERA in Tallinn ................ 1

Editorial: Contact surfaces ...... 2

BONUS WHAT? ...................... 2

HELCOM makes history with an ambitious plan to restore the Baltic ................................... 3

Vision of the Baltic School of Researchers .......................... 4

Programme Manager for BONUS-169 appointed.............5

The first BONUS Call was a real success ....................... 6

Hypoxia in the Baltic .............. 7

ERA-NET Learning Platform promotes exchange of experiences .......................... 8

Germany joined BONUS EEIG .. 8

Water research in Finland was evaluated .......................... 8

Contents

BONUS for the Baltic Sea Science - Network of Funding Agencies Newsletter May 2008

BONUS EEIG celebrated its first year

In order to promote the exchange of lessons learned and best practices, and also to discuss future coopera-tion, MarinERA initiated a meeting with BONUS that took place in Tallinn on 15-16 April 2008. The meeting started with short presen-tations by MarinERA and BONUS. Maud Evrard from MarinERA Secretariat presented the recent ac-

tivities of MarinERA, paying special attention to the Marine Research Database, which MarinERA is cur-rently updating and enlarging. Ms Evrard’s presentation was followed by a BONUS presentation by Reetta Koivisto from BONUS EEIG. The meeting participants were espe-cially interested to learn about the funding structure of the BONUS

EEIG and BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan and Implementation Strategy.

Geoffrey O’Sullivan from the Irish Marine Institute (MarinERA) pre-sented the main activity of the first meeting day, which was updating MarinERA’s marine research data-base. Each meeting participant was asked to go through the information regarding their funding organiza-tion and its research funding prin-ciples together with a MarinERA representative. Furthermore, Mr O’Sullivan also presented some personal views regarding the new overarching marine ERA-NET to set up the discussions to be held

Dialogue between BONUS and MarinERA in Tallinn

ing at the Secretariat: Executive Director Kaisa Kononen, Financial Manager Elise Oukka, Science Adviser Susanna Hyvärinen, Sci-ence Adviser Reetta Koivisto and Assistant Tiina Tembe. Programme Manager Andris Andrushaitis will start in the beginning of June 2008.

Reetta Koivisto

the following day. The first meeting day ended with a joyful dinner in an old medieval restaurant in the old town of Tallinn.

The second day started with a discussion on the new marine ERA-NET with Jüri Elken from the Marine Systems Institute at Tallinn Technical University (BONUS) as the chair. Lively discussion fol-lowed Mr Elken’s introduction, and many important views were presented. The general feeling about the new ERA-NET was very positive, although the meeting participants agreed that there are still many open questions that need to be answered before any further actions are taken.

In the afternoon, BONUS EEIG Executive Director Kaisa Kononen presented plans of BONUS partici-pation in the upcoming MarinERA’s regional meetings. Furthermore, Regina Terlecka from IO PAS, Task Leader for BONUS Task 6.3, pre-sented the preliminary plans for the content of the Black Sea dialogue meeting, which will be organized later this year by BONUS. Finally, Mr O’Sullivan summarized the re-sults of the two days, and the meet-ing was ended in consensus that it was a good start for discussions about future cooperation and more of them will follow soon.

Reetta Koivisto

BONUS EEIG Chair Hans-Örjan Nohrstedt and guests

BO

NU

S E

EIG

BO

NU

S E

EIG

2BONUS Newsletter May 2008

Professional networks are a neces-sary precondition for collaboration in the modern scientific, social, economic and cultural world. The Baltic Sea has for ages been a natural centre for attracting people to collaborate. The large number of networks, recently esti-mated to be at least 45 around the Baltic Sea (BONUS Publications Nr. 6: Identification of cooperation areas and gaps in existing pro-grammes), is therefore not surpris-ing. They are platforms for ex-changing ideas, views, approaches and best practices.

During the evolution of the European Community, more and more networks have evolved to encourage and support collabora-tion at the European level. In the marine/maritime field, such well established networks of research institutes are European Fisheries and Aquaculture Organizations (EFARO), the European Global Ocean Observing System (Euro-GOOS), the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) in the NE Atlantic, the Medi-terranean Science Commission (CIESM) and the European Science

Foundation Marine Board (ESF MB). In water technology the network is Waterborne TP, in ship build-ing the Community of European Shipyards Associations CESA, and in oil production the International Association of Oil & Gas producers (OGP). In addition, various forms of looser networking are taking place in EU funded research projects and ERA-NETs.

Marine/maritime issues cross sev-eral societal sectors, such as envi-ronment, fisheries and aquaculture, transport, agriculture, industry, energy and many more. Networks have, therefore, a major potential for creating contact surfaces be-tween different sectors within the marine/maritime field. They could offer a platform and mechanism for a holistic, cross-sectoral way of handling issues related to the sus-tainability of the European seas.

Editorial: So far, BONUS has been the first network of funding agencies oper-ating within a regionally limited, Baltic Sea scale. Through the estab-lishment of the BONUS EEIG and the implementation the BONUS-169 programme it is, however, evolving towards a more institutionalized network. Time will tell whether this model can be adopted in other regional seas to better link science and policy on a wider European scale. We, the BONUS community, are ready to share our experiences with other European regional seas as regards research funding col-laboration and join common efforts as regards the better future of the European seas.

Kaisa Kononen

Academy of Finland

Project Management Organisation Juelich, Germany Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (The Danish Natural Science Research Council)

Estonian Science Foundation

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania

Latvian Council of Science

Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland

Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences

Russian Foundation for Basic Research

Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, Sweden

Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Baltic Organisations Network for Funding Science EEIG (Coordinator)

BONUS ERA-NET Partners

Contact surfaces

In this newsletter the word BONUS is used several times. This term was first used only in the context of the ongoing BONUS ERA-NET project. During the course of the project, new activities have been developed, which have got their own BONUS inspired abbreviations. Today, BONUS is used as a general term referring to all of these activities.

BONUS ERA-NET is a project with a full name BONUS for the Baltic Sea Science – Network of Funding Agencies. It is funded by the EU Sixth Framework Programme during 2003-2008. It has the form of a consortium with 14 partners from all nine Baltic Sea countries. Twelve of the partners are funding agencies, one is a research institute

and one is an international organi-sation. The project’s aim is to build up a network of funding agencies and create conditions for a Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme.

BONUS EEIG is a newly established legal entity with a full name of BONUS Baltic Organisations Network for Funding Science EEIG. It is an independent organisation under the legal entity of a European Economic Interest Grouping, which was established so that it can be a contractor with the European Commission and other possible parties. Its mem-bers are either funding agencies directly, or organisations managing national funding allocations for the joint calls under the Joint Baltic Sea

Research Programme. As regards the BONUS+ Call, it will be the con-tractor concerning the EC funds, manage the call and the evaluation process and distribute the EC funds to the national funding agencies after the selection of the projects to be funded.

BONUS+ is the call launched on September 17th, 2007 and closed on December 28th, 2007. It includes both national and EC funds. The latter are coming from so-called ERA-NET Plus funding scheme of the FP 7 on a basis of a specific con-tract with the EC, and therefore the call abbreviation is BONUS+.

BONUS-169 is the abbre-viation given to the Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme. The aim is to implement this programme under Article 169 of the EC Treaty and that is why the abbreviation is BONUS-

BONUS WHAT? 169. The start of the Article 169 stage is postponed until 2009-2010. The programme has, however, started already in 2007 with BONUS+ Call as a bridging measure.

Inst

itute

of

Oce

anolo

gy

PAS S

opot

� BONUS Newsletter May 2008

At a HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, held on the 15th of November 2007 in Krakow, Poland, the Ministers of the Environment and Senior Government Officials of the HEL-COM Member States adopted an ambitious overarching action plan to reduce drastically pollution in the Baltic Sea and restore the sea’s good ecological status by 2021. The action programme was approved by representatives of Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden and the European Community, which is also a HELCOM Member. Denmark adopted the plan later following the formation of the new cabinet.

“The adoption of the Baltic Sea Action Plan represents a milestone in our join efforts to restore the Baltic marine environment,” said Prof. Mieczyslaw Ostojski, HELCOM’s Chairman. “The plan is the first attempt by a regional marine pro-tection convention to implement the ecosystem approach defined by the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. It will lead to profound, innovative changes in the ways the coastal countries manage the environment in the Baltic Sea region.”

Concrete and comprehensive actions

This cross-sectoral plan is designed to solve all the major environmental problems affecting the Baltic Sea. It sets the ambitious target of achiev-ing a good ecological status for the Baltic Sea – a sea with diverse biological components functioning

in balance and supporting a wide range of sustainable human eco-nomic and social activities. The plan contains concrete and meaningful actions to curb eutrophication, pre-vent pollution involving hazardous substances, improve maritime safe-ty and accident response capacity, and halt habitat destruction and the decline in biodiversity.

The environmental state of the Baltic Sea is rapidly deteriorating and requires urgent and compre-hensive actions in order to prevent an irreversible environmental catastrophe,” pointed out Ostojski, who emphasised that failure to act now would undermine both the prospects for the future recovery of the sea and a vital resource for the future economic prosperity of the whole region. “If we continue in the same way as today, the cost of non-action will be tenfold higher than the cost of action,” he said.

Clearly realising this, the Baltic Sea countries have come together in an unprecedented spirit of cooperation to devise a recovery strategy that lists joint goals for the future of the Baltic and sets out a commitment to achieve these goals through specific actions that the coastal countries will jointly undertake.

A good ecological status is possible to achieve

Of the many environmental chal-lenges, the most serious, and the most difficult to tackle with conventional approaches, is the continuing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, caused by the excessive

nutrient loads of the nitrogen and phosphorus that are entering the sea. These excess nutrients mainly originate in runoff from farmland and untreated sewage. This phe-nomenon leads to problems like increased algal blooms, murky wa-ters, oxygen depletion and lifeless sea bottoms. Compared to the pris-tine conditions of the 19th century, nitrogen inputs into the Baltic Sea have increased ninefold, resulting in extensive summer algal blooms, as can be seen almost everywhere in the main basin of the Baltic Sea.

“The results that we get from mod-eling are encouraging and show that it really is possible to restore the Baltic Sea and achieve a good eco-logical status,” says Anne Christine Brusendorff, HELCOM’s Executive Secretary. “We will perhaps not be able to restore absolutely pristine conditions, but it should be possible to create quite favorable conditions through the more effective treat-ment of municipal wastewater, the use of phosphorus-free detergents and the adoption of best practices in agriculture. But we can also see that if we continue business as usu-al, the future does not look good for the Baltic Sea. Algal blooms could become twice as intense as today, for instance.”

HELCOM has estimated that for a good environmental status to be achieved, the maximum allowable annual nutrient pollution inputs into the Baltic Sea should be 21,000 tonnes of phosphorus and about 600,000 tonnes of nitrogen. In recent years, average annual inputs have amounted to 36,000 tonnes of phos-phorus and 737,000 tonnes of nitro-

HELCOM makes history with an ambitious plan to restore the Baltic

gen, so annual reductions of some 15,000 tonnes of phosphorus and 135,000 tonnes of nitrogen would be required to reach the plan’s crucial “clear water” objective.

To achieve these overall reductions, the action plan duly proposes pro-visional country-specific annual nutrient input reduction targets for both nitrogen and phosphorus (see table below).

The greatest reductions are required in the sub-basins of the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Finland, the Danish Straits, and the Kattegat.

A cornerstone for future activities

The concept of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan has already been widely supported by politicians in various forums and heralded as a pilot project for European seas in the context of the proposed EU Marine Strategy Directive. The European Community has described HELCOM’s plan as a cornerstone for further action in the Baltic Sea region, emphasising that the plan will be instrumental to the successful implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Directive in the region.

The EU Marine Strategy Directive foresees such an action plan for each eco-region, including the Baltic. HELCOM is in a unique position to deliver such a plan already, since it embraces all the countries in the Baltic Sea catchment area. HELCOM is also in a unique position to en-sure that the special characteristics of the Baltic Sea are fully accounted for in European policies.

As a pioneer in the application of the ecosystem approach, the innovative HELCOM action plan will also serve as a model example to be followed by the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans under the auspices of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan is available at http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP/ActionPlan/en_GB/ActionPlan/

Nikolay Vlasov Information secretary HELCOM

*Non-HELCOM countries

PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN

(TONNES) (TONNES)

Denmark 16 17,210Estonia 220 900Finland 150 1,200Germany 240 5,620Latvia 300 2,560Lithuania 880 11,750Poland 8,760 62,400Russia 2,500 6,970Sweden 290 20,780Transboundary Common pool* 1,660 3,780

HELC

OM

HELCOM Ministerial meeting in Krakow in November 2007

Annual Nutrient input reduction targets

�BONUS Newsletter May 2008

Postgraduate marine science edu-cation in the Baltic Sea area has for decades been of a high standard, and it has attracted students from other parts of Europe and outside. This is due to both the exceptional attention that has been paid to marine issues by the surrounding states and a well-funded education system. However, most of the states surrounding the Baltic Sea are quite small, making competition with large oceanographic centres in the North Atlantic countries (e.g. UK, USA) problematic. Moreover, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the educational system in the new member states has changed sig-nificantly, as the old Soviet-based PhD studies scheme was abolished. As a result, the Baltic states lack good graduate courses in the field of oceanography (low demand for graduates, funding problems etc.). A Baltic School of Researchers should be developed to provide information on the current training capacity of the collaborating Baltic coastal countries, especially those in economic transition. The School should be needs-driven.

The Baltic Sea region has several reputable institutions involved in maritime-related education and training. However, their gradu-ates are mostly specialized in aca-demically orientated (e.g. marine biology & oceanography) or single core-industry sector (e.g. fisher-ies) disciplines. As a result, the responsible institutions tend to be highly focused, rather fragmented and loosely aligned regarding their collaboration. Large legislative differences in postgraduate educa-

tion exist (formal requirements for PhD theses, qualification criteria for PhD boards, committees etc.) between countries; in many cases these differences prevent closer international cooperation in post-graduate studies.

The challenge of interdisciplinarity

The primary task of the Baltic School of Researchers would be to facilitate the development of a new genera-tion of marine scientists in the Baltic Sea area. The content and priorities of the BSR are closely related to those of the BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan and Implementation Strategy (BONUS Publication Nr. 5). The main concern expressed in the BONUS Science Plan is the overspecialization of marine sci-entists and, consequently, the lack of a holistic understanding of both natural and human related process-es in deciding the development and management of marine resources.

The historical division between biomedical, physical and social sci-ences is still a fundamental feature of most PhD boards (or committees) in the countries around the Baltic. This fact, in some cases, prevents the development of interdisciplin-ary dissertation topics. As many of today’s challenges are increasingly of a multidisciplinary and inter-sec-toral nature, there is also a need to produce professionals who have a wider cross-sectoral awareness and understanding of the main national and international aspects of marine industries, policy, best practices,

and management and regulation, including litigation, while also recognizing the importance of marine biodiversity and ecosystem conservation as essential elements of sustainable development.

From another point of view, the recent political push towards interdisciplinary studies (espe-cially combining biomedical and physical sciences with social ones) has in some cases not progressed because of lack of confidence and understanding, primarily amongst natural scientists. This fact could partially be attributed to the low competence and insufficient expe-rience in the interdisciplinary ap-proach of some social scientists, but it is probably mostly due to the dif-ferent methodologies traditionally used in natural and social sciences.

There are a number of opportuni-ties for postgraduate training and PhD study integration in the Baltic Sea area, including the well-estab-lished cooperation primarily be-tween the Nordic countries within the NordForsk initiative. In most countries across the Baltic, doctoral studies include obligatory curri-cula, which are fixed at the national level (e.g. the Russian Federation) or decided by the university or at the doctoral committee level (most of the countries). In some countries (e.g. Germany, Poland), PhD stud-ies are organized according to a more classical master-apprentice scheme.

If the exam and lecture content is decided at the national level, there is not much space for international

integration at the level of obligatory courses. However, in most of the countries the content of obligatory credits is decided at the university, doctoral committee, or even the supervisor level, which could leave space for integration, and credits could be easily transferred accord-ing to agreement. There is a real lack of courses rel-evant to socioeconomic valuation of ecosystem services, including biodiversity. Despite the greater availability of broader interdis-ciplinary courses (covering other than marine-specific aspects), it looks quite unlikely that a PhD stu-dent intensively working on her/his thesis would be interested in non-focused general interdisciplinary lectures. There are comparatively few courses related to the global change in marine ecosystems, which has a high priority in the BONUS Science Plan.

Interdisciplinary courses with clear focus

The main gap in postgraduate course organization is the lack of communication between different organizations and programs in-volved in this activity as well as the lack of a unified resource capable of providing up-to-date information of such activities. There is also a great opportunity to develop the hori-zontal activity of PhD students and postdocs by organizing common workshops and conferences with an interdisciplinary background. Concerning the featured postgrad-uate courses discussed within the team of experts representing all the Baltic EU countries and the Russian federation, the main suggestions concerning the interdisciplinary courses are that they should have a clear focus, rather than broad topic, and that there should be hands-on style exercises, where PhD students with different education back-grounds could work together as a team. This ability to work together combining the good science of both the natural and socioeconomic pro-cesses analysis was identified as a gap in the present interdisciplinary cooperation.

Nearly all the courses proposed have a good connection to the BONUS Science Plan and a broad global perspective – no geographically restricted courses were proposed. Another suggestion for the courses is their duration, which is expected to be 1-3 weeks, so as to enable credit transfer for countries with obligatory and flexible PhD study curricula. Further integration of marine research-related PhD stud-ies around the Baltic at the inter-national level would be beneficial and could be started with bilat-eral agreements between different universities rather than under an umbrella project covering all the Baltic states. The reason for this is the existing differences in the legal

How marine postgraduate education in the Baltic could be developed

Vision of the Baltic School of Researchers

Inst

itute

of O

cean

olo

gy

PAS S

opot

� BONUS Newsletter May 2008

backgrounds and formal require-ments between different countries.

Need to facilitate further contacts

A very important suggestion re-garding the organizational aspect is the facilitation of further contacts between course participants and the creation of interdisciplinary marine research associations between PhD students and postdocs. The European Marine Interdisciplinary Network (EMIN), once very active, was mentioned as a possible format for such collaboration, including its mailing list services (EMIN-L).

At present the information on the postgraduate courses in marine sci-ences is very scattered and not easily accessible, so some organizational efforts should be taken to improve both its outreach and coordination. One of the activities proposed is the formation of an international board coordinating the organization of courses. Presently there are no

possibilities for common adminis-tration, as there is no funding for it. However, an international board should be formed consisting of the leaders of the initiatives in order to coordinate the organization of courses, and it should be funded nationally. This board should cover at least the main postgraduate edu-cation networks existing in the area (NMA, BUP) as well as specialized schools in marine sciences (ISOS) and universities and other institu-tions that are active in this field.

Another important option is the creation of an Internet portal (which could be incorporated or linked with BONUS) providing informa-tion on existing and forthcoming training courses for the MSc, PhD students and postdocs. This portal should also provide information on existing unique research facilities available for students and potential supervisors and reviewers. This has been partially implemented within the NMA. Along with the Internet portal, a mailing list should be set up to provide alerts for new course

announcements and other develop-ments of interest for PhD students and postdocs. Despite that many of the research project-based courses are still not very impressive, they are very valu-able because they are capable of providing a cutting edge scientific outlook and expected to be linked to excellent research teams. The ini-tiative included in the first BONUS call (projects which get funding from the BONUS+ Call could apply for an extra 10,000 EUR for orga-nizing the course) is well met and coherent with the present practice of large EU FP projects (Networks of Excellence, Integrated Projects). The funding problem that has pre-vented the creation of a full-scale Baltic School of Researchers train-ing programme within the first call of the BONUS PLUS is still topical. BONUS-169 might offer further possibilities for educational activ-ity within the BONUS programme, but there are and will always be other possibilities to support post-

graduate courses. A closer look at the courses offered in 2007 gives an impression that most of them were co-funded rather funded through one source. In many cases, the Baltic community should rather provide joint funds for organizing courses, which could be co-funded by dif-ferent projects (national, regional, and international) and successfully organized in the Baltic Sea area.

Arturas RazinkovasCoastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda UniversityBONUS Task 3.3 Leader

Baltic School of Researchers (BONUS Publication Nr. 7) will be available on www.bonusportal.org

Andris Andrushaitis, what is your professional background?By training I am a marine biologist. My research interests included the function of the pelagic system of the Gulf of Riga. I studied the structure and eco-physiology of the micro-zooplankton: ciliates, rotif-ers and small plankton crustaceans. My career as a science manager started in 1995, when the Institute of Aquatic Ecology at University of Latvia (now the Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology) was created and I was appointed as its first director. I resigned from this position in 2003 to become Assistant Coordinator of the GEF-funded Baltic Sea Regional Project implemented jointly by HELCOM, ICES and the Swedish University of Agricultural Science.

What are your main professional interests as Programme Manager of the BONUS EEIG?BONUS is the first attempt to create a truly international re-search area in the field of marine research, and as such it creates tremendous opportunities for de-veloping innovative approaches to research management. By its nature, marine research is a field where cooperation and the building of a joint critical mass in terms of expertise and research infrastructures are of crucial importance. We in the Baltic are seen as pioneers of research co-operation in the whole of Europe, and it will be exciting to take part in this process.

What kind of opportunities and challenges do you see in our joint programme?The Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme that we have now initiated in the form of an ERA-NET PLUS activity will test the approach and mechanisms that have been elaborated by the BONUS network of research funding agencies. For the first time, the Baltic Sea countries will put together substantial pieces of their national research funding for a joint scientific effort. Within the current BONUS+ programme, it is important to be able to demonstrate to each of the par-ticipants and any of the national funding agencies supporting the programme that in the long run the quality, efficiency and, hence, the competitiveness of the Baltic Sea research will improve

considerably, and it is worth con-tinuing the effort with possibly an even higher percentage of national allocations to the “common pot”.

The popularity and, hence, the competition in the BONUS+ Call is extremely high. Although we see a good thematic balance in the set of submitted proposals, it is impos-sible to predict now which topics of the BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan will be covered by the projects of the first phase and which will be left for the future. In this context, I see two important challenges: (1) to be able to demonstrate that, even with one call, the Programme has the potential to produce a good science background for solving the most urgent issues of marine environmental management, and (2) based on the outcomes of the first call, to be ready for a more targeted approach when tailoring the contents of forthcoming calls. By saying this, I express my strong confidence that the Programme will be continued beyond this first call – hopefully as a joint activity presumed by Art. 169 of the EU.

What kind of experience do you have and what are your expecta-tions in terms of the Baltic Sea cooperation? As for me personally, I am not a beginner in managing marine sci-ence, and my professional network and experience established during the BSRP will certainly be a good support. We managed to create thematic competence centers and lead laboratories in all of the “post-socialist” Baltic countries: Estonia,

Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation. These were supported strongly by the research institutes in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden. Everywhere I met enthusiastic and highly pro-fessional people with whom I wish to maintain good collaboration as the BONUS PM.

As regards the future Baltic re-search, once again, I am a true believer in cooperation. Wherever we see a scientific breakthrough – be it in developing decision tools to mitigate eutrophication, in projections of the evolution of the Baltic environment in the context of climate change, in gathering data and building models to exploit fish resources in a wiser manner, in pro-ducing an integrated assessment of the ecosystem, or in the creation of a biodiversity protection network and mitigating the risk of new biotic invasions (many more exam-ples could be mentioned here) – it is all about international scientific cooperation. Some people know that in the early 2000s together with colleagues in neighboring countries we tried to create a joint marine re-search programme between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We agreed on the contents and were supported by the Science Academies, but we failed in creating a joint funding mechanism. Now, with BONUS, I see my old intentions materialized on an even higher level, and I am happy to be in this process.

BO

NU

S E

EIG

Programme Manager for BONUS-169 appointed

�BONUS Newsletter May 2008

BONUS opened its first Call for Proposals on the 17th of September, 2007. The BONUS+ Call was en-thusiastically awaited by marine scientists around Europe.

For the Call, the BONUS EEIG Steering Committee had decided to use a new Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) devel-oped exclusively for the BONUS+ Call. The system was built up in close co-operation with BONUS and the Estonian Science Foundation (ETF). We were pleased to see that the sci-entists took to the system quite well and were familiar with it right from the start of the BONUS+ proposals submission. Not many technical user problems occurred during the submission. The BONUS+ helpdesk, however, was clearly needed, and it received and replied to several Call questions.

All in all the Call process went as planned, the only thing that changed was the proposals submis-sion deadline. The deadline for the submission of Letters of Intent was postponed by one month to the end of the year 2007 (the 28th of December). This extension gave the scientists some extra time to final-ize and revise their proposals.

The BONUS+ Call was a real suc-cess if measured by the number of proposals and applied funding. The BONUS EEIG received via its electronic system altogether 149 Letters of Intent from 19 different countries, out of which over 30 participants came from outside the Baltic. From a scientific perspective, the most popular BONUS themes, as expected, were Theme 1: Linking Science and Policy and Theme 7: Integrating Ecosystem and Society. The total amount of funding ap-plied for was surprisingly high, approximately 190 million euros by over 900 different participants (Figure 1). The top three countries in applying for funding were Sweden with ca. 56 million euro, Finland ca. 42 million euro, and Germany with ca. 25 million euro funding re-

quest (Figure 2). Countries outside the Baltic applied for ca. 5 million euros worth of funding for their BONUS+ projects. The average funding budget request per project was 1.3 million euros (min. was 138,000 and max. 2.0 million euros). Compared to the total amount of BONUS+ funding to be reallocated to the Call, approximately 23.3 mil-lion euros, the demand exceeded manyfold the supply available.

The BONUS+ Call Task Force went through all the proposals and appointed evaluators for each proposal. Each proposal was as-signed at least to three evaluators. The Letters of Intent evaluation was done in January and February, 2008 by using a similar remote elec-tronic internet system developed for the evaluation process, as in the submission of BONUS+ proposals. Almost 30 reviewers with strong experience in the needed scientific fields were engaged deeply in the evaluation work. By the deadline, almost 450 reviewing reports were ready and delivered to the BONUS EEIG Secretariat.

On the 12th of March, 2008, The BONUS EEIG Steering Committee based on the ratings and reviews of the evaluators, made a decision about which proposals would be invited to send in Full Proposals. One third, slightly over 50 Letters of Intent, was asked to join in the Full Proposal phase. The BONUS+ Full Proposals were submitted by the 14th of April, 2008, and they will be evaluated and ranked by the end of May, 2008. The funding deci-sions will be made in the autumn, and the BONUS+ projects can start after the national and EU funding decisions have been made. The maximum project duration is three years and almost all, 98% of the ap-plicants, have applied for funding for the maximum period of time. The implementation of the funded BONUS+ projects is possible until the end of the year 2011.

Susanna Hyvärinen

Figure 2. Applied funding by country (million euros) in the Letters of Intent submitted to the BONUS+ Call for proposals 2007 (BONUS EEIG Secretariat).

The first BONUS Call was a real success

Figure 1. Number of participants by country in the Letters of Intent submitted to the BONUS+ Call for proposals 2007 (BONUS EEIG Secretariat).

Inst

itute

of O

cean

olo

gy

PAS S

opot

Almost 150 Letters of Intent were received

208

180

12392 86 78

6341 32 25

250

200

150

100

50

0

SWED

EN

FINLA

ND

GERMAN

y

DENMAR

k

POLA

ND

RUSSIA

ESTO

NIA

LITH

UANIA

OUTSID

E BA

LTIC

LATV

IA

56,2

42,4

24,921,4

13,810,4

6,7 6,0 4,6 3,1

50

40

30

20

10

0

SWED

EN

FINLA

ND

GERMAN

y

DENMAR

k

POLA

ND

RUSSIA

ESTO

NIA

LITH

UANIA

OUTSID

E BA

LTIC

LATV

IA

60

Mill

ions

Total 189,5 million euros

Part

icip

ants

� BONUS Newsletter May 2008

The hypoxia registered in the Baltic proper in recent years has been the worst ever. Over half of the sea bottom and all water deeper than 80 metres totally lack seafloor animals and fish. Hypoxia is due in part to the natural conditions of this sea area, but problems have ac-celerated and become worse due to eutrophication.

Unfortunately, hypoxia causes change in the ecocycles of nutrients. Increasing hypoxia draws phospho-rus out of the sediment and back into the water, which contributes to the increased algal bloom of ni-trogen fixating cyanobacteria. Even the ability of the sediment to con-vert nitrogen into gas is affected. Further hypoxia in the Baltic Sea thus reinforces the negative impact of a vicious cycle.

Radical simulation

The reason that the Baltic proper has been hit so hard by hypoxia is that the water mass is permanently stratified. Fresh surface water is not mixed with the saline deep water, which seldom manages to enter through the Danish Straits. This is why radical solutions to the problem are often proposed, some-times in jest, such as making the straits much wider or closing them altogether.

Computer simulations have now been done to indicate the effects of such drastic measures on the oxy-gen situation during the next hun-dred years. By doubling the depth of Öresund, the oxygen conditions would be improved at first. But stratification would be reinforced since the salinity of the bottom water would increase, and after ap-proximately fifty years the hypoxia would return, worse than ever. If instead the sound were closed, then the surface water would soon be considerably less saline, but the deep water would remain saline and the hypoxia would become much worse. But then the Baltic proper would be fresh like the current Gulf of Bothnia, with all that this entails for the flora and fauna.

Technical solutions that affect the salinity should probably be avoided. They are contrary to the EU Habitats Directive and are prob-ably neither politically nor legally acceptable.

Oxygenation and mixing

Another proposal that has been in-vestigated more closely involves the active oxygenation of deep water. This would require, however, enor-mous amounts of oxygen to coun-teract hypoxia in the Baltic. At least 2 million tonnes of oxygen must be supplied each year. This is equiva-lent to 20,000 railway trucks full of liquid oxygen. If the oxygenation were for some reason stopped for a period, the problems would most likely return. Furthermore, there is evidence from lakes that artificial oxygenation does not affect the circulation of nutrients in the same way as the natural oxygenation of bottom water.

The idea of mixing the water around the salt stratification is more promising. If one could some-how mix the water between a depth of 50 and 125 metres, the oxygen concentration would be improved in the deep water without affecting the surface salinity. This is the only technical solution that cannot be excluded, but major legal and ethi-cal problems are encountered here, too.

Precipitate phosphorus as in wastewater treatment

Several proposals begin at the other end of the hypoxia problem. The idea is to reduce the amount of nutrients in the sea more quickly in order to break the vicious cycle.

In wastewater treatment works, aluminium and other chemicals are used on a routine basis to precipi-tate the plant nutrient phosphorus from water. By separating it into a solid form it ends up in the sedi-ment and is no longer accessible to plants. The method has also been used in eutrophic lakes. Could it work in the Baltic, too?

We do not know the answer to this. Salt water affects chemical bind-ing, and what happens over time is unclear. Furthermore, it is possible that silicon, another important nu-trient, is affected in an undesirable way. More research is necessary, and the methods need to be tested both in the laboratory and in large-scale trials. A word of warning: once a chemical has been added it cannot be removed – regardless of whether or not there has been a desirable response. Furthermore, putting chemicals into the sea is probably contrary to the inter-national conventions that forbid dumping waste and other material in order to prevent contamination of the sea.

Modify the ecosystem

Other ideas involve human interven-tion to try to restore or improve the capabilities of the ecosystem itself. For example, the relationships be-tween the various levels of the Baltic food chain have undergone major change since the 1940s, due primarily to human intervention. The amounts of fish of prey and animal plankton have been severely reduced relative to both fish that eat plankton and plant plankton. This is an undesir-able development that also amplifies the effects of eutrophication.

Perhaps it is possible to restore the old equilibrium by actively going in and modifying these colonies. Small trials involving planting pikeperch, a fish of prey, and depleting the sprat herring which eats plankton, are be-ing planned to investigate the effects. Mussel bed plants are also used as living nutrient collectors and particle filters.

This way a habitat is provided for what is in short supply, and mussels are used to collect nutrients in the form of plankton. The mussels, and thus the nutrients, are then lifted onto land.

The coastal zone as a filter

Previous research has shown the importance of the coastal zone and its ability to function as a biological filter. Normally the coast is the area

where nutrients are consumed before they reach open water, or inversely, where nutrients from the sea do not reach. Eutrophication along the coast has contributed to hypoxia in large areas of the archipelago, which have thus lost the ability to make good use of nutrients. Just how to go about restoring this ability in the best way is still unknown. More studies are necessary.

No shortcuts

Experts conclude that there are, unfortunately, no simple solutions. After thinking them through, most technical solutions cannot be realisti-cally implemented on such a large scale. They would be unreasonably expensive and are associated with many undesirable consequences.

A great deal of the proposed meas-ures may well be applicable to the coastal zones and other particularly vulnerable areas. But concordant studies show that in order for meas-ures to work well, it is necessary to simultaneously reduce the supply of nutrients.

Accordingly, ways to affect a major reduction of the supply of nutrients to the Baltic must be given the high-est priority. The countries around the Baltic should go beyond the HELCOM proposal in the Baltic Sea Action Plan, preferably doubling efforts. Otherwise the problem of oxygen deficiency will remain for the foreseeable future. The slow, some-times tedious and inconsolable work to reduce emissions is apparently un-avoidable. There are, unfortunately, no shortcuts.

Daniel ConleyGeology Dept., Lund University

The article was published inHavsUtsikt 1/2008

What can we do?

THE BALTIC SEA FOUNDATION 2020

This foundation was established by Björn Carlson with a goal to stimulate efforts to improve the Baltic Sea environment. Projects can be venturous and innova-tive. They must lead to concrete results, affect politicians and institutions, and improve the en-vironmental status of the Baltic.

The Hypoxia Project, the results of which are the basis of this ar-ticle, is one of several projects. It has involved some 60 research-ers from 10 different countries in 2007. Read more at http://www.balticsea2020.se

Hypoxia in the Baltic

Inst

itute

of O

cean

olo

gy

PAS S

opot

Mag

eia/

Tuom

as S

tedt

8BONUS Newsletter May 2008

On 5 December 2007, Germany became the ninth member to join BONUS EEIG. Dr Joachim Harms representing Forschungszentrum Juelich Beteiligungsgesellschaft GmbH (FZ-GmbH) signed the

Editors kaisa kononen, Reetta koivisto, Susanna Hyvärinen and Tiina Tembe firstname.lastname@bonuseeig.fiPublisher BONUS EEIG Hämeentie 33 FI-00500 HELSINkIWebpage www.bonusportal.org Newsletters are available in pdf format on the webpageLayout Sole LättiPrinting kirjapaino Uusimaa

BONUS has received funding from the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme.

BONUS Newsletter

Germany joined BONUS EEIG

Accession Agreement with BONUS EEIG Executive Director Kaisa Kononen and Financial Manager Elise Oukka in the BONUS EEIG Steering Committee meeting in Gdynia, Poland.

An international evaluation panel chaired by Professor Brian Moss, University of Liverpool, has evalu-ated Finnish water research. The evaluation report was released on the 1st of April in Säätytalo, Helsinki. The evaluation covered the activities of organizations or their relevant parts in the field during 2002-2006. The Panel was asked to pay attention to the scien-tific quality of research and research training, research environments, the research system in Finland and, finally, to the outreach of aquatic research to society. Altogether 17 Units in universities and research institutions were evaluated.

The Panel found research to be of high quality by international stand-ards. It also found much improve-ment in the international visibility of Finnish aquatic research com-pared to the 80’s, when research was formerly evaluated.

According to the Panel, Finland should revise the balance of alloca-tion of funds nationally to favour the area of water research. Many recommendations concerned the needs of career development and research training. More secure re-search career paths should be devel-oped. Focus should be shifted from producing large amount of PhD’s to post docs and later career paths. From the point of view of the inter-national quality of marine research, the proposal to disband the Finnish Institute of Marine Research should be urgently reconsidered.

The whole report in PDF format: www.aka.fi

Timo KoluScience Adviser, Academy of Finland

Water research in Finland was evaluated

During the last few years, more than 70 ERA-NET projects – in-cluding BONUS ERA-NET – have been implemented in Europe. The spectrum of thematic, discipline, regional etc. approaches is wide. All the ERA-NETs, however, share the same stepwise strategic path starting from the exchange of in-formation to joint activities, such as joint calls for proposals and joint research programmes. There is a tremendous scope of experiences to be shared, not only for the ben-efit of past participants but also for newcomers to ERA-NET projects. It is neither sensible nor economi-cally feasible to keep ‘reinventing the wheel’ by developing different research proposal submission rules, evaluation criteria, multiple but only slightly different electronic submission or applications man-agement systems.

In order to foster the exchange of ‘lessons learned’, the European Commission has launched a new ac-tion called the ERA-NET Learning Platform. The kick-off event was

organised in Brussels during March 13-14, 2008. Some 150 people from the ERA-NET coordination offices gathered together to discuss future views of ERA-NETs and exchange experiences. The four workshops discussed in detail how to proceed towards common guidelines for call management and what kinds of experiences exist concerning the evaluation and selection of proj-ects. Furthermore, the workshops considered what kinds of user requirements there could be for the ERA-NET information platform, how the learning platform should be governed and what kind of top-ics it should cover.

The participants of the kick-off con-sidered this new initiative, driven by the DG RTD Unit B1 of the Commission, most welcome and needed. It will be for the benefit of the whole European research com-munity and a major step towards the European Research Area.

Kaisa Kononen

ERA-NET Learning Platform promotes exchange of experiences

News from

partners

BO

NU

S E

EIG

BONUS EEIG Executive Director Kaisa Kononen and Dr Joachim Harms (FZ-GmbH) signing the Accession Agreement

Inst

itute

of O

cean

olo

gy

PAS S

opot