Presentation of the Miracle project

1. BONUS-MIRACLE has received funding from BONUS (Art. 185) funded jointly from the European Union’s Seventh
Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, and from Baltic Sea national funding institutions
BONUS MIRACLE
Mediating integrated actions for sustainable
ecosystems services in a changing climate
1

2. MIRACLE Objective
• Identify new governance
configurations to reduce
nutrient enrichment and
flood risks in the Baltic Sea
Region based on the
ecosystem services
concept.
Slide 2

3. Project Aims
• Analyse if research supported social learning
process with stakeholders can identify win-win
solutions to meet goals of diverse interests;
• Analyse how current governance structures
depend on institutional arrangements; and
• Identify opportunities for greater coordination
between agricultural, environmental and flood
risk management policy actions in a changing
climate.
Slide 3

4. MIRACLE Approach
 Involve stakeholders with different interests in land and
water use, e.g. biodiversity conservation, urban
development, hydropower, human health;
 Conduct a series of five workshops where researchers and
stakeholders work to identify win-win solutions for diverse
goals – so called Social Learning Process;
 Give scientific support through scenario modelling of
impacts on water flow and quality, cost-efficiency and
benefit assessments, and policy analyses; and
 Use an innovative visualisation platform to present results
and facilitate scenario comparisons.
Slide 4

5. Structure of the Project
Slide 5
WP2
Environmental
Modelling
WP3
Economical
Analysis
WP4
Visualisation
WP5
Social
Learning
WP6
Policy
WP1. Management
WP7. Dissemination
info
info
pictures
info
infoinfo
recommen-
dations
info
data
info
data
info
reporting
infofeedback
feedback
info
info

6. WP2. Interactive Environmental
Modelling
• Create a knowledge base and
make a gap analysis,
• Model baseline conditions
(to 2020) using the HYPE
model and assess flood risks,
• Model impact scenarios for
suggested measures, and
• Include effect of climate
change and socioeconomic
development scenarios for
the BSR.
Slide 6

7. WP3. Socio-economic assessments
• Define the society and system
boundaries,
• Assess cost structures for the
agreed scenarios,
• Assess private and social be-
nefits based on existing data,
• Estimate cost efficiency and
cost-benefits of selected new
governance scenarios, and
upscale to BSR.
Slide 7

8. WP4. Visualisation for integrated
analyses and communication
• Develop a web-based
visualisation platform,
• Integrate results from WPs in
the platform and use inter-
actively in workshops, and
• Develop a methodological
framework (toolkit) for using
visualisation support in
stakeholder dialogues
Slide 8

9. WP5. Social Learning
• Define stakeholders’ issues,
knowledge and prioritized
measures,
• Identify opportunities and
barriers to combat defined
issues – win-win solutions,
• Cross case analysis for
governance innovations, and
• Implement the process at the
Baltic Sea Region level.
Slide 9

10. WP6. Innovative Governance
• Develop conceptual framework
for ecosystem services approach,
• Review existing experiences with
innovative governance for
multiple ecosystem benefits,
• Assess how to adapt institutional
settings for innovative
governance in case areas, and
• Roadmap for governance and
policy innovations in the BSR.
Slide 10

11. CASE STUDY AREAS
Slide 11
Largest city Dobele
Area 904 km2
Population 26 500, 50 % urban
Land use 50 % agriculture, 42 % forest
Berze, Latvia
Reda, Poland
Helge å, Sweden
Largest city Kristianstad
Area 4 725 km²
Population 131 000, 97% urban
Land use 22 % agriculture, 65% forest
Largest city Wejherowo
Area 485 km2
Population 200 000, 83 % urban
Land use 51% agriculture, 42 % forest
Selke, Germany
Largest city Harzgerode
Area 463 km2
Population 33 000, 80 % urban
Land use 52 % agriculture, 35 % forest

12. CASE STUDY AREAS – SOME ISSUES
Slide 12
Berze, Latvia
Reda, Poland
Helge å, Sweden
Selke, Germany
Unsatisfactory and poor status with respect to
nutrients. Flooding in urban and rural areas.
Nature conservation in upstream areas.
Unsatisfactory and poor status with respect to
nutrients. Flooding in urban and rural areas.
Trout farming and recreation. Biodiversity
conservation in downstream area.
Unsatisfactory status with respect to
nutrients in half of waters
Acidification and mercury problems.
Flooding in rural and urban areas,
particularly in downstream Kristianstad
UNESCO Biosphere reserve in lower part.
Bad and poor ecological quality with
respect to nutrients. Agricultural
nutrient losses and rural sewage
discharge in focus. Lower part is a flood
prone zone. Urban stormwater
management problems.

13. PARTNERS
• Linkoping University, Sweden, (coordinating partner)
• POMinnO Sp. z o.o., Gdynia, Poland
• Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw, Poland
• Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, Germany
• Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Magdeburg, Germany
• University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
• Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, Latvia
• University of Copenhagen, Denmark
• Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrkoping, Sweden
• Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden
• Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development,
Uppsala University, Sweden.
Slide 13