Change search
Refine search result
1 - 9 of 9
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Bryhn, Andreas
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Universities, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Aquatic Resources.
    Lindegarth, Mats
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Bergström, Lena
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Universities, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Aquatic Resources.
    Bergström, Ulf
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Universities, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Aquatic Resources.
    Ekosystemtjänster från svenska hav: Status och påverkansfaktorer2015Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Humans benefit greatly, and in many ways, from marine ecosystems. Marine ecosystems produce oxygen, atmospheric water and food, and they give inspiration, recreational opportunities and much more, often for free. Referring to the benefits for people from marine ecosystems as ecosystem services is a way to make them visible to society. Ecosystem services provide a complementary perspective to the natural scientific aspects, and are used in management, policymaking and the public debate regarding the sea. Valuing ecosystem services can initiate abatement of environmental problems in cases when these have a societal cost which is not reflected in market values. Ecosystem services as a concept has become increasingly influential in the marine environmental policy. Ecosystem services are for instance included in the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive and a number of other international directives and agreements. This report aims to classify the status of marine ecosystem services in Sweden, as well as to evaluate their main anthropogenic pressures. The status classification is made with regard to the three different marine sub-regions of the Swedish economic zone: the Kattegat and Skagerrak, the Baltic Proper, and the Gulf of Bothnia. The three status classes applied are good, moderate and poor. Several of the ecosystem services are classified using indicators or environmental quality norms, and this approach is likely to be central in future assessments of ecosystem services. Other ecosystem services are status classified based on recent literature within the respective fields. Anthropogenic pressures due to human activities such as nutrient overenrichment, climate change, marine litter and extensive fishing, which exert pressure on the environment, are evaluated based on their assessed overall impact on the ecosystem services according to current available knowledge. The overall impacts on the ecosystem services are assessed as small or unlikely negative, moderate negative or large negative. Significant knowledge gaps are highlighted wherever found appropriate. Ecosystem services classified as having bad status (Table i) are maintenance of foodwebs and provision of food (in all Swedish marine sub-regions), maintenance of habitats (in the Kattegat and Skagerrak as well as in the Baltic Proper), and provision of raw material (fodder fish in the Kattegat and Skagerrak). Several ecosystem services were assessed as having good status, e.g. energy provision, provision of genetic resources and cultural inspiration. A number of ecosystem services are, in addition, classified as having moderate status, e.g. natural heritage, recreation, and maintenance of biodiversity. In general, the Gulf of Bothnia has a somewhat better status regarding ecosystem services than the other marine sub-regions, which concurs with a lower level of anthropogenic impact on the marine environment. Comparing the Skagerrak and Kattegat to the Baltic Proper, the ecosystem service provision of raw material differs, with poor status in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and moderate status in the Baltic Proper. Apart from that, their overall patterns regarding status are similar. Among the anthropogenic pressures, nutrient overenrichment has a large negative net impact on maintenance of primary production and habitats. The increasing carbon content in the sea associated with climate change has a large negative net impact on biogeochemical cycles. Extensive fishing has a large negative net impact on maintenance of foodwebs and on provision of food.

  • 2.
    Emmerson, Richard
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Evaluation of the implementation of Ospar measures in Sweden2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The adoption of measures to protect and conserve the marine environment of the NorthEast Atlantic is a field in which the OSPAR Commission has been working for over thirty years. OSPAR measures in the form of Decisions and Recommendations for the protection of the marine environment have often acted as a forerunner of European Union environmental action. Substantial progress has been made in addressing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, nutrients and radioactive substances. While these fields still remain relevant, OSPAR’s work on measures has now moved on to focus on biological diversity.

    Since 2011, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) has been responsible for the coordination of Sweden’s work within the OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. SwAM is also responsible for the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) to achieve good environmental status in Sweden’s marine waters and for those national Environmental Quality Objectives most relevant to the aquatic environment.

    This report examines and elaborates the contribution of the development and implementation of OSPAR measures to achieving good environmental status and moving towards Sweden’s environmental quality objectives. Following a general background on OSPAR, MSFD and Sweden’s system of environmental quality objectives, the development and history of OSPAR measures (decisions and recommendations) is described. The development of a methodology for evaluation of the implementation of OSPAR measures is presented. This methodology has then been used to guide an evaluation of the implementation of OSPAR measures in Sweden based on information report to OSPAR and available from national authorities. Finally a series of conclusions and recommendations are presented to guide future implementation work on OSPAR measures. It is clear that Sweden’s engagement in OSPAR has been of benefit in promoting marine environmental protection both in Sweden and other countries sharing the marine waters that surround Sweden. Overall, Sweden has a strong track record of engagement in OSPAR work and in fulfilling its commitments and obligations. The report does, however, highlight a small number of long-standing measures where implementation has not been completed either because the requirements of the measure have not been met or because a full implementation has not been demonstrated in the information reported even though it has occurred. For more the recently adopted biodiversity measures the implementation process is still underway. The evaluation highlights a number of steps that could be taken to secure this legacy through improved information recording and also points towards areas where an improved national implementation process could assist OSPAR work.

    The report recommends that SwAM promotes that any future measures adopted by OSPAR have a more clearly described regional coordination role in the context of MSFD. This can help build synergy and reciprocity between the two processes with OSPAR offering a regional coordination mechanism to support MSFD objectives and the legal framework of the MSFD providing a means to underpin work towards OSPAR’s objectives. Alongside this efforts should continue to make use of OSPAR to pioneer new forms of action for which regional coordination would be of benefit (as has been the case in the past with hazardous substances and biodiversity, litter and noise), both within the context of MSFD and beyond. Increased recognition of the contribution of Sweden’s engagement in regional sea cooperation (including through OSPAR) to the system of environmental objectives would enhance understanding and profile of the regional sea work. An official description of how OSPAR and other regional sea work, such as through HELCOM, are seen to apply in areas where the convention areas overlap would help to guide work by other state authorities.

    SwAM is recommended to continue Sweden’s positive record of engagement in OSPAR work by ensuring that the quality of information provided on the implementation of measures is sufficiently detailed to provide a fully auditable record of Sweden’s implementation of OSPAR measures. It is recommended that, for the avoidance of doubt, Swedish authorities reporting on implementation of OSPAR measures should always provide a national view on whether a measure has been fully implemented or whether work to implement the measure is still in progress.

    Efforts to enhance the engagement of implementing bodies in work to implement OSPAR’s measures need to be nurtured and supported to build the engagement of other relevant national authorities, county administration boards and municipalities. It is suggested to consider an improved information recording on the national implementation process for OSPAR measures. This would benefit the implementation process for the more recently adopted biodiversity measures. There may be synergies that could be developed with existing information systems developed in other contexts, such as VISS (developed by the Water Authorities for Water Framework Directive measures) or Skötsel DOS (developed by SEPA for measures in protected areas). 

    Within OSPAR, SwAM is invited to consider promoting approaches to develop a better shared understanding of how and when formal OSPAR decisions and recommendations should be developed which would help those Contracting Party delegates charged with the development of programmes and measures. SwAM is invited to propose that OSPAR work to develop its information systems includes the recording information on measures and their implementation. It is proposed that information on OSPAR measures compiled in spreadsheet form to support analysis in this project would provide a basis for a relational database on OSPAR measures. Building systems for reporting on implementation with improved content management by Contracting Parties would be beneficial to the OSPAR measures and actions programme (MAP). There may be benefits in coordinating this work with other Regional Sea Organisations. To support work according its commitment to apply an ecosystem approach OSPAR should also continue to develop its evaluation of the implementation of measures in close association with the development of its monitoring and assessment work. SwAM is invited to make use of the framework for the evaluation of the implementation of OSPAR measures developed in this project to support discussion in OSPAR on future implementation of measures and its link to the evaluation of the effectiveness of measures in OSPAR monitoring and assessment work.

  • 3.
    Fauville, Géraldine
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Gotensparre, Susan
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Marin pedagogik: Inventering av lokala behov av stöd och kunskapsmaterial2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Regeringen gav Havs- och vattenmyndigheten (HaV) i uppdrag att bidra till att stärka arbetet med utbildning för hållbar utveckling inom havs- och vattenfrågor, särskilt marin pedagogik. Uppdraget har genomförts av Havsmiljöinstitutet och forskare vid Göteborgs universitet som kontaktat lokala aktörer inom marin pedagogik, och inventerat deras behov av kunskapsmaterial och stöd.

    Marin pedagogik är ett verktyg för att skapa förståelse för hur havet påverkar oss människor och för hur vi påverkar havet, vilket kallas för ocean literacy på engelska och som översätts till havsmedvetenhet i rapporten. En marinpedagogisk aktör förmedlar information om havet och/eller sambandet mellan vatten och hav, vilket i sin tur kan ge upphov till havsmedvetenhet om mottagaren tar ställning till informationen och sätter in den i ett förståeligt sammanhang.

    Regeringsuppdraget avgränsades genom att inkludera aktörer vilka fokuserade helt eller delvis på havsvatten och som befinner sig utanför det obligatoriska skolväsendet.

    Aktörerna lyfter fram behov av:

    • finansiellt stöd (som bör vara långsiktigt)
    • nätverk (mötestillfällen skapas)
    • databas (för att dela med sig av marinpedagogiska resurser.

    Aktörerna efterlyser kunskapsmaterial av olika slag, främst:

    • skriftligt material/information (material anpassade för olika åldrar
    • Digitala resurser (för att inspirera och engagera ungdomar)
    • forskarkontakt (som behövs för metod- och faktakoll)
  • 4.
    Li Zweifel, Ulla
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Egerup, Johanna
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Nilsson, Jonas
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Carneiro, Goncalo
    World Maritime University, Malmö.
    Utvärdering av projektverksamheten av havs- och vattenmiljöanslaget 2007-20122013Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Denna   utvärdering   baseras   på   delar   av   den   projektverksamhet   som   finansierats   genom   havs-­‐    och   vattenmiljöanslaget2   (HVM-­‐projekt)   under   åren   2007-­‐2012   samt   Lokala   vattenvårdsprojekt    (LOVA-­‐projekt)   under   åren   2009-­‐2012.   I   rapporten   återfinns   en   redovisning   av   vilken   typ   av    insatser   och   projekt   som   finansierats,   en   utvärdering   av   åtgärdsprojektens   miljöeffekter,   och    kunskapsprojektens   användning   som   underlag   i   förvaltning   av   havs-­‐   och   vattenmiljöer.    Projektens   samhällsnytta   har   också   undersökts.   Vidare   har   vi   analyserat   myndigheternas    hantering   av   projektverksamheten.          Sett   över   hela   perioden   2007-­‐2012   har   tilldelade   medel   för   de   HVM-­‐projekt   som   ingått   i    utvärderingen   motsvarat   30%   åtgärdsinsatser   och   62%   kunskapsinsatser.   Därtill   har   en   mindre    del   av   medlen   avsatts   till   informationsinsatser   och   projekt   med   anknytning   till   genomförandet    av   konventioner   och   EU-­‐direktiv.   För   året   2012   hade   denna   fördelning   förskjutits   och    uppskattas   ha   motsvarat   53%   åtgärdsinsatser   och   41%   kunskapsinsatser.   LOVA-­‐medlen   har    sedan   dess   inrättande   fördelats   motsvarande   60%   åtgärdsinsatser   och   40%   kunskapsinsatser.      

    De   viktigaste   slutsatserna   är:      

    Insatser   och   projekt   

    Projekten   har   analyserats   i   förhållande   till   de   villkor   som   anges   för   anslaget   och   den   förordning    som   reglerar   LOVA-­‐bidrag.          För   HVM-­‐projekt   har   mest   medel   tilldelats   ämnesområdena   biologisk   mångfald,   övergödning    och   miljöfarliga   ämnen.   Detta   motsvarar   de   utpekat   största   miljöproblemen   för   svensk   havs-­‐   och    vattenmiljö.   De   åtgärdsprojekt   som   genomförts   har   fokuserat   på   restaurering   av   levnadsmiljöer    och   att   minska   utsläpp   av   kväve   och   fosfor.   Denna   typ   av   åtgärder   framhålls   som   angelägna   i    såväl   svenska   som   internationella   miljömål.   Fördelning   av   medel   på   olika   ämnesområden   och    projekttyper   förefaller   således   välgrundad   och   balanserad.   Dokumentation   som   underbygger   de    prioriteringar   eller   övervägande   som   gjorts   är   dock   bristfällig.          LOVA-­‐bidrag   ska   enligt   förordningen   främst   riktas   mot   projekt   som   syftar   till   att   minska    övergödning   vilket   också   har   varit   fallet.   Enligt   förordningen   ska   stöd   ges   till   ”genomförande   av    kostnadseffektiva   åtgärder”.   Utvärderingen   visar   att   olika   länsstyrelser   har   prioriterat   olika    projekttyper.   Vi   har   inte   haft   tillgång   till   dokumentation   som   motiverar   skilda   prioriteringar    eller   som   gör   det   möjligt   att   utvärdera   åtgärdernas   kostnadseffektivitet.       För   att   öka   transparensen   rekommenderar   vi   att   myndigheterna   förbättrar   dokumentation   av    övervägande   och   analyser   som   leder   fram   till   prioritering   av   ämnesområden   och   val   av    projekt.         

    Åtgärdsprojektens   miljöeffekter   

    Utvärderingen   av   miljöeffekter   baseras   på   projektägarnas   slutrapporter.   Få   slutrapporterade    åtgärdsprojekt   anger   miljöeffekter   baserat   på   mätning   före   och   efter   genomförd   åtgärd.   Detta    gäller   både   HVM-­‐   och   LOVA-­‐projekt.   Det   är   därför   inte   möjligt   att   ange   projektens   miljöeffekter    annat   än   i   enstaka   fall   eller   baserat   på   beräkningar   av   förväntade   effekter.       Brist   på   uppmätta   miljöeffekter   beror   ofta   på   att   effekterna   inte   kan   klarläggas   förrän   flera   år    efter   att   projekten   avslutats.   Det   är   alltså   i   många   fall   för   tidigt   att   utvärdera   effekten   av    åtgärder.                                                                                                                                                                     

    När   anslaget   administrerades   av   Naturvårdsverket   omfattandes   endast   havsmiljön.   Vi   använder   dock    genomgående   i   rapporten   den   nyare   benämningen   ”havs-­‐   och   vattenmiljöanslaget”.   I   de   slutrapporter   vi   tagit   del   av   anges   planer   för   uppföljning   av   åtgärdsprojekt   i   ungefär   hälften    av   fallen.   För   dem   som   anger   planer   för   uppföljning   är   det   dock   oklart   hur   finansiering   ska   ske    efter   avslutat   projekt   liksom   hur   och   till   vem   som   framtida   uppföljning   ska   rapporteras.          Vi   rekommenderar   därför   en   stärkt   uppföljning   av   åtgärdsprojekten.   Alla   projekt   behöver    inte   följas   upp   genom   mätprogram   men   den   typ   av   åtgärder   som   är   önskvärda   att   utvärdera   bör    identifieras.   Projekt   som   innefattar   sådana   åtgärder   bör   redan   vid   projektstarten   garanteras    medel   för   uppföljning.   Vi   ser   också   behov   av   stöd   i   planering   av   uppföljning,   t.ex.   i   design   av    mätprogram.   Om   man   önskar   utvärdera   miljöeffekter   måste   också   högre   krav   ställas   på   innehåll    i   slutrapporter,   till   exempel   redovisning   av   metoder   och   beräkningar.   De   miljöeffekter   som    anges   i   projektens   slutrapporter   måste   också   kvalitetssäkras.          Information   om   åtgärdsprojekt   som   genomförts,   planeras   eller   pågår   behöver   också   samlas    och   tillgängliggöras   för   användning   i   nationell,   regional   och   lokal   åtgärdsplanering.         

    Kunskapsprojektens   användning   

    Resultat   från   kunskapsprojekten   förefaller   väl   använda   t.ex.   för   att   uppfylla   miljödirektiv,   som    underlag   för   myndighetsutövning,   för   utveckling   av   övervakningsprogram   med   mera.   Slutsatsen    baseras   på   ett   frågeformulär   som   riktats   till   projektägare   av   HVM-­‐projekt   samt   intervjuer   med    myndigheternas   handläggare.          Kännedom   om   projektresultat   förefaller   dock   vara   starkt   personknutet,   detta   gäller   både   HVM-­‐    och   LOVA-­‐projekt,   och   resultaten   skulle   sannolikt   kunna   användas   i   större   utsträckning   om   de    är   kända   för   fler.   För   närvarande   finns   risk   att   resultat   och   kunskap   förloras.          Vi   har   haft   tillgång   till   slutrapporter   för   49%   av   de   bidragsfinansierade   HVM-­‐projekten   och    fullständig   redovisning   från   46%   av   slutrapporterade   LOVA-­‐projekt.   Därtill   initierar   havs-­‐   och    vattenmyndigheten   projekt   i   form   av   uppdrag   och   överenskommelser   för   vilka   vi   haft   begränsad    tillgång   till   resultat.   En   stor   del   av   både   kunskaps-­‐   och   åtgärdsprojekt   som   genomförts   har   alltså    inte   ingått   i   utvärderingen.       Vi   rekommenderar   att   satsa   på   insamling   och   spridning   av   resultat.   Dels   bör   det   genomföras    en   insats   för   att   samla   alla   slutrapporter   eller   annan   redovisning   från   projekt   som   finansierats    av   anslaget.   Vi   föreslår   även   praktiska   lösningar   som   att   upprätta   en   databas   över   genomförda    HVM-­‐   och   LOVA   projekt.   Katalogisering   av   existerande   rapporter,   även   sådana   som   producerats    efter   projektens   avslut,   och   seminarier   riktade   mot   potentiella   brukare   är   andra   förhållandevis    enkla   medel   för   att   öka   kännedom   om   resultaten.       Viktigt   är   också   att   samla   erfarenheter   och   rekommendationer   från   projektägare   av    genomförda   projekt,   detta   gäller   både   åtgärds-­‐   och   kunskapsprojekt.         

    Projektens   samhällsnytta   

    I   utvärderingen   har   vi   på   önskemål   från   Havs-­‐   och   vattenmyndigheten   undersökt   de   genomförda    projektens   samhällsnytta   d.v.s.   den   nytta   som   ligger   utanför   projektens   omedelbara    miljöeffekter.   Undersökningen   om   samhällsnytta   är   baserad   på   information   i   projektägarnas    slutrapporter,   intervjuer   med   myndigheternas   handläggare,   och   ett   antal   fördjupade   studier.          På   ett   övergripande   plan   kan   flertalet   projekt   kopplas   till   någon   form   av   processrelaterad    samhällsnytta,   t.ex.   kompetensutveckling   hos   deltagande   individer   och   institutioner,    förstärkning   av   olika   samverkansformer   och   produktion   av   underlag   för   miljöförvaltning   och    politiska   beslut.   Vad   gäller   resultatrelaterad   samhällsnytta,   t.ex.   förhöjda   rekreationsvärden    eller   ökad   livsmedelsförsörjning,   ges   dock   få   exempel   vilket   sannolikt   beror   på   att   även    projektens   direkta   miljöeffekter   sällan   är   kända.    Om   samhällsnytta   i   framtiden   ska   utvärderas   jämte   projektens   övriga   effekter   bör   kriterier   för    samhällsnytta   anpassas   till   olika   projekttyper   och   indikatorer   behöver   utvecklas.      

    Myndigheternas   hantering   av   projekt   

    Hantering   av   projektverksamheten   har   analyserats   baserat   på   dokumenterat   material   och    intervjuer   med   myndigheternas   handläggare   och   utredare.   Dokumentationen   är   bristfällig.   Detta    gäller   både   Naturvårdsverkets   och   Havs-­‐   och   vattenmyndighetens   administration   av   havs-­‐   och    vattenmiljöanslaget   liksom   länsstyrelsernas   administration   av   LOVA-­‐projekt.   Rutiner   för   flera    delar   av   hanteringen   bör   stärkas.       Vi   rekommenderar   att   en   plan   upprättas   för   vad   som   ska   uppnås   med   havs-­‐   och    vattenmiljöanslaget.   Planen   förhåller   sig   förslagsvis   till   de   mål   och   åtgärdsprogram   för   havs-­‐    och   vattenmiljön   som   redan   existerar   och   på   en   analys   av   vad   som   är   rimligt   att   uppnå   med    utgångspunkt   från   anslagets   storlek.   Gemensamma   riktlinjer   för   granskning   av    projektansökningar   och   godkännande   av   slutrapporter   behöver   vidareutvecklas.         

    Övergripande   slutsatser   

    Trots   brist   på   faktiskt   uppmätta   miljöeffekter   har   vi   valt   att   resonera   kring   projektens    potentiella   bidrag   till   att   uppnå   några   av   de   miljömål   som   Sverige   eftersträvar,   till   exempel   de    reduktionsmål   för   utsläpp   av   kväve   och   fosfor   som   överenskommits   enligt   Aktionsplanen   för    Östersjön.   De   genomförda   HVM-­‐projekten   har   uppskattningsvis   endast   bidragit   till   att   minska    utsläpp   av   fosfor   och   kväve   med   några   promille   av   reduktionsmålen.   Detta   beror   i   stor    utsträckning   på   projektens   inriktning   mot   åtgärder   som   kräver   medverkan   av   markägare,   t.ex.    anläggning   av   våtmarker   eller   införandet   av   nya   metoder   i   jordbruket.   De   projekt   som   hittills    genomförts   har   inte   lyckats   få   med   sig   tillräckligt   många   deltagare   för   att   på   frivillig   basis    åstadkomma   signifikant   minskade   utsläpp   av   näringsämnen.   Innan   liknande   projekt    fortsättningsvis   finansieras   bör   projektägarnas   erfarenheter   samlas   och   de   juridiska    förutsättningarna   för   att   genomföra   denna   typ   av   åtgärdsprojekt   bör   utredas.       De   uppgifter   om   reducerat   utsläpp   av   näringsämnen   som   anges   för   LOVA-­‐projekt   behöver    kvalitetssäkras.   Redan   den   begränsade   granskning   som   genomförts   i   denna   utvärdering   visar   på    flera   orimliga   uppgifter.   Baserat   på   en   grov   uppskattning   beräknas   dock   genomförda   LOVA-­‐ åtgärder   motsvara   ett   reducerat   fosforutsläpp   på   cirka   30   ton   fosfor   per   år   d.v.s.   motsvarande    knappt   6%   av   de   nyligen   uppdaterade   svenska   reduktionsmålen   för   fosfor.   Enligt   de   förväntade    miljöeffekter   som   anges   av   projektägare   ligger   dock   de   stora   potentiella   minskningarna   av    utsläpp   i   genomförandet   av   kommunala   VA-­‐planer   som   framtagits   med   LOVA-­‐bidrag.   Siffrorna    behöver   dock   granskas,   utförbarheten   av   VA-­‐planerna   (t.ex.   avseende   finansiering)   är   oklar,   och    ett   eventuellt   realiserande   av   dessa   planer   ligger   minst   5-­‐15   år   framåt   i   tiden.          Fördelningen   av   medel   från   anslaget,   framförallt   HVM-­‐projekt,   har   under   den   utvärderade    perioden   skiftat   tyngdpunkt   från   kunskapsinsatser   till   åtgärdsinsatser.   Vi   vill   understryka    koppling   mellan   och   behovet   av   olika   insatstyper;    -­‐ många   åtgärdsprojekt   kan   inte   genomföras   utan   föregående   kunskapsprojekt,   t.ex.    kartläggning   och   förstudier,   -­‐ det   finns   fortfarande   kunskapsbehov   för   att   genomföra   åtgärder,   bland   annat    utvärdering   av   olika   åtgärders   effekter   liksom   att   bedöma   var   i   landet   som   behoven   av    åtgärder   är   störst,   -­‐ resultat   av   kunskapsprojekten   fyller   många   förvaltningsbehov,   -­‐ informationsinsatser   med   tydlig   inriktning   mot   att   ge   underlag   för   ändrat   beteende   kan    bidra   till   att   långsiktigt   förbättra   tillståndet   i   miljön.       Vi   rekommenderar   därför   en   fortsatt   finansiering   av   alla   dessa   insatstyper.  Sammanfattningsvis   har   vi   tagit   del   av   många   väl   genomförda   projekt   vars   resultat   förefaller   väl    använda   inom   havs-­‐   och   vattenförvaltningen.   Vi   har   också   tagit   del   av   projekt   som   långt   från    nått   de   mål   som   satts   upp   för   projekten,   ofta   på   grund   av   ogynnsamma   förutsättningar   för    genomförandet.   Otillräckliga   krav   på   projektägare   påverkar   också   möjligheten   att   utvärdera    projekten.   Med   tydligare   mål,   uppföljning   av   projekt,   och   spridning   av   resultat   kan   havs-­‐   och    vattenmiljöanslaget   nyttjas   mer   effektivt.     

  • 5.
    Moksnes, Per-Olav
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI. Institutionen för Marina Vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Gipperth, Lena
    Juridiska institutionen och Centrum för hav och samhälle, Göteborgs universitet.
    Eriander, Louise
    Institutionen för Marina Vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Laas, Kristjan
    Juridiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.
    Cole, Scott
    EnviroEconomics Sweden Consultancy, Östersund.
    Infantes, Eduardo
    Institutionen för Marina Vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Förvaltning och restaurering av ålgräs i Sverige: Ekologisk, juridisk och ekonomisk bakgrund2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Eelgrass beds constitute key habitats in shallow, coastal areas that support high species diversity and provide mankind with several important ecosystem services. Eelgrass habitats have been identified as essential habitats in need of protection by international conventions and EU-directives. Along the Swedish northwest coast, more than 60 %, approximately 12 500 ha, of the eelgrass beds have vanished since the 1980's as a result of coastal eutrophication and overfishing. Although measures have reduced nutrient pollution and overfishing, and the water quality along the Swedish west coast has improved, no general recovery of eelgrass has been observed. Instead, the loss of eelgrass continues, partly due to an increasing exploitation of Swedish coasts. 

    The aim of this report is to contribute to the development of an improved management of eelgrass ecosystems in Sweden, in particular regarding the use of eelgrass restoration, but also in relation to licencing and supervision of activities that can affect eelgrass and other coastal habitats. The goal has been to assemble all relevant information in one report, and provide a multidisciplinary background that address ecological, legal and economic aspects of management and restoration of eelgrass in Sweden. Another objective has been to analyze the existing management of eelgrass in Sweden, identify possible shortcomings, and provide recommendations on how it could be improved. The report constitutes an important basis for the handbook for eelgrass restoration in Sweden (Moksnes et al. 2016).

    Although functional methods and guidelines for eelgrass restoration are now available for Swedish waters, it is important to point out that restoration of eelgrass is very labor intensive, expensive and not possible in all areas. When a large eelgrass bed is lost, the physical and biological environment may change so much that eelgrass can no longer grow in the area. It is therefore critical that environmental managers prioritize the protection and conservation of remaining eelgrass habitats, and restore lost meadows when possible, but only as a last resort use compensatory restoration of eelgrass as a measure to mitigate losses caused by coastal exploitation.

    Eelgrass meadows create several important ecosystem functions, which in turn provide society with important ecosystem goods and services. A bioeconomic  analysis of three of these services (production of commercial fish and uptake and storage of carbon and nitrogen), estimates their economic value up to approximately 0.5 million SEK per hectare of eelgrass along the Swedish northwest coast. It is important to note that this value did not include several other important ecosystem services (e.g. increasing biodiversity, stabilization of sediment and prevention of beach erosion). The historical losses of eelgrass along the Swedish northwest coast were estimated to have caused a total loss of approximately 8000 tons in cod catches, which is equivalent to the total catch of cod in Swedish waters in 2013. The historic loss of eelgrass was also estimated to have caused a release of 6000 tons of sequestered nitrogen to coastal waters, which is three times larger than the annual river supply to the Swedish northwest coast. A rough estimate of the total economic value of the lost ecosystem services since 1990, including  carbon sequestration varies between 4 and 21 billion SEK.

    There is no Swedish legislation that protects eelgrass meadows specifically, but a large number of laws and regulations that aim to prevent deterioration or restore deteriorated environments, or regulate what type of influence is allowed in different areas. However, the fact that exploitation of eelgrass is allowed also in areas where large historical losses have occurred, as well as within marine protected areas, demonstrates that the existing legal protection is insufficient. The situation is not in agreement with the EU water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive to obtain and maintain good ecological and environmental status, and makes it difficult for Sweden to fulfill international commitments. 

    The present management of eelgrass in Sweden is impeded by a lack of environmental monitoring and use of eelgrass when assessing the environmental status according to the EU directives. It is therefore important to revise the present indicator for coastal vegetation in Sweden, and to include the distribution of eelgrass in the national monitoring program so that the condition of the eelgrass ecosystems contributes to the classification of the environmental status. Together with a no-net-loss policy, such a change would increase the protection of eelgrass substantially and also clarify the need to carry out large-scale restoration of lost eelgrass meadows.  Compensatory mitigation has been used very little in the marine environment in Sweden, and no compensatory restoration of eelgrass has yet been carried out.

    Compensatory restoration could constitute a tool to implement the "polluter pays principle", and contribute to prevent net-losses off eelgrass habitats caused by coastal exploitation. In contrast to the present use of economic-fees to compensate the fishery when an eelgrass bed is damaged, all ecosystem services would be compensated for after a successful compensatory restoration. However, compensatory mitigation is not unproblematic and it is critical that the compensation does not affect the permission process, but that it is only used as a last resort after all possibilities to avoid and minimize the damage have been exhausted. This is particularly important in the southern part of the Swedish northwest coast where studies have shown that there are areas where restoration is not possible. Moreover, due to the large historic losses of eelgrass in this region, most areas where compensatory restoration could be attempted consist of bottoms where eelgrass was growing in the 1980's. Restoration in those areas would only compensate for the historic losses, but not for the eelgrass harmed by exploitation, resulting in a net loss of habitat.

    In Swedish legislation there are several alternative sections of law that could be used to demand compensatory mitigation when eelgrass is affected negatively by an activity. The best support for demanding full compensation is in the Swedish environmental code (miljöbalk) chapter 16, section 9. Until recently, the lack of established practice has constituted a challenge to demand compensatory mitigation in the marine environment. However, this is about to change as land- and environmental courts have started to demand of compensation. It is recommended to increase the use of "biotope-protected areas" for eelgrass habitats as this protection would increase the possibility to demand compensatory mitigation for eelgrass, and more importantly, put higher demand to avoid and minimize damage on eelgrass habitats. 

    Experience from the USA, where compensatory restoration of eelgrass has been used as a management tool since the 1970's, has shown the value of developing state wide policies regarding what methods that should be used during restoration, how the extent of the restoration should be calculated, and how the success of the restoration should be determined. A national eelgrass mitigation policy would facilitate the use and the chances of success for compensatory restoration in Sweden, and this report presents a detailed description of how such a policy could be designed.

  • 6.
    Moksnes, Per-Olav
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI. Institutionen för marina vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Gipperth, Lena
    Juridiska institutionen och Centrum för hav och samhälle, Göteborgs universitet.
    Eriander, Louise
    Institutionen för marina vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Laas, Kristjan
    Juridiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.
    Cole, Scott
    EnviroEconomics Sweden Consultancy, Östersund.
    Infantes, Eduardo
    Institutionen för marina vetenskaper, Göteborgs universitet.
    Handbok för restaurering av ålgräs i Sverige: Vägledning2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    More than 60 % of the eelgrass has vanished from the Swedish northwest coast since the 1980s as a result of nutrient pollution and overfishing. Although measures have improved the water quality significantly in recent years, no  natural recovery of eelgrass has occurred. Instead the losses of eelgrass continue as a result of e.g. coastal exploitation. Restoration of eelgrass constitutes a potential tool to recreate historic habitats and to mitigate eelgrass meadows that are destroyed during exploitation.

    This handbook provides detailed technical guidelines for eelgrass restoration in Scandinavian waters and includes all important steps in the restoration  process, from site selection and permit processes to harvest and planting of eelgrass, and monitoring and evaluation of results. The described methods are based on extensive studies carried along the northwest coast of Sweden, from 2010 to 2015, and are mainly applicable for the Skagerrak–Kattegat area including the Sound. Some of the methods may also be appropriate for the  southern part of the Baltic Sea, but complementary studies will be needed before they could be recommended also for this area. 

    Although functional methods for eelgrass restoration now are available for Swedish waters it is important to note the eelgrass restoration is very labor intensive, expensive and the results are many times uncertain. When an eelgrass meadow is lost, the physical and biological environment may change so much that it no longer allows eelgrass to grow in the area. It is therefore not always possible to restore a lost eelgrass bed. Hence, it is imperative that environmental managers prioritize the protection and conservation of remaining eelgrass habitats, and only as a last option use compensatory restoration as a measure to mitigate losses caused by coastal exploitation. 

    A critical first step, before large-scale restoration is initiated, is to evaluate if the existing environmental conditions at potential restoration sites allow eelgrass to grow. Monitoring of physical and biological conditions and testplanting of eelgrass should therefore be carried out for at least 12 months prior to selecting a restoration site. The dominant causes to why eelgrass plantings fail along the Swedish northwest coast are poor water quality resulting from local sediment resuspension, disturbance from bottom-drifting perennial algal mats and shore crabs, and shading from ephemeral algae. In general it is recommended that eelgrass restoration should only be attempted at sites where the light availability at the planting depth is at least 25 % of the surface  irradiance, and where test-planted shoots show positive growth after one year. 

    Before any restoration work is started it is important to contact relevant local authorities to obtain information regarding necessary permits and required communication with stakeholders. For the methods recommended in this handbook, only a consultation with the County Administrative Board is normally required. For eelgrass restoration in Sweden, the single-shoot method is recommended where single, adult shoots are harvested and planted by hand, without sediment from the donor meadow, using diving. To decrease winter mortality resulting from ice-scouring or insufficient light, it is generally recommended that shoots are planted in the beginning of June, between 1.5 and 2.5 m depth. It is also recommended that shoots are planted 0.25 to 0.50 m apart (equivalent to a planting density of 4 to 16 shoots per kvadratmeter) and that the size of the planted area is at least 1000 m2 to increase the chances of positive feedback mechanisms from the restored meadow. The recommended methods for harvest do not result in any measurable impact on the donor meadows, and the planting methods are relatively fast. Studies suggest that 4 divers could harvest and plant 40 000 shoot covering one hectare in 10 working days. During optimal conditions the shoot density can increase 10 times before the winter. Since the harvest and planting is done by hand, the method will likely limit the size of possible restoration projects to less than 10 hectares per year, which is a very small amount in comparison with the 1000s of hectars that has been lost along the Swedish west coast since the 1980s. Thus, the available restoration methods can likely not alone recreate the historic distribution of eelgrass. However, in combination with large-scale measures that improves the conditions for eelgrass growth along the Swedish west coast, restoration at strategically chosen locations may constitute an important complement that could enable and accelerate natural recovery of Swedish eelgrass habitats.

    Monitoring of the restored eelgrass bed is critical to evaluate if the goals of the restoration are met, and must be part of every restoration project. This is particularly important in mitigation projects to ensure that no net-loss of eelgrass occur. This handbook recommend that the result of the restoration is primarily evaluated by comparing eelgrass shoot density, biomass and areal extent of the planted bed with the same variables in a natural, reference bed over a period of 10 years. The total cost of restoring one hectare of eelgrass using the recommended methods is estimated to vary between 1.2 and 2.5 million SEK. These values include the cost of site selection for one year and monitoring for 10 years (0.38 and 0.39 million SEK, respectively), which are independent of the size of the restoration project. The cost of harvesting and planting, on the other hand, is directly proportional to the size of the planted meadow, and the shoot density used, and varies between 0.44 and 1.73 million SEK per hectare for the  recommended methods. If anchoring techniques need to be used the planting cost could double. Thus, it is important to identify optimal planting methods during evaluation of restoration sites to keep the costs down. Methods for eelgrass restoration using seeds have also been developed for Swedish conditions. However, seed methods cannot presently be recommended due to very high and variable losses of seeds, and high costs. In comparison with the single-shoot method, seed methods have higher risks of failure, take two additional years to obtain a functional eelgrass meadow, and are estimated to cost two to three times more with available methods.

  • 7.
    Moksnes, Per-Olav
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Tullrot, Anita
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, The County Administrative Boards, The County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland.
    Larson, Fredrik
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, The County Administrative Boards, The County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland.
    Åtgärdsprogram för ålgräsängar: Zostera spp2017Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This is an action plan to protect eelgrass beds (Zostera marina och Z. noltii) in Sweden. The action plan is intended as a guideline and contains proposals for measures that should be implemented in the period 2017–2021. The long-term goal with the plan is to safeguard the ecosystem functions of eelgrass beds to the coastal systems by increasing the protection from exploitation, improve the environmental conditions for eelgrass growth, and facilitate natural recovery of eelgrass by restoration and other measures. The vision is that eelgrass beds will recover their historical depth distribution and areal extent all over Sweden, and provide nature and mankind with their ecosystem functions and services.  

    Eelgrass beds constitute key habitats in shallow, coastal areas that support high species diversity and provide mankind with several important ecosystem services. Eelgrass meadows constitute nursery habitats for a number of commercially important species including Atlantic cod, whiting and eel. Eelgrass also improve water clarity by stabilizing the bottom and decreasing sediment resuspension, and they mitigate eutrophication and climate change by sequestering and storing nutrients and carbon in the sediment. Eelgrass meadows have been identified as essential habitats in need of protection by international conventions and EU-directives.   

    Eelgrass beds are threatened ecosystems and their distribution has decreased rapidly in the northern hemisphere the last century. In Scandinavian waters the depth distribution of eelgrass has decreased 50% since the 1900s as a result of eutrophication and decreased water quality.  Along the Swedish northwest coast, more than 60 %, approximately 12 500 ha, of the eelgrass beds have vanished since the 1980's as a result of coastal eutrophication and overfishing. Although measures have been taken, and the water quality has improved, no general recovery of eelgrass has been observed. Instead, the loss of eelgrass continues, partly due to an increasing exploitation of Swedish coasts.  To stop the ongoing losses, and facilitate a recovery of eelgrass in Sweden, the following actions are suggested:  

    Map the present distribution of eelgrass in Sweden 

    • Include areal extent and depth distribution of eelgrass in national and regional marine environmental monitoring. 
    • Improve the environmental conditions for eelgrass growth by intensifying measures to reduce nutrient pollution to the sea, and to increase the population of large predatory fish in the coastal zone, and by decreasing activities that can deteriorate the water quality close to eelgrass habitats, such as dredging, dumping of dredging material, boat traffic, etc. 
    • Improve the protection for eelgrass from coastal exploitation by revising existing nature protection and implementing new marine protected areas that include eelgrass, take into account the cumulative effect of small scale exploitation when evaluating permits, and by increasing supervision of legal and illegal water activities along the coast. 
    • Restore lost eelgrass meadows in areas where this is possible to facilitate natural recovery of eelgrass. Use also eelgrass restoration as compensatory measure for eelgrass lost due to exploitation, but only as a last resort after demands of avoiding and minimizing damage of the habitat. 
    • Inform the public and decision makers, and educate personnel at environmental courts, managers handling exploitation permits, etc. about the ecological significance of eelgrass beds, their sensitivity to disturbance, and what can be done to decrease the human impact.   
    • Improve the knowledge of how climate change, runoff from land, dumping of dredge material, boat traffic, etc., may impact eelgrass ecosystems in Sweden, and develop new methods and measures that can improve the local environment for eelgrass growth and recovery.  

    This action plan has an estimated total cost of 82 million SEK during the actions plans' validity period 2017-2021.

  • 8.
    Sundblad, Eva-Lotta
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Gipperth, Lena
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Grimvall, Anders
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Morf, Andrea
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Social analys - en havsrelaterad samhällsanalys: Underlagsrapport för Sveriges inledande bedömning i havsmiljöförordningen2012Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The Marine Environmental Ordinance (SFS 2010:1341) is part of a strategy to bring about ecosystem-based management and sustainable use of the marine environment in accordance with the EU’s the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). The ordinance is intended to maintain or achieve good environmental status in the marine environment. Under the Marine Environmental Ordinance, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) must ensure that an initial assessment is carried out on the marine environment in the Swedish waters of the two regions, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (Articles 13–16). The initial assessment, which is to be completed by 15 July 2012 and reported to the European Commission not later than 15 October of the same year, is to provide a basis for the establishment of good environmental status, environmental targets and environmental monitoring programmes, as well as the preparing of programmes of measures by which established targets may be achieved.  The initial assessment will include conducting an economic and social analysis. The former can be divided into two parts, the first of which is designed to analyse the use of the marine region and the second to describe the cost of the degradation of the marine environment (Marine Environmental Ordinance, Article 13, para. 4, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Article 8.1c).  The primary purpose of the social analysis in the initial assessment is to create a picture of the underlying conditions of the upcoming work to achieve the aims of the directive, that is, good environmental status (GES, Article 9). The analysis is also intended to provide basic information for the establishment of environmental targets (Article 10) that will subsequently form the foundation of programmes of measures and administrative funding (Article 13). The assessment includes an analysis of how different groups in society can be affected by how the sea is used and by marine environmental problems and measures taken to address them. This study presents a method by which such an analysis can be conducted. The method includes a conceptual model that consists of the components 'Indirect driving forces, 'Direct driving forces , 'Environmental pressures, state  and impact', 'Impact on society', and 'Response'. The model is used in combination with a question template to analyse actors, activities and driving forces. Case studies involving three environmental problems – selective overfishing of cod and the unwanted dispersion of mercury and phosphorous – show that a large number of actors are involved, directly and indirectly. In addition, these actors operate on several levels –local/regional, national and international.  Every environmental problem requires its own analysis and has its own set of conditions. The study shows that the information needed for making decisions regarding the measures that should be taken is relatively extensive. The determination of the amount of information necessary and therefore how much should be systematically collected in future can have a great impact on the development of society and the environment. Finally, suggestions are given as to how future social analyses relating to the marine environment might be carried out.

  • 9.
    Vallin, Are
    et al.
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Grimvall, Anders
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Sundblad, Eva-Lotta
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Institutes, Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, HMI.
    Djodjic, Faruk
    Perfomers of environmental monitoring, Universities, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU.
    Changes in four societal drivers and their potential to reduce Swedish nutrient inputs into the sea2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Large parts of the Baltic Sea and the Kattegat and Skagerrak suffer from eutrophication. Historically, this is due to due to an excessive input of nitrogen and phosphorus to the sea. In the present report, we focus on some of the root causes of this input and how changes in society can reduce the eutrophication pressure on marine environments. Four societal phenomena were selected for a closer analysis. Three of these phenomena - protein consumption, unnecessary food waste, and phosphorus additives in food - are related to the impact of food consumption on the sea. Horse keeping was also considered to be a relevant case study, as the number of horses in Sweden is growing rapidly

    Assessing how changes in societal phenomena can influence the physical flow of nutrients into the sea is a complex task. The number of factors that can modify the final result is very large, and one type of changes in society is normally accompanied by a set of other changes. For example, changes in the consumption of food will inevitably have implications for land use. Moreover, many of the actors that influence the flow of substances and products through society operate on a market where the current activities are continuously modified or substituted by others.

    In this report we tried to handle the complexity of the problems addressed by making simplifying assumptions. For example, we assumed that changes in food consumption will be identical or similar for Swedish produced and imported products and that agricultural land not any longer needed for food production will obtain a leaching coefficient corresponding to a theoretically derived background level. Keeping in mind that the load reductions presented here are maximum load reductions based on a number of assumptions our study allowed the following conclusions:

    o A lower intake of protein-rich food products (25% less protein) could imply that, each year, about 200 tonnes less phosphorus and nearly 9.000 tonnes less nitrogen would reach the sea. Dietary changes can reduce the land area needed to ensure an adequate food supply but also lower the households’ burden on municipal and on-site sewage systems. Replacing some animal protein with legumes can help to reduce the input of nutrients into the sea, but it is more important to reduce the total intake of protein-rich food.

    o If phosphorus compounds added to various food products are substituted or eliminated, the annual input of phosphorus to the sea could be reduced by about 60 tonnes per year. This amount is of the same order of magnitude as the effect of the already implemented ban of phosphate in dishwasher detergents.

    o Reducing the amount of unnecessary food waste is both desirable and feasible, and smaller amounts of waste imply that less land is needed for food production. However, the load reductions of 6 tonnes of phosphorus and 450 tonnes of nitrogen are relatively small compared to the effect of dietary changes.

    o Horse keeping is a growing sector and source of nutrient emissions. Moreover, paddocks can locally cause relatively large emissions of nutrients. However, horse keeping cannot be regarded as a major driver of eutrophication because the leaching of nutrients from this form of land use is lower than the average for all agricultural land in Sweden. The potential load reductions are substantial compared to the remaining Swedish reduction targets in the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Altogether, the results of the present study suggest an increased emphasis on what and how much protein-rich food consumers eat and on the use of phosphorus additives in the food industry.

1 - 9 of 9
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf