 So you're all very welcome for this three hour plus exercise to really look at the bonus return project in its final conference. We're going to be getting presentations from the partners that have all been involved in this and they'll be showing some of the results. You will be able to have a chance to look at the results and pose some questions in the Q&A. My name is Arno Rosmarin. I'm at Stockholm Environment Institute. I have been involved in this project as well, but today I'm going to moderate this meeting. So we can go to the next slide. Yes, a little bit housekeeping here. The event is being recorded basically because we would like to have a record of this and that it will be seen by others that aren't here today. Your mics have been muted as well as your cameras have been turned off, but don't feel shy and don't feel that you're out of the meeting. You are very much a part of it. There's a Q&A function and you can go in there at any time and write things that are on your mind and we'll address those questions. At the end of each session there'll be a little bit of a Q&A as well. Now just a little tip before we go on and start is that in the toolbox that banner with all of the different icons on it, there's three dots and if you want you can make, if you click on the three dots you'll find that you can see the screen in full scale and the banner won't be in the way and you'll be able to actually see the entire presentation without any problems. You'll also see one picture at the time of the presenter. So I think we'll then be able to move on to the next slide. So I'd like to present the first speaker and this is Karina Barquette from Stockholm Environment Institute. She has been the project coordinator for the bonus return project. She will invite you to this meeting again if you like with a welcome and also an introduction about what this project aim to do and what it has actually done. Karina will also be coming back at the end with some very key recommendations and some take-home messages. So over to you Karina. Thank you Arna. You can click on the next slide please. So my name is Karina Barquette. I am the like Arna said the project coordinator of bonus return. So many of you have been in one way or another part of this journey but some of you are joining us for the first and last time. Regardless of whether you're an old or new friend of return the purpose of today's conference is to share with you the results from the project and hope that this can be an input to ongoing and future efforts in the Baltic Sea region. So the project started in May 2017 and it will end next month in October 2020. The aim of the project was to explore solutions that are available, solutions that are emerging and how effective these solutions are for addressing the problems of unification whilst contributing to closing the nutrient loop in the Baltic Sea region. Next please. Our programme had five objectives. Reduce knowledge gaps through systematic reviews and swap modelling. Assess effectiveness of ecotechnologies through sustainability assessments and cost benefits analysis. Support innovation and ecotechnology uptake through pre-commercialisation plans and testbeds. Identify gaps and opportunities to connect policy with innovation and markets and develop tools for stakeholder involvement. Next please. We did this through our three catchment sites, Stupia in Poland, Fidesz in Sweden and Vantanjoki and in Finland and in collaboration with municipalities in each of the countries. Next please. And what we're going to be presenting today is the final results from these different objectives in the project and the day is divided into two parts The first part will have four sessions. Each of these sessions is between 20 and 25 minutes including a five minutes of Q&A. As Arna mentioned already please write down your questions we will try to address them now or later. Next slide please. The second part involves five presentations and we will be coming back from a short coffee break at 2.35 and the aim is to end the meeting at quarter past four. Over to you Arna, I hope that you enjoy the meeting and see you in a little bit. Okay thanks Karina and we will be tough on time here because I know with online meetings sometimes things can take a little longer because of the logistics and stuff but we'll try to keep this meeting on time. I'll be introducing each speaker and I will be giving them a two-minute warning when we have two minutes left, two minutes left. So we're going to start now with the results from this project and the first speaker will be Beliana Marcura from Stockholm Environment Institute. Beliana has been in charge of evidence base and knowledge gaps research. She's been looking into what sorts of technologies, eco technologies, what sorts of practices there have been for the circulating of nutrients and carbon within the agriculture sector and the wastewater sector and how these in fact have, what things they have in common. So you have 10 minutes, 20 minutes for this talk, it's 15 for the talk itself, five minutes for the discussion. So please, Beliana. Thank you very much Arna, thanks for this introduction. Next slide please. So as Arna already suggested, today I will try to summarize the results of work package in bonus return project that tries to address and find, that tries to actually isolate and highlight the knowledge gaps and through systematic evidence synthesis. Next slide please. So systematic evidence synthesis are actually systematic maps and systematic reviews that are very comprehensive methodology for synthesizing and collating evidence in a very transparent, repeatable, in objective matter. Here on the slide you see just actually all the steps that we conducted in order to come up with findings of either systematic maps and systematic reviews. And if you come to the next slide, please, we will see the actually what we call the evidence synthesis pathway. And this is just a little bit of explanation about the methodology of how we come to the findings that will follow immediately after. So first with a stakeholder engagement, actually with continuous discussion with our project consortium, we have identified the knowledge needs in the field of technological solutions. And we have then conducted two systematic maps. These systematic maps are actually just used, we use them to actually identify the knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters and to understand what evidence exists on the subject of ecotechnologies for recovery and reuse of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. After that, we then conducted the two systematic reviews that try to answer the question whether specific ecotechnologies are effective or not for reuse and recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus. We hope that these findings can then be fed into decision support tool and inform the policy and practice of kind of policy and practice when it comes to decision making for reducing eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region, etc. Next slide, please. So first I will try to just quickly summarize what we have done in the systematic map of the evidence of ecotechnologies in agriculture. We have, after a thorough process that is visible on this slide, we have included over 177 studies in this map. We try to map any kind of technology or practice undertaken for the purpose of recovery and reuse of carbon and nitrogen and phosphorus in agriculture. And we have searched for literature that was published between 2013 and 2017. This work is published and the reference to that work you see below. Next slide, please. These are our findings. So most of the mapped ecotechnologies were basically the technologies that are and practices that are anaerobic digestion, soil amendments, vermicomposting and these ecotechnologies are mostly being implemented in manure as a as a way stream. And these are just, as I said, as we have a limited time, just kind of overview, quick overview of the results. But more results you can see under in this reference that is presented at the very bottom of the slide. Next slide, please. So this is the evidence atlas that shows in geographical space where all these studies and ecotechnologies that we studied in systematic map located. This evidence atlas is available on bottom return website. It's a browser ball and you can play with it and understand what where are these studies and all the details about the studies included in systematic mapping process. Next slide, please. Now then in parallel to the map of what ecotechnologies exist in the space of agriculture and what technologies and practices are being implemented to reduce and to recover and reuse nitrogen phosphorus and carbon from agricultural waste. We were also looking at the technologies that were used for recovery of end reuse of nutrients and carbon in the domestic wastewater systems. And in this map we included 474 studies. Next slide, please. The results told us that there are many technological solutions to recover and reuse nitrogen phosphorus and carbon. These technological solutions were mostly in our pool of literature, microalgae cultivation, irrigation with the influence, reuse of biosolids, anaerobic digestion or also combination of different ecotechnologies. The blue lines show the recovery ecotechnologies that were mostly present in our evidence-based and the orange lines show the reuse ecotechnologies. On the pie chart you can see that most of our ecotechnologies for recovery of nutrients and carbon were actually applied to the mixed wastewater and also to sludge in this map. This work is being submitted to Environmental Evidence Journal and we are, I think, soon expected to be published in an open access forum. So you can see more. Next slide, please. When it comes to the evidence atlas for this systematic mapping that is already available on bonus return website and you can come there and find all the studies included in the map and understand what these studies were exactly about from this sneak preview of the results of the map. Next slide, please. We have some, okay, so after this big mapping exercise we decided to, together with the stakeholders, we decided to actually understand not only what evidence is available when it comes to specific ecotechnology but whether specific ecotechnologies are being effective or not when it comes to the uptake of recovery potential of NNP compounds. So first we wanted to know how effective are statewide precipitation and ammonia stripping for recovery of nutrients in the liquid phase of anaerobic digit state. And so we took the subset of the evidence that we mapped in systematic map and proceeded with a systematic review. In this systematic review we have included about 28 studies after a thorough process of screening and validity assessment of these studies. Next slide, please. And we have come to the conclusions that when actually performed at pH around 9.5 and magnesium to phosphorus ratio of at least one to one, statewide precipitation seems to be an effective technology for the recovery of phosphorus from the liquid phase of anaerobic digit state. When it comes to understanding of that potential for recovery of nitrogen from ammonia stripping process, we sadly could not have any conclusive answers to this question because the evidence was very limited to come to a conclusive result. Next slide, please. After that we wanted to understand whether the product of steroid precipitation, which is statewide, and the product of ammonia stripping, which is ammonium sulfate, are effective as fertilizers. So in the first question we kind of looked at the recovery bit, and in the second question we focused on the reuse. So what happened with this leftover of the steroid precipitation process and ammonium sulfate process when it's applied on the fields and used as fertilizer? I have to say that this work is under construction still, but we have some preliminary results. And if you come to the next slide. So preliminary findings suggest that steroid performs as well as mineral fertilizers, both when it comes to the biomass yield and when it comes to the plant uptake of phosphorus. Again, the evidence base was limited for ammonium sulfate, so we cannot say much whether the ammonium sulfate is according to the current evidence and all the literature published after 2013. On this subject we cannot say whether ammonium sulfate according to the scientific evidence is effective or not. However, as I said, some preliminary results that you can expect maybe during later this year to be available in open access or early next year, hopefully not that long, suggest that steroid performs, as I said, as well as mineral fertilizers. Okay, I think with this I would like to finish my presentation and I would like to say just one concluding remark. I have bombarded you with all this technical kind of language and some of the findings, but I would like to say that I guess what my and what this research shows is that technological solutions are available out there and there are myriads of different technological solutions that can be applied for to different waste streams in order to recover and reuse nitrogen and phosphorus to prevent eutrophication, etc. But I hope that in the rest of this day today and in the rest of the presentation you will learn a little bit more about political context, about how these technologies are actually being implemented, what are the facilitators and barriers to their implementation and innovation in this field. So thank you very much, Arno, over to you. Fantastic, and you're early, you had 15 minutes and you did it in 12. So we don't have any questions yet from our audience outside in the cyber space, but we have actually some questions from within the group, the partners, some of them are actually in the same room with you. So I would like to sort of, I think one of the most interesting things is when you is to explain what is a systematic map, because I think for the people that don't know, I think that's one question. And then related to that is what sort of distortion in the results can one imagine if we just keep to the English language. Thank you very much, Arno. So yes, I tried to very quickly explain what are the systematic maps and systematic reviews at the beginning of this presentation, but I appreciate that that might not be as clear as it should be. So the systematic map or systematic mapping is is a process to collate the literature in a very comprehensive, transparent and repeatable manner using multiple sources of literature, both academic and gray literature. And in contrast to systematic reviews that answer whether a specific intervention is being effective or not or whether there is impact of specific exposure, systematic maps are actually producing literature maps and showing what evidence exists in a specific subject. So the output of systematic maps can be the heat maps that shows where are the knowledge clusters and where are the knowledge gaps on a specific subject that can be quite broad in this sense. So we could then out of knowledge, identified knowledge clusters, we could then recommend systematic reviews or out of knowledge gaps, we could then make recommendations to researchers where to invest their efforts into creating more primary research. So that that is a systematic mapping process in brief, but here on the website there is my here on the sorry on the screen people can see my email address so more than welcome to write if they need more clarity on that and more examples. When it comes to your other second question, actually we do strive to in this both maps we were looking at the studies published in English language in Polish, Swedish, Polish, Swedish and Finnish languages. And these are the languages that actually also reflect the countries surrounding the some of the languages not all of course surrounding the Baltic Sea and reflect the skill set of the people involved in this research and there are many many researchers involved to produce these findings. So if we keep only to the English language I think it wouldn't change much the results to cut it short simply because there was no many studies all the research for them very thoroughly very comprehensively there was not so many studies that were in other than English languages. So I don't think that that we will have a different much different results. Okay thank you. There is a question from the audience this question is what's the potential recovery from wastewater? I guess they're thinking of nitrogen or phosphorus but in comparison to mineral fertilizers I'm not quite sure what they mean by that but I guess it means when you get the recovered product like struvite for example how is it when you compare it to like the concentration of of NNPA or in a mineral fertilizer so is it a competitive product? Thank you very much for this question where I can just say what we have found and repeated in our study maybe someone else can also add to that but I can just say that according to our findings and we have not looked at for example economic side of the production of struvite and so I can just say that struvite is as I mentioned before as as effective as other mineral fertilizer and I guess it can be relatively cheaply made through the struvite precipitation process but maybe I should allow someone else for my colleagues who are currently here to to add to that answer. I think we can probably collect a few questions that are let's say technical in nature and we should be able to go back to that because there's another one and that is because you were mentioning the ammonium sulfate that is produced when you acidify the ammonia after scrubbing this is usually an anaerobic digestion so the question is shouldn't that ammonium sulfate be like any other ammonium sulfate that you would find in a mineral fertilizer so why should it be any any different you don't have to answer that if you don't if you don't have an immediate answer well I personally as a let's say I'm not a chemist but I have a lot of experience with wastewater I would expect that ammonium sulfate is ammonium sulfate question is whether in fact you get the kinds of concentrations and the costs involved to produce those concentrations I think that's where the bonus return project has been looking at those pros and cons but I think the question is and the answer that provided by that person yes we're talking about the same compound. I agree with you yeah I think we are talking about the same compound here it's just that this is the ammonia sulfate coming from the recovery and from the waste actually recovered from the waste sources. Thanks. I think we're just about we're right on time so I'm going to actually go to the next speaker and actually there's two speakers involved and and these are two researchers that's Eric Sherman from the Rise Research Institutes of Sweden and Søren Marcus Pedersen from the University of Copenhagen. I know Eric has a great background of wastewater and Søren is a accomplished professor of the economics so the two of them will be looking at the criteria the multi criteria I think that's Eric's job and then the CBA the cost benefit analysis that Marcus was looking at and you both have each 10 minutes and then after that we'll have a five-minute question period so please go ahead. Okay thank you very much Søren. This is Eric Sherman speaking I will give the first speech here and then Søren will come after me. Next slide please. I'm really involved in this work package where we have developed and carried out multi criteria analysis of all these three case studies that Karina showed in the introduction and what we did was that we had a series of two participatory workshops with in each of these areas and the first workshop we worked with defining the scope what should we look at with the project's limit is wastewater and agriculture waste but we needed to limit it down a little bit to make it doable so to say for each case study so that was what we discussed with stakeholders the first workshop and we also discussed about sustainability criteria and you can see the table down here where we were selected through this process we also did some literature review in parallel so we had a discussion so there were both input from the stakeholders and also some literature input to this you can see that we sure we used more or less the same type of the same criteria for all three case studies but with some variations actually and the criteria is both ecological, economical, social cultural and also technical, technical robustness so to say so that was for the first workshop and in the other one we they had to weigh between the criteria we were producing a result scoring for different alternatives that I will show soon for each case study that we were they had the stakeholders had to weigh between them. Next slide please so this is actually what we compared in each case study in Swopia in Poland we looked at municipal wastewater and rural wastewater and we were comparing a baseline the the situation today more or less with three future scenarios with a reject water type of system recovery system nutrient extraction from wastewater and the source separation scenario. We could also go to Fires in Uppsala Sweden where we also had wastewater as the scope so we were looking at both urban and rural wastewater and here we also compared more or less the same alternatives with some variations and last one Tanjuki we had a different scope we were mostly focused on agriculture waste and also some wastewater in terms of small-scale wastewater from rural areas so in integrated system for actually horse manure grass that we could harvest that is not used today and rural wastewater. Next slide please and here is the so to say winning scenario for Vantanjoki which gave the best sustainability score and here as I said we have an integrated system we are collecting horse manure and the grass from fields and treat them in in an anaerobic digestion process so we get biogas and we get nutrients out of the out of the substrate and also not forget also parts of the wastewater from rural areas is also transported to these facilities so a little bit more than half of all the rural wastewater is used in this process because we need water actually that's that's the reason for for using rural wastewater but we don't need everything so we have also a separate system of hygienization and using use of the wastewater as a fertilizer in itself so this was the most favorable alternative for Vantanjoki and now we can take next next slide please in Súpia where we again looked at wastewater only no agriculture waste actually here the winning scenario was a nutrient extraction system from from use of mixed wastewater using an organic or biological treatment and the nutrient extraction in terms of struite and ammonium sulfate which should be used on agriculture land and we also had an agriculture use use of the sewage sludge which was composted next slide please in the third case study in Ferris we have the winning scenario was a source separation system it was actually quite similar as the winning one in Súpia with nutrient extraction from wastewater but we also included the source separation to some degree I think it's around 20 percent is that we were assessing that could get the system for a quite short term so it's mostly the most of the Uppsala and other inhabitants they have the same system as today but around 20 percent has this source separation system so it's an integrated one where we have a nutrient extraction both from the source separated substrate but also from sewage sludge actually and it's and should be used as fertilizer in agriculture yeah so that yeah please text next slide please here was in parallel with this multi-criteria analysis we did a cost-benefit analysis and we used the same scenarios actually which is very interesting to look at two different methodologies and we got some results which was differing and we got more understanding and looking at both of these but I will not say more about this because this is what Seren will talk about in a few minutes so let's take the next slide please our findings lessons learned here is that actually soft aspects like sociocultural aspects economical aspects maybe not a soft one but these are very important and have a lot of having big influence on the results we saw also that interventions if you look at a very big scope we do a lot of criteria you can get the results that actually the existing system could be better than one that seems very good at the beginning that we have some examples on this most of the future system that we have looked at is actually more preferable than the existing one non-technical aspects again can play a decisive role in in sustainability of innovations wastewater management typically it's quite costly to change wastewater systems so that's the problem with it you could say the infrastructure is quite expensive so it's easier with waste systems solid waste systems because they we actually got a profitable actually system from this anaerobic digestion which is very interesting it seems profitably just looking at through broadscape this scope so that's interesting but if we are looking at electrification which is the biggest aim with bonus return and bonus then wastewater interventions are more effective you get more impact on reducing nutrients to the water next slide please you have about a minute left yeah here we can say some recommendations the scale is the complicated things I cannot go into that more but it has a lot of influence on the results and non-technical aspects are important again sensitivity analysis has a large big influence and we be also this is more 4 and 5 is a little bit more from Søren's coming presentation about cost benefit analysis so I think I stopped there actually thank you very much okay fantastic so we're going to go to Søren Marcus Pedersen from the University of Copenhagen okay then I think I would like to go back to this slide with the cost benefit analysis which is like two slides back yes this one thank you well we were kind of sitting on the shoulders of the work that was done by rice and the colleagues in the sustainability analysis and we were trying to get a little bit more into how can I say the cost and benefits of these eco technologies that were kind of introduced in these three catch areas and and that was in Slupia in Vansanjoki and in Fyrisjön in Sweden our cost benefit analysis is based over a time frame of 30 years we calculate the net present value into year 2020 which is this year and we look at kind of a baseline scenario which was kind of the current situation for the three catchment and then we say okay if you introduce these different eco technologies in these different catchments what will then happen with the cost and benefits associated with these different kind of technologies and we looked into both what we call market benefits but also what we call the less tangible non-market benefits which is related to greenhouse gas emission and electrification and we used the study was based on benefit transfer in the sense that we used benefit values from different or from other studies or related studies that could be used for this type of analysis here and so the final outcome from this cost benefit analysis was that several of these eco technologies was not when we looked at them isolated as here how can I say economic viable we could see that those eco technologies that were related to agricultural waste in in Vantanjoki in the Finnish area both I mean in principle the anaerobic digestion it came up with a relatively good net present value or positive net present value and also the thermal treatment was provided a how can I say a relatively high net present value that was close to zero if you can say so compared with the baseline scenario and the baseline scenario in Vantanjoki was a little special because we used how can I say there was no central composting plants in Vantanjoki for composting agricultural residues at the time so we said that the baseline scenario here would be setting up composting of the horse manure and agricultural residues whereas for the other two areas we could set up a baseline scenario that was based on the digestion of sludge and then conventional treatment of sludge in the two other areas but otherwise we compare the baseline scenario for each of the area with this new situation where you have the new eco technologies when we look at so for Vantanjoki we can say that we could see some positive net present value for these two or at least for the anaerobic digestion we could see a positive net present value whereas for the thermal treatment it was very close to to to provide a positive value for Slupia and Furisone it seems like the investment cost for these technologies that we presented here the nutrient extraction and the source separation it was it was it is related with relatively high investment cost so even though that these technologies provide relatively high benefits in terms of reduced electrification these non-market benefits was not high enough to cover the initial investment cost for from from these technologies and then you can also say that for Vantanjoki that were relatively high how can I say market benefits related to to recovering the the agricultural waste for these technologies we also did a small sensitivity analysis on these technologies and you can see here that for instance in in Furisone you have to increase the value of electrification or the price non-market non-market value of electrification with 3.7 times in order to provide a net present value that goes into break even or zero and similar in with reject water scenario in Slupia you also have to increase the price with 1.2 to reach a net present value that goes into zero and so on we have also done other sensitivity analysis on some of these technologies but it has been a relatively how can I say comprehensive study where we have included a lot of variables and there is also obviously a lot of how can I say reservations and so on in regard to such study because we couldn't get into any corner if you can say so of the of the benefits that are associated with these technologies for instance you could also say that it could be reasonable to say what is the extra benefit that you can gain from from reduced pollution from overflow of water in the sewage system and there could be other benefits that we haven't included here in this study and also the fact for instance that there is a lot of uncertainty in terms of these whether you use a Bateman cost or willingness to accept cost of different kind of non-market values that could make changes into the final assessment of these eco technologies but overall you can say that this is the the kind of the outcome that we came up with in this study I don't know maybe if we can go to the last slide here to capture some of these recommendations basically you can say that we have we have focused here on on a 30-year period and and essentially you can say some of these technologies they might have a larger time range than maybe up to 40 years or so and that could change some of the the outcome of these eco technologies and as I mentioned before it could also be possible to include a broader range of co-benefits that we have included in this study we have mostly focused on the electrification impact of phosphorus and nitrogen and also the greenhouse gas emissions from from changing the from the baseline scenario to the new technologies here in these catchments then another issue that could be considered is that there's a lot of debate about what should be the what kind of economic and policy intensives could could be helping to how can I say to to make sustainable technologies like this more profitable for instance we know that that mineral pee is a is a is a there is a limit resource of of pee in the world most of the pee at the moment is coming from from Morocco today the mineral pee and what are the the policy incentives of what kind of incentives should be provided to to make a change in the in the market price of pee and in the future so these are some of the elements that also could be considered for for future research into this area so I think that was what I had to say for now thank you perfect thank you very much thank you very much sir we have a few questions from the audience I'm getting some feedback I'm not sure let's see I mean we could go directly back to you sir and Jennifer at the Agriculture University in Sweden has asked how did you calculate the non-market values and which non-market values were actually included and put on your microphone sir sir oh yeah yeah okay was that a central unmute of my microphone I guess okay no when it comes to the non-market value we have used we have used the the how can you say the willingness to avoid damage costs for phosphorus and nitrogen that is the kind of the and and we have used benefit transfer we have used it from other starters and and then you can say for for CO2 emission we have used the abatement cost in the sense that it is very much to very much difficult to how can I say to to assess the willingness to avoid damage cost of CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions so we have based the how can I say the non-market cost of CO2 that is based on the recommendations from the European Union and it's based on different prices on market prices on non-market prices depending on the different targets that you have from 2030 and up to 2050 so we have actually we have we have made the market we have made a kind of a projection of the market prices into the future and and and made a how can I say a function of what are the different market prices from year 2015 and up to 2050 and depending on the different targets that you have in 2030 and 2050 of the of the greenhouse gas emission cost so basically what you can say is that the cost increases step by step from 2015 up to 2050 in the range about 100 100 euro per tons from 2015 or slightly less than 100 and 100 euro per tons in 2020 up to about 500 euro per tons when we get closer to 2050 so we have included the change in the cost here I don't know if that was an answer to the question for me it was I'm going to jump back to Eric you've got a couple of questions waiting here someone for his name is Burbell Miller Carules she asked them why did you terrification get such low weight in the multi-criteria analysis why was it so unimportant for the stakeholders it's a very interesting question we didn't actually analyze why they really weighed as they did the stakeholders but maybe the thing is that they feel that wastewater management is has a quite high level already regarding reducing nutrients to the waters so I think maybe circularity of nutrients and and aspects like that which is a little bit of future questions that they have to think of got a little bit higher way actually so it's a little bit of a speculation because we didn't really ask them why they weighed as they did then we also said something and another question from an anonymous person can you clarify more how the wastewater options are more effective for your terrification than the agricultural interventions because you actually said that yeah I just meant that there are more nutrients in the loop in the wastewater than from horse manure grass and grass so there's a bigger potential actually because we have quite low standards at least the rural systems so there's a lot of potential to reduce more nutrients in the wastewater sector compared to this agricultural waste okay so there's a question I guess this is actually going to either of you this is from Elizabeth Cornstrom at Rise and she writes that she's surprised that the sort separation comes out so badly because in a study in Stockholm the sort separation alternative compared to today's system plus the membrane filtration which we see at the Hammerby Christen that came out as more beneficial mainly because of its decreased release of pathogens and medical residues to water and due to the possibility to recover heat so I mean these are the questions and I think maybe CERN can look at this because it's sort of other factors that could be brought into to whether things actually are cost beneficial the question is is the source separation is on paper did better on neutrification but wasn't the largest factor it was only the fifth in the order of magnitude there's a study on that so I don't know if you understand that question it's sort separation why it came out so badly well I think I mean overall I think the the reason here is that the investment costs are relatively high for this for implementing the source separation in terms of treatment plans, generation plans, there are costs associated with ammonia stripping pumps and the sewers and the sewer system as such so there are also I mean obviously there are both market and non-market benefits associated with this technology but so far it's I mean the most simple answer to that is that the costs to our knowledge for the investments here are too high so to cover the to cover the benefits associated with the technology okay I'm sure that that question might come back to us a little bit later it's obviously a very interesting one thank you Elizabeth for that one so it is time to go to the next paper and so if we get to the next paper it's going to be given by two people so we can go to the next slide that would be great so we're looking at the modeling efficiency of the eco technologies in the three river basins in Finland, Poland and in Sweden so to give this paper and we have two of the experts here have been working with the modeling on these rivers and the first one is Jari Koskiaho from the Finnish Environment Institute sometimes that's called Psyche for those of you that know that and the second paper after Jari's is by Thomas Akrusko he's at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences so let's move you each have 10 minutes and then there'll be a five minute discussion so start with you Jari please okay good afternoon everybody you can go to the next slide and here we can see the case study catchments that we had in this in this project Fyrison River in Sweden, Vantanjoki River in Finland and Slupia in Poland next please and what we used here as a model we used SWAT soil and water assessment tool that is developed in Texas USA and we deployed it here in our catchments and as inputs SWAT uses topography that's digital elevation model soil type data land use data and weather data and in this simplified picture you can see that the SWAT then calculates the catchment processes then channel processes and then it gives results we were interested in it gives several results but we were interested in in nutrient loading in from these case study catchments and the results are given in one day one month or one year timescale and we can also add point sources and agricultural management practices which were of course important for us because we we tried to try to simulate those those eco technologies that were presented by Erik and Søren there in that in this sense SWAT is very versatile and useful and we made two papers out of these modeling exercises here first was this that was published by me and my co-authors in eco hydrology and hydrobiology that was about those three eco technologies more in more detail how would they reduce nutrient loading to get a Baltic and the other one was more let's say white scope paper about those river basin management plant plans of water framework directive and they were more like upscaled in nationwide perspective that paper will be it it's already accepted in on bill next please the results were in one time Yogi we tried this this agricultural eco technology which was this anaerobic digestion in a centralized plant with those those organic side stream from agriculture and and also from from scattered settlements and we found out that these amendments of organic carbon that is produced in addition of course to energy that this anaerobic digestion produces it produces a lot of organic carbon and we amended that to agricultural soils in one time Yogi gets me and what it does to improve or decrease the nutrient loading is that if you increase organic carbon into agricultural soil you will improve soil soil structure soil water holding capacity and so on and we changed those parameters in this SWAT model to see the effect and our result was that the effect was very small with the amounts that this this kind of this kind of production would would produce to the one time Yogi soil but the effect was there it was visible but very small like less than one percent of the total loading the bullet point is missing here but those those waste water technologies in Slupia and and furies on they they produced a little bit higher reductions in nutrient loading to the Baltic Sea they were at maximum something like seven percent and when we compared these eco technologies with traditional agri-environmental best management practices we saw that these practices when when they are used in combinations they are they are more effective than these than these eco technologies alone and then I think that Thomas can continue from here with those right side bullet points thank you Jari thank you Arno as you see we are trying to be really interactive in this story so I would also to stress that we were very strict in modeling in the very same way three catchments and that was appreciated by reviewers that that we did really the study which allows for comparison on both sides of Baltic the result because we were close with our methods and resolution of the models in this second more catchment oriented modeling we were also trying to see the pressures in the next 15 years so just not to touch the climate change assuming that we are in the same corridor of climate changes last 10 15 years and we were looking for the the changing population in agriculture practices in the in the yields etc and the finding was from this prior modeling study that we don't see the major changes in the in the pressures and also no significant decrease in the nutrient loads which can be expected yes also that nothing spectacular in the terms of going down with the loads we cannot expect if no action is assumed so then we put on top of that the plant water from a directive measures to the to the catchments there is significant difference in approach that in in Finland and Sweden agriculture is a major player in those measures in Poland mostly that's wastewater treatment as we are still in this big program of investment in the sewage treatment plants and then we do see the the decrease of phosphorus and connected to those measures because that was the second scenario then we were trying to go more in this Helcon proposed approach to to be as much as possible precise in targeting the measures to the regions which are parts of the catchments where we can expect the the biggest outwash of the nutrients also the heavy soils the bigger slopes bigger point pollution and and that's that's again was it was good good idea because we we have got extra benefit by targeting them the same number of measures but in the particular placing of them and then I think it's also important to notice that we are trying to play a bit with this hydrological parameters or characteristics of the catchments to see where our findings can be recognized and as you see from the figures those three small catchments in fact findings can be upscale up to almost 50 000 square kilometers on north and south of Baltic yeah and maybe Yari can take for the next slide yeah some some lessons learned we can see that the factors behind these historical changes in nutrient loading they are very slow and long-term processes and instead of quick and dramatic reductions we can expect long-term slow trends towards the better although the soil soil amendment did not show very very high reductions of nutrient loading they were positive and you have to be patient here just like in it's it's very very common in water protection you they are very very slow slow trends that you can you can expect and there's no one single measure you have to you have to use very many well-dried measures both these traditional best management practices and also these carbon and nutrient recycling ecotechnologies and what was important finding in our in our in both those papers that we publish now important lessons what that was that you have to use these all these measures targeted manner not everywhere but where they really where they really make make an impact targeting is is key key here and I think that Thomas also will have something to say about these gaps and lessons learned yes so we are one of those I would say growing number of voices saying that the key is a common agriculture policy that especially agro environmental schemes should be somehow tuned with the water framework directive and in this respect both can gain I mean you have you have a better result both on the land side but especially for for water so I would say bonus result or this particular exercise results and my previous experience says that without common agriculture policy tuning to water framework directive or vice versa we we cannot get too much on Baltic Sea and agriculture so that the end in this paper you really see the the the the number which comes out if we we do work on on agriculture also Polish case where not too much of agriculture measures are applied shows how how big gap is then if we play only with traditional water measures like switched with water treatment plans and of course the why we thought it's important to make this upscaling exercise I will come to that also later that that we need to see from it from the policy perspective and if we come from the small catchment then then it's very often says yeah that's the the case study but but we would like to to to be seen more that the catchment perspective in fact is a regional perspective or policy perspective and calls for some changes in the in the policy not only in the management that that I would say the most important policy lesson from what we have done and I think we can go to the next slide and back to Yari yeah what we need as a future research I would say that empirical research is is more and more needed and of course on top of that modeling on the effects of these carbon amendments and carbon and nutrient cycles and what's the effect to the nutrient loading to Baltic Sea that's that's really important issue and of course what is not very good in in simulating organic carbon it's very good with nutrients but not so much with carbon but I know that they are developing it's pity that Mikola is not here now but I think he has some colleagues he knows some colleagues that are really really hard trying to trying to target in that that is you and I don't know if if Thomas you would like to say something about those well last two ones yeah so so I think equally important to modeling is the monitoring in fact we had only one good monitoring station for the carbon it's Bantanyoki and that's why we could make another paper to Journal of Hydrology on this measurement frequency but but there is a number of statements about the importance of organic carbon in waters how does it change the habitat but we if we if we go in Poland it's very bad but but not too much better in Sweden if we want to go for the hard data to see where we are in this respect if I am in this water world administration it is also important that number of ecotechnology we we touched in in bonus we still cannot model it's it's not only case that the model we use but also a number of models are which we use in hydrology and use them for water management planning are not really meant for ecotechnology which pop out now and that's that's a to me a problem to communicate those the findings to the water planners who believe more when they see the results on the catchments game and the the the last thing which I am trying also to bring to different agenda there is a number of projects like bonus included where we are very much focused on smaller catchments tradition for the modeling comes from the north from the catchments you have on on on on your side of Baltic and we also then here in the south go for the similar size to make comparative study but I think the game changers are this big river basins starting from order and uh uh through the uh visva no mas daugava uh or never uh at least on my side and and and better modeling of the processes and not only counting the load but also the pathway of nutrients that from this perspective should be done much more closer uh comparing to what we do to today to get to give a good policy recommendations and that's that's I think the open questions for the future projects similar to to bonus and that's the end of the story on my side thank you okay is that the end of the presentation I think that's a good yes I think so okay thank you very much for that um we have a number of questions here um I mean you ended up saying Thomas about the uh the seven big uh river basins and the first question is what is actually hindering uh better understanding through the SWAT modeling but why is it that you you haven't been able to tackle this as much as you you wish but but I think there are two things one is about the technologies and to incorporate them but for the for I think for the big rivers from the from the uh our part of of of uh catchment is very much the data and so SWAT is capable and we do quite a bit of modeling for example of odra and visva in my group but still on the quantity and for the the quality the the data is the the the the problem and then we can see not only about the loads and the sources but also the pathways and see some of those pathways can be somehow halted or decrease the the the load which comes to bucket so that mostly it's a question I think of the organization and money to make it the the knowledge is here so you're talking about number of monitoring stations yeah and including them in the in the models on the appropriate scale okay um so you also mentioned Thomas something about the the targeting of measures so the question is what um what does that actually mean and whether we actually have the data to do that or if the data is not there what I mean what sort of data would be needed yeah uh I think for the targeting first of all we need some common sense I mean from the hydrological perspective where we can expect the biggest outflow of nutrients and the most obvious are the soils and the the the slopes and the way the the the uh land use and that's from the hydrological perspective the the second probably more difficult is to see if we are able to apply measures in the places where which we think are should be targeted from the hydrological perspective do we have agreement with the farmers who owns the land etc and and that the second part if the location is targeted by our analytical tools do we have means to apply them there okay um and you know uh so Yari your colleague Circa Tatteri she's also online um and she is asking what sort of experimental field scale study would be needed um to improve the modeling of the soil organic carbon processes in in SWAT so what sort of field-scaled experiments would would be needed to improve the modeling of SOC uh of course you might have two approaches there you you could have parallel field blocks one with those organic amendments and one without and then there's of course possibility of doing before after experiment but uh and I think that there are already these field block experiments but it is like in in all kind of water protection the problem is that you can see the effects in field scale over field block scale but in catchment scale the effects are very very hard to hard to find out that that's that in my view calls for very long-term long-term monitoring of catchments and modeling uh in parallel of that and here of course these new new technologies with monitoring technologies these automatic measurements are very important um there's a question about um legacy phosphorus there's a lot of talk about the fact that over it's from the 1950s onwards to the 1990s has been a lot of fertilizer added to the farm fields around the Baltic and it's one of the reasons why in the runoff we are still getting significant amounts that are getting into the Baltic Sea and in fact the first levels are maybe not going down as fast as we would like so the question is how what's the mass balance on can you pick that up can you actually separate out legacy phosphorus from let's say the current losses from from the various sources can you can you actually get that in the in the SWAT analysis well in SWAT you can there's only this this soil phosphorus that you can give there I don't know if you can separate it is it legacy or and of course you have annually given fertilizer amount of fertilizers there but you can you can have so called base level soil phosphorus there and on top of that annual amounts of fertilizers to some extent yeah with this or just exactly yeah it also we have this basic or the first statement about the amount of phosphorus binded in the in the soil profile and then that's the starting point but but we don't make it very much on the process base also to some extent but you are absolutely right and this legacy especially on heavy soils on north of Baltic was coming out few times in our research as a very important problem to see and to recognize it is going down but really slowly and we have about two minutes left you know this whole question then of applying the water framework directive to the models I mean that's easier said than done but how is that actually done technically when you're when you're doing the calculations do you put cut off points that are like thresholds how do you actually do it in SWAT so in our case we were doing first quite extensive research of the particular catchments what in the river basin management plans from the coming six years it's planned to be applied yeah some some of those measures are located in particular places some of them we have to assume where they might pop out and the discrepancy is can we model all what is planned in the form of the SWAT how many tricks we have to do or how many of them are missing but at least in our approach the key was river basin management plans and the way how measures which should affect nutrients are planned so not all a range of measures in the water framework directive so in this respect you're right there is someone asking about the legacy phosphorus before we close for coffee what about legacy p and the sediment and streams as well as lakes is that something you have data on I think that SWAT only takes care of or deals with loading from catchment to the lake and of course it's a really big problem this internal loading of phosphorus that is already there in both in Baltic Sea and in interlakes but SWAT doesn't take that into account because you will I mean I'm being a limnologist I can say that when the lakes start turning over in the winter time that's when you start getting sediment coming through so you should be able to get that in a suspended material okay so it is time for coffee and I thank you all for your presentations and those in the audience please don't go away we'll be back in 15 minutes it'll be some other really interesting sessions that we will go through so we are going to go to the next speaker and that is going to be Stan Stenbeck from Rise the Research Institutes of Sweden and he's going to look at the innovations that the project has been investigating and promoting and I think that's a you've got 15 minutes to do that and you'll be looking at the toolbox as well that you've developed and then there'll be some videos from the the companies that have been doing these innovative little projects so that will be a 10 minute part of the thing with the innovators so go ahead Stan. All right hello everybody nice to meet you all it's very interesting to hear all these things so I'm based at the Research Institute of Sweden in Stockholm and I've been the project manager for the work package I mean a work package leader for number five here next please next slide the objectives of the work package five was to select a number of promising existing or emerging eco technologies in need of test beds or living labs facilitate pre-commercialization of selected eco technologies in three pilot sites identify and set up test beds and living labs for those three selected eco technologies so we did that these years and the approach was used to achieve the approach we used for these objectives was to develop a toolbox for decision makers interested in pulling new innovative and circular eco technologies to the market as a way of solving the challenges of tomorrow with new promising technologies of tomorrow coming up so please take next one the final toolbox had about 15 tools but I will now only go through the main tools used within the work package five which included to organize an innovation competition select three winners to get further pre-commercial support in their development towards market introduction by using for instance relevant test beds or other support so the approach we would like to show you can be summarized in four main challenges for decision makers and these four main ones we have put up in this slide starting from the balloon on top where it says how do we assist in pulling not yet ready eco technologies to the market well this can be answered through using three tools the first one was to is to form a partnership for applying for a public and private research and innovation grants which actually bonus return as a system total is an example of where where they have found a grant to develop this project the second one is to set up an innovation procurement process according to the special rules and regulations for products and services not yet ready on the market but needs some last validation and pre-commercial support for instance needing a first client or something like that so that is procurement approaches to support innovation to develop a budget for a third option could be to organize an innovation competition which we then did within the bonus return project they could you could consider this to be a light version of an innovation procurement but in an innovation competition you can set your own rules while a public innovation procurement has some set rules and regulations from from public laws and regulation and these would actually require some capacity building and training so we set up an innovation competition as a way of of creating a room for new promising technologies in the next balloon to the right we can read another challenge for a decision maker which eco technology is the most sustainable this is of course a quite a complicated question and we would recommend using the bonus return experiences from using sustainability analysis tools and and so forth I won't go in more into detail in that as there are other experts in the room here but in the lowest balloon we find the challenge which was part of the award to the winners of the innovation competition organized within this work package how do we increase the readiness level of innovative eco technologies which means how do we assist in testing and validation of the eco technology through independent test beds for instance succeeded validation for an innovation together with a typical client is crucial for further scale up and sales of the product the last balloon to the left ask for the framework for how readiness levels are defined and illustrated which has been developed actually through the bonus return work package five and that is what we call the innovation development cycle so please next the innovation development cycle is an illustration on how innovation develops from the basic ideas and principles via for instance prototypes testing of these development by first innovators but then perhaps in cooperation with a client and all the way up to a market introduction and hopefully a market success the basis of the different readiness levels comes from the framework of trl technology readiness levels which is used within for instance american nasa program and european horizon program um this is a scale going from readiness level one which means you have a basic idea of your product and you think of what you want to achieve to the readiness level five nine where the product is purchased installed and used successfully by several clients within the bonus return product the trl ladder has become an rl cycle a readiness like cycle this is we have taken away the technology notion just because we think that it's much more important with business models and communication skills and instead of technology so readiness level is the is the notion used here um and also we have put it into a cycle instead of just put it into a linear ladder the readiness level one to nine has been clustered into four main phases of the development where phase one is when the first idea principles and concept concepts are developed while phase two is going leading into testing of the prototypes leading into phase three where the prototype is tested together with clients in relevant environments this then should lead into the last readiness level eight and nine which is the phase four of market introduction and even market success you can't reach phase four without a market success so it must be worth uh valid and working next please so this framework we can use them to to analyze and understand the different procurement models um uh because there is a difference between what we could call a traditional public procurement and and what we can call an innovation procurement a normal public procurement including for instance sustainable public procurement and circular public procurement is about procuring innovative about market ready products and services that are in their phase four while an innovation procurement is about supporting not yet market ready products and services to be either a ppi process a public procurement of innovation where the product is validated by a so-called first client or by a pcp process pre-commercial public procurement where a couple of products are selected to get research and development support by the procurer all the innovation procurement processes should of course have circular and sustainability criteria as part of the procurement even the innovation procurement so in the bonus return project these differences were cleared out but we only did we never did a full innovation procurement but we did an innovation competition which can be seen as a light version um an innovation procurement a full one could actually though be a very good further development of the bonus return project for municipalities and decision makers in the badic region so that is a recommendation to go further on and do a full scale uh next please a full scale uh uh innovation I also wanted to say that what is this about the well there is a need for a first client both innovation process is based on the crucial step of a product to get a first client and their first product being purchased this is to build the reference for the continuation this often means to as a stalemate case for all for the for the development process as no client wanted to be the first and the innovation procurement process forms a risk sharing process beneficial for both the buyers and the sellers so that is so you can see in the figure the the innovator the innovator um over the time by the blue boxes you can see them reaching to get the first product sold and then scale up on sales they go from redness level three five going up and then they really want to get the first product on on sale and then from the other side you see the gray boxes coming down which is the procurer that wants to find new innovative uh products and then uh you do an innovation procurement and thereby having a risk sharing uh of of of um of the work next please so as we mentioned before an innovation competition could be considered a light version of an innovation procurement and actually a good step for for a group of buyers wanting to pull the promising coming coming innovations to to challenges that can be sold by by um solution that are not on the market yet but are promising so this was done through the work package five uh and the three most promising innovative solutions for the bonus return work package five um was set up by this innovation competition and we also then set up some test bed as part of the award of the winners was to get pre-commercial support to the solution to assist them to higher redness levels and closer to our market introduction um we could then also put all their regulations as we we needed to put them so the winners the winners uh got this support and a test bed was set up for one of them and the other ones needed other types of of innovation support next please so test beds is a key element for innovation developing to market readiness to become a market success so um the test bed is often set up already in late phase one but could also be featured in phase two and especially phase two and phase three I would say and we did then test bed for one of the innovators that were winners in the competition that was the aquacur bio free technology which was tested in a test bed outside Stockholm at knifes the wastewater treatment plant so the lessons learned from this is that the setup requires more of very much planning and and stakeholder involvement to it was quite complicated to set up the the test bed but it was very worthwhile to see how the the plant worked in in reality next please so here are the three winners of the innovation competition and um it was aquacur bio free it was teranova energy um uh plant and it was ravita new technology uh that was um winning as a very promising emergent technologies um so aquacur did a test bed project while teranova was prioritizing to get a comparative study made made whether we were comparing different competing and complementary technologies um very similar to teranova or in in the output of teranova but then ravita uh got support by we that we were where the project did a initial market survey among potential clients in the in the Stockholm and in the swedish market where owners of wastewater and treatment plants so ravita has an efficient way of of working with with the wastewater and teranova creates a very good energy and also a good way of circling the nutrients uh anyway so this is the that leads into then the the the the videos which we will now see from from these three um winners of the innovation competition to see how they have um taken the next step they did this videos just last weeks uh so that we get get the latest update on how things have been moving since since bonus return project okay so let's see if we can go um watch these presentations yeah you need to change to the next one i think so the first one is ravita yeah they have done this uh these videos by their own equipment hi and greetings from Finland my name is and i work as project engineer in HSY we're really honored that our process has been selected as one of the winners in bonus return competition since 2015 HSY has been developing innovative nutrient recovery technology called the main drivers for this research is that we want to be able to recover and utilize the nutrients in waste waters without compromising any of the effluent quality in this way we can provide more sustainable operations also in the future our process enables the recovery of phosphorus as phosphoric acid which can be the further processed in term monium phosphate in the ravita process the phosphorus is recovered only in the effluent wastewater so contrary to any conventional co-precipitation in ravita process no precipitation whatsoever is applied prior or in the biological treatment the phosphorus in the effluent water is separated in post precipitation steps such as disk filtration the chemical slaps that is produced in the filtration is then further processed in order to separate the phosphorus the following step includes dissolution and recovery step with solvent extraction in addition to phosphorus also nitrogen can be recovered in the process the nitrogen is recovered from the reject water stream and separated with a stripper unit in 2019 ravita demo plant with PE of 1000 was built in the Vikimaki waste water treatment plant we'd be really honored to have had the opportunity to be part of the bonus return community in bonus return we've gained extremely important support and insights into the markets of this field in processes like ravita engaging and understanding the clients and end users is crucial nutrient load reduction and nutrient recycling technologies are important in all over the Baltic Sea region and we truly see that ravita is an important step on that journey okay now we go to aqua care aqua care is innovation is about reducing phosphorus to very low concentrations and prevent the harmful algal blooms this includes an adsorbent it's an ion exchange resin that's impregnated with ion oxide nanoparticles so that these can absorb phosphorus and then these can be regenerated so that the adsorbent can be reused and the phosphorus can also be recovered in a much more concentrated stream participating in the bonus return has been very helpful in the sense that we could connect with different people who are in similar phases of their innovation so we could see what are the challenges faced by other innovators and at the same time through this event we could also connect with the research institute in Sweden which helped us pilot our technology in one of the sites where we could create wastewater effluent as well as surface water and test how good our technology is in realistic conditions in terms of opportunities there are a lot of point sources of phosphorus that are discharged into the Baltic Sea so this would be a great spot and a great opportunity for the aquacars by free technology to be applied like at wastewater plants effluence and then you know we stop it at the target so we prevent the formation of the harmful algal blooms in the first place so this is an opportunity that aquacar can use in terms of challenges there are two types of challenges one is the technical challenge which is in terms of technology how we are going to handle the water at the Baltic Sea it depends on the constitution and the composition like how much particulate phosphorus is there how much dissolved phosphorus is there so there are still some key aspects that you know need monitoring and based on that we can further fine tune our technology there also includes studying more into the regeneration and reuse of the adsorbents and recovering the phosphorus but for these technical challenges to happen we need to have a bigger drive and this is the bigger challenge the challenge that's related to making business and this is in terms of legislations and policies that make it a mandate to you know showcase why we need to go so low on the phosphorus levels I think these this legislative challenges is a bigger challenge like we still need a good market to be there so that we can keep working and we can keep improving on our innovation and in the end you know look at the bigger goal of stopping the pollution at the Baltic Sea and also trying to recover the nutrients okay I think I think aquacar is done now we go to Terranova except I don't hear the RDO so Stan if you want to tell us what he's saying as you can both read oh wait you can provide some background on this this technology so I think we've lost we've lost Terranova there unless someone else wants to add like Stan you could you could just give us a two minute summary of it well I'm not really it was sent very that video was actually sent very late so I haven't watched it so many times okay I think but is it possible to get it to start over again or is it is it on Ian do you have a or should we take questions yeah that says Ian says move on I think there's something wrong with the with the connection there so um but we do have a question we do have about I can tell you what the timing is on this so far we have about three or four minutes left so but we do have a question for you um and the question is what challenges do on the one hand municipalities face to the to procure these technologies these sustainable circular greener technologies so the municipalities on one hand and on the other hand what are those challenges and what challenges do the technologies face to enter the procurement process so you know what are the challenges that the municipalities are facing to procure these these technologies and what sort of resolution and resilience do we have in the technologies the problem I would say very much is that it's very very difficult for for the municipalities to to do a procurement of not proven technologies they're not yet ready technologies um they have to stick to what the policy the policies are today and they need to stick to what what has been proven to work um so um and it's also a very strict price price tag to everything so um I would say that the challenges are really very much the the risk of of procuring new technologies and also these wastewater treatment plants and and the municipalities owning big infrastructure so um there is a very much a doubt on where they go for for which kind of technology will impact on on further down the line on who's going to take care of of of that product that comes out of of one way of working or another way of working as we have seen in the previous presentations in bonus return so it's it's very much uh uncertainty around policies and regulations on on on sludge and and wastewater in general so I think um to put together a buyer's group uh a group of of municipalities into uh and to do a real um perhaps a pre-commercial procurement uh could be a quite a good way of moving forward to have that risk sharing then it becomes a bigger scale innovation competition and you we will get some interesting cases to work further on with um I'm going to go back to this innovation or innovative development cycle you presented a little earlier and um and you said that in fact you took the T off the readiness level so it's not TRL but it's RL because you're looking at other factors than just the technology you're looking at some of these questions like you know can it work with the municipalities and social impacts so is this something that is new um was this something you brought in for this project or are other people also using RL as as a standard concept um sorry mic is off so you're gonna have to start over yeah all right so uh well it's it's actually a development throughout this project and and some parallel projects uh where the discussion around technology that the T became a little bit took too much um attention from the discussion because everything is about readiness um to the market and and so therefore the we took we have actually developed the T we haven't we I've seen some other um examples where where they discuss readiness levels and they put in other types instead of T they could have a uh business readiness levels or whatever but we just said that let's take away the T to avoid too much discussions about technology because market success is so much more about communication service quality business models and everything and you have to just be ready to to get a market success so that therefore we took but I think that the TRL I mean the word technology in the TRL scale is is seen as a bigger notion but we just thought it was was good to take it away but I don't have very good examples on on other projects that I've done the same but this is very new I would say I haven't seen the cycle and the readiness levels in in other uh in other projects yet okay but we are open to to hear if somebody have some more inputs on on that absolutely um thank you Stan we're going to move on to the next paper and it will be given by Lynn Yen from SEI and also Nelson at SEI and they're going to talk about barriers and opportunities for closing the loop the nutrient loop in the Baltic Sea region um there we have the picture and Lynn you have 10 minutes and then Nelson you've got 10 minutes and then we'll have five minutes for for questions so I guess it's Lynn that's starting right all right so this is Lynn Yen by speaking from Stockholm Environment Institute and I'm going to share some findings from a paper uh that I have co-authored together with Karina Barkat, Arna Rosemary and Billy Anna Makura and the central question for us in this paper has been what is needed to accelerate the transition towards the circular phosphorus economy in the Baltic Sea region and we have looked here at both barriers and opportunities within the wastewater sector and the agriculture sector next slide please um just to say something very brief about methods we have combined a literature review here a so called rapid review approach with key informant interviews and for analysis we used a framework synthesis approach and I'm not going to go into details about the analytical framework that you can see here in the picture as the dark blue headings but I'd rather focus on the results here and this is a little bit of a complex figure perhaps but I'll try to walk you through it step by step so everything that you see having a minus sign here is barriers that we have found across the system everything with a plus sign is referring to an opportunity and so if we're starting from the top with the articulation dimension this is referring to a system's capacity to anticipate user needs and act upon them a first barrier that we found here is the price of phosphate ore and low market price of conventional fertilizer which has contributed to the low profitability of waste derived products on the market looking into the future we can probably expect this to change and expect the price to go up since there's a combination of rising demand for phosphate and shrinking reserves nonetheless we do also identify a need for government intervention to enable reuse products to compete with conventional fertilizers and environmental externalities and also health impacts related to the production of conventional fertilizers are largely unaccounted for today across the EU which could motivate either government subsidies on waste rate fertilizer or taxation on conventional fertilizer if we look at the category of directionality this is referring to the capacity of a system to guide the direction of change including formulating a shared long-term vision one of the barriers that we see here is a lack of policy steering for nutrient reuse at all levels basically and there's no clear vision for nutrient management and outdated legislation in many cases one important opportunity here is the EU circular economy action plan although we also note that this vision largely remains to be translated into national and local level policy and action phosphate rock has been listed by the EU since 2014 as a critical raw material and this is an opportunity that is indicating higher policy priority within the EU an opportunity that we see at national levels is that new legislation has been introduced in Switzerland and Germany for example that is providing more long-term strategies for phosphorus management a little bit of a warning flag that we are raising here is the risk of new lock ins to do to this kind of legislation since it tends to favor one particular technology which is mono incineration in this case which is requiring large infrastructures and investments if we look at the dimension that we're calling capabilities this is referring to competences knowledge resources we note that there's a lack of knowledge still of many technologies for phosphorus reuse when it comes to economic agricultural and environmental performance on the other hand there are also several technologies that are already established or underway in many places and this is the case for example for struvite and mono incineration looking at interactions this is referring to the exchange and networks between actors we see as a barrier here that there's an uneven playing field between waste derived and conventional fertilizers and fertilizer regulations have traditionally been designed with conventional fertilizers in mind and so waste derived products do often not fit very well within these frameworks we also looked at values and this is norms attitudes worldviews and here one of the key barriers is related to farmer acceptability and these are views of reuse products and farmers and also the fertilizer industry is requiring a constant and predictable product and this is a challenge for for example manure based products and sewage sludge ash another barrier here this is well known I guess but the social acceptability related to sewage sludge derived products there are known and perceived risks of contamination here from for example heavy metals and pathogens if we look at the coordination dimension this is referring to the organization between different components or actors of a system we see that in the agricultural sector one barrier is that manure is an abundant resource but still very underutilized and this can be explained in part by farm specialization and a geographical mismatch of where livestock farms and crop production systems are located there are also certain logistical challenges in transporting manure an opportunity that can be mentioned here is that only about eight percent of all manure generated in the EU today is processed and so there is potential here to use simple technologies that are available to reduce volumes and transportation costs our final dimension here that we looked at is structure which is physical financial or institutional infrastructures and here one of the key barriers that has also been addressed by others is the slow rate of change that's characterizing wastewater systems especially we have large-scale infrastructure and long-term investment horizons which is creating lock-in effects in the system another barrier is the legal recognition of reuse products that I also touched upon a little bit before but so products originating from wastewater treatment plants have traditionally been treated as waste and so for those products transport and trade are strictly regulated one very important opportunity here is the recently updated EU fertilizing products regulation just now recognizing a lot of reuse products as fertilizers and this is important to level the playing field between reuse and mineral fertilizers but it should be noted also that not all reuse products are yet included in this regulation for decentralized and source-separating systems we do see that one opportunity is that niche markets exist for those solutions especially in sparsely populated areas and in newly constructed housing the aging infrastructure in many parts of the Baltic Sea region is also an opportunity since this may push existing water sanitation systems towards a turning point and open up for alternative solutions next slide please so we have formulated a few recommendations based on this research the first one is that there's a need to shift mindsets or continue to shift mindsets away from the take make dispose mindset and more towards to reduce reuse recycle recover mindsets there's room for new circular business models with increased collaboration between wastewater treatment plants fertilizer industry and farmers implementation capacity would need to be increased at national and local government levels to translate the circular economy vision into implementation we see a role here also for sustainable public procurement there is a need to improve interactions between the wastewater and agricultural sector as well as between crop and livestock farms alternative solutions such as source separation should be more actively supported to enable the reuse of multiple resources and it could for instance be made a requirement in newly developed housing projects the six point here is a large one but there's a need to change farm structures towards more diverse and integrated farming systems and this would allow for more efficient use of manure and other nutrient sources in agriculture there are also strong arguments for government interventions such as subsidies or taxation to ensure fair phosphorus price that reflects the health and environmental impacts from phosphate mining and finally we see that new technology lock ins can be avoided by considering their systemic impacts including on other nutrients carbon water and energy and more flexibility legislation is necessary to avoid crowding out promising and locally appropriate solutions and the ultimate purpose of that of course would be to avoid solving one problem at the expense of another and that's all from me thank you very much that's great then so we're going to move now right away to the Nelson Akane it'll be the next slide I guess yes thank you Anu thank you Anu good afternoon everyone to spread or not to spread sewage lodge on agricultural land in Sweden is a question that we are confronted with we have explored this question in the bonus return project and this is what I will be talking about in the next 10 minutes I am Nelson Akane and I have a background in planning and decision analysis next slide please sewage lodge contains resources phosphorus nitrogen potassium carbon essential for plant growth sewage lodge also contains unwanted substances to name a few heavy metals non-degradable microplastics pathogens antibiotics poly fluorinated hydrocarbons and substances of concern which can cause harm to human and environmental health if not properly managed this resource and risky tradeoff is a subject of a long-standing contentious and polarized debate in Sweden and this persists even though the quality of Swedish sewage lodge has significantly become better over the years thanks to the revacc certification system a ban on spreading sewage lodge on agricultural land is even being discussed and was was part of the terms of reference of the recent inquiry on sewage lodge and this is in line with Swedish environmental quality objective to create and maintain a non-toxic environment next slide please so we have examined how people see and explain the risks and potential of spreading sewage lodge on agricultural land and what this means for the society to what extent are we familiar with the risks how people deal with the conflicts of trying to get gains and at the same time confronted with the probability of something bad happening uh in short and long term this is done by drawing on rich perception literature and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 17 key stakeholders including farmers spreading sludge and farmers not spreading sludge consumers were not part of this study next slide please here you have an illustration uh of the organizational arrangements in the distribution of revacc certified sludge this also illustrates the flows of nutrients and risks in the society within this arrangement farmers are key actors but not major drivers of the practice as we find entrepreneurs play an important role in creating demand for sewage lodge among farmers and making a sludge available to farmers find that transparency and mutual trust is important in determining the quality of what farmers receive as revacc certified sludge and what they produce a series it's from wheat barley oat farmers are expected to indicate whether series have been fertilized by sewage lodge or not upon delivery to food retailers we also find that there's a geographical aspect to this which is linked to availability of manure and that explains why we have uh less interest in the west coast of sweden uh unlike in Uppsala and Stockholm region and this has to do with animal house boundary which is a common practice in the west coast which is not in Uppsala and and Stockholm region and there you have in Uppsala you have soils that are very poor in in nutrients and organic matter so farmers are willing to to accept sludge next slide please i will use the following quotes uh to summarize some of the major perceptions uh we have guided following from the first quote uh pureness beats recycling uh we find that people have become or are increasingly becoming more concerned about our risks uh people feel more vulnerable to risks of contamination by toxic substances uh than ever before this is particularly the case for risks that we are unfamiliar of however one farmer spreading sludge observes that i quote uh spraying pesticides on crops may be more dangerous than spreading sludge as an agricultural input but spraying pesticide is an acceptable risk for many people this begs the following question what is particular about sewage lodge that makes it unacceptable if pesticides and sludge both post post risks so the origin and nature and characteristic of sewage lodge seems to be an important factor here and we'll come back to that and this takes us to the last two quotes on the screen which has to do with stigma there and uncertainty which we have heard in previous presentation which actually uh overshadowing sewage lodge we have as we saw from the interviews stigma comes up as a key issue from many including the farmers uh and there's a lot of uncertainty when it comes to dealing with the risks measuring monitoring and the fit of of the recent long long term on the ban on sewage lodge most interviewees show preference for option two option two as you have on the screen there is a ban on condition that a possible risk had to be managed these are recommendations from the recent inquiry on sewage lodge in sweden uh these interviewees emphasize that this kind of option would require shared responsibility in terms of cost mutual trust and oversight of different stakeholders as well as the contribution of different societal activities to the problem and we have however have two interviewees who actually are for option one these are NGOs an NGO and the government agency which are responsible for monitoring chemicals in in in sweden they emphasize the risks uh they have amplified it and would rather see a complete ban as option one as you see on the screen that's kind of end of pipe control as described by one of our interviewees next slide please to conclude here with some ways forward uh so anytime there are numerous unknowns and uncertainties about substances and their risks in this case substances we are unfamiliar about we can control in short and long term feelings take over this has a lot of backing within uh literature and perceptions of risk and this is a case with sludge and I can actually see that in the arguments that have been made by even those who are engaged in the practice the farmers that are engaged and the entrepreneurs and we find that feelings depend on how familiar we are with the risks and determines how we decide to deal with this risk when the risks are judged to be unknown by scientists as this is the case with the debates that we have which is quite polarized and amplified and attunated in different cases the public sees the risks as more serious and less acceptable and that is the risk we would have to in terms of communicating the risk of of using human waste of human origin would have to overcome this by actually providing access to some of the unknowns that we have this underlines the conflict and between facts and feelings which is the theoretical underpinning of this and that's truly the I would say has amplified the debate that we see in the sector further this has implications on how consumers which we have not looked at would actually perceive this and get involved in it so it has an implication on public trust and without public trust we have issues of communicating risk as effective as we would want to to have it so what ends up in sewage lodge as comes from one of our quotes from the interviews is actually as kind of a description of what we have in the society different activities that we have in the society and this actually emphasizes upstream work so this is already ongoing within the river certification system and we had respondents emphasizes even more in connection with option two of the inquiry and this is critical in reducing the loads of these toxic substances that end up in sewage lodge which actually we are dealing with now and also understanding the contribution of different activities to the problem is important we for example have the chlorine industry we have imported food which also play an important role in what ends up in sludge because we have systems which collect this and combination and this is something which would have to to work even further these are areas of further research possibly also understanding consumer perceptions is also an area which we will get more insights so end here and wait for questions okay thank you Nelson and thank you Lynn we're running a bit late here we have time for one question and it is to Lynn and the question is can you give some examples of how we can improve the interactions between the different types of farms crop farms livestock farms um well I don't know what that question actually means in terms of improving interactions but I guess it has to do with with how they are treated in terms of all the different barriers and opportunities yes thank you very much for this question it's not an easy one I think but I would say in the longer term and what was also touching upon a little bit in the presentation was that I think one of the issues is the the farm specialization and very large-scale agriculture that's dominating the countries around the Baltic Sea region so in the longer term one way forward would be to move towards more diverse and integrated farming systems in the shorter term you have to look at other solutions and there I think it's probably not feasible for sort of individual farmers to increase their coordination but there would be space for more of sort of bridging actors and umbrella organizations that can connect farmers across different geographical locations that's a good answer under under time pressure thank you for that Lynn and I'm going to close this this paper and we will then quickly move to the next one which is Mark given by Mark Rasmussen he's actually working for SEI but this morning he's and it is still morning for him he's calling in from Massachusetts where he has a residence and Mark's going to look at the success stories of some of these ecotechnologies in the Baltic Sea region and there's three of the stories he will tell us about so you have 10 minutes for that work and after the presentation by Mark we will then actually present some questions to the Swedish Finnish and Polish project leads for the case studies for the three river basins so are we out do we have your online work I think you can you hear me now yes yes we can okay great well good well thank you Arno good morning everyone as Arno mentioned I will present the three policy brief papers that we prepared as part of the project and if we go to the first slide we could see the the authors here so we looked at success stories of circular ecotechnologies in the Baltic Sea region with one each and each of the key the project catchments on the authors I'd love to recognize the authors here starting myself Karina and Arno were on all three briefs but in Finland we were joined by Yari Koskiaho in Circa Tatari for the Finnish paper in Poland with Marek Giljevitz Giljevski and Andrei Voidovitz joined us and Andrei Frömsloop Waterworks itself which we'll talk about and in Sweden by Ole Olsen and Kasper Trimmer joined us on the Swedish paper next slide thanks so the first paper is a very interesting developing project in Finland the role of gypsum soil amendments in reducing coastal nutrient runoff in Finland so we all know phosphorus runoff from agricultural fields in southern Finland is the greatest threat to water quality in this part of the Baltic Sea in many many parts of the Baltic Sea and at decades of attempts of traditional farmer best management practices to reduce this pollution have by traditional methods have proven inadequate so this new opportunity uses gypsum waste originally now from the process of phosphorus mining the leftover waste as a soil amendment on fields literally spreading gypsum on fields to improve soil structure and therefore improve the retention of phosphorus and preventing runoff and in early pilots over the last few years what we found was that reduced phosphorus and sediment runoff from pollution from fields by 50 percent this practice is showing a 50 percent reduction in runoff of phosphorus slightly slight reductions in demand for virgin mine phosphorus so there's so much although there's so much virgin mine phosphorus happening it's hard to make a dent in that but it is requiring less use of virgin mine phosphorus and it's getting rid of an industrial waste the most of the pilots in Finland to date have used waste from a Yara plant producing phosphorus of mine and so that's where the source of the gypsum has been next slide so the impact and some recommendations for further action the potential impact here is very promising it's looking like viable it's a viable nutrient reduction technique for 4 540 000 hectares or a quarter of all arable land in Finland and this map if you can see here in the brown mustard brown yellow color shows all of the fields where this technique may be applied so it really is quite far reaching moreover if this practice was applied to similar coastal farmlands in Sweden Denmark and Poland the amount of phosphorus load prevented from the Baltic is about 10 percent of the total amount recommended the total load reduction recommended by Helcom so you can see a lot of why a lot of people are excited by the application of this idea as an early idea it risks a number of factors of getting started too fast in all the excitement over the idea I think the first recommendation we had was that it requires a national plan in Finland to promote and integrate this practice into the agricultural support scheme beginning to start having the government think about how to provide subsidies to farmers to cover the cost of gypsum use and when you think about application beyond Finland in particular amendments are needed to the EU common agricultural policy to promote this practice and there's a good opportunity coming up in 2021 with the next amendments to that process and lastly just additional research is needed all over the Baltic countries you don't want to rush into something too quickly where it's not being looked at case by case in other areas with other soil types and other watersheds so we think other Baltic countries should be looking at this the second brief and Nelson's presentation just prior here was very helpful the second one looked at the implication of new national policies on the management of sewage sludge in Uppsala so we looked at the issue mentioned a number of times today about the 2018 Swedish government inquiry on looking at a ban on sewage sludge and the January 2020 inquiry findings came out right as we were putting this policy brief together the thing was a moving target in a lot of ways but made for a very rich discussion the two alternatives we've talked about a complete ban or a limited ban with more standards on what can be in the sludge before application I think this brief looked at specifically how does that affect a community like Uppsala which has invested heavily in reuse and is a leader in the revac program and is considered a frontrunner in sustainability policies in many ways how does this policy affect them next slide so I think the overarching thing is that as Sweden moves forward with the national policy directives they need to slow down enough to involve municipalities and the users who will be the primary funders so they are very much involved in the planning and I think from from all of our perspective and what we're hearing from many people is option number two whereby sewage sludge application is still allowed on farmland but under stricter quality standards is more preferable for a number of circular economy goals than a total ban because we want to protect the successful upstream source reduction efforts of programs like revac you don't want the move away from sewage sludge use to allow for looser upstream pollution control so that's an important thing to preserve here in this transition obviously municipalities need time to implement these changes and we thought it's important everybody's thinking about phosphorus the demand for phosphorus in the sewage sludge but you know sewage sludge has a range of societal values particularly the benefit of organic matter and sludge which is lost in a lot of the incineration alternative technologies you want to be able to look at not just phosphorus but organic waste and other other values of sludge so that was the Swedish case and last one was a very interesting cluster in and sloops in on the northern coast of Poland the sloops bioenergy cluster is a new paradigm for local circular economy in renewable waste and renewable energy and waste recycling so the sloop bioenergy cluster this year reaches a very interesting milestone where it will turn on its distribution system and link 20 businesses with a network of city facilities 40 000 electricity users 120 000 wastewater customers in an innovative renewable energy sharing and waste recycling system basically the sloops wastewater treatment plant the municipal plant receives waste in the form of sewage and compost materials from businesses and residents of this municipality and turns that around into electricity heat fertilizer sludge based fertilizer a number of products that put energy in waste waste in and produce energy out next slide as an early leader this project is is exposing a lot of policy and regulatory changes that are needed to advance more decentralized energy waste reuse systems in the Baltic region first off the severely the very strongly locked in position of fossil fuel energy companies presents really serious challenges sloops has had to build this entire system independent of the main grid so they are laying their own distribution lines for electricity because they were not allowed to share lines with the fossil fuel providers which are primarily still coal so in order to do this they are doing this all on the side of the traditional system which is extremely inefficient and discourages further investments like this we found that all levels of government can do more to stimulate these kind of cooperation platforms things like tax incentives for energy producers to integrate waste recycling in their processes sloops is laying a path for how this can get done in lots of communities but government can do a lot more to stimulate that cooperation and just as in the sludge case and in the finish case better EU regulations and in this case the red two directive which eases the scale up of decentralized local based models like sloops those would be very helpful here so with that we were very fortunate to have a wonderful experts in each of the catchments working on these cases with us and I guess from there I'm turning it over to them Arna great great thank you Mark full of energy that's really good so I'm going to actually do it backwards because you just presented the Polish case with the sloops bioenergy cluster and I'm going to ask Mark a little question that about the challenges that the the bioenergy cluster had was facing during the implementation and if you can tell us some of the inside stories about that hi hi everybody I think it was a bit sad at the end of the Mark's presentation yeah the those challenges so the cluster of course it's technically and the idea it's pretty important but I think what is interesting about that that it happened now that this is kind of a pioneer initiative and without some innovators like like the sloops wastewater treatment plant it wouldn't happen yeah so so so one of the challenges at least in our situation in such case it's to have a strong innovator somebody with a vision that that that likes to carry out such such investment and and then of course that some of the main challenges is that this is new and it's not recognized so so so actions that were necessary to establish and carry on this this this cluster it requires new actions and for instance this kind of the major obstacle of traditional energy companies not willing to cooperate yeah they simply neglected such initiative they didn't cooperate even with the small small things that requires for instance building own grid network to connect all the partners in this cluster so so so that there were I mean quite many challenges practical and also legal yeah that that that that it was the initiative that was not recognized that never happened happened before okay thank you for that just a little teeny question with a very teeny little answer question is what's the energy system in this in this project is it anaerobic digestion or incineration it is anaerobic digestion that's by our guests okay that's great so I'm gonna actually then they go to the the second presentation that Mark gave and I'll be asking all the Olson who's in charge of the pheros on the Swedish case study so only there's a lot of discussions in Sweden around whether or not sludge should be used as a fertilizer I think Nelson was was talking about that but is this a new discussion in Sweden well you can say that the discussion is pretty much a sold us civilization itself because I was reading up on some background research and it turns out some people who are claiming that one reason why China for example has been a political entity for thousands of years is that it's it had that this long established tradition of using human waste as fertilizer in comparison with Europe where it's just some sort of waiting back and forth over those centuries but which it still is in a way because if you just take the Swedish example right now Nelson was alluding to and Mark as well is this governmental investigation that was released in January and which is it's been out for public consultation and you know you think well it's a public it's a governmental investigation well that seems like a big thing but I think it's actually the third of those investigation this particular topic in only the last two decades and so it's it's this issue that keeps going around around so where do you think this inquiry is going to land I mean can you can you make a prediction I can't I was looking through the the responses from the public consultations this morning and it's pretty much a lot of a lot of different opinions from different stakeholders and you know taking a step back it's interesting if you're a researcher to see well there's a lot of interesting issues here to analyze in terms of risk perception and so on but if you take the innovation perspective if you're an entrepreneur or or a company or a municipality wanting to invest in solutions this is obviously a really big obstacle in terms of policy uncertainty and you know how do how do we you know position ourselves to whatever the rules going to be okay it's not that easy I'm going to move out now to Finland where we started and it's you know it's about this very innovative idea of trying to trap phosphorus in the soil by using gypsum which is this product from a phosphorus extraction so Yari what are the next steps then in this development in Finland well of course I hope that this this method of gypsum application will will be it will be given a green light in terms of policies in both EU and national level because as Mark Mark just presented it's very very effective way of of reducing phosphorus and quite quickly but in terms of this Vantanjoki project where they have spread this gypsum there will be starting a project in Suke that in that project they will very likely to assemble new automatic measurement devices in in Pitkäkoski in Vantanjoki and those devices will be including dissolved phosphorus analyzer which is using this passive sampler principle and this is just downstream of large gypsum amendments that have been made in Vantanjoki and if that will happen so that these devices will be built there we will be able to verify the effects of these amendments gypsum amendments more reliably and more versatility than with the old devices and another interesting thing is that in this Vantanjoki gypsum project they are planning to test natural gypsum this is like Mark just said this gypsum that is now used is a product of Yara it's kind of industrial product and it doesn't mean to meet the standards of organic production so if this natural gypsum proved to be viable so also organic farmers can spread this gypsum onto their fields I'm sorry for this connection I know Ludwig Hermann on his online he's asking is this actually a real option or is it I mean is it going to actually be is it an experiment or is it really going to take off you mean this gypsum application or this device I think it's not an experiment anymore it's very very largely used in Finland now in in archipelagosy and Gulf of Finland and we are very very anxious to see what's the actual effect and if we have these new measurement monitoring devices so we will be able to verify the effects fantastic okay I'm rushing along here and I thank you all four of you for this little session thank you Mark for the presentation as well we're going to go to Uppsala University and it's Steven Bachelder who's an expert on playing to learn and he's going to actually walk us through some really interesting gaming serious gaming procedures here to see if we can learn something about what we've been talking about today so I hand it over to you Steven okay thank you so what I'll be looking at is just showing you a brief sort of walkthrough of the game and some of the mechanics and things like that but before I begin I just need to explain that this was a deliverable work package six and task 6.2 with my colleagues from Uppsala University Neil Powell and Taoudo so what we've used here is a term a serious game system which is a little bit different from a serious game in as much as it's not prescriptive but rather it's investigative so so we're looking at dynamic systems and assist the dynamics of these systems through explorative play so in this sense we're using it to provide a safe a creative and inclusive learning space for the stakeholders that invite for deliberation over the visibility and of the different constellations of the ecotechnologies and developments so by having stakeholders use this and using their their perspectives choices and actions we can actually test some different constellations and viabilities of these so if you move the next slide yeah so here's here's what's met or what players meets as the as the objectives to the game so and it's to reduce nutrient emissions from land use systems while optimizing the product the productivity of these systems so you have resources with which you purchase ecotechnologies and developments and then you make constellations of these and see how they play against each other in as much as the data from the data coming in from the other work packages and what we know about the catchment areas and the flows of nutrients so the middle area there represents the Baltic Sea and you have two teams one that's indigo on the left and on the right you have a zoo and each one of these have catchment areas that are identical to each other um and they also in the middle have a shared a shared zone I'm actually trying to point to my screen here I see that didn't work um and there are these two areas in the middle of the Baltic Sea where the ownership is not really clear so it's sort of first come first serve because we do know that borders sometimes are contested and and sometimes it is there's there's dynamics in the system as to who who owns what and who's able to do what and and what the impacts of those might be so this is where the one of those aspects where the stakeholders and the players of this game have to negotiate or find themselves in conflict um we go to the next slide and you'll see that there's um three land use areas apart from the Baltic and it's the the forest the urban and the agriculture and these were weighted with different nutrient flows in the game and fed into the game systems so if you were playing the the finished version of the Swedish version or the Polish version those numbers would be different as the the flows going through the system you can take the next slide um then we're looking at the flows I think you'll see that um what we've done here is there's flows coming into the systems or into the tiles respectively and then those flows ultimately run into the Baltic Sea um yeah you can go to the next slide and this is what the game looks like and then okay so here's a here's what the white the white arrows represent the flows so there's different places here where you can put developments on the the hexagons towards the outer rim and on the inner rim there are equotechnologies so the idea is that they neutralize one another and that the the nutrients in the flows can be used as a positive um element in some of the developments or in some of the eco developments which we have as well the red arrows signify the flows of the nutrients themselves so if you go to the next slide and and stop there for a moment you'll see the the little items in the playing field to the left bottom those are developments and they're generating a lot of nutrients and the nutrients go through the flow um yeah thanks the nutrients go through the flow and then they run into the Baltic Sea now if there's no equotechnologies there the the flow is it's unfiltered it just continues straight out but as you'll see there's plenty of opportunity to put other items on those locations to reduce those flows or to use those flows as a resource um you could go to the next um thing so we had two different versions of this the the the whole idea of a serious gain system is you go from a dialogue a conversation about systemic properties that concern stakeholders and you go from from dialogue to uh rich pictures and then to increasingly systemic representations of how their agency as stakeholders impact or able to impact the Baltic Sea and and what affordances they have in their roles as stakeholders what what does the system allow for them to do and how do they use that one way of doing that is to increasingly um solidify a systemic representation through play so the first um the first versions of the board game were learning about having a serious game system as a foundation upon which the stakeholders would play and then start to design their equotechnologies and their developments and rate them as in accordance of what they thought the the properties were for the respective uh respective pieces and the interesting thing was that they they did discuss this and this is in Sweden and um they they did some not always agree and it was interesting when they came in in disagreement and uh another interesting thing was to see the stakeholders in play actually really uh wanting to win it was important for them to win now this if you look at this slide just a minute um these are some of the the equotechnologies that were proposed by the stakeholders as being important to this particular group of stakeholders uh what we saw from the different sessions uh in the different catchment areas and also in the different stakeholders that there was lots of overlapping but there was there was differences and nuances uh within the way that they approached these equal technologies so it was interesting to see and this was reflected also in the the reports coming in from the other stake uh the other work packages is that there was a considerable amount of overlapping but not always so when we went from the board games we had to systemize all of these um and give them a numerical assign them numerical values on the basis of um a collection of data coming in from the work packages as well as the the stakeholders is what they how they felt what what was reasonable uh and these were compiled into um uh excel sheets they couldn't take the next slide and then these stakeholders were represented systemically in the in the digital version of the game now the nice nice thing about the digital version there's there's two versions here in the the board game first um the board game the nice thing about the board game was that the stakeholders themselves were had a wealth of knowledge which they could provide at all times and they had a depth of experience that they could pull from when questions arose um the problem with with doing real time calculations in a board game this complex is that the mathematics take up a considerable amount of the time and then you have to simplify to make the game playable which that might reduce the fidelity of the representation whereas in a digital game like this all the mathematics are done automatically but it's very mechanical there's there's not an intuitive uh interpretive um space so these are some of the ecotechnologies that could be chosen you can go through them to the next slide now we also had shocks in the system and these could be uh droughts or floods um and um this is uh this is a flood shock in the system and I think shortly we'll see a film of what this actually looks like um so before we do that so you on this you click on the actual and there's an interface where you actually purchase your ecotechnologies and then place them on the board uh not unlike Monopoly but much more uh dynamic so in here you um if you go back yeah there okay you see the top there is um a score there's a whole bunch of barcode codes up up at the front or sliders now those are for the resources of the players respectively the value of their assets so how much is how much have you accumulated in value and then the emissions that are produced um how many emissions are being reduced how many emissions are being transformed so emissions can can have be transformed by ecotechnologies as well and then how many emissions are being released into the Baltic Sea now the score is an accumulation of those uh parameters so the um the score detail slider is is who's winning whether it's indigo or a sewer on the basis of how the developments are progressing while at the same time um they're turning nutrients uh into resources can take the next one um these are the um the different rewards also so there's a series of rewards that the players can get and that's if their constellations have achieved certain things within the stgs so um this is in innovation and infrastructure and those um eco constellations ecotechnology constellations that achieve these means um provide goals and rewards for the players which sort of uh furthers their score so you can take the next I think we'll see yeah uh next slide and this is a little film I'll be quiet you can turn up the volume you can hear this is fire so what happened here was the ones that are yellow those need to be re re replaced or rejuvenated or repaired so it's so you're sort of also leveraging costs and vulnerabilities uh for different system shocks so this means that by listing all the vulnerabilities from the respective developments or eco shocks and sort of having a statistical norm of those system shocks one is also able to test this but in a game perspective like this we have a uh an exaggerated number of system shocks they're um they're above and beyond so and this is also able for the players to to um to influence if they like they can have a very high rate um or have a very very low rate depending on how that's the difficulty setting for the play now you can take the next slide yeah so that's that's basically um the presentation of the game itself it can be played up this link they're on the bonus return uh program under serious game system and monitor eco tech and it would be interesting if if some of you tested it and gave some feedback on it um yeah it would be good for us to hear that it's great Steven thank you for that we have a couple of questions regarding whether the digital version is available online and um whether players can uh get involved and play this game um uh whether they whether they can do it themselves or does it need to be facilitated yeah good questions um the first one is it is available online with this link so so it's just to use this link and and it's on the bonus return home page and the other one is it it it is sort of built to facilitate a process of dialogue but it can be played alone and and there are learning outcomes to be had and it and it it's not entirely unfun um and it's not entirely unscientific it's it's but it's not entirely scientific it's not entirely fun uh in the way that serious games are they're they're they're both uh and neither if you will um but but I've I've had a group of quite young um experienced game players play it and they they played it for hours and and didn't give it up so so I think the playability of us it is it's quite fun but it's it's to be played by two people sitting next to each other in dialogue so you can talk to each other so I think that's the only thing that's a little bit like playing chess in the same room rather than online against each other so you should have the same shared location what about that um shocks can they can you choose a shock for example let's say if there's a drastic change in and governments and one of the countries such that people are not going to pay taxes for this kind of thing um you can do that in a board game version because you have the capacity to sort of change or bend the rules and have that dialogue around it but the there are a limitation on the digital games and that's that because it's all you know it's it's a computational system so if that particular system shock isn't isn't built into the system then you won't really be able to enact it so in that sense the the the digital systems are are more limited if you will but they're more accurate in what they represent it's going to be exciting so I thank you Stephen for that and we're going to keep going here on the last part of the agenda then is we're going to go back to Karina Barquette and she is going to give us some conclusions from the project and also some recommendations please over to you Karina thank you Anna we can go to the next slide so we've heard about three hours of what bonus withdrawn has done uh just to sort of synthesize what we've done through these three years is to provide evidence of ecotechnologies in agriculture and wastewater we've explored how robust different ecotechnologies are against a range of criteria within health and hygiene environment economy social cultural issues and technical function we've also also explored the policy market and technical barriers for circular solutions we've supported three innovators and along the way we've learned quite a lot from them so thank you for that we've developed tools for stakeholder engagement next slide please but there is quite a lot to find out bonus withdrawn is just a little stone in the whole sea of research in the region and next slide please we've tried to synthesize some of the discussions that we had in our most recent and final workshop called blue mission mission blue into three overarching themes what is left what do we think is left to get us a bit closer to closing the loop in terms of future research and policy and this is not an exhaustive list I'm sure there's many other things that one could find out but this is at least what came out of our own research first thing is that we need to inform the vision that we are aiming at which is a Baltic sea unaffected by pollution for these we need better understanding of hot spots which is the areas at land coasts and the sea where much measures could be more effective as well as the combinations of measures that can prove more effective for reducing and recycling nutrients and carbon we also need longer term studies in agriculture to better assess plant uptake of hazardous substances and microplastics but also to inform the development of future circular fertilizers within wastewater we need to try longer time periods our cost-benefit assessments our sustainability assessments they need to need to try beyond the 30 year threshold that we usually use in studies and account for environmental externalities we hear increasingly the role that cloud-based technologies are going to have for monitoring existing utilities but we need to explore further how cloud-based technologies could be used for diversifying solutions both at the end of the pipe as well as at the source Policies studies need to explore different scenarios to regulate fertilizers fertilizer levels farm size and composition which are better adapted to local realities and these needs to inform the common agricultural policy and the farm-to-fork strategy a second cluster of things that we need to do or let's say if we look at this as in a chronological order is we need to align the vision with capacities so through bonus so through bonus return we realize that some of the greatest challenges lie in the means of implementation rather than in the development of ecotechnologies per se we know about existing and upcoming ecotechnologies as we heard but there's a general lack of capacity to procure for system solutions there are numerous active initiatives to collaborate across borders and across sectors but many of this would benefit from greater orchestration we need to investigate further into what the right ways of organizing might be for example should we go for integral versus modular organization or how to integrate agile principles into rolling out innovations and when is cross-sectional collaboration most efficient innovation and business development that explores how future partnerships for instance in utility provision could look like from a circular approach are much needed in this business plans for business development we need to identify what roles different actors have and how these partnerships relate to the increasing importance of big data and cloud-based technologies a last cluster is turning the vision into action we need to move away from linear to circular but this requires approaching nutrients from a more solution oriented perspective and not only prohibition which is what held come and let's say this strategy for the Baltic Sea has focused on mostly and this is particularly important in the sectors which have most potential for recovering nutrients and carbon we heard that we need to shift mindsets but we also need to shift legislation and create incentives away from only reducing and towards creating more effective system of systems of use and reuse we also need to shift focus away from ad hoc investment such as single-purpose infrastructure and instead start developing general purpose and cross-sectional technologies and in practice this could look like this could look something like looking at how wastewater treatment plants could be a source or providers of raw materials for future fertilizers rather than seeing them as treatment plants we need more knowledge on the functioning of the entire value chain and the actors and responsibilities in a circular mode of operation and this includes better understanding of consumers attitudes including changing diets the role that food imports versus increased food production nationally may play in the accumulation of nutrients, cadmium and hazardous substances but also how this could respond to concerns of food security so I hope you're still hanging in there after this for a long seminar and this is sort of my wrap up before I hand before I hand back over to Arna I perhaps want to also thank everybody we can move to the next slide who has been involved in this project and obviously our financers our partners and all the stakeholders in the region thank you for these three years and I hand over to you Arna. Okay thank you Karina and I mean there's probably more questions than answers when it comes to the Baltic Sea it's probably the most studied inland marine area in the world and still we have questions about why the blue green algae are still there year after year after year I think we're getting closer to understanding it and also to fixing it and I think that's the message and for those of you that aren't aware there will be some interesting meetings to discuss these questions and others at the meeting in Finland next month and it's really to discuss the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region which is going to be renewed and updated so hopefully some of the things coming out of bonus return will be tabled and some of the learning so it's really then to thank you for participating thank you for the people that logged in and listened right to the end provided some of the questions we thank again our partners for their interest and engagement in this final meeting we hope that you you found this meeting useful it's not over you will be seeing other related projects coming down the tubes from all the partners and if you go to their websites you'll see that as well as the SCI website and I know that a lot of the bonus websites seem to kind of disappear and I'm going to make sure that the bonus return website doesn't you will always be able to go back to it for several years to come and access the publications when you need to so on that basis I think there's one more picture here isn't it it's a kind of a just a bit of a seascape I want to thank Ian Caldwell for all of the technical support today and for those of you that don't know there are several of the attendees sitting in a hotel in Saltwa Bodin and in the archipelago of Stockholm so thank you for risking your health and you managed I think to make it right to the end everybody's on time and so my hat which is not on goes off to all of you and I thank you all and you have a very good evening and take care bye bye thank you enjoy very well thank you thank you thank you thank you