REPORT. Nordic Water Framework Conference 2017 Towards a better implementation of the WFD from a Nordic perspective

Transcription

1 REPORT 2018 Nordic Water Framework Conference 2017 Towards a better implementation of the WFD from a Nordic perspective

2 COLOPHON Executive institution The Norwegian Environment Agency Project manager for the contractor n/a Contact person in the Norwegian Environment Agency Kerry Maria Agustsson M-no Year Pages Contract number n/a Publisher The Norwegian Environment Agency The project is funded by The Norwegian Environment Agency and the Nordic Council of Ministers Author(s) Editor: Karry Maria Agustsson. Text contributions from all relevant speakers in this report. Title Norwegian and English Konferanserapport den 8. Nordiske vanndirektiv konferansen Conference report the 8th Nordic Water Framework Directive Conference Summary sammendrag The conference took place on the 13th-15th of September in Trondheim, Norway. The first day was an open conference day with presentations from invited speakers on several topics, including the status of water management in the Nordic countries, examples from good practices and examples of new tools and management practices that have been developed. The second day of the conference was dedicated to workshops covering several topics of interest for harmonization and cooperation between the Nordic countries, such as classification, data management, nutrients, aquaculture and hydro-morphological pressures. The final day of the conference was spent on an excursion to the salmon river Nidelva in Trondheim to learn about the challenges of protecting fish populations in an urban area, and a visit to a river restoration project in the Hofstad elva. 4 emneord 4 subject words Nordisk samarbeid, vanndirektivet, vannforskriften, Vanndirektiv konferanser, Nordisk Ministerråd Nordic cooperation, Water Framework Directive, WFD conferences, Nordic Council of Ministers Front page photo Nidelva Trondheim - Lise Sørensen (also responsible for other photos in this report)

3 Content The Water Framework Directive is a big boost for our water environment... 4 Water Management: from the global to the national, regional and local level... 4 The European Perspective and the Austrian Experience... 5 I. National Overview of WFD implementation... 7 II. Exchange of good practices Ecological Quality Criteria - Compilation of Nordic data on fresh water quality Harmonisation of nutrient standards in Europe (freshwater) Model usability and Roadmap for models supporting river basin management planning Improved implementation of Swedish RBMP by LIFE-IP Rich Waters Synergies between measures for adaptation, mitigation and improved water quality III. New tools and management principles Applying environmental flow in Finland Updates on progress towards common understanding of HMWBs and ecological potential 13 Examples of tools produced for water managers related to hydropower Report from WG 1: Water pollution issues and priority substances Report from WG 2: Hydromorphological alterations Report from WG 3: Delineation of water bodies, typology, grouping and classification Report from WG 4: Data management and open data for water management Report from WG 5: Aquaculture Report from WG 6: Nutrient standards Interviews with participants... 24

4 Towards a better implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Nordic countries The eighth Nordic Water Framework Directive Conference took place in Trondheim, Norway from the 13 th -15 th of September. There conference gathered over 100 participants, with representatives from both the European, national, regional and local level, including the ministries in Finland, Norway, Austria and Estonia, national agencies and institutes from Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Regional and local water authorities, such as county governor offices, county councils and representatives from municipalities also participated. The first day of the conference was an open day for both management, research and nongovernmental organizations, while day two and three were for public management representatives. The first day of the conference offered presentations on several topics from various countries, among others the exchange of good practices and new tools and management principles. On the second day of the conference, workshops were held covering several topics of interest for harmonization and cooperation between the Nordic countries. The final day of the conference was spent on an excursion to the salmon river Nidelva, which runs through Trondheim, to hear more about the challenges experienced when conserving fish populations in an urban area. A visit to a river restoration project in the Hofstad river was also included. The conference offered a meeting place to share experiences and best practices, discuss mutual challenges and possible solutions and future cooperation, as well as building networks. Many of the Nordic countries experience several of the same challenges, and the possibility to meet in person and discuss shared issues to find common positions in a European context are important. We would like to thank the programme committee, the speakers and the participants for taking the time to participate in this year's conference, and contributing to a successful and useful meeting. An overview of Nordic collaboration about WFD and previous Nordic WFD reports can be downloaded from this website: The program for the conference has been developed in collaboration between the Norwegian Environment Agency, the Finnish Environment Institute, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Environment Agency of Iceland and the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food. Programme committee: Kerry Maria Agustsson, Anders Iversen, Hege Sangolt and Jo H. Halleraker, the Norwegian Environment Agency Anneli Harlén, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Milla Mäenpää, the Finnish Environment Institute Sigurrós Friðriksdóttir and Aðalbjörg Birna Guttormsdóttir, the Environment Agency of Iceland Steen Pedersen and Ivan Karottki, the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food The Nordic Council of Ministers supports the Nordic WFD conference 2017.

5 Day 1 of the conference - 13th of September The Water Framework Directive is a big boost for our water environment Ellen Hambro, the director of the Norwegian Environment Agency opened the conference and welcomed the participants to Trondheim. In 2016, the first River Basin Management Plans covering the whole country were approved, which will lead to an improved environmental status for our water environment in Norway. Norway has a long history of managing international river basins with Finland and Sweden, and Nordic cooperation continues to be useful and important. "As Norway is not an EU member state, it is crucial for us to have close cooperation with our neighbouring member states regarding the development of European water legislation, especially in the upcoming review of the Water Framework Directive" said Ellen. The Nordic countries have many common issues and challenges, and it has proved very useful to meet and share the experiences and examples, and develop cooperation and strategies together. Since 2007, there has been a series of conferences, and this year we can celebrate ten years of Nordic cooperation on the Water Framework Directive. Water Management: from the global to the national, regional and local level Jakob Granit, the Director General of the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management put the work with improving our waters in a global perspective. Transboundary and international waters mean our challenges are global, and require global level responses. Many issues, such as water scarcity, climate change, water storage, sanitation and lack of access to safe water and marine debris mean that we need to change the way that we produce and consume goods and services. How can we address these issues in our daily work, and use modern technology to solve these problems? One of the interesting approaches to incorporation of global solutions in our everyday work is starting at the (water) source to save the sea. "Regional governance is key to manage transboundary water resources", said Jakob. This requires linking state and non-state actors at various levels over time, providing frameworks for multi-country cooperation, and ensuring political commitment and different regional 'scales'. The Water Framework Directive provides the framework for this kind of cooperation.

6 One of the nexus' in Sweden is between hydropower, environment and socio-cultural values. A fund has been established to support work on review and mitigation, which will hopefully be supported by a legal Act. Another challenge is marine spatial planning how can we connect spatial planning on land with water management plans. Lastly, it is important to remember that we are not only managing water resources, we are also a part of a green and blue growth strategy. The European Perspective and the Austrian Experience Karl Schwaiger, acting Water Director, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management focused on the EU Water Framework Directive and current activities, in particular the Commission s compliance assessment and the efforts of the European Environment Agency to draft a report on the status and pressures of Europe s waters. In addition, lessons from the Austrian experience with the WFD and River Basin Management Plans were presented, where focus is on hydromorphological shortcomings, as these are the main pressure for failing to achieve good status in Austria. The Commission s compliance assessment and work by EEA on the forthcoming report on the state of Europe s waters should be seen as a first stepping stone towards the evaluation and review of the Water Framework Directive and the set of EU water legislation. Areas of key interest to COM are the status of WFD implementation; are the RBMP compliant with the provisions of WFD; what progress has been achieved; and have the recommendations provided by COM to MS been considered appropriately; are there any good practice examples; is there a need for new recommendations? The results of the COM s assessment will be published mid-2018 and presented in a European Water Conference. The final report will feed in directly to the review process of the WFD. A proposal to amend the Directive may not be expected before the end of 2021, as a new Commission as well as a new European Parliament will be in place by the end of The WFD will be subject to a review with an entire set of other water directives, among others the Floods Directive (2019), the Drinking Water Directive (ongoing), and the Bathing Water Directive (2020). The Austrian RBMP has recently been published. The main pressure for not reaching good ecological status are hydromorphological alterations - 57 % of the river network is failing good ecological status due to these alterations and 30 % of our river network has been subject of significant hydromorphological alterations in the recent two centuries. There are around obstacles for fish migration in place, resulting from flood protection works as well as from hydropower. Due to this, the Austrian programme of measures focuses mainly on hydromorphology. In total more than 1000 barriers to fish migration have been removed, 250 measures to improve river

7 morphology have been set; in 200 river stretches flow conditions have been improved. Those measures have not yet led to good ecological status in all the impacted water bodies, but are seen as prerequisite to achieve good status in the forthcoming cycles. Monitoring has demonstrated that in many cases fish population is going to recover in terms of number of individuals as well as with regard to return of type specific fish species. The hydropower sector has set more than 133 measures costing 190 million euros between 2009 and A non-exhaustive list has been published by the sector providing details on the solutions taken as well as on costs. The report is available in German and English: umgesetzte-massnahmen-der-oesterreichischen-wasserkraft.html. "Efforts to mitigate impacts of the thousands of hydromorphological alterations will continue in future, but if we want to keep the level of ambition- we will have to go beyond 2027", said Karl.

8 I. National Overview of WFD implementation Petri Liljaniemi, Senior Officer, Ministry of Environment of Finland In Finland, there have been some changes at regional level, including moving the responsibility for producing the River Basin Management Plans from the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment to the provincial administrations. The River Basin Management Plans for the eight Finnish river basins were approved at the end of The programmes of measures were scaled to a more realistic level, especially for diffuse pollution. Finland expects to have quite a good status of implementation by the end of The update of management plans will be as lightly as possible, as there will be more focus on the implementation of the programmes of measures. There will be no changes to characterization, and no changes to principles of classification. There will however be new principles and criteria for significant pressures and risk assessment, and new guidance for grouping of water bodies. The first public hearing will be , along with Marine Strategy Plan. Finland will also start to merge data registers for the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. By promoting web solutions and focusing on open data, we hope to raise awareness among the public and stakeholder groups, and encourage public participation. Many lessons have been learnt from the last planning cycle. Some of the weaknesses identified include a lack of consolidation with the planning cycle for the MSFD, challenges in completing many public hearings, and issues with chemical status. However, many strengths were also identified, including cooperation and the catchment-based approach, monitoring, etc. Marie Berghult, Head of Marine and Water Administration, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden has focused on improving some of the action points from the European Commission, which stated that 'business as usual' monitoring is not an option, how Sweden can design the next River Basin Management Plans to ensure a better link between pressures and measures, and enduring that article 4.7 is fully implemented. The government is currently reviewing how environmental monitoring is organised, what it should cover and how the different parts should be funded. A special investigator has been

9 appointed, Åsa Romson, former Minister for Climate and Environment. The aim of the investigation is to get a clear distribution of responsibilities for environmental monitoring, a more effective use of resources, and increased accessibility to collected environmental information. A report will be ready in SwAM has the responsibility for setting up programmes of measures for the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. For the next planning period we want to focus on co-planning, to ensure action. National authorities are responsible for national regulations and developing guidance, which local authorities use in planning local measures. Regarding the application of art. 4.7., there have been challenges with a lack of coherence, as there is different interpretation between decision-making bodies, environmental courts and water district authorities. There is an ongoing review of current legislation. New knowledge and tools have been developed in the WFD work, and many achievements have been made. However, challenges remain, including balancing different interests, especially different environmental interests. Cooperation between local knowledge and government is very important, especially regarding the implementation of the programmes of measures. Kristín Linda Árnadóttir, Director, Icelandic Environment Agency The Environmental Agency is responsible for the management of water bodies, and oversees and coordinates the work. Implementation began in Iceland has had reduced WFD work for a few years, due to a reduced budget since In 2017, the work was fully financed again, but this was not soon enough to meet the WFD deadlines. Iceland aims to be in line by the third planning cycle. One of the lessons learned from period without funding is that it is difficult to re-initiate dialogue with municipalities, and knowledge and expertise has been lost. Now that Iceland is back on track, we need to focus on the most important issues. This includes wastewater treatment, which has increased lately due to increased tourism, aquaculture and hydropower. There is a big interest in increasing production of aquaculture, and this may have played a part in increasing awareness and interest in WFD, as it requires knowing more about the water we are going to use for production. New emerging issues include micro plastic in drinking water, circular economy, food safety and plastic in oceans.

10 Anders Iversen, National Water Coordinator, Norwegian Environment Agency River Basin Management Plans for all of Norway were approved by the Government in June of 2016 and are now being implemented. Almost 64 % of Norway's water bodies are in high or good status, with more than 76 % expected to reach good status by The pressures that impact on the highest number of water bodies are hydropower, acid rain, runoff from agriculture and scattered, houses, and invasive species. Less stringent objectives have been set for a significant proportion of Norway's Heavily Modified Water Bodies. Governance arrangements for sector integration include local catchment and river basin district Water Boards, and national agency and ministry Coordination Committees. The municipalities are the important authority for water services and land use planning. The catchment level is also important for activating public participation, local experience and historical knowledge. A substantial effort is being put into information and dissemination with a national Water Portal, national Water management Conferences and Restoration Seminars, and information material. Ongoing measures against pollution include a national plan for liming to mitigate acidification, a national action plan for polluted sediments, review of pollution permits including new monitoring requirements, basic and supplementary measures in agriculture, and several municipal plans to clean up sewage from scattered housing. Measures being implemented to mitigate hydromorphological pressures include a national plan for revision of hydropower licenses including assessment of possible introduction of minimum flow requirements, ecological mitigation measures in regulated rivers, and road culvert improvements to enhance fish migration.

11 II. Exchange of good practices Ecological Quality Criteria - Compilation of Nordic data on fresh water quality Jens Fölster, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences presented the WATERS project - Waterbody Assessment Tools for Ecological Reference conditions and status in Sweden. The projects objective was to develop and improve the assessment criteria that are used to classify the status of Swedish coastal and inland waters in accordance with the EC Water Framework Directive. WATERS focused particularly on the biological quality elements used in water quality assessments, i.e., macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, and fish; in streams, benthic diatoms are also considered. The research programme has also refined the criteria used for integrated assessments of ecological water status. There is a need to make better EQC for lakes and larger streams. Class boundaries then have to be recalibrated and harmonized with values for coastal waters. Harmonisation with Nordic countries will be the next step, and the project has decided to compile all Nordic data (Sweden, Finland and Norway). A database should be ready by 31. December. Other planned further joint projects include revisiting the classification of acidification and critical load for acidification. Current methods give different results in Norway and Sweden. If we work together, we could make better maps that show seamless measurement across the border and could be given to the Commission. Harmonisation of nutrient standards in Europe (freshwater) Anne Lyche Solheim, the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Nutrient standards should support good ecological status for the biological quality elements. Due to large investments in nutrient pollution over the recent decades, there is an impression that nutrient pollution no longer is a problem. However, research shows that this is not the case, and nutrient pollution affects one third of all water bodies and % of all water bodies where at least one BQE is moderate or worse. Harmonisation of nutrient standards is therefore a key activity in ECOSTATs work programme. Nutrient standards in different countries have been compiled and compared, revealing huge differences in values and approaches. The boundaries between good and moderate status for

12 nutrients are highly variable, and for some of the Nordic countries do not even overlap. The challenge is especially big for rivers. Best Practice Guidance and statistical toolkits for setting nutrient boundaries that are compatible with good ecological status are being developed. Highlighting differences between countries is an essential part of pushing for development, and this topic should be a compliance issue for the Commission. Model usability and Roadmap for models supporting river basin management planning Turo Hjerppe, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). There is a wide range of models and assessment tools available for the river basin management. However, at least in Finland, there is still lack in uptake of the model results in the planning process due to some conflicting interests. For example, the resources needed for modeling are limited, but at the same time, the assessments should be based on scientifically rigorous models with minimized uncertainties, which is resource consuming. In order to foster the use of decision support systems in the river basin management we propose a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based framework for evaluating the usability of models and assessment tools in the river basin management planning. In the research of science-policy interfaces, three attributes credibility, relevance and legitimacy have been identified regarding the effectiveness of information in influencing decision-making. We use these as a starting point for the evaluation. Preferences of authorities, stakeholders and modelers regarding the use models in RBM planning were gathered in a workshop for weight elicitation of the model evaluation, and supplemented with personal interviews. Usability of a model is balancing between credibility and relevance. Related to relevance timing is crucial, as well the flexibility of the model and resources needed in setting up the model. Legitimacy goes often hand in hand with credibility. In addition, the interviewees pointed out that the visualization of model results plays crucial role. The model and/or results should be simple and the uncertainties should be communicated. Furthermore, logical and easy to use user interface improved the uptake of the models. Active dialogue between modelers, authorities and stakeholders is needed in order to improve mutual understanding and to increase the awareness on models. One example of a good practice, which also improves the dialogue between modelers and authorities, is the Road map for modelling in RBMP developed in Finland between the Ministry of the Environment and Finnish Environment Institute.

13 Improved implementation of Swedish RBMP by LIFE-IP Rich Waters Ann-Karin Thorén, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. The focus of the project LIFE IP Rich Water is to improve the implementation of the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) of the Northern Baltic Sea water district. The EU commission is targeting funds in order to improve the integrated water management, implementing WFD and EU law with the aim of protecting water. The project will run for 7 years from 2017 to 2024 with a budget of 30 million euro. The project includes 35 partners representing municipalities, private enterprises, regional and national authorities, research institutes, water organisations and the Farmers Union. Twenty actions within 5 themes comprising technical and administrative measures will contribute to implement the RBMP of Northern Baltic and influence the implementation of all 5 Swedish RBMPs. Results from the project actions will be used for developing methods, tools and guidelines to be applied all Swedish river basin districts. In order to increase the financing of measures in RBMPs, one action in the project will design new complimentary actions and applications for funding. Synergies between measures for adaptation, mitigation and improved water quality Marianne Bechmann, the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy research (NIBIO). Agricultural measures for better water quality have positive and negative effects on other environmental targets. Norway has a number of national and international goals and agreements where agriculture plays an important role. There are several grant schemes for environmental measures in agriculture, but the measures are mainly aimed solely at improving water quality. Based on the water quality measures, we have evaluated synergies and conflicts with other goals in society. The other important goals that may be influenced by agricultural management include greenhouse gas emission, ammonia emissions, carbon storage, climate adaptation and efficient use of limited resources, like phosphorus. The evaluation contributes to criteria for prioritizing grant schemes. Thus, the schemes can emphasize measures that have many positive effects.

14 III. New tools and management principles Applying environmental flow in Finland Seppo Hellsten, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). River flow can be altered by using dams and weirs to regulate the natural rhythm of flow of water, and even small changes in natural flow can significantly undermine the river ecosystem due to sensitive balance between biota and environmental conditions. Environmental flow methods are used to protect vulnerable fish species, riparian vegetation, water quality and groundwater, and there are various methods to achieve this. Ecological flows are defined as "a flow regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD", and a survey has been carried out recently by Finnish Energy to see if this concept has been applied in Finland. Over 30 % of hydropower plants do not have minimum flow obligations, which means rivers run dry. Recent examples of e-flow applications in Finland include adapting methods to different conditions and alterations, such as concentrating on smaller parts of rivers and creating artificial habitats, and releasing different amounts of water based on the necessity of fish populations to see the effects. Regulation practices should be developed to match the annual operation schedule of hydropower and the natural migration cycles of fish, there should be more flexibility in water permits (flexible compensation etc.), and we should focus on most valuable sites and prioritization using cost-benefit analysis that incorporates ecological and societal benefits. Co-operation with different stakeholders using expert workshops and dataanalysis is also important. The Water act should be changed to allow changes in old regulation permits and make is possible to compensate harmful impacts in other water courses. Updates on progress in EU, Sweden and Norway towards common understanding of HMWBs and ecological potential Katarina Vartia, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and Jo H. Halleraker, the Norwegian Environment Agency. Both in Sweden and Norway, water storage for hydropower seems to be the dominant water use for designating for HMWBs. In Sweden, the objective setting in their ca. 700 HMWBs is still pending. In Norway, with more than 3000 HMWBs, about 45%, will be reported with less stringent objectives than GEP, while about 39% should reach GEP by Both countries are hardly designating artificial water bodies at all. Under WG ECOSTAT, work on common implementation of hymo and ecological potential has been intensified the last years. Both Sweden and Norway presently have active participation in the work on clarifying good practice and common understanding on these issues. During the

15 current terms of reference for WG ECOSTAT and Ad hoc task group on hydromorphology (ATG HYMO), work is ongoing to assess comparability and compiling lists of mitigation measures required to reach GEP for several relevant water uses; such as water storage (hydropower, water supply), drainage (mainly agriculture), flood protection (urbanisation etc.), and navigation (harbours). As part of the common implementation strategy (CIS), the collaboration and exchange of practices on hymo-issues is done to increase the common understanding of mitigating impacts from water uses relevant for HMWBs such as water storage, flood protection and land drainage. Based on the CIS-questionnaires, practices regarding agro-drain and flood work has had a lower response, which indicates that this work is still quite new to the WFD implementing countries. Hydropower has had a good response, as more than 20 countries contributed to the JRC report on water storage (Des, 2016). Additionally two other technical reports on flood protection and land drainage have been drafted, and consulted with WG ECOSTAT in Most countries already consider fish migration as relevant and a prerequisite for achieving GEP, while fish stocking normally is not considered sufficient for reaching GEP. As part of the CIS work on drafting supplementary guidelines to ecological potential, more clarity about significant adverse effects on use is also needed. Examples of tools produced for water managers related to hydropower and ongoing initiatives Atle Harby, SINTEF Energy Research Norway CEDREN. The Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy is an interdisciplinary research centre. One of the topics we have looked at is how much water is needed for ecosystem function and hydropower production. This has resulted in a handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers, with methods suitable for other species. The methods may be used for improving both ecology and power production. We look at both water use and other mitigation measures - how can water be used in a better way rather than having a fixed flow requirement, taking into consideration fish population and power production, as well as seasonal changes in flow? Hydropower plants may see this as losing money/power, and flow may not be the only way to improve conditions habitat improvement is an example of this. Combined with methods to investigate morphological changes and connectivity adapted from the international and national literature and other member states' WFD methods, a draft method for characterizing and classifying HyMo is suggested. The method considers HyMo processes also relevant for biology, and includes indicators of change from reference conditions for lateral and longitudinal connectivity, processes within the river and hydrological changes. The method is based on using existing, easily available data, but can also use detailed investigations when needed. The method must be tested and further developed before broad application in Norway. It is important to include science and research in management! Science must also work to disseminate information and get it included in management.

16 Day 2 of the conference 14th of September Report from WG 1: Water pollution issues and priority substances The working group was divided into four sessions with the following main topics: Status of monitoring and classification of chemicals in the Nordic countries Assessment of pressures River basin specific pollutants and development of EQS in biota and sediment. Background concentrations and bio-availability models There are several similarities and common experiences in the field of monitoring chemical status according to WFD between the Nordic countries, although there are some differences, especially with respect to classification of ubiquities substances. Sweden has set every waterbody to poor chemical state due to mercury and PBDEs (class of fire retardant chemicals). Finland has established a natural background level for mercury, and thereby has a higher proportion of waterbody in good state. Common for Finland and Sweden is grouping of waterbodies. Norway, Denmark and Iceland have so far not grouped water bodies (or used expert judgment) on classification. Nevertheless, certain ubiquitous substances, like mercury and PBDE seems to be problematic throughout the Nordic counties. All the countries have, in varied degree, national monitoring programs, designed to meet the criteria's of WFD in addition to other programs (OSPAR, RID etc.) However it is challenging to collect sufficient monitoring data and prioritizations have to be made in respect to number of substances and number of stations and waterbodies monitored. The use of mixing-zones was debated, as the practice of this differs between the member states. Finland and Denmark use mixing zones, or some variation of this, while Sweden, Iceland and Norway do not. For Sweden and Norway the issue is to have the option to exclude certain monitoring stations from classification of the overall status if they are within an area of primary dilution. The establishment of mixing zones does this in theory, but has proven complex and expensive to calculate, and are also valid just for priority substances and not necessarily all compounds of interest. Sweden is in the process of completing a new guidance on pressures and impacts. It includes methodology on how to assess impacts from a wide range of pressures. On the issue of the use of other matrixes (sediment and biota), the article in the directive that states that trends in sediment and biota "should not increase significantly", there is a need to define significantly. We should also work on making biota monitoring more transparent and comparable, by normalizing to some factor (age, species, trophic level etc.). We also concluded that we should work on a common understanding on the implications the Weser ruling might have on issues related to chemical state, and if the ruling's definition of deterioration of ecological state is transferable to chemical state.

17 Report from WG 2: Hydromorphological alterations More than 25 persons participated in this working group about hymo alterations and ecological potential. The workshop started by country-wise status updates on hymo/hmwbs issues by country representatives from Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Norway. The following issues were covered; HMWB designation, classification of hymo alteration and related national requirements. As also Austria was present, they are also included in the overview table below: Overview of status for HMWBs, in the Nordic countries + Austria Country HMWB (No/%) Of total waterbodies Objectives Small scale hydropower Main basis for designating HMWB Official Mitigation measure library for GEP Iceland* 187 (7 %) GES Expert judgement Not established Finland 140 (2 %) GES Point-system + expert judgement Yes national guidance Norway** (ca. 10 %) GES Hydrology and expert judgement Flood protection Established but no clear link to GEPrequirements Sweden 680 (2.5 %) GES New system + Model data + benefit of the use Yes national guidance Austria km (10 %) km GES Set of criteria in place Yes (*) WFD implementation put on hold for several years, so the given number could only be considered as an indication of final HMWB designation in Iceland. (**) To be reported in The table above shows that the proportion of surface water bodies designated as HMWBs range from 2 10 % in the Nordic countries represented at the workshop. Previous Nordic harmonisation have shown that water storage for hydropower is by far the most widespread water use for HMWB. The mitigation measure approach, or Prague approach, is also widely used for defining GEP. However, how official the national mitigation measures libraries are linked to GEP requirements also still seems to vary. Hence, further exchange of experiences with mitigation measures might be relevant at the Nordic level. The impression from the workshop is that Finland only have done minor adjustment lately in their national methods and guidance related to hymo-alterations and ecological potential. In general, the WFD work on Iceland have been put on hold, so they need to restart the work also on HMWB and mainly hydropower issues that for sure is a significant water use on Iceland. In both Sweden and Norway, some adjustment have been done related to final designation of HMWB and to other key issues relevant to hymo alteration and GEP since the last Nordic WFD conference. Other topics presented and discussed during the workshop were: - Selected cases were presented to give examples of good practise? - Examples and potential in using data from remote sensing and modelling for efficient assessment of hymo data - Draft of new hymo methods (classification of hymo, hymo typology etc.)

18 - Knowledge status and research needs on hymo alterations in lakes/reservoirs and main factors for effects on lake ecology/response on biological quality elements of water drawdown. Based on the workshop, the following main topics need further Nordic collaboration: 1. Improve the knowledge of links between hymo-alterations and biological effects. That would improve the processes on: a. designation of HMWBs b. classification of GES c. definition and monitoring of GEP - And how then to estimate the efficiency and relevance of measures? 2. We need to find a relevant scale for comparing classification and characterisation of hymo altered water bodies: a. Are the systems developed sufficiently and/or do we need further revision/adaptation or are simply new methods needed for the Nordic conditions? 3. The next step for more concrete Nordic collaboration on hymo was suggested. A proper cooperation needs specific projects and the purpose is to be able to carry out comparison in pilot areas/catchments related to a. Ongoing CIS work on water storage b. Agree on good water management practise in comparable regulated rivers c. Improve the classification system on to hymo alterations d. Share experiences with and further develop the use of remote sensing methods (Laser, satellite). The workshop did not nominate any responsible person for taking the next initiatives to put this collaboration on track. However, it is natural that the countrywise hymo representatives clarify possibilities and meet on Skype for further dialogue and next step in the Nordic hymo collaboration. Also other non-nordic countries might be invited into such an informal network, if they can contribute with examples of good hymo practise.

19 Report from WG 3: Delineation of water bodies, typology, grouping and classification Status for all countries were presented, describing the national work on delineation of water bodies, typology, grouping, classification with the intention of illustrating problems and needs for revisions and development needs from a national perspective. What lessons can we learn from these themes in relation to the public and activities? Are there opportunities to interact or learn from each other? The group discussed how the judgement in the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Weser has influenced the view of classification, etc. from the perspective of the public, and which challenges have arisen. In addition the group discussed the grouping of water bodies for monitoring and classification and representative monitoring stations in a water body in more detail. Regarding the number of water bodies, common viewpoints in both Sweden and Norway is that there are too many water bodies. Too many water bodies may lead to fragmented information, making the plans less accessible for readers. All countries reported that in water bodies that are not monitored, status is assessed by expert judgement or use of models. In Finland, the use of satellite data in lakes is explored. Some examples on grouping for assessing status were presented for all countries, and the group acknowledged the need for grouping and models to assess status and to design representative monitoring systems. Not all countries has established a formal framework for which monitoring stations are representative for classifying a water body. Finland has established mixing zones, whereas Sweden and Norway do not include stations close to outlets in the classification in water bodies with point sources. The group proposes further collaboration between the Nordic countries in the following: o Further dialogue on a common framework for grouping sharing our thoughts and experiences, starting with a video meeting on the 19 th of September regarding this issue o Further dialogue on frames for which stations that are representative for classification of a water body o Further dialogue on how to establish confidence in the classification

20 Report from WG 4: Data management and open data for water management The topics for discussion during the workshop were updates on VISS (SE), Vann-Nett (NO), VEME and other WFD relevant GIS. Norway, Sweden and Finland gave presentations on status and recent updates of their national systems for publication of WFD-related data. In addition, Iceland and Estonia gave a brief orientation about their systems. The main concern in all the countries is how to present data to the public in a manner which is relevant, easy to understand and possible to relate to their local environment. Another concern is how to get access to public information. National websites are not easy to find unless you put a lot of effort in promoting the sites. One possible way to increase accessibility of data is to make data public via other sources such as Wikipedia (cf. VISS). Another way of doing this is to make data accessible for third parties via centralised services. This allows third parties (professional/commercial developers) to make more user-friendly applications or presentations of the data. A public data license would to a certain degree ensure proper use of the data. It is essential to gather information about status of mitigation measures during the planning cycle ( ). None of the countries have a clear strategy of how to collect this vital information, although some of the systems are designed to receive this kind of information. This task should be subject to further discussions/follow-up between the countries. Best practices would be of great help.

21 Report from WG 5: Aquaculture In WG 5, there were participants from Sweden, Iceland, Finland and Norway. Each country presented on the following topics; - What are the main issues concerning aquaculture in your country, and why? - What is the knowledgebase concerning disposal of nutrients from aquaculture? - How do you monitor the effects from aquaculture, and how does it work? In addition, Norway had an extended presentation on - The Norwegian system for environmental regulation of aquaculture and environmental monitoring of benthic impact from marine fish farms - How we work to increase our understanding and knowledge about the effects of nutrient release from marine fish farms The main discussion focused on the monitoring challenges, and the importance of having a good monitoring program to observe the possible effects from aquaculture. There is a wide range in monitoring programs between the countries today, and not all of them relates to the good-moderate boundary from WFD. Challenges concerning release of organic material, both dissolved nutrients and solids: There is a need to further developing models for carrying capacity in fjords, to make sure that each sites carrying capacity and the total load of all sites in a recipient are in accordance with the biological state of the fjord. In addition, there is a need to educate more consultants to make sure accredited companies do the monitoring. Climate change is a complicating factor in terms of the increase in water temperature, especially in bottom waters of fjords. We see this effect as the time of when the upheaval occurs is changing, and this may have an effect of the composition of benthic fauna and the carrying capacity of recipients. Other challenges that need to be addressed: Salmon lice and escaped farmed salmon are the two major environmental challenges for the aquaculture industry. For escaped salmon, Iceland showed a good example on how they have protected large areas of the coast, where salmon aquaculture isn`t allowed. Iceland also showed a transparent system for the aquaculture sites where the permits, the ecological status and results from monitoring was collected. No specific follow-ups was discussed. Sweden informed about a planned workshop in December, and invited the participants to join. It was also agreed upon to circulate contact information and take contact whenever needed.

22 Report from WG 6: Nutrient standards Workshop 6 was dedicated to discussing nutrient standards in the Nordic countries, and was led by Anne Lyche Solheim, Senior Research Scientist at The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) and senior researcher and research coordinator for the EU Water Framework Directive. Actions for further Nordic collaboration: Comparison/harmonization of nutrient standards for comparable types of waterbodies to be completed during autumn 2017 o Anne Lyche Solheim has already assembled nutrient standards for lakes, rivers and coastal waters, and has sent this to participants of the workshop for further completion. Distance to targets o Implication for programmes of measures Source appointment (pollution accounts) dialogue with sectors o Principles for basic and supplementary measures o Finance measures o Principles of exemptions consider, harmonize, communicate The challenges are to adjust/validate the current nutrient standards against BQEs (esp. for Sweden), and to assess acceptable ranges for comparable types. We also need to select comparable types. Another challenge is to find a common approach for linking the distance to target to the PoMs, and to design a good dialogue with the sectors, especially concerning financing of measures. Regarding good examples for adjusting and validating current standards, and setting ranges for comparable types, the ECOSTAT guidance and tool kit can be useful. For the other challenges, we have a good example with Vansjø-Hobøl, but this was not discussed in detail. The participants of the workshop agreed to compile current nutrient standards for comparable types (partly done already), as a basis for potential adjustments. Furthermore we will follow-up the other topics at the next Nordic WFD workshop, aiming for a common Nordic approach on how to translate from status to the need for nutrient reduction measures (both basic and supplementary) allocated to the different sectors, what economic instruments could be used to finance the measures. Finally, we will also try to agree on some common principles for exemptions (e.g. only use less stringent objectives if all other options for restoration have failed), and develop a common communication platform with relevant sectors (in particular agriculture and maybe aquaculture).

23 Day 3 of the conference 15th of September Pictures from excursion to Munkholmen, Nidelva and the Hofstad river:

24 Pictures from excursion to Munkholmen, Nidelva and the Hofstad river:

25 Interviews with participants 1. What experiences and ideas will you bring back home from the conference? 2. Can you mention two challenges in implementing the Water Framework Directive? Anna Bonde (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of Södra Finland) Tiina Ahokas (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of Uusimaa - Finland) Frans Duldin (Ministry of the Environment - Finland) 1. It has been nice to get ideas from other countries concerning databases, as well as inspiration from the other participants. It is easier to contact each other after a conference like this. There have been good presentations and interesting subjects, and it is easier to complete measures if you can look to what others have done. 2. It is difficult to complete measures in connection with the industrial sector, which thinks "business as usual". Legislation in the agriculture sector is missing, and it would be a good idea to make a folder about measures. It is important to keep going to implement the Water Framework Directive. Karl Schwaiger (The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, environment and Water Management) 1. Compliments to the organising team: The conference and workshops were extremely well organized with very constructive and rather open, up to the point discussions. And the aurora borealis organised for us in the evening was just sensational for those participants like me, who rarely have a chance to observe this in real life. The field trip added insight to the specific challenges of salmon rivers but demonstrated in particular for me the importance of having "competent multiplicators" to convey the need for protection and restoration of rivers to the general public the extremely competent guides during our field trip were simply a joy to listen to. The lecture of Anne Lyche Solheim (NIVA) about harmonization of nutrient standards in Europe: harmonization of approaches is key to achieve comparability of results within and across countries. Nutrient standards are used by some member states to assess the ecological status of water bodies due to the absence of methods for biological and hydromorphological quality elements. This is why it is very important that countries take this serious and work for a harmonization of nutrient standards as well as to continue work on methods for the sound assessment of biological and hydromorphological quality elements.

26 2. One of the key challenges are the deadlines to achieve good status in 2015 respectively 2027 (that means within 2 further implementation cycles of 6 years). That holds in particular true for hydromorphological changes, which have been set in previous decades or even centuries and which cannot be remediated realistically within just 3 cycles of just 6 years each. The lack of sound methods in many member states to assess ecological status makes it even more difficult to achieve the deadlines. Furthermore we have to admit that we often have a good perception of the extent of measures needed in qualitative terms but do not know in detail the quantitative extent of measures to take. To provide an example: we know that the straightening of rivers and lack of sufficient flows are reducing fish in terms of individuals as well as in term of species. But what we do not yet know in the very detail the precise extent of measures to remediate the situation e.g. in terms of flow and its dynamics, in terms of restoration of river continuity and restoration of banks. A particular challenge is to restore river continuity for migratory fish like the salmon. So far we have a lot of focus on upstream migration but much less on downstream migration, an issue which needs much more attention to avoid a situation that fish migrate happily upstream just to be chopped by turbines on their way back. Ruben Alexander Pettersen (County Governor of Oslo and Akershus - Norway) 1. I have learned a lot about how the other countries work, among other things, I think the Swedes have done a lot of positive things, such as database management and general accessibility to data, as well as how they organize themselves. 2. I have the impression that all the other countries have the same problems as we are with regard to implementation of the Water Directive: Economy, Support type, legal authority Teppo Vehanen (Natural Resources Institute Finland) 1. The ecological classification systems are still different when considering the Heavily Modified Water Bodies. Therefore it is important to further calibrate it so we can compare between the countries. 2. It is important to proceed with the WFD economic analysis: how much does it cost to implement the Water Framework Directive and what do we get in return?

27 Marianne Jensdóttir Fjeld (The Environment Agency of Iceland) 1. Iceland has just started its work on implementing the Water Framework Directive after a few years of standstill. The country has not yet finished making the Programme of Measures and therefore it was good to meet so many colleagues from different countries that have been working on WFD for many years and have faced the challenges in its implementation. We got a lot of good advice and ideas on how to start our work and where the focus should be. 2. A) The bottom-up/top-down collaboration, getting everybody on board working on the same objective and seeing the importance of the WFD. B) Another big challenge is to get the river basin management system to function properly. For instance there are few species in Iceland, which might make it hard to come up with useful classification systems. Also in glacial rivers and lakes there are extreme natural pressures that overshadow manmade pressures. Marie Berghult (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management) 1. It has been very interesting to exchange experiences. It's positive that Iceland is back again, they have a lot to teach us, especially in aquaculture where Norway and Iceland have good monitoring. It's important to implement measures which has been decided so that one can show that something is being done. Good examples are important. 2. Raise matters in the Swedish legislation. It is a challenge to take care of the environment while at the same time being a business. And it is a challenge that climate change is not yet included in the Water Framework Directive. Previous Nordic WFD conferences and workshops The 8 th Nordic WFD conference and workshop (Trondheim, Norway, September 2017) The 7 th Nordic WFD conference and workshop (Gothenburg, Sweden, September 2015) The 6 th Nordic WFD conference and workshop (Oulo, Finland, March 2014) The 5 th Nordic WFD conference and workshop (Reykjavik, Iceland, Sept 2012) The 4 th workshop on Harmonisation and realization of the WFD in the Nordic countries (Hurdal, Norway, September 2011) The 3 rd Nordic Workshop: Harmonization and realization of the WFD in the Nordic countries with emphasis on lakes/rivers (Sigtuna, Sweden, Oct 2010). The 2 nd workshop on Harmonization and realization of the Water Framework Directive in the Nordic countries with emphasis on lakes/rivers and heavily modified water bodies (Helsinki, Finland, Oct 2009) The 1st workshop on Harmonization and operalization of the Water Framework Directive in the Nordic countries (Brekstad, Norway, May 2008) More information about previous Nordic WFD conferences can be found here:

28 The programme for the eighth Nordic conference is a collaboration between the following agencies: Supported by the Nordic Council of Ministers The Norwegian Environment Agency is working for a clean and diverse environment. Our primary tasks are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage Norwegian nature, and prevent pollution. We are a government agency under the Ministry of Climate and Environment and have 700 employees at our two offices in Trondheim and Oslo and at the Norwegian Nature Inspectorate s more than sixty local offices. We implement and give advice on the development of climate and environmental policy. We are professionally independent. This means that we act independently in the individual cases that we decide and when we communicate knowledge and information or give advice. Our principal functions include collating and communicating environmental information, exercising regulatory authority, supervising and guiding regional and local government level, giving professional and technical advice, and participating in international environmental activities. Norwegian Environment Agency Telephone: Fax: post@miljodir.no Web: Postal address: Postboks 5672 Torgarden, N-7485 Trondheim Visiting address Trondheim: Brattørkaia 15, 7010 Trondheim Visiting address Oslo: Grensesvingen 7, 0661 Oslo