The Normative State(s) of Finnish Surface Waters. Jussi Kauppila Gothenburg, 13 th of April 2011

Transcription

1 The Normative State(s) of Finnish Surface Waters Jussi Kauppila Gothenburg, 13 th of April 2011

2 Some institutional remarks Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Policy Analysis Unit (PPA) Project: ENSCA Regulation by environmental quality standards - Institutionalisation of the ecosystem approach in coastal management

3 Focus and structure The establishment of the first water management plans by 12/2009, in particular: How the key concepts and principles for defining the status of (surface) waters have been interpreted and implemented in Finland. the challenges of successful operationalisation of the environmental objectives by Data Interviews: legislators (ministry of the environment), authorities, scientists. Documents: legislation, administrative and scientific guidance

4 Water Management Regime (1) Water Management Districts (WMD) 7 districts, of which 2 are international. WMDs are not independent authorities, but rather (abstract) tools of management: water management plans (WMP) are established for each WMD. Water management plans (WMPs) are established in co-operation by several regional environmental authorities (ELY), one of them acting as a coordinator. Programmes of Measures (POM) are established by each ELY in there territory of competence

5 Water Management Regime (2) Water Management Plans (WMP) Covers the whole management cycle : classification, environmental objectives, summary of POMs. Is approved by he Council of state. However, formal status as a source of law is weak: shall be taken into account. Legal mechanisms through which WMP can be taken into account: other plans or programmes, municipal regulations for environmental protection, permits. Conclusion: the normative power/legal effect of the WMP rests on its substantial status

6 Construction of the key concepts (1) In drafting national legislation, the concept of a water body was found unsuitable for water management in Finland. We could not really catch it...you know...in the rest of the Europe, there is a river and then there is a lake, and then perhaps another river. There you have the water bodies. Whereas in Finland, how do you designate our route waters? (How to tell where the river ends and where the lake begins.) It is a difficult task

7 Construction of the key concepts (2) The establishment of the WMPs. Guidance (from the ministry) was really poor and went back and forth all the time. The idea (in the end) was not to have too many water bodies and water types, because we probably did not want too many water bodies below the good condition. Finally there is 11 river, 10 lake and 11 coastal main water types At first in 2002: even subtypes (a,b,c..) within each type rivers, 4275 lakes, 276 coastal waters Heavily modified: 79 rivers, 73 lakes, 13 coastal waters Artificial: 4 rivers, 25 lakes

8 Construction of the key concepts (3) As a result, some upgrading took place. Take for example Pielinen, the fourth biggest lake in Finland. We wanted some of its more loaded bays to be designated as their own water bodies and types, and then rest of the lake would form a water body of its own. But we did not so to speak get a permission (from the ministry) to do that. So, now Pielinen forms a single body and type, and has a single (good) class

9 Classification: one out, all out? (1) The one out, all out rule in the Directive article 2 and appendix V (1.4) applies to all ecological elements used in the classification but not to metrics of each element So, for example: if one of the ecological quality elements scores a moderate class, the water body will be classified as moderate, even if all the other elements would be good or even high

10 Classification: one out, all out? (2) Legitimacy of the one out, all out contested Not scientifically sound, as it is difficult to justify that a single component determines the quality of an ecosystem. Risk of ineffective use of measures. Hering, Borja et al: The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: A critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Science of the Total Environment, 408 (2010) s

11 Classification: one out, all out? (3) Consequently, the so-called weigh-of-evidence approach was adopted. results based on low sampling frequency/replication and/or representing only a small proportion of the water body, as well as results having no credible associations with anthropogenic pressures, may be given lower weights in the final classification representative, comprehensive data with credible associations to pressures may be given a higher weight Alahuhta J., Vuori K.-M, et al: Defining the ecological status of small forest lakes using multiple biological quality elements and paleolimnological analysis. Fundamental Applied Limnology (2009) 175:

12 Classification: one out, all out? (4) In principle the weigh-of-evidence approach may lead to both downgrading and upgrading of a water body compared to one out, all out

13 How ecological is the normative state of surface waters? The quality of classification and monitoring Levels of classification established (0-4) most rivers an lakes classified based on chemical variables coastal waters: limited biological data How to catch (natural) spatial and temporal variability? Monitoring rather destined to decrease the increase

14 Concluding points (1) In an efficient water management system The normative quality of a water body can be prescribed in a coherent and credible way. The logic of classification manageability or scientific soundness? Resources for monitoring of not? Legal nature of the environmental objectives obligations of results or just best efforts? The objectives are enforceable measures can be addressed. The normative status of WMPs as a source of law? Weak formal status, substantial status decisive?

15 Concluding points (2) The first real test will be 2015 good status (or good potential) should be achieved unless exemptions have been used This will probably not happen. What will we do then? Measures? Reclassification? Exemptions to objectives?