Overview of WFD implementation in Finland

Transcription

1 Overview of WFD implementation in Finland Petri Liljaniemi, Antton Keto, Milla Mäenpää Nordic conference 2017: "Towards a better implementation of the WFD from Nordic perspective Trondheim

2 TÄMÄ POIS KUN EI ENÄÄ TARVITSE Progress and challenges in the Nordic countries: Process of approval of management plans? Reporting (WISE)? Implementation of plans? Challenges experienced in WFD implementation that could feed into the 2019 WFD review? Issues that we have in common Focus on brief update on key issues that are new, and what the individual countries would like to see reviewed in the WFD? End with short Q&A session?

3 Ministry of the Environment Ministry of the Agriculture and Forestry Finnish Environment Institute Natural (SYKE) Resource Institute Finland (LUKE) 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 8 River Basin Districts and RBMP 30 Program of Measures

4 Finland s eight river basin districts (RBD s) 1. Vuoksi RBD 2. Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland RBD 3. Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea- Bothnian Sea RBD 4. Oulujoki-Iijoki RBD 5. Kemijoki RBD Two international river basin districts (IRBD) have also been designated covering parts of Finland: 6. Tornionjoki IRBD (shared with Sweden) 7. Teno, Näätämöjoki and Paatsjoki IRBD (shared with Norway) 8. A separate RBD has been defined to cover the autonomous Åland Islands, where the WFD is being implemented by the provincial government.

5 Hannele Pokka Environmental Administration in Finland The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment > 18 Provincial administrations

6

7 RBMP for River Basin Management Plans and Program of Measures of MSD were approved on time December Approval process went quite well without any difficult obstacles or opposition from association partners. Program of measures were scaled (number of measures) to more realistic level especially for diffuse pollution expect to have quite good status of implementation by the end 2018 Reporting to WISE faced many challenges 7

8 Challenges in WISE reporting Demands are more detailed than in the 1st period Data had to be collected separately for the reporting as all reporting requirements were not clear early enough Difficulties with constant changes in CAS-codes and enumerations during the process (6 versions of schemas) Final upload/testing was complicated due to required data/elements missing in some schemas. Annex0 made the interpretation of testing results difficult. The whole structure ready in spring 2016 Finally reported at the end of 2016 The electronic loading and data verification took a lot of work for 4-10 person for several months 8

9 RBMP for Update the RBMP s as lightly as possible, focus on implementation of PoM s no changes to characterization of water bodies and typology no changes to principles of status classification mainly based on traditional monitoring data supporting data from remote sensing data in lakes and transitional waters should be ready by Also something new New principles and criteria for significant pressures and risk assessment of ground waters New guidance for grouping of water bodies 1 st public hearing starts together with Marine Strategy Planning Reconstruction and integration of WFD and MSFD data management will start

10 Mamangement plans Programmes of Measures Monitoring Programme State assesment/classification Data management analysis Basic registers and assessment of human activity Tools for classification and monitoring Status of marine waters RBM status assessment (surface and groundwater) MSF D Publ ic hear ing Fina lisat ion MSFD :eport ing Update of MSFD and WFD Monitoring programs MSFD 2 hearing Finalisation MSFD repor ting Implementation of RMB and MSD Programmes of Measures PoM Guidance Preparation WFD and MSFD PoM FInalisation MSFD reporti ng WFD reporn ting Monitoring of progress WFD 1. and 2. combine d public hearing WFD and MSFD reporting Updating RBMPs MSFD Public hearin g (PoM) WFD public hearing Government decission WFD and MSFD PoM Finalisati on

11 Cooperation in river basin management and marine strategy WFD and MSFD National steering group Impact assessment of human pressures WFD and MSFD National coordination group 3D- communication (WFD, MSFD and FD) WFD and MSFD River basin district spesific steering groups (5) WFD and MSFD Regional level collaboration groups (13) Expert group of MFSD Monitoring of measures of WFD and MSFD Data management of WFD and MSFD

12 Raising public awareness and participation By promoting web solutions: Digital RBMP and PoM Water Open data Stakeholder communication Public participation and hearing Promoting and monitoring the implementation of the plans Open data Water map

13 Survey for regional authorities - WFD weaknesses Schedule Six year cycle is too fast, consolidation with MSFD Too many public hearings Classification of heavily modified and artifical water bodies Consolidation with MSFD Schedule, status objectives, coastal waters and HELCOM Reporting Classification Level accuracy, ooao-principle Environmental objectives Chemical Status UBI-quotious Legal binding Court of Justice of the European Union ruling Weak linkage to implementation Role of small water bodies (e.g. small streams) in the RBMP Esittäjän nimi alatunnisteeseen 13

14 Survey for regional authorities - WFD strengths Setting the environmental objective and classification Based on reference conditions and ecology Cooperation Participation, collaboration, openness Comprehensiveness Catchment based approach (IWRM) Chemical classification Biota and sediments to be included in status assessment Monitoring BQEs Legal binding Esittäjän nimi alatunnisteeseen 14

15 Thank you!