Assessment of Member States progress in the implementation of Programmes of Measures during the first planning cycle of the Water Framework Directive

Transcription

1 Assessment of Member States progress in the implementation of Programmes of Measures during the first planning cycle of the Water Framework Directive Member State Report: Finland (FI) Disclaimer: this report was prepared by consultants contracted by the European Commission, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. WRc plc 1 of 37 March 2015

2 1. Introduction The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that Member States (MS) establish Programmes of Measures to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. Measures are required to reduce the pressures to levels that are compatible with the achievement of the objectives such as the achievement of good water status by Programmes of Measures for the first planning cycle were due to be published in December 2009 and should have been made operational in Member States by December Progress with implementation of the measures was to be reported electronically to the Commission in December 2012 through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE). A preliminary assessment of the 2012 electronic WISE reports was undertaken in 2013 through the use of templates comprising a number of pre-defined questions, the answering of which by consultant Member State assessors provided the assessment of Member States progress. The results were presented to the Commission by the consultants in a Preliminary Assessment report in January The preliminary assessment was taken further by undertaking an in-depth assessment of some key processes in developing programmes of measures and in relation to five key aspects/pressures (agriculture, chemicals, hydromorphology, urban waste water treatment and water abstraction) of the Water Framework Directive. This was again facilitated by the use of pre-defined questions within templates answered by Member State assessors. The results were reported to the Commission in December 2014 as a European Overview report that provided an overview of the progress made by Member States in the development and implementation of programmes of measures for the first planning cycle. It was also based on the conclusions from the Commission s 2012 assessment of the first River Basin Management Plans 1, Member States electronic (WISE) reports to the Commission in December 2012 on the progress with implementation of their programmes of measures (summarised in the Preliminary Assessment report) and the information arising from the Commission s bilateral meetings with Member States on their first River Basin Management Plans during 2013 and The report was used in support of the Commission s Communication to the European Parliament and Council on progress with Water Framework Directive implementation and its associated Commission Staff Working Document, both to be published in March This report is a summary of the findings of the preliminary and in-depth assessment of the progress with the implementation of the programmes of measures in Finland. References to River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and programmes of measures (PoMs) throughout this document relate to the first planning cycle unless explicitly stated otherwise. 1 WRc plc 2 of 37 March 2015

3 2. Questions used in the assessments For the preliminary assessment the following assessment questions were asked: Question 1. What is the reported progress between 2009 and 2012 with the implementation of the Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3.a? Question 2. What is the reported progress between 2009 and 2012 with the implementation of the Other Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3b-I? Question 3. What is the progress with the implementation of Supplementary Measures between 2009 and 2012? Question 4. Are there Supplementary Measures in place to tackle each of the significant pressures for which Basic Measures are reported by Member States to be not enough to achieve WFD objectives? Which pressures are not tackled? Question 5. Which measures reported to be implemented in the first RBMP/PoM in 2009 have not been reported in 2012? Question 6. What is the status of implementation of the Key Types of Measures identified in the Member State, and what progress is expected over the duration of the first RBMP? Question 8. What is the reported overall progress on implementing the Programme of Measures? Are there differences between the RBDs in the Member State? What are the main obstacles to successful implementation (if any)? o o o o 8a) What are the main achievements? 8b) Improvements in status of water bodies? 8c) What are the main obstacles? 8d) Overall Progress? Question 9. How are the measures being financed? What are the main achievements, progress and obstacles in securing the budget for the PoMs? o o o 9a) Securing finance for the PoMs? 9b) Funding source? 9c) Overall progress? For the in-depth assessment the following assessment questions were asked: Question 1. What are the impacts on water bodies reported for 2009? Question 2. Have the sources of the impacts been identified? WRc plc 3 of 37 March 2015

4 Question 3. If the sources of at least some of the impacts were identified, please indicate the relevant sources and pressures in the Excel spreadsheet provided in the document area to answer this question Question 4. Have the identified impacts been apportioned between the sources and sectors/drivers responsible for the pressures? Question 4a. Are there different approaches to source apportionment between the RBDs within the MS? Question 5. If no source apportionment was undertaken, how were measures assigned to the sectors to reduce pressures? Question 6. How were the measures assigned across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts? Question 7a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from agriculture been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 7b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Nitrates Action Programmes? Question 7c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.h basic measures? Question 7d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g basic measures? Question 7e. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 8a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from emissions, discharges and losses of chemicals been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 8b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a (measures required by the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC and 2008/1/EC) which was superseded by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) on 7 January 2014)? Question 8c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g and Article 11.3.k basic measures? Question 8d. What measures are in place to address the related objectives under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC)? o o o o Is there an inventory of the sources of chemical pollution? Are mixing zones being used? If mixing zones are used, does the plan indicate measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zone in the future? Are there specific measures with the aim of progressively reducing pollution from priority substances? WRc plc 4 of 37 March 2015

5 o Are there specific measures with the aim of ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances? Question 8e. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 9a. Has the scale of hydromorphological pressures been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 9b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a? Question 9c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.i basic measures? Question 9d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 10a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from urban waste water treatment been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 10b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the national programmes for the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive? Question 10c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g basic measures? Question 10d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 11a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from water abstraction been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 11b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a? Question 11c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.c and 11.3.e basic measures? Question 11d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 12a. Was a cost effectiveness analysis undertaken during the development of the programme of measures? Question 12b. Did the cost effectiveness analysis influence the selection of measures? Question 12c. What were the main factors that limited the use of a cost effectiveness analysis? Question 13. What are the effects/consequences of uncertainty in the Article 5 pressures and impacts analysis, monitoring and classification of status on targeting of measures to reduce pressures to achieve WFD objectives? Question 14. What are the main changes and improvements envisaged for the second planning cycle? WRc plc 5 of 37 March 2015

6 3. Contextual information on Finland There are 8 RBDs in Finland. The 7 'mainland' RBDs (FIVHA1 to FIVHA7) reported in Finnish and largely reported the same information indicating that there is a national approach on implementing the WFD and programme of measures in these RBDs. The Åland Islands (FIWDA) reported in Swedish where it appears that Åland Government Decisions implement some of the requirements of the Directives but it is not clear whether this is independent of national Finnish processes. In 2009 FI reported that 30.1 % of surface water bodies were at good or better water status: this was expected to increase to 35.8% in Overall 92.2% of groundwater bodies were at good chemical status and 98.2 % at good quantitative status in Finland in 2009: in 2015 the percentages were expected to be 93.2% and 98.2%, respectively. WRc plc 6 of 37 March 2015

7 4. Role of basic measures and supplementary measures Article 11.3 of the WFD states that basic measures are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of 2 : Paragraph a: those measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water, including measures required under the legislation specified in Article 10 and in part A of Annex VI (e.g. measures to achieve compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) Paragraphs b to l: measures that largely require binding rules in terms of, for example, the control of abstractions (paragraph e) (e.g. requires abstraction permits to be revised in line with WFD requirements), diffuse sources (paragraph h) (e.g. where phosphate, pesticides, sediment, organic pollution and ammonia from agriculture are identified as a pressure affecting the achievement of overall good status, controls must be established), and activities that affect hydromorphological conditions (paragraph i) (e.g. controls should be defined to ensure that actions in or near rivers do not negatively impact on morphological condition) that go beyond the national implementation of Article 11.3.a measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. In certain situations basic measures alone will not be sufficient to achieve good status and so Article 11.4 supplementary measures may be needed. MS must first have basic measures that are compliant with Article 11.3 and second define supplementary measures and have a credible plan for securing and tracking progress on the established supplementary measures. Supplementary measures can be, for example, technical measures, advisory services or cooperative agreements between groups of stakeholders (see WFD Annex VI.B). Basic and supplementary measures must add up to what is needed to address the pressures to allow the achievement of the WFD objectives. 2 Meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group, 4 November 2013, Agenda point 4.a. Clarification on WFD programmes of measures (Article 11). WRc plc 7 of 37 March 2015

8 5. Targeting of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD objectives Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body. In terms of the objective of achieving good status by 2015, the aim would be to identify the gap in water body status/potential expected by 2015 and the status required by the Water Framework Directive. How large the gap that must be filled to achieve WFD objectives in any particular River Basin District and Member State will depend, for example, on how Member States have implemented the requirements under other Directives (e.g. the relative stringency of measures in national Nitrates Action Plans) and policies, as well as differences in the type, extent and magnitude of pressures on water bodies. The gap should be filled with measures that would be implemented under the Water Framework Directive for those water bodies expected to be failing objectives in 2015 without exemptions. The gap to the achievement of objectives will be caused by significant pressures on water bodies: the sources and sectors responsible will have to be identified to determine where actions on the ground are needed to reduce pressures to levels in/on water bodies compatible with the achievement of objectives. This may be achieved through the use of source apportionment to give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given pressure or impact. In this context a source might be considered as a combination of a pressure type (e.g. diffuse or point source pollution combined with the responsible sector or driver (e.g. diffuse agriculture, diffuse forestry)). The required reduction of the pressures to fill the gap to the achievement of objectives should then be quantified: this can be expressed in different ways depending on the nature of the pressure. For example: for nutrient pollution it could be in terms of the required reduction in the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in the receiving water bodies; for pressures arising from the hydromorphological alteration of water bodies it could be expressed as number of barriers that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of Water Framework Directive objectives; and, for water abstractions the volume of water abstracted or diverted that has to be reduced to achieve objectives. Apportionment of impacts and pressures to sources As described above source apportionment information is required so that measures can be targeted effectively at sources to reduce the pressures to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives. In Finland sources identified were identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies was not quantified. Approaches of assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures Based on the information from FIVHA2 the details on the selection process and criteria for the measures is provided in the Operational Programmes (OPs). In the OPs the effects of the various measures, their cost and feasibility was compared. Based on this criteria the selection was done and the best combination of measures selected for a specific RBD and catchment area. Based on the information from bilateral meetings the effects of single measures and combinations of measures on biological parameters were WRc plc 8 of 37 March 2015

9 described in the expert assessment, which are recorded in the internal work reports of the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY) and their working groups. Assigning measures across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts Based on the information from FIVHA2 the details on the selection process and criteria for the measures is provided in the OPs. In the OPs the effects of the various measures, their cost and feasibility was compared. Based on this comparison the selection was done and the best combination of measures selected for a specific RBD and catchment area. Based on the information from the bilateral meetings significant pressures have been identified based on expert judgement. Cost effectiveness Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an appraisal technique that provides a ranking of alternative measures on the basis of their costs and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the highest ranking. Uncertainty on costs, effectiveness and time-lagged effects of measures needs to be dealt with throughout the economic analysis process associated with the WFD, and more generally throughout the process of identifying measures and developing the RBMP. Sources of uncertainty are highly diverse according to situations and river basins, but will exist with regards to the assessment of pressures, impacts, baseline, costs or measures effectiveness. It is important that key areas of uncertainty and key assumptions made for the analysis are clearly spelt out and reported alongside the results of the analysis. There was no cost-benefit analysis carried out for the first cycle. Factors limiting the use of costeffectiveness analysis in the first programming of measures was lack of sufficient data. According to the information from the bilateral meeting the assessment of financial feasibility must be based on sufficient financial analyses, this in turn needs an extensive comparison of cost and benefit data, which was not available during the first planning cycle. The assessments of benefits was therefore performed qualitatively by describing them. It is foreseen that in the second cycle an improved assessment of cost efficiency, in particular the benefits, will take place. The RBMPs for the cycle include extensive assessments on the costs of the measures and the allocation thereof. It is stated in the RBMPs that the cost-effectiveness assessment is further specified in the OPs and used the following methods: initial assessment made on the costs and effects of measures related to phosphorous and nitrogen reduction (table composed by the Finnish Environment Institute) - however their accuracy is questionable due to the poor availability of data. Another way used for assessing the cost-effectiveness is using the Watersketch model - an interactive tool based on interviews with stakeholders that describe the importance of variables. The costs of the measures are combined by analysing the verbal description given to measures. A third way used was the Excel tool developed by the Finnish Environment Institute that allows the cost-effectiveness analysis for measures for agriculture, rural settlements and peat production and water management.the measures were assessed to the extent possible given the available data. Assessment of Disproportionate costs An extended time to the achievement of objectives or less stringent objectives can be justified on the grounds of disproportionately expensive measures (Articles 4.4 and 4.5). Disproportional measures (Article 4.4) were reported in four cases in mainland Finland and in one case for Åland. The Commission 2012 Member State specific assessment underlines that there is limited WRc plc 9 of 37 March 2015

10 information on assessment of disproportionate costs: measures were stated to be too costly or unreasonable without providing any further details. Effects of uncertainties Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are tackled and reduced, and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body. Therefore, uncertainty in the robustness and suitability of methods used in the Article 5 analysis of pressures and impacts, and/or in the confidence of the results of monitoring and the subsequent assessment of ecological and chemical status can fundamentally affect how measures are targeted at water bodies at risk of failing objectives or those that are assessed as being at less than good status from all significant pressures in a RBD. There was no information found on the effects of uncertainty being considered when targeting measures. According to the information from the bilateral meeting the measures were targeted mainly based on expert assessment. The results of these assessments are recorded in the internal work reports of the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment and their working groups. In the second cycle it is discussed to present these results in the RBMPs instead of work reports. WRc plc 10 of 37 March 2015

11 6. Progress with the implementation of the Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3.a Only for one Directive (Bathing Waters) is there explicit links made with the WFD, and there is no indication on how basic measures may contribute to the achievement of WFD objectives. The reported text focuses on national implementation legislation and measures. All Directives are reported to be implemented across Finland. There appears to be a common implementation across 7 RBDs (FIVHA1 to FIVHA7) but there maybe differences with the Åland islands (FIWDA) where local legislation has a role. There is no information on any expected progress over the last 3 years of the RBMP. For the Finnish RBDs, it appears that the Basic Measures were all implemented in 2009 (information is not fully clear for the Åland Islands). WRc plc 11 of 37 March 2015

12 7. Progress with the implementation of Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3b-I Reported progress Figure 7.1 Reported progress with implementation of basic measures (Article 11.3 (b) to (l) in 2012) (PoM aggregation report) Source: WISE PoMs Aggregation Report Implementation of Other Basic Measures in 2012 In 2009 all other basic measures were reported as being implemented in all RBDs. The description of the measure focuses on the national legislation implementing the measure. All other basic measures were reported to be on-going in 2012, none had substantial delays reported Delays in implementation Member States were asked to report if there were substantial delays in the implementation of basic measures required under Article b to l. There were no reported delays of Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures in the Finnish RBDs. Financing of measures Member States were asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures. All of the basic measures in Finland are funded by non-eu funds. WRc plc 12 of 37 March 2015

13 8. Supplementary measures (Article 11.4) The need for supplementary measures Supplementary Measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the Basic Measures where they are necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as established in Article 4 and Annex V. Supplementary Measures can include additional legislative powers, fiscal measures, research or educational campaigns that go beyond the Basic Measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives. In 2010, Member States reported details of the Supplementary Measures planned (in 2009) to tackle significant pressures on surface and ground waters where Basic Measures were not enough to meet WFD environmental objectives. Details of the measures were reported in a List of Supplementary Measures specific to each RBD. Each Supplementary Measure was to be reported with a national code. In some Member States, national codes and measures may be common to more than one RBD, whereas in others the same measure may have a different code in each RBD. Therefore, the number of different measures used at a national level does not necessarily equate to the sum of the different measures used in the component RBDs. Also, the same Supplementary Measure may be applicable to more than one pressure type. Member States were asked to report which Supplementary Measures were used to tackle specific pressures (at an aggregated and/or disaggregated level) when Basic Measures were not enough: these are indicative of those that have been applied or planned in There are also examples of where not all Supplementary Measures in the List of Supplementary Measures are reported to be used or planned in In 2012, Member States reported some additional aspects on Supplementary Measures including their state of implementation ( not started, on-going or completed ), whether their implementation was substantially delayed and, if so, the reasons for the delay. WRc plc 13 of 37 March 2015

14 Figure 8.1 Number of sub-units within the Member State (FI) where basic measures are enough (Yes) or not enough (No) to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies (8 sub-units reported in FI). Source: WISE PoM reports WRc plc 14 of 37 March 2015

15 Figure 8.2 Number of river basin districts within the Member State (FI) where basic measures are enough (Yes) or not enough (No) to tackle significant pressures on ground water bodies. 8 RBDs reported in FI. Source: WISE PoM reports Progress with the implementation of Supplementary Measures between 2009 and 2012 Surface Waters Figure 8.3 State of implementation of supplementary measures in relation to significant pressures of surface waters in 2012 Number in brackets is the number of supplementary measures tackling the pressure. Note: a measure may tackle more than one pressure. Source: WISE PoMs Reports WRc plc 15 of 37 March 2015

16 Groundwater Figure 8.4 State of implementation of supplementary measures in relation to significant pressures on ground waters in 2012 Number in brackets is the number of supplementary measures tackling the pressure. Note: a measure may tackle more than one pressure Overall across Finland, 9% of supplementary measures were reported to be completed, 75% on-going and 16% not started. However, 30% of all measures (67 out of 226) were reported to have a substantial delay: 19% of these measures were on-going and 11% not started. Note that the numbers of measures given here do not equate to the number of supplementary measures with unique codes because a measure may be used to tackle more than one pressure, and the measure may have been delayed in one RBD but not in another. In terms of substantially delayed measures, 19 of the 32 (59%), and 2 out of 31 (6%) measures to tackle point source pressures on groundwater and on surface waters, respectively, were substantially delayed. In terms of diffuse source pressures, 12 out of the 27 (37%) measures for GW, and 16 out of 57 (28%) for surface waters were substantially delayed. In terms of: abstraction pressures on groundwater, one out of 4 (25%) measures; hydromorphological pressures on surface water 1 out of 10 (10%); river management pressures, 1 out of 7 (14%); for other pressures on groundwater, 5 out of 11 (45%); and, for other pressures on surface waters, 5 out of 21 (24%), were substantially delayed. In general a greater proportion of measures to tackle common pressures were delayed for groundwater than for surface waters. A common reason (17 measures (25 %) of the 67 with reported delays) given for the delay was lack of funding or resources. No information was reported on the expected progress with supplementary measures over the last 3 years of the RBMP. Delays in implementation As with Article 11.3 b to l basic measures, Member States were asked to report whether there was a substantial delay in implementing supplementary measures included in the first RBMPs in 2009, and to explain any such delays. WRc plc 16 of 37 March 2015

17 In Finland 9.5% of (the 640) supplementary measures were reported to be delayed because of funding/finance obstacles. Other reasons given were that further investigative/research work was required (0.5% of measures), regulatory barriers (1.1%), technical barriers (1.9%), lack of land (0.2%) and staff (0.2%) and because they were no longer needed (0.3%), 6.1% of the measures were foreseen to start later in the cycle/in the next cycle and for 1.8% of the delayed measures, only a general description of the delay in implementation was provided. Financing of supplementary measures Member States were also asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of supplementary measures. As for Article 11.3.b to l basic measures, non-eu funds (83%) were mostly used to finance supplementary measures in Finland, with LIFE+, EU structural funds, rural development and other EU funds are used to finance 1%, 6%, 10% and 1% respectively, of measures. Supplementary Measures in place to tackle each of the significant pressures for which Basic Measures are not enough to achieve WFD objectives For groundwater pressures there were supplementary measures in place in all RBDs where basic measures were reported not to be enough. Supplementary measures were also reported in some RBDs where basic measures were reported to be enough to tackle some pressures. For surface water pressures, there were supplementary measures in the large majority of cases where basic measures were not enough to address pressures. The exceptions were for diffuse urban run-off pressures in RBD FIWDA, and for diffuse source pressures from abandoned industrial sites in FIVHA2. In transitional and coastal (TRAC) waters there were no reported supplementary measures reported to tackle pressures from land reclamation and marine construction in FIVHA2 and FIVHA3. Hundred forty-five supplementary measures were reported to be used in 2009 and Fifteen measures were reported in 2012 that were not reported as being used (i.e. in relation to specific pressures). They did however appear in the list of supplementary measures in Ten of the fifteen measures were associated with groundwater including aquifer protection, further hydrogeological studies, monitoring of background water levels, protection through land use planning and new legislation. Non groundwater (surface water) measures were reported in relation to development of conservation plans and restoration projects. WRc plc 17 of 37 March 2015

18 9. Reporting of Key Types of Measures In 2012, Member States were asked to report on 16 defined Key Types of Measures (KTM). These were expected to incorporate Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures and supplementary measures. Their implementation and completion were expected to deliver the bulk of the actions required to achieve WFD objectives, i.e. to reduce significant pressures to the extent required to achieve good status or to prevent deterioration of status in high and good status water bodies. The defined KTMs were: 1 Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment; 2 Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive; 3 Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture; 4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil); 5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams); 6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity; 7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow; 8 Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures); 9 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households; 10 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry; 11 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture; 12 Advisory services for agriculture; 13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.); 14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty; 15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances; 16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Member States also were given the possibility to report different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations and requirements. Quantitative indicators for the scale and progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific national situations. WRc plc 18 of 37 March 2015

19 Sections 10 to 14 show and describe the progress made by Finland in the implementation of KTMs primarily associated with the five key topics subject to the in-depth assessment: not all KTMs were reported and/or applicable to the situation in Finland. Some of the KTMs are not necessarily associated with the 5 selected Topics: these are described in section 15. As indicated above, Member States were also able to report different KTMs from the defined KTMs; these are also described in section 15. WRc plc 19 of 37 March 2015

20 10. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures (nutrients, organic matter) from agriculture Quantification of the scale of agricultural pressures Pressures from different sectors are described in chapter 6 of the RBMPs (these include communities, industry and business, (divided into several sectors potentially affecting the state of water bodies), agriculture, forestry, transport etc. Sources for phosphorous and nitrogen pollution are specified according to sectors. For example in the FIVHA2 RBMP it is mentioned that from total phosphorus pressure, 48% is coming from agricultural sources,differences are shown across the area. For nitrogen pressure agriculture amounts to 29%, differences are again shown across the entire area. For the FIVHA3 the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen from different sectors are shown for each water body. In addition the reductions in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous loads and in ph levels to achieve good ecological status (GES) are shown for each water body, however without attributing it to a specific sector. Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives The RBMPs do not make explicit links to the Nitrates Action Programme or expose the contributions done by measures foreseen to the achievements of WFD objectives. Based on the information reported to WISE the measures to reduce nutrient pollution that go beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive the area in which the measures have been completed is 2314 square kilometres and not started in 4921 square kilometres. According to the information reported to WISE the basic measures were not enough to meet WFD objectives in addressing pollution from nitrates in almost all of the RBDs (point source from urban waste water treatment (UWWT) and other sources, diffuse pollution from different sources, hydromorphological alterations). According to the information reported to WISE the basic measures were not enough to meet WFD objectives in addressing pollution from nitrates (point source from UWWT and other sources, diffuse pollution from different sources, hydromorphological alterations). The Finnish RBMPs measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. The presented summary of the measures is detailed, it exposes existing and additional measures by sector in quite some detail (as well as their costs).there is a specific timeline for implementing the measures, however the actual measures to be implemented are to be set out in the annual action plans (Programme for Implementation of River Basin Management Plans ), meaning that the measures presented in the RBMPs are just statements of intent. The measures are expected to help achievements to address diffuse source pollution, but the descriptions of awaited outcomes are only occasionally quantified in terms of filling in the gap and mostly described qualitatively, the overview of measures is provided according to sectors (community, agriculture, industry etc.). Based on the information from bilateral meetings, an overview of the supplementary measures foreseen and the quantifications for agriculture is provided in an Annex.The table provides an overview of the national summary (based on regional assessment) on the quantities of additional measures.this has not been presented in terms of the gap that needs to be overcome to achieve the WFD objectives.the timeline is foreseen for periods and WRc plc 20 of 37 March 2015

21 Key types of measure KTM2. Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the nitrates directive KTM2 was not reported for Finland. KTM12: Advisory services for agriculture Figure 10.2 Percentages of indicator/baseline associated with KTM12 that were reported as being not started, on-going and completed in 2012 FIWDA 12.1 (75) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% NotStarted OnGoing Completed Key to indicators: The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode: Indicator number: (value of the indicator when 100% completed) Number of farms Source: WISE PoM Reports This KTM was only reported for the FIWDA where advisory services had been implementted in 15 of the 75 farms expected to be included. There was no indication as to when all farms would be covered. WRc plc 21 of 37 March 2015

22 11. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from chemicals Quantification of the scale of chemical pressures The main substance for chemical pollution causing failure for groundwater (GW) bodies are listed. For FIVHA2 RBD most significant sources for chemical pollution are polychlorinated dioxins, furans and mercury and organic lead compounds (TBT) in the sediments of Kymijoki. Content of chlorine compounds and heavy metals are high close to harbours. As sources for this pollution paint of ships hulls and mines are mentioned. It is mentioned in this chapter that additional research is carried out to establish origin of these substances. In the FIVHA2 RBD the overview of polluted soils is presented in the RBMP. It is stated that the polluted areas can be contaminated by oil products, heavy metals, arsenic, PAHs, PCBs, chlorphenyls, dioxins and furans and pesticides due to accidents, but also due to releases from abnormal and usual operational activities. Information on polluted soils and remediated areas is collected into the soil status database (Matti). The pressures represent 65 different activities. Main share belongs to the petrol stations, service stations and motor vehicle maintenance and repair sites. Several shooting ranges, municipal waste landfills, garages, depots, metallurgical enterprises in the chemical and plastics industry companies, greenhouses, horticultural sites, scrapping and dry-cleaning activities are also causing soil degradation It can be concluded that the sources of chemical pollution and types of pollutants are known, however there is no quantification in terms of the reductions necessary for each pollutant to achieve the WFD objectives. In comparison for the FIVHA3 the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen from different sectors are shown for each water body. In addition the reductions in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous loads and in ph levels to achieve GES are given for each water body. Such quantification has not been made available for other chemical substances. There is an overview table for GW bodies showing the surface (and percentage of the overall GW bodies) where the good chemical status/or the potential for it needs to be maintained or is yet to be achieved. In all of the RBMPs refrence is made that Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) in national legislation are set for hazardous and dangerous substances. The measures foreseen and their effects on different pressures are described according to sectors and mostly in qualitative terms. Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives Basic and supplementary measures The Finnish RBMPs measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. Progress to be achieved by current measures is calculated based on annual progress estimates that are continuously updated. The deadlines to achieve the gap are stated to be 2015 (or in exceptional cases 2021 and 2027). For example for FIVHA2, the foreseen implementation of the current measures and the supplementary measures is shown in the Annex; there is a quantification done for each measure in terms of the new sewage system connections (km) and waste water treatment plants (number). There is a specific timeline for implementing the measures, however the actual measures to be implemented are to be set out in the annual action plans (Programme for Implementation of River Basin Management Plans ), meaning that the measures presented in the RBMPs are just statements of intent. The RBMPs includes tables that show how some basic measures will fill the gap (along with supplementary measures) - but these are not found for all measures. WRc plc 22 of 37 March 2015

23 According to the information reported to WISE the basic measures were not enough to meet WFD objectives in addressing pollution from nitrates (point source from UWWT and other sources, diffuse pollution from different sources, hydromorphological alterations). The Finnish RBMPs the measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. The presented summary of the measures is detailed, it exposes existing and additional measures by sector is quite some detail (as well as their costs). The additional measures are expected to help achievements, but the descriptions of awaited outcomes are only occasionally quantified and mostly described qualitatively, the overview of measures is provided according to sectors (community, agriculture, industry etc.). For example in FIVHA3 the length (km) of sewage systems necessary for specific sub-basins to attain GES are shown Measures required by the EQS Directive Inventory of the sources of chemical pollution According to the information reported to WISE in 2010, there is an inventory of the sources of chemical pollution. The inventory of the sources of chemical pollution covers in addition to PS and RBSP oil products, heavy metals, arsenic, PAHs, PCBs, chlorphenyls, dioxins and furans and pesticides. Use of mixing zones Based on the information on the chemical status assessment template, mixing zones are not used in FIVHA2 and FIVHA3, FIVHA6, FIVHA7, FIVDA. For the remaining river basins - FIVHA1, FIVHA4 and FIVHA5 the use of mixing zones is unclear. Measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zone in the future Based on the information on the chemical status assessment template, mixing zones reduction is not foreseen in any of the Finnish RBDs. Specific measures with the aim of progressively reducing pollution from priority substances Based on the information from the bilateral meetings in the first cycle RBMPs the monitoring of priority substances was prepared in compliance with the Directive 2000/60/EC, Decision No 2455/2001/EC and Directive 2006/11/EC. The Directive 2008/105/EC was not applied to the chemical status assessment of water bodies reported in the RBMPs in 2010, because the transposition date of the Directive was not until a later date. The monitoring measurement results were used unofficially by comparing them to the EQS values laid down in Directive 2006/105/EC. As for the 41 substances, the selection for monitoring was performed so that only substances that were known to end up or wash into bodies of water based on the discharge assessment would be monitored. This conclusion was made based on a risk analysis and verified by water sample surveys. It is stated that in the next planning cycle the chemical classification will be improved because of new available data and possibility of grouping water bodies. Monitoring networks for specific and priority substances will be improved and designed, taking into account the emission inventory of priority substances according to Art 5 Directive 2008/105/EC.Based on the 2012 RBM assessment by the Commission, basic and supplementary measures are implemented in all RBDs to prevent inputs of hazardous substances to groundwater and all discharges are controlled via permits. Specific measures with the aim of ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances Monitoring networks for specific and priority substances will be improved and designed, taking into account the emission inventory of priority substances according to Article 5 of Directive 2008/105/EC. Based on the 2012 RBM assessment by the Commission, basic and supplementary measures are implemented in all WRc plc 23 of 37 March 2015

24 RBDs to prevent inputs of hazardous substances to groundwater and all discharges are controlled via permits. Key types of measure KTM3. Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture KTM3 was not reported for Finland. KTM15: Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances KTM15 not reported for Finland. KTM16: Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive KTM16 not reported for Finland. WRc plc 24 of 37 March 2015

25 12. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from hydromorphological alterations Quantification of the scale of pressures from hydromorphological alterations The quantification of pressures from hydromorphological alterations is not shown in the same manner across RBMPs. For example FIVHA2 RBMP provides a list of water bodies and their length that have been affected by physical alterations and are therefore heavily modified. For FIVHA4, the ecological status of heavily modified water bodies (including their length and area) is shown in relation to their best attainable state.for FIVHA5 there has been no quantification of hydromorphological pressures, instead the heavily modified water bodies are named. However, there is no quantification of hydromorphological pressures in terms of reductions required for achieving WFD objectives. Based on the information from the bilateral meeting the data regarding hydraulic structures and hydraulic engineering projects that have received a permit is recorded in the environmental administration HERTTA data system. The OIVA service map application enables viewing of the hydraulic structures (i.e. morphological pressures).based on the information from the bilateral meetings the quantification of measures related to hydromorphology were examind within the framework of the entire RBD and not focused on single water bodies/regions.this information is said to be available in the national river basin management data system. Finland has an extensive hydrological monitoring network in place, providing daily information about the water levels and rates of flow from over 300 observation points 3. The observation network covers all projects that have significant effects on hydrology in Finland, and the related data is recorded in the environmental administration HERTTA data system. Based on the information available in the RBMPs the measures foreseen and their effects on different pressures are described according to sectors and mostly in qualitative terms. Based on the information from the bilateral meeting there are about 160 measures presented for facilitating the migration of fish, complemented in addition by the development of regulatory practices, habitat restoration of streams and sea bays and small water areas. It is stated that in the second cycle measures to improve hydromorphological status will be directly linked to pressures. Additionally in the second cycle the hydromorphological changes will be documented more in detail. Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives The Finnish RBMPs measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. The presented summary of the measures is detailed, it exposes existing and additional measures by sector (as well as their costs).there is a specific timeline for implementing the measures, however the actual measures to be implemented are to be set out in the annual action plans (Programme for Implementation of River Basin Management Plans ), meaning that the measures presented in the RBMPs are just statements of intent.the additional measures are expected to help achievements, but the descriptions of awaited outcomes are only occasionally quantified and mostly described qualitatively, the overview of measures is provided according to sectors (community, agriculture, industry etc.). 3 WRc plc 25 of 37 March 2015

26 Based on the RBMPs although it is said that several hydro-morphological measures will be taken, it is not clear which those measures are, since the RBMPs does not contain sufficient detail of where and when specific measures will be implemented. Based on the information from the bilateral meetings there are about 160 measures presented for facilitating the migration of fish, complemented in addition by the development of regulatory practices, habitat restoration of streams and sea bays and small water areas. It is stated that in the second cycle measures to improve hydromorphological status will be directly linked to pressures. Additionally in the second cycle the hydromorphological changes will be documented more in detail. Also, based on the information from the bilateral meeting the measures improving the hydromorphological status include: habitat restoration of flowing waters, measures facilitating the migration of fish, development of regulation practices, and restoration of bays and small water bodies. It is stated that the data regarding hydraulic structures and hydraulic engineering projects that have received a permit is recorded in the environmental administration s HERTTA data system. The OIVA services map application enables viewing of the hydraulic structures (i.e. morphological pressures). Key types of measure KTM5: Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) Figure 12.1 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with KTM5 that were reported as being not started, planning on-going, construction on-going and completed in 2012 FIVHA1 5.1 (12) FIVHA2 5.1 (44) FIVHA4 5.1 (23) FIVHA5 5.1 (1) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% NotStarted Planning On-Going Construction On-Going Completed Key to indicators The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed)": 5.1 Number of projects/measures to improve longitudinal continuity Source: WISE PoM Reports This KTM is to do with measures that facilitate the passage of fish and was reported in terms of the number of projects/measures in 4 (1, 2, 4, 5) of the 8 RBDs in Finland. 38% of the 80 projects were not started, 24% with planning on-going and 38% completed. There was no information reported on the expected progress over the next 3 years of the plan. WRc plc 26 of 37 March 2015

27 KTM6: Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity Figure 12.2 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with KTM6 that were reported as being not started, planning on-going, construction on-going and completed in 2012 FIVHA5 6.3 (15) FIVHA6 6.3 (5) Not Started Planning On-Going Construction On-Going Completed 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Key to indicators The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed)": 6.3 Number of projects/measures Source: WISE PoM Reports KTM 6 was reported in relation to number of projects/measures for the restoration of water habitats in 2 RBDs - FIVHA5 and FIVHA6. All of the 20 measures had started with 25% having planning on-going and 75% being completed. There was no indication of the expected progress until WRc plc 27 of 37 March 2015

28 13. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from urban waste water treatment Quantification of the scale of the pressures In general, the measures foreseen and their effects on different pressures are described according to sectors (community, agriculture, industry, transport etc.) and described mostly in qualitative terms. It is stated that in the case of scattered settlement the nutrient reduction will depend on the success of the implementation of the waste water regulation. According to the nationally applicable legislation (542/2003) in sparsely populated areas 85% of phosphorous, 40% of nitrogen and 90% of organic matter stemming from wastewater treatment needs to be reduced during 2014.This information is not available in tonnes and a clear linkage to achieving the WFD objectives has not been made. In all of the RBMPs the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen from different sectors are shown for each water body. Also, the reduction rates in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous loads (in tonnes and in percentages) and in PH levels to achieve GES are given for each water body. Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives The Finnish RBMPs the measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. The presented summary of the measures is detailed, it exposes existing and additional measures by sector is quite some detail (as well as their costs).there is a specific timeline for implementing the measures, however the actual measures to be implemented are to be set out in the annual action plans (Programme for Implementation of River Basin Management Plans ), meaning that the measures presented in the RBMPs are just statements of intent. The measures are expected to help achievements to address point source pollution, but the descriptions of awaited outcomes are only occasionally quantified in terms of filling in the gap and mostly described qualitatively, the overview of measures is provided according to sectors (community, agriculture, industry etc.). According to the information reported to WISE the basic measures were not enough to meet WFD objectives in addressing pollution from nitrates (point source from UWWT and other sources, diffuse pollution from different sources, hydromorphological alterations). Measures for the UWWT for specific water bodies are exposed as a part of the RBMPs, their implementation is foreseen until 2015 ).Based on the WISE summary in FIVHA 1,2,3 construction or upgrading going beyond the requirements of the UWWT Directive is taking place in 9 wastewaster treatment plants and has been completed in 14 plants. From another 19 plants construction works are in the planning stage. WRc plc 28 of 37 March 2015

29 Key types of measure KTM1. Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the directive on urban waste water treatment Figure 13.1 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with KTM1 that were reported as being not started, planning on-going, construction on-going and completed in 2012 FIVHA1 1.2 (9) FIVHA2 1.2 (20) NotStarted PlanningOnGoing ConstructionOnGoing Completed FIVHA3 1.2 (32) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Key to indicators measures The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed) 1.2 Number of projects/measures Source: WISE PoM Reports This KTM was reported for 3 of the 8 Finnish RBDs (1, 2 and 3). It is reported in terms of number of projects and measures: 31% of the 61 projects are not started, 31% with planning on-going, 15 % construction on-going and 23% have been completed. There is no informaton on the expected progress during the last 3 years of the plan. WRc plc 29 of 37 March 2015

30 14. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from water abstractions Quantification of the scale of the pressure The Finnish RBMPs measures are divided into currently applicable measures and additional measures. The presented summary of the measures is detailed, it exposes existing and additional measures by sector (as well as their costs).there is a specific timeline for implementing the measures, however the actual measures to be implemented are to be set out in the annual action plans (Programme for Implementation of River Basin Management Plans ), meaning that the measures presented in the RBMPs are just statements of intent. In the RBMPs the volume of water abstracted annually due to industry having an impact on the status of water bodies is provided. The number of GW abstraction sites and volumes is equally shown. However, there is no assessment of the quantity that needs to be reduced in order to achieve the objectives of the WFD. The data on water abstraction that is due to household consumption is provided on national level. It is stated that the data on water abstractions is available in the Water Management Information System (VELVET). Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives According to the 2012 RBMP assessment by the Commission, quantitative status of GW is not an issue in most Finnish RBDs, and basic measures (other than abstractions controlled by permits) are only referred to in FIVHA3 (where 2 GWB are at risk due to abstraction for peat mining) and in the Åland islands, where over abstraction and saltwater intrusion are cited as issues. As to measures for Article 11.3e the control of water abstractions is implemented through the national Water Law. According to the law a permit is necessary for ground water abstraction beyond 250 m3/day (exluding for temporary water supply). The amounts of abstracted ground water are their impacts on the environment are monitored through the monitoring programme. There is no quantification of how much this measure will contribute to the achievement of the WFD objectives. WRc plc 30 of 37 March 2015

31 Key types of measure KTM7: Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow Figure 14.1 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with KTM7 that were reported as being not started, on-going and completed in 2012 FIVHA6 7.1 (1) NotStarted OnGoing Completed Key to indicators measures The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed) 7.1 Number of projects/measures (including permits) Source: WISE PoM Reports There was one ongoing measure in FIVHA6 reported for this KTM. No information was found on when it would be completed, KTM8: Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures) KTM8 was not reported for Finland. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% WRc plc 31 of 37 March 2015

32 15. Reporting of other Key Types of Measure This section summarises the progress with the implementation of the defined KTMs not included within the assessment of the specific pressures/issues. Member States were also given the possibility to report different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations and requirements: these are also summarised in this section. KTM4: Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) KTM4 was not reported for Finland. KTM9: Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households KTM9 was not reported for Finland. KTM10: Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry KTM10 not reported for Finland. KTM11: Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture KTM11 not reported for Finland. KTM13: Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones, etc.) Figure 15.1 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with KTM13 that were reported as being completed in 2012 FIVHA1 13 Other (54) FIVHA2 13 Other (75) FIVHA3 13 Other (0) FIVHA4 13 Other (26) 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% % baseline completed Key to indicators measures The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed) Other Preparation and updating protection plans Source: WISE PoM Reports WRc plc 32 of 37 March 2015

33 In terms of the preparation and updating of protection plans 263 of the expected 155 were reported to be implemented across the 4 RBDs (1, 2, 3 and 4) reporting this KTM. It is not clear that this is the actual situation or a case of misreporting. There was no information on the expected progress over the next period. KTM14: Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty KTM14 not reported for Finland. Summary assessment on the state of implementation of Key Types of Measure Seven of the 16 KTMs were reported for Finland. None of the measures was implemented across the whole of Finland. Four RBDs was the most in which any specific KTM was implemented. Most of the KTMs were not completed, there was uncertainty about the implementation status of KTM 13 because of possible misreporting. Measures/projects associated with 3 KTMs had not been started and others reported on going actions. There was no information on the expected progress of any of the measures until the end of the first plan. New Key Types of Measures There are five new KTMs reported for Finland. New KTM 1 Figure 15.2 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with New KTM1 that were reported as being not started, on-going and completed in 2012 Key to indicators measures The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed) 1.1 Number of water bodies subject to restoration Source: WISE PoM Reports Järvien kunnostukset (Remediation/restoration of eutrophic lakes): FIVHA1, FIVHA2, FIVHA4. Remediation can include various types of actions such as food chain restoration, oxidation, water, vegetation, mowing, chemical processing, water level drawdown and dredging. Of the total of 184 water bodies being renovated across the three RBDs, work on 33% was not started, 2% had on-going planning, 5% on-going construction and 60% were completed. No information was reported on whether all uncompleted water bodies would be restored by WRc plc 33 of 37 March 2015

34 New KTM 2 Haja- ja loma-asutuksen vesiensuojeluneuvonta (Water conservation advice for scattered and vacation settlements): FIVHA4. This measure supports the implementation of wastewater regulations in scattered settlements through site-specific advice. A quantitative value of 3500 is reported against a baseline reference value of zero. It is therefore not clear what progress has been made on this measure. New KTM 3 Happamuuden torjunta (Measures to counteract acidification) (FIVHA3). This measure is to do with soil mapping to identify potential sulphate areas for an initial risk assessment rating (in terms of acidification of water). The value of the indicator (soils mapped) is (no units) against a baseline reference value of The units for the indicator are not reported but they could be are (km 2 ) of mapped soils. However, the value reported is much high than the reference value and so it is difficult to judge the progress made. New KTM 4 Figure 15.3 Percentages of indicator/measures associated with New KTM4 that were reported as being completed in 2012 Key to indicators measures The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed) 4.1 Number of times disinfection of fish (fisheries) has been undertaken Source: WISE PoM Reports Kalatautien leviämisen estäminen (Fish disease proliferation) FIVHA7: This measure is to do with the prevention of the spread of the salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. How this is being done is not explained. The indicator is in terms of the number of times disinfection of fish (fisheries) has been undertaken. A value (for 2012) of 2500 is reported against a baseline of 3000 (no units given) indicating that there is still progress to be made before all measures are completed. WRc plc 34 of 37 March 2015