Minutes from 2 nd meeting for the international water districts Tana-Pasvik- Neiden

Transcription

1 Finnish - Norwegian International River Basin District Water authority meeting Lapland ELY-centre, Rovaniemi, Finland Minutes from 2 nd meeting for the international water districts Tana-Pasvik- Neiden Place: Hotel Santa Claus, Korkalonkatu 29, Rovaniemi Date: November 26th 27th, 2013 Participants: Norway Kerry Maria Agustsson, FFK Stein Tage Domaas, FFK Anders Iversen, Miljødirektoratet Jon Lasse Bratli, Miljødirektoratet Lars Stalsberg, NVE Eirik Frøiland, FFM Jostein Fløgstad, FFM Finland Milla Mäenpää, Finnish Environment Instititute Jari Pasanen LAPELY Petri Liljaniemi, LAPELY Annukka Puro-Tahvanainen, LAPELY Eira Luokkanen, LAPELY Riku Elo, LAPELY Pekka Räinä, LAPELY 1. New Fi-No agreement A New Agreement on the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District has been signed The purpose of the agreement is to create a framework for bilateral cooperation and administrational arrangement on common water basins shared with Finland and Norway. This fulfills the requirements appointed in the Water Framework Directive. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed together with the agreement. Its purpose is to decide on procedures for the coordination of the water management in the Fi-No RBD, with the aim of achieving the environmental objectives laid down in the Water Framework Directive. The MoU is not legally binding.

2 2. Phase of the planning process in Norway and Finland Timelines There is a difference of three months concerning the beginning of the consultation periods. Consultation of the RBMP begins in Norway and in Finland. This has an effect on timelines when drafts of the PoMs and RBMPs are ready. The PoM should be ready at the beginning of next year in Norway and in Finland. The first draft of the RBMP in Norway should be ready by early February and the updated draft in the beginning of April. In Finland the draft of the RBMP might be ready in August. Because the PoMs will be done in the first quarter of the year in both countries, there should be time to harmonize and agree on the most essential parts of the plans. Characterization and classification There are some differences in delineation of the water bodies. Norway has delineated smaller water bodies than Finland. Norway has delineated lakes that are larger than 0,5 km 2. Smaller lakes are included in river water bodies. Some rivers are delineated on Norwegian side but not on the Finnish side. The bigger water bodies are delineated in the same way. It was agreed adjust smaller water bodies (rivers and lakes) that have been delineated in Norway and which cross the border. Suggestion for classification is ready in Finland. Also, pressures and risk for not achieving good status have been assessed in Finland, but not yet saved in the database. In Norway all pressures have been evaluated and risk assessed. All water bodies that are in good or high status (no pressures) have not yet been classified. There are differences in status classification in common river water bodies (in appendix). Finland has classified them in general to better status than Norway. Anarjohka, Tanaelva, Neiden and Munkelva have been classified as good in Norway and high in Finland. Especially problematic is Skiehččanjohka/Kietsimäjoki that has been classified as moderate in Norway and good in Finland. Also one lake, Følvatnet/Varssalijärvi has been classified as moderate due to high Cu-concentration. In uncertain cases Finland has assessed water bodies to good status more frequent than in Norway. Eirik, Petri and Annukka will look more detailed how to harmonize status evaluations. It was decided that Petri will send new data to Eirik and Norway will check the classification of border rivers and lakes on the basis on all data that they have. It was also agreed that the differences in national classification systems (e.g. one out all out principle in Norway) will lead to differences in classification. Pressure evaluation Pressure evaluation in Finland is under work and should be ready by the end of the year. Estimations have been done for nutrient loading, harmful substances and hydromorphological alterations. Diffuse loading is estimated with the VEMALA-model and point source loading data from environmental data base VAHTI. In Norway municipalities/sub districts have given information on factors affecting waters in their area, and authorities make evaluation of the effects and significance of these pressures. It would be useful to combine pressure data as much as possible to get an overall picture of the pressures in the RBD.

3 Monitoring programs In Finland the monitoring programmes of RBD s are being revised by the end of this year by ELY-centres. In Norway suggestions for surveillance monitoring programmes made by Miljødirektoratet (Jon Lasse Bratli) will also be ready by the end of this year. Operational and investigative monitoring programmes are made by Fylkesmannen i Finnmark. There are differences in draft monitoring programmes concerning frequencies of sampling and number of biological quality elements. It was decided to exchange information on monitoring programmes after revision. It was also discussed about differences in sampling methods, and Annukka promised to send to Norway a table of sampling methods of biological quality elements used in Finland. There was a discussion about the common transboundary water quality monitoring programme that has been going on for a long time. It was decided that Eirik will talk to Bente Christiansen about the old programme and FFM will consider if monitoring of stations on the Norwegian side will be continued. If monitoring will be continued, a written agreement will be needed which includes for example a list of stations (+ map) and information about delivering the data. Those stations should be part of the RBD s monitoring programme. 3. Data systems Finnish classification data is linked to Norwegian vann-nett system and it s possible to study status maps parallel. In the Finnish map service Norwegian data is not yet available. Some small rivers are delineated on the Norwegian side but not on the Finnish side. These should be adjusted. Common water bodies must have international coding for WISE-system needs. Riku, Lars and SYKE are responsible for this. We discussed also about producing common maps for the Roof report. It depends also on EUcommission which layers need to be produced. A list of these should be checked. We also need a map of the borders of the common IRBD. There are needs to harmonize colours and border crossing rivers to fit both sides of the border. 4. Common Roof Report Each country will produce a national and detailed RBMP for its part of the IRBD, but in dialogue with the other country concerning the details mentioned above. These plans are formally adopted and has a legal status in the respective country only, but should also be translated so they can be consulted on the other side of the border. Additionally there will be a common Roof Report, in form of a comprehensive executive summary of the two national RBMPs. Kerry presented draft content of the Roof Report. Ground waters were added to the report. The contents of the national plans will be more or less identical, even if the same issues are presented in different ways in national plans. Norway has not implemented the MSD and Bird and Habitat directives but Norway has parallel procedures and objectives in OSPAR and conservation areas established according to national legislation. The Roof Report should emphasize common objectives and what we have harmonized rather than differences.

4 Taking into account the timelines, the Roof Report could be published for consultation 6 months in both countries at the same time as Finland start its national consultation We discussed also if the whole national plans should be translated in Finnish and Norwegian or is it enough if only a summary is translated for consultation in other country. It was not decided yet. Extra resources for making Roof Report are needed. Human resources and financing for translations. These are still unclear but ambition level should set at the realistic level we can achieve. Roof report will be written in English and translated in Norwegian, Finnish and Sami languages. Timechart: July 2014 December 2014: Consultation of draft RBMP and PoM in Norway. Translated documents to be provided to ELY for consultation on the Finnish side. October 2014 March 2015: Consultation of draft RBMP and PoM in Finland. Translated documents to be provided to FFK for consultation on the Norwegian side. October 2014 March 2015: Common Roof Report to be available together with the draft RBMPs and PoMs. April 2015: Roof Report to be adjusted according to adjustments in national RBMPs and PoMs after consultation. July 2015: Roof Report follows national RBMP and PoM for adoption/approval procedure in each country respectively. 5. Other issues Next meeting will be arranged in February (video meeting). Fi-No Border River Commission should be asked how they want to be informed of this work. Also the need to inform Russia concerning Pasvik-area was discussed. National authorities will be kept updated about proceeding of work. ATTACHMENTS Agreement on the Finnish-Norwegian RBD Memorandum of Understanding Classification of the transboundary water bodies Roof report content draft

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 NO name FI code FI name NO risk 2021 FI risk 2021 NO Ecol. state FI Ecol. state NO chemical state FI chemical state Notes Anárjohka _003 Inarijoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined Tanaelva Utsjok til Hillagurra _a01 Teno alaosa Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined Tanaelva Karasjok til Utsjok _a02 Teno yläosa Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined Neiden _001 Näätämöjoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Undefined Undefined Munkelva _001 Uutuanjoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Undefined - Skiehččanjohka _a03 Kietsimäjoki yläosa At risk? Assumed moderate Good Undefined - Skiehččanjohka _a02 Kietsimäjoki alaosa At risk? Assumed moderate Good Undefined - Gallotjohka Kallojoki Not at risk High - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland all small rivers in Neidenelva basin _001 Nuortijoki Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined Bizusjohka Not at risk Good - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland Bossojohka Possujoki Not at risk Good - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland rivers classified in NO, not delineated in FI Skibotnelv øvre bekkefelt øst Duolljehuhputjohka Ingen risiko Good Undefined flows from Enontekiö to Troms nor classified in either country Rádjajohka Rajajoki? Above Kietsimäjoki Classification in Vann Net

17 NO code NO name FI code FI name NO risk FI risk NO Ecol. State FI Ecol. State NO chemical state FI chemical state Notes L Buolbmatjavri _001 Pulmankijärvi Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined L Mivttejávri N Not at risk High Undefined delineation missing in FI L Gålmesjavri (Fiskevatn) _001 Stuorab Kolmmesjavri Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined L Geaågesuolojavri _001 Kivisaarijärvi Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined L Følvatnet Varssalijärvi Possibly at risk Moderat - Good - Not delineated in Finland L Ellenvatnet Kertusjärvi Not at risk Good - Good - Not delineated in Finland L Ravdojavri Not at risk High Undefined - Not delineated in Finland preliminary classification for _001 Aaletajärvi-Aletjávri - Not at risk - Good - Undefined lakes < 1km L Somajavri _001 Somasjärvi Not at risk Not at risk Undefined High Undefined Undefined L Coahppejavri - Not at risk High - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland Water bodies ~0,5ha on the border not delineated nor classified in either country Laddojavvrit Laddojavri : Raja-kapperijärvi : Ravdojavri Rautujärvi : Coahppeluoppal : ETRS35

18 Draft for table of contents Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District Management Plan Rivers Tana, Neiden and Pasvik watercourses in Finland and Norway Basin-wide overview/roof level plan Table of contents Summary: Legal framework Aim of roof report, objectives, explanation for those who are not familiar with this work How will roof report be used to increase cooperation, the way forward 1. Introduction and background a. Purpose of the plan, changes since last management plan b. International agreement and cooperation (meetings and process) c. Public information and consultation i. Compare timetables and deadlines, description of consultation processes, how feedback will be addressed 2. General description of the area a. Geographical description b. Changes in the environment c. Climate change in the area d. Map e. Common user interests f. Compare organisational structure 3. Characterisation and classification in shared water districts a. Short comparison of each countries methods b. How far the process has reached c. Remaining challenges 4. Significant pressures identified in the River Basin District a. List of common significant issues - describe common process, common challenges, how significant issues are prioritised in each country. I.e.: i. hydro-morphological alterations ii. nutrient loading iii. biological pressures/invasive species b. Any need to identify national disagreements, e.g on effects from escaped farmed fish? (only if relevant to transboundary water bodies) 5. Protected areas in the RBD a. Areas for the abstraction of water b. Bathing water directive c. Bird and habitat directives Not adopted in Norway, but the Norwegian water management plans will have an overview of protected areas which correspond to these directives 6. Monitoring networks and ecological / chemical status a. Only for surface waters, not ground waters b. Comparison of status assessment, gaps and uncertainties c. Designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies d. Ecological and chemical status e. How has monitoring been designed to catch signs of climate change?

19 7. Environmental objectives and exemptions a. Common overall environmental objectives 8. Economic analysis of water uses a. Mainly drinking water and wastewater: State compensation, national funds, municipal costs 9. Joint Programme of Measures a. Summary of measures of basin-wide importance b. Estimated effects of national measures on the basin-wide scale c. Include current measures? (Implemented before 2016) 10. Flood risk management, Marine Strategy Framework Directive a. Flood directive not implemented in Norway, but NVE has a flood management plan, this information can be incorporated here. b. Marine directive not relevant for IRBD, but will be mentioned. Alternative Norwegian national legislation (OSPAR, protected marine areas) 11. Effects on climate change in relation to the water framework directive? a. Effects on water quality, quantity b. Effects on measures c. Effects of measures 12. List of relevant literature and where it can be accessed