REPORTS 2014
Executive chapter for the River Basin
Management Plans for the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District (2016–2021)
Water Districts Tana, Neiden and Pasvik in Finland and Norway Basin-wide overview
ROOF REPORT
Executive chapter for the River Basin Management Plans for the Finnish-
Norwegian River Basin District (2016–2021)
Water Districts Tana, Neiden and Pasvik in Finland and Norway Basin-wide overview
15.10.2014
Cover photo: Lake Inari, Aarno Torvinen.
On 22 of May 2014, a supplementary bilateral agreement aiming at fulfilling the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) entered into force. The agreement designates the four catchments Tana, Nei- den, Munkelva and Pasvik as an International River Basin District (IRBD). The purpose of the agreement is to establish a common framework to secure a stronger bilateral cooperation and coordination between the River Basin Authorities (Finnmark fylkeskommune and ELY-Centre of Lapland). The agreement covers the plan- ning and implementation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Programmes of Measures (PoM).
Meetings between the two countries River Basin Authorities commenced in 2013, aiming at the production of a common Roof Report for the whole IRBD in 2015, in form of a comprehensive “executive summary” of the two national RBMPs, in order to meet the requirements of the WFD. More detailed procedures for the coor- dination are laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding attached to the bilateral agreement.
This Roof Report is open for public consultation from 1st of October 2014 to the 31st of March 2015. After the consultation period, any comments and suggestions will be processed by the competent authorities. The Roof Report will be sent for national approval along with the respective regional river basin management plans in Finland and Norway.
The Roof Report will be available in Finnish, Norwegian and Sami. The document, along with further infor- mation and regional river basin management plans can be accessed at:
www.vannportalen.no, Finnmark/Norwegian-Finnish River Basin -sivusto www.ymparisto.fi/vesienhoitoalue/teno_naatamojoki_ja_paatsjoki/osallistuminen
Input and commentary can be addressed to:
In Norway: Finnmark fylkeskommune Fylkeshuset
9815 Vadsø
Or by email to postmottak@ffk.no.
Please mark all comments with the title: “Norwegian-Finnish River Basin”
In Finland: Lapin ELY-keskus PL 8060
96101 Rovaniemi
Or by email to kirjaamo.lappi@ely-keskus.fi
The Finnish-Norwegian River Basin
District
Table of content
1 Introduction and background ... 5
2 Area description ... 6
2.1 Geographical and ecological description... 6
2.2 Management structure... 8
3 Significant water management issues and pressures identified ... 10
4 Protected areas in the RBD ... 12
5 Monitoring networks ... 14
6 Assessment of water bodies ... 16
6.1 Rivers ... 17
6.2 Lakes ... 17
6.3 Chemical classification ... 19
6.4 Groundwater ... 19
6.5 Coastal waters ... 19
7 Environmental objectives and exemptions ... 20
7.1 Heavily modified water bodies ... 20
7.2 Exemptions... 21
7.2.1 Extended deadlines ... 21
7.2.2 Less stringent objectives ... 23
7.2.3 More stringent objectives ... 23
8 Economic analysis of water uses ... 23
9 Joint programme of measures ... 24
9.1 Flood protection ... 25
9.2 Marine protection ... 26
10 Effects of climate change in relation to the water framework directive ... 27
11 Public information and consultation ... 28
12 Future challenges ... 29
13 Literature and appendices ... 30
River Basin Management Plans are an important tool for securing and improving the status of our aquatic resources. The management plans are intended to summarise the ecological and chemical status of the water bodies, set environmental goals and form a base for local, regional and national authorities’ activity, by administering water resources with a holistic approach. This executive document is a summarising and comparative appendix to the national river basin management plans for the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District. An agreement between the two countries was signed in 2013, effectively creating an international river basin district that encompasses Tana, Pasvik and Neiden water basin districts. Prior to the agreement, the water districts that now form the international river basin district had been administrated as part of Finn- mark River Basin District in Norway, and as Tana, Neiden and Pasvik River Basin District in Finland. At the time of public consultation of the documents it had not been possible to produce a common management plan for the international river basin district, due to differences in organisation and methodology. Attempts to harmonise the differences are being made, and the aim is to produce common documents for the next plan- ning period (2021–2027).
According to article 3–3 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), river basins covering the territory of more than one Member State shall be assigned an international river basin district. In order to comply with the WFD and national legislation, Norway and Finland signed an agreement concerning a Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District. The agreement sets the framework for bilateral cooperation and administrative arrange- ments for the river basin district. The agreement encompasses Tana and Neiden water districts, Munkelva with tributaries, and Norwegian and Finnish territory in the Pasvik water district. A Memorandum of Under- standing pursuant to the Agreement has also been produced, which addresses the procedures for the coor- dination of the water management in the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District at a more detailed level.
The regional authorities Finnmark County Council, Finnmark County Governor and Lapland ELY-centre (Centres for economic development, transport and environment) have had meetings periodically since 2011 to coordinate and set common goals for water management. The meetings have addressed delineation of water bodies, the methodology behind characterisation, classification and risk assessment, and which level of coordination can be attained for the river basin management plans, programmes of measures and mo- nitoring programmes. In addition, yearly meetings for all the competent authorities in northern Scandinavia (North Calotte) have been held to exchange information and better coordinate processes. Meetings at the local level have also been held between municipalities in Norway and Finland.
Cooperation between Finnish and Norwegian authorities regarding water management predates the WFD.
In 1980 the Norwegian and Finnish government signed an agreement concerning a Committee for Finnish- Norwegian Transboundary Rivers, ensuring local, regional and national cooperation regarding the trans- boundary watercourses. The Committee remains an important arena for discussion and input in relation to the WFD.
1 Introduction and background
2 Area description
2.1 Geographical and ecological description
The Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District is composed of Tana, Neiden and Pasvik water districts. While Tana and Neiden cover territory in Norway and Finland, Pasvik water district also stretches into Russia. Ho- wever, Russia is not part of the agreement concerning the international river basin district.
The Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District covers the catchments for the rivers, Tana, Neiden, Pasvik and Munkelva, which drain into the Barents Sea, along with the upper tributaries for the river Tuloma, which drains into Russia. The total land area of the river basin is roughly 48 000 km2, with roughly two-thirds located in Finland. The area is sparsely populated and there are only a few bigger towns in the area. The populati- on on the Finnish side of the area is roughly 8 000 and the population density is 0,3 people/km2. There are roughly 20 000 inhabitants living on Norwegian side of the river basin. This results in few influences for a majority of the water bodies in the river basin district, and thus the ecological status is high or good for most of the area. In total there are 40 000 people in the river basin district area. Most of the river basin district area belongs to the Sami native region.
The river basin area belongs to the Fennoscandia shield on the Finnish side, and a small part of the Tana River basin area belongs to the Caledonia mountains bio-geographical region on the Norwegian side. The Pasvik River basin area is divided into the western and southern mountain areas, and a more shallow Lake Inari area. Altitude differences in the mountain area are large, ranging from 150 to 600 m above sea level.
The area around Lake Inari is hilly, where the altitude varies from 100 to 200 m above sea level.
Moraine is the most common soil type in the river basin area. Vegetation is sparse in many parts of the area, and outcrops are abundant. In the valleys (e.g. River Tana and Utsjoki valleys) there are ridges and deltas. Large sand deposits are formed in the river and the river has dug out various levels in the sandy river terraces, which are used for cultivation and settlements. The bedrock varies from sandstone to granite and gneiss rock. The land is characterised by moraines, valleys with sandbanks and terrace surfaces, and vege- tation varying from barren mountains and plains to pine forests and large marshy areas. The Pasvik water district borders the Siberian Taiga forest. River edges along the river Tana are susceptible to spring floods, while river Pasvik has a high biological production due to high amounts of organic material. The Tana water district is formed of the same geological rock formation as the rest of Northern Finland like granite gneiss, slate and abyssal rock areas. As a result of the rock formation and its acidic nature, which can be seen also in the soil, the vegetation is typical for that kind of choosy environment.
The aquatic environment in the area is typically nutrient-poor and clear, and waterbodies contain very little organic matter. The watersheds are rich in species both in terms of vegetation, fish, birds and mam- mals. The biggest rivers in the area are Tana, Karasjokha, Anarjokha, Inarijoki, Neiden, Utsjoki, Vaskojoki, Ivalojoki, Juutuanjoki, Pasvik and Munkelva. Most of the lakes located in the area are fjäll lakes or small or midsized nutrient-poor lakes. The biggest lake in the area is Lake Inari, from which the waters are running to the Barents Sea along the Pasvik River. The waterbodies in Norway are grouped into eco-regions based on climatic conditions and bio-geographical distribution patterns. The Norwegian side of the river basin district belongs to the Inner Northern-Norway eco-region, which has more fish species than other regions due to a distinct migration history.
Water dominates the landscape in the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District. Table 1 shows the amount and area of water bodies in the river basin district.
Table 1. Waterbodies in the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District (as of 30.06.2014).
Water Category Rivers Lakes Coastal waterbodies Groundwater
Amount Length (km) Amount Area (km2) Amount Area (km2) Amount Area (km2) Norway
Tana 152 14 848 156 247,8 20 1071,6 31 230,7
Pasvik 108 2 685 89 186,1 9 121,8 7 17,7
Neiden 83 2 893 55 73,2 7 107,0 2 8,3
Finland
Tana 35 930 46 62,9
14
Pasvik 66 1 372 184 1 546,4
Neiden 15 219 75 175,4
Total 459 22 947 605 2 291,8 36 1 300,4 54 256,6
Fig. 1. The Finnish-Norwegian river basin district area.
© Karttakeskus Oy, Lupa L4659
The water districts are of importance for settlement, and rivers, lakes and surrounding areas are important for livelihoods such as agriculture, forestry, fishing and industry, as well as leisure activities such as fishing, hiking and hunting. The rivers also have great importance in Sami culture. There are several national parks and nature reserves in the area. Several of the rivers in the river basin district are important spawning rivers for Atlantic salmon; Tana is one of Europe’s largest salmon rivers. There are special protection regimes for protecting the salmon stocks in the national salmon fjords and rivers in Norway. The delta of the river Tana is also Northern Europe’s largest river delta, and carries high importance for wetland birds.
Environmental influences from human activity in the river basin include nutrient loading, hydropower and other physical alterations of watercourses (including fish migration barriers), alien and invasive species, and pollution. Sources of pollution include both point sources and diffuse sources such as wastewater, industry, contamination from landfills, and disused industrial areas and mining sites. The Norwegian part of the river basin also has polluted sediments and harbours.
Nutrient loading from human activities is rather small in the area and the ecological status is mainly clas- sified as good or high. Nutrient loading can be sources to forestry, wastewater (both from households and municipal wastewater) and other diffuse sources.
Two lakes are regulated for a hydropower production on the Finnish side, lakes Inari and Rahajärvi. Hyd- ropower on the Norwegian side includes Kongsfjordvassdraget, Pasvikvassdraget, Kobbholmvassdraget, as well as several rivers and lakes in Neiden. Several watercourses on the Norwegian side of Tana water district are protected against hydropower.
Among invasive species the King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the coastal waters of Norway, and the threat from the fish parasite Gyrodactylus salaris and other parasites are the most imminent. The threat from Gyrodactylus salaris is also current on Finnish side. Other invasive species in Norway include freshwa- ter sculpin (Cottus gobio), pink salmon and vendace.
The most severe pollution source is long-distance pollution from the Norilsk nickel plant in Russia, located just 7 km from the Norwegian border. The plan emits roughly 100 000 tons of SO2 along with other heavy metal emissions (nickel and copper) to air- and waterways. This has a large impact on the water quality of several lakes and rivers, and food safety warnings have been issued for fish in this area. In addition there is significant pollution from mining and industrial activity in the Pasvik water district, where the mining company Sydvaranger Gruve AS has a discharge permit for Bøkfjorden. There is no actual industry on the Finnish si- de of the area. Small salmon and reindeer meat processing plants are working in the municipality of Utsjoki.
2.2 Management structure
In Norway the river basin districts are managed by the County Councils, which are appointed competent authorities in the Water Management Regulation, § 20. The competent authority is responsible for facilitating and coordinating the processes behind producing a river basin management plan, programme of measures and monitoring programme. The County Governor is appointed as the environmental authority for each river basin district. A River Basin District Board is appointed, with representatives from regional sector authorities, the county governor, the county council, municipalities and other affected authorities. If the river basin en- compasses several County Councils, a steering group is appointed, however this is not the case in Finnmark.
Public participation and involvement is secured by inviting other stakeholders and interest-organisations to participate in regional and local references groups.
Municipalities in the water districts are encouraged to organise the local work in an inter-municipal project, where one municipality takes responsibility for the coordination and local processes. A Water District Board is also appointed, consisting of the involved municipalities at the political and administrative level, regional sec- tor authorities and other stakeholders. A local reference group is often merged with the water district board to create better conditions for participation and strengthen local involvement. For Tana water district, Tana mu- nicipality leads the work, while Sør-Varanger municipality is responsible for Pasvik and Neiden water districts.
All documentation, updates, contact information, and minutes from meetings are available at www.vann- portalen.no/finnmark.
Finland´s Centres for economic development, transport and environment (ELY-centre) are responsible for the planning of river basin management in their respective districts, with one centre appointed to co-ordinate the management of each of the five RBDs, together with a steering group.
All of the ELY-centres for in each RBD participate in the work of the co-operation groups, together with a representative of the fisheries administration. ELY-centre has set up joint workshops, whose other members include invited representatives of the main national and local authorities, organisations, landowners and bu- siness interests responsible for the use, protection and state of water bodies. Municipalities take part in the co-operation group work.
River basin management plans have now been systematically drafted for all of Finland´s river basins.
River basin management planning systems are based on co-operation between the authorities, stakeholder groups and citizens, as defined in the new national legislation.
All documentation, updates, contact information, and minutes from meetings are available at http://www.
ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Vesiensuojelu/Vesienhoidon_suunnittelu_ja_yhteistyo/Vesienhoitoalueet/Teno_Naata- mojoki_ja_Paatsjoki
The European Water Framework Directive requires that significant water management issues in the river basin districts are mapped, at least two years prior to the period to which the management plans refer. Both Finland and Norway have prepared a document defining and summarising the significant pressures and impact of human activity in their respective river basins. This summary includes an estimation of point and diffuse source pollution, pressures on quantitative status and an analysis of human activity on water resour- ces. The summary is based on the characterisation of the water bodies, and indicates which pressures, both current and future, the management plan will concentrate on in order to prevent further degradation of water resources in the area. An overview of significant water management issues also indicates which water bodies are at risk of not reaching the goal of good environmental status by 2021, which goals and measures should be prioritised, and which pressures are less significant.
The Norwegian and Finnish summaries of significant water management issues were published and made available for public consultation in 2012. Table 2 offers a summary of common significant issues and com- mentary from the public consultation:
Table 2. Summary of significant water management issues for the Norwegian-Finnish river basin district (Tana, Pasvik and Nei- den) for the period 2016–2021.
Pressures/Issues Finland Norway
Pressures from mining X
Wastewater and sewage* X X
Diffuse source pollution (e.g. municipal landfills, wastewater, forestry)* X X
Contingency planning for acute pollution X
Contamination from metallurgy in Russia X X
Hydropower regulation X X
Alien/invasive species (e.g. pink salmon, minnows and vendace) X X
Emissions/run-off from fish farming* X
King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) (pressures on seabed fauna)* X
Pollution in harbours (contaminated sediments) X
Fish migration barriers X X
Effects from fishing – over-exploitation of anadromous fish X
Preventive measures to prevent transmission of Gyrodactylus salaris and other fish diseases X X
Effects of fish farming on anadromous fish populations* X
Preparation of objectives for water management and flood risk management X
Through the process of identifying the significant issues in the respective river basin districts, Norwegian and Finnish regional authorities have compiled a list of public hearing feedback to the common significant issues. Based on this list, Norwegian and Finnish regional authorities will attempt to identify areas where joint measures can be implemented.
The public feedback can be grouped into different topics – pressures from the mining industry, pressures from nutrients and harmful substances, pressures from alien and invasive species, comments regarding par- ticipation and cooperation, and other issues.
Regarding influences from the mining industry, comments from the Finnish hearing period revealed a need for more information concerning mining projects in neighbouring countries, better EIAs and mitigating measures against the harmful effects from gold mining in the Lemmejoki area. On the Norwegian side con- cerns were raised regarding the issues of food safety, water quality and effects from toxic waste in relation to mining disposal sites. A need for further studies of previous mining sites was mentioned to better establish current pollution levels.
3 Significant water management issues and pressures identified
*The scientific data is incomplete but there is reason to believe that the impacts of these pressures is significant for the aquatic environment
The public feedback on nutrients and harmful substances concern reducing nutrient run-off from hous- ehold wastewater on both sides of the border. In addition, long-distance pollution from industrial activity in Russia is noted as a challenge, especially for the Norwegian waterbodies. In addition, the Norwegian hearing period revealed a need for more focus on sediment pollution in harbours.
Common significant issues within fisheries and aquaculture reveal a need for cooperation with Russia, both in terms of migration barriers and improving the development of aquaculture and fish farms.
Concerning alien and invasive species, preventing further contamination of the parasite Gyrodactylus sa- laris is of high public concern. This issue is also addressed in the Finnish-Norwegian Transboundary Water Commission.
In terms of participation and cooperation public feedback showed it is vital to secure local participation and local knowledge, and general information and guidance must be increased. The need to coordinate me- asures and environmental goals between the two countries is widely recognised, as well as the necessity of developing a common timetable to support and contribute to common planning processes. These issues are addressed in the agreement regarding the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District.
Other commentary concerned spatial planning near the shore line, a lack of data on groundwater, food safety issues and a need for a closer link between hydropower management and river basin management.
The significant issues that have been mentioned will form the basis for developing common measures for the transboundary water bodies in Tana, Pasvik and Neiden. The issues that will be focused upon during this planning period will be preventative measures regarding Gyrodactylus salaris and nutrient loading from household and municipal wastewater.
4 Protected areas in the RBD
According to the WFD legislation, information on the following protected areas are collected for the WFD work:
• areas where water for household purposes of more than 10 m3 per day (average value) or for more than fifty EP (person equivalent) will be taken or intended to be taken
• bathing areas based on the EU legislation (bathing water directive)
• Natura 2000 network areas, which are important for maintaining or improving the state of the water body for the protection of the environment or species.
Targets for the status of waterbodies in the specific areas are determined according to the same princip- les as in other water bodies. Furthermore, the specific criteria from relevant legislation have to be taken into account in these areas, which can result in different requirements or objectives. The status variables used in the classification are necessarily not the same as used normally with the WFD.
In Natura areas the state of surface water and groundwater are examined in relation to the protection status based on the water habitats and species. The state of surface water and groundwater must be at such a level, that it is able to maintain the protection status of the area. The water dependent habitats and species are set to a prio- rity for water management objectives and measures on these areas. In those cases where, for example, the pro- tection of the waters is based on natural state of waters (e.g. nutrient-poor and clear water quality), the good water status in accordance with the objectives of the WFD is not necessarily enough. In particular, the living conditions of some protected species can require a better water status than the good ecological status by WFD. In most ca- ses, the WFD and the nature and bird directive complement each other in terms of water management demands.
Finland has pointed out 10 Natura 2000 areas and 14 groundwater areas (Class I) in the Finnish-Norwegian river basin district area (Fig. 2). Norway has 18 areas protected according to the National Nature Protection Act, 6 areas protected according to the Regulation of protected water ways and 10 areas for drinking water. There is no EU water bathing areas in the river basin district on the Finnish side.
In Norway the national environmental authority, the Environment Agency, is responsible for creating a register of protected areas as defined by the national Water Management Regulation. The register will pro- vide an overview of any other eventual environmental objectives besides those defined in the Regulation, although this will not result in additional objectives. Rather, environmental objectives that are grounded in other legislation will be safeguarded. The register will contain five categories:
1. Drinking water sources
2. Aquatic species of economic importance 3. Areas of recreation (bathing areas) 4. Areas sensitive to nutrient loading
5. Areas chosen for the protection of habitat and species
The register will be available at www.vannportalen.no and www.vann-nett.no upon completion. By the dea- dline for the public consultation of the river basin management plans, the Environment Agency had provided a map of protected areas (see map below). Based on the register of protected areas, specific waterbodies must be identified and the environmental objectives must be considered in light of legislation regulating their use.
Unfortunately, this process is delayed, and thus the environmental objectives for the areas currently follow the Water Management Regulation. It is hoped that this issue will be resolved by the time the regional management plans must be adopted in 2015. The Environment Agency has proposed a stricter environmental objective for all national salmon rivers and their tributaries, by suggesting high ecological status for fish as a quality element.
A complete overview of which waterbodies this will apply for has not been provided.
Fig. 2. Map of protected areas in Finland and Norway. Bathing areas are not included. Source: Miljødirektoratet.
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
) ")
"
)")
"
)
"
") )
"
)
"
") )
! (
! (
"
) ")
"
)
"
) ")
"
)
"
) ")
"
)
"
) ")
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
© Karttakeskus Oy, Lupa L4659
"
) Drinking water source
!
( Aquatic species, outlet for national salmon rivers Aquatic species, national salmon fjords
Areas designated for protection of habitat/species Natura 2000 area
5 Monitoring networks
The WFD implies that water monitoring activities provides a coherent and comprehensive overview on sta- te of waters. A regional monitoring programme must be designed. Monitoring should include surveillance, operational and, where needed, investigative monitoring. Surveillance monitoring is intended to provide a representative overview on the status of the waterbodies in river basin area. Surveillance monitoring focuses on the waterways of the river basin area as well as in the overall monitoring of the hydrological conditions.
Surveillance monitoring gives information on the natural waters in the river basin area, as well as on the state of waters, which are effected by human activity and long-term changes, such as the effects of climate chan- ge. Surveillance monitoring includes a variety of biological and physical-chemical factors.
Operational monitoring is designed to follow a human activity in the waters and its effects on the status of the waters. Operational monitoring is carried out to establish the status of those waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their objectives. Operational monitoring is also used to assess changes in the status of waterbodies resulting from the programmes of measures. Investigative monitoring may be carried out if there is a need to ascertain the causes for an abnormal status of the waterbodies, as well as to ascer- tain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution.
Fig. 3. The monitoring activities in the ground water of the river basin district area in 2007–2013 (Finland).
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
#
*
#
*
#
* #*
#
*
#
*
! (
! (
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*#*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( Pintavesien seuranta 2010
#
* Järvet - perusseuranta
#
* Järvet - perus- ja toiminnallinen seuranta
!
( Joet - perusseuranta
!
( Joet - toiminnallinen seuranta
!
( Joet - perus- ja toiminnallinen seuranta
0 50 100
km
© Maanmittauslaitos, lupa nro 7/MML/14, SYKE Lakes – basic monitoring
Lakes – basic and functional monitoring Rivers – basic monitoring
Rivers – functional monitoring
Rivers - basic and functional monitoring
The regional monitoring programme is a result of a combination of the monitoring activities by the autho- rities and, where appropriate, the operators according to the laws for the protection of the environment and waters. Standardized sampling and analyses methods or similar demands fulfilling techniques are used in the monitoring implementation. Monitoring information is produced in the laboratories with up to date quality sys- tems and the majority of them have been accredited for the determination of the physical-chemical analyses.
The quality of the hydrological measurements and biological definitions is promoted through a guidance and training. Sampling personnel have a certificate or an adequate education for the sampling activities.
The local and temporal variability is taken into account in monitoring activities by selecting the monitoring sites as well as the type of representative sites and the sampling times, so that it will minimise the variation caused by seasonal changes as small as possible. The monitoring programme is aimed to further develop a comprehensive and diverse picture on the status of the waters.
The grouping method is used for water classification. It allows for an estimate of the status of the waters from a wider area than monitoring activities covers. Similarly, monitoring activities in water bodies have to be selected and organised in such a way that the monitoring activities are reliable and versatile enough for the whole group of the water bodies under classification. The aim of the grouping is to enable the inclusion of smaller water bodies for the water management activities and add more coverage on water classification.
The national water monitoring programme was updated in Finland and Norway in 2013. The new program- me includes a more variable set of waterbodies and types with different pressures, and aims to meet with the demands of Water Framework Directive. At the moment no common international monitoring programme exists in the river basin district area, but the aim of the Roof Report is that a common monitoring programme will exist in the near future.
There is a long history on common water monitoring activities on transboundary rivers between Finland and Norway. Water quality has been monitored in Tana river already decades in co-operation between Fin- land and Norway. Chemical parameters have been measured a longer time and during the latest years also a biological monitoring has been carried out.
Basic monitoring Tana, Neiden and Pasvik (Norway)
state border river basin basic monitoring basic monitoring haitalliset aineet
Basic monitoring Tana, Neiden and Pasvik (Norway)
(referenssialue)
state border
Fig. 4.
Functional monitoring Tana, Neiden and Pasvik (Norway)
state border river basin functional monitoring
Problem monitoring Tana, Neiden and Pasvik (Norway)
6 Assessment of water bodies
Surface waters are divided into different water types based on the geographical and scientific characteris- tics of the waters. The type of the surface water describes waterbodies as they are, or should be, without the impact of human activities. The type of surface water is specified separately for rivers, lakes and coastal waters. In order to determine the reference conditions for the surface water, each type of surface waters are estimated according to unspoiled conditions.
The base for the reference conditions has been natural waters, where reliable material of biological or/and water quality is available. In some cases natural state of waters cannot be found for the basis of the referen- ce conditions. In these cases, the reference conditions are based on the historical data, modelling, expert reviews or the best suitable waters with low human activity. In spite of this, many types of surface waters still lack reference conditions.
There are some differences in delineation of the water bodies. Norway has delineated smaller water bo- dies than Finland. Norway has delineated lakes that are larger than 0,5 km2. 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.
The ecological classification of the waterbodies is based primarily on the biological quality elements. The classification takes into account fish, benthic animals, and perifytons, in addition aquatic vegetation and concentration of phytoplankton including chlorophyll. The biological material and data used in classification consists of samples taken from rivers and lakes (litoral, pelagial and deep samples). A five step scale is used in the ecological status classification and classes are bad, poor, moderate, good and high.
Ecological classification also takes into account the other effects of human activity on the water quality, such as the physical-chemical quality of the water, the loading, as well as various man-made hydrological or structural changes, such as dams and dredging. An overall expert evaluation of the water body is necessary, because of the biological material is often available only to a limited extent or only in certain places.
The classification has been carried out in the second period of water planning mainly based on monitoring data from 2006 to 2012. The level of classification is divided into five categories on the basis of the data used in the classification: extensive data, limited data, water quality assessments, classification on the basis of the other water bodies and expert assessment.
Water bodies are also classified according to their chemical state. In the chemical classification the impact of the toxic and accumulated chemicals, so called EU priority substances (e.g. certain metals and pesticides) are studied in the waters and fishes. In addition, nationally identified harmful substances are determined as a part of the ecological state. On the basis of these substances waters are classified as either good status or failing to achieve good status. Single substance content exceeding of a limit value will lead to the fact that the category is failing to achieve good status. Data for classification of chemical status in the Tana-Neiden-Pasvik river basin area consists mainly of heavy metal water monitoring and fish surveys (mercury).
There are differences in the status of classification in common waterbodies, due to different methods. Norway uses the “one out, all out” principle previously mentioned, while Finland has adopted a different method where an overall evaluation of pressures is considered. In the Norwegian part of the international river basin, there are over 1 000 waterbodies. Few of these have been studied according to the requirements, and a complete classification can therefore rarely be carried out. At the same time, the area is sparsely populated, both according to Norwegian and European standards. Most industrial activity in the river basin is located along the coast. There are large are- as that can be considered to be unaffected by human activity, with the exception of transboundary pollution and climate change. Many of the water bodies have no recorded impacts on the aquatic environment, and it is there- fore assumed that the ecological condition of these is very good. Moreover, it is often the case that even if one is missing data for the complete classification, there are measurements for some parameters that are considered sensitive for registered impacts. In this case the quality element with the poorest result/condition will control the outcome (one out, all out principle), and the ecological status can be assessed even with little data.
In general, Finland has classified common waterbodies to a higher status than Norway. Anarjohka, Tanael- va, Neiden and Munkelva have been classified as good in Norway and high in Finland. Especially problema-
tic 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. A harmonized clas- sification system is necessary if we are to work across the border with common measures and comparative cost/benefit prizing systems.
6.1 Rivers
Overall, the river waterbodies in the river basin area are very nutrient poor. The amount of nutrients and sus- pended solid load coming from diffuse and point sources is the very small in almost all of the area. River basin waters do not suffer from acidification and the noteworthy acidity spikes do not occur during the spring time.
All most all of the watercourses in the river basin have a high or good chemical and ecological status. In Finland, rivers whose catchment area covers an area greater than 100 km2, were classified in the second planning period. In total, 136 river water bodies were reclassified on the Finnish side. Only one watercourse is classified under good ecological status on the Finnish side, which is the river Akujoki near Ivalo. Because of phosphorus loading from the Ivalo and Saariselkä common sewage water treatment plant and poor turno- ver of water, the water quality in river Akujoki is classified in the bad ecological status. Heavily modified rivers or lakes do not existed in the Finnish side of the Tana-Neiden-Pasvik river basin area. In addition, the water quality of three water bodies in the Finnish part of the river basin area were estimated to be at risk due to the pressure caused by a gold prospecting (River Sotajoki (Inari), Maddib-Ravadas and Postijoki).
Several river courses are classified as having moderate/poor status in the Norwegian side of the river basin area, mainly due to run-off from industry, acid rain, heavy metals, and other pollution from mining activity in Russia.
Another serious risk for the ecology of the rivers is Gyrodactylus salaris parasite. Atlantic salmon has no resistance to the parasite. Fish disease carried with roe is also a risk in the area.
Table 3. An overview of ecological status for rivers in the river basin (amount and percentage).
Ecological status* High Good Moderate Poor Bad Un-classified
Norway
Tana 421 (82,2 %) 24 (4,7 %) 23 (4,5 %) 1 (0,2 %) 1 (0,2 %) 41 (8 %) Pasvik 54 (50 %) 5 (4,6 %) 13 (12 %) 1 (0,9 %) 1 (0,9 %) 34 (31,5 %)
Neiden 63 (75,9 %) 5 (6 %) 3 (3,6 %) 0 0 12 (14,5 %)
Finland
Tana 90,7 % 9,3 % 0 0 0
Pasvik 93,5 % 5,5 % 0 0 1 %
Neiden 100 % 0 0 0 0
*For Norway a majority of the waterbodies are classified as assumed status as there is little data – ecological status must be confirmed for these waterbodies with investigative monitoring and study samples.
6.2 Lakes
All most all of the lakes in the river basin have a high or good chemical and ecological status.
The status of the water quality was assessed for 316 lakes in Tana-Neiden-Pasvik river basin area on the Finnish side. All lakes larger than 100 ha were examined individually, based on available information on the state of the waters and pressures. Lakes of 50–100 ha were classified as good status based on a preliminary expert estimate, as the nutrient loading in the river basin area is generally very low. As a result, the majority of lakes in the Finnish side of the river basin area (almost 60 %) have good ecological status and just over 40 % have high status. The largest lake in the river basin area, Lake Inari, was assessed as having good ecological status based on pressures from hydro power regulation.
On the Finnish side, there are two lakes regulated for hydropower production, but they are not classified as heavily modified water bodies. Lake Inari is regulated with Kaitakoski dam on Russian side. The most
Lake Rahajärvi can be classified as at risk due to ecological status. The lake is regulated and there is a lack of information available on the effects of regulation for biological factors of the lake. The lake is included in the new lake inventory monitoring program for the years 2014–2019, and with new data the ecological status of the lake can be assessed more detailed.
On the Norwegian side of the river basin area there are a few lakes with moderate status, again mostly due to pollution from mining activity, both in Norway and from Russia. A high level of certain substances such as copper has been recorded, although the cause of this is unknown. It is possible that the area may have a high background value.
Table 4. Ecological status for lakes in the river basin (amount and percentage)
Ecological status* High Good Moderate Poor Bad Un-classified
Norway
Tana 141 (90,4%) 4 (2,6%) 2 (1,3%) 0 0 9 (5,8%)
Pasvik 38 (42,7%9 5 (5,6%) 20 (22,5%) 0 0 26 (29,2%)
Neiden 42 (76,4%) 0 3 (5,5%) 0 0 10 (18,2%)
Finland
Tana 57% 43% 0 0 0
Pasvik 24% 76% 0 0 0
Neiden 66% 34% 0 0 0
*For Norway a majority of the waterbodies are classified as assumed status as there is little data – ecological status must be confirmed for these waterbodies with investigative monitoring and study samples.
© Karttakeskus Oy, Lupa L4659, MML2014, SYKE
Ecological status High Good Moderate Unclassified High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unclassified
Fig. 5. Ecological state in surface water.
6.3 Chemical classification
Chemical status in Finnish side of the river basin district area is good. The chemical substance exceedings, used for the classification, is not found in the area. On the Finnish side of the river basin district area there are no installations or operators, which are authorized to use or discharge EU priority substances to the aquatic environment.
In Norway, nearly 97 % of waterbodies lack assessment of chemical status. This is due to a lack of data, as expert judgement is not used for assessing chemical status. Monitoring stations for priority substances are few and far between in Finnmark, with the exemption of Jarfjordfjellet, which forms part of a national mo- nitoring programme for transboundary air pollution and acid rain.
6.4 Groundwater
It must be noted that groundwater has not been prioritised in Norway during the planning phase for the period 2016–2021. The characterisation of groundwater has been performed nationally by an expert-panel consis- ting of representatives from NGU (the Norwegian Geology for Society). In Finnmark County, groundwater resources account for a small part of the water resources and nearly all registered groundwater bodies are considered to fulfil the Norwegian Water Management Regulation’s requirement for good ecological and che- mical status. Monitoring will be necessary to confirm this.
On the Finnish side there are 14 important groundwater areas (class I) and 12 water supply areas suitable (class II) ground water areas in the river basin area. Quantity of class I and II groundwater is estimated to be around 20 000 m3/d. All water supply systems on Finnish side are from ground water sources. A significant amount of ground water (class III, 371 waterbodies) is located in the area, where the suitability as a water supply has not been studied. In these class III areas, the estimated quantity of ground water is about 250 000 m3/d. On the Fin- nish side of the river basin area the quantitative and chemical status of ground water is good.
6.5 Coastal waters
An overview of coastal waterbodies is not offered, as there are no common waterbodies. For more infor- mation on coastal waterbodies in the Finnish-Norwegian river basin, please see the Norwegian River Basin Management Plan.
7 Environmental objectives and exemptions
The most important element in the river basin management plans are the environmental objectives, which are determined by criteria defined in the WFD and agreed upon by all involved parties. Member states are committed to reaching these objectives within 15 years after the WFD enters into force.
The Water Framework Directive sets the goal of achieving “good status” for all of Europe’s surface waters and groundwater. The current river basin management plans aim to initially achieve this goal by 2021. The directive defines both good ecological and chemical status, which means pollution levels are low and the ecosystem functions healthily. In addition, water bodies that already have a high or good ecological status must maintain this status.
Ecological Status Environmental Objective Status High Environmental Objectives achieved Good
Moderate
Measures are necessary in order to achieve environmental objectives Poor
Bad
7.1 Heavily modified water bodies
There are separate environmental objectives for heavily modified water bodies (HMWB), which take into account altered ecosystems which may never reach their full potential, while also considering the value of the alteration to society, e.g. water reservoirs, hydropower dams, etc. The environmental objectives set for HMWB are defined as maximum, good or moderate ecological potential. The objective of good chemical status is the same regardless of if the water body is heavily modified or not. For HMWB, the environmental objective must be defined specifically for each water body, as this depends on the type and level of hydro- morphological changes that have been made. In Norway, HMWB are identified using the “measure-method”.
This entails investigating the ecological status, determining which measures are necessary to obtain at least good ecological status, and then evaluating whether the measure can be implemented. The highest ecolo- gical status which can be attained is then set at the environmental objective of the waterbody, as is defined as the ecological potential.
In the Norwegian part of the international river basin there are 15 suggested HMWB. Of these, only four have been suggested by the River Basin District Board as final HMWB and will receive the environmental objective of “good ecological potential”. There is very little data on ecological status in all the HMWB, and problem mapping is suggested as a measure for all of them. For the four prioritised HMWB, the environmen- tal objective of good ecological potential has not been defined, as the ecological status is not known. The remaining 11 HMWB candidates have been assigned the environmental objective of good ecological status, as there is not enough information and no suggested measures which can be used to characterise them as HMWB. These water bodies will retain their candidate for HMWB-status during the consultation period.
According to the Water Management Regulation, all proposed candidate HMWB must be set as HMWB or revert back to natural water bodies by the time the river basin management plan is adopted. However, there are no guidelines for how to address this issue when there is little data available.
Of the four HMWB that have been prioritised, all are expected to achieve their ecological objective by 2021. In addition, another 9 waterbodies have been suggested as HMWB, yet they are not registered as such in the database vann-nett.no. This concerns waterbodies in the Pasvik water district.
On the Finnish side of the water district area Lake Inarijärvi and Rahajärvi are regulated for the hydropo- wer production, but the status does not meet the criteria for the designation of heavily modified water body.
Water body ID
(Norwegian) Water body name Influence Ecological status Water
District Environmental
Objective Suggested measure 244-2435-L Gearretjavri Hydropower dam Undefined Neiden Standard – good
ecological status (GES) 2021
Problem mapping 242-2426-L Låddejavri Hydropower dam Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 244-2431-L Gárddajávri Hydropower dam Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 244-29-R Gearretjohka Without minimum flow Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 242-6-R Duttajohka–
Duddaelva Water divergence Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 244-34-R Gallutjohka Water divergence Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 242-7-R Láddegurra
(Bugøyfjord) Other regulation Undefined Neiden Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 247-2469-L Viksjøen Hydropower dam Undefined Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 247-2473-L Store
Kobbholmsvatnet Hydropower dam Undefined Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 247-64392-L Trillingvatnet Hydropower dam Undefined Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 247-2474-L Store Valvatnet Hydropower dam Undefined Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Problem mapping 246-2445-L Bjørnevatnet Hydropower dam Moderate Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Restocking
of fish population 246-65242-L Svanevatn Hydropower dam Undefined Pasvik Standard (GES) 2021 Restocking
of fish population 234-505-R Julelva–
Juovlajohka øvre Water divergence Undefined Tana Good ecological
potential (GEP) 2021 Problem mapping 234-501-R Julelva–Juovlajoh-
ka øvre Water divergence Undefined Tana Good ecological
potential (GEP) 2021 Problem mapping 234-315-R*
Julelva–
Juovlajohka fra Basávžžejohka til Riidoveaijohka
Water divergence Undefined Tana GEP 2021 Problem
mapping
234-303-R* Fáhccabealjohka Dam Undefined Tana GEP 2021 Problem
mapping
*These waterbodies are not registered as candidates for HMWB in the Norwegian database. If the relevant sector authority does not consider the- se waterbodies to be heavily modified, the environmental objective will be changed to the standard objective of good ecological status. Problem mapping has been suggested to determine this.
Table 5. Suggestion as heavily modified water bodies.
7.2 Exemptions
7.2.1 Extended deadlines
In some cases the deadlines for achieving the environmental objectives may be extended, as long as certain conditions are met. Deadlines can be extended due to technical feasibility, high costs of completing the measures during a short timeframe, or natural conditions that prevent improvement. Extensions of deadlines must be sum-
In the Norwegian part of the international river basin there is only one water body that has received an exemption in achieving its environmental objective – Bøkfjorden midtre in Pasvik, which is heavily influenced by pollution from Sydvaranger Gruve AS. This waterbody is set to attain good ecological status by 2027, as the Environmental Agency, which is responsible for suggested ameliorative measures for this water body, awaits results from current measures and monitoring.
On the Finnish side there is one water body, River Akujoki, classified as poor state and it won’t achieve its environmental objective. This waterbody is set to attain good ecological status by 2021. Pressures from ur- ban waste water loading as well as hydrological changes for agriculture for the past year is noticeable in the waterbody. Nutrient load reduction is required in the river. The nutrient content reduction for total phosphorus and nitrogen is over 50 %. In addition, the concentrations of coliformic bacteria and suspended solids are high and clearly show the effects of human activity.
7.2.2 Less stringent objectives
In addition there is the possibility to set less stringent environmental objectives to water bodies that those required by the WFD, if the water body is greatly affected by human activity or natural conditions which make the achievement of the objective disproportionately expensive or infeasible. In Norway one may only suggest this environmental objective based on national authorities’ guidelines, and this environmental objective has not been suggested for the period 2016–2021.
7.2.3 More stringent objectives
For protected areas the most stringent environmental objective must apply. The process of identifying water bodies in protected areas has not been completed in Norway, and the description of environmental objectives for protected areas in the Norwegian river basin management plan is therefore incomplete. The Norwegian Environmental Agency has suggested stricter environmental objectives for national salmon fjords and rivers, where this does not come into conflict with HMWB and where fish is a quality element for assessing ecolo- gical status. A full overview of which waterbodies this will affect has not yet been prepared, yet the environ- mental objective will be valid for many waterbodies. Of the national salmon fjords and rivers in Norway, two cross the border to Finland (the rivers Tana and Neiden).
8 Economic analysis of water uses
In Norway it is mainly the municipalities or municipally-owned companies which are in charge of supplying water and wastewater services for the general population and industry. An average Norwegian household pays roughly 7 000 NOK/year for these services. This number may increase in order to secure necessary investments and maintenance, but municipalities may not price these services higher than a strictly neces- sary level (full cost level). The replacement costs for water supply and wastewater management in Norway is estimated to be NOK 1 053 billion. May improvements have already been made, but increasingly strict quality requirements mean that costs will continue to be high in the future (Norsk Vann 2014).
On Finnish side of the river basin district total of two household water plants have been included in the calculations, which both are profitable. The plants had a total turnover of 1,9 million euros in 2011. The average turnover for the plants was 974 000 euros. The average yield was 995 000 € (870 000 euros, year 2003) and average expenses was 861 000 € (530 000 euros, year 2003). The cost of coverage for the entire region (the income/expenses) had an average of 115,6 percent. Subsidies have not been paid for the plants in the Finnish side in the year 2011. Use of water is estimated to slightly decline in the future, mainly due to the reduction in the number of population in the region and the increasing of the modern water saving equip- ments in the households.
9 Joint programme of measures
A programme of measures must be coordinated for the international river basin district based on the coor- dination of characterisation, monitoring, classification and exemptions. As the coordination process is not complete, and due to differences in timetables, it was challenging to coordinate common measures for the Finnish-Norwegian river basin district. The competent authorities have previously agreed to coordinate me- asures to prevent wastewater pollution and prevent the spreading of Gyrodactylus salaris, but there are no common measures to be implemented at this moment. Rather, each party keeps the other updated on me- asures, while we seek to better coordinate the relevant sector authorities to ensure we achieve the environ- mental objectives set for our common waterbodies.
In Norway and Finland the process of designing a programme of measures has been organised regionally.
In Norway, the River Basin District Board was informed of the upcoming process in Norway in the autumn of 2012. In Finnmark, the requests for measures from the responsible sector authorities was organised re- gionally; the water basin districts assessed the environmental influences registered in their waterbodies and sent formal requests to the competent authority at Finnmark Count Council. The competent authority then collected and coordinated all requests and directed them to each sector authority. The sector authorities then proceeded to assess the information presented to them, conduct inspections of the waterbodies in question, and suggest measures. Based on these responses, the water districts compiled local measure analyses, which formed the basis for the regional programme of measures. All sector authorities responded to the re- quests sent by the competent authority, although did so after the regional deadline of the 1st of September in Norway. This is due to a shortage of resources and a lack of national guidelines regarding the compilation of the programme of measures. For many sector authorities, suggesting measures and giving detailed infor- mation on costs and timeframes requires information on ecological status, which could not be attained within the set deadlines.
In Finland, regional co-operation group meetings have been arranged during the process. In Norway, meetings with sector authorities were held to clarify their role and responsibilities. Citizens have been parti- cipated during the process. National guidelines for program of measures were published during the spring of 2013. On the Finnish side the coordination work, data collection and reporting has been done by Lapland ELY-centre.
A majority of measures suggested for the Norwegian part of the international river basin is problem map- ping/investigative monitoring and collecting further information, in order to determine ecological status and suggest more concrete measures if necessary, and to determine if the pressure is significant. There is virtu- ally no information on costs of measures at this point, as measures are a suggestion from sector authorities and there is no guarantee that they will be implemented if the costs are deemed higher than the benefits.
Some measures will be implemented before 2016 as they form part of local and regional management pro- cesses which operate with different planning periods that the Water Management Regulation. This largely concerns improvements in municipal wastewater management. Some of the measures suggested are also based on other legislation than the Water Management Regulation, but nonetheless are connected in terms of water quality.
In Finland, River Akujoki is classified as bad ecological status. That is because of phosphorus load coming from Ivalo and Saariselkä common sewage water treatment plant and poor turnover of water. In other water bodies of the river basin area on Finnish side the ecological status is high or good. In these cases the sugge- sted measures are to maintain the existing status. This is also situation with the ground waters. In river Aku- joki nutrient load reduction is required and the nutrient content reduction for total phosphorus and nitrogen are over 50 %. There is no need for measures connected to the priority substances in Finnish side. Problem mapping and collection of further information is also needed for the future work in Finland. Some measures will be implemented as they form part of local and regional management processes.
