The implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive

in Norway

Eva Skarbøvik and Stig A. Borgvang

Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)

with contributions by Anne LycheSolheimed. Birger Bjerkeng )

Activity By Update

Division into River Basin districts; Designate responsible authority

2003

Implementation of the WFD in nastional legislation

2003

Characterisation of catchments 2004

2013

Characterisation of water bodies and assessment of human impact

2004

2013

Economic analyses of water use 2004

2013

Registration of protected areas 2004

Running

Development of biologically based classification system (to establish ecological status)

2006

Intercalibration of systems for separating between good and moderate status

2006

2012?

Main time table -> 2006

Norwegian progress

• Designate responsible national authority – Ministry of Environment, 2004

• Division into river basin districts and regional river basin authorities, autumn 2005

• Characterise the water bodies of each river basin, good progress

• Find reference conditions,currently being done

• Surveillance programmes• Develop plans to achieve the good status

Characterisation of water bodies in Norway

Which type?

Ca

Humus (colour)

Climate zone

Size

Which pressures and state?

At risk

Possibly at risk

Not at risk

HMWB

Ex. Typification in Eastern NorwayCalsium

Climate

HIGHHIGH

GOODGOOD

MODERATEMODERATE

POORPOOR

BADBAD

Ecological status is divided into

By 2015, all water bodies should have a ”good” status.

These will be water bodies AT RISK of not achieving a good status.

Norway has also made a group ”Possibly at risk”

Criteria for risk assessment

• Measurement data whenever they exist

• Otherwise pressure is used: – Extent of agricultural land– Urban areas– Industry, Mining activities– Sewage treatment plants and settlements not

covered by STP– Introduction of new species and loss of others

Development of a GIS-tool

Characterised water bodies in River Glomma, Norway’s largest river

Large areas are not at risk

Pressures increase in the south of Glomma

Next step – regional quality assessment

• Since regional river body authorities have not yet been designated, all 18 counties have been given this task

• The GIS-tool has been distributed to all counties for QA and input of additional regional/local information

• NIVA is assisting the counties in Eastern Norway

Common lake typology criteria

Medium-Large

>0.5 km

Small

< 0.5km

Size

Deep

Mean depth >15 m

Shallow

Mean depth 3-15m

Very Shallow

Mean depth <3 m

Depth

Organic

colour> 30 mg Pt/l

Siliceous

low alkalinity <0,2 meq/l or Ca

< 4 mg/l

<0,1 meq/l or Ca <2 mg/l

Siliceous Moderate Alkalinity

0.2-1.0 meq/l

Calcareous High alkalinity

>1,0 meq/l

Geology

Mediterranean reservoirs

0-800m

Lowland

< 200m

Mid-altitude 200-800m

High

> 800m

Altitude

Medium-Large

>0.5 km

Small

< 0.5km

Size

Deep

Mean depth >15 m

Shallow

Mean depth 3-15m

Very Shallow

Mean depth <3 m

Depth

Organic

colour> 30 mg Pt/l

Siliceous

low alkalinity <0,2 meq/l or Ca

< 4 mg/l

<0,1 meq/l or Ca <2 mg/l

Siliceous Moderate Alkalinity

0.2-1.0 meq/l

Calcareous High alkalinity

>1,0 meq/l

Geology

Mediterranean reservoirs

0-800m

Lowland

< 200m

Mid-altitude 200-800m

High

> 800m

Altitude

Height region Typenr. Nordic index

Ecostat IC type Northern GIG

Type description size* Ca*** Humus

km2 mg/L mgPt/L

Lowland 1 L6 small, calsium-poor, clear < 5 1-4 < 30

2 L7 L-N3 small, calsium-poor, humic < 5 1-4 > 30 3 L5 L-N1 small, calsium-rich, clear < 5 > 4 < 30 4 L8 L-N8 small, calsium-rich, humic < 5 > 4 > 30 5 large, very calsium-poor, clear > 5 < 1 < 30 6 L10 + L14 L-N2 large, calsium-poor, clear > 5 1-4 < 30 7 L11 large, calsium-poor, humic > 5 1-4 > 30 8 L9 large, calsium-rich, clear > 5 > 4 < 30 9 L12 L-N8 large, calsium-rich, humic > 5 > 4 > 30

Forest 10 small, very calsium-poor, clear < 5 < 1 < 30 11 small, very calsium-poor, humic < 5 < 1 > 30 12 B4 L-N5 small, calsium-poor, clear < 5 1-4 < 30 13 B5 L-N6 small, calsium-poor, humic < 5 1-4 > 30 14 B3 L-N4 small, calsium-rich, clear < 5 > 4 < 30 15 small, calsium-rich, humic < 5 > 4 > 30 16 large, very calsium-poor, clear > 5 < 1 < 30 17 B11 + B15 large, calsium-poor, clear > 5 1-4 < 30 18 large, calsium-poor, humic > 5 1-4 > 30 19 B10 large, calsium-rich, clear > 5 > 4 < 30 20 large, calsium-rich, humic > 5 > 4 > 30

Mountains 21 very calsium-poor, clear all < 1 < 30

22 H4 L-N7 calsium-poor, clear all 1-4 < 30 23 bresjøer (turbide, kalde) all 1-4 < 30

Types of lakes

Monitoring network for Nitrogen in Norwegian freshwaters

Types of riversHeight region

Type nr.

Nordic index

Ecostat IC-type Northern GIG

Type decription size* Ca*** Humus

km2 mg/L mgPt/L

LOwland 1 L2+L5 N-R2 small-medium, calsium-poor, clear, 10 - 1000 1-4 < 30

3 L3+L6 N-R3 small-medium, calsium-poor, humic, 10 - 1000 1-4 > 30 5 L1+L4 N-R1 small-medium, calsium-rich, clear, 10 - 1000 > 4 < 30 7 small-medium, calsium-rich, humic, 10 - 1000 > 4 > 30 9 small-medium, calsium-rich, turbide, 10 - 1000 > 4 < 30 10 L8 large, calsium-poor, clear, > 1000 1-4 < 30 12 L7 N-R4 large, calsium-rich, clear, > 1000 > 4 < 30

Forest 14 small-medium, very calsium-poor, clear, 10 - 1000 < 1 < 30 16 B2+B5 N-R5 small-medium, calsium-poor, clear, 10 - 1000 1-4 < 30 18 B3+B6 small-medium, calsium-poor, humic, 10 - 1000 1-4 > 30 20 B8 large, calsium-poor, clear, > 1000 1-4 < 30

Mountains 22 small-medium, very calsium-poor, clear, 10 - 1000 < 1 < 30 24 H2+H5 N-R7 small-medium, calsium-poor, clear, 10 - 1000 1-4 < 30 26 breelver (small-medium, calsium-poor,

turbide) 10 - 1000 1-4 < 30

RID/KYO/JAMP stations#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y#Y #Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y #Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y

$T

$T

$T

$T$T$T$T$T$T

$T$T$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T

$T

$T$T$T$T$T$T

$T$T$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T

$T

$T$T$T$T$T$T

$T$T$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

'W

'W'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S#S#S#S

#S#S#S

#S#S#S

#S#S#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S

#S

&V

&V

&V&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V&V

&V&V

&V

&V&V

&V

&V&V

&V&V

%U%U%U%U

%U%U%U%U%U%U%U%U

%U%U

%U%U%U%U

%U%U

%U%U%U

Focusing on transport loads to the sea.

Co-operation with NVE

Boundary setting :

Bio

logi

cal m

etric High

Bad

Descriptor of impact(s) on relevant supporting elements

High-good boundary determined by reference criteria

Good-moderate boundary determined by divisions of the degradation continuum into 4 equal classes

Bio

logi

cal m

etr

ic

Descriptor of impact(s) on relevant supporting elements

High

Bad

High-good boundary determined by reference criteria

Good-moderate boundary at a distinct discontinuity

Using dose-response relationships

Non-linear relationship (prefered) Linear relationship

1 2 5 10 20 50

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

L-N1

Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)

Chryso

Dino

Crypto

Diato

ChloroCyano

Other

Example of non-linear relationships for boundary setting: Phytoplankton

Isoetes lacustris Soft-water lakes (<20 mg Ca/l)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 10 100 1000

total phosphorus

abu

nd

ance

Chara sp.Calcium-rich lakes (> 20 mg Ca/l)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 10 100 1000

total phosphorus

sum

ab

un

dan

ce

A sudden drop above a specific TP conc. for many of the sensitive species

Example of non-linear relationships for boundary setting: Macrophytes

EAST WEST MID NORTH SUM/MEAN

Tot water bodies 2617 3306 2186 3058 11167

Not at risk 1496 2100 1396 2161 7153

Possibly at risk 721 340 435 474 1970

At risk 170 94 118 70 452

HMWB 210 782 237 353 1582

% not at risk 57 64 64 71 64

% possibly at risk 28 10 20 16 18

% at risk 6 3 5 2 4

% HMWB 8 24 11 12 14

Abatement plans

Surveillance

Characterisation

WFD – spin-off effects

• Increased co-operation between Directorates dealing with water

• Increased co-operation between science/monitoring institutes (water quality – quantity)

• Increased co-operation between regional management?