Status of the WFD implementation process in the EU Member States:

Transcription

1 Status of the WFD implementation process in the EU Member States: How is the Danish implementation getting on in comparison to other Baltic countries? Maria Berglund

2 Remarks to be considered The assessment of RBMPs in the EU is currently under way The results here are based on assessments of the draft and final plans Information is changing rapidly as the assessment is still on-going None of the statements presented here reflect the position of the EU Commission

3 Leading questions Table of contents What is the current status of implementation? To what extent will good status be reached in the first planning period? Which agricultural measures are being used in order to reach the goals? Are there voluntary or mandatory tools for farmers? What about compensation? How to improve hydro-morphology in streams and rivers? What tools are being used in order to improve the water courses? What is the share of heavily modified water bodies?

4 What is the current status of implementation? RBMP adopted (23) Consultation on-going or not started (4)

5 River Basin Districts in the Baltic Sea Estonia: West Estonia, Gauja, East Estonia Denmark: Sjaelland annd Bronholm Finland: Tornionjoki (Finnish part), Kemijoki, Vuoksi,Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland, Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea, Bothnian Sea, Aland Islands, Oulujoki-Iijoki Germany: Odra, Schlei-Trave, Warnow-Peene Latvia: Daugava, Lielupe, Venta, Gauja Lithuania: Nemunas, Daugava, Lielupe,Venta Poland: Vistula, Odra, Jarft, Nemunas, Pregolya, Swieza, Ucker Sweden: North Baltic, South Baltic, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Bothnian Sea, Bothnian Bay

6 To what extent will good status be reached in 2015? The information provided in the plans and WISE is very patchy. It is also difficult to compare as values provided are in different formats (length, percentage of water bodies, graphs without concrete numbers) The level of ambition reaching good ecological status for SWB varies greatly: From below 10% of SWB reaching good status in 2015 (e.g. BE-Flanders, CZ) to above 80% (in several RBDs in IE, BG, FR, EE). For the most part good chemical status is already high and will be achieved in most Baltic States by 2015

7 Good Status of SWBs in the Baltic by 2015 Country Per cent natural WBs in good status by 2015 Sweden Finland Germany Estonia Poland Latvia Lithuania Ranges between 24% in the North Baltic RBD to 71% in Bothnian Bay Ranges between 40-66% of rivers and 90-95% of lakes Around 30% of rivers but only around 2% of lakes! Between 80-95% of rivers and 50-70% of lakes Much lower than its counterparts: only 17% in the Vistula RBD for rivers, around 50% of lakes Achievement is high: ranging from 60% to 98% of rivers and 27% to 90% of lakes Around 50% of its rivers

8 To what extent will good status be reached in 2015? Quantitatively Most Groundwater bodies have already achieved good status Chemically In many RBDs good status is already between %. Will improve in several RBDs by 2015 but still does not reach 100% good status in many RBDs. Very few exemptions are being applied mainly due to time lag of measures

9 Which exemptions and to what extent? Almost all RBDs will use exemptions 4.4) Mainly time derogation (Art. Sweden is using Article 4.5 on less stringent objectives in almost all of its SWBs! Main cause is naturally occurring mercury and air pollution Very little use of exemptions in Finland: between 1-10%; only in two basin up to ½ of the rivers; Nutrient loading is the main problem Germany is using Art. 4.4 in around % of its river courses and around 50-80% of its lakes

10 Exemptions continued Estonia is the only Baltic State currently applying Art. 4.7 New Modifications; for the most part very few exemptions ranging between 12-25% of SWBs. The number of exemptions in Latvia vary greatly among its RBs: between 1% and 50%. Main causes: hydromorphological modifications and pollution from households Information in Lithuania and Poland is very patchy with little explanation given

11 What about agricultural pressures? The following maps are based on the assessment of drbmp (DK not included) The current assessment of the final plans confirms the picture from the drbmp. Agriculture is one of the biggest problems in terms of water pollution and abstraction

12 Main findings Pressures - Nutrients

13 Main findings - Pressures Pesticides map

14 Main findings - Pressures Irrigation and drought maps

15 Type of measures (drbmp) TECHNICAL Refer to measures which are related to farming practice and have a direct impact on the WB, technical improvements of machinery or end of pipe technology ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS Improve the sustainability and efficiency of the use of water resources and support the realisation of technical measures through subsidies. NON-TECHNICAL Prepare the ground or support or control the implementation of technical measures

16 Main findings what measures are applied Technical Input reduction General Diffuse pollution Livestock farming Chemical fertilizer Drainage system Low input Farming Land use Interventions e.g. Fertilization plan, Reduce fertilizer and pesticide inputs phosphorous in agricultural soils e.g. Improvement of manure storage, Reduction in Livestock per hectare, Reduction in manure use, Modernisation of agricultural holdings, Building of individual wastewater treatment plants in farms, Silo storages e.g. Quantitative restrictions, Catch crops, Winter crops, Improved nutrient spraying technologies, Using green manure e.g. Adapting agriculture drainage techniques e.g. Organic farming, e.g. Land conversion, Land use restrictions

17 Main findings what measures are applied Technical Soil erosion General and basic erosion Land cultivation method e.g. Changes in land management practices e.g. Soil cultivation, General erosion management, Restrictions in cultivation, Cultivation of winter crops, Crop rotation management

18 Main findings what measures are applied Technical Multi-objective Water saving measures Creation of buffer zones Maintenance, creation and recovery of wetlands Change in land use and cover Floodplain management Water demand control e.g. Planting buffer vegetation, Maintenance of alluvial forests, Fence off headwaters,strips of land e.g. Creating buffer zones and ecologic corridors along the watercourses and water basins, Dredging of canals in marshes e.g. Widen river banks, Setting aside agricultural lands, Stopping exploitation of melioration systems without use e.g. Development of corridors including floodplains e.g. Abstraction control measures

19 Main findings what measures are applied Economic instruments Compensation for land cover Cooperative agreements Water pricing e.g. Direct financial aid to farmers or landowners e.g. Voluntary contracts between farmers and stakeholders, water companies- Direct financial payments from water suppliers to farmers e.g. Investigation on natural resource tax

20 Main findings what measures are applied Non-technical Implementation and enforcement of existing older EU legislation e.g. Set up or redefine the codes of good farming practice, Refine requirements/rest rictions related to manure storage, Improved accounting of water use Code of agricultural practice e.g. Codes dealing with the issues of nutrients, issues such as covering of soils, ploughing in winter Advice and training e.g. General services on water protection in agriculture, training on specific problems related to pesticide handling, Fertilization plans Increase knowledge for improved decision making e.g. Improve/establish monitoring of water status, Performing of in-depth evaluations and controls, Creation of databases, Performing studies/expert opinions/commissioni ng conceptual designs, Conducting surveys regarding the agrienvironmental systems

21 Main findings what measures are applied Non-technical Zoning Development/implem entation of specific action plans/programs Technical standards Environmental permitting and licensing e.g. Establishing water protection zones e.g. General programs to reduce agricultural impacts e.g., Technical standards for reconstruction of polders e.g. Permissions refer to certain products, Permits and rules on depositing sewage sludge

22 How are measures implemented? Are the voluntary or mandatory tools for farmers? Measures related to N-Directive, the Pesticide Package or those under Cross Compliance are more likely to become mandatory In all other cases the approach focuses on voluntary participation. Some MS are considering to make some measures mandatory if there is a low voluntary uptake in the first planning cycle What about compensation? Limited national funds Compensation is mainly provided via the Rural Development Funds (CAP Pillar II) according to income foregone or additional costs

23 How to improve hydro-morphology in streams and rivers? In the Baltic only DE, LV, and SE are implementing measures targeting hydro-morphology Re-meandering Removal of migration barriers Increasing retention capacity/restoring natural retention Beyond the Baltic Changed maintenance of the water courses (AT, LU, DE) Restoring bank and riparian vegetation (F, UK) Restoration of natural water and bank management (BE, HU, IE, UK) Restoring natural water levels (NL)

24 What is the share of HMWBs? MS River Basin Rivers Lakes Sweden Bothnian Bay 1.7% 4% Skagerrak and Kattegat 2.5%.5% Finland Vuoksi 9.0% 0.5% Tornionjoki 1% 0.5% Germany Odra 60% 4% Warnow Peene 56.5% 2.5% Estonia East Estonia 28% 0% Gauja 5% 0% Poland Vistula 36% - Latvia Daugava 20% 1.1% Venta 9.8% 3.3% Lithuania Nemunas 10% 15% Lielupe 26.6% 41.2%

25 Final remarks Plans are very different (e.g. different style of writing, different target audience) and the details provided vary widely Different ways of reporting makes comparisons even more difficult Not possible to draw conclusions on what really will be achieved in 2015 because: Often statements on enforcement (voluntary/mandatory) are lacking How far can a voluntary approach take us? What will be the amount of financial resources mobilised?

26 Thank you for listening! Maria Berglund Fresh Thoughts Consulting Auhofstrasse 4/7, 1130 Vienna Tel: