Sweden: Preliminary questions

Transcription

1 Sweden: Preliminary questions Introduction This document has been prepared for the bilateral meeting between the Commission and the Swedish authorities to be held in Brussels on 6th November 2013 on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The document includes a number of questions for which the Commission requests written reply in advance of the meeting. The questions are organised in a number of thematic sections and are introduced by some of the recommendations and observations included in the Commission assessment of 2012 (non-exhaustive, for the full assessment please see Vol3_SE.pdf, version in Swedish available at Additional observations are included in some of the sections, including those arising from the assessment of the information submitted by the Swedish authorities in the consultation taken place in 2011 (letter from the Ministry of the Environment of 12 December 2011) and publicly available information. Please keep the replies concise and targeted to the questions raised. If there are differences between the different regions, provinces or River Basin Districts (RBDs) please include these in your replies. It is important to differentiate clearly between the situation at the time of adoption of the River Basin Management Plans in 2010 and the progress made to date. It is also essential to confirm whether the more recent developments will be reflected in the second RBMPs to be adopted in It is not necessary to repeat the information submitted in

2 Governance Commission recommendations: It is recommended that the more detailed sub-basin plans are reported to the Commission as formal parts of the RBMPs and made available to the public, as they include important supplementary information. Sweden needs to ensure full co-operation with neighbouring countries, including the correct designation of trans-boundary river basin districts and co-operation on measures to ensure achievement of the environmental objectives. Observations in the ANNEX: The control is still at the administrative level because the water authorities have not been given a mandate under the law to decide on actions taken by individuals (operators, the public, organisations, etc.) to implement PoMs. 1. In information sent in 2011 the Water Councils are mentioned as the main bodies coordinating water policy implementation. Are those organisations sufficient to ensure engagement and buy in from all relevant actors, including local authorities? Are there any plans to improve coordination mechanisms for the 2 nd cycle? 2. Please clarify competencies of different actors in RB planning and management (permitting, identification and implementation of measures etc.) 2

3 Commission recommendations: Characterisation and reference conditions Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Sweden needs to complete the initial characterisation, to enable the establishment of WFD compliant monitoring networks. It is important to complete this first stage of the WFD implementation process to ensure cost effective implementation of subsequent steps. Sweden needs to lower its minimum size threshold for lakes to ensure all relevant water bodies are included. A large majority of water bodies are classified without monitoring data, giving low confidence in the classification. Very few water bodies are monitored with BQEs. Sweden needs to improve its classification system for ecological status, since it has several gaps. Observations in the ANNEX: The main RBMPs lack transparency regarding the effort needed, which measures are proposed and the consequences of the environmental objectives, and other matters; however the sub-basin documents provide some of that information. They have, however, not been included in this assessment since they were not reported to the Commission. It appears that the process of characterisation has not yet been completed in Sweden, although the deadline for finalising this step was (article 5). Only a few transitional water bodies have been designated (in SE 3 with one type and 19 water bodies and in SE 5 with one type and 2 WBs). The number of water types is very large, and exceeds considerably the number of water types (or eco-zones) referred to as tested against biological data. For rivers, and in particularly for lakes, the number of types reported in the SWB schema in WISE is much lower than that reported in the RBMPs, which refer to a national document from Are there any plans to review the delineation of water bodies and the definition of types that would affect their number? If such plans exist, please provide details. 4. Why were so few transitional waters designated in SE3 and SE5 and none in others? 5. Have more detailed national criteria for defining significant pressures, more clearly linked to their impact on water status, been developed? If not, will this be done in time for the second cycle of RBMPs? 3

4 Commission recommendations: Monitoring and assessment of ecological status The described monitoring programme is not designed to be WFD compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational monitoring for ground water bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored for botanical BQEs and HyMo QEs in both surveillance and operational mode). justifications for not monitoring certain quality elements are not adequate. Improvement of the monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant is ongoing and is planned to be ready by The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be completed in all RBDs, and made more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, how EQS was established, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place. Observations in the ANNEX: It is also recognised by Sweden in the RBMPs that the monitoring programmes are insufficient, and that monitoring networks are to be improved for the second cycle. Not all relevant biological quality elements are being monitored, and it appears that biological monitoring takes place in very few water bodies. Of the supporting elements, hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored at all and the physico-chemical quality elements are only monitored in some places. The justifications for not monitoring certain quality elements are also not always adequate. 4

5 Figure 1 Quality elements monitored Figure 2 Biological assessment methods Ecological status assessment does not include specific chemical pollutants,. Swedish authorities have clarified that the analysis has not yet been completed as to which specific pollutants cause exceedance of good ecological status. 5

6 6. Are there monitoring programmes in place in all RBDs for all water categories and all relevant quality elements (including hydromorphological quality elements) as SE had promised by the end of 2012? Please provide an overview of the current state of play, preferably in form of an update of tables 5.1 and 5.2 in the ANNEX. 7. Has a national guidance on monitoring been developed? Does it follow the CIS guidance for selecting BQE for operational monitoring? Has it been used in all RBDs? 8. Have assessment methods for all biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements been completed for all WB types and in all RBDs? 9. Please explain how the one-out-all-out principle is applied, especially considering nutrients when physic-chemical fails and not biology. 10. Do these improvements in monitoring and assessment methods significantly affect the overall assessment of WB status? Please provide if available an update of tables 6.1 to 6.6 in the ANNEX. Will this be taken into account for the elaboration of the 2nd RBMPs (setting of objectives and measures)? 11. Please confirm that specific pollutants were not considered in the assessment of ecological status. Has this assessment been revised for any RBD? What are the results? 12. Please provide details of the specific pollutants now being monitored in each RBD, and their EQS, that will be taken into account in the assessment of ecological status in the 2 nd RBMP. Please explain the basis for their selection. 6

7 Intercalibration Observations in the ANNEX: Swedish authorities have clarified that the inter-calibration had not been completed by the time of adoption of the RBMPs, but that the process was due to finish at the end of Further information: IC successful (Annex 1) No IC results IC results partially achieved (Annex 2) Rivers: Figure 3 Current situation in river assessment method intercalibration Lakes: Figure 4 Current situation in lake assessment method intercalibration Coastal waters: Figure 5 Current situation in Coastal waters assessment method intercalibration Transitional water: Figure 6 Current situation in transitional water intercalibration 13. When will the results of the new intercalibration round be translated into national classification systems? 14. How is SE planning to complete intercalibration by 2016? 7

8 Monitoring and assessment of chemical status (surface waters) Commission recommendations: The described monitoring programme is not designed to be WFD compliant The RBMPs need for instance to be more transparent regarding which priority substances are monitored. The apparent omission of data on hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be checked. The requirement for trend monitoring of several priority substances in sediment or biota as specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will need to be reflected in the next RBMPs. Observations in the ANNEX: The information on identification and monitoring of priority substances and other pollutants is not clear in the RBMPs, and based on the information assessed, the monitoring is not compliant with WFD requirements. The information on chemical pollution and the main sources is very limited and general. Industry, agriculture, forestry, anti-fouling paint on boats (TBT), pharmaceuticals discharged from waste water treatment works, and historically contaminated sites are generally mentioned as sources, but not in any way quantified. Mercury pollution (mainly from atmospheric deposition) is causing all Swedish surface water bodies to fail to reach a good chemical status. No threshold values for significance have been reported. It is not clear from the RBMP if all priority substances have been monitored and considered in the assessment of chemical status. Swedish authorities have clarified that all EQSD substances have been monitored apart from hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) The EQS for mercury in biota are applied, but for hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene, no results are shown. For sediments, no information is provided. Background concentrations have not been considered in biota or water. For sediments, no values are reported in the RBMPs due to the fact that EQS values have not been derived for this matrix. In some cases bioavailability is taken into account in the assessment of compliance with the EQS for metals. The concept of mixing zones has not been used in any of the RBMP. 8

9 15. Please confirm whether all substances and standards listed in Annex I of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive have been considered in the chemical status assessment in all RBDs. 16. How has the pressures information been used to define which substances are monitored and where? 17. Has hexachlorobenzene been monitored in biota? If in water, has an equivalently protective water EQS been set? Why has hexachlorobutadiene apparently not been monitored? 18. What trend monitoring has been carried out in biota and/or sediment? 19. Is SE planning to designate mixing zones and, if so, which methodology will be used? 9

10 Observations in the ANNEX: Monitoring and assessment of groundwater For the pressure, water abstraction, no information has been found about the tools or methods for defining abstraction as a main pressure. Swedish authorities have however clarified that methods for assessment of ground water are under development. There has been no quantitative monitoring programme for groundwater for the first RBMPs, but the ground water level is monitored at 330 sites (by the Swedish Geological Survey) and will provide the basis for quantitative monitoring for the next RBMP cycle. There is no operational monitoring of GW, but surveillance monitoring is reported for 4% of all groundwater bodies(115 GWBs the same as reported in the 2009 Commission report). Based on results from this programme, parameters will be selected for operational monitoring for the next cycle of RBMPs. According to the RBMP for SE3, 8 groundwater bodies have exceeded limit values for certain chemical substances and exemptions have been used for these. No international monitoring programme of groundwater is in place. There is no national guidance on groundwater monitoring. The impact from abstractions and impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems have therefore not been considered. The status assessment is based on exceedances of threshold values of chemical analyses. If no information is available, the GWB was, by presumption, placed in good status. Only for a very small part of the GWBs, was the assessment based on a solid data basis. Trend assessment and reversals have not been performed in this planning cycle due to a limited chemical surveillance monitoring programme for ground water in Sweden. 20. Have all regions established groundwater monitoring programmes that meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive? Please provide an overview of the state of play. 21. Have methodologies been developed for the assessment of water abstraction? 22. How has the new monitoring information (chemical and quantitative), if any, influenced the proportion of GWBs in good/poor status? 23. What are the substances which caused exceeded water pollution in the GWBs? 10

11 24. (a) Have methodologies been developed for the assessment of groundwater status (considering groundwater dependent aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, saline intrusions, etc)? (b) Please provide details of the methodologies. (c) Will these be used in the 2nd RBMPs? 25. (a) Is there a methodology to assess trends and trend reversals? (b) Please provide details of the methodology. (c) Will this be used in the 2nd RBMP? 26. How have the new monitoring information, influenced the proportions of groundwater bodies in good/poor status (if any)? Please provide an update. 11

12 Monitoring and assessment of protected areas Observations in the ANNEX: There is no specific monitoring programme in place for surface water or groundwater protected areas. Only local monitoring is carried out for drinking water areas, and there is no national guidance available as to how that should be done. 27. Will monitoring for all protected areas change compared to what is reported for the first round of RBMPs? 12

13 Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and HMWBs and GEP Commission recommendations: The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The procedure for designation of HMWB has not been followed. Water bodies exposed to major HyMo pressures like large hydro power installations and harbours have been designated as HMWB/AWB, whereas water bodies exposed to other HyMo pressures have only been designated as candidates for HMWB/AWB. The designations of the latter will be decided for the next planning cycle. The HMWB designation process therefore needs to be completed before the next cycle. The assessment of significant adverse effects to the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. Measures for defining GEP has furthermore not been defined for each individual HMWB/AW - only general descriptions are provided of the possible measures. Observations in the ANNEX: Swedish authorities have clarified that the designation is not yet completed, partly due to a shortage of data and the need to develop methods. The Water authorities are working with new guidelines on how to deal with HMWB, focusing on hydropower. There are 32% HMWBs with unknown ecological potential. 28. How many HMWB were designated because of an alteration due to hydropower? 29. Has the designation of the HMWB been updated since the 1 st RBNP? Please provide an update in particular as regards the determination of significant adverse effect on the use and the identification of better environmental options. 30. Has the national method for designation been adopted for use in the second cycle? 31. Regarding GEP, how will it be defined in the 2nd RBMPs? Has the methodology for hydropower promised for March 2012 been finalised? 13

14 Commission recommendations: Objectives and Exemptions A significant number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. Environmental objectives are set for all water bodies, but time exemptions are applied for almost all water bodies at risk, indicating a low ambition level to meet the WFD good status environmental objective, although for chemical status the exemptions are due to long-range mercury pollution that takes a long time to change. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Sweden should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties. Where article 4(5) is used that is setting less stringent environmental objectives, such other objectives need to be transparently applied, and they need to go beyond repeating other already binding requirements such as no further deterioration. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible. Observations in the ANNEX: According to the WISE report, all exemptions described are due to technical feasibility except from exemptions related to chemical status for ground water bodies, where also natural conditions are stated as a reason. However, in the RBMP, there are some general statements that natural conditions can be a reason for making exemptions. It is reported to WISE that no use is made of the disproportionate costs argument to justify exemptions. However, disproportionate costs are generally stated in the RBMPs as a reason for exemptions caused by eutrophication, physical changes and environmental toxins. The methodology to assess disproportionate costs is not explained. There are inconsistencies between the RBMPs and the WISE reporting, and Swedish authorities have clarified they will review its reporting processes. Sweden has reported that 100% of surface water bodies are subject to Article 4 (5), exemptions due to pollution by mercury (lower environmental objectives). Under article 4(4) 8980 WBs and 4 (5) WBs. 14

15 32. How were exemptions under Article 4.4 applied in the first round of RBMPs, regarding the calculation of disproportionate cost and the definition of technical unfeasibility? 33. Nearly 100% of SWBs are subjects of 4.5 exemptions due to the mercury pollution, please clarify what is the current situation and which objectives have been set for the next cycles? Please confirm that SE is still taking actions to address other pressures? 34. Has there been an assessment on the requirements of Natura 2000 areas as regards water quality and quantity (i.e. in the cases where WFD good status is not sufficient to achieve favourable conservation status of water-dependent habitats and species)? 35. Are there not infrastructure projects planned which may be liable to cause deterioration of status (or prevent water bodies to achieve good status) that should be included in the RBMPs and justified according to Article 4(7)? 36. Concerning Article 4(7), are permitting authorities under an obligation to ensure that the conditions under that Article are fully respected when deciding to grant a permit? Are these authorities bound by environmental objectives of the WFD when deciding on giving the permit? Please state the relevant obligation under Swedish law in that regard (with accompanying English translation). 15

16 Commission recommendations: Programmes of Measures (general) There is no clear link between status assessment and the need for pressure reduction (nutrients, chemical pollutants and hydromorphology) and measures. Many of the measures are "administrative" (new investigations, monitoring etc). Sweden needs to improve its programme of measures to be more explicit on the specific measures that are being planned, to enable a transparent planning tool showing how the environmental objectives can be met in a coordinated manner across the RBDs. Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the programme of measures so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. Observations in the ANNEX: Sweden applies more stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive 1991/271/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific sensitive areas. The RBMPs state that the work to identify significant pressures is still ongoing, and that there is still a lack of data for this exercise. Preliminary criteria have been identified, and are referred to in the RBMPs. The programmes lack information on which specific measures will be implemented for which water bodies, and therefore, also, at which pressures the measures are targeted. 16

17 The majority of measures in the catalogue are of an administrative character. The PoM s have not been subject to international coordination with the two neighbouring countries (i.e. Finland and Norway). 37. How will the next round of RBMPs ensure better information on the scale of pressures impacting on status? 38. How will SE design the next RBMPS to ensure a better link between pressures and measures and greater clarity on the scope, timing and the funding of measures? 39. How will local and regional authorities be involved in the development of more detailed sub-basin plans for the RBMPs? How will these be coordinated with the flood risk management plans? Will the sub-basin plans be subject to public consultation and formally reported as part of the RBMP? 40. Have procedures for international coordination been fully developed? 41. What is being done to realise the potential of natural water retention measures, delivering multiple benefits, in the 2 nd cycle? 17

18 Observations in the ANNEX: Programmes of measures (agriculture) In the southern RBD (SE 3, 4 and 5), agriculture has been identified as a major pressure for diffuse loading of nutrients (up to 50 %). Given the reporting under the ND that 32% of rivers are eutrophic and 4% hypertrophic there is still a significant gap to be closed to achieve nutrient conditions consistent with good status. Information about financial sources for the implementation of agricultural measures is limited, but the Rural Development programme is mentioned as a source for financing in some RBMP without any indication of the proportion. 42. What basic measures are in place to address agriculture's impact on water quality and quantity as required by WFD - article 11.3 a (nitrates directive) - article 11.3.e controls over abstraction and impoundment (e.g. permits and water pricing policies) - article i measures to address hydromorphological alteration? - article h controls on diffuse pollution (nutrients outside of NVZs (given NVZs only cover 22 % of the territory) and pesticides)? 43. Have you evaluated /predicted how effective these measures are/will be at reducing the pressures to the level needed to achieve good status (if so, at what scale has this been done)? 44. Are nitrates action programmes developed in a consistent way with respect to meeting WFD and MSFD nutrient reduction requirements? 45. What additional (supplementary) measures are currently implemented to protect water through the Rural Development Programmes? 46. What use will you make of the new CAP pillar 1 provisions (cross-compliance, greening) to better address water issues? 47. What measures are foreseen under the new Rural Development programmes (e.g. article 31, 39, 46)? 18

19 Observations in the ANNEX: Programmes of measures (chemical pollution) The measures are not substance specific. 48. (a) What progress has been made on compiling the inventories required by Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive? (b) Will full inventories be included in the second RBMPs, and will they cover both point and diffuse sources of chemical pollutants? (c) Which years will the inventories relate to? 49. What substance-specific measures have been identified? 19

20 Programmes of measures (urban waste water treatment) Observations: The information in the RBMPs on which tools have been used to identify significant point sources is unclear, or no information has been provided. Point sources are, as a starting point, defined as activities covered by the IPPC directive and installations covered by the UWWT directive. 50. Are there any WB which do not achieve the WFD objectives due to urban waste water discharges? What measures were put in place in the 1 st cycle? 51. What scale of measures is needed in the 2 nd cycle to address remaining pressure of UWW? Observations: Programmes of measures (hydromorphology) No specific hydromorphological measures are identified in the PM despite the large no. of WBs being affected by HP pressure.. Fish ladders and sediment management were not included as measures in any RBDs. Ecological flows, by-pass channels in only one RDB. 52. How many WBs require HyMo measures to achieve GES or GEP? Have all these measures been identified in the 1 st cycle at WB level? 53. Why so few measures were included in the 1s cycle plans? What steps are you taking to address this? 54. What the percentage of the HP plants (small and large scale hpp) having proper measures is in place (e.g. fishpasses, ecological flow, technological restoration etc.)? Are you systematically reviewing existing hydropower permits to bring them in line with WFD objectives (eg ecological flows and river continuity)? Observations: Programmes of measures (groundwater) As the status of groundwater bodies (GWB) in general is considered good and that very few GWBs are at risk of not obtaining good quantitative status, measures for tackling groundwater pollution are in a very general level, not targeted to groundwater bodies. 20

21 Measures to prevent and limit pollution are listed, but they are very general and not targeted at specific physical actions to be taken. Their presentation is unclear (e.g. overlaps, no distinction between surface and groundwater). 55. Are changes expected in the 2nd cycle to provide more targeted and specific measures for groundwater protection, especially to ensure no deterioration? Observations: Programmes of measures (protected areas) The RBMP does not clearly identify the protected areas, which will not reach the more stringent objectives according to other directives. The favourable conservation status for N2000 areas have not been used as more stringent objectives in the RBMPs Regarding the protection of drinking water, a number of administrative measures to support the basic measures are mentioned in the RBMP s 56. Will all protected areas meet their objectives by 2015? If not, have exemptions been applied? 57. Could you provide details about the measures (not administrative) taken to protect drinking water protected areas (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones and implications of these)? How many surface and groundwater bodies are affected by these? 58. What will be done in the 2nd cycle to ensure PAs reach their objectives? 21

22 Economic analysis (Article 9, water services, contribution from sectors) Commission recommendations: The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also selfabstraction. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs. Observations in the ANNEX: Only water supply and wastewater are included as water services for the purpose of Article 9. It is not clear if self-services are included, such as individual households/properties not connected to communal waste water treatment or water supply services. The contribution to cost recovery of water services is not disaggregated into different water uses (at least households, agriculture and industry), which is not in line with WFD and makes cross-subsidies among different sectors invisible. Environmental and resource costs are not included in the calculations due to a lack of an allencompassing method or cost calculation for environment and resource costs in Sweden. In order to achieve full cost recovery for the water supply and wastewater sector, the water and sewage fee needs to be adjusted to a level which is also equivalent to the environmental cost visible in terms of the environmental impact. For this to be done, methods need to be evolved to evaluate a deteriorated environment. There is no information in the RBMP or WISE summary report about any use of the provisions on flexibility in Article 9.4. Any absence of a water pricing policy or adequate contribution to cost recovery should be justified on the basis of an economic analysis and through the flexibility enshrined in Article 9.1 or Will the 2nd RBMPs consider a broad range of water services (including self-abstraction, storage or impoundments for flood protection, energy production (hydropower, cooling) and navigation) within the economic analysis for the purpose of cost recovery? 60. Will incentive pricing policy be introduced for all water services (including selfabstraction)? 61. Will adequate contribution to cost recovery be ensured for all water uses? 62. Will environmental and resource costs be included into cost recovery of water services and pricing policy (for ex. hydropower)? Is SE developing a national methodology for calculating these costs? 63. Will the contribution of agriculture and other sectors to environmental costs of diffuse and point source pollution be ensured? 22