1 / 23

The implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Norway

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 LycheSolheim ed. Birger Bjerkeng ). Main time table -> 2006. Norwegian progress.

jett
Download Presentation

The implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Norway

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The implementation of the EC Water Framework Directivein Norway Eva Skarbøvik and Stig A. Borgvang Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) with contributions by Anne LycheSolheimed. Birger Bjerkeng )

  2. Main time table -> 2006

  3. 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

  4. Characterisation of water bodies in Norway Ca Humus (colour) Climate zone Size Which type? At risk Possibly at risk Not at risk HMWB Which pressures and state?

  5. Ex. Typification in Eastern Norway Calsium Climate

  6. HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD Ecological status is divided into By 2015, all water bodies should have a ”good” status. Norway has also made a group ”Possibly at risk” These will be water bodies AT RISK of not achieving a good status.

  7. 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

  8. Development of a GIS-tool

  9. Characterised water bodies in River Glomma, Norway’s largest river Large areas are not at risk

  10. Pressures increase in the south of Glomma

  11. 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

  12. Common lake typology criteria

  13. Types of lakes

  14. Monitoring network for Nitrogen in Norwegian freshwaters

  15. Types of rivers

  16. RID/KYO/JAMP stations Focusing on transport loads to the sea. Co-operation with NVE

  17. Boundary setting : Using dose-response relationships Non-linear relationship (prefered) Linear relationship

  18. Example of non-linear relationships for boundary setting: Phytoplankton Other Cyano Chloro Diato Crypto Dino Chryso

  19. Example of non-linear relationships for boundary setting: Macrophytes A sudden drop above a specific TP conc. for many of the sensitive species

  20. The result

  21. WFD - Which competence is needed? Abatement plans Dissemination competence Management competence Technical competence Modelling competence Surveillance Characterisation Ecological competence

  22. 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?

More Related