ICP Waters Activities of the 2016-2017 workplan Main achievements Expected deliverables & results Potential challenges Reporting the activities of the 2014/15 work plan. -fullfilled the objectives? One or two points. Main achievements www.icp-waters.no

Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meetings www.icp-waters.no

ICP Waters reports www.icp-waters.no

Recent and upcoming reports Biodiversity, acidification and climate change (2015-16) workplan 2014-2015 item 1.1.15, workplan 2016-2017 item 1.1.1.24 Thematic report on mercury (2016-17) workplan 2016-2017 item 1.1.1.8 Thematic report on spatial extent of acidification (2017-18) www.icp-waters.no

Biodiversity report Biodiversity of aquatic macro-invertebrates (insects, snails) will probably continue to rise if chemical recovery of lakes and streams continues So far little documentation of effect of climate change on biodiversity Climatic change is expected to become more distinct, while changes in sulphur deposition are expected to decrease Aquatic biodiversity may be impacted by climate in the future Continued need for funding of biological monitoring programmes. www.icp-waters.no

Spatial patterns and temporal trends of mercury in freshwater fish in Fennoscandia ICP Waters – ICP Integrated Monitoring joint report Hans Fredrik Veiteberg Braaten1, Staffan Åkerblom2, Heleen A. de Wit1, Gunnar Skotte3, Martti Rask4, Jussi Vuorenmaa5, Kimmo K. Kahilainen6, Tommi Malinen6, Sigurd Rognerud1, Espen Lydersen7, Per-Arne Amundsen8, Nicholas Kashulin9, Tatiana Kashulina9, Petr Terentyev9, Guttorm Christensen10 www.icp-waters.no

Background and aim Mercury (Hg) in fish in boreal lake exceeds levels advised for human consumption Hg in fish in boreal lakes originates in many/most cases from transboundary air pollution Investigate spatial and temporal trends in fish Hg Are Hg levels in fish decreasing or increasing Can we tell why? www.icp-waters.no

National studies show varying trends Citation Study period Fish species Country/region Number of populations (lakes) Direction of trend (Munthe et al., 2007) 1965-2004 Arctic charr, perch, pike, trout, whitefish Finland, Norway and Sweden 2758 n.a. (Akerblom et al., 2014) 1965-2012 Arctic charr, perch, pike, roach, trout + 10 others Sweden 2881 ↓ (Paasivirta et al., 1981) 1970-1980 Pike Finland 1 (Åkerblom and Johansson, 2008) 1972-2006 Perch, pike 2223 ↑↓ (Paasivirta and Linko, 1980) 1973-1978 2 ↔ (Miller et al., 2013) 1974-2005 Perch Finland and Sweden 341 (Fjeld, 2010) 1990-2010 South east Norway and Northern Norway 5 ↑↔↓ (Fjeld, 2009) 1991-2008 South east Norway 10 ↑↔ (Rask et al., 2007) 1993-2003 (Akerblom et al., 2012) 1994-2006 South to mid Sweden 152 (Braaten et al., 2014b) 2010-2012 ↑ www.icp-waters.no

Data from Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia www.icp-waters.no

Lakes with fish data www.icp-waters.no

Standardization www.icp-waters.no

All data (standardized) 1965-2015 www.icp-waters.no

Effort: exclude lakes with known point sources www.icp-waters.no

Subset of Norwegian lakes www.icp-waters.no

Preliminary conclusions Uncertainty about temporal trends of Hg in fish Considerable effort to determine which lakes are free from local sources of Hg pollution Presentation of results at TF meeting in May and at international conference Mercury 2017 (July, Rhode Island, US) Report to be presented at EMEP-WGE meeting in September Results relevant to AMAP, Minamata Convention (the analysis is listed in "UNEP’s Global Mercury Assessment 2018”) www.icp-waters.no

Regional assessment of acidification – thematic report 2018 TF 2014: Mr. Olendrzyński (UNECE Secretariat): … “decreasing exceedances of CLs do not provide adequate information on the actual chemical and biological recovery.” There is a need for a quantitative measure of acidification status (biological and chemical) that can be easily grasped by laymen and policymakers. TF 2015 Proposed new theme: regional acidification assessment of lakes and rivers the focal centres can have an important role in this assessment www.icp-waters.no

TF 2016 Target group for ICP Waters report Objective Policy makers (LTRAP, NEC, others) and scientists Objective to assess the current extent of surface water acidification in Europe and possibly North America. The assessment is intended to be a policy-friendly add-on to the assessment of exceedance of critical loads of acidity, reflecting the present-day conditions of acid-sensitive surface waters. www.icp-waters.no

Enquiry sent to NFCs Which areas in your country are acid sensitive? How do you decide if a water body is acidified? National data availability? Can you provide data? Is acidification status reported under the WFD? Skjelkvåle&Wright, 1990 www.icp-waters.no

Timeline 1.3.2017: enquiry sent out to all NFCs 25.4.2017: deadline for the NFCs to responds May 2017: workshop at TF meeting 1.6.2017: call for concrete inputs from NFCs, deadline 1.11.2017 March 2018: draft report presented at the WGE meeting May 2018: presentation and final discussion of report at TF meeting September 2018: presentation of the final report at the WGE meeting www.icp-waters.no

Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meetings www.icp-waters.no

Homepage New platform New functionality: data exploration Water chemical data become more visible QA/QC can be done by focal centres So far, mean annual water chemistry, not raw data http://www.icp-waters.no/data/explore-data/ Wish for more visibility of NFCs – to be discussed at TF meeting www.icp-waters.no

Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meeting 2017 www.icp-waters.no

NEC directive ICP Waters is the best source in Europe for data on acidification What is the coverage of the ICP Waters monitoring network? What is the relation between the ICP waters monitoring network and monitoring under relevant EU law (in this case the Water Framework Directive)? What is the relation between the ICP waters monitoring network and the EEA's volunteer data collection from 16000 river stations and 3000 lake stations? What are the priorities for reinforcing freshwater monitoring networks to fulfil the requirements of the NEC Directive? www.icp-waters.no

ICP Waters response to enquiry Enquiry sent out to focal centres Response from Norway, Italy, Finland and Sweden www.icp-waters.no

LTRAP & Water Framework Directive EEA does not request data on acid neutralising capacity not ideal for assessment of acification Water bodies defined under WFD > 0.5 km2. Many lakes in ICP Waters are headwater lakes, and smaller than 0.5 km2 www.icp-waters.no

Reporting to WFD & EEA www.icp-waters.no Country Site category number WFD reporting? EEA reporting? Norway Core sites 5 1 Extended sites 78 21 yes, chemistry Sites with biological data 20 18 Biology and some chemistry Finland 10 7 No 9 8 15 Italy 4 NO 30 Sweden all   YES www.icp-waters.no

National requirements to support monitoring to fulfill NECD? Work in progress, positive to relate current monitoring to NECD Norway, Finland No input from other countries Will be discussed at TF meeting www.icp-waters.no

Task Force meeting 2017 Second joint meeting with TF ICP IM Uppsala, May 9-11 Acidification Nitrogen Heavy metals and POPs Biodiversity Critical loads and modelling Carbon cycling and DOC trends Interactions with climate change Common work under CLRTAP www.icp-waters.no

Potential challenges National funding for monitoring programmes is declining NECD could counteract this trend Not all NFCs receive funding to attend meeting Joint meetings with ICP IM may lead to countries cutting support for one NFC www.icp-waters.no