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 )

ActivityByUpdate Division into River Basin districts; Designate responsible authority 2003 Implementation of the WFD in nastional legislation2003 Characterisation of catchments Characterisation of water bodies and assessment of human impact Economic analyses of water use Registration of protected areas2004Running Development of biologically based classification system (to establish ecological status) 2006 Intercalibration of systems for separating between good and moderate status ? 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 Norway Calsium Climate

HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD 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

Types of lakes

Monitoring network for Nitrogen in Norwegian freshwaters

Types of rivers

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

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

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

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

EASTWESTMIDNORTHSUM/ MEAN Tot water bodies Not at risk Possibly at risk At risk HMWB % not at risk % possibly at risk % at risk63524 % HMWB

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?