1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Norway has a population of 5.0 million[1] and an area of 323,787 km2 (mainland and islands).

Norway is divided into 11 River Basin Districts (RBDs), of which 5 are international RBDs (IRBDs) because they share a small area with neighbouring countries (Sweden, Finland and Russia). Norway shares minor parts of 6 IRBDs with neighbouring Finland and Sweden. Finland and Norway share the three large River Basins Tana (Teno), Neiden (Näätämöjoki) and Pasvik (Paatsjoki) in the northernmost region. Norway has a small part of the Torne river on its territory.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) (Area including coastal waters) || Countries sharing RBD

NO1101 || Møre and Romsdal || 25441 || -

NO1102 || Trøndelag || 47229 || SE

NO1103 || Nordland || 68291 || SE

NO1104 || Troms || 36549 || FI, SE

NO1105 || Finnmark (including Norwegian parts of Tana, Neiden and Pasvik). || 64382 || FI, RU

NO5101 || Glomma || 47683 || SE

NO5102 || Vest-Viken (West Bay) || 39002 || -

NO5103 || Agder || 21048 || -

NO5104 || Rogaland || 12722 || -

NO5105 || Hordaland || 18440 || -

NO5106 || Sogn and Fjordane || 23771 || -

NOFIVHA5 || Kemijoki || 28 || FI

NOFIVHA6 NOSE1TO || Torne River/Tornionjoki || 181 203 || FI, SE

NOSE1 || Bothnian Bay || 975 || SE

NOSE2 || Bothnian Sea || 4688 || SE

NOSE5 || Skagerrak and Kattegat || 7436 || SE

Table 1.1: Overview of Norway’s River Basin Districts

Source: Draft River Basin Management Plans[2]

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

2

km² || %

Pasvik/Paatsjoki || NO1105 || FI, RU || 19 || 0.1

Naatamo || NO1105 || FI || 553 || 20.5

Teno/Tana || NO1105 || FI || 11314 || 31.0

Kemijoki || NOFIVHA5 || FI, RU || 27 || 0.1

Torneälven/Tornionjoki || NOFIVHA6 NOSE1TO || SE, FI || 284 || 1.0

Signaldalselva || NO1104 || SE || 1471 || 97.0

Malselvvassdraget/ Malangen || NO1104 || SE || 6774 || 97.0

Skjomavassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1436 || 90.0

Luleälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 758 || 3.0

Umeälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 268 || 1.0

Piteälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 113 || 1.0

Angermanälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 1597 || 5.0

Indalsälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 2153 || 8.0

Dalälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 1465 || 5.0

Hellemovassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1543 || 99.0

Kobbelva || NO1103 || SE || 956 || 99.0

Fagerbakkvassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1002 || 98.0

Saltelva || NO1103 || SE || 1861 || 94.0

Ranavassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 4227 || 94.0

Rossaga || NO1103 || SE || 2559 || 93.0

Vefsna || NO1103 || SE || 4021 || 88.0

Verdalsvassdraget || NO1102 || SE || 1595 || 94.0

Stjordalsvassdraget || NO1102 || SE || 2231 || 98.0

Nidelva || NO1102 || SE || 3368 || 92.0

Glomma || NO5101 || SE || 42591 || 99.0

Klarälven/Trysil - Göta alv/Vänern Göta/ (including the Sub--basins Norsälven/Byälven/ Upperudälven) || NO5101 || SE || 8187 || 16.0

Haldenvassdraget/Enningsdal || NO5101 || SE || 1935 || 77.0

Strömsan (Sub--basin of Haldenvassdraget) || NO5101 || SE || 5 || 2.0

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Norway[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Norway is connected to the European Union through the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway transposed the Water Framework Directive (WFD) into national legislation (the Water Regulation) in January 2007, and performed a voluntary implementation of the WFD in selected sub-districts across the country from 2007 until 2009, thus gaining experience of river basin management planning and enabling Norway to take part in the sharing of experiences in the Common Implementation Strategy. Pilot River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for the selected pilot sub-districts were adopted by the regional County Councils in 2009, and approved by the national Government in June 2010.

The WFD was formally taken into the EEA-agreement in 2009. EFTA-counties reporting obligations are to the EFTA Surveillance Authority(ESA).According to decision no 125/2007 of the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA/EFTA countries have extended deadlines for the implementation of the articles of the WFD. As a consequence, Norway intends to prepare and report ‘official’ RBMPs covering the entire country in 2015, synchronised with the time schedule of the second cycle of implementation in the European Union (EU).

Pilot RBMPs were reported to the EFTA surveillance authority 3rd September 2010: Møre and Romsdal, Trøndelag, Nordland, Troms, Finnmark, Glomma, Vest-Viken (West Bay), Sør-Vest (South-West) and Vestlandet (West Coast). Sør-Vest has since then been divided up into Agder and Rogaland. Vestlandet has been divided up into Hordaland and Sogn and Fjordane. Information has been reported by sub-district within the Pilot RBMPs and it should be noted that the sub-districts (and therefore the Pilot RBMPs) do not cover the whole of the geographic area of each RBD.

The Pilot RBMPs have been adopted by regional county councils and approved by the government, the latter through a Royal decree. The adopted Pilot RBMP and the Royal decree together make up the approved Pilot RBMP that forms the basis for the relevant planning and implementation activities by national, regional/county and local/municipal authorities. The responsibility for implementing the necessary legislation and measures lies with the authorities concerned, in line with their existing legal and administrative responsibilities, and final/detailed decisions on measures are mandated by the sectorial legislation.

The major strengths of the Norwegian Pilot RBMPs found in the assessment were:

· The national technical guidance documents on ‘Classification of ecological status’ and ‘Characterisation of the RBD’ are particularly useful and comprehensive. From these it is clear that there has been active participation of Norwegian experts in the CIS process on these topics. This should ensure that these aspects when fully implemented will be technically best practice and will produce comparable results with EU Member States.

· The Pilot RBMPs are well written and illustrated with the content closely following the required elements as given in Annex VII of the WFD.

· Work on national adaptation to climate change is in progress.

It should be noted that Norway’s Pilot RBMPs are well written and structured. Norway is clearly following the approach of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) and processes are in place that should ensure that comprehensive RBMPs are reported in the future.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

According to the EEA agreement, Norway will fully implement the Directive with a different timetable. Norway intends to prepare and report ‘official’ RBMPs covering the entire country in 2015, synchronised with the time schedule of the second cycle of implementation in the European Union (EU). Norway has however chosen to develop 9 Pilot RBMPs in parts of each River Basin District in the first cycle. The timetable was as follows:

· 2007: Formation of cross sector RBD Water Boards and Consultation on Work Programme.

· 2008: Consultation of Significant Water Management Issues.

· 2009: Consultation on Draft River Basin Management Plan (end of June 2009), and adoption of Pilot RBMPs by County Councils (September/October 2009).

· 11 June 2010: Approval of Pilot RBMPs by national Government by Royal Decree.

3.2 National administrative arrangements

A national approach is followed for the implementation of the WFD. The Environment Agency (Miljøverndepartementet) is the responsible authority. The coordinating responsibility is delegated to the Agency/Directorate for Nature Management (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning). The work on national level is carried out on two levels:

1. The Committee of Ministries (8 ministries) covers the overall issues that include integration issues concerning several departments;

2. The Committee of Agencies (Directorates) (12 agencies) develop guidelines and coordinate the work on agency-level;

3. The National reference group is connected to the Agency group to secure information and participation of branch organisations, NGOs and the civil society at large.

3.3 RBD competent authorities

A number of relevant sector authorities have been involved at different levels: Fisheries, Coastal management, Food and Agriculture, Nature management, Pollution and Climate, Health, Energy and Hydropower, Transport, Reindeer management, Sami council, Cultural heritage Mapping Authority, Geological Survey, Mining, County and Municipal councils. Public participation has taken place by NGOs for farmers, forestry, industry, hydropower, fishery, tourism, environment, Sami people and the Norwegian Geological Survey. However, the participation differs between RDBs. The RBD Competent Authority is managed by the VRM (vannregionmyndighet), which has the overall responsibility and is led by the County Council.

The VRM should 1) co-ordinate the RBMP planning process, 2) set up and run the RBD Water Board (VRU - vannregionutvalg) including regional authorities and municipalities, as well as a Reference Group for public participation at RBD level, 3) follow up authorities with responsibilities, 4) divide the RBM in sub-districts, 5) have an up-to-date overview of the status of the water bodies, 6) develop environmental objectives for the water bodies, 7) develop the Programme of Measures (PoM), 8) develop a (Pilot) RBMP, 9) facilitate participation of all stakeholders, 10) be in charge of the consultation and 11) co-ordinate work with neighbouring countries.

The regions are further divided into sub-districts (vannområder) with local Water Boards (VOU - vannområdeutvalg). The VOU should carry out a significant part of the practical work on a local level through characterisation, developing environmental targets and measures, evaluating cost benefits, developing and carrying out monitoring, and developing the local plan as part of the regional plan. All interested parties are invited to take part in the local Water Board to take advantage of local knowledge, increase the motivation to carry out the work, identify undesired effects and to develop trust, ownership and support.

The detail on the sub-district plans appears to be comprehensive in terms of those addressing sectors and those addressing water management issues, although the Pilot RBMPs would benefit from clarity in terms of describing the authorities involved and the scope of their responsibilities (technical, administrative and geographical).

Information should be included on Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is missing from the Pilot RBMPs but is an important tool for 'advising' the PoM.

There would be advantages if the RBMPs included details of the consultation process and, in particular, the impacts of consultation on the measures or other elements of the plan. Some of the Pilot RBMPs include part of this information but further information could be included in annexes to the Pilot RBMPs.

Comment: Tana, Neiden and Pasvik RB are shared with Finland, but have not been managed as IRBD in the first cycle.

Figure 3.3.1: Map of Norwegian RBDs

Source: Map provided by the Norwegian Authorities

3.4 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMPs submitted are draft Pilot RBMPs that have been adopted by the appropriate County Councils, and then approved by Royal Decree by the Norwegian Government.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

Five of the eleven RBDs are to a small extent shared with Sweden, Finland or Russia (see Section 1). In addition to the eleven mainly Norwegian RBDs, there are six RBDs that are classified as international RBDs but no pilot international RBMP (IRBMP) has been submitted by Norway. Contacts have been established with neighbouring countries, and some co-ordination has been in place for the Pilot RBMPs, but it is unclear how much co-operation is taking place. The 3 large River Basins Tana, Neiden and Pasvik that are shared with Finland should be of special concern due to their significant size. Efforts should be put into ensuring the correct and mutual management of IRBDs for future RBMPs.

3.6 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The methodology used for the consultation process was generally consistent across all RBDs in Norway, and follows the requirements of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act as well as the WFD. The consultation process on the draft Pilot RBMP was carried out through a number of different tools, including meetings, written consultation and web based comments. Information on the consultation process could be obtained through the internet, direct mail to local authorities and other stakeholders and advertised in the press. The stakeholders involved in the consultation included a wide range of sectors, such as agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry and NGOs. Involvement took place through both regular and ad-hoc meetings. It is not clear whether there is continuous involvement of these stakeholders or the general public. The comments provided led to adjustments of the Pilot RBMPs, but did not change the selection of measures used. The information provided varies in completeness between Pilot RBMPs.

3.7 Integration with other sectors

The Pilot RBMP contains links to other sectors such as agriculture, the chemical industry and rural and urban planning but the links could be made clearer.

To ensure sufficient sector integration, a Committee of Ministries has been established, chaired by the Ministry of Environment. The Committee of Ministries settles political issues concerning cross sector integration in water management. It embraces a total of eight ministries: Environment; Petroleum and Energy; Fisheries and Coastal Affairs; Trade and Industry; Health and Care; Transport and Communication; Agriculture and Food; Local Government and Regional Development. To assist the ministries at national level, a Committee of Agencies (Directorates) has been established, chaired by the Directorate for Nature Management. This Committee of Directorates has been delegated the task of preparing national guidance for the River Basin Districts and ensuring administrative co-operation across sectors. It also organises the annual National Water Environment Conference and the national web-site Vannportalen. The Committee includes 12 central government agencies. The Committee of Directorates also has a National Reference Group allowing for the participation of national industry associations, NGOs and civil society representatives.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the eleven RBDs in Norway has rivers, lakes and coastal waters but no transitional waters have been defined. No reasons are given in the Pilot RBMPs or supplementary guidance for not delineating transitional water bodies. This should be justified and explained in future RBMPs.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A report referred to in the characterisation guidelines states that “This report presents the revised typology for Norwegian lakes and rivers, after further statistical analysis of the type-specific flora and fauna in water bodies assumed to be in reference conditions”. This suggests that the typology for rivers and lakes has been tested against biological data. No other relevant information was found in the Pilot RBMPs. The classification guidance indicates that “type parameters and categories for each parameter are selected partly on the basis of Annex II of the Directive and partly from the multivariate analysis of biological data on the different natural environmental gradients”. On this basis it is assumed that coastal waters are also tested against biological data. Reference conditions were developed based on a spatially based method using existing data, and are described for all water types and quality elements apart from benthic invertebrates in rivers, and fish in rivers and lakes.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

NO || 27 || 21 || - || 23

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types

Source: Draft RBMPs

For rivers and lakes, 27 and 21 types were defined[4] respectively, based on information such as geology and size. For Coastal waters, 23 types were defined[5] based on factors including salinity, mixing characteristics and ecological region. The reference conditions have been developed through a Nordic effort that has been adapted further for Norwegian conditions.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Small water bodies (smaller than the size criteria in Annex II) have been included in the Pilot RBMPs. A minimum size threshold has been set for each category of surface water: a catchment area of 10 km2 for rivers (WFD criterion) and a surface area of 0.5 km2 for lakes (WFD criterion) and coastal waters.

RBD || Surface Area of Catchment (km2) || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional Water Bodies || Coastal Water Bodies || Groundwater Bodies

Number || Total Length (km) || Number || Total Area (km2) || Number || Total Area (km2) || Number || Total Area (km2) || Number || Total Area (km2)

NO1101 || 25,441 || 1120 || 23,598 || 394 || 396 || N/A || N/A || 235 || 6989 || 116 || 295

NO1102 || 47,229 || 2203 || 64,215 || 742 || 1340 || N/A || N/A || 351 || 16,241 || 182 || 705

NO1103 || 68,291 || 1422 || 58,542 || 661 || 1519 || N/A || N/A || 532 || 31,691 || 157 || 266

NO1104 || 36,549 || 763 || 34,020 || 269 || 525 || N/A || N/A || 160 || 11,565 || 67 || 328

NO1105 || 64,382 || 1312 || 56,773 || 789 || 1127 || N/A || N/A || 204 || 15,518 || 136 || 754

NO5101 || 47,683 || 1490 || 55,563 || 518 || 1614 || N/A || N/A || 38 || 1708 || 241 || 1526

NO5102 || 39,002 || 2287 || 54,230 || 747 || 1976 || N/A || N/A || 76 || 852 || 155 || 372

NO5103 || 21,048 || 1380 || 32,218 || 521 || 1101 || N/A || N/A || 160 || 1619 || 42 || 99

NO5104 || 12,722 || 670 || 59,631 || 324 || 413 || N/A || N/A || 124 || 3001 || 40 || 128

NO5105 || 18,440 || 1048 || 24,306 || 536 || 434 || N/A || N/A || 142 || 4226 || 42 || 77

NO5106 || 23,771 || 1359 || 25,537 || 461 || 669 || N/A || N/A || 129 || 4977 || 59 || 139

Total || 404,558 || 15,054 || 488,633 || 5962 || 11,114 || N/A || N/A || 2151 || 98,387 || 1237 || 4689

NOFIHA5 || 28 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.8 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOFIHA6 || 181 || 4 || 1.1 || 1 || 0.9 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOSE1 || 975 || 87 || 1125 || 66 || 255 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.2

NOSE1TO || 203 || 21 || 164 || 5 || 3.6 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOSE2 || 4688 || 247 || 8200 || 55 || 127 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 13 || 54

NOSE5 || 7436 || 317 || 8119 || 107 || 464 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 24 || 166

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: Draft RBMPs

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

All Norwegian Pilot RBMPs follow the same outline and national approach, see Guidelines for characterisation of water bodies[6]. This national guidance document outlines the method for analysing the pressures on water bodies. This analysis, with any information on the state of water bodies, is used in the risk assessment described in the national guidance. An overview of the main pressure types and activities potentially affecting water bodies is also provided in the national guidance document. No criteria are given that are used to identify significant pressures. However, criteria are provided for the identification of water bodies at risk of not achieving WFD objectives by 2015/2021. Many of these are qualitative, some are more quantitative, and others are based on degraded quality of the water body based on existing national classification systems.

The most significant pressures identified are summarised in each Pilot RBMP and include e.g. sewage treatment, landfills, agriculture, forestry, fish farms, hydropower, mines and atmospheric deposition of pollutants from other countries. Biological impact factors such as Gyrodactylus salaris infections, escaped farmed fish and alien species are also mentioned as important pressures in some Pilot RBMPs but the Royal Decree clearly states that biological impact factors should not be included for coastal waters in the Pilot RBMPs or PoM. The reason for this decision is unclear. Future RBMPs must encompass all significant pressures, including biological impact factors in coastal waters.

Point source and diffuse source pressures are assessed by a combination of spatially based methods and expert judgement, but no thresholds are given. Only water abstraction for public water supply is considered.

In terms of hydromorphological pressures, reference is made to the (numeric) criteria used for the identification of heavily modified water bodies. The revised national Guidelines on characterization[7] have a section on the impacts and effects on the aquatic environment and the steps of the impact analysis are listed. The first step is to identify potential impacts on ecological and chemical status in the water body. Each factor potentially affecting the water body is ranked as unknown, insignificant, small, medium, large or very large. The impact can be assessed on the basis of monitoring, research, predicted effect, professional judgment or on other grounds. Guiding criteria is tabulated for the assessment of risk in surface waters for use when there is a lack of biological data from the effected water bodies.

The sectors listed as contributing significantly to chemical pollution include: industrial emissions (directs and indirect discharges), households (including through sewage treatment plants), atmospheric deposition (long range transported pollutants), transport network, contaminated land and mines.

4.5 Protected areas

All RBDs have protected areas (e.g. for drinking water, national parks, recreation, fish and habitats) but these have only been specified for the sub-region described in the Pilot RBMPs. The level of details provided varies between Pilot RBMPs.

5. Monitoring 5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

The monitoring guidance recommends which quality elements (QEs) should be monitored for operational purposes in relation to pressures in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. The monitoring guidance indicates that if surveillance monitoring were to be undertaken and reported in the Pilot RBMP all required QEs would have been monitored. But there is no information as to whether surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have yet been implemented systematically across Norway.

There is very little information on monitoring in the Pilot RBMPs but regional and national monitoring seems to be in place for some parameters. There is no information as to whether surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have yet been implemented systematically across Norway. In the areas within RBDs that have been monitored (as test cases) it appears that only operational monitoring of surface waters has been undertaken. This may be because surveillance monitoring is undertaken by national authorities. However, the operational monitoring that has been undertaken appears to be in relation to the identified significant pressures and includes pollutants in sediment, biota and water.

There was only very little biological monitoring data, and it was not clear how BQEs had been selected. It is not clear if all relevant quality elements have been monitored.

No information was found on grouping of water bodies for monitoring.

More detailed information on monitoring programmes should be provided in future RBMPs and it should be made clear what is monitored for surveillance, operational, and investigative purposes, and by whom.

It should be made clear whether all relevant quality elements are being monitored, if reference conditions have been established for all surface water types, and to what degree the assessment of ecological status is based on actual monitoring data.

The various sources of information indicate that delays in the implementation of monitoring plans have resulted in the first generation of management plans and action programmes being based on very little monitoring data, especially biological data. This implies that the status of and risks to water bodies may not have been fully established in relation to the significant pressures, and that not all relevant pressures have been identified. In turn this may mean that measures may not have been correctly and efficiently targeted.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

The location of the few groundwater monitoring sites is indicated in the RBMPs but it is not specified whether they are used for surveillance or operational monitoring. It is generally stated that pressures putting GWBs at risk should be included in chemical operational monitoring.

It is not clear how parameters in the operational monitoring programme are chosen to detect the existing pressures.

Norway's groundwater monitoring programme is not implemented in a way to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants in terms of chemical status.

There is very little information on groundwater quantitative monitoring. Water level is mentioned as a monitored parameter.

In the frame of a Nordic cooperation inter-calibration of groundwater monitoring systems and methods for the chemical monitoring of baseline conditions was carried out. There is a map included in the RBMP indicating the monitoring stations established for setting the reference conditions in transboundary groundwater bodies.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There are no specific monitoring programmes for surface water drinking water protected areas other than what is usually monitored for drinking water quality. The number of monitoring sites located in protected areas is not reported.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

NO1101 || 57 || 1108 || 450 || 88 || 28 || 18

NO1102 || 327 || 1724 || 784 || 251 || 110 || 99

NO1103 || 44 || 688 || 261 || 171 || 45 || 1405

NO1104 || 90 || 212 || 81 || 44 || 14 || 751

NO1105 || 30 || 543 || 94 || 25 || 1 || 1621

NO5101 || 211 || 847 || 492 || 177 || 55 || 264

NO5102 || 402 || 1339 || 937 || 205 || 48 || 179

NO5103 || 58 || 454 || 966 || 419 || 75 || 89

NO5104 || 49 || 368 || 402 || 170 || 46 || 83

NO5105 || 32 || 656 || 565 || 315 || 25 || 133

NO5106 || 32 || 760 || 993 || 107 || 4 || 53

Total || 1459 || 9180 || 6000 || 2094 || 464 || 4854

Table 6.1: Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

RBD || Good || Failure to achieve good || Unknown

NO1101 || 11 || 25 || 1713

NO1102 || 25 || 16 || 3265

NO1103 || 4 || 6 || 2605

NO1104 || 8 || 9 || 1181

NO1105 || 65 || 16 || 2224

NO5101 || 38 || 11 || 1997

NO5102 || 57 || 18 || 3035

NO5103 || 70 || 35 || 1956

NO5104 || 14 || 18 || 1086

NO5105 || 22 || 5 || 1699

NO5106 || 71 || 5 || 1873

Total || 409 || 149 || 23495

Table 6.2: Chemical status of surface water bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

RBD || Good quantitative || Poor quantitative || Unknown quantitative || Good chemical || Poor chemical || Unknown chemical

NO1101 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 116

NO1102 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 182

NO1103 || 69 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 157

NO1104 || 0 || 0 || 67 || 0 || 0 || 67

NO1105 || 0 || 0 || 136 || 0 || 0 || 136

NO5101 || 32 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 240

NO5102 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 155

NO5103 || 26 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42

NO5104 || 0 || 0 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 40

NO5105 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42

NO5106 || 42 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 59

Total || 264 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1274

Table 6.3: Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

24053 || 12867 || 2608 || 8293 || 285

Table 6.4: Surface water bodies: overview of expected status in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

1275 || 760 || 357 || 39 || 119

Table 6.5: Groundwater bodies: overview of expected status in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

Some of the total values do not match the sum of the individual RBDs. The reason for this is unknown but all of the data in Section 6 has been extracted from vann-nett.no in July 2012 for the individual RBDs and for the whole of Norway.

Figure 6.1: Status of surface waters in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

Figure 6.2: Status of surface waters in 2021

Note that “status” of less than good status water bodies has been expressed in terms of risk of not achieving environmental objectives rather than in terms of expected moderate, poor or bad status. The comparison of less than good status in 2012 and 2021 should be treated with caution.

Source: Draft RBMPs

Figure 6.3: Status of groundwaters in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment of ecological status generally follows a national approach. The assessment methods for classification of ecological status are only partly developed for rivers, lakes and coastal waters for the biological quality elements and only partly developed for the supporting physico-chemical quality elements in rivers and lakes. Assessment methods for coastal waters are reported to require updating to meet WFD requirements. There are methods for supporting hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and coastal waters but none for lakes. At present, there are no complete classification systems for all national water body types in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Therefore the ecological assessment methods and classification need to be further developed to fully meet the requirements of the WFD.

EU Member States are required to develop national environmental quality standards (EQSs) for significant non-priority specific pollutants. Norway has an ‘old’ assessment system with EQS values for some national specific pollutants but it was not possible to determine whether this is WFD-compliant. More information on how national EQSs have been derived and applied should be reported in future RBMPs.

No information was found as to whether, or how, water bodies have been grouped for the purposes of monitoring and classification of status. The methodology used to deal with uncertainty in classification results is also unclear. More details should be reported on these important aspects in future RBMPs.

The class boundaries for good ecological status (high/good and good/moderate) for the biological quality elements (or their sub-components) are consistent with intercalibrated boundaries given in the Intercalibration Decision. This reflects the active participation of Norway in the relevant CIS Working Groups.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

NO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

How the methods have been applied is unclear from the RBMPs. It is not clear if all relevant quality elements have been used for the ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites, and if the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment for operational monitoring sites.

Status results have been reported as High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad but no indications are given of what has caused a less than Good status. There are no indications that river basin specific pollutants are responsible for a less than Good status.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

All Norwegian Pilot RBMPs have water bodies that could be identified as Heavily Modified or Artificial but some have only been assigned as candidates and are awaiting final decision.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The number of designated or candidate HMWBs has been reported in some Pilot RBMPs but are missing in others. The data available on the national WFD website (vann-nett.no) suggests that information is generally lacking.

The Pilot RBMP states that HMWBs can be designated where the water use is listed as navigation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, flood protection or impounded by railway. The physical modifications leading to designation may include locks, weirs, dams, reservoirs, channelization, dredging, bank reinforcement, land reclamation, abstraction or intensive land use.

A whole section is available in the national document on "Method for characterisation of water bodies in Norway", but unclear if this is the same method as the Commission’s HMWB Guidance N° 4. There is a 4 step process as detailed in the national Guidelines for characterisation. The steps are: Step 1 - A preliminary identification of a HMWB is made based on the criteria set out in the national guidance document and is reported as part of the characterisation. Step 2- The ecological status of the water bodies identified in step 1 is assessed. Water bodies that have an ecological status far from good might be set as candidates for HMWB. This will also form the basis for the analysis of measures. Step 3- The final designation of HMWB is made on further evaluation of the value the modification has to the society and any mitigation measures available. This evaluation should be carried out together with the Pilot RBMP. The designation of HMWB and associated environmental targets should work as guidelines for the authorities. Step 4 - Evaluation by authorities. Increased knowledge and information during the period will clarify if the water body is a HMWB, what the environmental targets should be (to achieve Good Ecological Potential or GEP) and establish suitable measures. Changes will be included in the revised RBMP. Uncertainty in relation to the designation of HWMBs is not discussed in the Pilot RBMP.

The Pilot RBMP does not include details on the test used to identify ‘significant adverse effect on use’ or the criteria used to define significance. There are also no details on the analysis of alternative options for WFD article 4(3)b.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential

No information was found on the two key designation tests for HMWB (‘significant adverse effects of restoration measures for Good Ecological Status’ and ‘better environmental options’). Future RBMPs should provide information on the approach used to designate HMWBs on the basis of these tests which are explicit Articles of the WFD.

No information was reported or found in supporting documents on the definition of GEP. Future RBMPs should explain the methodology used to define GEP for those water bodies identified as heavily modified (and artificial).

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has asked Norway to clarify how the pre-existing legal framework will be used or adapted to secure compliance with the environmental ambitions and periodical review foreseen by the WFD for existing hydropower, as regards revision clauses and revision of terms, revision of licensing terms, as well as certain provisions under existing legal instruments.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

This has not been reported.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

There is no clear evidence whether the EQSs from the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) are practically applied in Norway.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

An overview of information on chemical status and data on priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status was not available.

9.3 Other issues

No information was found on the use of mixing zones.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The assessment of groundwater status is generally lacking, only 1 out of 1275 groundwater bodies (GWBs) has been assigned a chemical status and 264 have been assigned a quantitative status. Groundwater is not used in a large extent in Norway.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

There are 4 criteria for quantitative status detailed in the national Guidelines on classification. Good quantitative status is achieved if: 1) the abstraction is not decreasing the water level permanently, 2) the abstraction will not affect the water balance of surface waters associated to groundwater in a negative way, 3) abstraction will not result in saltwater intrusion, and 4) abstraction will not affect groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in a negative way. It is not clear if this has been implemented in the Pilot RBMPs. The definition of 'available groundwater resource' and the assessment of the balance between abstraction and recharge were not stated. No other information was provided.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The number of groundwater bodies at risk is reported in the Pilot RBMPs but there was no information reported on the pollutants and indicators of pollution which contribute to this classification (as required in the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) Annex II Part C).

The criteria used in the assessment of chemical status is not clearly explained in the RBMPs.

Needs of surface waters associated to groundwater and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not assessed.

The threshold values are based on drinking water standards. Natural background levels of pollution were provided.

There was no information on TV exceedances and on any methodology established concerning acceptable exceedances in the RBMPs.

There was no information provided on transboundary coordination of the threshold values established.

Trend assessments and reversals were not carried out, methodologies were not established.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Some Pilot RBMPs have included the areas that would need exemptions, others have not. The water bodies have been divided into "at risk" or "not at risk" of failing good ecological status/potential for rivers, lakes, coastal waters and good water status for groundwater. The status is divided into 5 classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) but the assessment has divided the water bodies into "at risk", "possibly at risk" or "not at risk" of failing GES/GEP by 2021. Data from vann-nett.no, July 2012.

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

4053 || 12867 || 2608 || 8293 || 285

Table 11.1: Status of surface waters in 2021

Source: www.Vann-nett.no

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

1275 || 760 || 357 || 39 || 119

Table 11.2: Status of surface waters in 2021

Source: www.Vann-nett.no

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The protected areas found in Norway include e.g. drinking water protected areas, recreation areas, national parks and habitats. No clearly defined additional objectives have been set for any of these.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4), 4(5), 4(6), 4(7) and Article 6 Groundwater Directive

No exemptions are applied under any of these Articles or Directive.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012 (this date is different for Norway). The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[8] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD. The Commission may together with the EFTA Surveillance Authority consider also assessing Norway accordingly.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The international co-ordination aspects regarding the development of the Programme of Measures should be included in future RBMPs. If no measures are needed then this should also be reported.

The costs for implementing the Programme of Measures should be included and, if possible, allocated between basic and supplementary measures (a good indication of the costs for the implementation of other directives and the WFD), sectors, water categories etc. The financial commitment or lack of commitment should be made explicit in future RBMPs. The Royal Decree states that the approval of (Pilot) RBMPs cannot set guidelines for the Government and Parliament's priorities in future state budgets.

In addition, the link between status assessment, objective setting and the need for improvement (i.e. ‘amount’ and type of measure) should be clarified.

A clear timetable for the implementation of the measures should be included as well as a clear legal statement on how measures are implemented and whether they are voluntary or mandatory.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

A number of general measures are listed e.g. general reduction in the use of N and P fertilisers, using optimum amount of fertiliser, use of better fertiliser spreading techniques, limitation and optimisation of manure use, optimisation of time and method for spreading manure, limitation in the use of bone meal, working the soil during spring only or sowing during autumn to reduce run-off, sowing of grass to prevent erosion, introduction of buffer zones, reducing inflow to reduce erosion, improved drainage, construction of dams/wet lands to enhance sedimentation, improved watering, and expansion of manure storage. Non-technical measures include guidance to tailor environmental plans for individual farmers and improving the storage and spreading of manure.

Farmers’ groups were included in the general consultation process, but the Pilot RBMPs do not mention any further consultation with farmers on these measures.

Information should be provided in future RBMPs on how measures in relation to agricultural pressures are implemented, by when and who is paying for them. Similarly for other pressure related measures, in the case of international RBDs, information on the transboundary co-operation for the establishment of measures should be stated in future RBMPs.

Measures || NO1101 || NO1102 || NO1103 || NO1104 || NO1105 || NO5101 || NO5102 || NO5103 || NO5104 || NO5105 || NO5106

Technical Measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || || || || || || || || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || || ü || || || || || || || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || || || || || || || || || || ||

Economic Instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || || || || || || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || || || || || || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || || || || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical Measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || || || || || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || || || || || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || || || || || || || || ||

Farm advice and training || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Raising awareness of farmers || || || || || || || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || || || || || || || || ||

Certification schemes || || || || || || || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Land use planning || || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical standards || || ü || ü || || || ü || || || || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || || || || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Norway is heavily dependent on hydropower for the generation of electricity and the nationwide hydropower plan is currently being reviewed. No major gaps were identified in the Pilot RBMP on hydromorphological measures. However, it would be useful to provide information on the linkages between all planned hydromorphological measures and their expected effects on quality elements, particularly on biological quality elements (if information is available), and on the hydromorphological parameters.

Measures || NO1101 || NO1102 || NO1103 || NO1104 || NO1105 || NO5101 || NO5102 || NO5103 || NO5104 || NO5105 || NO5106

Fish Ladders || || || ü || || || ü || || || || ||

Bypass Channels || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Habitat Restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || || || || || || || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || ü || || || ü || || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || || || || || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || || || || || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || || || || ü || ü || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || || || || || || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened watercourses || || || || || ü || ü || || || || ü || ü

Other || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater is not used to a large extent in Norway and there is currently a lack of information on groundwater status.

Groundwater quantitative status is not considered an issue therefore no measures have been established.

Measures have been established to prevent and limit groundwater pollution, like assessing underground oil storage, installing oil removal systems, measures in adjacent water bodies, control of contaminated land, handling of hazardous waste.

In case of international RBDs information on the transboundary co-operation for the establishment of measures was not provided in the RBMPs.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

It should be made clear in future RBMPs if there are specific priority substances or RBD-specific non-priority pollutants (including physico-chemical determinands) causing failure to achieve good chemical status and good ecological status, respectively. These should be clearly named with information provided on the number of water bodies affected.

The measures being implemented should be provided with details of whether they are targeted to specific substances in order to reduce and/or phase out their emissions, use or production.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The Royal Decree acknowledges that the economic analysis is weak and states that this is partly due to the lack of national guidelines and tools. The Government will develop national tools. The reporting of the economic requirements of the WFD in future RBMPs could be significantly improved in a number of ways.

A full economic analysis should be conducted according to Article 5 and Annex III of the WFD (CIS Guidance Document 1 (WATECO)) provides more information on how to undertake the economic analysis. Full consideration should also be given to the requirements of Article 9 of the WFD.

Water uses and water services should be clearly and practically defined according to Articles 2 (38) and 2 (39) of the WFD, making it clear whether additional activities beyond water supply and wastewater collection and treatment qualify as water services.

Cost recovery rates should be calculated for all water services identified. Financial as well as environmental and resource costs should be included in this calculation. The financial costs considered should be clearly stated. The issues of cross-subsidies and subsidies need to be taken into account.

The extent to which different water users contribute to covering the costs of a specific water service should be described.

The future RBMPs should explain or analyse how far and how the overall objectives of Article 9 are reached (‘adequate contributions of different water users to recovery of costs of water services’; water pricing policies that provide ‘adequate incentives’ for efficient water use; taking into account the ‘polluter-pays principle’ in the recovery of costs of water services). If the objectives are not reached, then the activities or measures that need to be taken in order to reach these objectives should be defined.

The flexibility of using Article 9.4 should be established and/or whether ‘the social and/or environmental and/or economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and/or climatic conditions of the region or regions affected’ (Article 9 (1)) have been taken into account.

In the case of international RBDs, and with regard to the above issues, information should be provided in future RBMPs on co-operation with neighbouring countries in order to reach a coherent implementation of Article 9.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Very little (if any) information is provided in the Pilot RBMPs on the use of additional measures if necessary in Protected Areas (Annex VII (7.1)), particularly in terms of Drinking Water Protected Areas. It should be possible to identify whether measures taken for the general improvement of water bodies are sufficient for obtaining the more stringent objectives in Protected Areas, or whether additional measures are needed. This should be addressed in future RBMPs with links made to the water bodies needing improvement. It is likely that local councils already have plans and measures in place but these should be clearly referred to.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

In the case of Norway, it seems that water scarcity and droughts are not relevant at the present time or, perhaps, in the future for some RBDs. Nonetheless, the future RBMPs should be transparent and include reliable data on water quantity, including availability, usage and consumption.

In the southern parts of Sweden and Finland, summer droughts are reported as an increasingly relevant issue in order to satisfy water demands, and a similar situation might be the case in southern areas of Norway. If this is the case, an analysis of water quantity should be carried out and reported in future RBMPs, considering current data and forecasts (such as, climate change effects on rainfall). This aspect might be more or less relevant, depending on geographical location, water availability and storage capacity (natural and artificial).

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the Pilot RBMPs in connection to climate change and changing weather patterns with wetter conditions and more intense rainfall. Flooding is also listed as a pressure related to hydromorphological measures.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is briefly included in the Pilot RBMPs and the on-going work on adaptation to climate change in national level is referred to in some Pilot RBMPs.

The RBMP lists the parameters that could possibly be affected by climate change. The likely effects of climate change in the next 5-12 years are considered minor.

Climate check of the PoMs was not carried out. No specific measures to tackle the impact of climate change were included in the RBMPs.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps. Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions. Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

As such it is recommended that :

· There is very little information on monitoring in the Pilot RBMPs. In the areas within RBDs that have been monitored (as test cases) it appears that only operational monitoring of surface waters has been undertaken. Steps should be taken to ensure that both surveillance and operational monitoring of all required quality elements, as well as establishment of all necessary reference conditions are in place for the 2015 RBMPs.

· At present, there are no complete classification systems for all national water body types in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Therefore the ecological assessment methods and classification need to be further developed to fully meet the requirements of the WFD by 2015. More details on grouping of water bodies for monitoring and classification, as well as the methodology applied to deal with uncertainty in the classification should be reported in future RBMPs.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, the derivation of the national EQS, the location of 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.

· There is no clear evidence regarding whether the EQSs from the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) have been applied in Norway. An overview of information on chemical status and data on priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status was not available in the Pilot RBMPs. Norway should ensure that the future RBMPs contain the required information on chemical status of water bodies, as well as information on the use of mixing zones. In addition to applying the biota EQS in the EQSD for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadienc, Norway should ensure that its monitoring in biota and sediment covers the priority substances for which trend monitoring is required according to EQSD Article 3(3).

· Appropriate groundwater monitoring should be established in accordance with WFD requirements to assess groundwater status and to detect pollution trends. WFD compliant methods to assess groundwater quantitative and chemical status and pollution trends should be established. Established measures should be based on those assessments.

· Norway is a major hydropower producer, but no clear information is provided in the Pilot RBMPs on the water bodies which are classified as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). For the future RBMPs, it will be necessary to include a comprehensive explanation of the approach used for HMWB designation, as well as the methodology used for definition of GEP.

· Even though several new modifications are planned in Norwegian Water Bodies, the Pilot RBMPs do not apply the use of the WFD Article 4.7. For future RBMPs the use of Article 4.7 in case of new modifications or activities must be demonstrated in compliance with the WFD requirements.

· Biological impact factors such as Gyrodactylus salaris infections, escaped farmed fish and alien species are mentioned as important pressures in some Pilot RBMPs, but the Royal Decree clearly states that biological impact factors should not be included for coastal waters in the Pilot RBMPs or PoM. The reason for this decision is unclear. Future RBMPs must encompass all significant pressures, including biological impact factors in coastal waters.

· The costs for implementing the Programme of Measures should be included and, if possible, allocated between basic and supplementary measures (a good indication of the costs for the implementation of other directives and the WFD), sectors, water categories etc. The financial commitment or lack of commitment should be made explicit in future RBMPs.

· Norway shares several River Basins with neighbouring Finland and Sweden. Some co-ordination has been in place for the Pilot RBMPs, but full compliance with the WFD requirements concerning IRBDs was not achieved. The 3 large River Basins Tana, Neiden and Pasvik that are shared with Finland should be of special concern due to their significant size. Efforts should be put into ensuring the correct and mutual management of IRBDs for future RBMPs.

· Norway should demonstrate how climate change projections have informed assessments of WFD pressures and impacts; how monitoring programmes are configured to detect climate change impacts; and how selected measures are robust to cope with projected climate conditions.

Other issues for improvement in future RBMPs:

· The economic analysis in the Pilot RBMPs is weak, partly due to the lack of national guidelines and tools. The reporting of the economic requirements of the WFD in future RBMPs could be significantly improved in a number of ways, including a full economic analysis according to Article 5 and Annex III, as well as of the WFD (CIS giving full consideration to the requirements of Article 9 of the WFD.

· Each of the eleven RBDs in Norway has rivers, lakes and coastal waters but no transitional waters have been defined. No reasons are given in the Pilot RBMPs or supplementary guidance for not delineating transitional water bodies. This should be justified and explained in future RBMPs.

· Information should be included on Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is missing from the Pilot RBMPs but is an important tool for 'advising' the PoMs.

· There would be advantages if the RBMPs included details of the consultation process and, in particular, the impacts of consultation on the measures or other elements of the plan. Some of the Pilot RBMPs include part of this information but further information could be included in annexes to the Pilot RBMPs.

[1] Statistics Norway, 2012

[2] Draft RBMPs available from http://www.vannportalen.no/ and http://vann-nett.nve.no/

[3] Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4] Revised typology for Norwegian rivers and lakes (in Norwegian). Report LNR 4888-2004. http://www.klif.no/arbeidsomr/vann/vanndirektiv/publikasjoner/typologi_innsjoer_elver.pdf

[5] Typology of Norwegian marine water bodies. System to describe natural ecological status. Proposed reference network (in Norwegian). Report LNR 4731-2003. http://www.klif.no/arbeidsomr/vann/vanndirektiv/publikasjoner/marintypologiveileder.pdf

[6] Method for characterisation of water bodies in Norway (in Norwegian). Version 1.0 (13.08.2007) http://www.vannportalen.no/Karakteriseringsveileder_juni07_2_U1d02.pdf.file

[7] Characterisation and analysis. Method for characterisation and risk analysis of water bodies according to WFD §15 (in Norwegian). Guidance 01:2011a. http://www.vannportalen.no/Veileder_01_2011a_Karakterisering_og_risikovurdering_9_mai_2011_Y6z4O.pdf.file

[8] These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

In Latvia there are 2,067,887 inhabitants,[1] (2.22 million, Eurostat 2011) and its territory is 64,589 km2. Latvia is one of the least populous and least densely populated countries of the European Union. The major rivers are Daugava, Lielupe, Gauja, Venta, and Salaca. Latvia's coastline extends for 531 kilometres.

According to the Law on Water Management the territory of Latvia is divided in Daugava, Gauja, Lielupe and Venta river basin districts. All four RBDs of Latvia are transboundary RBDs.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

LVDUBA || Daugava || 27026 || BY, LT, RU

LVGUBA || Gauja || 13051 || EE

LVLUBA || Lielupe || 8849 || LT

LBVUBA || Venta || 15625 || LT

Table 1.1: Overview of Latvia’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lv/eu/wfdart13

All Latvia’s RBDs are international, some shared with third countries. A very small part of the Narva (including Lake Peipsi) which is predominantly in Estonia, is also on Latvian territory as part of the Daugava RBD.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countires sharing RBD || Co-ordination category || Co-ordination category

2 || 3

km² || % || km² || %

Daugava || LVDUBA || BY, LT, RU || || || 27077 || 32.7

Gauja/Koiva || LVGUBA || EE || 13051 || 90.7 || ||

Lielupe || LVLUBA || LT || || || 8849 || 49.7

Narva (including Lake Peipsi/ Chudkoe, Lake Pihkva/ Pskovskoye) || LVDUBA || EE, RU || 3100 || 5.5 || ||

Venta || LVDUBA || LT || || || 6507 || 55.7

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Austria[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The final version of the River basin district management plans was approved by the Order of the Minister of Environment on 6 May 2010. The RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 18 May 2010.

The RBMPs and programmes of activities included therein are aimed at ensuring Latvian surface waters and groundwater reach environmental quality objectives. The principal objectives of the RBMPs are to prevent deterioration in the condition of the waters and to improve the surface waters and groundwater in order to reach a good water quality by 2015.

2.1 Main strengths of the RBMPs

The river basin and groundwater management approach has been introduced to surface and groundwater management in Latvia. The basin approach in the management of water resources has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and it is binding to everyone who is using those resources.

In each RBMP, the main objectives are clearly defined together with the measures proposed for achieving good quality in the water bodies.

The established consultative RBD boards are an effective panel for the discussion of the RBMP issues.

2.2 Main weakness of the RBMPs

All four RBDs are international RBDs, but transboundary issues have not been coordinated, especially with non-Member countries. International RBMPs have not been developed.

The classification of the ecological status, pressure impact analysis and setting of the ecological objectives is provisional for all water bodies. It was not based on all quality elements required by the WFD but on all information available at the time of the development of RBMPs. No river basin specific pollutants have been identified. There are significant shortcomings in the monitoring network, and monitoring data is not available for the assessment of all water bodies. There are also shortcomings on the classification os chemical status,.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 18/05/2010. The information on the reports delivered by Latvia to WISE is presented below. The consultation as required by Article 14 took place with the following timetable for publication of documents:

· Timetable, Work programme: 03/11/2006.

· Statement on consultation measures to be taken : 22/12/2008.

· Full document "Significant water management issues": 03/11/2006.

· Draft River Basin Management Plans: 22/12/2008.

· Publication of RBMP: 22/12/2009.

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The competences are divided on a basis of the legal acts that determine each institution's responsibility in the public administration system. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MEPRD) is responsible for the transposition of the WFD into national legislation and ensuring the implementation of WFD. The Latvian Environment Geology and Meteorology Centre (LEGMC) is responsible for the implementation of the specific tasks set out in the Water Management Act and other legal acts.

LEGMC is responsible for the development of the river basin management plans, coordinating the implementation of the PoM, and ensuring the work of the RBD advisory councils.

The co-ordination between the LEGMC and MEPRD is agreed annually where the responsibilities of the LEGMC are listed for the given year. In addition, to ensure the compliance with the WFD, representatives of the two institutions have special meetings on the additional tasks.

Figure 3.2.1: WFD implementation structure in Latvia

Source: K. Veidemane, Baltic Environmental Forum

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

There are four separate RBMPs – each for one RBD. The RBMP development followed a national approach and include a water quality assessment, assessment of pressures and impacts and trend analysis, and economic analysis of water users. Each plan identifies the environmental quality objectives and program of measures to reach the goals for the period up to 2027. RMBPs consist of 8 chapters, which contain information required by the LV legal acts and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC:

1) a characterisation of a river basin district;

2) information regarding the most important anthropogenic loads and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater;

3) information regarding protected areas;

4) information regarding the monitoring network and results of the implemented monitoring programmes;

5) a summary of the economic analysis;

6) the quality objectives determined for water bodies and protected areas;

7) information regarding the planned measures in order to prevent or reduce emission of pollutants, as well as to achieve the environmental quality objectives (Programme of measures);

8) information regarding other programmes related to the management of the river basin district;

9) a survey regarding public information and consultations performed when developing and updating the plan.

The RBMPs were designed considering the various interests, knowledge and needs of the readers. Each chapter begins with a brief summary of the topic emphasizing the actual problems. In order to summarize the information a number of graphs and tables are included in each plan. Maps and supporting textual information is included in annexes. Some of the supporting textual annexes are the same for all RBMPs, but overall all annexes are RBD specific. Each plan is supplemented with 15 maps and 23 – 25 textual annexes.

For the first planning period (2009 – 2015) joint international plans were not produced for Daugava, Gauja, Lielupe and Venta RBD.

The River basin district management plans were approved by the Order of the Minister of Environment on 6 May 2010. RBMPs and PoMs are planning documents which are approved by resolutions. They are legally binding, but cannot contradict existing laws. As RBMPs are approved by the Minister of Environment, they are binding to all institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and have to be taken into account when adopting internal legal acts. However, the plans are not binding to individuals. In other words, it is not possible to refer only to the RBMPs in order to adopt administrative acts (decisions issued by state institutions regarding individuals). Any reference to the RBMPs in such decisions would only be informative, not legal. However, the RBMP is binding on the administration in performing their tasks and functions. There is only an indirect link between RBMP and individual decisions, and this indirect link is not specified in legislation.. The State Environmental Service shall supervise the implementation of the programme of measures and review the conditions of the issued permits, taking into account RBMPs and PoMs. This is a general provision providing for permits to be reviewed on the basis of programme of measures and if the SES considers it necessary. As the PoM according to the national legislation is included in the RBMP, this part of RBMP becomes binding on permitting decisions.[4]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Strategic Environmental Assessments have been undertaken on the Programme of Measures for all RBMPs. The SEA is a separate document for each RBD and is available on a LEGMC web site. The SEA reports are in Latvian. The SEAs took place during March - June 2009, after finalisation of the draft RBMPs on December 2008. The SEAs were performed simultaneously with the public consultation procedure.

The results of the SEAs are summarised in the report: "Report on the influence of the SEAs to the RBMPs". Some examples of the changes to the PoM as a result of the SEAs are: the geographical scale of the measure for the agriculture sector, implementation of buffer zones, has been narrowed. The water bodies were specified for which this measure has to be implemented, previously it had been more general. In another measure from the agriculture sector, the measure regarding environmentally safe manure collection and storage was assessed as carrying significant costs. In the program of measures therefore it has been specified that this measure has to be implemented within the limits of available finances. Sources of financing of this measure have been specified. A number of measures have been specified and supplemented with more detailed descriptions, for example the implementation of buffer zones in forestry.

The public and interested parties were informed about the consultations on the draft RBMPs by following means: through media, via the internet, via active invitations to known stakeholders/organisations, through local authorities, interviews of the representatives from different stakeholder groups, consultative board of the RBD, meetings with stakeholder groups and discussion forums.

The consultations were carried out using meetings, written submissions and web based consultation. Following the consultations changes were made to measures already proposed and new measures were added. Commitments to further research were also made.

The drafts of RBMPs were available during the 6 months for feedback.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

All four RBDs are international RBDs and transboundary issues have not been coordinated, especially with non-Member countries. This issue concerns particularly Daugava RBD which is a transboundary RBD with Lithuania, Russia and Belarus.

It was planned to conclude the trilateral agreement between the governments of Latvia, Belarus and the Russian Federation concerning co-operation in the Daugava/ Zapadnaja Dvina river basin in 2003. The Latvian government approved a draft agreement but it was not signed in 2003 as Russia and Belarus postponed the final decision several times due to various reasons. After joining the EU on the 1st of May 2004 water quality became a topic of shared responsibility between the Member States and the EU. Therefore any international agreement on water management between an EU Member State and a non-Member State requires the EU as a Contracting Party. Co-operation agreements were on the list of topics to be discussed during high-level meetings of the European Union and Russia; however, this has not led to renewal of the negotiations concerning river basin management agreement. Latvia has no framework agreement with Belarus and Russia on co-operation in river basin management and therefore it is not possible to plan joint activities or develop management plans with non-member countries. Also exchange of data and information is very limited. The next steps should be submission of the draft agreement and explanatory nota via diplomatic means to the relevant public authorities in Russia and Belarus.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

For the involvement of the different stakeholder groups there were organised discussion forums in each RBD. The main stakeholder groups involved were: farmers, foresters, local municipalities, Regional development agency, Ministry of Environment, NGOs and community representatives. The most active groups were representatives of municipalities and community representatives (local inhabitants, students, tourism sector representatives and local entrepreneurs).

The RBMPs are linked with the other sectoral plans, of which the most important are: Environmental Policy Strategy 2009–2015, National Flood Risk Management Strategy 2008-2015, National Development Plan 2007-2013, Regional development plans (depending on a RBD), HELCOM, and EU directives.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBDs

Rivers and lakes have been designated in all RBDs. Transitional waters have only been designated in the Dauguava RBD. Coastal waters were only designated in the Gauja and Venta RBDs. The one designated transitional water body belongs jointly to Daugava, Gauja and Lielupe RBD, but is here listed with the Daugava RBD.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The typology of surface water bodies is based on system B. The typology of rivers and lakes is based on abiotic data. For river water bodies typology is based on the following parameters - size of a catchment area and an average slope. The factor of average slope has traditionally been used in Latvia to separate potamal (or slow flowing) rivers and rhitral (or fast flowing) rivers. For lake water bodies – size, depth, geology and concentration of organic matter were used to define the typology. Most Latvian lakes are small – more than 10 000 lakes have surface area below 1 ha and few lakes exceed 10 km2. Shallow lakes with a mean depth between 1 and 6 m are the most common type (~ 70 % of all Latvian lakes). The following depth typology (based on the mean depth) is used in Latvia: 1. Very shallow lakes (depth <2 m); 2. Shallow lakes (depth 2 – 9 m); 3. Deep lakes (depth >9 m). Transitional and coastal water types adopted in Latvia are consistent with the CHARM project outcomes[5] and coordinated with other countries of the Baltic Sea Ecoregion. Salinity, depth/mixing and water residence time of enclosed areas (residence time) were used as factors in classification of transitional and coastal water types.

Based on the information presented in the RBMPs and WISE, it appears that the surface water typology has not tested against biological data for any of the relevant water category (R, L and T waters). Latvian authorities have clarified that all information about the characterisation was set out in the Article 5 report submitted in 2005.

Specific reference conditions have been established for all types according to the Article 5 report[6]. The data was however, according to the Latvian reports, not submitted to WISE, since the quality class boundaries were not developed for the different quality elements by the time Article 5 reports were submitted, and the RBMPs did not include an update taking into account intercalibration process since 2005. Reference conditions have been established with a combination of spatially based method and expert judgement.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

LVDUBA || 4 || 8 || 1 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 7 || 0 || 1

LVLUBA || 4 || 5 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 4 || 6 || 0 || 4

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The methodological approach for delineation of surface water bodies follows a national approach for all RBD. The minimal requirements for delineation of a separate water body for a river –is a catchment area more than 100 km2 (which is larger than the WFD limit) and for a lake, a surface area 0.5 km2 or more.

A river with a smaller catchment area, or a lake with a less surface area can be delineated as a separate water body if it is necessary for the achievement of environmental objectives or if this is a water body in the protected area in order to ensure the protection of this territory.

There is only one transitional water body delineated in Latvia. This is a low salinity zone in the southern part of the Gulf of Riga, near the estuaries of the Daugava, Gauja and Lielupe rivers.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

LVDUBA || 65 || 43 || 181 || 3 || 1 || 934 || 0 || || 6 || 5782

LVGUBA || 46 || 36 || 35 || 2 || 0 || || 1 || 176 || 5 || 5406

LVLUBA || 32 || 45 || 13 || 4 || 0 || || 0 || || 3 || 6854

LVVUBA || 61 || 31 || 30 || 6 || 0 || || 5 || 221 || 8 || 4356

Total || 204 || 38 || 259 || 3 || 1 || 934 || 6 || 214 || 16* || 5337

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions * Some groundwater bodies belong to more than one RBD.

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 210 || 85.02 || 6 || 2.43 || 13 || 5.26 || 0 || 0 || 23 || 9.31 || 5 || 2.02 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 6.07

LVGUBA || 58 || 70.73 || 3 || 3.66 || 7 || 8.54 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 10.98 || 3 || 3.66 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 14.63

LVLUBA || 18 || 40 || 4 || 8.89 || 7 || 15.56 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 31.11 || 4 || 8.89 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 48.89

LVVUBA || 64 || 66.67 || 6 || 6.25 || 4 || 4.17 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 9.38 || 6 || 6.25 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 26.04

Total || 350 || 74.47 || 19 || 4.04 || 31 || 6.6 || 0 || 0 || 55 || 11.7 || 18 || 3.83 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 15.74

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The methodological approach for identification of significant pressures and impacts overall follows a national approach in all RBMP.

For the assessment of a "significant" pressure to the WB from diffuse sources, summary loads of three types of pressures are evaluated: total load from agriculture, forestry and population without a centralised waste water treatment. The diffuse pollution is assessed as significant pressure to the WB taking into account following thresholds: for P > 0.180 kg/ha and for N > 10.0 kg/ha. These thresholds are compared with the total loads of P or N by agriculture, forestry and urban runoff (population without a centralised waste water treatment) to the water body and then divided with the total area of the water body.

For the assessment of a "significant" pressure to the WB from a point source only one point source pressure type - "UWWT in general" has been evaluated. There are different limits for point source pollution for river WB and lake WB. For river WB: Ptot >2 t per annum, Ntot >10 t per annum and total amount of waste water >1 million m3/year ; for lake WB: Ptot >1 ton per annum, Ntot >5 ton per annum and total amount of waste water >500 000 m3/year.

If all three values (Ptot, Ntot and volume) have been exceeded then the point source pollution has been assessed as significant pressure to the WB.

From an assessment of the pressures from water abstractions, no water body has been there has been identified as having a significant pressure from water abstraction. For the assessment of significant pressure from water abstraction in the RBMP the data from the statistical report "2-Water" are used. The assessment concerns all types of water users who are the subjects of the water use permits i.e. average daily use of surface or groundwater is more than 10 m3. The criterion to assess the abstraction as a significant was the proportion between the total amount of the abstracted water (all types of users) and available surface and groundwater resources (total in the RBD area). If this ratio is more than 0.4, the pressure is significant.

For the assessment of the significant pressures in water bodies with hydrological and/or morphological changes the information from various sources is used - the Marine Environment Administration, LEGMC, A/S Latvenergo, the Rural Support Service and the State Construction Inspection together with expert judgement for some of the pressures. Water flow and morphological alteration is evaluated for 4 groups of hydro-morphological alterations: hydroelectric power stations, ports, water flow regulations and polders (land reclamation). If the load of one of these groups in the water body is significant the pressure from water flow regulations of morphological alterations is assessed as significant.

The effects of flooding in the flood affected areas are also considered as a pressure to the water bodies and RBD. As there is no methodology for the assessment of this pressure within the framework of the RBMP, the information provided in the "National program for the flood risk and management 2008-2015" (accepted in 2007) is transferred to the RBMP. Transboundary pollution is also mentioned as one of the other types of pressure to be considered for evaluation of the significant pressures, but there are no values set. The transboundary pressure is evaluated based on whether a water body is a transboundary water body or not together with the total load of N and P coming from the neighbouring country. There are no water bodies identified which are considered as significantly affected from the transboundary pollution pressure. In the RBMP chapter 2.6 "Other pressures" climate change is mentioned as a possible pressure to the water body. As there is no methodology developed within the framework of RBMP, the state research program "Impact of climate changes to the water quality of Latvia" (KALME project) information is transferred to the RBMP. There are no water bodies identified to be considered as significantly affected from climate change.

4.5 Protected areas

Latvia applies stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive (1991/271/EEC), it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones. There are no shellfish protected areas in Latvia.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates[7] || Shellfish || UWWT

LVDUBA || 2 || 84 || || || 82 || 112 || || || 12 || ||

LVGUBA || || 43 || || || 49 || 74 || || || 9 || ||

LVLUBA || || 40 || || || 17 || 47 || || || 32 || ||

LVVUBA || || 55 || || || 48 || 75 || || || 3 || ||

Total || 2 || 222 || || || 196 || 308 || || || 56 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[8]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The assessment for the current RBMP is based on the Monitoring program 2006-2008. In 2010 a new Monitoring program 2009-2014 was approved by the Minister of Environment.

The monitoring program 2006-2008 was a standard national monitoring program for both operational and surveillance monitoring with sub programmes for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. There is no clear separation of surveillance and operational programmes. Many stations are identified as belonging neither to surveillance nor to operational (i.e. reporting of networks for other purposes). In the monitoring program only one reference monitoring site is reported. The need for formal investigative monitoring is foreseen, but there is no any additional information provided.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

LVDUBA || 11 || 58 || 19 || 156 || 10 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 0 || 19

LVGUBA || 10 || 36 || 3 || 31 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 1 || 23 || 0 || 9

LVLUBA || 8 || 31 || 3 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 8

LVVUBA || 9 || 57 || 7 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 3 || 21 || 0 || 20

Total by type of site || 38 || 182 || 32 || 223 || 10 || 2 || 14 || 4 || 79 || 0 || 56

Total number of monitoring sites[9] || 220 || 255 || 12 || 20 || 88

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Not all of the relevant quality elements required for the surveillance monitoring included in the design of the monitoring programme are monitored:

Water category || Quality element NOT monitored || Comment

Rivers || phytobenthos, fish, connection to groundwater bodies, other species, other national pollutants ||

Lakes || watzer flow,, , connection to groundwaters bodies,, other species, priority substances,, non- priority specific pollutants, other pollutants ||

Transitional || other aquatic flora,,fFish, structure of the tidal zone, , tidal regime, salinity, other national pollutants || In transitional water QE1-5 from “other species” is monitored zooplankton

Coastal || Microalgae, angiosperms,, direction of dominat currents, wave exposure, other national pollutants. ||

Table 5.1.1: List of quality elements not monitored by water category.

Source: RBMPs

According to the national authorities the main reason why not all the quality elements were included in the surveillance monitoring program in the first river basin management planning period, was a lack of the relevant national assessment methods and a lack of data to establish quality class boundaries. This is not in line with WFD requirements.

The monitoring program developed for 2006 – 2008 did not clearly differentiate between operational and surveillance monitoring. Only a few biological quality elements (benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton) were regularly monitored and had long-term data chains. Only those elements that have been used and tested in a long term, justifying their adequacy and reflection of the impacts on water quality in Latvia have been used. For the others, assessment methods and/or classification systems had to be developed,

Grouping of water bodies has not been applied.

The State Monitoring Programme for the period of 2006 – 2008 provided for monitoring of 4 priority substances (metals) and several other chemical pollutants – mainly metals and oil hydrocarbons. The selection of hazardous substances and priority substances monitored was planned in those water bodies only:

1) where significant amounts of such substances were discharged according to the permits issued by the regional environmental authorities;

2) which are strategically significant for Latvia, for instance, trans-boundary water bodies.

In addition to that, selected water bodies were monitored in 2006 and 2007, to identify prospective concentrations of several organic pollutants, for instance, polyaromatic hydrocarbons PAH, monoaromatic hydrocarbons BTEX, and several organochlorine substances (solvents, pesticides etc.). Monitoring data of chemical pollutants collected in 2003-2005 were also used for the assessment of the chemical status.

Several large-scale screening projects have been implemented since 2009 in order to assess water pollution and to obtain sufficient information for the development of a monitoring programme adapted and optimal for the Latvian conditions. During these projects the presence and concentrations of more than 200 substances/groups of substances in Latvian waters (including sediments, wastewaters, sewage sludge and fish) have been examined. These studies significantly extended knowledge about surface water chemical quality in Latvia. The results of these studies also provide assurance that there are no reasons for concerns about surface water chemical quality.

There is no special trans-boundary monitoring programme. However, water quality monitoring is carried out in the water bodies located on the Latvian – Lithuanian border. The data obtained are exchanged with the Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the co-operation agreement. The monitoring data exchange covers Lielupe and Venta river basin districts. A joint trans-boundary monitoring program is not of a high priority for the Gauja/Koiva river basin district as trans-boundary pollution is not regarded as a significant pressure neither on the Latvian nor on the Estonian side. However, there is an on-going project “Towards joint management of the trans-boundary Gauja/Koiva river basin district”. The data collected during the project and recommendations developed by its experts will be analysed and decisions about trans-boundary monitoring might be taken, if necessary.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

There was no separate operational monitoring for groundwater in Latvia within the monitoring programme for the period of 2006 – 2008. However, operational monitoring in the parts of groundwater bodies considered as being at risk in the first river basin management plans was included in the monitoring programme for 2009 – 2014.

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established.

There has been no groundwater chemical status monitoring to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants.

In the vicinity of Riga and Liepaja upward trends of chlorides, sodium, potassium and/or other ions indicative of saline intrusion or infiltration have been detected in the past. These processes started in the 1970s due to intensive water abstraction; today they are decreasing. Another area is identified where pollution of shallow groundwater is caused by numerous point-sources; the monitoring network allows following up these processes as well.

Latvia plans to improve groundwater monitoring in the future.

Transboundary groundwater monitoring program does not exist at the moment in Latvia but negotiation are planned with Lithuania.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There are only 2 surface water bodies in Latvia used for production of drinking water, both of them are located within Daugava river basin district. Monitoring of these 2 sites has been referred in the monitoring programme for 2006 – 2008. As Latvia is rich in groundwater resources, there are no plans to use any other surface water body for drinking water production.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Fish || Habitats/Bird sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT* ||

LVDUBA || 2 || 0 || 1 || 52 || 118 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 0 || 0 || 13 || 44 || 57 || || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 0 || 0 || 11 || 25 || 64 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 0 || 0 || 10 || 13 || 22 || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 0 || 35 || 134 || 261 || 55 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas

Note : Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. *The whole territory is designated as sensitive, so no specific monitoring stations reported. Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

51% of the Latvian surface water bodies and almost all groundwater bodies are classified as having good or high status. Despite the shortcomings of the monitoring programme and surface waters classification system the assessment correctly reflects the real situation, because:

· It is in accord with the assessment of biological quality of small rivers, which was carried out several times: in 1993 – 1997 in 1086 monitoring stations on 527 small rivers and in 1998 – 2000 in 3920 monitoring stations all over the country. In both cases the assessment was based on the evaluation of biotic communities of the benthic invertebrates. In 1993 – 1998, 85% of the assessed rivers were classified as clean or slightly polluted. In 1998 – 2000, 88% of the assessed rivers were classified as clean or slightly polluted. Therefore the large majority of small rivers were assessed as having slight anthropogenic impact according to biological quality elements. The largest share of polluted rivers was found in the Lielupe river basin; this conclusion is in line with the findings of river basin management plans. Even if this assessment did not include all the quality elements required by the Water Framework Directive, its scale and long term makes its conclusions reliable.

· In 2001 and 2002 a synoptic monitoring of lakes was carried out, where both chemical and biological quality criteria (phytoplankton, zooplankton and macrophytes) were analysed. This monitoring included 57 lakes in 2011 and 56 lakes in 2002. According to the results of these studies, 23,8 % of the surveyed lakes were assessed as eutrophic, 13,8% as very eutrophic and 6,2 % as hypereutrophic. These results do not contradict with the assessment given in the river basin management plans.

· Several screening activities carried out in 2009 – 2011 show that pollution with hazardous (priority) substances is present in some places, but is not a widespread problem.

The pressures on waters in Latvia are lower than the EU average. Low population density (34,2 persons/km2), large share of forests (~ 45% of the state territory), rather small share of agricultural land (38%, while the EU average is 44%) and unmodified floodplains together ensure moderate impact on the environment. Taking into account both the historical data and mediocrity of the pressures, the current assessment is made with a precaution and that the real water status could be better than assessed.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LVDUBA || 232 || 5 || 2.2 || 114 || 49.1 || 65 || 28.0 || 20 || 8.6 || 28 || 12.1 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 80 || 5 || 6.3 || 38 || 47.5 || 26 || 32.5 || 9 || 11.3 || 2 || 2.5 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 38 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 15.8 || 13 || 34.2 || 3 || 7.9 || 16 || 42.1 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 89 || 3 || 3.4 || 45 || 50.6 || 25 || 28.1 || 7 || 7.9 || 9 || 10.1 || 0 || 0

Total || 439 || 13 || 3.0 || 203 || 46.2 || 129 || 29.4 || 39 || 8.9 || 55 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LVDUBA || 15 || 1 || 6.7 || 7 || 46.7 || 4 || 26.7 || 2 || 13.3 || 1 || 6.7 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||