Finnish - Norwegian International River Basin District

Water authority meeting

Lapland ELY-centre, Rovaniemi, Finland

Minutes from 2nd

meeting for the international water districts Tana-Pasvik-

Neiden

Place: Hotel Santa Claus, Korkalonkatu 29, Rovaniemi

Date: November 26th – 27th, 2013

Participants:

Norway

Kerry Maria Agustsson, FFK

Stein Tage Domaas, FFK

Anders Iversen, Miljødirektoratet

Jon Lasse Bratli, Miljødirektoratet

Lars Stalsberg, NVE

Eirik Frøiland, FFM

Jostein Fløgstad, FFM

Finland

Milla Mäenpää, Finnish Environment Instititute

Jari Pasanen LAPELY

Petri Liljaniemi, LAPELY

Annukka Puro-Tahvanainen, LAPELY

Eira Luokkanen, LAPELY

Riku Elo, LAPELY

Pekka Räinä, LAPELY

1. New Fi-No agreement

A New Agreement on the Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District has been signed

30.10.2013. The purpose of the agreement is to create a framework for bilateral cooperation

and administrational arrangement on common water basins shared with Finland and Norway.

This fulfills the requirements appointed in the Water Framework Directive.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed together with the agreement. Its purpose is to

decide on procedures for the coordination of the water management in the Fi-No RBD, with

the aim of achieving the environmental objectives laid down in the Water Framework

Directive. The MoU is not legally binding.

2. Phase of the planning process in Norway and Finland

Timelines

There is a difference of three months concerning the beginning of the consultation periods.

Consultation of the RBMP begins 1.7.2014 in Norway and 1.10.2014 in Finland. This has an

effect on timelines when drafts of the PoMs and RBMPs are ready.

The PoM should be ready at the beginning of next year in Norway and 30.4. in Finland. The

first draft of the RBMP in Norway should be ready by early February and the updated draft in

the beginning of April. In Finland the draft of the RBMP might be ready in August. Because

the PoMs will be done in the first quarter of the year in both countries, there should be time to

harmonize and agree on the most essential parts of the plans.

Characterization and classification

There are some differences in delineation of the water bodies. Norway has delineated smaller

water bodies than Finland. Norway has delineated lakes that are larger than 0,5 km2. Smaller

lakes are included in river water bodies. Some rivers are delineated on Norwegian side but not

on the Finnish side. The bigger water bodies are delineated in the same way. It was agreed

adjust smaller water bodies (rivers and lakes) that have been delineated in Norway and which

cross the border.

Suggestion for classification is ready in Finland. Also, pressures and risk for not achieving

good status have been assessed in Finland, but not yet saved in the database. In Norway all

pressures have been evaluated and risk assessed. All water bodies that are in good or high

status (no pressures) have not yet been classified. There are differences in status classification

in common river water bodies (in appendix). Finland has classified them in general to better

status than Norway. Anarjohka, Tanaelva, Neiden and Munkelva have been classified as good

in Norway and high in Finland. Especially problematic is Skiehččanjohka/Kietsimäjoki that

has been classified as moderate in Norway and good in Finland. Also one lake,

Følvatnet/Varssalijärvi has been classified as moderate due to high Cu-concentration. In

uncertain cases Finland has assessed water bodies to good status more frequent than in

Norway. Eirik, Petri and Annukka will look more detailed how to harmonize status

evaluations. It was decided that Petri will send new data to Eirik and Norway will check the

classification of border rivers and lakes on the basis on all data that they have. It was also

agreed that the differences in national classification systems (e.g. one out – all out –principle

in Norway) will lead to differences in classification.

Pressure evaluation

Pressure evaluation in Finland is under work and should be ready by the end of the year.

Estimations have been done for nutrient loading, harmful substances and hydro-

morphological alterations. Diffuse loading is estimated with the VEMALA-model and point

source loading data from environmental data base VAHTI. In Norway municipalities/sub

districts have given information on factors affecting waters in their area, and authorities make

evaluation of the effects and significance of these pressures. It would be useful to combine

pressure data as much as possible to get an overall picture of the pressures in the RBD.

Monitoring programs

In Finland the monitoring programmes of RBD’s are being revised by the end of this year by

ELY-centres. In Norway suggestions for surveillance monitoring programmes made by

Miljødirektoratet (Jon Lasse Bratli) will also be ready by the end of this year. Operational and

investigative monitoring programmes are made by Fylkesmannen i Finnmark. There are

differences in draft monitoring programmes concerning frequencies of sampling and number

of biological quality elements. It was decided to exchange information on monitoring

programmes after revision. It was also discussed about differences in sampling methods, and

Annukka promised to send to Norway a table of sampling methods of biological quality

elements used in Finland.

There was a discussion about the common transboundary water quality monitoring

programme that has been going on for a long time. It was decided that Eirik will talk to Bente

Christiansen about the old programme and FFM will consider if monitoring of stations on the

Norwegian side will be continued. If monitoring will be continued, a written agreement will

be needed which includes for example a list of stations (+ map) and information about

delivering the data. Those stations should be part of the RBD’s monitoring programme.

3. Data systems

Finnish classification data is linked to Norwegian ‘vann-nett’ system and it’s possible to study

status maps parallel. In the Finnish ‘map service’ Norwegian data is not yet available.

Some small rivers are delineated on the Norwegian side but not on the Finnish side. These

should be adjusted. Common water bodies must have international coding for WISE-system

needs. Riku, Lars and SYKE are responsible for this.

We discussed also about producing common maps for the Roof report. It depends also on EU-

commission which layers need to be produced. A list of these should be checked. We also

need a map of the borders of the common IRBD. There are needs to harmonize colours and

border crossing rivers to fit both sides of the border.

4. Common Roof Report

Each country will produce a national and detailed RBMP for its part of the IRBD, but in

dialogue with the other country concerning the details mentioned above. These plans are

formally adopted and has a legal status in the respective country only, but should also be

translated so they can be consulted on the other side of the border.

Additionally there will be a common “Roof Report”, in form of a comprehensive “executive

summary” of the two national RBMPs. Kerry presented draft content of the Roof Report.

Ground waters were added to the report. The contents of the national plans will be more or

less identical, even if the same issues are presented in different ways in national plans.

Norway has not implemented the MSD and Bird and Habitat directives but Norway has

parallel procedures and objectives in OSPAR and conservation areas established according to

national legislation. The Roof Report should emphasize common objectives and what we have

harmonized rather than differences.

Taking into account the timelines, the Roof Report could be published for consultation 6

months in both countries at the same time as Finland start its national consultation 1.10.2014. We discussed also if the whole national plans should be translated in Finnish and Norwegian

or is it enough if only a summary is translated for consultation in other country. It was not

decided yet.

Extra resources for making Roof Report are needed. Human resources and financing for

translations. These are still unclear but ambition level should set at the realistic level we can

achieve. Roof report will be written in English and translated in Norwegian, Finnish and Sami

languages.

Timechart:

July 2014 – December 2014: Consultation of draft RBMP and PoM in Norway. Translated

documents to be provided to ELY for consultation on the Finnish side.

October 2014 – March 2015: Consultation of draft RBMP and PoM in Finland. Translated

documents to be provided to FFK for consultation on the Norwegian side.

October 2014 – March 2015: Common Roof Report to be available together with the draft

RBMPs and PoMs.

April 2015: Roof Report to be adjusted according to adjustments in national RBMPs and

PoMs after consultation.

July 2015: Roof Report follows national RBMP and PoM for adoption/approval procedure

in each country respectively.

5. Other issues

Next meeting will be arranged in February (video meeting). Fi-No Border River Commission

should be asked how they want to be informed of this work. Also the need to inform Russia

concerning Pasvik-area was discussed. National authorities will be kept updated about

proceeding of work.

ATTACHMENTS

Agreement on the Finnish-Norwegian RBD

Memorandum of Understanding

Classification of the transboundary water bodies

Roof report content –draft

NO name FI code FI name NO risk 2021 FI risk 2021 NO Ecol. state FI Ecol. state NO chemical state FI chemical state Notes

Anárjohka 68.000_003 Inarijoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined

Tanaelva Utsjok til Hillagurra 68.000_a01 Teno alaosa Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined

Tanaelva Karasjok til Utsjok 68.000_a02 Teno yläosa Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Good Undefined

Neiden 69.000_001 Näätämöjoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Undefined Undefined

Munkelva 70.000_001 Uutuanjoki Not at risk Not at risk Assumed good High Undefined -

Skiehččanjohka 68.042_a03 Kietsimäjoki yläosa At risk ? Assumed moderate Good Undefined -

Skiehččanjohka 68.042_a02 Kietsimäjoki alaosa At risk ? Assumed moderate Good Undefined -

Gallotjohka Kallojoki Not at risk High - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland

all small rivers in Neidenelva basin 69.013_001 Nuortijoki Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined

Bizusjohka Not at risk Good - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland

Bossojohka Possujoki Not at risk Good - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland

Group of small rivers classified in NO, not delineated in FI

Skibotnelv øvre bekkefelt øst Duolljehuhputjohka Ingen risiko Good Undefined flows from Enontekiö to Troms

Not delineated nor classified in either country

Rádjajohka Rajajoki ? Above Kietsimäjoki

Classification in Vann Net 16.10.

NO code NO name FI code FI name NO risk FI risk NO Ecol. State FI Ecol. State NO chemical state FI chemical state Notes

234-2274-L Buolbmatjavri 68.051.1.001_001 Pulmankijärvi Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined

234-63587-L Mivttejávri 68.054N1.001 - Not at risk High Undefined delineation missing in FI

244-2432-L Gålmesjavri (Fiskevatn) 69.083.1.003_001 Stuorab Kolmmesjavri Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined

244-2436-L Geaågesuolojavri 69.016.1.001_001 Kivisaarijärvi Not at risk Not at risk High High Undefined Undefined

246-2456-L Følvatnet Varssalijärvi Possibly at risk Moderat - Good - Not delineated in Finland

246-2450-L Ellenvatnet Kertusjärvi Not at risk Good - Good - Not delineated in Finland

234-58514-L Ravdojavri Not at risk High Undefined - Not delineated in Finland

65.666.1.015_001 Aaletajärvi-Aletjávri - Not at risk - Good - Undefined

preliminary classification for

lakes < 1km2

302-1099-L Somajavri 67.770.1.023_001 Somasjärvi Not at risk Not at risk Undefined High Undefined Undefined

205-1723-L Coahppejavri - Not at risk High - Undefined - Not delineated in Finland

Water bodies ~0,5ha on the border not delineated nor classified in either country ETRS35

Laddojavvrit Laddojavri - - - 7684300:525613

- Raja-kapperijärvi 7678188:572571

Ravdojavri Rautujärvi - - - 7627068: 387904

Coahppeluoppal - - 7659847: 500560

Draft for table of contents Finnish-Norwegian River Basin District Management Plan Rivers Tana, Neiden and Pasvik watercourses in Finland and Norway Basin-wide overview/Roof level plan

Table of contents

Summary:

Legal framework

Aim of roof report, objectives, explanation for those who are not familiar with this work

How will roof report be used to increase cooperation, the way forward

1. Introduction and background a. Purpose of the plan, changes since last management plan

b. International agreement and cooperation (meetings and process)

c. Public information and consultation

i. Compare timetables and deadlines, description of consultation processes, how feedback will

be addressed

2. General description of the area a. Geographical description

b. Changes in the environment

c. Climate change in the area

d. Map

e. Common user interests

f. Compare organisational structure

3. Characterisation and classification in shared water districts a. Short comparison of each countries methods

b. How far the process has reached

c. Remaining challenges

4. Significant pressures identified in the River Basin District a. List of common significant issues - describe common process, common challenges, how significant

issues are prioritised in each country. I.e.:

i. hydro-morphological alterations

ii. nutrient loading

iii. biological pressures/invasive species

b. Any need to identify national disagreements, e.g on effects from escaped farmed fish? (only if

relevant to transboundary water bodies)

5. Protected areas in the RBD a. Areas for the abstraction of water

b. Bathing water directive

c. Bird and habitat directives

Not adopted in Norway, but the Norwegian water management plans will have an overview

of protected areas which correspond to these directives

6. Monitoring networks and ecological / chemical status a. Only for surface waters, not ground waters

b. Comparison of status assessment, gaps and uncertainties

c. Designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

d. Ecological and chemical status

e. How has monitoring been designed to catch signs of climate change?

7. Environmental objectives and exemptions a. Common overall environmental objectives

8. Economic analysis of water uses a. Mainly drinking water and wastewater: State compensation, national funds, municipal costs

9. Joint Programme of Measures a. Summary of measures of basin-wide importance

b. Estimated effects of national measures on the basin-wide scale

c. Include current measures? (Implemented before 2016)

10. Flood risk management, Marine Strategy Framework Directive a. Flood directive not implemented in Norway, but NVE has a flood management plan, this information

can be incorporated here.

b. Marine directive not relevant for IRBD, but will be mentioned. Alternative Norwegian national

legislation (OSPAR, protected marine areas)

11. Effects on climate change in relation to the water framework directive? a. Effects on water quality, quantity

b. Effects on measures

c. Effects of measures

12. List of relevant literature and where it can be accessed