North Calotte Water Authorities and Experts Meet – Special Attention to Mercury Issues 17

(1)

North Calotte Water Authorities and Experts Meet – Special Attention to Mercury Issues

17

^th

-18

^th

November 2015, Svanvik Norway PROGRAM AND ABSTRACTS

The Office of the Finnmark County Governor Department of Environmental Affairs

Report 2 – 2015

(2)

2

The REPORTs from the Office of the Finnmark County Governor, Department of Environmental Affairs presents results from different works under the governance of the mentioned department.

The main aim is to document and to disseminate information on important environmental issues to a broader audience. We highlight that all authors/ contributors in this report are themselves

responsible for their own conclusions and evaluations.

ISSN 0800-2118

Report no. 2-2015 is mainly published on the internet www.fmfi.no under “miljø og klima‟ and

“Rapportserie‟. Hard copies are produced after request.

Printing/ layout: Fylkesmannen i Finnmark

For more information concerning this publication contact:

Fylkesmannen i Finnmark Miljøvernavdelinga

Statens hus 9815 VADSØ

Cover pictures: Sigurd Rognerud, NIVA Norway

The seminar was supported financially by the North Calotte Council Environment Group and the participating organizations.

(3)

3

PROGRAM AND AGENDA

North Calotte water authorities and experts meeting 2015, with special attention to mercury issues

Venue: NIBIO (former Bioforsk Svanhovd) – Svanvik Norway Date: November 17^th -18^th

Time: 8-18 and 8-11

AGENDA – 17

^th

November – MEETING DAY 1

8:15 Welcome by Ms Bente Christiansen, Head of Dept. on Environmental Affairs, Office of the Finnmark County Governor, Norway

SESSION 1 - MONITORING ISSUES – SPECIAL ATTENTION ON MERCURY IN THE ARCTIC AND IN THE NORTH CALOTTE AREA

Session 1.1 - Mercury: a present risk to the environment and human population

Chair: Ms Bente Christiansen

8:30-9:30 Mercury in freshwater ecosystems – still an environmental problem? Mr Sigurd Rognerud, The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norway

9:30-10:30 Mercury in the border area of Norway, Finland and Russia. Mr Guttorm Christensen, Akvaplan-niva, Norway

Critical limits for human consumption of fish – information from experts

Questions and discussion – Coffee break c. 10:30

Session 1.2 - classification and monitoring of mercury – methodology, exchange of information and harmonisation

10:45-11:30 Monitoring of mercury in aquatic systems in Finland. Mr Jaakko Mannio, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

11:30-12:15 The problem of mercury accumulation in fish – project results from the joint transboundary area. Mr Petr Terentiev, Institute of the North Industrial Ecology Problems of Kola Science Centre of Russian Academy of Science (INEP)

Questions and discussion - Lunch 12-13

13:00-13:30 Classification of mercury in Finland, Mr Jaakko Mannio, SYKE

13:30- 14:00 Classification of mercury in Norway, Rune Pettersen, Norwegian Environment Agency

(5)

5

14:00-15-.00 Mercury in the Arctic Environment, why do we worry? Mr Sigurd Rognerud, NIVA

Questions and discussion - Coffee break c. 14:30

15:00-16:00 Harmonization of methods across borders – project presentation, discussions and joint recommendations from the expert meeting

Project “Monitoring mercury in the border area of Norway, Russia and Finland”, Mr Guttorm Christensen, Akvaplan-niva

SESSION 2 - HARMONIZATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ACROSS BORDERS - RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS

Session 2.1 Status of WFD work – results from public hearing and the process towards national approval of the water management plans

16-18 Status and challenges in Troms County, Ms Tone Rasmussen, Troms County Authority Administration

Status for Finnmark County, Ms Mari Haugene, Finnmark County Authority Administration

Status for Lapland County, Mr Pekka Räinä, Lapland Ely centre

AGENDA - 18

^th

November - MEETING DAY 2 AND DEPARTURE HOME

Chair: Mr Jari Pasanen

Session 2.2 Planning for the 3

^rd

planning period in the Fi-Swe-No transboundary areas – cooperation, harmonisation and joint plans

8:00- 11:00 Meeting commences

Joint recommendations on monitoring mercury in the North Calotte area

Planning for the 3^rd planning period in the Fi-Swe international river Basin District (RBD), Mr Pekka Räinä Lapland Ely centre, Finland

Concluding remarks

(6)

6

Mercury in freshwater ecosystems – still an environmental problem?

Sigurd Rognerud

sigurd.rognerud@niva.no, The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norway

Referance: AMAP Assessment 2011: Mercury in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xiv +193 pp

Mercury (Hg) is a global problem and Hg can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere before it is eventually deposited back to the earth in rainfall or dry gaseous forms. Mercury that is deposited is largely retained in soil and vegetation, increasing the available pool for re- mobilisation to adjacent aquatic systems. Inorganic mercury is converted by bacteria into methylmercury (MeHg) in lake sediments, ponds and wetlands. MeHg is highly toxic and biomagnifies in organisms. High concentrations can be obtained in top predators including humans.

The fate of Hg in the Arctic Ocean (AO)

Feature characteristics of AO such as; a) seasonal ice cover, b) seasonal light and prim.

prod, c) AMDE’s, d) large river inputs, e) exceptionally large shelves all contribute to a distinctly different Hg cycle in Arctic seas.

Hg(II) plays a central role due to its reactivity, and are together with Hg(O) the dominant Hg species in the upper ocean.

Freshwater

The spring freshet is the critical period of discharge from High Arctic watersheds because up to 80% of the total annual precipitation is deposited as snow during the polar winter. Frozen ground leaves water with no contact with soil. Soil erosion has the potential to alter lacustrine Hg cycles by reducing penetration of solar radiation and consequent photochemistry, altering carbon cycling, and providing the means to scavenge and bury Hg in lake sediments

(Climate change effect also).

The rest of the summer (clear water) photo-and bacterial-reduction of Hg(II) will recycle Hg(0) back to the atmosphere before entering food-webs. Generally Arctic lakes contain supersaturated surface water concentrations of DGM. DGM in surface waters of lakes is dominated by photochemical processes and therefor have daily and seasonally fluctuations.

Organic matter is an important factor explaining the spatial distribution of Hg in sediments of lakes and OM is strongly correlated with organic carbon content. So, aquatic productivity can strongly mediate the retention of Hg in Arctic lakes, by increasing the rate of scavenging of Hg from water column and its accumulation in lake sediments.

C-DOM (coloured dissolved organic matter), a powerful absorber of UV radiation, provides a particular important limit on photo-demethylation and photo-reduction rates. As a

consequence, an inverse relationship has been observed between DOC levels and DGM formation in Arctic lakes.

Most important for Hg-cyclus:

The sun, atmospheric processes and organic carbon

In particular, environments that favour sulfate reducers and have a gradient in redox conditions are more ideal for metylation than truly “anoxic” environments.

(7)

7

Methylating processes are complicated by interactions between Hg and sulfide, such that sulfide sequestration (arrest) of Hg(II) may compete with MeHg production if conditions lead to sufficiently high sulfide accumulation. Sediments, especially in estuaries, shelves and slopes, therefor provide another potential source of MeHg to shelf benthos and bottom waters.

Factors affecting transfer of Hg from abiotic environment into food web

Bioavailability is a key issue. MeHg is bio-amplified more than inorganic Hg(II), which is most abundant in the environment. Both inorganic Hg and MeHg may be assimilated by biota at the lowest level of food chains (bacteria, phytoplankton, or other alga), only MeHg is

biomagnified within food chains (prey-predator) and thus represents the key to exposure risk to Arctic wildlife and humans (Fig.5).

Microbes constantly change in respond to physical and chemical alterations in their environment, thereby potentially affecting Hg(II) uptake and methylation rates. Whether in snow, water, ice, soil or sediments, the metabolism of microbes will be influenced to some extent by the availability of electron acceptors such as oxygen, sulfate, nitrate or Fe(III), which are also likely to affect Hg methylation rates.

(8)

8

Mercury in the border area of Norway, Finland and Russia Guttorm Christensen

guttorm.christensen@akvaplan.niva.no, Akvaplan-niva Norway

Mapping of levels and trends of metals in Russian Norwegian border lakes 2010 - 2016 - a Follow up study from 1989/90

• 50 lakes – 25 in each country (Participants: Akvaplan-niva, NIVA and INEP)

• Water chemistry and lake sediments (metals and POPs): Sediment sampling (minimum 0-0.5, 0.5-1 cm and reference sediment >25 cm) and dating of the sediments

Mercury in fish in Pasvik River

• Highest levels in Skrukkebukta – max 1,5 mg/kg ww

• Lowest levels in Lake Kuetsjärvi

• Perch has highest levels

Concentration of Hg in surface sediments

• Elevated levels of mercury in surface sediments in Sør-Varanger municipality up to 0.45 µg/g dw. Average in sediments in lakes from Northern – Norway 0.15 µg/g dw

• Increasing trends in the region

Food and health safety project in the border area - conclusions

• Elevated levels of mercury in fish – several fish above 0.5 mg/kg ww

• Elevated levels of POPs in fish from Pasvik watercourse

• Elevated levels of metals in berries and mushrooms

• Low levels of metals in reindeer and moose

Norwegian food safety authorities: pregnant and nursing mothers should not eat pike, perch (>25 cm), trout and Arctic char (>1 kg) and maximum limit for sale is 0.5 mg/kg ww

Summary

• Highest levels of contaminants close to the smelters

• Increasing levels of mercury in fish in the Pasvik watercourse

• Increasing trends of mercury in lake sediments both in Pasvik and small lakes

• Increasing levels also of nickel and copper in air, lake water and lake sediments since 2004

• Elevated levels of POPs in part of Pasvik watercourse

• Need for long term monitoring of mercury

• Outreach is important Gaps of knowledge

• Need more information about the importance of local sources and importance of long range transport (need monitoring)

• However it seems that there are both emission to air and direct into the watercourse from the smelter in Nikel

• Little information about MeHg and little information about levels in different part of the food web

• Climate change – how will it affect the levels of mercury in lakes

Need to establish a long term monitoring of contaminants and biodiversity. Need special designed program for the area due to stressors like local sources, long range transport, climate change, human impact (harvesting) and trilateral management.

(9)

9

Critical limits for human consumption of fish

Links to dietary advice from the Food Safety Authorities in Finland, Norway and Sweden

Finland (Evira) – Dietary advice on fish consumption

http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/food/information+on+food/food+hazards/restriction+on+the+use+

of+foodstuffs/dietary+advice+on+fish+consumption/

Norway (Mattilsynet) – Fresh water fish and mercury pollution (Ferskvannsfisk og kvikksølvforurensing)

http://www.matportalen.no/matvaregrupper/tema/fisk_og_skalldyr/ferskvannsfisk_og_kvikksol vforurensing

Sweden (Livsmedelsverket) – Not all fish is good for your health (All fisk er ikke nyttig) http://www.livsmedelsverket.se/matvanor-halsa--miljo/kostrad-och-matvanor/all-fisk-ar-inte- nyttig/

(10)

10

Monitoring of mercury in aquatic systems in Finland – past and future?

Jaakko Mannio, Matti Verta and Simo Salo

jaakko.mannio@ymparisto.fi, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Metal emissions and deposition have changed, and that is reflected in lake sediments.

Despite recent diminishing, mercury level has increased from historical times in surface sediments of forest lakes by a factor of 3-4 compared to the background in S. Finland, but less than factor 2 in Lapland. Mercury concentration in air is relatively stable at Pallas station during last decade.

Long-Range transported Hg comprises over 90% of atmospheric Hg deposition in Finland.

Accumulation through time in soil is a continuous and leaking storage of Hg. Additionally;

acidic deposition enhances Hg methylation, mobilization and accumulation in clear,

oligotrophic headwater lakes with changed food-web structure. Other reasons for elevated mercury level in Finland are industrial emissions in the 1900s from forest- and chlor-alkali- industry. Fish Hg is also elevated in the constructed reservoirs due to inundation of soils.

Forestry practices may enhance Hg methylation and accumulation in fish, e.g. when clear- cutting and tillage of soil leads to elevated groundwater level and moist surface and small ponds create pools for bacterial methylation. Due to catchment and lake characteristics, especially organic material (humus) and various processes, large methyl-Hg variability is found in freshwater fish even without any human influence.

Monitoring of mercury in fish has been traditionally (1980-2000) based on pike in Finland, as well as in Sweden. Assessment of this data showed that by large, in ca. half of the lakes Hg was decreasing, in 1/3 no change and 1/6 Hg was increasing. Hg increase was detected in lakes with high percentage of coniferous forests on peat soil, easterly location, shallow and small volume. No increase was detected in large lakes. In 2010-2014, monitoring was rearranged to reflect WFD needs and focussed on large lakes and geographic filling of the data. Target species was changed to perch, to reflect, e.g. more central position in trophic chain (in contrast to top predator pike). The database consist now of 403 sites with 4300 perch (15-20 cm) samples.

WFD classification focuses on exceedance/ not exceedance, and more on spatial scale (status).

With the present “balance” of Hg in watersheds, status in fish Hg does not change rapidly, but Nordic message (risk communication) can be confusing because we now have both ”red maps” (SE, NO) and ”red/blue maps” (FI) fluctuating around the threshold (0.20 – 0.25 mg/kg). We probably cannot afford all monitoring levels from process identification to statistically confirmed extent of exceedance. Therefore, monitoring should now focus on processes, because reliable trends are needed to ”reflect” the international measures – efficient or to be improved.

(11)

11

The problem of mercury accumulation in fish Petr Terentjev

pterentjev@mail.ru, Institute of the North Industrial Ecology Problems of Kola Science Centre of Russian Academy of Science (INEP)

The global processes of transboundary mercury emission lead to accumulation of Hg in Northern ecosystems especially in Arctic. The evidence of these processes could be the tendencies of Hg accumulation in freshwaters components (sediments, fishes).In water ecosystems fishes are the most susceptible to the accumulation of mercury because they are on top of the food chain. Fishes in the freshwater ecosystems can be used as a good

indicator of any pollutant effects on biological objects including mercury influence due to high economical, esthetical and food importance.

It was observed that Hg accumulation in sediments and fish organisms has a

tendency to growth during the last decades. It was registered that average concentrations of Hg in fish tissues were higher of maximal permissible concentration (MPC) in the lakes of three countries. Exceeded MACs of mercury were noted in muscle tissue and other organs of fish throughout the whole duration of the observation period in the most distant water

reservoirs. The highest absolute Hg concentrations in fish organisms were registered in liver and kidneys of whitefish from the Norwegian lakes and also in whitefish, perch and pike tissues from Russian lakes.

Taking into account the high toxicity of mercury compounds for biota and human health, the more restrictive limit value in fish is advisable for all border area countries (at least as in Finland: 0.20-0.25 mg/kg ww.). In the future the investigated lakes of Norway, Finland and Russia should be under continuous monitoring of Hg.

(12)

12

Classification of mercury in fish in Finland Jaakko Mannio, Matti Verta and Simo Salo

jaakko.mannio@ymparisto.fi, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Finland

Environmental Quality Standard of mercury (0, 02 mg/kg) in EU Water Framework Directive is based on ecotoxicology and secondary poisoning of predators (birds and mammals) and the limit value is therefore set to biota, preferably fish. WFD also allows countries to adopt background concentration in addition to the EQS for priority metals (Hg, Ni, Cd, Pb). Finland has set default values for background concentration for all these metals.

The background level for mercury was estimated from perch data before 2010 (638

individuals). Data showed large variability, but consistently humic lakes with higher Hg level.

Determination of natural (before 1900) mercury level in perch was based on the difference between present and natural concentration. Other parameters included, e.g., the change in Hg and sulfate deposition and Hg/TOC ratio in sediments. Natural level (80%) in the whole country is based on the median (50%) level in Lapland, assuming that Hg in perch in Lapland is not more than ca. 2 times the natural level.

Natural level in perch depends also from organic carbon (humus content) of the water.

Present classification is based on data 2010-2014 with 403 sites and 4307 samples of

“standardized” perch (15 - 20 cm). Some data has been censored in classification (too large individuals). In all, circa 25% of the studied sites show exceedance of the EQS (0,20 - 0.22 - 0.25 mg/kg, depending on humus humus content). Based on measured Hg concentrations in fish in different surface water types (used in WFD typology), the classification was then extrapolated to “risk types” (mean measured Hg conc.> 0.7*EQS) .Risk to EQS exceedance was thus identified and extended to water types with conditions favouring higher Hg level (humus content, peaty soils, shallow and small volume) and higher Hg deposition. In contrast, no-exceedance was extrapolated to regions with no exceedance in data (north of Oulujoki RB, Lapland) and no-risk types in other conditions, which appeared to be

characterized as eutrophic, turbid waters, moorland or clay soils. Chemical status of surface waters in 2015 is illustrated in a map on a website: ymparisto.fi > vesi > pintavesien tila =>

vesikartta => kemiallinen tila

In EU, food safety limits are set for most fish species at 0.5 mg/kg (e.g. perch) with exemptions of 1.0 mg/kg for certain large predators (e.g. pike). In Finland the National Nutrition Council recommends that fish should be eaten at least twice a week, with varying different fish species in the diet. Exceptions to dietary advice on fish consumption are based mainly on Baltic Sea herring and salmon, and inland predatory species. Higher than normal levels of methylmercury can be derived from predatory fish, particularly pike, caught in inland waters, but also from pike caught in the sea. The older the fish, the more contaminants will have accumulated in it. For these reasons the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira has issued exceptions to the general dietary advice on fish consumption´, e.g. children, young people and persons of fertile age may not eat pike caught in a lake or in the sea more often than once or twice a month. Pregnant women and nursing mothers should not eat pike at all.

Persons who eat fish from inland waters on a daily basis are advised to reduce their consumption of also other predatory fish that accumulate mercury. Apart from pike, these include large perch, pike- perch and burbot.

(13)

13

Classification of mercury in Norway Rune Pettersen

rune.pettersen@miljodir.no, Norwegian Environment Agency

The WFD have been implemented in Norwegian legislation in Vannforskriften. EQS for priority substances are listed in Vannforskriften:

EQS for coastal- and freshwater: Appendix VIII A EQS for organisms: Appendix VIII B EQS for sediments: Appendix VIII C

Link:

Vannforskriften, appendix VIII

(14)

14

Mercury in the Arctic Environment, why do we worry?

Sigurd Rognerud

sigurd.rognerud@niva.no, NIVA

Reference:

AMAP Assessment 2011: Mercury in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xiv +193 pp

The Arctic as a unique location (Headlines from the report)

1. Seasonality: Light goes from 24 hour darkness in winter to 24 h sunlight in summer, and it’s a short growing season.

2. Sea ice: semi-permeable, seasonally variable interface between air and water.

Habitat for different food webs.

3. Semi-enclosed sea; which restricts seawater exchange with the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. However, the Arctic area receives mixed air masses and associated

contaminants from all major northern hemisphere continents.

4. Freshwater input. The Arctic Ocean receives an exceptional input of freshwater runoff about 11% of all global runoff. The consequence of all this runoff is that the upper Arctic Ocean is strongly stratified, which limits immediate exchange with the atmosphere to the top 50m most places. Haloclines contain nutrients and involve regeneration of organic matter and Hg methylation!

5. Topography. The Arctic generally has a low sloping topography. A large part of the Arctic Ocean (50 %) is continental shelves (except, Greenland, Baffin Island and Labrador). These parts provide important oases for food production, and are recipients of enormous inputs of OC (MeHg).

6. Inner desert. The interior area of AO has exceptionally low particulate export because it is oligotrophic. Hg recycles and revolatilizes from the ocean and to atmosphere.

Arctic environment

Elevated mercury concentrations in the Arctic country food presents a key exposure risk to Arctic people

Sources: Entry via; 1. Atmospheric deposition. 2. River inputs (terrestrial) 3. Ocean currents Hg inside the Arctic area: Movements of Hg, transformations and bioaccumulation (marine and freshwater) are central issues.

1. Chemical transformation of net deposition atmospheric Hg in aquatic and terrestrial environments (including snow and ice)

2. Movements of Hg from the abiotic environment into food webs 3. Methylation a key process

4. Trophic processes control MeHg in higher order animals (beluga, arctic char) 5. Do AMDE’s contribute to Hg in biota?

6. The effect of organic carbon on Hg speciation, dynamics and bioavailability Terminology-abbreviations

Hg(0): elemental Hg, dissolved in water (DGM) or in water vapour in the air, in snow (GEM) Hg(II): inorganic divalent Hg, MeHg: monomethyl-Hg, DMHg: dimethyl-Hg, Hgc: Collodial Hg, THg: total Hg, HgR: Reactive Hg (often like Tot-Hg(II)

(15)

15

“Monitoring mercury in the border area of Norway, Russia and Finland” – project presentation

Guttorm Christensen

guttorm.christensen@akvaplan.niva.no, Akvaplan-niva

A three (3) year project financed by Nordic Council of Ministers annual applications necessary)

Utilization of the local nature resources is important in the region and the elevated levels of mercury and other contaminants are of great concern. The main object is to harmonize methods of monitoring mercury in the border region, in order to compare results,

assessments and establish further and common recommendations for the environmental authorities in this region. An important task is to design an adaptive monitoring program that include monitoring of different freshwater fish that are utilized for human consumption and lake sediments for monitoring of long term trends. Countries have different regimes regarding classifications, typologies, limit values and standards for concentrations of emissions.

Therefore, individual risk assessments are often difficult to compare across the borders. An important outcome is to investigate and find the most reliable classification and limit values etc. for maximum comparability.

Activity 1 Workshop

• Harmonize methods between countries

• Exchange of knowledge across borders by inviting scientists in the region to participate Activity 2 Field work

• Joint fieldwork in Norway for harmonizing sampling methods in the field

• Collect samples for an inter-calibration of analysis between countries Activity 3 Analysis of samples

• Inter-calibration of methods between countries by ring-testing

• Reporting of results from the ring-test Activity 4 Workshop II

• Discussion of results from the ring-test

• Develop monitoring program for mercury in the region

• Detect gaps of knowledge Activity 5 Outreach

• Dissemination of outcome to stakeholders, local, regional and national authorities

• Publication of the data in an international peer-reviewed journal

Monitoring issues to be solved include: Species (perch, pike, trout - ?), size, number of fish, frequency, number of lakes, water or other part of the food web, Methyl mercury?

(16)

16

Status and challenges in Troms County – International River Basin District in Troms

Tone Rasmussen

tone.rasmussen@tromsfylke.no, Troms County Authority Administration

Differences between the countries water body classification in relation to scale, status and influence needs to be addressed in future work. Lack of data, especially on chemical status i preventing the government to make bilateral management plans. Comparing status is not possible without a better coordination of the data In the database

http://www.viss.lansstyrelsen.se/, the classification of chemical status per 2015 Swedish water bodies given with or without mercury and PBDE as water bodies will not achieve good chemical status when mercury included. This needs to be addressed.

Good chemical status is not achieved by 2021 in Swedish water bodies near the Troms- border. Especially mercury is of concern, as the levels are high. After an initiative of joint water management meeting in Kiruna (County Administrative Board / FMTR / VRM Troms and Nordland) in February 2014, the Länsstyrelsen of Norbotten Län initiated a project, funded by the North Calotte in 2015, with the aim to provide answers if mercury in fish exceed the limits and determine whether there is need for further assessment and possible action.

Salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaris was introduced to Norway in the middle of the 1970s via infected fingerlings from Sweden. On the Swedish side is not this parasite considered a problem since salmon in the Baltic Sea does not have problems with it. Salmon strains from infected rivers in Norway show strong reduction only 3-4 years after infection. The

experience from most Norwegian infected watercourses is that the parasite leads to almost total extinction of the salmon population.

In connection with measures against G. salaris in Skibotn region, we have established contact with the Swedish and Finnish authorities to prepare a risk assessment for the spread of G. salaris from Tornälvvassdraget over to Skibotn region, as well as assess the necessity and potential for measures to prevent the spread. Preventive border cooperation should continue but this requires funding. The proliferation of illegal movement of fish and biological materials between the waterways. Gyrodactylus salaris can also be spread by anglers and fishing gear (rods, boats, waders etc.)

(17)

17

Status of WFD work in Finnmark County Mari Haugene

mari.haugene@ffk.no, Finnmark County Authority Administration, Norway

There have been two public hearings for the river basin management plan and programme of measures. The first hearing period was from July to December 2014, and Finnmark county authority received comments from 36 parties. After the first hearing, new national guidelines and input from regional sector authorities made it necessary with a second hearing for the parts of the plan concerning heavily modified water bodies. The second hearing only had a six week hearing period, from February to April 2015. Comments from 14 parties were received. Hearing notice was also sent to both Troms county council and to Finland.

Of the comments from the first hearing, many noted the challenges presented by the general lack of knowledge about our water bodies. Also frequently mentioned was the fact that the characterization of several important pressures such as effects of fish farming and the

invasive species Red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) had not been completed at the time, making WFD work difficult. There were also complaints about a lack of national guidelines for the characterization of coastal water bodies, and many parties wanted more arenas for active

participation. The second hearing mostly resulted in comments on the process of deciding which water bodies should be classified as heavily modified water bodies, suggestions of environmental objectives and measures, and some clarifications of the comments made during the 1st public hearing. Several conflicts have arisen during work on the river basin management plans and programmes of measures. Most often, they stem from a conflict between environmental concerns and industry interests.

There has been disagreement on how to handle the invasive species Red king crab. How one should classify water bodies where the crab is present and if the crab presents a risk to reaching environmental objectives are some of the questions where no agreement has been reached. This has been brought to the attention of national authorities, and Finnmark county authority is waiting for further instructions on how to handle the issue. Therefore, no measures against this pressure have been included in the programmes of measures in Finnmark. There has also been disagreement on the environmental impact of runoff from fish farming, which is known to contribute nutrients and organic particles to water bodies. Currently, only two water bodies are registered as «at risk» from this pressure. However, one party wants only one of them to be «at risk». In this case, Finnmark county authority is also waiting for clarification from national authorities, and no measures are included in the programmes of measures.

In addition, there has recently been a disagreement on the impact of escaped farm salmon on the genetic structure of wild salmon populations. Three water bodies (one river) are registered as «at risk» from this pressure and appropriate measures are included in the

programme of measures for Finnmark river basin district. A protest against this was lodged at the latest river basin district board meeting. As of November 2015, there has been unclear guidance from national authorities on this issue, and due to the approaching deadline for submitting the river basin management plans Finnmark county authority will follow up on this in 2016. Also not included in the current plan is a discussion of problems with Salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) in the river basin districts. Additionally, no coastal heavily modified water bodies have been identified. This is partially due to a lack of guidelines from national authorities, and Finnmark county authority has been told to wait and not include any of these things in the 2016-2021 plans.

The river basin management plan and programme of measures for Finnmark river basin district and the Norwegian part of the Finnish-Norwegian river basin districts were separated into four separate documents this summer. Drafts with input from the two public hearings were approved in a river basin district board meeting in October this year. These drafts will be presented for approval to the county council in early December, and hopefully they will approve them. Lastly, they will be sent to the Norwegian Ministry of climate and environment for final approval, which should be ready before March 22nd, 2016.

(18)

18

Status for Lapland County - WFD Pekka Räinä

pekka.raina@ely-keskus.fi, Lapland Ely centre, Finland

Timetable:

 RBMPs ready 6.11.2015

 PoMs finalized 27.11.2015

 Council of State approve RBMPs 3.12.2015 Main updates after hearing

 Small waters

 Alien species

 Acid sulphate soils

 Updated measures descriptions: municipalities/scattered settlements, peat mining, forestry, agriculture, regulated waters

 Implementation of measures – responsibilities

 Financing systems

 Cultural heritage

 More detailed descriptions of cooperation with Norway and Sweden

 Effects on Sami people and culture

Over one hundred different measures, mainly policy measures Costs in Lapland altogether 86 million €/year.

(19)

19

Planning for the 3

^rd

planning period in the Fi-Swe International River Basin District (RBD)

Pekka Räinä

pekka.raiana@ely-keskus.fi, Lapland Ely centre, Finland

 The aim is to prepare an Action Plan in order to harmonize the river basin

management planning and flood risk management planning for the period 2021-2027

 Timetable 1.1.2015 - 15.5.2016 Tasks:

 Short description on recent state of cooperation and the needs to improve harmonization of planning.

 Short description and analysis of different options on how to improve the planning.

 The work should include analysis of following aspects in the planning processes:

– the role of different actors in the planning – need to prepare new guidance

– coordination of the planning – decision making

– communication and public hearing – EU reporting

Organization of the work:

Steering group

 Finnish Ministry of Environment

 Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

 Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

Core group, which carries out the regional preparatory work

 Lapland ELY- centre

 County Administrative Board of Norrbotten,

 Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission

(20)

20

RECOMMENDATION - MERCURY IN THE NORTH CALOTTE REGION

Analysis of data from the North Calotte Region reveals increasing concentrations of high mercury content in the environment. The observed general increase in mercury levels in animals and fish of the Arctic should be of great concern, as its potential negative impact on the ecosystem. It is of particular concern that mercury levels are continuing to rise in parts of the Arctic biota, despite the reductions of European emissions.

Mercury enters the Arctic environment mainly through long-range transport from human sources at lower latitudes. Increased emissions in Asia and riverine discharge are now the main reason for increase in the environment.

Mercury (Hg), and especially the highly toxic organic form, Methyl-mercury (MeHg), represent a serious threat to both wildlife and human health. How thawing of permafrost areas and local-scale climate change will affect the MeHg- situation is not yet fully understood.

Due to a more traditional diet and subsistent lifestyle, some human populations on the higher latitudes receive a higher dietary exposure to mercury. The Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish Food Safety Authorities have given dietary advice for freshwater fish due to elevated levels of mercury.

Mercury is also one of the prioritized substances under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and it is included on the priority list of hazardous substances in the Nordic countries.

The North Calotte water authorities and expert meeting – 17^th-18^th November 2015 have agreed on the following recommendations;

 Harmonisation of mercury classification and limits in the water framework directive work is required

 Long term monitoring and trend analysis of mercury concentrations in the North Calotte Region must be given high priority

 Special attention must be directed towards understanding the processes of formation of the highly poisonous organic form of mercury, Methyl-mercury, due to its potential hazards in a changing climate scenario

 Increased international cooperation on mercury research and monitoring should be of special concern for Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish governments under the EU Water Framework Directive. Cooperation with Russia is essential for research on mercury in the Arctic.

 Dissemination of information to both authorities and the general public must be given priority

North Calotte water authorities and expert meeting with special attention on MERCURY IN THE NORTH CALOTTE REGION

November 2015

(21)

21

Participants

Participants list - North Calotte water authorities meeting - phase 4

Finland Organisation E-mail

Pekka Räinä Lapland ELY-centre pekka.raina@ely-keskus.fi Jari Pasanen Lapland ELY-centre jari.pasanen@ely-keskus.fi

Jaakko Mannio SYKE jaakko.mannio@ymparisto.fi

Antton Keto SYKE antton.keto@ymparisto.fi

Norway

Tone Rasmussen Troms County Authority tone.rasmussen@tromsfylke.no Mari Haugene Finnmark County Authority mari.haugene@ffk.no

Christer Michaelsen Finnmark County Authority

Per Olav Aslaksen County Governor of Troms fmtrpoa@fylkesmannen.no Eirik Frøiland County Governor of Finnmark fmfieifr@fylkesmannen.no Bente Christiansen County Governor of Finnmark fmfibch@fylkesmannen.no Tiia Kalske County Governor of Finnmark fmfithk@fylkesmannen.no

Guttorm Christensen Akvaplan-niva (APN) guttorm.christensen@akvaplan.niva.no

Sigurd Rognerud NIVA sigurd.rognerud@niva.no

Sunniva Hartman* County Governor of Nordland fmnosuh@fylkesmannen.no Oddlaug E. Knutsen* County Governor of Nordland

Rune Pettersen* Norwegian Environment Agency rune.pettersen@miljodir.no

NN* Norwegian Environment Agency

Invited Russian delegates for day 1 - Hg part only (in cooperation with NCM project) Nikolay Kashulin INEP - Kola Science Centre nikolay@inep.ksc.ru

Petr Terentjev INEP - Kola Science Centre pterentjev@mail.ru

Margarita Ryabtseva CLATI laboratory clati-murmansk@com.mels.ru Evgyenii Proskurov CLATI laboratory

Oksana Chaus Hydromet - Murmansk leader@kolgimet.ru Christina Ukrainskaya Hydromet - Murmansk

Elena Babina eng-rus translator beanikel@mail.ru

Sergey Makogonyk driver Dmitry Savranchuk driver

*on Lync/ skype

North Calotte Water Authorities and Experts Meet – Special Attention to Mercury Issues 17