gå til hovedinnhold
Vis meny
Skjul meny

Working Group 2 - Effectiveness of measures

Working Group 2 - Effectiveness of measures

Thursday 27. September 2012

WG 2a: General Session

Antton Keto, FI  Rapporteur: Johan Kling, SE

How we understand and assess effectiveness of measures in Nordic countries?
How effectiveness of measures are planned to assess and describe on 2nd cycle
1. Finland, (Teemu Ulvi, SYKE)
2. Norway (Jon Lasse Bratli, KLIF)
3. Sweden (Hanne Tornevall)
4. Iceland  (Gunnar Steinn Jónsson/Jóhanna B. Weisshappel)

How benefits of measures are planned to describe at measure/PoM/RBMP –level
5. Finland, (Milla Mäenpää, SYKE)
6. Norway, (Hilde Keilen, KLIF)
7. Sweden, (Jens Mentzer)
8. Iceland, (Gunnar Steinn Jónsson/Jóhanna B. Weisshappel)
9. EU working group on effectiveness of measures with focus on the Nordic relevance, Johan Kling, SE
10. Presentation of measures from Irish perspective, Tom Stafford, IE

WG 2b: Hydromorphological measures (HyMo)

WFD planning process – HMWBs and AWB’s on 2nd cycle

Last updates regarding national guidelines, management issues, good policy measures, commissions feedback regarding designation and classification of HMWB and AWB

1. Finland, (Antton Keto & Teemu Ulvi)
Norway, (Jo H. Halleraker & Inger Staubo)
3. Sweden, (Johan Kling)
4. Iceland, (Kristinn Einarsson, NEA)
5. Monitoring changes in ecological potential based on biological elements (Teppo Vehanen, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute)

What is good ecological potential in Nordic countries (15 min per each presentation)?
6. Introduction of Swedish suggestions how to deal with hydropower in the WFD, MEP, GEP. (Johan Kling, The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management)
7. Revision of hydropower licenses - prioritisation of rivers for environmental improvement (Jan Sørensen, NVE)
8.When habitat compensations and bypasses should be included in GEP (Jukka Jormola, SYKE)
9. Presentation from Iceland (Sigurður Már Einarsson, FFI)

Discussion on key questions
We fulfill together a table, where we put short answers to these questions from every country and also decide, if there is need for Nordic statements on certain issues
- what measures are relevant and demanded to fulfill environmental objectives and what should be the ecological functionality demands for GEP in Nordic WBs?
- how to define significant adverse effect on use when defining environmental objectives?
- how to define alternative use?
- Feedback from the EC assessment report, should we assess GEP via MEP or GEP directly?
- what policy measures should be promoted at Nordic level to speed up WFD implementation process (legal issues, management systems, economical incentetives)?
- what should be required when a hydropower station is situated in a water body aiming for GES?

Friday 28. Sept.

WG 2d HYMO measure database

Sharing experience and overviews on relevant measures to mitigate impact from HYMO

10. An overview of HYMO mitigation measures in Norway, and the mitigation method, Inger Staubo, NVE
11. An overview of key HYMO mitigation measures in Finland:  Bypasses, Jukka Jormola, SYKE
12. An overview of key HYMO mitigation measures in Finland: Fish ladders, Anne Laine, North Ostrobothnia ELY-Center
13. Habitat restorations, Teppo Vehanen, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute
14. An overview of key HYMO mitigation measures in Sweden, Johan Kling, HaV
15. An overview of key HYMO mitigation measures in Iceland , Kristinn Einarsson, NEA
16. Policy measures in Finland – Finland's new National Fish Passage Strategy and Restoration Strategy, Anne Laine, North Ostrobothnia ELY-Center
17. Mitigation for fish migration with emphasize on downstream in Norway , Roy Langåker, DN
18. Environmental flow targets and assessments methods of relevance; outcome of a international workshop April 2012, Jo H. Halleraker, DN
19. Final summary

WG 2c: Pollution measures

Martin Larsson, SE  Rapporteur: Helga Gunnarsdottir, NO

Presentations on what measures has been selected and how they will be implemented (obstacles, good examples, policy instruments, financing, is it enough to reach GES, exemptions etc.)

1. Finland, (Mauri Karonen)
2. Norway, (Helga Gunnarsdottir / Hilde B. Keilen)
3. Sweden, (Martin Larsson)
4. Iceland, (Gunnar Steinn Jónsson/Jóhanna B. Weisshappel)
5. How to reduce the adverse impacts of agriculture towards the water bodies? Environmentally friendly drainage practises (Auri Sarvilinna, SYKE)
6. Experiences with mitigation of polluted sediments in Norwegian fjords and harbours (Hilde B. Keilen KLIF)

Division into smaller groups and group discussions around the questions
What measures have been identified as the most important ones (what was this selection based on - CEA, well known, politically acceptable, PPP)
How will measures be implemented (business as usual or new delivery mechanisms in place)
Are there new financing for measures available?
Will enough measures be in place to reach the objectives to 2015, 2021 or 2027.
If no how will this be dealt with? Exemptions?

7.Summary from WG 2c

Publisert: 28. mai 2015 Sist oppdatert: 08. oktober 2018