Average source appointment for phoshorus and nitrogen input to monitoring programme lakes in 1993
EC Directive 78/659 defines the requirements that fresh surface waters have to fulfil in order to be able to support fish life. The two types of fish waters defined are salmonid waters and cyprinid waters. Member States decide themselves which watercourses to designate as fish waters in accordance with the Directive, but then have to draw up plans to reduce pollution and ensure that the designated areas fulfil the water quality requirements stipulated by the Directive within a 5-year period. Directive 79/923 on crustacean waters is based on the same line of reasoning; thus the Directive defines the requirements to crustacean waters and lets the Member States select those areas where the requirements shall apply. The requirements have to be fulfilled in the designated coastal areas within a 6-year period. Under both Directives, Member States can revise the designated areas if this is necessitated by unforeseen factors. It must not lead to increased pollution, however.
Under Danish law the EC rules are implemented through recipient water quality objectives that are a part of each County’s Regional Plan2. The Regional Plan encompasses watercourses, lakes and coastal marine areas. The procedure is as follows:
Every 4 years, each County draws up a Regional Plan with a time span of 12 years. The Regional Plan is a comprehensive physical plan, one of the elements of which is watercourse quality objectives. In principle there are nine watercourse quality objectives in three main groups: stringent objectives (A), basic objectives (B1-B4) and eased objectives (C-F). With the first group the objective is that the watercourse shall be a scientific reference area, i.e. that it should be unpolluted. The next group comprises fish waters of the types defined in EC Directive 78/659, and in which a slight degree of pollution is permitted. The third group covers watercourses ranging from those designated solely for drainage purposes to watercourses strongly affected by pollution. In principle, the local politicians decide what the quality objective for a watercourse shall be, an exception being those watercourses already designated as fish or crustacean waters under the above-mentioned EC Directives, and where the decision is therefore out of their hands. However, there is a clear tendency for the proposals made by the technical department (which is responsible for drafting the Regional Plan) to be followed by the politicians on the Council. The proposals reflect both the environmental engagement of the technical departments, and the fact that in relation to angling associations and similar interested parties, it is easiest to gain acceptance for high quality objectives. Quality objectives are set for lakes and coastal marine areas following the same procedure. For lakes the same quality objectives are used as for the watercourse system of which they are a part. For coastal marine waters a different set of objectives is used.
In 1985 a total of 21,000 km watercourse had been designated as fish waters under the EC Directive. All Danish coastal marine waters are designated as crustacean waters except for very limited areas for which an eased objective has been stipulated because of the presence of sewage outfalls.
Average source appointment for phoshorus and nitrogen input to monitoring programme
lakes in 1993
According to the EC Directives the objectives shall be "binding". Discussions are currently being held with the EC on whether it is sufficient that the County shall strive for the implementation of the objectives through the exertion of powers accorded to it under Danish legislation. A greater problem for Denmark is posed by the requirement in the EC Directive on fish waters that the quality objectives shall be fulfilled within 5 years. To bring all 21,000 km watercourse up to the quality stipulated in the objectives would demand considerable resources. There seems to be a similar problem with the areas designated as crustacean waters.
Actual conditions are such that there has been considerable discrepancy between the objectives and the true quality of surface waters for a number of years. The quality objective designated for most watercourses is that they should be fish waters or scientific reference areas (II or better). However, the actual distribution (1992) is that 1% of the watercourses lie in class I, 26% in class I-II or II, 32% in class II-III and 25% in class III, III-IV or IV, the remaining 16% not having been evaluated. The quality objective was met by 38% of the watercourses, but not by the remaining 62%4. The picture is the same with the lakes: Transparency is poor (Secchi depth less than 1 m) in 54% of the lakes, and only 32% meet their water quality objective. Some success has been attained with biomanipulation, i.e. removing the zooplanktivorous fish such as bream and roach so that the zooplankton they would otherwise eat can hold down the phytoplankton that are the problem in eutrophic waters. In the case of the coastal and inner marine waters, the general environmental quality objective is an unaffected or only slightly affected flora and fauna. However, this is either not met or is threatened in the majority of the inner marine waters. There has not been any noticeable improvement over the period 1989-936.
Distribution of eutrophication-dependent macroalgae in 1992
Progress with respect to recipient water quality objectives is difficult to evaluate. Decisions imposing treatment requirements are sometimes justified on the basis of recipient water quality objectives. For example, even prior to the Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment, wide-ranging requirements to urban sewage treatment were being imposed in the Limfjorden area based on the quality objective for Limfjorden fjord. Now that the treatment plants are in operation, some improvement can be seen in the condition of Limfjorden fjord. In general, though, the Counties tend to faithfully set quality objectives for recipient waters that have no relation to reality and which are not followed up by action. The quality objectives do not seem to be much more than good intentions.
Map og Frederiksborg Country showing recipient water quality objektives
