1. ICP Waters Activities of the 2016-2017 workplan Main achievements
Expected deliverables & results
Potential challenges
Reporting the activities of the 2014/15 work plan.
-fullfilled the objectives? One or two points. Main achievements

2. Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meetings

3. ICP Waters reports

4. Recent and upcoming reports
Biodiversity, acidification and climate change ( )
workplan item , workplan item
Thematic report on mercury ( )
workplan item
Thematic report on spatial extent of acidification ( )

5. Biodiversity report
Biodiversity of aquatic macro-invertebrates (insects, snails) will probably continue to rise if chemical recovery of lakes and streams continues
So far little documentation of effect of climate change on biodiversity
Climatic change is expected to become more distinct, while changes in sulphur deposition are expected to decrease
Aquatic biodiversity may be impacted by climate in the future
Continued need for funding of biological monitoring programmes.

6. Spatial patterns and temporal trends of mercury in freshwater fish in Fennoscandia
ICP Waters – ICP Integrated Monitoring joint report
Hans Fredrik Veiteberg Braaten1, Staffan Åkerblom2, Heleen A. de Wit1, Gunnar Skotte3, Martti Rask4, Jussi Vuorenmaa5, Kimmo K. Kahilainen6, Tommi Malinen6, Sigurd Rognerud1, Espen Lydersen7, Per-Arne Amundsen8, Nicholas Kashulin9, Tatiana Kashulina9, Petr Terentyev9, Guttorm Christensen10

7. Background and aim
Mercury (Hg) in fish in boreal lake exceeds levels advised for human consumption
Hg in fish in boreal lakes originates in many/most cases from transboundary air pollution
Investigate spatial and temporal trends in fish Hg
Are Hg levels in fish decreasing or increasing
Can we tell why?

8. National studies show varying trends
Citation
Study period
Fish species
Country/region
Number of populations (lakes)
Direction of trend
(Munthe et al., 2007)
Arctic charr, perch, pike, trout, whitefish
Finland, Norway and Sweden
2758
n.a.
(Akerblom et al., 2014)
Arctic charr, perch, pike, roach, trout + 10 others
Sweden
2881 ↓
(Paasivirta et al., 1981)
Pike
Finland 1
(Åkerblom and Johansson, 2008)
Perch, pike
2223 ↑↓
(Paasivirta and Linko, 1980) 2 ↔
(Miller et al., 2013)
Perch
Finland and Sweden
341
(Fjeld, 2010)
South east Norway and Northern Norway 5
↑↔↓
(Fjeld, 2009)
South east Norway 10 ↑↔
(Rask et al., 2007)
(Akerblom et al., 2012)
South to mid Sweden
152
(Braaten et al., 2014b) ↑

9. Data from Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia

10. Lakes with fish data

11. Standardization

12. All data (standardized) 1965-2015

13. Effort: exclude lakes with known point sources

14. Subset of Norwegian lakes

15. Preliminary conclusions
Uncertainty about temporal trends of Hg in fish
Considerable effort to determine which lakes are free from local sources of Hg pollution
Presentation of results at TF meeting in May and at international conference Mercury 2017 (July, Rhode Island, US)
Report to be presented at EMEP-WGE meeting in September
Results relevant to AMAP, Minamata Convention (the analysis is listed in "UNEP’s Global Mercury Assessment 2018”)

16. Regional assessment of acidification – thematic report 2018
TF 2014:
Mr. Olendrzyński (UNECE Secretariat): … “decreasing exceedances of CLs do not provide adequate information on the actual chemical and biological recovery.” There is a need for a quantitative measure of acidification status (biological and chemical) that can be easily grasped by laymen and policymakers.
TF 2015
Proposed new theme: regional acidification assessment of lakes and rivers
the focal centres can have an important role in this assessment

17. TF 2016 Target group for ICP Waters report Objective
Policy makers (LTRAP, NEC, others) and scientists
Objective
to assess the current extent of surface water acidification in Europe and possibly North America. The assessment is intended to be a policy-friendly add-on to the assessment of exceedance of critical loads of acidity, reflecting the present-day conditions of acid-sensitive surface waters.

18. Enquiry sent to NFCs Which areas in your country are acid sensitive?
How do you decide if a water body is acidified?
National data availability? Can you provide data?
Is acidification status reported under the WFD?
Skjelkvåle&Wright, 1990

19. Timeline 1.3.2017: enquiry sent out to all NFCs
: deadline for the NFCs to responds
May 2017: workshop at TF meeting
: call for concrete inputs from NFCs, deadline
March 2018: draft report presented at the WGE meeting
May 2018: presentation and final discussion of report at TF meeting
September 2018: presentation of the final report at the WGE meeting

20. Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meetings

21. Homepage New platform New functionality: data exploration
Water chemical data become more visible
QA/QC can be done by focal centres
So far, mean annual water chemistry, not raw data
Wish for more visibility of NFCs – to be discussed at TF meeting

22. Activities Reports Homepage NEC Directive Task Force meeting 2017

23. NEC directive
ICP Waters is the best source in Europe for data on acidification
What is the coverage of the ICP Waters monitoring network?
What is the relation between the ICP waters monitoring network and monitoring under relevant EU law (in this case the Water Framework Directive)?
What is the relation between the ICP waters monitoring network and the EEA's volunteer data collection from river stations and 3000 lake stations?
What are the priorities for reinforcing freshwater monitoring networks to fulfil the requirements of the NEC Directive?

24. ICP Waters response to enquiry
Enquiry sent out to focal centres
Response from Norway, Italy, Finland and Sweden

25. LTRAP & Water Framework Directive
EEA does not request data on acid neutralising capacity
not ideal for assessment of acification
Water bodies defined under WFD > 0.5 km2.
Many lakes in ICP Waters are headwater lakes, and smaller than 0.5 km2

26. Reporting to WFD & EEA www.icp-waters.no Country Site category number
WFD reporting?
EEA reporting?
Norway
Core sites 5 1
Extended sites 78 21
yes, chemistry
Sites with biological data 20 18
Biology and some chemistry
Finland 10 7 No 9 8 15
Italy 4 NO 30
Sweden
all
YES

27. National requirements to support monitoring to fulfill NECD?
Work in progress, positive to relate current monitoring to NECD
Norway, Finland
No input from other countries
Will be discussed at TF meeting

28. Task Force meeting 2017 Second joint meeting with TF ICP IM
Uppsala, May 9-11
Acidification
Nitrogen
Heavy metals and POPs
Biodiversity
Critical loads and modelling
Carbon cycling and DOC trends
Interactions with climate change
Common work under CLRTAP

29. Potential challenges
National funding for monitoring programmes is declining
NECD could counteract this trend
Not all NFCs receive funding to attend meeting
Joint meetings with ICP IM may lead to countries cutting support for one NFC