The government is lobbying to change the European rules for the discharge of sewage. According to the newspaper Energi og Klima, climate and environment minister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) used the informal ministerial meeting in Stockholm to argue against the tightening of the revised sewage directive. Norway is covered by the directive through the EEA agreement. The government’s argument is that the austerity measures cost more than they taste, and that they have unfortunate consequences for small municipalities along the Norwegian coast. Expensive, energy-intensive and of little environmental benefit, is the message from the ministry in a statement to the European Commission. The new “coastal alliance” against Brussels also includes Portugal, the Netherlands and Estonia. The Norwegian Environment Agency writes on its website that there are still examples of “Norwegian” sewage going straight into the sea. Like the government, KS believes that the sum of “cold climate, a long coast, large mountainous areas, scattered settlement pattern, small municipalities and regions with declining population” is an argument against introducing “stricter cleaning requirements without any clear environmental benefit”. Photo: Oslo municipality / news – Serious for Norwegian environmental protection – It is a serious problem for Norwegian environmental protection that we time and again oppose the EU’s attempts to raise environmental standards, says Pernille Hansen, who is deputy leader of the Nature Conservancy. She adds that “we must protect small coastal communities”, but that the environment minister “should be aware that he is arguing against rules that will help save fjords”. news has been in contact with several people in the environmental movement who react to the fact that the envoy from Norway “trains the EU’s environmental policy”. – Once again, the government has put financial care over care for nature and the environment. It should be completely obvious that we have to stop discharging sewage directly into our fjords, lakes and sea, says MDG leader Arild Hermstad. He adds: – For life in the sea, it matters very little whether the discharge comes from a small or large municipality, it is devastating regardless. According to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate, the most environmentally damaging discharges to sea come from ballast water, oil, sewage and rubbish. “Better cleaning can look expensive, but the consequences of not doing so are even more expensive,” says Tuva Mjelde Refsum, deputy director of Nature and Youth. She clarifies that it is important that small coastal communities are not imposed on large costs in exchange for small environmental gains, but that “Espen” (Barth Eide) should help them financially and “generally tighten up for municipalities that need a push to take up sewage treatment seriously”. – For small coastal communities that have discharged their waste into the Atlantic or Barents Sea, this becomes expensive, energy-intensive and with very little environmental benefit, says climate and environment minister Espen Barth Eide (Ap). Photo: Pontus Höök / Pontus Höök – Purification requirements without any clear environmental benefit On Tuesday, the new sewage directive was the topic of a meeting between the government and KS. Like the government, KS believes that the sum of “cold climate, a long coast, large mountainous areas and scattered settlement patterns” is an argument against introducing “stricter cleaning requirements without any clear environmental benefit”. – Requiring cleaning just because it is technologically possible is not sustainable, says KS director Helge Eide. He points out that larger water and sewage charges have been introduced in many municipalities in 2023, and that future maintenance backlogs will lead to “very demanding budget processes locally”. – But where there are demonstrable environmental benefits, it will of course be positive to improve cleaning, he adds. news has been in contact with several mayors and parliamentary politicians along the coast who share KS’s uneasiness (see below). Mayors: – We are very worried about this directive Tom Georg Indrevik (H), mayor in Øygarden – We are very worried about what this directive could mean for the municipality in the whole of Norway. We have dealt with the matter in the municipal council and given a clear statement in which we point out what this means. We support the work to nuance the directive so that it can also work in Norway. Per Lerøy (Ap), mayor of Austrheim municipality – There must be a clear and well-defined cost/benefit ratio in such matters. It is not good environmental policy to build large and expensive sewage treatment plants in places where discharges are low and the discharge area is large with good flow conditions so that you get a large and good dilution effect. Neither the investment nor the operating costs can be defended in such circumstances. We cannot have the same rules in the inner Oslofjord area and in Stad. Nor can we have the same regulations for a closed threshold fjord and an open coastal landscape. Gunnar Silden (V), mayor of Stad municipality – There is a big difference between large cities in Europe with drains in large rivers which in turn have an outlet into sea areas that are shallow and far from the deep sea areas that we have just off our coast. There will soon be as many people living in Bremen as there are in the entire Vestland county, so there are many more people there to share the cost of introducing the directive, so you have to see it from that perspective. Birgit Oline Kjerstad, SV – It is understandable that the minister wants local room for action, and not impose a rigid set of regulations on small municipalities in pig-infested areas along the coast. But there is cause for concern if this is an expression of a lack of will to take responsibility for water treatment plants that are needed in areas where there is a risk of over-fertilisation. Treatment plants are, for example, essential to save the Oslofjord and other polluted fjord areas in Norway. The ecological condition of the water area must be decisive for what measures are to be implemented where. I am more concerned that the government has cut the budget for the water area than that arguments are being made for national adaptation. Alfred Bjørlo, Venstre – We agree with Barth Eide that the updated directive is not very well adapted to Norwegian conditions. We have scattered residential areas and many small municipalities where the requirements in the draft of the EU’s new sewage directive can be difficult to handle. This shows once again that it is important for Norway to actually sit around the table when common European policy is being shaped in Brussels, and not sit and mutter alone in the hallway to the negotiation room. If Norway had been a member of the EU, we would have had plenty of opportunity to influence the new sewage directive, and everything else that is relevant to Norway. Sofie Marhaug, Raudt – We are forced to recycle more of what is released in the future, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, because there may be a shortage of these important nutrients which, among other things, are used in fertiliser. At the same time, this is a big burden to place on the smallest municipalities. The smallest coastal communities have small emissions, and there may be better ways to ensure a greater environmental benefit. Arild Hermstad, MDG – The fact that this costs money is no excuse for not doing so. Rather, the solution must be for the state to stand up and help ensure that even small municipalities can clean up their discharges. I also think that people in small municipalities want clean nature, clean fjords and a clean sea, and perhaps also depend on it in their jobs. I expect the Minister for the Environment to stop training the EU’s environmental policy and rather concentrate on how the government can stand up for all small coastal municipalities that need to have their discharges cleaned and their sewage systems upgraded. – It is a serious problem for Norwegian environmentalists that we repeatedly oppose the EU’s attempts to raise environmental standards and tighten environmental policy, says Pernille Hansen, who is deputy leader of the Nature Conservation Association. Photo: Fartein Rudjord – Good that the government is standing up for the coastal municipalities In a joint statement signed by several Norwegian (and Icelandic) elected representatives, they write that the EU directive places too great a financial burden on small communities. Terje Halleland (Frp) says the consequences of discharges from small coastal municipalities into a current-carrying sea “are quite different compared to a European inland city for which this proposal is made”. – So it is good that the government stands up for the coastal municipalities. This proposal will result in huge costs and little profit for important municipalities along the coast. The European Commission’s proposal for a revised sewage directive will probably be adopted next year. According to the newspaper Energi og Klima, climate and environment minister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) used the ministerial meeting in Stockholm to argue against the tightening in the new revised sewage directive. Photo: Bendiksby, Terje / SCANPIX
ttn-69
Sharp reactions to the fact that the government wants more relaxed sewage regulations – news Vestland
