1
Legitimacy and justice on the verge
of deterioration
A case study of Swedish local efforts to reduce
eutrophication
By: Amir Vafa
Supervisor: Björn Hassler
Södertörn University | School of Science, Environment and Technology Master’s dissertation 30 credits
Environmental Science | Spring semester 2021
2
Abstract
Eutrophication is one of the major threats to the marine environment in the Baltic Sea. The human pressure on the sea by nutrient input from agriculture, industry, public sewage facility and small sewage treatment plants causes excessive algal blooms leading to oxygen depleted seabed and an ecosystem out of balance. The objective of this study is to investigate how local legitimacy and fairness is addressed in the multilevel and complex issue of reducing Baltic Sea eutrophication. The main results show that there is a great challenge and uncertainty in dealing with the problem of eutrophication. Furthermore, there is an unfair distribution of costs and
responsibilities related to wastewater treatment in the municipal planning documents and nearly total exclusion of the individual property owners from participating in the decision-making processes related to the expansion plans for public sewage facility. This in turn risks the legitimacy and the democratic aspects of the plans. Previous studies related to public and simple sewage plants have investigated different issues related to the legislation and practical planning as possible reasons for a sluggish progress in the measures to reduce nutrient discharges to the sea. However, the fairness aspects and the participatory processes of the plans have not been studied. The implications of this study are to invite to a more inclusive and fair planning process with the use of alternative solutions to the compulsory expansion of public sewage facility. Modifications in the legislation to include economic instruments creating incentives for the property owners can be a way of increasing
participation and thus the legitimacy of the system.
3
Sammanfattning
Övergödningen av Östersjön är ett av de största hoten mot växter och djur samt mot de tjänster kopplade till havet som vi människor utnyttjar. Den mänskliga tillförseln av näring från jordbruk, industri, kommunala reningsverk och enskilda avlopp leder till onormala mängder av algblomning som i sin tur leder till syrebrist på havsbotten när dessa alger bryts ned i syrekrävande processer. Genom EU:s Vattendirektiv, Helsingforskonventionen där Östersjöns strandstater ingår samt egna nationella miljökvalitetsmål, har Sverige åtagit sig att bekämpa övergödningen av Östersjön och att minska sitt näringsutsläpp till havet.
Kommunerna i Sverige har till följd av sitt självstyre ett stort ansvar för att driva igenom åtgärder för att målen på detta område ska uppnås. Den kommunala strategin och åtgärderna reflekteras i bland annat den kommunala översiktsplanen, som har en övergripande karaktär, och den kommunala vatten- och avloppsplanen, som är mer detaljerad.
Syftet med denna studie är att försöka utreda hur aspekter som rättvisa, demokrati och deltagande kan hanteras på kommunal nivå. I detta avseende utgör Karlshamns kommun, som valts ut för denna studie, ett exempel på hur en kustkommun kan arbeta med sådana frågor.
Resultaten visar att det finns en stor utmaning och en osäkerhet i fråga om övergödning på ett generellt plan. När det kommer till kommunens praktiska åtgärder, har man i Karlshamn fokuserat på den enskilt största utsläppskällan som är de enskilda avloppen. Genom den kommunala
utbyggnadsplanen vill kommunen under en 10-årsperiod se till att fler fastigheter med enskilt avlopp ansluter sig till det kommunala nätverket.
De kommunala utbyggnadsplanerna för vatten och avlopp är i stor utsträckning styrda och reglerade av nationell lagstiftning. När det gäller delaktighet i processen kan noteras att fastighetsägare i princip är uteslutna från att delta i de beslut som rör utbyggnaden av de kommunala reningsverken. Dessutom är det så att när en fastighet hamnat inom ett område som ska ingå i utbyggnadsplanen kan
fastighetsägaren visserligen välja att avstå från att fysiskt ansluta fastigheten till det kommunala nätverket, men oavsett vilket måste fastighetsägaren betala de relativt dyra anslutningskostnaderna och periodiska avgifterna. I realiteten rör det sig alltså om en typ av tvångsanslutning.
4 Studien belyser de rättviseproblem som den nuvarande nationella lagstiftningen, och följaktligen den kommunala utbyggnadsplanen, leder till genom tvångsanslutning och tvångsbetalning. Vidare belyser den de begränsade möjligheterna för enskilda personer att delta i kommunala planer som gäller vatten och avlopp. Detta är särskilt anmärkningsvärt med tanke på att det vid flera andra kommunala planer, t.ex. detaljplaner, är obligatoriskt med samråd mellan enskilda och de beslutande myndigheterna.
Resultatet från denna studie kan öppna för en diskussion kring vilka medel man skulle kunna använda sig av för att minska övergödningen som är kopplad till enskilda avlopp, utöver den konventionella utbyggnaden av det kommunala nätverket. Alternativa lösningar i form av t.ex. ekonomiska medel skulle kunna leda till mer individanpassade och rättvisa lösningar, vilket skulle kunna minska risken för framtida konflikter.
Kunskapen om hur den nuvarande lagstiftningen skapar exkludering av fastighetsägare kan också skapa en plattform för diskussion för framtida ändringar av regelverket som styr avlopp och vatten till, så att detta blir mer inkluderande.
Att anlägga ett rättviseperspektiv på frågor som gäller vatten och avlopp samt belysa bristen på utrymme för samråd och samsyn mellan fastighetsägare och kommun är av stor vikt för att värna om demokratin på detta område.
5
Content
Abstract ... 2 Sammanfattning ... 3 Preface ... 8 Acknowledgments ... 8 Glossary ... 9Important terms in the Act on Public Water Services (2 §) ... 10
1. Introduction ... 10
1.1 The objective of the research ... 12
2. Research questions ... 12
3. The scope of the study ... 13
3.1 Sweden and Blekinge county ... 13
3.2 Case study Karlshamn ... 16
Summary ... 17
4. Background ... 17
4.1 Eutrophication and its effects on the marine environment ... 17
4.1.1 Hypoxia and anoxia in the Baltic Sea... 19
4.1.2 A sensitive ecosystem due to salinity levels ... 19
4.1.3 Eutrophication’s impact on ecosystem services ... 20
4.2 BSAP and Sweden’s municipal independence ... 20
4.3 Swedish national policies and commitment to BSAP ... 21
4.4 The Environmental Quality Goal “No Eutrophication” ... 23
4.5 Environmental Monitoring Program in Blekinge ... 24
Summary ... 26
4.6 Public Sewage Facilities and Small Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden ... 26
4.6.1 Public Sewage Facilities in Sweden ... 26
4.6.2 Legal Framework ... 28
4.6.3 Small Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden ... 32
4.6.3.1 Factors contributing to the high number of deficient SSTPs in Sweden ... 34
4.6.3.2 “Shit-tax”: a proposal of cost-effective measures for SSTPs ... 35
Summary ... 37
4.7 Karlshamn municipality and the influencers of its WS plan on the vertical scale ... 38
4.7.1 Karlshamn municipality and its energy and WS company... 38
4.7.2 Nutrient input in Karlshamn ... 40
6
4.7.4 Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst (MBV) ... 43
4.7.5 Municipal influence of the WS planning... 44
4.7.6 Municipal residents ... 46
Summary ... 46
5. Previous research ... 47
6. Methods and Methodology ... 50
6.1 The snowball process of data collection ... 50
6.2 Analyzing the data ... 53
6.3 Designing the interviews ... 54
6.4 Data Sources ... 55
Karlshamn’s comprehensive plan 2030 – environmental impact assessment, 2015 (KCP 2030) ... 55
Platform for the work with green infrastructure in Blekinge County, 2019 (PGIB) ... 55
Sea plan for Blekinge county’s municipalities 2018 (SPBM) ... 56
Guidelines for Stormwater Management in Karlshamn Municipality, 2020 (GSWM) ... 56
Karlshamn Municipality WS Action Plan 2013–2021, (WSAP) ... 57
Karlshamn Municipality WS Expansion Plan 2014–2024 (WSEP) ... 57
Waste plan for Karlshamn, Olofström and Sölvesborg Municipalities 2018 (WP-2018) ... 58
No eutrophication 2019 (NE2019) ... 58
6.5 Criticism of the sources ... 58
6.6 Validity, reliability and generalization ... 59
7. Theoretical framework ... 60
7.1 Governance Theory ... 60
7.1.1 Policy instruments in governance ... 61
7.2 Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) ... 62
8. Result & Analysis ... 65
8.1 Initial coding results from the documents related to Karlshamn ... 66
8.2 Theme 1: Challenges and uncertainties ... 66
8.3 Theme 2: Confident ... 70
8.4 Theme 3: Ambiguous and diluted ... 73
Summary ... 74
9. Discussion ... 74
9.1 Challenge and uncertainty – anticipated common thread in the documents ... 75
9.2 Absence of PPP hindering improvement ... 76
8
Preface
My personal interest in the Baltic sea and the problem of eutrophication began in the end of my bachelors’ program during the spring semester of 2018 when I was in the Askö Laboratory. Askö is a small island in the Trosa archipelago, south of Stockholm. I was then conducting experiments on Fucus vesiculosus and Cladophora glomerate in water with different amount of nutrients in order to measure how this can affect their oxygen production. From that time, I have visited other places connected to the Baltic sea in the county of Blekinge. Among other places, I have visited the island of Tärnö which is situated in the archipelago of Blekinge and several beaches the area. My different experiences of the Baltic Sea evoked my interest and made me reflect on how the same body of water can differ so distinctively, depending on which time of year it is for example. Several beaches
alongside the coast in Blekinge had very clear and visible water at the times that I visited them. This could make one forget about the problem of eutrophication and algal bloom in the Baltic sea.
However, algal bloom does occur repeatedly in this area, at times creating a thick layer of algal bloom on the surface of the water. The contrast between the beautiful beaches with clear water on the one hand and the sudden emergence of algal bloom on the other hand gave rise to the idea of writing about the importance of local effort to limit the nutrient input.
Acknowledgments
9
Glossary
APWS Act on Public Water Services (2006: 412) BSAP Baltic Sea Action Plan
CAB County Administrative Board EC Environmental Code (1998:808) EMP Environmental Monitoring Program EQG Environmental Quality Goals EQS Environmental Quality Standards
GSWM Guidelines for Stormwater Management in Karlshamn Municipality, 2020 HELCOM Helsinki Commission
KCP 2030 Karlshamn´s Municipality’s comprehensive plan 2030 NE2019 No Eutrophication 2019
PGIB Platform for the work with green infrastructure in Blekinge County, 2019 PNAP Proposal for a National Action Plan
PPP Polluter Pays Principle PSF Public Sewage Facility
SEPA Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
SPBM Sea plan- for Blekinge county’s municipalities 2018 SSTP Small Sewage Treatment Plants
SwAM Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management WFD Water Framework Directive
WISS Water Information System Sweden
WP-2018 Waste Plan for Karlshamn, Olofström and Sölvesborg Municipalities WS Water and Sewage
10
Important terms in the Act on Public Water Services (2 §)
Public Sewage Facility: a water supply system which a municipality has a legal controlling
influence over, and which has been arranged and is used to fulfill the municipality's obligations under this Act
Small Sewage Treatment Plant: a water supply system or another device for water supply or sewage that does not constitute a public sewage facility (PSF) and is not part of a PSF
Connection fee: a one-time fee for the coverage of the cost of arranging a public water supply system
Usage fee: a periodic fee for the coverage of operating and maintenance costs, capital costs of investments or other costs connected to a public water supply and sewage system that are not covered by a connection fee
Operation area: the geographical area within which one or several water services have been arranged or are to be arranged through a PSF and sewage system
WS principal: the company who owns a public water supply and sewage system
1. Introduction
As a result of growing human population, competition of space and food, extensive farming, use of chemical fertilizers and lack of proper sewage systems, the Baltic Sea and its coastal areas are under a lot of human pressure. This pressure has altered the ecological balance, species distribution and ecosystems functioning in coastal areas. It has resulted in eutrophication, the presence of dangerous substances and reduction of biodiversity (Bergström et al. 2013). One of the most serious threats to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea is eutrophication. Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea has been present since the 1950s. It constitutes a long-lasting, severely negative pressure on the Baltic environment. According to an integrated status assessment regarding 2011–2016, more than 97 percent of the Baltic Sea region was eutrophied (HELCOM, 2018).
11 favored by excessive nutrient input (especially phosphorus) and they threaten both human and animal health (www.swedishepa.se, 2020a).
Intergovernmental organizations such as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) have together with the coastal countries of the Baltic Sea signed the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) which aims to work towards the goal “Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication” as its main objective (www.helcom.fi, 2007) as well as “Good Environmental and Ecological Status” (www.helcom.fi, 2007).
As a coastal nation bordering the Baltic Sea, Sweden is one of the contracting parties that has signed the BSAP and has therefore been committed to reduce its inputs by 2021. Since the issue of
eutrophication is a transboundary issue, international agreements such as the BSAP are of great significance. Along the Swedish coast there is a wide range of activities which promotes economic growth such as rural tourism and fishing (Kropinova, 2012). Therefore, using different tools to limit eutrophication in order to maintain the high level of rural tourism and fishery is of high importance and priority for Sweden (www.swedishepa.se, 2020a). Swedish municipalities are important when it comes to the actual execution of this goal since they have a significant independence according to the Swedish constitution. Here, coastal municipalities bordering the Baltic Sea have a great responsibility to reduce their nutrient input, which constitutes a direct effect on the coastal marine environment.
According to the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM), the sea areas in the southern parts of Sweden are most affected by eutrophication (www.havochvatten.se, 2019a).
12
1.1 The objective of the research
The main objective of this study is to investigate how local legitimacy and fairness is addressed in the multilevel and complex issue of reducing Baltic Sea eutrophication.
As a coastal municipality bordering the Baltic Sea, the municipality of Karlshamn was chosen as the “case study” to be investigated in order to find the answers for the main objective (figure 1).The reason for choosing a specific municipality as a case is that it is impossible to study the main objective in an exhaustive way. Therefore, a specific case/cases must be selected as samples in order to
understand the “bigger picture”.
2. Research questions
1. In what ways do relevant documents related to Karlshamn deal with the issue of eutrophication?
2. How is governance applied in Karlshamn’s water and sewage planning?
3. To what extent, and in which ways, are issues regarding the role of distribution of costs and responsibilities related to wastewater treatment referred to in municipal planning documents?
Karlshamn´s Municipality
13
3. The scope of the study
In this part the scope of the study is presented as well as the reason for choosing Sweden as a country and why the municipality of Karlshamn was chosen as a case study.
3.1 Sweden and Blekinge county
This study is focused on one of Sweden’s coastal municipalities and its work towards decreasing the nutrient loads to water, in order to achieve “good ecological status” by 2021 according to the BSAP goal as well as achieving “no eutrophication” according to the Environmental Quality Goal (EQG). The study zooms in on Karlshamn’s plan for limiting eutrophication as well as past and present challenges.
There are some important reasons why Sweden was chosen for this case study. Sweden has the longest coastline among the Baltic sea countries and it has the second highest number of HELCOM Marine Protected Areas in number and square kilometers (Borg, Kääriä, & Zweife, 2016). Furthermore, Sweden is among the countries that have reported the highest number of management plans together with Finland, as well as leading the financing and development of HELCOM (Tynkkynen, 2014). Participatory processes such as stakeholder participation do not constitute a new approach in Sweden and there is a vast number of institutions already using this approach in different policy areas, not least in environmental areas (Moltin & Hedlund, 2009). To study these participatory processes at the municipal level in Sweden can be valuable as a model of inclusive environmental planning where municipal residents and municipal officials cooperate. Sweden has also reported high public willingness to pay for the reduction of nutrient leakage in the Baltic sea compared to Russia and Poland (Hassler, 2017).
14 Blekinge is a Swedish coastal county with four municipalities that are to a large extent
socio-economically connected to and dependent on the Baltic coast. The sea has always been a part of Blekinge county’s identity and it has shaped its people and landscape, provided food and other ecosystem services, transportation routes and served for the security and the protection of the country (Janérus et al., 2019). The integrated eutrophication status assessment made by HELCOM in 2018 displays that Blekinge county is located within the area where the nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea are at the highest levels. According to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) the water there is regarded to have bad water status (figure 2).
Considering the particularly high level of eutrophication manifested in this geographical area, it
seemed appropriate to choose a municipality within Blekinge county when examining the objective of this research. Furthermore, there are many important ecosystem services in the sea around the coast of Blekinge county (figure 3). This fact increases the value of studying Blekinge's coastal areas
The total area of Natura 2000 areas in Blekinge is just over 28,000 hectares, of which large parts are marine environments. This means that about 4 percent of the county's area consists of Natura 2000 areas (Andersson et al., 2019).
Figure 2. Map of the Baltic Sea and the coastal countries showing HELCOM’s integrated assessment of
15 Moreover, there are about 140 bird sanctuaries in Blekinge and most of them are along the coast. There is also a seal protection area on the county's east coast. Blekinge Archipelago, which includes archipelago and the coastal landscape within Karlshamn, Ronneby and Karlskrona municipalities, is one of Sweden’s five biospheres and it has an area of over 200,000 ha due to the area's high natural and cultural values. In addition, Torhamn's archipelago is also designated as a BSPA area by HELCOM (Janérus et al. 2019), (www.unesco.org, 2015). These natural properties and the need for protection of the natural environment in Blekinge increase the need to study nutrient pollution to water and the efforts to limit eutrophication in this region.
16
3.2 Case study Karlshamn
Among Blekinge county’s four coastal municipalities, Karlshamn was selected. This was primarily due to the availability of relevant documents in the municipalities, where I found that Karlshamn had a larger amount of comprehensive reports and official documents regarding the municipality’s efforts of limiting eutrophication. Moreover, a large part of Karlshamn’s coastal areas including islands such as Tärnö are located within Natura 2000 areas (figure 4), (Janérus et al. 2019). The purpose of Natura 2000 sites is to protect the species and habitats of common interest to EU countries. Karlshamn and its coast are also located within the area with the highest nutrient levels (HELCOM, 2018).
17
Summary
As the country with the longest coastline among the Baltic Sea states and the accompanying ecosystem services, Sweden has a strong commitment to reduce eutrophication trough international agreements as well as national environmental goals.
Furthermore, Karlshamn has a unique geographical position with a large Natura 2000 area within Blekinge county and a high degree of coastal eutrophication, as well as a high number of nature reserves and sanctuaries. These circumstances make Karlshamn municipality interesting and relevant for a case study on local attempts to reduce Baltic Sea eutrophication.
4. Background
In this chapter background information related to the study and the analysis is presented. I will start with a wide scope and describe the issue of eutrophication and its effect on the Baltic Sea. This will be followed by different national action plans and goals and regional plans in Blekinge to address this issue. Furthermore, I will narrow down the scope to include general information about the PSFs and the small sewage treatment plants (SSTPs) in Sweden and the legislation related to them. At the end of this chapter I will provide some information about Karlshamn municipality and the influencers of its Water and Sewage (WS) plan.
4.1 Eutrophication and its effects on the marine environment
One of the major threats to the Baltic sea ecosystem and its species is eutrophication. Eutrophication is characterized by the excessive amount of algal (phytoplankton) bloom due to increased availability and input of limiting nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus mainly from atmospheric emissions, point sources such as PSFs and anthropogenic diffuse sources such as agriculture and forestry (Svendsen et al. 2015). This phenomenon is partly natural. However, excessive nutrient input such as nitrogen and phosphorus to the sea can alter the natural balance and lead to abnormal amount of algal bloom and studies have shown that the amount summertime near-surface phytoplankton blooms have risen significantly (Ho et al. 2019).
Phytoplankton is the primary producers of the sea and they fixate about half of the global
18 extensive amount of algal bloom limits the light penetration which makes it difficult for the plants in the littoral zone to absorb sunlight and photosynthesize, limits the success of predators that need sunlight to pursue their catch. Phytoplankton is limited by two main nutrients: nitrogen and phosphorus.
During summertime the amount of nitrogen is low due to the high nutrient consumption of phytoplankton at spring, but due to the extraordinary ability of a specific phytoplankton called cyanobacteria or blue-green algae to fixate nitrogen from the air, this strain of phytoplankton can survive only with the available phosphorus in the water and therefore the bloom at this period consists mainly of toxic cyanobacteria. Furthermore, the cyanobacteria strains produce toxins such as
cylindrospermopsin (CYN) which is a common cyanotoxin that affects multiple organs and functions in animal and plants including humans (Barón-Sola et al. 2015).
Moreover, high rates of photosynthesis because of eutrophication can deplete inorganic carbon and raise the pH to very high levels. This can impair organisms that are dependent on dissolved inorganic carbon for the functioning of their chemosensory abilities (Chislock et al. 2013).
The most harmful effect of eutrophication is the oxygen deficiency/depletion that occurs because of high amount of algal blooms. This deficiency occurs when there is an imbalance between the
processes that supply the water with oxygen and the biological processes that consume oxygen. When organic material such as algae dies off and sinks to the seabed it is decomposed by bacteria and other microorganisms. These decomposers consume oxygen through their respiration leading to depletion of dissolved oxygen (www.education.txstate.edu). The depletion of oxygen can lead to hypoxia and anoxia.
19 Moreover, eutrophication negatively impacts other important ecosystem services such as supporting services. Anoxic seafloors reduce the microorganisms that are important in the biochemical cycle of nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon. Also regulating services such as breaking down environmentally hazardous substances or storing the overflow of e.g. phosphorus in the sediment can be negatively impacted by eutrophication (Correll, 1998).
4.1.1 Hypoxia and anoxia in the Baltic Sea
Eutrophication and anoxia in the deep waters of the Baltic sea is not a recent problem. Historical evidence shows that during the Littorina sea epoch which dates back to 6,500 years ago, vast areas of laminated sediments existed which is an indication of anoxic environment during a relatively long period of time. There have also been discoveries of cyanobacteria in the Littorina sea sediments, which give us a clue about the cause of the anoxic environment (www.havet.nu, 2019) However, during the 21st century the area of anoxic sea bottoms has tripled and 10 percent of the water volume in the Baltic Sea is now completely anoxic (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013). In addition, during the last decade the severe oxygen depletion in the Baltic Sea has increased four times and as a result of the extended areas of hypoxia and anoxia the Baltic Sea is described as a “patient who is suffocating” from lack of oxygen (Zillén, et al. 2008). Finally, the results from an assessment carried out by HELCOM in 2007–2011 revealed that the entire Baltic sea was evaluated as being eutrophicated except the Bothnian Bay (www.stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi, 2017-2018.
4.1.2 A sensitive ecosystem due to salinity levels
Apart from the decomposition of the organic material, there are other causes of hypoxia and anoxia in the Baltic sea such as the flow of saline water from Kattegat and Skagerrak. The saline water has a higher density and sinks down to fill the deeper basins in the sea leading to stratification between the heavier saline water in the deeper parts and the brackish water close to the surface. The stratification prevents vertical mixing leading to two separated layers thus preventing the oxygenation of the denser saline water at the bottom.
20 less favorable energy balance, permanently increased metabolism, continuous energy loss caused by a higher filtration rate due to the osmotic effects and reduced bio calcification for shell growth
(Riisgård, et al. 2014), (Tedengren & Kautsky, 2012) and therefore these species are highly sensitive to additional stressors such as eutrophication that can cause negative synergy (Olsson et al. 2004).
4.1.3 Eutrophication’s impact on ecosystem services
Eutrophication has a direct negative effect on different ecosystem services. The ecosystem services negatively affected by eutrophication is:
• recreation: tourism, swimming, fishing, boating and bird watching • esthetic values: experiencing the beauty of the sea, clear water
• Food production: Hypoxia (reduced oxygen levels) and anoxia (dead zones) means that the water lacks sufficient oxygen to support most living organisms. This can reduce the
abundance and diversity and harvest of different organisms such as fish(ozcoasts.org.au).
4.2 BSAP and Sweden’s municipal independence
In 2007, a new regional action plan launched by HELCOM called the BSAP was agreed upon by the Baltic sea states. This agreement was decided by the environmental ministers of the Baltic sea states together with the European commission in order to reach “good ecological status for the Baltic Sea, Öresund and Kattegat by the year 2021 (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, s. 3).
It encompasses four different segments: eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity and nature conservation and maritime activities, together with sections on Assessment and Tools. Over time, eutrophication became a central issue of concern for HELCOM.
Since HELCOM did not provide any precise guidelines on how to implement and follow up the BSAP goals, they can be very diverse among the signatory countries. However, each country had to submit a national implementation program no later than 2010 where the country described its national plan adapted to its own conditions and ambition.
21 As we have reached the year 2021, HELCOM and the responsible ministers of the Baltic Sea countries (ministers of environment) has recognized the failure to reach the goal of 2021 but they announced that “the plan has delivered unprecedented results” (www. helcom.fi, 2007). HELCOM announced that although the goal was not reached, various trends are pointing towards improvements and that the BSAP has been instrumental in these enhancements. HELCOM is now updating and reviewing the plan and in general the commission will maintain the essence of the original BSAP with the focus on the main four segments with eutrophication at its peak (www.helcom.fi, 2021).
Since the Nordic countries including Sweden have highly local characters in the way of their governance and because of the unique autonomy that the locally elected bodies are enjoying
(Blomqvist & Bergman, 2010), a fairly diverse ambition regarding the eutrophication goal in different municipalities can be expected. The differences depend on the geographical position e.g. coastal/non-coastal municipalities, local opinion and interest, degree of local impact, budget etc.
The individual municipalities are the most important influencers and decisionmakers in the
municipal WS planning. This is due to the municipal independence, which is regulated in chapter 14 in the Swedish Constitution (www.riksdagen.se, 1974).
1 § The decision-making power in the municipalities is exercised by elected assemblies. 2 § The municipalities handle local and regional matters of general interest on the basis of
municipal self-government. More detailed provisions on this are laid down in law. On the same basis, the municipalities also handle the other matters that are determined by law.
The Swedish Municipal Act (2017:725) contains further provisions regarding the municipal autonomy, for example 2 kap. 1 §:
Municipalities and regions may themselves take care of matters of general interest that are related to the municipality's or region's area or to their members.
4.3 Swedish national policies and commitment to BSAP
22 The SEPA is suggesting further technical improvements in wastewater plants to reduce the loads of phosphorus and nitrogen in the Baltic Sea (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, pp. 75-85). There are also other sources of nutrient pollution that need to be addressed. According to the preliminary burden sharing arrangement between the countries, Sweden must reduce its nitrogen load by 21,000 tones/year and phosphorus load by 290 tones/year until 2021. This must mainly be carried out in the Baltic Proper, the Danish Straits and Kattegat (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, s. 11). This requirement was later revised in 2013, when the nitrogen load was reduced to 9,240 tones/year and the phosphorus load was increased to 530 tones/year (HELCOM, 2013).The SEPA has together with the SwAM designed an action plan to implement the goals of BSAP on a national level. Different national authorities have agreed to develop necessary action plans relevant to their respective field of responsibility (Naturvårdsverket, 2009). The action plan is called Sweden's commitment in the BSAP, Proposal for a National Action Plan (PNAP), (Naturvårdsverket, 2009).
The plan for the eutrophication segment in PNAP has been developed by three governmental agencies: The SEPA, the Swedish Forest Agency and the Water Authorities. The SEPA has had the overall responsibility of coordinating and evaluating the process (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, s. 3). Apart from the wastewater plants the government agencies have identified 12 fields with respective subcategories (E1-12) of proposed measures to limit eutrophication. Some of the titles are:
• municipal planning for surface water, creating wetlands • prohibiting phosphates in detergents
• remedy nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agriculture • structural changes in food production
• avoiding the spreading of manure next to lakes and streams • plant dams for phosphorus separation
• regional redistribution of animal production • reduce the nutrient load by growing mussels
23 through the County Administrative Boards (CAB)s. Municipalities and associations can apply for Local water management projects (LOVA) grant in order to improve the aquatic environment in lakes, watercourses and coastal waters in the county. In 2020, 237 million SEK was distributed to the CABs, which led to 362 new LOVA projects with promising results (www.havochvatten.se, 2021). There are also grants for projects aimed at developing technologies for the treatment of wastewater from drug residues and environmentally hazardous substances (www.havochvatten.se, 2018).
4.4 The Environmental Quality Goal “No Eutrophication”
Limiting eutrophication is a highly prioritized goal in Swedish environmental policy. On the 28th of April in 1999, the Swedish parliament decided upon fifteen national EQGs for Sweden. The EQGs constitute the basis for Sweden’s national environmental policy and they serve as a guide for the entire society including authorities, CABs, municipalities as well as business community and other actors (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2020). One of the environmental quality goals is defined as “no
eutrophication” where the parliament’s definition of the goal is "The levels of fertilizers in soil and water should not have a negative impact on human health, conditions for biodiversity or the possibilities for comprehensive use of soil and water" (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2021).
Nearly thirty Swedish authorities work in their respective field to reach the EQGs and every year there is an annual follow up of the environmental goals, where the measures taken during the year are presented in a report. Also, every fourth year there is an in-depth evaluation that presents the
possibilities of reaching the environmental quality goals. The latest one was presented in 2019 (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2020).
Unfortunately, the in-depth evaluation in 2012 concluded that it is not possible to achieve the EQG “no eutrophication” with currently decided and planned instruments until 2020. This conclusion was confirmed by 19 of the 21 CABs which made the same assessment (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
The SEPA has also confirmed this conclusion and stated that even though the measures to reduce eutrophication has given results, the issue of eutrophication is still very extensive, particularly in the central part of the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, SEPA points to the necessity of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction and international cooperation (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2021).
SwAM has suggested five concrete measures for municipalities in their work to reach the EQG “no eutrophication”:
24 • work to reduce emissions of nutrients from municipal treatment plants, connect more small
sewers to the municipal water supply network, and improve stormwater management. WS planning in the municipalities is an issue that is necessary to work with in the long term (www.sverigesmiljomal.se, 2017).
4.5 Environmental Monitoring Program in Blekinge
Since environmental problems do not recognize municipal, regional or national borders collaboration across national, regional and municipal boarders is crucial. Environmental protection agreements and environmental issues such as eutrophication of the Baltic sea is a multi-level governance issue which is closely interconnected with neighboring municipalities, regions and countries and therefore it has a transboundary nature. Thus, decision-making should also be of a transboundary character.
Consequently, the Swedish counties have regional environmental monitoring programs (EMP) which monitor different environmental aspects . The aim of the EMPs is to follow up the EQGs that are decided by the Swedish parliament and this is done by analyzing and following up the state of the environment over time (www.lansstyrelsen.se). The monitoring includes fields such as air, forests, agricultural land, wetlands, coast and sea etc. The main responsible authorities for the environmental monitoring program are SEPA and SwAM. These authorities set up the main guidelines for the monitoring program and the counties adjust their respective programs accordingly. Blekinge’s EMP is therefore vital since the results form an important basis for the future municipal protective action plans (www.lansstyrelsen.se/blekinge).
25 Since the major environmental issue in Blekinge county is eutrophication of the coastal areas and the sea, monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and the marine environment are prioritized in the monitoring program (Länsstyrelsen i Blekinge län, 2014).
There are about 1,250 monitoring stations in Blekinge county (figure 6), and the SEPA is funding Blekinge county with a budget of 750,000 SEK per year for regional environmental monitoring. This is only 10 percent of the total budget for the county monitoring and the financiers are among others water management associations, air management associations, municipalities, Natura 2000 and Action programs for endangered species (Länsstyrelsen i Blekinge län, 2014). Regional environmental
monitoring focuses on a large-scale regional environmental conditions and the monitoring is then used as a base for both regional and municipal planning and follow-up of environmental goals (Länsstyrelsen i Blekinge län, 2014, s. 11).
Holiday and permanent residences south of Dalälven constitute 70 percent of the total SSTPs in Sweden and municipalities have a major responsibility to make sure that the sewers meet the required conditions in reducing nutrients with focus on phosphorus reduction (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, s. 22). Similarly, the major problems and challenges related to eutrophication in Blekinge county is the need
Figure 5. The vertical levels of the EMP
26 for SSTPs to connect to the PSF, and if this is not possible, make sure that the SSTPs meet the
appropriate conditions.
Municipal efforts have led to a reduction of nutrients from one thousand properties every year
(Länsstyrelsen Blekinge , 2018). Municipal action plans and their efficient implementation are crucial in order to reach environmental goals (Rabe, 2017, s. 29).Therefore individual municipalities bear the main responsibility when it comes to the concrete actions for reducing eutrophication.
Summary
Eutrophication is one of the most serious threats to the Baltic Sea marine environment. As the country with the longest coastline as well as being member state of HELCOM, Sweden has a high commitment in reducing the nutrient input and limiting the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. This is done by international commitments e.g. the BSAP and national commitments e.g. EQGs. Sweden has also various government agencies such as the SEPA, the SwAM that are continuously working towards this goal through investigation, monitoring programs, proposals, action plans etc. These efforts are also integrated at different scales considering the cooperation between national environmental authorities, CABs and local authorities.
4.6 Public Sewage Facilities and Small Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden
In this part information about PSFs and SSTPs in Sweden, the legislative framework related to both of these facilities as well as the legislation that has led to both difficulties in replacing deficient SSTPs in the country and to conflicts are provided.
4.6.1 Public Sewage Facilities in Sweden
In Sweden there are about 2,000 PSFs (www.naturvardsverket.se) and a total of 101,000 km of drainage pipes that is equal to 2,5 times the circumference of the equator. The PSFs in Sweden are treating a total of 1,5 billion cubic meters of wastewater every year (www.svensktvatten.se, 2016).
27 due to the upgrading of the Swedish PSFs and the higher purification in these facilities, the Swedish emission of nutrients to water has decreased during the past 20 years (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
PSFs have been considered to be a better solution than the individual solutions (SSTPs) according to case-law (www.svensktvatten.se, 2019). The Land and Environment Court of Appeal in Sweden has concluded that a connection to a PSF is as a rule the most environmentally suitable solution
(www.havochvatten.se, 2017). According to statistics provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and the SEPA in 2020, the total amount of emitted phosphorus from PSFs in 2018 was 270 tons. The amount of nitrogen was 15,000 tons, the biochemical oxygen-consuming material (BOC) was 6,500 tons and the chemical oxygen consuming material (COCM) was 40,500 tons (www.scb.se, 2020). Even though the total amount of nutrients from PSFs has decreased during the past 10 years, the amount of phosphorus and COCM have increased from 2016 to 2018 (figure 7).
According to SEPA, PSFs constitute the largest emitter of nitrogen among point sources in Sweden (figure 8). Emissions from point sources (sewage treatment plants, industries and fish farms) account for about 14% of the total load of nitrogen on water. However, the total amount of phosphorus emission from SSTPs is almost equal to the total amount of phosphorus emissions from PSFs (figure 9), (www.utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se 2020).
28
4.6.2 Legal Framework
In this part the main and most important legislative regulations regarding PSFs in Sweden are introduced. These regulations are referred to throughout the study and discussed in the results & discussion.
Figure 8. Annual output of nitrogen distributed per source . PSFs on the right bar with light blue colour (Naturvårdsverket, 2020).
29 The Swedish Act (2006:412) on Public Water Services (APWS, also referred to as the Water
Services Act) contains provisions that aims to securing that water supply and sewage systems be arranged in a larger context, if it is necessary with regard to the protection of human health or the environment (1 §). As regards PSFs and SSTPs, the following provisions are of particular interest.
The municipality’s obligation to arrange water services
6 § If it is necessary, with regard to the protection of human health or the environment, to arrange a water supply system or a sewage system in a larger context for certain existing or coming buildings, the municipality shall
1. establish the operation area within which the water service or water services need to be arranged, and
2. ensure that the need immediately, and for as long as the need exists, is met within the operation area through a public WS facility.
Obligation to pay fees for public water services
24 § A property owner shall pay fees for a public water supply facility, if the property 1. is within the WS facility's area of operation, and
2. needs a water service with regard to the protection of human health or the environment, and the need cannot be met in a better way.
It is worth noting that a property owner may have to pay a connection fee to the municipality if the property is situated within the operation area, even if the property owner chooses not to physically connect the property’s wastewater to the PSF and even if the property’s facility is actually considered to meet the requirements that are set up (investigator, 2021).
Exemptions where a certain property can be excluded from an operation area established
according to 6 § APWS
9 § If there is a property or building within the operation area that obviously does not need to be included in the larger context referred to in 6 §, the operation area may be restricted so that it does not include that property or building. Such a restriction of the operation area may only be made if the property's or buildings' need for water supply and sewage can be suitably arranged through
individual facilities that are acceptable with regard to the protection of human health and the environment.
30 precautionary measures imposed on the individual or the operator must not be unreasonable. A
balance must be struck between benefit and cost (www.lansstyrelsen.se).
Compensation to property owners
By invoking the rule of fair assessment described above, some property owners that have individual sewage systems but are forced to connect to the PSF sometimes require compensation. In the bill to the Water Services Act, the legislator proposes that the rule of compensation should be used restrictively. The case law regarding compensation for individual WS systems states that
compensation is justified only when the municipality has been negligent towards the property owner. The requirement for compensation is that the SSTP has become “useless” although it was useful from the beginning, i.e. it did meet the requirements, but the property owner was forced to connect to the PSF anyway. This is an example where the assessment has not been made in a proper, fair way according to the provision in 2 kap. 7 § of the EC. This can apply to property owners that have been obliged to arrange SSTPs that fulfill the requirements, but soon after that the PSF expands and they are forced to connect to the PSF and pay connection fees etc. (www.svensktvatten.se, 2016).
4.6.2.1 The coercive nature of the PSF regulation
A non-connected property within the operation area can be forced to connect to a PSF if the facility does not meet the requirements of the EC. The technical administration cannot force anyone to physically connect to the PSF, nor can SSTPs within an operation area be generally prohibited. The Environmental Administration may however, by invoking the EC, oblige an individual property owner to join an existing PSF. To be able to issue such a decision the SSTP in question must be assessed to be deficient (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2015, ss. 15-16).
As stated above, the municipality or the WS principal cannot force the property owner to physically connect to a PSF even if the property is situated within an operation area. However, the municipality can force the property owner to pay the fees related to the PSF. Basically, if the property is included in an operation area where there are Water services included and the WS principal has arranged a connection point, the property owner is forced to pay the connection fee and other fees that are related to that service. This applies if the need of water services cannot be met through the usage of the property owner’s own facility. This issue has been tried a number of times by the government’s WS board, and so far there is no individual SSTP that has been considered to have better purification than the PSF. Therefore the payment can be regarded as compulsory if the property is included in the operation area (Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten , 2015). Having said that, in 2019 there was an
31 Vänersborg Sikhall property is better or at least equivalent to the PSF. The couple won the case and the municipality was forced to pay their legal costs (Vänersborgs tingsrätt, 2019).
4.6.2.2 Future modifications of the legislation?
Recently, on the 29th of April in 2021, the Swedish parliament decided that the obligation to connect to public WS facilities should be removed. The decision was based on the Report of the Committee on Civil Affairs (“Economizing of land and water areas”, 2020/21: CU14). The parliament stated: “A property owner with an individual sewer must not be forced to connect to the municipal water and sewer system. This applies only if the individual sewer meets the applicable environmental and health requirements” (Sveriges Riksdag, 2021). The parliament’s decision was a so-called announcement, which means it is not something that has entered into force as a new provision. It is rather a kind of call to the government to address the issue (investigator, 2021).
In the mentioned report, some standpoints were related to the forced and relatively high connection fee and the need to give property owners more freedom to choose whether they want to connect to the PSF or not (www.data.riksdagen.se, 2021).
Under the title Locally adapted WS solutions, item 12 (SD, C, KD) by Larry Söder (KD), Mikael Eskilandersson (SD), Ola Johansson (C), Roger Hedlund (SD) and Angelica Lundberg (SD) proposed the following for a parliamentary resolution:
”The costs for individual property owners to arrange an approved small-scale solution themselves are often smaller than…the cost for the individual to connect to the public water supply system. We believe that locally adapted WS solutions need to be facilitated” (Söder et al. 2021).
Under the title Other proposals for public water services, item 13 (M) by Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M), Cecilie Tenfjord Toftby (M), Lars Beckman (M) and David Josefsson (M), the following position was taken:
“Municipal decisions about WS often give rise to conflicts. These can be property owners who are forced to connect to the municipal water supply network, despite the fact that the property is equipped with a fully functional and efficient individual facility” (Bohlin et al. 2021).
Under the title Other proposals for public water services, item 13 (KD) by Larry Söder (KD) the following was proposed:
32
4.6.3 Small Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden
There is no legal definition of the term SSTPs. What constitutes a sewage treatment plant is also not defined in the Swedish Ordinance (1998: 899) on environmentally hazardous activities and health protection. A reasonable description of a sewage treatment plant can be "the cooperating components that are part of a complete plant whose purpose is to lead, treat or collect wastewater, such as
pipelines, sludge separators, closed tanks, infiltrations, soil beds and treatment plants” with the maximum capacity of 200 person equivalents (www.havochvatten.se, 2019b).
Furthermore, there is no legislation, regulation or any specific requirements for the treatment level or the technology of the SSTP. Instead, special consideration rules regarding these plants are found in 9 kap. 7 § of the EC: “Wastewater must be diverted and treated or disposed of in some other way so that no inconvenience to human health or the environment arises” (www.havochvatten.se, 2015).
It is up to the municipalities and their environmental committees to interpret the laws and put demands on the SSTPs. Furthermore, the municipalities set their own requirements independently according to the sensitivity of the natural environment and their local water status etc. A municipal WS plan does not have the status of a law, but all the decisions and plans must be based on the law. Furthermore, the WS plan is an important tool used as a basis for the municipal decision making. In order to get a clear idea about the local requirements for the SSTP, the property owners can contact their local environmental office or the WS advisor (www. avloppsguiden.se).
In Sweden there are about 700,000 SSTPs and their standard varies highly between different rural areas. It is considered that 80 percent of them fulfill the requirements of the EC (Naturvårdsverket, 2012).
SSTPs are considered to be one of the main anthropogenic sources of phosphorus and nitrogen emission. In Sweden there are about 250,000 SSTPs with no treatment or deficit treatment. According to the last statistics from the Swedish Environmental Emissions Data, the total amount of nutrient emission from SSTPs is about 300 tons of phosphorus and 3,100 tons of nitrogen per year
(www.ivl.se, 2018). In terms of nitrogen pollution SSTPs have a much lower total emission than PSFs which emits about 15,000 tons/year. However, SSTPs have a higher amount of total phosphorus emissions compared to PSFs (266 tons/year according to 2018 emissions). This is troublesome since phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for the toxic cyanobacteria and therefore reducing phosphorus input is essential to reduce their growth (https://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se, 2020).
33 and algal blooms (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013). Eutrophication of lakes and the Baltic Sea is one example of environmental impact from these deficient sewage systems
(www.naturvardsverket.se).
The untreated wastewater may have significant impact on the environment and human health, and it affects seven of the sixteen EQGs e.g. no eutrophication, living lakes and watercourses, good quality groundwater and balances sea and living coast. The work with upgrading and connecting to the PSF is very slow and only 1-3 percent of the facilities are replaced each year (Miljö- och
energidepartementet, 2017). The SwAM’s socio-economic impact assessment shows that a long-term sustainable rate of action is 5 percent annually.
Even though Sweden’s overall nutrient emission to water has decreased during the past 20 years as a result of less emission from the PSFs and the industry, the load from SSTPs has increased since 1995. This is partly because of the increased numbers of properties with SSTP, more people using their summer places as permanent residences and because existing SSTPs have aged and become increasingly impaired (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
When it comes to SSTP solutions there is a range of different individual filtration systems that depend upon the requirements for environmental protection. These can be the sensitivity of the area, the quality of the soil on the area, the distance to the groundwater, how well they meet the
requirements of the law etc. (kunskapscentrum små avlopp, 2011). The main categories of SSTPs are:
• plants with only sludge separator, and • ground-based facilities.
Plants with only sludge separators constitute about 20 per cent of the total 700,000 SSTPs. The purification function of a sludge separator is only one to two-fifths of the purification of a plant that meets the minimum requirement in general guidelines. The sludge separator is therefore contributing significantly to the eutrophication. However, this does not necessarily mean that they do not meet the requirements of the EC and the Ordinance on environmentally hazardous activities and health
protection, since the requirement is not how well the infiltration system actually works but whether the emissions are emitted in a water area or not. (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013, s. 16).
34 SSTPs, the number of deficit SSTPs is currently increasing with about 15,000 plants/year (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
4.6.3.1 Factors contributing to the high number of deficient SSTPs in Sweden
There are many reasons to the many deficient SSTPs, but many property owners consider the main reason to be the unclear application of the rules in the EC. This may affect the assessments carried out when issuing permit to install a SSTP as well as the expectations from the property owner.
Furthermore, the property owners lack incentives to fix their deficient SSTP because of the high costs. The application for getting a permit to take measures costs around 7,000 SEK
(www.mynewsdesk.com, 2013).
Other important factors contributing to malfunctioning SSTPs have been the lack of supervision and lack of binding requirements. The lack of binding requirements has led to the municipalities interpret regulations in different ways. Municipalities have made their own assessments about prioritization as well as the need of supervisory measures. Since the supervisory measures requires huge expenses these measures have not been prioritized (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
Deficit SSTPs waiting to be connected to the PSF
One effective way to reduce emission of nutrients to the lakes, watercourses and reduce
eutrophication is to connect the properties WS to the PSF. Karlshamn has an ongoing WS expansion plan and is connecting properties that are assessed to be in the operation area according to the assessment criteria (Karlshamn kommun, 2018). However, it will take about 5–10 years (and
sometimes up to 20 years) from the planning phase until the properties in the operation areas connect to the PSF. During this transition, the deficit SSTPs are continuing to emit nutrients and according to the “the fair assessment” laid down in 2 kap. 7 § of the EC, the supervisory authority will not make further demands on the property owner to fix the deficit SSTP. This is one of the reasons why the municipality has a high amount of deficit SSTPs. “The measures that the municipalities take to fix the deficient SSTPs is based on long-term work, therefore there is no visible nutrient reduction at national level” (www.ivl.se, 2018).
The reverse burden of proof and its setbacks
35 the obligations arising from this chapter are complied with” (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2019).
Related to the sewage installation this means that the person who runs the SSTP is the one who must show that the plant meets the requirements of the code. In other words, the burden of proof is on the property owner and not the authorities, which is often the case in other authority matters. This reverse burden of proof applies to both authorizing the SSTP and monitoring it. The cost of the monitoring or reports required must be in proportion to the environmental benefits that can be expected from the monitoring (www.havochvatten.se, 2015). If the authorities are to carry out a supervision they must have some kind of indication/suspicion and there must be some objective reason for the supervision to be carried out (Christensen, 2015).
The reverse burden of proof could be seen as a “burden” for the property owner, but it also seems to give the property owner the trust to show that his facility complies with the EC and that he is taking the environmental and health issues into account. Nevertheless, in case the property owner realizes that his facility does not comply with the EC, necessary action to fix the deficiency must be taken.
When applying for a permit to install the SSTP the requirements must be fulfilled and proven. However, since most of the SSTPs have a lifespan of 15-20 years the property owner must plan to fix the SSTP or replace it after this period of time. At this point, according to the SwAM, the property owner lacks the needed incentives to conduct self-inspection and to take own initiative to measures needed to meet the requirements.
Within the current regulations, the “rational” choice of the property owner would be to await an area inventory or an induvial supervision visit by the supervisory authority due to complaints instead of dealing with the issue on their own initiative (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
At this point, the reverse burden of proof seems to fail, and the property owner’s pollution takes place at the expense of the common resources (groundwater, watercourses, lakes and the sea). Therefore, it is not the property owners but the supervisory authorities that become the “incentive-carriers”. This development has become normalized and the burden of cost has moved from the property owner to the municipality. Considering the existence of 700,000 SSTPs with connected toilets and the burden on the authorities to carry out inspections, there are great difficulties when implementing the rules. Even if the property owner installs a SSTP without a permit or connects a toilet to the existing SSTP, the environmental sanction fees are 5,000 SEK and 3,000 SEK respectively according to the Ordinance (2012:259) on environmental sanction fees. These are relatively low fees compared to the environmental damage the activities might cause. Also, as long as the property owner obtains a permit to install a facility, there will be no environmental sanction fees for the lack of self-monitoring (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
36 In December 2012, the Swedish government assigned a task to the SwAM to investigate necessary changes in regulations regarding SSTPs and produce cost effective proposals that could increase the property owners’ ambitions to reduce their waterborne pollution. This was meant to lead to the reduction of negative impact on the environment and human health and to contribute to the EQG “no eutrophication” (Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, 2013). The analysis shows that a combination of policy instruments consisting of clearer rules, tax or fee systems as well as effective supervision and testing, is needed to cope with a long-term sustainable pace of action.
SwAM concludes that according to the EC, it is the operator (property owner) that has the main responsibility to conduct control and take necessary measures. However, with the present laws and regulations there is no motive for property owners to fix their sewage systems and therefore the rate of action is low. The highest socio-economic costs related to SSTP are caused by the fact that the
supervisory authorities are the ones who have to act instead of the property owner and that is very resource demanding. The SwAM suggested that an economic tool that transfers this burden from the authorities to the property owner would save about 100 million SEK/year and create a pricing policy for nutrient emissions according to the WFD. Two kinds of economic tools have been suggested, which have similar effects on incentives and they are largely equally cost-effective:
• an environmental tax with tax exemption for measures • a fee system with feedback in the form of grants for measures
Environmental tax with tax exemption for measures
The basic concept of this tool is to put an environmental tax, also called “shit-tax”, on emission of nutrients from the SSTPs. The recipient here is considered an over-utilized resource with
eutrophication as a result. To form an efficient environmental tax, it should be adapted to the amount of emissions of nutrients and the environmental impact (costs) it produces. In this case the SSTPs that are closer to the recipients that do not achieve or risk not achieving good ecological status would have a higher tax level.
The second part of this tool is tax exemption. This is like the construction of new houses where new constructs have a 15-year exemption from the property tax. Similarly, newly constructed sewage plants would receive a 15-year tax exemption and existing facilities that have been repaired and/or reconsidered within the last 15 years would also receive a tax exemption. The purpose would be to stimulate review and possible measures on older SSTPs, which thus have an increased risk of impaired function.
Fee system with refund
37 expected environmental impact, that is, the average value of the property’s template emissions.
Different emissions such as phosphorus and nitrogen are priced according to the pricing policy of the WFD.
The next step is giving grants to the property owners that have upgraded/repaired their SSFP. These grants are collected from the total fees paid during the previous year. In this way the system becomes self-financing. The cleaner technology that the property owner invests in, the higher the grant.
Proposal of sewage declarations instead of the tax and fee system
This report was later mentioned in the government report SOU 2018:34 (Regeringskansliet, 2018), but none of the proposed economic measures were taken into next step as a government bill. Instead, a proposal for an ordinance on sewage declarations replaced the proposal of the tax and fee system. The reason for this replacement is not clear and according to an official in the ministry of environment, a new government bill is being prepared related to the SSTPs (Larsson, 2021).
In this proposed regulation, every property owner with a SSTP that corresponds to a maximum of 200 person equivalents is obligated to declare to the supervisory authority every seventh year after the SSTP received permit or was notified according to the EC. Before the declaration the inspection authority must carry out an inspection of the sewage system and the declaration must state what kind of permit the SSTP has and if it has been notified by the supervisory authority. The declaration must also contain an assessment of the sewage system function in relation to the condition of the facility (Regeringskansliet, 2018). The declaration seems to be a tool to implement continuous control on the SSTPs and the property owners’ duty to fix the SSTP. It is also considered to limit the deficient SSTPs that have not been registered.
Summary
38
4.7 Karlshamn municipality and the influencers of its WS plan on the vertical scale
In this part I will introduce Karlshamn municipality and the municipal energy and WS company Karlshamn Energi. Some graphs will also be presented to give a quick overview of the current nutrient input in Karlshamn as well as the critical numbers of deficient SSTP’s according to the latestassessment in 2013. Furthermore, I will present a vertical scale of influencers of Karlshamn’s WS plan, starting at the top with the legislative acts that form the binding legal framework and continuing to the bottom where municipal residents have some limited possibility to influence the plan.
4.7.1 Karlshamn municipality and its energy and WS company
Karlshamn is the second largest municipality in Blekinge county and is located in the western part of the county. It borders to three other municipalities in the county: Olofström, Sölvesborg and Ronneby. To the south it borders to the Baltic Sea. In Mörrum, which is an urban district in the western part of Karlshamn municipality, the Mörrum river flows in a north-south direction into the Baltic Sea. The river contributes to a high input of water from the municipality to the Baltic Sea.
Karlshamn has approximately 32 000 inhabitants (www.karlshamn.se, 2020). The City Council (Kommunfullmäktige) is the highest decision-making body. The Council decides on the goals and guidelines of the municipality, the budget, the municipal taxes and fees and motions. This includes the fees and taxes related to the municipality WS. The last comprehensive assessment made in the
municipality in 2013 indicates that there are about 2 000 SSTPs in the municipality. Among those more than 80 percent did not fulfill the requirements at the time of the assessment. Malfunctioning SSTPs contribute to the eutrophication of the bodies of water within the municipality and the Baltic sea. Consequently, malfunctioning SSTPs constitute a risk of negative impact on the environment as well as human health (Karlshamn kommun, 2018).
According to the Water Services Act, the municipality can delegate the responsibility of providing water services to a municipal company or a municipal association (3 §). But the municipality must still have decision-making and ownership rights over services, facilities, fees and areas of activity by the majority of the board (www.svensktvatten.se, 2019).
39 the emphasis is on sustainability, local collaborations and with a constant focus on development and service” (www.karlshamnenergi.se).
It is the WS collectives, i.e. those who use the water services, and not the taxpayers, who pay for the public WS facilities, the drinking water treatment and the sewage treatment (Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster SOU 2018:34, 2018). In Karlshamn, all investments and operation of PSFs are financed by the WS subscribers’ connection and usage/maintenance fees, which are collectively called the WS-fee. A condition that must apply to a WS fee is that it must cover the costs, but at the same time be reasonable and fair. The WS fees are based on the “self-cost principle” and the tariff follows the basic model that is developed by the trade organization Svenskt Vatten. It is divided into two main parts: connection fee and usage fee (www.karlshamnenergi.se).
The connection fee is a one-time fee that is charged to cover the costs related to the connection to a PSF. The usage fee is a periodic fee that aims at covering the operating and maintenance costs. The general rule is that the WS principal is allowed to make some profit, provided that the excess goes to an investment fund that pays for new investments according to a 10-year plan. Another requirement for the WS fee is that the total cost distributed among users must be reasonable and fair. In other words, the fee must be based on each property owner’s benefit from the WS facility (Svenskt Vatten, 2019).
Figure 10 presents an example provided by Karlshamn Energi, showing firstly the connection fee for a villa with 800 sqm plot including water, wastewater and stormwater (www.karlshamnenergi.se), and secondly the usage fee for a single-family house + other smaller facilities.
40
4.7.2 Nutrient input in Karlshamn
The graphs presented below are created through a compilation of the data from the last
comprehensive assessment made, called Karlshamn’s WS Action Plan 2013–2021 (WSAP). It is the total result of 4 of the 6 priority criterions that Karlshamn used to assess if the district should be included in the operation area and in the municipality’s WS expansion plan for 2014–2024 or not.
The results are from the last comprehensive assessment made in 2013 and some of the numbers might have changed during the past years. For example, the amount of deficient SSTPs according to the environmental inspector of Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst (MBV) have decreased from 80 to 65 percent (supervisor, 2021).
These four graphs are the ones that are directly related to the water quality in Karlshamn and they give a good overview of overall water status in the municipality:
• Status for individual sewers: evaluation based on the inspection of the environmental association (figure 11).
• Gross load phosphorus: evaluation of which areas are located in catchment areas with the highest phosphorus load to the Baltic Sea. Gross load of phosphorus from individual sewers specified in kg/km2 (figure 12).
• Gross load nitrogen: evaluation of which areas are located in catchment areas with the highest nitrogen load to the Baltic Sea. Gross load of phosphorus from individual sewers specified in kg/km2 (figure 13).
