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
Master’s Programme with specialization Ecosystem Management
1
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.
Keywords: eutrophication, sewage treatment plant, Baltic Sea, local management
2
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.
Lagstiftningen på området medför också att kommunernas utrymme för att skapa självständiga planer och strategier i denna fråga är begränsat. Den nuvarande lagstiftningen innebär att kommunen inte kan ta individuella hänsyn till vilka utsläpp och vilken skada en viss fastighet orsakar, utan urvalet av fastigheter som ska anslutas till det kommunala nätverket sker genom generella kriterier som gäller för ett större område av fastigheter. Detta leder till en orättvis fördelning av ansvar och kostnader för förorening, vilket orsakar konflikter mellan fastighetsägare och lokala myndigheter.
3
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.
4
Content
Abstract ...... 2 Sammanfattning ...... 3 Preface ...... 8 Acknowledgments ...... 8 Glossary ...... 9 Important 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 4.7.3 National Legislative acts, government agencies and the CABs ...... 42
5
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 9.3 Lack of influence from the property owners and deficient governance model – a democratic failure? ...... 80
6
10. Conclusions ...... 82 11. References ...... 83
7
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
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Björn Hassler who has tirelessly answered my questions and my E-mails throughout the writing process. His quick answers and comprehensive explanations have constituted a great support for me in this long project.
8
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 WSAP Karlshamn Municipality’s Water and Sewage Action Plan 2013-2021, WSEP Karlshamn Municipality Water and Sewage Expansion Plan 2014-2024
9
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).
Eutrophication is caused by excessive levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the water. These nutrients can enter the water through atmospheric emissions, run-off from agriculture and discharges from sewage. This can lead to excessive algal bloom which can results in oxygen depletion in the seabed, killing animals and plants. Blue-green algae is a strain of toxic algae that is
10 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).
However, there is a lack of studies on fairness and the legitimacy of the efforts made by the Swedish coastal municipalities to reduce nutrient input as a way of limiting eutrophication and fulfilling their commitment to the BSAP. In this study I have chosen to study the municipality of Karlshamn since it is a coastal municipality located in the area with the highest levels of nutrient input in the Baltic Sea among the Baltic Sea states.
11
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”.
Karlshamn´s Municipality
Figure 1. the relationship between the main objective “local management of eutrophication” and the Municipality of Karlshamn as a case study.
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?
12
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).
The reason why the eutrophication segment has been chosen for this study is that according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the issue of eutrophication is one of the major threats to the Baltic Sea environment and accordingly one of the main challenges in the BSAP (Naturvårdsverket, 2009, s. 6).
13
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
Figure 2. Map of the Baltic Sea and the coastal countries showing HELCOM’s integrated assessment of eutrophication. The green areas indicate good status and the red indicates bad status. Karlshamn’s coast falls into the dark red area (HELCOM, 2018). 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).
14
Figure 3. Mapping and valuation of ecosystem services in the sea off the coast of Blekinge. (Andersson et.al , 2019)
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.
15
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).
Figure 4. Natura 2000 areas: species and habitat directive areas (blue-green hatching (Janérus et al. 2017)
16
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 atmospheric CO2 which is vital for controlling the earth’s climate (Bristow et al. 2017). However, the
17 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.
Hypoxic conditions are generally defined as < 2mg/l dissolved oxygen which is harmful for the living organisms. The next level of this process is anoxia where the water is completely depleted of oxygen and therefore unable to support any living organisms (Lehmann et al. 2014). Anoxic conditions contribute to the release of accumulated phosphorus in the sediment, also known as “self-fertilization” (Tammeorg et al. 2017). This can lead to a self-sustaining negative loop since phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for some cyanobacteria such as Anabaena spp., Aphanizomenon sp. and Nodularia spumigena for the reason that they can fixate their own nitrogen from the air. In other words, the anoxic sea beds are in favor of the cyanobacteria relative to other phytoplankton (Svedén & Plou, 2012). Furthermore, during anoxic conditions where all oxygen is depleted, hydrogen sulphide is produced which is highly toxic for living organisms and it can lead to the elimination of entire fauna communities (Bonaglia et al. 2019).
18
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.
As one of the largest bodies of brackish water in the world the Baltic sea also has a highly sensitive ecosystem with species that have adapted to its varying content of salinity with 25ppm in Kattegat to 2ppm in the northern Gulf of Bothnia (Mårtensson, 2017). This salinity variation also affects the marine life and the relatively few species that live in the Baltic sea. Although several marine species have adapted to the unique conditions in the Baltic sea, many of the species such as the Mytilus edulis are stressed because of the unique conditions in the Baltic Sea such as the low salinity that can lead to
19 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.
BSAP is non-binding and leaves a lot of space for member states to decide on who to invite, how many consultations to undertake and how to structure them and how much the stakeholders and the public can influence the plan including its implementation (Hassler et al. 2019). The BSAP has had a significant influence on EU initiatives such as the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (Jouanneau & Raakjær, 2014).
20
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
The Swedish national commitments for reducing eutrophication in the Baltic sea have been numerous and diverse. The most important commitment of Sweden is its infrastructural upgrading of PSFs. Sweden is in the lead in this field as is already fulfilling the requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus purification in the PSFs according to EU Wastewater Directive. However, Sweden emitted about 13 percent of the total annual nitrogen to the Baltic Sea, which is the second highest amount among the nine Baltic Sea Countries. Sweden’s long coast to the sea and its many watercourses is the main reason for this high discharge (www. jordbruksverket.se , 2020).
21
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
Most of these plans for action are followed by titles such as “why” and “when” as well as cost and financial calculations for each plan. A large part of these measures is already being funded by the government or will receive funding in the future (Naturvårdsverket, 2009). There are application forms for requesting grants from government agencies such as SwAM for different water projects. e.g.
22 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”:
• Conduct testing and supervision of activities that have emissions of nutrients, including small sewers and agricultural activities, and
23
• 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).
The monitoring program consequently consists of three vertical levels: national government agencies (the SEPA and the SwAM), the CABs and the municipalities (fig. 5).
24
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 Figure 5. The vertical levels of the EMP 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).
Figure 6. Around 1,250 environmental monitoring stations in Blekinge County (Länsstyrelsen i Blekinge län, 2014).
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
25 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).
PSFs mainly take care of the wastewater from urban areas while properties in the rural areas as well as permanent or leisure households in sparsely populated areas often have their own SSTP. The main cause of eutrophication in lakes and watercourses is the emission of phosphorus from PSFs and the industry. SSTP’s emissions of phosphorus come at second place (Naturvårdsverket, 2012). However,
26 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).
Figure 7. The total emissions of nutrients and oxygen-consuming substances from PSFs in Sweden (SCB, 2020).
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).
27
Figure 8. Annual output of nitrogen distributed per source . PSFs on the right bar with light blue colour (Naturvårdsverket, 2020).
Figure 9. Annual output of phosphorus distributed per source. SSTPs marked with orange colour on the left bar (Naturvårdsverket, 2020).
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.
28
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.
According to the Environmental Code 1998:808 (EC) a fair assessment must be made in every individual case (2 kap. 7 §). This restricts the generalization and the authorities must make clear trade- offs and make separate decisions in every case. The requirements for protective measures and
29 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 exemption to this rule and the spouses Solvarm appealed against the decision to be part of an operation area and pay 194 935 SEK for the PSF connection fee. The couple stated that their SSTP at the
30
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:
“I believe that a property owner who must connect his individual sewer to the municipal network should not have to pay a connection fee to the municipality until the sewer has actually been connected to the network. This would create greater security for the individual.”
31
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).
There is also a large number of SSTPs that have reduced capacity. A deficit SSTP causes pollution of the surface water and the increased nutrients pollution in water increases the risk of eutrophication
32 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).
Ground-based facilities that have been in use for 15-20 years have an increased risk of having an impaired function and measures are needed either because of the low functionality of the plant or because the requirements have changed. According to a report from the Central Bureau of Statistics from 2012, only 13 percent of the total 535,000 ground-based plants were less than 15 years old. This means that in 2012 about 450,000 plants were older than 15 years with likely impaired function or too small when they were installed. Because the rate of action to repair/upgrade is less than the aging
33
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 The provision in 2 kap. 1 § of the EC, which addresses the general application of the code, stipulates the burden of proof which is to be applied when making assessments according to the code. It states: “…All those who carry out or intend to carry out an activity or take measures are obliged to show that
34 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).
4.6.3.2 “Shit-tax”: a proposal of cost-effective measures for SSTPs
35
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 Based on the same rationale as the described environmental tax, a fee is charged to cover the environmental and resource costs that the emission has on the recipient. The fee can either be a standard uniform annual fee per household for operating a SSTP or it can be linked to the facility’s
36 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
Currently, PSFs are mainly regulated by APWS and the main strategy imposed by this law is the expansion of PSF as a way of reducing the negative effects on the environment and human health. This regulation is giving the municipalities the responsibility to assess and decide upon operation areas which has to connect to the PSF according to the municipal criteria and time plan. The many deficient SSTPs in the country is partly a result of the current legislation and its shortcomings. The Swedish government assigned a task to the SwAM to investigate the matter and the SwAM presented a report where it presented ideas aiming to solve the problem with deficient SSTPs. However, the proposals of the SwAM has not led to any changes in legislation.
37
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 latest assessment 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).
Karlshamn Energi is an energy and WS company owned by Stadsvapnet in Karlshamn AB which is the parent company in Karlshamn Municipality company group. Consequently, Karlshamn Energi is owned by the municipality. The company delivers electricity, district heating, fiber as well as WS services through its subsidiary Karlshamn Energi Vatten AB. On the company’s website the business concept is presented as follows: “We create simple, affordable and customer-friendly solutions where
38 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.
Figure 10. Example of connection fee for a 800 Sqm plot villa and usage fee for a single-family house + other smaller facilities. (www.karlshamnenergi.se).
39
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).
• Ecological status for waters in each catchment area: whether or not the water body in each catchment area meets the EQG (figure 14).
40
Status for individual sewers
>80% failed
40-80% failed
<40% failed
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 11. The status of SSTPs in 25 districts in Karlshamn municipality
Gross load Phosphorus
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 0-2,00kg P/Km2 2,01-3,00P/Km2 3,01-7,00 P/Km2 Figure 12. Gross load of phosphorus from 25 districts in Karlshamn municipality
Gross Nitrogen load 25
20
15
10
5
0 0-9,94 kg N/km2 9,95-41,57 kg N/km2 41,58-135 kg N/km2 Figure 13. Gross load of nitrogen from 25 districts in Karlshamn municipality
41
Ecological status for waters in each
catchment area
fails EQS
partly meets EQS
meet EQS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 14. ecological status for bodies of water in total 25 districts
4.7.3 National Legislative acts, government agencies and the CABs
The main provision regarding wastewater treatment in the Environmental is the rule of consideration in 9 kap. 7 §, which takes human health and the environment into consideration:
“Wastewater must be diverted and treated or disposed of in some other way so that no inconvenience to human health or the environment arises. For this purpose, suitable drainage devices or other devices shall be constructed” (www.riksdagen.se, 1998).
In addition to the rule of consideration, the EC also contains rules regarding permit assessment, supervision and self-monitoring.
In the Ordinance on environmentally hazardous activities and health protection there are rules on permit assessment for installing or changing the SSTP and rules concerning the municipal board’s responsibility to handle matters concerning SSTP. These are regulated in 12 §–20.
APWS is the main and most important act that regulates the SSTPs and PSFs in Swedish law. This act is very much based on the former act (1970:244) on public WS systems. One of the main differences related to PSF is that in the former act, the municipality was obliged to consider only health impacts when deciding upon arranging PSF. The obligation is now extended to also include consideration of environmental protection (www.lagen.nu, 2006).
Government agencies can be commissioned by the government to carry out investigations. When the assignment is completed, the agency’s report can form the basis for the Government Offices' legislative work in a specific area (www.regeringen.se, 2014).
42
SwAM, SEPA and other government agencies have supervisory guidance responsibility regulated by the Environmental Supervision Ordinance (2011:13), (www.riksdagen.se, 2011). They provide guidance on the application of the provisions of the EC, but the guidance is not in itself binding. However, the guidance is largely based on case law from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal, which is binding.
The planning of WS is mainly regulated by APWS (www.riksdagen.se, 2006). There is no supervisory agency for this law, which is something that has been addressed in the report SOU 2018:34 regarding sustainable water services. For now, it is the CABs that have the supervisory responsibility according to APWS:
51 § “ The County Administrative Board exercises supervision over the municipality's fulfillment of the obligation pursuant to 6 § to meet the need for water services. The County Administrative Board may order the municipality to fulfill the obligation. Such an injunction may be combined with a fine” (www.riksdagen.se, 2006).
It has been proposed that the SwAM should be appointed as an advisory agency, from which the CAB can seek advice when carrying out its supervision of how the municipalities fulfill their obligation pursuant to 6 § of the APWS (Regeringskansliet, 2018). The proposal has not yet led to any changings in the law.
Other government agencies such as WISS is used by Karlshamn in its supervisory capacity, in order to make assessments regarding different areas and put demands on SSTPs. “We use a lot of the data that comes from WISS to be able to make our assessments of which watercourses and lakes need to be protected and regarding the coast, we have greater requirements” (supervisor, 2021).
Counties and municipalities are also guided by these government agencies when they assess areas to be included in operation areas. “We use a lot of the data presented by WISS to be able to make our assessments of which watercourses and lakes need to be protected” (supervisor, 2021).
4.7.4 Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst (MBV)
Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst is a joint organization for environmental and health protection in the municipalities of Karlshamn, Olofström and Sölvesborg. The organization carries out supervisory activities on behalf of the three municipalities. “Usually, each municipality has an environmental administration of their own, but since these municipalities are so small in terms of population, we have chosen to join a union and get a little more competence among the staff and that gives us the opportunity to have more employees than what is possible in a municipal setting. We are a political
43 organization and in our management, politicians from each municipality are involved and decide on what our supervision plan should look like and on our budget” (supervisor, 2021).
There are three departments in MBV and two of them work with WS questions:
• The environmental protection department: environmental and health protection inspectors work with focus on environmentally hazardous activities which includes PSFs • The health protection department: environmental and health protection inspectors handle questions regarding health protection, including SSTPs.
As a supervisory authority MBV has been engaged in in the inventory of SSTPs and the setting of demands for deficient SSTPs based on the environmental sensitivity of the area and EQS. In 2009 MBV made an inventory of SSTPs in the municipalities and between 2011–2016 it sent out mass e- mails with requirements to take measures to property owners who had SSTPs with direct discharge, unknown treatment of wastewater or deficient SSTPs.
During 2021 MBV’s ways of work changed. From the beginning of 2021 the environmental inspectors are now mapping the SSTPs in a GIS program and in the next stage they will make demands regarding deficient SSTPs based on the overall sensitivity of the area and the recipient. When they prioritize different catchment areas they take EQS , protected areas and proximity to drinking water sources into consideration (Knutsson, 2021).
4.7.5 Municipal influence of the WS planning
Regarding the PSF expansion plan, APWS gives the municipalities the responsibility and autonomy to determine the operation area (according to its own terms and criteria) and to supply that area with WS.
The fundamental article that regulates the municipality's obligation to arrange water services is found in APWS 6 § (see section 4.6.2 above).
The WS plan as such should be adopted by the City Council (Naturvårdsverket , 2014). Also, the Swedish Planning and Building Act (2010:900) has the same input in the municipality's independent planning. The provision in 1 kap. 2 § states: “It is a municipal matter to plan the use of land and water according to this law” (www.riksdagen.se, 2010).
However, as mentioned above the plans are regulated by law and this includes the WS planning that is regulated by the EC and the APWS. The individual municipalities are of course obligated to follow the provision in 1 kap. 1 § 3 in the Constitution, stating: “Public power is exercised under the laws”
44
This means that a municipality, despite its independence, has to:
• do only what the law says it can do,
• refrain from doing what is not assigned to it by law,
• execute what the law says it must do (Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten , 2015).
In regard to the expansion of PSFs, Karlshamn municipality has taken the following stance: “The municipality of Karlshamn shall operate demand-driven and continuously expand the public WS supply” (Karlshamn kommun, 2018).
In its latest WS expansion plan from 2013 (WSEP), Karlshamn municipality has assessed 25 districts where 9 areas have been evaluated as “most critical” based on an overall environmental and health assessment.
There are six priority criteria and each area are graded as high or low in relation to each of these criteria:
• if the area is within the water protection area • the overall status of the existing individual sewages in the area • ecological status of recipients • natural values in the area • the overall phosphorus discharge from individual sewages to the catchment area • the overall nitrogen discharge from individual sewages to the catchment area
After the assessment of these criteria, a decision is made for the PSF expansion for each area considering the their environmental and health aspects. For the final assessment, additional aspects apart from the environmental and health aspects are considered, e.g. natural conditions such as soil and the greater context such as how scattered the properties are and their closeness to the existing PSF (Karlshamn kommun, 2018).
The 9 areas have been divided into A and B areas and included in a 10-year expansion plan. The A- areas are to be incorporated in the PSF by 2018 and the B-areas are to be incorporated between 2018 and2024.
The WSEP also states:
“All properties within a development area must be included in the operation area and pay the connection fee”. This is in compliance with the provision in 24 § APWS.
As touched upon above, the City Council of Karlshamn decides upon the different WS fees to be charged by the municipal company Karlshamn Energi for e.g. connection and maintenance costs.
45
4.7.6 Municipal residents
Karlshamn has developed a unique model for its residents called the Karlshamn Proposal (Karlshamnsförslaget). The Karlshamn proposal is a simple model where you as a municipal resident can submit a proposal through an e-service provided on the municipality’s homepage. The proposal must concern the municipality's activities, i.e. matters that the municipality can decide upon. The proposal is then published on the web and open for voting and discussion. The proposal can be shared in different platforms such as social media. The rule is that if a proposal gets at least 75 votes under less than 90 days, it will proceed to the processing phase in the related committee. Proposals that do not reach at least 75 votes after 90 days are closed and archived but remain accessible on the municipality's website (www.karlshamn.se, 2020).
A general rule, that is not specific for inhabitants in Karlshamn but applies for everyone who is member of a municipality, is that the member can appeal against the City Council’s decision. For example, property owners who are not satisfied with a decision regarding the establishment of an operation area since they have not been included, can contact the CAB and demand it to order the municipality to include the property in the operation area. If the CAB does issue such an order, the municipality can appeal the CAB’s decision to the Land and Environment Court (www.svensktvatten.se, 2016).
Finally, a member of a municipality is of course free to use more unconventional ways when trying to influence the municipality’s activities: “The individual residents can call the municipal representatives or write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper (offical, 2021). But none of these measures are included in the regulatory system and there is of course no assurance that actions of this kind have any impact on e.g. the municipality’s planning processes.
Summary
The WS planning in Karlshamn is influenced – directly or indirectly – by various legislations, local authorities such as the CAB, government agencies and by municipal residents. The EC and the OEHA set the general framework for the protection of human health and the environment. APWS is a more concrete act that guides the municipality when planning PSFs. The role of national government agencies such as SEPA and SwAM is to provide guidance on the application of legal provisions. In other words, these authorities interpret the acts and concretize them in order to help the municipalities to apply them correctly. But their guidance is not binding and the use of the guidelines by the
46 municipalities are voluntary. The municipalities are, in fact, at the top in the decision-making power regarding the planning and designing of WS in their respective district. Municipalities may – with regard to national laws – set their own priorities and criteria for the operation area. Karlshamn municipality has done this and subsequently designed its own WS plan. The municipality can do this due to its unique independence to handle local and regional matters of general interest on the basis of municipal self-government. Municipal residents and property owners have limited influence over municipal WS planning.
5. Previous research
This section provides input from previous research related to subject of the study. It starts with a wide scope regarding studies that have discussed eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and then narrows the scope to Sweden and Blekinge county. In the end of this section, studies that have focused on Sweden’s challenges regarding PSFs and SSTPs and failure to reduce the nutrient input to the optimal level that is set by BSAP and EQGs are referred to.
The fact that we have not paid much attention to the marine environment in the Baltic Sea compared to other terrestrial resources as the forest, agriculture and minerals is due to the perception that the sea is a timeless, isolated from the society and boundless (Cederqvist et al. 2020). This has now shifted and the effects of eutrophication on the animal and plant life as well as its negative effects on ecosystem services are now evident. The difficulties in measuring the amount of nutrient emission to the sea can be challenging as well as deciding upon the amount of nutrient that should be abated for each country and region. The nutrient load must be quantified, and the method used must be consistent across countries (Gren & Destouni, 2012).
The challenges connected to SSTPs and eutrophication have sometimes been tackled by attempts to reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution in drinking water. Considering the need of nitrogen fertilizers for agricultural production and the uncertainty of where the line shall be drawn when it comes to the optimal pollution reduction, a direct environmental policy was suggested through internalizing the costs as tax on nitrogen fertilizers. These tax payments could then partly compensate the water consumers (victims) as an economic aid for their groundwater contamination treatment (Fishman et al. 2012).
Polluter pays principle (PPP) is based on the idea that the polluter whose actions and activities pollute and damage the environment and human health must pay for that damage or internalize the costs of the damage. This can be done by paying for the amount of emissions it contributes to, restoring the
47 environment that has been negatively affected or compensating the people whose health has been negatively affected.
Sweden obeys to the PPP by non-binding documents such as OECD:s recommendations and the Rio Declaration but the country is also, as an EU member state, legally bound by the principle. However, PPP is expressed sporadically and inconsistently in the EC. Even though Sweden is bound to a very high degree by the principle, the question arises whether Sweden really fulfills the obligations that follow because of this inconsistency (Carlson, 2000).
The PPP as established in 2 kap. 8 § of the EC is not very explicit, but more based on an obligation to pay for the damage that is already done. Expressed in this form the rule is considered to be vague (Tihinen, 2014). The provision is not useful when it comes to making the polluter pay for an ongoing pollution that he is liable for, e.g. a SSTP with a low degree of purification or a factory with less efficient filtering system.
The basic rule of consideration in 2 kap. 3 § of the EC can also be interpreted as an integrated part of PPP. This paragraph stipulates that those who conduct an activity must take the precautionary measures necessary to prevent, deter or counteract damage or inconvenience to human health or the environment.
In the WS context, the fact that the PSF connections are paid by the property owners through connection fee and WS tariffs can also be interpreted as the implementation of PPP as expressed in the rule of consideration. A property owner with a deficient SSTP is liable for taking preventive measures and paying to fix the problem, rather than forcing the residents of the municipality to pay for it through municipal tax (Jensen, 2019)
The use of PPP in marine environment such as the Baltic Sea can have its own distinct challenges due to the transboundary nature of the sea with many point sources as well as diffuse sources of emission that affect the common body of water.
Sweden has had an extensive regulation for nutrient pollution from agriculture and sewage with a comprehensive and holistic ecosystem approach. The municipalities in Blekinge county including Karlshamn have different focus regarding their environmental efforts, but their common focus is on reducing eutrophication and they stress the need for cooperation between themselves (Gustafsson, 2013). However, little improvement has been reported about the eutrophication problems in the Baltic Sea. This might be due to the uncertainty of a concrete management plan. So although the aim of abating eutrophication is well established on the strategic level, its realization through a regulatory management plan is unclear and weak (Nilsson, 2013).
The ineffectiveness of the Swedish regulatory system to mitigate the eutrophication can partly be a result of high monitoring and enforcement costs in combination with lack of resources at the local
48 level (Danielsson & Lundqvist, 2005). Connecting the SSTPs to the public sewage facilities is considered to be an effective way of eliminating deficient SSTPs and reduce excess nutrient pollution to water. However, the connection fee to the PSF in Sweden is a disputed subject and according to the Swedish Financial Accounting Standards Council, the connection fee should be recognized as a debt on the balance sheet if the subscriber can expect some kind of advantage in the future. Only an insignificant part of the connection fee for the public sewage system goes to the connection fee and the rest is used for investments in assets (Tagesson, 2007).
The forced connection of the properties that are located in the operation area and the obligation for a property owner to pay WS fees even though he is not connected to the PSF has been target for discussions and critique. Even though the property owners can prove that their SSTP is fulfilling the environmental quality standards for good ecological status, they can still be subject to forced connection due to the fact that special laws (the municipality's development obligation according to § 6 APWS) have precedence over general laws (environmental quality standards in the EC) (Jensen, 2019).
In the Swedish legislative context, PPP states that the person who caused the damage to the environment shall take responsibility for fixing the damage. Not as a preventive measure but when the damage is done. In many cases this scope of using PPP has not achieved satisfactory safety in repairing damage to the environment (Bengtsson, 2015). However, some damage is not that easy to identify such as air pollution and water pollution and therefore it is hard to demand responsibility from those who are causing these long-term damages. Critics mean that the current Swedish legislation related to PPP is too weak and that Sweden instead should apply PPP in its full scope as a means of preventive measures too, e.g. through environmental taxes (Yamani & Kellner, 2017).
The Swedish government has made several attempts to reduce the nutrition input in PSFs in order to comply with Sweden's international commitments in the BSAP and the EQGs. Different economic instruments have been suggested such as trade with nitrogen certificate and a water quality trade with phosphorus certificates was shown to meet most of the criteria (Naturvårdsverket , 2012).
One of the main issues that Sweden has to deal with is the old and deficient SSTPs. In 2012 there was estimated to be about 450,000 deficient SSTPs in Sweden with a growing number of 15,000/year. This is because the rate of upgrading/renewing old and deficient SSTPs is slower than the rate of SSTPs becoming impaired (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
There are many reasons why there still exist so many deficient SSTPs in Sweden. One of the reasons is that the supervisory authorities cannot force the property owners to invest in a new SSTP if the property is included in an operation area and therefore is going to be included in the PSF expansion plan. However, it can take between 5-10 years from the planned expansion of PSF until the actual connection takes place. Therefore, suitable and cost-effective SSTPs have been evaluated for this
49 specific transitional period to reduce the negative impact on the environment as well as avoiding further demands from the authorities (Håkansson, 2011).
Other reasons might depend on the lack of efficient models and tools to make effective assessments and demands. Accordingly, the local supervisory authority in Sweden lacks planning instruments specially adapted for sewage planning, as well as efficient templates to use as a decision basis. Therefore, each assessment of the individual SSTP will be unique and the authority cannot in advance determine which types of SSTPs will be approved in specific areas. The only tool the authority has is the municipal WS policies, which are not legally binding. These are meant to be used as a decision support when it comes to assessing which sewage solutions are suitable in different areas (Christensen, 2015)
6. Methods and Methodology
This section is dedicated to method and methodology in this study. The process of gathering data for the study through a “snowballing process” is addressed. It will be described why the theoretical framework used in this study was chosen. Furthermore, it will be explained how the data was analyzed and how the interviews were coded. Finally, source criticism, validity, reliability and generalization will be discussed.
6.1 The snowball process of data collection
The process of the study and gathering the data has been like a snowball process. This means that once I started to collect the initial materials and contact the municipality officials the process became “self- propelled” and my former contacts introduced me to new contacts in this field as well as other sources that are relevant to my study.
I started with studying the available documents about eutrophication related to the municipality. The data collection method was primarily focused on collecting written documents and reports from the municipality of Karlshamn. The initial keywords for searching the documents in google was “Karlshamn, kommun, övergödning, åtgärdsplan, styrdokument, översiktsplan1, BSAP etc. I also searched for scientific articles in SöderScholar for the previous research section as well as the introduction section with the keywords “eutrophication, Swedish coast, municipalities and the Baltic Sea”.
1 Karlshamn, municipality, eutrophication, action plan, steering document, comprehensive plan 50
The advantage of using written documents in this study is the open availability of official documents in Sweden supported by the constitutional law of Sweden (offentlighetsprincipen). This principle states that documents from the authorities must be available to the public, with exception for those protected by confidentiality (www.lagen.nu, 2020).
In addition to the available data online, I contacted officials at the municipality of Karlshamn by E- mail and requested additional relevant reports and documents related to the municipality’s work with eutrophication.
Through this initial contact I got in touch with the municipal ecologist who redirected me to the environmental strategist in Karlshamn municipality. The strategist sent me additional reports and relevant documents. He also confirmed that I had retrieved all the relevant documents that he was able to find on the subject. He also agreed to participate in an interview later in the process.
I also contacted Karlshamn Energi and I tried to set up an interview with one of the officials. This was due to my questions regarding the PSF connection fee and other fees related to the WS in Karlshamn. An environmental engineer at Karlshamn Energi introduced me to the environmental inspector at the supervisory authority MBV. She also agreed to participate in an interview.
She in turn suggested relevant reports from the SwAM, which are related to future tax and fee motions in order to create incentives for property owners to upgrade their sewage system. I found these reports compelling and contacted SwAM to ask further questions about them and other questions related to WS, SSTPs and PSFs.
After my initial E-mail to SwAM I got in contact with an investigator at the Environmental Assessment Unit of the SwAM. She assisted me in the complex web of legislation and regulations related to WS, SSTPs and PSFs. She also answered my questions and guided me throughout the whole study by sending useful links by E-mail. The snowballing process of the data collection is described as a flowchart in figure 15.
51
Figure 15. The snowball process of data collection
Some material related to individual sewage was also passed to me by a student who is writing on similar subjects related to individual sewages in Norrtälje municipality. I have also collected some information from anonymous sources with knowledge of local conditions and used their quotes in the discussion.
The snowball sampling and the information that was found as a result of this methodology have had significant effect on the focus of the study, the sources, and the theoretical framework used in the study. A report from SwAM, suggested by the MBV inspector, had a pivotal role. This report proposes cost-effective measures through taxes and fees as a way of distributing the costs. It also suggests that the degree of responsibility of the pollution to be taken by SSTPs should be determined on the basis of the SSTPs degree of pollution. I noted that this was something that current legislation lacked. Therefore, the idea of incorporating PPP and the Governance model seemed to fit quite good for a critical analysis of current legislation. Something that has been absent in previous research.
The contact with the environmental investigator at SwAM, and the sources provided by her related to the recent decision of the Swedish parliament in April 2021 about not forcing property owners to connect to the PSF, as well as the court cases where the property owner had contested the requirement to connect to PSF, all directed my focus on the legitimacy and fairness aspects of the current
52 legislation on PSF. Therefore legitimacy, fairness and democracy were chosen as topics to be focused on in the discussion.
6.2 Analyzing the data
The analysis began with reading each document to familiarize myself with the material and since some of the documents had extensive information about different environmental issues on land, air and sea, I chose to focus only on the issues that were directly or indirectly related to the issue of eutrophication of the sea.
In the next step I started to code relevant segments through colour marking and then categorizing them into suitable labels (keywords) that could define their core connotations.
During the process of coding, I marked different segments of text and attached one or more keywords to the text segment in order to get an overview of the textual material. This gave me an opportunity to get acquainted with the material in detail and because of the relatively large dataset it gave me a good overview of the textual context. The keywords that were attributed to the segments described the content of the material and its features in a concise way. When new segments were marked I tried to see if it could fit them into previous keywords that were already created. If not, new keywords were created and added to the list. Each keyword was marked with an explicit background colour as well as text colour. In this way each keyword could be separated from the other and new segments in the documents that fit together with previous keywords could easily be marked with the same colour combination.
When all the segments in every document were marked there were 22 distinct keywords available. In order to identify the specific nature of each document and investigate if there were similarities or possible contradictions between them, a separate table with the 22 keywords was created for each document and the number of each keyword was counted and filled in. Finally, the last table with the 22 keywords was created representing the total set of documents and the total amount of keywords for the whole set.
As the results from the initial coding with the total amount of keywords was finished, I looked for similarities among the keywords in order to combine the sets of keywords into themes. This reduction of keywords to a smaller set of focused themes was important for the study since 22 different keywords/categories are to disperse to analyze. Also, the analysis of this large number of keywords would be vague and it would be difficult to make any conclusions about them. The themes were chosen among those keywords that had scored the highest values. Those who had scored 3 or less were eliminated from the themes. The rest of the keywords were merged into themes.
53
6.3 Designing the interviews
At this stage the availability of information relevant to my research was evident through the initial coding and thematizing. The plans, strategies, challenges, advantages and the overall focus of the municipal effort to reduce eutrophication was fairly clear.
Accordingly, the interview questions were created on two bases:
1- To be able to get answers to questions that had arisen during the initial coding. These could be simple questions that were not clear in the documents and where I needed to gain more understanding of the decision or process. 2- To seek confirmation of the initial results I had found through the lens of my theoretical frameworks. Here I had already gained an understanding of e.g. how a decision-making process was carried out, who could influence this process and how the participatory processes looked like. Accordingly, I wanted to consolidate or dismiss this perception through the respondent's comments on the subject.
The first interview with the environmental inspector at Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst (MBV) was held 2021-04-25 and the interview with the environmental strategist of Karlshamn was held 2021-05- 11.
The design of the interview was semi-structured since the goal was to pose the specific questions that I considered to be crucial, but avoiding any leading questions as well as leaving a fair amount of space for the interviewee to freely answer the question. The interviews always started with more general questions e.g. how serious is the coastal eutrophication in Karlshamn municipality? or which is the largest source of eutrophication in the municipality? These initial questions were not vital since I had already found a fair amount of background information about them in the written materials, but they would be a good starting point to get into the topic, get acquainted with the interviewee and pave the way for the more important questions.
The interviews were transcribed and coded in the same way as the written material. The results of the coding were then merged into the themes that was previously formed in the results section. Some of the quotes from the interviews were also used in other parts of the study such as background since I found them to be valuable and informative for those sections.
Finally, the collected data was analyzed through the lens of the theoretical frameworks in the result and analysis section and some of the quotes were used in this section as a way of confirming and consolidating the analysis.
54
6.4 Data Sources
The following data sources and materials fulfilled the criteria that they must be related to Karlshamn municipality and directly or indirectly relate to the municipal effort to reduce coastal and sea eutrophication. The materials can be divided into two categories:
• Visionary and comprehensive documents: With a general perspective on environmental goals that are intended to be used as a guide for a more detailed plan e.g. Karlshamn’s comprehensive plan 2030 - environmental impact assessment (KCP 2030), Platform for the work with green infrastructure in Blekinge County (PGIB) and Sea plan for Blekinge county’s municipalities (SPBM) • Documents with specific guidelines and action plans These documents are more concrete with specific guidelines for water management and they can be used as steering documents for future development of the infrastructure and physical planning e.g. Guidelines for Stormwater Management in Karlshamn Municipality (GSWM), WSAP and WSEP document.
Karlshamn’s comprehensive plan 2030 – environmental impact assessment, 2015 (KCP 2030) According to Chapter 3 of the Planning and Building Act, each municipality must have an updated comprehensive plan that covers the whole municipality. The goal of the comprehensive plan and ambition is to create and guide the municipal planning towards a sustainable society including traffic solutions, densification of existing areas, mix of functions, expansion with connection to nature and good environment. The comprehensive plan reflects the vision and is a general guide of direction for the municipality. KCP 2030 also mentions that the municipality shall, according to 3 kap. 9 § of the Planning and Building Act, have consultation with its citizens, authorities and other societies at proposals and eventual changes in the comprehensive plan (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015, ss. 5-8). This document is briefly describing the relevant environmental impacts that can be expected in implementing or not implementing the plans (the zero alternative) (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015, s. 8).
Platform for the work with green infrastructure in Blekinge County, 2019 (PGIB) On behalf of the government, the CAB has produced a regional document for green infrastructure in Blekinge County. This document is meant to be a base for physical planning as well as other activities. The report gives an overall picture of the landscape, different biotopes, natural areas in land and sea as well as appropriate efforts to protect, care and restore these natural areas with the focus to protect biodiversity and promote the important ecosystem services. The main goal of the document is to
55 produce a base for land use decisions and facilitate the incorporation of ecological aspects of the natural environment and habitats in Blekinge county. Its focus is the sea, grasslands, forests and streams. PGIB should be seen as a first step towards an action plan (Andersson et al., 2019, ss. 6-10).
Sea plan for Blekinge county’s municipalities 2018 (SPBM) The sea plan is a common plan between Sölvesborg, Karlshamn, Ronneby and Karlskrona municipalities. This document constitutes a change in the decided verdicts related to the sea area plan and it is used in the comprehensive plan of each of the four municipalities. The plan contains recommendations for the long-term use of the sea area, and it aims to ensure sustainable use of the common resources. The geographic limitation for the common municipal sea plan is 300 meters from land and islands to the territorial sea (figure 16). The purpose of the common municipal sea plan is to state the will of direction of the municipalities regarding the water use within the planning area and to increase the predictability of the actors who intended to conduct operation at sea.
The sectoral interests addressed in the plan are cultural environment, outdoor life and tourism, professional fishing, aquaculture, extraction and storage of materials, aviation and shipping, infrastructure, defense, energy and nature.
Figure 16. The geographic limit of the sea plan (Janérus et al., 2019)
The common municipal sea plan shall conform to and be guided by the national sea plan, balance between different interests, provide spatial conditions for use and preservation.
Guidelines for Stormwater Management in Karlshamn Municipality, 2020 (GSWM) This steering document with its guidelines is one of the most ambitious attempts of Karlshamn to manage stormwater (rain and meltwater) from the hard surfaces such as roofs, parking spaces and paving. Since stormwater will eventually end in streams and reach the Baltic coast, the cleaning of the
56 stormwater from pollutants and nutrients will have a significant effect on the water quality and eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Unlike other documents with non-binding, visionary or loose recommendatory character, this steering document is meant to provide clear and firm guidelines for all physical planning. Its aim is to merge the idea/goal of the stormwater with the actual stormwater management and that all actors have to recognize their own and other actors responsibility in the stormwater management process (Karlshamns Kommun , 2020, s. 3). The most effective tool used in this steering document is that it obligates the municipality to add the stormwater management plan into the detailed plan. The detailed plan is a legally binding requirement according to the Swedish Planning and Building Act. The detailed plan is meant to assess the suitability of the land-use for the intended purpose and enable the participation of the concerned actors/stakeholders (www.boverket.se, 2019). The main guiding principle in the municipality’s document is the PPP, which is based on the principle that the responsibility for financing of the stormwater management is on the polluter/the actor causing the load whether it is the municipality, property owners or private exploiters. The document suggests different methods to delay, divert and purify the stormwater before it reaches its recipient.
Karlshamn Municipality WS Action Plan 2013–2021, (WSAP) The action plan is a plan for WS in already existing public and private WS facilities. This document is based on two parts. One is the Water and Sewage (WS) overview that was produced in 2012. The WS overview describes Karlshamn’s current situation, needs and challenges regarding WS. The other document is he WS policy which explains the municipality’s endeavor. The first and main endeavor is explained as follows: “The Municipality of Karlshamn shall contribute to good status in the sea, lakes and streams and work for safe WS systems that provide high quality deliveries to people and the environment” (www.karlshamn.se, 2020, s. 1). The action plan is basically a long chart of the necessary measures that need to be taken to comply with current legislation, its effects, the responsible authority, and a time schedule for each action.
Karlshamn Municipality WS Expansion Plan 2014–2024 (WSEP) The expansion plan is a strategy for the expansion of the municipal PSF and the possibility of SSTPs to connect to the PSF. In order to evaluate different areas for the expansion plan, a major assessment was made for each area in Karlshamn municipality focusing on six health and environmental criterions. This assessment was made with consultation between the environmental association, the CAB and the WS unit. The assessed criterions were: Proximity to the water protection area, status for private sewage, ecological status for the recipient, impact of natural values, phosphorus load and nitrogen load. A grade between 1-3 was given for each priority where 1 was a low priority basis and 3 was high. The six environmental criterions had an equal value among themselves with equal prioritization.
57
For the final assessment to decide if there is a need for PSF, natural condition for SSTP and “wider context” is also considered. Wider context is not defined properly but the reasoning has been around how many houses there are in the area and how close they are to a PSF.
The relatively unsatisfactory state of these criteria shed light on the urgent need for action in order to improve and develop the WS system.
Waste plan for Karlshamn, Olofström and Sölvesborg Municipalities 2018 (WP-2018) The waste plan is a strategic document for the municipalities of Karlshamn, Sölvesborg and Olofström and how they should work with their waste management through their jointly owned waste company Västblekinge AB until 2025. The document is anchored in the Swedish EC, where it is stated that “every municipality shall have a valid waste plan”. Each municipality will then through the City council decide upon the overall and measurable goals that are to be reached until 2025. The document has the EU waste hierarchy as a basis, but it also has its own specific focus. Its goals is to increase knowledge about waste issues and create commitment, prevent the creation of waste through better resource management, sorting and recycling materials and reducing litter. Even though the waste plan is focused on reducing litter and microplastics in the sea, a more effective waste management will inevitably have an indirect positive effect for reduction of nutrient pollution in the Baltic Sea and limit eutrophication. To achieve the overall goals, sub-goals and practical and concrete activities have been developed and so that every citizen can be engaged at the grassroot level.
No eutrophication 2019 (NE2019) No eutrophication is a summary from every county in Sweden and their work towards the environmental quality goal “no eutrophication”. In this report a summary of regional and municipal measures is reported as well as the question of whether the environmental quality goal is within reach. This report is a good way of getting a fast overview of each county and their efforts in limiting eutrophication.
6.5 Criticism of the sources
The sources used in this study is the data that I was able to find through searching on the web, searching Karlshamn municipal homepage and through requesting additional documents through my contact with the environmental strategist of Karlshamn municipality. The environmental strategist has searched for every document related to the work with eutrophication. There is of course a possibility that there are other documents that are related to the municipal work towards limiting eutrophication and including them might have shed light on other perspectives than the ones presented in this study.
58
Also, there might be other documents and reports related to the preparatory work to produce the action plans such as WSAP that might give answers to the questions raised in this study. The WSEP plan used in this study is the latest municipal WS expansion plan but it dates back to 2013 and therefore it can be considered as “outdated”. The new WSEP plan is going to be produced and launched in the beginning of 2022 according to the municipal environmental strategist and the access to the new plan and its preparatory documents might have altered the results in this study. However, these are the latest available documents and therefore the analysis have been focused on them even though they might change in the near future.
6.6 Validity, reliability and generalization
To increase the validity of this study I have used every available document that I could access, and the selected data material is only and specifically related to the municipality’s work towards limiting of coastal eutrophication and the Baltic Sea in general. Other data that did not directly or indirectly relate to this issue was excluded from the material. The documents related to the municipal environmental work and the results of several of these examined documents are consistent with each other regarding the issue of eutrophication as well and the challenges and uncertainties and future prospects. Even though all available material might not be exhausted, there is a high probability that I have managed to find the core themes that represent the majority of the documents, including those not found and used in this specific study.
For the sake of reliability, I have tried to maintain a natural standpoint in the issue of eutrophication and even though “challenges and uncertainties” was anticipated in the material I kept an open mind to contradictions and other positions that went against my previous views on the issue. The fact that a list of 22 keywords was found during the initial coding confirms that there was no focus on specific themes from the beginning and that there was an openness toward new and diverse aspects when the material was coded.
The questions in the interviews were semi-structured and no leading questions were asked. This gave the interviewees the possibility to express their position about the municipal efforts related to eutrophication without being directed by the interviewer’s preconceptions. However, the analysis of the material is based on the theoretical framework of PPP and Governance Theory (model) and as such every result is unique based on the theoretical framework used in each individual study. Furthermore, the results and analysis are highly dependent on the researcher’s background, political/ideological standpoint, environmental knowledge, main focus etc. Having said that, if we are to measure the reliability of this study by measuring the extent to which future studies on the same subject will arrive at the same result, we should not expect full coherence (reliability). Nevertheless, the unique and
59 partly dissimilar results of each researcher conducting a qualitative study are still valuable since they contribute to the knowledgebase by adding small pieces of puzzle which will make the big picture clearer.
When it comes to generalization, this case study has been focused on understanding patterns of advantages, obstacles and challenges of environmental efforts towards limiting eutrophication in one of the Swedish coastal municipalities. Accordingly, the WS expansion plan that has been one of the main objectives in Karlshamn’s municipal WS plan as a way of reducing nutrient pollution to water is highly regulated by the national legislations such as APWS and the EC. Even though there is no legally binding requirement to have a WS plan, there are indirect requirements established in the EC, the Water Services Act and the Planning and Building Act, which means that the municipality needs to have some form of functioning WS planning (Johansson, 2012). Since all municipal WS plans in the country are highly controlled by these national legislations, the results from Karlshamn’s case study is expected to be applicable to a moderate degree in other Swedish coastal municipalities with relatively same size and population density.
7. Theoretical framework
The theoretical frameworks in this study is used as a tool to analyze and interpret the results and to get a better understanding of the themes derived from the analysis. The theories were chosen and matched in a later stage of the thesis after the primary results became evident and the pattern in the themes started to appear. They are based on earlier established theories and will give the necessary analytical framework to answer the research questions and explain the outcome in a reasonable and comprehensible way.
7.1 Governance Theory
The term governance has various meanings and is used in various ways in the literature but the common denominator is a shift from the conventional government as a focused and coercive institution that has monopoly over the state affairs and operates at the national state level to a more inclusive form of ruling with collective action. In other words, governance is a style of order that is not externally imposed. It is rather a result of interactions between the public and private sectors as well as a variety of governing influenced by various actors. Governance is somewhat a shift from hierarchical to network based forms of decision-making where the boundaries between public and private actors are dispersed (Sundström & Jacobsson, 2007). Today governance is a cornerstone of democracy in
60 democratic countries such as Sweden where different actors, organizations, societies and coalitions can affect decision-making process (Stoker, 2018).
7.1.1 Policy instruments in governance
Policy instruments are an integral part of governance and they are developed by the government to implement their policies and influence the behaviors of business, corporations and humans. There are mainly four categories of policy instruments used in governance (Bouwma et al., 2012).
• Legislative and regulatory • Economic/fiscal • Informative and communication based • Agreement based and co-operative
7.1.1.1 The legislative and regulatory instruments
The legislative and regulatory instruments are highest up in the hierarchy of governance and it can contain a broad variety of laws and regulations. These legislative acts can either be prohibitive where non-compliance will result in sanctions, or they can be prescriptive e.g. require certain behavior/action. The EU approach in the environmental policy has mainly been based on legislative and regulatory instruments. When it comes to environmental policy the legislative and regulatory instrument can be advantageous as it enforces the operator/stakeholder to comply irrespectively of their consensus on the matter. Therefore, it can set a baseline for the environmental standard. As such the legislation is equal to all. The main disadvantage of the legislative/regulatory instrument is that it has a limited ability to cope with complex and dynamic situations where each stakeholder/operator has a unique set of prerequisites which is impossible for the law to take into account.
7.1.1.2 Economic and fiscal instruments
The other important governance instrument is the economic and fiscal instrument. This involves subsidies, taxes, loans, fees etc. Since the mode of governance is mainly market based, the economic instrument has primarily a voluntary character and encourages and rewards certain behavior as well as discourages unwanted ones. In other words, rather than fine and sanctions it encourages preventive behavior (carrots instead of sticks). The main disadvantages of this instrument is the high costs
61 associated with subsidies and the competition between actors/stakeholders for the funds can distort the main goal which is environmental goals (Bouwma et al., 2012).
7.1.1.3 Informative and communication based
The informative and communication-based instruments are like the reports produced by the government agencies such as the environmental authorities. They can produce reports on behalf of the government and suggest important measures which can lead to proposals and voting in the parliament. Information instruments comprise an important part of the governance model since knowledge and expertise from different agencies, institutions, organizations and locals can be incorporated into the final decision making. The information- and communication-based instruments are the essence of the governance model where the former rigid and hierarchical government model opens up for a more inclusive and deliberate model of governance.
7.1.1.4 Agreement-Based or cooperative instruments
These are voluntarily instruments used when there is a shared agenda where both public and private actors are involved. These instruments are suitable when there is a shared resource among multiple actors which gives rise to a complex situation. Actors that are excluded from the agreement tend to oppose the instrument. The disadvantage of this instrument is that in contrary to the legislative and regulatory instruments, this instrument has a low degree of coerciveness(Bouwma et al. 2012). Voluntary agreements in the environmental field is mainly an agreement between a government authority and a private party/parties in order to reach and environmental objective beyond the legislative obligations. These instruments are gaining increasing popularity especially among those that are directly affected by a decision and are mostly used when other instruments face opposition and conflict (Burger et al. 2018).
7.2 Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)
PPP is a powerful concept that provides legal and moral imperative to mitigate negative pollution and it is one of the main principles to guide sustainable development. PPP is one of the economic/fiscal instruments used in governance to promote certain behavior by creating incentives for the stakeholder to prevent/reduce its pollution/emissions. Its main goal is to create incentives and
62 encourage certain behavior i.e. the rational use and improved allocation of scarce environmental resources (Barresi, 2020).
The principle is straightforward, and it states that the polluter must pay for the costs of the pollution that causes damage to the environment and human health.
In economic terms, if there is a cost to the emitted pollution, the polluter is encouraged to limit the pollution in order to pay less. This reduction of pollution will continue until the costs of reducing the pollution are as high as the costs of paying for the damage. Here we will reach an equilibrium between these two and a pollution reduction as a result.
PPP in its modern form is derived from economic theory. Pigou was one of the first authors that draw attention to the fact that product prices do not cover cost of pollution and resource exploitation (Steenge, 1997). He concludes that in order to avoid distortion and inefficient economic choices and to obtain “true” prices, the external costs should be internalized. Applied in the environmental field it means that the polluter must absorb the external costs (externalities) of his activities that lead to pollution/damage of the environment. Therefore, the external costs shall not be passed to the public or the state (Adshead, 2018). Internalizing all costs also includes eventual damages and injuries caused to the environment and humans by restoration and compensation (Barresi, 2020).
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its recommendation from 1972 is known to be the origin of the PPP concept (Carlson, 2000, s. 8). Over the years PPP has turned into a cornerstone for EU’s environmental policy and nowadays the PPP is referred to in many EU directives related to costs, liability and compensatory measures related to negative environmental impacts (Lindhout & Broek, 2014). Most of the contemporary regulations of pollutions affecting land, air and water worldwide and specifically in the EU are underpinned by PPP (www.lse.ac.uk, 2018). The costs may be covered in the forms of taxes, fines and quota-based systems such as cap-and-trade, but it could also entail cleaning up and restoring the affected area as well as paying for the health costs of the affected persons. The Third Environmental Action Program made it clear that PPP is intended to be used as an incentive to reduce pollution and encourage innovative action to produce less polluting products and technologies (Lindhout & Broek, 2014).
However, when it comes to the application of PPP in practice different types of problems and complexities emerge. The main issue with PPP is when we try to address multi-party causation, in other words, there is no easy way of identifying the polluter when the pollution is caused by a multitude of polluters. This issue gets even more complex when addressing international environmental issues such as water and air pollution. These issues require a joint effort on all levels from governments to polluters (Lindhout & Broek, 2014).
63
In 1972 the OECD set a minimalist benchmark for defining PPP and the formulation at that time had many shortcomings as it recognized the justification of different environmental policies in different states justified by different social objectives and priorities, degrees of industrialization, population density , costs etc. Furthermore, no particular environmental quality was desired, and no control measures nor pollution prevention was required.
The Rio declaration in 1992 was the counterpart of the minimalist conception as the maximalist one. Here the requirements of costs for pollution-controlled measures was not limited and it proclaimed that government agencies should promote the internalization of all costs with the use of economic instruments. Any definition of PPP that falls within these two conceptual space (between the minimalist and maximalist) is qualified as a legitimate definition (Barresi, 2020). In this sense different countries have formed their own definitions and they use PPP as it fits them best.
The inadequacy of PPP involves both the difficulties of measuring the individual impact from individual sources of discharge as well as the preventive mechanism it has on competitiveness. As an example, Sweden had a tax on fertilizer until 2010 which imposed about 300 million SEK on the agricultural sector and was a policy instrument to limit eutrophication consistent with PPP. However, since the tax hindered the competitiveness of the Swedish agricultural sector among other taxes such as tax increases on diesel, it was removed (Naturvårdsverket , 2012).
Generally speaking, within the simplest cases, the implementation of PPP can be difficult. There might be simple reasons such as the polluter might not be able to pay but also more complex ones where the pollution comes from diffuse sources and attributing responsibility is difficult. PPP does not recognize depletion of natural resources as a part of the negative environmental impact even though these impacts consist of both pollution and depletion (Lindhout & Broek, 2014).
Other issues related to the PPP is the problem with its interpretation, such as what is an externality and how to define its costs. What control measures is the polluter accountable for? Should the costs include preventive costs, damage costs or both? What norms should guide us? Should the polluter pay for the pollution that is below the compatible level of the environment to absorb it? What if the polluter cannot pay and if the principle leads to unemployment and the shutdown of strategic important factories and industry? These are some of the questions associated with the principle (Steenge, 1997).
PPP in the Swedish legislation is described in 2 kap. 8 § of the EC. “Everyone who conducts or has conducted an activity or taken a measure that has caused damage or inconvenience to the environment is responsible, until the damage or inconvenience has ceased, to fix the damage or inconvenience to the extent that can be considered reasonable according to chapter 10. To the extent provided for in this Code, an obligation to compensate for the damage or inconvenience may arise instead”.
64
The Swedish legislative implementation of PPP is not about creating incentives to reduce the pollution or the damage. Instead, it applies when the damage has already occurred. Consequently, the one who is responsible for the damage has to fix the damage or inconvenience until it has ceased. Furthermore, PPP only applies to damage or inconvenience to the environment and not to human health (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2020a).
An example of a proposal to include PPP in the regulatory system is found in the report from SwAM in 2013 decribed in section 4.6.2.2, where the authority suggested a fee and tax system for SSTPs in order to create incentives for property owners to pay in accordance with the WFD (2000/60/EG). “Cost recovery for environmental and resource costs shall be taken into account in accordance with the polluter pays principle” (Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, 2013).
Principally, the OECD is against any subventions related to PPP and it considers subsidies to be against the principle. This is because subsidies are considered to distort international trade and investment. However, the OECD states that there may be reasons for exceptions to this principle. One of the reasons is if the implications of the guidelines can be facilitated if the polluter gets economic support. The economic support (subsidy) can be compatible with the principle if the support is given in a transitional period and predetermined time. Furthermore, the subvention can be given if the environmental requirements threatens national or regional social and economic goals and hinders its development. The support shall only be provided in a limited and necessary timeframe (Carlson, 2000, ss. 10-11).
Related to the theoretical concept of PPP, I have investigated if the distribution of costs and the responsibility of the pollution are associated with the actual polluter and the degree of damage he causes to the environment and human health.
8. Result & Analysis
In this chapter results from the initial coding are shown. Furthermore, different themes that have been formed throughout the analysis will be presented. These themes have been created by bundling together a number of equivalent keywords that have been dominant in the written material. The themes have been named according to the common denominator in each group. The themes are presented in a numeric sequence where the first theme is the most common followed by the second most common and lastly the third most common theme. Furthermore, the themes will be analyzed through the lens of the two theoretical frameworks used in this study. In addition to the textual materials referred to in these three themes, some quotes from the interviews have been used to strengthen the core of the thematic content.
65
8.1 Initial coding results from the documents related to Karlshamn
The result from the coding of the total set of documents shows that uncertainty/big challenge is the keyword with its 20 hits, which is the highest number of keywords found in the written material. This was followed by the keyword “resignation/discouragement” and “collaboration between actors is crucial” who scored 13 each etcetera. Accordingly, a diagram was made with the total keywords in figure 17 to get an overview of the total results. The three themes derived from the bundling together (funneling) of the most dominant keywords are presented in the following sections.
TOTAL RESULTS FROM INTIAL CODING
20
13 13 10 10 10 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Figure 17. Linear diagram for the initial coding results showing the total number of each keyword from all documents
8.2 Theme 1: Challenges and uncertainties
Challenges and uncertainties in relation to limiting eutrophication is the most extensive and substantial common thread among the themes extracted from the initial coding in the documents and the interviews. This was discovered as the tables with keywords associated with each individual document were studied as well as when the coding of the interviews was finished, and a frequent pattern of challenge and uncertainty was found. The comparison of the keywords of each document shows that challenges and uncertainties have been the single common thread in all the materials (except one).
66
These challenges and uncertainties can be divided into two categories:
- Challenges and uncertainties related to the complexity of eutrophication in general - Challenges and uncertainties related to the practical work of limiting eutrophication
8.2.1. Challenges and uncertainties related to the complexity of eutrophication in general
When it comes to the challenges and uncertainties related to the issue of eutrophication in general, there is an attitude of resignation that is sometimes justified by the transboundary nature of eutrophication such as shared body of water by different countries as well as lack of knowledge base for marine environment, the challenge to benefit both terrestrial and marine environment or simply that the problem is “to large to be handled locally as the sources are partly outside the planning area” (Janérus et al. 2019). Climate change and the rising temperature of the sea is another factor that has been mentioned which can have positive effects on algal bloom and eutrophication as well as uncertain future effects. KCP 2030 states: “Effects of the climate change give unpredictable changes to our environment and probably not least nature areas with high values” (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015). In relation to the municipal coastal water it states: “There is also uncertainty about the effects of old sins and future climate change… Climate change will probably affect current symptoms from an ocean that is not feeling well.” (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015).
8.2.2 Challenges and uncertainties related to the practical work of limiting eutrophication in Karlshamn
One of the challenges in Blekinge county and Karlshamn is that in some areas developing/infrastructural interest and goals overlap with national interests in nature conservation and/or Natura 2000 protected areas, e.g. the increasing need for dredging as a prerequisite for shipping activities when quays are expanded and the need to lay up dredged material in the highly sensitive natura 2000 areas. The negative consequences of dredging are that nutrients from the sediments are dispersed which can increase eutrophication and have an overall negative impact on the local environment (Janérus et al. 2019).
Other local challenges that have been mentioned in the written documents are to a large extent related to the WS issue and more specifically to SSTPs and PSFs which will be explained below.
67
One of the challenges according to the environmental inspector at MBV is to consider the principle of a fair assessment when making demands on SSTPs. According to 2 kap. 7 § of the EC, authorities must assess individual cases and avoid generalization in their assessments. In practical terms this restricts the municipality and its supervisory authority to put demands on an individual property owner to upgrade or change his SSTP if the property is included in an operation area and thus the investment in a renewed SSTP risks becoming “useless” when the property connects to a PSF in the coming 5-20 years.
“We have waited with demands for measures (related to upgrading of SSTP). It is a fair assessment that we must carry out when we make decisions on bans” (supervisor, 2021). If the authority put demands on the property owner, the property owner can later claim compensation for the costs after the connection. The results are however a high amount of unrepaired deficit SSTPs that is polluting the bodies of water and the sea under a long period of time while waiting for the PSF connection. This is a great dilemma and challenge for the municipality, and it has not been solved to this day.
The greatest cost related to a deficient SSTP under a long period of time is paid by the environment and the humans (health issues) in that area – not by the property owner. The reason is that the effects of nutrient pollution is spread to the surrounding soil and water and the one who pays the lowest cost from not having to fix the SSTP is the property owner. This is a clear example of how the regulations related to PSF and SSTP are disconnected from PPP, creating loopholes for the property owner to elude paying for his actual pollution and damage to the environment and to human health.
Challenges related to the high cost of expanding the PSF and its related fees are also noteworthy. WSEP states that there is a constant and costly investment for replacing/fixing the SSTPs. On the other hand, the connection and maintenance fees of PSF are also high, which constitutes a risk that fewer people will join the PSF (Karlshamn kommun, 2018). According to the municipal environmental strategist, some areas that have been designated as operation areas may become downgraded after many years due to the high cost and a new expansion plan.
“An area may have been included in the PSF expansion plan but in the worst-case scenario this area could be downgraded and excluded from the operation area in the new expansion plan. The consequence will be that the property owners (with deficit SSTPs) have waited for the connection in vain for about 10 years… These areas could be the areas that will be very costly to connect to a PSF, they are far away, it is quite sparse between the houses and it is difficult terrain and mountains that have to be blasted. We do not want it to be downgraded, but we leave a proposal to the politicians and then they have to make a decision” (offical, 2021).
The high cost to connect a house is a big challenge for the property owner and since the WS is exclusively based on the self-cost principle, it can sometimes be solved with a special fee (särtaxa) payed by the property owner.
68
“In some cases where the cost for expansion is too high we can decide upon a special fee but that can be around 1 million SEK in connection fee which is unreasonably high for a property that is situated in a distant area and the property itself may not even be worth that much” (offical, 2021).
Even if the high costs can be challenging for the individual property owners, out in the archipelago there are no better alternatives than connecting to a PSF, due to the rocky foundation which makes it impossible to install an SSTP with effective infiltration system. “There is almost only bedrock on those islands so there is hardly any possibility of infiltration” (offical, 2021).
Although the PSF is regarded as a better alternative than the SSTPs when it comes to the purification level, there are big challenges and infrastructural deficiencies in the pipeline networks that can put great pressure on both the pipeline and the treatment plants. “There are cracks and joints where the rainwater flows in. After all, there is a maintenance need for the supply network throughout the country. The maintenance of the pipeline network lags throughout the whole country… It is a problem when water leaks into the pipe network when it rains which causes too high flows at certain times. At those times we “widen” by letting the water out in a controlled form past a pumping station somewhere else instead of letting all the water reach the treatment plant because then there is a risk of rinsing out all the sludge that is in the basins in the treatment plants and this would have greater negative consequences for the Baltic Sea” (offical, 2021). Furthermore, the increased populations in the municipality as well as increased precipitation due to climate change will drive the PSF to its maximum limit of capacity in the future. “As the municipality (Karlshamn) wants to increase in population, it wants to reach up to 50,000 inhabitants, it is not clear when there will be so many, but then the existing treatment plants will certainly not be enough. They must be rebuilt or replaced” (offical, 2021).
The municipal cost for conducting supervision of the SSTPs are another example of the unfair share of cost and the disconnection of PPP in the relevant legislation. Through conducting supervision, the burden of costs is put on the authorities instead of the property owner who is the polluter. Since the current regulations with the reverse burden of proof doesn’t create any incentives for the property owner to conduct self-monitoring and fix the deficient SSTPs, it is the supervisory authorities that has to detect the faulty SSTP either through general inventory or as a result of complaints. As a consequence of this mode of procedure, the current legislation has failed to implement the PPP.
From a governance model perspective, the reverse burden of proof has decoupled the local authorities from the involvement and control of the SSTP after the property owner has received its initial permission to install it. Thus the property owner is left as the sole actor to monitor and fix the SSTP in the future with minimal interference from the authorities.
69
8.3 Theme 2: Confident
The confident approach is defined by various confident and concrete measures and action plans to limit eutrophication. In contrast to the challenging approach, this theme uses the tools and resources needed to limit eutrophication when applying the current legislation. Some of the measures and plans have an involuntary character that forces the property owners to comply with certain measures regardless of their responsibility for the pollution and environmental damage.
A common thread in most of the documents with the confident approach is the necessity of collaboration between municipalities, government agencies and individuals. “To work successfully with green infrastructure, good cooperation between the landscapes' various actors is a basic prerequisite”, “Collaboration needs to be improved both internally at the CAB and externally with other authorities and actors” (Andersson et al., 2019).
Steering documents, such as the stormwater management plan, are documents with a confident approach that is meant to provide clear and firm guidelines for all physical planning. Since the document on stormwater management provides various solutions for urban and rural areas as how to manage the stormwater in the most effective and environmentally friendly way, it can guide the operator/landowner through different concrete solutions that fit them. It is also legally binding since the stormwater management should be incorporated in the detailed plan and therefore leaves no space for inaction.
In the same document the PPP is mentioned as the main tool used which is also an effective incentive to reduce water borne pollution. Furthermore, this steering document emphasizes the importance of collaboration between stakeholders. “Several of the municipality's units, together with property owners and operators, have joint responsibility for stormwater management. Cooperation is required between everyone involved for stormwater management to work as good as possible” (Karlshamns Kommun , 2020).
Another document that can be classified as the confident approach is WSEP. As a part of the confident approach, the WSEP and its PSF expansion plan can be regarded as the main tool for the municipality to reduce nutrient, especially phosphorus pollution to water and therefore limit eutrophication. It is a tangible strategy to reduce the municipal nutrient input to the Baltic Sea by replacing deficient SSTPs with a PSF with a high standard of purification within a 10-year plan.
However, the way Karlshamn municipality is assessing different districts to be included in the operation area is not anchored in PPP since the WSEP way of choosing operation areas is based on six priority criteria that are related to the district’s overall environmental status, such as the overall
70 phosphorus and nitrogen input from that district (Karlshamn kommun, 2018). This assessment model hides the individual property owners' emissions and the damage they are liable for.
Consequently, in WSEP the use of agreement-based or cooperative instruments as described in governance policy instruments are missing. Therefore, the cooperation between the municipality and property owners in the decision-making process is lost and the coverage of costs of pollution is disconnected from PPP. An example of this disconnectedness is the property-owners who have recently acquired high quality and fully functional SSTPs with minimal emission that are forced to connect to the PSF “We have an area that we have discussed now which is on the coast with many summer houses with a lot of bad sewage systems, but there are also those who quite recently invested in a completely new sewer system. But according to this legislation, it does not matter. If the area becomes an operation area, they will also be forced to connect to the PSF or at least pay for the connection” (offical, 2021).
From a governance model perspective, the municipal WS planning is only guided by legislative and regulatory instruments used as the main policy instruments in the governance model. Furthermore, economic instruments as well as agreement-based and cooperative instruments are absent.
When it comes to agreement-based or cooperative instruments that is implied by participation, engagement and interactions between the public and private sector which is the signature of the governance model in its decision making process, it can be concluded that the municipal WS plan is directly influenced by the municipality and its criteria which are in turn influenced by the legislative acts and (voluntary) guidance by government agencies as well as the supervisory agency MBV.
In this case, the collaboration and input from private actors and stakeholders such as the property owners are totally missing (figure 18). When it comes to operation area, there is no obligation for the municipality to consult the concerned property owners. The only obligation that the authority or principle has is to inform authorities, property owners and others and make sure that they have the opportunity to easily find information about the plans (Svenskt Vatten , 2016).
71
Figure 18. Governance flowchart for the municipal PSF planning
This way of governance with the exclusion of private actors that are an integral part of the governance model, is more akin to the conventional government where the municipality has the last say with minimal involvement of other actors.
WSEP is the only document where cooperation/collaboration is not mentioned. Instead, parts with a more authoritarian and exclusionary tone can be identified. “The WS fee, especially the connection fee, must be increased”, “Property owners are forced to pay a connection fee and basic fees, but do not have to subsequently connect to the public water supply and sewage system”, “The supervisory authority has the opportunity to force property owners to join a public water supply and sewage system if they cannot solve their wastewater treatment in a better way” (Karlshamn kommun, 2018).
WSEP is only using the legislative and regulatory instruments in the governance model. The plan uses the provisions of APWS and other provisions related to PSFs and SSTPs as a legislative instrument to force the property owner to comply with the decisions related to the operation areas, irrespectively of their consensus on the matter. “To be included in an operation area can imply a very high cost for the individual property owner… If he unexpectedly becomes obligated to pay 80,000-
72
200,000 SEK in connection fee when he personally considers himself to have a well-functioning SSTP (offical, 2021).
8.4 Theme 3: Ambiguous and diluted
Throughout the documents an ambiguous and diluted approach can be identified. For example, it is expressed that “work is underway that will reduce or impact coastal areas and some additional planning is underway for new activities”, and claimed that “major efforts to reduce the nutrient pollution is in process” (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015). Without a more specific description, the statements don’t provide much insight to the reader and they can instead be perceived as “fluff”. In another document it is suggested that “significantly more powerful measures and instruments are needed on international and national level to reach the eutrophication goal “ which can also be perceived as self-evident but rather unclear and ambiguous (Andersson et al., 2019). Furthermore, some of the information has a visionary character such as “The municipality of Karlshamn must contribute to good status in seas, lakes and watercourses” (Karlshamn kommun, 2018). Claims such as “Blekinge's coastal and offshore waters generally have a good chemical surface water status and a potentially good ecological status for 2021” (Janérus et al. 2019) are also ambiguous and misleading since other reports point to the fact that eutrophication is a major problem for Blekinge’s coastal area without any positive prospects in the near future.
Some documents “blame” the failure of reaching the EQG “no eutrophication” on different factors without further specification. The PGIB report states: “Despite the fact that environmental work has been successful in many areas, its current instruments and measures are not sufficient. None of the environmental goals established on the regional level will be reached by 2020. For Fresh Air, the development of the environment is positive. For other goals, the development is doomed to be neutral or negative” (Andersson et al., 2019).
In the document KCP 2030, the failure to reach EQG is blamed on the lack of clear guidelines, instruments and the insufficient environmental effort (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015) and the WSEP document is pointing toward the lack of a systematic working method for water management (Karlshamn kommun, 2018).
KCP 2030 states: “Neither the execution nor the zero alternative will have significant effect on eutrophication of the bodies of water or the coastal areas” (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015). These statements can be perceived as ambiguous and diluted since they do not further specify the cause of their failures other than to describe them in broad terms, e.g. “lack of a systematic working method, insufficient current instruments and measures”. Moreover, they do not make further suggestions for the instruments and strategies required to achieve the goals.
73
Summary
The initial coding revealed a variety of keywords that was present throughout the written materials and the transcription of the interviews. However, a reoccurring pattern was discovered when comparing the table of keywords of each individual document. The most dominant keywords were picked and “funneled” so that three distinctive themes were created, representing three groups of similar keywords with the highest scores (figure 19). These themes were then analyzed through the lens of PPP and the governance model, in order to create meaning and new and critical interpretations that have been lacking in previous studies.
Figure 19. “Funneling” the themes from the keywords with the highest score
9. Discussion
The initial objective of this study was to investigate how the complex issue of reducing eutrophication is perceived and managed at the local level in a way that can be perceived as legit and
74 fair. Karlshamn was chosen as the case study in order to fulfil this objective. Public documents related to eutrophication in Karlshamn and Blekinge county was attained and studied and interviews were conducted with a environmental inspector at MBV and the municipal environmental strategist. As the research progressed, the focus of the study shifted to the municipal WS and the related issues of SSTPs as well as the municipal PSF expansion plan, which turned out to be the foremost important municipal plan to limit eutrophication. Hence, the two latter research questions related to the presence and application of PPP and the governance model in WS plans were derived from this understanding. In this part I will discuss the main findings of this study in a wider context.
9.1 Challenge and uncertainty – anticipated common thread in the documents
The fact that neither the BSAP’s goal “good environmental status of the Baltic Sea by 2021” nor the EQG “no eutrophication” have been reached, manifests the challenging and complexity of dealing with the issue of eutrophication. There is no doubt that HELCOM that shaped the BSAP and its goals as well as the Swedish government, government agencies such as SEPA and SwAM, county administrative boards and municipalities that have worked towards the EQG “no eutrophication” with investigations, steering documents, action programs – they all had the true intention to reach this goal. Nevertheless, the transboundary nature of nutrient pollution as well as the various sources of pollution such as air, soil and water and other complexities related to eutrophication makes it very challenging to plan and execute efficient plans and strategies to limit eutrophication. Yet both HELCOM and the Swedish government and the authorities are renewing their goal through evaluating previous plans and efforts. Based on previous experiences, they plan new approaches and strategies to address eutrophication.
Accordingly, the challenge and uncertainty that was revealed as a common thread in all written documents related to Karlshamn on the issue of limiting eutrophication, was anticipated before I started to read these materials. In fact, it would be surprising if the tone would be more confident and certain to solve this issue. In the analysis, the challenge and uncertainty related to eutrophication has been dealt with in two different ways. One way has been the passive response such as resignation. Arguments such as the “transboundary nature of eutrophication” and “the uncertain effects of climate change” have emerged interchangeably, in some parts without proposals for solutions. Some even state without any reservation that the environmental goal “no eutrophication” is impossible to reach (Janérus et al. 2017), (Karlshamns Kommun, 2015).
Even though this attitude is comprehensible, it is not a fecund way of dealing with the problem and passivism as a result of blaming the issue on its complex nature will only risk worsening the problem in the future.
75
The other way of dealing with this problem has been through simplifying its complexity in order to take concrete measures to deal with it.
In the WSEP, the complexity of deciding which areas to designate as operation areas for PSF expansion is admitted. It is also stated that the very complex issues need to be simplified in order for the municipality to establish a plan of this kind (Karlshamn kommun, 2018, s. 8). Although this is a better solution than resignation, simplifying the problem as it is done in the WSEP may lead to unfair distribution of costs and responsibility and therefore it may burden people who do not contribute to the problem. This will be discussed more in section 10.2.
According to the principle of fair assessment in 2 kap. 7 § of the EC, a balance must be struck between cost and benefits when assessing the SSTP and making demands (www.lansstyrelsen.se). If the costs are too high for the property owner to invest in an upgraded SSTP while he is waiting to connect to a PSF, in relation to the benefits (i.e. the amount of times he gets to use the upgraded SSTP), he may remain passive (for up to 10–-20 years) without fixing his SSTP (and continually pollute the water). According to the WSEP this does not include SSTPs that have direct discharges to a body of water, SSTPs that show severely impaired function or where there is a risk of impact on human health or the environment (Karlshamn kommun, 2018). Again, these are highly uncertain and challenging criteria to assess and considering the long period of time that the SSTPs can stay in operation before the property is connected to a PSF, incorrect assessments may have severe environmental consequences.
Finally, there is the challenge with the PSFs and the deficient pipeline networks as well as the high pressure on the PSFs as a result of increased population in the municipality and higher precipitation due to climate change. This demands more infrastructural investments and the need to build larger PSFs with a higher capacity in the near future. The analysis raises the question of whether connecting to a PSF as the main municipal objective to reduce eutrophication is the best solution? Or would it be more reasonable if this pressure could be divided between individual property owners with high functioning SSTPs using economic tools and incentives? To put it in a larger environmental context, PSFs may perhaps be compared with the large company crops with pesticides and chemical fertilizers that have led to a decrease in confidence in large-scale agriculture and where small-scale organic farming has become more popular. Nonetheless, out in the Karlshamn archipelago – like Tärnö – connecting to a PSF may be the only solution as the island’s rocky foundation makes infiltration solutions with SSTPs impossible. Therefore, the focus on developing the PSF infrastructure parallel to more effective SSTPs is a possible way of WS development for the costal municipality.
9.2 Absence of PPP hindering improvement
76
The municipal WS plan is only guided by the governance model’s legislative and regulatory instruments such as the EC and the APWS. The municipality in turn also uses its regulatory instruments e.g. different criteria in order to choose operation areas and expand the PSF.
These instruments have some advantages in the environmental regulations such as setting a baseline for the environmental standards and forcing every property owner to comply accordingly, leading to equal cases being treated equally regardless of where you live in the country. But the reality is much more complex than the description above and it is very hard to find exactly the same “set and settings” throughout the country. The legislative instruments are therefore insensitive to the dynamic and unique perquisites and conditions related to each individual property owner. Accordingly, the WSEP admits that there is a need to simplify the very complex issues in order to produce a plan of this kind.
The absence of the governance model’s economic and fiscal instruments has led to a lack of fair distribution of the burden of costs (PPP) in the current WSEP. This uneven distribution of costs has not been addressed in the past studies and needs to be reflected upon. In fact, the PPP in the Swedish legislation is not about preventive measures but about repairing a damage or inconvenience that has already occurred (2 kap. 8 § of the EC).
Since it is difficult to detect long-term, ongoing environmental damages to water, the reparative approach in the Swedish legislation may have led to the lack of economic instruments and incentives for the property owners to obtain high standard SSTPs as well as fixing the deficient ones. This is a probable reason for the high amount of deficient SSTPs in the country.
Others argue that PPP is also reflected in the precautionary principle expressed in 2 kap. 3 § of the EC, as a preventive measure (Jensen, 2019). If this is the case, the expression of the PPP is very vague. The provision presents a cautious approach, aiming at reducing the risk of environmental damage by e.g. demanding the use of the best available technology. In the SEPA’s description of the precautionary principle nothing is mentioned about the polluter paying for his emissions/damage. Instead it is described as follows: “The concrete protection measures can consist of technical equipment, choice of method, restrictions on the scope of the activity, choice of fuel, prevention of spread during the after-treatment measure, etc.” (www.naturvardsverket.se, 2020b).
Furthermore, if PPP is to be implemented through the precautionary principle the problem would be that there is no consistent understanding of baseline loads that should be allowed as mentioned in the previous research (Gren & Destouni, 2012). So theoretically there is no way of evaluating what kind of SSTP is fulfilling the precautionary rule in a certain area with a certain degree of “environmental sensitivity”. Instead, PPP is applied through forcing property owners – who have happened to end up in an operation area – to connect and pay for the PSF. It appears to be a distorted way of using the precautionary principle to make property owners pay for a damage that they are not proved to be accountable for.
77
In fact, the development of holding individuals accountable for their pollution in a fair way has had a negative progress. Previously, the municipality's expansion obligation of PSFs arose if the individual property actually discharged unclean wastewater. This approach was more connected to PPP, while now it is sufficient that there is a risk that this exists. In other words, a property owner may be forced to connect to a PSF due to the fact that his neighbors have deficient SSTPs, and therefore risk to contaminate the property owners’ water through their discharges (Jensen, 2019).
Previous studies have stressed that the ineffectiveness of the Swedish regulatory system is due to high monitoring and enforcement costs in combination with the lack of resources on the local level (Danielsson & Lundqvist, 2005). This fact has been confirmed in this study, but it has taken this argument one step further by revealing the fact that not only are the costs of monitoring and enforcement very high, but they are distributed unevenly. Furthermore, the burden of costs that should be carried by the polluter (which is the property owner in this case) is in reality carried by the municipality and its supervisory authority (in this case MBV) due to the lack of incentives for the property owners to self-monitor and fix their deficient SSTPs. The costs of the supervision are very high. In other words, the municipal residents are collectively paying for the supervision (and thus for faulty SSTPs) through municipal taxes.
It can be concluded that the six priority criterions in Karlshamn’s WSEP is neglecting the individual property owner’s unique set of prerequisites and its degree of contributing to the nutrient pollution. Instead, large areas are designated as operation areas and the properties included have to connect to the PSF within a 10–20 years plan while non-operation areas are left with no further measures. This is in other words putting everyone under one roof without making any distinction between them. However, it should be emphasized that this general assessment of operation areas is in no way typical for the municipality of Karlshamn. The provisions regarding operation areas laid down in the APWS are constructed in a way that substantially narrows the possibility for municipalities to make individualized assessments of properties.
Two of the six municipal assessment criteria consist in prioritizing areas where the load of phosphorus and nitrogen from the SSTPs to the catchment areas are higher (than other areas). This does not take the emission of individual properties into account and therefore it neglects the pollution and the damage that each one of them give rise to. “You look at a larger context as it is expressed in the law on public water services and then you look at areas in a GIS analysis and test different distances – 200 meters, 500 meters – and see which results you get and compare them and somewhere you have to draw the line for a larger context where the operation areas is decided” (offical, 2021).
This way of classification can be considered unjust and misleading, since the areas that are not classified as operation areas can go “under the radar”, although they might be the ones causing the greatest pollution. The environmental inspector at MBV confirmed this problem and stated: “If there is
78 an area that does incorporated into the operation area, then maybe this is where we primarily should focus on” (supervisor, 2021).
It must be kept in mind that the assessments related to designating operation areas can be carried out through wide simplifications, and there are large margins of error when it comes to the sensitivity of the surrounding environment. From a governance model perspective this gives the property owners with SSTPs outside the operation area unrestricted responsibility as they will be the single actors responsible for the status of their SSTP through self-monitoring as the authorities enter a state of “stand-by” until a possible inspection takes place. In essence, the only incentive that these property owners have to monitor and fix their SSTPs after the initial permit for installation is their own conscience and their personal concern for the environment and the people around them.
As a property owner in Skåne county (with a property located outside the PSF expansion plan) responded to the question whether she would voluntarily monitor her SSTP in the coming 5–10 years, in order to make sure that it’s functioning and fulfilling the environmental requirements: “ No, I must honestly say that it is the municipal inspection (that would make us take any measures) or if we somehow notice that the drain does not work well through flushing, odor or something else. Would not do it just because "you should". Too expensive” (Property owner , 2021).
Incorporating PPP with the use of economic instruments would lead to the encouragement and rewarding of certain behavior e.g. acquisition of high level SSTPs in order to receive tax benefits or prevent sanctions. An example of how PPP could be reflected in the law on public water services is through the tax and fee system suggested by SwAM (Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, 2013). According to this system each property owner would have to pay taxes and fees according to the purification grade of their SSTP and the actual environmental damage they cause. But with the systematic classification into operation areas, the PPP is undermined, and this raises the question whether the property owner truly pays for his pollution or if he is unwillingly forced to pay for the damage caused by other polluters. Because in practice, a property owner with a relatively well functioning SSTP may end up in an operation area and as a result be forced to pay a high connection cost and periodically usage fee even though his pollution was minimal.
According to the environmental strategist at Karlshamn municipality the environmental group is currently working on a new version of WS expansion plan that will be available during 2022. Whether and how the priority criteria will change in the new version to be more inclusive and focused on PPP will be interesting to see.
79
9.3 Lack of influence from the property owners and deficient governance model – a democratic failure?
One of the most surprising results from studying the municipal documents and the legislative acts is the limited and almost insignificant space for property owners and municipal residents to influence the decisions made at municipal level regarding the WS plan. From a democratic point of view one can expect that these individuals have a considerable interest in trying to influence decisions made on the municipal level. However, with the current regulations regarding WS planning and specifically the municipal designation of operation areas, the possibility for property owners to oppose the binding consequences of such decisions is very limited and almost non-existent. As mentioned before, the common thread in the documents with the confident approach is the need of collaboration between states, authorities, private actors and stakeholders. However, the collaboration between the municipality and the property owners is totally absent in the WSEP. The highly rigid and inflexible nature of the WSEP leads to the lack of any space for the property owners to engage in the decision- making process regarding operation areas. When the property is included in the operation area as a result of legislative regulations in the APWS, the sole most probable option for the property owner is to connect to PSF and/or pay the connection fee and the monthly charges.
Previous studies have evaluated the use of suitable SSTPs during the transitional period for properties that have been included in an operation area and await PSF connection (Håkansson, 2011). This is a step in the right direction since a temporary and cost-effective SSTP with a relatively good infiltration and purification capacity is a better option than having a deficient SSTP during a period of 5–20 years. However, the study does not problematize the unfairness aspects of forced connection and forced connection fee and WS charges as such, instead it tries to comply with the regulations and find ways to “make the best of a bad bargain”. This regulation can be questioned and it can be discussed whether it is fair to exclude the property owner from this decision-making process, considering the fact that property owners will be affected to a very high degree.
The fact that the property owner is forced to pay a connection fee and a WS tax even if he chooses not to exercise the right to use the PSF is disputed since the property owner is then paying for a service he is not using. “It is difficult (to influence), you can partly influence through citizen proposals, letters to the newspaper and you can call and talk to politicians and then you have the opportunity to comment when it comes out in consultation. Also, you have the opportunity when there is an election to elect other municipal politicians. But I must say that it is not easy to influence such a plan” (offical, 2021).
Previous studies focused on municipal efforts in Blekinge to limit eutrophication has stressed the importance of cooperation between the municipalities as one of the crucial factor to success (Nilsson, 2013). However, the participation and cooperation with the property owners as the main stakeholders
80 contributing to the nutrient pollution to water seems to have been neglected. The collaborations between the CAB and different municipalities is necessary and in line with this necessity, cooperation and inclusion of the most important stakeholder in this process is missing which has resulted in deficient governance. This is due to the absence of the fourth governance policy instrument which is the use of agreement-based or cooperative instruments. This instrument is suitable when there is a shared resource, in this case the Baltic Sea where a complex issue- such as eutrophication- must be addressed and when the use of other instruments can give rise to opposition and conflict (Burger et al. 2018).
There is a misconception of the concept of democracy in a report produced by SEPA and SwAM for guidance of municipal WS planning. In this report regarding the participation of the property owners in the WS planning the authorities state: “The WS planning work is also an opportunity for the municipality to establish uniform communication. Property owners and other actors in the municipality can get clearer information about which areas are to be connected to the public facility, what applies until then and what is required of property owners in areas that will not be connected. Also in this respect, the WS plan contributes to an improved democracy and the opportunity for citizens to relate to important WS issues” (Naturvårdsverket , 2014).
The way that democracy is strengthened in the WS planning according to this statement is that the municipality communicates the information about the future WS plans to the property owners. This is done by one-way communication from the municipality without any possibility for the property owners to give feedback and to take a position on the plan drawn up by the municipality. This way of “strengthening democracy” appears to be more deceptive than real.
The limited space for the property owner to actively engage in the decision-making process of WS planning, as well as forced connection and the obligation to pay a connection fee regardless of the use of the PSF service, can all be probed from a fairness and democratic perspective. These limitations that are a result of the current national legislation, affecting the WS planning of every municipality in the country, risks leading to friction and conflicts between the municipality and the property owners. Because of these conflicts, the efforts to reduce the municipal nutrient pollution to water and to reach the BSAP goal and EQG “no eutrophication” may well suffer.
81
10. Conclusions
The results derived from the qualitative analysis of the relevant written material and the interviews conducted with two municipal officials have revealed the main theme of the analysis, consisting of challenges and uncertainties related to limiting eutrophication in general and in Karlshamn in particular.
Furthermore, the study shows that the municipal WSEP that is legally bound by and guided by the EC and the APWS is totally disconnected from PPP which can lead to conflicts between the property owners and the municipality and more importantly risk the legitimacy of the system and its democratic justification. This is specifically inconvenient since Sweden has adopted the concept through the OECD and the EU and thereby has a responsibility for its implementation in environmental issues.
Furthermore, from a government model perspective the inclusion and participation of private actors and stakeholders such as the property owners is non-existent in the WSEP’s most essential parts e.g. selecting the operation areas for PSF expansion. The property owner cannot participate in the decision-making process, has very limited opportunity to refuse connection if his property ends up in the operation area and has to pay a connection fee and WS fees regardless of whether he decides to join the PSF or not.
Further studies about the possibility to use cost-effective SSTPs as an alternative to the conventional solution of connecting to PSFs in the municipal WS plan are needed. Studies on the possibility of a more inclusive legislation where the property owners are included in the WS plans and the solutions for nutrient reduction in water is expanded to include SSTPs need to be undertaken. This calls for a modification of the APWS and the provisions regulating the PSFs and the related operation areas. Similarly, the possibility to use economic instruments for implementing PPP in a preventive purpose need to be studied, where the cost of pollution is clearly linked to the ongoing amount of emissions instead of the vague design of the precautionary principle in 2 kap. 3 § of the EC and the principle of paying for damage that is already done, in accordance with the provision in 2 kap. 8 §. The inclusion of agreement-based or cooperative instruments according to the governance model are of high importance if we aim to solve the opposition and conflicts derived from the current legislation regarding PSF and create a more legit and democratic WS plan in the future.
Time will tell how operation areas and the laws that govern them will develop and change in the near future. It will be interesting to see how Karlshamn's future WS plan will differ from the previous one as well as whether the recent announcement from the parliament, according to which the obligation to connect to public PSF should be removed, will lead to any changes in the legislation.
82
11. References
Adshead, J. (2018). The Application and Development of the Polluter-Pays Principle across Jurisdictions in Liability for Marine Oil Pollution: The Tales of the ‘Erika’ and the ‘Prestige’. Journal of Environmental Law, 425-451. Andersson, L., Asp, T. S., Bernt, K., & Hertzman, J. (2019). Plattform för arbetet med grön infrastruktur i Blekinge län. Karlskrona: Länsstyrelsen Blekinge län. Andersson, L., Asp, T. S., Bernt, K., & Hertzman, J. (2019). Plattform för arbetet med grön infrastruktur i Blekinge län. Karlskrona: Länsstyrelsen Blekinge län,. Anoxic and hypoxic events - OzCoasts. (u.d.). Hämtat från Australian Online Coastal Information : https://ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/coastal-issues/anoxic_hypoxic_events/ Avloppsguiden. (u.d.). Hämtat från Krav på enskilda avlopp: https://avloppsguiden.se/informationssidor/krav-pa-enskilda- avlopp/?fbclid=IwAR31SqpTjpPle6IXbZvex-mwsLuPasNOW8O03f76AiYm- w3_4DZ6OrqoAN0 Barón-Sola, Á., Sanz-Alférez, S., & Del Campo, F. F. (2015). First evidence of accumulation in cyanobacteria of guanidinoacetate, a precursor of the toxin cylindrospermopsin. Chemosphere (Oxford), 1099-1104. Barresi, P. A. (2020). The Polluter Pays Principle as an Instrument of Municipal and Global Environmental Governance in Climate Change Mitigation Law: Lessons from China, India, and the United States. Climate Law, 50-93. Bengtsson, A. (2015). Förorenaren ska betala? Om skälighet och solidariskt ansvar vid avhjälpande av förorenings- eller miljöskada. Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet. Bergström, M., Sundblad, U., & Downie, G. (2013). Evaluating eutrophication management scenarios in the Baltic Sea using species distribution modelling. Journal of Applied Ecology, 680-690. Bohlin, C.-O., Toftby, C. T., Beckman, L., & Josefsson, D. (2021). Övriga förslag om allmänna vattentjänster, punkt 13 (M). Civilutskottets betänkande 2020/21:CU14 (s. 78). Stockholm: Sveriges Riksdag. Bonaglia, S., Marzocchi, U., Ekeroth, N., Brüchert, V., Blomqvist, S., & Hall, P. O. (2019). Sulfide oxidation in deep Baltic Sea sediments upon oxygenation and colonization by macrofauna. Marine Biology , 1-12. Borg, J., Kääriä, P., & Zweife, U. L. (2016). Ecological coherence assessment of theMarine Protected Areanetwork in the Baltic Sea. Helsinki: Helsinki Commission. Bouwma, I., Gerritsen, A., Kamphorst, D., & Kistenkas, F. (2012). Policy instruments and modes of governance in environmental policies of the European Union. Netherland: Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu. Boverket. (den 1 1 2019). PBL Byggbanken. Hämtat från Detaljplanekravet : https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL- kunskapsbanken/planering/detaljplan/detaljplaneinstrumentet/detaljplanekravet/
83
Bristow, L., Mohr, W., Ahmerkam, S., & Kuypers, M. (2017). Nutrients that limit growth in the ocean . Current biology. Burger, N., Gupta, J., & Höhne, N. (2018). Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. IPCC. Hämtat från IPCC. Carlson, J. (den 23 8 2000). Principen att förorenaren betalar och den svenska miljöbalken. Linköping: Ekonomiska Institutionen. Cederqvist, J., Lidström, S., Sverker, S., & Svedäng, H. (2020). Swedish environmental history of the Baltic Sea: A review of Current Knowledge and Perspectives for the Future. Scandinavian journal of history, 663-688. Chislock, M. F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R. A., & Wilson, A. E. (2013). Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. Nature Education. Christensen, J. (2015). Enskilda avlopp - Miljöbalken har ändrat de rättsliga förutsättningarna . Correll, D. (1998). The Role of Phosphorus in the Eutrophication of Receiving Waters: A Review. ENVIRON. OUAL. Danielsson, I., & Lundqvist, L. J. (2005). Integrated Water Management for Eutrophication Control: Public Participation, Pricing Policy, and Catchment Modeling. Ambio, 482-488. Decomposition in Aquatic Ecosystems. (u.d.). European Environmental Agency. (den 15 10 2020). Interview — Does the polluter pay? . Hämtat från https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2020/articles/interview-does-the-polluter-pay Fishman, Y., Becker, N., & Shechter, M. (2012). The Polluter Pays Principle as a policy tool in an externality model for nitrogen fertilizer pollution. Water Policy, 470-489. Gren, I.-M., & Destouni, G. (2012). Does Divergence of Nutrient Load Measurements Matter for Successful Mitigation of Marine Eutrophication? AMBIO, 151-160. Gustafsson, E. (2013). Översiktlig kustzonsplanering, hur kustzonsplanering behandlas i översiktsplaneringen. Karlskrona: Fysisk Planering, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola. Hassler, B. (2017). Transnational environmental collective action facing implementation constraints : the case of nutrient leakage in the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Journal of environmental policy & planning,, 408-422. Hassler, B., Blažauskas, N., Gee, K., Luttmann, A., Morf, A., Piwowarczyk, J., . . . Zaucha, J. (2019). New generation EU directives, sustainability, and the role of transnational coordination in Baltic Sea maritime spatial planning. Ocean & coastal management, 254-263. Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten . (2015). Juridiken kring vatten och avlopp. Göteborg: Havs- och vattenmyndigheten . Havs och Vattenmyndigheten . (den 02 10 2019). Hämtat från Avloppsjuridik i översikt: https://www.havochvatten.se/avlopp-och-dricksvatten/sma- avloppsanlaggningar/vagledningar-for-provning-och-tillsyn-av-sma-avlopp/vagledning-for- provning-av-sma-avlopp/overgripande-fragor/avloppsjuridik-i-oversikt.html Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (2013). Konsekvensanalyser av nya styrmedel för små avloppsanläggningar. Göteborg: Havs- och vattenmyndigheten.
84
Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten. (2013). Styrmedel för en hållbar åtgärdstakt av små avloppsanläggningar. Göteborg. Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (den 16 03 2015). Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. Hämtat från Vägledning och exempel för effektiv tillsyn avsmå avlopp: https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.5108de4514f6f2a66f282a7a/1441985270819/rapp ort-2015-1-effektiv-tillsyn-sma-avlopp-del3-150817.pdf Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten. (den 29 03 2017). Hämtat från Kan man förelägga en fastighetsägare att ansluta sig till allmän (kommunal) va-anläggning?: https://www.havochvatten.se/avlopp- och-dricksvatten/sma-avloppsanlaggningar/fragor-och-svar-om-sma-avlopp/tillsyn/2017-03- 29-kan-man-forelagga-en-fastighetsagare-att-ansluta-sig-till-allman-kommunal-va- anlaggning.html Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (den 17 04 2018). Bidrag till avancerad rening av avloppsvatten. Hämtat från https://www.havochvatten.se/anslag-bidrag-och-utlysningar/havs--och- vattenmiljoanslaget/bidrag-till-avancerad-rening-av-avloppsvatten.html Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (den 24 04 2019). Övergödning. Hämtat från https://www.havochvatten.se/miljopaverkan-och-atgarder/miljopaverkan/overgodning.html Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (den 14 04 2021). Detta genomfördes med LOVA bidrag 2020. Hämtat från https://www.havochvatten.se/anslag-bidrag-och-utlysningar/havs--och- vattenmiljoanslaget/lova.html Havs-och vattenmyndigheten . (den 08 03 2013). HaV föreslår miljöskatt för att få bort olagliga enskilda avlopp . Hämtat från https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/havochvatten/pressreleases/hav-foereslaar-miljoeskatt-foer- att-faa-bort-olagliga-enskilda-avlopp-843543?fbclid=IwAR0i6EEE_xy4yt15k07LoV- 3VJfIVc-BnBYQYVqBcY72Cnc1KiRXBIFgekA HELCOM. (u.d.). Hämtat från Baltic Sea Action Plan: https://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/ HELCOM. (den 15 11 2007). Action Plan – Full Text. Hämtat från https://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action- plan/action-plan/ HELCOM. (2013). Baltic Marine Environment Protection CommissionSummary report on the development of revised Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Copenhagen: HELCOM. HELCOM. (2018). Eutrophication HELCOM thematic assessment of eutrophication 2011-2016. Supplementary report to the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report. HELCOM. HELCOM. (u.d.). Baltic Sea Action Plan. Hämtat från Reaching Good Environmental Status for the Baltic Sea: https://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/ HELCOM. (u.d.). BSAP update 2021. Hämtat från https://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/bsap- update-2021/ Ho, J. C., Michalak, A. M., & Pahlevan, N. (2019). Widespread global increase in intense lake phytoplankton blooms since the 1980s. Nature, 667-670. Håkansson, A. (2011). On-site sewage systems while waiting for municipal wastewater. Uppsala: Institutionen för energi och teknik, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet,. investigator, e. (den 03 05 2021). utredare på Miljöprövningsenheten Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten. (A. Vafa, Intervjuare)
85
Janérus, D., Conradsson, J., & Eklund, K. (2017). Havsplan för Blekinges kustkommuner. Blekinge: Sölvesborgs kommun, Karlshamns kommun, Ronneby kommun, Karlskrona kommun. Janérus, D., Conradsson, J., & Eklund, K. (2019). Havsplan för Blekinges kustkommuner. (s. 3). Sölvesborgs kommun, Karlshamns kommun, Ronnebys kommun, Karlskronas kommun. Jensen, E. (2019). Lagen om allmänna vattentjänster Kommunal tvångsanslutning. Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet . Johansson, M. (2012). Kommunala VA-planer – en kunskapsöversikt . Stockholm: Svenskt Vatten AB. Jordbruksverket . (den 30 06 2020). Övergödning och läckage av växtnäring. Hämtat från https://jordbruksverket.se/jordbruket-miljon-och-klimatet/overgodning-och-lackage-av- vaxtnaring Jouanneau, & Raakjær. (2014). The Hare and the Tortoise’: Lessons from the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea governance. Marine Policy, 331–338. Karlshamn . (den 12 10 2020). VA-Plan. Hämtat från https://www.karlshamn.se/bo-trafik-och- miljo/oversiktsplanering/andra-oversiktliga-planer-och-program/va-plan/ Karlshamn energi. (u.d.). Hämtat från VA-avgifter, BRUKNINGSAVGIFT: https://www.karlshamnenergi.se/vatten/va-avgifter/ Karlshamn energi. (u.d.). Hämtat från anslut din fastighet till vatten och avlopp: https://www.karlshamnenergi.se/vatten/anslutning/ Karlshamn Energi. (u.d.). Mål och Styrelse - Karlshamn Energi. Hämtat från https://www.karlshamnenergi.se/om-oss/mal-styrelse/ Karlshamn kommun. (2018). Utbyggnadsplan 2014-2024. Karlshamn: Karlshamns kommun. Karlshamns Kommun . (2020). Riktlinjer för dagvattenhantering i Kalrshamns Kommun. (s. 3). Karlshamn: Karlshamns Kommun. Karlshamns Kommun. (2015). Karlshamn 2030, Översiktsplan för Karlshamns kommun, Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning. Karlshamn: Karlshamns Kommun. Karlshamns Kommun. (den 29 07 2020). Hämtat från Karlshamnsförslaget: https://www.karlshamn.se/kommun-och-politik/demokrati-och-insyn/karlshamnsforslaget/ Karlshamns Kommun. (den 29 10 2020). Statistik och fakta. Hämtat från https://www.karlshamn.se/kommun-och-politik/kommunfakta/statistik-och-fakta/ Karlshamns Kommun. (den 26 03 2021). Hämtat från Kommunfullmäktige: https://www.karlshamn.se/kommun-och-politik/namnder/kommunfullmaktige/ Knutsson, K. (den 5 1 2021). vaguiden. Hämtat från Ett nedslag i VA-Sverige – Miljöförbundet Blekinge Väst förändrar sitt arbetssätt kring enskilda avlopp: https://vaguiden.se/2021/01/ett- nedslag-i-va-sverige-miljoforbundet-blekinge-vast-forandrar-sitt-arbetssatt-kring-enskilda- avlopp/ Kropinova, E. (2012). Agro- and Rural Tourism in the Baltic Sea region: A Growing Sector. Rural Development and Land Use, 130-140. kunskapscentrum små avlopp. (2011). Enskild avlopp, Vilken teknik passar dina förutsättningar? Uppsala: kunskapscentrum små avlopp.
86 lagen.nu. (den 2 2 2006). Prop. 2005/06:78 Allmänna Vattentjänster . Hämtat från https://lagen.nu/prop/2005/06:78 lagen.nu. (den 17 09 2020). Hämtat från Offentlighetsprincipen | lagen.nu: https://lagen.nu/begrepp/Offentlighetsprincipen lansstyrelsen. (u.d.). Hämtat från Sammanfattning : https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.26f506e0167c605d569342e5/1550571354559/Sam manfattning-Inledning-Referenser-Bilagor.pdf lanstyrelsen.se. (u.d.). Miljökvalitetsnormer . Hämtat från http://extra.lansstyrelsen.se/op-portalen- vastra-gotaland/sv/sammanfattande-redogorelser/lansstyrelsens- ingripandegrunder/miljokvalitetsnormer/Sidor/default.aspx Larsson, M. H. (den 26 04 2021). Department Secretary . (A. Vafa, Intervjuare) Lehmann, A., Hinrichsen, H.-H., Getzlaff, K., & Myrberg, K. (2014). Quantifying the heterogeneity of hypoxic and anoxic areas in the Baltic Sea by a simplified coupled hydrodynamic-oxygen consumption model approach. Journal of marine systems, 20-28. Lindhout, P. E., & Broek, B. v. (den 2 5 2014). The Polluter Pays Principle: Guidelines for Cost Recovery and Burden Sharing in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice. Utrecht Law Review. Länsstyrelsen. (u.d.). Bedömningsgrunder vid tillsyn av avloppsanläggningar. Hämtat från https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.3911bae41715dd117488e55/1587732528565/Gem ensamma%20bed%C3%B6mningsgrunder%20avlopp.pdf Länsstyrelsen Blekinge . (2018). Ingen övergödning Blekinge - Länsstyrelsen. Blekinge: Länsstyrelsen Blekinge . Länsstyrelsen Blekinge. (u.d.). Miljöövervakning | Länsstyrelsen Blekinge. Hämtat från https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/blekinge/miljo-och-vatten/miljoovervakning.html Länsstyrelsen i Blekinge län. (2014). Regionalt miljöövervak-ningsprogram för Blekinge län 2015- 2020. Karlskrona: Länsstyrelsen Blekinge län. Miljö- och energidepartementet. (2017). Kommittédirektiv, Kommunens skyldighet enligt vattentjänstlagen och frågor om små avlopp. Dir. 2017:54, (s. 6). Moltin, S., & Hedlund, S. (2009). Den samtida samhällsstyrningen: Både kontinuitet och förändring. Governance på Svenska, 201-207. Naturvårdsverket . (2012). Rapport 6521 Styrmedel för ökad rening vid kommunala reningsverk . Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket . Naturvårdsverket . (2014). Vägledning för kommunal VA-planering. Göteborg: Naturvårdsverket; Havs- och vattenmyndigheten . Naturvårdsverket . (den 31 08 2020). Hämtat från Zero Eutrophication : http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Swedens- environmental-objectives/The-national-environmental-objectives/Zero-Eutrophication/ Naturvårdsverket . (den 09 10 2020). Hämtat från Försiktighetsprincipen (2 kap. 3 §) : https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vagledningar/Hansynsreglerna--kapitel- 2-miljobalken/3--Forsiktighetsprincipen/
87
Naturvårdsverket . (den 09 10 2020). Ansvar för skadad miljö (2 kap. 8 §) . Hämtat från https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vagledningar/Hansynsreglerna--kapitel- 2-miljobalken/8-Ansvar-for-skadad-miljo/ Naturvårdsverket . (den 31 3 2021). Ingen övergödning. Hämtat från https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Sveriges- miljomal/Miljokvalitetsmalen/Ingen-overgodning/ Naturvårdsverket. (2009). Sveriges åtagande i Baktic Sea Action Plan. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket; Havs och vattenmyndigheten. Naturvårdsverket. (2012). Rening av avloppsvatten i Sverige. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket. Naturvårdsverket. (den 01 09 2019). Vägledning om 2 kap. miljöbalken. Hämtat från DE ALLMÄNNA HÄNSYNSREGLERNA OCH ÖVRIGA BESTÄMMELSER I 2 KAP. MILJÖBALKEN: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/remisser-och- yttranden/remisser-2019/remiss-vagledning-2-kap-miljobalken.pdf Naturvårdsverket. (den 24 4 2020). Miljömålssytemet. Hämtat från https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Sveriges- miljomal/Miljomalssystemet/ Naturvårdsverket. (den 17 4 2020). Naturvårdsverket. Hämtat från Miljökvalitetsmålen: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Sveriges- miljomal/Miljokvalitetsmalen/ Naturvårdsverket. (den 19 09 2020). Utsläpp i siffror. Hämtat från Utsläpp av näringsämnen: https://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/Utslapp-till-vatten/Dataunderlag/Utslapp-av- naringsamnen/ Naturvårdsverket. (u.d.). Avlopp. Hämtat från https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Amnen/Avlopp/ Nilsson, A. K. (2013). Regulating Zero Eutrophication, Swedish Law on Controlling Emissions of Nutrients to the Baltic Sea. Stockholm: Faculty of Law, Stockholm University. offical, m. (den 11 05 2021). environmental Strategist . (A. Vafa, Intervjuare) Olsson, B., Bradley, B. P., Gilek, M., Reimer, O., & Shepard, J. L. (2004). Physiological and proteomic responses in Mytilus edulis exposed to PCBs and PAHs extracted from Baltic Sea sediments. Hydrobiologia, 15-27. (den 19 05 2021). Property owner . (A. Vafa, Intervjuare) Rabe, L. (2017). Participation and Legitimacy, Actor Involvement for Nature Conservation. Stockholm : Södertörn University. Regeringskansliet . (den 04 11 2014). Hämtat från Lagstiftningsprocessen: https://www.regeringen.se/sa-styrs-sverige/lagstiftningsprocessen/ Regeringskansliet. (2018). SOU 2018:34, Betänkande av Utredningen om hållbara vattentjänster. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar. SCB. (den 01 07 2020). Utsläppen av fosfor har ökat. Hämtat från https://www.scb.se/hitta- statistik/statistik-efter-amne/miljo/utslapp/utslapp-till-vatten-och-slamproduktion-- kommunala-reningsverk-skogsindustri-samt-viss-ovrig-industri/pong/statistiknyhet/utslapp- till-vatten-och-slamproduktion-2018/
88
Steenge, A. E. (1997). On Background Principles for Environmental Policy: “Polluter Pays”, “User Pays” or “Victim Pays”? Public Priority Setting: Rules and Costs , 121-137. Stoker, G. (2018). Governance as theory: five propositions. International social science journal, 15- 24. Sundström, G., & Jacobsson, B. (2007). The embedded state. From government to governance: The case ofSweden. Stockholm: Stockholms centrum för forskning om offentlig sektor. supervisor. (den 23 04 2021). supervisory authority offical. (A. Vafa, Intervjuare) Svendsen, L., Bartnicki, J., Boutrup, S., & Gustafsson, B. (2015). Updated Fifth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-5.5). Svenska Miljöinstitutet . (den 14 06 2018). Fortfarande många små avlopp utan godkänd rening. Hämtat från https://www.ivl.se/toppmeny/press/pressmeddelanden-och- nyheter/pressmeddelanden/2018-06-14-fortfarande-manga-sma-avlopp-utan-godkand- rening.html#container2021 Svenskt Vatten . (den 08 03 2016). Verksamhetsområde. Hämtat från https://www.svensktvatten.se/va- chefens-verktygslada/verksamhetsstyrning/verksamhetsomrade/ Svenskt Vatten. (den 08 03 2016). Hämtat från Under vilka förutsättningar kan en fastighetsägare få ersättning för sin onyttigblivna anläggning?: https://www.svensktvatten.se/arkiv/inlosen-av- enskild-anlaggning/fragor-och-svar/under-vilka-forutsattningar-kan-en-fastighetsagare-fa- ersattning-for-sin-onyttigblivna-anlaggning/ Svenskt Vatten. (den 30 03 2016). Avloppsfakta. Hämtat från https://www.svensktvatten.se/fakta-om- vatten/avloppsfakta/ Svenskt Vatten. (den 03 12 2019). Hämtat från Prövning och villkor: https://www.svensktvatten.se/vattentjanster/avlopp-och-miljo/reningsverk-och- reningsprocesser/provning-och-villkor/ Svenskt Vatten. (den 03 10 2019). Svenskt Vatten. Hämtat från Avgifter: https://www.svensktvatten.se/vattentjanster/juridik/vattentjanster-regler-fragor-och- praxis/avgifter/ Sveriges Miljömål. (den 27 11 2017). Hämtat från Ingen övergödning - saker kommuner kan göra: https://sverigesmiljomal.se/stod-och-rad-i-miljoarbetet/ingen-overgodning---saker-kommuner- kan-gora/ Sveriges Riksdag. (1974). Hämtat från Kungörelse (1974:152) om beslutad ny regeringsform: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk- forfattningssamling/kungorelse-1974152-om-beslutad-ny-regeringsform_sfs-1974-152#K14 Sveriges Riksdag. (den 11 06 1998). Hämtat från Miljöbalk (1998:808): https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/miljobalk- 1998808_sfs-1998-808 Sveriges riksdag. (den 18 5 2006). Sveriges riksdag. Hämtat från Lag (2006:412) om allmänna vattentjänster: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk- forfattningssamling/lag-2006412-om-allmanna-vattentjanster_sfs-2006-412 Sveriges Riksdag. (den 01 07 2010). Plan- och bygglag (2010:900). Hämtat från https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/plan--och- bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900
89
Sveriges Riksdag. (den 20 01 2011). Hämtat från Miljötillsynsförordning (2011:13): https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk- forfattningssamling/miljotillsynsforordning-201113_sfs-2011-13 Sveriges Riksdag. (den 29 04 2021). Hämtat från Civilutskottets betänkande 2020/21:CU14: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/hushallningen-med-mark-- och-vattenomraden_H801CU14 Sveriges Riksdag. (den 29 04 2021). Civilutskottetsbetänkande 2020/21:CU14. Hämtat från Hushållningen med mark-och vattenområden: https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/1CA1E8C6-981F- 482B-B78E-D28803116CE4 Söder, L., Eskilandersson, M., Johansson, O., Hedlund, R., & Lundberg, A. (2021). Övriga förslag om allmänna vattentjänster, punkt 13 (M). Civilutskottets betänkande 2020/21:CU14 (s. 78). Stockholm: Sveriges Riksdag. Tagesson, T. (2007). Does legislation or form of association influence the harmonization of accounting? A study of accounting in the Swedish water and sewage sector. Utilities policy, 248-260. Tammeorg, O., Möls, T., Niemistö, J., Holmroos, H., & Horppila, J. (2017). The actual role of oxygen deficit in the linkage of the water quality and benthic phosphorus release: Potential implications for lake restoration. The Science of the total environment, 732-738. Tedengren, M., & Kautsky, N. (2012). Comparative study of the physiology and its probable effect on size in Blue Mussels (Mytilus Edulis L.) from the North Sea and the Northern Baltic Proper. Ophelia, 147-155. The london school of economics and politicial science . (den 11 5 2018). Hämtat från What is the polluter pays principle?: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-the- polluter-pays-principle/ Tihinen, A. (2014). Liability for land damages due to miningactivities. Luleå: Luleå University of Technolog. Tynkkynen. (2014). Russia and the Baltic Sea: Framing and spaces of environmental. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 461–480. Ulrik Riisgård, H., Larsen, P., Turja, R., & Lundgreen, K. (2014). Dwarfism of blue mussels in the low saline Baltic Sea—growth to the lower salinity limit. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, 181–192. Unesco. (09 2015). Ecological Sciences for Sustainable Development. Hämtat från http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere- reserves/europe-north-america/sweden/blekinge-archipelago/ VISS. (den 04 03 2018). Hämtat från Vad är VISS?: https://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/About.aspx Vägar till hållbara vattentjänster SOU 2018:34. (2018). Betänkande av Utredningen om hållbara vattentjänster (s. 146). Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar. Vänersborgs tingsrätt, M 1607-18 (Mark-och miljödomstolen den 02 09 2019). Yamani, S., & Kellner, J. (2017). Varför tillämpas inte att förorenaren betalar (Polluter Pays Principle) för fossilbränsle? Samhällsbyggaren .
90
Zillén, L., Conley, D., Bonsdorff, E., & Jakobsson, B.-M. (2008). Final report from the Baltic Sea 2020 project: Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea.
91